title: Pronouns and declension for merged/hermaphroditic entities

text: I have a pair of friends who since entering into a relationship have become rather disgustingly effusive and clingy, to the point where people around them have begun referring them an 'it' [singular], or as a (hermaphroditic) single organism. Equivalently, imagine attempting to speak to a sentient coral, or a Portugese Man o' War, or a mated anglerfish pair, wherein > When [the male] finds a female, he bites into her skin, and releases an > enzyme that digests the skin of his mouth and her body, fusing the pair down > to the blood-vessel level. The male becomes dependent on the female host for > survival, receiving nutrients via their shared circulatory system, and > provides sperm to the female in return. ( ** _Wikipedia_** ) My question is, is there an accepted or even simply precedented way to correctly refer to an entity of this nature? _'It,'_ for example, is passible, but it's really a neuter pronoun, rather than bigendered. Similarly, trying to convey the two-in-one-ness is difficult, especially when attempting to decline it in a sentence: _Which of it was here yesterday?_ ('Which part' is again, passable, but to me seems to imply inanimate parts of a single organism, not sentient parts of a merged one) _It fucked itself._ I feel that the singular, genderless 'they' might be useful, but apart from being questionably grammatical, definitely implies a separation. Perhaps useful; how is the Holy Trinity referred to in scholarly texts? _**Edit:** To my dismay, a number of people seem to have taken this question as insulting, or 'ask[ing] how to insult people whose behavior you cannot tolerate,' or 'look[ing] at the phenomenon in a perverted way.' None of these interpretations are accurate. Rather, I was amused by the concept, which was not coined by me, and wondered upon the possible grammatical constructs. Believe me, I can insult people quite well unassisted._


title: "With" in "difficulty with (verb)-ing"

text: Is this usage of "to have difficulty with" ok? > I've been having some difficulty with reading the books that I decide to > read. A Google search suggested that the "with" may perhaps be dropped, but I'd prefer to keep it if it is ok. A noun after "having difficulty with" seems more clearly ok, like in "I'm having difficulty with the homework", but I wasn't sure about the quoted sentence above.


title: "Continue existing there" or "continuing existing there"

text: I wrote the following sentences: > Eyed closed, he imagined the moment disintegrating, returning to the stars, > and continue existing there for eternity. > > Eyed closed, he imagined the moment disintegrating, and returning to the > stars to continue existing there for eternity. Now, I'm not sure if I should say _continue existing there_ or _continuing existing there_.


title: Which is correct? "Until the 1990s, no one knew the fact." or "Until the 1990s, no one had known the fact."

text: I think "Until the 1990s, no one had known the fact." is grammatically true. Is the other one using the past tense is acceptabe? Or it is also true? Or it is not grammatically true?


title: How would you handle ellipsis outside quotation marks?

text: Would it be: If I had only said, "I love you."... or If I had only said, "I love you"... or even If I had only said, "I love you,"... Basically, the ellipsis would represent someone trailing off. For example, the person might have wanted to say: If I had only said, "I love you," he wouldn't have run off. Or something like that. While I'm at it, is that the correct punctuation for that sentence as well?


title: Original Meaning of Blood is thicker than water, is it real?

text: I recently read that the phrase "Blood is thicker than water" originally derived from the phrase "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb", implying that the ordinary meaning is the opposite of the original intention. However my problem with this is that I can't find any references to this supposed original proverb (while it's possible to find references for the modern meaning from the 12th Century in German, and at least the 17th Century in English). There are plenty of places on the internet where people reference the supposedly original meaning, but I haven't been able to find anywhere they actually point to specific examples. Does anyone know of any examples for this? Is there a reason not to consider this a mistaken etymology?


title: What does "seed" mean in "seed the arguments with"?

text: There is an sentence in a document: > You can seed the arguments with an array of args, but this is only used > internally How to understand the word _seed_? Does the sentence mean: > You can pass an array of args as the arguments of the function


title: Sentence Chaining

text: For lack of a better understanding, I'm going to call the following _chaining_ : > 10011111 in binary is 237 in octal is 159 in decimal is 9F in hexadecimal While I understand the sentence and its structure, I'm curious as to   1. Whether it's a grammatically correct sentence structure   2. If (1), what's it called? Is this a complex sentence?


title: A word for “inner protected world”

text: What can be the word for "inner protected world"? I want to use for this title sentence: > A guy in his **inner protected world** It's some sort of mental sanctum. I want to use it in a positive sense. In my local language we call it _cossetto_ , the same as when a worm converts itself into butterfly. In my local language we say that it comes out from its _cossetto_. Like I want to use it for a guy who is happy in his own environment , who doesn't worry about the world situated outside . Please can someone suggest a better word or phrase?


title: Can someone explain Hmmm

text: Some people quite frequently use "Hmmm" in their emails and messages. What does this mean? Does it mean they are annoyed?


title: Is "woman" really interchangable with "female" as an adjective?

text: I listen to BBC Radio 4 a fair bit. They pretty much always use "woman" as opposed to "female" - like "a woman pilot". To me this just sounds completely wrong, and most stuff I can find online about it seems to agree with me. My first thought was that there might be a gender equality reason for saying "woman" (Radio 4 is fairly good about promoting gender equality), but if there is one, I can't find it. I found another question that almost suggests the opposite - that "woman driver" is a derogative term. What do all y'all think? Do Radio 4 have a reason for this or are they just being sloppy?


title: Is the use of ‘Red meat’ for ‘Substance’ very popular? Can I say ‘Your talk doesn’t have any red meat,’ to talkative person?

text: Today’s (Aug 28) Washington Post carries the article titled, “ _Red meat_ on the menu as convention kicks off” followed by the following sentence. "GOP delegates are scheduled to take the vote that will formally settle their party's long primary battle, although there were signs of the un-mended rift between Romney's backers and the minority of delegates supporting Rep. Ron Paul." I think I’ve seen the cases “ _Red meat_ ” was used in the sense of the substance of political agendas in the past. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines ‘red meat’ as   1. meat (as beef) that is red when raw    2. something substantial that can satisfy a basic need or appetite.  However, Cambridge Dictionary defines it only as ‘meat from mammals, especially beef and lamb.’ Oxford Dictionary likewise defines it only as ‘meat that is red when raw, for example beef or lamb. Often contrasted with white meat.’ Wikipedia gives a definition - Red meat in traditional culinary terminology is meat which is red when raw, and not white when cooked. Red meat includes the meat of most adult mammals and some fowl. In any of Oxford, Cambridge Dictionary, and Wikipedia, there’s no reference of ‘something substantial’ to ‘Red meat’ as defined in definition 2. of Merriam- Webster Dictionary. Is the usage of ‘ _Red meat’_ as ‘the substance (supported by concrete evidence)’ well-received? Is it predominantly a political jargon? Can I say ‘There was no _red meat_ in his talk (proposal)’ just casually?


