title: "in a word" vs "in a sentence"

text: >   1. In a word, you are wrong! > >   2. In a sentence, you are wrong! > > Which is more natural? I feel "in a word" is more common than "in a sentence", but "you are wrong!" consists of three words rather than "a word"; so it seems "in a sentence" is more correct. Am I right?


title: Word for "to use someone's own tactics against them"

text: I'm looking for a word to describe using someone's own tactics against them. A formal word is preferable but a colloquialism will work as well.


title: What is currently the most obscene word in British English?

text: In a recent question, I realized that while I know what's currently considered the most obscene word in American English ("cunt"), I am told that word is much more unexceptional and workaday in British English, and I do not actually know what word _does_ bear the distinction of most obscene in that vernacular. So, what is it? Looking for current rather than historical usage, obscenity rather than taboo for reasons other than obscenity (as with racial slurs in the United States), and obscene _words_ rather than obscene _concepts_ \-- that is, the taboo attaches to the _word itself_. If it varies between major British English dialects, give me whatever flavors you know. For purposes of this question, "most obscene" means that somebody using the word in a context where obscenity is not normally expected will _most commonly_ be thought to be performing the _greatest_ violation of social convention _for reason_ of the word's obscenity.


title: counterpart of "Shall I/we ..." in written English

text: See my title. I am looking for a word or expression to replace the way of "Shall I/we ...?" The context is I am asking for permission or suggestion but it is not in conversation. I want to apply such sentence in written English. The dictionary says, that is the spoken English.


title: Which is correct: "on two weeks" or "in two weeks"?

text: In below sentence it's mentioned "on two weeks": > They'll quite happily squander a whole year's savings **on two weeks** in > the sun. whereas so far I learned to speak in this way: > They'll quite happily squander a whole year's savings **in two weeks** in > the sun. I want to know which one is correct. In my opinion "in two weeks" means within two weeks which seems more likely correct.


title: Usage of "a" and "the" in titles

text: Which one should I use for page title? >   1. Apple — Tasty Fruit >   2. Apple — A Tasty Fruit >   3. Apple — The Tasty Fruit > The article is only about tasty apple.


title: a single decisive word for a "positive result"

text: It says: > The sweeping prevalence of technology is an undeniable fact today. Both > fruits and repercussions of such prevalence have reached epidemic > proportions. Can fruit mean a positive result, here? and if yes, is it because of the context (mainly due to its contrast to repercussion) or it independently sounds that way? Dictionaries are not forthcoming enough about this, attributing fruit to both results and consequences(implicitly conveying a negative result). So my question is: What's really a decisive, yet general word for a positive result? I'm saying "general" to rule out the words like harvest[n.] which mean "result of an **effort** " I also came across similar questions here on the website, but they seem fail to be frank enough. Thanks in advance


title: Is a "choice" the result of choosing or something to choose from?

text: If I have to choose between three things, do I have three choices? I have always thought of a "choice" as being either the act of choosing or the result of said choosing, but **not** one of the options from which to choose. If someone tells me I have two choices, I tell them "No, I have one _choice_. I have two _options_." Am I right?


title: Should I reformat this sentence?

text: I kind of feel like the first comma in the sentence below should be a semi- colon. Does anything else in there read funny? > As you’ll see in my enclosed resume, I have the educational background, > professional experience and track record for which you are searching.


title: What's the difference between "adviser" and "advisor" -- are both interchangeable?

text: I work for a financial services provider and we deal with "Financial Advisors" all the time. Increasingly, I'm seeing people send emails and so forth with the term "Financial Adviser" and the terms _adivsor_ and _adviser_ seem to be increasingly interchangeable. Which then raises the question: what is the difference between _adviser_ and _advisor_?


title: "People" or "the people"

text: What is the most correct way to say: > People in the list above will also receive product update notifications. Should I use _the people_ or simply _people_? Is there a more formal way to express the concept above?


title: Do I refer to the previous month or to the last month

text: I'd like to ask about the difference between "last month" and "previous month", if there is any. I am a software developer and I use those relative words as a search input values for date search. I am wondering, whether last month is correct if I want to refer to the previous month or not.


title: "To use" or "to be used"

text: Which one is the right sentence for a paper? > We believe that our method can be an informed choice **to use** as starter > program for... > > We believe that our method can be an informed choice **to be used** as > starter program for...


title: Why don’t people ever say “I have wanted to ask”?

text: Why do people never say the following: > I have wanted to ask. . . . Maybe it would be better to ask whether it’s correct to say: > I have wanted to ask. . . . But really I think I’ve never heard that form. Usually I hear people say (for example): > I wanted to ask how you spent this morning. I’m talking about the situation when, for instance, one person is discussing something with other people. Suppose in the middle of the discussion, the person realises that they need to get some complementary information from the speaker. They wait for their turn to have a word, and when their turn comes, they say: > I have wanted to ask you, how do you make pastries? That is, they wish to ask the question which occurred in the mind of the person, and they retained the thought until the moment they asked the speaker. Is it formally correct for them to use present perfect there? Of course, there is another situation when you say: > Yesterday I wanted to ask you about your health, but you had fled. How are > you now? And here it seems quite okay to use the simple past.


title: "Don't condescend to me" or "Don't condescend me"?

text: I've recently heard that the correct usage is "Don't condescend to me", but I've always used "Don't condescend me". Google has mixed quotes. Which is the correct usage? The dictionary has this entry: > to stoop or deign to do something: He would not condescend to misrepresent > the facts. Now, in this sense, it makes sense to have the "to" at the end. But the definition is slightly off... with the phrase "Don't condescend me", the usage is synonymous with that of `patronize`. "He would not patronize to misrepresent the facts" does not make sense, so unless there is another definition of condescend that I am not finding, does that mean that "Don't condescend me" is incorrect? I certainly hear it being used a lot, in TV / movies and everyday life.


title: What's the word which means something that can be used in many different situations?

text: I've been trying to think of this word for hours and it's really annoying me!


title: First printed use of the word "diagram" in English

text: I’m trying to track down the first printed use of the word diagram in English. Can anyone tell me the name, author, and date of the publication in question? It would be especially valuable, on top of that, to have an excerpted passage containing the word, in order to infer its intended meaning from its context.


title: Inversion or no inversion after "only"?

text: >   * Only now you can even get them on top of wrinkles. >   * Only infrequently does it happen. > As one of our members has said, inversion happens when a sentence starts with "only" and never otherwise. So why does no inversion happen in the first sentence?


title: "Confined in the case", "confined on the bus"

text: The preposition “to” is widely used in the phrase “be confined to”. My question is, can I use “in” or “on” in the following sentences? >   1. Someone is confined in the case. >   2. Someone is confined on the bus. > Are the two sentences correct?


title: Is there a word to describe mature or adult plants?

text: I know that adult is most often used to describe a mature human-being, and that mature is a broader usage word, describing everything form animals to cheese. Also that a young tree is a sapling....is there an equivalent word for a mature plant, tree or shrubbery? Or are we stuck with using mature/adult? Is there a technical terms for when a plant has stopped growing in height, and is _first_ able to produce fruit/flowers?


title: Are there any differences in meaning or nuance between ‘suffocation’ and ‘asphyxiation’?

text: There was a lot of news about a fire in a nightclub in southern Brazil, where 233 people were killed. I found some newspapers wrote that most of the victims died from ‘suffocation’ and other media e.g. AP news reported that they were killed from ‘asphyxiation.’ As I was ignorant of the word ‘asphyxiation,’ I consulted an English-Japanese dictionary at hand. It says ‘asphyxiation’ means ‘suffocation.” I confirmed that Merriam Webster’s _Dictionary of Synonyms_ also shows ‘suffocation” in the top of the list of the synonym to ‘asphyxiation.’ However, as I checked the origins of both words, they are different. Based on Merriam Webster English Dictionary, ‘asphyxiation’ was originated from Greek “a – without” +σφύξις (sphix) meaning heartbeat,” while ‘suffocation’ was made up with Latin “Sub +fauces meaning throat.” The former is associated with _heart_ / _pulse_. The latter relates to _throat_ / _breath_. Are ‘asphyxiation’ and ‘suffocation’ exactly the same in both meaning and nuance? Why did they use different words for the cause of deaths in the same incident? As I said I didn’t know the word, ‘asphyxiation.’ Is it as popular as ‘suffocation’?


title: The true meaning of "did not immediately respond to requests for comment"

text: This expression is included in almost any negative news story - stock price decline, corporate scandal, criminality, you name it - but to me, it's frustratingly vague. I see these as "weasel words" - some journalist leaves a voice mail for someone, waits 10 seconds for a callback then goes to press saying there was no immediate response. Does this imply intent to not respond? Hardly. From a journalistic perspective, what is the true meaning of this expression, or is the meaning deliberately vague to sensationalize the news?


title: What is an adjective for a very large negative number?

text: A number that is very large (but not infinite) such as 1,000,000,000,000,000 could be called _huge, enormous, large, big, gigantic_ , etc. A number that is very small such as 0.000000001 could be called _little, small, infinitesimal, minuscule_ , etc. But what is a word that can describe a number that is large in the negative, such as -1,000,000,000,000,000? If we were talking about dates, I might use the word _early_  — but is there a term that applies to numbers generically?


title: A better way of expressing "burst like a soap bubble"?

text: So the other day my friend was telling me about this employment contract which he said would "burst like a soap bubble". It doesn't seem to be a common idiom in English, but he seemed to mean by it that the contract would fail miserably, or 'fall through'. As he is German, he may have gotten inspiration from the idiomatic German phrase (which also means "burst like a soap bubble"): > wie eine Seifenblase zerplatzen Is there a good analogous English expression? The only one I can think of is "fall like a house of cards", but that implies that the thing that will fail was weak to begin with, which I don't think the German expression implies.


title: Search for a new "name"

text: My last name in Chinese spelling is Fang, but I find that it has a bad meaning as an English word. I tried to change it to Feng, but since they are not quite distinguishable on the pronunciation, it still may remind people of that meaning... I was wondering whether you could help me look for a "name" that is related to Fang, but does not have a too similar pronunciation. ("Fang" means square in Chinese.) Thank you in advance.


