title: What are some colloquial English expressions for comparing hot/cold weather to something else?

text: I'm looking for colloquial expressions that compare hot, cold, and wet weather to something else. For example, “It’s hotter than two goats in a pepper patch”, “Colder than a witch’s tit”, etc. Often these expressions use a superlative formula, such as “Hotter than [X]” or “Cold enough [to do Y]” or “Wet as [Z]”. Some make statements about cause and effect, such as “It’s so cold [X event could happen]”. I'm especially interested in examples that have widespread or historical usage. Something you’ve heard different people say, or something your grandparents used to say - not something you just made up. This is for an art project, focusing on expressions from the United State and Ireland, in English and Gaelic, but will include expressions from other languages as long as an English translation is included. Thanks in advance for any help!


title: What is the deeper meaning of the phrase "as I was just saying to X"?

text: This is the scenario I'm thinking of. Person A talks to person B about something. Then person C joins them. For some reason Person A says something to Person C that they were just talking about with person B. They preface it with "As I was just saying to B...". If person B weren't within earshot they wouldn't say it. I've only my own experience to go on, but this isn't an unusual thing for me to hear. I'm in the SE of the UK. What is the meaning behind those words? I have my own theory, but I'd like to hear yours.


title: Golf Define "Rolling Draw"

text: In the context of golf, what does "rolling draw" mean? I do not having an example sentence unfortunately, but other words in the same context include Walker Cup, Forecaddies, Niblick, Fairway bunkers, and Greens. I've tried both Google and Wikipedia without any luck.


title: I often say to people ''you're feeling all made up'' when they are really happy about the outcome of a situation, where does this saying come from?

text: I often use the phrase ''you feel made up'' or ''all made up'' when someone feels really happy or pleased about the outcome of something or how things have gone. Where does the meaning for this come from?


title: What do you call a web advert that obscures page content forcing you to look at it?

text: When you visit certain annoying websites, as soon as they load, they display a full-page advert that blocks the content. And you usually have to click "Skip ad" or similar to get rid of it. Is there a name for that kind of ad? * * * **Clarification** : I don't mean those banner ads that expand when you roll over them, partially obscuring page content... I mean the big ads that appear **before you see any content** , when you first open a web page, almost like a splash screen. Sometimes they disappear after a few seconds, and sometimes you have to click to skip past them.


title: Is there a name/term for phrasing something such that to disagree implicates yourself?

text: For example: > Now available in all good stores. . . where to not agree to stock an item suggests that your store is not good, or: > All rational people agree that. . . where to refuse to agree suggests that you are not rational, or: > Those who can, teach. (a slogan used for encouraging people to become teachers) which suggests that if you aren't _teaching_ a subject you are implicitly "worse" at that subject. Obviously, all of these are subtle phrasing tricks that may be used casually or quite deliberately. Is there a term for this type of phrasing?


title: What expression do you use in a CV if you have redone something?

text: I am writing my CV at the moment and I am at a tricky part. I have redone a software for a company and I want to include this in my CV. I have in my CV: "Erstellung eines Warenwirtschaftssystems in Visual Basic", although even this does not quite cover this. They had an old system using Basic or something and I used a modern language, Visual Basic (don't trash me on that — I was young and needed money). What would be the expression in correct English?


title: Why do we brew beer but make wine?

text: Why not brew wine and make beer? Non native speaker so I can't fully discern the difference. Thanks.


title: Can the Future Perfect be used in a main clause of a conditional sentence that has a stative/non-action verb in the if-clause?

text: A student asked me this question today about a sentence like: _(1) If Canada's population is 40 million, the Canadian economy will have been more dynamic._ I was asked if it corresponded, in a future conditional sense, to the third conditional sentence _(2) If Canada's population had been 40 million, the Canadian economy would have been more dynamic._ To me, sentence #1 sounds utterly ungrammatical, and my tentative theory is that the ungrammaticality is because of the **stative/non-action** verb in the if-clause. I can come up with unusual--but grammatical--sentences using Future Perfect in the main clause and a Simple Present **action verb** in the if- clause, such as _If she agrees to marry me, we will have lived together for a year by next Christmas._ But I have not been able to dream up a corresponding, grammatical example that uses a **stative/non-action verb** in the if-clause, nor can I think of a way to transpose the meaning of #2 (third conditional) to #1. I need some help with this, and my search of umpteen grammar reference books, Google, and the ELU archives has not helped. Please enlighten me.


title: When to use "I was ... " and when "I had been ... "?

text: I guess it's about simple past vs. past perfect usage but some examples are welcomed, I'm really not sure if I understand it correctly. EDIT: Right, probably I should be more specific. The thing is currently I'm reading one (american) book where, of course, a narration style dominates. And yet, the main protagonist often changes a tense from "I was" to "I had been" and I simply can't figure out the rule.


title: Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray: "I wonder will you understand me?"

text: In _The Picture of Dorian Gray_ , I came across the following passage, spoken by Basil Hallward: > There is nothing that art cannot express, and I know that the work I have > done since I met Dorian Gray is good work, is the best work of my life. But > in some curious way — _**I wonder will you understand me?**_ — his > personality has suggested to me an entirely new manner in art, an entirely > new mode of style. I fail to understand the lack of a comma separating _I wonder_ and _will you understand me_. Doesn't it make it sound somewhat awkward? Or is it part of Wilde's style? Or perhaps simply a printing error, which survived through successive editions? Googling the sentence only returns pages quoting _The Picture of Dorian Gray_ , hence bringing little information. Can someone explain this to me?


title: I thought "spare me with ..." means "don't bother me with the details of ...". Does it?

text: But according to my friend I am wrong. What do you think?


title: Pronunciation of "Oceania" in British English

text: How is _Oceania_ properly pronounced in British English? Is it /ˌəʊʃɪˈɑːnɪə/, or /ˌəʊʃɪˈɑːnə/? I know a lot of people who use the latter, but I have always been taught the former.


title: Is there an online sample sentence database or search engine?

text: Sometime, I am not sure if I use a specific word correctly. I would like to get some sample sentences to learn from. So, is there a online sample sentence database/search engine?


title: Single word for feeling bad about feeling bad

text: There arises situations when at first we feel bad about something and then later we feel bad about _feeling bad_ in the first place about that something. I don't exactly remember the situation I was in, but I do remember having this feeling. **EDIT:** "feeling bad" means the opposite of "feeling good" (about something) or "good feeling" (about something). **NOT** naughty, ill or ashamed.


title: What does “Lose the whiny entitled air” mean after the sentence “Say, ‘could you warm the soup up,’ Not, ‘How dare you serve me cold soup!’”?

text: There was the following sentence in New York Times’ (May 3rd) article titled, “Complaining is hard to avoid, but try to do it with a purpose,” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/your-money/the-satisfaction-and-annoyance- of-complaining.html?_r=0 And I stumbled on the ending phrase “Lose the whiny entitled air.” > “Instead of using a complaint as a conversation opener, he (Will Bowen, an > ordained minister who has written the book “A Complaint Free World”) > suggested, “talk to them about something good or positive.” > > He is not arguing that you can’t note when something is wrong. He says you > should just do it directly in a neutral manner to the person responsible, > not to everyone around you and not with a voice of outrage. > > “Say, ‘The soup is cold, and could you warm it up,’ ” said Mr. Bowen, “Not, > ‘how dare you serve me cold soup!’ ” **Lose the whiny entitled air.** As I wasn't able to understand what “ **Lose the whiny entitled air** " means, and its connection with the preceding line, I first looked for the idiom “lose the air” in both Cambridge and Oxford online dictionaries in vain. Questions:   1. Is “Lose the whiny entitled air,” here an imperative form? Can we order someone to “lose the air”?   2. If this is not an imperative form, what is the subject of this phrase?   3. How is “Lose the whiny entitled air” connected with the preceding sentence, “Say, ‘the soup is cold, and could you warm it up,’ ”? To me it doesn’t flow smoothly.   4. In essence, what does “Lose the whiny entitled air” mean?


title: Cipher vs. Cypher

text: I recently came across a (not very well written) piece of writing in which "cipher" and "cypher" were used interchangeably. Is there any difference between them, or are they two spellings of the exact same word? If so, is it similar to the difference between "gray" and "gray", where one is more common in a certain geographic area?


title: What would be a proper alternative word or phrase for "social network", but have the same impact or meaning?

text: What people normally first think in my opinion when they hear "social network". What else could you say apart from social network?


title: How should we treat a plural term that refers to singular term?

text: I'd like to better understand why is the following grammatical: > One of the problems is flags. Here _flags_ refers to the flagging system. However, _flags_ is plural and the flagging system is singular. I would consider the following alternatives grammatical: > One of the problems is the flagging system.   >  **This is the actual meaning.**   >  One of the problems is the flagging.   >  This would be best option if the problem is in the _process_ of flagging.   >  One of the problems is caused by the flags.   >  Best if the problem was with displaying the actual flags, but avoids the > _[singular] is [plural]_ pattern.   >  One of the problems is “flags”.   >  Quoted to denote unusual usage. The original is semantically clear to me, but I am unsure if it is grammatically correct. * * * NOTE: This is related to the following question and this answer. There is already a short answer there, but I wanted more details and references to grammatical rules that govern this case (so I can further explore on my own) and thought it would be noise over there.


title: a word for water after it falls

text: Is there a word ( noun ) that refers to the condition/ place at the base of a waterfall where the water that has fallen over upsurges upon hitting the bottom and rolls back on itself before continuing downstream ? I watched a child's ball caught in this, rolling on itself unable to float further with the flow.


title: Why do 'organization' and 'organisation' both seem to be commonly accepted spellings, and when is one used over the other?

