title: Caption text punctuation: Full stops always necessary at the end?

text: Example caption text for a photo: > **Little Diane necklace** 1a) No full stop is correct, yes? Now a longer example of caption text: > **Little Diane necklace. The photograph of the young Diane was taken after a > polio vaccination and appeared in the local newspaper. She smiles bravely > into the camera to reassure other children.** 1b) Is a full stop necessary at the very end if there is more than one sentence? 2) How are the name and description separated? By a period or semicolon?


title: Whatever happened to "eyeglasses", "facial tissues", and "video game consoles"?

text: Now-a-days, we tend to ask:"Have you seen my _glasses_ anywhere?" "Do you have any spare _tissues_ to lend me?" and "How many _consoles_ do you own?" It's just quicker to say and any native speaker will understand, despite the (possible) ambiguity of these terms; e.g., _Where are my glasses?_ could be interpreted as _Where are my drinking vessels?_ But in real life, this never happens. Essentially, I have three questions:   * When did the shortened names; **glasses** , **tissues** and **consoles** first appear and took over from their longer named "parents"?    * Is there a name for this type of noun which originally began as a compound word (sometimes joined by a hyphen) and was eventually reduced to a single-word?    * Are there any other compound nouns which have dropped one or more lexemes but still retain their original meanings?  NB: I am not referring to **_portmanteau words_** which are neologisms made by blending two words together such as _smoke_ and _fog_ to obtain _smog_. Neither would I consider them to be **contractions** because there is no omission of internal letters for example; _gov't_ , _govt_ , _gov_ and _dep't_ or _dept_. I can only think of "shortened" which fits the bill but can also stand for contractions; unless I am mistaken. Despite skimming through the relevant Wikipedia pages, I found no explanation or references as to _why_ , (although I think that is easily explained) or _when_ , these names were shortened and became more popular. Source Wikipedia: **_eyeglasses_**; **_facial tissues_**; **_video game consoles_**. EDIT: In my original title I had included "tissue paper" but as several users have commented, tissue paper is used for wrapping delicate objects whereas tissues normally sold in boxes are commonly referred to as _facial tissues_ , especially in the US.


title: Word for a group of similar photos?

text: Is there a single word or phrase that means a group of very similar photos, such as when a photographer takes a burst of 7-8 shots with the hope of catching the right instant, or to get the best focus?


title: How does one capitalize words like "un-American"?

text: Google's dictionary lists it as "un-American" or "unAmerican" (which looks clumsy to me). Since American is a "demonym," I would usually capitalize it, so I feel compelled to capitalize "un-American" somehow. How should I capitalize "un-American" and words like it?


title: "The man was either mad or both"

text: In the delightful Fry and Laurie sketch _The Letter_ , several puns are expertly delivered by Stephen Fry, however there is one I don't understand. At 4:45 in the video, he says "The man was either mad, or both", and it seems this should be funny, but I don't get it. Where is the pun in this sentence?


title: What is a synonym for bad writing?

text: I am looking for a word to reflect what a novice author would use to describe his own writing (somewhat derogatorily). My first thought was **drivel**.


title: Is there a single word for people/ consultants who partner with our health?

text: We made a card for hospitals which introduces the doctors to its patients. We named the card _Meet Your Healers_ , but we need a new word to replace _Healers_ now.


* On average every 1.1st or 1.1th something?    * On average every 1.2nd or 1.2th something?    * On average every 1.3rd or 1.3th something? What is the correct formulation for a decimal ordinal number? * * * Hah! I knew I would find it sooner or later! Google for: "0.75th quantile"   * "Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences"   * "Recursive Quantile Estimation with Application to Value at Risk"   * "Economic Value of Weather and Climate Forecasts"   * ...


title: Ways of Indicating Sarcasm in Writing?

text: Sarcasm is in most cases conveyed by tone of voice or body language, so is much easier to use face-to-face. What are ways of using it in written form? One way I know of is to use a word that directly suggests sarcasm in context, such as 'totally'. For example: > That's **totally** how you are meant to drive a car Are there other words or methods that achieve this effect? Are any clearer than others?


title: Can altering the syntax of a sentence, without in any way changing the diction used in describing the subject itself, change the subject's number?

text: There have been debates raging both here and on ELL about this, but the question has, to this point, been focused **solely on expletive constructions** with compound subjects. This is **not** intended to ask that very same question. I'd like to clarify that I'm asking about a much broader range of constructions, and, more specifically, the nature of subjects themselves; and that I'm **strongly questioning** that the tenet of basic _Subject-Verb agreement_ is variable and therefore not applicable to all sentence constructions. In other words, I'm asking: **how, if ever, can a plural subject be considered or be treated as a singular subject** ; **how can a subject's number vary without rephrasing subject itself** ; and **while there is room for variation in number with mass and/or collective nouns, how can this variation occur with ordinary, countable nouns?** To keep all things parallel, I'm both excluding compound subjects **that, separately, agree in number** and restricting this to **only** compound subjects **joined by and** (or _as well as, along with_ , etc.). I'm making this distinction to rule out examples that could be based on elision--e.g., _there's a bat and there's a ball on the table_ could potentially be elided to _there's a bat and ball on the table._ In each of the following examples, the subject is **exactly the same** and is plural, which to me suggests that, in each and every set, **_only 2 and 3_** can be **_technically_** correct (i.e., in **formal** English). I think that **most** would regard the fourth option to be completely incorrect in all examples. And I know that many would say that, **in the first (i.e. expletive) set** , number one **_could also be** correct_. That particular line of reasoning is what I'm inquiring about. Here are the expletive possibilities I'm starting with:   1. There **is a bat** , three balls, and a glove on the table.   2. There **are a bat** , three balls, and a glove on the table.   3. There **are three balls** , a bat, and a glove on the table.   4. There **is three balls** , a bat, and a glove on the table. Active voice:   1. A bat, three balls, and **a glove is** on the table.   2. A bat, three balls, and **a glove are** on the table.   3. A bat, a glove, and **three balls are** on the table.   4. A bat, a glove, and **three balls is** on the table. Inverted sentences:   1. On the table **is a bat** , three balls, and a glove.   2. On the table **are a bat** , three balls, and a glove.   3. On the table **are three balls** , a bat, and a glove.   4. On the table **is three balls** , a bat, and a glove. Passive voice: (note: As Peter Shor correctly indicates, _is lain_ is **not** a passive construction.) **I specifically used** to lie **incorrectly intentionally** because it's **closer** to my other sentences **semantically**. I meant to say _The items are/have been lying on the table,_ rather than _The items are/were laid on the table._ While **the latter** , in **all** _bold type_ is technically the proper **passive construction** , **the former** is a **closer match to the thoughts being expressed** in the other examples:   1. On the table **is lain a bat** , three balls, and a glove. **On the table _is laid a bat_ , three balls, and a glove.**   2. On the table **are lain a bat** , three balls, and a glove. **On the table have a bat** , three balls, and a glove **been laid**.   3. On the table **are lain three balls** , a bat, and a glove. **On the table _were laid a bat_ , three balls, and a glove.**   4. On the table **is lain/is lying three balls** , a bat, and a glove. **On the table _was laid a bat_ , three balls, and a glove.** Interrogatives using Subject-Auxiliary inversion:   1. **Is a bat** , three balls, and a glove [they] there on the table?   2. **Are a bat** , three balls, and a glove [they] there on the table?    3. **Are three balls** , a bat, and a glove [they] there on the table?    4. **Is three balls** , a bat, and a glove [they] there on the table? I have fixed these questions to indicate the way in which _there_ functions in expletives and to demonstrate the actual subject based on the Subject- Auxiliary inversion used to form questions. In all of these examples, the subject is not at all changed, and in only one set (passive) was it necessary for me to change the verb. In fact, in all but the passive set, I've done nothing but remove _there_ from the sentence. I've always been instructed that while revising the sentence so that the item in the list nearest the verb is in agreement with the verb is preferred, it's perfectly fine to say _A bat, three balls_ (-or- _a ball_ ), _and **a glove are** on the table._ Is there something, that I am perhaps missing, that makes the first in each set acceptable? Any source(s) that indicate that syntax dictates number would be particularly appreciated.


title: "Created" is to "creator", and "updated" to "editor", as "deleted" is to what agent noun?

text: I'm modeling a database and I have these three fields (among others):   * _created_by_ ,   * _updated_by_ , and   * _deleted_by_. I'm using _author_ as an alias for "created_by", and _editor_ as an alias for "updated_by". What choices do I have as an alias for "deleted_by"?


title: What does "Once a loser, always a loser" mean?

text: _"Once a loser, always a loser"_ What is the meaning of this quote? What is the right time to use this? Is this an offensive language?


title: Is 'give a speech' idiomatic English?

text: Is 'give a speech' idiomatic in English? An instance I can think of would be “When that happened, my teacher _gave a speech_ , and then said, "Now everybody wish Elbe a merry Christmas!"' As a bonus question, can anyone suggest an alternative expression which renders the same emphasis?


title: One word that can be used to represent student and professional

text: I am having two options for users to select from, either they are a **Student** or they are a **Professional**. What one word can be used to represent both the names collectively? I tried a lot but couldn't think of any. The context is that i have a registration form for a test that has to be taken by a variety of people so i need to have a single word to represent student and professional.


title: Using a pronoun and a proper noun with a descriptor

text: With the sentence: "If he was Little Freddie, the apple of Vinnie's eye, would have told him." Does it mean if he _was_ Little Freddie, or was he referring to Little Freddie? I think the meaning is for the latter, but reading the sentence itself makes me feel something's off. If it's the former, how would one go about to make it mean the latter? Should it be "If he was, Little Freddie, the apple of Vinnie's eye, would have told him." By the way, _he_ refers to another person, not Little Freddie or Vinnie. Little Freddie is Vinnie's younger brother. Here's a more complete example: > Vinnie feels like his father isn't telling the truth. If he was Little > Freddie, the apple of Vinnie's eye, would have told him.