title: Last (count) entries

text: I am currently documenting a web interface. What would you recommend as a more friendly way of saying: > This will display the last _n_ entries. Where _n_ is the number they have entered. I've been trying without success to find a solution that is not too wordy, yet remains clear.


title: Different pronunciation between Thomas and Theodore

text: Disclaimer: I'm no native speaker. _Thomas_ gets pronounced with a starting "T" (the "h" is silent), while _Theodore_ with a "Th". What rule is followed here?


title: Why is "Conquer" pronounced /'kɔŋkɚ/ but not /'kɔŋkwɚ/

text: In English QU is always used as a digraph. _Que_ pronounces the sound [K] at the ending of many words:unique, technique, antique, physique, clique, grotesque. However, the combination QU has the sound [kw] instead of [K] at the beginning and in the middle of many English words: queen, quarter, quite, quiet, question, squad, squirrel, require, inquire. Then, why is the **qu** in _Conquer_ pronounced [k]? Would it be C+on+qu+er or C+on+que+r? Is there anything to do with its Middle English form? Origin of " _conquer_ ": 1200–50; Middle English _conqueren_ < Anglo-French _conquerir_ , Old French _conquerre_ < Vulgar Latin * _conquērere_ to acquire (for Latin _conquīrere_ to seek out).


title: What is the origin of the place name "Abbottabad?"

text: We know that Abbottabad is named after Major James Abbott, an officer in the Indian Army who founded the town. But where does the "...abad" come from? Does it have any relationship to the English word _abode_?


title: What's the etymology of the noun "temper tantrum"?

text: Can anyone tell me where the phrase **_temper tantrum_** came from? I found a couple of my usual online sources that just say "origin unknown".


title: Is "Sent to say" proper?

text: Is it incorrect grammar to say that someone "sent to say" something? As in "Joe sent to say that he would love to join you all for the pic nic". I know that I don't have the greatest grammar skills in the world, but I thought that that was a proper saying.


title: What is the origin of "cr*p on a crutch"?

text: Where did the saying "Crap on a crutch" originate? My mother used to use it a lot and I find myself using it also.


title: Why is "oh" spelled "oh" and not "o"?

text: > Oh my! In the above example, to me, "oh" seems to suggest one should pronounce "o" as a short vowel, whereas "o", seems to suggest one should pronounce "o" as a long vowel. In other words, I would expect it to be spelled as: > O my! I would expect "oh" to be used in this example, meaning to express "oops": > Oh o! ... or used an an expression of excited amazement, when watching beautiful fireworks for instance, like this: > Oh! So why is "Oh my!" spelled this way?


title: Writing large percentages

text: So, I have a reason to display percentages in the thousands and greater 1000%, 20000%, etc should they be written with or without thousand separators? 1,000%, 20,000%, etc I have been Googling and can't find an answer; I keep ending up on sites talking about Excel number formatting.


title: What's a good word to describe adults who are not yet parents?

text: Just read this in Emma Donoghue's book "Room". Is there a word for adults who are not parents?


title: 'Provided that' followed by two conditions

text: In a sentence where 'provided that' is followed by two conditions, is a second instance of 'that' required, optional or wrong? > 1: [statement A], provided that [statement B] and [statement C] > > 2: [statement A], provided that [statement B] and that [statement C] For example: > Manchester United will win the title on Saturday, provided that Aston Villa > beat Liverpool and [that] Arsenal beat Chelsea.


title: they point their finger(s) at the tree

text: What is the difference between: > they point their finger at the tree. and > they point their fingers at the tree. Do they have different meanings?


title: Is it grammatical to have "why" and "to" together?

text: Is the following sentence grammatical? > Why to use page-level permissions * * * From Google Support: > **Why to use page-level permissions** > > Page-level permissions allow you to.. It sounds weird to me, however the words were from a Google support page so I'm suspecting that it may actually have been grammatical after all.


title: Wid = Widow or Wid = With

text: In the 1800s the abbreviation "wid" is used in city directories.   The first speculation is with a female listed first at an address, the term is used to designate a Widow with the male name following. For example: Scott, Matilda wid Robert = Widowed? One contemporary site lists wid = with. Hence Scott, Matilda with Robert. Which is it?


title: Good online thesaurus?

text: Does anyone know of a good online thesaurus? I've used http://thesaurus.com/ and http://www.merriam-webster.com/. Especially something that's good with phrases, figures of speech or idioms.


title: "Principle" or "Principal"?

text: I was solving a grammar exercise from the book, _Word Power Made Easy_ , when I came across this question > A feeling of one's worth is one of the **principle/principal** goals of > psychological therapy. Going by the same rule which has been taught in every school that: > Principle : Rule, standard   >  Principal : Head( Usually a person) I marked principle which is wrong, _the correct answer according to the book is Principal_. Pondering over the question for a few minutes, I came to this conclusion that principal is not always a person and can refer to the "head or main" point, as in referring to the sentence "the main goals of psychological therapy" I also looked at this question here "Principal” or “principle”, but it didn't help me either as it says principal usually refers to a person. My question is, is it necessary to use principal as a person or it can mean something else as well?


title: "Ann's friends and herself" -- is this correct?

text: Is the sentence: > Ann's friends and herself were really nice to us. grammatically correct?


title: "Lessen, poisoned gulls, ditcher wander hair annulled furry tell a boarder Slipping Booty?"

text: This is the prelude to an article published in Sports Illustrated magazine on August 17, 1959: > Lessen, poisoned gulls, ditcher wander hair annulled furry tell a boarder > Slipping Booty? Hoecake? Wail, heresy starry. As a nonnative English speaker, I don't quite understand what is going on in the article, but I guess this is some kind of style which uses the same pronunciations of words with different spellings. My question is, what is this technique called? Where and on what purposes is it used?


title: Single word for "at one's wits' end"

text: While there often appears to be a word that could replace an idiom or a phrase in meaning, this one seems to be an exception (for me that is). I've tried:   1. Confused : Less powerful, isn't it?   2. Dearth : Needs completion by _of something_.   3. Vacuous : Close, but complete absence of thought isn't the case, I suppose.   4. Speechless : Don't know if lack of ideas or happy, shocked etc. I'm not sure if these words could be ignored because of the reasons I have mentioned, but you can clearly see that I'm at my wits' end on this one!


title: What is a PSI faceplate?

text: An electronics engineer wanted to order a multimeter with a PSI faceplate. Does anyone know what it is ?


title: What is "there" in expression "Are you out there?"

text: What does _there_ signify in expressions like "Dude are you out there?" or "I am there for you"? It is not referring to any previously mentioned location, right?


title: Does a student own, hold, possess, or something else a transcript?

text: Does a student hold, own, possess, or something else a transcript? My wife just asked me a question for which I do not have an answer. She asked me, "holder or owner of a transcript?" I wasn't sure about either. Might anyone here have the definitive answer to this question?


title: "If you or your colleague has" or "If you or your colleague have"?

text: Which is correct out of the following two sentences?   1. _If you or your colleague have any questions, let me know_   2. _If you or your colleague has any questions, let me know_ I was originally thinking that #1 was correct because the sentence would be the following, if **the colleague** wasn't involved:   * _If you have any questions, let me know_ But then my mind was telling me that perhaps the "or your colleague" bit changes the subject or something, so the sentence could be written as follows, if **you** weren't involved:   * _If your colleague has any questions, let me know_


title: What is the meaning of "I am humbled"?

text: From a recent article on CNN: > Aboukhadijeh, who is from Sacramento, California, said he's been blown away > by how quickly his tool went viral and is grateful for all the supportive > feedback. > > "I'm amazed and **humbled** by all the attention it's received. So thank > you," he said. TheFreeDictionary shows the definition of "humbled" as: > hum·bled, hum·bling, hum·bles   >  1\. To curtail or destroy the pride of; humiliate.   >  2\. To cause to be meek or modest in spirit.   >  3\. To give a lower condition or station to; abase. See Synonyms at > degrade. None of these definitions seem to apply:   1. Being the author of something that is widely appreciated would seem to be cause for pride, rather than to curtail or destroy it.   2. His "modesty," or expectation that he would only have a small audience for his work, seems to be a pre-existing condition that is merely **revealed** by the event, not something that is **caused** by the event.   3. He created a tool that was rapidly used and appreciated by many, with the result being that he found himself in a higher condition or station than he was before. Is there a subtlety I'm missing here?


title: Why does English use definite articles before certain proper nouns, such as the names of ships?

text: Over on English Language Learners, a non-native speaker asked a question about adding "the" before movie titles. I wanted to tell him or her that the rule in English is not to add a definite article before a proper noun, but to keep the article if it's part of the title, so you would have, for instance: > I went to see **_The Big Sleep._** but > I went to see **_Sleepless in Seattle._** But it occurred to me that there is an exception to this rule: boats, trains, and other means of transportation. My question is, why is it idiomatic to say: > Tomorrow morning we set sail on **the** _Titanic_. or > The murder took place on **the** _Orient Express_. when we would never use an article in that context with the name of a person, a city, or a country? Are there other categories of proper nouns that take definite articles, and if so, what if anything is the rule?


title: Does this expression: "it can make us think that we are actually..." clearly showing a negative implication?

text: I wrote this sentence: > Living a busy life, full of stress, sweat and sacrifice, can make us think > that we are actually doing something worthy with our lives. Which is actually saying is that being busy can give us the illusion of doing something worthy with our lives. Is it clear enough or ambiguous (is it possible for the reader to misunderstand this sentence as "being busy really makes our lives worthy"?)?


title: Word or phrase for the heir's heir

text: What is a more succinct way of saying "the heir's heir"? No-one says it like that so there must be a real word. I looked up the meanings of heir apparent and heir presumptive. Heir presumptive can refer to several situations and is generally a kind of weaker, lesser version yet it doesn't fit for the heir apparent's future heir. For a real life example, in the UK Prince Charles is the heir apparent and Prince William will be his heir. William could be called "the second in line to the throne". But what if you're talking about something different being inherited like a family company, where there's no throne?


