title: Single word for "break" with professional connotation

text: What is a nice way to explain that performing a certain action will "break" a product? I have to explain to a customer that use of my product in an unauthorized manner will "break" the product, but I'd like to use a word that has the same meaning but more professional connotation while maintaining the robustness/integrity of my product in their eyes.


title: Is "made" in this sense stative or dynamic?

text: > "Several subsequent voyages **were made**." Is the verb "made" here stative or dynamic?


title: Alternate Phrase for "contact us"

text: I need another way to say "contact us" for a form I am building.


title: What examples are there of a double positive conveying a negative meaning?

text: Generally, a double negative implies a positive. > I'm not going nowhere (So I must be going somewhere) Although, in colloquial or illiterate circles it may not. > We don't need no stinkin' badges. What examples are there of a double positive implying a negative?


title: Why "beat around the bush?"

text: I personally find the term "beat around the bush weird", where did it originate from?


title: What is the common name for brackets, braces, and parentheses?

text: I need to name a variable containing `()[]{}`, what is the common name for all of them? Two side questions:   * parentheses is plural, or singular, or both?   * is abbreviating it as `parens` understandable?


title: Is "Old lady what" grammatical or idiomatic?

text: I was telling a joke to one of my friends. > --Knock knock   >  --Who's there?   >  --Old lady   >  --Old lady who?   >  --You don't need to yodel! Problem is, instead of asking "Old lady who?", my friend asked "Old lady what?", thereby ruining the joke, but more importantly, making me wonder: is it actually correct (grammatical and/or idiomatic) to say that? Does it change the meaning at all?


title: "It had not been working as I thought" vs. "It was not working as I thought"?

text: I want to convey that I recently discovered that a software code was not working like I thought it was working...I'm not sure how to phrase it correctly. Which A phrase goes with which B phrase? A1. I discovered today that the code was not working A2. I discovered today that the code had not been working B1. like I thought it was working. B2. like I had thought it was working. B3. like I had thought it had been working.


title: When distinguishing 'in which' and 'which' is ambiguous

text: I'm a Korean high school student (who really likes reading English novels), and I'm curious regarding the usage of 'in which' and 'which' in a sentence. Which one do I have to use in the following sentence? "There is clearly a point beyond (which/in which) running the exercise becomes running the art." I thought that 'in which' would be a better one, but my teacher disagreed. Can't I use 'in which' in this case? Plus, since this is a sentence from a textbook written by Korean authors, I wonder if it has even the slightest awkwardness, when viewed from a native speaker.


title: Where are phrases such as "my one friend" used?

text: I occasionally hear someone use the phrase "my one friend" to mean "one of my friends". To me it sounds like they only have one. Where is this form used most?


title: Is "denormalized" a word?

text: I use it all the time since I work with databases, but every time I write it somewhere with spell check I get the squiggly line below it. I've seen other people spell it with an "s" instead of a "z" but neither have an entry in the Merriam Webster dictionary.   * http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denormalized   * http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denormalised Is this just technical jargon or am I misspelling it?


title: "Sections X to Y" or "Sections X through Y"?

text: When referring to text that is in a set of consecutive sections, is there a difference in writing > "Sections X to Y" compared to > "Sections X through Y" ? My intended meaning is to include both Section X and Section Y, and any section in between them.


title: Which is correct — period, semicolon, or colon?

text: >   * Each day, difficult choices have to be made. Who will live, and who will > die? >   * Each day, difficult choices have to be made; Who will live, and who will > die? >   * Each day, difficult choices have to be made: Who will live, and who will > die? >


title: Using Either a Comma or a Semicolon

text: My teacher was explaining how sometimes a comma isn't enough to make a sentence correct, and that sometimes you have to use a semicolon. I am having trouble figuring out when you should use which. Can someone please explain?


title: Is the following a correct use of "which in itself?"

text: > The tree was thick and tall as a watch tower. Its branches resembled twisted > arms, and they had so few leaves you could count them with your fingers. > Like some kind of parasites, moss covered almost the totality of its > surface— **which in itself** was filled with curves, holes, and other > deformities. I'm not sure why I placed it there. At first I only wrote _which_ , but I felt something was missing.


title: A single word for a building located in the centre of fork (intersection)?

text: So there is this kind of building located in the centre of a fork in the road (maybe in streets too). I don't know how to put it into words, but it looks like this: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/w3aVj.jpg) Or this: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/DsoUA.jpg) Is there a single English word for that kind of building? If it is a house, is there another name for that? In my native language (Indonesian), it's called _Rumah Tusuk Sate_. Which if translated bluntly into English, it's _Skewer House_ , which sounds a bit weird to me.


title: What does "though" mean in these sentences?

text: I knew these are American English sentences, and they are informal. However, I would like to know what exactly it means, or it simply means nothing, and people merely want to add something unnecessary at the end of a sentence, because it sounds fetch. Sentences like: >   1. His denim jacket, though. >   2. I love the way he talks, though. >   3. For real, though. >   4. Really, though. >   5. What's up though >   6. When are you coming over, though? >


title: Meaning of "as it was" in context

text: What does it mean "as it was" in this context? > She was awakened by a shock, so sudden and severe that if Dorothy had not > been lying on the soft bed she might have been hurt. **As it was** , the jar > made her catch her breath and wonder what had happened. It could be intended literally like: "as it happens" or but idiomatically, like "as it is" (in its current state / as the situation stands) or "as it were" (so to speak)? # Back to this question, which phrase was from The Wizard of Oz too, I would add other two phrases always from the same book were the meaning is of "as it is/was" in not so literal:   * "they would surely have destroyed me. **As it was** , I lived in deadly fear of them for many years"   * "There is only one thing I ask in return for my help—such **as it is**. You must keep my secret and tell no one I am a humbug"


title: Omitting "there" in a sentence

text: Can I omit _there_ in the following question: > How much juice is there in the bottle? When is it possible to omit _there_ in a sentence? Any references to grammar sources are welcome and expected.


title: Is the word "gig" formal?

text: I'd like to know whether the word **gig** (temporary job) is formal or colloquial. Always that I've read it, it has been in forums. I have never heard it or read it somewhere else, just in forums, which make me wonder about the formality of this word.


title: May I capitalize "more" in the phrase: Learn more.?

text: As part of some instructions, the text concludes with the phrase "Learn more." This phrase is also a link. In some cases, I have been asked to make 'more' capitalized. I don't think this is correct as it is not a noun or at the beginning of a sentence. Any clarity of this would be helpful.


title: Part of speech of “clean” in “burn the prophet clean”

text: Please guide me for the part of speech of _clean_ here in this extract: > He had schooled him in the evils that befall prophets; in those that come > from the world, which are trifling, and those that come from the Lord and > burn the prophet clean;   >  for he himself had been burned clean and burned clean again. He had learned > by fire. Excerpt from _The Violent Bear It Away_ , by Flannery O’Connor.


title: Should "afford" be transitive in "my chosen path has afforded (to) me unique opportunities"?

text: In a college essay I wrote a sentence that reads: > Sixteen years later, my chosen path has afforded to me unique opportunities, > limitless learning, and potential for growth. Should I use the verb _offered_ or _afforded_? After that, should I use _to me_ , or _me_?


title: Do you say "thirty past six"?

text: When telling the time, are the following expressions legal or natural to native speakers: e.g.: 1\. It's thirty past six _(without adding "minutes")_. 2\. It's half an hour past six _(adding "an hour")_. Also, are there any difference or restrictions between using _after_ and _past_ (Are they ALWAYS interchangeable)? And is it common to use preposition _to_ in "It's twenty-three to seven"(weird for me because 6:37 is definitely more straightforward, so why bother say it the other way round)?


title: Types of things vs. types of thing

text: When speaking precisely or technically, one would say that "Homo erectus and homo sapiens are two species of hominid" rather than "Homo erectus and homo sapiens are two species of hominids." The _hominid_ here should be singular because we are speaking about instances of a single class ("class" being used here in its broader sense, not in the sense of taxonomic grouping). Now let's consider more common parallel constructions replacing the word _species_ with other words. > Tide and Wisk are two brands of detergent.   >  Tide and Wisk are two brands of detergents. > > Cats and dogs are two types of pet you can buy at Pets-R-Us.   >  Cats and dogs are two types of pets you can buy at Pets-R-Us. I feel that using the singular noun to specify the class is more grammatically correct, but sounds stilted in conversation. Almost everyone I hear making these constructions uses the plural form. What are your thoughts about singular vs. plural here? **Edit** Here's a more extreme example that may help clarify the issue. Consider the following sentence: > It was my first attempt at calming an angry crowd, and I just stood there > while people were hurling all kinds of insults at me. Here I think the singular _insult_ sounds strange, if not downright wrong. **Further Edit** I just noticed in _A Treasury for Word Lovers_ (Morton S. Freeman, 1983) a section entitled "Types of Errors." This is a book about (American) English usage by an English professor and editor, which purports to be a "practical guide for serious writers and readers." I wish I could say this discovery satisfies the question, but in fact I now feel somewhat farther from the truth, if there is any single "truth" in this matter, although at least I don't have to worry about being wrong when using the plural form of the class in these constructions.


title: Must the noun that follows "all kinds of" be plural?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Types of things vs. types of thing >   1. I like all kinds of apples. > >   2. I like all kinds of apple. > > Which is more natural?


title: "Types of" followed by singular or plural?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Types of things vs. types of thing When using the phrase "types of" or "kinds of," it often seems appropriate to follow with a singular noun (e.g., types of rock), but at other times a plural noun sounds better (e.g., types of sentences). Is there some kind of rule about this?


title: What type of word describes someone who performs an action?

text: In English most verbs have a form that describes the person that performs the action. Some examples would be Runner, Climber, or Jumper. What are these kinds of words called? Are the called the same thing as words like Guitarist, Pianist, or Scriptorian?


title: Is it "is being build" or "is being built"?

text: > Channel is being **build** with aid of latest technologies available today. Is the above line correct? or should built be used instead of build? What is the grammatic logic to follow so I understand why particular one is used.