title: “Thanks for the write-up!!” in American English

text: Just confused about something. If person A asks for some suggestions to person B, C and D via email. Now one of three persons say C respond over the email with very detailed reply having some suggestions (some of them may be relevant and some maybe not). Now person A who has asked the question originally reply by just saying **Thanks for the write-up!!** All of above words are bold and double exclamation mark. Can someone please recommend what this means in US English sense? Strong approval or strong dis-approval sarcastically? Many thanks. Regards,


title: Do we "study about" something?

text: I accept **study about** where study is a noun ("He conducted a study about changes in population"), but I saw this construct in a local newspaper article and it struck me as odd. Here, **study** is a verb. Is this actually acceptable or is it just a regional variation that has mistakenly made its way into print? > More than 30 seventh- and eighth-graders and their chaperones will be flying > to Washington, D.C., for a five-day trip to see the places and monuments > they have been **studying about** this year. > > The students have been **studying about** the U.S. government.


title: Does a "word" have multiple meanings, or are there multiple "words"?

text: I always find it difficult to discuss the meaning of a word because I don't really have a definite meaning of _word_ in my head. _Cook_ refers to the verb (to cook) but it can also refer to the noun (a cook). Would you say _cook_ is one word with multiple meanings or that the verb and the noun are separate words? Is a word simply the arrangement of the letters?


title: Is "almost exactly" correct English?

text: Is the collocation "almost exactly" grammatical, when one is trying to express that something is almost at the edge of being _exact_? E.g.: > ...and it's almost exactly like...


title: Rewrite this grammatically troubling movie poster

text: On a Wiki-walk the other day, I stumbled across the movie poster for _Devil._ The tagline on the poster is: > Five strangers trapped. **One of them is not what they seem.** The writer was obviously using a singular "they" to avoid specifying the gender of the Mole, so as not to give away part of the plot. Sometimes singular "they" works for me, sometimes it doesn't. In this case, it really struck me as jarring, but I can't come up with a better alternative. Can you?


title: Is there a term or short description for an accent you "can't place"?

text: Some examples of this _might_ be Standard American English (though this may still be tied to geography) or, more likely, Received Pronunciation. The speaker's language doesn't have to be English, of course. Basically, the speaker's accent isn't discernible or particular to some region. It may be that the speaker has a unique way of talking or a blend of accents such that a listener can't place the speaker's origins. I don't think "accent-less" would be valid, since technically there's no such thing as having no accent. I'm also trying to describe the (artificial? synthetic?) accent of some text-to-speech programs.1 1: Can a TTS program truly have an accent in the first place? (I know you can assign an American or Australian "accent" in some cases, but I'm referring to the crude, "robotic"-sounding speech typical of early TTS.)


title: Inverse proportions, but the other way around

text: The title sucks, I know... Anyway: As part of a game I'm making, one of the buildings decreases the time it takes to build other things. Like so: At level 0: Full time   At level 1: Full time / 2   At level 2: Full time / 3   At level 3: Full time / 4   ... So basically, the construction time is inversely proportional to this buildling's level. But so far my sentence to describe this effect is: > This building reduces construction times by a factor proportional to its > level. Is this correct? Is there a better way to phrase this? By my understanding this means that the factor (the denominator of the fraction) is proportional to the level, is this correct? Does "level + 1" count as proportional?


title: Alleged misuse of the word 'respective'

text: I was told I misused the word _respective_ in the sentence 'If bilingual, please list the respective languages.' My understanding is that the word points to the prior mentioned subjects. Here's a definition: > **respective** _adjective_ [ attrib. ] belonging or relating separately to > each of two or more people or things : they chatted about their respective > childhoods. So I struggle to see how I used the word incorrectly when the question asked to have the listing of the languages spoken by those who are bilingual. Please explain how I misused it and how I can use it correctly.


title: Is "Succonded" a real word?

text: I've seen the word _Succonded_ used on several websites, but can't find a definition anywhere. I believe it may have to do with "being assigned to". Can anybody point me to a dictionary definition - nothing seems to surface! Examples phrases off Google search: > The war came along, Marconi was succonded to the effort, and my granddaddy > went to work - > Dr. Dominic Otieno the DSWT veterinary officer succonded by KWS treating the > Zebra - > Try and find people in your business who can be succonded to your project - > Senoir lawyers will be succonded to serve night courts


title: When quoting a quotation, how do you handle the double quotes?

text: Assume there is original source text: > This restaurant is amazing with "delicious lasagna" and great service. Make > sure you go 6-7pm for the quietest times. I want to quote _"delicious lasagna"_ but not sure how to handle the outer double quotes. If I was quoting more than just that quotation (e.g. _is amazing with "delicious lasagna" and great service_ ) I'd just do: > "...is amazing with 'delicious lasagna' and great service." However, when quoting just that quotation, it looks like: > "'delicious lasagna'" Is this the correct way or is there something better?


title: What exactly does "heavy conversation" mean?

text: I think it is a serious conversation which has become boring. Am I right?


what's the meaning of "naturally replenished"? e.g. El Paso receives its water supply from a set of aquifers as well as from the Rio Grande, but the supply, upon which soils used for agriculture are also dependent, **is not being naturally replenished**


title: More grammatically correct: "anything but" or "anything except"?

text: Could you tell me which of these phrases is grammatically correct — "anything but" or "anything except"? If the use depends on context, what are the instances when each must be preferred?


title: Do "in future" and "in the future" imply different meanings?

text: Do _in future_ and _in the future_ imply different meanings? If so, using which one is grammatically correct?


title: 17th Century affectionate term for Mother

text: I'm writing a ghost story, and (in an admittedly well worn trope) a child ghost is looking for its mother; but how would a 17th century child affectionately refer to its mother? In short, what would the 17th century version of "mummy" be?


title: What is the difference between "Have you seen this?" and "Did you see this?"

text: What's the difference between these two phrases?


title: What does the phrase "on to" mean?

text: The following sentence is the context. > Accordingly, in the next few chapters, which deal specifically with the > tags, we’ll spend a lot more time on the OGNL expression language. On to > chapter 6! Your answers or comments are appreciated!


title: "all of you" vs "you all"

text: > All of you are sitting here with me in my den vs. > You all are sitting here with me in my den And a general form: _you all_ vs. _all of you_ Which is the proper usage?


title: Alternatives to "hypocrite"

text: I'm trying to accurately describe a person who acts in one way and does another but knowingly and openly accepts that his actions also include him in the same group he criticizes. This differs from a hypocrite who condemns those who perform an action but justifies his own actions by unrelated means and does not accept he is a part of that group. Does such a word exist or is there a better way of describing such a person? Merriam-Webster defines a hypocrite as a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.


title: Usage of '' to mean "ditto"

text: The NOAD reports that _''_ (two single quotation marks) is a symbol used to mean _ditto_. When is it used? Should it be used to replace the same word that appears in the same position but in the previous line? > I always thought it could be a dog.   >  I then discovered it is all but a ''.


title: The meaning of "how" in questions

text: Some of my colleagues have argued that when a statement/question uses the work "how", the reader expects to get a list of solutions. Examples: >   * "How could world hunger be solved?" >   * "How can a search engine be implemented using Python?" > Is this expectation correct? Does using "how" implicitly indicate that the answer should be all possible solutions/answers?