title: Etymology of the words "narky" and "narked"

text: Anybody have any idea where the word **"narky"** comes from? I speak British English and I understand the word to mean _irritated_ or _bad- tempered_. Similarly I've heard the phrase **"narked off".** > ## Examples > > _He got really narky with me when I pointed out that he'd made a mistake > again._ > > or > > _I got really narked off when my little sister lost my favourite necklace._


title: What is it called when we use "through which" "about whom", "whose", etc

text: I would like to know how to refer to the sentance structure that is used in formal contexts, when "through which", "for whom" etc. are typically used. Are these non-defining relative pronouns? Sometimes they can can be combined: > implicates a world amid and with which it proceeds And often they make sentences more confusing: > The understandings of action through which doings and sayings are linked in > practices encompass the understandings of action against the background of > which doings and sayings constitute specific actions. Any ideas?


title: Suit up with a ...?

text: For a party, the dress code is formal dress with an element in pink. On the flyers, I want to write " **Suit up with a pink touch** " but somebody told me it is not correct and advised "suit up with a touch of pink" but I'm not sure. What do you think ? Thank you


title: Is "deliberation" or "deliberations" correct when done over multiple topics?

text: Are these sentences correct?   1. Contemporary deliberation on American culture, economy, politics in the 20th and 21st century?    2. Contemporary deliberation* _s_ * on American culture, economy, and politics in the 20th and 21st century.


title: What is meant by the "benefit of the doubt"?

text: I think doubt is a negative emotion, so I find it difficult to know what is meant by "benefit of the doubt". How does this phrase work, and how did it arise?


What does "You're as bad as the old Irish woman who took the two pills to be sure, to be sure..." mean? And if you know what it means, can you also specify the origin of this phrase? To be more specific about the context, I've heard it here: http://youtu.be/BfI9rJ0toWA?t=1m2s


title: The correct usage of "too" and "also"

text: I always have problems in deciding whether to use "too" or "also". For example, if the previous sentence is: > Peter ate the cake. Which of the following should I say?:   * He ate the pie too.   * He also ate the pie. And what about?:   * He drank the juice too.   * He also drank the juice. Another scenario: > Jack forgot his homework. Which is the correct way to say "me too"?:   * I forgot my homework too.   * I, too, forgot my homework.   * (I have a feeling that "I also forgot my homework." is simply wrong in this case) I guess I can sum up my question as follows:   1. If two sentences share the same subject, should I add "too" after the predicate or add "also" after the subject of the second sentence?   2. If two sentences share the same predicate, should I add "too" after the predicate or after the subject (with the commas)?


title: "If the bowl had been stronger, my song had been longer."

text: In the original version of the nursery rhyme, _The Wise Men of Gotham_ , the word 'had' is used in the main clause of a sentence where it seems modern English would commonly use 'would have'. The full rhyme is: > Three wise men of Gotham,   >  They went to sea in a bowl,   >  And if the bowl had been stronger   >  My song had been longer. What is the grammatical tense, and semantic sense, of the second 'had' in the rhyme?


title: Boundaries for a person's name - danah boyd

text: How could the name danah boyd come to pass? Why isn't it Danah Boyd? Would it be inappropriate or incorrect to refer to this person as Danah Boyd?


title: What does "the height of inhumanity" mean in the context?

text: > Hostile armies may face each other for years, striving for the victory which > is decided in a single day. This being so, to remain in ignorance of the > enemy's condition simply because one grudges the outlay of a hundred ounces > of silver in honors and emoluments, is the height of inhumanity. The paragraph above is taken from The Art of War. I have a hard time understanding what "to remain in ignorance..., is the height of inhumanity" means.


title: "I am trying to learn" vs "I try to learn"

text: What is the difference between present simple and present progressive when it comes to actions like the following? > At school, I am trying to learn a wide array of subjects. > > At school, I try to learn a wide array of subjects. > > At school, I am studying Human Physiology. > > At school, I study Human Physiology All the actions are not happening at the time of speaking. They all are somehow temporary.


title: "A force is acting on a box until t = 10 seconds". Is the force still acting on the box at t = 10 seconds?

text: I have a difficulty to digest any sentence using the word _until_ , especially when it is used to express something related to a point of time or space. In the physics examination, I have a sentence as follows > A force is acting on a box until t = 10 seconds. What can we infer from that statement whether or not the force is still acting at t = 10 seconds?


title: Why does the name 'John' have an 'h' in it?

text: I have always wondered this since I was little, and nobody seems to have asked or answered this before anywhere on the internet. What is the origin of the 'h', and why is it still with us?


title: When should types of cheese be capitalized?

text: Does this recipe call for _Cheddar cheese_ or _cheddar cheese_? Does pizza have _mozzarella_ or _Mozzarella_ on it? Heck, I'm not even sure if this sandwich contains _Swiss cheese_ or _swiss cheese_. Is there a convention here, or is it a matter of taste? Does it depend on whether the word was originally a proper noun ("Cheddar"), a proper adjective ("Swiss"), or something else ("bleu")?


title: Use of "and especially"

text: Is _and_ in the following sentence optional? > He disliked nearly all women, **and** especially the young and pretty ones.


title: Word for "mindlessly entertain"

text: Sometimes I get done working and my mind is utterly exhausted. I want something to entertain me mindlessly. Is there a good verb to describe this action?


title: If someone is an expert in written (rather than spoken) language, can they still be called a "linguist"?

text: When I think of "linguistics", I typically think of the study of spoken languages, particularly phonetics. Compared to "language", which of course is used of writing systems, it carries to me a stronger association to the original literal meaning of "lingua" being "the tongue". Wikipedia's article on linguistics speaks mainly of language concepts in the abstract: things that apply equally to written and spoken language. It has a small section comparing writing to speech, which says: > Most contemporary linguists work under the assumption that spoken (or > signed) language is more fundamental than written language. […] Nonetheless, > linguists agree that the study of written language can be worthwhile and > valuable. So consider a hypothetical person; let's call him "Jim". Jim can read and understand Ancient Greek texts, and he is an expert translator. Jim may not know the IPA, and he may not even be able to pronounce Ancient Greek words all that well, but he's definitely the guy you call when you have a piece of written Ancient Greek that you need made readable by Americans. Can Jim properly be called a "linguist"? Specifically, will other linguists scoff at the idea of a mere translator being called a "linguist"? Or does being a translator by definition _make_ you a type of honest-to-goodness linguist?


title: In English, is there an established prefix for "mostly"?

text: For half, I could use _semi_ , _demi_ , or _hemi_. While _semi_ does mean "half", it sometimes has a connotation of "some". _Demi_ is often found with French roots. According to this link, _hemi_ is the least often used of the three but can also mean "half". On the other hand, I could use something like _toti_ or perhaps other choices to indicate all. Pardon my mathematical nature, but is there a prefix which would mean "mostly", that is more than one half but less than the full unit.


title: dependent vs dependant

text: I find so many different "rules" on the internet that it is really hard to understand when to use these words: dependent and dependant. In the below examples, what would you pick and why:               a) "Your dependants ..."     b) Is your dependant over the age of 12?     c) Are you a dependant of John Smith?     d) What is the name of your youngest dependant?


title: Is there a single word meaning the same as "to pull the rug out from under one's feet"?

text: I'm sure there was one, I just can't remember what it is, and the ones I keep coming up with (like "challenge") don't seem to fit.


title: English equivalent of the expression “a longer arm than résumé”

text: I've heard a non-native English speaker use the expression "in this place, having a long arm to scratch someone else's back is more important than having a long résumé", conveying the idea of favoritism in a place influencing the promotion of people within. I would like to know if there is an equivalent in English to such expression.


title: Calendric vs Calendrical

text: When choosing an adjective to refer to the nature of a calendar system, such as how we have months of varying length, is it more appropriate to use _calendric_ or _calendrical_? Is there any difference, perhaps in context? Or is it a British vs American English thing?


title: The real tense of "I'm going to be talking about"

text: I just listened to a video in which the speaker said "I'm going to be talking about....". Can we change that to "I'm going to talk about..."?


title: Synonym needed for "teetotaler"

text: Is _teetotaler_ still an acceptable term for someone advocating alcohol abstinence? If not, what is a better word to use?


title: From Latin prefixes and suffixes and its usage, does "absolute" denote "freedom" or "away from freedom"?

text: First of all, I would like to apologize for my title's awkward formulation. English is not my mother-tongue. I am looking at the word "absolute", which, according to Dictionary.com, has the definition > (4) free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute > command; absolute freedom. > > (5) unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, > etc., in the exercise of governmental power, especially when arbitrary or > despotic: an absolute monarch. and > Origin: 1350–1400; Middle English < Latin absolūtus free, unrestricted, > unconditioned (past participle of absolvere to absolve), equivalent to _ab-_ > ab- + _solū-_ loosen + -tus past participle suffix I understand that the Latin prefix **_abs-_** means "away from" or "opposite to". However, when **_abs-_** is combined with **_solū_** , or "loosen", the meaning seems to become "away from being loose" or "restricted" -- the opposite of being free. I also understand that words like absolutism or absolute power imply the object has ultimate freedom to rule even though its subjects are restrained, but then, say, if we describe the "law of conservation of energy" as an _absolute_ principle of physics, then there is neither _freedom_ for interpretation nor an "absolute ruler" who possess the "freedom" to legislate. (After all, it is commonly regarded as the universal truth and none "arbitrarily made up" the law.) Then where does the freedom in "absolute" go, since there is no recipient to the freedom and everyone else is subject to the restriction? I am still confused about whether **_absolute_** conveys freedom or its opposite.


