title: "experienced" vs. "have experienced"? (Simple past vs. Existential sense of perfect)?

text: Can you tell me which ones of these correct?   1. "Together we experienced our first joy ride." or "Together we have experienced our first joy ride."   2. "Together we learnt to ride bicycle." or "Together we have learnt to ride bicycle." Context: These sentences are going to be a part of a greeting card I am designing for a friend to reminisce about the good times we have spent together. He is still a friend and we are going to spend more good times in future. I have read this beautiful answer at http://english.stackexchange.com/a/63263/18396 but I am unable to resolve my question inspite of reading this. Since "first joy ride" and "learnt to ride bicycle" were in the past, it seems like simple past tense is appropriate. But as per "Existential sense of perfect" in the answer, present perfect seems to be appropriate too.


title: Usage of the word "Doggedly"

text: At the end of chapter 16 of Great Expectations by Charles Dickens, the author states: > After that day, a day rarely passed without her drawing the hammer on her > slate, and without Orlick's slouching in and standing **doggedly** before > her, as if **he knew no more than I did what to make of it**. I looked up the definition of "doggedly," and it says: "having or showing tenacity and grim persistence." In the sentence, however, it seems that the character Orlick seems confused, which makes the word "doggedly" seem more like "dogmatically." Why was this word used here?


title: Which is correct, "ready to give" or "ready to take"?

text: A company which develops a particular application for business persons has on their website the following: > Ready to _give_ a test drive? Request a Demo Now. In my opinion, the correct sentence should be > Ready to _take_ a test drive? Request a Demo Now. I think the customer would _take_ a test drive, not _give_ one. Which one is the correct sentence? Or are both okay?


title: do specialst fields have their own colloquial vocabulary not shared by laymen?

text: I saw the following passage in a PSAT study guide. One of the questions is about the use of the term 'hot spot'. Can we say it's being used colloquially and technically at the same time? The question amounts to whether colloquial language is necessarily a part of laymen's terms. Geologists call these volcanic areas hot spots. Lying deep in the interior of a plate, hot spots or intra-plate volcanoes are sources of magma, the red-hot, molten material within the earth's crust.


title: Is it redundant to use "currently" and "at the moment" in the same sentence?

text: For example: > We're currently overbooked at the moment.


title: What does "swift spirit-bolsterer from the Traveller’s Repose" mean?

text: I'm reading a short story "Earth calling Taylor" by David Mitchell right now and I have a problem with understanding this part: > Problem is, I pre-announced my promotion to the big league on Christmas day > and the prospect of their consoling words and unspoken Why-doesn’t-this- > surprise-us? is more than I can bear, **even with a swift spirit-bolsterer > from the Traveller’s Repose inside me**. Can you guys help me? What's "spirit-bolster"? What's "Traveller's Repose"? All information I can find about Traveller's Repose on the internet is about a hotel or something in US but I think it's not related here.


title: What are the arguments behind the "literally"/"figuratively" usage divide? When should one use either word?

text: I remember reading, some time in grade school, that there was a controversy about proper usage of _figuratively_ and _literally_ when used to denote meaning of a word in its strictest sense -- but I've totally forgotten what those arguments said. Some my questions are: What are those arguments? Are they taken very seriously by pedants? When should I use either word? I remember _figuratively_ being pushed, but I've never really heard it conversation....


title: Use of “had said” in the “The Archers”

text: In the BBC radio drama _The Archers_ , the following conversation takes place: > **A:** David, you are not going to say what you saw. You love your family, > right?   >  **David:** What?   >  **A:** Because if you do, then do exactly as what I **had said**. Why past perfect in this conversation? Can’t we simply say one of:   * Do exactly what **I said**.    * Do exactly what I **have said**.


title: Use of commas in a subordinate clause

text: I was about to correct a line like "Townville located in east Blaze County has grown rapidly since 2000 and continues to do so." to "Townville, located in east Blaze County, has grown rapidly since 2000 and continues to do so.", but I wasn't certain that I was right. I also didn't know what reference I might use to find out.


title: "But winter babies are more likely to die before they turn one."?

text: The question is from the post here. I don't understand what does the last sentence mean here. > The Chillinghams can give birth all year, not just spring and summer like > most U.K. mammals. And the data show that over the past few decades, there’s > been an increase in winter births. Which the researchers correlated to > warmer springs the previous year: plants grow earlier, the cattle have more > access to nutrition and they conceive earlier. > > **But winter babies are more likely to die before they _turn one_.** Here is my question: What does "turn one" mean? How can the "babies" turn to "one" baby?


title: "at hand" vs "at issue"

text: We can talk about "the matter at hand" or "the matter at issue" and they seem to mean just about the same thing: something along the lines of "the matter currently under discussion." Is there a difference between these two phrases? I think it's clear that "the issue at hand" is way better than "the issue at issue" but is there a reason for this? Maybe you just want to avoid the confusion of using two meanings of a word so close to each other. Or maybe calling something an issue already implies that it is "at issue," so in that case saying "the issue at issue" would be redundant.


title: Word for "device that provides constant doses of a liquid/dust/substance"

text: Think of a sugar dispenser. It provides an equal "dose" of sugar every time you push its button. In my native language, Bulgarian, we have a specific word for this kind of object. The literal "translation" of it would be "dosator"/"dosager". The general word 'dispenser' doesn't capture the fact that the dose is equal each time. So is there a precise word for this? (I needed that kind of word for a metaphor in a class name in a computer program I'm writing)


title: I see and I hear

text: Traditional English prescriptive grammar teaches that these two verbs, _to see_ and _to hear_ , when describing their sensory nature, should never be used in the progressive aspect of tenses. Thus > I am seeing you/I was seeing   >  I am hearing you/I was hearing you would be incorrect. But in spoken English, whether it be in the movies or on television, this usage seems to me to become ever more often used. _I am seeing you_ for _I see you now_ _I am hearing you_ for _I hear you now_ When did this usage become so universally accepted? Is it still considered colloquial English? Or is it already considered standard English?


title: Name for phrase where you just state a noun

text: What is this type of phrase called? What parts of speech does it employ? Situation: your brother does something silly. You say to him: "You and your crazy antics..." This was brought up cause I wanted to apply it to something besides "you", in this case, someone's company. I said "Oh, your company and its crazy exams..." That seems to work but is a bit stranger.


title: How to choose tenses in this situation?

text: > Yesterday, I went to a restaurant, drinking some beer with a friend whom I > had not seen for several years. I found that he had changed very much. He > was lean, now he was very fat...(self-made) I feel strongly unhappy about these sentences. Yes, I met him in the past. But his change is a fact when I telling the story. I am confused about the usage of the tenses.


title: "Two separate nouns + based" as the attribute?

text: In scientific writing, it is correct to write something like > The filter-based method is good. But what if I have **two nouns before`-based`**? Something like > The lowpass filter-based method is good. Is it still correct?


title: Is this mixture of plural and singular legitimate?

text: > But what is most important for our purposes is that these changes were the > signal for the resumption of historical debate on a grand scale, of the kind > that had been suspended or driven underground during the reign of Louis XIV. > （The French Idea of Revolution ed. by Dale Van Kley: 203) I am interested in the expression "these changes were the signal". Shouldn't every change be a signal, so that there are many signals? Why use the singular form? Because all these changes together form a signal, and one or two just cannot signify that there is a resumption of that debate?


title: What is the difference between sophisticated and complicated

text: All, I see these words are used many times literally or verbally. But I really don't know what is the difference between them. Please review one of them which I got from a read. > After an obligatory Hello World–caliber application, we construct a more > sophisticated application that implements a daytime server.


title: Must an independent clause follow a colon (if it's not a list)?

text: I wrote this sentence: > The unregulated internet we are accustomed to won out over another vision > for the World Wide Web: a tightly controlled, "government-sponsored > broadband network that would have delivered video from TV stations and other > approved content"—another FCC-regulated medium like radio or television. A TA subtracted a point, explaining: > Unless you are listing two or more items, an independent clause should > follow a colon. I know an independent clause must _precede_ the colon, but I can't find anything to back up the TA's explanation. The rule of thumb, according to a couple of popular grammar sites, is that if the colon can be replaced by the word "namely", it's usually OK. Such seems to be the case in my sentence above. Is my sentence grammatically incorrect?


title: Should "glamourous" be considered incorrect?

text: The Wiktionary entry for _glamourous_, for what it's worth, claims that it is "a common British spelling", but many native English speakers dismiss it as incorrect. Some, though, draw a distinction between "glamorous" and "glamourous", saying that the latter is a valid, British spelling. What's your take on this?


title: What is that feeling one gets when they are about to sneeze?

text: You know you have a sneeze coming, and you do that, _haah haaah_ , the nose gets this odd feeling but the sneeze doesn't happen. What's this feeling/thing called?


title: Equivalence at word level

text: Is there a one-to-one relationship between word and meaning?


title: Meaning of "dust" when referring to a person

text: I stumbled upon the following passage while reading Lord Dunsany ( _The Sphinx at Gizeh_ ). > Delilah was younger than she, and Delilah is dust. Time hath loved nothing > but this worthless painted face. Source: http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/22711/ What does _Delilah is dust_ mean in this sentence? Does it mean she is worthless? Considering the change in tense (the sentence starts with _was_ and ends with _is_ ) I am quite confused.


title: Is this sentence correctly constructed for the meaning one is trying to convey?

text: Here is the sentence: > Techi's brother Data is Painting Dye's husband, Time Line's best friend. The sentence before that establishes that Time Line is Painting Dye's husband. The meaning trying to be conveyed in this sentence by my friend is that Techi's brother Data is Time Line's best friend, and Time Line being Painting Dye's husband should be re-established. After careful analysis of this sentence, I have been unable to see how this exact wording conveys the meaning. However, my friend doesn't believe that this sentence cannot convey the intended meaning. Does anyone have a way to convince him of that?


title: Difference between "subsequently" and "consequently"?

