title: Adjective request for fast, lightweightness and multitasking

text: I am deciding some product name which has characteristics like Fast and lightweight and multitasking. Please suggest some name which includes these meaning or bird or animal which has such qualities.


title: What’s the correct plural possessive of “kids”?

text: I know that _children’s books_ is correct, but for some reason I want to say _kids books_ , even though I know that it’s a plural possessive noun ending in an _s_. A quick search on the web turns up Barnes & Noble, who have a web page title that reads **_“Children's Books, Kids Books”_**. Is the major bookseller wrong here? Or is there some exception I don’t remember? More simply, is it _kids books_ or _kids’ books_ — and why?


title: Causing catastrophe by the act of trying to avoid catastrophe

text: Is there a word in the English language which means either:   * to cause a catastrophe by an act intended to avoid that very catastrophe, or   * a catastrophe caused by an attempt to avoid that catastrophe? (Note that the term "catastrophe" might represent any unfortunate outcome.) For example, the case where someone knocks over and breaks a fragile item precisely because their desire to avoid knocking over that item was altering their behaviour (and not necessarily because of nerves). This has been bugging me for months, and I've not been able to think of or find a word which fits this situation. If there's nothing in English, is there a word from another language which is a perfect match?


title: What is the opposite of Optimal?

text: Obviously something can be sub-optimal or poor, minimal, bad or terrible... But is there a word that means the exact _opposite_ , the antonym, of optimal?


title: Multiple people but a singular object?

text: If I am referring to one thing, but multiple people, is it "is this ___ one of yours?" or "one of you all's"?


title: Usage of "Between"

text: Mr. Rao will meet the candidates who cleared the test between 9.00 AM ____ 3:00 PM. What is more appropriate here? to/and/till/upto? Also can you brief upon the usage of "between"?


title: Mrs. Malaprop = Malapropism - any other examples

text: Are there other literary examples where-in a character or subject eventually morphed into descriptive verb/genre?


title: A collective noun when referring to a group of people with the same name?

text: How can I refer collectively to a group of people with the same name, for example: > Having so many Johns around is confusing. or > Having so many John's around is confusing. Which one is the correct usage? Or should I only refer to them as "people named John"? This could be somewhat compounded when surnames are used, if the pluralized version is also common.


title: Is there any common context for "enoughs"?

text: I noticed today that ENOUGHS is valid in Scrabble(tm), and I realize "enough" can be used as a noun ("I've had enough!"), but I'm unaware of any context where one might use its plural. Perhaps it's used in some setting I'm not aware of?


title: Displaying two things scaled differently - ratio?

text: If got a picture that displays things. As thing A is alot bigger than thing B, I have downsized A. Not mentioning this size adjustment may confuse viewers and transport a wrong message. How can I tell the viewer with as little words as possible that the sizes of A and B are not comparable without adjusting the scale. > A is displayed with smaller ratio Is this okay, or should I use `in` as a preposition? Is there a best practise way of saying this?


title: Can I say “to be a person (man) of something”?

text: In Russian, we have a popular poetic construction that can be literally translated as _to be a person (man) of something_. For example, if some person is very active, we can say that he is _a man of action_. I try to translate this construction in English so that it wouldn't lose its poetic character. I try _to be a personification of something_ , but it sounds odd and pretentious. Example: _Tatiana is a personification of broken dreams._


title: How could Ronald Reagan be compared with God in Sarah Palin's list of American authentic, and why?

text: Further to my question about the usage of ‘Blood libels’ I posted yesterday, I found the following lead-copy of an article referring to Sara Palin’s rhetoric in today’s Washington Post. It seems the article is hinting a problem of her presidential quality in terms of choice of words. However, I don’t understand why on the earth , **God** appears in a file of Founding Fathers, the Constitution and Ronald Reagan, even though it may be a rhetoric gimmick. It looks to me an odd combination (or comparison). Do you understand my question? Can somebody clarify? ‘Sarah Palin's effort to defuse controversy backfires with 'blood libel' comment: The presidential-quality stagecraft was there: an American flag over Sarah Palin's left shoulder and another over her heart. So was the rhetorical polish, with its invocations of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, **God** and Ronald Reagan.’


title: Sentence Structure: Relative Clauses with "who"

text: I can't analyze the structure of relative clauses. > We are to look only to God, who as He wills makes angels "ministering > spirits" to the heirs of salvation. I guess > ... who makes angels as "ministering spirits" to the heirs of salvation. is plausible. If so, where "He" and "wills" comes from?


title: Opposite of misnomer

text: Is there a word that means the opposite of 'misnomer'? I've done a Google search with no success. I found this site and am hoping that someone here can assist me.


"He thought that that might be awkward." I know this sentence is a bit awkward, but is it grammatically incorrect?


title: "noone", "no one" or "no-one"?

text: What is the correct form? Does context play a role? Are there noticeable trends towards the awkward "noone" or is it just a by- product of careless orthography on the Internet?


title: In natural disasters: died or killed?

text: What is appropriate to use in cases of death in natural disasters: _killed_ , or _died_? Lets say, I wanted to say, "Earth destroyed this morning, everyone [died|got killed] in a parallel universe." I am not sure what is more appropriate to use. _Died_ seems to me as if someone died from injury, or disease or something that does not intend to kill it. While _killed_ seems more like an external factor that caused the death of someone purposefully.


title: What does “make the leap into the Richmond (or any name of the place) fishbowl” mean?

text: Washington Post (July 13) reports the gift scandal of Maureen McDonnell, wife of Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell under the headline, “Va. first lady plays central role in gift”. The article reports that Maureen received a $50,000 check and other monetary benefits from a wealthy businessman Jonnie R. Williams Sr. and that the state and federal investigators are looking into the relationship between the McDonnell and Williams. It says: > Some of Maureen McDonnell’s closest friends are surprised by the reports, > saying she is as sweet as her public image. But some people she has worked > with at the governor’s mansion and in state government paint a different > portrait: one of someone unable to **make the leap into the Richmond > fishbowl.** What does “one of someone unable to make the leap into the Richmond fishbowl” mean? I know what “pop out of the fishbowl” means, but I cannot get the idea of _deliberately_ “leaping into the fishbowl.” If "the fishbowl" means the brilliant cream of society, isn’t the Virginia’s First Lady already there in the luminant fishbowl? Who is “one of someone,”? Is it a person who has worked with Maureen, or Maureen herself? **Additional question:** The line, “some people **she has** worked with at the governor’s mansion and in state government paint a different portrait” confuses me. Does Virginia Governor’s wife **work** at the governor’s mansion and in state government like a staff? Shouldn’t it be “some people who have worked with her paint a different portrait”?


title: Right usage of word "Galvanize"?

text: Please consider below meaning of dictionary > Galvanize: shock or excite (someone), typically into taking action What is the right usage of this word? Please consider below sentences > A sudden sound in the doorway **galvanized** her.   >  He was **galvanized** to see a column of smoke. Is this right usage? or do I need to use differently? I have been observed that _startle_ also perfectly suits here? Does it always acceptable to replace **startle** with **galvanize**?


title: What's the logic behind adjectives constructed with a hyphen?

text: I'll give you a lovecraftian stanza: > Thro’ the ghoul-guarded gateways of slumber,   >  Past the wan-moon’d abysses of night,   >  I have liv’d o’er my lives without number,   >  I have sounded all things with my sight;   >  And I struggle and shriek ere the daybreak, being driven to madness with > fright. > > _Nemesis_ — Howard Phillips Lovecraft _Ghoul_ is a noun, and _guarded_ is the past participle of _to guard_. He combined both words to create an adjective to describe his "gateways of slumber" properly. But then you have _wan-mooned_. An adjective plus the past participle of _to moon_ or some bizarre usage of the noun _moon_ to explicitly say that the "abysses of night are full with moons." That's where I think: What's the logic behind this after all? To which extent I have the power of freedom to create my own bizarre adjectives by combining random words? I could replace the second verse with: > Past the wild-river’d clouds of mars It would not make any sense, but the _logic_ of _wild-river'd_ is pretty much the same of _wan-moon'd_. What's the _insanity-guarded_ logic/rule behind this?


title: "Become acquainted", "be connected" with the connotation of "take the initiative"

text: Would the following sentence be idiomatic and correct? > At the conference, she became acquainted with more than 20 scholars, > exhibiting excellent networking skills. I was thinking saying something like "connected to more than X scholars". I'm just not sure which expression better conveys the meaning that _she_ took the initiative to approach those scholars and got to know them.


title: Is it a fashion to omit “is” as in “this a problem that can seem unanswerable.”?

text: I often see cases that a verb and a preposition are omitted as I posted a question the other day about the omission of “in” in the line, “Perry has had have difficulty planting doubt about Romney.” Today I saw the case “ _is_ ” is omitted as “ _this a problem_ ” in the following sentence of New York Times article written by Michael P. Lynch under the title, “Reason for Reason. “Disagreements like this (Evolutionism and Creationism) give rise to an unnerving question: How do we rationally defend our most fundamental epistemic principles? Like many of the best philosophical mysteries, _this a problem_ that can seem both unanswerable and yet extremely important to solve.” I think it should be “this is a problem.” But if it is the case, can we use “ _a_ ,” not “ _the_ ” when “the problem” is modified (or defined) by “that clause”? (though I feel like an article maniac these days ). Is the omission of “ _is_ ” a today’s fashion, or just a typo? You may say the author isn’t NYT’s writer unworthy for digging in each phrasing. But according to opinionator @nytimes.com, Michael Lynch is a contemporary philosopher, who must be the master of logic and rhetoric.


title: What is a word for an employee of a company that deals with community-related matters?

text: As in someone who interacts with the greater community and enforces an ethical code within the company. We came up with a few possibilities like "Crime Prevention Officer" or "Public Liaison Officer", but we are not entirely sure. My uncle works in customer service for a utility company and his colleague stumbled across a house that had about 10 tenants in the past month. After discussing it, the colleague raised it with management and the manager didn't want to do anything, so my uncle would like to put in a formal request to get one of these officers in the company. However, he feels that management will pay more attention if proper terminology is used.