title: Past vs. perfect in present-tense narrative

text: When telling a story using the present tense, should events at a specific time in the past be recounted in the past perfect or in the past tense? For example: I know to write > Jack entered the room and sat down. The fight had drained him, and he needed > to rest. , but is > Jack enters the room and sits down. The fight drained him, and he needs to > rest. or > Jack enters the room and sits down. The fight had drained him, and he needs > to rest. correct, and why? (To me, the latter seems obviously correct, but someone recently insisted to be that the former is correct, and I could not defend or explain my position, so I'm asking here.) Please note that I'm asking according to traditional (prescriptive) grammar.


title: Is "with respect to" wrong?

text: My English professor suggested yesterday that the expression "with respect to", despite being frequently used is simply wrong. He said that one should rather use "in respect of", which in turn is not very common. Can a native speaker confirm this? I have seen this expression so often, even in scientific texts, that I quite simply cannot believe that this is incorrect English.


title: Word for something partitioned into 16 parts?

text: On a two-dimensional Cartesian plane we can naturally subdivide the space into four **quadrants** at the origin. In three-dimensions, the partition into eight parts are known as **octants**. In four-dimensional space we have sixteen parts; what is the corresponding name for each partition? Wikipedia has an n-dimensional name: > In geometry, an **orthant** or **hyperoctant** is the analogue in > n-dimensional Euclidean space of a quadrant in the plane or an octant in > three dimensions. Even if it isn't common usage, what would the next term be for 4-dimensions (of sixteen parts)?


title: Letter-writing tone as perceived by other nationalities

text: A question that has been bugging me for quite a while was raised by some communication between my employer and a partner organisation based in Dubai. It turned out that more than once, it's been noticed that this other party tend to use a particular tone of address in letters and emails. Whereas they will address male members of staff as 'Mr Bloggs' - which is quite acceptable and polite, even somewhat deferential given that it's quite uncommon and most other third parties tend to address you by first name after it's been quoted at least once in the exchange - they rigorously insist on referring to female colleagues as _Miss_ Helen, and so on. That is, declining to use the individual's (known) surname, and presuming unless corrected that she is unmarried. Is this due to some antiquated perception of propriety in English correspondence, or is it a custom originating from the culture of the people involved? I would lean toward guessing the latter; since in parts of the Middle East having women in the workplace is less common and perhaps one might presume that a female employee is unmarried, unless it is determined otherwise. Is it thought by the demographic that we are talking to that using the maiden name of a woman known in a professional capacity is in some way vulgar?


title: Overusing "and" and how to fix it

text: Several months ago, I was writing a fan-fiction story set in the Sonic the Hedgehog universe and I ended up constructing this sentence: "...Sonic and his allies **and** Dr. Robotnik and his allies..." My intent here is to group Sonic and Sonic's allies together and Dr. Robotnik and Dr. Robotnik's allies together, but doing so with "and"s causes this problem. I fixed it by replacing the second "and" with "versus", thus reading as: "...Sonic and his allies **versus** Dr. Robotnik and his allies..." My question is: is the original construction still valid? I'm also curious about my usage of "his" to refer to two different males in a row.


title: What is meant by Nothing up your sleeves

text: **Background:** Hi, this one is my first question on this site. Untill now I was just a developer asking for help on stackoverflow.com. So today I was watching the movie **Now you see me** , where they all get caught and then Jesse Eisenberg tells the cop "Listen you have what we call in business **Nothing up your sleeves** ". **What I have tried:** So I tried to Google it, using `define nothing up your sleeves` but no answer or defination came up! So I tried to go to some other sites. But no success! **My Question:** All much that I know is that this is something about magic, like magicians have a card up their sleeves! But what is meant by that phrase or whatever, I am not sure. That why I asked the question. What is meant by: " **Nothing up your sleeves** "?


title: When "etc." is at the end of a phrase, do you place a period after it?

text: Example: > It's all about apples, oranges, bananas, etc. VS. > It's all about apples, oranges, bananas, etc..


title: Do you put double dots when a contraction occurs at the end of the sentence?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When "etc." is at the end of a phrase, do you place a period after it? Is it grammatically correct to use two dots at the end of the contraction 'etc' when it comes at the end of the sentence? For example,               All he eats is junk food: ice-cream, pizza, burger etc..      Or should be put just one dot there? like               All he eats is junk food: ice-cream, pizza, burger etc.      I am asking because my auto-correct is bugging me.


title: punctuation when abbreviation at the end

text: It's about using the right punctuation when abbreviation is used at the end of sentence. It has been asked here when the sentence is a question: How to deal with abbreviations at the end of a question?. What about sentences like the following:               The opinions of this articles are those of the author(s),     and do not necessarily reflect the views of Google Inc..      Two dots or one dot?


title: An expression to wish all evil away from someone

text: I am looking for an expression in English to wish all evil away from someone.


title: Is "uncomplete" a word?

text: Or would I just use _incomplete_? Would there be any instance that one would uncomplete?


title: Word for "held up well over time"?

text: Is there a word for the quality of something "holding up well over time"? For example, some blockbusters from years past have special effects that are still fairly good when compared to today's movies. I would also consider the term when referring to classical works such as Shakespeare, etc.


title: "Not even I can" versus "Even I can't"

text: I understand that both these sentences:   * Not even I can help them now.   * Even I can't help them now. essentially mean the same thing. But are they really interchangeable? Can you use either in any context, situation, etc. Can you think of any reason or subtlety that would make you prefer one over the other? Is one more formal than the other?


title: Better alternative for "even after"?

text: I have the following sentence in a legal document: > The terms shall remain in force even after the Warranty obligation, as > specified in article 1, ends. Is there a better way of expressing "even after"? To me, it sounds informal. Edit: Added "legal" tag.


> “it would not be fair to everyone else for me to eat all the oranges.” Is that correct? Why there is "FOR", would it not work simply with "WHEN"? > “it would not be fair to everyone else when/if I eat all the oranges.”


title: usage of the verb to bridge in "Bridging someone to something"

text: My friend suggested a tag line for our project: "Bridging you to your dream higher education online" and I have doubts that "bridging you to smth." is a proper word usage. I've never heard this expression before. I've only heard "Bridging the gap between smth and smth" and "bridge between dreaming and living your dreams". The meaning behind this is "moving you towards your dream", building a "connection, bridge" leading students to their dream university. What do you think? You help would be highly appreciated!


title: 'work' or 'working'

text: What is the difference between: >   1. ... algorithm which will be programmed in the later stage **work** with > use of high-level programming language, such as: C#, etc. > >   2. ... algorithm which will be programmed in the later stage **working** > with use of high-level programming language, such as: C#, etc. > > What is the right form?


title: What does “Be weird about something” mean?

text: According to the article of Washington post (August 18) titled “O’Donnell Walked off CNN interview,” the former Senate candidate from Delaware and tea party favorite walked out during interview by Piers Morgan in his ‘Piers Morgan Tonight’ on August 17 night, when she was asked about her stand on gay marriage by the host. The hot scene went like this: When Morgan asked O’Donnell whether she supports gay marriage, she asks about the relevance of the line of questioning. > “You’re getting, you’re borderline being a little bit rude,” was her first > response. > > Morgan asked her why she was “being so weird about this.” > > “I’m not being weird about this, Piers,” she responded, saying she was not > running for office. “I’m not being weird, you’re being a little rude,” she > said. As I was unclear about the meaning of “Be weird about something,” I checked a couple of dictionaries and came to the definition of “weird” in Dictionary Cambridge Org. being “very strange and unusual, unexpected or not natural,” together with the examples:   * Her boyfriend's a bit weird but she's all right.   * That's weird - I thought I'd left my keys on the table but they're not there. However, neither the above definition nor example seems to me to just fit to the phrase quoted in the above exchange of tense words. It appears to mean “being weird’ here means “being very irritated, get excited, or vexed” to me. What both Morgan and O’Donnell meant to say with this phrase? .


title: can two conj.(but and because ) be used together?

text: I confused with this sentence : `"The Emplyee class is a superclass, but not because it is superior to its subclass"` I know both "but" and "because" can be conj. for connecting two sentences. But here the sentence use both of them to connect two sentences. My question is this situation can be allowe? and why? and also there is a "not" between the "but" and "because" to represent a negative meaning, so if I want to negate a conj., just directly add a "not" in front of it? can anyone tell me more about how to use "not" here?


title: Is the term “professional” justifiably reduced to “being paid to do something”?

text: I very often hear people call themselves professional at something they haven’t been doing long. On the rare occasions that I ask them how they feel able to qualify themselves as professional, the general answer is “because I am paid to do it”. Given that the term _professional_ is so similar to _professor_ — somebody who knows their topic inside out — is it really OK to apply the term professional so trivially? Can anybody give me an explanation of where the term _professional_ came from and how it should be used today?


title: How has the phrase the "Mecca of some activity" originated and not the "Rome" or "Athens"

text: This is **not a question about religion** at all. My point is Rome and Athens are examples of _older civilizations_ and there is the saying "All roads lead to Rome" indicating it's supremacy in the Ancient world. So how did it come to pass that _Wimbledon is the Mecca of tennis_ and not another city name fits? Etymonline offers > Fig. sense of "any place one holds supremely sacred" (usually with lower- > case m-) is from 1850 Does anyone have a good explanation of the _origin_ and rise of this phrase?


title: Jack's vs Jacks for "Jack his phone"

text: I am non-native in English so forgive me if this question is too low level. If you are talking about something that belongs to a person you can say "Jacks phone" to mean "the phone of Jack", at least, that is how I pronounce it. However, in writing it could also be "Jack's phone" and you wouldn't notice anything different in the pronunciation. So which one is correct? I thought the first one, because I would say that the second would actually mean "Jack is phone" (which obviously makes no sense), but as a counterexample I can find many diners that are called "...'s diner" which are clearly meant as "The diner of ...". Therefore my question is: which is correct? and what is the rule? Should you recognize the meaning of 's for "is" or "his" from the context?


title: Prefixes milli- and cent- used for years

text: The prefix "milli-" means "thousandth" (e.g. 1000 millimeters in 1 meter) and the prefix "kilo-" means "thousand" (e.g. 1 kilogram is 1000 grams). Why is the period of 1000 years called a "millennium"? Why don't we use the term "kilennium"? In fact, we already use Y2K as an abbreviation for "Year 2000". Doesn't it make more sense that a "millennium" should be the time period of one-thousandth of a year? Likewise, instead of "century" or "centennial", of which the prefix "centi-" means "hundredth", shouldn't we use "hectennial" for 100 years?