text: When studying and reading course material in "softer" sciences that are descriptive the word "subsequently" appears in a way like "and subsequently" ...what does it mean, disctinct from "consequently" ? Is the difference that "subsequently" doesn't imply a causality and the word "consequently" does? For instance A ⇒ B should read "A and consequently B" and in that case using the word "subsequently" is not false but it's not right since the word subsequently doesn't imply a causality which A ⇒ B does, so when talking about causality the we should use is "consequently"?


title: What does "jackpot" mean in this passage?

text: When you say 'jackpot,' would you normally refer to it as   1. something that you should be happy about, or    2. something that you can very highly unlikely obtain? I find this use of 'jackpot' hard to understand in the following. (If 'I' said it with reference to (2), it might very well let Jack down ....) (I'm a non- native speaker. If you would explain it in some plain English, I would very much appreciate it.) > "I went to have chemo yesterday morning, and they did some blood work, and I > have some numbers that aren't good," he said. "They have to be higher for me > to be able to start chemo again." > > "What does it mean?" I said. > > "Nothing good," he said. > > "Does it mean they can't try anymore?" I said. > > "There's this shot can give me," he said. "Sort of a booster shot for my > blood. If it works it can get the numbers high enough for me to have chemo > again." > > "Boy," I said. "Did you ever think we'd be talking about getting a booster > shot for something like _this_?" > > "I know," he said. "And if it works, the good news—the good news—is that I > get to have chemotherapy. That's the payoff." > > " **Some jackpot** ," I said. > > "You know," he said, "it's getting so that I don't even like it when people > say 'What's going on?'. I find myself saying,'Oh, my pulse is down,' or, > 'Well, I need a booster shot.'" ('And You Know You Should Be Glad' by Bob Greene)


title: Wh-questions: auxiliary verbs or not?

text: What's the difference between these two questions: > Why they chose football? and > Why did they choose football?


title: Charge payment "to", "on", or "against" a credit card/an account; charge a credit card/account/a person "with"an amount

text: Are all of these options acceptable and in current use to denote payment with a credit card? E.g. Please _charge this amount **on_** me/my credit card/my (credit card) account. Please _charge this amount **to_** me/my credit card/my (credit card) account. Please _charge this amount **against_** my credit card/my credit card details (or information). Please _charge me/my credit card/my (credit card) account **with_** this amount. And also: "Thank you for providing us (with) your credit card and for authorizing us... to _charge it **with_** a deposit; _Or_ to _charge a deposit ( **to_** it); _Or_ to _charge a deposit ( **on_** it); _Or_ to charge _a deposit ( **against_** it)." Thank you.


title: What is the origin of the phrase "another string to your bow"

text: Specifically - what kind of bow? I assume it refers to an archer's bow, but I guess it could relate to a bow used to play a stringed instrument (like a violin). Also, I've heard it used in the sense of an additional skill, as well as a new achievement - I'm not sure that it makes so much sense in the latter but that probably depends on the origin...


title: What is the difference between "How precious is it?" and "How much is it precious?"

text: I would appreciate if you help....


title: "He is a hero" or "He was a hero"?

text: Talking to someone who says > What if my son is a hero! would someone respond > It would not surprise me if he **is** Or would they respond > It would not surprise me if he **was**


title: Term for someone who asks you a "pick one side" question and gives you a hard time on the side you choose

text: Is there a particular word or phrase for this scenario:   1. Person A poses Person B with a "pick one side" question.   2. Person B answers with he/she honest opinion   3. Person A criticizes Person B for the side he/she chose.   4. Person B defends his/her position while Person A continues to criticize.   5. Person B finally flips the question on Person A.   6. Person A replies that he/she does not have any ties to either side of the argument and walks away from the conversation.   7. Person B is left emotional and confused on the argument that just occurred.  Specifically, is there a philosophy category for this (ex. logical fallacies, ad hominem, etc.)?


title: Is "agreeance" a proper word?

text: Many people in my area use the word "agreeance" and I find it irksome. Dictionary.com seems to be in agreement with me (har har): http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agreeance > _Main Entry: agreeance   >  Part of Speech: n   >  Definition: the act of agreeing   >  Example: Usage of the site constitutes agreeance with these terms.   >  Usage: considered obsolete and a bastardization of 'agreement'_ Do you use it? Do you think it's acceptable or obsolete?


title: "In order to...", "To..." or "For..."

text: What preposition should we use to start a sentence where we first explain a purpose and then a method to achieve it? **Example 1** Purpose = pass the exams Method = study a lot   * In order to pass the exams, you have to study a lot.   * To pass the exams, you have to study a lot.   * *For passing the exams, you have to study a lot. _(incorrect - see accepted answer)_ **Example 2** Purpose = find an object in the database Method = run a SQL query   * In order to find the object in the database, users have to run a SQL query.   * To find the object in the database, users have to run a SQL query.   * *For finding the object in the database, users have to run a SQL query. _(incorrect - see accepted answer)_


title: Active vs Passive voice in lab reports, and history of scientific usage

text: I've had some discussions in the past with TA's who would tell my undergrads "Lab reports are written in the passive voice". Aside from whether or not this is correct (let's come back to that in a bit), where does this come from? Some guidelines I've found that insist on the passive voice (e.g., http://guides.lib.purdue.edu/content.php?pid=232776&sid=1925925) claim that this is done to de-emphasize the role of the investigator, and thus provides a tone of objectivity. Such arguments never seem to have attribution. Is this a commonly accepted reason, or simply a rationalization? In effort to prevent this from becoming an opinion-based argument, can anyone point me to a major scientific journal's style sheet or instructions to authors that specifies passive voice for scientific communication? I've published in a number of them, and never came across such an instruction. As to whether passive voice is correct in this context, I'm thinking of telling my students that there has been a historical tendency to use passive voice for scientific communication, but there seem to be recent trends promoting active voice. I'll point them to examples of both (the previous link and http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/scientific-reports/ for the counter- example), and tell them that I'll accept either style (It will alleviate boredom during grading, if nothing else). Does that sound like an acceptable approach?


title: What word means "the ability to read more than one form of writing"?

text: If a person can speak and understand two languages, he is _bilingual_. How would you describe a person who can read and write in two languages with very different forms of writing, such as Chinese and English, or Sanskrit and Korean, or what have you?


title: Use of the possessive apostrophe

text: Consider a person whose name is "Lehman". In the sentence "I read Lehman's documents." why is it "Lehman's" and not "Lehmans' " ?


title: What word means 'to submit a post' / 'bring to public notice online'?

text: I dictionary.com'd the definition of the word 'post' and it has nothing to do which submitting a typed message to the Internet. One of the latter definitions shown on dictionary.com was 'to bring to public notice'. I then tried to look up synonyms of the word 'post' and it just gave synonyms of the word 'pole' and no word which has to do with 'bringing to public notice'. Most websites also use the word 'submit' meaning to 'submit the message' but dictionary.com and most people's definition of this word is 'to give over / yield to the power of another'. I'm creating an app and I need a word each means 'let everyone on the app see this message' and I don't want to use the word 'post'. Is there any other word out there whos main definition is 'to bring to public notice' / 'to bring to public notice online'?


title: What do you call the latter part of a sentence which spans two pages?

text: Does the sentence fragment after the simulated pagebreak (the horizontal rule) have a specific term associated with it?      The start of a new paragraph includes an indent as shown here. Following the page-break that occurs hereabouts * * * the next line does not have an indent because it is part of the paragraph previously indented and not the beginning of a new paragraph. In HTML markup the single Paragraph element is split into two distinct Paragraph elements because the page Division is a parent container and each Paragraph may have one parent. A text-indent style is applied to all Paragraph elements by default and must be overridden by a named class applied to each fragment of the given type. I had been using the class name 'continuance' and then shortened that to 'c9e' for 'c' + 9 letters + 'e'. Is there a better (appropriate) name for this?


title: What does "by taking God at His Word" mean?

text: The context: > Can we be sure of our salvation? One day a young woman asked for prayer. She > told me that when she accepted Christ as her Savior she had felt so > wonderful, so full of joy. Now she didn’t feel that way and wanted to know > why she had “lost her salvation.” We know that we are not saved by feeling, > but by taking God at His Word.


title: Present Perfect Vs Present Perfect Continuous and Simple Past/ Past Perfect Vs Past Perfect Continuous

text: What is the difference in meanings of the following pairs of sentences? It's very confusing to me. >   1. a. I have lived in Paris for 4 years.   >  b. I have been living in Paris for 4 years. > >   2. a. I lived in Paris for 4 years.   >  b. I had lived in Paris for 4 years. > >   3. a. I had lived in Paris for 4 years.   >  b. I had been living in Paris for 4 years. > > Will there be any difference in meanings if I do not write "for 4 years" in each of the above sentences?


title: Literal antonym to "Outspoken"

text: I'm working on a humorous project in which one character is called the Outspoken Mime. The adjective "outspoken" means the mime in question is "free, bold, or unreserved in speech." On one side, this describes the mime as gregarious, talkative, and friendly — while visually implying the mime literally _speaks out_ , making the character a walking oxymoron. Is there an antonym to "outspoken" that could imply the opposite double meaning? Something to suggest a different mime is shy or reclusive, while visually appearing to (redundantly) claim they do not talk?


title: Formatting and ellipses when quoting parts of a list

text: When quoting a list not in its entirety, but only the points 2–5 of 10, how do I set out the quote? Do I add "..." at the beginning and end of the quote as shown below? > ... > > 2. At all material times, [the Subject Member] was a member of the Union. > > 3. [The Subject Member] regularly worked out, including weight training. > > 4. During the relevant period, on two separate occasions several months > apart,he did not attend the meeting. > > 5. It is the not common for this person to miss work. > > ...


title: House keeping or house cleaning?

text: I'm a web professional, recently we wanted to make major changes into our web app and one of our colleagues used the word `house cleaning`. What phrase do you use to say major changes need to be done. Can we use `house keeping`? What is the difference between them?


title: Is there a politer way of asking: Would you like?

text: Is there a politer or more formal way of asking: _Would you like … ?_ As when offering something (a glass of wine for instance), to someone of higher category. When extreme etiquette is required.


title: Are "I will have been going" and "I would have been going" rarely used today?