text: Looking at several online dictionary resources, it seems that the accepted spelling of "organization" is with a 'z', however, even on this site, "organisation" is frequently used as the spelling. Why the difference, and when is it appropriate to use one over the other? **EDIT** : Here is a link to the Oxford Dictionary article, just for ease of reference: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/organization?q=organisation The link for the non-American-English article as well: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/organization


title: Historical use of 'repetitive' and 'repetitious' in BE/AE

text: Two oddities (I think so, anyway) I've just now stumbled across with the ngram viewer:   * In 18th century American English, things got very repetitive. Is there an historical reason that books written in that era show such a large spike in use of the words?   * What happened in 2002 that caused such a dramatic turnaround in use of 'repetitive' in British English? I cannot think of an exact synonym, nor any particular reason. Am I reading to much into these? They both seem statistically (without actually running any numbers) significant to me - especially the latter.


title: What's the meaning of "endorse" here?

text: What's the meaning of _endorse_ here? > A visa is a document showing that a person is authorized to enter the > territory for which it was issued, subject to permission of an immigration > official at the time of actual entry. The authorization may be a document, > but more commonly it is a stamp **endorsed** in the applicant's passport. The closest definition I find from AHD is: to place (one's signature), as on a contract, to indicate approval of its contents or terms. Could it also be applied here?


title: Will grammar errors become correct after enough people use them for enough time?

text: First let me state the obvious—based on my own experience—that hordes of people are confused about certain basic grammar principles. For example, I so often see mistakes in choosing the pronoun to use with direct objects, especially when introduced by _and_ with another person, as in "Joe talked about the book with Anna and [I/me]." Another one is the near 100% usage of "lay" instead of "lie" (and "laid" instead of "lay") nowadays, even in published sci-fi books that most certainly had professional editors proofread them. Do you see these kinds of changes as predictors of the future? Will they become correct after enough people have used them long enough? Both of these problems drive me bonkers, and I fight my own little battle against them when possible. I know that dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive. They're technically history books. But grammar and style books seem less so, to me. Those seem as though they ought to be prescriptive in order to reduce the erosion of structured and meaningful language. In this tension between "what people are doing" and "what people should be doing," are we doomed to forever bear these errors just because too many people don't know the proper way? Is it worth fighting against them? Do I capitulate to the people who are quick to accept any mass public usage as a fait accompli? **Update** I don't imagine for a second that my own writing is error free. The difference with me is that when I do learn I have something wrong in my mind, I immediately change once I clearly understand it. I also am not imagining that language is static or ignorant that today's correctness is all too often yesterday's error. The whole point of my question here, then, is: **is** there value in slowing the change, and if so, how is that done and how effectively? Another way to look at what I'm trying to ask is that in a way I am hoping to define the limits of pedantry. If being pedantic is slavish adherence to outdated rules in the face of actual and foregone changed reality, then when do we conclude that a change **is** a foregone conclusion? Poking fun at my own errors to highlight supposed pedantry on my part is to miss everything I am trying to say. **Update 2** It may not be an easy question, but since language change actually does or does not happen, and every person acts with more or less intention in regards to language change, there must be an answer. What I wanted to explore is the value in efforts to teach the "proper way" vs. the opposite end of the spectrum where any new usage is not just accepted but welcome or even sought out. You know, I'm reminded of something: the conservative/liberal scale:                  |------+------+------+------+------+------|     radical              moderate             radical     liberal                                 conservative      The funny thing about those at the ends of the spectrum is that they both want things to change. The radical liberal wants language to change to something new quickly, just for the sake of newness or evolution or some other not- necessarily-realistic ideal. Similarly, the radical conservative wants things to change just as much, but back to the way it used to be, just for the sake of sameness or continuity or some other just-as-not-necessarily-realistic ideal. I'm not particularly asking where we _should_ be on this scale as that's purely subjective. I'm trying to ask about something purely practical and real-world: what is actually effective? Is language change inevitable, and how fast? Are efforts to reduce its rapid morphing either effective or worthwhile in any measure? All these things considered, what position with respect to language evolution is livable, practical, and sensible? Feel free to edit my grammar. No comment necessary. **Update 3** Something that may be of interest to both my supporters and detractors: this 'Kinetic Typography' video by Stephen Fry. I enjoyed it. I don't disagree with him, but I am not sure I am wholehearted in this lack of disagreement.


title: Term for nicknames with different first letter

text: I have an uncle Bill and an uncle Bob. Is there a term for name diminutives in which the first letter is different from the root name? There are discussions of name diminutives here and in this question, especially these comments: > There is a noticeable tendency in English to substitute a plosive (stop > consonant) for the initial consonant in forming pet-names: Dick, Bob, Bill, > Peggy, Polly. I don't know why this might be, or whether it is seen in other > languages. – Colin Fine > > Rick/Dick, Bob/Rob, Bill/Will, Polly/Molly are examples of rhyming > nicknames, and they've been around in English since the 13th century. A much > more obscure example of a "significantly different" nickname is Hudde (as in > Hudson), which was used for Richard. – JPmiaou Is there a term for this particular phenomenon -- different first letter -- compared to other nicknaming phenomena (abbreviating, adding a -y ending, etc.)?


title: How do I take a partial quotation that ends with a question mark (but not within my quote)?

text: I am in the process of writing a paper on Shakespeare's Macbeth, and I want to take a quotation from the following passage: > Which thou esteem'st the ornament of life   >  And live a coward in thine on esteem,   >  Letting "I dare not" wait upon "I would"   >  Like the poor cat i' the adage? However I only want to take the first three lines of the passage: > It is written, "Which thou esteem'st the ornament of life / And live a > coward in thine on esteem, / Letting "I dare not" wait upon "I would"... How should I punctuate the end ( _..._ )?


title: What category of words do "Rural/Urban" come into?

text: I'm trying to categorise the words Urban/Rural/Suburban etc. I liked the term "rurality" but turns out that isn't an actual word I think, and "neighbourhood type" doesn't really seem to fit the bill. I was thinking of demography but that focuses more on the population than the area. Might be a silly question but anyone?


title: What does 'live it for the best good of others mean exactly?

text: we were sent into this world for a wise and good purpose, and must do our duties without repining, take our life as we might find it, **live it for the best good of others** , and never mind about the results; they were not our affair. from _A dog's tale_ by Mark Twain


title: What are the terms for the parts of a comparative?

text: If I am comparing "thee" to "a summer's day", in other words comparing for equality a == b What are the proper terms that relate to a and b?   I'd call == the comparator, maybe a the subject.. b the object? I looked here and they only mention 'entities' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative


title: "Cherry picking" - What is the correct usage?

text: **Cherry picking** A quick Google search yields the following definitions: Definition One > Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem > to confirm a particular position, **while ignoring a significant portion of > related cases or data that may contradict that position.** Definition Two > To pick out the best, or most desirable items from a list or group, > especially to obtain some advantage or to **present something in the best > possible light** * * * My Question:   * Does the term cherry-picking _necessarily_ imply that one is ignoring significant data?   * Or does it merely imply that one is selecting the best items from a list or group?


I had a quiz and I failed because I wrote that 9.45 was "forty-five past nine" instead of "quarter to ten". I think it should have been accepted by my teacher. I searched the Internet and I found the possibility of saying so. Is it correct to say "it is forty-five past nine"?


What is the correct relative pronoun for "government"? Which of the following phrases is correct? I am writing for an American [English] audience. > The Queensland Government, who licenses several casinos, ... or > The Queensland Government, which licenses several casinos, ...


I have been thinking of this for the past couple of days. Does the sentence sound naturally because it is grammatical or is it grammatical because it sounds naturally?


title: Why is "afford" always accompanied with "can"?

text: **afford** means > " _to have enough money or time **to be able to** buy or to do something_". Why is it used with " **can** "? Why don't people simply say " _I don't afford it_ " instead of " _I can't afford it_ "? As you can see, "being able to" is hidden in the meaning of "afford". So it seems redundant to me to use it with "can". To me, " _I cannot afford this car_ " means " _I am **not able to** have enough money **to be able to** buy this car_". But " _I don't afford this car_ " makes more sense to me since it means " _I do not have enough money to be able to buy this car_ ".


title: What does Tutankhamen “died on his knees” mean?

text: Time magazine (November 4) carries an article titled, “Tutankhamen _died on his knees_ , then his body spontaneously combusted,” which is followed with the following statement: > Working together with car-crash investigators, a team of British scientists > says that the legendary pharaoh Tutankhamen died after being run over by a > chariot **while on his knees.** http://science.time.com/2013/11/04/study- > tutankhamen-died-on-his-knees-then-his-body-spontaneously- > combusted/#ixzz2jpEknncO The article adds that a theory presented last year held that the pharaoh might have died from epilepsy. What does “die on one’s knees” mean? Was he killed when he was praying on his knees in ritual, which seems to be an extremely unusual occurrence? Does it have any connection with “die / live on one’s feet / knees” in the saying, “Better to die on one’s feet than to live on one’s knees”?


title: Proper use of "what's"

text: I've seen people write a sentence like this:   * Example A: _"I'm often asked_ **_what's the story_** _behind my work."_ To me, it just seems that this reads rather poorly. I feel like it should be written as:   * Example B: _"I'm often asked_ **_what the story is_** _behind my work."_ Is there a right/wrong way here, or is this purely preference?


title: How does one mention “first class honors” and GPA correctly on a résumé?

text: On my résumé, I have the following: > \-----Bachelor of ABC, Institute of XYZ, Country----- > >> "first class honors" and GPA I can't construct this line in a way that sounds completely correct. Which of the following is the right way?   1. Graduated _with_ First Class Honors _and_ a GPA of X.   2. Graduated First Class Honors _with_ a GPA of X.   3. Graduated _with_ First Class Honors _with_ a GPA of X.   4. ... Also, should it be capitalized _first-class_ , _First-class_ , or _First Class_?


title: "Still" versus "Yet"

text: In the following sentence, is using of _yet_ correct? > Inserts settlement in a duty that needs it, in the most suitable _yet_ > available place. It seems to me that I must use _still_ instead of _yet_ but at the same time the sentence with _still_ does not sound right.


title: Is "left for heaven" a common phrase in English?

text: Is "left for heaven" a common phrase for native English speakers?


title: a phrase for "to lure and chop a turtle's head"

text: There must be a similar phrase in English, meaning to lure the target from protection (like turtle's shell) or hiding, in order to capture or kill it. My English dictionary gives "draw a snake out of its hole", but Googling suggests it is also used literally, not metaphorically. For example, someone accidentally let loose their pet snake and want to catch it back. So is this the expression that you would use? I am looking for an expression, the more compact the better.