title: What is the English counterpart to the Japanese ‘Insei’ – rule by a retired emperor/leader?

text: There was a following statement in Time magazine’s article (February 25) titled “Second Act” dealing with the step-down of the former Pope Benedict XVI: > The new Pope will be indebted to Benedict XVI. -- and even though he won't > be in the Sistine Chapel when the voting takes place, Benedict is bound to > influence the outcome. This sort of informal influence has proved powerful > in other cultures--particularly premodern Japan, where retired shoguns and > Emperors continued to make pivotal decisions. Thus, just by watching from > the sidelines, Ratzinger will be subtly able to champion his conservative > theological and social policies--an über-Pope of sorts. This statement is true. Actually many incumbent Emperors were just nominal and powerless in Japan during the Middle Ages and controlled by retired emperors behind the curtain. We call this “informal influence“ of the retired ruler or leader including chairman of a company ‘Insei – 院政 in Japanese, and ‘Readers English Japanese Dictionary’ at hand translates ‘Insei’ to ‘rule by a retired emperor – insei.” Although Readers Dictionary shows the word “Insei,” as if it is already adopted to English language like 'Mikado' or ‘Shogun,’ I doubt its currency as an English word. With that said, what is the English counterpart of “Insei” in shorter form, say two words, than “rule by a cloistered emperor”?


title: Grammaticality of "help someone something"

text: A few times I've encountered phrases of the form "help yourself [something]", for example "help yourself some water". I consider this form to be ungrammatical, but I am not a native speaker. Is it correct to say so?


title: Singular/plural possessive form of fish?

text: The singular form of _fish_ is _fish_. The plural form of _fish_ is also _fish_. What are their possessive forms?


title: Present Simple instead of Present Perfect

text: I have come across interesting cases several times where the Present Simple is used instead of the Present Perfect. For example: 1) Lately I get the feeling that I am not so much being pulled down as I am being pushed. (from the movie - "Friends") 2) Man, have you noticed how much more time Paul spends at the gym lately? (taken from this discussion Present continuous to discuss action's frequency) As a rule, "lately" invites the Present Perfect which means that it would be more correct in accordance with grammar rules to say: Lately I've got the feeling... .. have you noticed how much more time Paul has spent/been spending... I, by no means, intend to say that this usage is not idiomatic, as these sentences were uttered by native speakers, I just would like to get some of your thoughts and explanations why it is possible to use the Present Simple here. I'd like also to know if the Present Perfect would be a good substitution. Examples illustrating this usage are very welcome.


title: Should I preserve spelling when quoting American English in a British English text, or vice versa?

text: Suppose I am writing an (academic) text in British English, but have to quote a text from an author who writes in American English. Should I preserve the author's original spelling, or convert it to my text's spelling standards? _This question is intended to be closed as a duplicate ofWhen quoting speakers of another English dialect than your own, should you spell things their way? to improve Google visibility. (I did not manage to find that question through Google during my initial search, even though it is one of the best resources on the topic. This question supplies key words which the original doesn't have.)_


title: Origin of "one man's noise is another man's signal"

text: This _variant_ of the saying probably comes from signal processing. It is in Wikipedia somewhat attributed to Edward W. Ng (his "famous quotes", 1990 interview in NYT) however that cannot be correct, as Google Books has matches the 1960s: Google Books Closely related question: Origin of "one man's trash is another man's treasure" A direct predecessor probably is: "one man's noise may be another man's music". And the oldest version probably is by Lucretius, ca. first century BC (thanks, Andrew Leach): > "What is food to one, is to others bitter poison." So assume I want to use the **"signal – noise" variant** of this saying, how should I attribute it? I of course did not make it up myself, but it is from before christ; however this specific "singal processing" adaption is probably from the 1960s. Obviously I can cite Lucretius, or Edward W. Ng, or one of the matches in the 60s...   * Do you know any good early source of this variant of the idiom that I could cite?   * Is there a good alternative way of using this quote as introduction to a topic? Should I write "vernacular" as source instead?


title: What does "3-sigma" type of event mean?

text: What does "3-sigma" type of event mean? For example, > Hurricane Sandy is a 3-sigma type of event.


title: "Native" names and "western" names?

text: When Chinese, Koreans, and possibly other Asians migrate into countries like the UK or the US, they often take on a "western" or "anglicised" name for a number of reasons. For example, the director Justin Lin's Chinese (well, Taiwanese) name is _Yipin Lin_. I'd like to know how to refer to the two variants: Yipin Lin is his **___ __ ___** name while Justin Lin is his **___ __ ___** name. _Ideally_ , I'd like to avoid nationalities (Chinese/Korean) and regions/languages ("western"/"anglicised") in preference to generic terms. P.S. I want to avoid connotations of _replacement_ as both names are often equally valid and current.


title: A word for someone who does not keep up with popular culture

text: Person _A_ does not keep up with celebrities or popular entertainment. _A_ knows that they exist, so I don't think _sheltered_ is the right word. Also, would it be a different word if _A_ tried to forced herself to learn it?


title: Any of four combinations are true? "Both X and Y are A or B" could be wrong?

text: I want to write a sentence to mean that any of the following 4 situations are true.   1. _X_ = _A_ and _Y_ = _A_ ,   2. _X_ = _B_ and _Y_ = _B_ ,   3. _X_ = _A_ and _Y_ = _B_ ,   4. _X_ = _B_ and _Y_ = _A_. The following sentence, _Both are A or B._ means only the first two cases in the list above. In other words, _Both X and Y is A_ **or** _both X and Y is B._ So, I could write a sentence, _X is A or B_ **and** _Y is A or B._ Am I right, or is there a better or concise way of writing a sentence for meaning that any of 4 situations are true? Thank you for any answers. P.S. Please, edit tags for this question if needed. I am not sure what tags are appropriate for this kind of question.


title: What do you call someone who defends a point of view because it is underdefended

text: What do you call a person who will defend a point of view that she may not agree with **not just for the sake of argument** , but because the point of view is not represented in the argument?


title: Use of "Or", inclusive or exclusive?

text: My wife and I are playing a game where you roll dice and move so many spaces in a grid "vertically or horizontally". In the use of English it is very common to say, this or the other when it comes to making a choice (exclusive or). Now I know that "or" can also be inclusive, for example "she couldn't read or write", or can be clearly used as an xor "you either come or not" making the statement true for only one of the options but not both. My issue is where it is not clear whether it is an inclusive/exclusive or, the best example being our game. I argue that you can move in either direction (inclusive) and the normal use of this conjunction in English should be inclusive unless specified otherwise. Is this right?


title: Does "either A or B " preclude "both A and B"?

text: In mathematics, "A or B" includes "A and B".   Does "either" mean "A or B but not (A and B)" or does it include the possibility of "A and B"?   The context might be mathematics, formal logic or ordinary language.


title: How to: Ask an exclusive or question

text: Not long ago I finished a project for a school assignment. After the assignment was done I left the office of this particular teacher. Just before I wanted to exit through the door I turned around and asked if he preferred the door open or close. The question I asked was "Door open or door closed?". This particular teacher always tries to be funny in a dickish way. He answered "Yes". After some research I found out that apparently the answer yes to an or question is valid, because "or" in a question is like the programmable "or". How would I ask exclusively "or" questions, programmable xor, so to speak. **TLDR: How to ask "Xor" questions in english, A Xor B.**


title: Can I refer to a period of more than 24 hours as "my day"?

text: Can I use "my day" to refer to a period of more than 24 hours? Let's say I worked non-stop for 30 hours, could I refer to this period as "my day"? From a dictionary, the only two usages I was able to find were:   1. period of 24 hours   2. the part of a day given to work


title: What does it mean: "Of no mean beauty, ..."?

text: what does the first part of the sentence mean? > "Of no mean beauty, she stood out above all by reason of her abundant > knowledge of letters." What is "mean beauty"? I have a hard time to look it up in a dictionary. The sentence comes from this story: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/abelard-histcal.asp


title: More terse form of "the topic of which was"

text: I'm looking for a phrase to replace _the topic of which was_ , with the goal of brevity. For example, could something like > The novel, **the topic of which was** whaling, proved to be excellent > reference material for my upcoming whaling expedition be reduced somehow?


title: Preposition for a time period

text: When I'm trying to say "The class will be held (on, in, during . . . ) 15-20 July, 2014" which preposition is more appropriate ?


title: When you open the windows in the house in order for fresh air to come in?

text: I just cannot find this in any dictionary. How is it called in English when someone opens the windows (and/or the door) of a house in order to let the fresh air come in? Please note that I'm interested in the phenomenon that occours _naturally_ (and _not_ through artificial ventillation). Also, what is the name of when in this situation the air starts to flow and there is a wind-like movement of air in the house? Capable of slamming the door. In Hungarian, letting the wind in is called _szellőztetés_ and the wind itself is called called _huzat_ (although the latter has multiple meanings). (In my language, the same word is also used when you open a car window when it moves and you can feel the air on your head, some people dont like it. On the other hand, in the house it's usually a good experience.)


title: Repeat vs Repetition - are they exactly the same?

text: Can the proverb "Repetition is the mother of studies" be replaced by "Repeat is the mother of studies"? Repeat can also be used as a noun, and according to many dictionaries, both repeat and repetition mean "the act of repeating". My gut feeling is that repetition is more natural English. Any comments?


title: What is the difference between deep space and outer space?

text: **Outer space** is frequently defined as the area outside the atmosphere of Earth (or another planetary or stellar body). **Deep space** is defined as either a synonym for outer space (Google's definition) _or_ space beyond the limits of the solar system _or_ space well outside the earth's atmosphere So, my question: is there a standard definition of these terms? That is, does any official body (NASA, etc.) use these terms to mean something specific? Or are they merely synonyms with rather wide definitions?