title: A "friend" friend? Is that ironical?

text: Here is a quote from the "Lois & Clark" series: > A: Who are you?   >  B [a guy]: I'm a friend of her ["her" is another female character whom B is > looking for].   >  A: A boyfriend, **a "friend" friend** or just a friend? Do you have any idea what "a 'friend' friend" is supposed to mean? Is that ironical or something?


title: In which type of situations we can use "I Were"?

text: In some situations, we can use "were" with "I" although its grammatically wrong. But somehow it's being used many times, I don't know the situations any idea guys??


title: Confusing sentence from reddit

text: There was this reddit thread to see who can create the most confusing sentence. Judging by the upvotes, I am guessing it is indeed a correct sentence. If so, can someone decipher this work of art? What exactly does this mean? > Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look > More Like?


title: Origin of "of course"?

text: What is the origin of confirmative phrase "of course"? I assume it has something to do with sailing maybe?


title: "whether it be a Tuesday or not"?

text: There is a claim at this link to another stackexchange question that the usual form is "On rare occasions, whether it be a Tuesday or no, I will go to the supermarket." as opposed to "whether it be a Tuesday or not". I thought it would be the opposite so I'd like to see it resolved here, please. Is the usual form geographically specific?


title: How do I refer to a geographical area outside Britain (use article or not)

text: I am not a native English speaker. In a scientific paper I'm writing, I refer to geographical areas in Belgium: Kempen, Hageland. In Dutch, an article is used when referring to these areas: "in de Kempen", "in het Hageland". Is the article needed in English, or would one simply write: "in Kempen", "in Hageland"?


title: Is that an adverbial participle? Should there be a comma?

text: I found the following sentence: > In part of my spare time, I work on fun projects. I am not sure as to whether there should be a comma. If it is there, then this obeys some rules, for example on _adverbial participle_ (is that the correct term?). If it is not correct to put a comma here, then maybe the following sentence would be correct? > When I have spare time, I work on fun projects.


title: Is there a single word for “Seeing the Unseen”?

text: Is there a single word which means “Seeing the Unseen”? Imagine one needs special equipment or accessories (for example, a microscope, telescope, or periscope) to see something that otherwise is not seen with the naked eye. What is the act of “seeing the unseen” called?


title: Which preposition goes with the word "altar"?

text: I am getting contradictory usages of the word _altar_ :   1. Sacrificed his family life on the altar of career advancement(Source:Merriam Webster)   2. You probably aren't going to like the solution, but the goal right now is not to get the perfect answer but to pass the test. We'll make our sacrifice at the altar of truth and beauty later.(Source : A book by Kent Beck on TDD So should the usage be like _on the altar_ OR _at the altar_?


title: Literal echelons?

text: Merriam-Webster and the OED list only figurative senses of the word echelon (i.e. military formations and organizational ranks). Would it be incorrect to use it in the literal sense of the French word from which it derives (échelon) to refer to a tier on a physical structure? > Gardens had been planted on the upper echelons of the hotel's exterior.


title: Using plural and singular to refer to the same thing(s)

text: I often have trouble expressing myself when I want to talk about some things (plural) holistically as a single thing. For example, "differential equations are a form of expression...". It doesn't seem right to say that somethings (plural) are a something (singular), but I would like to say something like this if it can be done at all correctly.


title: "Minify" vs. "minimize" in this NYT piece

text: I would like to ask for clarification to understand the meaning and the usage of the word "minify". Let us read the following piece: > The New York Times   >  “But by no means do I ever overlook or **_minify_** the fact that this is > one of the most extraordinary experiences of my life. I have never seen > anything like this before. I have never seen anything so great and fine and > real as this devotion.” I'm under the impression that "minify" there means "reduce in importance or value", but I cannot find this word on Oxford Dictionary Online. Also, according to Wiktionary, "minify" means "to reduce in size", not "to reduce in importance or value". Can anybody explain if "minify" is the right word there? Shouldn't the journalist have used "minimize"?


> Her teeth gleamed **white** against the tanned skin of her face. It seems ‘white’ is an adjunct modifying gleamed, while it’s not a complement for it’s not necessary to complete the meaning. But I’m wondering if adjectives can make adjuncts modifying verbs. My question are two: (1) Is ‘white’ a complement or an adjunct? (2) Can adjectives make adjuncts modifying verbs? (Even if the case is not an example of this question, would you let me know?)


title: Choice of articles: the reduction/ a reduction /reduction

text: I am often confused about the use of articles before abstract nouns. Are the following three sentences all grammatically correct? If so, what differences are there, if any, in their meaning or nuance? (1) Obama chose the middle ground, ordering the reduction of U.S. troops to 50,000 by August 2010. (2) Obama chose the middle ground, ordering a reduction of U.S. troops to 50,000 by August 2010. (3) Obama chose the middle ground, ordering reduction of U.S. troops to 50,000 by August 2010. Please assume that this reduction of troops has not been mentioned before this sentence, thus "the reduction" in (1) does not refer to something already mentioned.


title: You are in Jonathan’s circles: "too" or "as well" or "also"?

text: I just read on Google+ that: > You are in Jonathan’s circles too But I always thought that you couldn't use _too_ there. Am I wrong? (because Google can't be wrong, right?)


title: 'You rather not' construction

text: What would be a correct way to say this: > If you rather not wait, you can always do sth else. or > If you'd rather not wait, you can always do sth else. And what about the comma? Is it needed here?


title: Function of "too" in the phrase "so too" or "so, too,"

text: I just ran into this sentence in an online article: > But as the App Store’s fortunes rose, so too did the iPhone’s, and later the > iPad’s. If I were editing that sentence, I would remove the _too_ on the theory that it doesn't add anything to the sentence's meaning beyond what _so_ provides. On the other hand, the phrase "so too" (or "so, too,") is quite common in everyday speech and writing, and it may be idiomatic for some speakers and writers. Site searches for "so too" and "so, too," reveal that these terms appear a total of 25 times on EL&U pages—mostly in answers, and mostly by extremely well-informed answerers. If we think of _so_ in the quoted example as meaning "in a like manner" and _too_ as meaning "in addition," it seems to me that the sense of _too_ is embedded in the sense of _so_ , since Event B can't happen in a like manner to Event A unless it is happening in addition to Event A. But perhaps I'm overthinking this and the main point of _too_ is simply to emphasize the also- ness of Event B. Here's my question: Is the _too_ after _so_ in sentences like the one quoted above superfluous to the sense of the sentence, or does it contribute a shade of meaning that I may not be recognizing?


title: Using "I do web and graphics" instead of "I do web and graphic design"

text: I'm building a website and its mobile version. In the mobile verison I need a shorter tagline. Initially I wrote: "I do web and graphic design." For the mobile version I wrote: "I do web and graphics." I would like to know two things:   * Will the average person understand the meaning of the shorter version?   * Are many people using "I do web" or "I do graphics"? (I haven't seen people using it that way but I do know people who write stuff like: VISINOMEDIA - WEB & GRAPHICS).


title: What's the origin of "throwing someone under the bus"?