"Sally & Rhod's Wedding" - where should the apostrophe go?


title: Appositive phrase, participle phrase, gerund phrase and noun phrase. English is confusing

text: > "Every English-speaking country is extremely sheepish towards mega- > corporations and their puppet-governments. In continental Europe, France > being an example, people stand up for their rights and protest, violently if > needed, on the streets." The little phrase "France being an example" is for a non-native English user very hard to categorise. I believe it's an appositive phrase, but I wonder which one: participle phrase, gerund phrase or noun phrase? If I have to guess I would say it's a noun phrase with 'being' being a present participle modifying 'France'. Or am I completely wrong in this?


title: When I write any sentence in English every native reader can tell I am Europen, how?

text: Can you conclude that just by my writing the question?


title: Past perfect usage?

text: In the following sentence, > That task was not added to the TODO document because at that time it **had > not yet been added** to the main document. What I mean here is that back then, during the TODO document outline, one task was missing but was added in the meantime.   1. Is this sentence grammatically correct?    2. Is this past perfect usage correct or given the idea that is being conveyed a more suitable tense would be advisable?


title: Should I use "one" or "it"?

text: Which is correct: > I think I need a better kind of gun. But where can I get **it** from? I > can’t find it anywhere in this maze. > > I think I need a better kind of gun. But where can I get **one** from? I > can’t find one anywhere in this maze.


title: Is the usage of "after the break" before the start of a commercial and in an article related?

text: The phrase "after the break" is sometimes used before a commercial. It can also used in an article. e.g. "watch the video after the break". Are these two usages related to each other, apart from having the same three words in the same order?


title: Describing the preference of some time period's being closer to another time period that it forgoes

text: Just asked this question on "Christianity", but feel asked it in a very awkward way: > Do we have any evidence that Martin Luther considered some individuals of > the Roman Catholic clergy living in some **centuries close to Luther's time > (the closer centuries are preferred)** to be the part of the Universal > Church? I am especially concerned about the part in bold. How do I express that with proper English? After receiving a comment, and an answer, I am thinking to re-write the sentence as the following one: > Do we have any evidence that Martin Luther considered some individuals of > the Roman Catholic clergy living in some **centuries before Luther's time > (the latter centuries are preferred)** to be the part of the Universal > Church?


title: Book's name in plural and verb

text: When I speak of one book titled _Acts of the Apostles_ , should I say: " _Acts of the Apostles_ contain" or " _Acts of the Apostles_ contains" ?


title: What is “the spirit of aloha”?

text: I’ve read this expression in a news article related to a Hawaiian politician: _“He is well-regarded in both Washington and in the islands for his gracious manner and **spirit of aloha**.”_ I understand that _aloha_ is a Hawaiian greeting and, as such, I understand the expression in the quote above as “his gracious manner and openness”. I tried to look up the entire expression “spirit of aloha”, but search engines’ results are polluted by commercial uses (including a Disney show). How would you express this sentence to exclude the Hawaiian-specific reference (if at all possible)? What are the cultural elements that I am missing (as a European who doesn't know much about Hawai, except that it's a popular holiday destination).


title: 'furniture of their pockets"

text: > There are many pleasant fictions of the law in constant operation, but there > is not one so pleasant or practically humorous as that which supposes every > man to be of equal value in its impartial eye, and the benefits of all laws > to be equally attainable by all men, without the smallest reference to the > **furniture** of their pockets. > > — Charles Dickens, “Nicholas Nickleby” What does **furniture** mean here? With which of these definitions does it comport?


title: If I Were You and You Were I

text: These are song lyrics, so there's poetic license--yes. However, it raises a grammar question that some friends and I have wondered about for years. Song goes: > If for a moment I were you, and you were me, how would it be?   >  Would you fall apart as I walk by?   >  Hang around to catch my eye?   >  Be jealous of another guy?   >  If I were you and you were I?   > It's the last line: is it wrong? If one can say, "If I were you," why can't he flip that around and write, "If you were I?" Does it _have_ to be "If you were me?" Or is _that_ even correct? "If me were you" certainly isn't right. So why is it correct (if it is correct) to say, "If you were me?"


title: What's a more common term for "penny jumping"?

text: In securities trading, we have a particular term which I think has broader applicability, so I'm **seeking a more common** (or at least more universally comprehensible) term for it, that I can use in casual conversation (outside the industry). The term is **_penny-jumping_** , and applied literally, means "taking advantage of the knowledge that someone else's order will move the market, by placing a similar order at a trivially improved price ahead of his", thus "riding his wave" to your benefit and his expense. But we apply it more liberally than that: it essentially means a kind of **obnoxious parasitism** ¹, and apply it to a variety of situations. More common example: > Imagine standing on the curb for 15 minutes trying to hail a cab, only to > have another person jump in front of you (by a few feet or a single block), > and flag "your" cab down at the last minute. While you've waited for 15 > minutes, they've only had to wait a few seconds, and they were able to > benefit (to your detriment) by making only a trivial "improvement" over your > "bid" (those few feet they stepped out in front of you). Of course, the analogy isn't perfect, but analogies rarely are, and that's how we use it. Another term of art for this, in the industry, is _front-running_ (though the nuances are different and front-running more explicitly refers to the illegal practice) , though I think _penny-jumping_ captures the same idea more descriptively: _the parasite **jumps** ahead of you for a cost which is trivial to him (a **penny** ), thereby capturing an outsized reward at your expense_. * * * ¹ If done using non-public information, particularly information derived from a privileged relationship with a client (to whom you owe a fiduciary duty), penny-jumping is illegal and is usually termed "front-running" (which is the name of the crime, historically committed by brokers who intermediate between clients and markets). But I'm not concerned with this sense of the word; I'm seeking something which is **sleazy** and **obnoxious** , not illegal or fraudulent: think "parasite", not "criminal".


title: What's meaning of "hauled off" in a particular phrase

text: I'd appreciate help of native speakers. There's line in a poem: > Water and Gold > > by Michael Burch > > You came to me as rain breaks on the desert   >  when every flower springs to life at once,   >  but joy is an illusion to the expert:   >  the Bedouin has learned how not to want. > > You came to me as riches to a miser   >  when all is gold, or so his heart believes,   >  until he dies much thinner and much wiser,   >  **his gleaming bones hauled off by chortling thieves.** > > You gave your heart too soon, too dear, too vastly;   >  I could not take it in; it was too much.   >  I pledged to meet your price, but promised rashly.   >  I died of thirst, of your bright Midas touch. > > I dreamed you gave me water of your lips,   >  then sealed my tomb with golden hieroglyphs. > > Originally published by The Lyric My understanding (and common sense, I believe) is that poor fellow's tomb was literally stripped to the bone of anything valuable, and only bones were left. My opponent says, no, it's bones that the thieves, being merry people, no doubt, took with themselves. Who's right? All dictionaries, including those that provide examples from literature and media, seem to prove I'm wrong, that something being hauled off means it was dragged, carried, etc. away.


title: Is there a single word for a "unit of time"?

text: If I were to have a text box for someone to enter an integer and dropdown list from which my user would select _day(s), hour(s), minute(s)_ or _second(s)_ , is there a single word that would describe what is selected in the dropdown list. The best I can think of is "time unit", but was hoping for a single word to describe an arbitrary unit of time.


title: Neither or nor in this sentence

text: I have a sentence: > I do not ride a bike (neither/nor ride I a horse) What is the correct word here and why? EDIT: I would like to keep the form of the sentence, I mean the brackets. > I do not ride a bike (neither I ride a horse) Is this correct?


title: Form of government (-archy/-cracy) where the strongest rules

text: I'm doing some research for a story and I'm trying to find the correct word for a form of government where the best fighter or the strongest person leads the rest. The usual words for forms of government are derived from Greek words suffixed with -archy (ἄρχω, _árkhō_ , "to rule") or -cracy (κρατέω, _krateo_ , "to have power over"), as in:   \- Monarchy (rule of one)   \- Oligarchy (rule of few)   \- Plutocracy (rule by the wealthy)   \- Theocracy (rule by God)   \- Anarchy (without rule)   \- etc. The only existing word that is close to what I want is 'Stratocracy' (from στρατός, _stratos_ , 'army'), which is rule by the military, but that seems like a different concept. The Greek word for power is _kratos_ , but 'Kratocracy' seems like a ludicrous word ("power power"). 'Might' or 'Strength' may be more appropriate, but that would be something like _dynamis_ -> 'Dynamocracy', which also sounds silly. Is there a proper word for this form of rule? If not, what would be an appropriate word to invent, in line with the current convention?


title: When is it appropriate to use "see you later"?

text: Most of the references I found online simply note that "see you later" is a farewell or parting phrase but nothing discussed when it is appropriate to use the phrase. Is it acceptable to use "see you later" in each of the following circumstances?   1. When you will be seeing the person again later that day   2. When you will be seeing the person soon (e.g., in a few days)   3. When you will be seeing the person again at _some_ point in the future (e.g., next year at Christmas)   4. When you are suggesting that you want schedule something specific   5. Whenever you say goodbye, regardless of whether or not you will ever see them again


title: Hyphenation of "prerequisite"

text: I'm proofreading my thesis, and found that TeX in its infinite wisdom had decided to hyphenate _prerequisite_ as pre-req-ui-site. I've replaced it with pre-re-qui-si-te, but I'm a bit unsure what the proper hyphenation is and couldn't find any good sources. Anyone know what's the correct hyphenation?


title: What do you call each individual component of a number: a "digit", a "figure", or "place"?

text: What are the individual 0, 1, 2, "letters" etc. in numbers called? I know the word "digits", I've seen "n-figure salary", and Google translation (from German "Stellen"), when used in a sentence, yields "places" ("How many places does this number have?"). And exactly when is the English cognate of our German word "Ziffer", "cypher", used? Because "Ziffer" really means "digit" in English, I think.


title: "brought some horses, real heelers.." : what is "heeler" here?

text: I quote from An Evening in Dandaloo (1891) by Banjo Paterson:               It was while we held our races --      Hurdles, sprints and steplechases --      Up in Dandaloo,      That a crowd of Sydney stealers,      Jockeys, pugilists and spielers      Brought some horses, real heelers,      Came and put us through.      I wonder what is the meaning of the word "heeler" here. It seem to refer to "horses". My initial guess had been "someone who is able to hit it (i.e. run) very fast, striking the road with their heels". But I doubt this sense. "To heel" may also mean "to follow one closely, keeping at one's heels". Then I've read that in Australia it may mean "a cattle dog", possibly a derivation from the previous sense. I'd like to read your guesses.