title: A concise term for staking territorial claims

text: I'm looking for a word or phrase specifically used to refer to the act of placing a flag to claim new territory. I'm specifically referring to claiming land in the name of some sovereign, though a more general term will do.


title: "how soon I get" vs. "how soon I will get"

text: What is the difference between the following: > It depends on how soon I get my visa. > > It depends on how soon I will get my visa.


title: Usage of the word "nemesis"

text: I came across the following GRE question: > The adjective "Faustian", derived from the German legend of Faust, the > protagonist whose pride and vanity lead to his doom, has come to denote acts > involving human ___ which lead eventually to ___. > >   1. Blank (1) : caprice, vileness, hubris > >   2. Blank (2) : despondency, nemesis, annihilation > > My answer was _hubris_ and _annihilation_. However the correct answers given were _hubris_ and _nemesis_ , yielding: > The adjective "Faustian", derived from the German legend of Faust, the > protagonist whose pride and vanity lead to his doom, has come to denote acts > involving human hubris which lead eventually to nemesis. Why does the word _nemesis_ make sense in the context? Is the usage even correct?


title: How do I formally speak dates?

text: How are dates formally spoken? Are there any differences in the British and American versions?


title: What does "Eat Lunch or be lunch" mean in this context?

text: I came across this phrase: > The problem facing companies today is that there are too many fishermen and > not enough fish in the market. It’s a matter of **_eat lunch or be lunch_** > — or, as stated by Gregory Rawlins, “If you’re not part of the steamroller, > you’re a part of the road.” What does **eat lunch or be lunch** mean in this context? _Edit 5 Oct 2013 7.58 PM:_   I take it it is a fight for survival when there is too much competition. If they cannot find the means of surviving then they will go out of business. It uses the metaphor of fish. If they need to catch a fish to eat and there only 5 fishes in the pool and ten fishermen then five will go hungry (fish=customers). Please correct me and share your idea to clarify.


title: "He lies" or "he is lying" for non-habitual actions

text: Reading the last pages of Harry Potter 1, Harry is pulled to confront a mirror. When he is asked about what he sees, he invents something and lies to the guy. At this time, the master says the following to his agent: > He lies... He lies... Is the use of simple present correct in this context? As it doesn't refer to a habitual action of Harry, shouldn't it be present continuous?


title: Word for "seeing without being seen"

text: Is there a word for _seeing without being seen_? I want to write about those on the advantageous side of tinted glasses. _Visual/optical eavesdropping_ is the closest phrase I can think of.


title: Single-word "mirror" synonyms

text: I was looking for the synonyms of the noun _mirror_ : > A surface capable of reflecting sufficient undiffused light to form an image > of an object placed in front of it. The majority of the synonyms are compounds containing the noun _glass_ (looking glass, hand glass, cheval glass, etc.) Are there some single-word, poetic, or even archaic synonyms for it?


title: "As" vs "because of"

text: I am a little bit confused in meaning of "as" and "because of". there are two sentences: I felt tired today **as** I worked hard yesterday. I felt tired **because of** I worked hard yesterday or I felt tired **because of** working hard. Do those sentences have same sense? i have suspense in second sentence. Is that correct? I am unable to understand second sentence as I am not native speaker of English. Can anybody tell me about usage of **because of** and **as**?


title: Alternative ways of saying "hope life is treating you well"

text: In a letter to an acquaintance, what's the best way to express literally hope that everything is good at their end? "I trust you are well" sounds a bit too formal?


title: Word for a person or code which puts emphasis on self-improvement

text: I'm looking for a word which describes a person or ethical/religious code or whatever which emphasises self-improvement. That is, that the point of it is to fix one's flaws and vices and whatnot. I've found two words which are close but not exactly what I mean - _ascetic_ might work except that suggests a real strictness about it, whilst _virtuous_ might be something to strive towards, and not the actual belief in wanting to become one.


title: What rhetoric is applied in this sentence?

text: > There is no point in pretending that XXX is what it is not, nor that it is > not what it is. I feel that English language has many of these kind of usage that exploits the fact that the logically flipped clauses put side-by-side strikes emphasis of the point the writer want to make. What named rhetoric method is this?


title: Orchestra Without a Score

text: What is the term for an orchestra or group of musicians playing without sheet music? Essentially they are "winging it" or improvising. Maybe I need to clarify the question. I recall a specific term for an orchestra or small group of musicians that do not use a score. The sound that the orchestra produces may not be pleasing to the ears. Essentially everyone in the orchestra just plays what they want.


title: Should there be a comma after this adverbial phrase?

text: > From the moment I saw him I knew this wouldn't work out. OR > From the moment I saw him, I knew this wouldn't work out. It just doesn't seem to flow as well in the second version. Which one should I use?


title: Is "chubby" offensive?

text: I said to a person that she is "chubby" and, apparently, she took it very seriously. What I meant to say is that she's not skin and bones, she carried more pounds than needed but, precisely because of that, she should be actually more attractive. In Italian I would say that she is "in carne" but I don't know its English equivalent. Is there a word for it in English?


title: What does "praise from Caesar" mean?

text: What does the phrase "praise from Caesar" mean and where does it come from?


title: Where would the commas go in this sentence?

text: A man so powerful he could crush stones in his hands approached me. I'm not sure, but I'm guessing after "powerful" and maybe "hands"?


title: Can two automated systems "interface" between each other?

text: I'm trying to indicate unlimited interaction between two applications. Would the following work? > Our developer API allows you to interface with [product] without limitation!


title: Help me identify the structure of this excerpt

text: "Girls being kept out of the sciences and pushed into the humanities; the humanities being valued less in our society than the sciences;... " This sentence is weird and I want to know why. I noticed "being" has no helping verb. The semicolons delineate subjects; it reads like a list. My questions: What is the structure? Is this passive? What is the verb tense? Is there an object? Why is this terrible? Thank you. edit: Here is the full quote: > Girls **being** kept out of the sciences and pushed into the humanities; the > humanities **being** valued less in our society than the sciences; and the > humanities and sciences **being** looked at as stark opposites **that > couldn’t possibly be** enjoyed for the same reasons > > are all problems that need to in some degree be tackled together. All the "beings" stick out to me, as do the excessive semicolons. The transition from the final "being" into the "couldn't possible be" is strange, (is there a tense switch?), and then it ends weakly.


title: Is “are” a borrowed word?

text: I read somewhere that English is the only language to have borrowed a form of its _to be_ verb from another language. I want to say, if memory serves, that it was _are_ that was borrowed from an early Scandinavian language. Is that so? I know Old English had _sind_ for one of their ~~pronouns~~ inflections of _be_ , the same as in German. But did it switch to _are_ naturally from some other gentler evolution, or was it borrowed?


title: Difference between "packet", "parcel" and "package"

text: The definition on OALD is identical for _parcel_ and _packet_. > parcel (especially British English) (North American English usually package) > something that is wrapped in paper or put into a thick envelope so that it > can be sent by mail, carried easily, or given as a present > > packet a small object wrapped in paper or put into a thick envelope so that > it can be sent by mail, carried easily or given as a present According to OALD, _package_ is a North American term, though ngram viewer indicates that it is also the most common word in British English. ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/r2Yh5.png) What is the difference between _packet_ , _parcel_ and _package_? Do the words denote size or material ( _package_ in its second meaning)?


title: What word has the greatest morpheme to syllable ratio?

text: I am curious how tightly packed morphemes can be in English words. Do any of you happen to know which English word has the most morphemes per syllable, or know how to find out? These are the best I've found so far: > fourths (3 morphemes, one syllable) > > firsts, fifths, sixths, eighths, ninths (same) And a similar question: which word has the fewest morphemes per syllable? I haven't thought about this one as much, but this was the best I could think of off the top of my head: > anthropomorphism (3 morphemes, 6 syllables)


title: Why there's a difference between the two common appearances of the letter “a”?

text: Luckily the forum is using Georgia typeface, so both can be easily shown below: > _**a_** vs **a**


title: Spelling of "moustache"

text: This has always confused me. I've always spelled it "moustache", but my browser's spell checker claims the correct spelling is "mustache". From what I've seen around the Internet, people seem to use both. What is the proper spelling? Are both acceptable?


title: The expression "hands down."

text: How did the expression "hands down" come to mean "without a doubt?"


title: Is Saturday night before or after Saturday?

text: People sometimes write something like "let's finish this work by Saturday night" or "let's meet on Saturday night". Which day and time do they mean? Is it short for tonight, and then it's on Saturday somewhere between 6pm and 11:59pm, just before Sunday starts? Or is it after midnight, which is after Friday evening, when Saturday just starts?


title: "Caution: Water Mo......." What is that word?

text: I came across a screenshot of a film on the internet, and there is a caution plate on the tree in that scene. I couldn't read the last word on the plate: > CAUTION: WATER MO..ASINS What is that word? ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/PoUia.jpg)


title: What is the correct British / Irish English spelling of Yoghurt?

text: Is it _youghurt_ , _yoghurt_ , or _yogurt_? Is there a correct spelling, or are they all correct?


title: Is it Standard American English to ever contract "did" as "-'d"?

text: Assuming that it is Standard American English to contract _would_ as _-'d_ , is it standard to contract _did_ as _-'d_? For example: >   * I would really like to have a glass of single malt scotch right now.   >  → I'd really like to have a glass of single malt scotch right now. > >   * What did you do last night?   >  → What'd you do last night? > > My hypothesis is that the _did → -'d_ contraction is perfectly acceptable when it follows a question word, otherwise it sounds awkward, or even bad. On the flip side, the _would → -'d_ contraction is actually unacceptable when it follows a question word. In other words, the two are in complementary distribution, at least for the most part. Note: my question was originally about the spoken Standard American English, but if there is any difference in acceptability between the spoken and written standard, I would be grateful to learn about it.


title: Can "But!" be a sentence?