title: Omission of 'for' with various quantified time intervals: influence of verb

text: I came across these two examples, given to illustrate 'a case' where the inclusion of the preposition _for_ is considered optional in the paper " _Acquisition of Preposition Deletion by Non-native Speakers of English_" by the authors Jae-Min Kim and Gil-Soon Ahn (in §2, on p.3): > **_a.** We have lived here (for) 12 years._ > > **_b.** I've studied English (for) ten years._ Though I have no problems with either version of the ( **a** ) sentence, omitting the pronoun in ( **b** ) sounds unacceptable to me. Is this regional? Is acceptability influenced by   1. the size of the DO (/locative / PP / ...) between the verb and the time phrase   2. the actual verb used ? _Please note: The referenced paper is very useful, but contains a few expressions that need minor corrections – possibly translation errors._


title: "It's fast and in motion."

text: > Metro is our design language. We call it Metro because it's modern and > clean. It's fast and **in motion**. It's about content and typography. And > it's entirely authentic. In this context, what the 'in motion' means and makes you feel what? If it refer to the elements in UI, then it seems that every UI design contains some movable elements. In that case, it is just a superfluous word.


title: What is the term describing someone who has interest in only a narrow field, and nothing else?

text: There are some people who have interests in only some narrow field, and are not interested in anything else:   * physicians who heal only ears, and for whom the stomach doesn't matter   * clerks who know all the fiscal laws by heart, but ignore anything that isn't written there   * fanatics who care only what the scriptures say   * housewives interested only in cooking and soap operas   * geeks who care only for computer games and comics   * crazy scientists that know everything about chemistry but don't know who Columbus was and have probably never heard of America What do I call someone who has such narrow-field interests and/or knowledge?


title: All together vs. Altogether

text: Do _all together_ and _altogether_ mean the same and if not, what are the differences?


title: What does "it's really stuck" mean here?

text: I came across the following sentence in Washington Post: > Obama hasn't smoked a cigarette in about nine months, Gibbs revealed. "It > was a commitment that I think he made to himself at the end of the health > care and with his two daughters in mind," Gibbs said. "It's really stuck." What does Gibbs' phrase, "it's really stuck" mean in this particular case? Please teach me.


title: In a conditional sentence where the condition contains a list, which serial punctuation mark is used in the list?

text: For example, > If Bobby buys a pencil, an eraser, and a pad of paper, then he can write his > essay. To remove the ambiguity in the final comma, my instinct is to write: > If Bobby buys a pencil, an eraser, and a pad of paper; then he can write his > essay. Is this syntactically correct? Is there a preferred convention? Is there a general convention on replacing commas with other marks when they're ambiguous like this?


title: Are there diagnostic tests to distinguish between proper and common nouns?

text: Are there some fill-in-the-blank type questions that, if one were to fill in the blank and it sounded right to a fluent speaker then it would have to be a proper noun (or it would have to be a common noun)?


title: What does "creep" mean in the song "Creep" by Radiohead?

text: If someone knows English and Portuguese, I'd like help with a translation of the lyrics of the song _Creep_ by Radiohead. The translations we have here translate creep to Portuguese as _verme_ , _esquisito_ or _esquisitão_ , however, _verme_ in Portuguese has a direct meaning as "worm" in English and _esquisito_ means "weird"; _esquisitão_ is only the augmentative of "weird". According to the sense of the lyrics, the girl rejects the singer and escapes from him because she is superior to him; she is too good for him and thus cannot have a relationship with him or give him attention. I guess in this scenario the best translation to Portuguese is _nojento_ which means "disgusting". Am I correct? A contextual portion of the lyrics is > You're so ****in' special   >  I wish I was special   >  But I'm a creep, I'm a weirdo.   >  What the hell am I doing here?


title: Is there a word which means "having a frequency of decades" or "per decade"? What about century and millennium?

text: I have a document with the headings: daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, and decadely. Google Chrome, Google Docs, and Dictionary.com insist that "decadely" is not a word. Furthermore, deacadely sounds and looks weird to me. Is there a word I am unaware of which captures this meaning? What would you call something that happens each century or each millennium?


title: Is there a term for pejorative parody names of people or places?

text: I recently saw someone refer to Michele Bachmann as Michele **Botch** man [emphasis added] and was wondering what the term for such a parody name would be? Obviously it was intended as pejorative, so I'm not sure if "parody name" is specific enough.


title: Is it correct to write "is done fully automatically" or "is done fully automatic"?

text: Google gives me support from 19,200 on "is done fully automatically" and 35,200 on "is done fully automatic".


title: What’s a “backarapper”?

text: In _The Lord of the Rings_ , J.R.R. Tolkien writes: > The fireworks were by Gandalf: they were not only brought by him, but > designed and made by him; and the special effects, set pieces, and flights > of rockets were let off by him. But there was also a generous distribution > of squibs, crackers, **backarappers** , sparklers, torches, dwarf-candles, > elf-fountains, goblin-barkers and thunder-claps. They were all superb. The > art of Gandalf improved with age. He is obviously enumerating various sort of fireworks. All those words, or their pieces, are readily findable in the _OED_ save for **_backarappers_** alone. So I am betting it is a real word, just not listed yet. Since the word is **not** in one of the Professor’s invented languages — it looks like it’s English — what then is a “backarapper”, and what is its etymology?


title: Formal alternative for "like" and "such as"?

text: Is there a more formal way of saying: "In most western countries, such as the United States, an increased level of ... has been observed." Or should such a sentence be rephrased completely?


title: "About which" in legal English

text: How can I say "about which" in legal English (using some word akin to "herein" and "therewith")? For example, I would like to say "John Smith was born on April 1, _about which_ there was made a record," only using an apposite legal word instead of the ones in cursive. Additional context: I am working on a translation of a birth certificate, which---even when interpreted in its original language---is a rather awkward read. So, if translated literally, the sentence would sound like "Citizen ... was born on ... about which in the civil registry about birth in year ... on the ... day of month of ... was made a record numbered ..." So, on one hand, I am disinclined to translate the text very liberally, but on the other hand I cannot possibly translate it word-for-word and derive a readable English sentence.


title: A subject close to my heart

text: What are the differences between: subject, subjective, nominative, and the nominative case? If there aren't any substantial ones, why are there so many terms for basically saying the same thing?


title: Connotatively neutral alternatives to "ignorant"?

text: The word "ignorant" has a denotative meaning along the lines of "to lack knowledge" or "to not know", but its connotative meaning, by my understanding, is negative. Are there any synonyms of this word that have a more neutral connotation? The stack exchange question here suggests that "uninformed" might be suitable for this purpose, but there seems to be a split consensus on that word's connotation; some see that word as connotatively negative as well. Historically, I myself have used the phrase "to not know" as a safe alternative, since it isn't my wish to stigmatize others for lacking knowledge; however, this substitute is slightly verbose. Are there other possibilities?


title: What's the subordinate clause type for these two that-clause sentences below?

text: I am always confused about what type of subordinate clause "that" can connect. So there are two sentence below:   1. So far the torpedo has proved a damp squib, with observers arguing **that** Europe has not gained any leverage to press its demands.   2. Afflictions has take place in Syrian on June 3th **that** his job to negotiate political settlement and establish transitional governing body would be pointless. I am curious what the sub-clause type after "that" for above two sentences? Because each main clause doesn't miss any grammatical ingredient, so I thought these that-clause are appositive clause.


title: Which is grammatical, "the softness and sweetness [was/were] perfect"?

text: which is grammatically fine to use? > The softness and sweetness of rice [was/were] perfect.


title: Non-obvious or nonobvious?

text: I've seen both, even in the same Wikipedia article entry. Is there a right and wrong version, or is either version OK as long as I'm consistent? I'm using the word in the context of patent law, as in 'this invention must do A, B, and C to be considered novel and non(-)obvious'.


title: Replacements for "though"

text: Examples: > Mary thought the man was nice-looking. It wasn't enough to lower her > defenses, **though.** > > Tom crossed his arms on the table. He did it so hard, **though** , he hurt > his elbows. > > Sophie stopped finding meaning in things. Not in a spiritual or > philosophical way, **though** ; things simply ceased to make sense to her. In what other way can I convey the same meaning without using the word _though_?


title: The urban are urbanised, the urbane are ?

text: The two words 'urban' and 'urbane' are of related meaning; according to etymology one the child of the other. But how do we form verbs from these separate adjectives? We can speak of 'urban' Lancashire, or the 'urbanisation of India', and it is clear what we mean. Now an 'urbane' individual is a courteous, well-mannered person, given to a sophisticated and well-educated approach to life. But if we want to speak about a process by which, let's say, a tribe of nomads, take on education, settled life, and public institutions, albeit in a non-urban society, how would we describe the process? It couldn't be 'urbanisation' because that involves building towns and cities.


title: Metaphors similar to "Trojan Horse"

text: I'm looking for metaphors (non-jocular) with the same meaning as "Trojan Horse" - _"A person or thing intended to undermine or destroy from within."_


title: What is THE shortest English verb?

text: I have heard that two letter verbs are the shortest verbs in English. Is this totally true? Are any of the letters official recognized as verbs?


title: Do Brits understand rhyming slang or are they sometimes puzzled by it too?

text: Most people know that rhyming slang is a colorful addition to British English, where someone says something that is not the intended word but rhymes with it. For example, > He was brown bread. might be understood to mean > He was dead. When I watch British films I hear a lot of it, and some of it I get and some of it I don't. Is the expectation that some of it will be deliberately obscure, or is it just that my American ears aren't attuned to it? Are the instances that appear in movies in common usage, and so understood right away, or are they often created on the spot, verbal riffs that the listener has to think about and may or may not understand?


title: Is "without padding one’s end zone" really a pun?

text: In another question, the whimsically yclept Yoichi Oishi asks > What does "Without padding one’s end zone" mean? and Robusto replies, > 'End zone' is a pun, because the object of American football is to have one > of your team carry the ball across the opponent's goal line into their end > zone. I'm thinking, no, it's not a pun. Calling a football fan's buttocks his _end zone_ is just an ad-hoc slang phrase, since _padding the end zone_ is not, I believe, something done in football. By comparison, imagine you were at a football game and another fan said in reference to a comely cheerleader, _her back-field is in motion_. Again we have a metaphorical reference to someone's bottom (in football, the back-field is all the offensive players who do not start at the line of scrimmage) but there _is_ a pun, since _back-field in motion_ is a real football term (meaning, I believe, one of the back-field players is already moving when the ball is snapped). So, is my understanding of football too weak or my definition of _pun_ is too narrow?


