title: Why do we say "he asked after you" not "he asked about you"?

text: What are the origins of "ask after" and is it dying out as the way we currently speak?


title: To put into or strike an agreement

text: I'm looking for a word or paraphrase which fits the meaning of two people striking an agreement that is suitable to both. For example, I could say that two countries have struck an agreement with respect to their own interests. What are your suggestions?


title: The number of an uninflected pronoun

text: Case A: "There stands the boy who has two heads."   Case B: "There stand the boys who have two heads." (If you are keeping count, the last two children have a total of four heads.) My question is, what is the number of each of the _who_ s and would linguists consider each of them to be uninflected?


title: Recommended replacement for 'literally'?

text: Around lunchtime yesterday I overheard a coworker say "I'm literally so hungry right now" Though misuse of the word literally was always common, it appears in the last year or so it has lost any semblance of its previous meaning. Is there a better word to use now when you want the reader to understand that your words should be taken at their literal meaning and not as a simple intensifier?


title: What is the term for giving an action or phenomenon somebody's name, e.g. "Doing a Lord Lucan"?

text: A friend of mine is keen on taking the glory (or adverse publicity!) when something goes wrong on a job he's working on and he likes to give it his name, e.g., "this is turning into a right Simpson of a job […]." So I suppose my question is two fold:   * What do you call it when somebody does this?    * What is the grammatical description for the name when used in this context?


title: "There is/are more than one". What's the difference?

text: While adding to an Answer to this question, I needed to use the above phrase, and I suddenly realised I was unsure whether to write "is" or "are".   * There is more than one way to skin a cat.   * If there are more than one species of cat, we will flay each species differently. I don't think that second example above sounds quite right to me (disregarding the meaning - sorry!), but in my original Answer I felt "is" would have been even worse. Is "are" _always_ wrong here? If so, what exactly is the rationale? If not, is there a case where it's unquestionably preferred – and why is that? * * * Note that in both the problematic Answer and my example attempting to mimic the same context more briefly, _the writer doesn't know how many there are_. There may be one, more, or even none. Getting even more specific, the writer might have an opinion on how many there might be, and wish to convey his leanings by choice of verb form if language allows this to be done succinctly.


title: I had waited until the rain stopped / I waited until the rain had stopped — any difference?

text: I don't understand the tense that is used with _until_. Here are some examples: > I had waited until the rain stopped.   >  I waited until the rain had stopped. > > Villagers had stayed indoors until the soldiers left.   >  Villagers stayed indoors until the soliders had left.


title: Word for "one who configures"

text: An editor is _one who edits_ ; a runner is _one who runs_. What is a word for _one who configures_ in the sense of a person who adjusts settings on a system?


title: Is there a word meaning "the other side to compare against"?

text: I'm searching for a word in English that means "something to compare against", or "the other side of the compare". Is there a single word for this?


title: English equivalent of a Kannada proverb

text: The saying goes like "ಬಡವನ ಸಿಟ್ಟು ದವಡೆಗೆ ಮೂಲ". When roughly translated to English it means: > A poor man's anger only hurts his jaw [due to all the grinding of teeth in > the process]. How to express this properly or idiomatically in English? Is there any alternative proverb with the same meaning? **Edit:** Poor in terms of wealth (material), not judgement. It's often the poor who pay the prices. Anger due to their helplessness.


title: Is it "the humanities" or just "humanities"?

text: I.e., would I use "I hate _the_ humanities" or "I hate humanities"? On that note, would the complementary statement be "I love _the_ sciences" or "I love science"? "I love sciences" just sounds wrong, but "I hate humanity" means something totally different. Hmm... No offense intended; I'm just using my source of confusion as an example.


title: "Done soon" vs. "soon done"

text: There are a number of colloquial expressions common to my area (see here, for example). I'm relatively recent to the area, so there are a number of expressions that just sound unnatural to me. However, I'm not certain of this one. I'm used to saying "I'll be done soon," or "will you be done soon?" Yet the phrasing I hear most often around here is "will you be soon done?" or "I'll be soon done." Which is grammatically correct? Is one a colloquialism?


Her love letters--to and from Daddy--were in an old box, tied with ribbons and stiff, rigid-with-age leather thongs:1918 through 1920;... Why (Daddy) in this sentence was written with a capital D?


title: Request for feedback on my EFL handout on using 'go' and 'come' in English

text: I have prepared the following hand-out for some intermediate EFL students. I am an English teacher in Tokyo. I mostly based it on Swan's _Practical English Usage_. I would be grateful for any feedback to make it more clear. In particular, I did away with the distinction Swan makes between 'a listener' and 'a hearer' because it seemed needlessly complicated; I have changed that language to 'a speaker' or 'speakers'. I think it is easier to understand this way, but please let me know if you agree. The other change I made to Swan in the 'advanced rules' section below was to encourage the usage of _come_ more in #2 than in the other 2 contexts; to my ear, either _go_ or _come_ sounds natural in #1 and #3 (with the exception of occurrences after non-modal verbs in #3 - please see the next paragraph for that complication). Do you agree? I previewed this handout with a private student tonight and as a result of her questions and comments I refined #3 of the advanced guidelines to draw a distinction between modal and non-modal verbs. This distinction seems correct, but adds a bit of a complicated wrinkle to the hand-out, because it does not seem to similarly apply to the #1 section of the advanced guidelines. Any help on clarifying and simplifying this point would also be greatly welcome. (I had to spell-out the words ONE, TWO, etc. in the advanced guidelines section in order for them to display properly after originally having pasted from a Word document...) Thanks! _**How to use the verbs come and go in English_** It can be difficult for second-language students to use _go_ and _come_ correctly, especially in spoken English. There are some simple rules you can learn which will enable you to correctly choose between these verbs 80% of the time, and some other more advanced choices you can make in other specific situations. _**Basic Rules for Come and Go_** _**come_** We use _come_ to describe movement to the place where one of the speakers is: _Could you come here for a minute, please, Diane? ~ I'm coming._ _We've come to ask you if we can borrow your car for a week._ _I've got some people coming for a meal tonight. Can you and Henry come too?_ _**go_** We use _go_ to describe movement away from the place where the speakers are: _Are you going to the pub tonight?_ _Let's go and see Auntie Mary before the holiday is over._ _They've gone to live in Australia and I don't think they'll ever come back._ **More Advanced Guidelines for choosing between _come_ and _go_** ONE. _A speaker’s past or future location_ You can use _come_ for a movement to a place where one of the speakers (a) already was or (b) will be at the time of the movement. Choosing _go_ in this context is also common. *Do you remember that I came/went to see you in Paris when you lived there? I will come/go to visit you in hospital when you have your operation next week. She can’t come/go to your barbecue party in Stanley Park on Saturday.* TWO. _Joining a previously-made plan_ We usually use _come_ or _come with_ to talk about joining a speaker’s previously-made plan, even if _go_ is used for the movement itself. _We’re going to see a movie tonight. Would you like to come with us?_ _We’re going to see a movie tonight. Would you like to come?_ THREE. _Somebody else’s position_ When a conversation is about another person (who is not part of the conversation), we can use _come_ for movements of other people who are also not speakers in the conversation to the place where that other person is, was, or will be. Choosing _go_ in this context is also common, _but only following a modal verb_. _Mary is in Florida now, and she was disappointed that her husband couldn’t come/go with her._ _Bill waited at the restaurant for an hour, but his girlfriend didn’t come._ [ _go_ would be incorrect here, because it does not follow a modal verb] _She invited John to her birthday party next Saturday in Osaka, but John won’t be able to come._


title: Is "signup for registration" redundant?

text: I'm writing a document for an exercise-project spec. The line goes: > A simple registration website where visitors can view registered users and > _signup for registration_ themselves. Is this being redundant? I feel the need to use the word register as this will make it apparent that signing up makes a visitor registered.


title: Why not use/to use - difference

text: > Why not **to** use Magic Quotes. > > Why not use Magic Quotes. What is the difference in meaning between these two ways of phrasing that sentence? To me the first sentence sounds like it tells the reader that there are good reasons not to use Magic Quotes (a programming feature) and those reasons will be given. The second one sounds like a rhetorical question, something along the lines of "What the heck not? Let's use them!" Am I right?


title: "You" or "your" when using two subjects with a possession?

text: > I came across your and Mr X's publication or > I came across you and Mr X's publication


title: Can 'repeat' be an adjective?

text: I was sure the word 'repeat' could be an adjective; for example, the phrase "repeat performance" describes a performance that is repeated. To my surprise, however, the Random House dictionary and World English Dictionary, don't have it in as an adjective, and nor does Wiktionary. So, is 'repeat' in "repeat performance" functioning as an adjective, or something else?


title: You dropped him like he's hot

text: > You dropped him like he's hot. Could you explain this phrase in plainer language? (I understand 'he's hot' means, 'he's so cool'.)


title: Etymology of 'wipe the floor with'?

text: If you 'wipe the floor with' someone, you defeat them easily. Searching on Google, I can only see explanations of what this idiom means, but not how it came about. What caused people to start using this phrase in this way?


title: Where did the term redhead come from?

text: All my life I have known people with reddish, orangey hair, to be termed ginger haired. Just as you don't call a blonde a 'yellow head' red head just wasn't a word that was said (wouldn't orange head be more accurate for most anyway?). However these days I increasingly find people using the term 'red head'. At first it seems to have been a term restricted to magazines with attractive ginger models, as if the media couldn't admit that attractive gingers exist, but it has slowly spread to the general population and these days I often hear it. My guess is that that redhead is an old term that then fell out of use with the (then) more exotic ginger taking its place, and that in modern times with ginger no longer being an exotic food and anti-ginger stuff in culture redhead has somehow re-emerged. Is there any truth to my guess? What is the actual history of the terms redhead/ginger? When did ginger come into use? Why did redhead fall so out of use in favour of ginger? Has redhead always been used in a fashion context or is its re- emergence totally out of the blue?