text: What's the origin of the phrase "to throw someone under the bus" or "so-and-so threw me under the bus?" (in the sense of betrayal)? It seems like a very specific phrase not to come from some specific incident.


title: What does "if and when" mean, and is it the same as "when and if"?

text: Rather than trying to describe my beef with this idiom, I will give a bunch of successively objectionable examples. None of these are taken from real life. As I see it, if (and when) both "if" and "when" are used, they should _both_ describe the following statement. > (in an argument) If and when you admit defeat, I will be gracious. This example is a perfect instance of this: "you" have not admitted defeat and it is not certain that you will, but "I" am promising to receive it with grace when it does happen. "I" am not offering to make an exchange (which is what "if you admit defeat, I will be gracious") would imply), nor am "I" expressing bravado (which is what "when you admit defeat, I will be gracious" would imply). The combination of circumstance and syntax produces a perfectly neutral conditional. > (planning a war) If and when this country is invaded, we must be ready to > fight. This is more or less equally good at expressing unbiased uncertainty, though I suspect the speaker really meant to say "We must be prepared for an invasion", and thus, "We must be prepared! (Because we are at war and might get invaded)". > (concerning a pregnancy) If and when we have a boy, we must name him after > my father. This has some false confidence leaking through, since with a pregnancy underway, whether or not the child is a boy is not in question (even if it is unknown). > (family planning in general) If and when we have a boy, we must name him > after my father. This is actually expressing an agenda, and has very little to do with conditional action. The speaker intends to continue trying for a boy until one is born. Indeed, no pregnancy is yet extant, so the pure "if" statement is at best wishful thinking, while the pure "when" statement is expressing false certainty about an event over which one has no control. > (preaching caution) If and when this country is invaded, we must be ready to > fight. This is worse than the 2nd example because the speaker is actually raising from nowhere the possibility of an invasion, and simultaneously elevating it to certainty. You, the reader, may have the intended reaction to the statement "If and when the dollar becomes worthless", which can probably actually be heard these days. > (estate planning) If and when I die, I want you to have everything. This is silly: everyone dies. There is no "if" about it. On the other hand, in circumstances where untimely death is a possibility, it would be inappropriate to say "when". > (sarcasm) If and when I ever learn the meaning of life, I will let you know. This is even sillier: there is no possibility of "when". Without the possibility of "when", the "if" also means something else: it is no longer a true conditional or even a counterfactual; such a statement can only be sarcastic. Here's my question, then: what connotation is this idiom "supposed" to have? What, at least, does it usually have? Does the "if" or the "when" dominate or are they intended to be balanced, as I think? And finally, as the title suggests, what difference does it make if their order is reversed?


title: "I must to England" in Hamlet: What does "must" mean without an infinitive?

text: What did "must" mean when used as a non-modal verb (sorry, I don't know the technical term) in Early Modern English? For example: > I must to England; you know that? > > ( _Hamlet, Act III, Scene IV_ )


title: What is the meaning of "don't mention it" (in response to "thank you")?

text: I read at several places that "don't mention it" is equal to "you're welcome". But for me, the word means something like "don't go around talking about this to anyone". So what is the real meaning of the phrase and how does it fit in as a response to "thank you"?


title: Usage of the part 'through other means'

text: It might not be the typical way to say this, but is it incorrect or does it sound really awkward? > Thank you all for the birthday wishes, by postcard or through other means. Or does it necessarily have to be: > Thank you all for the birthday wishes, through postcards or other means.


title: What's the origin of "beta" to describe a "user-testing" phase of computer development?

text: It occurred to me that I use the term "beta" to describe a "release candidate" of a computer product that has passed all expectations of the development team, and is now being given limited exposure to users at large for comment. However, I have no idea how the term came to be, or what context it originally was used in. If we use "beta", then "alpha" must have been used at some point (possibly to refer to the internal QA testing period). Was "gamma" ever used? Who came up with this nomenclature for the QA process?


title: Why are "some" letters silent in English?

text: There are many such words that we all know about, but please explain why the makers of the English language made up words with silent letters?


title: Do robotic insects have “antennas” or “antennae”?

text: I know that insects have _antenn **ae**_ and machines have _antenn **as**_. Which plural form should I use for something that’s both insectoid and a machine? Does one officially take precedence?


title: What is the origin of “heart goes out to”?

text: With hurricane Irene in the news, it seems this week’s most popular phrase is “my heart goes out to everyone affected”. How did this expression get started?


title: Usage of "though" in formal writing

text: Consider the following text: "It is a bicycle. How do we know it is a bicycle, though?". Would this be a reasonable use of _though_ in formal writing (in an essay)? What are the ways of avoiding this construction if one would want alternatives (except for skipping the _though_ )? Would _however_ , for example, work? The question doesn't really contradict what is stated, though.


title: Difference between "close up" and "close down"

text: What is the difference between _close up_ and _close down_? They look like completely different verbs because of the contrast between the words _up_ and _down_ , but they have similar meanings.


title: Periods after directional abreviation in address

text: I am creating a business card, and I need to put the address of the company on it. What is the proper way to write this address? >   * 555 14th St NW, Atlanta, GA 55555 >   * 555 14th St NW., Atlanta, GA 55555 > Or should "14th St" be spelled out or "NW" be "N.W." or should "St" be "St." or should I spell out "Street"?


title: How to begin an email about recent meetings

text: I was involved in a couple of meetings recently which the company CEO attended. I wanted wanted to give some feedback on the meetings; but am unsure how best to begin the email... I thought of the following but just doesn't sound right... "following on from the recent meetings..." Is there a better way of beginning this sentence?


title: Looking for a list of "english words" that exist in other languages, but with different meanings

text: I had a terrible misunderstanding with a semi-conservative Turkish woman who was offended when I said > "Let's have brunch, and I'll bring some platonic female friends" I'm told that in Turkey, "platonic" has a meaning of one person who deeply desires the other (sexually), but that is not reciprocated. The English version is that of a non-sexual friendship, where lust isn't in the picture. She thought that I wanted all these women present who admired me in that sexual way. I don't wan to create these offenses again, and so is there a list of words that have a strong similarity to English, but with a different meaning?


title: Is it appropriate to use "it's my bread and butter" in formal english?

text: I am preparing for an English language test. That is why I am working on strengthening my English vocabulary. My question is regarding the speaking section of the test. If the examiner asks me about a particular subject, for example mobile development, would it be too informal to say "it's my bread and butter"? If yes, then could you please suggest to me a word for that? I don't want to write a sentence like "that is how I make money or that is the source of my income" Thank you. PS: If you find any grammatical or spelling mistakes in this question then please do let me know. I would appreciate that.


title: What can I use in place of "literal"?

text: While it's not too difficult to convey that an action actually occurred, there are occasions and phrasings where people may wonder if a sentence is figurative or literal. Given that most dictionaries and much of the English speaking world have accepted that "literal" can be used to emphasize figurative speech, what is the best way now to convey a literal meeting to an audience about a topic where it isn't immediately clear, even if you use the word "literal"?


title: Is there an expression for only offending the recipient?

