title: Awkward sentence

text: I am trying to improve this sentence. It sounds awkward to me, How can I rephrase it so it seems better and is more lucid? Which variation is the best?   1. The biggest thing that I have improved in since I started this job is my ability to get the kids who do this program to follow my directions and do what I ask of them    2. My biggest improvement has been in my ability to get the kids to follow my directions and do what I ask of them    3. My biggest improvement has been in my ability to get the kids who do this program to follow my directions and do what I ask of them?


title: "Let's see how can we do this"?

text: I'm reading the C++ boost library and the following sentence drew my attention: > Once the two steps have been successfully completed, the process can start > writing to and reading from the address space to send to and receive data > from other processes. Now, **let's see how can we do this** using > Boost.Interprocess. Here's the source page. I assume the sentence in bold should be written as **let's see how we can do this**. Has the original sentence been mistakenly written by a person(e.g., a non-native speaker) or was this reversed order intended to emphasize something?


title: is there any difference between "you'd" and "you would" in the meaning?

text: As in the title, is there any difference between the following sentences. `You'd` better put your results to another place.   `You would` better put your results to another place. And, When I use any of them ?


title: What kind of rain is "sprinkles"?

text: It appears that MSN Weather has chosen an amusing adjective (from my British point of view) for the weather today: ![Sprinkles](http://i.stack.imgur.com/5crcZ.png) I'm assuming the precipitation (sadly) won't contain any hundreds-and- thousands. To a British person, what is this equivalent to: drizzle, mizzle or deluge?


title: Word combination with “eternally”

text: I am currently thinking of engraving text for our wedding rings. Idea is to engrave some nice combination of two words (one word per ring) in order to get phrase close to “forever together”. I do like word _eternity_ , so one combination that I could think of is _eternally together_. Is that word combination "sound" and correct in terms of usage? Maybe there is another option close in meaning?


title: Where to use a "noun + noun"?

text: Sometimes I cannot understand how to use it. For, example > a model car This expression makes sense and means "the best car". Another example. I have an exercise and a guide for the exercise. A native speaker told me that "an exercise guide" makes no sense and that I should use "a guide of an exercise" instead. Could anybody give a clear explanation about two nouns in a row?


title: Rephrasing "A are what is B" to "A are what are B"?

text: I see sentences like > They are what is remembered. > > More troops are what is going to be needed. And got me wonderin': Can I rephrase them this way? > They are what are remembered. > > More troops are what are going to be needed. Which way is better?


title: The "Nobody claps, one person claps, everyone claps" Phenomenon

text: What is the word to describe the phenomenon where at first nobody has the intension to clap (after a performance, lecture, etc). But suddenly one person starts clapping loudly, breaking the silence, and there goes the applause! Everyone starts clapping!


title: What does it mean to "hazard a guess"?

text: I know it's an idiomatic synonym for "make a guess" or "take a guess," but what is the underlying basis for the phrase? Is "hazarding a guess" more dangerous than "taking a guess?"


Is the sentence "We are invested" correct? I found it in a blog and was wondering whether it is correct. I do not want to discuss the usage, but just if the combination of "are" + "invested" is grammatically correct and has the correct sentence structure.


title: Is "be wearing" improper English?

text: If I were to say, > Can't I just be wearing my swim suit already? Would "be wearing" be improper English?


title: Why are pronouns always given in the same order? I, you, he, etc?

text: **Not just English** Why are pronouns when conjugating verbs always given in the same order.   * I   * You   * He   * She   * We   * You Plural   * They (or he's and she's depending on the language) Does anyone know?


title: "Only" vs "but only"

text: Do they mean the same when used in a sentence? Example: > A scream would occasionally escape from her, **only** to be absorbed by the > dark metallic walls. > > A scream would occasionally escape from her, **but only** to be absorbed by > the dark metallic walls. Do both sentences mean the same? If not, what would be the difference?


title: What do you think?

text: > I think of this place as my home. (OALD) Consulting the sentence above, can I make an interrogative as these?:   [a] As what do you think of this place?   [b] What do you think of this place as? Or is this alone, _what do you think of this place_ , possible? Or none?


title: Can "that" have a meaning of "although"?

text: Can _that_ have a meaning of _although_? For example, > He was too sleepy even to be surprised **that** the people in the portraits > along the corridors whispered and pointed as they passed.


title: Why "go to the movies" and not "go to a movie"

text: Why do we use _Do you ever go to the movies?_ and not _Do you ever go to a movie?_ Is the latter also correct?


title: Term to describe the mass changeover in land ownership

text: I am looking for a word to describe the above. The context is where, after the Irish famine in the 1840's, entire villages were abandoned and the land was re-distributed to new tenants. This happened on a mass scale, and I was wondering if there was a term for such a replacement of population with the suitable conotations.


title: What's the original meaning of "Abraxis"?

text: Today I realized that I'd been running into the name 'Abraxis' in quite a few different places, and I didn't know what it meant. If it appeared once or twice as the name of a fictional character or a music group, I wouldn't think much of it. None of the occurrences are very prominent. But put together, they suggest a common referent. What are they named after? A web search on 'Abraxis' turns up a variety of businesses and other organizations that don't have any obvious common thread. None of the web sites I visited offer a clue as to why the name Abraxis was chosen. I'm beginning to think that most of the founders don't know what it means either; it just sounds cool. Most likely it refers to someone or someplace in history, but I've been unable to find anything online that looked old enough to be original -- a main referent after which other recent instances of Abraxis were named. I'm pretty sure the DC Comic character is not it.


title: What is the difference between a "stanza" and a "verse", as applied to English literature?

text: What is the difference between 'stanza' and 'verse' in English Literature (Poetry)? I've read one of my classmate's essays and the word 'verse' cropped up - I thought that the word 'verse' was usually used for song/lyrics and was quite confused when it was used in that context (Poem analysis).


title: Large amounts of English text needed

text: I must admit that I'm unsure whether or not this is the right forum for this question. It may belong to statistics and AI also. If there exists a more suitable forum, then tell me. The thing is, I want to analyse a lot of English text for an AI project (Confabulation theory). Is there an online collection of freely available English texts? Books, news would be preferred — scientific texts will properly not do, due to large amounts of math etc.


title: It's fine by me

text: "Fine by me" seems like an unusual use of the word 'by'. Is it unique, or are there other cases like this? Is there a special term for this specific pattern?


title: I'd tick you in all safe at night

text: Want the meaning of the above sentence in US english langauge


title: How should I understand "a hundred years on" in this sentence?

text: I learned the following sentence from _The Economist_. > **A hundred years on** , superconductors have found widespread use in just > one technology, magnetic resonace imaging, which lets doctors peer inside > patients' bodies. How should I understand the phrase "a hundred years on"? There are so many meanings of the preposition "on" in the dictionary. What kind of dictionary should I refer to when I have similar problems?


title: Is "catch up" used in formal language as in "We will catch up sometime"?

text: I wrote "we will catch up sometime" to one of my new friends. When I searched the Internet I found that people used it in informal situations. Is it okay to use this in formal writing as I did since the friendship is very new? What else could I have used? I tend to think that the answer depends on culture. My purpose in context: I want to put the decision of when and where to meet, to the other person.


title: Word that means "healing" or "spiritually healing"?

text: I know there is a word that means 'healing' as in. "The therapy session was very **__** ", blank meaning it was healing (possibly of emotional wounds from the past)


title: One word for the ta-daa! pose?

text: I can hardly describe this, which is why I need the one word. When you shout "Ta-daa!" and throw your arms out at your sides, does anyone have a one-word description for what you're doing? Argh.


title: What the #$@&%*! is that called?

text: Is there a name for the use of symbols in place of curse words, for example `#$@&%*!`?


title: How do I cite a Stack Exchange answer in MLA?

text: I'd like to cite an answer to a Stack Exchange question in an MLA-format paper. What's the correct way to do this? Should I cite the specific answer I'm using, or the question page as a whole, and if the latter who counts as the author? Everyone whose contributed? Word has done it as such:               GordonM. Why is Global State so Evil? 10 May 2012. Web Page. 21 April 2014.         <http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/148108/why-is-global-state-so-evil>.


title: Word to describe "when someone describes something in too much detail"

text: There's a word I thought I knew at some point, but can no longer remember what it was. I tried looking up various thesaurus websites to no avail. Similar words to what I'm looking for, but not quite:   * Elaborate: too neutral -- I'm looking for a more negative connotation.   * Elucidate: too positive a connotation.   * Ruminate: The direction is correct, but it is about "thinking about something in too much detail" vs actually describing it so.   * Describe ad nauseum: 3 words, and awkward sounding. Example sentence: "He began to **___ _** the topic" To clarify, I'm looking for a verb.


title: A verb meaning to have something pointed "inserted" on one's leg?

text: Example: > The bird [...] its beak on my arm. I thought about _stab_ but I think it sounds weird applied to a bird's beak. What other verb can I use?


title: Capitalisation of "chess"

text: When talking about the game of _chess_ do I capitalise or not? If not why not? Example excerpt: > I have picked **chess** as it is a popular, well understood game. Even if > the programming unit doesn’t know the concepts behind chess there is a > wealth of easily-researchable information available for the developer to > find answers promptly. Chess, as well as being ubiquitous, has some well- > defined behaviour which drew me towards using it as the problem domain for > my experiment.


title: What does “Turn a lemon(s) into lemonade” exactly mean?

text: In association with my question about possibility of using Etch-a-Sketch as a verb, I found the expression “turn a lemon into lemonade” in the related article of Five Star. It says: > Etch-a-Sketch had a dilemma as it faced one of three choices: > >   1. Say and do nothing, and wait for the story to go away. >   2. Object to the use of the Etch-a-Sketch brand in such contexts, and > publicly reinforce its core brand values. >   3. Seize an opportunity to _turn a potential lemon into lemonade_. > > > Happily, the folks at Etch-a-Sketch chose the last option. As I was interested in the expression “turn a lemon into lemonade,” I googled, and found the following example of usage: “How to _turn lemons into lemonade_. Bob Chambers. Most of us are so busy building our business that we often forget some of the simple principles that will turn our business into a powerhouse.” We have Japanese sayings 災いを転じて福となす or 奇貨とするmeaning “turn disaster into fortunateness.“ But “turn lemons into lemonade” seems to imply to make an ordinary thing into a special or superior thing. Am I right? Is this a popular English phrase?