title: How to bless a professor about his/her sabbatical leave the next year?

text: I want to apply for graduate study under supervision of a professor, but he will be on sabbatical leave for 2015-2016 year and will not be taking on new students. I don't know how to properly express my blessing to him. The main idea is"Thank you for your kind suggestion and hope you a good journey!" Thank you for your answers!


title: Shortest words to describe an abbreviated text

text: I have to describe abbreviations and need to do it concisely without changing the meaning. The following three abbreviations describe particles which have similar characters but differ in size. > PM10, mass concentration of particles < 10 µm in aerodynamic diameter;   >  PM2.5, mass concentration of particles < 2.5 µm in aerodynamic diameter;   >  PM Coarse, mass of particles with aerodynamic diameter between 2.5 to 10 > μm. What is the best way to describe them in few words? I have tried > PM10, PM2.5 and PM coarse: mass concentration of particles with 10 µm, 2.5 > µm and 2.5 to 10 μm aerodynamic diameter respectively Any shorter description and suggestion is welcome.


title: What English homophone corresponds to 'oise salon'?

text: This is something of a fringe question. I hope it's considered on-topic. There have been two books published which purport to be French poetry. The joke is that when read aloud, the poetry sounds, with some artistic license, like well-known English texts. The first book is ' _Mots D'Heures: Gousses, Rames_ ', which 'translates' to 'Mother Goose rhymes'. The other book is ' _Guillaume Chequespierre and the Oise Salon_ '. I can't work out what English phrase could be meant. What is the English almost-homophone for 'Oise Salon'? **EDIT:** From the front pages of the book. This lends credibility to mplungjan's answer. ![13, Rue du Chat Mort](http://i.stack.imgur.com/C6qtn.jpg)


title: Adjectival form of "consult", "consultation" – Translation for the German word "konsiliarisch"

text: The word _konsiliarisch_ is used, for instance, in hospitals when a doctor sends his patient to another branch or medical specialty for some specific examination. You will later return to your actual doctor for further examinations or a discussion about the findings. That means, your doctor _consults_ another doctor. My question is now what is it called when you go to that other doctor. I guess I'm looking for an adjectival form for _consultation_ or _to consult_ , which I think is neither _consulting_ nor _consulted_ in that context. Bilingual dictionaries suggest _consiliary_. But I don't find it in any monolingual dictionaries to prove that (I checked Merriam-Webster's and Oxford's Online dictionaries). The adjective should for example fit in the following sentences: > I am having a __ examination.   >  My appointment is on a __ basis. * * * Edit: I think it's necessary to elaborate a bit more on this.   In Germany when you visit the general practitioner, you may be _referred_ to a specialist. In that case, you receive a latter of referral.   This, however, is not what I'm asking about. The situation is that you already have been referred to a specialist, and this specialist is working in either a common/shared doctor's office/surgery, or in a hospital or another kind of association (not sure if association is a good word in this context, but I'll stay with this), he may _consult_ another doctor of the same office or association.   Each of the doctor's have there own patient files for sure (in case of a hospital they usually can access those files from the other specialists though), but they don't need a separate letter of referral if you're already seeing another doctor of the same association. An example:   You visit a dermatologist and he needs some examination which is done by an internist. Thus he'll sends you to the internist. The internist will do the examination and send the findings back to the dermatologist. You will then visit the dermatologist again, and he will tell you the findings and/or do some further examinations. All what happens is that you go once (or if necessary twice) to another doctor at the same premises, who has a different specialty, and later you go back to the first doctor. In German there are different terms for both kinds of referral/consultation. > a) Überweisung -> "Haben sie einen Überweisungsschein?" (Do you have a > letter of referral?)   >  b) Konsil -> "Diese Untersuchung wird konsiliarisch durchgeführt." (This > examination will be conducted [word in question].) If this concept doesn't exist in any English speaking country (and hence, there's no word for it), I think I'm looking for a good term that wouldn't be confused with a regular referral.


title: Writing a research paper, and can't figure out the best way to say sentence

text: Can I say > _Receiving an insufficient amount of sleep_ is an obstacle that may alter > the performance of an individual.


title: Is the usage of "labeled" preferred to the usage of "named"?

text: Considering the description of a method in a research paper, should I use the first or second sentence? Does a rule describe in which case I should use "labeled" instead of "named" and vice-versa?   1. In this paper, we will describe our new method **named** "KICK".   2. In this paper, we will describe our new method **labeled** "KICK".   3. In this paper, we will describe our new method **called** "KICK".   4. In this paper, we will describe our new method, "KICK". **edit** : added third and fourth alternative


title: Switching pronouns mid-sentence

text: I know that switching pronouns when referring to the same subject mid-sentence is considered grammatically incorrect, as in, > It is very easy for one to open a program in our newest operating system, > all you have to do is click the corresponding icon. where the pronoun referring to the subject changes from "one" to "you". Are there any situations where it is appropriate to switch? For example, should the sentence, > If it is a boy, name him Moses; if it is a girl, name her Zipporah. be rephrased like this or not? > If it is a boy, name it Moses; if it is a girl, name it Zipporah.


title: Word for person interested in latest technology programming-wise

text: What is a word to describe a person who is really interested in learning new aspects and new things in a specific programming language? (We could call this person a seeker.)


title: What is the origin of the phrase "Heavens to Betsy"?

text: I believe it is primarily an American phrase, used as an exclamation: > Heavens to Betsy, no! I would never do such a thing! What is the origin of that phrase? Do we know who Betsy is?


title: Should I use "is needed" or "is in need"?

text: I am writing my master's thesis now, and I got a small question on the two terms in the title. You probably noticed, my English sucks... I have a sentence like: "this model is needed", but I want to change the to sentence to "this model is in need". Is that correct?


title: What is the history of the word "lobby"?

text: I would like to know if the word "lobby" would have been used in 1890s Georgia (United States) and to what exactly this word would have referred in that time.


title: Word choice: complement of 'Budgeted', but not 'Filled'

text: I am trying to figure out a good word to use as a complement to _budgeted_. I've used _filled_ before, and I would like to avoid using it again if possible. **Context:** I am making a simple over/under budget table, with columns labeled _budgeted_ and _"x"_.


title: "Prices of" vs "prices for"

text: I came across two different sentences, from The Wall Street Journal, both containing the word "prices" but with different prepositions, "of" and "for". Here are the two sentences. >   * Audi Cuts **Prices of** Spare Parts in China >   * Starbucks to Raise **Prices for** Packaged Coffee, Other Products > Which of these use the correct preposition? If both of these use the correct preposition, then on what basis are the prepositions chosen?


title: Is there any other word for "thumbs up thumbs down"?

text: I am working on my college project, which is a kind of product review/feedback website. In this many users can give their comments and opinion, and like or dislike the product. I'm very confused what name I should give to my site. I was thinking about _blabbermouth_ , _popinjay_ , or _loudmouth_ ; but they do not sound interesting. Is there any one word for "Thumbs up and thumbs down"?


title: Is it ever correct to say "turn down the building"?

text: I'm a non-native speaker of English, and so is my wife. We were talking to a native speaker when at one point, my wife commented, "They should turn down the building." I've never heard of the phrase "turn down" meaning "demolish", so I thought her sentence was unidiomatic. But judging from the nonchalant reaction of the native speaker there, I'm not so sure. What do you say?


title: Can someone provide an explanation regarding the etymology of the adjective "hell-bent?"

text: It's etymology is given as: > hell-bent, 1835, U.S., originally slang, from hell + bent How do the the words "hell + bent," when taken together, form the definition "determined to achieve something at all costs?" **Edit** (thanks to Medica's response): In this context, could somehow "hell" imply going to disproportionate or irrational lengths to achieve an end? The term "selling one's soul to the devil" comes to mind as well in this sense.


title: Word for Success + Triumph

text: Are there words that mean succeed and nurture, kind of like triumph and foster together? Looking for something that conveys a winning environment that helps people achieve their goals. Halcyon is the placeholder, but feels too soft.


title: "On the way home" — "to" preposition

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Why is 'to' not used before 'home'? I have noticed that the " **to** " **preposition** is never used when one is heading **home**. some examples: > I am on the way home   >  Would you please give me a ride home? But for other locations, **"to" preposition** is used: > I am on the way **to** school   >  Would you please give me a ride **to** school? Is my understanding correct? If so, why no preposition is used for home?


title: Antonym for cumulative

text: If odometer provides cumulative data. Then which type of data speedometer provides ? I mean that every measurement of that type of data is a separate value and do not depends on previous or next one in opposite to cumulative data. How we can describe this type of data in English?


title: "The fullness" vs "fullness"

text: When should one put a definite article before the word "fullness"? UPD: To be precise, I have the following sentence. > The first condition is just (the ?) fullness of A. Here _fullness_ is some kind of property. What I also know is that I'd say: > Here we prove fullness of A. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. P.S. I'm also looking for a good consistent English grammar and punctuation book. Would be very grateful for any references.


title: What is the difference in meaning and usage between "excoriate" and "execrate"?

text: Both nearly mean _to criticise_. So, what is the difference in usage?


title: What do I call a person who submits content?

text: There is a section on my site, where users can submit content. I'm not sure how to call it. There are three cases: 1) user can submit own content, so he could be an author 2) user can submit thirdparty content, so he is just a submitter 3) user can submit both his and third-party content. First case - call him an author or contributor, that's ok. Second case - submitter. What do I call a person in the third case? In this case he could either an author or a submitter or both. Is there some middle word, that can describe both ways? Is there some better word, similar to the meaning of submitter?


title: grammatical questions about verbal

text: The following sentences need to be parsed: >   1. I see a boy **running towards you**. >   2. I tell you **to go home**. >   1. What is the sentence pattern that applies to these two sentences? I think it is Subject-Verb-Object-Object Complement ( **S-V-O-OC** ). Is it right?    2. If so, which part of speech does the verbal (bold parts in the sentences) function as in each case; why? (Verbals can only function as nominal, adjective and adverbial.)