text: As far as I know these are tenses that you do not often use. Am I right? > Will have been + verb+ing > > Would have been + verb+ing


title: Can "somethings" be used as a plural?

text: > I heard the soft thumps of somethings heavy on cloth. This looks wrong, but changing it to singular makes it work. > I heard the soft thump of something heavy on cloth. I want to keep the operational definition of "something" to emphasize the unknown quality of the items. "Some things" and "several things" sound too vague and passive. I'm also curious at this point about the answer for the answer's sake. Can "somethings" be used as a plural?


title: Word for "little body"?

text: Is there any term (a diminutive) in English for "little body"? I suppose that the forms such as "bodylet" and "bodyling" are utterly incorrect. Here is the context: "Graving snow caressing the **little body** dismembered".


title: Utopia or utopia

text: Does one write Utopia (with capital) or utopia (without capital)? Or does it not matter which one is chosen? I do not know whether it matters, but I want to use it as follows: > Using a (certain) view is still seen as a sort of ‘utopia’, as it is > supposed to make (it) understandable with just a single glance. (sentence is somewhat simplified) Note: It is a utopia as this would be an unreachable goal. I cannot seem to find a reliable (on-line) source. There does not seem a consensus.


title: In-house vs out-of-house

text: What word or expression would you use to describe an employee who is contracted by a company on a project-by-project basis but who cannot be considered a freelancer as he or she works exclusively for this company? In other words, what'd you call a specialist who is not on the payroll, works from home, gets paid per project but is commited to one company? Is it possible to use the expression "an out-of-house specialist" to denote a staff member who is not an in-house employee but cannot be really considered a freelancer? Thanks.


title: The difference between “We’ll ever be back to normal,” and “We’ll never be back to normal.”

text: Time magazine (Aug.2) reported that Toledo Mayor instructed city residents not to drink tap water polluted with toxin caused by algae bloom under the headline: Toledo, Ohio without drinking water for second day. > “In a Saturday press conference, Toledo Mayor D. Michael Collins called upon > residents to stay calm. ' **I don’t believe we’ll ever be back to normal** > ,' he said, the Toledo Blade reports. “But this is not going to be our new > normal. We’re going to fix this. Our city is not going to be abandoned.” > http://time.com/3074318/toledo-water/?xid=newsletter-brief I’m drawn to the line - “I don’t believe we’ll **ever** be back to normal,” which sounds like to me as if the Mayor doesn’t believe the water will get back to normal. What is the difference between “I don’t believe we’ll ever be back to normal,” which is simple negation and “I don’t believe we’ll never be back to normal,” which is double negation leading to affirmation? Actually, this morning AP news reported that Ohio Governor, John Kasich declaired yesterday that toxin level in the water supply has gone down significantly .


title: What does 'dispensation' mean in this particular context?

text: I was reading this article and stumbled upon this line > First, presidential dispensation is useful, but it's not remotely permanent. > White House occupants change. A more authoritarian chief executive than > Obama won't be bound by what he does. The author comes up with this statement while discussing about a draconian and outdated law which many feel can be "overturned" by President Obama. I looked into the dictionary meaning of the word "dispensation", but nowhere it means "overturned". The dictionary quotes that _dispensation_ means to make special exemption for someone or distribution of stuff. Can someone help me clarify the meaning of _dispensation_ in this context and is it an oft used meaning of the said word?


title: Complex question starting with 'I wonder'

text: I want to ask about some plans, which I want to define in the question. And I want to start with _I wonder_. So something like: > I wonder what the plans for the next steps regarding the topic we discussed > yesterday are. Admitting the sentence is not beautiful, I wonder if it is grammatically correct. It seems to be, according to the British Council. But the verb in the end looks too much disconnected from the _plans_ to me. However having a long immersion into German, where it would be correct, I can neither find a better form nor actually recall whether it's correct to do the same in English. So, is the phrase above correct?


title: "to suspect" vs "to be suspicious of"

text: What's the difference between "to suspect someone" vs "to be suspicious of someone"? For example, what's the difference between these two sentences:   1. I'm sorry for suspecting you.   2. I'm sorry for being suspicious of you.


title: What do R-rated and X-rated mean here?

text: From a course website for Brownian Motion and Stochastic Calculus > Recommended Reading: R-Rated > >   * Stochastic Differential Equations: An Introduction with Applications > (6th edition) by B. Oksendal >   * Brownian Motion by P. Morters and Y. Peres > > > Recommended Reading: X-Rated > >   * Continuous Martingales and Brownian Motion by D. Revuz and M. Yor >   * Brownian Motion and Stochastic Calculus by I. Karatzas and S. Shreve > I was wondering what R-rated and X-rated mean here? I only know a little that they are normally used for film ratings. But I suspect the reference books are rated according to their rigorousness and/or difficulty?


title: What is the plural form of "zero"?

text: I tried looking on Google, but there are some fairly contradictory results. I thought I'd ask you guys so we could get an authoritative answer on the subject!


title: What is meant by "thank you" in quotes?

text: In two different emails, I have seen _"thank you"_ placed in quotes. The first was a response to an email notice regarding an address change: > “Thanks” for the e mail, I updated our system. And the second was a response to a purchase order: > "Thank you" for the order, we will ship (1) case on Thursday. Why would someone use quotes in such a fashion? Normally I would assume sarcasm, but it seems a bit rude (and therefore unlikely in a business email) sarcastically thanking someone for an order.


title: Is there a word or phrase for the "log ride face"?

text: Is there a special word or phrase for the act of making an incongruent face or pose, during the final drop in log flume rides? ![log ride face](http://i.stack.imgur.com/iNKMX.png) Log flumes are a very common ride found in many amusement parks, with a long history. Patrons ride in a log boat that travels along a water flume, and the ride culminates in a final, steep drop. A common feature is that just before the drop, a hidden camera takes a photo of the riders, who are usually in a state of shock. The photos are then shown for all to see after the ride, where one may purchase those photos. This has spawned a practice where some patrons will deliberately make an inappropriate face or pose for this camera, which sometimes produces hilarious results.


title: Using the "ex" prefix on a multiple word subject

text: What is the proper way to use the "ex" prefix to more than one word? Examples: >   * He is an ex- **school bus driver**. >   * My ex **baseball coach** taught me. >   * I am an ex- **Fish and Game Warden**. >   * **"ex-school"** seems awkward. It looks as if he is a bus driver for ex-schools.   * **"ex"** by itself (no hyphen) doesn't seem right either. Is it?   * **"ex-Fish"** just sounds ridiculous. Is this correct usage? Can each part be hyphenated, or the hyphen dropped altogether? Is there another way to make this more clear while still keeping the "ex" prefix?


title: What's the meaning for 'de' in "Tour de France"?

text: What's the exact meaning for 'de' in Tour de France? Can I describe an riding event like 'Tour de Hainan Island'? Assuming I riding around Hainan island by cycling.


title: Help with a modifier: "Combined"

text: I am hoping for some help with the following statement from a construction contract: _The amounts of all subcontracts, provided that such amounts shall include a maximum of 10% mark-up for overhead and profit combined (including management, supervision, insurance, bonding, as-built and warranty costs) for those Subcontractors and their suppliers._ Does the word "combined" refer to "overhead and profit" or "Subcontractors and their suppliers". I work in construction, and have a situation where someone is trying to tell me that my company, our sub-contractor, and all of our suppliers are only entitled to share a total markup of 10%.


title: Cheesy fake grins and all!

text: What is the good word to describe 'comedy movies' and 'ads' that seem very fake and tacky, and which failingly try to draw emotional responses (with fake grins and all) (like some but _not all_ Robin Williams films _where he acts like a kid etc._ ). I thought of the word 'cheesy' but that doesn't connote 'trying to draw emotional responses from the audience'. So any good words or a word for that? I am also not thinking about the word: _low budget movies_ here.


title: Which is correct: "bored of", "bored by", "bored with"?

text: I have been asked by a young friend, "Which is correct: bored by, bored of, or bored with?" My instinct is to say that "bored of" and "bored by" are fine, but "bored with" sounds like she is being bored alongside someone else who is also bored. My trusty Dictionary of English Usage has failed me. Any thoughts?


title: "Nation": place or people?

text: I’m trying to sort out the full meaning of the word _nation_ , specifically the degree to which it means a _place_ versus _a group of people_. The question and answers here are specific but divided. User waiwai933 reports that nation is the people ( _“identical to State [a group of people where at least one person has power and authority]; alternatively, a group of people identified by one culture (less common).”_ ). User kiamlaluno quotes the NOAD that a nation is “people … inhabiting a particular country or territory.” Finally, user T.E.D. quotes Wikipedia saying that “The state is a political and geopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity.” So already there is disagreement. Various dictionaries I’ve consulted seem divided on the matter. If I write that a small child “fills his tiny nation” will it be read as “he fills his territory” or “he fills his ethno/cultural group”? Or could it be read either way?


title: What is the difference between “here goes” and “here it goes”?

text: I’m wondering what the difference between _here goes_ and _here it goes_ is. When something is going down and I want to express my feeling of “I’ll make it!”, which expression is correct? For example, when my job interview is going to start, would I write the first or the second? >   1. I got ready for the interview. Here goes! >   2. I got ready for the interview. Here it goes! > If these expressions are same, please tell me which expression you natives often use.


title: Why do you say "square" in "Be there or be square"?

text: I've known the saying > Be there or be square! for a long time, but never really understood - why "square"? Where does that come from? Why not > Be there or be rectangular! :-)


title: Word for "does not exist"

text: Is there a single word for the text within quotation marks in the citation below? > All such statements [entity doesn’t exist] are casual short-hand for a more > elaborate and technical statement: “this alleged entity has no place in any > scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot > be used to predict any events, does not describe any thing or force that has > yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its > presence is either required, productive, or useful.”


title: what does " which way does this go, now?" mean?

text: I am reading a play, in a coversation one of characters refered to table setting and ask " which way does this go, now?" what is that about? about eating ? or cleaning the table?