title: Attacking by "Taking the high road"

text: Situation: There are two political opponents running for the same position. In politician #1's commercial, he attacks #2 by pointing out flaws in his campaign or history. #2's attack is more clever. He "takes the high road" by saying that he'd never stoop so low as to attack his opponent, while this itself is an attack as it implies his opponent is beneath him, since he has gone so low as to directly attack him. What's this type of attack called?


title: Hip Hip Hooray!

text: I am looking for the etymology and history of the cheer “Hip Hip Hooray”. I’m curious due to its interesting entry in Wikipedia, which reads thusly: > The call was recorded in England in the beginning of the 19th century in > connection with making a toast. It has been suggested that the word “hip” > stems from a medieval Latin acronym, “ _Hierosolyma Est Perdita_ ”, meaning > “Jerusalem is lost”, a term that gained notoriety in the German Hep hep > riots. Another claim is that the Europeans picked up the _Mongol_ > exclamation “hooray” as an enthusiastic cry of bravado and mutual > encouragement, according to Jack Weatherford’s book Genghis Khan and the > Making of the Modern World. It’s all rather intriguing! It is all the more so since the _Hep-Hep_ anti- Semitic riots took place in _1819_. Unfortunately, none of the sources cited on the Wikipedia page appear to be all that etymologically useful. There are a couple of loosely related questions on this site; one for hip and the other for hooray. The latter carries no mention of the exotic Mongol touch. So, in many ways, this question requests the etymology of the three different pieces of the puzzle: _hip_ , _hooray_ and _hip hip hooray_ itself. **Update (for the bounty):** If the anti-Semitic (and Latin) connection is/isn’t a load of horse manure, then I’d appreciate (dis)confirmation as well as information (if possible) on the source of said manure. Some sites cite _Gabay’s Copywriter’s Compendium (2006)_ as the point of origin of the Hep-Hep connection. A similar request applies for _hooray_ ’s Mongolian connection—Jack Weatherford’s book, _Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World_.


title: Are there any expressions that describe going from a bad to a worse situation?

text: Are there idioms or expressions in English that describe going from one bad situation to one that's even worse? I heard "between a rock and hard place" but this describes a dilemma not really a transition. I am looking for an expression that describes someone trying to get out of a bad situation but after much effort, the situation only got worse.


title: The word "lad" in the south of the U.S

text: Is there any possibility that a farmer from the southern part of the U.S. will use the word "lad", or is it completely 'Brit'? the context is naming a pet (a mule) "lad".


title: How can I tell when an abbreviation is an acronym?

text: I know an acronym is an abbreviation that can be pronounced as one word, but when is an abbreviation pronounced as one word? Making myself clearer, how do we know whether or not it is pronounced as one word or not? Is there any definite rule to go by? For example, today, we were discussing " **AYAD** ", whether or not this was an abbreviation or acronym. We didn't know, and we didn't know how to tell whether or not it was an acronym. So,:   1. Is there a rule to go by to determine an acronym from an abbreviation?    2. If there is, what is it? Can someone please provide some details on this? Cheers!


title: It's a nice vista!

text: I overheard someone use the term " **vista** " while describing a view. Being a non-native speaker, I would have chosen the simpler form: " **It's a nice view.** " Could some generous soul explain when it's a _vista_ and when it's a _view_? Are these interchangeable in most circumstances?


title: What does "in his life or in his present errand" mean?

text: In the novel _The Crystal Man_, in Chapter I, there is this sentence: > He was not entirely at peace with society: there was something in his life > or in his present errand which he desired to conceal. Please can anyone explain what "present errand" means? And how can I rewrite this sentence using other words, but with the same meaning?


title: "Out of" vs "outside" of city

text: I would like to know what would be the correct sentence here. I just want to say that I left the city on the weekend. > I went out of the city on Saturday.   >  I went outside the city on Saturday.


title: Which of the following sentences are correct?

text: Can someone please tell me which of the following sentences are correct and which are the differences between them? >   1. Prove me wrong. >   2. Prove I'm wrong. >   3. Prove me I'm wrong. >   4. Prove me that I'm wrong. >   5. Prove to me I'm wrong. >   6. Prove to me that I'm wrong. >


title: Has the suffix "-trix" acquired a pejorative meaning in recent years?

text: A couple days ago I needed the correct word for a female aviator, which I figured was _aviatress_. A dictionary.com search provided _aviatress_ , _aviatrice_ and _aviatrix_ as acceptable choices. Coincidentally, I had just read this EL&U post about the origin of the -trix suffix, and so I explored other Latin-based agent nouns. I found that _legislatress_ exists along side _legislatrix_ as does _benefactress_ with _benefactrix_ and _orator_ with _oratress_. Not so with _dominatrix_ , though. It seems to have maintained only the -trix suffix. Dictionary.com has this to say about the -trix suffix in modern use: > Most nouns in -trix have dropped from general use, so that terms like > aviatrix, benefactrix, legislatrix, oratrix, and proprietrix occur rarely or > not at all in present-day English. Dominatrix has maintained, and most people would only ever use it in the realms of sado-masochism and sexual role play. My question is, why has the -trix suffix fallen off and been replaced by the more sibilant "-tress"? And, have we avoided the -trix suffix to avoid any unintended association with the sado-masochistic sense of dominatrix?


title: Can you buy things "for cheap"?

text: The first line of this news story says: > Call it space grave robbery for a cause: imagine scavenging defunct > communication satellites for their valuable parts and recycling them to > build brand new ones **for cheap**. I've heard people use that "for cheap" construction before, but thought it was dialectal (mid-to-northern English). I was surprised to see it in an NZ publication. Why does that almost pass grammatical muster, whereas "for expensive" (for example) really stinks?


title: Is it accurate to say a baby is x inches taller or longer?

text: So today I was sending a picture of my new born to my British manager. I was saying that the baby looks a little bit different than the picture now he is 4 cm **taller** She replied me saying _taller_ or _longer_? I didn't actually think about it before. I thought that taller will be the correct term as this is how we describe it as human beings ... Then I thought longer might be more accurate cause technically he cannot stand erect! Which term is more accurate? Thanks for your insight PS: I am not a native English speaker.


title: is this sentence using "but instead" correctly?

text: Someone who is beating around the bush is a person who avoids the main point of what they are saying, but instead talk around it. I am doubting this sentence because it just sounds weird to have "avoids the main point" and then the use of "but instead" and "talk around it" Would it be correct if you substitute "doesn't get to the gist" instead of "avoids the main point"?


title: Pronunciation of "lib"

text: I've been a computer programmer for many years, and recently my father has been learning computer programming. Programmers often times will use a folder called "lib." Not a native English speaker, my father pronounced "lib" like *lib*eria - short for "library." When I corrected him and told him it's pronounced "lib" like *li*t, he asked why if "lib" is supposed to be short for "library." I couldn't think of an answer why. I thought of other words such as   * "pup", short for "puppy" is pronounced like the first part of puppy   * "mic", short for "microphone" is pronounced like the first part of microphone Why is "lib" not pronounced like the first part of library?


title: Looking for a certain word

text: What do you call a person who advocates the use, against an enemy, of methods borrowed from that enemy, or applies the same moral standards as the enemy does or otherwise copies the enemy's behavior or techniques?


title: Is "walk on foot" acceptable?

text: I understand that we can say "walk on a hurt foot", but can we simply say "walk on foot" to mean go somewhere on foot? For example, is this sentence correct: "I walked on foot for a long time"?


title: What's the difference between "judicial" and "juridical"?

text: I have found the definitions below from Merriam-Webster (my bold) and, aside from the fact that judicial has a wider use (and definition) than juridical (most of which I cut from this excerpt). When using each word as per my highlighted definition, is there a technical difference in what is being referred to or are they synonyms? > ju·rid·i·cal adj \ju̇-ˈri-di-kəl\ > > Definition of JURIDICAL > > 1: **of or relating to the administration of justice** or the office of a > judge > > 2: of or relating to law or jurisprudence : legal > ju·di·cial adj \jü-ˈdi-shəl\ > > Definition of JUDICIAL > > 1a : **of or relating to** a judgment, the function of judging, **the > administration of justice** , or the judiciary (judicial processes)


title: What’s the difference between “Take yes for an answer” and “Say yes for an answer”?

text: Today’s (December 7) Washington Post carries the following quote from the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s remark on the back-and-forth debates of raising the debt ceiling in the congress as the Quote of the Day. > “What we have here is a case of Republicans here in the Senate once again > not **_taking yes for an answer_**. Now the Republican leader objects to his > own idea. So I guess we have a filibuster of his own bill." I don’t think I’ve heard the phrase “Take yes,” though I say and hear “Say yes / no” pretty often. I found “Take yes” by “googling” in the title of the book, “Why Great Leaders **_Don't Take Yes for an Answer_** : Managing for Conflict and Consensus” written by Michael A. Roberto, professor of Management at Bryant University and visiting associate professor of New York University. From the context of Mr. Reid’s quote and the above title of a book, I guess “Take yes for an answer” means to make a resolute decision, or vote for Yes to go forward, but am not sure. How does “Take yes” differ from the colloquial “Say yes”? Is it a popular word like “say yes / no,” or a political or management terminology?


title: What is the "Ocean Sea"?

text: I've come across the term "Ocean Sea" and wonder what it means, especially compared to simpler terms like "ocean" or "sea"? Is this a recognized term in English, either current or historical?


title: ...wound sky down to desert

text: "Well out of the city, out where the first of a crop of white windmills, lazily turning, **wound sky down to desert** , Driver sailed without warning onto an exit ramp and into a one-eighty." [ _Drive_ , James Sallis] In the sentence above, is the bolded phrase talking about the turning direction of the windmills, or about something different?


title: Is there any difference in meaning between "cannot afford to + verb" and "cannot + verb"?