title: Either of two [subject]s was/were?

text: Is it correct to use "were" or "was" in the following? > whenever either of two somethings [were/was] applied [...]


title: Why do people who find it hard to hear say they are "hard of hearing"?

text: "I am hard of seeing" or "I am hard of walking" are just never used. How did people come to call semi-deafness "hard of hearing"? Especially, why is "hard of" used? I could understand "weak of hearing", but why "hard"?


title: Do you have English counterpart to “To ask a question is a shame of a moment. Not to ask the question is a shame for whole life”?

text: I doubt whether my question is worth asking or being answered every time I’m posting a question, and ask myself, “Doesn’t it look too naive or primitive a question?”   However, I keep posting questions anyway, encouraged by the old Japanese saying, “Kikuwa ittoki-no haji, Kikanuwa matudai-no haji” meaning, “To ask a question is a shame of a moment. Not to ask the question is a shame (regret) that lasts for your whole (eternal) life.” Confucius said, "It's not a problem that you don't know. It's the problem that you don't know what you don't know." By following this maxim, I think I’m able to build knowledge of English expressions. I’m curious to know whether you have an English counterpart to “To ask a question is a shame of a moment. Not to ask the question is a shame for whole your life”, or any proverb encouraging questions.


title: Which of the following phrases is correct?

text: Which phrase is correct: "Nice to hearing from you again" or "nice to hearing you again?"


title: What is the phrasal verb or idiom that says about something that came is too late

text: I can't remember a phrasal verb or an idiom that describes something that came too late, i.e. i bought this book to solve this mathematical problem, however as it only came a week later it was xxxxxx.


title: Name for logical fallacy of "implied guilt"?

text: For example; "No puppies were harmed in the making of this soda", implying that puppies are generally harmed in the production of soda, and thus casting the competition in a bad light. Is there a name for this? Is it maybe just a sneaky version of a straw man?


title: What is the correct pronunciation of "pizza"?

text: I have a friend who is constantly suggesting we eat "Pixa" for dinner. It grinds me every time she says "Pixa", so I am trying to make sure it is truly incorrect to pronounce the 'x' sound in this situation before I try to correct her.


title: How to spell laundre?

text: That is the best spelling I could find, or come up with. I don't think it is correct, since I don't see it in the dictionary, and searching without the "victoria secret" prefix doesn't show the correct results. I'm talking about the sexy clothing that woman wear. Like the stuff you can buy at Victoria's Secret. Here is a Google image search to show what I'm talking about. Don't click it if you don't want to see a bunch of girls in their underwear.


title: Where does the name of the subject go when joining sentences with a conjunction?

text: Take for example the two sentences "Ria was blind" and "Yet she became a lawyer." When we join these 2 sentences using a subordinating conjunction, which is correct and why? "In spite of Ria being blind, she became a lawyer." OR "In spite of being blind, Ria became a lawyer."


title: permit vs cause causality

text: On English causality: Does the superset of permissive action always incorporate the possibility of direct causative action? That is if I translate a statement as X permitted Y but X actually caused Y did the initial statement include the possibility that it was caused by X? I have verb phrases in another language, which I'm told relate to "what is x doing" as directly opposed to "x caused y". This verb grammar is described by those who know its use and teaches it as > "viewed as a whole from the outside, without regard for the internal make-up > of the occurrence" which "implies no causation" and "notions of causation > are absent". I think that permissive is better suited than the causative because I assume permissive is a superset of the causative. Is there another way of representing this rather ambiguous causality besides the causative, while still incorporating the subject and the verb? For instance : > "noun verb" would have the translation "noun [permitted/let/allowed pronoun > to/be] verb" > > "noun verb adverb" would have the translation "noun [permitted/let/allow] > adverb [to be] modified_verb" > > "noun said" would have this translation: "noun [let it be] said" > > "He did bad" would be translated "He [permitted] bad [to be] done" and a more literal example > "not die die" would have the translation "Die? _you_ [will] not [be > permitted to] die"


title: Meaning of "set such store" (not a shop)

text: I can't understand this sentence: > No other professor in Great Britain set such store by being called > Professor. In this case _store_ is not a shop or a place to store something. I guess that the meaning is that the subject really wants to be called Professor and is angry if you don't call him so.


title: "Based on" instead of "based off of"

text: I sometimes see cases where _off_ is followed by _of_ , and it sounds awkward to me. For example, I would prefer > This story is **based on** a true story. to > This story is **based off of** a true story. What do native speakers think/prefer? Should I avoid that kind of usage?


title: "Trust" vs. "Cartel"

text: > The establishment of **trust** is quite difficult but for **cartel** it is > comparatively easy. What is the difference between **trust** and **cartel**? Does the word " **oligopoly** " have a different meaning in comparison with both of the words above?


title: The elephant in the room

text: Where does the phrase "The elephant in the room" come from ?   Why an elephant ?   If it has to mean something big why not "the whale in the room" ?   If it has to be something that needs urgent attention then why not "the fire in the room" ? Bottom line, what has brought an elephant in this phrase ?


title: Does this sentence use parallel structure?

text: Does the following sentence make use of parallel structure: "Thus, Soyster’s diction most definitely exemplifies how he views himself in a dreary and pitiful manner and Mairs’s diction, contrariwise to Soyster’s, exemplifies how she views herself in a pleasant and benign manner." If not, could you tell me how I can make it have parallel structure. I am very bad with English, and more mathematically inclined, so please break things down. Thanks for the help.


title: Does the root -batic have a source meaning?

text: I'm curious about the words aerobatic and acrobatic. They seem of Latin origin and I wonder if anyone could enlighten me as to the meaning of the "-batic" portion of these words. Edit: I stand corrected, it is of Greek origin.


title: Forward vs Forwards

text: As an adverb, what is the difference between _forward_ and _forwards_?


title: Is it “backward/forward” or “backwards/forwards”?

text: Can _backward_ and _forward_ be used interchangeably with _backwards_ and _forwards_ , or is there some particular situation in which one pair is consistently used over the other?


title: "not found" or "is not found"

text: Why there is > file not found > > access denied and so on everywhere, when it should be (as far as I know) > **the** file **was** not found > > **the** access **is** denied I wonder which is actually correct? Both?


title: What does “Lead from  behind” exactly mean?

text: I learned from a news paper that the President said the country will take a position to “Lead from Behind” on internal conflict issue on a Middle East country in his speech. I also learned the phrase is the borrowing from a notable African-origin politician's biography, and that “Lead from Behind” is an antithesis to “Lead from Front.” To me this expression sounds pretty illogical for logical English as a language, even though it’s a simile, because you do not push the trains usually with a locomotive fixed at the rear. Although it is clear that he does not want to make positive involvement in internal matters of a Middle East country, I’m looking for the exact meaning of “Lead from behind” in this particular case. Does it mean;   1. It (His country) will pull the wire from behind the scenes, or,   2. It will cooperate with but not enter, or   3. It will play second fiddle, or   4. It will sit on the fence? Which is closer to as an interpretation of his remark? Can you give me exact meaning of his quote if you have something else?


title: How do I pluralize a name ending in "y"?

text: Frequently when I refer to or address a family, I do so by pluralizing their last name, e.g., The Smiths, or The Ramones. But suppose I want to address a family whose last name ends in a "y", e.g., Kennedy. Normally in English, I reflexively change the "y" to an "ies" when pluralizing words in this form, but as a proper noun, I'm not sure this is the right thing to do. On the other hand, The Kennedys doesn't seem right either--the "dys" looks like it would lead to a dysfunctional prononciation. I'm also pretty sure an apostrophe belongs nowhere near here. So how do I properly pluralize a name ending in a "y"?


title: In those I put the stories I wrote in which the scene was laid in Malaya

text: > In this, the third volume of my collected stories, I have made a somewhat > different arrangement from that which I have made in the others. In those I > put the stories I wrote **in which** the scene was laid in Malaya. Someet > Maugham's Collected Short Stories In the last sentence, What does 'which' point out? I guess 'the stories'. I am confused. Please help me.


title: "as follows" vs "as the following"

text: As follows sounds more correct to me, as the following sounds super wrong to me,but just wanted to hear your opinion as well on this one, is "as the following" a legit phrase when listing things that follow, for instance can you use it like this: bank process shall be as the following: a) something b) something else


title: "Force" vs. "enforce" vs. "compel" vs. "obligate" vs. "oblige"

text: I am trying to write a technical document, and I've been scratching my hair out, since I need to explain things with formal proper technical English, here is my question: Does > System shall enforce customer to take a ticket to enter the highway. sound correct to you? Or should I go with "System shall force/compel/oblige customer to take a ticket"? Which one sounds more suitable to you?


title: "Realizing" and "building" something

text: If I have software SW, and I want to enhance its performance by adding a capability, say X, to it, what do I call this process? Is it correct to say: > Realizing X in SW? Or: > Building X in SW? I feel that building and realization are not two suitable words for this reason.


title: Unable to enjoy the moment because I know it's going to end

text: Is there a word for the feeling when you are unable to enjoy a moment because you are aware that it will end soon? I am preferably looking for an adjective. Scenario - my buddy has a huge crush on a woman and he claims to be in love with her. They have good rapport and share quite a bit of time together daily. (Unfortunately,) She will move on (both metaphorically and geographically) very soon. We were not able to find the appropriate term to describe this state of mind / feeling.


title: Is there a significant difference between “sorry,” “pardon” and “excuse me”? Are they interchangeable?

text: I was amused with the line, “ _Stand-alone 'sorry' may have dressed like a gentleman_ , but _his heart was made of India rubber_ ” in the article titled “A poor apology for a word” in December 13 New York Times. It says “the average British person says 'sorry' eight times a day — or “204,536 times in three score years and ten,” in the reporter’s Old Testament idiom.” Is “sorry” predominantly used in both the UK and the US when you are apologizing for something, or asking somebody to repeat something that you have not hard clearly (OALD) in comparison with “pardon,” and “excuse me”? Are there any significant difference of meaning and nuance among “sorry,” “pardon” and “excuse me,” or they are perfectly interchangeable?