title: What exactly is the "schwa" sound?

text: What exactly is the "schwa" sound? As a non-native speaker, I hear this sound as not being a pure and clean sound. I mean I know that every vowel sound may vary depending on whether the syllable is stressed, on the accent of the person that makes the sound, etc. But generally this sound is the same in the sense that it does not depend on the consonant sounds that come before or after, and might or might not be heard as being different by the non-native speaker ear. The schwa sound is a very difficult one for me because I cannot find a pattern to follow. When I was learning the other vowel sounds I could analyze a long list of words being pronounced (by the same person of course) and then abstract the sound so I can produce it perfectly. But this does not work for the schwa sound. So for example I hear one sound in words like **a** -bout, b- **a** -loon, decim- **a** -l, and a different sound in words like s- **u** -ppose and impet- **u** -s, t- **o** -day or t- **o** -night. Also in words like Ros- **a** -'s and ros- **e** -s, the schwa sounds differently. When it comes to words that have the schwa sound on vowels **e** an **i** like in the word insan- **i** -ty then the sound is almost the one for the **i** in t- **i** -p, but also in words like b- **e** -hind I hear some people say it with a schwa sound like in **a** -bout and some other people pronounce it like the **i** in p- **i** -t. So, I would really appreciate an explanation about how you perceive this sound and how you would explain it to someone who, like me, is not a native speaker.


title: What's a short phrase meaning "visited and ascended" (e.g. a tower)?

text: Is there a short and clear word or phrase, that is not pretentious-sounding, meaning "visited and ascended", as in buildings, e.g. Bert visited the lobby of Empire State Building, but Ernie went up to the observation deck? > Ernie **___ __ ___ ____** the Empire State Building


title: Etymology of close |kləʊz| (klōz) & close |kləʊs| (klōs)

text: In doing research for the question _Is it “close-minded” or “closed-minded”?_ , which was in turn prompted by the discussion under this answer to another question, I realized that some of the confusion around the word _close_ had to do with its versatility (it can be an adverb, adjective, noun or verb). We have two primary pronunciations of _close_ (klōz and klōs) that help us distinguish how the word is being used. I thought at first that this was fairly straightforward. When the 'z' sound is used, it is usually a verb: > I _close_ the door. The 'z' ending is also used in the following noun form: > I'll bring my argument to a _close_. When the 's' ending is used, it is usually either an adjective in these ways, > The hotel is _close_ to the sea.   >  My brother and I are very _close_. or an adverb in these ways: > Please sit _close_ to me.   >  I'll keep your secret _close_. But as I read through the lengthy entries on _close_ in my _New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_ , things started to get confusing. I found _close_ (klōs) listed as a noun meaning _a closed place_ and _close_ (klōs) also listed as an adjective meaning _closed, shut_ as well as _secretive_ , _stingy_ , and _hidden_. **Questions** :   1. How and when did the different uses of _close_ take on different pronunciations?    2. Are _close_ (klōs) as a noun and _close_ (klōs) = _closed_ familiar to others?    3. If these rarer uses of _close_ (klōs) were once common, when and why did they fall out of favor?    4. Etymologically, what overlap exists between _close_ (klōs) = _near_ and _close_ (klōz) = _shut_?


title: Alternative for the word "options" as in "extra purchase possibilities to go with a booking"

text: Is there a better alternative to the word _options_ when referring to "extra purchase possibilities next to a booking you have already made"? For instance, you can think of food and beverages, audiovisual equipment and parking spots. I think the word _options_ in that context is a bit too vague, since it also refers to options on a stock exchange or choices one can make. I was thinking about _add-ons_ , or _items_. Do these suit better? Is there a more apt word still?


What is the name of the pronunciation symbol /o/ with a dot over it? We know it is pronounced /aw/ but need to know what the name of the symbol is.


title: "Position" as verb to use in graphical user interface discussions?

text: What's the correct term to use for "positioning" elements in a graphic user interface? For example, if I say: > Where should we position the button A? Is that a correct (and professional) way to say it?


title: Word that means "one out of a series must be true"?

text: I am trying to come up with a word or phrase that means "one out of a series must be true". **Example #1** : I have a list of roles that a user can belong to. What is a word that describes a list of roles where the user may belong to one of them? They could belong to more than one. **Example #2** : There is a list of requirements to be eligible for a prize. You may meet multiple requirements, but you only need to meet one requirement to be eligible. Sentence example: The following roles are `_______`. The best that I can come up with is "required roles", but, that seems funky to me as not all of the roles are required.


title: Word that means "outdated name"

text: Is there a word that means "outdated name"? For example:   * _Record_ , although very little music is on vinyl   * _Film_ , although most movies are digital   * _Horsepower_ , although no one uses horses as a metric anymore   * _Phone_ , although it's mostly used to access the web and so on.


title: Obscenities considered less obscene in compounds? [NSFW]

text: There are at least a few cases in which a compound word or phrase, transparently containing an obscene word, seems to be considered less obscene (in some dialect/registers/circumstances) than the word itself. The two examples on which I’m fairly sure of this are:   * _clusterfuck_   * _bullshit_ Unfortunately I have no hard references beyond my own experience here: I’ve heard people use these whom I’ve never heard swear otherwise, and heard _clusterfuck_ on the radio in programmes where I’d be amazed to hear _fuck_. But I recall also seing this mentioned somewhere online — a comment on Language Log, or similar — though I can’t now track that down. So… is this phenomenon documented? well-known? quantified? And are there other notable examples? The other potential example I can think of is _motherfucker_ — it has I think become partially decoupled from _fuck_ in its level of obscenity, but in the circles I know, it’s typically considered more not less obscene. (Since I don’t have any references, I'm open to the suggestion that I’m imagining this phenomenon, over-extrapolating from a few unusual occurrences.)


title: How do you parse the sentence "He had Elizabeth read the letter aloud."?

text: The Stanford parser gave the following output. I think the word "read" should be tagged with VBN (past participle).               (ROOT       (S         (NP (PRP He))         (VP (VBD had)           (S             (NP (NNP Elizabeth))             (VP (VB read)               (NP (DT the) (NN letter))               (ADVP (RB aloud)))))         (. .)))


title: "One and the same" or "One in the same"?

text: Which is correct? > One **in** the same... or > One **and** the same... A quick google-vote says the former is "correct".


title: Word-choice, meaning

text: Which one is correct to use in a sentence. **My day was * _usual_ *** or **My day was * _ordinary_ ***


title: The meaning of “rack” or “rock” in “The Peasant Poet” by John Clare

text: From “The Peasant Poet”, a poem by John Clare: > He loved the brook's soft sound,   >  The swallow swimming by.   >  He loved the daisy-covered ground,   >  The cloud-bedappled sky.   >  To him the dismal storm appeared   >  The very voice of God;   >  And when the evening rack [rock?] was reared   >  Stood Moses with his rod.   >  [...] I wonder what is the meaning of _evening rack_ here, and why does it bring up thoughts of Moses with his rod in the hero’s mind? The word _rack_ has too many meanings and I'm at a loss here. Note: I initially thought the word there is _rack._ But as FumbleFingers pointed out, the word is actually _rock_ in the majority of the books (searchable online) containing the poem. That does not detract from the mysteriousness of the sentence though.


title: Difference between "sky" and "air"

text: "The bird is flying in the sky" or" The bird is flying in the air" kindly explain the difference in detail...


title: Is there a term that defines nostalgia for something you've never experienced?

text: Often I find I have a sense of nostalgia for things I've never actually experienced, in a way that rivals the same sort of feelings I have for things I have experienced. For example when listening to music that was big before one's own generation or seeing old black and white photos of how people lived their lives generations before you were born. It's an odd feeling I've heard many people talk about, but I've never quite had a word for explaining it. Is there a term that describes this? Or is it still nostalgia?


title: What determines whether a numerical prefix is allowable for a unit?

text: 1. The prefix _centi-_ means 10-2. But while _centimetre_ is common, I have never heard of a _centiwatt_ or a _centisecond_.   2. The prefix _Mega-_ means 106. Hence _Megabytes_ exist. So why do we not have _Megametres_?


title: Is there difference in common usage between 'I have an answer' and 'I know an answer' sentences

text: In common everyday usage is there any diffrence between these sentences:   1. 'I have an answer' and   2. 'I know an answer' My clue:   Ad 1. I have some proposition of an answer but I'm not 100% sure   Ad 2. I know what the exact answer is.


title: Is a film actor a "thespian"?

text: Can I call a film actor a **thespian** , or does this term exclusively relate to acting on a theater stage?


title: Does this sentence sound good?

text: Today a coworker wrote the following sentence: > How are you think to handle this problem ? I cannot explain why but this sentence doesn't sound good, maybe because he used a verb - think - followed by an infinitive - to handle.   Does this sentence seem natural for a english native speaker ?


title: How to express that one is making the conversation long for fun

text: How can I tell someone that I was just making the conversation long for fun? I am looking for some American idiom to express it.


title: What do people usually mean when they ask "Do you have a family?"

text: When American people ask you, "Do you have a family?" does that mean "Do you have any children?" or just "Are you married?"


title: Why did the personal pronoun "you" "survive" and not the others?

text: I was just wondering, since we started talking about the Early Modern English Period, for England the period of Renaissance, Shakespeare .... There were four cases in EMEnglish, thou (Subject case) thee (Object case) ye (Subject case) you (Object case) As far as I know "you" was used by lower class speakers to address higher class speakers. And higher class speakers used thou in return to address lower class speakers (non-reciprocal) I am not sure about the others but my question is why became the addressing reciprocal (using the same form to address each other) "you". Why was it the "you" form that "survived" and not any other one? Was is French influence from Middle English (when the Normans conquered England: has it something to do with the word "vous"?) Thanks,


title: When did "kid" start to mean "child"?

text: When I read period authors, i.e., Dickens, or Verne, or Hugo, etc., I always see things like: > My dear child/Child, come here/He is but a child! But I don't see _kid_. In fact, I didn't see _kid_ even in the contemporary work _A Series of Unfortunate Events_ when I was reading it (unless I missed it). _Children_ was still used there. So, my question is:   1. When did "kid" become used to mean "child"?    2. Is it less formal to use "kid" than "child"?