text: From Dune by Frank Herbert: > "I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that > brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass > over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye > to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will > remain." > > He felt calmness return, said: "Get on with it, old woman." > > "Old woman!" she snapped. "You've courage, and that can't be denied. Well, > we shall see, sirra." She bent close, lowered her voice almost to a whisper. > "You will feel pain in this hand within the box. Pain. **But!** Withdraw the > hand and I'll touch your neck with my gom jabbar --the death so swift it's > like the fall of the headsman's axe. Withdraw your hand and the gom jabbar > takes you. Understand?" > > "What's in the box?" > > "Pain." Is the sentence "But!" considered grammatically correct? How is this meant to be interpreted? How is it different from using a comma? It should be noted this is part of a dialog.


title: What does ‘Irresistible mayhem’ and “I love you in 18 syllables.” mean in describing Elisabeth Taylor’s charm?

text: In the article of today’s New York Times praising Elisabeth Taylor’s beauty and her personal style titled “An Alluring Beauty Exempt From Fashion’s Rules” I found two phrases unfamiliar to me, i.e. “She was irresistible mayhem, and “I love you in 18 syllables.” quoted from Joel Rosenthal, one of the actress’s closest friend’s remarks. Could you explain what these two phrases mean? > “She was the only goddess I know who had a sense of humor and a gigantic > heart,” said Joel Rosenthal, one of the top jewelers in the world, whose > Paris-based company is called JAR. “She was irresistible mayhem,” he said by > telephone from Basel, Switzerland. “And she was without vanity. She > transcended whatever else she was doing, be it a mediocre script or a dress > that didn’t look right. --- He could still hear the singing tone of her > voice as she signed off a telephone conversation: “I love you,” he said, “in > 18 syllables.”


title: Two's company; three's a crowd

text: **Two's company; three's a crowd** I have checked here "(Often implies that you want to be alone with the person because you are romantically interested in him or her.)" My question: Could you say that to elderly people? Is it polite? Excuse me, but this question really appears from me as a non-native speaker, thank you.


title: What to capitalize in table headings?

text: I'm writting a table for a scientific paper and I'm not sure what to capitalize in the column-headings. Which rule should be used? Normal English capitalization (then the next question is: write the first word upper case?) or the one where everything except for some words (of, in...) is written in uppercase? Example for the possibilites:                        | Programming Language | Programming language | programming language |               ----------------------------------------------------------------------      System 1 | Java                 | Python               | Erlang               |


title: What does "as" mean in this sentence?

text: I have two questions here, and they are both from an article at Economist.com. Here is the link: http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/10/citi- loses-its-boss The First Question: What does _as_ mean in the 2nd sentence in the last paragraph but one: > An effort to provide a higher dividend payment to shareholders was rejected > by Citi’s regulators **as** imprudent. I understand it to be an adverb, but then I can't figure out what the whole sentence means. The Second Question: What's the structure of the first sentence in paragraph 4, and how should I comprehend it: > Reaction to the appointment has been mixed, and that, in addition to Mr > Pandit’s virtues, may have suppressed any bounce. This is how I understand its structure: the reaction has suppressed any bounce, including Mr Pandit's virtues. And that doesn't make sense to me. Does **that** refer to **reaction**? Does **bounce** mean rejection of a check, or something else? And what's with **Mr Pandit's virtues**?


title: Meaning of "at least Dick Turpin wore a mask"

text: I tried to sell my stuff and one of the guys asked me if I could bargain on the item and I said no. He replied with the message, > At least Dick Turpin wore a mask. What does that mean?


title: Should you use a comma/period after "Thanks"/"Regards" in email signatures?

text: Normal practice is to end emails with a _Thanks_ or _Regards_. My question is should there be a comma or a period or nothing after _Thanks/Regards_? > Thanks,   >  John Doe Or > Thanks.   >  John Doe Or > Thanks   >  John Doe I have seen all three versions as part of email signatures. Which among these three is correct? Why?


title: Punctuation after valediction

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Should you use a comma/period after "Thanks"/"Regards" in email signatures? When writing a letter, do we put a comma or a period after the valediction?   1. > Sincerely,   >  John Doe   2. > Sincerely.   >  John Doe


title: Using plural for two individual objects of the same kind

text: Assume Einstein conjectured something (in Mathematics) and Zweistein conjectured something slightly stronger (implies Einstein's conjecture). Which one of the following is correct?:               (a) Every X satisfies Zweistein's and thus Einstein's conjecture.     (b) Every X satisfies Zweistein's and thus Einstein's conjectures.      How about:               (a) Every X satisfies Zweistein's and Einstein's conjecture.     (b) Every X satisfies Zweistein's and Einstein's conjectures.      I went with (a), but was corrected by a native speaker. My feeling was that there are two separate identities and that "Zweistein's and Einstein's conjecture" is short for "Zweistein's conjecture and Einstein's conjecture".


title: How to distinguish between "blasphemy" and "sacrilege" in a non-religious context?

text: On cooking.stackexchange, somebody asked how to make a chili which isn't too hot. I suggested mixing chiles and sweet peppers, and added the tongue-in- cheek remark that some chefs will consider my solution a `sacrilege`. A native English speaker left a comment saying that it would be rather considered a `blasphemy`. Is there a rule for using `sacrilege` vs. `blasphemy` in a joking context? Or maybe `sacrilege` isn't used at all? If you need to see it, here is my original answer.


title: "You did a good job [at/in] answering my questions"

text: Which phrase is grammatically correct? >   1. good job _at_ answering my questions >   2. good job _in_ answering my questions >   3. good job answering my questions > Or, are all the phrases correct?


title: Introducing yourself to someone you have never met

text: Today, my manager introduced me to an employee who's visiting us from a different geographical location. The person is visiting our office for 2 weeks. I don't know anything about him and I don't have any working relationship with him either. Being an non-native English speaker, I couldn't think of more than 2 sentences to say and there is an awkward silence that followed. All this while, my manager was observing me, which makes me even more nervous. I would like to know how to engage a stranger casually, without thinking too much? The conversation went something like below. Manager : Hi Peter, this is Mr.X visiting us from UK regarding project-Z. Me(Peter): Hi Mr.X, how are you? welcome to our office. Mr.X: I am good, thanks. Me: Couldn't think of anything else to say!!!


title: What does "desperate sign" mean here?

text: > The one political outlook to which it(general will) remain fundamentally > inimical, not surprisingly, was that of royal absolutism-which is not to say > that there were no attempts to confiscate the "general" will for royalist > ends, but merely that these arebetter seen as **desperate signs** of the > growing prestige of the formula in this period than anything else.（The > French Idea of Revolution ed. by Dale Van Kley: 215) I get confused about "desperate sign". The sign of growing prestige of the "general will" is very positive. Desperate may be used to describe the royalists' attempt to confiscate the "general will". But can it be used to describe "sign"? What does it exactly mean?


title: As quick as we can?

text: Is it acceptable to say "We'll get back to you as quick as we can"? Is "quick" a flat adverb in this case?


title: What word describes a policeman who is not wearing a uniform?

text: How do you describe a police officer on duty, who wears casual clothes because he/she doesn't want to disclose his/her identity?


title: Grammar/case in a salutation/greeting

text: I have a simple question — in a greeting or salutation such as "Good Morning Jane", since I believe it is a contraction, is Jane the object (as in "Good Morning to Jane") or is it the subject (as in "Jane, a good morning to you")? What about a common salutation such as "Dear Jane"?


title: Words that mean the exact opposite to themselves

text: As I'm sure everyone is now aware, the OED has now acknowledged that "literally" can be used to mean both "figuratively" AND "actually" \-- two words with the opposite definition. It got me wondering: Are there any other words in the English language that can mean the opposite to itself?


title: Meaning of "Discretion"

text: I saw this dictionary entry, and it says " _discretion_ " could mean approximately either 1) the right to choose what to do or 2) the quality of being careful what you do.   The dictionary has these two example sentences illustrating those two senses:   1. The coach used/exercised his own **_discretion_** to let the injured quarterback play. (for sense 1)   2. He always uses care and **_discretion_** when dealing with others. (for sense 2) Assuming "practice" (US verb) = "practise" (UK verb). If I write this: > He practices **_discretion_** when dealing with problems. should " _discretion_ " have the "right to choose" sense or the "being careful" sense? Or is it ambiguous?


title: Idiom/saying/word request for "inappropriately complex analogy"

text: I'm looking for an adjective, saying or idiom for an analogy which makes the things even harder to grasp, that was supposed to make things easier to understand. **Examples** :   * A guy makes an analogy to express that playing violin and driving a car is similar, when he teaches driving cars. But since very limited people know how to play violin, it does not make things easier.    * A guy teaches culinary on Youtube. But he rather than he explains the basics of culinary (say boiling water), he says 'oh this process is similar to gamma radiation'. It is not important if the analogy is good or bad. Just it makes things harder to understand.


title: Antonym for atmosphere?

text: To be used for either meaning (air around the planet, or aura/feeling of a location) of the word atmosphere. Earth and vacuum are the closest I can think of for air atmosphere, but all I can come up with for aura is to describe it using negatives. Are there true antonyms for either definition of atmosphere?


title: 'Heavy Traffic' or 'Lot of Traffic'?

text: Is it appropriate to say 'Heavy Traffic'? I am referring to traffic as in roads and vehicles in this context. Is using 'lot of traffic' more appropriate?


title: What would be the opposite of "Divine Saint King"?

text: In a fanfiction that I am writing, a character has the title of _Divine Saint Kaiser_ (Kaiser being translated to King). At one point she is kidnapped and the ones responsible who know of her ancestry plan on killing her as they call her the _"Demon Child of the **_ _** Tyrant"_, believing that if she's alive it'll spark a repeat of a civil war called the Saint King Unification War. The idea is that they are calling her the opposite to Divine Saint King, I've chosen Tyrant to replace King because Divine Saint King sounds benevolent and kind (so the opposite to that would be an iron fist cruel tyrant). I would like to know what I could use as the opposite of _Divine_ and _Saint_ , preferably avoiding _Demon_ as I don't want the title to repeat it when it's used in _Demon Child_. EDIT: The material my fiction is based from is _Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha_ , for those who don't know the civilization which uses Saint Kaiser is Belka whose language is similar to German, however there are inconsistencies as Kaiser = Emperor not King. However, it's probably not mistranslated as there is a character whose ancestor was an Emperor. Also, while in Nanoha, the Saint King isn't referred to as the _Divine Saint King_. I chose to add Divine because a character has 2 titles, _Dark Ruler_ (see last sentence) and _Flame King_ (see 2nd paragraph, last sentence) and I've chosen to combine the 2 titles to be _Dark Flame King_ , I feel if i give one Belkan Ruler a 3 worded title I should do the same with all the rest, I chose Divine to go with Saint as Divine can also be seen as holy and I remember reading somewhere that Kings were at one time thought to have been chosen by God.