text: Suppose one makes a statement that is likely to be offensive to its recipient, but will not offend most third parties. Is there a word or expression for this type of statement? **Example:** I see someone picking a pocket or "shoplifting," and yell, "Stop, thief!" The perpetrator is likely to be offended, but neutral third parties would likely applaud, rather than be offended by my yelling. **Counterexample:** I call you a "sob." You're likely to be offended, but so would many, if not most, third parties. The expressions that come to my mind are "calling a spade a spade," or "if the shoe fits," but neither quite "rings the bell" for me. Is there a better way to express what I'm describing?


title: Use of "brother" in non-family and non-religious contexts

text: I think the word _brother_ (sometimes spelled _brotha_ or _bro_ ) has been used for a long time among African Americans when talking to one another with the meaning of "pal" and not in a family context. From the novels I read and the series I watch I have the feeling that for some years (difficult to date) the word is used more and more frequently by non- African Americans. I've always gathered it was OK for African Americans to use the word when talking to one another. To fully understand the feelings between the characters in the fiction I read or watch I'd like to know:   * what effect is conveyed when non-African Americans use it when talking to one another,    * if African Americans would call a non-African American _brother_ ,    * how African Americans would react if called _brother_ by a non-African American, and    * how non-African Americans would react if called _brother_ by an African American.


title: Is it correct to say "correct A to B"?

text: In Chinese, when we want to express the idea of "change _A_ which is erroneous to _B_ which is correct", we usually say "correct _A_ to _B_ "; very concise, right? But is it the proper way to express that meaning? If so, please cite a web page containing that expression; if not, present the correct way please and cite a web page too.


title: Is "an assortment" singular?

text: Is "an assortment of [something plural]" singular or plural? Removing the [something plural] makes the answer easier: > An assortment was here. makes more sense than > An assortment were here. Put in the [something plural], eg. "people", now I'm not sure which way sounds the most correct: > An assortment of people was here. or > An assortment of people were here.


title: What's a man called who follows everything his wife says or wishes?

text: In Hindi, there is a phrase called "zoru ka gulaam". Translated in English as "slave of his wife". Typically the people who get this honorary title are those who seem to care for their wife more than expected. Not only care but they also never seem to question any of their wives actions. In short, they do as their wives please. What is the word for these kind of people in English language?


title: Is a question mark used when trying to get someone's attention?

text: > Mike: Hey, Matt? > > Matt: Yeah? > > Mike: What are you doing? Since it's not actually a question, I'm not sure if a question mark should be used or not. But I'm also not just saying 'hey' to someone; there's more to come. I know if you were to greet and ask a question of someone before their response, you'd use a period like this: > "Hey, Matt. What are you doing?" but I'm not sure what punctuation to use in this instance.


title: "Most" vs. "most of"

text: > During **most of history** , humans were too busy to think about thought. Why is "most of history" correct in the above sentence? I could understand the difference between "Most of the people" and "Most people". Problem is why "Most of history" is correct.


title: Cause vs Causes - subject-verb agreement

text: A student wrote the following sentence in an essay: > Things such as software and workbooks are included in the textbook packages, > which causes a significant increase in price. My question is regarding the verb _causes_. My opinion is that the sentence should read "...which _cause_ a significant increase..." One of my peers disagrees with my assessment. My reasoning is that the subject in this sentence is _things_ , therefore the verb should reflect that. Am I wrong? Also, please ignore any other issues the sentence may have. I'm simply concerned with this one point. Thank you in advance!


title: How do I describe even values of the tenths digit of a number?

text: How can I describe the following numbers?               0.2     0.4     0.6     0.8      Can I call them "even tenths"? For example: "If the maximum value in the data set is 1, then the values displayed in the bar graph are the **______**." I am pertaining to the numbers above.


title: what's the difference between "past tense" and "past participle"?

text: For example,in this sentence: > Begun in 1078, the Tower of London was built in London’s southeast corner by > William the Conqueror. Why does that sentence use _begun_ not _began_?


title: Why does “His to lose” mean “He will (most) likely win?

text: I found the phrase “ _his to lose_ ” in today’s Associate Press news reporting Herman Cain’s sexual harassment allegation under the lengthy caption “Cain seeks to put aside harassment allegations even as lawyer for accuser presses on.” It appears in the following lines: “Romney is running his second national campaign and has spent the past few weeks shoring up support among the GOP establishment for _a nomination fight many Republican insiders think is his to lose.”_ I first thought “his to lose” means he will certainly to lose, which sounds very odd to say at this stage. So I checked the exact meaning of the phrase on online dictionaries, and got the quite contrary definition on wiki.answers.com, that says: "It means that someone is winning by so much, that the only way he could lose at that point would be if he defeated himself, i.e. by 'choking' or 'dropping the ball.'" I’m interested in how did “his to lose” come to mean he is sure to win (the game / fight) unless he should blunder (defeat himself) in quite reversal way from its surfacial look – his to lose? Although I see growing increase of the incidence of the usage of this phrase since 1980 after the first peak in early 1900 in Google Ngram, Is this a very popular phrase among English speaking society today?


title: Should you use en dashes in acronyms?

text: For terms like liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry that typically use an en dash rather than a hyphen, would an en dash still be used in the acronym, LC–MS? Or would we only need a hyphen there, LC-MS? EDIT: Anybody have a style guide that speaks to this issue?


title: "Pa. man bagged deer Wal-Mart lot deer" Is This Headline Grammatical or Sensical?

text: http://news.yahoo.com/charges-pa-man-bagged-deer-wal-mart-lot-145951272.html I just cannot parse this headline. I understand the story - a fellow was standing in a Wal-Mart parking lot, saw a deer he liked, shot it from across the highway, and is now being charged for being reckless, but I cannot make sense of the headline. Am I missing something, or is it really nonsensical?


title: Deal in vs deal with

text: I wrote this sentence: "The scientists dealing in complex systems have proposed...." But then I thought 'dealing with' would be correct. Are they interchangeable?


title: Idiom for magic object (or idea) that fixes everything

text: Some people hold the irrational belief that one object (or possibly idea) can fix all their problems. For example, someone who is unhappy or anxious might think that smoking is a cure to all their problems. What's the idiom to describe this belief? I used to know it but it slipped my mind.


title: Blood - Bloods - pluralisation

text: Why is it that the plural of 'blood' is 'blood' in normal usage but 'bloods' (e.g. 'I'll be taking some bloods') is acceptable in a medical context? Are there any words with similar pluralisation anomalies? This odd pluralisation _may_ be confined to British English, here are some examples http://m.studentmidwife.net/student-midwife-forums-2/clinical-placements-and- electives-8/3845-taking-bloods.html http://www.babyandbump.com/miscarriage-support/626402-reasons-taking-bloods- any-information-would-great.html http://www.babyandbump.com/trying-to-conceive/866899-have-bloods-tested- progesterone.html http://www.mail-to.co.uk/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13134 http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2011/09/restraint-should-be-last-alternative-in- taking-bloods.html UPDATE: I'm struggling to find online examples of this usage outside of midwifery as per the links above. Now I'm wondering if 'bloods' is actually a pluralisation that refers to both the mother and baby's blood. Has anyone an example of a medical usage outside of pregnancy?