title: Synonyms for "palette"

text: I'm looking for synonyms for "palette," but the usual Google/Thesaurus.com searches fail pretty hard. I'm interested in the sense that means "the range of color characteristic of a particular artist or painting or school of art." I'm actually looking for an alternative term for palette (computing) to avoid confusion with something else that was already called a "palette" in the programming library I am using. So far, the best synonym I've found is "CLUT" or Color Lookup Table.


title: Is there a phrase to describe two people who love each other, but are too afraid to show it?

text: "Unrequited love" is usually when one person loves another, but keeps it a secret because it is not reciprocated. Is there a phrase to describe a two-way unrequited love? For example, where two people love each other, but both think it is not reciprocated, so both keep it a secret? This is a very common plot line in TV shows. For example, in season 3 of _The Office (US)_ , Jim and Pam are both in love, and are not involved in any other relationships, but are both afraid to say something out of fear of rejection. Is there an succinct way to describe situations like this?


title: Meaning of "lethuel" (an occupation)

text: The Reginald Punnett Wikipedia article quotes from the 31 March 1901 ~~British~~ Census as follows: > Reginald Crundall Punnett Age:26. Estimated Birth Year abt 1875. > Relationship:Boarder. Where born:Tonbridge, Kent, England. Address 83 North > Street.FIFE.Scotland. Occupation:Lethuel In Zoology... The article says Punnett worked as a demonstrator and part-time lecturer at University of St. Andrew's at a time between 1898 to 1902, so _lethuel_ may refer to demonstrator and/or part-time lecturer. However, I haven't been able to verify the meaning, either online or in printed works such as _Webster's Third New International Dictionary_. What might the definition of the word be? _Update:_ The Wikipedia page refers to "31 March 1901 Census" and I wrote "31 March 1901 British Census" in my question. I've now struck out _British_ due to zpletan's census-records-of-Scotland comment.


title: Origin of "Screw the pooch"

text: Wiktionary says this of "screw the pooch": > The term was first documented in the early "Mercury" days of the US space > program. It came there from a Yale graduate named John Rawlings who helped > design the astronauts' space suits. The phrase is actually a bastardization > of an earlier, more vulgar and direct term which was slang for doing > something very much the wrong way, as in "you are fucking the dog!" At Yale > a friend of Rawlings', the radio DJ Jack May (a.k.a. "Candied Yam Jackson") > amended this term to "screwing the pooch" which was simultaneously less > vulgar and more pleasing to the ear. The unsourced part about Rawlings and May was added by an anonymous user in 2008. Since then, this information has been repeated on numerous websites. While it's quite plausible that "screw the pooch" is a euphemization of "fuck the dog" (Green's Dict of Slang agrees), the rest of this seems a little dubious. Various sources suggest that there was indeed a Joseph L. "Jack" May who DJ'ed "The Candied Yam Jackson Show" on the Yale radio station WYBC when he was an undergrad from 1947 to 1951. And Rawlings is mentioned alongside May/Jackson in this article about the Chi Delta Theta literary society in the Feb. 7, 1950 Yale Daily News: > "The chorus of the gods at dinner," as the motto of Chi Delta Theta > requires, was sung and played, soothing the more savage breasts, by David > Chavchavadze, 1950, "Candied Yam" Jackson and Med Bennett, 1950, and John > Rawlings, 1950. Anyone have firmer evidence about the origins of the phrase? (Question from Ben Zimmer via ADS-L.)


title: What does "duly" mean in the phrase "duly noted"?

text: The phrase "duly noted" is very common, but I have never used the word "duly" outside of this context. What is the meaning of the word "duly", and what does it add to the word "noted"? I would also like to know if there are other uses of "duly", and if it can be used on its own.


title: "one perspective or point of view"?

text: Consider the following sentence: > Often passages will present information about the topic from more than one > perspective or point of view. Are "perspective" and "point of view" of the same meaning? If they are, why do people say both of them at the same time instead of either one?


title: What is land area under house called besides the whole land?

text: I am looking for the term which is used to specify the Land Area occupied by the house only.


title: What are alternative responses for when someone sneezes?

text: **Question:** What is an appropriate English response to reply when someone nearby sneezes? **Background:** I am American by birth, and was raised to respond 'God Bless You' when someone sneezes -- though I often shorten this to simply 'Bless You'. Once, while on Wall Street as a consultant, I replied 'Bless You' and my boss turned to me & said "they don't say that here." At the time I was a bit taken aback, but now as a graduate student, surrounded by non-native English speakers, I can appreciate the contextual / cultural subtlety of my response -- (e.g. this question/responses ). Being German by heritage, "gesundheit" works, but requires a multilingual explanation to my colleagues. I have tried to switch to 'Good Health', but I find this so awkward that it often stumbles out as 'God Health'... Shortening this to 'Health' feels equally clunky. So... Language Experts! What are your thoughts? What is a reasonable, **English** , response to reply when someone sneezes?


title: Is "imbedded" a valid spelling of the word "embedded"?

text: I have seen this used on our marketing materials: > The technology imbedded in this solution will help improve productivity. I was going to flag it as a spelling error, however Googling provided some references to it being a proper usage. My instinct is that it is wrong however, can anyone shed any light?


title: Usage of "as such"

text: I read that the following is ungrammatical: > Because of the accident, he arrived at the dock an hour late. As such, he > missed the boat and forfeited his deposit. Why? What is the correct usage of _as such_?


title: Antonym of "summon"

text: I'm looking for an antonym to "summon". Would "unsummon" be grammatically correct, though it is not found in a dictionary? A contextual example: > You are a wizard that has the ability to summon minions. Other wizards have > the ability to unsummon your minions.


title: Alternative to Indirect Questions

text: The syntax for indirect questions is that the verb goes after the subject such as, > I am wondering what the time is. If not asked as an indirect or embedded question, what punctuation would you use between the two clauses for the following sentence? > I am wondering what is the time. As a native speaker used to conversational English, this sounds awkward if not incorrect to me, because I frequently use indirect questions (Microsoft Word apparently thinks so too). If I were to verbalize it as in the second example, I would put a pause between "I am wondering" and "What time is it?" My first question is – is a comma the correct punctuation for the second example? Can a hyphen also be used? Next when sentences contain more information, indirect questions start to look and sound awkward when read. For example: > I’m trying to find what the best solution to the problem is. As opposed to > I’m trying to find what is the best solution to the problem. I know what you’re thinking: why not omit “what is”. Hypothetically speaking, if I wanted to state it indirectly, would it be grammatically correct or good writing to do so? One last example, keeping in mind the same syntax: > I want to ask when a good time to call back is. If spoken, I wouldn’t second guess it. But when I read it over and over again, it doesn’t sound right. I appreciate any feedback and/or expert advice, as well as any reputable sources that address this specific question. * * * I asked this question because I had recently pointed out this syntactic error to a non-native speaker who composes work-related emails to Americans. While the type of punctuation may be negligible, I wanted to give the most appropriate alternative given the writing context. Out of the three options, which punctuation would be most appropriate for professional emails? Also -- would the sentence, "I was wondering, what is the time?" by definition wouldn't this be an example of a comma splice? And if you start the sentence with "I was wondering", wouldn't you have to end the sentence with a period? I'm hoping I can pass on clear cut grammar and punctuation advice while keeping his writing natural and conversational sounding.


title: What's the inverse of "scalable" — capable to be broken down further and further?

text: If something is scalable that means that the project is able to operate as it gets bigger. What's the inverse of this? Suppose I have something that is big, but it can be broken down into subsections and it will still be able to be broken down, etc. — something like a fractal. That is, as it's broken down, it still contains the main components. For example, I have a list that contains 16 items that can be broken down into 4 main categories, and each category can be broken down further into the same 4 categories. I'm looking for a word to describe this.


title: Is there any oxymoron word for the word “oxymoron”?

text: I have also asked this in ELL, but I'm taking a risk (may be closed very soon) to ask it here again since I'm not getting enough response. I just have a bizarre thought, though I can't say where will be I using this! So basically _oxymoron_ is use of combining of two contradictory terms that would produce a seemingly incongruous meaning. But can anyone tell me is there a word that "oxymoronifies" (I think I just created that word) the word _oxymoron_ itself. Opposite of oxymoron doesn't quite hold the meaning. I can think of _prominent oxymoron_.


title: More precise word or phrase for neutral connotation of racism

text: Racism in the dictionary means > a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races > determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea > that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. Is there a word or phrase that means > a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races > determine cultural or individual achievement **without** implying "the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others"? None of the other answers are relevant.


title: What is the origin of the term "back to back", meaning to follow one after the other?

text: Presumably items would follow each other back to _front_? There is such a thing as 'back to back' agreements; for example when you have an agreement with a bank to fund a purchase but contingent on (or following) the sale of another. Could this be it I wonder, as in 'one follows the other'?


title: Capitalization for "Federal"

text: I'm writing an article for publication and I want to capitalize the following sentence appropriately. "You need to know that Federal law bars the lender from accelerating the mortgage on your personal residence because you transferred it to your living revocable trust." Is the appropriate capitalization "Federal law" or "Federal Law" or "federal law"?


title: what is the difference between turn out and come out

text: What should be the correct answer for the question below.Please help. Nobody believed Galileo's theory initially but it -came out- to be right. (1)worked out (2)turned out (3)carried out (4)no improvment


title: Meaning and etymology of "down with"

text: I've searched a lot and found out that _down with_ as a slang phrase means "being in an agreement with something". On the other hand, I know that it also means "death upon something". So in a sentence like > Down with war! how am I supposed to know which one of these meanings is applied? Has this term changed its meaning with time?


title: Why do users from India make these particular punctuation and capitalization errors?