title: "On the cloud" or "in the cloud"?

text: I would use this title for a blog about cloud computing. Which is correct — " _on_ the cloud" or " _in_ the cloud"?


title: Help me with understanding the meaning of "apparent" in this sentence

text: There are reasons for denying that the relationship between recalled sensations and sensory imagery are what is responsible for apparent possibility of imagined sensations.


title: "Something worked perfectly" vs "something worked perfect"

text: While grammatically the former one seems to be the only correct form (English is my second language, so let me know if I'm wrong here), the latter one appears to be used quite extensively, and I wonder if it's appropriate, too. Thanks!


title: "To some" vs. "for some"

text: Are "for some" and "to some" interchangable? > To some the sun appears brighter in the afternoons. My natural instinct is to use "for some" in that sentence, but I don't understand why "to some" is incorrect (if it is). Can anyone shed some light?


title: Word for teaching moral lessons annoyingly

text: Is there a word that I can use to describe writing that explicitly tries to make us learn moral lessons which could be boring?


title: What is the difference between "I am able to" and "I can"?

text: Please, tell me the difference between these two statements.


title: A good and exhaustive book for English grammar

text: Before marking this post duplicate or voting to get it closed (the reason for which I simply don't get just because it is a grammar forum after all! If I am seeking recommendation for a book that means I will be coming back someday to the same site for my doubts also provided I get a not so harsh reply!), please read this and help this MBA aspirant. A little about myself and my research so far. I am a very critical reader of English Grammar and the kind of person who aims at perfection. Currently, I am keen on taking on English grammar again after a certain gap. Well, I am aiming for MBA, so preparing for entrance exams for the same. I bought the religiously followed **Wren and Martin** and started studying it chapter by chapter. I was surprised when I read the pronouns chapter. I studied all the rules given and then started practising but it came as surprise when I found when many of the attempted questions were wrong. The reason simply being the rules for those specific sentences were not given. For example: > We scored as many goals as they/them? According to me, the answer should be _they_ , but it's _them_ according to the solution manual. Worse still, the solution manual offers no explanation for this. So after a chat with my teachers I was suggested to follow the blogs of grammarians and look for any rules for the sentences that have contradictory answers! I did so and was clarified by this post of pronouns, Rule 5. Then I saw a book by the same author. I was momentarily happy. It was Momentarily because the reviews on Amazon were too bad about this book. After reading a couple of forums about the book I found a common statement saying that _no grammar book is exhaustive._ So, it's okay for me to have more than one. And my simple question is what will be a good and _almost exhaustive_ (if not fully exhaustive) book of English grammar to help get through the subtle usages of English in my management entrances which is crisp and to the point and yet covers all important rules and syntax, and most importantly having _practice tests_ at the end _with solutions_ and explanations?


title: Native English speaker looking to enhance writing skills

text: I'm a native English speaker. I already have relatively good writing skills but I want to refine my skills. When I say skills I'm referring to grammar, business writing and anything else which is related. I'm mostly looking for a book to read on the topic. I want to be an authoritative grammar nazi rather than an opinionated one. Any suggestions? Thanks!


title: "delivered effort" versus "deliberate effort"

text: If someone has written, "a delivered effort to do something," is it a typo where the intended word was "deliberate" or is it its own turn of phrase?


> Similarly to the previous version of this product, this version contains the > same feature and .... (a long description of the product) Is the usage of "similarly to" in the sentence beginning correct? Or is there any better alternative? How would English people say this sentence in formal language?


title: How do you separate 'and so' from the main part of a sentence?

text: He has no control over what happens there, and disappointingly so. (in the sense that **had he had some control, it would be a lot better** ) Is the usage of 'and XXXXX so' right? Does it need a comma before 'and'?


title: "On the weekend" or "during the weekend"

text: Which is correct? > I will see her **on** the weekend. > > I will see her **during** the weekend.


title: X Shared Y's Something

text: I was looking up information about popes and then I found this: > found here   >  Pope Julius III (1550–1555) was alleged to have had a long affair with > Innocenzo Ciocchi del Monte. The Venetian ambassador at that time reported > that I* **nnocenzo shared the pope's bed.*** Should the marked portion be changed to either "Innocenzo slept in the pope's bed" or "Innocenzo shared a bed with the pope"? Other examples I found on the web suggest this usage: For a hypothetical example with two people, Mike and John, and a shareable object, a table, which is owned by Mike, I could write only:   * "Mike and John share a table"    * "Mike shares a table with John"    * "John shares a table with Mike"  but not "John shares Mike's table". Any suggestions from this forum's members?


title: Is there any difference between "famous" and "popular"?

text: Is there any difference between _famous_ and _popular_?


title: "Insofar" or "in so far"

text: A quick search suggests that _insofar_ is the American variant of the British _in so far_. I always assumed it belonged to the set of expressions like _hitherto_ , _heretofore_ , _therefore_ and _albeit_. Is there a preferred usage, and does it matter? General context for the usage of these expressions would be helpful.


title: Noun for rule to strengthen a preexisting one

text: I was wondering if there is a noun built off the word strengh the same way we find the word corrective as built off the word correct. The context would be a term for second rule or law which is created specifically to add strength to a preexisting one.


title: Which sentence is more common?

text: Which way do you prefer to say this sentence: "inaccurate pruning makes the trees out of shape" or "inaccurate pruning puts the trees into deformed shape"?


title: When to spell out or when the acronym itself is sufficient

text: When using an acronym for the first time, it must be spelled out. That's a given. However, if there is a "Definition" section where ALL acronyms that are going to be used in the document are defined and spelled out and this section precedes the rest of the document, do you need to use the full name and its associated acronym later in the document? Example: 1st paragraph of the document explains the document's purpose. In this paragraph, there is an acronym used as follows - "....Delegation Oversight (DO)..." "DO" is now identified as representing Delegation Oversight in the rest of the document. The next section of the document (which follows this first paragraph) provides definitions for all important words used in the document and provides their acronym (where applicable). Following this section is the rest of the document. Do we need to spell out each acronym or can we just use the acronym itself given that it is already defined? My thought is, if the acronym is already defined by the "Definition" section, it does not need to be redefined and spelled out at any point later in the document. Now, if this definition section was to be say on the last page of the document (like an index), then I would think that all acronyms would need to be spelled out the first time they are used in the document. Are these assumptions correct?


title: Is 'uniquer' a word?

text: My spellcheck doesn't complain about 'uniquer'. Is it a valid word? Since unique means "one of a kind", 'uniquer' has no valid definition, but that doesn't prevent it from being a valid dictionary word.


title: How to Reference a Figure Based on a Corresponding Table?

text: I am currently writing a thesis. So far, when I put a caption under a figure which was based on a preceding table, I worded the figure's caption to something along: > Figure 1.2: Graphical Illustration of Table 1.3 to Display Thing A and > Something B . `Figure 1.2:` is the automatically generated label which is done via LaTeX and `\caption{Graphical Illustration of Table 1.3 to Display Thing A and Something B}` in a `figure`-environment. `Table 1.3` is generated via `\autoref{<label-identifier-here>}`. I would like to keep the capitalization of the references to figures and tables consistent... so far I have kept them capitalized. My questions are:   * Is this correct?   * If correct, could there be a more elegant way? I have a couple of figured based on corresponding data in tables and it's a bit  Then, I would like to ask a meta question: did I get the capitalization of the main words right in the thread's title and figures' captions? I googled for a bit and found a site on this: See oxfordjournal.sorg, in the section 'TYPESCRIPT TEXT'. I chose to follow the "case-specific" guideline, i.e. I capitalize all "main words". I think it's the same as here.


title: How did the slang meaning of "owned" come to be?

text: Why does > Dude! I just owned you! mean that the speaker did really well against "Dude" in some sort of competition or game?


title: What's the story with the British use of "miss not having" vs. "miss having?"

text: This one has bugged me for years. When an American English speaker wishes to express regret that Joe doesn't come around any more, they would typically say, "I really miss having him around." It seems that it's common for British English speakers, however, to say, "I really miss not having him around," when they mean the same thing. To me, this sounds like exactly the opposite of what they mean to say. "Having him around" is what we regret the lack of, is it not? So why negate that, essentially saying you regret the lack of "not having him around" implying that he IS around and you liked it better when he wasn't. Can anybody explain why the British construction makes any sense? Is there some difference of interpretation in the meaning of the word "miss"?


title: Who translated "He's a muddled fool, full of lucid intervals."