title: Is the usage of idiom, “get hold of the wrong end of the stick” situation specific?

text: I came across the idiom, “get hold of the wrong end of the stick” in the following sentence of the scene where Barry Calvert, an FBI agent tells his colleague, Mark Andrews about the statement of an illegal Greek immigrant on suspected assassination scheme in Jeffery Archer’s fiction, “Shall we tell the President” P.37: > “I don’t believe a word of it,” Barry said immediately. “With his English, > he could easily have **got hold of the wrong end of the stick**. It was > probably quite innocent. People curse the President all the time. My father > does, but that doesn’t mean he would kill her.” I checked the meaning of “get hold of the wrong end of the stick” with a couple of dictionaries: Cambridge Dictionary defines it as “to not understand a _situation_ correctly.”   The FreeDictionary defines it exactly in the same way as Cambridge - “(informal). to not understand a _situation_ correctly” Kenkyusha Publishing’s Readers English Japanese Dictionary defines it as “make an error of the judgment (of _situation_ ). While the definitions of the above three English and English Japanese dictionaries are all “ _Situation specific_ ,” Collins English Dictionary defines it as “a complete misunderstanding of _a situation, explanation, etc_.” Can I use “get hold of the wrong end of the stick other than a “situation,” e.g. for meaning of word(s), message, statement, somebody’s notion, view, intent, and idea? Can I say “I get hold of the wrong end of the stick on his remarks (or instructions)”? Secondarily, what is the origin of this idiom? **Correction:** I was reminded of that I dropped “end of the” from “get hold of the wrong end of the stick by TimLymington's advice. It’s careless but a great mistake that occurred when I was transcribing the original text of Archer’s fiction. My apology. I suspected if I should cancel this question. However, the definitions of all dictionaries of the idiom, and my question about whether the idiom is “situation specific,” or not remain the same. So I ventured to leave it as it is by making necessary corrections.


title: "To [put a] boot in the ass to do something" — uncertain meaning

text: Could someone explain the meaning of the "to [put a] boot in the ass to do something" idiom? Cambridge Idioms Dictionary only mentions _put the boot in_ as "to make a bad situation worse" and I'm not really sure if this is what I need. **Edit.** More precisely, I'm thinking about such an example: > Does Google need a strong engineer to put boot in ass in developing the next > XXX ...


title: On the usage of commas with nonessential clauses near the end of a sentence

text: How would you punctuate the following? > A decent if long novel.   1. _As is_.   2. A decent, if long, novel.   3. A decent, if long novel. I feel uncomfortable leaving the "novel" dangling at the end of the sentence, and also think I'm littering the sentence with superfluous punctuation. However, if one eliminates the last comma, why not finish the job and remove the first one too?


title: confusing use of "of which"

text: Here's a sentence I find confusing: > The job of a family therapist is to understand the family culture of which > the larger culture, with its many layered meanings, is a part. Which interpretation is right, 1 or 2?   1. the family culture is a part of the larger culture   2. the larger culture is a part of the family culture To me, 1 _makes more sense_ than 2. But the structure appears to say 2 is correct. Could someone explain this, please? And could you tell me why the prepositional phrase "with its many layered meanings” has been placed between commas?


title: "tried so far" vs. "so far tried"

text: These two sound quite different, and the second form even sounds more sophisticated, but is there any real difference?


title: Etiquette in responding to service desk email

text: I just asked EA Support to send me a serial to my old game(Battlefield 2142) and they did it. Should I replay and say "thx a lot" or should I just enjoy my game and ignore them? EA is an english company, so I'm asking how would you act in english speaking country like US or GB. I do feel they did an amazing job and thought I would have to fight really hard and long for that serial number(and it would end up with me buying a new copy of the game).


title: Verbs of inaction

text: It seems to me that most English verbs always convey some action. That is, no words (to my knowledge) convey that absence of an action. Let me explain. Let's assume that I wanted to say that a certain person is not running. Notice, I don't want to say that he's "standing around" or "sitting" or "lying down", because those verbs _explicitly suggest other actions_. In other words, I don't want to say that this person is doing a thing _different from_ running. Only that he's _not running_. What's he doing? Oh, I don't know, he could be doing absolutely anything. All I know is that he's not running. My question: Does English have such words? Or do any other languages you know? I'd guess not, because words like this would be too limited in meaning to justify their existence in the lexicon when simply appending "not" would do. Still, I'd like to know.


title: What's the meaning of 'ever'?

text: What’s the meaning of ‘ever’ in this sentence? “Now, yer mum an’ dad were as good a witch an’ wizard as I ever knew.”


title: What if + would

text: I have a question about what if... Here's the thing:   1. Do you think they shouldn't attend that school? What if they would become great musicians?   2. Do you think they shouldn't attend that school? What if they became great musicians? Which sentence with 'what if' is correct? (I'm leaning towards the second option, but somehow, the first makes me feel it better conveys the meaning.) If example two is correct and one is wrong, is there any sentence where what if + would is grammatically correct? Thanks.


title: Can enjoy or will enjoy

text: In the marketing copy for a cookbook, should "can" or "will" be used before enjoy: > The Blood Type Cookbook: Easy, Healthy and Delicious Recipes for the Whole > Family shows you how to quickly prepare scrumptious meals that all family > members, regardless of blood type, **can enjoy**. Your family will rush to > the table for meals bursting with flavor and supercharged with foods > approved for the blood type dietary guidelines. Includes 50+ mouthwatering, > mix-and-match recipes for breakfast, lunch, dinner and dessert, Prep Tips > and a Grocery Shopping List.


title: Meaning of "broken off short"

text: What does "the handle broken off short" mean when referring to an axe? Does it mean the handle is broken off and it is a little far from the rest, or that it is broken close to the axe and there is only a small part of the handle still attached, or something else? (The Wonderful Wizard of Oz - Chapter 13 - Rescuing the Tin Woodman)


title: Is the "Sir" title appropriate to use in business meetings?

text: I'm assisting a daily phone meeting with people from Asia, Europe and North America. One of the Americans is using "Sir" sometimes to address the team leader. Is it appropriate to address a colleague in the same job rank, by "Sir"?


title: "Let's plan to meet at three o'clock" vs. "Let's meet at three o'clock"

text: What's the differences between the two? Personally, I'd say _let's meet each other at three o'clock_. Is formality the only difference between them? Here is the complete conversation: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/btswh.png)


title: What is the term for a Monarchy with only a King or a Queen, but not both?

text: A typical Monarchy can have a king, queen, or both. What is the term for, like the current British Monarchy, having only one of a king or a queen ~~in power~~? Surely there is a term that distinguishes that situation from one where there is a King _and_ Queen sitting. To clarify: The answer to the question is a term, not a historical or political definition. The usage of the term I am looking for would be to illustrate needing to have both a king and a queen, not just one or the other. In other words: what is the common nomenclature for having a king, or a queen, but not having both? It is irrelevant who has the power. What matters is that the king doesn't have a queen.


title: How to verbalize a mathematics expression in English?

text: How do we express a simple mathematics equation in a way that could be understood by most people bad in mathematics? I have a formula like this:               Processing Fee = Base Fee x ( Your Bid / Original Price )      My initial thought is to verbalize it as such: > The Processing Fee is computed from the Base Fee multiplied by Your Bid > divided by the Original Price. But somehow I feel that this does not elucidate the fact that Your Bid divided by the Original Price is actually a ratio. How can I improve on this to make the statement clearer?


title: Name for the top left cell of a table

text: What is the name for the top left cell of a table? The one next to the column headers and above the row headers. Does it even have a technical name? E.g. the cell with `???` in this table:               +-----+------+------+     |???  |Yes   |No    |     +-------------------+     |A    |1     |4     |     |B    |2     |5     |     |C    |3     |6     |     +-----+------+------+


title: Longest word in English

text: What is the longest word in English?


title: What's the meaning of "what am I to do"

text: Is "what am I to do" be commonly used in daily lives? Also what do following sentences imply? What should I do the next? What am I to do the next? Please.


title: Successfully submitted vs Submitted Successfully

text: When data has been submitted through a form online, which sentence below make the most sense to use? Is one grammatically correct more than the other? > Your information has been successfully submitted.                                                                               or > Your information has been submitted successfully.


title: How do I compose an imperative sentence that tells a parent to "Ask" a child?

text: We are putting together a kit of picture books and a narrative on how parents can use the books to help a child with early literacy. We want to use an imperative sentence to tell the parent to ask the child some specific points about the book. For example, when explaining how a parent should interact with the child when reading "Little White Rabbit,' we want the parent to ask the child questions. This is how we word it now.... Ask: What is the little rabbit afraid of? Is the sentence formatted correctly? How should the sentence be worded?


title: What does the enterprise to “feed the duck on Epsom Downs” mean?

text: There is the following sentence in the ending part of Jeffery Archer’s “The Forth Estate,” which I waded to after months. In the showdown of the media owner Dick Armstrong and Sir Paul Maitland, Chairman of the media, who is critical about Armstrong’s foolhardy takeover at a board meeting, Armstrong says; > “Perhaps I deserve some praise for this monumental achievement rather than > the continual carping criticism I get from a chairman whose idea of > enterprise is to **feed the duck on Epsom Downs**.” – P 672. I surmise an idea of the enterprise to “feed the duck on Epsom Downs” means to consider the activity of the enterprise as a petty charity, but I’m not sure. Is “feed the duck on Epsom Downs” a popular phrase? Does the name of place (Epsom Downs, a pond, the lake) vary by the locale?


title: Why is this that-clause a subordinate?

text: > she was **so** tired **that** she couldn’t think. (Oxford) Oxford says that-clause above is a subordinate clause expressing a result. Semantically ‘she was tired’ seems to be the main clause, but there also is the possibility ‘she couldn’t think’ might be thought as the main one, and ‘she was tired’ is a subordinate expressing the reason of that-clause. So the words below that do not use ‘subordinate’ sound to be better explanations for the case. Then on what ground does Oxford say the clause is subordinate? > Cambridge: to introduce a clause that gives further information, although it > can often be left out. Longman: to introduce a clause that shows the result > of something:


title: Correct usage of "Peace of mind"

text: Is the phrase "provide Peace of Mind" common? If not what is the correct usage of "peace of mind"? Thanks


title: What words or idioms are there for "beneficial constructive distraction that would establish or facilitate balance"?