What is the significance of the name John Doe in the 1940's?


title: Word Meaning "A single thing that's an indicator of greater overall trends"?

text: What's a word that means "a single thing or a subset of things that could be used to represent greater overall trends"? I work for a bookseller. The other day I was discussing a subset of several books that have consistently been bestsellers for the past few months. These books could be used to represent sales trends on a larger scale - something like "blue chip" books. In the conversation I referred to them as "bellwether books", but later on I doubted this was the correct usage of the word. "Bellwether" is defined as "an indicator or predictor of something". Is there a more appropriate word?


title: i have a hard time understanding / with understanding

text: have a hard time (doing smth) have a hard time with (smth) In the phrase: "have a hard time understanding" was used verb "understand" in -ing form, but "understand" is state verb and don't has -ing fom. "Understanding" is noun, so it must be used in the phrase like this "have a hard time with understanding". However, Google by requests "have a hard time understanding" and "have a hard time with understanding" gave me many results, so i don't know now that which are more correct?


title: How do you define "system" here?

text: The definition of currency is _a system of money in general use in a particular country._ Does _system_ in this context means definition #11 from Google definition? > sys·tem noun /ˈsistəm/ systems, plural > >   1. A set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole, in > particular > >   2. A set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an > interconnecting network - _the state railroad system_ - _fluid is pushed > through a system of pipes or channels_ > >   3. A set of organs in the body with a common structure or function - _the > digestive system_ >   4. The human or animal body as a whole _\- you need to get the cholesterol > out of your system_ >   5. A group of related hardware units or programs or both, esp. when > dedicated to a single application >   6. (in chronostratigraphy) A major range of strata that corresponds to a > period in time, subdivided into series >   7. A group of celestial objects connected by their mutual attractive > forces, esp. moving in orbits about a center - _the system of bright stars > known as the Gould Belt_ >   8. A set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; > an organized scheme or method - _a multiparty system of government_ - _the > public school system_ >   9. Orderliness; method - _there was no system at all in the company_ >   10. A method of choosing one's procedure in gambling >   11. A set of rules used in measurement or classification - _the metric > system_ >   12. The prevailing political or social order, esp. when regarded as > oppressive and intransigent - _don't try bucking the system_ >   13. A set of staves in a musical score joined by a brace >


title: How to refer to people and how they're related?

text: I'm trying to document an issue with an application, and I'd like to refer to the people using different words regardless of the relationship (father, son, etc.) being used. To better explain the issue, see the following: > A. Carl is the father of Oscar.   >  B. Fred is the son of Martin. I'd like to refer to A's Carl and B's Fred using the same word. I would think that they are the **_subject_** of the sentence, but is there a different word? Also, A's Oscar and B's Martin should also have a word that refers to them. Are they the **_object_** of the sentence, or is there another word?


What is one word for - endlessly spread in all directions? It may be in context of a forest.


title: "Yeah, no, I agree" meaning

text: This is a passage in the movie _The Social Network_ at 01:14:49: > Mark says: "Yeah, that reminds me, we're gonna need more money, Wardo."   >  Eduardo replies: " **Yeah, no, I agree.** More servers, more help." (Emphasis mine.) I want to know why Eduardo says "no" after "yeah". How can he use them both in the same sentence? Is this an idiom? Note that the quote is based on the subtitles, so I didn't mishear a "yeah, I know" or anything like that.


title: Does ordering make a difference?

text: I would like to know whether there is a grammatical or semantical difference between "notion of " and "-notion". I do not know what to search for to answer this question so maybe someone can help me here :-) For instance "development of a notion of IT-Infrastructure" vs. "development of an IT-Infrastructure-notion". The first one is very long and doggerel, but the second one is maybe wrong/not good style. In other words: I need a section title where I develop (extract literature, derive facts, ...) a notion or understanding of the term IT Infrastructure. What would be a correct one?


title: A word or phrase for something that seems modern but comes surprisingly from the past?

text: A few examples of this "future in the past" phenomenon: >   * SR-71 Blackbird aircraft (1964). >   * Douglas C. Engelbart's "Mother of All Demos" (1968). >   * World's Fair: Columbian Exposition (1893). >   * Huge telescopes over a century old with crystal clear optics, Nikola > Tesla's inventions, WW II technologies, Bathyscaphe Trieste's deepest dive > record of 35,800 feet (1953), this "time traveler"—the list goes on… > If there is no such word or phrase, how can this be described?


title: Do people in Miami really talk like they do in the television series "Dexter"?

text: as I'm far from being good English speaker, I use to watch series to improve my skills. I'm fan of various genres, from Star Trek to How I Met Your Mother and I can say until now, I felt "aligned" with it, meaning I knew why such and such grammar was used, when it was slang, shorter form etc. Just recently I've picked up Dexter, nice one btw, and I can't stop wondering. People there (actors) speak completely different than what I was used to listen to. I don't mean accent or pronunciation (although I can see differences here, too) like in thread Why are movies so hard to understand (and what can you do about it)? but more like the actual (lack of) grammar. For example, people many times skip words ("[are] You [willing to] be there?" or "See [you] tomorrow?") and what was most surprising for me, they rarely use past and future tenses. So instead of let's say "You have had a fight?" actor just asks "You fighting?" or instead of "Have you you told her that?" just "You tell her?" or similar (yes, it's often combined with mentioned skipping of some words). So my question is, is it really some kind of Miami slang (with influence of immigrants from Cuba who don't speak so well English) or it's just the series or it's just me being completely wrong?


title: Could you name some numbers that have a special meaning in English, like 666?

text: The question "What does the term “86'd” relate to?" made me wonder what similar cases we have in English. I'd like to know some other numbers that have a commonly understood meaning beyond their use as a mere number. I have seen "666" used many times with a special meaning. It is written on fences, and used in US movies like "The Exorcism of Emily Rose": I believed that its meaning is commonly known. However, I was bewildered by an answer contending that the meaning of "666" was unknown. Is 666 commonly understood? (For example, in Russian, the number 7 symbolises luck, if anyone knows any Russian.)


title: Pronouncing "A": "ai" vs. "ah"

text: There are words where we say _A_ as _Ai_ , and say _A_ as _Ah_. First I thought there were some sentences where it sounds better then the other. However, when Koreans say _Amen_ they say it as "Ah-men", and I keep hearing Americans say it as "Ai-men". What is the reason for this?


title: What's the name of a large curly brace?

text: I'm looking for a particular element for a project and I'm not sure what to google. What's the name of that large brace that is used to group items together? A crude Paint rendition: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/DO7lC.png)


title: "I had a dinner" vs. "I was having a dinner"

text: A friend of mine showed a video on her Facebook wall post. She posted this: > I had a dinner with Chinese friends, I was happy at that moment!! Should it be "I was having a dinner" instead of "I had a dinner"?


What's the meaning of **Pioneers Often Die with Arrows in their Backs** I mean i can roughly gauge it to be the first to move dies, but why **arrows in the backs** ?


title: The usage of "being" in passive voice

text: I was reading the following sentence on the Internet and did not understand the usage of "being" in it: > They might have been being thrown away. "They" refers to spoons here. I guess it is the passive usage. Can someone elaborate and give more examples?


title: "Download from" vs. "download off"

text: >   * I usually download music **off** the web. >   * I usually download music **from** the web. > What is the difference in between _off_ and _from_ in these sentences? Which one is more suitable in this context?


title: the usage of "otherwise"

text: In this article, I don't quite understand the following sentence: > Instead of bothering to sort out that little difficulty, let's see why it is > in fact enough to let B be the set of all bilinear functions to R, > **otherwise** known as bilinear forms. I looked up into the dictionary, but none of the entries can resolve my confusion: > What does " **otherwise** " mean in this context?


title: How to express desires in English so that they don't sound like commands?

text: > At that time I won't want you to again land up in the thread to tell me the > rules. With the above statement, I wanted to express my _desire_ , but it was interpreted as a _command_. How can I rewrite the same statement so that it doesn't sound like a command?


title: What's a British equivalent to the more American expression 'Kiss my ass'?

text: I have the feeling that 'kiss my ass' isn't as widely used in the UK as it is in the US. I'm looking for a more British sounding equivalent.


title: Two children from/with/by my ex-husband

text: Are all of the following sentences OK? > I have two children with my ex-husband. > > I have two children from my ex-husband. > > I have two children by my ex-husband. Do they mean the same thing? Is any of the variants to be preferred over the others?


title: What is the word for fear of growth?

text: Is there a word or term for people who have a fear of growth?


title: Etymology of "rinse and repeat"

text: I've noticed that people love to use the phrase _rinse and repeat_. Where exactly did it come from?


title: How to express misusing a tool

text: I am not a native English speaker. I was wondering how to express the situation in which one uses a tool for something other than what it was meant to be, and in a bad way so that you are not doing your best, or you are hurting yourself with your ignorance about the tool you use.


title: Polite phrase to ask for details

text: Usually, I send to a client "Cover Letter" with phrase "May I get the details?", if I need to get more information about his project. Suddenly, I have discovered that it is not very polite. And now I can not understand - which phrase is best to polite and formal request for the information? I found some variants:   1. Could you please give me the details?   2. Could I please get the details?   3. May I please get the details?   4. Do you mind if I get the details? I can not decide which is best to use in this situation, and will be acceptable both in US and British English.


title: What is the origin of the phrase "do a line with someone"?