title: Antonym of "apathy"

text: I'm looking for a word that describes a general feeling of concern for things. Preferably not with a negative connotation (ie. neurotic), but for use as a description of someone who expresses interest in and wants to change things around them. Dictionary.com gives: interest, care, concern, feeling, passion, sensitivity, sympathy, and warmth. These all feel specific though. You can say someone is generally apathetic, but if you say that a person is generally interested, caring, etc., those have very specific implied meanings (interested ~ interested in something specific, caring ~ cares for others).


title: Is this correct usage of "it's"?

text: I saw this in an English text, and I was wondering if the "it's" here is used correctly: > The morality of **it’s** debatable but you can ... I would be inclined to write it as: > The morality of **it is** debatable but you can ... but I am not a native English speaker.


title: Is it offensive to call a Jewish person a "semite"?

text: Is it considered offensive to call a Jewish person a _Semite?_ I've heard the phrase _anti-semite_ or _anti-semitism_ , but I've never heard someone call someone a _Semite_.


title: How should I refer to the godmother of my child in formal documents?

text: Is there a word such as _sister_ , _spouse_ , _aunt_ , _cousin_ , etc., which describes a person who is my child's godmother? Informally, I would refer to this person as an aunt, but that implies a genetic relationship that does not actually exist. I could formally describe her as _friend_ , but I am hoping to find a more accurate term.


title: "Not once he would" vs. "not once would he"

text: Not being a native speaker and suffering semantic satiation from overthinking this, I'd like to ask this probably overly simple question. > Not once would he... uses reversal for negation and means "he wouldn't even once..." > Not once he would... is litotes for "He would frequently..." Is that correct or did I mess up? If I did mess up, how to correctly express the two meanings?


title: "Embarassed" vs. "ashamed"

text: Is there any difference between the words _embarrassed_ and _ashamed_? If so, could you provide some examples of usage?


title: What is a term for someone who has a rather frown face?

text: With tensed muscles and looking "difficult" (as I don't know how to describe this any better...) Not done most excessively (a face frown as much as possible), but kind of like someone who (pretended or not) is having a hard time. You may have seen this kind of face before from young people who take a lot of "selfies".


title: "Don't try and Lance Armstrong your way outta this one!"

text: I don't know in the sentence I will refer to, what does "Lance Armstrong your way" mean, is there any irony or not? The situation is between a man and a woman, and the man wants to deny a mistake he had made. Her friend had heard a sentence which the man had said, and then the woman says: > She was in the other room, you bastard! In the next room, ok, so don't try > and Lance Armstrong your way outta this one!


title: What are the differences between "assumption" and "presumption"?

text: I was told the following: > A presumption is something you think is true before you know any facts about > the matter.   >  An assumption is something you think is true when you miss information, but > you think you have it.   >  The difference can be subtle. When you have certain set ideas about some > things, they are also presumptions.   >  Women can not drive cars is a presumption.   >  Based on the presumption, I can assume that you can not drive, because you > are a woman. Is this right, or is there more to it?


title: Is “be no profile in something” an idiom or just a pun with “no profiles in PPD for qualifier XXX”?

text: I came across the phrase _“be no profile in something_ ” in the following statement of Maureen Dowd’s article titled “Of Mad men, Mad women and Meat loaf” in today’s (October 27) New York Times: > “Mitt was certainly _no profile in courage_ ” after Murdock’s comment blew > up. He didn’t take back his endorsement. He hid from reporters on his plane, > and even dodged his usual custom of giving a reporter a birthday hug.” Readers English Dictionary at hand shows only two idioms – “in profile” and “keep a low profile” under the headword of “profile.” Google Ngram viewers show instances of “ _no profile in_ ” since 1880, and its usage is on the sharp rise since 1990. What does “Somebody is no profile in something (courage, integrity, command of foreign policy, and whatever) means? Is this an established idiom, or just a Dowd’s usual pun with the error message “no profiles in PPD for qualifier 'RGB16.1.600x600dpi, ” we often see on our PC.?


title: What does custom mean when it comes to parties?

text: I've seen different sets of people from around the country mention a "custom party" on _written_ Halloween invitations. Does it simply mean costume (and just intentionally mis-spelled)? Or some specific kind of costume?


title: Word that means weight? (heath?)

text: I'm trying to spell the word that sounds like "heath" meaning weightiness?


title: Is it possible to use “have” in this case?

text: I know it is acceptable to use the verb _get_ when saying you are trying to get yourself to do something or you are trying to make yourself do something Examples:   * After much hesitation I finally got myself to enter the dark room.= Even with difficulty the speaker succeeded in convincing himself to enter the room.   * Despite being extremely lazy as I was, I made myself get up.=The speaker forced himself to get up. But is it possible to use the verb _have_ in this way too? Example:   * I need to have myself standing at the door, when the guests come in.   * I need to have myself ready for the meeting.   * I want to have myself see the painting. All of the last three sentences sound very odd if not utterly wrong to me, so are they?


title: Is there any difference between a 'Web slide Show' and a 'Carousel'?

text: Are Web **slideshows** and **carousels** the same thing? If not, what is the difference? For _Web slideshow_ , I mean HTML image galleries like:   * Flexslider by WooThemes   * Nivo Slider™   * Juicebox


title: Should I use interchangable terms in academic writing?

text: In academic writing (when writing to a journal), should I stick to the same terms throughout a paper, e.g. > Twenty participants participated to the _study_. The participants received > monetary compensation for participating in the _experiment_. OR > Twenty participants participated to the _study_. The participants received > monetary compensation for participating in the _study_. OR It doesn't matter which one I use.


title: Do English words have fixed pronunciation?

text: I'm not a native English speaker. I sometimes pronounce some English words by following the way I pronounce things in Mandarin. While Mandarin does have a fixed way to pronounce every word, I was wondering if the same is true in English. Does each word have a fixed pronunciation?


title: all three loop types - no the?

text: > Loops allow stored programs to execute statements repetitively. The MySQL > stored program language offers three types of loops: > >   * Simple loops using the LOOP and END LOOP clauses >   * Loops that continue while a condition is true, using the WHILE and END > WHILE clauses >   * Loops that continue until a condition is true, using the REPEAT and > UNTIL clauses > > > With **all three loop types** , you terminate **execution** of the loop with > the LEAVE statement. Is there some kind of explanation as to why we don't need the definite article **the** coming after **all** but before **three loop types**? I think I have encountered this particular grammar structure before but at the time no one seemed to know the answer (but that was on the Yahoo question-answer service). Yet another thing that bothers me here is why is there no **the** in front of **execution**? Like, **you terminate THE execution of the loop with the LEAVE statement**. Any thoughts? Thank you.


title: The superlative of sincere

text: Is the usage sincerest gratitude wrong?Can we use such in acknowledgements?


