title: That's all they pick on now. (To Have and Have Not by Hemingway)

text: This is from Ernest Hemingway's _To Have and Have Not._ I don't understand the meaning of the following: "That's all they pick on now. Any kind of sporting people. Anybody with any sort of a cheerful outlook." “They tell me they ain’t going to let no girls out on the streets after six o’clock at night and no girls in any of the places,” Freddy says to Big Lucie’s daughter. “That’s what they say.” “It’s getting to be a hell of a town,” Freddy says. “Hell of a town is right. You just walk outside to get a sandwich and a coca-cola and they arrest you and fine you fifteen dollars.” “That’s all they pick on now,” says Big Lucie’s daughter. “Any kind of sporting people. Anybody with any sort of a cheerful outlook.” “If something don’t happen to this town pretty quick things are going to be bad.”


title: "A mice problem" vs. "a mouse problem"

text: My friend said to me one day: "We have a mice problem at UNI". Is "a mice problem" grammatical as opposed to "a mouse problem"?


title: There is / There are

text: I believe it well established that the choice of whether to use "There is" or "There are" with the phrase "a lot of" depends on the following word. For example, you would say:   1. There **is** a lot of wine.   2. There **are** a lot of cars. What is the right form to use for **_a pair of, a bunch of, a group of,_** etc.?


title: Can I say "Intake energy into the grid"?

text: My UK translator always talk about **sold energy** to the "electric grid" but I need to describe the energy that is put in the grid from a generator (paid or not) Now I'm also using " **InakenEnergy** " as a variable name inside my programming code. Is it correct?


title: Use of the word Refrained

text: 'The experience of negative emotions in the flow of life can never be stopped, only refrained!' Is this sentence grammatically wrong since the preposition 'from' does not follow the word refrained?


title: Should there be a space between name initials?

text: In writing authors' initials in research papers (either in the author by-line or the bibliography), should there be a space between intials?   * R.P. Feynman    * R. P. Feynman What's the preferred way of writing it?


title: Usage of “how is everyone”

text: When we ask about well-being when we meet other people, is this the correct usage: > How is everyone at home? or are there any other ways to address this when talking to a person via email or face-to-face?


title: What is the difference between "palazzo" and "palace"?

text: I have noticed that _palazzo_ is used not only in Italian but in English too. So what is the difference between _palazzo_ , and _palace_ (in English)?


title: "Search this website" or "search in this website"

text: Sometimes I see the following expression after a search box: > Search this website. Some people say that the correct expression is > Search _in_ this website. Which is correct, and what is the grammatical explanation?


title: Idiom for "nothing bad will happen" or" nothing bad will not happen"?

text: I just was talking with my Enlish friend and I wanted to use a construction: > If yes - ok, if not - nothing bad will happen, right? I am Russian and I am unsure if there is such idiom in English. It means that if not, no bad things will happen. Also, did I used it correctly? Does "Nothing bad will happen" = "Nothing bad wouldn't happen"? (In my "Russian" mind it is stated this way.)


title: Does 'symbolic' mean the same as 'symbolical', and should one be preferred?

text: Wikipedia's article on vespers contains this passage (my emphasis): > The name, however, by which it was most widely known during that period was > Lucernalis or Lucernaria hora (l. c., 126). This name is characteristic. It > was so called because at this hour a number of candles were lighted, not > only to give light, but also **for symbolical purposes**. I think I would have said **for symbolic purposes**. This got me thinking: do 'symbolic' and 'symbolical' mean the same thing? I couldn't tell you any difference between them. If that's the case, it seems redundant to make use of both. There will be times when one or the other is more appropriate for contextual reasons (eg if you need something to rhyme!), but in general, should we prefer one over the other? I lean towards preferring 'symbolic', because it's shorter and cleaner. More generally, is 'symbolical' some sort of hypercorrection? Or, if not hypercorrection, is it in the same genus as 'burglarize', where words grow unnecessary decorative plumage at the end which emphasises which part of speech they are?


title: What is meant by "same difference"?

text: Unless you are comparing two different sets of items to then have a couple of differences and the differences are the same, I do not get it. This would be analogous to: 12-9=3, 7-4=3. Here we have the same difference. The problem is, I really don't think the average human is comparing two differences when using the term in question.


title: A word for one who perseveres?

text: Is there a noun to describe a person who perseveres? I suppose a _survivor_ is one who has survived difficult circumstances, and a _soldier_ could be one that soldiers on, but neither word has quite the right connotation. I want the sense of "continue in a course of action even in the face of difficulty" without necessarily calling to mind images of trauma or war.


title: Which prepositions should I use after "do your best"?

text: I always have been having problems how to understand which preposition to use. Of course there are examples, in which the preposition is obvious. For me the problem occurs when "Do your best in/on/at x." means "Deal with x as effectively as you can.". Which grammar rules or methods should I use for this case? Examples of phrases I have this problem with include the following:   * I'll do my best on the TOEFL preparation so I'll get a higher score on the exam.   * I'll do my best on the test tomorrow.   * Do your best in achieving this goal.   * Do your best in the planning of our weekend.   * Do your best in filling out the form. The following phrases were changed according to suggestions by Robusto, so now they don't have this problem:   * I see these questions for the first time so I haven't prepared for them. Should I just do my best to guess the right answers?   * You will have only 15 seconds to prepare so do your best to use them effectively. Should I ever write or say "I will do my best at x", when I use it in the meaning "I will cope/deal with x (as good as I will be able to)"?


title: "Spelt" vs. "spelled"

text: In the following sentence, should I say spelled or spelt: > You spelt/spelled "Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" wrong.


title: Sending to a specific person in address

text: How do I specify on an address that it should be forwarded to some person? Sometimes I need to send mail to a company where it should be addressed to a specific person, but it's not the 'address name', another example I have a friend in the US who comes to visit me (outside the US) often, and I want to ship items to him but he should know it's for me and I want to specify it on the mail address. Is the word just 'for John Doe' or it's been thought out and a word's been made up for it?


title: What does "screw up one eye" look like?

text: Here is a quote from Bertrand Russell's _The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism._ > I have never met a personage so destitute of self-importance. He looks at > his visitors very closely, and screws up one eye, which seems to increase > alarmingly the penetrating power of the other. I can't imagine what "screws up one's eyes" looks like. It is even more difficult to imagine "screw up one eye." I think only ostensive definition can help. Please kindly provide a picture.


title: What does the initial fragment of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy mean?

text: I begun reading Douglas Adams' _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_. This is one of the initial fragments, emphasis mine: > This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the > people on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were > suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with > the movements of small green pieces of paper, **which is odd because on the > whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy**. I don't quite grasp what he intended to say with this last line. So, sad people were concerned about money: "which is odd because money wasn't the unhappy one". This doesn't make much sense to me. What is the meaning of this last line?


title: Is the use of the indefinite article 'a' with the word 'staff' considered standard

text: The word _staff_ can apparently refer to a member of a group of service personnel. (Dictionary.com mentions this as one of the meanings of _staff_ : _a member of a staff_.) I was wondering how native speakers look upon this usage of the word _staff_. For example, consider the sentence _I called a staff aside_. I know a less questionable way to rephrase the sentence might be _I called a staff member aside_. But is the first version acceptable; does it sound outlandish?


One Step To Backward - Should I Use "To"? Or Avoid it? One Step To Backward. One Step Backward.


title: the meaning of "need not be uniquely determined"

text: i don't understand the meaning of the "even" and "need not be uniquely determined" in this phrase: True, even the will of supporters of particular parties is still likely to be multidimensional, so partisan interest need not be uniquely determined


title: Meaning of "undertakes to procure"

text: In a contract made between company A and B: _"Company A undertakes to procure the product requirements exclusively from company B"_ What is the meaning of that expression?


title: Grammar question about modifiers

text: I'm not sure if this statement is grammatically correct. It sounds fine, but I'm not sure if the 'with the...' part is right. > With the end of the Great War came a great revolution in the entertainment > industry.


title: 'Take it off him' meaning 'take it from him' is incorrect - but what is the grammatical reason?

text: 'I took it off him' OR 'I took it from him'. I know that the second version is correct (unless it refers to an item that is literally on top of somebody, eg a wardrobe had fallen on someone), but what is the grammatical explanation?


title: Is this a run-on sentence?

text: Is the first sentence a run-on? Should the second sentence use ":" instead of ";"? > Here's giving you the courtesy of informing you, beforehand, that Rahul, a > new housemate, will be moving in this week. He appears to be a very calm > guy; staid and easygoing.


title: Actually work vs Actually does work?

text: Is there any differences between following two sentences. I have seen both in various places and I can't really find a difference between them. > It actually works. > > It actually does work. Does the latter more emphasis on the result ? Is it grammatically correct ? In my view however the latter should be incorrect.


title: What's the difference between "you" and "one" in the indefinite?

text: English, especially in the colloquial, often uses _you_ for generic statements about people. For example, _When you are angry, you act less rationally_ is not necessarily a statement about the listener, but about people in general. However, it's also correct (as far as I know) to say _When one is angry, one acts less rationally_. Is there a difference between these two forms? Is one of them more correct than the other?


title: Origin of "jack sh*t"

text: Why do we say "Jack Shit" to mean "nothing at all"?


title: What is the word for a step that is too small?

text: What word would you use to descripe a step of a process that should be combined with another step because it is too small to be its 'own' step? Example.   1. Create a copy of the file.   2. Rename the file.   3. Make the file name "hello.txt".   4. Open the file.. blah blah blah... You could consider step 2 and 3 to be a single step. What would you describe step 3 as, considering it is a miniscule step and could be combined with 2? Kind of a bad example... I'll try to think of another if I can. Hopefully you understand what I mean by this.


title: What's the tense for repetitive past action?

text: In English, "would" usually denotes a conditional voice. "If I were sleepy, I would go to bed." But I've caught myself using it to denote repetitive or habitual past action. "On Thursdays, we would go to the dump to shoot rats." It sounds perfectly idiomatic (and I don't know what I could replace it with.) What is this called? Is the imperfect in Spanish roughly the same thing?