Apart from place names, are there any Native American words used in English?


title: A single word meaning to abide in a place for a long time

text: Can anybody give me a single word meaning to abide in a place for long time? I'm thinking in the context of "to remain in prison" (or elsewhere, against one's will).


title: Escapism or escape

text: I am not a native speaker. Recently, I came across the following sentence. _They promise escapism. Escapism from the mundane and into the challenging and extraordinary._ Is the use of escapism correct on both occassions?


title: Structure of persuasive and explanatory sentences

text: I recently attended a workshop on academic writing. The workshop organiser advised that persuasive sentences should present the conclusion followed by evidence. In contrast, sentences that provide an explanation should present the evidence followed by conclusions. Is anyone else aware of this structure? Is it commonly used in academic writing? Is it a standard sentence structure?


title: How should I punctuate the "Shocked" line from Casablanca?

text: I'm writing something that mimics the famous "Shocked" line from Casablanca, but I can't find a good way to punctuate the phrase without it looking odd. Any ideas please? > I'm shocked, shocked, that StackExchange would answer my question. That just looks like I'm listing all my reactions.


title: How closely synonymous are “forward” and “straightforward”?

text: # Part 1: Introduction In the U.S., we have a game show called _Jeopardy!_ , where contestants answer trivia questions in certain categories. This television program, which has aired for a few decades now, has an interesting gimmick, where "answers" are given, and contestants must provide the right question. For example, in once recent episode, in the category "The Story of English", one answer was: > In Chaucer's day, "boot" was pronounced "boat"; the change to modern speech > is called the GVS, "great" **this** "shift" and the correct response was: > What is _vowel_? Also, categories with quotation marks embedded in their name require those letters to be included in each response. For example, in the category "RR" CROSSING, a clue was > To lose assets in large quantities, or to bleed profusely and the correct response was > What is _hemorrhage_? Every once in a while, a contestant's response is initially ruled incorrect, but a panel of judges will override that initial ruling, deeming the answer sufficiently correct. (Perhaps there's another valid word for something that the framers of the question didn't anticipate.) In these cases, scores are adjusted. Since negative scores are given for incorrect answers, these corrections can have a fairly strong impact on the competition. For example, a $1200 question reversed causes a $2400 swing for one contestant. # Part 2: The Debate The January 10th episode had a category called: > "WARD" OF THE DAY One clue was: > It's the opposite of _leeward_ and the correct response was: > What is _windward_? Now, the part of the game that prompted a lengthy debate between my wife and I, and my question here. The clue was, quite simply: > Honest & direct to which one contestant replied: > What is _forward_? But the host responded, "No," and then gave the correct response: > What is _straightforward_? As we watched, we were pretty sure that we'd see a scoring change after the commercial break, and we were surprised when we didn't. This prompted us to start looking up both words in the dictionary (actually, more than one dictionary; I'll give a few excerpts here):   * from Macmillan:  > **straightforward** ( _adj._ ) clear and honest > > **forward** ( _adj._ ) very confident and direct about saying what you > think, in a way that is not socially suitable   * from ODO: > **straightforward** ( _adj._ ) (of a person) honest and frank: _a > straightforward young man_ > > **forward** ( _adj._ ) (of a person) bold or overfamiliar in manner: _I am > not usually a forward sort of person_ In the end, the debate between my wife and I ended in a split decision: one of us thought the contestant had been given a raw deal, while the other thought the judges had made the correct ruling. # Part 3: My Question What do you think? Is _forward_ close enough in meaning to _straightforward_ , that the judges should have accepted that response? Or do the two words differ enough that you would stick by the judges in their refusal to deem that response correct?


title: Origin of the phrase, 'Look the other way'?

text: Does anyone know the origin of the phrase, "look the other way"? It is generally used today in any situation where one person allows something to happen without acting. They need non literally _look the other way_ , so when and how did that non-literal usage come to be?


title: One word for "happily surprised"

text: Is there one word for “happily surprised”?


title: One word for the type of smile which suggests "I’ve got you! Now you can’t escape!"

text: Is there one word for the type of smile which shows the following type of emotion: > I’ve got you! Now you can’t escape! For example, a detective smiles this way on finding an irrefutable piece of evidence that will convict a notorious criminal.


title: Sounds which seem to express a particular quality in whatever words they appear

text: I noticed that in the English language words ending in "ip" often suggest a brisk, quick movement, as with _clip_ , _flip_ , _skip_ and _tip_. In other terms, the closing part of these words seems to be suggestive of the meaning itself. Presumably, that circumstance helps advertisers in promoting their products, as, for example, one can see in the picture below. ![](http://i.stack.imgur.com/uH0JH.jpg) I'm wondering if there is a name for sounds, like the above mentioned, which seem to express a particular quality whatever words they appear. Obviously, there are a lot of other cases. For example, it seems as if "sk" at the start of words such as _scoot_ , _skip_ , _scuttle_ expresses the quick movement implied in all of them, while "sl" suggests either a falling or sliding in movement as in _slip_ , _slither_ , _slouch_ , or something slimy or slushy, as in those words and in _sludge_ , _slobber_ , and _slobby_.


title: 'computer programming is quite literally black and white'

text: I was thinking about this in the context of creating task requirements, having having to explicitly define how a program is to function. One might say: > Law is often described as black and white, for most cases it is quite clear > whether something falls within the bounds of the law or not. However, unlike > law, computer programming is quite literally black and white, there are no > areas that are open for interpretation. What I'm meaning, isn't that computer programming is literally the colours black and white. But that it is binary and deterministic, there's not room for interpretation. Whereas for other fields, even though law can be described as 'black and white' there are areas that are open for interpretation. I think you could argue that the use of literally here is correct - that is, computer programming literally matches what the idiom 'black and white' is expressing. If literally isn't correct, what phrase can one use here instead?


title: What do we call quality management system software?

text: Is there a specific name for all kind of software related to quality management system, i.e. ISO 9001. being more specific, when in business someone talks about an ERP, everybody knows what does that mean, or a CRM.


title: An alternative to the word pray, without a religious connotation

text: When I write, I try my best to leave religion and words that carry some divine connotation out of it. I recently stumbled upon the phrase in one of my texts _"[...] but pray it never happens."_. I was wondering how to rewrite it, removing the connection with deities but keeping the same _effect/meaning_. Any ideas?


title: En dash with compound adjectives (problem)

text: I frequently encounter cases, such as the ones below, where you seemingly have two hyphenated compound adjectives modifying a noun. I know that in such cases that you should join the compound adjectives with an en dash. However, in case (1) the author later wrote "...dual-hop MARNs...", using the initialism to denote the noun; thus, illustrating that "Multiple-access" is not a hyphenated compound adjective. Hence, my problem is what should be done in case (1). Should the noun be hyphenated right the way through to show that it is indeed one unit, as in "Dual-Hop Multiple-Access-Relay-Networks", or is their another way? (1) Dual-Hop Multiple-Access Relay Networks (2) Semi-definite Programming-based Approach If you write (1) as "Dual-Hop( **en dash** )Multiple-Access Relay Networks, then I think this implies that "dual-hop relay networks" exist and that "multiple-access relay networks" exist independently of each other, which may not actually be the case. Please help me out here because these things crop up so often in my work.


title: Past participle of "flaw"

text: According to Wiktionary, the past participle of "flaw" is _flawed_ , and _flawn_ is not mentioned as being a valid alternative. However, the past participle of "draw" is _drawn_. I know that Modern English is irregular with regard to many forms and conjugations (for better or worse), but at first glance it is logical that the past participle form should be _flawn_ , and not _flawed_. In short, what is the correct conjugation of the past participle for the verb _flaw_?


title: Word meaning "initial and annual"?

text: In my business, we accept monthly payments however the first monthly payment is higher than the 11 following payments. When the service renews the next year we change the higher initial fee again. I want to say something like this: > $20 per month after an initial payment of $100 But that makes it sound like the initial payment is a one-off, but it recurs annually when the policy is renewed. Is there a more succinct way to say "initial but recurring"?


title: What is the opposite of a monopoly?

text: There is an "oligopoly", which is the dominating of the market by a select few businesses. Then there's **__** , which is when no single business dominates their respective market. What's that called?


title: Designators, quantifications and predicates in Predicate Logic

text: So, I got my Predicate Logic exercises back, and I had apprently made one mistake. What is annoying is that I don't know why. The taks was to identify all the designators and predicates in a certain number of sentences. The one I got wrong on was this: > "Everyone tells the officer to keep an eye on City Hall" I identified two designators here, and three predicates, like this: > Designators: > >> >>      the officer   >>      City hall >>   > > Predicates: > >> >>      Everyone tells x to keep an eye on City hall >>      Everyone tells the officer to keep an eye on y >>      Everyone tells x to keep an eye on y >>   Where I had gone wrong was apparently in the last predicate ("everyone tells x to keep an eye on y"), for there my teacher had crossed out "Everyone" and put "z", like this > > >>      z tells x to keep an eye on y >>   My questions are: > > 1) Why is everyone substituted for z, when I have explicitly learned that > "everyone, each, some, all, none, etc are **not** designators", and I though > one could only remove designators to make predicates ... >> >> 2) Why is it only substituted for z in the last predicate and not in the two first one? >> >> 3) Why is it "everone" not listed as a designator, when it is removed for the sentence? Thanks!


title: cat eye vs. cat's eye

text: I was reading another thread here and came across a technical term _rheum_ that I didn't know. I went to wikipedia for more information and saw a picture there where the caption says > Rheum in cat eyes. Shouldn't it be **cat's** eyes with the possessive _'s_? Or either is possible? If so, can you please explain why?


title: Fair or Fare? - Which is right in this sentence?

text: Recently in a newspaper article, I read this line phrase "to conduct a fare probe". Shouldn't it be "to conduct a fair probe" ?? If the former is correct grammatically, can you explain why ?? The context of the above phrase was about conducting an unbiased probe into a crime committed by a criminal.


title: Idioms that mean making decision between two good options

text: I am looking for expressions that mean "to decide between two good options." For example, you have to choose between getting a car that you like or a super car that's very expensive but you are not sure if you like it. I searched on Google and there are some phrases that mean to make decision between two **unpleasant** options so, I am not sure if there such an expression in English or not.