text: Is there any difference in meaning between the 2 patterns: "cannot afford to + verb" and "cannot + verb"? For example:   1. _I cannot afford to wait forever_ versus _I cannot wait forever_.   2. _I cannot afford to go_ versus _I cannot go_.


title: Why is there no comma before "and" before this independent clause?

text: > This was at a moment when the magistrate, overcome with tiredness, had gone > down into the garden of his house **and** , dark, bent beneath some > implacable thought, like Tarquin cutting the heads off the tallest poppies > with his cane, **_M. de Villefort_** was knocking down the long, dying stems > of the hollyhocks that rose on either side of the path like ghosts of those > flowers that had been so brilliant in the seasons that had passed away. Why is there no comma before the bolded _and_? My understanding is that there is an independent clause on each side of the bolded _and_. By the way, the subject of the two independent clauses is the same.


title: Asking a "Do you have..." question without do-support

text: Is the following sentence correct English? > Have you the address? The address in question is obvious to the person being asked. It's normal to ask such a question as "Do you have the address?" or even "Have you got the address?" But is it acceptable to use **just** the verb _have_ without _do_ or _got_?


title: Can 'filtered' be ambiguous?

text: I'm working with algorithms that filter their input (that is, remove part of it), and I'm not sure this phrase is unambiguous: > This function returns the filtered elements. Is it obvious that _filtered_ here means _the elements that have passed the filter_? Or could it mean _the elements that have been filtered out_? If both are present, I believe it's easier to eliminate the ambiguity: >   1. This function returns a pair of lists _(filtered_out,filtered_in)_ . >   2. This function returns a pair of lists _(filtered_out,filtrate)_. > Buf if I see just a variable named _filtered_ , without the __out_ and __in_ suffixes, I'm not sure which one should be inferred.


title: "In almost" vs "Almost in"

text: Which of the following is correct? >   1. In almost all cases, ... >   2. Almost in all cases, ... >


title: What is the meaning of "He was a myth made man"?

text: I can't understand the meaning. Is it "He was a mythical person" or "He was a myth that became a man"?


title: More general term than "slashdotting"

text: "Slashdotting", or the slashdot effect is where a high profile website has a link to a low profile, low traffic website, and the increased web traffic on the latter causes it to slow down or crash. Are there any hypernyms for this term, not limited to web sites being degraded? Of something being recommended by someone or something high profile, causing more people to visit or use it, resulting in it becoming overcrowded or otherwise degraded? An example of that can be seen here, where a commenter has claimed that restaurants with the highest number of positive reviews on sites such as TripAdvisor or Yelp often will be crowded and have prices inflated, presumably as a result of its positive rating on those sites - increased real-life visitors from a high profile website causing a degraded experience.


title: "A lot of nature " ....can I say it this way?

text: How can I use the word nature when I want to describe different places with different nature?.Can I say > I like living in a place with A LOT OF NATURE.


title: Idiom for opportunistically exploiting a situation to one's advantage

text: I was wondering what various figures of speech could be used to describe a situation where somebody exploits a situation in order to push their own agenda. For example in Persian we have 'Catching a fish from muddy water'. Are there any English equivalents? **EDIT** Per request, let me clarify further what I have in mind: I'm looking for a figure of speech used to describe a situation: say something happens, and the previously dogmatic opinion of somebody about the something, could then be somewhat justified after an accident, and that person would gloat and say 'I told you so', much like politicians would do from a given incident and use the turn of events to justify their own agenda. What idiom could you then use to reply to that person? Like 'You're really [idiom about opportunistically exploiting] now'. A real example here: Politician A and B are engaged in a debate. Politician A has been running the country for the past 4 years and has been lenient toward gun control, whereas politician B and his party have been critical of this leniency from the outset. During these 4 years under Politican A's reign, society has been very safe and healthy, with no gun crime whatsoever, and the population have actually been happy with Politcian A's gun policies. A month before elections, a psychotic army conscript starts shooting at people in the street and kills 2 people. Politician B will then launch a scathing attack on Politcian A for being reckless in his decision making and not heeding the advice of others, intentionally failing to point to the fact that the person committing the crime is an army personnel and has had his guns for a long time, and would have had his weapons with or without a stringent nationwide gun policy. What would be a good figure of speech to describe Politician B's exploit of the incident to his own advantage?


title: "I wish I would wake up early"

text: Is this sentence correct? Some grammar rules say that 'would' shouldn't be used when its subject is the same as 'wish' subject. It 'would be illogical', the rule says. I came a cross this sentence and it seems to break the rule? What is the reason?


title: Is there a term for the direct opposite?

text: Suppose I have two words, let's take "true" and "false". "False", is the direct opposite of "truth", and is an antonym of "truth". However, the word I am looking for is not "antonym". If I was to ask what was the "direct opposite" of "black", the answer would have been "white". What word could have replaced "direct opposite" in this case? Other examples include "dark" and "light", or "big" to "small". It is true these are antonyms, but these are special antonyms, they are the only ones that are the "equivalent opposites". "big" has other antonyms like "tiny", but "tiny" is the equivalent of "huge". "big"'s equivalent in opposite is "small". EDIT, The word I am looking for has the meaning of "opposite _match_ "


title: "be enacted' = to take place

text: Why is the passive, and not the active (= "to enact"), the equivalent of "to take place"? What's the intuition?


title: How should "makeup" be written in BrEng?

text: By "makeup", I mean cosmetics, as in lipstick, foundation, eyeliner, etc. My assumption is that it should be written as "makeup", but others have suggested "make up" or "make-up". In case there are any regional differences, I'm primarily interested in the most idiomatic written form in Britain/Ireland.


title: Suasion vs Persuasion

text: I referenced http://english.stackexchange.com/a/22445/50720 but it doesn't apply for these nouns? > suasion = [mass noun] _formal_   >  Persuasion as opposed to force or compulsion: I also tried http://thecommonparlance.blogspot.com/2007/10/suasion-v- persuasion.html and http://sprachgefuhl.blogspot.com/2011/06/suasion- persuasion.html but these look tentative.


title: "Being open minded" vs. "the quality of being open minded"

text: >   * One of the most essential characteristics that all good leaders share is > being open minded. >   * One of the most essential characteristics that all good leaders share is > the quality of being open minded. > Both variations of this sentence sound awkward, I am not sure why. Can someone tell me if they are both awkward, pick which one is better or suggest an improvement?


title: Use "of" or "for" with Institute, Department, Office...?

text: When should which be used and what's the difference? Department **of** XYZ or Department **for** XYZ Institute **of** ABC or Institute **for** ABC Federal Office **of**... or Federal Office **for**... Is there any sort of rule for this? The "problem" is that it's an ongoing debate in the Department (non-English- speaking country) on how to properly translate it into English.


title: "Unstar as interesting"

text: If I starred something as interesting, would I unstar it as _interesting_ or as _uninteresting_?


title: Formal way to say "pay off"?

text: I am trying to write an Abstract and need to change the sentence > I believe that the work load for the physicians will pay off by increasing > patient safety. I was wondering if there is a more formal way to say that something _pays off_?


title: Word meaning "being tossed up and down?"

text: I'm looking for a word to replace the phrase "being tossed up and down." To be used in something like: > The tree trunk [...] between the waves. Any suggestions?


title: "Why it is" vs "Why is it"

text: What is the difference between these two sentences: 1 ) Please tell me why **is it** like that.(should i put question mark at the end) 2 ) Please tell me why **it is** like that.(should i put question mark at the end)


title: Sophisticated positive or negative

text: When I searched for the meaning of the word sophisticated ,it does mean well advanced ,highly complicated etc. When I say my project is sophisticated what impression it can possibly make. The project is good that it is advanced or the project is really complicated to understand . Can I use that word in such situations


title: What does "over" mean here?

text: "All assets could be pledged except for pledges over a going concern (gages sur fonds de commerce), Luxembourg law doesn't provide for an all assets security." Could someone explain this sentence？ What does “over” mean here? Thank you.


title: Custom v/s Customized v/s Personal

text: We have a small start up and need a tag line for it. We deal in custom products that we make according to their requirements. We have come up with 'Customized Technology Solutions'. But, now we have a doubt, is 'Custom Technology Solutions' the correct usage or is it customized itself. Also, is it wrong to use 'Personalized Technology Solutions'? Does customized make it seem that we modify products not actually make new ones?


title: Grammatical Voice Problem

text: "Can security be granted by an entity which is neither a borrower nor a guarantor? Yes, The third party may be granted if . . ..“ I don't understand what this sentence means. Who grants whom? To my understanding, the third party should be someone who grants, and is not granted.


title: Is "went missing" correct?

text: I have always thought the word _went_ indicated, more or less, something purposely done; yet, it is now used when there is no idea how something disappeared.


title: Ways to ruin a hobby

text: ## Variations   * _The best way to ruin a hobby is to make it a career._   * _The fastest way to ruin a hobby is to try to make money with it._   * _The quickest way to ruin a hobby is to make it a job._ What's the history behind this saying? Is it attributable to a particular person? (I imagine the complementary maxim would be _Do what you love._ )


title: "What happens when" or "what happen when"?

text: Should I write "what happens when" or "what happen when"? Does it depend on if I know if the "what" that happens is plural or singular, or is it always the same? Provided "what happens" is correct in all situations, how about this: > "What happens when [something]? Two things: [one thing that happens] and > [another thing that happens]."


title: Shalln't vs. Shan't in British English

text: I am a British English speaker and often use "shall" and "shall not". When I contract "shall not", I pronounce it [ʃɑlnt] -- that is, the "l" sound remains. My question, therefore, is how do I spell it? I would naturally spell it as "shaln't". I see on Wiktionary that "shalln't" (with two "l"s) is listed as an archaic spelling and shouldn't be used. All other resources I've found indicate that it should be "shan't" -- with no "l" -- but this is the American English pronunciation, to me.


title: Is there a single word for the faith a user of magic has in the efficacy of a magical object or act?