title: Is the sentence "I think you have got a temperature" correct?

text: I'am an English speaker living amongst people who speak english as a foreign language, this sometimes gets me very confused. I found following sentence in an english school book: "I think you have a temperature" is this by any chance right. Would surprise me if it were. Thank you.


title: "Do my best" vs. "my level best"

text: Is there any difference between these two sentences? Which one is grammatical in speech? >   * I will do my best. >   * I will do my level best. >


title: Alternate word/phrase for "Screw up"/"f*** up"/"mess up"

text: If I want to tell something like :               Let's not do it. It will _____ up the whole plan.      Any of the phrases mentioned in the title can be used, but none of them sounds good. I'm looking for a good alternative.


title: Did "Fool" used to mean "mentally handicapped"?

text: In 1861, JS Mill wrote in his book Utilitarianism: > it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better > to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. I'm curious what he meant by "fool". In contemporary language it would mean someone with a slightly below average intelligence (or maybe even someone with normal intelligence but who acts in a silly manner), but looking at some dictionaries it seems that the word used to be applied to people with more severe cognitive deficits.


title: Is the phrase ‘think past something to something’ an idiom or just a plain verb ＋ adverb combination?

text: I was caught with the phrase, ‘ _I was thinking well past it_ ,’ appearing in May 25’s New York Times’ article, titled “How I fell for Lisbon.” The text reads: > I met Lisbon in a snit. I was exhausted and impatient and _thinking well > past it_ , to the northern Portugal city of Oporto and the wine country > nearby, my ultimate destination and real interest. I understand ‘think well past it’ here means that the author’s thought jumped to Oporto, skipping Lisbon. As I was unfamiliar with the expression, “think past something.” I looked for it in the headword of ‘think’ in Cambridge, Oxford online dictionary and OALD. None of them registers “think past something.” I think I was confused with the insertion of ‘well’ between ‘think’ and ‘past,’ which can be interpreted both ways of ‘think well’ and ‘well past’ Is “think past something” an idiom like ‘go past (oneself)’, or a plain verb ＋ adverb combination?


title: "all they need _is_ some words" or "all they need _are_ some words"

text: Which one is the correct form?   * "all they need _is_ some words"    * "all they need _are_ some words"


title: What does “provisionally” charged with the case of negligent homicide mean?

text: AP reports on July 28 that “the driver of a Spanish train that derailed at high speed killing 79 people was **provisionally charged** Sunday with multiple cases of negligent homicide.” http://world.time.com/2013/07/27/spain- train-driver-suspected-of-negligent-homicide/ Oxford English Dictionary defines “provisionally” as; adverb - subject to further confirmation, for the time being: ex. the film, provisionally entitled Skin, is due to be released next year Is it possible that the train driver in question who is responsible for the deaths of 79 people was charged with negligent homicide only “ _subject to further confirmation, just for the time being_ ” loosely in face of the deadly disastrous scene and fact obvious to public eyes? What does “ **provisionally** charged with a case” exactly mean? What are legal implications of 'provisional charge'?


title: Why does i.e mean that is?

text: I learned that i.e means : > that is or in other words but how does this make sense? shouldn't it be: t.i in this case?


What's the difference between "have" and "have got" to express possession? examples:   1. I have a pen.   2. I have got a pen.


title: Where did the "trick" in the phrase "turning tricks" come from?

text: Or in other words, can anyone make clear the etymology and the history behind the coinage of the word _trick_ in the phrase _turning tricks_? (Why am I interested you may ask? Well, _turning tricks_ is a phrase with kind of a history for me. For a long time I didn't know what it meant -- in one embarrassing moment for a middle-school kid who once believed that _pimp_ was short for "pimple" -- and for even longer, after I was clued into its sexual meaning, I thought it had to do with more, uh, athletic exploits than the phrase actually implies. You know, sort of a description of things that are sometimes jokingly said to be available in dark bars in Tijuana. So I'm determined to get to the root of this construction once and for all: why are _johns_ also known as _tricks_ , and who coined this very misleading phrase?)


title: "I can't confirm all what he said" versus "I can't confirm all of what he said"

text: I want to know if this sentence is correct without the preposition _of_ in it. > I can't confirm all what he said. Should I instead write the following sentence? > I can't confirm all of what he said. Regarding usage, I did a quick check of COHA and found some examples that did not use _of_. > I don't know all what she knew. Is this sentence correct?


title: Would you say "it's impolite" to your kids?

text: Would you normally say "it's impolite [any continuation or no continuation at all]" or the word _impolite_ is too formal for kids and you would rather choose to express the same thought in a different way? The reason I asked this question is because the other day I witnessed this scene: A mother (Asian) in a restaurant was correcting her child's behaviour saying, "Don't put your feet on the couch" when her child asked her why she was not allowing him to do so, she said, "because it's impolite." Her friend who was sitting next to her (obviously British, judging by his accent) said, "We wouldn't use the word _impolite_ when talking to children, it's too formal." It seems to me that I have heard some native English speakers (I don't remember whether they were Americans or British) use this word when talking to their children. On the other hand, that mother's friend didn't need to lie. So I decided to ask this question here.


title: Confusion about "would it not be better if" vs "it would be better if"

text: non-native speaker here and I have problems with the following sentence. _'My friend asks if it would not be better for you to come here.'_ Does the sentence mean a) _'My friend thinks it would be better if you come here.'_ OR b) _'My friend thinks it would be better if you not come here (and stay there).'_ And is the usage of "not" in the sentence correct or does it make it ambiguous? I have an argument with my girlfriend (also not a native speaker) about this, so please help me solve it. :-) Further info for the German-speaking crowd here: I am trying to translate the expression ' _wäre es nicht besser wenn ..._ '.


title: Phrase or expression meaning "getting more than you bargained for"

text: I'm writing an article and I'd appreciate a more sophisticated phrase for the term "getting more than you bargained for". All help is greatly appreciated.


title: Is it alright to mix metaphors?

text: An old Norfolk character I knew, used to say: 'Tha's no use you a-putten yar foot down, if you hearnt got a leg to stand on'. In English, that is: 'It's no good putting your foot down if you haven't a leg to stand on'. When I was at school we were always warned against 'mixed metaphors'. So are mixed metaphors of this kind acceptable?


title: What's the word for "believing one is the center of the universe"?

text: I want to describe a character who thinks that the world revolves around him, thus he believes he is the center of the universe. Is there a single word having the meaning of _center of (one's) universe_?


title: Opposite of subpar... superpar?

text: If something can be "on par", and "subpar", can something be described as "superpar"? Is there an accepted way to describe something as extraordinary with this term?


title: Connotation of "sanguine" vs "sanguinary"

text: I've recast this question after lighting upon **sanguinary**. > sanguine: optimistic or positive, especially in an apparently bad or > difficult situation:   >  sanguinary (archaic): involving or causing much bloodshed In consonance with the explanation under "Origin" at the above link, I see the root "sang" , the exact noun for "blood" in French (which I'm interested in; I've never studied Latin though). Yet, whenever I light upon sanguine, my first thoughts of it are negative. I think this because sang = blood (in French). Thus I (improperly) associate "sanguine" with "bloody," of negative connotation. Only after a minute of conscious recollection do I realise that **sanguine** is positive. Per contra, **sanguinary** is negative. Would someone please compare and contrast this difference?


title: A phrase that captures the concept of making oneself falsely appear to be guilty for purpose of discrediting another party

text: Perhaps this is more of a trope, but I'm looking for a phrase or word in English that describes the situation where: (a) "Party A" consciously performs actions that establish a false expectation of wrongdoing. (b) Some antagonistic "Party B" leaps to the conclusion of wrongdoing due to [a]. (c) The lack of wrongdoing is revealed by "Party A" to some unbiased "Party C", and "Party A" improves its standing to an unbiased audience or benefits from reducing the perceived objectivity or fairness of "Party B". Is there some phrase or common anecdotal reference used by English speakers to reference this sort of situation? An example of this would be the following: Let Party A be Alice, and Party B be Bob. Bob's dog is missing, and because of some bad history, Bob claims to the police that Alice killed his dog. Alice then waits until she knows (but Bob does not) that Bob is observing her, and digs a hole in her backyard, then appears to throw something into the hole. Bob runs to tell the police he saw Alice burying his dog, and the police dig in the location Bob specifies. It turns out that Alice was simply planting tulips. Bob is discredited as being paranoid and Alice gains sympathy. To clarify, it's unknown whether or not Alice actually killed Bob's dog, but she knows that there is suspicion cast on her by Bob's claims. Another example could be the following: Alice is in fierce competition with Bob at work, and Alice knows that Bob is talking to others to gain information about her activities. So Alice pretends to be stealing Bob's idea for a proposal, mentions this around the office, and then submits a proposal having nothing to do with Bob's idea. Bob, upon hearing the rumors, angrily confronts his superior about this, and is red-faced after being presented with a copy of the report. What word or phrase describes the deceit Alice carried out as described above, to benefit her standing with the police at Bob's expense?


title: Why is an Imperial hundredweight not a hundred of anything?

text: An imperial hundredweight is a measure weighing eight stone, or 112 pounds, or 1792 ounces. Why isn't it a hundred of anything?


title: What do first, second, and third person perspective mean? Why are they so called?

text: I am aware of the terms _first person_ , _second person_ and _third person_ from grammar, but I have also seen them used in other contexts, in particular _first person perspective_ with regard to video games. What is the precise meaning of _first person perspective_? Can the terms _second person_ and _third person_ be applied to perspectives in the same way? As far as my limited understanding of grammar goes, I know that the _first person_ is written with "I" forms, _second_ with "you" forms, and _third_ with "he/her/it" forms. Is this grammatical meaning related to the meaning with perspectives, and if so, how?


title: What is the opposite of “commercial” art?

text: What is the opposite of _commercial_ in the context of writing about art? For example: > The artist created both commercial and `_________` art.


title: What's the difference between "you guys" and "you folks"?

text: _You guys_ and _you folks_ seem to have similar meanings. Do they have any differences? Thanks a lot


title: Is this sentence an example of double negative?

text: > and no woman will not come within 1 mile of you The other person wanted to say - no woman will come within a mile around you.