title: What is the action of writing with both hands simultaneously called?

text: I can write with both my hands so I am ambidextrous. But it means adept and deft in using both the hands equally. So if someone was exhibiting their skill of ambidexterity by writing something with both their hands simultaneously, what would this piece of action be called? Is there a word for it? I need the word that means simultaneously using both the hands, for writing or whatever.


title: "Sleep in" versus "Sleep out"

text: Over the years, I have often debated whether the phrase is "In the morning, I'm going to sleep in." or "In the morning, I'm going to sleep out." My best guess is that it is a regional difference of convention. Is it? Are there any real, historical or otherwise, reasons to prefer one over the other? (It would be particularly nice, arm-chair linguistically, if it were "I will sleep out." but "I slept in.", though I quite doubt that fits anyone's usage.)


title: Which preposition to use in "lack of knowledge __ the manager"

text: The preposition _by_ is faulty in this sentence but I don't know which preposition I have to replace it with. > The inaccurate planning is caused by the lack or insufficient presence of > relevant technical knowledge **by** the responsible software manager.


title: Phrase for a problem that seems impossible, but actually has a simple and obvious solution?

text: Daniel M. Russell poses what he claims is a deceptively simple brain teaser in his blog: > What short 4-word idiomatic phrase (in English) captures [the] idea of a > problem that seems impossible, but actually has a simple and obvious > solution? "Deceptively simple brain teaser" is the best I could come up with, but I don't think it's particularly idiomatic. _UPDATE_ : So, the originating blogger has posted his intended answer. I would agree that there was no stand-out candidate amongst all the plausible suggestions, so kudos to all those who found a solution.


title: Expressions to describe having immediately understood someone's personality

text: What words could I use to describe the event of having successfully and completely "read" or understood someone's personality, upon first meeting that someone?


title: Present Perfect vs Present + Adjective

text: What are the similarities and differences, for example, between "they are agreed" vs "they've agreed." Also, is there a formal grammatical term for the construct "they are agreed" ? http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/threads/96405-We-are-agreed avers no differences: > _In agreement_ is simply a phrase that means having the same opinion. > _Agree_ , as you use it, is an intransitive verb meaning to be in accord or > having the same opinion. > > So, they are structurally different, but almost semantically the same. That > is, they have the same meaning. Yes, consensus has almost the same meaning, > but its used in formal contexts. Per contra, this avouches a difference: > They "are" agreed is stative, they are in a state of agreement, and this > doesn't necessarily mean that they spoke to each other and made the > agreement, it might simply mean that **they have all taken the same position > independently**. But when you say "they have agreed" it does imply that they > have got together and agreed a position. I'm contending against this argument. If **they have all taken the same position independently** , then haven't they agreed? Does it matter whether they acted alone or conferred? [http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=843621&p=4528830#post4528830](2 more examples here)


title: In “can hear singing”, is “singing” a verb or a gerund?

text: In this sentence is _singing_ a verb or a gerund? > Look at the children whom you can hear singing.


title: "Was" or "were" for "half a dozen"

text: In Microsoft Word, the following sentence is flagged. It tells me to use "was" instead of "were" > There **were** half a dozen books strewn about the floor. I would think that you would use "were" since it's a quantity more than one. You wouldn't say, "There was twelve books strewn about the floor." Does the use of the "half" modify it somehow? Thank you.


title: Difference between "whereby" and "in which"?

text: Are there any differences between them? For example, > Conversion is the process **whereby** a value of one type is transformed > into a value of another type.


title: Word for someone who loves to create and organise noisy, lively, chaotic events

text: Some people love creating or fostering the creation of events that are noisy, chaotic and fun, such as parties, arguments, reunions, etc. Sometimes there's a negative connotation to this (like in provoking an argument), but sometimes there is not (like in organising a big, noisy party). The word I'm looking for would be the English equivalent to the Spanish _armadanzas_ , just in case this is helpful. Any ideas?


title: An alternative to "stakeholder"

text: Here's a sentence taken from an executive memo, "Action item: get feedback from stakeholders on SuperDongle 9000". Is there something that can replace "stakeholder"? The word is not being used in the first sense given in the OED: >   1. An independent person or organization with whom money is deposited, > esp. when a number of people make a bet or other financial transaction. > If there is a finanical interest for some of the included people, it is a fuzzy one. It is closer to the second: >   1. A person, company, etc., with a concern or (esp. financial) interest in > ensuring the success of an organization, business, system, etc. > When I've heard it, it has usualy been directed at a vague (that is, not formally defined) group of people within an organization who have some input (often by technical necessity) or interest into a project or component of a project. These would be, e.g., programmers, technicians, sales and marketing people, project managers, operational support(IT), and so on, possibly with the addition of a 3rd party or outside group that will work with the product (e.g., Swedish Chefs would use SuperDongle 9000, since it is designed with the needs of the discerning Swedish Chef in mind). What can be used instead of "stakeholder" in this situation? I'm looking for a term that is more inclusive of all involved, without the sense of it being a financially-related commitment.


title: Proper way to handle plurals with “whose”

text: I came up (re)phrasing a question like this : > What's so special about directories whose name begins with a dot? But now, I'm wondering whether this is correct handling of plurals or not. Should the following be preferred? > What's so special about directories whose name **s** begin with a dot? (In French both are correct and have different meanings — singular suggests that each directory has one name, plural suggests each directory can have several names —, but it might be different in English.)


title: "Coquette" vs. "flirt"

text: What is the difference between _coquette_ and _flirt_? They seem to mean the exact same thing; is it only their historical or etymological baggage that determines different usage?


title: He will never be forgotten and He can never be forgotten - Which is stonger in emphasizing?

text: Can you tell me which sentence gives a stronger feeling > He will never be forgotten or > He can never be forgotten I personally think that _He can never be forgotten_ makes more sense as it is a negative sentence due to the presence of 'never'. But, 'will' is a word which is used to say something certainly. So I am bit confused about using it in the negative sentence. Any advice is appreciated ( I may be wrong about the sentence being negative).


title: What does Pope Francis’s remark, “You can always add more water to the beans,” mean?

text: In connection with my question about Pope Francis’s remark I posted today, there was the following statement in the same article of New York Times (July 29): > “In contrast, Francis spoke on the beach, engaged with the masses and was > greeted like a rock star by followers entranced by his approachable style > and homespun folksy adages. “ **You can always add more water to the beans** > ,” he said at one point.” What does “You can always add more water to the beans,” mean? What benefit do you get by adding water to the beans? How does it relate to the basic value of Christianity? Do you have the counterpart English adage to this?


title: What is the name of the sound-measuring bar on your computer?

text: When testing to see how loud your voice is in a microphone, there is a visual bar/graph that increases as you get louder--what is this called? I'm not looking for the name of a device the measures sound (e.g. decibel meter).


title: Is it OK to omit the "there was" in the following sentence without changing its meaning?

text: > Never in her life had she seen such shocking footage, not to mention two in > one day. The experience had shaken her like nothing before. **But there was > something else in them that had disturbed her.** Something that still > lingered in her mind, like the afterimage of a picture she had overlooked. I thought of omitting the "there was" in the sentence above: > But something else in them had disturbed her. Is that grammatically correct? Does the meaning change?


title: English words that derive from religous origins

text: Hi I am looking for a list of examples of words coming from a religious pretext. Ex: "goodbye" came from "God be with you" The religion it comes from dose not matter. Just a list of word that fall in this category would be great. Thanks.


title: What does it mean "to rock a coat"?

text: What does it mean "to rock a coat"? Does it mean to wear it? > Still rocking my J Crew navy peacoat. Thing is warm as f-k. > > Zara-man coat I bought in Copenhagen in 2008. Still rocking it, still > holding up.


title: Abstracted indulgence

text: I found this sentence in a text: > Her customary manner was one of abstracted indulgence Context - She was kind of famous in her neighborhood, and naturally when she came out to the bus stand to greet one of her guests, the people of that place gather around her. Her customary manner was one of abstracted indulgence. Yet she is able to command prompt obedience when occasion demands. I believe it means that she has patience and that is her quality of character. But I am curious to know why "abstracted" is included in this quoted sentence. Why not "indulgence" alone?


title: Is the "overseas" bushism really so absurd?

text: A famous quote by George W. Bush is > More and more of our imports come from overseas. Which is spread with the implication of being particularly stupid because "overseas" is a term to describe foreign countries, which would mean that every single import would come from there, not just "more and more". However, doesn't "overseas" also mean the more literal "coming over [a] sea, e.g. with a ship" or at least "coming from a country that is separated from the USA by water"? In that case, imports from, say, Canada would _not_ come from oversea and the statement could make sense if the USA was reducing its imports from Canada (whether it's true or false would be a different question and off-topic, here). Is that a legitimate interpretation of the statement or can it really only be interpreted in the tautological way?


title: Is “irritance” not a word?

text: I thought the word _irritance_ was a word — but it isn’t one according to Google and my dictionary. It sounds correct; what is the word I should use? By _irritance_ I mean something that’s being irritating, like a person kicking the back of your plane seat is an irritance. * * * After researching more, I’ve found the word I was looking for was **_nuisance_**.


title: A one word replacement when referring to multiple family members

text: When you are saying something like > I'm going Christmas shopping with my **aunt and uncle**. is there a replacement for ' _aunt and uncle_ ' that is one word? If not, is the sentence grammatically correct?


title: What does “burrow (one’s) nose deep” mean? Is it an idiom?