text: I'm writing about art's function of rescuing, redeeming or validating the artist's experience and suffering. Some of my sources have compared this to the functions of magical talismans and power objects, and I'd like to use magical language now and then throughout my paper as a nod to this similarity. The problem is that I have no idea of magical jargon. When I refer to the artist's confidence that their act of creation can and will perform this redemptive role, I want to spiritualize that word choice a bit--I guess "faith" is better than "confidence," but that's definitely more religious than magical. So I was wondering--is there a particular word, used in some form of magical practice, that expresses one's degree of confidence in a magical object or action? If there was a "Magick" stackexchange, I'd have posted this there. Sorry to ask a rather bizarre question.


title: Why does "don't have a cow" mean "chill out" or "calm down" in American English?

text: I am just unable to understand why "don't have a cow" can mean "don't panic". What is the origin of this expression? What's more, If someone is getting flurried, can I say "he is having a cow"?


title: How to avoid ambiguity in "I am renting an apartment in New York"?

text: Does the sentence: > I am renting an apartment in New York. imply that I am the **landlord** or the **tenant**? How can I unequivocally communicate that I am the tenant (or the landlord)?


title: The use of "about" on "discuss" and "think"

text: Why is it grammatically incorrect to say > We would like to _discuss about_ the matters at hands first. But it is alright to say > I will _think about_ what you have said this morning. What I've heard that the word _discuss_ is treated like _consider_ and _investigate_. It makes sense that _about_ cannot be placed with _consider_ , e.g. it sounds weird to say "I'll consider about this relationship." So what are the words that will have the same effects with _discuss_ , _consider_ and _investigate_? What makes _look_ and _think_ so special that _about_ is grammatically correct to be used together with them?


title: What is the difference between "order" and "command"?

text: What is the difference between those two words `order` and `command`, and where to use each of them? Please give some examples. Thank you!


title: Can the coordinating conjunction 'yet' follow a subordinating conjunction?

text: Is it grammatically permissible by the rules of Standard English for the coordinating conjunction ‘yet’ to follow a subordinating conjunction? For example, take the sentence: > Although it is early, yet still I must rise. This seems to make sense and be correct to me, but if I substitute another coordinating conjunction, say ‘but’, it no longer seems so: > Although it is early, but still I must rise. It seems that the semantics of ‘but’ are what create a problem here, though instead of the grammar, but I can't seem to form any valid subordinating + coordinating sentence except if I use ‘yet’, so I'm not sure.


title: What word is the opposite of Luddite?

text: Single word, please, preferably one derived from someone's name.


title: Salutation for two doctors (not married)

text: Does use of the salutation > Dear Drs. Apple and Banana, imply that Dr. Apple is married to Dr. Banana? That is, would it be better form to use: > Dear Dr. Apple and Dr. Banana, when Dr. Apple and Dr. Banana are unrelated, but happen to both be addressed in the same letter?


title: What is the name of the "agency" fallacy?

text: I'm looking for the name of the logical fallacy where intent or agency is assumed when in fact there is none. It's a common fallacy in my experience, but I can't seem to find it described specifically on any site that discusses logical fallacies. It seems to be a special case of apophenia, but Wikipedia and Google turn up nothing specific to an "apophenia of intent" or any related phrase. The best I've been able to find is this rather obscure blog post that names it the "agency fallacy," but I haven't been able to find any other sites that use that phrase. Does this fallacy even have a name? Here are a few examples:   * A child, playing with magnets, finds that they repel when held one way and attract when held another way. Seeing this, the child thinks "oh, those ends want to be together, but the other ends want to be apart." They have (unconsciously) read intent into a deterministic physical process.   * A picnicker gets rained on and thinks "Darn it, rain! You just couldn't resist ruining a nice day, could you?" Again, they have (unconsciously) attributed agency to a mindless natural process.   * Two people pass each other in a crowded hall. One trips and stumbles into the other. The other thinks "What a jerk! Why'd they do that to me?" They have mistakenly attributed intent (specifically, malice) to an action that was accidental. This is the case of the fallacy that Hanlon's Razor warns against.   * A socialist on a soapbox shouts "Capitalism is the source of all the world's evil! It's stealing our jobs and lining the pockets of bureaucrats!" Although the use of metaphor is more deliberate here than with the child or the picnicker, it is still misleading: capitalism can't do anything on its own, only the people who participate in it can.


title: two uncountable nouns with and

text: If we had two uncountable nouns with and , would we use a singular or plural form? How much flour and butter is/are needed to make a pizza ?


title: Is there a term which covers ATM cards, credit cards, and debit cards?

text: I work in accommodation for international travelers, and people can pay with various kinds of cards:   * In some countries such as USA, credit cards are very common, but debit cards are not so common.   * In other regions such as Europe, most people have debit cards, but credit cards are quite a bit less common.   * These days in Australia both kinds of cards are very common. Often customers are confused when I ask if they want to pay (or make a reservation) with credit card because they know they have a debit card and not a credit card. And there are other kinds of cards like ATM cards and EFTPOS cards. These can be used for payment but not for making reservations because they cannot be charged without access to the physical cards. **I've taken to using the circumlocution "Mastercard or Visa card", but I wonder if there's a better term?** For instance Maestro cards are related to Mastercards and usually work here too. All the cards have the same form factor and either/both a magnetic strip and/or smartcard chip. They are all processed with the same machine. A few weeks ago I stumbled across the term "payment card" on Wikipedia, that I couldn't recall hearing before. I thought this would be the right term, but it seems not to include ATM cards so I guess I should rule it out ... (My second reason for looking for this term is to decide on which tag or tags to use for such cards over on travel.SE, where we currently only have a `credit-cards` tag, but more and more questions about the other kinds of cards too.)


title: use of commas with conjunction reduction

text: I wimped out in answering this question, dropping the commas and going to parentheses in this sentence, because I was not sure of the placement/correctness of commas in this construction. Now I'd like to get clear on how to use commas in this sentence (without reformulating it...no moving "poems", for example), and why. I'm not even sure that conjunction reduction is what causes the awkwardness here... Wimp version: > I like Lord Byron's (and also enjoy a number of Percy Shelley's) poems. Now I'm asking, if you use the comma, do you use both commas? It looks mighty strange with "poems" out there by itself: > I like Lord Byron's, and also enjoy a number of Percy Shelley's, poems. ...Or is the comma even required? I don't like this, but is it correct? > I like Lord Byron's and also enjoy a number of Percy Shelley's poems.


title: Is there a UK/US difference in the usage of in/to + verb (for example, "this tool helps in dealing with this/to deal with this")?

text: I have done a translation and the Dutchman (who speaks American English) who wrote the book is going through the text often changing "in + verb" constructions to "to + verb". For example, > this tool helps in dealing with this vs > this tool helps to deal with this Is he just simplifying the text to his preference, or is the latter formulation more common in American English?


title: Meaning of "What's shaking?"

text: I can guess it probably means "what's happening", or "what's up". Am I right? I am curious where this phrase comes from and how to use it properly.


title: Grammar correctness of "could" sentence

text: I would like to know whether the following is correct:   Someone is knocking on your door. > Who could it be? As far as I know, modal verbs do not change its form in reported speech: > He asked who it could be. After the knocking on the door has finished, you ask yourself: > Who could it have been? Do I get it correctly?


title: Entertaining multiple goals (makes / make) a person’s life stressful?

text: As per the following grammar rule, the singular "make" should be used but it shows "makes" in the answer. This is a little bit confusing. **Rule:** When acting as subjects of a sentence, gerunds and infinitives are always singular and require singular verbs. **Sentences:**   Entertaining multiple goals (makes / make) a person’s life stressful. To plan road trips to three different cities (involves / involve) the handling of many details. **Answer:**   Entertaining multiple goals "makes" a person’s life stressful. “Entertaining multiple goals” is a gerund phrase which acts as the subject of the sentence ("singular"). To plan road trips to three different cities "involves" the handling of many details. “To plan roads trips” is an infinitive phrase which acts as the subject of the sentence ("singular").


title: Meaning of "first-level", "second-level" in general

text: What do these expressions mean in general: _first-level_ , _second-level_ , ... ? For example, > Response rates provide a **first-level** indicator of advertisement > effectiveness. Conversion rates offer a **second-level** indicator of > advertisement effectiveness.


title: What does “Mercy within mercy within mercy" mean?

text: I saw a lot of articles in these couple of days about Pope Francis’ reflection of his style, influences and priorities as pope in the recent interview with La Civilta Cattolica, the Jesuit journal in Rome. In this interview, the words of Thomas Merton – “Mercy within mercy within mercy," was quoted, which appears in his book, “The Sign of Jonas” as follows: > "I have always overshadowed Jonas with My mercy, and cruelty I know not at > all. Have you had sight of Me, Jonas My child? **Mercy within mercy within > mercy**." I understand it’s hard for non-Christian like me fully understand the meaning (Actually one of writers wrapped up his article by confessing he neither understand exact meaning of this phrase). But I would like to know at least basic implications of this phrase. What does ‘within’ before ‘mercy’ represent for? If ‘within’ is replaced with ‘and’ with an aim at emphasizing, does it totally miss the point?


title: Embarrassment for the person talked to

text: Sometimes I'm embarrassed for the person I'm talking to. Is there a better way to describe how I'm feeling? English is not my first language. _Embarrassment_ might not be the right term. The feeling I'm trying to invoke is the kind you feel when a student claims to understand philosophy, then calls David Hume "light reading" or "pop philosophy," despite demonstrating clear unfamiliarity with the subject. ("Hume is a bit simple and silly. He doesn't resolve important issues of existence, like why we exist," etc.) (Just an example, of course. A similar one would be a student claiming to be a physicist after reading Michio Kaku, and then proceeding to "demolish" the Standard Model.) I think you know the kind of person. I want to say that I feel embarrassed for this person, but that doesn't sound right. When I'm embarrassed, it's a deeply personal thing; when I feel "embarrassed" for the kind of person I outlined above, it's sort of a disconnected experience, one with the realization of "oh dear". I want to say that I feel something like condescension, but that doesn't sound right. _Condescension_ is usually mixed with anger; or the definitive grouping of the target of your condescension in the category "inferior". But, again, this isn't right because the feeling is distinctly disconnected. The word I'm looking for has a very mild "presence", if it exists.