text: What words are there for > beneficial constructive **distraction** from a task that would improve the > results or establish or facilitate balance among various tasks (all being a > "distraction" in that sense) As in work-life balance that would not manifest until some extraneous "distraction" occurs that would improve the result? I would like to avoid philosophical or psychological discussions of whether it can be the case. But there's such an assumption underlying the quoted expression---namely that giving sole attention to only one thing without another one, a few, or many, things, is detrimental to your success at that one thing. What I am looking for is either a single substantive (if existent) or an idiom, preferably, more or less commonplace, with regard to the substantive "distraction". * * * Edit: I am grateful for the answers given so far. I failed to mention that I am looking, among other, _particularly_ for words/idioms that are acceptable in rather **formal context** like corporate letters, job application letters, scientific documents. Please take a look at the comments to the answers so far for an exemplary specification of why I would like to **avoid negative connotations**. It is basically due to the **perception of the addressee** \--the message should _not communicate that the person is tired_ or "burned out", i.e., wants to _use their free time rather than working time, for an additional activity_.


title: "Never" vs. "never ever"

text: Example: >   * I **never** use this cup. >   * I **never ever** use this cup. > What is the difference between these two sentences?


title: Pronouncing "cumin"

text: Is "cumin" pronounced as > coo -- min Or is it pronounced > cyoo -- min ?


title: Insolvable, insoluble, and unsolvable

text: When speaking of a problem that has no solution, do the words _insolvable_ , _insoluble_ , and _unsolvable_ have different shades of meaning? How do you decide which to use?


title: What does “a good bargain is a pick-purse” mean?

text: > A good bargain is a pick-purse. I'm an English learner. I came across this sentence, but even though I figured out all the individual words, I didn't get the meaning of the whole thing. So can someone please do that for me?


title: Can there be a "random order"?

text: A recent article in the New York Times discussed the decision by the Metropolitan Museum of Art to eliminate the use of small metal buttons to signify that you have paid admission. ![met button](http://i.stack.imgur.com/ttqwA.png) The entrances are fairly open, and guards glance over the crowd to make sure you have the badge of a patron. All buttons on a given day are the same color. The color changes the next day so that one cannot return and enter without paying. According to the Times, > the colors are changed daily **_in random order_**. The Compact ODO defines _order_ as > the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other > according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method It defines _random_ to mean > made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision Is this a mistake, a deliberate oxymoron, or is there a straightforward logical meaning to this phrase?


title: Usage of “when” or “while” in this context

text: > He left the house ___ I was still sleeping Would this sentence be better completed with _when_ or with _while_?


title: How to use WHEN on the following occasion?

text: When I lived in there, I got to know John When I was living in there, I got to know John. While I was living in there, I got to know John. While I lived in there, I got to know John. I have been long confused by the usage of when and while, and I'm not sure whether the four sentences are totally correct. Please explain in detail, thanks!


title: Viewpoint vs. Point of view

text: A student of mine has asked me if there is any difference, both in meaning and usage, between point of view and viewpoint. Now, according to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, there is indeed no difference in their meaning. Point of view   1. **a particular way of thinking about or judging a situation**   2. someone's own personal opinion or attitude about something Viewpoint   1. **a particular way of thinking about a problem or subject [= point of view]**   2. a place from which you can see something However I could not ascertain whether there was any difference in usage from the examples provided. Personally, I find "point of view" much more familiar and "viewpoint" often awkward when I try to compare their use, for example:   * It was seen from a child's point of view.    * It was seen from a child's viewpoint. But that's a highly impressionist take based on my exposure to the terms and one mustn't forget I'm not a native speaker, which means my impression could be eschewed. So, is there any usage particulars concerning the two terms?


title: Where does 'doofus' (or perhaps 'dufus') come from?

text: Both **Dufus** and **Doofus** seem to be common on the web, so I'm not sure which is the correct spelling, if either. It's kind of a cool word. Do we have any idea where/how it originated?


title: Distinguishing /f–t–θ/ in th-fronting and th-stopping dialects

text: In standard English, the digraph _th_ is a dental fricative [θ, ð]. Several dialects feature _th_ -fronting, where _th_ becomes a labiodental fricative [f, v]; others feature _th_ -stopping, where _th_ becomes a dental stop [t̪, d̪]. For example, _three_ sounds like _free_ with _th_ -fronting, _tree_ with _th_ -stopping. How well can English speakers distinguish word pairs in these dialects? Specifically:   * Can _th_ -modifying speakers distinguish /f–θ/ and /t–θ/ in their own dialects?   * Can they distinguish minimal pairs as spoken in standard English?   * Can standard English speakers distinguish the _th_ -modified variants from similar words? I expect that the answers vary between dialects and individuals, so I'm interested in reasonable generalizations. If there's a significant difference between (for example) _th_ -fronting in Cockney and African American Vernacular English, I'd be interested in that too. Likewise if there's a significant difference between the voiced and unvoiced consonants. Wikipedia notes that _th_ -stopping dialects generally distinguish between the dental stop of _thanks_ [t̪æŋks] and the alveolar stop of _tanks_ [tæŋks], but they lose the /t–θ/ opposition in some cases like _tree/three,_ and the /d–ð/ opposition is even weaker. This answers part of the question for _th_ -stopping dialects: They can sometimes (but not not always) distinguish /t–θ/ in their own dialect, and I imagine they can also hear the opposition in standard English. I'm not sure whether a typical speaker of standard English could distinguish [t̪æŋks] from [tæŋks], however. One case that particularly interests me is whether _th_ -fronting speakers can distinguish the /f–θ/ opposition in standard English. When I say the minimal pair _free–three_ /fɹi–θɹi/, can _th_ -fronting speakers hear the difference, or is [f–θ] an allophone in free variation for them? * * * Examples of standard English minimal pairs that might merge in these dialects:   * _father/fava, mother/mutter_   * _thin/fin, thin/tin_   * _three/free, three/tree_   * _with/whiff, with/wit_   * _wraith/Ralph, wraith/rate_


title: What's the difference between an -ing noun and a real noun

text: Some verbs have corresponding nouns. Also, an '-ing' can be added to create a new noun. For example:   * _Develop_ is a verb.    * _Development_ is a noun.   * _Developing_ is also a noun. So are the sentences given below both right? >   * They thought that Tom would bring a big development for this small town. >   * They thought that Tom would bring a big developing for this small town. >


title: Is knowledge of the meaning of the word “ubiquity” ubiquitously considered to be ubiquitous?

text: _Please pardon the pun._ I was in a conversation on a game’s online chat, talking about how common an item was, and used the word “ubiquitous” to describe it. But, much to my surprise, the point of contention for one user was not my assertion, but my use of the word “ubiquitous”. In the words of this user (censorship mine): > the word ubiquity in place of, say, “how common it is” is being assh**ish > and pedantic I’ve always used the word in natural speech, and it’s not one I consider to be overly “advance”, yet this user insisted that the only reason to use it would be to “seem intelligent”. **Question:** I do agree there are some words that are somewhat uncommon, or outdated. And that these words might elicit a response implying that their usage is “just for show” (not that I’d agree with one). But is “ubiquitous” one of them? **Notes:**   * The context was in a game’s chat, and the average age of a user that was present would be around 20. I’d like to know if the word is commonly known _in general_ , but noting if the fact it was a casual environment affected the validity of the user’s clam would be appreciated.   * The user’s response was arguably immature, and how vehemently they argued their point might have to do with their anger, as opposed to actually supporting their own stance, but I’d like answers to ignore this.   * This user referred to reference.com’s difficulty index on the word, which claims “Few English speakers likely know this word”. While my experience with the word might not be indicative of all people, I know most people to understand it, and use it. Additionally, I couldn’t find a source on how that index is calculated, so it might be the opinion of an editor.


title: What to call someone who gives as much as he demands?

text: What to call someone who (can) give (in return) as much as he demands? Speaking in terms of life and personality. For example, I ask my future partner to be tidy, glamorous, rich, caring, pretty etc. On the other hand I am, myself that sort of person as well and my partner can, hence, be certain to get this from me as well. So, I could ask as much from someone as the other person could ask from me as well.


title: Post-fixing or pre-fixing "mind you" onto an informative/descriptive statement

text: Example: > It was quite a sunny day, mind you. or in the middle: > It was quite a sunny day, mind you, so I packed my sunglasses. or prefixed: > Now mind you, it was quite a sunny day... What is meant to be conveyed? That I should be mindful of the fact that was stated? I can understand that much, but somehow it doesn't quite fit in with my understanding of the word "mind" when used in other contexts: "Do you mind if I borrow your car?" or as a verb: "Mind the gap." (at subway stations between the train and platform). Can someone break it down?


title: What are the reflective thingies called in English?

text: I'm looking for the proper word for these things you wear to avoid being driven over by cars at night. ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/dWp9k.png)


title: Usage in defining an action because of someone else

text: I was at the bar and got a beer because my buddy typically drank them. I stated "I ordered this beer in his image". But I feel there is an expression to say "I performed this action because it's typical of someone I know well." Any thoughts?


title: What's the origin of the phrase "what have you"?

text: I've never really understood the meaning and origin of the phrase "what have you". Examples: > You can use a pencil, a sharpie, a ballpoint, what have you. > > The display room is full of stereos, TV's, and what have you. This site says … > […] this expression uses an archaic form of putting a question (using have > you instead of do you have) as a noun clause, and what in the sense of > “anything that.” But still, this phrase does not even sound like correct English to me. Shouldn't it be "what you have" instead? Also, since when is this phrase common, and where is it used? Is it a regional thing or generally used in all English speaking countries? Also, "Your Dictionary" says it's been first recorded in 1920, but it doesn't even say _where_.