text: November.30 NPR Books introduces Emily Dickingson’s poems on leftover envelopes under the title, “Emily Dickinson's Envelope Writings” > “Readers always seem to want to get closer to Emily Dickinson, the godmother > of American poetry. Paging through her poems feels like **burrowing nose- > deep** in her 19th century backyard — where "the grass divides as with a > comb," as she writes in "A narrow Fellow in the Grass." As I was interested in the phrase, “burrow nose deep in sth,” I checked both Cambridge and Oxford English dictionary to find whether it’s an idiom or not. Neither of them carries “burrow nose deep” as an idiom. However, I found some of examples using “burrow (one’s) nose deep: “If Obama replaces her with an accursed DINO who will **burrow his nose deep** between Bankster cheeks, it will be because that's what he wants to do, not because it's what he has to do. - www.politicsplus.org/.../will-warren-or-a-dino-head- th... “Where do I live if not in your woods? I **burrow nose deep** in dead leaves and silt soil by the river's edge. Your crows march wicked sentinel steps.”- gilliancornwall.blogspot.com Does “burrow nose-deep” literally mean “dig in / bury deeply,” or have other figurative meanings like intimacy? To me “burrow nose-deep” in episodes of Emily Dickinson and Obama’s replacement of staff appear to be used in different meaning? Is it an idiom or simple combination of “burrow” and "nose deep.”?


title: "The more..., the less..." sentence with the same verb

text: I'm kinda ok with basic "The more..., the less..." type of sentences, like > The more you think about it, the less likely you are to take action, but what if I want to say next: > The more repetitive this action becomes, the less sincere it... er... > becomes? Something is wrong here. Replacing "becomes" with "is" in any or both parts doesn't make it better I think. Or should I give up on this and paraphrase it as "Repetitiveness of this action makes it less sincere"? This particular sentence is not very important but I would come up to this question anyway sooner or later because I often say things in that way in my native language.


title: "holding their own internal lives at bay"

text: The following is a passage from this article: > The shift from emails to texts simply accelerates the process by which > people are holding their own **internal lives** at bay. After all, if some > future editor had the misfortune of combing through an archive of your text > messages, I doubt she would find much that revealed who you truly were. What does _interal life_ mean mentioned in the passage?


title: When writing out a phone conversation can you use multiple capitals in a row?

text: When writing out a phone conversation for the purpose of transcription or translation, is it correct to write: 1) Hey, Hi, Well... OR 2) Hey, hi, well... I personally think 2, but others disagree... so just wanted to check. Thank you!


title: at which point I can shift from past perfect back to simple past?

text: Imagine I'm writing a story in past tense. Here come some questions: SENTENCE 1: "Tom simply couldn't imagine how different the world had been when his father was at Tom's age: there hadn't been fancy smart phones, people had appeared to be more altruistic, and the parents wouldn't have had to be worried about their kids being killed at school." Many pulperfects are used. It looks very clunky to me. I suppose the readers would perfectly understand what I mean if I changed all the pulperfects to simple past, which could be: "Tom simply couldn't imagine how different the world was when his father was at Tom's age: there weren't fancy smart phones, people appeared to be more altruistic, and the parents would have to be worried about their kids being killed at school." Could anyone, especially native speakers, give me some advices? Do you think it's awkward? Or you think although it looks alright, it would convey different meanings? My second question is about the back shift of subjunctive mood in reported speech. SENTENCE 2 & 3 "Tom always said if he had lived in his father's time, he wouldn't have been able to survive for a week. His father always replied that he had used to say the same thing to Tom's grandpa." Again, for me, they're very cumbersome. I'm not even sure if subjunctive sentences should shift back when they are reported. Can I just write:"Tom always said if he lived in his father's time, he wouldn't be able to survive for a week."? Also, in the 3rd sentence, "had used to" sounds very awkward to me. Can I just write: "His father always replied that he used to say the same thing to Tom's grandpa."? I've been confused by these grammatical questions, and they really put me off from writing stories in English. I'd really appreciate your advices.


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

text: > TRWTF is they were running as root, at a nuclear sciences research facility! > > TRWTF is that the World Cup was in South Africa. What's the detailed meaning of the above sentences? How many catchphrases like "IMHO" in English? Be thankful to any advice.


title: Is it offensive to call a redhead a "ginger"?

text: So I just re-watched this great comedy by Tim Minchin, and here are the questions:   1. How bad/offensive is the g-word really (other than being an anagram of the n-word)?   2. What are alternatives? Is "redhead" more appropriate?


title: How to use the expression "lo and behold"

text: How should this expression be used, and what is its origin?


title: "This is not Scandinavia."

text: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/opinion/thomas-friedman-revelations-in-the- gaza-war.html says: > The second pillar, which debuted in the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, is to > nest Hamas fighters and rocket launchers among the densely packed Gazan > population and force Israel into a war where it can only defeat or deter > Hamas if it risks war-crimes charges. No one here will explicitly say so, > but one need only study this war to understand that Israel considers it > central to its deterrence strategy that neither Hamas nor Hezbollah will > “outcrazy us.” I don’t believe Israel was targeting Gaza civilians — I > believe it tried to avoid them — but, at the end of the day, it was not > deterred by the prospect of substantial collateral civilian casualties. > Hamas used Gaza’s civilians as war-crimes bait. And Israel did whatever was > necessary to prove to Hamas, “You will not outcrazy us out of this region.” > **It was all ugly. This is not Scandinavia.** What does "This is not Scandinavia" mean? Why does Thomas Friedman precede that sentence by "It was all ugly"? EDIT: In a Google search, I also found http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/central-south-asia/65337-india-just-woke-up- north-korea-what-11.html, which says: > As I condemn those anonymous instigational mischief mongers who started this > whole spiral of violence. Neither should be spared the full weight of the > law. Because frankly I hold both responsible. > > Once again this proves what I have been saying to the Ivory Tower residents > here. **This is India. This is not Scandinavia.** Use your brains. Be > responsible, be vigilant, clamp down if you see or know someone who's doing > something you feel has the potential to hurt others. Do not be silent. Do > not be apathetic. And do not let false loyalty come in the way of doing what > is right.


title: Difference between "exercise" and "workout"

text: We can say: I will do exercise today or I will do workout today. Is there any difference between them?


title: To pleasure someone, to bring pleasure to someone, to make someone happy

text: Is there any difference in meaning or nuance between "to pleasure someone" and "to bring pleasure to someone?" What about between "to pleasure someone" and "to make someone happy?"


title: Generic term for something you say

text: Is there a generic term/noun for something one says. I'm specifically looking for something you say in a conversation, but maybe there is even a more generic term. I'm looking for a word like 'sentence', 'remark', 'reply', but these are too specific.


title: What does "to revive the 2-for-1 model" mean?

text: What does "find a clever way to revive the 2-for-1 model pitched by the Clintons so long ago" mean in the following quote from _The Washington Post_ of today? The author, Michelle Cottle, wrote that Obama’s > Ivy League degrees, career success and general aura as an ass-kicking, do- > it-all superwoman had some women fantasizing that she would, if not find a > clever way to revive the 2-for-1 model pitched by the Clintons so long ago, > at least lean in and speak out on a variety of tough issues. It was not to > be.


title: why is it always "on foot" not "on feet"?

text: While we normally use both our feet to walk, why is it grammatically acceptable to say "on foot" not "on feet"?


title: Using "and" twice for four items

text: What is the best way to say that a book treats single variable differential calculus, single variable integral calculus, multivariable differential calculus and multivariable integral calculus? I can think of > This book treats single and multivariable differential and integral calculus but is this clear and unambiguous?


title: I hung my head in shame

text: Does the phrase "I hung my head in shame" mean that the person hanged himself? Suicide?


title: What is  the Tacoma Narrows bridge doing in this picture?

text: When the plate of the bridge assumes the unnatural shape showed in the below picture, what is this phenomenon called? **Contortion** (example: _the bridge was contorting ..._ ). I'm not so sure, as I think _contortion_ is normally referred to the (unnatural) shape of human/animal body. Is there a better word? ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/GfkGh.jpg)


title: Is "you don't understanding why" just a mistake or yet another not widely known idiom?

text: From here > Good advice comes with a rationale so you can tell when it becomes bad > advice. **If you don't understanding why** something should be done, then > you've fallen into the trap of cargo cult programming, and you'll keep doing > it even when it's no longer necessary or even becomes deleterious. The person who wrote this is a very smart fellow which usually writes well, so this makes me wonder if it's an idiom I don't know instead of a simple (and ugly) mistake.


title: Short-sighted and Near-sighted

text: I've always thought that Short-sighted means that you fail to look far into the future when planning. I thought near-sighted meant that your focusing ability in your eyes becomes less powerful as you move further from the object you are looking at. I noticed thesaurus.com has them as essentially meaning the same thing; multiple things. What is the correct definitions of these phrases?


title: Literal breakdown of the phrase "case in point"

text: A "case in point" is something like a relevant example. How does the phrase break down literally, though? For example, "with bated breath" makes sense because "to bate" means to hold, so "with bated breath" means with breath held in anticipation. What about "case in point"?


title: "You and I combined" versus "you and me combined"

text: Which is correct, "you and I combined" or "you and me combined"? as in: > Bob and I combined had 91 points The "combined" confuses me.


title: What is the origin of the term "hit point"?

text: I've looked this up on several sites, including Wiktionary.com, Dictionary.com, and etymonline.com, but the results in all three are the same: no results. I was just wondering, where did this term come from? Who coined it? When did it come into use? Does anyone have information regarding this word? Edit: The only context would be in gaming, where the hitpoints of a character are shown.


title: Origin of 'hit the sack'?

text: I know it means to go to sleep but where did it originate from. I'm looking for first use. Just curious.


title: The difference between "diatribe" and "harangue"

text: Could you tell me the difference between _diatribe_ and _harangue_?


title: "She stole to keep her boyfriend in luxury"

text: Could anybody please tell me the exact meaning of it? Is it used in everyday English? And could we use it in written?


title: Something about "information" and "insights"

text: In this sentence, > Sharing insights and answers freely is what makes the Internet such a great > medium for learning. Why is "information " not the right answer?


title: "Adjacent" is to "adjacency" as "contains" is to what?

text: An _adjacency_ relation is one which denotes whether two objects are _adjacent_. > The two neighbors are adjacent, and hence have an adjacency relation. What is the equivalent for a "contains" relation, for example: > The box contains oranges, and hence they have a _???_ relationship. I am not sure whether _"containment"_ is appropriate given its connotations. Note that the word may not necessarily be based on _"contains"_ , perhaps on a synonym.