title: Is this use of "rollback" mis-leading or out-and-out incorrect?

text: Suppose you are working with a system that keeps track of edits to a file and can show you a list of the versions. In this system, available actions are shown following each version, e.g.:               3 Edited  date/time by  whoever  [Edit/Delete]     2 Edited  date/time by  whoever  [Edit/Delete/Rollback]     1 Created date/time by  whoever  [Edit/Delete/Rollback]      One of the functions the system supports is reverting to an earlier version, this is done by clicking on the "rollback" action listed after earlier versions. So if a file is reverted, the list would look like this:               4 Reverted to version #2  date/time by  whoever  [Edit/Delete]     3 Edited  date/time by  whoever  [Edit/Delete/Rollback]     2 Edited  date/time by  whoever  [Edit/Delete/Rollback]     1 Created date/time by  whoever  [Edit/Delete/Rollback]      Is this use of "rollback" confusing or incorrect? It seems to me it would be more accurate if the action were labelled "rollback to this version." "Rollback" by itself sounds like it's an action that should be performed on the current version to roll it back to an earlier one. In fact, the system that prompted this question is the Revisions page that exists for any post that's been edited on a StackExchange site. It seems slightly confusing to use "rollback" as shorthand for "roll back to this earlier version."


title: "Identifying" or "the identification of"

text: Which one could be used more correctly in the context: > This study allowed an analysis of financial results and _the identification > of_ possible causes of negative results from the company that was studied > and, as is known in the national media, the situation is widespread. . > This study allowed an analysis of financial results and _identifying_ > possible causes of negative results from the company that was studied and, > as is known in the national media, the situation is widespread. Perhaps the following sentence is more accurate? > The survey allowed an analysis of the company’s financial results and > _identifying_ possible causes of its negative results and, as is known in > the national media, the situation is widespread


title: the use of would in the sentence

text: what is the difference between this two sentences " would you like to be a farmer ?" and "Do you like to be a farmer?" I know would is about specific time but there is no time in the sentence


title: A Word To Represent The 5 Senses

text: Working on a game and I need a _single_ word that represents the 5 senses: _smell_ , _touch_ , _taste_ , _sound_ , and _sight_. At the moment I'm using "perception" which I don't think is adequate.


title: A Word To Represent Physical & Mental Attributes

text: I'm working on a game, and at the moment I'm using the word "Attributes" to represent things like: intelligence, strength, dexterity, wisdom, aura, etc. I wouldn't necessarily call them traits, because there will be a statistic applied to each one of them. Is there a not a _proper_ word to represent these?


title: What do people mean or think they mean by "not to scale?"

text: I have in front of me a map of an area in the Angeles National Forest that says at the bottom, "map not to scale." What, if anything, does "not to scale" properly mean on a map or diagram, and if people use it in incorrect ways, do they mean anything specific by it? I.e., is there a common misconception as to what it means? I can think of two possible meanings for this phrase:   1. The diagram does not show proper proportions. For example, we could have an anatomical diagram of a human body with the head the same size as the torso, or the famous New Yorker cover painting, "View of the World from 9th Avenue."   2. The diagram is not full size. It's scaled down. Interpretation 2 is obviously pretty silly in most of the cases where I've seen the phrase used. For example, I don't need a special warning label to tell me that the piece of paper on which the map is printed is smaller than the Angeles National Forest's real size. My guess would be that the correct meaning of the phrase is #1, but many people ignorantly use it to mean #2 or use it without any clear idea of _what_ they think they're saying. In the particular example of the map I have in front of me, comparison with other maps seems to rule out interpretation #1 -- there don't seem to be any features on the map that are drawn out of proportion to other feautures.


title: Synonyms for 'the use of'?

text: I need synonyms for the word 'the use of' in my sentence. > Also, the use of commonly available solutions contributed to cost reduction. Thank you in advance for your help.


title: "Give your best" vs. "give of your best"

text: Does one say, _give your best_ or _give of your best_ when it comes to effort?


title: What other word can we use in place of "helpless"

text: I am looking for an English word I can use sometimes in place of _helpless_. I have the word in my language, but I am not able to find it in English. The word which we say sometimes if we feel that we can't do anything as we don't have control over it, or if you have to do something as you have no choice left, or you have to do it because if you don't someone will kill you. Something like: > I am sorry my friend I didn't want to do it, but I was _**___ __ ___ _**_.


title: "She is gone" versus "she has gone"

text: When should I say "She is gone", and when should I say "She has gone" (and why)? I think that when I mean "She went away and she's still there", it should be "She has gone". Are there exceptions where it should be "She is gone" ?


title: What is a word meaning "a non-instantaneous event"?

text: That is, an event which has some positive (possibly infinite) duration.


title: What are reading comprehesion tools that can generate or suggest plainer language?

text: I'm looking for ways to simplify a document for better comprehension after I have already gone through an editing process myself. It could include suggestions easier synonyms, grammar optimization (adding commas or rearranging sentences), or plain language in general. I've only found a few resources: Okapi This highlights difficult words according word whitelist from Spache (Grade 1-3) and Dale-Chall (Grade 4 & up). It can only handle 200 words at a time. Microsoft Word can provide Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score (0-100) and Reading Level (about school grade) after doing a SpellCheck if you have enabled this option in preferences. I know that software, algorithms, and automation will never quite accomplish everything, like finding for example:   * How complex the ideas are   * Whether or not the content is in a logical order   * Whether the vocabulary is appropriate for the audience   * Whether there is a gender, class or cultural bias   * Whether the design is attractive and helps or hinders the reader   * Whether the material appears in a form and type style that is easy or hard to read [ from http://plainlanguage.com/newreadability.html ] But are there tools other than those in Microsoft Word, a thesaurus, or the OKAPI tool that would help improve a text document?


title: What do you call the word used in prose to describe the surroundings to make prose richer?

text: There is a word in English which is used to describe the technique used by authors where they describe the surroundings (like sight, sounds, smells, etc.) to make the scene more rich. Like "there was fresh sand between the driveway paving stones and a diminutive sapling on the lawn" to describe that the house is new. What is that word?


title: Why are there two pronunciations for "either"?

text: A few weeks ago, I had a conversation with an individual who told me that pronouncing the word "either" is wrong when pronounced like \ˈī-thər\ instead of \ˈē-thər\ , but I didn't argue the point because I'd done no research on it myself. So I looked the word up on Merriam Webster Online and wasn't at all surprised to find that both pronunciations are in fact legitimate. Which brings me to my question: what is the history of this word? How was it pronounced in old English? Were both pronunciations common hundreds of years ago? I was unable to glean much from Merriam Webster Online apart from some small fact that the word is somehow related to _whether_. EDIT: I dug up some additional information about the origins or either, and I'm hoping that someone can shed some light upon what it means. > O.E. ægðer, contraction of æghwæðer "each of two, both," from a "always" + > ge- collective prefix + hwæðer "which of two, whether."   >  Modern sense of "one or the other of two" is early 14c. I took this directly from Dictionary.com, but I have no idea what language those words come from.


title: "Suppose we have a collection of blog posts where each document was/is a post"

text: I found this in a book: > Suppose **we have** a collection of blog posts where each document **was** a > post. Shouldn't it be: > Suppose **we have** a collection of blog posts where each document **is** a > post. Or is it correct as it is?


title: Best link to forward to juniors re: correct use of apostrophes, possessives and contractions

text: I'm tired of my junior employees abusing, misusing and otherwise being cavalier about possessives and the use of apostrophes. I could wag my finger at them, point them to some Guide of Style or to any of a myriad of pedantic websites that come up in a simple Google Search. What I'm looking for specifically is a good writeup, whose intended target audience is this younger generation who seem to neither know, nor care, much about grammar (nor spelling for that matter, but I digress). If the article is humorous, or even sarcastic, so much the better. The goal is to make sure a young blase audience reads it through to the end, and retains the salient points. Throw up your links, fellow pedants! Tom


title: Is it rude to say "how did you end up here"?

text: Is it rude to say, "how did you end up here?" to a teacher? I said it to my English teacher, and then thought, "damn, I don't know if I'm supposed to phrase it that way or not." So, is it?


title: Where does the phrase "get a bye" come from?

text: This question inspired me to look at the etymology of "get a bye". The earliest mentions in a sporting context that I found while searching Google Books were in the _Coursing Calendar_ , the 1872 edition of which contained this baffling sentence: > Bismarck, who was a favourite for the event, had the misfortune to get a bye > of terrific length, and this doubtless lost him the stake, as, hard run as > he had been, he led his opponent in the concluding course. and this one > Duffer ran a bye, which brought the day's sport to a conclusion at half past > three. On the other hand, we also have from the 1867 _Coursing Calendar,_ > Black Topsy had the good luck to get a bye owing to Blue Bock having injured > himself yesterday, so much so that his trainer wisely drew him, with an eye > to the future. The first two instances seem to be using "get a bye" in a completely different sense than the modern one, in which it means to sit out a round in a tournament. The third instance, only five years earlier than the other two, seems to be used in the modern sense. What do "get a bye" and "run a bye" mean here, and is this where the modern phrase, "get a bye," comes from?


title: Difference Between "Sell" and "Sale"?

text: I'm a copy editor at a law firm and need to give a quick-and-dirty explanation of the difference between "sell" and "sale" to a native English speaker (a legal secretary) who is very self-conscious about her grammar knowledge. I've already given her info about how they are different parts of speech, and some example sentences. She's still not comfortable with her understanding but doesn't know or isn't able to articulate the area(s) of difficulty. Any suggestions?


title: Is it acceptable to start a sentence with “however”?

text: I have heard that starting a sentence with _however_ is wrong. What are the grounds for this view and is it still held by a majority of pedants? They would suggest changing > However, some people are beginning to doubt this. to > Some people, however, are … or > Some people are, however, beginning …


title: Word for "letter or letter-like character"?