title: Meaning of "quick reply"

text: "Quick reply": does it mean responding in a timely manner or something like 'your answer was super fast you could've put more thought into it'? Because if you say "thanks for the quick reply" I think it's the first but if you write "here's a quick reply" I think it's something you've put together in a rush, maybe because you're about to go out and you'll elaborate later.


title: Do I use an article if the word is combination of a proper noun and a common noun?

text: Do I use an article if the word is a combination of a proper noun and a common noun? For example, “Microsoft website.” Would I say “I need to go on the Microsoft website” or “I need to go on Microsoft website”? I think I’ve seen both cases used, but I haven't been able to find a clear rule on it. Thanks


title: Commas around "and"

text: I'm at a loss as to how I should title this. I have this sentence: > We have the option to provide notifications via telephone, and, possibly, > email. I am trying to express several things:   1. We have an option to provide notifications    2. We can provide those notifications via telephone    3. I think we can provide email notifications (Further research is required, but I believe the audience already has that context. The addition of "possibly" is primarily meant to emphasize the lack of a guarantee). Would I be better off with this: > We have the option to provide notifications via telephone, and possibly, > email. or this: > We have the option to provide notifications via telephone and, possibly > email.


title: Is there an adjective for acedia?

text: The Oxford dictionary list "acedia" as: > noun literary another term for accidie > > Origin: early 17th century: via late Latin from Greek akēdia 'listlessness', > from a- 'without' + kēdos 'care' Is there an adjective for being in a state of acedia?


title: Is using "too" correct in "As X, so too Y"?

text: Is the usage of "too" correct in this sentence? > As the systems we simulate become increasingly complex, so too does the task > of validation.


title: Optional 'of' in various phrases, especially with 'much/much of'

text: Yes, I know there is a related question here. But that doesn't answer my question. For each of the following phrases, are they correct?   If not, why not? What is the OF doing? What part of speech is it? What role does it play in the phrase/sentence? Is there a technical name for this role?   * somewhat/somewhat of (with a/the)  a. Joe's somewhat a/the philospher.   b. Joe's somewhat _of_ a/the philospher.   * much/much of (with a/the)  c. Do you know if Sam's much a poker player?   d. Do you know if Sam's much _of_ a poker player? e. Do you know if Sam's much the poker player?   f. Do you know if Sam's much _of_ the poker player?   * much/much of  g. There's much the wolf in you.   h. There's much _of_ the wolf in you.   * not much / not much of i. I'm not much a writer.   j. I'm not much _of_ a writer.   * much/much of (money) k. Much money is on the table.   m. Much _of_ the money is on the table.   * much/much of (time) n. I spend much time on my homework.   p. I spend much _of_ the time on my homework.   * much / much of a (difference) q. There is much difference between Syndey and Vancouver.   r. There is much _of_ a difference between Syndey and Vancouver.   * not much difference / not much of a difference s. There's not much difference between Syndey and Vancouver.   t. There's not much _of_ a difference between Syndey and Vancouver.


title: Is Gorka’s remark “Is what’s good for the Heinz not good for the Gorka?” so preposterous enough to  be deemed ‘never before rendered in English’?

text: In his 3 August 2012 Krathammer Kolumn, Mark Halperin characterized a remark by Charles Krauthammer about Rick Gorka (Mitt Romney’s aide), _“Is what’s good for the Heinz not good for the Gorka?”_ , as a _“sentence never before rendered in English or any other known human language”_. To me it seems that Krauthammer simply asks why what’s taken for granted for Teresa Heinz Kerry is not taken for granted for Rick Gorka, when they used similar words in similar situations. The only significant difference between Rick Gorka’s and Teresa Heinz Kerry’s remarks (Krauthammer says both included _‘anatomically risky suggestions’_ ) is that one was made by a man and the other was made by a woman. Actually Hillary Clinton spurred Teresa Heinz at that time by saying _‘It’s good for you. You go girl!’_ Is this (difference of sex of the speakers) the only reason why Krauthammer’s remark, _“Is what’s good for the Heinz not good for the Gorka?”_ , is deemed _"never before rendered in English or any other known human language"_? Is it such a terrible remark for many Americans? I find it hard to understand the delicate nuances and effects of quips in foreign languages. Are there other ways of reading _“Is what’s good for the Heinz not good for the Gorka?”_ as a “‘historic’ preposterous remark”?


title: Meaning of "Multicultural Koolaid"

text: In a recent internet conversation, someone used the term _multicultural Koolaid_ and I'm having trouble figuring out what it means. What does it mean and where did it come from? The context is a debate on the Internet. Someone responded to a comment of mine by saying “Sorry Brandon, we don't drink the multicult koolaid around here”. I think it has something to do with how someone perceives multiculturalism. I'm thinking it may be related to a political ideology, but I can't be sure. I can link to my comment and the response but I'd like an unbiased opinion of what the phrase means outside of this conversation. Google searches provided me with little information.


title: Is this a valid sentence using "approbation"

text: I believe the word means to approve or praise. So can I use it as > Are you looking for an approbation from your boss ? or > Why are you still standing here ? Do you want me to approbate you ?


title: 'What ho!' of Bertie Wooster

text: _"What ho!"_ \- this strange form of greeting is used all the time by Bertie Wooster, a character of well-known "Jeeves and Wooster" stories by P. G. Wodehouse. > Bertie Wooster: Oh, what ho, Sir Watkyn! > > Sir Watkyn Bassett: Kindly do not address me in that familiar way, Wooster. > I happen to know that once again you've yielded to the awful temptation to > steal a policeman's helmet! ..... > > Bertie Wooster: Aunt Dahlia! What ho, old blood relation! > > Aunt Dahlia: [affectionately] Hello, Bertie, revolting young blot. What does _"ho"_ mean in such expressions? Is it a word reduction or an idiom?


title: "I went to the hotel you were staying at" vs. "you stayed at"

text: Is there a difference in meaning between these two sentences?   1. I went to the hotel **you were staying at** when you were in New York.   2. I went to the hotel **you stayed at** when you were in New York. Perhaps one reading is that they went to the hotel where their friend was (still) staying, but another is that they went to the hotel where their friend had (previously) stayed. The use of the past tense _were staying at when you were in New York_ would seem to mean that the friend was no longer there. With _I went,_ which represents a definite action at a point in time, does it matter if the stay at the hotel is described with the past continuous _you were staying_ or not? Is one more correct than the other?


title: Should I use present tense in reporting speech?

text: Should I use present tense in reported speech? I have both sentences and not sure which one is correct:   * (1) Peter mentioned that the formula A **is** based on formula B.   * (2) Peter mentioned that the formula A **was** based on formula B. Should I use present tense here as it is a fact (always)? However, it also makes sense by using past tense in reporting speech. Also, can the "that" be omitted? Thanks!


title: What is the standard English for “a receipt written in ‘catering short hand’”?