What is the longest dictionary word you can spell where continuing to remove the final letter will still result in a dictionary word. e.g. ate [dictionary word], at [last letter 'e' removed still a dictionary word], a [last letter 't' removed] No reason for this question, I am just curious.


title: Why do we have two words to describe post-mortem medical examination?

text: Autopsy is defined as > inspection and dissection of a body after death, as for determination of the > cause of death; postmortem examination. Necropsy is defined as > the examination of a body after death; autopsy. In practice, it seems that "autopsy" is generally used when referring to the post-mortem examination of a human body, and "necropsy" refers to the examination of non-human bodies. I see no immediate evidence in the root words that would explain why we have this distinction, except perhaps for the "self" that `αὐτός` refers to being used to describe post-mortem examination of humans specifically, leaving "necropsy" to mean examination of dead bodies in general. That is all conjecture, however, and it seems like a stretch. So: where do these two separate words come from?


title: Correct usage of "viz."?

text: Are these two sentences examples of the correct use of "viz."? **This book is dedicated to my family, viz. my parents and two sisters.** **The purpose of this book is twofold, viz. 1) to show that [...]; and 2) to demonstrate that [...].** Is this technically correct? Even if it is, do you think native English speakers would find it weird or inappropriate?


title: Use of "myself" in business-speak

text: Occasionally, I will hear or read coworkers using "myself" in place of "me," as in: > If you have any questions, you can contact Gimli or myself. > > I have sent the list to Legolas, Glorfindel, Aragorn, and myself. This sticks out to me every time I hear it, and seems like an attempt to sound more professional than if they were to say "Gimli or me". It seems wrong because you would not say "You can contact myself." I also wonder if "myself" is an attempt to avoid the confusion of "me" versus "I" in a sentence.   1. Is this a valid use of "myself"?   2. Has anyone else experienced this, or is it a Midwestern regional idiom?


title: Using an unrelated "too" before an infinitive

text: I came across the following in a children's textbook about Japanese: > [Ninja] did not have magic powers but they did have [discipline, > determination and daring] ... These attributes will help you too succeed in > learning a new language. At first I thought it was wrong, but Comma or no comma before "too"? (and possibly others) states that commas aren't required unless the "too" is used for an abrupt change of thought, and this question on infinitives says you don't need to have a "to" before "help". Combined, would this mean that the quotation is grammatical? Also, is it recommended to edit a phrase that looks incorrect so that it looks correct, or to avoid schoolchildren (and others!) thinking that the infinitive is "too learn"?


title: Why different tenses?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Using verb tenses correctly This is a quote from _The Great Gatsby_ : > She smiled slowly and, walking through her husband as if he were a ghost, > shook hands with Tom, looking him flush in the eye! Why do these four verbs have different tenses: _smiled, walking, shook, looking_?


title: Is "irrehensible" or "irrehensibly" a word?

text: I thought that irrehensible was a word like "morally irrehensible" would mean something so bad it is beyond forgiveness, or "irrehensibly damaged" would be damaged beyond hope of repair. None of the dictionaries I've tried looking up this word in like it. Am I spelling this wrong? Or thinking of a different word? EDIT: If I google "morally irrehensible" I get 75 results all being used as a really terrible act. It says "did you mean morally rehensible" which gives 195 results all seeming to have the same meaning. So it seems like every 3rd or 4th time this word is used, people incorrectly add in the "ir-". Not sure why this is such a common mistake, but irrehensible is how I've always heard it.


title: Is there any convention for pronouncing proper nouns?

text: Is there any convention as to how proper nouns with origins outside English should be pronounced? I have heard claims to the effect that "a proper noun can be pronounced however you wish"; is that correct? I work in an international environment, and it is rather common for me to have colleagues with foreign names. Actually, I'm not a native English speaker either. I go by the rule: "pronounce as it would be pronounced in its original context or language". A few examples:   1. The letter `J` is pronounced very differently in English, Spanish, or Dutch. For example my Spanish friends use `ja ja` to denote laughing in instant messages; the Dutch pronounce `ij` like the vowel sound in `hay` (e.g. [`rij`] http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rij).   2. The vowel sound represented by `oe` in English is pronounced as in `toe`, but it is often used to approximate the German `ӧ` sound (e.g. `Schrӧdinger`). In Dutch, this same combination of letters represents a vowel sound similar to the English word `loop`.   3. Sometimes it is not even possible to accurately represent a sound in English, instead it is replaced by some approximation. As examples you could consider many of the Hindi or Bengali names (or names from any other Indian languages for that matter). I found this question earlier, but I think it does not answer my question as it seems to address how English names are to be pronounced by non-native English speakers. **Edit:** To clarify some of the doubts expressed in the comments; I am primarily interested in personal names although a more generic guideline would be helpful. I'm an aspiring Physicist, and I often encounter standardised terminology with non-English origins.


title: Word or phrase for that part of writing that ensures clarity of speaker and place

text: I was reading a book the other day and, at several points in the story, became very confused as to which character was talking. It would also happen that the characters would suddenly be at new locations without explanation or transition. Even though other aspects of the writing were quite entertaining, this poor scene-setting made reading the book frustrating. Is there a word or a technical term that describes that part of writing, the nuts-and-bolts part of the prose that glues together the story and keeps the reader from confusion?


title: How to describe someone who "tells the truth" with no respect for others' feelings?

text: I have a friend who just keeps "telling the truth", e.g when he thinks the joke you've just told is stupid, he will say so right after you've finished telling it, paying no respect to people's feelings. How should I describe him ?


title: Is this combination of forms correct?

text: I ran into this particular sentence today: > They shouldn't work more than they are now. Though, I'd expect this sentence to be expressed as: > They shouldn't work more than they work now. or: > They shouldn't be working more than they are now. Is my conception of English wrong on that particular point or is the former sentence incorrect?


title: Is "monkey around" offensive?

text: Someone asked me for something and I said, "Do you need it right now, or do I have a couple hours to monkey around with it?" They got really quiet. While certainly unprofessional, is this also somehow offensive?


title: What does this "early" mean?

text: I met this girl at an early party. What meaning does this "early" have?


title: What's a good term/phrase for things of a specific branch everybody should know?

text: There are a lot of questions on SE asking > what a professional in a specific branch should/has to know? What are common **short** terms/phrases one can use for tagging/searching such topics/questions? Im thinking of phrases like _standard knowledge_ , but this is as far as I know not very common in English. Any common foreign words expressing this?


title: Is the predicative proper in this example?

text: > I object to praises that are too **abundant** and too **often**.   1. Does the meaning of _abundant_ fit here?   2. _Often_ is an adverb, so can it be used as a predicative which is usually adjective or noun?


title: Is there a word/term for a "super-contraction"

text: I am doing some informal research into dynamic speech and narrative generation, and I've been looking into some local colloquialism and having a little bit of difficultly classifying a set of them. I would call them "super- contractions" or "a contraction of contractions". But I'm curious if there is a better word/phrase that represents them. For example: **I am going to** tell him that!   **I'm going to** tell him that!   **I'm gonna'** tell him that!   **I'm'a** tell him that!   **Ima** tell him that!


title: Meaning of "a function's worth of code"

text: > We have already seen how to make jQuery react to the loading of a web page. > The $(document).ready() event handler can be used to fire off a function's > worth of code, but there's a bit more to be said about it. What's the meaning of "a function's worth of code" in the above context?


title: Obama's use of "bemused"

text: I generally see the definition of "bemused" to be synonymous with "confused" or "puzzled", and that it is wrong to use it as a synonym of "amused". However I tend to see it used — as Obama did today — as sort of a mixture of "puzzled" and "amused." Like when you shake your head and chuckle at people who get hung up over a silly issue. Which is how Obama seemed to be using it, and how I would tend to use the word myself. After all, there isn't another word that captures that meaning. Am I correct in this interpretation? Is the meaning of the word subtly changing over time, possibly because it sounds sort of like "amused"?


title: Can "having an affair" work both ways?

text: The married person in an affair is clearly having one, but is the unmarried participant? To use a well-known real-life example, Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. But did Monica Lewinsky have an affair with Bill Clinton?


title: Is there a word for "a variety of breakfast foods"

text: My native tongue has a word for a specific kind of breakfast where you ask for "a little bit of everything in the middle" or "breakfast of variety" and you get, for example, cooked eggs, jam, butter, honey, some olives, a few types of cheese, some slices of cucumber, cherry tomatoes, some bread and of course tea. Yes there is a specific word for it ( for indexing purposes: serpme ) I'd like to know if there is a synonym for such a word in the English language.


title: What do we call these people?

text: 1. A person who says that everything in this life is not **permanent** / is a **lie**.   2. A person who believes in things only after he has **seen/experienced** them.


title: Is there a term for grammatical mistakes as a result of trying too hard?

text: Today, I learned the term _hyperforeignism_ after writing that I was drinking a _latté_ and then stopping to wonder why I was putting a diacritical mark on the "e". This reminded me of other language mistakes that occur _more frequently_ when people are _actively trying to make fewer language mistakes_ , such as:   * Every "----- and me" becomes "----- and I"   * Scattering "myself" througout one's speech   * "whom" misuse These mistakes tend to reveal "I'm talking to an authority figure" or "I'm talking to a group that I may not be qualified to be speaking to". Is there a term for this phenomenon?


title: What does 'put somebody up' actually mean, and where does the phrase originate?

text: > **To put somebody up** : To let somebody stay at your home; to arrange for > somebody to stay somewhere. _We can put you up for the night._ Why does "put somebody up" have that meaning? Where does the expression originate? Given that "put somebody down" isn't the opposite of the phrase, what does _up_ mean in context?