text: Is there a word for a "letter or letter-like character" in a writing system? With that I mean a grapheme that is not a number, punctuation, special symbol or space, but a letter (alphabet), consonant-vowel-unit (abugida), syllabogram (syllabrary) or a logogram (logographic writing system). Or in other words: A unit of text that is formed by a character of the Unicode category "L", maybe followed by combining marks "M". edit:   I need the word for a user interface; it should be understood by the average user. edit2:   To clarify the purpose: I have a system that learns word structures from user input. In the documentation I explain an algorithm that does some stuff with the input. This is the sentence: > By default all letters and letter-like characters (such as the syllable > symbols of a syllabary like Japanese Katakana) are included, everything else > (such as numbers and punctuation) is excluded [from the alphabet].


title: Word for houshold activities

text: Is there any generic word describing household activities such as doing dishes and mopping floors? I feel the word _chore_ implies a burden and am looking for something more natural.


title: What might be an appropriate term for a long-term, very serious, girlfriend?

text: In the USA, where I live, it is becoming increasingly common that men and women are making committed relationship decisions, but choosing to remain unmarried. However, they live together, raise children together, and otherwise appear married. They are simply not legally married and they are okay with it and so are most other Americans. It is obvious that they are highly involved with each other and the depth of their relationship is akin to a long standing marriage. I am having trouble determining what to call men and women in this kind of relationship, relative to the other. I might say "my friend's girlfriend," however, I would also use this same term for whatever the relationship of two 14-year-olds is. It seems to me that my friend and his relationship with his girlfriend deserves higher recognition. Lately, I have resorted to calling these women ladies. I might ask my friend "How is your lady doing," or say about a party "Bring your ladies." I like this because the definition of lady implies a high 'social' status and removes any negative connotation that the women are morally devoid because they are not married, yet live with a man. Oddly, someone told me recently that it sounded sexist when I referred to a few friends and "their ladies." I don't even really know how to approach that. It wasn't until just now that I have no ideas at all for men. Just "lady" for women.


title: Pronunciation of "McLeod"

text: How do we pronounce the Gaelic name _McLeod_? Does any Gaelic name have a specific pronunciation? For the continental European it is a real nightmare.


title: Origin and meaning of "Hello the fire!"

text: My father just used an interesting phrase: _hello the fire_. He said it was a way to let me know he was coming without startling me. I've never heard this phrase, and I can't find anything about it online. He said he remembers it having to do with the Old West, but that was all he could recall. What is the origin and meaning of this phrase?


title: A word for the opposite of favorite (or opposite to the most favorite)

text: I have a collection of five objects as a series. Clearly, I can order these objects by my preferences. I distinctly prefer two of the objects over the others. I say the first two objects of my preference are my favorites, but the first is my most favorite object. How should I name the rest of the objects with one word, and how do I present my lesser preferred object the same way (one word)? I do not dislike my lesser preferred object, but what if I did? How would that change the relevant describing word?


title: Is it 'seeing as' or 'seems'?

text: A friend of mine just posted this status on Facebook: > Decisions, decisions - schoolwork...watch olympics....schoolwork...watch > olympics......?? Olympics is so going to win this dilemma haha especially > SEEMS the gymnastics is on later! I said surely she meant _seeing as,_ not _seems,_ (she's used this word in a similar way before). She replied: > 'seems' is also grammatically correct - it is a synonym for 'because.' And > 'seeing as' is actually an idiom and is no longer the preferred phraseology Is she right?


title: "I been" or "I’ve been"?

text: In the famous song Every Breath You Take by The Police, Sting sings: > Since you've gone I been lost without a trace… I admit that I am not some expert in English Grammar, but this "I been" sounds a little bit strange to me. Shouldn’t it be "I’ve been"? And consequently, the beginning of the sentence changed into "Since you’d gone…"?


title: Using the gerund two times in a row

text: When you have this construct: > . . . is a key factor in the **making** and **controlling** of the water. Should you leave only the last verb in the gerund: > . . . is a key factor in the **make** and **controlling** of the water.


title: "for good" expression in an unfortunate event?

text: I just heard an expression while watching a TV series yesterday. Someone just died and they said: > He is gone _for good_ I googled it and found that "for good" means "forever" in this context. But it still sounds odd to me to describe something unfortunate this way. Is there a deeper reason behind this expression?


title: Is "huge" slightly informal?

text: Is "huge" slightly informal? In the following sentence, > First, some people insist that Japan doesn’t need to adopt [an] austerity > policy because it has a huge amount of assets at home and abroad. I felt the word "huge" was inappropriate, thinking that it was too informal for this context. (Whereas if someone said "OMG, I have a bloody huge hangover", "huge" wouldn't be too informal) However, meaning 1 of huge in wiktionary and dictionary.com don't describe it as slangy or informal. Am I mistaken in thinking that it's informal? Perhaps I only think it's informal because it's a popular word in informal speech because you can lengthen the "u".


title: Where did the expression "every last one" come from?

text: There is, after all, only one last one. Why did it become common to say "every last one"? Dictionary.com has a definition for last as follows: > **8**. individual; single: _The lecture won't start until every last person > is seated._ It seems plain that the definition was created because of the idiom, and not vice versa. How was the idiom started?


title: Are these sentences OK?

text: Are these sentences OK? > Other notation and terminology which we don't define will be used as in the > John's book. > > In other notation and terminology we will follow John's book.


title: When to nominalize?

text: When is it correct to use nominalizations? (Isn't nominalization a nominalization?) It seems the main problem is that they tend to mislead the reader. It is appealing to think that "being" and "understanding" are "things." I see how this sort of misuse of words can be misleading. But when does concise become too compact? The English language seems to nominalize words frequently--and often effectively (I'm thinking of George Eliot).


title: Verb types or mode of expression to convey lack of causality

text: In Biblical Hebrew there are two simple verb types (Qal grammatically active and Niphal passive) which covey no causation. They may be reflexive, permissive or tolerative or some combination. Would adding the phrase "permit/permitted" to English translation help preserve the lack of causality?   Is there a more accurate word than permit which would preserve the lack of causality? > Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. vs > Gen 1:3 And God [permitted himself to] say, [Let there] be light: and there > [permitted] light. More on Qal More on Niphal


title: Can we use "is" with second form of verb is sentences?

text: Can we use the second form of the verb with _is_. For example > The book is hidden In daily life, I used to listen to some sentences in which the second form of the verb is used with _is_. Is it right? If yes, then what are the situations where we can use that?


title: "for the stakes were very high" meaning

text: I would need to understand the following: > They tried very hard to mislead the interviewer, for the stakes were very > high. What is the meaning of the second part of the sentence?


title: "while at the same time" + -ing form?

text: In following sentence, I'm not sure if I have to use the -ing form or the infinitive. > I wanted to get rid of X, while at the same time not assuming/ assume > that... The -ing form sounds better, but the infinitive doesn't sound too wrong either. Which one should I prefer?


title: Word or phrase for wanting hidden parts of construction to be orderly

text: My mother used to do a lot of needlepoint. The front of the needlepoint is what people look at, so how the reverse looks is usually not very important. However, she told me that some needlepointers were so careful that it was hard to tell the front from the back. I sometimes find myself doing something similar with coding: obsessing over the layout and look of the source code even though no one but myself is ever going to see the source. Is there a word or phrase that describes this? Something meaning "wanting the the hidden portions of construction to look as good as the visible ones"? Of course, there are often practical reasons why this state might be desirable: the more orderly computer code is, the easier it is to debug and maintain. Similarly, there might be times when the front and back of something are visible. But I am interested in the case where the back or inside is _not_ visible but you want to make it look nice anyway.


title: Translation of Soccer term: disarm

text: I'm looking for the translation of the soccer term that in Portuguese we use as "disarm". It is the action of taking the ball from the opponent player or when the player with the ball attempts to trick the opponent and loses the ball.


title: Should "the" ever be dropped from the beginning of a name/title?

text: Imagine two places exist, both called The Haunted Forest. How would I specify which forest is being referred? Would one say the northernmost Haunted Forest, or the northernmost The Haunted Forest? If _the_ is dropped, what is the rule that makes it appropriate to do so, and would it be any different if instead of a place, I referred to, for example, a book title?


title: Why would you call "before" a preposition when it precedes a clause?

text: I'm new here & don't know all the etiquette & ins & outs, but I have a question about something posted in another thread. > Modern grammar, however, recognises that prepositions can take many > different types of complement, or may take none at all. In the following > examples we see prepositions which are taking different types of complement. > > Let’s meet before the concert starts. > > Let’s meet after the concert. > > Take it out of the box. > > I’ve never seen this before. If you call "before" in "before the concert starts" is a preposition, what would you call "although" in "Although he didn't know the answer, he raised his hand"? I've been running "although" through my head, & I can't come up with an instance where it could precede a noun phrase. I'd call both "before" (as it's used here) & "although" subordinating conjunctions. If you don't call "before" a subordinating conjunction, what ties the two clauses ("Let's meet" & "the concert starts") together? If you tell me there's an understood "that," I hope you also tell me you're coming from a transformational grammar point of view. I'm old school & have hated transformational grammar since the day I met it! (Also, I'd call the last use of "before" an adverb, but calling it an objectless preposition doesn't bother me nearly as much as calling the other one a preposition.)


title: Not being able to differentiate between two related but exclusive words?

text: Is there a term to describe someone that doesn't seem able to differentiate between two words such as "racial" or "racist"? I mean beyond simply overlooking it. Like, you could try to explain the difference but then they just get mad at you. I was thinking stubborn and ignorant, but I feel like there's a more accurate term.


title: Word that describes exploration coupled with transformation?

text: Is there a verb that combines the sense of explore as well as transforming that which you are exploring? For instance, if I want to describe an explorer who also changed the lands he visited, is there a way to combine that into a single word? The closest I can think of is 'plunder' or perhaps 'raid', but they have negative connotations, and imply taking what isn't yours. I want one that is morally neutral. The word 'quarry' is close, but again implies taking things. But what I want is more general, that could apply to Johnny Appleseed (who made the world better), but also to a marauder who takes things.


title: Does it make sense to apply the quality of "Identicality" to one or multiple objects?