title: "As powerful as just, as beneficient as wise... Is there a literary device for this phrasing?

text: In a letter from Lewis and Clark to the Oto Indians, I read > Know that this great chief, as powerful as he is just, and as beneficent as > he is wise, always entertaining a Sincere and friendly disposition towards > the red people of America, has commanded us his war cheifs to undertake this > long journey... I was wondering if there was known literary device for the structure _as x as he is y_ that is used in consecutive sentences and describes a common person or thing. From _Letters to a Nation: A Collection of Extraordinary American Letters_ by Andrew Carroll


title: "In second" or "in seconds" when talking about time

text: When talking about time as a unit, which one is correct, _in second_ or _in seconds_? For example: > How long does it take to complete the task in second? or > How long does it take to complete the task in seconds?


title: What does "good job" mean?

text: What is the meaning of "good job" in English? I have heard some people use that instead of "do not be tired".


title: Why is the term "isn't it?" so predominant in Indian English?

text: I apologize in advance if I am ignorantly and incorrectly assigning this to Indian English. When I was in medical school, I had a number of professors who were native to India. Being a school predominantly made up of American English speakers we noticed that the Indian English speakers used the term "isn't it?" with a noticeable frequency. (I hesitated to put a ? at the end because it wasn't phrased as a question _per se_.) In fact, for many of them it was practically a punctuation mark to every sentence. And, there did not seem to be any agreement of pluralization or tense. ( _e.g._ "The students went to a party. Isn't it?") Presumably, they use the phrase "isn't it?" in the same way that speaker of American English would use "you see" or "don't you agree?" My question that has nagged me for years, why would this construct come to predominate in Indian English? It doesn't strike me as a particularly British English import. Is it a direct translation of a common phrasing in Hindi or one of the many languages of the sub-continent?


title: is "shop " a CVC word?

text: Is **_shop_** a CVC word? Or, to rephrase the question, in the CVC structure, do C and V refer to a sound or to a letter? As I see it, a C or a V means a sound, and a sound could be 1 or 2 letters, so I thought a word like _sh-o-p_ or _b-a-th_ is a CVC word. Just now someone told me that in CVC, C or V refer to a letter, so shop is a CCVC word.


title: Word for reading without a pause

text: What is the word for reading something _continuously without a pause_? > He read the whole paragraph ...


title: A word for activities that appear difficult but aren't, and vice versa

text: In life, sometimes you're able to do something easily that appears very difficult or impressive. Consider a card trick. It might simultaneously be easy for you to learn to perform while impressing your audience. On the other hand, you might do with great difficulty something that others perceive to be easy. For instance, drawing a perfect circle free-hand on a piece of paper might look easy but in fact it takes much practice to achieve consistently. Are there adjectives to describe these two cases? That is, feats that are difficult but appear easy, and activities that are easy to perform but appear daunting.


> I insist that someone do something.   >  ( _used more in American English, says Michael Swan's_ Practical English > Use _, for instance_ ) versus > I insist that someone should do somehting.   >  ( _used more in British English, says the same_ ) Why did the present subjunctive survive in American English better than it did in British English (outside fixed phrases such as "God save the Queen!") when, on the other hand, forms like 'burn **t** ', 'leap **t** ', 'travel **l** ed- travel **l** ing' did not, and were made regular? Is American English more archaic or more modern than British English?


title: Is comma needed before "and" in two connecting clauses?

text: I have the fallowing sentence (I've changed the content to keep it fairly understandable, the relations between the parts are the same). > However, it states in the literature that green people love apples, which > strengthens the idea that at least some green people would buy apples > **and** that by opening a chain of apple stores great profits can be made. I'm not sure if I should leave it as is, add a comma before the emphasized "and" or make the part after the "and" into a new sentence.


Just wondering if there is a Short form or a single word for 'Lab Supervisor'? I need the short form / single word to be at most 8 to 9 letters as the short form / single word will be placed on a menu (which have limited space). Thank you.


title: First conditional with "would" instead of "will"

text: Consider the following sentence with a first conditional: > > If it rains tomorrow, I will go to the cinema. All the examples of first conditionals that I found use "will" instead of "would." Is it possible to replace "will" with "would" while retaining the same exact meaning, i.e., > > If it rains tomorrow, I would go to the cinema. Or, would I have to put the inflected verb in preterite form (as mentioned in this related posting), like this: > > If it rained tomorrow, I would go to the cinema. [Edit 1: I clarified that I want to retain the same meaning among these examples.] [Edit 2: Corrected silly mistake where the first example was the same as the second example.]


title: Origin of "kicker" in reference to unexpected situation or detail

text: How did this use of the word _kicker_ enter the English language, and is its use localized to any one region? > An unexpected situation or detail. Examples: > John wants to climb the wall, but the **kicker** is that it is thirty feet > tall.   >  Here's the **kicker** : my sweater, which cost hundreds of both dollars and > hours, doesn't fit. The sleeves are a good six inches too short... Here's > the **kicker** to the **kicker** : I don't care.


title: Conjugation of wonder in early modern English

text: What I actually mean what's the conjugation of the verb _wonder_. For example: > I wonder, thou wonderest, etc.. including past, ing form, etc.. (it will actually help me with other verbs too)


title: Past participle of "fly"

text: In a song by Coldplay, _Paradise_ , I found the sentence _Away she flied_. I'm Italian, and I was not sure that _flied_ could be a form of the verb _fly_ or some other word unknown to me. I looked it up in the online dictionaries, and I found out that it is a term used in baseball. Could somebody help me to understand the use in this song?


title: "On the periphery" or "in the periphery"

text: Are both of these valid? > **on** the periphery > > **in** the periphery What would be the appropriate usage? Would it be sufficient to use _peripheral_ as a replacement?


title: Can "unto" be used instead of "onto" in American English?

text: Is there a difference in how the preposition "onto" is used in British and American English? I always understood it to match the following dictionary definition I found online, and was not aware of any difference in American English: > to a place or position on In a side discussion on a different Stack Exchange site, another poster made the following claim: > **Onto** is English, whereas **Unto** is American English. The expression that sparked this was "climb unto a pedestal". I suggested that the proper expression was "climb onto a pedestal". While it was a pointless discussion in the context, I still want to know which one is correct in American English.


title: "The way in which": a grammar mistake or not?

text: I'm studying English pronouns and my book says that the sentence "the way in which" is incorrect and I have to use, instead, only "the way". Is it true? And if so, why? Here are some sentences: > 1) That's the way in which the world goes round. > > 2) That's the way in which I like it. > > 3) Now we'll consider the two ways in which aircraft can fly.


How can I use the verb "sad" in the past continuous? E.g.: > I was crying.   >  I was missing. What should be the sentences for _sad_ or _upset_ in past continuous? Why do some words like the two above not follow standards? Are these exceptions?


title: What is the difference between "promotion tool" and "promotional tool"?

text: I checked the grammar: "promotional" is the description of tool, thus "promotional" tool is right while the first is wrong. Is it true? Why are there so many cases that those two are exchangeable?


title: Usage of "compensate" as a recompense for gain instead of loss

text: To keep this PG, I've changed the popular saying we've all heard: > _"He has a huge truck to compensate for his small **ego** "_ But I've recently been using a sort of counter to the joke, in one form or another (which will need some translation to be funny, or funnier I guess): > _"I have a small truck to compensate for my large **ego** "_ My question is, is this a correct usage of the word **compensate**? Can you compensate for something large with something smaller?


title: "Mastery Guidance" meaning

text: What does **Mastery Guidance** mean in this context? > "Replace a vague idea of 'purpose' with a manageable and measurable > objective that is made ahead of practice and gives **mastery guidance** " – > Practice Perfect (book) I think it means that it's going to give you a pathway to follow to achieve mastery. Am I right? Or is it more like "giving you guidance that comes from a master"?


title: When listing features of something, do I need to use "it" before "has"?

text: For example: The smartphone is blue, small, lightweight, (it) has three buttons, two cameras... Is the "it" relevant? Can I omit it?


title: Let us or Let's when demanding.

text: What to use when you are not exhorting a group and yourself to go, but demanding a third person to let you go? Can “Let's go! " also be used"or only “Let us go!"?


title: What does "to be of service" means?

text: I recently saw the following sentence: > One is glad to be of service Could anyone please describe what does that means?


title: Is -wala a recognized suffix in Indian English?

text: Why do we use terms like _taxiwala_ , _tongawala_ and _policewala_ in Indian English? Is **_-wala_** a recognized suffix in Indian English?


title: When to use "fate" and when to use "destiny"? Are they interchangeable?

text: In Wordnet Dictionary, if you search for `fate` you will see that it has 3 meanings and all these meanings have synonym `destiny`. > 1- destiny, fate - an event (or a course of events) that will inevitably > happen in the future > > 2- Destiny, Fate - the ultimate agency that predetermines the course of > events (often personified as a woman); "we are helpless in the face of > Destiny" > > 3- fortune, destiny, fate, luck, lot, circumstances, portion - your overall > circumstances or condition in life (including everything that happens to > you); "whatever my fortune may be"; "deserved a better fate"; "has a happy > lot"; "the luck of the Irish"; "a victim of circumstances"; "success that > was her portion" Source: http://www.wordnet-online.com/fate.shtml However, I think `fate` carries quite a negative meaning like " _He died in a car accident, it's his fate_ ", no one says " _it's his destiny_ ". Whereas, `destiny` carries a quite positive meaning like " _our destiny is to build a great company_ ", no one says " _our fate is to build a great company_ " as it sounds very bizarre.


title: Word for bias against or fear of foreign languages

text: This came up as I was writing a comment for a discussion on another site on the network*. The discussion was about non-english creative works, and I warned against "xenophobia," but that's not quite right since the bias in question applies much more strongly to works in foreign languages than to works in English created in foreign English-speaking countries (e.g. England, Australia, Canada). I'm looking for a word with connotations similar to "xenophobia" but that applies to foreign languages (as specifically as possible) instead of foreign countries or cultures. At this point I probably won't be using it in this particular discussion, but now I'm curious as to whether such a word exists. I've just thought of "anglocentric," but that's more England than English, and I'd prefer a somewhat stronger and more general term. *: I'd prefer not to link to the particular comment chain; it's not a pretty discussion and I'd like to limit its exposure (besides, it's likely to get wiped by myself or another mod at some point). I think the meaning I'm looking for is quite clear without it.