title: What's the shortest length of time an "era" can be?

text: In day to day usage (by which I mean non-scientifically specific), what would you say is the shortest period of time an _era_ could be? Definitions of the word state: > ...a long and distinct period of history with a particular feature or > characteristic. The thought occurred when I came across a text which said " _from the World War II era_ ". To me this seems a inaccurate use of the word (being ~6 years), but I can't find anything to backup my assertion that it needs to be longer than this.


title: Meaning and Usage of the word 'Welter'

text: Could anyone make this understand to me the meaning and usage of the word 'Welter'? I gone through Vocabulary.com and found this. > Use the noun welter to describe an enormous, messy pile, like the jumble of > papers, coffee mugs, pens, and food wrappers on the desk of the messiest > person in the office How can I use this word as a noun and as a verb in making a correct sentences? Could anyone let me know the more simple and understandable meaning with proper example? **What is the meaning of welter of emotional argument?**


title: When referring to a previously sent text, would you say 'I text you about that' or 'I texted you about that'?

text: I realize _texted_ is not a word, but _text_ doesn't seem appropriate in the above sentence. What would make more sense?


title: Can the verb 'judge' collocate with 'of'?

text: I saw this sentence in an essay: > Children’s cognitive development is on the preoperational stage, so they > cannot consider as logical and judge of dangerous events. I would say "judge sth" or "judge sth on sth" but never heard of "judge of sth" (where _judge_ is a verb and not a noun), so I looked up on some dictionaries and the internet but could not find reliable sources. If this is a legit usage of _judge_ **as a verb** , can you explain and give some examples? And I also want to ask about the phrase “as logical” in the above sentence but that would be another question. But I don't mind if you also explain this :) I don't quite get it. Does it mean “as logical as adult” or simply “logically”, or is it wrong?


title: Do "You see me?" and "You get me?" mean "Do you understand what I mean?"

text: Sometimes after finish explaining something, people will say, "You see me?" or "You get me?" I wonder if they are equivalent to "Do you understand what I mean?"


title: "Same to" or "same as"

text: I have asked a question at the programming site, but I am not sure about my grammar, so I am going to ask here. Which is correct? > What are other languages **same to** F#? > > What are other languages **same as** F#?


title: "No need to hurry yet..."

text: This question is from a diagnostic test of one ESL school in Bangkok. > Ann wonders how much time she has to work on her assigned project. Her > teacher says, “No need to hurry yet **___ __ ___ ____**” > > a) You hit the big team.   >  b) It’s night time.   >  c) Take your time.   >  d) In no time. It's obvious that the best fit answer would be "Take your time." I felt the whole dialogue sounds odd, since Ann wonders "how much time," not "should I worry or hurry," thus it sounds as if Ann doesn't know the deadline yet. I did the test since I was considering sending my niece to learn English there. But the test gave me a second thought. (And not to mention the missing of a period after the word "yet.") My question here is, would a native find the dialogue unnatural?


title: Live on different time zones vs. Live in different time zones

text: How are _on_ and _in_ different in the following: > We live _on_ different time zones > > We live _in_ different time zones


title: What do you call the maximum number of recent values used for calculating an average

text: A sensor measures some physical quantity (like temperature). The measured value is tapped every 100ms or so. An average is calculated over the `x` most recently measured values. I.e. with every new measurement the oldest value will be discarded, the new value will be included and the average will then be recalculated. What is a common term for the size `x`? EDIT: After having found out, that the term for this specific kind of average is "moving average" and having read the corresponding wikipedia article, I believe "sample size" may be the right term. Would that be correct? Is there a better word?


title: Term for locally installed and fully owned software

text: I am having a bit of trouble coming up with an appropriate term for software that is locally installed, and fully owned by the buyer. This would be the opposite of the term "software as a service", which usually refers to a software service that is rented and most often installed outside the organisation (e.g. Cloud software). Would you have any suggestions? "Local installation" is what comes to mind first, but it doesn't quite fit the bill here since it doesn't indicate the ownership explicitly.


title: How do I use "verily"?

text: Since verily means truly or certainly. Can I use it where I would normally use certainly? Like: > I certainly think that is appropriate. > > I verily think that is appropriate. If yes, are there instances where these are not interchangeable?


title: When did periphrastic tenses stop being tenses?

text: English sometimes has several different ways of expressing the same thing. For example, it can form a possessive either by using an old case inflection:   * The **dog’s** tail was always wagging. Or it can do so periphrastically:   * The tail **of the dog** was always wagging. Those are both possessives, the one an inflectional possessive and the other a periphrastic possessive. The same appears to be possible with tenses, too, not just with possessives. In Jeremy Butterfield’s _The Arguments of Time_ (OUP 2006), he writes: > A tense is _inflectional_ if it is realized as an affix on a head (in > English, a verb), _periphrastic_ if it is realized as an independent word. > Thus the English past is inflectional, but the future is periphrastic, co- > opting the modal _will_. This accords with the OED’s definition of _tense_ : > _Gram._ Any one of the different forms or modifications **(or word-groups)** > in the conjugation of a verb which indicate the different times (past, > present, or future) at which the action or state denoted by it is viewed as > happening or existing, and also (by extension) the different nature of such > action or state, as continuing (imperfect) or completed (perfect); also > _abstr._ that quality of a verb which depends on the expression of such > differences. Indeed, one of the citations under that sense draws attention to this: >   * The **tenses of the English verb** are made partly by inflection, partly > by the use of **auxiliary verbs**. > As far as I can tell, _tense_ cannot be just an alias for “inflection” as some here have been saying. At least, not if the sources cited above are to be believed. ## And my question is. . . Aren’t these **_all_** tenses, both the inflectional1 tenses and the periphrastic2 tenses alike? * * * 1\. _Inflectional_ tenses are sometimes also known as _synthetic_ tenses.   2\. _Periphrastic_ tenses are sometimes also known as _analytic_ tenses, or _analytical_ tenses — or sometimes, _compound_ tenses. * * * When did compound tenses stop being tenses? Or have they? Isn’t that what these people who pretend that ‘English has no future tense’ are actually saying, that periphrastic tenses are not tenses? If so, then the OED does not support the notion. Under their definition of _periphrastic_. . . > Of the nature of, characterized by, or involving periphrasis; > circumlocutory; roundabout. . . . they have a note, which covers both verbs and possessives: >   * _**periphrastic conjugation_** (in Grammar), a conjugation formed by the > combination of a simple verb and an auxiliary, as distinct from a simple > formation from the verb-stem.   > >   * _**periphrastic genitive_** , an equivalent of the genitive case, formed > by aid of a preposition, as _of_ in Eng., _de_ in Fr. > So periphrastic forms seem real, whether as tenses or genitives. I do not see how _periphrastic_ started to mean ersatz or bogus or fake. So why have some people begun to treat periphrastic tenses as fake tenses? No, they aren’t inflectional tenses, but why does this matter? Other languages have plenty of kinds of periphrastic tenses, and nobody discounts them there. So why have they started trying to discount them in English? * * * ## Other Tongues If one were allowed to bring Romance into the picture, then it might be useful to point out that sometimes both inflectional and periphrastic versions of the same tense exist, and that nobody there ever pretends one is a tense and the other is not.   * In Latin, periphrastic conjugations existed, allowing you to use _portātūrus sum_ for “I’m going to carry”, which coëxists with the purely inflectional future, _portābō_. This is like how in modern Romance you can have both an inflectional future tense (FR _je porterai_ ; ES _portaré_ ) and a periphrastic future tense (FR _je vais porter_ ; ES _voy a portar_ ).   * In French, for example, you can put a present-tense sentence like _je porte_ into the past in either of two equivalent ways: via the passé composé with _j’ai porté_ or via the passé simple with _je portai_. No one calls the first one present tense there, because it is not perceived as such. Similarly, the pluperfect exists only as a compound/periphrastic tense in French, but _j’avais porté_ is not called the past tense (even though _avais_ itself is in the imparfait), but rather the pluperfect, the plus-que-parfait.   * In Spanish, there are two versions of the pluperfect tense, a rare inflectional one and a common periphrastic one. The compound version of the pluperfect indicative is _había portado_ , whereas the purely inflectional version is _portara_ (which is normally one of the two imperfect subjunctives). Those are both considered to be in the pluperfect. Nobody calls _había portado_ as being in the imperfect just because _había_ is; that would be wrong: it is in the pluperfect.   * In modern Romance, the inflectional future and the inflectional conditional were once periphrastic tenses but are now inflectional ones. The present-tense auxiliary was used for the then-compound future, and the imperfect-tense auxiliary was used for the then-compound conditional. Specifically, they used either a present-tense or past-tense form of _to have_ , inflected for person and number, appended to the infinitive. Eventually this became fused in writing — completely fused in most of them but only partially fused in Portuguese, where mesoclitics are still permitted. The compound tense did not suddenly become a “real” tense just when people stopped writing it with a space, nor does it cease to be one when in Portuguese a mesoclitic intervenes. * * * ## See also   * Whose tense is it, anyway?


title: Words for personal views on life, society, world

text: I am looking for   1. words for the view of a person on his life or others' lives;   2. words for the view of a person on the whole society, nation, country and/or the world; By "view", I mean what things are meaningful and what are not, what are worth to do and what are not, what are right and what are wrong, ... They can be either nouns or adjectives.


title: Word request: miscellaneous/supplementary (historical) accounts

text: I'm working on a site focusing on performing artists and I need a category for all the articles that (1) don't belong anywhere else (2) more often than not, offer behind-the-scenes insights and miscellaneous historical accounts. My research so far:   * _behind the scenes_ : too narrow, excludes misc. articles   * _miscellany, miscellaneous_ : too generic/boring   * _trivia_ : too flippant   * _ancillary_ : too technical   * _addendum_ : too formal   * _annals_ : too formal


title: Is it possible to say ' your choice *for* something' when you mean 'your choice *of* something'?