text: What is the origin of the phrase "do a line with someone", meaning "have a regular romantic or sexual romantic relationship with someone"? I learnt this phrase from an Irish colleague of mine the other day, but she did not know how the phrase originated. Oxford dictionaries online say: Definition of _do a line with_ in English (Irish and NZ, informal) _have a regular romantic or sexual romantic relationship with (someone)_ : _"I knew if I went home for Christmas, I'd have to pretend I was doing a line with some man."_


title: How can I explain why the following sentence is poorly written?

text: I came across the following sentence in some instructions and it almost seems like a double negative to me, yet there are not two negations in it that I see, so I am wondering how to explain what intuitively feels wrong about this sentence: > All of these are not applicable to both events or people. To me, this is more clearly written as: > Some of these are only applicable to either events or people.


title: Is the adjectival form "to be concatenated" correct?

text: I have the following sentence: > Fetch the transformations which need to be concatenated. Is the following adjectival form of _which need to be concatenated_ correct? > Fetch the to be concatenated transformations. Are there any more (even more succinct?) variants?


title: American English: poor vs. pour

text: Is there any difference in the pronunciations of poor and pour in American English? I can't hear a difference (in my own pronunciation), at all. Consulting the advanced English dictionary I'm finding two different IPA spellings: poor: p'ʊr pour: p'ɔːr But I'm imagining this is based off of British English, where there is a clear difference in pronunciation of both words.


title: Future tense in both main clause and subordinate clause

text: I have encountered in some grammar books that you can never have the future tense in the sub-ordinate clause when the main clause is also in the future tense. It seems to hold in conditional clauses and time clauses (those that contain when, if etc). Based on that, the sentence **"What will be will be"** has always stuck out in my mind as an abberation. So my question is, is this an actual rule? That is, should the above sentence be rewritten in some way to make it grammatically sound?   For example by replacing **_what will be_** by **_what is to be_** or **_what is going to be_** or something in that line. Another such example: **I will decide what I will do**


title: Fronted adjuncts

text: Is it correct to begin sentences with adjuncts? To which degree are the sentences below acceptable? Do you need a special context to license this word order, or can you start a text with these sentences?   1. In the first part of the book the author describes the influence of the drug on the neural system.   2. Early this morning my friend left the house.   3. Ideally, the literature section will contain all references to previous work on the topic.   4. On the pretext of watching a Saturday night show, I lingered in front of the TV until 11.30 p.m..


title: "None" and "Any"

text: Can anyone tell me more about the relationship between the words **none** and **any** I'm specifically interested in their grammatical overlap, when they share a similar grammatical function in a sentence, and what that function is. Also, any consideration of them, their relationship, or functional overlap in the fields of linguistics or semantics would be amazing. And info about their etymology is also really useful.


title: Is starting an email with "Hi All, " rude?

text: In my job, I need to interact with a bunch of senior, super senior and junior guys. One of the medium to interact with them is email. I need to send new updates, status reports, upcoming releases, etc. I put more than 10+ people in `To:` and the same number or less in `CC:`. People who are in `To:` are seniors and the ones in `Cc:` are juniors (those just need to know what's going on, they are not decision makers). Now to address all these people I use `Hi All`, I sometimes think that "Isn't this rude?", because people are senior in age, hierarchy and experience. If yes, it is rude, suggest a better way to address all these guys in one gesture.


title: What is the meaning of "as of" in this context?

text: > The moon shone on his face as he spoke, and the girl was pleased to watch > it, it seemed to breathe such an innocent and old-world kindness of > disposition, yet with something high too, **as of** a well-founded self- > content. What does this "as of" mean here? I would need a sentence structure explanation.


title: "On the third attempt" vs. "in the third attempt"

text: For talking about attempting something: > He succeeded __ the third attempt. According to Google, the preposition of choice is "on". Would "in" cause outrage?


title: "He would do that, would he?" Is this correct?

text: I've always known a type of sentences like this: > He would do that, **wouldn't** he? However, what about > "He would do that, **would** he?" Is this correct? Maybe I'm wrong, the first one expresses a different thought?


title: Receivables/lend

text: If I lend an amount of $100 to my friend, I can refer to the amount as _receivable_. Suppose she returns $100 (or $70) after one week, what should I call this amount? It is the "return amount which is borrowed"?


title: "Plot" in Victorian word usage

text: I would like to know if the word "plot" would have been used in Victorian times (ca. 1880) to describe the story of a play, novel, etc. I've tried some online dictionaries with etymologies, but they only give the etymology, not when the usage as meaning a "story" began.


title: How would I change the following sentence to active form?

text: I've been told that it's always better to turn sentences to active form (at least in fiction writing). How can I turn the following sentence to active form? > Sophia was woken up by the rattling sound of her washing machine. or > Sophia was awakened by the rattling sound of her washing machine. (I think "Sophia woke up by..." is not very idiomatic).


title: How should this sentence structure be interpreted?

text: I'm playing an online game in which I came across a message in the form of a sentence of which the structure is new to me. It read: > You do not have a hatchet which you have the level to use. The weird part for me start after the word 'which'. Specifically, how can 'the level' be put there? Without 'the level' it is a regular sentence in my opinion, but the sentence as it is now seems inscrutable for me. Could someone shed some light on this sentence structure please?


title: Influence of the regulatory bodies in the English language

text: **Where** could I find/read about **studies** about the influence **in English** of the lack of regulatory bodies of its use and lexicon?   1. It is easy to google and find long arguments on the topic. I am interested in studies that at least attempt to be systematic or rather scientific (to the extent this is possible in this case).  1.1. _Your personal opinion is not what is being asked unless it comes from an study. In that case it is prefered that you point to where can I find such study._   2. I expect to find in them comparison with languages like Spanish and French that have their language academies.    3. I honestly expect to find in them conclusions pointing to benefits, as that is my personal opinion, but I am open to what the studies could say.   4. I expect the studies to particularly look at the influence in:  -) the speed of evolution of the language.  -) the breadth of the English lexicon.


title: A synonym for "bastardized" without the evil slant?

text: With the following definition: > To lower in quality or character. Synonyms found: > corrupt, pervert, subvert, demoralize, demoralise, debauch, debase, profane, > vitiate, deprave, misdirect However all of those have a very "intentionally evil" connotation. I would say more along the lines of "messed up", but it needs to portray that it's somewhat intentional, just not with the evil slant. Intentionally done, but unintentionally wrong, is what I'm looking for. Perfect Example: My nick name on here is Aequitarum Custos, which is a "bastardized" Latin, it should have been Aequitatis Custos (the correct way to say what I wanted). I intentionally created my nick like that, but had no intention to make it wrong. Reason for desiring a synonym is due to the perceived obscenity of the word bastard by some people.


title: "Discover" or "invent" in mathematics context

text: A very theoretical question I came across with friends some time ago. I am not a native English speaker, so I may be misunderstanding some details, but as I understand: 1) Discovery relates to a concept which existed prior to ... well "discovery" but was unknown before the act. 2) Invention relates to a creation of a concept which never existed before the act Following from this, are mathematical concepts such as sinus "discovered" or "invented"? In one sense, being a fundamental property hence could only be discovered. On the other hand, the logical metaphor was created by humans, hence invented. Which one is right and which one is wrong and why?


title: What does "put it down on me" mean?

text: What does the phrase "put it down on me" mean?


title: the main usage of the "to" as a prepositional condition

text: when I was young I wasn't from the English area but I am used to learning English grammar already. Well , I am still thinking about one thing maybe because I had not even got to learn this grammar until I have realized that is such use in English . Nobody has even said to me that an -ing form can be added after the "to" in actually . What I used to learn was all about the infinitives (base verbs) only . I have seen and gone through the post in this webpage but I still cannot understand about it. So what can I actually do so that I can always be able to identify the differences about those situations hence I must able to make it clear about whether to put a gerund or a base verb after that particular "to" ? =(


title: To give someone the 411

text: "To give someone the 411" is short for information but is this phrase common in the US and/or in Britain and is it still up to date or outdated?


title: Hypernym for "boys only", "girls only", and "co-ed"

text: What word would be used on a form where one is asked to stipulate if a school accepts only boys, girls or is co-ed? We are creating the form, and the word I am looking for would be used for a drop down that has the three options "boys only", "girls only", "co-ed".


title: What does "run’n’gun" mean?

text: I found the term "run’n’gun" in an article about video games. What does it mean in that context?


title: Shakespeare and Maths: Metre and Completeness

text: Shakespearian sonnets have a particular structure where each line of the poem contains ten syllables (due to the use of iambic pentameter). This is, one might think, because ten sounds 'complete' to some extent, like 4. For example > > Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks or > > Which alters when its alteration finds Is there any explanation in number theory to why the number 10 might seem complete to human minds and ears? Or perhaps there is a mathematical explanation for why 10 is chosen for the number of syllables in the line? Are there examples in nature where sets have a magnitude of 10 elements, or where the number 10 signifies some sort of totality, whether in a cycle or other abstract setting?


title: “Naming names”: Descriptive or redundant?

text: The phrase _naming names_ arises often during the reporting of corruption investigations, political scandals or the like. The word _naming_ is defined as citing by name or giving a name to. I could not think of any similarly redundant phrase for comparison. Is this phrase merely an alliterative embellishment, or does it say more than a replacement phrase such as _naming of implicated individuals_ would imply?


title: What does the term 'grocer' mean in this song? (British usage)

text: In the song "Waiting for Margret to Go," which is about the death of Margaret Thatcher, the artist says "Grocers and Methodists lay her down low". What is the artist referring to by "grocer"? Is it really someone who works in a grocery store?


title: Example of too few commas(,) in an introductory phrase?

text: This sentence popped up as correct on a website: "Even though I enjoyed myself at the expensive dinner and most of my friends were in town to see me, I left." I'm no grammarian, so I turn to you all for help. Shouldn't there be a comma before _and_? "Even though I enjoyed myself at the expensive dinner**,** and most of my friends were in town to see me, I left." I assume that since "and most of my friends were in town to see me" is an independent clause, it should have a comma at the beginning. I'm a grammarphobe. Please answer correctly, but gently.