title: Capitalization: “ondes Martenot” is, while “theremin” isn't — why?

text: As evidenced by their Wikipedia pages; and pretty much everywhere. Léon Theremin developed his instrument in 1918 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theremin Maurice Martenot invented his in 1928 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ondes_Martenot _ondes_ is “waves” in French. Orchestra examples:   * The ondes Martenot - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PjyCpRKDrk   * The theremin - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxJIl73tJps


title: Is "quintessential example" correct usage?

text: Since quintessential means "representing the perfect example of a class" is it correct to use "the quintessential example" as in this sentence: > "Electrons are the quintessential example of (apparently)-elementary > particles." or is it better to write: > "Electrons are quintessential (apparently)-elementary particles."


title: Is it customary or grammatical to drop ‘to’ in “I’m not going to go look for it”?

text: There was a scene a thirty-something wife refuses to go looking for the wedding ring her husband lost in a courtyard when she was asked by her husband over the phone, in the fiction titled “The Lost Order” appearing in New Yorker magazine (January 7). > “I think I lost it when I was in the courtyard with Monkey [their pet dog]. > I’m sorry to put this on you, but would you mind taking a look around for > it?” - - - > > “ **I’m not going to go look for it** ,” > > I find myself saying into the phone. It’s not really a decision, it’s more > like discovery.” I noticed that there is no ‘to’ or ‘and’ used in “I’m not going to go look for it.” Is it customary or grammatical not to bring ‘to+inf’ or 'and' after ‘go.’ Is it customary to say “go play baseball,” “go see movie” “go buy pumpkin” “go swim to the pool” or "go help someone."?


title: what is the meaning of 'if form holds'?

text: _**If form holds_** , the 250,000 women each year who undergo the same genetic testing Jolie had will be joined by the thousands more; but the mutation that was detected in her, in what's known as BRCA1 gene, is ~~.


title: Is "... et al. data." proper grammar?

text: Would it be proper grammar to use the Latin phrase in the following way? > The items inserted came from departments, employees et al. data.


title: Is there a word for the single letter contractions commonly used in store names? (see examples)

text: Is there a term for the single letter contractions as used in the following examples? **Toys 'r' us**   **Stop 'n' go** Note: Trademarks above corrected for proper grammar.


title: How to hyphenate "Churchill"?

text: How should "Churchill" be hyphenated when it breaks across two lines?   * Chu-rchill,    * Chur-chill,    * Churc-hill, or    * Church-ill?


title: What is a word that means "to railroad the conversation"?

text: For example: Person A says "Stop -------ing" because Person B person was intentionally trying to railroad the conversation. The key here is "intentional". If it helps, I think the word I'm looking for starts with a D and ends with "ing".


title: Is "including but not limited to" a redundant phrase?

text: Doesn't "including" imply the "not limited to"?


title: Is "there's no sin on you" standard?

text: In some translations of the Holy Quran, the following translation comes up: > And if you decide on a foster suckling-mother for your children, _there is > no sin on you_ , provided you pay (the mother) what you agreed (to give her) > on reasonable basis.   * _Emphasis is mine._ I wonder if this usage of _sin_ is common in contemporary English.


title: what is the meaning for window of time

text: _We have observed during the window of time, . . . ._ What is the meaning for the above sentence?


title: When an adjective modifies a noun, can either "look" or "look like" be used?

text: As far as I know, we use "look" with adjectives and "look like" with nouns, but I came across this sentence in Oxford Dictionaries: > That looks an interesting book. Well, I was told that when we want to modify a noun with an adjective, use must use "look like", but this doesn't happen here. I don't know why. Maybe both "look" and "look like" can be used when an adjective modifies a noun.


title: What is a bromide?

text: I just finished reading Ayn Rand's wonderful _Fountainhead_ , but one point that escaped me was Rand's near-constant use of the word **bromide** to refer to something disappointing, or a "bummer" in the vernacular.   When I searched online, I only found chemistry references....does anyone know what it means? Can anyone identify the etymology of this word?


title: Meaning of "whip into a lather"

text: > In New York, basketball phenom Jeremy Lin continues to **whip** fans of the > Knicks **into a lather**. What does _whip [somebody] into a lather_ really mean?


title: A word for that which is created from a template?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the word for an applied template? I am looking for a word to describe that which is created from a template. I am writing software which is used for testing. I created an object which can be used as a template for actual tests. These 'implementations' (as I have called them) just pass a few parameters to the template and the template is executed. It is important to recognise an implementation as such and to be able to refer back to the template as this is where the actual actions are performed. I am not happy with the word 'implementation' as I find it too general. Is there a better word I could use? Bear in mind that the end user has to create (implement?) the template itself before template-implementations can be created. It gets a bit confusing. I had thought of 'wrapper' but this doesn't fit well with 'template' - perhaps 'template' is the wrong term ;-) **CLARIFICATION** I need a term which the end-users will understand (i.e. non- IT people). P.S. I am aware of this question What is the word for an applied template?. The fact that I'm asking virtually the same question shows that the question should not have been closed!


title: What do you call the 'intro document' that new employees get on their first day?

text: I'm referring to the "master plan document" of how they'll learn all they need to learn in order to start working at company X. Often this is a mega tome of links and sub-links, or lists of lists, sometimes kept in a wiki. The Hebrew term is תוכנית חפיפות - but the translation of this to English is too horrible to repeat here.


title: "Put over" for "put off" in AE

text: In AE, can "put over" interchange with "put off" in the sense "postpone" in all contexts, or only in some specific ones? I'm all the more anxious to know the answer as I didn't get any hits searching Google for "put over my (and your) appointment". _By 6:00 P.M., the arbitrator **put over** the meeting..._ http://www.yonkerstribune.com/2013/01/arbitration-case-in-city-of-yonkers-vs- firefighters-local-628-postponed-to-february-1-2013-by-hezi-a.html


title: Is there a word that encompasses both collaboration and individual help/assistance

text: I'm making a web widget that will include social media functionality (Twitter, Facebook, etc..) and also a personal chat with sales. I'm looking for a word (idea, concept, jargon) or some kind of universal image/icon that unambiguously communicates this succinctly. Sorry, if this seems lame.


title: Adverbial form for a common swear word

text: Is _shittly_ a word (and if so, how many _t_ ’s does it have?) or do I have to use _shittily_?


title: What do you call a medical procedure that requires the patient to recover walking

text: For some medical operations its required to revalidate the patient because the procedure was so heavy he/ she had to lie down for 1 to 3 weeks with a completely paralysed lowerbody. After the patient is health they need physiotherapy to relearn walking. What is this phenomenon called.


title: literary or rhetorical definition

text: Looking for single word definition for a question or riddle that seemingly has no answer. Designed to confuse. Not paradox or conundrum. I.e "What is the sounds of on hand clapping?"


title: Conditional Type II and Type III

text: I have been kind of confusing regarding these sentences. Would you please give me any hint or guide about them? 1- _If I had eaten breakfast this morning, I would not be hungry now._   * Is this sentence correct? I suppose that since the main clause is “would not be” and has a present time marker (now), then the if clause should be simple past (conditional type 2). Am I wrong? 2- _If my brother would have been there, he would have known what to do._   * Is this sentence correct? Which type of conditional is that? 3- _If it wasn’t X, it would have been something else_   * Is this sentence correct? Which type of conditional is that?


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

text: > The justiciarship originated in the king’s need for a responsible > subordinate who could take a wide view of the affairs of the kingdom, act as > regent when the king was abroad, and on other **occasions** take charge of > those matters with which the king had no time to deal.   >  -- Encyclopedia Britannica Does the word _occasions_ in the above sentence mean "circumstances, occurrences, or states of affairs that provide ground or reason for something" or "special events or ceremonies"?


title: Capitalization of certain terms in English Literature

text: In English literature, improper capitalization of some phrases is common. A friend of mine calls them 'Milnesian Capitals'. These tend to be used in late 19th early 20th century British writings. A.A. Milne wrote that > '[Winnie-the-Pooh] was a bear of Very Little Brain.' Terry Pratchett uses Milnesian Capitals frequently, particularly in dialogue. Are there any rules or conventions governing their use? Is it an older style that has been discarded?


title: What's a "Xerox word"?

text: While reading this (interesting) article about how to improve english and reduce accent, I met a concept I've never heard about before: Xerox words. > So I visited toastmasters.org and found a club close to me. [...] The club I > go to uses a dog training clicker to call people’s attention to their use of > filler words like “mm,” “ah,” or **“Xerox” words** like “I, I ...”, “We, we > ...” But I couldn't find any example online: what is it exactly ?


title: Is there a specific name for this kind of water dispenser?

text: I see these water jars in many food service areas (hotels, company cafeteria, etc). I'm wondering if there is a specific name for them. "Water dispenser" seems too _unspecific_. I wonder if they original from a certain style or region, which _does_ have a name? ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/Wm81Y.jpg) ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/c7GQK.jpg) ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/gGgvu.jpg)


title: What's the correct word to use in order to prompt the user to enter the data in a computer app: "Enter" or "Insert"?

text: When I write an application with a programming language and I want some inputs from the user, should I use the word "Enter" or "Insert"?


title: Semantics to give correct meaning

text: What is the correct semantics?               We can't tolerate no more.      Or,               We can tolerate no more.      Or,               We can't tolerate any more.      Or, Is there any better way to express such meaning?


title: Correct way of saying a decision has been made

text: What is the correct way of saying "decision has been made on a paper"? I review papers submitted by officials. Is it OK to say it like this? > This paper has already been decision by Sam Rick. I am looking for a formal way to convey this message.


title: Use of not without an Auxillary

text: Is the below sentence grammatically correct? > Know not what you know.


title: Is "subordinated" a good translation of the Italian legal term "subordinato"?