text: I'm correcting a document and several people that co-wrote it seem to agree that 'my choice for' seems to be synonymous to 'my choice of', in the signification of me having chosen something and indicating what exactly my choice was. E.g. 'my choice for Japan as my travel destination'. To me this seems wrong, a choice 'for' should be used to indicate a reason or goal, or a person that will be affected by the decision in my experience with English ('I chose a book for English class' - 'my choice for my daughter's education is school X'). Is this true or is saying 'my choice for chicken as dinner' correct English?


title: "high-reliable", "highly reliable", or something else?

text: There was a discussion with my colleagues about a paper that I am currently writing and in which I use phrases like "a high-reliable system architecture". Some of my colleagues hold the view that this is wrong and "a highly reliable system architecture" should be used instead, while others think that the first version is fine, too. Is the first variant correct?


title: A person you have a relationship for only business

text: In a piece of software, what would I call a person you have a relationship for only business in real life. He/she is not your friend and you are **not working in same place**. For instance, you are freelancer, and someone wants you hire. So what would I call that person?


title: "My parents' friendship with..." vs. "my parent's friendship with..." vs. "my parents friendship with..."

text: Which of these is correct please, if any? >   * my parents' friendship with Sally's parents >   * my parent's friendship with Sally's parents >   * my parents friendship with Sally's parents > What is the correct use of possessive apostrophe in this case?


title: I with my friends vs my friends and I

text: I'm pretty sure it's not correct to say **I with my friends go to the cinema every weekend**. However I sometimes hear it from other Russians. I have to use "and" instead of "with" and put this like this **My friends and I go to the cinema every weekend**. I'm still wondering what if... Am I right or wrong?


title: "Directed at" vs. "directed towards"

text: These seem to be interchangeable. Are these both grammatically correct? Is there any difference at all? When are "at" and "towards" interchangeable?


title: English does not have a future tense--what do you think?

text: Some say English does not have a future tense. In fact, wikipedia describes it as follows. > English grammar provides a number of ways to indicate the future nature of > an occurrence. Some argue that English does not have a future tense—that is, > a grammatical form that always indicates futurity—nor does it have a > mandatory form for the expression of futurity. However, there are several > generally accepted ways to indicate futurity in English, and some of > them—particularly those that use will or shall—are frequently described as > future tense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_tense#English I wonder what arguments are out there. How do the ways to express future develop historically. Let me know what you know. * * * I am interested in linguistic arguments about this. And I though historical development of ways to express future may help to consider this. I am not an English native speaker so that I do not really knows how English native speakers are told about this: the grammar about tenses and a future tense, definition of tenses, etc. When I learned English in school, the teachers told me the present tense first, past tense, and then progressive. And finally they told us how to express future, using "will" or so. Some students could take it as future tense, but it did not matter because they teach how to use and understand English not the grammatical interpretation. As I described, some students in school are convinced future tense exists by analogy of past and present tenses, and later they are sort of shocked, told NO future tense in English. I am not sure that I clearly describe what I would like to ask, but this is the reason I post this question. And probably my problem is that I do not know any details about the grammar about this.


title: What should one call his or her mother-in-law?

text: We call our own mother "mum". What should we call our mother-in-law? In China, we call our mother-in-law "mum" as well. Do English speaking people feel comfortable calling their mother-in-law "mum"? Could we simply call our mother-in-law by her first name? **EDIT** : I thought it was just about everyday conversation and not about complicated cultural practice. To be clear, I'm not asking what to call mother-in-laws in different cultures. Rather, I just want to know what native people in countries like U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada and New Zealand call their mother-in-law in daily conversation.


title: Which is correct: "lying gang of scum", or "gang of lying scum"?

text: The subject of politics arose in the pub this afternoon (as it should not, really, but there you are), and the question of whether it was correct to describe a particular party as a "lying gang of scum", or a "gang of lying scum" came to the fore quickly (as it will, in discussions of politics). Could anyone suggest which is correct, or (if both) which is preferable?


title: Term for people in artistic formation

text: Is there a term for a group of people arranged in such a way as to appear from an aerial vantage as a specific shape, picture or word? Examples: ![Peace sign](http://i.stack.imgur.com/eqInb.jpg) ![Heart](http://i.stack.imgur.com/DjczH.jpg)


title: What does "back-slap" mean?

text: What does _back-slap_ mean in this sentence? > Back-slap someone in Korea and they will be offended.


title: what would you call a guy everybody picks on?

text: Let's say we have a guy who is stupid and weak and everybody picks on him and mocks him all the time. What would we call this guy? I found _timid_ in the dictionary but I am looking for a colloquial word.


title: "Fez" or "Tarboosh"?

text: Having recently got involved in an inconclusive argument on the subject the other day, I'd like to know which of these names is best when describing the hat worn in the Middle East. Merriam-Webster defines a _fez_ as a > brimless cone-shaped flat-crowned hat that usually has a tassel, is usually > made of red felt, and is worn especially by men in eastern Mediterranean > countries and defines a _tarboosh_ as a > red hat similar to the fez worn especially by Muslim men but this doesn't get us very far. Does it matter what this hat is called, and if it does, what is the preferred term?


title: Does saying I have "functional understanding" of something convey that I understand its functions?

text: If I say, > "I have a functional understanding of car engines" does this convey:   1. I understand how car engines function (this is what I originally thought)   2. My understanding of car engines is functional (which doesn't make much sense, but what I suspect is correct) So if I wanted to tell someone I understand how a car engine functions, I would say: > "I understand how a car engine functions" and not: > "I have a functional understanding of car engines"


title: Different forms of the abbreviations for "identification"?

text: Which of the following are correct?                     right   wrong     ID    [x]     [ ]     i.d.  [x]     [ ]     I.D.  [ ]     [ ]     Id    [ ]     [ ]     I.d.  [ ]     [ ]     id    [ ]     [ ]      Marked the ones i found in dictionary.com And what are the correct pluralized versions?


title: "The clubs and societies enjoy boom."

text: "The clubs and societies enjoy boom." The meaning intended to convey is that the various clubs and societies organized in the universities are flourishing. The word "boom" can be used like this "there is a boom in something". Since "there is" to a certain extent indicates "having", so is this appropriate?


title: "Dabble" in a positive sense

text: Can the word "dabble" be used in a positive sense? As in, > A true "master of all trades", he has dabbled in several fields & > contributed to numerous scientific advances.


title: Is there a name for the type of noun is produced by adding the sufix 'ness' to an adjective?

text: Is there a name for the type of noun is produced by adding the suffix 'ness' to an adjective? For example: Greedy - greediness lonely - loneliness


title: "After given" or "after being given"

text: > **After given** the chicken feed, the crickets become big and strong. This sentence is wrong, isn't it? It should be > **After being given** the chicken feed, the crickets become big and strong. Is that correct?


title: How to punctuate spoken dialog with multiple levels of nested clauses?

text: I'm trying to do an audio transcription (for fun—I'm a complete amateur at this) and struggling with how to punctuate this part. Could anyone please help?               We've designed this around the functions of nature, so, at certain times, and it's very relevant we choose the right time—         more timing, not just technique—             strategy again coming in, another time element—     not when the rainfall is less than the evaporation—         if the evaporation is very high at that time of year, you leave the shade—             shade is better than mulch—     but when the rainfall is higher than the evaporation,     we can speed up this cycle.      I've put in em dashes (and indented the inner clauses) where they might belong, except that I'd be nesting them 2 or 3 levels deep, which I don't believe is allowed. In general, what would you do if you had 3, 4, or even 5 or more nested layers of clauses?


title: Is there a term or phrase for the one paying a bill that is later split?

text: Sometimes when splitting bills one of the group members has to pay the entire bill first to later be reimbursed by the other group members. Is there an English term for who that person is or _what the person does_? Simple situation example: > I can [...] if you pay me back tomorrow.


title: Using "utilize" instead of "use"?

text: My friend has been raising a ruckus about the abuse of the word "utilize" in place of the word "use." He complains that it just makes your sentences sound pretentious. **u·ti·lize** [yoot-l-ahyz]   * verb (used with object), -lized, -liz·ing. to put to use; turn to profitable account: to utilize a stream to power a mill.  utilize. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved April 06, 2011, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utilize Today we saw this post which uses "utilize": > each app vendor may utilize unique policies for app pricing." He claims that this isn't a very good sentence to use "utilize" in. I don't disagree but what determines whether or not you should use "utilize" in place of "use?"


title: English words that are both nouns and "connectors"?

text: I am trying to solve a word puzzle and am stumped by something. The puzzle contains several sentences (two of which are below), and I have to figure out the missing words that are represented by " _W_ " variables (W1 - W3):               There is a W1 in the W2 W3 is near where the road bends which contains very important items.     For instance, the top of the W3 is on the counter.      What is stumping me is **W3**. The only words I can think of that would syntactically fit for the first sentence are " _which_ " or " _that_ ":               There is a W1 in the W2 which is near where the road bends which contains very important items.     There is a W1 in the W2 that is near where the road bends which contains very important items.      But neither of those are syntactically correct for the second sentence:               For instance, the top of the which is on the counter.     For instance, the top of the that is on the counter.      It seems as though **W3** is both a noun and a "connector" (not sure what the proper term is) word. It seems to be a noun because it apparently has a top- side (" _...the top of the W3..._ "). And it seems to be a "connector" because it can be used in a _similar_ context of which/that (which out of ignorance I am referring to when I say "connector word"). So I ask (specific question relating to the English language and its usage): **Are there words in the English language that fit this bill (both nouns and "connectors")? If so what are they called and what are some examples of them?**


title: Request for a natural version of "Whether you will succeed or not lies in the use you make of chance."

text: "Whether you will succeed or not lies in the use you make of chance." This sentense does not sound very idiomatic. Could you suggest a more natural expression?


title: What is the difference between these two types of negation?