text: Many users from India are now using the Stack Exchange sites and I see a common set of errors:   * Spaces before punctuation: *where is this going ?   * No space at all around punctuation *This is one sentence.Here is another.   * Lack of capitalization in sentences, especially the word "I" is often not capitalized. I'm aware that non-native speakers often have trouble with the English language, but these particular traits seem to be unique to users from India. Is this a reflection of how English is taught in India, a similarity to Hindi, or something else entirely?


title: what does a 'day's work' mean? is it a full day's work?

text: > In the summertime, I often rise very early, and repair to my room to do a > day’s work before breakfast. quote from the haunted house by Charles dickens


title: How to refer to members of the House of Representatives?

text: The sentence is > Call your two Senators and your elected member of the House of > Representatives. I'd like to say something simpler like _… your elected Congressman_ , but that runs into all sorts of issues. First, we can have either a _congressman_ or a _congresswoman_. Second, Senators _are_ "congressmen." So how to refer to people of the other house?


title: pronunciation of "afraid"

text: I know /əˈfreɪd/ is the schoolbook version of pronouncing "afraid". However, I constantly find myself pronouncing it like /əˈfred/ instead. Is it just a natural thing to do when speaking or does it sound odd to a native speaker? Thanks in advance! edit: I would use the first variant in a context where this word receives extra stress i.e. is of some importance, like in "Who is he afraid of?". It's only when the word isn't really important and gets sort of swallowed in the phrase.


title: "Come over" and etymology of other idioms

text: Can someone explain the etymology of using _over_ in expressions like _come over to_ and _go over to_ as in "pay a casual visit"? Is there a source for the etymology of idiomatic expressions somewhere?


title: Opposite of "during"

text: Is there an opposite/antonym of **during** (an event) meaning _"NOT during (this event)"_ or _"before or after (this event)"_?


title: What is the proper plural of "reputation"?

text: > Vote Down requires 125 reputation Shouldn't it be "reputations"? Why or why not?


title: conditional sentence

text: > If I had to guess I’d say we are looking at the same records. Why not say _we **were** looking at the same records_ for the present? And yes, the situation is about the present circumstances. So _were_ would indicate past? That is exactly my question.


title: I need a verb to replace "to know" in this sentence

text: This paper seeks to know if those who perpetuate rape are the only ones responsible.


title: Better way to say "at first sight"?

text: I have draft where I want to say something like," At first sight, the problem seems intractable, but a careful analysis shows ..." I feel "at first sight" seems a bit un-academic. Is there a better way to say the same thing?


title: "Calculations on/about the limiting behaviour"

text: > I did some calculations ___ the limiting behaviour of some functions, when n > tends to infinity. Is it _about_ , _on_ , or even something else?


title: Emails or memos claiming to be "From the desk of ..."

text: Some people adopt the affectation in a message, memo or email where the sender is identified explicitly in the header of the message that the sender is shown as being "From the desk of Joe Smith" rather than just from "Joe Smith". In some situations, "From the office of" makes more sense - I take this as meaning that someone on the staff of a politician or senior executive wrote the contents, but that the office holder is happy to be considered as supporting the message. Is this what Joe Smith is trying to tell us with this construction?


title: People who have accepted (an invitation)

text: I am sending invitations to people who are eligible to become members. I am wondering what other word I can use that means something similar to 'member'. Specifically, I have invited certain people ('invitees'), and some of them have accepted my invitation. I'm looking for a word like 'accepteds' (which I know is not the right word to use), because they _accepted_ my invitation and so their status has changed from _invitee_ to _XXXX_ (a noun based on or associated with a verb that means 'to accept'). I know this sounds like a silly question, but in my own language you can name such people by reference to their action. Thanks in advance. :)


title: How can I explain to people that the phrase “off of ” is grammatically incorrect?

text: How can I explain to people that the phrase _off of_ is grammatically incorrect? I‘ve heard this phrase used a lot, especially by Americans (though they aren't the only ones). In my understanding, _off of_ should usually be replaced by _off_ , as in, > I took the book _off_ the shelf as opposed to > I took the book _off of_ the shelf Am I wrong? Or is there perhaps some simple way I can explain this to most people?


title: Meaning of "take your mind off"

text: I came across this phrase on the website: http://www.bspcn.com/about/ > Over all, this site is sure to be appreciated by anyone that needs to take > his or her mind off of more pressing matters. I looked it up into the dictionary, and the explanation for _take his mind off_ is "if an activity takes someone's mind off their problems, it stops them from thinking about it". But why does _of_ exist in the sentence above?


title: 'Off of' versus 'from'

text: Is 'off of' ever a valid substitution for 'from'? For example, > 'It's that guy off of Friends.' Would it ever be acceptable to use this construction in formal written English? I live in the West Country (UK) and I hear this construction frequently.


title: Difference between get "off of" and "off"

text: What is the difference when you say _"get off of something"_ and _"get off something"_?


title: "off of the counter" vs "off the counter"

text: Is the word _of_ necessary? For example: > Take the towel off of the counter. vs. > Take the towel off the counter.


title: 'Deflected Off of' vs 'Deflected off'

text: A question straight from the football commentary pages : > X's shot deflected off of Y before finding its way into the net. What is the correct usage here ?   **_Deflected off of_** or **_deflected off_** ?? Or, are both usages correct?


title: Trying to make sense of (off?) "off of"

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  How can I explain to people that the phrase "off of" is grammatically > incorrect? Is it just me or has the word combination "off of", and it's big brother "off of it", gained a certain prominence recently? People _jump off of [something]_ , they find a business model and _make money off of it_ , you can _eat off of it_ and some people request to _keep your hands off of it_ (whatever _if_ refers to, then). Intuitively, I'd rather _jump off a chair_ , I'd _make money of it_ , I'd _eat off my plate_ and of course, I'd _keep my hands off it_. So, please tell me: What kind of language is this? Is it the latest fashion, is it the street language, or is it the way the educated ones talk? Or has this feature existed since ages, and I just didn't notice it yet?


title: Difference in meaning

text: Is there a difference in meaning of the following sentences?   1. It will take two years to build a bridge on this river.   2. It would take two years to build a bridge on this river.


title: Can "nor" be used without "neither"?

text: I came across this sentence: > Cummings Motors, Smith Electric _nor_ our subcontractors can be held liable. Is this a proper use of the word _nor_? I can understand > Neither Cummings Motors nor Smith Electric nor our subcontractors can be > held liable. But _nor_ without _neither_? What about _neither, nor, nor_? Is one _nor_ sufficient?


title: Origin of the phrase 'ducking & diving'

text: 'The Dog and Duck' is not an uncommon pub name in England.I have read in The Dictionary of Pub Names (Wordsworth Reference Series) that the pub name sometimes originated from the sport of duck hunting. This was favoured by Charles 2nd and remained popular until the early 19th century. Ducks wings were pinioned and they were thrown into the village pond to be hunted by spaniels. The only way the ducks could escape was to dive. I have read a number of explanations of the usage of the phrase, but could this have been the origin?


title: Why is "a 100% increase" the same amount as "a two-fold increase"?

text: and is such interpretation the norm? When something went from 4 units to 8 units, most authoritative sources seem to agree with the use of _"a two-fold increase"_ , even though what was actually increased is more like "one-fold", i.e. the original quantity. But if the "two-fold increase" is the correct usage, why most people seem to interpret "a 100% increase" the same thing?


title: What does "life's a beach" mean?

text: Somewhere on Yahoo News I read this text: > Scarlett Johansson and Sean Penn turned heads when they showed up together > at Reese Witherspoon's wedding. The 26-year-old actress took 50-year-old > Penn, who is 24 years her senior, as her date to the star-studded nuptials. > Plus, Lady Gaga sets a new Twitter record, and **life's a beach** for David > Beckham and Sofia Vergara as they shoot a Diet Pepsi commercial. What does "life's a beach" mean?


title: Odd usage of "penchant"

text: Penchant is synonymous with words such as "inclination" and "leaning." Does the sentence below correctly use the word "penchant"? > Joe has a _penchant_ against the UCLA Bruins.


title: How to describe the various ways in which one can experience something?

text: I'm looking for a word that means "The various manners in which one is able to enjoy, gain fulfillment from, and/or experience a given activity." For example, you could say "The _< filler noun>_ of paper and pencil role- playing games includes the inherent social interaction, applying tactics to combat situations, puzzles, role-playing situations, immersion, and the story." You could also say "Joe appreciates a different part of the _< filler noun>_ of clubbing than Susan; he likes to drink and meet new people, but she likes to dress up and be the center of attention." I think that most activities are probably like this, in that they can be appreciated for different reasons. However, I'd find it useful to also have an adjective that describes how diverse a particular activity's manners of experience are. For example, you could say "Reading is a very _< filler adjective>_ activity. It's much more _< filler adjective>_ than boxing." * * * **Is there an existing word that conveys the concept that I've described above?** Slang and short phrases are also acceptable, if there isn't a more formal way to express this concept. The first thing that I considered was the phrase "diverse experience." However, "experience" does not convey the idea of there being multiple facets to the experience. "Diverse experience" seems to connote instead that the activity might be different every time, rather than that on a single occasion there might be five distinct facets of the activity that can be appreciated.


title: Shall I use 'thus' or 'thusly'?

text: Which is correct? > ...others are compensated thus. > > ...others are compensated thusly. This page says 'thusly' is incorrect: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thusly However without the 'ly' is sounds wrong. This page on adverbs didn't mention adverbs at the end of a sentence as being wrong. http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/adverbs.htm It provides some examples: > A viewpoint adverb generally comes after a noun and is related to an > adjective that precedes that noun: > > A successful athletic team is often a good team _scholastically_. I just think '...a good team scholastical' would be wrong. Why is 'thus' different? This related question also says 'thus' over 'thusly', but the word was not at the end of a sentence. "Thus" vs. "Thusly"


title: What does "Hallelujah" mean in Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah song?