title: 'At' vs. 'On' when referring a temperature

text: Assume you have a chemical solution and you want it to be frozen and kept at a temperature of -4 degrees, or you want an action to be taken on the solution at -4 degrees, what would you use then? Would you write 'freeze at -4 degrees' or 'freeze in -4 degrees', would you write 'execute the action at -4 degrees' or 'execute the action in -4 degrees' I know I have kind of answered myself inside my question but I want to know that I'm not mistaken, as I'm writing an academic article and I don't want to hassle my professors with grammer.


title: What does "week" mean in place names?

text: I visited darkest Devon recently, and happened to pass through a couple of places named "Week". On studying the map I found several others, such as James Week, Mary Week, Chawleigh Week, and so on. Does "Week" had a special meaning in place names, and if so, what is it?


title: Please help me understand the meaning these sentences

text: We have a call about it tonight. We're trying to close it as a bigger project. I'll let you know soon. I would like to understand what 'close it as a bigger project' means. Does it mean the project is being shelved or does it mean that project is being made as a bigger one. Sorry , I am weak in these things!


title: What do you call a woman who is crafty, employs ingenuity in a general range of things like sewing, baking, paper crafts, etc

text: I'm trying to find a noun that embodies a range of crafty skills. This word would ideally follow my adjective "craftiest" and would describe someone (typically a woman) who could be seen as someone who covers range of titles such as seamstress, homemaker, baker, and general crafts like that. Is there any such word?


title: "What's going on?" vs. "What's happening?"

text: Is there a semantic difference between `What's going on?` and `What's happening?`. Can they be used interchangeably?


title: Alphanumeric abbreviations in English

text: I've been running across some interesting abbreviations on the internet. For example: > **b4** : before   >  **w8** : wait I find it clever because you use just 2 letters to express a longer word. What's the origin of these abbreviations? Can you please provide a full list of them?


title: What is right way to write this (break-down)

text: > I prepared report on total spending in month along with break down by items.


title: How to address a female interviewer

text: So just had a phone interview, the interviewer was a lady, now that i want to write a thank you letter, how should i address her, Ms or Mrs, because i am not supposed to know she's married or not


title: Using "of" before "whether" and general usage of "whether"

text: I was reading a mathematics text, and I came across a phrase which I thought was written incorrectly. There was a part of a sentence: > ... it begs the question whether or not A=B. and I feel this is incorrect, but I'm not sure. I think it should be written like this: > ... it begs the question of whether or not A=B. Or maybe there that's also incorrect, and there is a better form altogether? Maybe taking out the "or not" would make it even more correct, but I'm still not sure. My main problem is that I think there should be an "of" before the "whether" but I don't know why. So, what is the correct form of this expression?


title: Business English Semantic Shift of "Abreast"

text: My coworker just sent out an email asking someone to _[please] keep **abreast** for a response_. My understanding is that the phrase is _keep abreast **of x_** , and that it is used to mean actively keeping up with **x** , which is supported by the idiomatic definition. ( **Edit for clarification:** The intended meaning in the email is _"wait for a response"_.) I am aware of the phenomenon of words taking on different meanings in business contexts, but this is not one that I have come across before (in my admittedly short time in the corporate world). Is this commonly used elsewhere?


title: "which had return'd to the inheritance of Fortinbras"

text: Here are some lines from _Hamlet_ , Act 1, Scene 1 (The Arden Shakespeare edited by Harold Jenkins) > Against the which a moiety competent > > Was gaged by our King, which had return'd > > To the inheritance of Fortinbras, > > Had he been vanquisher; I think "which had return'd" should be "which would have returned" in Modern English. Was "which had returned" regular at Shakespeare's time? Or was it irregular even at that time?


title: Origin of “sick to my stomach”

text: Where does the phrase _sick to my stomach_ come from? Never stopped to think of it before. It doesn’t even seem grammatically correct.


title: Is there a word to describe what someone is worth, economically?

text: Is there a word that describes what someone is worth, economically? For example, if Joe has gone to school for five years and has a bachelor's degree in Computer Science, there is a certain minimum value on him. He can easily make more than $15/hour, so that would mean that he is minimally worth $15/hour.


title: Help in deciphering the meaning of this convoluted sentence

text: I was reading an answer on one of the sister sites of this site and came across this line : > A common question, glad you asked it. Here is all you never thought you > would ever not want to know about it. I read the second sentence three or four times but still confused at what it means. Can someone break down this convoluted sentence and help me understand the idea behind this sentence?


title: Is there a single word for a person who overreacts?

text: I'm looking for a single word that describes a person who often overreacts to things.


title: "any" versus "arbitrary"

text: Which of the following sentences are correct? The relation between any two nodes is associated with a real number that indicates the probability. The relation between two arbitrary nodes is associated with a real number that indicates the probability. The relation between two nodes is associated with a real number that indicates the probability.


title: "Less" and "fewer" in English

text: English uses two lexemes to denote that something is smaller in number or size/amount: "Less" and "fewer". "Less" is used for uncountable nouns ("I needed _less_ time to mow the lawn today"), while "fewer" is used for countable ones ("I needed _fewer_ attempts to get the lawnmower going today"). However, sometimes "less" is used with countable nouns (famously the "X items or _less_ " register in supermarkets). When can countable nouns be used with "less"? Consider these examples:   * I'll only need five minutes or _less_ to mow the lawn.   * A lawnmower may only go 5 mph or _less_.   * You may only use my lawnmower if you weigh 75 kg or _less_. These sentences sound correct to me, while the use of "fewer" in these contexts seems incorrect or at least odd to me (as a non-native speaker of English):   * ? I'll only need five minutes or _fewer_ to mow the lawn.   * ? A lawnmower may only go 5 mph or _fewer_.   * ? You may only use my lawnmower if you weigh 75 kg or _fewer_. Which of these do native speakers prefer? Could it be that "less" is acceptable, when the countable noun refers to an uncountable entity (such as time, speed or weight)? If so, is this restricted to units (minutes, mph, kg)? Also: Would this explain the use of "less" in "X items or less", as "items" as a countable noun refers to an abstract, uncountable entity (i.e. "shopping")?


title: Why not 'to effect'?

text: > To give effect to something or to carry/bring/put something into effect is > to make it begin doing what it was intended to do. Are these verb phrases ('to give effect...', to + verb + into + effect) containing 'effect' prolix and tortuous? Why not simply use 'to effect'? They transpire to suggest that there may be differences?


title: Does saying "he uses" imply volition?

text: A recent L.A. Times brief mentioned that the horse California Chrome's qualification for a race was in question because "he uses nasal strips." The phrasing caught my eye because, to me, saying "he uses" implies that it is the horse's decision (as opposed to that of his trainers or other people). Was the paper correct?


title: How many times do you have to do a thing before it becomes a tradition

text: I recently heard an advertisement proclaiming that Bar-B-Q was a tradition at a local bar/restaurant. This seemed a little ludicrous to us and we began discussing how many times a thing had to be done in a row before it was a tradition. Is there a specific rule? Is three times enough? Does it have to be done for a generation at least?


title: Does "C follows A" apply to "ABCDE"

text: Given the sequence: > ABCDE I think it makes sense to say "B follows A", but what about "C follows A"? I mean, is "follow" limited to the case where something comes _right_ after something else? Does it imply immediate neighborship in the string?


title: What is the verb for the action of a coward?

text: I wonder what the verb for the action of a "coward" is. I remember there seems to be a verb form similar to _coward_ , but _coward_ cannot be a verb.


title: Plurality of a group also referenced using we/our/us

text: This question (migrated to _writers.se_ ) uses an example sentence along the lines of > ABC is expanding our operations overseas. As a Brit, I'm quite comfortable with either **ABC is** or **ABC are** in most contexts, but in this particular construction the switch in plurality from **is** to **our** in a single sentence really grates. Curiously, I find I don't have this problem if those two words are in separate sentences. > ABC is a dynamic company. We are expanding our operations overseas. Is this just a personal hangup of mine? Or there a US/UK divide on the issue? I don't think this is a question about whether companies are singular or plural (as covered here). I'm asking about attitudes to using both **is** and **our** in the same sentence like this.


title: "More precisely" usage

text: After describing a certain issue in a more general manner I want to outline the inner details of it. Is it correct to start the paragraph whose purpose it is to give to the reader the detailed explanation with the following expression? > More precisely,... Or are there other expressions which would fit better given the above scope?


title: What do we call people who go to the gym?

text: A group of people who regularly attend gym classes or work-out. What are they called? Is there a single-word for this particular group? Apart from my calling them _fanatics_ , _mad_ (BrEng)/ _crazy_ (AmEng), _body- obsessed_ , _vain_ or _dull_. Seriously, what are they? **_Devotees_**? **_Learners_**? **_Practitioners_**? I'd also appreciate any equivalent popular/recognized expressions that haven't yet entered any standard dictionary but have been _buzzing_ around for a few years. _**Trivia_**   In Italian, a gym is called _palestra_. Italians are very body conscious and tend to look after themselves very well, in fact it is true to say that it's quite difficult to find overweight, unattractive, or unfit men or women who attend these almost daily sessions. The men, in particular, can get carried away and so the expression _palestrato_ has been coined in the Italian language. A **palestrato** is someone who **frequently attends the gym** , but is also an exhibitionist, self-obsessed, extremely vain, and very very muscular.


title: What is the meaning of "tap dance to work"?

text: I know what tap dance is. But the book "Tap Dance to Work" by Loomis seems imply doing something joyfully or easily. Where is the phrase originating?


title: what does "Left off" mean?

text: Has anyone help me to understand meaning of "Left off" for example in below sentence: > Where We Left Off and What’s Next


title: Is this a dangling modifier?

text: Was just reading _The $100 Startup_ and came across this sentence: > Happily, the launch was successful. Is this a dangling modifier (not sure if that's what it's called)? Or some other error? It seems to me that it's the launch here in the sentence that's going about its business happily, not the author.


title: What's the meaning of "drag" in this context?