title: What does "It dopes it really really well. Dope even" mean?

text: Recently I came across a stackoverflow comment for a post. It goes something like this. > Dojo has an UpgradeBar that dopes this: > > Blah Blah Blah and then somebody commented the post > It dopes it really really well. Dope even I know dope is to take drug and thus may be he is meaning it as _relaxed_. Now i am a bit confused what did this guy meant. because in the end there is "Dope even". did he mean it **relaxes him** or **it sucks**? will " _something_ **even** " make a context _negative_? Full Context : http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5188667/stackoverflow- welcome-bar/5197218#5197218


title: Word for a person who gathers payments on behalf of other customers

text: I'm looking for a word that would clearly designate a person who takes individual payments from individual utility customers (e.g. his neighbours, friends or family) and goes to the utility (e.g. telecoms operator) payment office to pay in the global amount on their behalf. He or she does not do this as an occupation but rather to help his fellows villagers (e.g. in a large country where the Points of Sales are sparsely distributed) and is himself a subscriber of this utility (albeit authorised for this role). I would prefer to avoid _payment collector_ which is altogether a different role in most utility jargons. In addition, I'd also be willing to take suggestions for the individual payers (better than _contributors_ for instance).


title: Synonym for "proud parents"

text: I'm looking for a synonym for "proud parents" or "thrilled parents" (of a newborn child) but don't want to use _proud_ as it looks bit show-offy.


title: When All Authorities Agree

text: In Michael Gilleland's blog **"Laudator Temporis Acti"** \- he had a post titled "When All Authorities Agree" and he quoted Cecil Torr from _"Small Talk at Wreyland"_ : > There is no stopping a mistake after it has started. In the preface to my > Ancient Ships I gave the history of a blunder that was made by Scheffer in > 1654, and is now in four authoritative books of reference. In fact, when I > am told that all authorities agree, I feel certain that one of them has > blundered, and the rest have followed him without inquiry. Would anyone know when the phrase "all authorities agree" was first used? I Googled "when all authorities agree" and there were only 4 mentions of it. Does this phrase have a Greek/Latin or earlier original and was adopted in English?


title: Meaning of "The most I ever did for you, was to outlive you, / But that is much"

text: What did the poet mean by the following lines? > The most I ever did for you, was to outlive you,   >  But that is much.   >  — Edna St. Vincent Millay I am not able to understand the meaning completely, and the context in which this was written.


title: Which is the preferred usage?

text: Both side part right/part wrong to me; which one is preferred: A) Note, though, that Don Quixote's “olde” Spanish/English has been preserved in order to retain its intended comic effect B) Note, though, that Don Quixote's “olde” Spanish/English have been preserved in order to retain their intended comic effect


title: Help in language!

text: Which sentence is punctuated correctly? A)The brave, little boy rescued the forlorn kitten. B)We picked the ripe, juicy berries until our baskets were full. C)He recovered from his illness and went on to live a long, happy, life. D)The high school is tough, football team is counting its winning streak.


title: "pseudo-", "quasi-" "semi-" and

text: I was wondering about the meaning of "pseudo-", "quasi-" "semi-" and possibly other related prefixes, in general cases. Particularly, in engineering and science, there are quite a few terms named with these prefixes. For example, "quasi-integrable", "pseudo-Newton method", "semigroup". But I never get to understand their differences in usage.


title: Analog vs Digital: Describing modes of note-taking

text: With regard to note-taking is it correct to call handwriting on paper the "analog" counterpart to digital "typing" on a computer?


title: Does sympathy necessarily mean pity?

text: This one has bugged me for a while. I've always been under the impression that sympathy doesn't have to mean pity. But everyone else tells me I'm dead wrong. So does sympathy always mean pity?


title: Present perfect as continuing action (“for three years”)

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When to use “has lived” vs. “lived” vs. “had lived” I’m having trouble understanding this sentence: > I have lived here for three years (I still live here.) I know that this sentence means that somebody still lives there, but can this also mean that that person doesn't live there anymore? I’m asking because I noticed that without “for three years”, “my whole life”, etc the action seems to be complete; for example, “I have lived there”, meaning that the person doesn't live there anymore. But with “for three years”, “my whole life”, or something similar, it is not clear whether the person is still living there or not. They may or may not be living there. Is it really so?


title: What is the opposite of an agent noun?

text: Is there a simple phrase to describe the object of an agent noun performing an action? > The adviser helped the **advisee**. > > The employer fired the **employee**. Is there a phrase similar to "agent noun" that can describe _advisee_ and _employee_?


title: Usage of the word concurrence

text: Is it correct to ask "Are we all in concurrence?" synonymously to "Are we all in agreement?"


title: "Fortunately I could get into the next bus" vs. "fortunately I managed the next bus"

text: Which of the following sentences is more acceptable in the meaning "fortunately someone get into or was able to catch the next bus"? >   1. Fortunately I could get into the next bus. >   2. Fortunately I managed the next bus. > Are both sentences correct? If someone is asked to choose one between the two, which one should they choose?


title: The meaning of 'option' in 'like hell's own option'

text: More from Thomas Harris: > The coffee mugs had the thick rims that dribble down the sides. Starling > watched Inelle Corey walk heavily away **like hell's own option** and drank > half a cup with her napkin tucked under her chin. What does _like hell's own option_ mean? FWIW, this conversation between Clarice Starling and Inelle Corey has a religious (Christian) undercurrent to it. Also, Starling is a southern gal.


title: What does "through" mean here?

text: **Through his sleek salesman talk I could discern duplicity.**


title: Is there a single word that means 'adding more details' or 'enriching with information'

text: What is the right word (verb) for a process of adding more details to something that's already been defined? **UPDATE:** Thank you for your answers! The precise context is as follows: > I have a base entity which describes a whatever (very general) camera that > has a few parts which are whatever lens, batteries, memory cards etc. This > is what I referred to as "something that's already been defined". Now, I > need to define a very real camera which is 'D700 Nikon' that has specific > lens, batteries, etc. So I take my general definition and create a new > definition by adding more details specific to the 'D700 Nikon' camera. So the question is: what am I doing with the base definition?


title: Alternatives of 'a snowball's chance in hell'

text: I am looking for a different, common English idiom that expresses the same thing as _a snowball's chance in hell_. My teacher says I use this expression too much, and that it is not appropriate for every essay. I need a same meaning like something very cold in a hot place to have a little chance.


title: Is it correct to write: "She told her to phone him the morning of the next day."

text: Is it grammatically correct to leave out **in** and write "She told her to phone him the morning of the next day" instead of "She told her to phone him **in** the morning of the next day"? If not, why not, and does that rule have a name? My English teacher (not a native English speaker) tells me it is wrong and that **in** must be in that sentence, but I don't get why. The task was to transform > Mrs. X: "Phone me tomorrow afternoon." from direct into indirect speech. My answer was > Mrs X. told her to phone her the afternoon of the following day.


title: "He disagreed with something that ate him." (spoilers)

text: In _The Living Daylights_ (a James Bond film), there is a man named Felix Leiter who is [partially] eaten by a shark. The villain writes a paper that says: 'He disagreed with something that ate him.' Is this a common English idiom for use polite conversation, or is this informal slang?


title: In a combination of two vowels (such as "ae"), what rule determines if the first ("a") or second ("e") is silent?

text: In a combination of two vowels (such as "ae"), what English rule determines if the first ("a") or second ("e") is silent? For example, in the word "praetor", the vowel "a" is silent but in the word "maelstrom" the vowel "e" is silent.


title: Do I so often encounter simple past for past participle (e.g., “I have went,” “what was did to her”) because of where I am or when?

text: Since moving to small-town northern Minnesota (USA) two dozen years back to teach English, I have noticed a lot of instances in spoken language where the simple past is used in lieu of the past participle, as in the examples listed above. Of course this is only noticeable or an issue for such irregular verbs as have two different forms for simple past and past participle. As a SCUBA diver, I encounter the perfect formation "have dove" with particular frequency. Since I had no previous experience of living in northern Minnesota before 1990, and not much experience of living anywhere else since (except Greece), I cannot tell whether this usage is more a function of _where_ I am as an observer of spoken English, or _when,_ though I tend to suspect the former. For those who are curious, my adopted small city was recently used as a fictional location for the TV miniseries spinoff of the Coen brothers' film _Fargo,_ but as with the film, the dialect in the miniseries is rather a caricature. (The show was not filmed here, and in representing Bemidji as a town _with_ a strip club and _without_ a library it was wrong on both counts.) The local dialect does show at least one notable Germanic influence: upon sighting a pretty infant, locals will exclaim "Oh for cute!"--which _for_ I am pretty sure is more closely cognate with the German intensifying prefix _ver-_ than with the English preposition. Other historically likely other-language influences, besides the Germanic Scandinavian languages, would include Finnish (Finno-Ugric), Ojibwe (Algonquian), and French. N.B. Ngram is hard to read on this, since hits for "was did" might well be such as "What exactly it was, did not matter in the least," and similarly for other word sequences.


title: croak vs croaks vs croaking

text: I want to write: > Do you remember the pond full of frog croaking at night? Or should it be > Do you remember the pond full of frogs croaking at night? Or > Do you remember the pond of frog croaking at night? or > Do you remember the pond of frog croaks at night? Or > Do you remember the pond of frog croak at night? You get what I'm trying to say. What's the best, grammatically correct, succinct way to express this? I'm trying to convey a memory of a pond which had many frogs who croaked ferociously at night. There must be a better way (better than the alternatives) to express this idea with elegance and economy? Imagine Hemingway sitting at his typewriter with the same idea swirling in his head... The emphasis is the pond. Perhaps it's better to write: Do you remember the pond, where frogs croaked raucously at night? Is "croak" countable? So plural of "croak" would be "croaks"?