text: What is the difference between:- >   1. Ali is rich,but he isn't happy. > >   2. Ali is rich, but he is unhappy. > >


title: "Trace" as a synonym for "trail" in AE

text: As far as AE is concerned, does "trace" mean just about the same as "trail" in "break/blaze a trace", and -- if indeed it does -- can "trace" be used pretty much interchangeably in every which literal sense of "trail"? > _It takes about two people to **break a trace** through the brush ahead_... > source > > _Only tortuous paths and **blazed traces** led over the Appalachians_... > source


title: bank cards: the same as debit card, or catch-all for debit and credit card

text: I've been asked by a student whether 'bank card' is a common synonym for debit card. I started by checking wikipedia whose article on bank cards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_card) points towards it including both debit, credit and other cards. However, the article on debit cards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debit_card) seems to imply that bank card is indeed a synonym of debit card. While searching EL&U, I found an answer to the question (Is there a term which covers ATM cards, credit cards, and debit cards?) that clearly states that, at least in Canada, bank card is a synonym for debit card. So... Is bank card a general synonym for debit card, or is this true only in some English-speaking countries? And if so, which countries? In the countries where this is true, which term is preferred in everyday speech?


title: Is the usage of "I couldn't tell X apart" correct?

text: Example: > The forest was dark and the trees too many. I could hardly **tell shadows > apart.** Is the usage of _apart_ correct in the passage above? (I'm wondering about this because a Google Books search returned only one result).


title: Should I say "domesticable" or "domesticatable"?

text: What should I say to sound better, " _domesticable_ " or " _domesticatable_ "?


title: What does "be proactively available to help others" mean?

text: * Actively going to others to provide help even if they don't need it?   * Being available actively to help others whenever they need it?   * Or something else?


title: Why do we say "to be a laughing stock"?

text: I've come through the expression **" _to be a laughing stock_ "** to talk about a person who has done something stupid and who people laugh at because of that, and I've started to wonder about it. First of all, why do we say **_laughing_** using a gerund when this is normally used in active meaning, in the sense of someone/something which creates an effect (e.g. an _interesting_ book, a _cutting_ remark, a _boring_ person, etc)? It would make more sense to say **_laughed_** , as the past participle is frequently used in passive mode, thus underlining that we are the object of other people's laughter. Secondly, I've gone through the various meanings of the term **_"stock"_** (as in finance, animal raising, supply of things, food, punishment and other areas), but the only expression which seems to be partially relevant here is "stock" being used to indicate the degree to which someone is respected or liked by others, according to OED. However, the term in this meaning is indicated as uncountable. Does anybody know what **_"stock"_** stands for and what the origin of the expression is? And let's not forget about the grammatical side to the question, please...


title: "What just happened?" vs "What did just happen?"

text: I've always used "What did just happen?" because I believe we are asking about the object of the verb "happen" so I use an auxiliary and the infinitive. However, I've heard native speakers say "What just happened?", is this correct too?


title: Is this shorter phrase awkward?

text: In legalese, while describing a party which loses the capacity to perform certain obligation, is it awkward to say "During the course of the calamity, the performance incapacitated (or disabled) party shall ..." instead of "During the course of the calamity, the party who is incapacitated by the said event to perform the obligation, shall…"? I would be happy to know if there are better ways to convey the meaning succinctly.


title: Prepositions used with "renovation"

text: I've been asked to approve a bronze plaque reading "Capital improvements and renovation to this organ were made possible by...." The organ builders objected that "renovation to" is a barbarism. It seems to me that part of the problem is trying to use one preposition with two nouns, but in this case I'm not sure that the preposition works well with either of them.


title: Why do we describe a problem or experience as "hairy"?

text: I'm curious about the use/history of "hairy", as in _Golly Dan, that was a pretty hairy math exam, wasn't it?_ My dictionary sources identify two definitions unrelated to hair: the first can be summarized as "causing fright or anxiety", which I semi-confidently assume relates to "hair-raising"; the other is "difficult to deal with or comprehend" (from Merriam Webster). It's this latter that I'm curious about. How did we come to say that something difficult is "hairy"?


title: "Using Verb Tenses in Sequence"

text: http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/vbseq.html Here, what does 'sequence' mean? Does it mean 'multiple sentences'? Or it means 'a paragraph'?


title: What does this poem mean? "It's not the cough that'll carry you off It's the coffin they'll carry you off in"

text: What does this poem mean? > It's not the cough that'll carry you off   >  It's the coffin they'll carry you off in


title: What does "Hollaback Girl" mean?

text: Gwen Stefani says, "I ain't no hollaback girl" in her song. What does it mean?


title: How should I pluralise “as is”?

text: Let’s say I write: “ _Just send me these documents **as is_** ”. Is that correct? Should it be pluralised into “ ** _as are_** ”, which sounds so wrong to me? Or are they both incorrect, in which case I may write “ ** _as they are_** ”?


What does the American idiomatic expression "2 x 4" exactly mean? I've read a very interesting book by Father Donald H. Calloway, _No turning back_ (an autobiography and a conversion story), and chapter 10 is entitled "The divine 2 x 4". Could that mean the divine surprise, the divine intervention?


title: What is the word that means a person has confused two terms with one another?

text: Is there a better verb than "confuse" in this passage: > Joe has confused the terms A, B, and C. When describing B he used the > attributes of A. Also, Joe used attributes of C when discussing A.


title: What is the correct word for a person whom I am interacting with?

text: I need to program computer agents that interact with each other (for example they play a computer game with each other). Sometimes it happens that two agents are interacting with each other. I need to find a word to describe who they are to each other. I have the following options:   1. opponent   2. companion   3. partner My main requirement is that the word should be neutral (since the interaction can be of different kinds: cooperation, competition, fight). I am afraid that _opponent_ is a bit "negative" (in the sense that it assumes that two agents are enemies, that they are fighting). _Partner_ , in contrast, seems to be positive to me (assuming that agents cooperate with each other). What about _companion_? Or may be you can propose other words?


title: Is there a word for something which will run before and after an event?

text: If concurrent means two things running at the same time, is there a single word for something which will occur before and after an event? E.g. Running concurrently with the show will be a bar open for refreshments. / The bar will be open [before and after] the show for refreshments.


title: What's the difference between care and care about?

text: I want to know if there is any distinction between care and care about. For instance, I often say 'What do I care about?' rather than 'What do I care?'. I looked up the Merriam-Webster dictionary and it did not help. It seems care and care about are almost the same. Sure I know in care about, care is an intransitive verb. My possibly wrong guess is that care about puts more emphasis on the object that we care while care is very much focused on the verb itself. 'What do I care about' is really weird like you guys said. It should be 'What does somebody else care about?'. My bad :).


title: What are the historic definitions of the word dragon?

text: Today, the term dragon is universally used for mythical, non-existent creatures that resemble dinosaurs in some ways. I thought I heard once from someone quoting a dictionary from 1600 something that the definition was "A very rare, but still living creature". This implies that the author thought that dragons were a real thing. I don't expect there to be much overlap today from its ancient use because there is a lot of entertainment fiction written on the subject since 1900. I want to know how the word has been used in the past and if there were descriptions of what a dragon actually is/was from before 1850's, when the word "dinosaur" was coined. I am also particularly interested if the people of those times thought the creatures were real.


title: Expression for temporarily moving into a another place

text: I am looking for an expression that emphasizes moving into a friends place without having to paying rent. Only because your friend is doing you a favor. I am planning to using it in the line below. > I had to cut expenses by moving out of my place and 'right phrase' friends > apartments. This line can change though.


title: Are terms like "policeman" still gender-exclusive if they refer to one specific man?

text: I'm reading a news article about a male police officer and the author calls him a "policeman." This word seems unsophisticated to me, but is it still sexist if it refers to a man?


title: More appropriate word for a "shape" of environment

text: I am researching about exploration in robotics field, for example, how to make roomba (I hope you all might know this cleaning robot) explore more efficiently in an office room. For some cleaning robots, they try to use a shape of the room to decide the efficient path for the robots to explore and clean the room. Since this kind of exploration plans are not necessary limiting to only room. It can be any environment. For example, we want a robot to clean on the table, so here we use the shape of table's surface (which is usually square or circle ) to make effective path. So here comes the question. I want to use more appropriate word for "the shape of environment." Because "shape" can be more than 2 dimension and I want to mean only the draft line of shape of environment like the lines you draw on soccer field, basketball field, etc. What I am only thinking of now are "the boundary of environment" or "the outline of environment." Any suggestion would be appreciated.


title: Is there a "correct" way to perform scansion in poetry?

text: Is there a foolproof or "rigorous" way to accurately and repeatably perform scansion in English poetry? It seems highly subjective at times. For example, I can pretty easily grasp the iambic tetrameter in Frost's `Whose woods these are I think I know`, but can't follow the spondee / iambic / anapest / iambic in his `Two roads diverged in a yellow wood`. My understanding is that you can't just look up the words in a dictionary and determine which syllables are stressed and which ones aren't to perform scansion. The stresses in the line are relative to each other and "stressed" syllables in scansion may appear unstressed in a dictionary pronunciation guide. Is it really up to the reader to "hear" the poem correctly to perform scansion? Are there any linguistic computer algorithms that "hear" the words in order to perform scansion?


title: "Has much nature" or "is very green"

text: If we want to say that > Our college has a lot of trees and flowers in a somewhat abstract manner, which is better? > Our college has much nature. > > There is much nature in our college. > > Our college is very green. Is there any appropriate expression? According to a book, when _nature_ is used without an article, the word means _a wild nature_. Therefore, you should use _be very green_.


title: Meaning of the "rupt" suffix/prefix

text: I was wondering the other day about the word corrupt, found that the suffix "rupt" appears in many words and as a prefix for another set and decided to ask this question: What does "rupt" mean? corrupt - "core"(I assume) + rupt = broken core ? rupture - rupt + verb-type thing = broken then there's all of these , mainly (if not prefixed with a negative) meaning a (on some higher level) to break an existing state of being This is all very poorly phrased and I apologise, I'm just not entirely capable of expressing exactly what I mean, which is why I made the examples.