text: This is a comment from a forum discussion: > This is OT. You must cook every meal to perfect macros. You then must buy > tupperware and drag it into work the next day. That is all you are allowed > to eat for lunch. If you do not bring leftovers you must only eat at a local > restaurant. What does the poster mean by _drag it into work_? Is he using _drag_ figuratively, or _drag something into something_ is a phrasal verb for something else?


title: Term for changing a word to fit another word inside it

text: Ska does this all the time. The Skatalites Eskanol (spanish ska) Skatastrophic I can't seem to think of a single other example, but I know I've seen it other places.


title: What is the origin of the idiom "tearing hair out"?

text: What is the origin of the idiom "tearing hair out" or "pulling my hair out"?


title: What is the meaning of "some" in this sentence?

text: What does `some` mean in the following sentence? Does it has a meaning similar to `hardly any`?               Some consensus has been reached regarding the theoretical basis for     measuring the cost of travel time.


title: Meaning of "Material career"

text: > The only events worth noting in his **material career** are his installation > at Toulouse at the age of 30 (14 May 1631), as commissioner of requests; > > from Eric Temple Bell's _Men of Mathematics_ The sentence is about Fermat (A mathematician). Does material career mean "Non-Spiritual" , "Non-Mathematics" or "earthly" ?


title: "do the dishes" vs "wash the dishes"

text: Are there any difference in the meaning between do/wash the dishes? Are they used in different situations or are they synonyms? For example 'mountain hiking' would not say 'hiking mountain' ... This question was asked by a friend, and I don't know either, English isn't my mother tongue, so if somebody knows it, please help me.


title: Can one be "convicted" if one has a strong opinion?

text: Can "convicted" be used to qualify somebody who has a conviction (in the sense of strong opinion)? In that context it would be a close synonym of convinced or opinionated for example. It possibly makes etymological sense but I don't know if it is (or has ever been) an accepted usage of that word in English.


title: Why is it that John Chrysostom is almost never referred to as "John Golden Mouth" in English?

text: Why is it that the sainted John Chrysostom (b. 347?, d. 407; Archbishop of Constantinople, 397–407) is almost never referred to as "John Golden Mouth" in English? ("Chrysostom" means "Golden Mouth" in Greek.) Would "John Golden Mouth" sound somewhat inappropriate or somewhat weird in English? Compare how we change Vlad Țepeș to Vlad the Impaler.


title: What's the most common word refer to the after death letter?

text: I am confused between : Will, legacy, Commandment, Precept, Behest, Testament and more. Which word refer to the declaration or the message by which a person ask the world to do certain things after his death, like his recommendations and the distribution of his property..etc.


title: Different ways of saying Aluminium

text: this is a very short question but me and a couple of friends have been discussing this for a little. Does anyone know why Americans and British people especially insists on saying "Aloominum" and "Aloominium" respectively?


title: Something similar to "plepentry envoy"

text: Long time ago I heard a word that to the best of my recollection is "plepentry envoy" I have googled a few variants, but "pleopentry envoy", "pelepentry envoy" etc. but nothing similar is coming up. This is a long shot, but the word was suppose to mean something like an envoy that was dispatched by a royal with full mandate without requiring to approve their decisions by the King himself as they would have been acting on behalf of the King ( Of course if later King find out or decided that they did not act as he would then off with their heads). Anyone has any hints on how to chase up this word?


title: What does "matriculated" mean in following para?

text: The Doctor, seeing his client more attentive than alarmed, was greatly surprised. **He must be _matriculated_** , said he to himself— ' A h ! ah!' added he aloud; 'you have been obliged to shave off the lock. You have been prudent; however you need not have done so, when putting yourself under my hands. The case is serious; but you don't know what I have courage to do in a time of need.' To understand this mistake of the Doctor's, it must be known, that at that time, bravoes by profession, and villains of every kind, used to wear a long lock of hair, which they drew over the face like a visor on meeting any one.


title: Saxon Genitiv or of-genitive? - e.g. 'the family's' vs 'of the family'

text: If you look up the rules for the use of the Saxon genitive, grammar textbooks will tell you that it is used with nouns that refer to persons or animals. However, a search on google yields the following results: site:ac.uk "the family's wealth" = 581 hits - site:ac.uk "the wealth of the family" 44,400 hits site:edu "the family's wealth" = 18,000 hits - site:edu "the wealth of the family" = 219,000 hits site:ac.uk "their daughter's death" 50 hits - site:ac.uk "the death of their daughter " 9.540 site:edu "their daughter's death" 6.740 hits - site:edu "the death of their daughter" 153,000 hits. Granted that ac.uk domains reflect educated British English usage and that edu domains reflect educated American English usage, is there a rule that can explain the preference for the Norman genitive in these and similar cases?


title: Is there a word for a comment which makes no sense or adds nothing to the current discussion?

text: Consider this conversation: > John: I am giving free chess lessons.   >  Mary: Nice! You’re a true teacher.   >  John: How so?   >  Mary: A true teacher imparts knowledge without a price tag.   >  John: But what if teaching is his only source of income? Would he not be a > “true” teacher then?   >  Mark ( _in response to the question above_ ): **You clearly mentioned “free > chess lesson”**. I don’t see how Mark’s comment adds anything to the discussion or makes sense in the current discussion. It is “redundant” — that’s one word for it — but is there a more fitting word?


title: Salary comes from salt, but where does salt come from?

text: OK, this was a trick question. :-) The first part of the question is about etymology but my real question is about vocabulary. I would like to know the name of the place where sea salt is harvested. Is there a specific name for it in English? I have found salt pan - alluding to the technique of boiling sea water in a pan to collect the salt at the end - or salt (evaporation) pond. In Portuguese we have the single word "salina" to define such place.


title: What does “the little guy” in “(Larry Summers) would be an enthusiastic enforcer of bank regulation to protect the little guy” mean?

text: In New York Times’ (August 13) article titled, “Summers of our discontent,” Maureen Dowd manifests her objection to the possible nomination of Larry Summers by President Obama by asking, “Does the fact that we’ve had no female Fed chairs and no female Treasury secretaries mean that Summers was right when he said women are less likely to have the kind of brains that would allow them to get top jobs requiring math skills? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/opinion/dowd-summers-of-our- discontent.html?hp&_r=0Summers And she asks; > “But the idea that it is somehow historically inevitable that the > chairmanship of the Federal Reserve should go to Summers, that it belongs to > him, that he would be an enthusiastic enforcer of bank regulation to protect > **the little guy**? I have my doubts.” Who is “the little guy”? Does it mean the weak, or small loan borrowers? Is it a single person or entity? Why is it in the singular form when it refers to guy, a countable noun - I mean, why it is 'the guy," not "the guys" when it indicates guys in a social group or class?


title: Can "divest" mean "strip or deprive"?

text: Is the word _divest_ used in the meaning "strip" or "deprive"? This word is in the GRE high-frequency word list, and my workbook says that it means "strip or deprive". Also, Wiktionary has an article with the same meaning. But I've checked a couple of dictionaries (Cambridge and Collins) and I've failed to find this meaning of the word _divest_ , only "to sell something, especially business, part of business or to stop taking part in a business activity". In which meaning is the word "divest" usually used?


title: "Typical of" or "typical for"?

text: ### Background Reading this post, I realized that I had a tendency to use _"typical **for** "_ rather than _"typical **of** "_. After a quick research, reading through several sources on the web, I found that the more I read, the more I got confused. I felt like there is no established rules to state which one is more appropriate, in which occasion. I even found the two usages in the same BBC's article, > "The painting is a little a-typical **for** Van Gogh because of the many > people appearing on it but also very typical because of the prominent role > for the mill." > > "But he added that other elements of the the work, with its bright colours > lathered roughly on the canvas, was typical **of** Van Gogh's style at the > time he was living in Paris." The searches for "typical of" and "typical for" here (EL&U) both returned substantial results, though "typical of" appears to be in favor. ### Confusion Trying to make sense of it, I was about to conclude that I should use "of" when the typicality is something _intrinsic_ (a property or a character of what was talked about), and use "for" when such typicality should be viewed _extrinsically_. As these two examples from Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, > _This meal is typical of local cookery_. (intrinsic)   >  _A typical working day for me begins at 7.30._ (extrinsic) But soon I felt abash when I found someone mentioned question 7 in this English Grammar Test, Elementary Level # 71, > Such bad behavior is typical .......... the spoiled child.   > > > a) for   >  b) with   >  c) about   >  d) of The question was listed under _"british vs. american english"_ , implying that each dialect prefers one usage over another. But I have a feeling that it might turn out to be untrue. Is there any good rule of thumb for the usage of **typical for** vs. **typical of**?


title: Word for someone who is hungry for power and control

text: What do you call someone who's running after power and is hungry of controlling everything/everyone, all the time? Somehow like ~~a moderator~~ Darth Vader.


title: Word to describe pushing a chair under a table

text: Is there a word or a short phrase to describe the action of pushing a chair under a table?


title: Is "the" required in "Welcome to [the] premier issue of"?

text: In the premier issue of a new magazine I saw today, the first line reads "Welcome to premier issue of Vegas/Rated." I was thrown by the lack of some other word preceding "premier". It could have an article like "the" for "the premier issue", or it could have also said "our", as in "our premier issue". So is the sentence, as it stands, correct and simply an esoteric usage of grammar? Or is it an actual error? In an answer below, a rule about not using the article before the name of a city is brought up. However, I'm not sure this applies as "Vegas/Rated" is a proper noun, and the name of a magazine, regardless of a portion of it being a city name.


title: Where does the phrase "possession is ( nine points | nine-tenths ) of the law" come from?

text: I've seen dozens of arguments for the correctness and/or precedence of one version over the other, but have not come across compelling sources or well- documented explanations for either. Does anyone have solid information on which came first, and how it was derived?


title: Do two people have "breaths"?

text: In some books, I see the use of the word "breaths" in the phrase "they held their breaths". Is this correct? And if it is, should I go by the Ngram (below) in spite of grammaticality? ![](http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/chart?content=held+their+breath%2Cheld+their+breaths&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3) Or are both correct? (If so, I would go with the more popular "held their breath".)