text: Rufus Wainwright's Cover of Hallelujah The literal meaning of hallelujah is "Praise Yah", however the song uses it in different ways and I have always wondered what it really means in the song.   * > The baffled king composing Hallelujah   * > And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah   * > It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah   * > And every breath we drew was Hallelujah   * > It’s a cold and it’s a broken Hallelujah   * > The holy or the broken Hallelujah   * > With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah Complete lyrics: http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/leonardcohen/hallelujah.html


title: "I need it to lift 2 tons this time." "I don't know if it *could* do." Why do some people use "do" like this?

text: Sometimes, instead of saying "could/can" or "would/will" (the two most common I've heard), some people say "could/can do" or "would/will do". Instead of: > I don't know if it _can_. I sometimes (but uncommonly) hear: > I don't know if it _can_ do. Say them with a mild emphasis on the italicized _can_ and you'll be saying it as I hear it. As this is a little hard to express to someone who has never come across it before, I hope someone who sees this knows what I mean. Why is that extra "do" sometimes used? _**Additional note:_** Here are three examples that in jwpat7's opinion may be similar to or represent what Daniel δ refers to: > I have never crossed the Himalayas, though I might have done. - Christopher > Hughes, 2006 > > ...when I could get a vote for Mr. Charlesworth, I did do. ... I made no > regular canvass, [but] where I could get a vote, I did do. - Slade > testimony, 13487-8, 1860 > > "... When needed I will turn myself in too. And if I can do, you can do > too!" - Oblivion in Progress, 2011, pp. 67-68


title: What would a generic term be for a puck or ball in a sport?

text: I'm a programmer and like to name my variables as accurately as possible (who knows who will be reading my code in a few years' time?) I've been thinking about sports video games recently, and have thought about the idea of a generic sports game engine. Most sports games have an arena, crowds, a playing surface and players. They also have a puck, ball, discus, javelin, etc. and this has me wondering: What is a generic term for this object? Something that could transcend all sports. Edit: Since it seems there may be no _exact_ term for this type of object, I'd gladly settle for some sort of analog.


title: Decision to not speak on confidential matters

text: I'm looking for a word: > I discussed certain confidential matters with my client. She relied on my __ > in not speaking of them. There's a word specifically for this situation, better than "restraint" and essentially opposite to "openness".


title: "The proverbial wedding ring"?

text: In old books, I keep coming accross the saying, > ...is so transparent it could pass through the proverbial wedding ring. What does this mean?


title: Is there a better way to write 'pre processing and post processing'?

text: Can _pre processing and post processing_ be replaced with _pre and post processing_? Is it grammatically correct?


title: "Repairable" vs. "reparable" vs. "irreparable" vs. "unrepairable"

text: I've been looking online at these three words, but I'm not able to determine their relationship and the rules surrounding their usage. I believe this is true:   * _Repairable_ : Just what you'd think, "capable of being repaired".   * _Reparable_ : Exactly the same as _repairable_ (modulo spelling and pronunciation of course).   * _Irreparable_ : The opposite of the above.   * _Unrepairable_ : The same meaning as _irreparable_ , but seems to be less commonly used. Is all of this correct?


What is the difference between "section" and "part"? The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English says for "section": > one of the parts that something such as an object or place is divided into and says for "part": > a piece or feature of something such as an object, area, event, or period of > time I know that "section" is smaller than "part" in size, but I'm totally confused about their usage in sentences. For example, is "the front section of the car was damaged" correct grammatically? Or is "in sections of Canada, French is the first language" correct?


title: "for + noun phrase" vs "of + noun phrase"

text: > presumptive (adj) 1.1 _Law_   >  Giving grounds **for** the inference of a fact or **of** the appropriate > interpretation of the law. Would someone please explain why **of** precedes the second noun phrase (the appropriate interpretation of the law) ? Why not 'for' again, which precedes the first noun phrase? Why doesn't 'for' apply equally to the second?


title: "Continuing" vs. "continued"

text: So, just a few minutes ago we had this question asking whether one could substitute _ongoing availability_ with _continuing availability_ and what the difference would be, if any. Apart from the question looking like spam and being deleted, my gut feeling told me it should've been _continued availability_ instead of _continuing_. This made me wonder: are these two exchangeable as well? Is there any subtle difference in meaning that I'm missing? _continuing availability_ just sounds wrong, but I can't seem to put my finger on it as to why.


title: Use of “well” to signal a pseudo-awkward pause before an impending word repetition or pun

text: In an article titled “The Ice Age Cometh” ( _Fortune_ , May 25, 1998, reprinted in _The Great Unraveling_ , 2003), Paul Krugman writes: > Suppose that two tribes—the Clan of the Cave Bear and its neighbor, the Clan > of the Cave Bull—live in close proximity, but traditionally follow different > hunting strategies. The Cave Bears tend to hunt rabbits—a safe strategy, > since you can be pretty sure of finding a rabbit every day, but one with a > limited upside, since a rabbit is only a rabbit. The Cave Bulls, on the > other hand, go after mammoths—risky since you never know when or if you’ll > find one, but potentially very rewarding, since **mammoths are, well, > mammoth**. The thinking behind the phrase “mammoths are, well, mammoth” seems to be that by visibly hesitating in the midst of the semi-tautological observation that “mammoths are mammoth,” Krugman either distances himself from the obviousness of the observation (by indicating that he is aware of it) or slows down his narrative so that readers can savor the flash of wit. In the past several years, I have seen dozens of instances of this use of _well_. For example, from _The Rough Guide to the Earth_ (2007): > The other group [of meteorites] are **the finds. These are meteorites that > are, well, found** , either by chance or by searchers looking for them after > reports of a fall. And from Susan Pinker, _The Sexual Paradox: Men, Women, and the Real Gender Gap_ (2008): > The bell curve simply looks different for males, with more men at the tail > ends of the distribution, where their measured skills are either dismal, > stellar, or a mix of the two. ... Comparing men and women in the middle > ranges one finds fewer sex differences, but **at the extremes the picture > looks—well—extreme**. I had imagined that this particular use of _well_ was a fairly recent phenomenon. (A Google Books search for the phrase “ **work is, well, work**,” for example, turned up nine unique relevant matches, none from before 1975.) But then I found this example from Walter de la Mare, _Memoirs of a Midget_ (1922): > As for poetry, one might have guessed from what they said that it **meant no > more than — well, its "meaning."** As if a butterfly were a chrysalis. In a question-and-answer on this site about Garbage/stuff words, several answerers cited the terms "discourse markers" (identified as "words we use in speech to separate different pieces of information") and "fillers" (identified as words that "fill in gaps while the speaker thinks of what to say next." However, what I'm talking about here is not the unconscious use of a filler word while searching for a way to complete a thought, but the hyperconscious simulation of such use, for literary effect. My questions are   1. Is there a standard rhetorical term for this formulaic use of _well_ (or an allied word such as _ahem_ or _erm_ ) to express self-aware hesitation prior to stating the obvious?    2. How far back historically does use of this tactic in English go?


title: Are "to flee from" and "to run away from" interchangeable?

text: The verb "to flee" means "to run away" but are they interchangeable in every aspect? I'm kind of confused which one to use. It seems to me that the use of the verb flee could be more elaborate when written and "run away" would be more use in an informal discussion. In which context one is more suitable than the other?


title: What does “The man that once did sell the lion’s skin While the beast liv’d was killed with hunting him” mean?

text: I came across the following sentence in the context of four professional men discussing a plot to retrieve their lost $1 million, swindled from them by a nouveau riche American banker in Jeffery Archer’s novel, “Not a Penny More, Not a Penny Less”: > The man that once did sell the lion’s skin   >  While the beast liv’d was killed with hunting him. The line reminded me of a Japanese proverb, “ミイラ取りがミイラになる - A mummy searcher always ends up as a mummy,” which I think is close to an English saying, “Go for wool and come home shorn.” What is the exact meaning of the above two lines? Is this a popular English metaphor? Why is there no period at the end of the first line while the second line starts with the capital? Is it wrong to rearrange the sentence as follows? > The man that once did sell the lion’s skin was killed with hunting a lion > while the beast liv’d. .


title: "A bunch of nincompoops!" Really ? In the 21st century?

text: With the FIFA World Cup going on here, I recently heard a tourist use the word "nincompoop" in the sentence "A bunch of nincompoops!". Then I realized I hadn't heard that word for a long, long time. To be more precise, since the 70's. Is it still in use ? Where ?


Is this correct punctuation for the sentence? I called it the,"Witch's tree."


title: How to describe braces, brackets, parentheses?

text: I have this term: > ((x ,y, z)) and I need to describe in words that the **x** in this term should be outside the bars? Is this correct? _outside the bars_? > x ((y,z)) The position of the x doesn't matter, it could be also behind: > ((y,z)) x


title: How to end a resolved support ticket email?

text: What is the best way to word an email meant to close a "help desk ticket" submitted via e-mail? For instance, `Bob` sends an email to `Support Team` with a problem. After the `Support Team` solves the issue for `Bob`, and `Bob` acknowledges that the problem is fixed, what is the best way to say "Your problem is fixed, let us know if you experience any other problems"? Not only would the purpose of this be to let the person know we're here, but to inform anyone else in the email group that the issue has been closed.