title: "before/after that" as a preposition

text: In some older English texts I have stumbled on phrases where the word "that" is used as part of a preposition. Here are some examples from the KJV Bible:   * Deuteronomy 9:4 Speak not thou in thine heart, **after that** the LORD thy God hath cast them out from before thee, saying, ...   * Acts 25:16 To whom I answered, It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, **before that** he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him.  There are numerous examples througout the text. In each case, the language would be more natural in modern English with the word "that" left out. And there doesn't seem to be any way to make common sense of the usage of "that" (such as an article or object). It seems to be an actual part of the preposition. What is specifically interesting to me is that in learning Spanish, I noticed that prepositions "before" and "after" are almost always followed by the word "de", which can have a similar meaning to the word "that". So in Spanish you would say "después de ..." or "antes de ...." followed by the phrase. So these older phrases betray a common pattern that has been lost in English. Am I correctly interpreting the word "that" as part of the preposition, or is there some other way to dissect these sentences that I'm missing? Does anyone have any insight to the origin and history of phrases "before/after that" as a singular preposition?


title: "When I was in college..." Do you really mean college? Or university?

text: When someone in the US says "When I was in college..." he can mean "college" but he can also mean "university", so I've been told. If that's true, how can we know which one he is talking about? If I say my daughter is off to college, can it really mean either one?


title: Does a complement phrase always follow a be verb?

text: ## Summary question   * Is there a formal name for the entire portion of a sentence that is connected to the copula?"   * Is it "complement"? ## Background Be verb can be followed by various things: a noun (He is blue.), a be verb can be followed by a verb (Who is running?), etc. But is what follows the be verb always a "complement", even if it is more than one word (e.g., is the emboldened all part of the complement in the following sentence: "They are **happily distance running in the beautiful park**.")? Perhaps I should be asking: 'could a predicate phrase--the part of a sentence that is a predicate--also be called a complement phrase--the part of a sentence that is a complement'? I'm wondering because a "complement phrase" would seem to be more specific to be verbs? Additionally, how about this list: ## Possible followings **to be/to have been +** :   * nothing.   * gerund(s) (-ing).   * past-participle(s) (-ed).   * either of the above two + object(s).   * noun(s)/noun phrase(s).   * adjective.   * 0-valency prepositions.   * combinations of the above two.   * any of the above with adverbs (*except only adverbs) and/or prepositions. **to be/to have been (not followed by) !+** :   * simple past verb(s).   * verb root(s).   * adverb(s) (*unless preceded by commas).   * one-or-more-valency prepositions.   * conjunctions.   * interjections (*except onomatopoeia). ## Purposes Software, education.


title: The meaning and nuance of "such ...as"

text: Do you want to work for such a prestigious company as ABC? Is this "such as "structure the same as "such countries as A, B, and C?" Or, "this is such a fantastic book."


title: Change from to-day to today

text: In old books, people often use the spelling "to-day" instead of "today". When did the change happen? Also, when people wrote "to-day", did they feel, when pronouncing the word, that it contained two words, rather than a single concept?


title: What is the grammatical function of “a Catholic” in “She was raised a Catholic”?

text: I was drawn to the following line in New York Times (Feb.25) article: > “De Blasio, who has said his mother **was raised a Catholic** but did not > bring him up in the church.” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/26/opinion/dowd-parade-marches- backward.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0 Is there difference of meaning among the following?   1. His mother was raised a Catholic.   2. His mother was raised as a Catholic.   3. His mother was raised to be a Catholic. (I presume most of Japanese learners of English language opt for 2. when speaking or writing in English.) Is “be raised an X (Catholic / sportsman / pianist/ naughty boy etc.) more common than “be raised as an X” and “be raised to be an X”? What is the grammatical description of “a Catholic” in 1? Is it simply a predicate?


title: Which version of English influenced the other? British / American

text: I remember hearing that modern American English is more similar to Old English than modern British English, due to rural British influences. Is modern American English a more accurate representation of Old English than modern British English?


title: "omni"-prefixed word for "all-hearing"

text: Is there an adjective that begins with the prefix _omni_ that means _all- hearing?_ I thought that an aural counterpart to _omnipresent_ , _omnipotent_ , and _omniscient_ must exist, but after a few minutes of Googling, I've failed to find any synonyms for _all-hearing._


title: The article "a/an" with uncountable nouns

text: Sometimes I read in books sentences where uncountable nouns are used with the article "a/an". For example "She fades like a dew before the sun". Is it out of the common rules? P.S.: Sorry if this question seems to be stupid. I'm just trying to figure out all the usages of the articles that I don't fully understand.


title: What’s the meaning of ‘get ploughed’ in sports?

text: A dictionary says plough means to form furrows with a plow, so I thought those who got ploughed in sports had deep cuts. However, my understanding might be a little strange in the following context ( _Harry Potter 4_ [US Version]: p.108) , because he _hit_ the ground. What kind and degree of injury did he get when he got ploughed? Would you use ‘get ploughed’ in common sports, I mean, non-magical sports? (The sport’s players are flying on their brooms. Two of them are diving for a small ball.) > at the very last second, Viktor Krum pulled out of the dive and spiraled > off. Lynch, however, hit the ground with a dull thud that could be heard > throughout the stadium. A huge groan rose from the Irish seats. (Then a spectator, Charlie, says) > ”He’ll be okay, he only **got ploughed**!” Charlie said reassuringly to > Ginny, who was hanging over the side of the box, looking horror-struck. > [bold font is mine] Side Note: I think ‘only’ means that it’s easy to recover by magic. So I guess ‘get ploughed’ causes serious injury in our world.


title: Which one can be named or acknowledged as the elder brother (sister) between twins who was born earlier and later in UK and America?

text: There is the following sentence in Jeffery Archer’s detective story _False Impression_ : > Arabella was so wise and sensible. If only her beloved twin had been born a > few minutes earlier rather than a few minutes later, then she (Arabella) > would have inherited the estate (of Earl of Wentworth titled in 1815) and > undoubtedly handled the problem with considerably more panache. From the above sentence, I speculate that the twin who was born later than the other is acknowledged as the elder sibling and the first heir of the parental estate in order in U.K. If my guess is right, what is the reason, base or provenance for giving priority to the “late comer to the world,” not the “first comer’ in the family order? In Japan, we had the same custom of acknowledging “the born-later” as the elder sibling before the Meiji era (up to late 19 century), but today’s Family Register Law provides the “earlier-born” to be the elder of the twins. **Update with more context** I have added the previous paragraph which _makes this sentence Victoria's point of view about Arabella_. > Victoria looked steadfastly ahead as she climbed the wide marble staircase > to her bedroom on the first floor. She felt unable to look into the eyes of > her ancestors, brought to life by Romney, Lawrence, Reynolds, Lely and > Kneller, conscious of having let them all down. Victoria accepted that > before she retired to bed she must finally write to her sister and let her > know the decision she had come to. > > Arabella was so wise and sensible. If only her beloved twin had been born a > few minutes earlier rather than a few minutes later, then she would have > inherited the estate, and undoubtedly handled the problem with considerably > more panache. And worse, when Arabella learned the news, she would neither > complain nor remonstrate, just continue to display the family's stiff upper > lip.


title: Are "skill set" and "skill sets" both acceptable?

text: Are the phrases _skill set_ and _skill sets_ both correct? As I see it, _set_ implies a single set of related skills whereas _sets_ can be taken to mean multiple sets of skills around different concentrations. Thoughts?


title: A word for a person concerned with spelling

text: What do we call a person who is concerned with words' spelling? This person likes words without spelling mistakes. If this person's name is typed incorrectly or if the person sees incorrect spelling, then he or she is disturbed by it.


title: Technical terms for user-website interaction

text: I am making a context diagram of a website and I noticed that the words I used for a user and the website's interaction are not consistent or cohesive. I have been using the pairs of words below to indicate that a user requests to "see" a webpage: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/fMsXo.png) > a user "visits" a website and the webpage "views" (as a response to the > user) I can't find a more acceptable alternative for these two but I am sure there are better ones out there that I just don't know. One more, what should I use if the page that a user wants to see is a popup or specifically a modal element (which means a user is not directed away from their current page)?


title: "restart" is to "restarted", "shutdown" is to what?

text: If _"restart"_ is to _"restarted"_ , _"shutdown"_ is to what? I don't think _shutdowned_ is the word. What is the past-tense of the word _shutdown_?


title: What is a common word that describes men who don't attract women

text: How do you refer to men who are unable to get women for courtship? Context of the question: A man might want a woman for sex, _just for sex_ , for marriage, for a relationship that might not _necessarily_ lead to a marriage, etc. But whatever might be the reason, the man needs to be able to talk to/impress/approach the lady. If a person is unable to do so and thus has a very hard time _getting_ women, what would you call him? Also, please do not consider _paying a woman_ in the same way as I am trying to express _getting a woman_. Both are totally different things. Whatever the a man might want from a woman, he needs to go through a _test of sorts_. That could be _having a soft heart_ for some women, simply wealth for others, with some it is social status, etc. What do you call a person who does not pass this _test_ (or hardly ever passes it) with any woman. Also, I am _not_ looking for slang terms.


title: Difference between "valuable" and "invaluable"

text: _Invaluable_ intuitively seems to imply a higher degree of importance. Please explain the difference between _valuable_ and _invaluable_ and in what context you'd use one or the other.


title: Use of a semicolon before and comma after "however"

text: Several years ago, a previous boss told me to use a semicolon and comma with the word "however". I've always questioned this and would like to know if the following random sentences are using the correct method. >   1. Our plane was delayed overnight; however, the airlines reimbursed us > for lodging. >   2. It looks as though he's upset; however, she told me he always has that > look on his face. >   3. I want to find him a nice gift; however, I am a broke until payday. > Normally I would use a less "wordy" sentence in casual writing, but hopefully the example will suffice. For example, on number 3 I would usually type: > I want to get him a nice gift, but I'm broke until payday.


title: Phrasal Usage of called on

text: Consider the sentence: "America's respected Institute of Medicine called _for/on_ nurses to play a greater role in primary care." Which is more appropriate _on_ or _for_?