title: What Exactly is the Meaning of "Fatal"?

text: My understanding is that in its normal usage, it means "deadly." But the root word of "fatal" appears to be "fate," rather than anything that has to do with "death." In this regard, "fatal" resembles "fateful." Could "fatal" be a variant of "fateful," perhaps with the "deadly" connotations alluded to above?


title: Is there a difference between "continual" and "continuous"?

text: They are very close in meaning, I know, but I want to know if there are any subtle differences. Let me give you an example of a subtle difference in meaning between synonyms: > _Deceitful_ vs. _deceptive_ At first glance, these seem to be perfect synonyms. However, in putting them into sentences, one finds a pattern - _deceitful_ is almost always used of persons, and _deceptive_ is always used of situations or things. So the "perfect" synonyms cannot always replace each other. My question is: is there a similar subtle difference between _continuous_ and _continual_?


title: When it's OK to omit "where?"

text: When it's OK to omit "where?" For example, is it OK to omit it in the following sentence? > This is the one of the few places (where) you can breathe real air. In which situations one's not allowed to do this?


title: Why "like doing something" or "like to do something" but only "dislike doing something"?

text: At a further education course for teachers, in Switzerland, (given by two native speakers of English), someone came up with the question of whether you could say "dislike doing something" and "dislike to do something", just as you can say "like doing something" and "like to do somehting". The answer was you could not, and that it was a question of usage. Period!/Full stop! Just learn this by heart and stop asking silly questions! Will keeping your whys to yourself make you… wise?!


title: How should I capitalize "Clean Up the Tags and Branches" as a title to a section?

text: Specifically, I am wondering how "Clean Up" should be capitalized. I have three plausible options:   1. "Clean Up"   2. "Clean-up"   3. "Clean up" It all really depends on what part of speech "up" is and whether it requires hyphenation. I was thinking that "clean up" is a phrasal verb and... I don't know...


title: How to comprehend the phrase "put them in affluent group of people"

text: I've heard this phrase in Steve Jobs presentation about Apple's 'mothership' building plan in Cupertino. The two ways I can come up to understand:   1. literally put them in the rich people   2. make them affluent enough which one is correct in this content?


title: Meaning of "In 1995, Eric Cantona was at the height of his powers."

text: > "In 1995, Eric Cantona was at the height of his powers." Does it mean Cantona made great achievements in 1995? Or could it mean he possessed powers because it is his footballing heyday?


title: How can I describe the use of "you" when referring to a group of people rather than the second party?

text: I have used the pronoun "you" instead of the more appropriate word "one" in the position of the pronoun when referring to a generic group. Then when realizing the slip, I've qualified the statement with "When I said 'you', I meant you in the pejorative, not you specifically". What is the correct word or phrase to use instead of "pejorative" in the above? I discovered that "pejorative" has a more negative connotation than I intend.


title: How should I greet two people sharing the same first name in an email?

text: I'm sending an email to two persons with the same first name (Steve) Greeting them by saying "Hi Steve, Steve" seems totally awkward. Is there a good way of writing this, apart from the obvious "Hi" without mentioning any first name ?


title: Where does the term "my bag" come from?

text: What is the origin of the term "my bag"? As in, > That's just not **my bag**. I know what it means. Essentially, for the example above, it would mean "That's not my sort of thing." I know it's been around a while, since 60s hero Austin Powers was always saying it. So I'm guessing it's 60s slang, that's still hanging on today. But why a "bag"? Did "bag" get used to mean a generic thing in other context? Is it short for something, or rhyming slang. Any ideas?


title: What does the phrase "tell us what you really think" mean?

text: What does "tell us what you really think" mean? It seems to be used when someone _is_ telling us what they really think...


title: Switching from present tense to future tense

text: > Probably one of the most important decisions a writer can make is to decide > on (and stick to) a narrative voice through which to tell the story. The > narrative voice **will** include two elements, each of which must be > consistent throughout the story-telling process. The first is point of view, > and the second is verb tense. I recently read the above paragraph, and I'm confused about why the author used "will" in the above paragraph. Is the above paragraph written in narrative mode? If I had to write the paragraph, I would write the following instead. Would my choice of verb in the paragraph below be incorrect? Thank you for your help! > Probably one of the most important decisions a writer can make is to decide > on (and stick to) a narrative voice through which to tell the story. The > narrative voice **includes** two elements, each of which must be consistent > throughout the story-telling process. The first is point of view, and the > second is verb tense.


title: Correct names for lycanthrope species with abnormally named base creatures

text: It's normally easy to name a lycanthrope species: just place "were" in front of the name of the base creature, i.e. "werewolf", "werebear", or "weredragon". Sometimes, though, the base creature's name is an open compound word, i.e. the komodo dragon. The "komodo" part of the name is crucial to the identity of the creature; komodo dragons are not remotely regular dragons. Is the lycanthrope form a "werekomodo dragon"? The sounds like a dragon species with "werekomodo" as a qualifier. Someone once suggested "komodo weredragon", but that doesn't sound right to me, either. That sounds more like a dragon-based lycanthrope (which it is not), with "komodo" as some sort of qualifier. The final option I suppose would be "werekomododragon", which I favor most, but I still don't feel right about it. How about the Mongolian death worm? This one not only has spaces in its name, but "Mongolian" is capitalized. Does the lycanthrope form end up being a "wereMongoliandeathworm"?


title: "Disappointed in" versus "disappointed with"

text: I'm aware there are different prepositions possible after _disappointed_ : _with_ , _in_ , _of_ , _at_. I'm particulary interested in the difference between _with_ and _in_. >   * I'm disappointed **with** you. >   * I'm disappointed **in** you. > Which one is correct? Or do they have a slightly different meaning?


title: How do you say 'self-important' when applied to a group of people?

text: I am writing a text about how the team "Leopard Trek" (Tour de France) is perceived by people in Luxembourg as a 'luxembourgish' team, even though it has an international roster of multiple countries. The only thing it has to do with Luxembourg is the few luxembourgish drivers it has and the fact that it is registered in Luxembourg. The term I am trying to use is 'self-important', since I think it is kind of arrogant when people here speak of 'Team Luxembourg' or 'Team Schleck'. However, I think that the word would put the critic on the team (which is innocent) instead of the fans. How would you describe _a group of people_ (or a general situation), that only see their part of a common struggle/team/collaboration instead of thinking of themselves as a part of a whole.


title: Guide to living well vs guide to live well

text: For Example: > Your guide 'to living' well with diseases. 'To living' your dream life. Why use living instead of live? I would like to know how to use and why to use a gerund instead of an infinitive following to.


title: "Access to..." or "access of..."?

text: Translating a title of a paper from another language, I’m debating between   * Remote Access _to_ a Computer System   * Remote Access _of_ a Computer System This is a title, so it should stand on its own, without extra context. Which is correct? If both are valid English, what’s the difference in meaning?


title: What is the  structure of "Long time passing"?

text: > **WHERE HAVE ALL THE FLOWERS GONE**   >  words and music by Pete Seeger > > Where have all the flowers gone?   >  _Long time passing_   >  Where have all the flowers gone?   >  Long time ago   >  Where have all the flowers gone?   >  Girls have picked them every one   >  When will they ever learn?   >  When will they ever learn?   >  ..... What is the exact meaning of "Long time passing"? What kind of construct is it? NB: Of course I can infer an approximate meaning, but I can't recognize the structure   **[adj] [noun] [present participle]** as a stand alone one.


title: What is the "group name" for students who entered / left university in the same year?

text: For example, I entered my university in 2006, so I am a student of "grade 2006" (a direct translation from my own language). What is the proper English? Besides, I need the word for students graduated in the same year, for me, 2010.


title: Semantic difference between “if I did not want” and “if I wanted”

text: I was reading My Antonia and came across this line: > [She] asked me if I did not want to go to the garden with her (12) And was wondering why Cather chose _if I did not want_ over _if I wanted_. Are these two phrases the same in meaning? Is there a subtle difference between them? For example, if I said: > I was wondering if you want to go to the park Would that be the same as saying: > I was wondering if you _don’t_ want to go to the park


title: HTTP-port or HTTP port?

text: Should I use dash in a port name, e.g. http-port, ftp-port, or it's more correct to omit the dash, like "http port", "ftp port"?


title: can we use 2 " 's" in a sentence like this?

text: I wonder if this sentence is rightly or wrongly punctuated : 'It's "How I Met Your Mother" 's time'.


title: Adverb form of "sustainable"

text: I'm translating a sentence to English, and want to use the phrase: > All material is produced sustainably. But my spell-check doesn't like the word `sustainably`, so I looked it up, and have found mixed results as to whether this is the best word to use. Dictionary.com doesn't list any adverb form of sustainable. Miriam-Webster _does_ have an entry for sustainably. Should I use this word, or is there a better, more accepted way to convey the same meaning?


title: English Homonym Nouns

text: Recently I had a discussion with a friend about the "solidity" of the English language in respect to Chinese. (By "solidity" we meant the reduced possibility for interpretation errors and misunderstanding - for which the Chinese language is nutritious and can actually be considered one vast homonym.) This conversation triggered a question in my mind about homonyms, and when I wanted to search examples for myself, I could only find one or two. By homonym for this question I mean **_nouns_** which have the same pronunciation, exact same spelling, but totally different meanings, e.g.: **NOT:** **Flour** \- **Flower** (different spelling, same pronunciation) **Desert** \- **Dessert** (similar/different spelling, different pronunciation but accent dependent) **Wind** (air movement, noun) - **Wind** (to coil, verb) (same spelling, different pronunciation but one is a verb) **but more like:** **BOW** (weapon) - **BOW** (ribbon) (I intentional exclude the **_verbs_** for the purpose of this question because they are influenced by the time tense, and it is easy for something to occur like "DOVE" (the bird) and "DOVE" (past of dive).) So my questions are:   1. How many of these exist?    2. Please give me more examples (or point me to a comprehensive list if it exists - I could not find one for some reason).   3. What is the REASON for the existence of those homonyms, except the obvious reasons of foreign-language-imports and historical similarity in use ? (I know it is a difficult question, but still - I try :-) - feel free to ignore that part.)