Do you know the names of universities starting with definite article "the"? Such as:   1. The London School of Economics and Political Science   2. The Chicago School of Professional Psychology   3. The Hague University of Applied Sciences Thank you for answering my question.


title: Is there a rule for "wouldn't" used to mean "didn't want"?

text: I have seen the sentences in books where _wouldn't_ seems to have been used in the meaning of _didn't want_ , and I wonder if such a rule exists. For instance, > I wanted to participate, but he wouldn't take me on. What kind of rule is applied in the sentence above?


title: Are the two sentences synonymous?

text: Are > Method A is used in preference to Method B. and > Method A is used in favor of Method B. synonymous (always)? Which one is actually used in each case?


title: whiskers vs sideburns usage in UK vs US English?

text: Is the word whiskers more like UK English and "sideburns" more like US English? I see the term originates from "Ambrose Burnside" who was American so the word "whisker(s)" can be older than the word "sideburn".


title: Possessive pronouns in research papers

text: Contrast: > In order to develop a relationship between the energy spectra and their > corresponding Fourier transforms... with > In order to develop a relationship between the energy spectra and the > Fourier transforms corresponding to these spectra The first, in my opinion, sounds much smoother and more natural. But I'm using a possessive personal pronounce with "spectra". Is this allowed in a formal document like a research article? ...or is there a better option?


title: What is the stand of "impossibly difficult" or "impossibly high"?

text: let's see a sentence "The examination is impossibly difficult to get passed." What exactly the sentence is trying to say? dose it mean "The exam is extremely hard" or "The exam is so easy that it's impossible to think it is difficult. this confuses me a lot, the word "impossibly" seems contradictory to the word "difficult"


title: "Did China Birth the Next Steve Jobs?"

text: As the title of a Forbes article, it has been drawn to my attention because of the use of _birth_ as a verb. I think it should be _give birth to_ or _bear_.


title: Sentence Construction: "Just Because ...... Does Not Mean"

text: I've already found an entry on this here. However, it does not solve my problem: I just read an entry on "cross platform" from Wikipedia, in which it wrote: > Just because a particular operating system may run on different computer > architectures, that does not mean that the software written for that > operating system will automatically work on all architectures that the > operating system supports. I have seen sentence construction "Just because...does not mean" quite often, but it was my first time to notice that the word "that" or "it" could be present in the construction as well (e.g., "Just because..., that/it does not mean"). Could someone please explain which usage is correct?


title: Is "Just because X doesn't mean Y" a grammatical sentence?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Sentence Construction: "Just Because … Does Not Mean"   >  “just because… doesn't mean…” I'm wondering if **"Just because _X_ doesn't mean _Y_ "** is a grammatical construction. I tend to say, **"Just because _X_ , it/that doesn't mean _Y_ "**, because I don't think **"because _X_ "** is a nominal phrase. If this is correct, then **"The reason why _X_ is because _Y_ "** must also be correct.


title: what is the slang word for rich but uneducated people? especially those who live in rural areas and who like to show off?

text: What is the slang word for rich but uneducated people, especially those who live in rural areas and always like to show off?


title: Is Necrophagia The Act Of Eating Dead Animal Flesh Only?

text: Does necrophagia apply only to consuming animal flesh, or also human flesh?


title: Many diseases are titled "The Silent Killer" while they are "A Silent Killer"

text: Why use The instead of A? Perhaps the writers of The are pulling at our emotions.


title: Is there a single word for "copied & pasted"?

text: I'm looking for a single word alternative to "copy & pasted" in: > I copy & pasted that into the document.


title: Should the word "commission" be used in singular or plural in these cases?

text: I don't know what would be grammatically correct, _commission_ or _commissions_ , in the following sentences: >   1. We will pay you commission(s) for each client you refer to us. >   2. You can track your commission(s) earned via... >   3. Payment of commission(s) will be made at the request... >


title: What’s the rule for adding “-er” vs. “-or” when nouning a verb?

text: What’s the rule to decide whether you add _-er_ or whether you add _-or_ when creating a noun from a verb? Sometimes it’s _-er_ :   * _read > reader_   * _hate > hater_   * _hit > hitter_ But other times it’s _-or_ :   * _meditate > meditator_   * _collect > collector_


title: Rules for nominalizing a verb

text: To nominalize a verb, you sometimes use the gerund. > to happen --> a happening Sometimes it's a different word. > to arrive --> an arrival so we don't write > to arrive --> an *arriving Is there a rule for when to use each method? Currently I just use whichever sounds good, being a native speaker.


title: Words for people who do things: "-er" or "-or"

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What’s the rule for adding -er vs. -or when nouning a verb?   >  Rules for nominalizing a verb While reading another question, I started wondering if there's a rule for appending "-er" or "-or" to verbs to make them into people. I mean, you have _worker_ , _keeper_ , _writer_ , _composer_ , but _corrector_ , _addressor_ , _compositor_ etc. So is there a rule for which ending to append, or is this just something you have to learn on a case-by-case basis?


title: Deleter or deletor?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What's the rule for adding -er vs. -or when nouning a verb? Assuming it would even be a word, how would I describe someone or something that "deletes": `deleter` or `deletor`?


Are "that's it" and "that's all" interchangeable? Is there any specific case where I should use one instead of the other?


title: Alternative names for a place of trade

text: I am wondering what alternative names or nicknames there are for a place of trade. I know of market but I am hoping for others.


title: "Every X of mine" VS "My every X"

text: I'm pretty sure that "Every X of mine" is correct, but reading and speaking out "My every X" makes me feel uncertain about it... is it also correct? If it's not used in formal language or common speaking, can it be allowed anyway as poetic license in writing a song lyric?


title: How do I write certain IPA sounds using Gregg Shorthand?

text: Migrated: http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/2752/help-me-convert- the-english-phonetic-alphabet-to-gregg-shorthand#comment7397_2752 I've found a several descriptive images of the various ways to write all of the sounds of the English Roman Alphabet in Gregg Shorthand, but what I have not been able to find is a way to write all of the _sounds_ of American English in Gregg shorthand; therefore, I'm seeking a resource or a person who can answer me this: how do I write all of the sounds of the IPA in Gregg Shorthand? Please, use this IPA chart (thanks to a Wikipedia submission), which is pretty comprehensive, as a template, if you plan to manually go through it. The reason I ask: I can find examples of all the sounds of IPA, but I cannot find examples of all the sounds of Gregg. If I can find audio samples of all of the Gregg Shorthand symbols, I think that I can make a list with confidence and resubmit a clean answer. So, also if anyone has a resource with phonetic examples of all of the Gregg Shorthand symbols, please post that as a comment or answer. This chart: ![This chart](http://i.stack.imgur.com/gNnNS.png) represents my own attempt to correlate these sounds. It took a long time to create, but feel free to bash it. The red are the ones I'm really in the dark about, and I don't think that any of the vowel sounds are correct. As far as ʏ is concerned, I could not find an IPA character for "you/yew", but there is a Gregg character for it.


title: Official term for “at large” or “on the loose”

text: When a convict is illegally out of prison – either escaped, or didn't get to the prison after his conviction – what is the right expression to describe this? I want the term that is used in official documents, like court files, court orders, etc.


title: Name for smuggled liquor?

text: Is there a name for liquor that might have been produced legally, or using professional technologies, but then has been smuggled, either bypassing customs, or into prohibition area and/or is being sold illegally? "Moonshine" is the common name for suspicious quality liquor made using makeshift, illegal still, but that usually implies local, unprofessional production. "Contraband" is the general name for smuggled, illegal goods, not just liquor.


title: Meaning of "art historical context"

text: I am writing a critical report where I'm comparing different definitions of art. I came across this one: > Danto's definition has been glossed as follows: something is a work of art > if and only if it has a subject (ii) about which it projects some attitude > or point of view (has a style) (iii) by means of rhetorical ellipsis > (usually metaphorical) which ellipsis engages audience participation in > filling in what is missing, and (iv) where the work in question and the > interpretations thereof require an art historical context. In the final condition (iv), what do they mean by "art historical context"?


title: Where does the term "Smurfing" come from?

text: In multiplayer online gaming, the term "Smurf" (noun) is used to refer to an experienced player who creates a new account for the purposes of being matched against inexperienced players for easy wins. Where does this usage of the word come from?


title: What's the difference between "can" and "be going to"?

text: What is the difference between the two verb forms: "can" and "be going to".


title: Can I write a colon after punctuation?

text: I often write a list after writing _"e.g."_ and I want to follow it by adding a colon to show the start of a list, particularly before a bullet pointed list. How should I punctuate this (assuming it is correct)? I want to write, **"e.g.:"** but the _".:"_ doesn't look right. When writing this question, I nearly wrote, _"How should I write punctuation after e.g.?"_ \- which is another example of the problem.


title: Usage of 'for' and 'have'

text: Here is the situation. My birthday is coming. I feel fairly happy.   1. I am going to have a party for my birthday. Does 'for' here mean 'because of' ?   2. I am going to have a party for my friends. Does 'for' here mean 'are intended or benefit from' ?   3. In the two statements above, does 'have' mean hold or organize? THank you. :)


title: The use of "/" meaning

text: In an instance of "Signature/Stamp", does the **/** mean signature **and** stamp or is the meaning signature **or** stamp


How to convert verbs to nouns, and nouns to adjectives? I was told that if I put -ing to the end of a verb, the verb could become an adjective or a noun. For example: > read-reading   >  interest-interesting   >  talk-talking But I also find that not all the nouns related to verbs are formed by adding -ing to it. I am confused about these nouns, like decision and suggestion. Why can one not use deciding, suggesting instead?


title: Is there a specific term for an upwards (downwards)-pointing triangle?

text: I see Unicode expresses the character symbols as simply '[BLACK] UP-POINTING TRIANGLE' etc, but are there any single-word or 'catchier' terms for these orientations of triangles? ▲ △ \-- up-pointing (U+25b2 and U+25b3)   ▼ ▽ \-- down-pointing (U+25bc and U+25bd) It is to be used inside a figure caption, and the symbols represent location markers on a map. I use up and down-pointing triangles for the simple reason that I can overlay them, and produce a third symbol (6-pointed star) very easily. I suppose I could do the same with a square and a diamond, and wouldn't have to think up a new word!


title: Is the following word order acceptable?

text: I need your opinion about the word order in the following sentence: “In her garden grows a cherry-tree.“? Is it grammatically acceptable?


title: When talking about many things that all have one thing, do you use the plural or singular?

text: If you have something like: > Get the _name(s)_ of all users. Should _name_ be singular or plural? The way I see it, each user has only one name, so it could be singular, but you will be getting many names, one for each users, so it could also be plural. Anyone know what is the proper way?