title: Should I use "somewhere" in this sentence?

text: **"I've lost myself [somewhere] among the dreams that never come true"**


title: Capitalization of "sister" and "brother"

text: I have seen the question on when to capitalize _mom_ and _dad_, but I am confused why the rule would not apply equally to _Brother_ vs. _brother_ and _Sister_ vs. _sister_. I.e., if the rule is to use capitals when speaking of a specific mom, as in "my Mom", then should the rule compel me to refer to siblings as "my Sister" and "my Brother"? It looks perfectly acceptable to capitalize parents, but capitalizing siblings looks extremely odd.


title: Be talking something?

text: First of all, I'm not native. I've heard this expression in some movies, I believe, and I'm wondering whether it's correct (or maybe I just thought I heard this and I'm mistaken). Can you say "be talking something", without "about"? Example: > guy 1: We're planning a bachelor party for Mike. > > guy 2: Great, what are we talking? Strippers, booze, private party or should > we go all the way and take a trip to Las Vegas? The example is made up but this is the context of usage I have in my mind.


title: Does anybody use the elative degree in modern speech?

text: I read that English has the following degree of comparison: positive, comparative, superlative (with definite article) and elative (with indefinite article). I'm wondering, whether sentences like "it is a most brave action" can be used in modern speech or it will be said "it is the most brave action"?


title: Please help explain this long sentence

text: > It **bore** an engraved escutcheon, a herald's wording of which may serve > for a motto and brief description of our now concluded legend; _so sombre is > it, and relieved only by one ever-glowing point of light gloomier than the > shadow:_ "ON A FIELD, SABLE, THE LETTER A, **GULES** " I looked them up (the words in bold) in online dictionary websites but I could not pick up the most correct meaning they have to fit into the above sentence. Could you explain the meaning in the sentence in italic ? Thank you.


title: "length in bytes" vs "length by the byte" and "paid in hours" vs "paid by the hour"

text: >   1. "The variable len indicates the buffer length in bytes." > >   2. "The variable len indicates the buffer length by the byte." > > I'm a computer programmer, so I know **1** is far more common than **2**. However, please consider the following two sentences: >   1. "He is paid by the hour" > >   2. "He is paid in hours" > > I also know **3** is far more common than **4**. Which of these phrases should be used in what scenarios?


title: Em dash vs semicolon: which is more appropriate in the following examples?

text: I am very confused by these, and even when I understand other people's usage of them I find it difficult to know when to employ them myself. For this reason, I am trying to make my own examples and see if I get them correct. Please understand, English is not my first language, but I have never learned grammar in my native language either. I hope that what I'm saying is comprehensible to you. In the following examples, I'll be using a period in place of the em dash or semicolon, because I am utterly confused as to which one should be used. >   1. English is not my first language, and I'm having trouble with the > grammar. Specifically semicolons and dashes. > >   2. Don't ask Jim to fix your car. That sort of thing would be better > handled by Steve. > >   3. The question isn't what you can take away from this, but what you can > learn in the process. / The question isn't what you can take away from this. > It is what you can learn in the process. > > Normally I would use a semicolon in all of these instances, but recently I have come to learn that this is incorrect usage. Any help is greatly appreciated.


title: What do you call people who are constantly moving [i.e., "in motion"]?

text: _Moving_ here does not mean moving to a new city or something like that. I am talking about the people that just can't stay at one place. It is impossible for them to sit put at one place and relax.


title: How to use "have resonance with"?

text: If I want to say "have the same feeling with ..." or "agree with ...", can I use "have resonance with ..."? For example, I knew a friend who doesn't own a cellphone and I found an article saying how great it is not having a cellphone. When I send this article to that friend, can I say "you may have resonance with this article"? I found some people use this expression, but I'm not sure it is commonly used.


Are there any differences between "update" and "upgrade"?


title: What are the different nuances of "passing with distinction" in a CV?

text: I am in the middle of translating my (German) CV to English. In the German/Austrian school system, there is the notion of passing ...   * ... _"mit gutem Erfolg"_ (which is better than average, yet not the best you can achieve, roughly translating to "good success")   * ... _"mit ausgezeichnetem Erfolg"_ (which is the best you can achieve, similar to "with distinction") What would be a good English word/expression for the former expression in my CV? Is there a grading of "passing with distinction" in British/American English or their respective school systems? * * * _Update:_ I was referring to the general way of referring to "passing with distinction". Our universities give Latin grades ( _"cum laude_ ", etc.), whereas schools don't.


title: Examples where English is "more Germanic" than German

text: English is a so called a Germanic language, as are German, Yidish, Dutch, etc. In a way it seems natural to believe that German is "more Germanic" than English. But here it is not clear what "more" is supposed to mean since "Germanic" is just a linguistic description of the inner working engine and the roots of a language. In this context I am looking for examples that are "the other way around", i.e. where the original Germanic form is used in English and another (e.g. Roman) form in German. The most prominent examples are the following ones: > English: **window** from Germanic **Windloch** (wind hole)   >  German: **Fenster** from Latin **fenestra** What would be a good source to help easily find (such described words)?


title: Can the words 'basic' and 'basically' be pronounced with [z] instead of [s]?

text: In dictionaries, I have only found the version with [s] but I heard Ryan Stiles on _Whose Line Is It Anyway?_ pronounce "basically" with a [z].


What does "F" mean in "Mushrooms 3.94 F" of my grocery receipt? I guess it means I paid 3.94 US dollars for mushrooms, but I don't understand why.


title: What is the exact meaning of “It’s better to be lucky than good”? How popular is this adage?

text: Today’s (October 29) New York Times carries the article written by Jim Collins and Morten Hansen under the title “What’s luck go to do with it,” It deals with a nine-year research study of some of the most extreme business successes of modern times that they call "10Xers," that they recently completed. The article begins with the following line. > “ _Better to be lucky than good_ , the adage goes. And maybe that’s true — > if you just want to be merely good, not much better than average. But what > if you want to build or do something great? And what if you want to do so in > today’s unstable and unpredictable world?” I guess “ _Better to be lucky than good_ “means “to be gifted with good fortune is better than being simply good (at what remains as a question though),” but I’m not sure of its exact meaning. Although the authors say it’s an adage that I understand should be well- established, popular form of expression, I don’t find this phrase in neither Cambridge nor Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Google Ngram either doesn’t register this phrase. As a plausible origin of this expression, flightjournal.com says: > “By: Thomas McKelvey Cleaver. "It's better to be lucky than good," says > Lamar Gillett, the only P-35 pilot in. World War II to shoot down a Japanese > Zero fighter. "I was lucky I was behind the Zero instead of in front of him. > I was lucky when I landed back ...” What is the exact meaning of " _It's better to be lucky than good_ ,"? What does "good" mean here? Is it really qualified as an adage as the authors claim it?


title: Problem with choosing between singular and plural nouns

text: I would like to find out how to use singular and plural nouns correctly. I have tried grammar books, but I can't find anything on agreements of nouns in the object position. Please kindly explain to me whether the sentences below are correct and whether there are any differences between their use. Also this type of grammar problems if filed under what names in grammar books. Thanks!!! > A) > >> I can't offer any simple solution   >  I can't offer any simple solutions > > B) > >> I want to get better school results   >  I want to get a better school result > > C) > >> They can't obtain a sense of accomplishment   >  They can't obtain senses of accomplishment > > D) > >> Students should do more sports to help them build a healthy body   >  Students should do more sports to help them build healthy bodies


title: Where does "for good" come from?

text: As a foreign English speaker, I always wondered if **_"for good"_** is an old style English phrase, or it is relatively new. For me, it seems like an old style phrase, but I don't know anything about etymology. Can you shed some light on it?


title: "See you Monday" vs "See you on Monday"

text: I have seen native speakers use both variations. > See you Monday. and > See you on Monday. I would like to know which usage is correct or if there are any specific instances in which each is used.


title: Should I use a comma or semicolon to separate these ideas?

text: >   * I can no longer remember her face, too much time has passed. > >   * I can no longer remember her face; too much time has passed. > >


title: Use of "submitting" or "submit" in sentence

text: Why is submitting used instead of submit in the sentence below from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codebase? > They are often used by multi-developer projects to handle various versions > and developers **submitting** various patches of code in an organized > fashion.


title: "With what [...]?" or "What [...] with?"

text: Making a comparison with Who/Whom I now have a doubt about the use of what with prepositions in questions. I'll explain by example: These two sentences are correct, one is more formal than the other: **Who/Whom**   * Formal: **With whom** are you doing that?   * Informal: **Who** are you doing that **with**? But if I substitute Who/Whom with What, the "formal" one sounds a bit awkward and I'm not sure if it's correct or not: **What**   * **With what** are you doing that?   * **What** are you doing that **with**? So, are those last two questions grammatically correct?   Is one more formal than the other?


title: Is incharge/encharge a word?

text: I always thought the word incharge/encharge existed but I noticed my spell check kept marking it as wrong. Examples:   "Who is encharge around here!?"   The secretary is encharge of taking notes. I find this confusing because "in charge" is two words which as a phrase does not literally mean what it describes. Is it considered an idiom?


title: Is "you and I" the subject in this sentence?

text: I know that "you and I" should be used when it's the subject of a sentence, and "you and me" when it's a complement. But I'm not sure about the following phrase: > We are very good pals, you and I. It would seem to me that "you and I" is a subject here (so I should use "I" instead of "me"). Is that correct?


title: One-word synonym for "dataset"

text: I need a one-word synonym for the word "dataset". I need it for a software written in .NET, that is a programming framework that already has a concept of "DataSet".


title: Can I use the word "reincarnated" for a body part?