title: What do you call the sound produced when baying?

text: Hounds tend to "bay" rather than "bark". When a dog barks, you can say "he let out a loud bark". In a similar construction emphasizing the hound-ness of the creature, can you say "he emitted a loud bay that echoed through the chamber"? Or would it be a bark regardless?


title: How is a thought within a story within a story indicated?

text: If a story is being told within a story so that it is italicized and a character within this sub-story expresses a thought, something normally italicized, how is that thought conveyed? I would think that one would place that thought in quotes.


title: Can "x-percent in savings" mean "an x-percent savings rate"?

text: A PolitiFact article rating a statement by Newt Gingrich has the headline: > In Chile "they have 72 percent of the GDP in savings." That is immediately followed by the subhead: > Newt Gingrich says Chile has 72 percent national savings rate. This pertains to a statement from one of the recent Republican debates. A transcript of the event gives the full sentence as: > The result is in Chile , for example, 72 percent — they have 72 percent of > the GDP in savings. PolitiFact originally rated Gingrich's statement false because Chile's savings rate was nowhere near 72%. They later revised their rating to half-true after a reader pointed out that PolitiFact itself reported in 2009 that the Chilean savings plans assets were 65% of GDP. But in their conclusion, they put the onus on Gingrich: > Gingrich said that in Chile "they have 72 percent of the GDP in savings." > The number is basically right, but Gingrich erred in how he described the > statistic. On balance, we rate his statement Half True. However, when I read the statement, I cannot see how a rate of savings is implied. Using _have_ along with _in savings_ would seem to indicate the current state rather than an ongoing action. But PolitiFact employs professional journalists. One would assume they are very familiar with the English language. What is the proper interpretation of Gingrich's statement? Or is it ambiguous?


**What is the meaning of “heavier than heavenly”?** I googled that but I didn't find the meaning. Google said it's as same as “heavier than heaven” and it's the name of a 2001 biography of musician Kurt Cobain, the frontman of the grunge band Nirvana. So what's the meaning? I also found this link. According to that, it means **Not suitable for heaven (too good for heaven)**. Is this correct? ## Update By the way, I found this phrase in song called _On Our Way_ by _Lana Del Rey_. Here.


title: Would you tell me the difference between object and objective as a noun?

text: I am very confused. Could you possibly elaborate ( _in detail_ ) **the reason** why: > My object is to _improve_ my English as much as possible. [ _WRONG it should > be 'objective'_ ] > > My object is to learn English. [ _RIGHT_ ] > > The object of the game is to _improve_ children's math skill. [ _RIGHT_ ] So, why has Longman written the following: > **!** Do not use _object_ to mean 'the thing you are working towards and > hope to achieve'. Use _objective_ : We have not yet achieved our objective > (NOT our object). Is Longman here wrong? All of the expressions and examples which I have provided are extracted from Longman (see link below) and Common Errors from Longman too. http://www.ldoceonline.com/Grammar-topic/object_1


title: Is "A Project Guide to UX Design" correct grammar?

text: > A Project Guide to UX Design. This is the title of a book I got from Amazon. But I dont think the title makes sense. I did a Google search for the exact term "a project guide" and got very few results. Maybe a Project managers' guide, or a project guideline. UX stands for User Experience, by the way. But 'A project guide to' anything seems incorrect to me. Any thoughts?


title: A finger is a component of a hand, a hand is the X of a finger

text: I'm working with a set of relationships between things, relationships that need descriptors. > John is a _child_ of Susan, Susan is a _parent_ of John; a _parent-child_ > relationship. > > Milk is a _product_ of cows, cows are a _source_ of milk; a _source-product_ > relationship. > > A finger is a _component_ of a hand, a hand is the __ of a finger; a __ > _-component_ relationship. This gap could be filled by an unwieldy phrase like, "thing that is comprised of other things, such as", but I'd much rather use a single word instead. Is there a word that can fill the gap in my example sentence?


title: In a formal document, may the hyphen be omitted from "e-mail"?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "Email" or "e-mail"? For a formal document such as a CV, would it be acceptable to use the term "email", or is only "e-mail" acceptable?


title: How should I understand the word "bound" in this sentence?

text: The following is an excerpt from the book _100 Greatest Science Discoveries of All Time_ by Kendall Haven. > Charles Darwin entered Cambridge University in 1827 to become a priest, but > switched to geology and botany. He graduated in 1831 and, at age 22, took a > position as naturalist aboard the HMS Beagle **bound** from England for > South America and the Pacific. There are more than 30 entries about the word " **bound** " in the Merriam- Webster Collegiate Dictionary. I am not able to tell which one is correct. How should I understand it in the excerpt above? **Edited:** Is this question too stupid? The problem is that I don't understand the part of speech for this word here. Furthermore I am not able to judge the pattern of the second sentence. **Edited:** This is a very common word in mathematics. However, it is difficult for me to pick up the exact meaning from bunch of entries due to my inefficiency in English when this word is of its uncommon (for me) usage.


title: What does "non-afirmated" artist mean?

text: I often hear this term "afirmated artists" or sometimes "non-afirmated artists", but I couldn't find meaning in the dictionary. What exactly could it be? See, for example, the International Festival of Student Theatre and Multimedia 2010 > Participants can be students, young non afirmated artists, professionals or > non professionals. Main criteria for selection will be, as it was in the > past, the quality of work, dedication in exploring your own creative > potential and social engagement that attributes artistic creations of > students (young people).


title: What do you call someone who decides to do something even though they know its wrong

text: Is there a word that described someone who decides to do something even though they know it's wrong?


title: Suspect and doubt + negative sentence

text: Could you tell me the difference in meaning between > I suspect he did not do it and > I doubt he did not do it ?


title: Meaning of "holloway"

text: Does it mean just "hollowed underground way" or there is something else? Word is taken from fantasy text.


title: A person who goes to gymnastics school -- a 'student' or a 'pupil?'

text: I am trying to find an exact answer of this question: Is a person who goes to gymnastics school a 'student' or a 'pupil?'


title: Questions on question mark with a certain type of sentence

text: Do you use a question mark when a sentence starts as a question but then turns into a statement? For example, "Can you explain this to me, because I don't understand the second part." Another example would be, "What did he just say, because I couldn't hear him over the noise of the television." I usually use a period but don't know if that is correct.


what's the meaning of "It is generally held that"? e.g. It is generally held that already during this period Egypt was losing some of its power and dominance


title: "Participate in" or "participate on"?

text: Which is the correct preposition in the sentence below? Why? > Participated **in/on** producing quality software solutions for leading > global insurance and reinsurance companies.


title: Can Neither-Or be used?

text: My friend was reading the book "The Fault in Our Stars" by John Green and she found what seems to be a grammar mistake. The following sentence is found in the author's note: > Neither novels or their readers benefit from attempts to divine whether any > facts hide inside a story. Isn't it grammatically correct to say "nor" instead of "or"?


title: "suffer" and "lack" can be used together?

text: Can I say: > The assets **suffer** from a lack of reliability. Is suffer an admissible word in this context?


title: What does "sq" mean when referencing page or verse numbers?

text: In the book I am reading (Patrick Fairbairn, _The Interpretation of Prophecy_ , 2nd ed., 1865), the abbreviation "sq." is used sometimes in referencing both Scripture and other books (as "Typology of Scripture, vol. i. p. 100 sq." or "Ezek xxvi. 7, sq."). What does "sq." mean in this context? (Instances of this abbreviation's usage may be found at Google Books here.)


title: doesn't worry about what others think, independent confident

text: How would you describe someone who doesn't worry about what other people think? Someone who has the confidence to think for themselves. It could be a quality or adjective. One word preferred


I found above mentioned sentence in a article is it some proverb? What does this mean? Below I am copying paragraph where I found this. May be this would be helpful to answer. > **Only a waning candle sheds its light around.** It is related that Abul > Hassan Ali, a jurist and friend of Al-Beruni visited him when he was > terminally ill. Al-Beruni requested him to repeat the mathematical problem > he was once discussing with him. Thinking that it was not an appropriate > occasion to talk about it, the jurist remained silent. Al-Beruni insisted > upon having a reply and said: “Is it not better to die with knowledge then > to die in ignorance?” Abul Hassan repeated that problem to which Beruni > listened intently and grasped it. A few moments later he passed away at the > age of 75 in 1048 A.D. and was laid to rest at Ghazna. Thus, he acted upon > the saying of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace and blessings be upon him): > “Acquire knowledge from the cradle to the grave.” **Note: I have googled but didn't find anything helpful.**


title: What is this form of humor called?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there a name for this type of sentence structure: "She looks as though > she's been poured into her clothes, and forgot to say 'when'"? I'm providing an absurd example here, but bear with me. Consider the following "joke": > Some chick invited Tim Tebow to her senior prom which is just plain > ridiculous, everyone knows he won't put out. Now, the source of the humor in this is the implicit assumption that inviting Tim Tebow to a prom is ridiculous, however the author then says that this ridiculousness is for an entirely different reason, contradicting our (the reader's) initial assumption. This is obviously but inexplicably humorous. Is there a name for this mechanism?


title: What do you call such sentences?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there a name for this type of sentence structure: "She looks as though > she's been poured into her clothes, and forgot to say 'when'"? Is there a term for sentences which are an altered form of a famous quote, the alteration being a change in the second part of it for humor? Examples: > To err is human, to forgive is not a company policy. > A bird in hand might sh*t on your wrist. > People living in glass houses should use public restrooms. > If you can keep your head when everyone around you are losing theirs, you're > probably the executioner. I remember there was a term for such sentences but cannot recall. What is it? **EDIT** : I also remember: It's not just with famous quotes — any sentence which sounds normal at first, but has an unexpected ending to it which compels you to re-read the first part, is also classified as the same thing.


title: Is it normal in English to talk about oneself in the third person in these cases?