title: An adjective meaning something that is firmly held aloft

text: I've been racking my brain and I can't seem to think of an adjective that means "firmly held aloft". For example, a weathercock may be firmly held aloft at the top of a pole. A sign may be firmly held aloft at the top of a scaffold. A TV aerial may be firmly held aloft at the top of a house's ceiling. I'd like a single adjective for this (for brevity), so I can say something like: > I noticed the [firmly-held-aloft] weathercock on the church.   >  He pulled himself up by the [firmly-held-aloft] handlebars.   >  You could clearly see the time on the [firmly-held-aloft] clock. I guess it's kind of the antonym of "dangling". Can anyone think of any such adjectives?


title: Where does the word "totient" come from?

text: In math we learn about the "totient function". It rhymes with "quotient" when math teachers pronounce it. But I cannot find the definition or etymology of this word in any dictionary, nor on any web-site. Anyone have a clue?


title: Alternative to "as-well-as" for an academic paper

text: Is there some better alternative to phrase `as well as` for an academic writing? It sounds to me too informal. The whole sentence is: > Improvements of both parts are possible as well as joining them into one > piece of software.


title: What's the difference between "Not Completely True" and "Completely Not True"?

text: From what I understand, ~~in second order propositional logic, ∀¬x and ¬∀x are equivalent statements.~~ Apparently these are not equal. ¬∀x ≡ ∃¬x However, rendered into the English language, consider the following case study:               Statement: All human beings have appendixes.            Response 1: That's not completely true.     Response 2: That's completely not true.      In `Response 1`, the implication seems to be that the responder knows about appendectomy, and that some people have had their appendix removed. In `Response 2`, the implication seems stronger than that, and while the motivation for such an expression is likely more for emphasis than pure logic, the implication seems be that `No human beings have appendixes`, which is obviously not true. So with all due haste, the question: Which one of these is the correct word choice and why? Perhaps there are logicians in the audience that can enlighten us with specific reasoning.


title: Placement of commas and 'and' in English numerals

text: I have a similar question to the one below When writing out large numbers in words, should commas be placed at thousand separators? I'm writing a program to spell out large numbers, and am unsure if there should be a comma or an "and" in the following numerals, before the "24": > 101024 "One hundred and one thousand, and twenty-four" > > 1024 "One thousand and twenty-four" I think that this is rarely a problem in real life, but what would be the correct way of doing this?


title: Is "Joe, I've been finishing with the task" correct?

text: Is this a correct phrase? > Joe, I've been finishing with the task.


title: When and why should I use 'the'

text: I have a problem with the definite article ' ** _the_** ' in following sentence from Wikipedia: > Some of the namespaces may or may not be officially considered part of the > BCL by Microsoft, but all are included as part of the libraries that are > provided with Microsoft's implementation of the .NET Framework. (BCL: Base Class Library) Firstly, the sentence starts with 'Some of the namespaces', which is correct, because there are many namespaces and the author refers to a group of those namespaces. Next, 'part of the BCL by Microsoft': here is my problem. There is only one BCL, so ' _the_ ' is not indicating any specific member of a group. Secondly, just as 'the BCL', there is only one 'Microsoft', but it doesn't have ' _the_ '. So how is this sentence correct? My definition of ' _the_ ' has two parts. First, indication of a group and second, referring to a specific member in that group. For example, 'the teacher in school was pretty'. Here, _school_ has many teachers and we refer to a specific teacher.


title: What is the correct form of "advance" in the sentence: "My advance search"?

text: Which form is correct?               My advance search.          My advanced search.      I ask this in comparison to "simple" that does not have a 'ed' form.               My simple search.


title: Better words for "buff" and "debuff"

text: I have an RPG environment and I'm looking for words that sound better than "buff" for positive modifier and "debuff" for negative modifier. I simply don't like the words but I'm having a hard time finding more appropriate words.


title: “-gram” vs. “-graph”

text: What’s the difference between the suffixes _-gram_ and _-graph_? Is there any difference? Even if they are completely synonymous, what’s the difference in etymology? For example, _pictograph_ vs. _pictogram_ , _cryptograph_ vs. _cryptogram_ , etc.


title: Relationship between kingdom, dominion, and doom

text: I was struck recently by the -dom suffix in freedom and kingdom. Not having etymology references at hand, our lunchtime group settled on the theory that -dom in both these words was from "dominion." Dominion is ultimately derived from Latin _dominus_ (lord of the house), if I understand my etymology correctly. It seems to make sense; free from domination is freedom, domination by a king is kingdom. But it seems that this is not the case. According to Etymology Online, this -dom is derived from Old English _dom_ (judgement, law, statute) and is etymologically close to _doom_. I'm really confused by this origin. It seems like the dom- prefix and the -dom suffix should be related. Are they really not, or is it only that my references don't go back far enough or that my etymological understanding is superficial at best? Can someone please clarify the etymology of _kingdom_ , _dominion_ , and _doom_ for me?


title: The state of being a member of something

text: Suppose I am a member of a club/group. What is that state of being inside the club called, in the following context? > I have **__** to this club. I'm thinking **_admission_** , but that really doesn't sound like it.


What are the meanings of 'oppress', 'repress' and 'suppress'? Does it matter between `Help Help! I'm being oppressed!` and `Help! Help! I'm being repressed!`?


title: US usage of 'mad'

text: When Americans say something like, "Are you mad at me?", is there any difference between that and, "Are you angry at me?" To me, as a Brit, 'mad' means 'insane'. Saying, "Are you mad at me?" should indicate an even greater state of anger than usual, such that it actually drives the person insane.


title: What does "Paramour in waiting" mean?

text: I'm reading a romantic story, all written in letters to each other. I'm now at the part where the female writes "Hello my paramour in waiting"; I looked up the word paramour and one definition is "the lover of a married person". Since this is in the beginning of the story, and the characters background hasn't been fully unveiled, what might I infer about her / him?


title: Jameson whiskey commercial construction with implicit verb

text: While watching the Daily Show, a commercial came on. Here is the construction: "...When the Hawk of Achill took a barrel of John Jameson's whiskey, well that was another matter. But Jameson was generous, the Hawk, greedy, very greedy..." The issue is "Jameson was generous, the hawk greedy." There is no verb in the second construction, and we are asked to fill in the verb from context. This is a no-no in a generative description of English grammar. Are these sentences acceptable English?   1. "The doctor put his gown on the table; the nurse, on the cabinet."   2. "The soldier eats his bread with cheese; the general, with caviar."   3. "The soldier eats his bread with cheese; the general, his pita with olives"   4. "The bum sleeps in the streets; the oil magnate comfortably, without snoring, in a bed with sheets."   5. "The maid spreads the sheet on the bed; my kitchen knife butter on the bread."   6. "He pitted the two contestents in battle; she, a date"   7. "He drove a car; she, a point home."   8. "The surgeon walks to surgery, quickly, and without thinking about all the patients that he lost over the years; John, on the beach." Is there a discussion of the rules for mystery implicit verbs? Has anyone encountered an implicit verb construction in a newspaper context?


title: "Our end" vs. "our side"

text: Which is correct when writing emails? >   1. Everything is fine at **our/your end**. >   2. Everything is fine at **our/your side**. >


title: What is the origin of the word “optics” that's prevalently used now in politics?

text: Here’s an example from _RealClearPolitics_ : > But the _optics_ bode well for a party whose chances of winning the White > House depend on attracting many more Hispanic voters than it did four years > ago.¹ [ _emphasis added_ ]


title: Why does "bass" sound like "base"?

text: Why is _bass_ pronounced like _base_? If _bass_ sounds like _base_ , why isn't _ass_ pronounced as (nearly) _ace_ instead?


title: What does the sentence mean?

text: I just got an email telling me about a company's 2013 profit. The first sentence is very short, but it is hard to understand for me. XXXX(company name) misses by $0.05(per share), beats on revenue. My understanding is the company XXXX lost 0.05 per share last year, but revenues got higher. or, the company XXXX lost another figure per share (say 0.10), and lower than market expectation(estimate value 0.05). which one is correct under this context? what is the correct meaning of the word "miss" here?


title: The meaning of the phrase "make-believe"

text: In a recent Facebook post for a friend of mine, he used the phrase `make- believe` in the sentence to indicate a bad pretending habit of some institute. His usage was similar to saying: > Just keep pretending. After all, the entire country is all make-believe. As from the famous company slogan, I thought that phrase implies a good meaning. But the previous usage made me think: What is the usage of this phrase? and is it an idiom or some kind of a known phrase or expression?


title: Isn’t it odd to refer the king of winner as the king of loser?

text: There was the following sentence in the article titled, “Vegas. Rove attack ads seal victory for Hillary” appearing in May 10 New Yorker magazine: > “The oddsmaker’s only concern, he added, was that Rove’s involvement in the > race will dry up all interest in betting on Republican candidates for 2016: > “Right now I’m offering Marco Rubio at ninety thousand to one and I ain’t > getting a bite.” > > While acknowledging that “there’s no sure thing” in the world of gambling, > Mr. Klugian said that for professional gamblers, betting against Karl Rove > is “as good as it gets.” “ **He’s the LeBron James of losing** ,” he said.” I understand this is simply a metaphoric joke, and I understand clearly what the oddmaker means. But “the LeBron James of losing” sounds somewhat farfetching just as saying “the Babe Ruth of losing” and “the Great Alexander of losing” instead of "Darius III of losing"? Doesn’t this contradiction – ‘the ever-victorious of losing’ - matter? Does the expression, someone like “the LeBron James of losing,” sound natural and reasonable to native English speakers, simply from the view point of rhetoric and logic?


title: Negative of "shall"

text: I really wonder if there is a negative of _shall_. I've heard something like _shan't_. For example _I shan't_ or _Shall we go to the cinema? No, I shan't_. I don't know whether this usage is correct or not.


title: "Down" in "hung down the front..."

text: "A bush grew out of the gutter and hung down the front of the house." Could anybody please explain where in the above sentence 'down' belongs? It could belong to 'hang' a bit like a phrasal verb, or it could belong to 'the front'? That kind of construction is hard for a non-native speaker to get their head around. We understand the meaning of the sentence, of course, but it feels weird, nevertheless. A non-native speak would normally say something like that instead: "A bush grew out of the gutter and hung (down) over/before/ the front of the house." "A bush grew out of the gutter and hung (down) in front of the house."