title: What does it mean when people ask 'Do you have a credit card, at all'?

text: There is a fashion in the UK, these days for adding the words 'at all' to the end of almost any inquiry that people make. For example you are likely to be asked by a ticket collector 'Have you got a ticket, at all'? Or when checking in to a hotel 'Will you want a newspaper, at all'? Or when taking your car for MOT ' Do you have the previous certificate with you, at all'? What does it mean? Either I have the certificate with me, or I don't. There is no gradable alternative. I cannot partly have the certificate, and partly not have it, unless I have torn it in two. Why do people say 'at all'? Indeed what is the meaning of 'at all'? Am I right in thinking it might more properly be used when asking someone if they spoke French 'at all'. Since that is a gradable condition. When, how and why did it begin to be used for non-gradable inquiries? My theory is that it is a means of softening an otherwise brusque request. And what I would like to know is what is such an expression called?


title: Is it offensive to use "Red Tape" in a sentence?

text: I need to reply to an email and I wanted to clarify to the other person that: > I understand exactly what needs to be done on the technical side but I'm not > familiarized with the red tape involved in the process. Would that be, somehow, offensive?


title: Expressing like for like comparisons

text: I am trying to research common reporting practice, but somehow fail to find the right keywords for Google. Essentially when a large retailer compares their reports from last year to this year the year on year changes are frequently smaller than the investment in new business. There's a phrase that is commonly used for that which I cannot find. It's something like: 'outlet corrected sales' or 'outlet adjusted sales' does anyone know the correct terms for this?


title: Difference between two statements

text: Difference between these two sentences:   1. I was the first person to leave.   2. I left first. * * *   1. You will be the first to know   2. You will know first


title: What to call someone who, apart from very inappropriate acts, doesn't care about what others think about him?

text: So, for instance, someone who doesn't occupy himself with the opinions of others and what they think of him, however who wouldn't go naked on the streets, because he completely doesn't care about what people think.


title: Is "lay" in this sentence in the correct tense?

text: I'm making a description for an app, this strikes me as a bit awkward for some reason: > "I wanted to create an app that lay somewhere between an ecosystem and a > musical instrument." Is the word _lay_ in the correct tense?


title: Word for suggesting solutions to a problem solely to demonstrate contempt for the expected problem-solver

text: I have noticed that, with certain kinds of problems - political problems spring to mind - some people (who are not in a position to make decisions about the problem) are prone to suggesting a certain kind of non-solution. These solutions are along the lines of "I know how to fix problem X. Let's enact law Y, which has only a small impact on X, but severely punishes group Z, whom I hold personally responsible for (causing/failing to solve/objecting to my preferred solution to) the problem." I think this is akin to, but not equivalent to, schadenfreude. The act of suggesting solutions is much like kibitzing, but kibitzing is intended to be neutral-to-productive, whereas the word I'm looking for would be explicitly about negativity. Is there a word for it? **EDIT:** Let's try this somewhat anonymized example. "The best way to close the deficit is to confiscate the profits of politicians who give paid speeches about their 'great service'." Here's another one that I made up: "There should be a law that slow people lose their driver's license for life." Another: "People who litter should get their garbage delivered right onto their front lawn."   * If we don't critically reason about the statement at all, then it works;   * If we think about it too much, then it's quickly clear it can't work or is totally infeasible;   * The speaker _knows that it's infeasible_ , or at least thinks so; it is not a genuine attempt to solve the problem;   * It rains righteous punishment on those that are either at fault, or failing to improve the situation;   * The audience is expected to enjoy listening to the statement; the statement isn't targeted at anyone present, but at third parties who aren't in the room. _(If you think any of the above are reasonable statements, then please don't comment about it. I'm not here to start arguments, just to try and find a word.)_


title: Attributes of a TIME: Compared With/ Compared to

text: In the below question, should we be looking at comparison between two times in history or comparison between two attributes at different times? Intuitively, we compare between 2 people basing on their different attributes and not the attributes themselves. > A. In California today, Hispanics under the age of eighteen account for more > than 43 percent, compared with a decade ago, when it was about 35 percent. > > B. Of the Californians under the age of eighteen, today more than 43 percent > of them are Hispanic, compared with a decade ago, when it was about 35 > percent. > > C. Today, more than 43 percent of Californians under the age of eighteen are > Hispanic, compared with about 35 percent a decade ago. > > D. Today, compared to a decade ago, Californians who are Hispanics under the > age of eighteen account for more than 43 percent, whereas it was about 35 > percent. > > E. Today, Hispanics under the age of eighteen in California account for more > than 43 percent, unlike a decade ago, when it was about 35 percent.


title: Origin of "Erry" (every)

text: I have noticed a trend in some rap music where _erry_ replaces the word _every_ (see 1:35 of "The Motto" by Drake). Can anyone shed light on the origins of this pronunciation? I thought it might trace to Southern (U.S.) rappers, although Drake is Canadian. I'm not sure if there's a regional basis, or if perhaps it spread through the subculture to facilitate rhyming. Is it considered Black Vernacular English? Can anyone provide some details about its origin–the dialect it may have come from or artists that may have propagated it?


title: Multiple "in"s in a sentence

text: I always wonder whether the sentences which contain multiple *in*s are proper / a good practice. For example, **Edit** Ok. May be it was a bad example. Sorry about that. But it's a real question. I meant to refer to spoken/written sentences which contain fragments like below (* is a noun phrase). > in * in * in * For ex. (Courtesy @fluently) > I'll look at this issue **in** closer detail **in** 15 minutes **in** my > bedroom **in** the other wing of the inn. **before edit** > He studies **in** the Stephen college **in** New City **in** Canada. Doesn't it look odd? Any better alternatives?


title: What are the differences between "element" and "item" regarding a list

text: Does it make a difference if I use _element_ instead of _item_ in the context of a list (list-member)?


title: Is there a British English equivalent for the expression "X has nothing on Y?"

text: I'm American and I'm writing a short story, one of the characters of which is British. I'm trying not to go overboard in my attempt to replicate British English in this character's speech, but I'm stumped about how to casually express the sentiment that one thing cannot compare to another. I want to say "they've got nothing on me," but I'm not sure this is idiomatically British. It sounds American to my ear. Is there an equivalent, or is this expression actually used in (some form of) British English; or should I just use "cannot compare to?"


title: What is the collective noun for "clouds"?

text: I've been looking at various forums with people proposing suggestions, but is there a consensus on what the collective noun is for "clouds"?


title: Is one allowed to use capitalization for emphasis?

text: In written English, is it okay to emphasize words by capitalizing them? As in: > I would NEVER do that! Are there other methods to achieve this? On an aside: Dutch uses acute accents for emphasis: > Ik zou dat **nooit** doen! [normal]   >  Ik zou dat **nóóit** doen! [emphasized]


title: Difference between control and manage?

text: They seem to function the same. Manage is even "control in action or use" according to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/manage. Control is a verb so isn't that in action as well? Thus, is it the same? I don't see them being listed as synonyms. If they are different, can anyone point out how they are different? This is driving me nuts. It is here used in this context: "You will have the capability to control the system." Compared to "You will have the capability to manage the system."


I am not a native English speaker, i don't understand deeply English language. So i just want to ask you this. Many years ago, maybe before 2000, i seldom heard English people say “Uh huh”, “Uh huh” when expressing that they are understanding in a conversation. Instead, most people use "ok","ok" to express that they understand what the opposite person is talking. But now i heard this word every where, they even use this term in country like China & many other countries (I means some Chinese people use "Uh huh" in their conversation is not rare though English is not their language). I think “Uh huh” in other countries (especially in Asia) is a quite rude expression if u say like that to older people. So, When was “Uh huh” invented? is “Uh huh” a formal English?


title: Connotation of "visceral"

text: I understand that "visceral" with respect to a reaction or feeling is a very intense one. But I haven't found an authoritative source that describes a visceral reaction as being an exclusively bad one. Examples: **Visceral = bad?**   * Seeing an intruder in your home.   * Be suddenly and intensely repulsed by someone's comment. **Visceral = good?**   * Being moved to tears after an unexpected photo of something good.   * Figuratively having your wind knocked out in a "love at first sight" situation. Sorry my examples may not be as good as they could be. Does visceral mean just a bad feeling or can it mean a good feeling in your gut too?


title: Is it ever more appropriate to use "cognizant" over "aware"?

text: In every sentence I have ever read that uses the word "cognizant," the word could easily be replaced by "aware." On top of that, "aware" sounds much less pretentious and to-the-point. Are there situations or contexts which lend themselves more to "cognizant"?


title: Use of "-wise" in phrases or words

text: What is _-wise_ in phrases or words that end with it? How do we use it correctly? > Floor is obscenely expensive **computational-wise**. I found a similar thread here but I don't understand much.


title: How to unambiguously ask a question with "OR"

text: I want to ask a question about a piece of text. > Is the text about McDonalds Corporation or McDonalds Products? I want the answer to be "Yes"/"No", rather than "McDonalds Corporation"/"McDonalds Products." How do I ask the question unambiguously? Should I start with "Answer Yes or No:"?


title: What is the opposite of pollutant, in the sense of "victim" or "casualty"

text: I am busy writing a report where I need a word which would mean "the recipient of pollution". Specifically I want to mention domestic sewerage which has been polluted by industrial sewerage. The reason I don't want to describe it is because the word I am looking for should be the header in the column of a table. thank you all for the help around here!


title: Using "might as well have been" in analogies

text: I've seen this phrase in many literary works. Does it have the same purpose as _like_ , _as if_ , and _as though_ (in the context of similes/metaphors)? For example: > She might as well have been a skinny doll made of reed Is that the same as: > She looked like skinny doll made of reed


title: Someone sociable who prefers quiet environment when outside

text: Someone I know who is fairly sociable, prefers unbusy (ie no crowd) environments when they're outside. They prefer to go, say shopping in late hours, in order to avoid other shoppers. Or they prefer commuting on empty streets. And they act on their preference and do the above. Is there a word/phrase to describe such a person?