text: I've found this translation http://www.wordreference.com/iten/subordinato but I am not sure if English legals use subordinate to define a party that is subordinated to another. Any suggestion? EDIT: An approximation of "subordinato" can be "working for someone that employs you".


title: “Blue-green algae is/are present in the lake”?

text: I was once walking round one our local lakes with my family and there was a sign that read: > Blue-green algae _is_ present in the lake [ _emphasis added_ ] I maintained that it should be _are_ , however we have never been sure and I have seen it referenced as both on the web and in biological journals.   * http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22algae+are+present%22   * http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22algae+is+present%22 Which one is correct?


title: The position of 'last' in sentences

text: My post on another site has prompted me to ask this question. What is the rule of using 'last' in a sentence? For instance: > When did you revise this rule **last**? > > When did you **last** revise this rule? > > I **last** revised this rule three days ago. > > I revised this rule **last** three days ago. > > I revised this rule three days ago **last**. > > I revised **last** this rule three days ago. (I think here it is at a wrong > position) Are there any other possible versions?


title: 'last but foremost' - mixture of 'last but not least' and 'first and foremost'

text: I found '...last but foremost...' with google in some texts, which seems to be some combination of 'last but not least' and 'first and foremost'. Seems to suggest that while something is mentioned last, it is yet the most important thing. Can it be used like this? does it sound right for a native speaker?


title: Word to describe a picture within a picture within another and so on

text: I know there is a word for when there is a picture inside a picture, that inside another and so on, recursively. Does anyone know this word?


title: "(it) is necessary"?

text: Which one is correct: > To perform a task is necessary to do some things. or > To perform a task it is necessary to do some things.


title: About the use of metaphorical language

text: I understand that when being metaphorical you're saying that something IS something, for example: "The moon is a ball of cheese". Because I'm saying that the moon IS a ball of cheese it is of course metaphorical. Would this count as metaphorical language?: > "He fell down the bottomless pit to his death". (Of course, a pit can't be bottomless, that's impossible). So, although this isn't necessarily saying that the pit is bottomless as opposed to appearing bottomless, could it still be classed as metaphorical explanation of the pit? Could this bottomless pit be classed as metaphorical? Could one interpret the sentence into saying that the pit is bottomless?


title: Meaning of "knocked him down in the kennel" (London 1818)?

text: > I having hold of him all the while; he then began striking me as hard as he > could in my face, with both hands, and I was obliged to let go to defend > myself; **I knocked him down in the kennel** , and as he endeavoured to get > up, I made a grasp to lay hold of him again; he got from under my arm, and > ran down Holborn; I pursued ... source; Old Baily records online.


title: What is the term for calling off a war when you are winning?

text: If you're losing a war, you can _surrender_ to end the war. In an _armistice_ , neither side surrenders, but both agree to end the war. Is there a term for a side that is winning that has a change of heart and ends the war unilaterally? A _ceasefire_ or _truce_ both appear to be cessations of hostility that are somehow less than an _armistice_. Neither appear to be unilateral. I understand that it probably doesn't happen much, so there may not be a word for it. As to why such a thing might occur, besides just thinking better of it or having an election that leads to a new direction from leadership, I could also see enough Pyrrhic victories leading the aggressor to give up on the war, but certainly not surrender or even enter into an agreement of any kind.


title: Difference between “?!” and “!?”?

text: Is there any difference between “?!” and “!?”? The Wikipedia page on Interrobang describes: > In informal English, the same inflection is usually notated by ending a > sentence with first a question mark and then an exclamation mark, or vice > versa. Many people are unfamiliar with the interrobang, and would be puzzled > when first seeing it, although its intention is usually self-evident. The > interrobang can be hand-written with a single stroke plus the dot. One > common application is in cartoons, as a stand-alone symbol of surprise. Is there a difference, or are they identical?


title: Meaning of "nip"

text: _Nip_ is defined differently in two different dictionaries. From OALD, _nip_ is defined as “to give somebody or something a quick painful bite or pinch”, whereas in MWLD, it is defined as “to bite or pinch (someone or something) lightly.” Which is correct, or can they both be applied?


title: Using 'own' in passive voice and causative sentences

text: Is it correct to use _own_ in causative and passive voice sentences? For example, > _I had my own house built by a local builder._ > > _I didn't have my own eyes tested._ > > _His own hair was dyed by a friend._


title: "Having to" usage

text: I am confused in the usage of "having to" in a sentence, mentioned below. Which one is correct/appropriate? > The trouble is having to backup … or > The trouble is in having to backup … I would appreciate some suggestions.


title: By taking the public relations offensive - meaning

text: > **By taking the public relations offensive** , the Russians have time and > again been two steps ahead. U.S. and Western officials, not to mention the > Kiev government, are left scrambling to debunk the rumors and fear- > mongering. As a result they are frequently playing catchup for hearts and > minds in the east. How do you understand the phrase in a bold-type font? Does it mean that they take them (the public relations) as an offensive thing, they perceive the public relations as an offense to them?


title: discreetness, secrecy

text: Is paraphrasing: > I expect you to keep this subject secret from people it does not concern. as > I'm expecting discreetness concerning this subject. a correct use of that word? How else would you formally, elegantly, subtly describe the requirement of restricting the reach of certain information (especially in noun form)? I'd prefer to avoid strict, technical language related to "classified", or "closed circulation" etc. Keep it on subtle, polite side please.


title: Like I versus Like me

text: My friend and I got into an argument about English grammar, so I was hoping maybe you could help us out. Okay so we want to know if the following part of the sentence is correct, "People who are satisfied and feel self-fulfilled like I" rather than "People who are satisfied and feel self-fulfilled like me". I have already provided many sources to my friend showing that the first way is a formal and a grammatically correct way, however he wants an answer with this specific part of the sentence. Please help us out Thank you


title: Is the phrase "I kid of course" grammatically correct?

text: Just recently, I heard someone on TV use the phrase "I kid of course". (I think it was The Big Bang Theory but I'm not very sure). Any way, is this phrase grammatically correct?


title: What does "ad-hoc" mean?

text: I read some articles that used _ad-hoc_ like an adjective. Questions:   * What exactly does it mean in this paragraph: > Needless to say, all of that is pretty painful and error prone. Sure, once > you’re familiar with a library, you’d probably just copy it from another > project instead of getting it from the web, which makes things a bit easier. > But it’s still an overall very **ad-hoc** process. — Source.   * Are there any other meanings?


title: What is the phenomenon called when we use an incorrect sensory perception to describe something?

text: My primary and most common example is to read something and say (or write) that it "sounds familiar". Text has no sound. I'm sure there is a technical term for this practice or phenomenon. What is it?


title: Is the word 'stroke' understood, in meaning one of these / \?

text: All the meanings of the word 'slash', other than an oblique forward or backward stroke are either violent or obscene. They include cuts made with swords, lashing with a whip, cutting maliciously car tyres with a knife, and in Britain the act of male urination (I have never heard it applied to a female). Hence I find the word when used in its now everyday sense of a small inoffensive printed stroke (which is American in origin) unpleasantly resonant. I tend therefore to use the time-honoured British nomenclature of _stroke_ , _forward stroke_ , and _backward stroke_. Does everyone understand that?


title: Perception of subjects with indeterminate gender

text: Being German, I am used to getting information about the gender of a sentence's subject in the same sentence: > Meine Freundin mag Bücher. Here it is immediately clear that it's a _female_ friend of mine who likes books. In English, however, many nouns do not imply a certain gender (which makes a lot of things so much easier): > My friend likes books. How is such a sentence perceived by a native English speaker? I'm particularly interested in the case where such a sentence is part of a story, where the reader is likely to visualize the sentence's action mentally. Personally, I tend to imagine the subject as being male (this might be due to male profession titles and pronouns being the de-facto standard in German texts, even if the texts are not gender specific). This leads to surprises in situations like this one: > My friend likes books. She owns many of them. Do native English speakers experience a similar surprise? (Note that this works for both genders, i.e. a female reader might be surprised if "He" owns many of them) If not, what happens instead? **Edit:** Several answers point out that the same issue exists with other attributes (age, race, ...). However, in my experience, these attributes are either not fixed at all during a story (so we're fine to imagine them anyway we want) or comply with the stereo-types we have for the story's cultural environment (so the chance is high that we imagine the "right" thing). Gender, on the other hand, is almost always fixed for a story's characters, and very hard to guess in a more modern and western setting.


title: Where to put the adverb in passive sentences?

text: While writing another question on this site, I was uncertain about placement of adverbs in passive sentences. > It shouldn't **frequently be used** in the context of immaterial things. > > It shouldn't **be frequently used** in the context of immaterial things. I have two verbs, _be_ and _used_. Should I place the adverb _frequently_ to the left, or in between?


title: You right/you are right

text: I often encounter people saying "you right" instead of "you are right". Is it correct? UPDATE. I meant I often encounter things like "yes, you right" in written form.


title: What does "famously absent" mean?

text: What does the term "famously absent" mean? I was reading the wiki article about Ward Lamon and saw it in there: > Ward Hill Lamon (January 6, 1828 - May 7, 1893) was a personal friend and > self-appointed bodyguard of the American President Abraham Lincoln. Lamon > was **famously absent** the night Lincoln was assassinated, having been sent > by Lincoln to Richmond, Virginia.


title: Yes, no, adverbs, and interjections

text: There appears to be some disagreement over what function _yes_ and _no_ perform in the following sentences:   1. _Yes_ , you are right.   2. _No_ , you are mistaken. According to ODO (yes, no), they are being used as _exclamations_ which are presumably the same as _interjections_. Webster (yes, no) and Macmillan (yes, no), on the other hand, reckon that they are _adverbs_. Wiktionary (yes, no) chucks another spanner by stating that _yes_ is being used as an _adverb_ while _no_ is being used as an _interjection_. Wiktionary also links to a Wikipedia article on "yes and no" which seemingly disagrees with both options. > The words _yes_ and _no_ are not easily classified into any of the eight > conventional parts of speech. **Although sometimes classified as > interjections, they do not qualify as such, and they are not adverbs.** They > are sometimes **classified as a part of speech in their own right** , > sentence words, word sentences, or pro-sentences, although that category > contains more than yes and no and not all linguists include them in their > lists of sentence words. Sentences consisting solely of one of these two > words are classified as minor sentences. So, which, if anything, is it and why is opinion so divided?