text: A Japanese person said that it is often normal to talk about oneself in the third person in English. This is what he wrote: > For example, when you write a CV or an introduction of yourself, the formal > way is to refer to yourself in third person. The same is in academic paper. Do you think this is true?


title: Is it correct to say: please refer to my resume?

text: In my cover letters, I give a summary of my resume. Then, I want to say that if you need more info about my resume, please refer to my resume. I feel that this is not the correct usage. If that is the case, then are there any other words I can use instead? And how about introducing a paraphrasing tag?


title: What does “haul something out” mean as an idiom?

text: I found the following quote of Mike Nichols, director of the hit revival of Arthur Miller’s “Death of a Salesman” on Broadway in the article titled “How Oedipus Wrecks” in March 24. New York Times: > “My father was proud once when I won a horse show in boarding school. And he > was proud when I was brave when I broke my arm. And man, I’ve _hauled those > out_ innumerable times.” As I’m not familiar with the expression, “haul something out,” I looked for the definition without success in OED and CED. There was an entry of “hauling out” as a noun in Wikipedia, defining it as; >   * Hauling-out is the behaviour associated with pinnipeds of temporarily > leaving the water between periods of foraging activity for sites on land or > ice. Hauling-out is necessary in seals for mating and giving birth and non- > reproductive aggregations, termed "haul-outs". > I also found the following answer to the similar question on “haul out” in www.englishforums.com/: >   * (haul out is) to take a heavy-handed approach to justice. It is a US > phrase. I guess it comes from the slightly stereotyped image of the sheriff > going into the saloon bar and "hauling out" ... > However, I think neither applies to Mike Nichols’ statement, “I’ve hauled those out innumerable times.” What does “ _haul something out_ ” mean? Does it mean “experience / get over problems" or simply "pull something out”? Is “haul something out” a popular day-to-day phrase?


title: Is it incorrect to say "If you could"?

text: I tend to use the following construction often in my e-mails: > It would be great if you could... However my German colleague repeatedly reminds me that according to the rules he was taught, using "if" together with "could" in the way I do is strictly speaking incorrect. I am however certain that this construction is quite common (see here) and can often convey _willingness_ rather than _ability_. Is the above construction strictly speaking incorrect, and is there a better replacement for it?


title: Which is correct: "soda" or "pop"?

text: Depending on where you go in the world, some people will refer to a carbonated beverage as "soda" while others choose to use the term "pop." For example, "Can I get you a soda" vs. "Can I get you a pop." I assume they both came from "soda pop" and were shortened at some point. My question is if one is considered more correct or if they are both on equal footing. Also, are there certain parts of the US where it is just plain bad English to use one or the other?


title: Do I need a "to" for a second infinitive in a sentence?

text: > It was common practice to first test and execute a program's source code by > hand before using a computer. > > It was common practice to first test and **to** execute a program's source > code by hand before using a computer. The first version of the sentence is without a second **to** , the second version includes a second **to**. Which one is correct?


title: What are the correct form of the following 2 expressions

text: I am working on a simple application which predicts you the wake up time if you go to bed at the moment. In example: if you go to bed at **12am** and set your alarm, you should set your alarm to **8am**. Is it correct if I write that _"Wake up time for getting up lively: 7.30 - 8.30"_? Also I want to predict the bedtime if you set your alarm to **8am** the app says you that you should go to bed at **12am**. Is it correct if I write that _"Bedtime for getting up lively at 8am: 12:00 - 12:30"_? Thanks for your assistance.


title: What is the standard way to answer a question that is asking for confirmation?

text: Now, this is something all native english speakers should have learned in grade school, but many non-native english speakers don't know how to answer a question unambiguously. In particular, in the comments for this question (don't worry about the meaning) the response to my request for clarification is as unclear as the original question. So, how would you answer my question (see the link), and how should one generally answer simple yes/no questions?


title: How to find a word to fit a meaning?

text: I need to find a word that would have a reasonably close meaning to: > a collection of facts and arguments used to arrive at an explanation [of > some (thing|concept|idea|...)] More generally, I would appreciate if someone can give leads to _how_ to create|construct or search for words expressing a given meaning. I've found the OneLook Reverse Dictionary. What other tools are available to achieve this?


title: Meaning of "we are poised on the brink of dramatic changes"

text: What does "we are poised on the brink of dramatic changes" mean? I thought it means we are calm and composed when it comes to making dramatic changes.


title: Momentary vs Temporary

text: Is there any difference? Which would be better to describe a requirement for 1 or 2 days. Suppose I need to inform my Operations team, that I need a particular requirement to be implemented but I want it only for a day or two? From ODO I get: > Temporary: not permanent ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/EHTKV.png) > Momentary: lasting for a very short time ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/gQgLo.png) So both seem to have the same meaning. Which one would be appropriate here. **Statement 1** : My team's requirement for implementing ABC system is temporary. **Statement 2** : My team's requirement for implementing ABC system is momentary.


title: Rule to pronounce words ending with "age"

text: Is there a rule to pronounce words ending with "age" ? ex : **usage** , **outage** => normal pronunciation of word "age" ex : **sabotage** , **mirage** => seems to be french pronunciation of "age"


title: "His head" or "their head"?

text: I was disappointed to see a favorite storybook from my childhood has been edited. ( _Harry, the Dirty Dog_ ; ISBN-13: 978-0064430098) I distinctly remember the text written as follows: > ...but everyone shook his head and said, "Oh, no, it couldn't be Harry." I was taught that the male gender form takes precedence, when speaking several individuals of each gender. However, the book was edited to read, > ...but everyone shook ~~his head~~ **their head** and said, "Oh, no, it > couldn't be Harry." ARGH! Please assure me that the original version and I are correct! There are some other minor edits that have simply ruined the book for me. (My linguistic snobbery helped, too.)


title: "Environmentally-friendly" vs. "Environment-friendly"

text: "Environmentally-friendly" sounds completely normal to me. So does "Environment-friendly". But I'm pretty sure I favour the former (despite the fact that I normally prefer the shorter of any two equivalent terms). According to Google, I'm in good company. At least, the 'allies' massively outnumber those who say "Environment-friendly". Why is this? _Environment_ seems like a straightforward noun. All the other _-friendly_ constructions I can think of just bolt on to the uninflected noun... _User-friendly software_ , _Gay-friendly bar_ , _Dolphin-friendly tuna_ , etc. I hesitate to ask "What's so special about the environment?", but there it is being asked. Later... Note that my focus is on why the inflected form apparently 'just happens' to be used with _environment_ , but not with other nouns.


title: "a capacity limit for each warehouse" or "capacity limits for every warehouse"

text: I am not really sure whether I understand these phrases correctly. "a capacity limit for each warehouse" means that each warehouse has its own limit, which may be different from other warehouses' limits?? "capacity limits for every warehouse" means that each warehouse has more than one limit and that set of limits of a warehouse is the same as the other sets of different warehouses?? Do I understand these correctly???


title: What are common word sets for describing ranks in a profession?

text: What are some sets of words used to describe rank in different professions (music, engineering, science)? I'm thinking about words similar to _novice_ , _amateur_ , and _professional_. In the European guild system there were _apprentices_ , _journeymen_ , and _master craftsmen_.


title: What is the difference between "graduate students" and "postgraduate students"?

text: I am reading about finding a good university for master studies and I am really confused if graduate students are the same as postgraduate students. Are the terms synonyms, or do they refer to different levels of studies?


title: Figurative meaning for "open a parenthesis"?

text: In this article one can find the following construct: > ... To answer this question, it is ... necessary to open a parenthesis. ( And then the author goes into some details. But he does not literally use any parenthesis as I do right here. ) So my question is -- did the author invent this figure of speech, or does it exist in contemporary English ? **Upd.** As **FumbleFingers** have mentioned below, Google Books search for "will open a parenthesis" shows the meaning _"to be mentioned in parentheses"_ to be rather common for this expression. The moral: there is not just Google, there are also Google Books. )


title: On the target of "not"

text: I would like to know the target of the word "not" in the following sentence. > The problem is that Britons were never given a chance to vote on whether > they wanted the CCTV cameras set up or **not**. I wonder which of the following is a correct interpretation:   1. whether they wanted the CCTV cameras set up or (they did _not_ want the CCTV cameras set up)   2. whether they wanted the CCTV cameras set up or ( _not_ set up)


title: Use of the word "neglect"

text: Can you use the word "neglect" in the following way? The townspeople/inhabitants neglected their town/city. Firstly, thank you so much. Some background about me. I am British born and have been living abroad for many years teaching English as a Second Language at a large high school. One of the English teachers in our team (who speaks American English) thought that the use of the word "neglect" as a verb usually only relates to authorities such as the local council or the government who "neglects" the town. Myself and another teacher felt that the use of the word in the sentence 'The inhabitants neglected their town' was grammatically correct and acceptable. Our colleague did some research and couldn't find any example that talks about inhabitants/residents neglecting their town. She said that it seems that is is always in the hands of authorities to take care of a town and only they can neglect it. However, people can neglect their house, front yard or any other property they own. So we started discussing the issue and I found this site and posted my question this morning. Can you shed any more light on the issue? Thank you so much. Ros


title: Why do we write "Tsk" for the sound of disapproval?

text: Wikipedia says alveolar clicks are found only in Africa/Australia, which isn't true at all. For instance, there's the one usually done twice in rapid succession with the tongue against the upper side teeth/gums - to "gee up" a horse, indicate "mock-conspiratorial" agreement, etc. So far as I know, we don't even _attempt_ an onomatopoeic written representation of that one, but the one formed by suction against the back of the front teeth/palate is normally written as either "tut" or "tsk". Sometimes people actually **say** "tut" or "tut-tut" (presumably, influenced by the written form). But I've never heard anybody say anything remotely resembling "tsk". So where does the "k" come from in that written representation?


title: Should I wash my hands of this?

text: > Should I wash my hands of this? Has this expression ever been used as a way of suggesting a bribe?