text: I have revised herein my question of Aug 18 and update my research based on the most helpful suggestions of Peter Schor and tchrist of Aug 18, 2013.   1. I'm not a Cervantista and don't speak Spanish. I've just been fond of this phrase for a long time and, in opinion, it still remains the most pleasing, concise description of the loveable Don Quixote.   2. Cervantes wrote Part I in 1605 and 10 years later in 1615 Part II. This quote comes from his Part II Chapter XVIII (2:18.)   3. The exact quote is not found in any of the major translations which I list below. The exact quote actually appeared first in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations 14th Ed. 1968, Emily Morison Beck, Editor, p. 196. Footnote 3 says the editors used for reference Motteux's translation published by the Modern Library Giant edition, New York 1930. I just now bought my copy. Of the 114 Quixote quotes, 112 (97%) are verbatim quotes from the book, only four are different. Interestingly, one of the four is our quote in question.   4. So, who translated this quote? As Peter Schor has so kindly contributed, _"It's possible Bartlett...translated the Spanish themselves..."_ I'm also greatly indebted to tchrist, _"The origin of the choice of translation lies always with the translator...is all open to the translator's choice of nuance..."_ 1620 Thomas Shelton, first English translator, _He is a curious madman, and hath neat dilemmas_ 1712 Peter Motteux, 1719 Ozell's revision of Motteux's translation, Modern Library Giant Ed. (New York 1930) p. 557, _He is Mad past Recovery, but yet he has lucid intervals_ 1742 Charles Jarvis, Vol IV p. 129, _His distraction is a medley full of lucid intervals_ 1755 Tobias Smollett, Modern Library 2004, p. 366, _he is a party-coloured maniack, full of lucid intervals_ 1881 Alexander J. Duffield, p.76, _he is a mingled madman, of many lucid intervals_ 1885 John Ormsby, 1981 Douglas/Jones revision _sans_ lenghty notes, hence ODJ, _he is a madman full of streaks, full of lucid intervals_ 1888 Henry Edward Watts, Vol IV p. 209, _He is a fool interlarded.1---full of lucid streaks._ Footnote 1: _Un entreverado loco. Entreverado_ is generally applied to bacon, meaning fat and lean commingled. See _Donoso_ the _poeta entreverado,_ in the prefatory verses to Part I. (Vol II. P.26) 1949 Samuel Putnam, Modern Library p. 624, _He is a streaked madman, full of lucid intervals._ 1950 J. M. Cohen, Penguin Classics, Collector's Library reprint 2008, p. 625, _He is mad in patches, full of lucid intervals_ 1957 Walter Starkie, Signet Classics p. 652, _He is mad in patches, full of lucid intervals_ 1968 Bartlett's Familiar Quotations 14th Ed. 1968, p. 196, _He's a muddled fool, full of lucid intervals, III, 18, p. 556._ P. 193 footnote 3: Translated in 1700-1703 by Peter Anthony Motteux (1660-1718). Page numbers are those of the Modern Library Giant edition. (note 2 typos: Motteux was born 1663, correct page is 557) 1995 Burton Raffel, Norton Critical Edition p. 453, _he's plainly an off-again on-again madman, shot full of lucid intervals_ 1999 Oxford Dictionary of Quotations 1999, p. 200, _He's a muddle-headed fool, with frequent lucid intervals_ 2000 John Rutherford, Penguin Classics p. 604, _he's mad in streaks, complete with lucid intervals_ 2003 Edith Grossman, HarperCollins p. 511, _he is a combination madman who has many lucid intervals_ 2005 Tom Lathrop, Signet Classics 2011, p. 637, _He's a crazy man with periods of lucidity_ 2006 James Montgomery, Hackett Pub. Co. I don't have The old Italian proverb, _Traduttore, traditore,_ did warn that interpreting translation phrases can be treacherous.


title: What's the difference between by night and at night?

text: Oxford Dictionary says _by_ has the meaning of `*‘indicating the period in which something happens: this animal always hunts by night’`* Then do we need to say ‘Why does the sky glitter **by** night?’ and can’t we say ‘Why does the sky glitter **at** night?’? If we can use both, what’s the difference between the two?


title: Use of proper noun District Attorney's Office or D. A.'s Office vs district attorney's office

text: Is it correct to use the lowercase for district attorney's office when a particular office (e.g., Shelby County District Attorney's Office) is not included? Even if you're referring to a particular DA's office in ongoing text, is lowercase still used since Shelby County doesn't directly precede it?


title: Name for a new "ad" entry encompassing buyer requests and supplier offers

text: I am developing an application which allows companies to post entries with precise details of what they want to buy and suppliers to submit their offers. Each entry contains information about each item to be ordered, including quantity. What do you call such an "entry"? Is _ad_ a suitable word here? Imagine someone who wants to add a new entry. They will be looking for a button, **New ???**. I'm looking for a word I could replace ??? with.


title: Does "digital crafting agency" sound good and is it meaningful for a company's description?

text: There are some web development studios who call themselves a "digital agency". For our small team we're going to take a similar tagline, "digital crafting agency". Does this sound okay to native speakers? Is it descriptive of a company who makes websites and (maybe) some other media things like games or apps?


title: What does "waste not, want not" mean?

text: I would like it to be explained, if it has a single meaning, it's confusing me, I see it could mean "please don't waste whatever you don't want", or just the opposite, i.e. "There is nothing without a waste". **EDIT** The source of confusion are phrases like "no pain no gain" which are inversely arranged, I mean, the negation, "no" is before the Verb, like if "no Verb" were equal to "Verb not"


title: What is the single word for a school where only boys study?

text: A school where both boys and girls study is called co-ed (co-education) What is the name for the school where only males study? (Calling it a male school seems a bit awkward)


title: What does "standards of proof characteristic of an exact science" mean in this sentence?

text: > Many people interested in human behavior do not feel the need for standards > of proof characteristic of an exact science;the uniformities in behavior are > "obvious" without them. My understanding is the word **proof** is a verb here, so **standards of proof characteristic of an exact science** means some kind of standards use for proof characteristic of an exact science, am I right?


title: Is "I laugh 10 minutes" grammatical?

text: I think it should be > _"I laugh for 10 minutes"_ and yet online I found versions with no _for_ : "I laugh 10 minutes". Is that form grammatical?


title: Usage of "go to" vs "go"

text: I'm trying to explain the difference between "go to" and "go" and I'm not sure what the actual rule is. I've tried searching about it, but I couldn't find anything. When should I use "go to" and when should I use "go?" For example, I should say "Let's go home" but not "Let's go to home." On the flip side, "Let's go to your house," but not "Let's go your house." Can someone help me with the rule behind this?


title: What's the meaning of the word "nerd-crush"?

text: This is the context: > I’m just going to come right out and say it, I have a huge nerd-crush on > jQuery. I have for several years. Actually, it may be more of a love affair.


title: Is there another way of saying "less is more"?

text: Is there another way of saying “less is more" in the following context? > They changed their packaging and left only the essential branding on it. It > epitomizes " _less is more"._


title: Word for "left alone and to die"?

text: Is there a word that means "left alone and to die"? Edit: I believe there is such a word. I think I'm looking for abandoned and alone. Others expectations are that you'll die.


title: What does "to be a range of time shy of a date" mean?

text: Consider the following paragraph (Huffington Post): > Ronald Post died Thursday morning at a prison hospital where he'd been > treated on and off since 2011, a state prisons spokeswoman said. He was a > week shy of his 54th birthday. What does the last sentence mean? What are its particular connotations?


title: Can I use "any" with singular noun in formal English?

text: As far I as I remember, "any" and "some" are used with plural nouns or uncountable ones. I know about exceptions for "some" (Wow, some car). But can I say the following and be grammatical: > Is there any other problem? or should be better this: > Is there another problem?


title: Why is butcher paper spelt without an apostrophe?

text: Why is butcher paper spelt without an apostrophe, rather than as "butcher's paper", when "carpenter's square" is spelt with an apostrophe?


title: What's the meaning of "spin-off"?

text: What's the meanining of spin-off? like the spin-off of a TV series.


title: If widowed aunt remarries, is her husband "uncle"?

text: My mother's brother's wife Louise has always been _Aunt Lou_ to me; her husband, my Uncle Bob, died young, but we still called her Aunt Lou. After many years she has now re-married. Is her second husband my Uncle Jim or not?


title: Only a something away from completing something

text: Is this statement grammatically correct: > Only an Xbox One away from completing my Microsoft family. I have a Microsoft Phone (Lumia 920), PC (Dell) and tablet (Surface Pro) and I just need a console now (Xbox One) so does that statement correctly tell a person that I just need an Xbox One now in order to complete my Microsoft [product] family (which includes phone, PC and tablet right now) ?


title: Is it correct to use estimate as an adjective?

text: Ex. sentence: theft is costing mini marts an estimate $10 per day <> theft is costing mini marts an estimated $10 per day. Is the first correct? And in its case, are you using estimate as a transitive adjective, or a transitive noun?


In the classic C++ book _Modern C++ Design_ , I come across such statements: > You have the round-trip problem, the not-enough-code-worth-generating > problem, the inflexible-generator problem, the inscrutable-generated-code > problem What does it mean by "the round-trip problem"?


title: Placing "If-then" among conjunctions

text: The "conditional if" plays a role of a subordinating conjunction. While I haven't found a source to say so, I gather that this may be freely paired with "then" in the standard "if-then" clause. The correct comma punctuation would seem to be: > If it's a square, (then) it's a rectangle. > > (Then) it's a square if it's a rectangle. (I think use of "then" in front is uncommon, but I don't know if it's ungrammatical per se.) I found a few places on the internet where "if-then" was categorized as a correlator, but I am inclined to disagree. There is no parallel structure, and the punctuation does not match up. I am guessing that "if-then" is sometimes mislabeled as a correlator when some people ineptly conclude that "correlative conjunction means a pair of conjunctions". Can anyone review these thoughts and offer any details I overlooked?


title: What does "fast eye" mean?

text: The following is taken from the subtitles (grammatical errors appear in the film) in the 1979 movie _Wise Blood_ : > Hazel Motes: I only follered her to say I wasn't beholden to none of her > _fast eye_ like she give me back there. > > Preacher's Daughter: What do you mean? I never looked at you with no _fast > eye_. I only watched you tearin' up that tract. Since she seems offended, my first thought was that "fast eye" means "looking at with physical attraction." This dialog is also in the book.


title: Is "Saffer" an offensive term for a South African?

text: I've always believed that "Saffer" is a derogatory term for a South African.   But a few minutes earlier, I saw this tweet by ESPN:   ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/0sa9P.png) So, isn't "Saffer" a derogatory term?


title: Name for Variable satisfying an inequality with equality

text: In mathematics we often have statements like `a x <= b`, where `a` and `b` are constants and `x` is a variable. Now there may be variables satisfying the inequality (that is the statement is true) as well as variables violating it (in which case it's false). However I don't have any words in my vocabulary to express stricter statements: Is there a word to describe that the variable `x` satisfies the _equality_ `a x = b`? What about the case that `a x < b`? I remember having read "`x` is a root of the inequality" meaning `a x = b` somewhere, but I can't remember where.


title: What is the history of adding the a- prefix to form words?