title: Abbreviating names that start with a vowel

text: What are the rules about abbreviating names that start with a vowel? Would abbreviating "Alanis Morissette" to "A. Morissette" be correct or should it be "Al. Morissette"?


title: Are "should've", "could've", etc. valid short forms of "should have", "could have"?

text: This is interesting - if I write " **should've** " (for " **should have** "), my spell checker underlines the word. Same happens if I do " **could've** " (for " **could have** "). I use these forms but I'm starting to question if there even is such form and if I'm using English correctly? I also noticed that " **I've** " (for " **I have** ") doesn't get underlines by the spell checker, but " **things've** " (for " **things have** ") does. Can anyone explain this?


title: Is "nowadays" the same as "today"?

text: When helping an Italian speaker with her written homework, a cover letter, I told her to change the expression _nowadays_ to that of _today_. Her original sentence was the following: > I would be delighted to work for your company, as it is one of the most > important software companies nowadays. She asked why it was better to change that expression. I said it didn't sound "right". She looked at me quizzically, so I mumbled something about it being a question of register and collocation but frankly, I'm not sure. I had better add that she wants to sit the Cambridge English exam Advanced, CAE, so I was wondering whether an examiner would look unfavourably on the expression. Moreover, I would like to know if _nowadays_ is considered a compound word? Until today, I thought it was made up of three words; _now, a_ and _days_. But etymonline tells me that it was originally two words: **_now_** and **_adayes_**. _Adayes_ used to mean "during the day", which I think is lovely and I wish it would make a comeback. In any case, did the hyphenated form, _now-adayes_ ever existed? I know there is a similar question on ELU to this one, "Nowadays" vs "today" but it hasn't really answered any of my questions.


title: Come on, don’t be such a nimrod!

text: According to the OED, the word English **_Nimrod_** is derived from the Hebrew, where in Genesis 10:8–9 he is described as ‘a mighty one in the earth’ and ‘a mighty hunter before the Lord’. It is apparently still a popular name in Israel. This would match the OED’s definitions: >   1. A tyrannical ruler; a tyrant. _Obs_. >   2. A great hunter; one who is fond of, or given to, hunting. > But you never hear it used that way any longer. Now it’s become some sort of slang that means something more like dunce or idiot or jerk. While I doubt that PETA was involved, I still would like to know what the exact history is that lies behind this new anti-hunter motif?


title: Meaning of "reductio ad Hitlerum"

text: Can anyone explain what _reductio ad Hitlerum_ means in simple English with examples? I tried reading the Wikipedia article but it didn't help.


title: Analysis stage vs analysis phase

text: I need to report the progress of my work, when I am analysing a problem, which is the correct expressions to synthesize my current status ? >   1. At analysis stage >   2. At analysis phase >   3. Other ? >


title: Short expression for "If you are not 100% convinced yet, this last thing will seal the deal"

text: I'm writing a LinkedIn recommendation for a colleague of mine. I praised his abilities far and wide; now I would like to throw in one last (ironic and informal) punch line to top it all off. Here is what I have so far: > _You know how they say that if you want something done, you should ask the > busiest person in the office to do it? This is the reason why Andrea is my > favorite go-to guy for all of my data digging and reporting needs. Always > working long hours, he still takes the time to patiently listen to me and > assist me with whatever problem I have and, what’s more, he always does it > with a smile. Quick, reliable and helpful, Andrea is also – and by far – the > most polite and good-natured guy around. I am always at ease working with > him._ Now I want to add something like: > _What seals the deal? He keeps a huge stash of candies in the first drawer > of his desk, for everyone to take._ Does that make any sense, or is the use of the expression "to seal the deal" inappropriate? What other choices do I have? Please feel free to add any comment (also regarding the first part of the letter) if you wish.


title: Meaning of "reach out to somebody"

text: The dictionary explains this as: > To show somebody that you are interested in them and/or want to help them The explanation indicates the subject of the sentence is the one that offers help, but I think this one is also correct: > I'll try it first, and if I can't handle it, I'll reach out to you for help. I am confused about who offers help because I saw my native speaker colleague write this in an email: > Thanks for reaching out to me. Is this a "thanks" for helping or being asked to help?


title: How can I practice pronouncing "Coke" so it is not mistaken for another word?

text: I always fear my conversation sounds like this: > — What would you like to drink, sir?   >  — I will take some cock, thanks.   >  — _ROFL_. Any tips on how to pronounce _Coke_ so it is not mistaken for anything? :)


title: Is it necessary to use “the” before using verb

text: 'The' is usually used before a noun. But in sentences that refer to specific action, is 'the' necessary? Example: > The release of the bending moment results in opening and closing of the > pipe.


title: Trying to figure out proper form of "that" in sentence

text: I currently have the sentence "Seahorses are the only fish that practice steadfast monogamy." to tree diagram for class, and cannot freakin' figure out what the word "that" would be used as in this sentence. Please help! Thanks. If you could also throw out a diagram of the sentence that'd be great.


title: Difference between 'As compared to' and 'When compared to'

text: Is there any rule governing when the phrase "As compared to..." should be used, and when "When compared to..." should be used? Or, do they mean the same, in all contexts?


title: "Met" vs. "met up"

text: Do these two terms mean two different things? as in: > I met up with Julie when I went to town/I met Julie when I went to town.


title: Why do we not include a possessive in "thank you for coming", and include one in "thank you for *your* kindness"?

text: Why is it more correct to say "thank you for coming" than "thank you for your coming," but it's okay to say "thank you for your kindness," rather than "thank you for kindness"?


title: Why do people use "..." in emails after people's names? For example, "Mike... "

text: What does this "..." mean in emails? For example, > "Mike...You are always welcome to come to our social event."


title: What are the words that can't exist without their prefix or suffix?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What do you call words that look like a negation but are not? I found these poor orphaned words that only exist through the life-giving quality of their affix: ## feck _less_ , ruth _less_ , _un_ ruly, _in_ ept, _dis_ hevelled, _dis_ mayed, _dis_ gruntled I'm sure there are more. They have the familiar appearance of antonyms... Antonyms to something that doesn't exist. It's as if they've lost their positive attitude. Do these words have a common name? How did they get this way? They all have standard english affixes with known meaning, so it seems like they should be able to stand on their own. Were the original words lost? Is there a list of these recognized words somewhere?


title: How did the definite / indefinite articles develop?

text: Russian, I believe, has no definite or indefinite article. How did it develop in Latin languages, particularly English? Would English be much poorer without it?


title: Phrase for habitual scoffing at someone & then asking for his help

text: In our cultural language we say that `he always spit & then lick the same spot`... at least something like this. However, can I get some convenient phrase for such a person habit.


title: 'they are' or 'these are'

text: Which sentence sounds more natural? These are first and foremost ethical, not medical questions. or They are first and foremost ethical, not medical questions.


title: The pronunciation of "ate"

text: I was talking to some friends and I said "I ate (/et/) chocolate yesterday...". Then my friend corrected me: "you ate (/eit/) chocolate...". I repeated my sentence with the /eit/ pronunciation and we moved on. But later at home I checked some dictionaries and online debates on the subject, and now I'd like to know if it's possible or not to pronounce _ate_ as /et/ rather than /eit/.


title: Beautiful novels

text: Putting aside the wonderful realm of Middle-Earth and many other values, The Lord of the Rings and Tolkien's other works are written in a very beautiful English. What are other novels/stories that you find exciting because of its language?


title: What's the difference between these terms: old-fashioned, out of fashion,unfashionable and outdated?

text: What’s the difference between _old-fashioned_ , _out of fashion_ , _unfashionable_ and _outdated?_   * She wears old-fashioned clothes.   * She wears unfashionable clothes.   * She wears outdated clothes.   * The clothes she wears are out of fashion.


title: Some prepositions - confusion

text: Please can you tell me which of the two prepositions in the examples below are correct? Is it possible to use both of them? Thanks! :) > Translate text **into** German / Translate text **to** German > > It started to snow **at** Christmas / It started to snow **during** > Christmas > > To ring Kitty **up** / To ring Kitty > > It starts **about** eight / It starts **around** eight > > To travel **around** Europe / To travel **through** Europe > > He looked **about** himself / He looked **around** himself > > To give a speech **about** / To give a speech **on**


title: Pronunciation of letter y: asylum vs syrup

text: I want someone to clarify if there is a rule about how to pronounce the letter Y I've read in another stackexchange post that when it is in a Greek-origin word it is pronounced as uh e.g. _analysis_ , _paralysis_. However in another Greek-origin word, _asylum_ , it is pronounced as i while the in the latin word _syrup_ it is pronounced as /i/.


title: How to properly build the "article is <some words> deletable/creatable?" question?

text: I have a minimum limit number, `1`, a maximum limit number, `10`, an "entity", `article`, and a question whose **answer** should state (one between _true_ or _false_ ) if the number of current `articles` exceeded the minimum limit or the maximum limit of allowed `articles`, `...`. _Technically_ speaking, I'm trying to write questions like `article is <some words> "deletable"?` and `article is <some words> "creatable"?` (note: one of my requisites is that the way I'd like to "build" questions is that _each question should refer to a **single** `article` with the verb **to be_** ). In the above case, for both questions, the `<some words>` value I came up with might be "the last", but I think it doesn't properly ask for **answer** I am looking for. So, what `<some words>` can I use?


title: Suggest some word

text: Can someone suggest a list of words used for a single thing (robot, machine, website, human, etc.) that can do multiple operations? I am searching for a word that I can use for something that do many thing alone. I want it for website name.


title: List of plural names of currencies?

text: Is anyone aware of a list of plural names of currencies? I don't really care what conventions are used; I just want to avoid using an obviously wrong plural form.