title: Using contracted forms ("don't", "let's") in a formal text

text: How compelled should I feel to use non-contracted forms ( _do not_ rather than _don't_ and so on) when writing in a rather formal text, say an academic paper? In one case I am afraid to seem too stilted, in the other, too casual. Are there good guidelines? And are there differences in this regard between British and American English? (In this previous question there was not much more than "Contractions are more frequent in informal than formal contexts".)


title: Should contractions be avoided in formal emails?

text: In a formal email of the kind where you begin with "Dear Mr. Surname" and finish with "Best regards", for example, should we use the following contractions? Or are the non contracted forms more appropriate?   * We have -> We've   * We would -> We'd   * There is -> There's   * etc.


title: When is it ok to create a contraction of words followed by “s”?

text: When is it correct to create a contraction of words followed by _is_? For instance is _who’s_ a correct short form of _who is_?


title: What is your preference on the use of n't in different situations?

text: Throughout highschool and college I was told "n't" (e.g. can't, wouldn't, shouldn't) should not be used in essays. The manner of which the use of "n't" was bastardized by many people who I considered to hold authority in the manner of the English Language. I pose the question of what do all of you think of the use of "n't" and in what cases should it be used or avoided. I ask this because I feel that writing an email or a short essay saying "don't" is not a big deal, yet people make it one and I do not know why they do this.


title: Is there any difference on the use of I'm and I am?

text: Is it correct to write I am Gerardo and I am here. or I am Gerardo and I'm here. Is there any difference between these two statements?


title: Using of 's, 've and 'd: official or colloquial?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Using contracted forms ("don't", "let's") in a formal text   >  Usage of contractions like "it's" and "that's" in textbooks   >  Should contractions be avoided in formal emails?   >  Are contractions like “didn't” forbidden in written English?   >  Is it better to write without contractions? E.g. “cannot” instead of > “can't” I've been just told that usage of _'s_ , _'d_ and other similar suffixes is considered to be colloquial and isn't ( _isn't_ \- another example) acceptable in formal letters. And that instead of that the full words should be used, such as " _it is_ ", " _I would_ ", " _I had_ ", etc Is that true? PS: I tried to look at Chicago Style Guide (I've heard of it but never had a chance to look through it) but found that it's paid. If anyone know what CSG thinks about that or any other authoritative style guide - it would be nice if you mention that as well (if only it doesn't violate a particular style guide terms of service)


title: Is it better to write without contractions? E.g. "cannot" instead of "can't"

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Using contracted forms (“don't”, “let's”) in a formal text   >  Usage of contractions like "it's" and "that's" in textbooks   >  Should contractions be avoided in formal emails?   >  Are contractions like “didn't” forbidden in written English? Is a text written without abbreviations generally considered more refined, well-mannered and couth? For some reason, I have gotten that impression. E.g.   * "It's warm out, isn't it?" vs "It is warm out, is it not?"   * "I can't say" vs "I cannot say" Are there situations when abbreviations like these should be avoided? What is the popular consensus about their usage?


title: Is "<NOUN>'s" (contraction) proper English?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When is it grammatically correct to create a contraction of words followed > by "is"?   >  Using contracted forms (“don't”, “let's”) in a formal text   >  Should contractions be avoided in formal emails? My family was having the discussion after finding this (or something similar) in a book: > The store's too far away. Since this is being spoken, we're unsure whether it's proper English or slang.


title: Use of 'as per' vs 'per'

text: I've read and have heard of both 'as per' and 'per' being used conversationally, both with the same connotation of either 'according to' or 'on authority of' Examples: "Tell Ron to start molding new rollers for the mecanum wheels, as per me" "Per Mr. Crane, you need to start the molds for the new rollers." They both establish the same context by setting that something should be done on the authority of someone else (or the speaker, per the first example (see what I did there?)). Or it acts as a way to cite a source of a statement, directive or fact in conversational speech. My question is, what is, if any, the functional and syntactical difference between **as per** and **per**. If there are no differences, which is apropos to use?


title: Which is right and why: Why do people go (to zoos/to zoo/to the zoo)?

text: I couldn’t find these explanation of exactly how the rules of articles apply in questions like this:   * Why do people go to zoos?   * Why do people go to zoo?   * Why do people go to the zoo? It’s not a question about a specific zoo, but about zoos in general. The first variant sounds correct, but I’m not so sure about the second and third. Are there scenarios in which both are acceptable, such as spoken English versus formal writing?


title: Word to mean "alien poison"

text: I’m making a comic in which I’m recreating these posters, but with aliens, instead of rats. Now, my first thought was _xenocide_ , but that pretty much just means “genocide of an alien species” ever since Orson Scott Card's book where I think he created the word. But _rodenticide_ has _-i-_ as a connector, not just _-cide_ so could _xenoicide_ or _alienicide_ show what I’m trying to say? My question is, which one of these words (or maybe ones I haven’t thought of) most appropriately conveys " _alien poison_ " in one word? Thanks for the help, guys.


title: etymology of the phrase "at all"

text: I couldn't get much on this phrase. It is a weird one I know but I just can't stand not knowing it. How did the current use of "at all" come into being? Take a look at _this_: > "in any way," mid-14c., originally used only affirmatively (as in I Sam. > XX:6 in KJV: "If thy father at all misse me"); now it is overwhelmingly used > only in the negative or in interrogatory expressions, or in literary > attempts at Irish dialect. Can this be trusted?


title: What does it mean - "When X does Y, God kills Z"?

text: I've come across many pages, articles and texts which say something like   * _When X does Y, God kills a kitten_   * _When X happens, God kills an elephant_ Like   * here \- God kills a pigeon   * here \- God kills a kitten What does it exactly mean? Does it mean that something great was achieved, so a sacrifice was made? or Does it mean that a particular action/event is bad and should be avoided?


title: Why do newspapers use the terms "women voters" and "women candidates"?

text: I've noticed that when discussing political demographics or candidates, many reporters use the phrases "women voters" and "women candidates". This feels horribly awkward grammatically. It's hard to imagine referring to male voters or candidates as "men voters" or "men candidates". Is there a reason that the word women is more commonly used than female in these situations?


title: Can a self studying college drop-out call himself a student?

text: I have dropped the college this year but I am still studying/learning without college using books and internet resources. WordWeb defines _student_ as "A learner who is enrolled in an educational institution". But I am not enrolled in any educational institution. So, can I call myself _student_ or not? If not, what should I call myself?


title: Why is this comma usage incorrect?

text: I know that this sentence is grammatically incorrect, and I know of a few ways to fix the problem, but I don't actually know why it's incorrect and that bothers me. > Climate change is a biological threat, if not constrained it will be a key > danger to health and life on Earth. Any explanation would be appreciated.


What is the origin/meaning of "wheelbarrow full of frogs" I've heard this phrase many times but am unsure as to exactly what it means.


title: What does the phrase "crossing the streams" mean?

text: What does "crossing the stream" mean? I have been through "Cross the stream where it is shallowest" but I also sometimes see this phrase without the "where it is shallowest" part. For example, today I saw this phrase being used in one of the comments in Stack Overflow: > With negative weights Dijkstra I found the most expensive path in the graph: > one that crosses the streams.


title: What are the distinctions between the insulting names "jerk", "a--hole", "bit-h", "c-nt", and "dipsh-t"?

text: The insulting names _jerk_ , _a--hole_ , _bit-h_ , _cu-t_ , and _dipsh-t_ are defined by most dictionaries as to generally used to describe someone who is foolish, contemptible, obnoxious, and disagreeable, but what are the distinctions/nuances between them? For example, I know that there are situations where calling someone say, an _a --hole_ is more accurate than calling someone a _jerk_ , or calling somebody a _cu-t_ is not as accurate/appropriate as calling somebody a _dipsh-t_ in certain situations even though both terms are defined similarly in the dictionaries. AHDE, Collins Dictionary, Wiktionary, and Dictionary.com defines _jerk_ as: >   * a foolish, rude, or contemptible person >   * a person regarded with contempt, esp a stupid or ignorant person >   * a dull or stupid person >   * a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, or inconsequential person >   * a person with unlikable or obnoxious qualities and behavior, typically > mean, self-centered or disagreeable > _A--hole_ is defined by these dictionaries as: >   * a thoroughly contemptible, detestable person >   * a jerk; an inappropriately or objectionably mean, inconsiderate, > contemptible, obnoxious, intrusive, or rude person >   * a stupid, mean, or contemptible person >   * an irritating or contemptible person > _Bit-h_ is defined by these dictionaries as: >   * a woman considered to be spiteful or overbearing >   * a man considered to be weak or contemptible >   * a despicable or disagreeable, aggressive person, often female >   * a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, especially a woman > The definitions of _cu-t_ are: >   * used as a disparaging term for a person one dislikes or finds extremely > disagreeable >   * a mean or obnoxious person >   * a contemptible person >   * a contemptuous term used to refer to an unpleasant person > And the definitions of _dipsh-t_ are: >   * a foolish or contemptible person >   * a very stupid or unpleasant person >   * a stupid or despicable person >   * a stupid or undesirable person > Most or almost all of the definitions provided for these terms generally have the same meaning, so what are the distinctions or what sort of behaviours, traits, attitudes, etc. that are typical of a _jerk_ , an _a--hole_ , a _bit- h_ , a _cu-t_ , or a _dipsh-t_? In other words, if someone is being lets say, unpleasant, foolish, and rude, do I describe them as a _jerk_ , an _a--hole_ , a _bit-h_ , or...? I figured there must be a certain situation, or a particular thing they do which categorizes them as being either a _jerk_ , an _a--hole_ , a _bit-h_ , etc..


title: how to tell if you fall down your head will *** the floor?

text: how to say in the below scenario... > if you fall down in the floor, your head will _ _ _ _ _ _ in the floor. the blank should talk about the crashing of head with the floor. What is the correct form to use while speaking with a kid.