title: "Ain't ... no more" is "am not ... [any more]"?

text: First of all, I ain't a native speaker.   And one of the most confusing sentences to me is > I ain't going to this place no more. _Ain't_ in this sentence basically means _am not_ , so it translates to _I am not going to this place no more_. What exactly does _no more_ in this sentence mean? Does it have the same meaning as _any more_?


title: Does the negative enhance the sentence?

text: When saying, for example, "Isn't that your mother?" versus "Is that your mother?" Is the former sentence more effective because of the negative?


title: Does "use X, Y, or Z" mean use *one of* or *all of* the options?

text: This is the text supposedly providing the parameters for creating acceptable usernames for a particular website: > The username is case sensitive. Choose a username that is 6-74 characters > long and must contain a lowercase or capital letter, a number, or one of > these symbols _.@/- In other words: A username for this site must consist of from 6 to 74 characters **and** must contain **one** of the following:                -any upper or lower case letter      -any 6 to 74 digit number       -any one of the following symbols _.@/-      Therefore, any of the following should be acceptable usernames:   * @@@@@@    * 99999999999999999999999999999999999    * /////......///    * dar2zen None of those, however, are actually accepted by the website. Therefore, the parameters, as stated, do not state what they mean to state. What they do mean to state is not clear. When the system rejects a username, no feedback on what requirement that username is failing to meet is given. **My question here is whether I am correct in believing that the username requirements, as written, state what I say they state.**


title: “Choose a username that is …and must contain”: phrased incorrectly or just awkwardly?

text: The following parameters are given regarding creating acceptable usernames for a particular website: > The username is case sensitive. Choose a username that is 6-74 characters > long and must contain a lowercase or capital letter, a number, or one of > these symbols _.@/- The phrase "Choose a username that is... and must contain..." seems to me to be incorrect, or at least quite awkward. I believe the instructions ought to say: > The username is case sensitive. Choose a username that is 6-74 characters > long and _contains_ a lowercase or capital letter, a number, or one of these > symbols _.@/- (without the italicizing.) Is my objection correct?


title: Does etymology have a word like cladistics?

text: A recent question on EL&U about a current hip-hop expression led my research into a meme that is evolving faster than drosophila. This expression and its variants have gone viral on internet videos, and are morphing quickly. Urban Dictionary lists several dozen closely related variations. Of particular interest is how this meme is attaching itself to other "loaded" expressions to spawn combination phrases. In trying to wrap my brain around the complexity of this cultural phenomenon, I imagined trying to draw a sphere-of-influence graph of this meme. Which leads me to my question. Biology has cladistics. Does etymology have something similar? Is there a standard means of diagramming the evolution of a word or phrase, and, if so, what is it called?


title: phrases where opposite words can be used to mean the same thing

text: For example   * "1 in 20 Americans suffer from..." and "1 out of 20 Americans suffer from..."   * "it is down to you" and "it is up to you"  They seem like great ways to add to creative writing. Are there any other examples of such phrases?


title: Difference between Guise and Disguise

text: What is the difference between Guise and Disguise? They sound like antonym word for each other, but they aren't!


title: Is ‘marquee chefs’ casual word?

text: I found the word ‘marquee chefs’ in an article in today’s New York times in the following context. ‘From new offerings by marquee chefs to more modest openings in out-of-the-way spots, here are 10 restaurants around the globe to keep an eye on in 2011.’ I consulted Oxford English Dictionary at hand to check the meaning of ‘marquee,’ which it defines simply as 1.a large tent used at social events. and 2. (AmE) a covered entrance to a theater, hotel, etc. Often with a sign on or above it, both of which meaning are irrelevant with chef, if take literally. I interpreted “marquee chefs” here means chefs of well-known restaurants or hotel restaurants. Am I right? Is ‘marquee chef’ commonly spoken in your daily conversation? If not, why did New York Times writer use such a word?


title: Sports: opposite of an upset

text: What's the opposite of an upset in sports. Maybe "expected outcome"... Terser would be better, but I'd hear anything that came to mind.


title: Alternative word for "honed"

text: Is there another word describing the process where you've polished your skills through experience - apart from "honed". I don't think it's the best word somehow.


title: Word for "extinct", "eradicated" that sounds like "reserved"

text: In the Czech language, there's a word play with copyright notice. We say "vyhrazena" for "reserved" (as of _rights_ ) and "vyhlazena" as for eradicated (eg. Indians). I used that pun on my mini site footer and now I don't know how to translate it, to keep the joke in it. So far, I just translated it: " _All rights erradicated, copy and let others copy too_." Do you have any ideas for similar wordplay in English?


title: What does "to bleed something" mean?

text: In Bloomberg magazine, I saw this sentence: > Rust Belt states that have bled manufacturing jobs. Does it mean they have lost the jobs or gained more jobs?


title: Difference in meaning and prononciation of urbane and urban

text: I encounter these two words pretty often, both orally and in writing. What is the difference between two, and how to pronounce, say in USA?


title: "And what make you from Wittenberg, Horatio?"

text: Here's from Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 2 (The Arden Shakespeare edited by Harold Jenkins) > Hor. Hail to your lordship. > > Ham. I am glad to see you well. > > Horatio, or I do forget myself. > > Hor. The same, my lord, and your poor servant ever. > > Ham. Sir, my good friend, I'll change that name with you. > > And what make you from Wittenberg, Horatio? > > Marcellus. I'm wondering what is the subject of the sentence: > And what make you from Wittenberg, Horatio? Is it "what" or "you"? It seems to me that "what" is the subject, because Horatio answered: > A truant disposition, good my lord. However, I wonder why the "make" is not "makes" in that case.


title: "Will be like" or "would be like"?

text: > I'm making wild guesses about what the future would/will be like. Is either legitimate? If so what's the differences in meaning?


title: Alternative structures for "not only ... but also ..."?

text: I'm trying to write this essay and I find myself writing too many "not only ... but also ..." structures. Can you guys help me come up with some alternatives? Basically, I want this kind of **progressive** effect: > Doing this is not only fun, but also one of the most important activities of > human beings. How about this one: > He is not only a teacher, but also one of the greatest educators in history.


title: Is "coachee" even a word?

text: If I am Rita's coach, is Rita my *coachee? (yikes) Is that even a word? Would it be correct instead to say she is my ward? What about terms for people at the other end of a mentor, sponsor relationship?


title: Complicated sentence in the past: did vs. would do

text: Consider the following: On my way back home from work I recalled what my boss had asked I **did** \- **turned** off the lights before I **went**. Hence unfortunately I had to drive all the way back to the office. On my way back home from work I recalled what my boss had asked **I'd do** : **turn** off the lights before I **go**. Hence unfortunately I had to drive all the way back to the office. Which is the correct form? Would you use a dash, colon, comma or a semicolon after the first statement? How about the conjugation of the verbs in bold?


title: Regarding present tense and future tense

text: In this sentence "Look at the timetable. Hurry up! Flight 4026 takes off at 6:20." Can I replace "will take off" with "takes off"？


title: Is destiny ever used in the plural?

text: Compare these two sentences: > They would have had the chance of choosing their own destiny.   >  They would have had the chance of choosing their own destinies.


title: What is the plural form of the word "Demiurge"

text: What would be the plural form of the word "Demiurge", (the Creator~). **One Demiurge.** **Many Demiurges?**


title: What does this sentence mean - "He was a capitalist who appropriated the rhetoric of the commune where he had lived"

text: This sentence comes from a book that describes Steve Jobs. Here is the context: (taken from Amazon.com) > In the summer of 1985, when Steve Jobs was stripped of power at the company > he cofounded, when his office was moved to a vacant building he called > Siberia, he didn't know what to do. He was thirty years old, and he owned > more than $100 million worth of Apple stock. He didn't have to work, not for > the money, at least, and not for the fame. He had appeared on the cover of > Time and had accepted the National Technology Award at the White House. His > niche in economic history was already secure as the preeminent popularizer > of the personal computer. His mention in American cultural history was > certain as well. In an era when commerce was equated with conformity, when > industry was seen as the staid and soulless province of balding older men, > he was an unprecedented phenom. He was a businessman posing as an idealistic > revolutionary, striving for social change. **He was a capitalist who > appropriated the rhetoric of the commune where he had lived.** He was a > barefooted chairman of the board who took his girlfriend to Grateful Dead > concerts and quoted an entire verse of Bob Dylan lyrics at a shareholders > meeting. He was a "young industrialist," as he preferred to call himself, an > epithet that sounded delightfully unlikely. He was a pop-culture icon, a > media hero, a role model, a sex symbol, and teen heartthrob.


title: Reason for the strange meaning of "for any length of time"?

text: Consider the sentence [emphasis mine]: > Foreign producers cannot sell all commodities at lower prices than domestic > producers **for any length of time** because the depreciation (or pressures > for depreciation) of the importing country’s currency ensures that trade > will flow in both directions. Intuitively, the sentence should mean that foreign producers can _never_ sell commodities at lower prices than domestic producers, because even one day is "a length of time," and the sentence asserts that it cannot happen for _any_ length of time. Of course, that's not what it's actually saying. A more literal phrasing would be "for a very long time" or "for any **great** length of time." This interpretation of "any _quantity_ of **X** " does not carry over to other values of **X**. For instance, > I would not sell that to you **for any amount of money**. means exactly what it looks like it means: that any quantity of money, either very low or very high, is not appropriate. So my question is, where does this strange use of _"any length of time"_ come from, and are there any other things besides time to which it applies?


title: "Scholar" vs. "scientist"

text: I mainly associate _scholar_ with _scholarship_. But what's its etymological origin? On scientific websites both _scholar_ and _scientist_ seem to be used with the same meaning; A graduate working actively on a scientific topic. Is it a AE/BE thing or does scholar imply the graduate is doing a phd/postdoctoral degree or gets financial aid (scholarship). Also, how do these terms relate to _researcher_? You don't need an academic degree to be a researcher, e.g. a journalist does research before writing an article. But in my opinion _researcher_ also often implies someone has an academic degree. Is this right?