title: English Syntax Rules Based on Word Choice

text: I was reading the Wikipedia article on Animacy and came across something I found to be very interesting: > The higher animacy a referent has, the less preferable it is to use the > preposition of for possession, as follows (this can also be interpreted in > terms of alienable versus inalienable possession): > > _My face is correct_ , while _the face of me_ is not. > > _The man's face_ and _the face of the man_ are both correct, and the former > is preferred. > > _The clock's face_ and _the face of the clock_ are both correct, and the > latter is preferred. It is really interesting to me that there are two different ways of writing the same thing, and the ideal way is based almost entirely on animacy. Are there any other similar types of characteristics in the English language (where there are multiple ways of writing the same thing, and one becomes more "correct" based on a property of one of the words in the phrase)? Also, is there a name for this field of study, or available resources for someone interested in learning more about this? I'm interested in this to help teach ESL students different things like this which native speakers innately know (having to do with the structure of a sentence), but don't realize they know.


title: Which English accent works satisfactorily for speech recognition?

text: According to “Google iPhone voice-recognition tool baffled by British accents”, mobile phones have trouble recognizing speech. Which accent (probably US) works satisfactorily? Are there any resources like videos that demonstrate an accent that works well?


title: slip rate dependent friction - hyphen needed?

text: Should I put a hyphen for friction that depends on slip rate? Possibilities: > slip rate-dependent friction or > slip-rate dependent friction or > slip rate dependent friction The last one seems to be most widely used, however, I have also seen the first and the second in a few papers.


title: What does ‘Reverse fig leaf” mean?

text: I was interested in the word, “Reverse fig leaf” in an article titled, “Should Germans read ‘Mein Kampf” appearing in New York Times (July 7), which deals with the planned publication of Adolf Hitler’s ‘Mein Kamp” in Germany due to expiration of the copy right held by the state of Bavaria in 2015. It reads: > “(Facing an outcry among academic and in Bavarian Legislature) in an awkward > dance, Mr. Seehofer’s government was forced to reconsider its > reconsideration. It agreed to leave the money in place while withholding its > government seal of approval (for release). This **reverse fig leaf** may or > may not mollify opponent, who thought they had stopped the book. > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/opinion/should-germans-read-mein- > kampf.html?_r=0 I know "fig leaf" has biblical origin and means a hasty / inadequate cover-up for something shameful, but I never heard of the word, “reverse fig leaf.” Google Ngram shows growing currency of ‘fig leaf’ at 0.00000912% in 2008, but no track of “reverse fig leaf.” If we reverse a fig leaf, we’re gonna disclose or publish a hidden object, secret, or shame. How can I define “reverse fig leaf” precisely? Is it just an incidental combination of adjective, “reverse” and a figurative “fig leaf,” or a set of word to be applicable to many other instances, for instance, "Japanese Prime Minister, Abe’s latest decision to authrize the nation’s Collective Defense Right is a **reverse fig leaf** of the existence and nature of Japanese Defense Force under the pacifist Constitution prohibiting its engagement in any kind of wars."?


title: What is the exact meaning of manifestation?

text: I am unsure why my professor is using the word **manifestations** for example here > Biochemical manifestations of apoptosis. Activation of caspase family, DNA > and protein breakdown, and Membrane alteration facilitating the recognition > by macrophages. I think the manifestations these _manifestations_ are only processes in the apoptosis. **What is the definition of manifestation?** **What is a better word for a manifestation?** I think just a process.


title: What does "Merlin's beard!" mean?

text: I know that **Merlin's beard!** is an exclamation from Harry Potter which is similar to "Oh Lord!". and it is a common wizarding expression used to show surprise. Can we use it this expression in the muggle world? I just wanted to know whether it is a proper exclamation which has its own origin and what is the literal meaning of this? Are there any other exclamations like this?


title: Irregular plurals. Leathermans or Leathermen?

text: Which plural do you use for a word that should have a regular plural but ends with a word that has its own irregular one? The example that made me ask was "leatherman" (the multitool) but there are plenty of others.


title: What is a common expression in English that a person might say when one suddenly got shocked by sound?

text: What is a common expression in English that a person might say, when one suddenly got shocked by sound? For example, while a woman was walking on the sidewalk in a dark place, she suddenly heard someone yelled at her "DON'T MOVE!". what is likely going to be the first word or phrase that comes out her mouth? And what would you say to the person who yelled at you, if you recognized immediately that the person is your brother or sister.


title: What is the name for the male version of a nymphomaniac?

text: A nymphomaniac is the word which signifies a woman with uncontrolled sexual desires. What is the best word to describe a man who demonstrates similar characteristics?


title: What does "...considered to be, well, school" mean here? Does "..., well, ..." change it's meaning?

text: In Time magazine (March 5) article titled, “The New SAT: America treats its language like garbage,” John McWhorter, an associate professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University rebuts former University of California president Richard Atkinson’s speech to support exclusion of big words from SAT as follows: > “(In his 2001 speech) He described seeing schoolchildren studying verbal > analogies such as “untruthful is to mendaciousness is as circumspect is to > caution” in preparation for the SAT. Atkinson’s implication was that this > was as depressing a sight as the kids being taught alchemy. But there was a > time when what Atkinson saw was considered to be, well, **school**.” > > http://time.com/14135/sat-vocabulary-big-words-english-language/ I am unfamiliar with the usage of “school” used in this manner. For instance, OED carries 5 different ways of definitions of ‘school’ as a noun including   1. An institution for educating children:   2. The buildings used by a school:   3. The pupils and staff of a school:   4. A style, approach, or method of a specified character:   5. A group of people, particularly writers, artists, or philosophers, sharing similar ideas or methods: But none of the above definitions seems to be applicable to the line, "there was a time when what Atkinson saw was considered to be school.” I doubt if the writer was confident of the use of ‘school’ in this context as he injected “well” before ‘school.” What does ‘school” mean in the above quote? Does the word, ‘school’ have the meaning of “main school / stream"?


title: What does “draw something within something” mean?

text: From page 228 of _Thinking Like a Lawyer_ by Frederick Schauer: > The law is presumed unconstitutional, but the state may rebut that > presumption by satisfying a heavy burden of justification. Conversely, when > a statute **draws** a classification **within** this category of “suspect” > classifications, it is presumed to be constitutionally permissible and will > be invalidated only if the challenger meets its burden of proving that the > classification is irrational. This doesn't appear in the legal dictionary or at http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/draw?q=draw or Google.


title: What does “which” refer to in “in respect to which”?

text: From footnote 34 on page 216 of _Thinking Like a Lawyer_ by Frederick Schauer: > . . . it is accepted that individuals have due-process rights to notice and > hearing [//]   >  with respect to adjudicative facts that will produce adverse consequences > to them, [//]   >  but not to legislative facts that will produce adverse consequences to them > [//]   >  only in respect to **which** they are members of a class adversely affected > by the legislative rule. What’s the antecedent of _which_ here? That flummoxes me. I’ve purposely separated clauses with [//] to help make sense of the sentence.


title: How to parse these two long (subordinate) clauses connected with 'that'?

text: From footnote 8 on page 205 of _Thinking Like a Lawyer_ by Frederick Schauer: > Supplemented context: There are, of course, controversies about and > challenges to these venerable distinctions as well, some but not all of > which come from perspectives loosely labeled as “postmodern.” And it is true > that many purported descriptions have a normative element to them, with > values being smuggled in under the cover of purported neutral description. > > Nevertheless, it is sufficiently implausible to insist that there is no > difference between “John fired a gun whose bullet entered Mary’s heart and > caused her death” and “John ought to go to prison for murdering Mary” `that` > allegedly sophisticated challenges to any of the distinctions in the text > need not detain us any further here. Would someone please explain or unravel? I understand the last (subordinate) clause as comprising these parts:   * subject: _allegedly sophisticated challenges to any of the distinctions in the text_   * verb phrase: _need not detain_   * predicate _us any further here._ Yet how does the greyed _that_ connect all this to the first subordinate clause “Nevertheless, it . . . for murdering Mary”? I can endure the meaning of the two clauses, but am confused by the meaning of this entire sentence.


title: A single word for someone who is not pleased no matter how hard you try

text: I'm looking for a word that means > someone (especially a boss) who is not pleased (with your work, attitude > etc.) no matter how hard you try.


title: "That" between "thought" and "could"

text: Is > It was me that Mr. Jones thought could do it. correct? Is _that_ required between _thought_ and _could_?


title: Use of "Sure" in reply to help offering  and to appreciation

text: In American English, "sure" is often heard in reply to offering help or expressing appreciation. I was wondering if it may not be a good choice? For example,   1. > \- Would you like a cup of water? - Sure. Is it correct that "sure" here does not have any meaning similar to thanks in advance? I would say "Yes, please". Even sometimes "Yes, please. Thanks!" Using "sure" makes me feel that others might think I take their help for granted.   2. > \- Thank you so much! - Sure. Is "sure" here used to emphasize that appreciation is required or highly expected? I would think "You are welcome" or "My pleasure" are less demanding. In general, how shall one use "sure" in an acceptable way? What kinds of occasions can it be used, and when better not?


title: Understanding appositives and the use of the m-dash ( — )

text: My understanding of a dash is that it sets off a lengthy appositive, but can also be used to introduce a summary. Consider the following passage from Stephan Jay Gould: > If evolution worked explicitly for species, then we could soften the blow of > Darwin's radicalism. The transition from God's overt beneficence _toward_ > species to evolution's direct operation _on_ species permits a soft landing > in transferring allegiance from creationism to evolution—for the central > focus on "higher" good as raison d'etre remains unchanged From what little I know about grammar, an appositive has to be either a noun, or a noun phrase. Am I correct, then, that "for the central...unchanged" is **not** an appositive, and that Gould is using the dash to set off a summary to the preceding independent clause? (I'm not trying to over-analyse any writer's grammar, just learn the rules for myself :))


title: Can the word 'aggregation' be used to mean a collection of people?

text: I'm wondering if one can use the word "aggregation" to mean a _team_ or a _collaboration_ of sorts, or even a certain collection of individuals in general, not just objects. Any thoughts?