text: I have always found the **a-** prefix to words (as in **anew** , **ajar** , **aside** , **awake** , **afoot** , **a-hunting** , etc.) fascinating. The _NOAD_ says on this topic: > **a- 2.** prefix > > •to; toward : _aside | ashore_. > > • in a specified state or manner : _asleep | aloud_. > > • in the process of (an activity) : _a-hunting_. > > • on : _afoot_. > > • in : _nowadays_. > > ORIGIN Old English , unstressed form of on. > > **a- 4.** prefix > > 1 of: _anew_. > > [ORIGIN: unstressed form of of ] > > 2 utterly: _abash_. [ORIGIN: from Anglo-Norman French (corresponding to Old > French e-, es-), from Latin ex.] While this gives quite a few examples, it leaves some areas of doubt to me:   1. At what time did this phenomenon happen?   2. It seem quite restricted to words of Saxon origin, as I don't see it used with words of Romance languages. Is that a consequence of point 1, or is it because usage wouldn't aggregate an Old English prefix with, e.g., a word of French origin?   3. Were there others words formed which haven't endured?    4. _Arguably subjective:_ I wonder how it came to pass that the same prefix is used with so many different meanings.


title: What's the difference between "from the ground up" and "from scratch"? can they be used interchangeably?

text: What's the difference between "From the ground up" & "From scratch"? both seem to have the meaning of "from the very beginning". Can they be used interchangeably?


title: "Apply a patch" vs. "Install a patch"

text: One of my peers insist that one should say "install a patch". I believe on the contrary that "apply a patch" is more natural and one can only "install a program" when it comes to piece of software. A quick search in google tells me that the words _apply_ and _patch_ are more often associated as the words _install_ and _patch_. There is nonetheless a lot of result for it, and searching for "install a patch" is more succesful as searching for "apply a patch". Knowing that a google search is not ideal to find an answer in this domain, I would like to know when using _apply_ is favored, and when it is better to use _install_ with the word _patch_.


title: Other ways to say a project is ahead of schedule?

text: I'm looking for ways to say a business project is (or will be) completed ahead of schedule. Obviously, there are plenty of phrases for delayed or on-time statuses, but what are some phrases for describing those rare situations when a project is actually ready ahead of time? This is what I've come up with so far:   * completed sooner than expected   * have some time to spare   * done ahead of schedule Are there any other ways to say that Murphy's Law didn't apply this one time, and things actually went better than expected?


title: "Talking to" or "talking with"

text: Which of the following sentences is correct, and what is the difference in their meaning? > I'll talk **with** Stuart and get back to you. > > I'll talk **to** Stuart and get back to you.


title: Why is a bad bowler called a 'pie-thrower'?

text: A poor bowler is called a 'pie-thrower' or a 'pie-chucker'. Does anyone know why this is so; particularly, why 'pie' was adopted for this phrase when it could have been just about anything?


title: What is the origin of the word "stamina"?

text: What is the origin of the word stamina, used in sentences like "he has a lot of stamina"?


title: "Search on" versus "search for"

text: Let's say I'm doing some research on something on Google. Do I say I'm _searching on_ or _searching for_ something on Google?


title: During what period of history did English use “ß”, the “sharp s” ligature?

text: The _ß_ glyph is a lowercase letter than represents a ligature between a long _s_ and a round _s_ , and is still used today in (some versions of) German. Its uppercase equivalent is two characters instead of one: _SS_. It was apparently also once used in just the same way English, but I cannot find just exactly when or where. Was it used in manuscript only, or in printed books? During what time period would this have run? If in print, was it done only in blackletter faces in English, or was it also done in the less German- looking ones? * * * Somewhat related is the question What animal is a “weefil”?.


title: What are footnotes called when they aren’t in the footer?

text: What do you call the little asides found in the margins of books instead of at the bottom of the page? I don’t mean the stuff scribbled in by hand, but rather the printed matter used by tasteful authors who have generous margins and which they put to good use.


title: If a “tittle” sits atop an “i” or a “j” (“ı” or “ȷ”), then where do “jots” sit?

text: In the KJV translation of Matthew 5:18, it reads: > For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, **one jot or one > tittle** shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. If a _tittle_ sits atop an _i_ or a _j_ ( _ı_ or _ȷ_ ), then where do _jots_ sit? So what is a _jot_ , anyway? * * * P.S. Here are the Unicode code points missing their tittles:                i  0069       LATIN SMALL LETTER I             * Turkish and Azerbaijani use 0130 for uppercase             x (latin small letter dotless i - 0131)             x (mathematical italic small dotless i - 1D6A4)      j  006A       LATIN SMALL LETTER J             x (latin small letter dotless j - 0237)             x (mathematical italic small dotless j - 1D6A5)      ı  0131       LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS I             * Turkish, Azerbaijani             * uppercase is 0049             x (latin small letter i - 0069)      ȷ  0237       LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS J             x (mathematical italic small dotless j - 1D6A5)      ɟ  025F       LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS J WITH STROKE             * voiced palatal stop             * typographically a turned f, but better thought of as a form of j             * "gy" in Hungarian orthography             * also archaic phonetic for palatoalveolar affricate 02A4      ʄ  0284       LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS J WITH STROKE AND HOOK             * implosive palatal stop             * typographically based on 025F, not on 0283      ᶡ  1DA1       MODIFIER LETTER SMALL DOTLESS J WITH STROKE             # <super> 025F        1D6A4      MATHEMATICAL ITALIC SMALL DOTLESS I             = \imath             x (latin small letter dotless i - 0131)             x (mathematical italic small i - 1D456)             # <font> 0131 latin small letter dotless i        1D6A5      MATHEMATICAL ITALIC SMALL DOTLESS J             = \jmath             x (latin small letter dotless j - 0237)             x (mathematical italic small j - 1D457)              # <font> 0237 latin small letter dotless j


title: Can "either" mean both "any" and "both"

text: I was checking out the definition of _either_ in dictionary, here is what I found: > one or the other of two things (any of the things will be fine) > > one and the other of two things (either side of the road) so, the word "either" can basically mean both _any_ or _both_ , is that right? Let's say I want to say: > Either of these options will do (any of the two options will do) Can it also mean both of the options will do?


title: These ones/those ones/the other ones

text: I came across the following sentence: > This is the only type of command that requires us to complete by a certain > time - all of the other **ones** aren't governed by exclusion logic. I am intrigued by the use of the word "ones" to indicate "a subset" or "a group." Since the sentence could be rewritten to eliminate the use of "ones," I'm inclined to think that "other(s)" and "ones" are somehow related/redundant: > This is the only type of command that requires us to complete by a certain > time - none of the others are governed by exclusion logic. The use of "ones" seems very informal and colloquial to me - where did it originate?   Is it unique to English, or is there a similar construct in other languages?


title: Is "supply" the inverse of "apply"?

text: We can say "The add function is applied to values 1 and 2". Can we say equivalently "The values 1 and 2 are supplied to the add function"?


title: Why do we use Roman numerals for some page numbers but Arabic ones for others?

text: Why is it that certain pages in English-language books are numbered using Roman numerals, but other pages are numbered using (so-called) Arabic ones? Has it always been this way? Or was the split once different? Or wasn’t there a split at all? Surely page numbers were not always used; I’m pretty sure the Romans never used Arabic numerals in any event. When did we start doing it this way, and why?


title: "Ice possible" or "Possible ice"?

text: Which is proper grammar: _“Ice possible drive with care”_ or _“possible ice drive with caution”_?


title: How can you distinguish between different meanings of the verb "to know" in English?

text: I work in an industrial setting. Today I had a conversation with my coworkers in which we discussed that another group knew that our group has requirements that they were not going to meet based on their current work plan. Even though this group has told us they know we have requirements for them, they do not seem to be actively working towards satisfying them. I wanted to make a pithy comment to describe this conflict between their statements and their actions but could only come up with clumsy language. The situation reminded me of French in which there are two distinct words that both translate as _know_ in English: _savoir_ and _connaître_. The first of these describes an academic learning whereas the second describes a familiarity. For example, a new immigrant to London might study for the cabbie exam and know the streets of London very well, in this case, the verb _savoir_ would be appropriate to describe his knowledge. But, only after actually driving on the streets for some time would it be appropriate to say he knows them in the sense of _connaître_. So, is there any short way to describe these two distinct forms of knowledge in English?


title: Initial "See, ..." or "Look, ..." usage

text: Which is correct to say                1. "Look , The situation was like that..." or "See, The situation was         like that ....".                 2. "Look , I am not involved in it..." or "See, I am not involved in             it ....".      Or are both correct in every context?


title: Concise words for "completed" and "planned" tasks in meeting minutes

text: In a weekly meeting you report what you did last week and what you are going to do in the next week. In a minute you record those informations. > Worked on tasks this week: xy worked on ... and also he ... > > Schedule for next week: xy will investigate into ... I am looking for some concise and meaningful words, describing _Worked on tasks this week_ and _Schedule for next week_. Just _report_ is too meaningless, because it could refer to everything. An American word is preferred, but BE also works for me.


title: Is "How do you ... ?" a polite question to ask the right way to do things?

text: Sometimes I feel uncomfortable to say "How do you spell xxx ?". It sounds like asking his or her own way of spelling a word implicating that I am not necessarily expecting the correct answer. Is "How do you ... ?" a polite question to ask the right way to do things ?


title: "I can't seem to" vs "I can't"

text: I am wondering why would someone say " **I can't seem to** " instead of simply saying " **I can't** ". Is there any specific difference between the two? Is the former usage informal? Is it correct to say that the following two phrases are equivalent? > I **can't seem to** do something.   >  It seems that I can't do something. Some sample sentences: > I **can’t seem to** subscribe to a Google Reader ‘starred items’ feed that > I’ve created.   >  I **can't seem to** stop arguing with my partner.   >  I **can't seem to** make friends.   >  I **can't seem to** transfer my videos directly from one playlist to > another.   >  _Client_ : I **can’t seem to** find the search box, can you please make > sure it’s working? _Me_ : The search box is in the top left hand corner of > every page. _Client_ : Is that on your left or my left?


title: Is it correct to use "pointing out" in this context?

text: I am writing in this context > I am so excited about XXXX. > > Thanks a lot for **pointing it out** to me. > > You are great Is **point out** the correct expression to use? Note: the one I am sending the email to, is the one who told me about this thing that seems that I like a lot. Thanks


title: "How deep" or "How deeply"?

text: In the context of "How deep\ly should I study something."