text: I'm writing a script which involves the comparison of two objects. I keep finding myself referring to this sort of test as an "identicality" check. From my preliminary research, "identicality" does not seem to qualify as a word. Also, the more I think about it, the less sense it makes to me. A single object should not be able to posses the quality of "identicality", since it requires that a second object exists for comparison, yet makes no reference to said object. Does it make any sense to refer to the "identicality" of two objects? Should it instead be "identicalness", if that makes any more sense? I'm not sure if "identicality", or even "identicalness" is etymologically sound either, or if it is just my mind kludging things together.


title: "gone flow by"-Is this phrase correct?

text: "gone flow by". What are the problems in it?


title: Is “get somebody off the couch” a well-established idiom?

text: I found the phrase, “ _get (sb.) off the couch_ ” in the headline of the article of Time.com (June 24) and also in a caption of YouTube. Each reads:   * Jobless graduates: Six ways to _get your kid off the couch_ , into a good job. – Time.com    * At eDiets Live Jillian Michaels speaks to a woman on how to _get off the couch_. – YouTube. From the context of the lines, I can easily guess it means to let someone rise up from the couch to start to do something or to work, but I don’t find “ _get off the couch_ ” as an idiom in dictionaries at hand, neither in Free Merriam Webster nor Cambridge Dictionary online. Is this well-received idiom? Did it come from a title of song?


title: Uncertain whether pirate talk be authentically or mockingly archaic

text: @ZhanlongZheng asked the following question on ELL: > > Barbosa: I defended her mightily enough, but she **be** sunk nonetheless. >> >> Jack Sparrow: If that ship **be** sunk properly, you should be sunk with it. >> >> — _Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides_ > > I don't understand why **be** is used here twice. Is it archaic? Why use > this form? I think that the second instance of _be_ could be present subjunctive in the third person, with the subjunctive being appropriate due to it being in a conditional clause. I'm less sure about the first instance. No doubt, use of the subjunctive has fallen out of favor, and nobody talks like that today. However, I'd like to know, were these conjugations of _be_ ever considered proper archaic English, or are they strictly pirate talk invented by Disney screenwriters?


title: "for X to debate Y" or "for X to debate with Y"

text: I posted the following on Facebook earlier today: > For a moment, I thought that Newsnight had arranged for Zizek to debate > Farage. only for a friend to reply "debate **with** , surely?". Is this something I've picked up from American English (I'm British), is either form acceptable or is what I've written just plain wrong? I've tried a couple of online style guides, but none of them had anything to say on the matter. Thanks!


title: Orc vs Ork: What's the difference?

text: I'm hoping for clarification on some fantasy-based terminology. I've read a number of websites that refer both to "orcs" and"orks", occasionally in the same sentence! Previously, I had only ever seen the term "orc" in fantasy writing. From what limited information on the topic I've been able to find, "orks" seems to be a term for an orc-like creature in the Warhammer 40K series. What I want to know is does the term "ork" apply exclusively to the character in the Warhammer 40K universe or does it also represent something else? Can "ork" and "orc" be used interchangeably? If does only apply to Warhammer, should it be considered a proper noun and capitalized at all times?


title: What is the standard of proof in etymology?

text: In this question the idea I put forward as a possible etymology for "ta" garnered the response that it is a well known _false_ etymology for the word. That got me to wondering - being strictly a dabbler in matters of language - how are things proven or disproven in a field as fluid as the study of the origins and history of words and terminology? What tools does a linguist have at their disposal to trace words back and how are they applied?


title: Etymology for the phrase, "on a lark."

text: What is the etymology for the phrase, "on a lark" or "for a lark?"


title: Usage of "being" in "I am always afraid of being bitten"

text: Does anybody know what 'being' means in the below statement? > I don't like dogs. I am always afraid of being bitten. Why is _being_ used in this statement? It looks like a passive statement, but if it is, it shouldn't start with the subject, but rather be _object + verb + past participle_. But here it starts with the subject _I_. Please advise.


title: Word to describe something similar to a crook?

text: Imagine someone that parades around under fake identities on an internet game, breaking the rules of the game but never getting caught. Using his self-made tools only for himself and perhaps to help others for merely information exchange. He never shares his tools with others, but uses them on others to help, rarely. He's humble and doesn't rise to the top from his tools and forever seeks others who does what he does. How would you describe this person?


title: "Deployed to" vs "deployed on"

text: Which one of the following statements is correct: >   1. I deployed something to the test server. >   2. I deployed something on the test server. >


title: Is "to [verb] will [verb]" a complete statement?

text: Let's have, for example, the following phrase. > To create fancy product will require more effort. Is it a grammatically complete and correct sentence?


title: Compil[e/er/ation] Error

text: Which one should I use of the following: > Compile Error > > Compiler Error > > Compilation Error I think the "Compilation Error" is way too long for everyday use, even though it's the "correct" term. So, which one?


title: Inversion in English

text: Is it correct to invert the subordinate sentence in English? For instance: > When the time comes, so shall we reign the land! If it is correct, what is the rule? Or is it only in old English?


title: "Alligator pear" and "sparrow grass" for "avocado" and "asparagus"

text: Do "sparrow grass" and "alligator pear" have any currency in spoken AE, or are these terms chiefly dialectal?


title: Is the "by" correct in "makes no claims by writing them"?

text: Is it correct to use the preposition "by" in such a context: > If within this period Mr X makes no claims on the work quality **by** > writing them in the certificate, then ... I meant that Mr X can write all the claims in the certificate within the given period of time.


title: What is a word or expression to describe anxiety about the passing of time?

text: What is a word or expression to describe a feeling of anxiety about the passing of time? I am not referring to boredom which refers to not having anything to do or being dissatisfied with what I'm doing and wanting to do something else. I am referring to the feeling I get when I contemplate that time has passed by, or that time is passing by.


As a foreiner, I have been confused with such a simple question: How to pronounce "80x86", "Linux 2.6", and "Figure 3-1"? Thanks in advance.


title: "What tools is everybody using?" or "What tools are everybody using?"

text: I often see "What tools is/are everybody using?" and other sentences of same form used with both is and are. Which one is the correct way to write the question? > What tools is everybody using? > > What tools are everybody using?


title: Is there a "quarter" equivalent for something divided in 9 pieces?

text: Something is divided in four pieces. One piece is called a fourth or a quarter. Something is divided in nine pieces. One is piece is called a ninth or a... What is the 'quarter' equivalent for something divided by nine?


title: Substituting "comes to" with "expresses as/as to" for equivalence

text: Ex. "passing the exam can be expressed **as to** get high marks above ten". I wanted to say "passing the exam comes to get high marks above ten" Is this sentence correct? How to use "expresses..as" in such a scenario please?


title: what is the word for person who always helps family but never helps friends?

text: I know one guy who always helps his own family and relatives but he never ever helps his friends. How to call that person ?


title: "Entertain of" - June 12th 1799 Letter by John Marshall

text: > ... Virginia has sustaind a very serious loss which all good men will long > lament, in the death of Mr Henry. He is said to have expird on thursday > last. The intelligence is not absolutely certain but scarcely a hope is > **entertaind of** its untruth. With the most respectful attachment I remain > Sir your obedt Servt ... (Source) Could someone please explicate **entertain[e]d of**? My guess would be:   "a hope is scarcely **entertain[e]d** _due to/owing to_ its untruth". I appealed to these websites for an archaic definition. Howbeit, thefreedioctionary.com may be dubitable:   http://www.oxforddictionaries.com   Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary   http://www.thefreedictionary.com * * * Addition on Nov 1st: I thought to afford some instantiations of "scarcely entertain a hope of" which had perplexed me before Andrew Leach's sterling answer: Google Books, Example 1, Example 2.


title: Is saying "candor and honesty" grammatically correct?

text: I recently read the sentence > Thank you for your **candor** and **honesty**. Is that grammatically correct? To me it seems redundant as _candor_ is a synonym for _honesty_. Does _candor_ have other meanings that would not make it redundant in this sentence?


title: Do I need "have" here?

text: > Was it specifically mentioned as part of their teaching or they **have** > just happened not to have killed anyone? Do I need **have** there?


title: What is the word for a plant covered in fine white hairs?

text: There are some plants whose leaves and stems are not the usual glossy green, but which are covered in very fine white hairs, or white fuzz. One example I have right now in my kitchen would be sage. ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/DLPDk.jpg) I am sure that there is a word in the English language which describes the appearance of such plants (not just fuzzy plants, but specifically ones covered in white fuzz). But I don't remember the word. Does someone know it?


title: Are "zugzwang", "catch-22" and "catch-33" synonyms?

text: Are these words synonyms? > zugzwang -- a situation where one player is put at a disadvantage because he > has to make a move when he would prefer to pass and make no move > > catch-22 -- a logical paradox arising from a situation in which an > individual needs something that can only be acquired by not being in that > very situation > > catch-33 -- the fifth full-length studio album by Swedish metal band > Meshuggah


title: What is the origin of "33" in "catch-33"?

text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_Thirtythree explains: > Lyrically, the album is a concept album, revolving around different kinds of > paradoxes, hence the title Catch Thirtythree (see Catch-22). I cannot understand the derivation of 33 from 22. Can someone explain it to me?


title: Hypernym for "Denial"?

text: Dictionary defines _denial_ in a few senses, the ones I'm interested in are: >   * refusal to believe a doctrine, theory, or the like. >   * disbelief in the existence or reality of a thing. >   * refusal to recognize or acknowledge. > In particular, I mean unreasonable disbelief in reality of a thing which is definitely, objectively real. Now, I want to say: > Denial is a horrible [what?] trait of character? (not really, it's specific, not encompassing whole personality) vice? (same) belief? idea? (no, it's a property of a belief or idea...) How would you classify it?


title: Can you spot whether this is written by a native English speaker or not?

text: "An effective project plan can boost the success of the project being undertaken. It measures the project’s feasibility and assesses the risk associated. The plan helps weigh the decisions that are required to increase the pace and accuracy of the scheme. Good communication skills encourage the development team as they are able to clarify the requirements, budget and time with the client. Discussions on specifications allow the project to be completed successfully, as it meets the objectives within the given time and budget. Communications within the project team influence the quality of the final product, as better methods are utilized if the team members can communicate effectively. Miscommunication can cause misinterpretations which end up affecting the entire project. "


title: What does “Sautéed” mean in “Someone who has not sautéed in a subject”?