text: Basically, can I said something like this? > But what really turned heads were her hands. They looked incredibly delicate > and soft, so much that some started believing they were the **reincarnated > hands** of a Goddess. (the passage above is describing the hands of a teenager). For some reason, it sounds strange to me. Is it OK to use the word like the example above? Is there's a better one? **reincarnated** according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary: > **1 a** : the action of reincarnating : the state of being reincarnated > **b** : rebirth in new bodies or forms of life; _especially_ : a rebirth of > a soul in a new human body > > **2** : a fresh embodiment


title: Difference between 'kindness' and 'politeness'

text: Can one use _kindness_ as a synonym for _politeness_? What's the difference? Where do you draw the line between them?


title: The spiritual usage of the word "revelation"

text: I translate some spiritual texts and this word _revelation_ is very tricky to translate to another language that really does not have a similar word. For example: "God has sent a new _revelation_ to the world." What could be good synonyms for it in a general (non-Christian) spiritual context, where I am coming from. The original text is in American English. Possible translations:   1. New message   2. New information   3. Insight What else? Dictionaries mainly refer to Bible and book of Revelations, but that is just confusing, because this text is not about Bible and should not be confused with it.


title: Specific vocabulary for making someone laugh by rubbing their underarm with finger

text: To make someone laugh, we sometime rub his underarm with our fingers in a way that makes him feel restless and then he starts laughing. My question is: What is the specific vocabulary in the English language for the aforesaid rubbing?


title: Better word for "specialized"

text: _**General_ relativity** is a general concept that apples to that applies to the universe at large. **_Special_ relativity** is a _"subset"_ of general relativity that applies to the subset of the universe that shares a certain characteristic. "Subset" is not the right word here - what's a word that addresses the conceptual relationship between a "general concept" and a _"special(ized)"_ application of that concept to a more strictly-defined context?


title: Is it ok to say that I burned my hand if it was injured via hot water?

text: I feel like it should be alright, but thought I'd get your feelings on whether it's appropriate to employ the term "got burned" if no fire was involved, specifically as it pertains to injury to a living thing, or if I am precluded from having been burned by hot water, and have to employ scalded or cooked or some other non flame related term?


title: Participle as verbal adjective

text: I came across the following: >   1. As he had been deceived by his friends he lost all hope.   > >   2. He was deceived by his friends and so he lost all hope.   > >   3. Deceived by his friends, he lost all hope.   > >   4. He lost all hope because he was deceived by his friends.   > > It was said that only sentence 3 has a participle in it. But all 4 has the word deceived, Why is "Deceived by his friends, he lost all hope' is said to have participle?


title: "He eyeballed me pensively"; using bodyparts as verbs

text: What are these words called, and why are they used in place of traditional verbs? For example: >   * She handed me a pencil. [ _handed_ instead of _gave_ ] >   * He eyeballed me pensively. [ _eyeballed_ instead of _leered_ or _looked > at_ ] >   * She eyed the carrots. [ _eyed_ instead of _looked at_ ] >   * He mouthed some words to me. [ _mouthed_ instead of _spoke/said_ ] > There's so many more, so these are just a few examples. This is colloquial speech, but it kind of irks me when I hear people say body parts in place of verbs (excl. _handed_ because it's so common). Is there a particular name for this usage? Is this done in other languages?


title: Is "get" (in the sense of "become/make") appropriate for formal writing?

text: Is the use of "get + adjective/participle" appropriate for formal writing (for example, scientific papers)? I am thinking of usages analogous to   * get fat    * get inflated   * get sick where the meaning is "become". What about cases where the meaning is "make (sg)", such as   * get (it) done   * get (her) dressed Not being a native speaker, I cannot easily judge the level of formality of these constructs.


title: What’s the meaning of “if that” at the end of a sentence?

text: I find it often after a number. What does it mean and what is _that_? It’d be nice if you could help me. (from Google search) > Some books that are more than 100 years old still won't sell for more than a > dollar, if that. ( _Harry Potter 2_ [US Version]: p.123) > Nearly Headless Nick, the ghost of Gryffindor Tower, was staring morosely > out of a window, muttering under his breath, “… don’t fulfill their > requirements … half an inch, if that …”


title: What is indeed the "first known use"?

text: Why, after a quick lookup at the Google online library, allowing the browsing of the content of available books, can I inevitably find instances prior to the first known use in the dictionary of certain words?


title: The meaning of Descending Priority when some possibly contradicting ordering is also are specified

text: At work, we use a priority classification with the following values:   * Priority 0 (most urgent)   * Priority 1 (less urgent than previous p0)   * Priority 2 (less urgent than previous p1)   * Priority 3 (least urgent) I've listed them in this order as I see them in order of descending or lesser importance, as you go down the list. My boss recently sent me an email with of prioritised tasks. She stated that "These are in in descending priority", and they were listed as   * P3 ---- butter task   * P3 ---- cake task   * P3 ---- apple task    * etc.   * P2 ---- chocolate task   * P1 ---- cookie task However she expects that above defined importance is applied to the list I wonder if either of our understandings of _descending_ when applied to _priority_ is flawed with respect to a common sense understanding. FYI : We're English speaking New Zealanders to give you a cultural context.


title: Origin of "c**p"

text: I've heard some far-fetched stories of the origin of the word _crap_. What is its real origin?


title: How to express college student in each grade?

text: It really bothers me: > Should I say _I'm a college senior student_ , or should I say _I'm a senior > college student_ (or _I'm a college senior student_ )? > > Should I say _I'm a sophomore_ , or should I say _I'm a sophomore college > student_ (or _I'm a college sophomore student_ )? Ooh, English is tough!


title: "Keys to car" or "keys of car"

text: I saw in a grammar book a sentence that looks weird to me. > Kyle gave Loren the **keys to** his new car. I would have hoped to see _of_ instead of _to_ but it must be correct since it was the sample sentence. > Kyle gave Loren the **keys of** his new car. What grammar rule is this?


title: A GRE verbal question -- I think the given answer is wrong

text: According to my understanding the choices to this question is only **A**. But the answer sheet says the correct choices are **A** and **C**. The question asks the conceptualization about _gender_ in western culture. In choice **C** it says: > The idea of male/female binary gender is **not** generally considered the > **norm** of contemporary Western civilization. I don't know if I understand the word "norm" here correctly. If I understand it correctly, and the choice **C** is correct, I think it means _in general western consider a third gender in their culture_. And the explanation to choice **C** even confuse me. It feels to me that the explanation contradict with choice. I think this passage is quite simple, and maybe I misunderstand some key words. So please help me. ![Question](http://i.stack.imgur.com/HiJ89.jpg) ![Answer](http://i.stack.imgur.com/ArC2W.jpg)


title: Is it possible to write an infinite sentence that is grammatically correct?

text: I was wondering if this was technically possible in English. I did not know if there are specific grammar rules that would make an infinite sentence impossible.


title: Can “take fruit in” something mean you enjoy it?

text: Consider > to **take fruit in** something For example: > I **take fruit in** my life. I feel like I have heard this term used before, but because I couldn't find an example with Google, I wanted to check whether this makes sense to other people or whether I’m just conjuring this out of my own brain. The intended meaning here would be “to enjoy”; is this acceptable and correct?


Quite often I see derision about ideas by people who label them as 'too academic'. Often this appears to result from laziness or an unwillingness to stretch their thinking. What's the logical fallacy where people dismiss what you say as irrelevant to the real-world?


title: What’s the male equivalent of “menopause”?

text: If women go through **_men** -o-pause_, do men go through **_women** -o-pause_? Is there an etymological equivalent? What is the antonymic Greek word to _meno-_ (or rather, to _μηνο-_ )? There might be a medical equivalent — such as _andropause_ — but which would actually be the male equivalent of _estropause_.


title: Song: when to use remix, cover and tribute to

text: If there is original song and same song performed by another artist, when to use term 'remix', 'cover', 'tribute to'?   1. Is 'remix' more suitable for electronic version of song?    2. What is the difference between 'cover' and 'tribute to'?   3. Which word to use when someone performs a song (but not sing) that was originally by another author? Example: Sungha Jung playing Take On Me (originally by A-HA).


title: What are the differences between "want to pass", "want pass" and "want passing"?

text: Would you kindly tell me what is the difference between the followings? >   1. I want you **to pass** your exams so that you can come as soon as > possible to be with me. > >   2. I want you **pass** your exams so that you can come as soon as possible > to be with me. > >   3. I want you **passing** your exams so that you can come as soon as > possible to be with me. > >


title: Best source for origins of expressions and idioms?

text: I'm often interested in the origins of English phrases, and I know that I can find answers by googling, and I can find _good_ answers by asking here. How can I find good answers myself? Are there any well-known, respected, and fairly comprehensive sources for origins of English expressions and idioms?


title: Why do I give my pets "food" but my livestock "feed"?

text: When I feed my cat or my dog, the package tends to say "Dog Food" or "Cat Food." In contrast, I give my chickens "chicken feed" or "poultry feed." Likewise, a cow's silage is her "feed." Why does this distinction exist? Is there an historical or grammatical explanation, or is it merely idiom?


I am stuck on a word choice problem. I have a large amount of response related data, which were previously stored such that each datum lay within one of the following realms:   1. law enforcement    2. health and safety   3. hazardous materials, or   4. other In order to reduce a significant amount of double entry I have decided to switch the coding so that realm is simply an attribute of each datum. I am also doing this for jurisdiction (e.g., state, local, federal) and some other like attributes that were stored as realms. My question is, "Is there one word that clearly describes the difference in kind for these four types?" Any hints well appreciated, as the word choice here will influence the structure of a large number of models based on these data. The closest I've come so far is vocation, but this seems overly general. **edit 1** : each datum denotes a a response action taken such as hospitalization, arrest, or called out (i.e., visited the scene). **edit 2** : An example datum might be represented like so:               > {???}: Law Enforcement        - jurisdiction: Local             + agency: Police                 * measure: Arrest      While it's clearly tempting to place these into a hierarchy, but I must avoid duplicate entries, so I am trying to encode the agency and allow many different agencies to use the same action. **edit 3** : In order to clarify I'll phrase as a simile: `Apples and oranges are to fruits what law enforcement and health/safety are to ...`