title: Are the subject and complement inverted in "Perched atop a high mountain on the other side [...] was a vast castle"?

text: In this example, are the subject and complement inverted, or could it be possible to understand that ‘The thing’ or something of the subject of verb ‘was’ is dropped? > Perched atop a high mountain on the other side, its windows sparkling in the > starry sky, was a vast castle with many turrets and towers.


title: "As is customary" vs. "as it is customary"

text: I more often see the first version being used, but to me, that doesn't sound right because I can't see the subject there. I would definitely use the second one. What am I missing here? **Update:** searching "As is customary" on Google returns more results than "As it is customary", hinting the first form is the most widely used... but I don't know whether that is a good test.


title: "At this time yesterday, I had gone" vs. "by this time yesterday, I had gone"

text: > At this time yesterday, I was going to work. [Past Continuous] I am very sure that the above sentence is 100% correct. (Reference: http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/pastcontinuous.html.) But I doubt that the one below is grammatical: > At this time yesterday, I had gone to work. [Past Perfect] Note how I used _at_ , not _by_. I see the following difference:   * At this time yesterday ⇒ Exactly on this time yesterday not after it neither prior to it.    * By this time yesterday ⇒ No longer than this time yesterday, it might be either exactly on this time yesterday or slightly _before_ it.  It's known that the Past Perfect tense refers to completed actions _before_ something in the past. That's why one of the time expressions of the Past Perfect is "by this time yesterday". A friend of mine said, and I quote, "It's correct. if u say ' at this time yesterday I had gone to work' it means that u had already arrived to the work." (Sic.) But I couldn't agree less with him. So my question is, is it grammatical in Standard English (I'm not talking about colloquial English nor dialects) to say: > **At** this time yesterday, I had gone to work. Or should I use _by_?


title: Comma after e.g. list

text: I am unsure whether to use comma after the example list while using e.g. Any ideas? > these functions, e.g., delay, capacity, throughput, represent better... or > these functions, e.g., delay, capacity, throughput represent better... There are other similar questions, but I couldn't find this particular answer in either of them.


title: Flatland -- What does the author mean by "only hard"?

text: In chapter one , "Of the nature of flatland": > very much like shadows — only hard and with luminous edges What does he mean by "only hard"? I just find it a little difficult to associate "shadow" and "hard", but maybe I am misunderstanding something. Here's a longer quote to provide more context (emphasis mine): > Imagine a vast sheet of paper on which straight Lines, Triangles, Squares, > Pentagons, Hexagons, and other figures, instead of remaining fixed in their > places, move freely about, on or in the surface, but without the power of > rising above or sinking below it, **very much like shadows — only hard and > with luminous edges** — and you will then have a pretty correct notion of my > country and countrymen. Alas, a few years ago, I should have said "my > universe": but now my mind has been opened to higher views of things.


title: Hypernym for "restaurant", "cafe" and other food places

text: I am looking for a hypernym for all places that provide food, beverages, or both, of any quality or price — such as _restaurant, cafe, fast-food_ and so on.


title: Is it proper to omit periods after honorifics (Mr, Mrs, Dr)?

text: I've been reading the Economist lately and they apparently don't punctuate honorifics like "Mr.", "Mrs.", e.g. > The popular rejection of Mr Mubarak offers the Middle East’s best chance for > reform in decades. I believe it's a British magazine, but is such a use proper or common in American English?


title: Looking for a specific alternate word for proved

text: I am looking for a very specific word to be used in place of _{word}_ in this sentence: > He {word} himself well. An alternate sentence that would have a similar meaning: > He proved capable in the task. The most I can remember of the word I'm looking for is that is has the prefix _re-_. **Edit:** Redeemed is close to what I'm looking for but I don't want the negative connotation around the word. To give my specific use case example, I was given some new temporary responsibilities at work and I'm writing my quarterly goals. I'm looking to make one of these goals that I handled these new responsibilities well. **Edit:** So much for a good memory, the specific word does not use the prefix _re-_.


title: Question that needs a selection

text: What do you call a question that needs a selection? For example: > Is an argument true until proven false or vice-versa?


title: Can we authenticate the claim that "grungy" was used to mean "envious or jealous" in 1920s slang?

text: A recent question on EL&U asks "Where did the 1920s slang word "grungy" (meaning "envious") originate, if the modern word "grungy" (meaning "dingy") doesn't appear until 1965?" I ran Google Books searches and regular Google searches for examples of _grungy_ in the sense of "envious or jealous" from the 1920s or thereabouts, or from dictionaries of slang reporting retrospectively on this usage, and couldn't find anything. I did find multiple virtually identical online lists of "Slang of the 1920s" that included the entry "Grungy: envious" or "Grungy: jealous"—without citation of any authority or quotation of any historical example or identification of the originator of this list of terms. So I am looking for answers to three questions:   1. What published reference work has confirmed the 1920s usage of _grungy_ to mean "envious or jealous"?   2. What are some examples of this usage in contemporaneous (1920s, approximately) sources?   3. What is the source of the samizdat-like list of "Slang of the 1920s" that is circulating online? My chief concern is that there may have been no such usage as the online list claims; but if there was, I would love for EL&U to provide the authentication/attestation that is so sorely lacking elsewhere on the Internet. * * * **UPDATE (7/28/14)** At this point, I think I've found fairly solid answers to the first and third questions above. The earliest printed source of the assertion that _grungy_ meant "envious" in 1920s U.S. slang appears to be Tom Dalzell, _Flappers 2 Rappers_ (1996). The online source of the much-copied list of "Slang of the 1920s" appears to be The Internet Guide to Jazz Age Slang. Unfortunately, question #2 above remains completely unanswered: "What are some examples of this usage in contemporaneous (1920s, approximately) sources?" Any takers on this question?


title: Opposite of 'contaminate'

text: _Contaminate_ (transitive verb) means "to add a little bit of bad stuff to (something), rendering it bad". Or thereabouts. Is there a word for "to add a little bit of good stuff to (something), rendering it acceptable, not bad"? Or, less optimal, an intransitive verb, or a noun describing the action?


title: "They were seduced" vs. "They were swayed"

text: I ran across the verb "sway" a little while ago and I was wondering about its usage. See: > They were seduced by the low cost of the house. And > They were swayed by the low cost of the house. Both are correct, right? But in this context, which one fits better? Perhaps either? If so, then what's the difference? I understand its meaning, in this specific case, as something similar to "influence" – am I wrong to think this way? Now, see the following scenario: > I was seduced by her lips. And > I was swayed by her lips. In this case, do "seduced" and "swayed" express the same thing?


title: Difference between ''He wishes it didn't...'' and ''He wishes it wouldn't...''

text: I was teaching first and second conditionals to an intermediate English class the other day, and then we started with 'wish' statements. We talked about famous people and their wishes. For example: 'Barack Obama wishes the USA didn't have such a high unemployment rate.' And then we continued with the lesson and I introduced 'wish' statements with would. My example was 'I wish my daughter would do better at school'. Then a student asked me what the difference between 'I wish' with 'did' or 'didn't' and 'I wish' with 'would' or 'wouldn't' was. I said the difference was tense, if I say 'Barack Obama wishes the USA didn't have such a high unemployment rate', it's present tense. If I say 'Barack Obama wishes the USA wouldn't have such a high unemployment rate.' It's incorrect, I think it would be better if I said : 'Barack Obama wishes the unemployment rate would improve in the USA.' , future tense. And with the daughter example,'I wish my daughter would do better at school.', means that I hope she will improve in the future, and when I say 'I wish my daughter did better at school.' does that mean right now she is doing badly, and I want it to change today? Or does it mean that I don't think it will change?


title: What does "becoming grounded in your body" mean?

text: Every day, I get emails from Ennatought. Mails sometimes say for my type (The Investigator): "Become grounded in your body". Here is one such message: > Try this practice and therapeutic strategy today: **Become grounded in your > body** and allow grieving and processing of feelings, especially rejection > and futility. When you are present to these issues, do you notice anything > shift in yourself? So what does it mean exactly? What should I make of this sentence?


title: Is there a term to describe something difficult to find but easy to understand?

text: Let's say I am writing a computer program, and there is a problem with my code so it won't run properly. Because my code contains so many lines, discovering the source of my problem will be difficult. Let's say I read every single line of code, and I was just improperly calling a function somewhere. In this case, the problem I was encountering was very simple, but it was difficult to find. Another example: Let's say I want to learn how to open my MP3 player so I can replace the parts inside. There may be very little publicly available information about opening up my MP3 player, which makes it difficult to find the right solution, but that solution is as simple as applying pressure to a particular spot and pushing up. (Again, a simple solution, that is difficult to find).


title: Evolution of the meaning of "to dwell"

text: The Old English meaning of "to dwell" ( _dwellan_ ) is _to mislead_. Can we trace the gradual shift from this original sense to that of Modern English: _to reside_ , _to inhabit_ ?


title: “Let me say this on the outset …”

text: Is “let me say this on the outset” formal English in business-speak? What does it really mean?


title: The next century will begin on the 1st of January 2001

text: In a test, I was asked to choose between _will_ and _be going to_ forms in a sentence expressing futurity: > The next century __ (to begin) on the 1st of January 2001. My guess is that the choice lacks a third option: Present Simple. Am I right, or is it fine to use "will" in order to express inevitable events?


title: Does 'mailbox money' mean anything?

text: My friend and I heard someone on the phone say the phrase 'mailbox money'. The sentence was 'mailbox money is always nice' My friend told me that 'mailbox money' means money/checks that you keep getting in the mailbox (not necessarily in the mailbox, but usually), by doing only one thing once. For example, if you developed an app, you would work on it once, but keep getting money/checks for it. Same goes for developing a website and putting some ads on it. (I understand that websites need maintenance, and apps need to be updated, but the general idea is that you do something once and you keep getting money/checks for it.) When I Googled it I could not find a really good website/reference for any legit definition for that phrase. I read on this website that it means money that you're not expecting. Any enlightenment?


title: Can I use future tense here?

text: I know future tense cannot be used in time clauses. I would like to know, is the following incorrect? > You have to launch the game and quit the game before the file will show up. I think it is as I cannot use "before" and future tense. However, it does not sound like purely time clause (I cannot "ask" properly WHEN.)