title: "The question then arises . . . "

text: I'd like to say something like "Then, we have the question: why did this happen?" What is a proper way to say this using the phrase "The question then arises..."? Is it "The question then arises as to why this happened."? If this is correct usage, are there other continuations of this phrase (i.e. "The question then arises") that I could use?


title: English questions and negation with *do* in syntax

text: A former lecturer of mine once explained why, from a syntactic point of view, the English rule that negation and questions are formed with the auxiliary _do_ follows from other syntactic facts about English. More precisely, if you gave a good syntactician not familiar with English a corpus of English sentences containing everything but questions and negated phrases, then s/he could infer grammatical rules from it (such as headed-ness of phrases, what kind of arguments what word takes, etc.) From some of these rules, then, s/he could see that something specific would be wrong with the sentences "Gave you the present to Mary?" and "He went not to the cinema." Can someone explain what exactly this something is and how it follows from other sentences? FYI, my lecturer did this in Government & Binding with X-Bar theory. This may be more suitable a question for the proposed linguistics.stackexchange.com but as it's not online yet I'm trying it here first. Edit: the beta is online now at http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/.


title: Meaning of 'do' in questions like 'do you want...'

text: If take question 'Do you want to eat?' as example, I don't understand meaning of 'do' because:     * to do something in my understanding is to take some actions, to want something is not an action, it is not something, that you 'do'.    * And in form of simple statement this question will be 'I want to eat', not 'I do want to eat' (right?). What meaning of 'do' in this question?


title: Question building in English vs. in French

text: Question about language grammar etymology. In French the question _«Do you love?»_ can be written as _«Aimez-vous?»_ in German — _«Mögen Sie?»_ , but in English — _«Do you love?»_. Why should we use the verb «to do» in order to form the question? Why, according to the English grammar, it is not possible to build the question only with words inversion, e.g. _«Love you?»_ , like in French or German? In other words, why English which has quite a common Latin/Roman base with French and German has such different question building form. Thanks.


title: Using "do" to create a question

text: > **Possible Duplicates:**   >  English questions and negation with _do_ in syntax   >  What is the origin of the 'do' construction? I vaguely remember hearing that using "do" to create a question is almost unique to English. Other languages would simply reverse the verb and subject. However, as I asked a similar question (mistakenly) 30 min ago...I'm not certain whether this is right or not. Could speakers of other languages comment and set me mind at rest? Could anybody point me to a website on this?


title: What is the origin of the 'do' construction?

text: Modern English seems to require this verb in several circumstances, where most other European languages don't seem to need it. (See? I just used it.) For example, in questions: "Do you have a dog?" Whereas, "Have you a dog?" would be normal in other languages or in the English of days gone by. Another example: "I do not know him." Again, "I know him not," could be used, but sounds stilted nowadays. So, where _did_ this 'do' come from?


title: Context to distinguish "we" inclusive versus exclusive

text: In English, "we" has no clusivity \- context is needed to determine whether it means we-including-you or we-excluding-you. What context can a speaker provide to disambiguate without sounding awkward? I'm wondering in particular how to reword sentences like "We need to meet tomorrow."


title: Is the term "fire and forget" well understood?

text: When referring to people's skills, my (IT) circle sometimes refer to a person as being "fire and forget." This would indicate that you could tell such a person to accomplish a task, and they'd work it out themselves without constant supervision. The (to me) obvious etymology would be a fire-and-forget missile where the operator simply needs to target the weapon once as opposed to, say, a wire guided missile that requires needs to be manually guided to its target. Is "fire and forget" widely understood in this context or is it just a geek thing?


title: Forming the negative with "no?"

text: I sometimes see sentences like _I no go to Rio_ (note that _no_ is before _go_ )—as the title of this blog post.   Is it considered slang or is there an actual rule? p.s. While related, this is _not_ a duplicate of my previous question.


title: Start a subordinate clause with "thus"

text: In an academic paper I'm using _thus_ to indicate the conclusion of an argument. Today my professor said that _thus_ should not be used in the beginning of a subordinate clause and suggested to use _whence_ instead. Here's some examples to show how I use _thus_ : > The substance did not freeze at normal pressure when the temperature dropped > below 0 °C, thus it's not water. > > Lisa's evidence does not satisfy the epistemic standard, thus she doesn't > know that _p_. > > Joel's utterance was offending, thus it was inappropriate. Is it okay to start a subordinate clause with _thus_? Would using another word, e.g. _whence_ , be more appropriate?


title: What is the origin of the word "copper" for referring to a police officer?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What are some slang words for "police" in countries besides the US? What is the origin of the word _copper_ for referring to a police officer? There is no shortage of explanations available on the Web, and as near as I can tell they fall into three categories:   1. It is a variation of the Latin _capere_ , meaning, to grab or apprehend — a meaning preserved in expressions like “ _cop_ a feel” — that came into use in Britain in the 1700s.   2. Early English police forces had very large copper helmets (or, in some versions, buttons).   3. The badges worn by early New York police officers were made of copper. In addition, some sources have the word arising from “the color of the early police or sheriff cars in the western states”, and even from an acronym for “Constable On Patrol”. What I can’t find is an authoritative reference on the matter. The OED entry seems to support (1) as an _application_ of the word, at least for _cop_ , but is ambiguous about its origin and says only that “other conjectures have been offered” for _copper_. Is there a generally agreed to origin for the use of _copper_ for referring to a police officer?


title: What is the factual basis for "pirate speech"? (Did pirates really say things like "shiver me timbers"?)

text: The "pirate speech" we hear/see/read, for example, on the website _Talk Like A Pirate Day_ consists of a rhotic dialect characterized by phrases like "shiver me timbers," "ooh arh me hearties," and so on and so on. What is its basis in fact?


title: Words for meat differ from the words for the corresponding animal

text: In English we have:   * "beef" for "cow", "cattle"   * "veal" for "calf"   * "pork" for "pig"   * "mutton" for "sheep" I'm not aware of this separation for "fish", "goat" or "chicken" (Spanish has "pollo" and "gallina") and other poultry. Are these words used simply to distinguish the meat from the animal (i.e. to avoid saying "cow meat") or is there a psychological separation to avoid the association? I doubt the latter since these words developed when people were likely less squeamish than some are today. Why are there not meat words for some animals? What are some others I didn't list?


title: "also is" at the end of sentence

text: > I am in favour of compromises and I am glad that Gabriel also is. Is it okay here to end the sentence with "also is"? Is there a better/more proper way to express this?


title: Alternative to "maze" as a description for Pacman's environment?

text: Pacman's maze ![alt text](http://i.stack.imgur.com/OcDkN.jpg) is not a maze in the sense of being a place in which we get lost since we can clearly see where we are going. So what should we call the restricted environment in which Pacman operates? To clarify: I want another word to describe this rather than _maze_. Answers claiming that this is a maze by some definition or other aren't any use to me.


title: Is there an inverse word for emissary?

text: I'm looking for a word which describes a certain relationship. There are two people Adam, and Barry; and Adam sends Barry on a mission for him.   It can be said that Barry is Adam's emissary, but what is Adam to Barry?   I'm looking for an inverse word for emissary, such as employer is the inverse of employee.


title: "Question and Answers" equivalent when it's not a question

text: There is a common phrase, "Questions and Answers", also known as Q&A. If you have a viewpoint. opinion, idea, statement, or a thought etc., what phrase would represent it and the response the best? In other words, the equivalent to "Questions and Answers" when referring to opinions, thoughts, ideas, etc., is what? Some possible combinations I have thought of are "Viewpoints and Reactions", and "Opinions and Responses". There are probably others, but I am searching for the most proper. Also, in my opinion, "Comments and Feedback" seem too similar to "Questions and Answers".


title: What does this use of "carpeted" mean?

text: I partially understand based on the background and context, but I've never seen it used this way before. Can someone provide the full meaning of carpeted in this context and also tell me if it is a new usage or something old and obscure. From the news article: Joe Hockey carpets Liberal leaders > OPPOSITION Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey yesterday **carpeted** Liberal > Party leakers for undermining the opposition's bid to secure government. > > Mr Hockey condemned talk of leadership divisions stoked last week by a > leaked email from chief whip Warren Entsch rebuking former leader Malcolm > Turnbull. > > "I would say to people they should put their ambitions for the nation ahead > of their own ambitions," Mr Hockey said.


title: Is the adjective common between "form" and "colour"?

text: In the sentence: "The Bayeux Tapestry of 1068 shows designs in colour but not of heraldic form." Is "heraldic" common between "form" and "colour"? I mean is the adjective "heraldic" joint to both words "form" and "colour"? hence: "The Bayeux Tapestry of 1068 shows designs in [heraldic] colour but not of heraldic form."


title: When do you use the plural form for nouns that are generally considered uncountable?

text: When should the plural form of the nouns _combustible_ , _material_ and _liquid_ be used?


title: Origin of the name "paw-paw"

text: I've always known this fruit as papaya. It was only in recent times that I started hearing "paw-paw" used instead of "papaya". I also looked up the dictionary, but no relevant word came up. Where did this term originate from?


title: Is it okay using "The thing is" as filler?

text: I often use expression "The thing is" as filler a lot like this: > See, the thing is, they did not want to watch the movie that is why went > there. I might as well say it without **it** , since it does not really change the meaning, but sometimes I just say it instinctively to give my self some more to time to think. My question is, is it normal for people to do this? And if the answer is yes, what are the other expression like this?


title: Difference between "evade X" and "sidestep X"?

text: Please consider the following sentences > In the journalist meeting, the politician **evaded** the questions about > riots.   >  in the journalist meeting, the politician **sidestepped** the questions > about riots. Do the above sentences have the same meaning? As fundamental rule, no two words would have same meaning at all times. I expect some differences between evade and sidestep, which is why I am asking this question. The "Dictionary" software which I am using shows the below definitions: > Evade = escape or avoid, esp. by cleverness or trickery   >  Sidestep = avoid (someone or something) by stepping sideways I am unable to make out the differences between those two definitions.


title: Correct usage of infinitives

text: I am not sure about the usage of _infinitives_ in this sentence: > Finally, one of the accused confessed _to have_ forged the director's > signature on the report. Could anyone explain correct usage?


title: Should I begin with uppercase when placing a sentence inside a apostrophes?

text: Here's an example: Warren said, 'could you help me remember some English basics?' vs. Warren said, 'Could you help me remember some English basics?'


title: Is it grammatical to use "an even better " rather than "even better"?

text: I know this question is quite basic but right now I'm having a problem with it: "Jimmy your english is bad. Try to speak in front of mirror or **an** even better option is to take english classes." Is it grammatical to use "an" here?


title: "are added" -or- "are being added"?

text: Basically, what I want to say is: "new pictures are constantly added", but I need to omit "constantly", so how would be grammatically correct to say this phrase meaning `constantly`: "new pictures are added" -or- "new pictures are being added"?