title: Why do only a few English demonyms indicate gender?

text: A friend recently pondered why _Latino/Latina_ inflects according to gender. I suggested that it's because _Latino_ is a loanword from a language with grammatical gender, but he found it odd that other demonyms don't inflect this way, and he wondered whether there was something etymologically or historically unique about the word. Wikipedia offers a long list of demonyms, and only _Pinoy/Pinay_ and _Canadien(ne)_ inflect like this. I also noted that _Englishman_ has a feminine _‑woman_ form, although the etymology here is different. Etymology Online attests that _Englishman_ dates to Old English, whereas gendered _Englishwoman_ is a newer form (c.1400). This inflection appears to have a different productive mechanism, one that mainly applies to places with significant Anglophone or Norse history: _Englishman, Frenchman, Irishman, Dutchman, Scotsman, Chinaman, Welshman, Norseman_ (roughly in order of usage). Is there any etymological rhyme or reason to this? Why do we inflect _Latino_ and _Canadien_ but not other words derived from non-Germanic languages like _Spaniard_? Why do we have _Irishwomen_ but not _Italianwomen_ (and only very rarely _Spanishwomen_ )? * * * **Update:** MετάEd answered this satisfactorily for the native demonyms ending in _-man_ : In those cases, the gendered variants are largely the result of a semantic shift where Old English _man_ “person” became Middle English _man_ “male” and _woman_ “female.” However, I'm still looking for an explanation of why English adopted the gender inflection of _Latino, Filipino, and Pinoy,_ unlike most other demonyms. Is this perhaps because they are endonyms used by a significant number of bilingual English speakers?


title: Is there any difference between "post" and "position"?

text: I know that both _post_ and _position_ are polysemic and have a lot of non- overlapping meanings, but I am asking about the following definitions: > **position:** a post of employment: _a position in a bank_. > > **post:** a position of duty, employment, or trust to which one is assigned > or appointed: _a diplomatic post_. In this meanig, are these two words completely interchangeable or are there any slight differences in the meaning? The question arose when I wrote > [He] applied for the position of head of human resources at [a big company]. and my teacher corrected _position_ to _post_. When I asked her why, she just said that in that particular context _post_ sounded right and _position_ sounded wrong (to her British ears). So, what is the difference between _post_ and _position_ and why (if my teacher is right) is _post_ preferable to _position_ in my sample sentence?


title: adjective describing a personal difficulty

text: Trying to think of a word that describes an action that is easily accomplished by most people yet said person cannot. Example: > Since fifth grade, I have played the bass in my school orchestra, and yet > somehow I still can’t hit that high F sharp. I know I am not the best bass > player, and definitely have my weaknesses, which include that `____` note.


title: will you come and follow me IF I BUT CALL your name: what's the meaning?

text: I'm translating an English hymn to Italian, but I'm not sure about the meaning of the structure > **If** \+ _subject_ \+ **but** \+ _verb_ Is the sense "should (or would) call your name?" (uncertainty, possibility etc.) or is it "everything except calling your name?" (exception etc.) I'm an Italian native speaker and this is quite difficult for me.


title: Does "alter" means "change into something worse"?

text: In French, the verb _altérer_ means _change into something worse_ or _degrade_. As a non-native English speaker I wonder whether the English verb _alter_ has necessarily this negative meaning or in the contrary, if it is neutral as _change_ or _transform_.


title: Which is correct "women's clothing" or "womens clothing"?

text: When I typed the search into Google most of the responses were websites selling clothing and the ratio of womens versus women's was about 1:1. Searching for mens versus men's and the version with apostrophes appears almost 90% of the time. For boys versus boy's or girls versus girl's it is a 3:2 ratio in favor of no apostrophes. So there's a general trend for leaving the apostrophe out. But "womens" looks wrong. I suppose the same question applies to public bathrooms as well. Is the women's room or the womens room?


title: Is it correct to say "I write children books" (not possessive case)?

text: Although Children's books is what everybody says, I would like to understand why the genitive case is applied in such case. If I write books for children, children is an adjective here; not the owners of my book! The word "children" just defines or characterizes the type of books I write. Therefore, it's an adjective. So, I understand that genitive/possessive case ("I write children's book") is incorrect grammar. My question is: is the genitive case here really accepted as right? If I use "I write children books" (following the grammar principle) as as I say "I write pets books" (books about pets, and not possessions of pets) - would I be incorrect? Why?


title: Meanings of word "nick" in British English

text: Word _nick_ seems to be used to describe many things. According to the dictionary, the main meanings are:   * a small notch, groove, chip, or the like, cut into or existing in something.   * a hollow place produced in an edge or surface by breaking, chipping, or the like.   * a small dent or wound. And other similar meanings, both nouns and verbs. In British English (mostly slang level), word _nick_ may also refer to a prison or a police station, but at the same time it may also mean _to steal_. While I can make a guess that a prison cell is a small hollow place (of sort) and hence further a police station may be called _a nick_ , I'm puzzled as to the meaning _to steal_. How could it have come about?


title: What is the correct punctuation for an indirect question?

text: I'm wondering how it is correct to structure sentence and what punctuation should be used. In particular, is the next sentence correct: > I was wondering if there's any progress on the issue. Or should I put a question mark in the end of it. Also, can it be restructured to: > I was wondering: is there any progress on the issue?


title: How can I say that I'm in progress of become a security analyst on a headline?

text: I would like to state on my LinkedIn's headline that I am in progress of become a security analyst. How could I say it without use that sentence, because that is a sentence not a headline. I had thought on something like _Security analyst apprentice_ but that sounds like if I had no experience, doesn't it? PS: I don't know which tags assign to this question, feel free to add/remove tags more appropriate.


title: "It is I," versus, "I am it"

text: In predicate nominatives, I was taught that you use the subject pronoun on either side. In other words. All of these sentences therefore sound right: > I am it. It is I.   >  You are it. It is you.   >  We are it. It is we.   >  He is it. It is he.   >  They are it. It is they. Why does "he" get the same form of "to be" both ways, but everything else gets a different form of be depending on the situation? Or are half of my sentences ungrammatical?


title: 'to dither' as synonym for 'to hesitate'?

text: The verb **to dither** means to hesitate about what to do because you are unable to decide The verb **to hesitate** means to be slow to speak or act because you feel uncertain or nervous The usage of **to dither** in comparision to **to hesitate** is very seldom. Moreover looking up **to dither** with google search, give this results:   * sense of weakness   * not in control of the hesitation   * pejorative It seems to me as it is colloquial and informal. In my understanding, the verb **to dither** emphasizes the inability to decide, whereas **to hesitate** just emphasizes a break to think about it.   1. Is it correct, that **to dither** is informal and colloquial?   2. When I want to emphasize the inability, do I use     * **to dither**     * **to hesitate** or another synonym? Which one is the best?


title: Finished off the night "with a rubber"

text: Reading the diary of a doctor in Canada, 1845-46, often refers to "having a rubber" at the end of the day which seems like a nightcap. Does anyone know why the word rubber is used?


title: What word can I use instead of "tomorrow" that is not connected with the idea of the rising sun?

text: I'm working on a novel while trying to take into account the historical context surrounding it. It begins in 1140 AD, so the characters would use Old English, Latin, Old French, and other similar languages from that time period. It also features some vampiric characters. Over the years, these vampires have developed their own terminologies to refer to common things, such as relative time, without referring to daylight. _Today_ is easy to conjugate into _tonight_ , and _yesterday_ similarly transfers to _yesternight_ , although that sounds somewhat odd in our language. However, _tomorrow_ is not as easy to translate. _Morrow_ comes from the Old English _morgen_ , which means morning. (Source: American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition) Therefore _tomorrow_ means the next morning in its oldest variant, and the Old-English-speaking vampires would not use _morrow_ or _tomorrow_ , and would come up with their own words. **My question is** , what words exist in a historical context that allow the speaker to refer to time periods without necessarily connoting daytime? Or, if there are none, what words would realistically have developed given the languages present? _Tomorrow_ is the word giving me the most trouble, but I'll also accept other answers that explain how I can refer to time without referring to the daytime. My main concern is staying in context; I don't want to make up words that have no etymological basis. Helpful answers will give a sourced example of where the word was found and how it was used (along with what language it derives from), or an explanation of where the roots they are using to derive the new word and why it makes sense to derive the word from those roots. I'll also accept phrases, since language _is_ complex, and there might be no single word that does the topic justice.


title: "X is not dead, it just smells so"

text: From what I've found the typical form of this phrase is > X is not dead, it just smells that way. Can "that way" be replaced with a _so_ in such a position? > X is not dead, it just smells so.


title: Use of "crack" in this statement?

text: Michael Leiter, NBC News National Security Analyst, was explaining what he thought would be the most important information in the recent MH17 incident. He stated what was more important than _how_ was _who_. > "The new U.S. sanctions that the president put in place a few days ago are > really in response to a view that Russia has not backed down at all, it has > sent troops and it has sent specially weaponry, like these surface to air > missiles to the separatists,” said Leiter. “So, from that perspective, the > U.S. knows he’s been doubling down, the question now for the intelligence > community will be: **Is there any crack in that?** Does he look at this > situation and say this is so bad, that there might be an off-ramp to > deescalate. I don’t think that’s the most likely outcome given Putin’s > background, but I think there’s at least some chance, and that’s the > leadership-intention piece that the US intelligence community will try to > discern over the coming days.” At first reading, I couldn't figure out which meaning of _crack_ he intended; I didn't understand to what he was referring. I take it he's intending this meaning of crack: > a narrow opening or fissure If so, I'm still having difficulty understanding to what _crack_ refers. Is it the alliance between Russia and the separatists? Or is it something else?


title: The sentence with the most prepositions at its end -- does it really work?

text: > What did you bring that book that I don't want to be read to from out of > about 'Down Under' up for? I was wondering whether this sentence is actually correct and if it is, whether someone could explain which preposition points to what in that sentence.


title: How to use "prospective offer" in sentence

text: How do you use _prospective offer_ in a sentence? In this example, I would like to offer someone a deal or an agreement. > We have a **prospective offer** for... > > We have a **prospective offer** to make to...


title: Idiom for "The solution for the problem is the cause itself"

text: Is there an idiom or phrase which means: > The solution for the problem is the cause itself. I was thinking of > Use the snake to suck out the venom which, I'm unsure, is a valid phrase.