text: Maureen Dowd article titled, “Neocons Slither Back” in September 15 New York Times begins with the following sentence: > “Paul Ryan _has not sautéed_ in foreign policy in his years on Capitol Hill. > The 42-year-old congressman is no Middle East savant; till now, his idea of > a border dispute has more likely involved Wisconsin and Illinois.” I guess “ _sautéed_ ” in the line of “Paul Ryan has not sautéed in foreign policy in his years on Capitol Hill” either “seasoned / well-trained /well- experienced” in the subject (foreign policy) or “being grilled on the specific issue,” but I’m not sure. Cambridge online Dictionary defines ‘sauté’ as verb meaning ‘to cook food in oil or fat over heat, usually until it is brown.’ Oxford Online Dictionary defines it as verb meaning ‘to fry quickly in a little hot fat: and adjective meaning ‘fried quickly in a little hot fat’. OAELD defines it as verb meaning ‘to fry food quickly in a little hot fat, and adjective that is only used before noun. None of the above definitions seems to match Maureen Dawd’s usage of “sautéed” in the above quote. What does “Paul Ryan has not sautéed in foreign policy in his career” mean? Is this again Maureen Dawd’s favorite, quirky diversion of a plain cooking word for an irrelevant subject, or just an ordinary usage of “sauté” in your day-to-day conversation? If it is the latter, can I say “He has sautéed in the medieval English literature, (Hollywood movie, or topics of American football)”?


title: Implication of "there has to be a conspiracy"

text: I wonder what it means by "there has to be a larger and larger conspiracy among something or somebody to do something"? What is the implication? Does it imply that "something or somebody to do something" is unlikely to happen, because the only explanation for it is a conspiracy? For example, > there has to be a larger and larger conspiracy, as it were, among the > samples to keep deviating from the expectation in the same way


title: A word to describe having good command of the English language?

text: Is there a word to describe having good command of the English language? The kind of word that could be listed as an attribute?


title: Is "can't" a euphemism or is it ambiguous?

text: People often say **can't** to mean **won't**. I am not referring to lying, but in cases where it is very clear to the listener that the speaker intends to mean **won't**. For example: _I can't continue in this relationship._ Similarly, people often use **can't** to mean _You should not_ or _I will not allow you to_. For example: _You can't embarrass me in public_. Is this simply a case where **can't** is being used as a euphemism? Or is there some subtle ambiguity in the actual meaning of the word **can / can't**?


title: Why do we say "... by [date/time]"?

text: What's the origin of the use of **by** to indicate _at/on or before_ or _no(t) later than_? Examples: > Best if used by 8/24/2011. > I'll be there by 6:30.


title: Why does the 3rd-person of verbs that end in -y follow the rule for plural nouns instead of verbs?

text: I don’t understand why the 3rd-person of verbs that end in -y such as _cry_ , _try_ , or _fly_ follow the rule for pluralizing nouns like _fly_. Why do they become _cries_ , _tries_ , and _flies_ instead of _crys_ , _trys_ , and _flys_? This makes no sense because we are not talking about plurals, or even nouns. Plus, this form is not consistent with the 3rd-person form of other verbs like _jump_ -> _jumps_ or _eat_ -> _eats_. Is there any _rational_ reason for this or is it simply yet another example of arbitrary and inconsistent English grammar?


title: "In appropriate time" or "In THE appropriate time"?

text: Which one is correct ? I mean should we use "THE" between "in" and "appropriate" or not ?


title: What do I do when I hear 'Say cheese!'?

text: Photographers seems to love to say this. Is this still considered funny?


title: Meaning of 'authenticity'

text: > As I am dubious of your authenticity here (a mailing list), I cannot spend > any time with you Is he dubious that I'm not a real user or I'm not a expert?


title: Is it acceptable to use "google" as a verb?

text: With the popularity and ubiquity of Google, it has become a verb to describe "searching for something online" and it appears in conversations and informal writing. How can I know if it is acceptable to use "google" in more formal writing?


title: What's the difference between "title" and "name"?

text: I'm not sure when it's appropriate to use word "name", and when to use word "title". For example, "file name" feels right, "file title" doesn't; "document name" and "document title" seem interchangeable; "chapter title" and "chapter name" feel both OK, but "chapter title" seems more appropriate. If I want to give some name to a picture, it's "picture title", but if I have a specific group of pictures, I'd say this group has a name ("group name"). So, is there any rule when to use "name" and when to use "title"?


title: Why (so) sure? vs How (so) sure?

text: I just answered a question on ELL.SE that made me (and the OP) wonder about something... Consider the following four question responses to these two statements: > 1- "I know I'll marry young." > > 2- "I'm sure I'll die young." > > A. Why sure? > > B. Why so sure? > > C. How sure? > > D. How so sure? My thoughts on the questions themselves:   * B is correct and commonly used, but D is incorrect.   * B and C are both grammatically correct, and both ask about the degree of certainty, but B asks about the reason for this degree of certainty, while C asks about the actual degree of certainty (and not the reason behind it)   * A is technically correct, but would usually be used as _Why "sure"?_ , and sounds awkward with the meaning of _Why are you sure?_ My thoughts on the questions as they relate to the statements:   * For statement #1, only B is a suitable reply.   * For statement #2, not only B, but also C and a modified A (Why 'sure'?) are suitable replies. My questions...   1. Why is "Why so sure?" correct, but "How so sure?" incorrect? Is it just a matter of fixed expressions, or is there another underlying reason?   2. Why is "How sure?" correct, but "Why sure?" (without the quotations around _sure_ ) sounds incomplete?


title: What's the difference between "the one thing" and "the thing"?

text: Could anyone help to tell the difference between these two sentences: "That's the thing I want to do" and "That's the one thing I want to do" Thanks


title: Single word for delaying a decision with only one option?

text: Can anyone tell me a **single** word that describes delaying a decision, although there is only one option?


title: Proper usage of "known entity"?

text: Is the sentence below correct? > I'd like to become a known entity with decision makers in our organization.


title: What's the term for an unsecured wifi network that requires logging in through a browser?

text: Is there a name for the kind of wifi network that is **open** (doesn't have WEP or WPA protection or whatever; you can connect to it freely), but which requires you to log in (through a local web page) before you can use the internet? This is the kind of set-up used in a lot of airports, cafés, and on my company's "guest" wifi network (for visitors). Is there a short name for it?


title: How, or where, did "Ye God" become "egad"?

text: Looking up the etymology of 'egad' I saw that it is an archaic, euphemistic form of 'O God' or 'Ye God.' I assume this was a one off evolution, and the 'how' was some idiosyncratic shift in the interjection (if it is specifically known how it happened please include in your answer.) Did this 'egad' catch on in a certain region for some reason, leading it to become more popular? Was it used in some popular form that helped it catch on?


title: Is it right using this expression "I am there at home"?

text: I realized that I use expressions like this a lot, > I am there at home. instead of > I am at home. Is it right? And if so then what is the difference between the two? The word "there" in the first expression looks redundant.


title: Can I use "adjournment" as antonym of "inauguration", is there a word for "last time use"?

text: I would like to know if there is an antonym to inauguration? By inauguration I mean "first time use of". I googled this and thesaurus provided me with "adjournment". Can I use it in the following sense? > Fifteen years ago I was treated to the inaugural dream journey provided by > my bed.   >  Tonight I sleep once again in my bed, it will be its adjournment. (last > time used) If this is correct can I then use "adjournal" as in "the adjournal dream journey"? There is no more context than this really, I just stumbled upon this line of thought as I am moving abroad soon and it is the adjournment(?) for many of my belongings. So it is simply a question to better my English. :)


title: Do "hull" and "full" rhyme?— rules for "short U" sounds before L

text: I grew up speaking a variety of American English that merges the "short U" sounds before L. The "short U" sounds are the vowels in the words STRUT and FOOT. For me, before an L sound, all words have the vowel from FOOT—that is, for me _bull_ , _full_ , and _pull_ rhyme with _dull_ , _gull_ , and _null_. According to Wikipedia, _The Atlas of North American English_ mentions this as one of four mergers before /l/ that may be under way in some accents of North American English, and which require more study. So this merger is known to exist, but it is not well understood the range and extent of the merger. Regardless, I'd like to have a full grasp of standard American English, so I have set to the task of memorizing which -UL- words have the STRUT vowel (which I always pronounced with the FOOT vowel). Are there a set of rules I can use to predict if a "short U followed by L" word will have the STRUT vowel?


title: What is the correct capitalization of the words earth and moon?

text: I believe that Earth means planet and earth means soil. But I've seen earth used in published works to mean the planet earth. But no one writes jupiter. Similarly, Moon should mean the name of Earth's moon and lower case moon means the general category. This one is more complicated because I've read that the name of Earth's moon is Luna. Except no one calls it that. We don't say "Neil Armstrong was the first man on Luna." Am I correct or is this a matter of convention?


title: Can "texting" include emails?

text: Texting is a word for sending a text message via the Short Message Service (SMS) and available in cell phone services now, distinguished from email. But I would like to know how strictly you use those words. When you are asked to text a message, should it mean strictly texting via SMS? When you say to someone "text a message", do you expect only texting via SMS or either way-- texting or emailing?


title: Is there a word for the talking an artist does between songs?

text: I am looking for a word which describes the talking an artist does between songs in a live performance. The word "intermission" is close, but I think that it has the connotation of a longer break, possibly with the artist doing nothing (on stage). Another word that comes to mind is "patter", but this word can also mean something like "glib talking", rather than the talk between songs.


title: What is the vapour coming out from the mouth called?

text: In cold weather, we get water vapour coming out of the mouth as we breathe. What is that called?


What word describes the shape of a whirlwind when seen from above?   * Swirl    * Whorl    * Radial  > The shape they make when seen from above resembles a radial pattern or even > a whorl.