This article uses a phrase that started me wondering, here's the relevant quote (emphasis mine): > So you're right. SQL -- the kind you write every day -- is ugly and awkward. > In fact, **_it looks like hell on legs_**. And it's often pretty slow. Where exactly did the phrase "hell on legs" come from?


title: Opposite of "implicate"

text: What might be a good antonym of _implicate_ in the context of troubleshooting an engineering problem? I can think of _exonerate_ and _vindicate_ but both sound more about crime than to refer to a component previously thought to introduce a design flaw in the overall system.


title: Morphological or syntactic conversion?

text: When a noun is used as a verb, linguistically, this process is termed as morphological conversion: > Fish (n): This is a fish.   >  Fish (v): I'm fishing in the river. Why shouldn't we call it syntactic conversion? The word itself didn't change only the grammatical role has been affected? And if an adjective, for example, is converted into a verb by adding a derivational suffix, then it should be called morphological conversion. Am I right?


title: "With an (instrument)" and "by (instrument)"

text: "We forced the door **_with a jimmy_** " is idiomatic whereas "The door was forced **_by jimmy_** " (Note there is no article after 'by' in this sentence) is also idiomatic. However, "We forced the door **_by jimmy_** " is not. I wonder whether one or the other is idiomatic is based on the passive-active difference. I can't assess whether the following sentences are idiomatic, as I'm a non-native speaker. If you could please help me with this, I'd be very much obliged. * * * [1-a] We drew lines with a straight edge. [1-b] Lines were drawn by straight edge. * * * [2-a] We held the unknown object with the tongs we found in the lab. [2-b] The unknown object was held by the tongs we found in the lab. * * * [3-a] We ate the beans with chopsticks. [3-b] The beans were eaten by chopsticks. * * * [4-a] We cleaned the room with a broom and a mop. [4-b] The room was cleaned by broom and mop. * * * [5-a] We cut the paper with such a peculiar instrument. [5-b] The paper was cut by such a peculiar instrument. * * * [6-a] We measured the length of the rope with a ruler. [6-b] The length of the rope was measured by ruler. * * *


title: What is meant by "don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining"?

text: I have heard a couple of times recently the phrase "don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining", usually in the context of a heated argument so I've hesitated to ask speaker what exactly he meant by it. Can anyone here help?


title: Terminology of a non-numbered page of text having 12 points?

text: I was in a law lecture and the lecturer referred to a sentence three-quarters down a slab of unstructured text as 'point 9'. The idea being, she explained, that a page of text 'has 12 points' and you can indicate a particular part by the point number. (so 1 quarter down the page is point 3 etc). My question is - does this convention of a page of text having 12 points have a reference or any authority? * * * EDIT: Lecturer is Australian


title: Terminology for expressing the scale of a measurement system

text: I'm looking for the most applicable terminology for defining the scale of measurement units in a particular system. For example, for a distance, in 'metric', the 'small' scale could be 'm/s' and the 'big' scale could be 'km/h'. In 'imperial', the 'small' scale could be 'feet' and the 'big' scale could be 'miles'. Similarly with a speed, the 'small' and 'big' scales could be 'm/s' and 'km/h' respectively for the metric system, and 'ft/s' and 'mph' respectively for the imperial system. Throughout this post I've referred to a 'small' and 'big' 'scale'. Are there better terms I could use?


title: More accurate terms for one-sided business information?

text: I like to use the term `"one-sided"` when I come across to very misleading, too much marketing or even wrong information in annual letters. My observations can be flawed so I am very hesitant to use more extreme terms such as `"propaganda"`, `"brainwash"` or such terms. One example where I like to use the term `"one-sided"` and sometimes `"propaganda"` is in finance and particularly with speculators. One good example is Buffettphilists that premisizes their actions with Buffett's historical actions (this company is like Buffet's this-that company, I will buy it etc).   1. What are more lively terms for one-sided information?   2. What are more neutral terms for one-sided ambiguous information?   3. What are more stressing terms for one-sided clearly wrong information?   4. What are more neutrals terms for clear brainwashing?


title: use of constant

text: I read this article on the Syrian upheaval on a Prospect Blog. > A week is a long time in the diplomatic efforts surrounding the Syrian > conflict. Just when it looked as though key elements were coalescing towards > convening a US-UK-Russia-sponsored conference to negotiate a way out of the > political deadlock, events on the ground took over again. Rather than an > aberration, “events” have in fact been a constant of what is better > characterised as a game of diplomatic catch-up, in which the main players on > the chessboard have been firmly rooted in Syria, and now the wider region, > for over two years. I am not able to understand why the "events" are "a constant"? Does s/he mean constant as in a maths equation's constant? Would _described_ , instead of "characterised", not have been a better word to use in the last sentence?


title: In "Enter John", is John in the nominative or accusative case?

text: This question made me think about the structure of the sentence. I'm familiar with the expression 'Enter Michael'/'Exit John' to represent Michael's or John's entry or exit, respectively, to a dramatic stage, and its metaphorical use. Is this a real sentence, or a sentence fragment? Either way, should John be treated as the subject of the sentence, and put in the nominative case? I realise that this makes little practical difference as English words are not typically declined based on case, and "exit him" or "Enter I" sounds wrong either way. However I am curious. Initially I had thought that "exit" might be the subjunctive, and that the phrase was equivalent to "Let John exit". But the plural of "exit" in stage directions is "exeunt", and both "exit" and "exeunt" are present indicative in Latin.


title: First-rate, second-rate, and third-rate

text: I’d like some clarification on the use of these three words. _First-rate_ has positive connotations and its meaning is manifest, but the meanings of _second-rate_ and _third-rate_ are relatively muddy in comparison. I know that both of them have negative connotations, and that _third-rate_ is even more forceful in the claim it’s making than is _second-rate_ , but when would it be appropriate to use either? Is _second-rate_ a better choice of words when doing an explicit comparison like > Prof A is better than Prof B. When I say Prof B. is _second-rate_ , I’m in fact implying that Prof. B is less than stellar, but not necessarily bottom of the barrel. And conversely, is _third-rate_ a better choice when making some sort of global claim — like for example, when I say Prof. C is _third-rate_ , I’m implying that he’s the worst, **_worst_** professor I’ve ever encountered, and that when Prof. C is juxtaposed with any other professor, he will almost assuredly be found lacking in comparison. If anybody has insight or clarification on all this, that would be great. And also, if anybody wants to try at the etymology of these three words, then by all means please do so, as I’d be really interested to find out more about their history.


title: "Infantile" vs "puerile" vs "childish" vs "immature"

text: My understanding of these words is:   _Infantile_ indicates behavior of very small children (infants), in contrast to _immature_ that says someone is unexperienced and callow. Childish and puerile sounds to me as something between infantile and immature.   1. In regular use, do these words allude any differences or are they used fully synonymic.   2. Which word is most common?   I've already taken a look on ngram, frequency seems to be quite equal.   3. Which words are more formal or informal, which one are more or less colloquial?


title: Plural of "Average" as a noun?

text: I have a sentence lingering in my mind that I read somewhere, but the way I'm remembering it it doesn't sound right:               The averages have the power of invisibility.      Is this correct pluralization of 'average' as a noun?


title: "Not a clue" vs. "no clue"

text: Example:   * > — What is he called?   >  — I have **not a clue**.   * > — What is he called?   >  — I have **no clue**. Are both versions grammatical in English? If they are, which one is preferred by native speakers in the US and the UK?


title: Correct usage for "bad" v. "poor" adjectives

text: The way I was taught many years ago was that something like _quality_ can be poor, but not bad. The reasoning was that "bad" is a value/moral whereas poor applies to non- value qualities. In this case, _evil people_ can be bad, but not poor (unless they have no money). Is this still the case? I find more often that people use "bad" to describe most things that "poor" would traditionally be used for.   * **Poor** >     * This burger was really ____ quality. >     * Wow, that chair is of ____ craftsmanship. >     * Johnson handled the account ____ly, so we lost it. >     * He drives so ____ly, it is a wonder how he ever passed his test in the > first place.   * **Bad** >     * That barking dog is ____. >     * The ____ boy broke my window. >     * No one can dispute that Hitler was a ____ man. So what about where things are less clear-cut? What's the rule of thumb? >   * Wow, that's a really ____ computer you have. >   * My S.O. always treats me ____ly when I forget to take out the trash. >   * I hate that garage! The mechanic always does a ____ job! >


title: How do you pronounce PIPEDA?

text: I'm wondering how to pronounce the acronym for Canada's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. PIP eh duh? pie PEED uh? other?


title: How did 'provide' evolve to mean 'stipulate in a document'?

text: What's an intuitive derivation behind ODO's definition 3 that helps to internalise its meaning: > 3\. **to provide** [with clause] = Stipulate in a will or other legal > document: Etymonline doesn't explain this meaning.


title: "Before it was too late" vs. "before it would be too late"

text: What is the difference between the sentences below? >   1. Mary decided to get pregnant before it was too late. >   2. Mary decided to get pregnant before it would be too late. >