Does "safety level" mean the same thing as "level of safety"? I suspect that the former is used as a technical term, with exact definitions of different safety levels. This would be similar to biosafety level, which talks about biocontainment of hazards. In such a scenario, it's describing what (or how much) safety precautions are required. By contrast, I think that "level of safety" is a vague term, which you would use to describe a "high level of safety", or a "low level of safety", such as in this news article College Prep School Demands High Level Of Safety. And that it means that something is either safe, or unsafe. onelook.com doesn't have an exact match for "safety level", nor for "level of safety". Is my suspicion that the phrases have different meanings correct?


title: other meaning of "Editorial"?

text: The following excerpt from _2 States: The Story of My Marriage_ seems to use the word _editorial_ in a way that doesn't match its definition: > "That's not rasam. Whatever it is, it's definitely not rasam. And what's > that, the dark yellow stuff?" > > "Sambhar", the mess worker growled. > > "Eew, looks disgusting! How did you make it?" she asked. > > "You want or not?" the mess worker said, more interested in wrapping up > lunch than discussing recipes. > > While our lady decided, the two boys between us banged their plates on the > counter. They took the food without **editorials** about it and left. I thought that _editorial_ means something related to publishing, and not related to food or cooking. The dictionaries I consulted seem to confirm this: Wiktionary > _noun_ 1\. An article in a publication giving the opinion of its editors on > a given topic or current event. Oxford Dictionary Online > _noun_ a newspaper article expressing the editor’s opinion on a topical > issue   >  _adjective_ relating to the commissioning or preparing of material for > publication These definitions look irrelevant to the context of the excerpt. Is there another dictionary that gives a more relevant definition? What does _editorial_ mean in this context?


title: How do American English and British English use the definite article differently?

text: I decided to make sure that I know this important difference between American and British English, so I wrote what I have found out so far and I would be grateful to anyone who reads this and tells me whether I am wrong, or not. In British English when people say **to hospital** or **in hospital** when talking about somebody being there as a patient they don't use the definite article : "I had to go to hospital", "She spent two weeks in hospital". And the meaning is that somebody was there as a patient. If then for some other reasons British English speakers will use the definite article which will change the meaning itself, I noticed that, in American English, native speakers often use the **the** and if they need to show that somebody is in church to pray, in school as a student, in hospital as a patient, in prison as a prisoner, they use 'in' and not 'at'. Do American English speakers use 'at' like British English speakers use 'the' to give the sentences a different meaning? Are my sentences correct? Do they show American English usage?   * He is in the school. (enrolled as a student)   * He is at the school. (for some different reasons)   * He is in the hospital. (as a patient)   * He is at the hospital. (visiting somebody)   * He is in the church. (to pray)   * He is at the church. (for some different reasons)   * He is in the university. (as a student)   * He is at the university. (not as a student)   * He is in the college. (as a student)   * He is at the college. (Not as a student)   * He is in the prison. (as a prisoner)   * He is at the prison. (not as a prisoner)


title: Can I use "wow" to express surprise but not necessarily with something related to pleasure, but confusion and surprise?

text: For example: "Wow! How can he do that? Unbelievable..." or: "Wow! How can he be so insensible!? Unbelievable..." I would like to double check so I don't become the insensible myself... :)


title: Cards against (the?) humanity

text: In the "cards against humanity" collocation, shouldn't the article _the_ precede _humanity_ , i.e. "cards against the humanity"? Does the word _against_ somehow influence this situation?


title: Term for main part of desktop computer

text: ![Picture of a computer, for question below](http://i.stack.imgur.com/oYDum.png) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Computer-aj_aj_ashton_01.svg How would I describe the part of the desktop computer in this picture that isn't the monitor, keyboard or mouse? The part that contains the CPU, hard drives, CD drives, and other components.


title: Why do websites have Caucasian as a race?

text: It is an archaic, racist in (in the derogatory sense towards non-caucasians) and technically incorrect if sub-sets of "Caucasian" - such as Middle Eastern - exist in the same list. Moreover what is meant is **European** Why not use "European"? I blame early American web sites for this incorrect use of the word (though unknowingly on their part) which the web seems to adopted.


title: How did the words "petting" and "necking" come to mean kissing with passion?

text: I'm sure most of you have heard "necking" to mean kissing with passion; however, before "necking" the popular word among American youth was "petting". _From Flappers to Rappers: The Study of American Youth Slang_ by Dr. Thomas Dalzell states that by the middle of the 1920s folks overwhelmingly were using the word necking instead of petting. The book doesn't state when petting was first used. Nevertheless, I'm most interested as to why folks used petting and necking to describe one who is kissing with passion. Any thoughts?


title: Is "and all" a filler?

text: In L.P.Hartley's "The Go-between", one of the characters says: "I didn't think I would find anyone here, being a Sunday and all." In the 2002 English film "All or Nothing", a woman says: "I'm very lonely". Her husband replies: "Me and all." Is "and all" just a filler with no meaning whatever ? Is it used only in England ?


title: future clause confusion

text: Can I say: > I will let you know what I manage to do To express that after I manage to do something (in the future) I will write/talk with the recipient.


title: Is "and with" grammatical in this sentence?

text: > We have registered nurses working on site with a nutritional background to > provide weight loss advice to clients **and with** at least a 2 year working > experience. Is the part in bold grammatical?


title: Why use "on-pass" / "onpass" instead of "pass on"?

text: Where I work some people use "on-pass" in sentences such as "We get data from the stock exchange and on-pass it to our customers" or "We need to on-pass that information to the other team". Does this mean anything different from "pass on", e.g. "We get data from the stock exchange and pass it on to our customers"? My impressions are it's more used by people in our American office than in our UK one, also, that it wouldn't be used informally (they don't say "Thanks for the tip, I'll on-pass that to Bob"). Edit: (However I've now heard one person in UK office using it, informally; he didn't know why he used it instead of "pass on" when I asked him nicely about it.)


title: Adjective form of trepidation

text: Is there such a thing? I know I can use words like anxious, fearful, etc in its place but none of those words capture the anxiety over the future that trepidation does. Is there some form of trepidation that works?


title: If something is considered the best why is it said to be "the berries"?

text: According to _From Flappers to Rappers: A Study of American Youth Slang_ by Dr. Thomas Dalzell, "the berries" was a 1920s widely used slang term among American youth to describe something wonderful or very good. I shouldn't be surprised if etymology reveals "the berries" to be much older than the 1920s; however, what I'm most curious to know is why anyone would describe something wonderful or very good as "the berries". Any thoughts?


title: "There is no point in" or "There is not a point in"

text: I was thinking about these negations. Do these mean the same thing? > There is no point in ...   >  There is not a point in ... or: > I have no clue   >  I do not have any clue etc.


title: I have no/I don't have any

text: What am I supposed to say if I want to say that I don't possess ssomething? here are some sentences I have trouble with: 1-I have nobody or I don't have anybody? 2-There isn't any sugar or there's no sugar? 3-I have no knives in my bag or I don't have any knives in my bag?


title: "There is no problem" or "there isn't any problem"

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "There is no point in" or "There is not a point in" What's the difference between _there is no problem_ and _there isn't any problem_? Are they both acceptable?


title: Motivated or Motivating

text: Which answer is correct? > The renovation project has been led by a highly `_____` group of designers. > >   * A) motivated >   * B) motivating > If not B, why not?


title: Can I use "scheme" when referring to electronic drawings?

text: When talking about electronic drawings is it correct to use scheme or should I only use schematic?


title: In "Are you staff?" does "staff" need to be preceded with an article?

text: Is it appropriate to say "Are you staff?" when asking someone if they are a staff member, or do you need to say "a staff"? This is regardless of any slang possibly incurred through either spoken, or written English. > Are you staff?   >  Are you a staff? Furthermore, would the same rule apply to a specific organization 'ABC', such as: > Are you an ABC staff?   >  Are you ABC staff?


title: Is there an opposite of "upmost"?

text: I'm writing something that involves the upmost, the righmost, the leftmost and the... damn. It was coming along quite beautifully. What would your choice be?


title: Correct way to write a range of dollar figures

text: What is the best way to express the range from $4.5 billion to $5.2 billion? Is the following correct? > ... between $4.5 and $5.2 billion...


title: Why is the unit of measure placed before the value for currencies? Are there other measures where the unit precedes value?

text: $1,000 is pronounced as "one thousand dollars". Reading from left to right, it seems like it would make more sense to write the value as: 1,000$. This way the pronunciation of the value follows the way it's written. Every other numerical value I can think of places the unit after the value:   * 1 kg   * 1 L   * 1 m, etc... I'm not sure if this question fits in with the rest of the questions on this site. But I'd like to know why currencies are so different from other quantities. Not to mention the need to separate groups of three digits with commas.


title: What is the difference between 20$ and $20?

text: I am seeing both 20$ and $20 usages. (20 is nonessential to this question.) What is the difference between them?


title: Why do we use a leading dollar sign?

text: > **Possible Duplicates:**   >  What is the difference between 20$ and $20?   >  Why is the unit of measure placed before the value for currencies? Are > there other measures where the unit precedes value? We express fifty dollars, not as "50$", but rather as "$50". Other units are expressed with a trailing symbol (20¢, 10m, 5kWh, 6oz). Why are dollars treated specially; what's the history behind this?


title: Why do politicians all say "and" when they state a year number

text: "In two thousand AND eight blah blah blah until two thousand AND thirteen blah blah blah" Is there some grammar rule that if you're stating a year you should say "and" within a number or is there a rule that in politics you should say "and" within a number?