text: Ruth Marcus wrote in her article in Washington Post (September 29), titled “Fiscal Trivial Pursuit” describing the waste of the U.S. government’s disclosed by the Justice Department inspector general recently that ranges from $600 Pentagon toilet seats to $16 a piece muffin billing, and she says: > "As it turns out, the receipt on which the Justice Department’s inspector > general based that assessment was written in a kind of catering short-hand." I’m not very clear with the meaning of “a receipt written in a kind of catering short-hand,” but can easily guess it implies a receipt in the form of hand-written, scribbled note given by vendors. Although we have words such as '私製領収書-privately-made receipt' and 'tentatie receipt -仮領収書'usedd only for private, casual and petty cash transactions in Japan, I’m puzzled with the fact that government otentative ffices of a civilized country like America accept a (hand-written) short-hand receipt in contrast to a receipt in official (printed) form. Bureaucrats’ wastes of taxpayers’ money is not uncommon in any countries, but passing- by of receipts in ‘catering short-hand’ form meaning sloppy auditing seems to be unusual to me. Then my question, what is the short or "standard" English word for “a receipt written in a kind of catering short-hand,” that doesn’t require “a kind of”?


title: Can you replace the present perfect continuous with present continuous when a concrete time period is specified?

text: As I have learnt, present perfect continuous should be used when we want to describe some activity which lasted for concrete period of time and is not finished still. For example, "I've been waiting for her for 2 hours already" or "How long have you been waiting for her?" These constructions (especially the question form, where 'have' cannot be shortened) look and sound rather complicated. That's why I wonder whether it's acceptable to use present continuous (especially in speech). Another logical argument to use present continuous in question form is the analogy with questions which doesn't touch time aspects like: > What are you waiting for? > > Who are you waiting for? > > Why are you waiting for her? > > but > > How long have you been waiting for her? So, is it acceptable to ask > How long are you waiting for her? One more thing: does present perfect continuous add some additional hidden value, like expectation for results or anything else?


title: Is there a word for the desire or emotion of wanting to prove someone wrong?

text: Is there a word for the motivation to do something only because of the desire to prove someone wrong? When someone is using reverse psychology like: > You won't do this chore, you'll probably just mess it up anyway. Are they preying on a particular characteristic? If successful, is the manipulated person acting with a particular emotion?


title: Is "Should be *ing" a valid English phrasing?

text: I'm Portuguese and my girlfriend German. Because she is a Germanic-language native-speaker, she is constantly correcting my English. Though, often it is annoying that she corrects me in grammar constructions that I take as valid in English and Portuguese, but not in German. Are "we should be going" or "we should be eating" valid English phrasings?


title: Which is correct: "math" or "maths"?

text: Which one is considered correct? I say "math", however I believe I heard somewhere that "maths" is correct. Also, should it (and "mathematics") be capitalized or not?


title: Slang words for body parts

text: We all know the various slang words for bottoms, boobs and genitalia. Those are well covered here already. This question relates to slang words for the other parts of the body. What common slang words do we have for body parts (aside from the "good bits" mentioned above). For example: "noggin" for your head. Alternatively, "peepers" for your eyes (though urban dictionary says this can also mean breasts).


title: Idioms and bodyparts: punch your lights out and lights

text: There is an idiom " _I'll punch your lights out_ " which means > ## punch someone's lights out > > Sl. to knock someone out with a fist There is also " _lights_ " which, when used about a body, mean > ## Lights (Offal) > > _noun_ the lungs of sheep, pigs, or bullocks, used as food, especially for > pets. I was trying to find whether or not the two were related. The only thing I can think of, which is by no means supported is that if you are to be beaten up then perhaps all the air gets knocked from your lungs?


title: We'll vs well used in this sentence?

text: Is We'll or well used here: ___ , that works. ___ , I've never done that before.


First Q here. If this has been asked before sorry (Did search) Term for a choice that you like and you dislike? And you can/would probably only take the choice you like. For example: A justice department lawyer says to you "Either testify or go to prison for 25 to life". Or "Enter witness protection or Vito is going to put you in the ground". In the above statements, we have two choices. But only one choice is viable. "To testify", or "Enter witness protection". What is such a choice called? (It can not be called a dilemma).


title: Origin of the phrase 'space case'

text: Just wondering what the origin of this phrase is. When was it first used and by whom?


title: what to use with "your address", at or on?

text: what should we use with the word "your home", at or on? for example- I have placed an order .... your address thanks in advance


title: What does the presence of the perfect tense reveal about us?

text: Other languages might say 'the floor is clean' or 'the cat is hungry'. An English speaker might say this, or we might equally choose to say 'the floor has been cleaned' or 'the cat hasn't been fed'. [Married couples seem to use a lot of present perfect simples!] I was wondering whether anyone has any insights into the philosophical implications of perfect tenses - particularly what their presence within our language system reveals about the psyche or culture of English speakers. I've been wrestling with this for some time. My initial conclusion was that this tendency to describe the world as a the result of a series of past actions suggested that we were interventionists, not fully content to just let the world 'be'. Not very Buddhist! However, I have since questioned this evaluation, and now I am wondering whether 'the floor has been cleaned' is simply an acknowledgement of change over time, something which is less explicit, though maybe implied, with 'the floor is clean'. Why do we have this need to present the past?


title: Correct, clear, concise way to use "potato-potato" in writing

text: _"You say tomato, I say tomato"_ and the song from the beginning. As an informal turn of speech, it can be used to show that two or more parties are talking about basically the same thing but not in same exact terms, or not quite agreeing on the specifics. Yet written down as _tomato-tomato_ or _potato-potato_ it looks just plain wrong and confusing (like in the video title above). Short of using the transcriptions _/təˈmeɪtəʊ/ - /təˈmɑːtəʊ/_ and _/pəˈteɪtəʊ/ - /pəˈtɑːtəʊ/_ , is there a way of writing it down that indicates the differences in pronunciation?


What's the difference between "onto" and "on to" and where should they be used, etc?


title: The meaning of "feel my conversation in quotation marks"?

text: What does the last part of the below sentence mean? It looks to me grammartically incorrect. Does it mean "The most familiar things (X,Y,Z) makes me feel at a remove, amd makes me feel that my participation is provisional and my conversation is in quotation marks." ? And further more, what does "converstaion in quotation marks" mean? Please forgive me if this question sounds a dumb one but I am not a native Englis speaker. > I never stopped feeling like an impostor, a New Yorker disguised in a > sensible English raincoat. Even the most familiar things — Trafalgar Square; > the food hall at Harvey Nichols; the best bookstore in the city, Hatchard’s > on Piccadilly — felt at a remove, my participation provisional, my > conversation in quotation marks.


title: Word that describes a word which isn't normally used in an everyday conversation

text: I remember there was a word which describes a **word which isn't normally used in an everyday conversation**. Ironically, that word isn't normally used in an everyday conversation. It's an **adjective**. In a sentence: > That word is ??????, you don't see it often. I can distinctly remember that it is used to specifically describe **words** (and not general events, knowledge etc). A **word** which is rare/exquisite and isn't seen very often. What is a word that describes that? I remember it was quite the highbrow word.


title: Term for advancement through medical anomalies

text: I'm looking for a term to describe when a medical advancement is achieved through, for example, a natural immunity to a disease. For example, the Berlin Patient, who is naturally immune to HIV may hold the cure to HIV.


title: Is “If I would have X” an Indian shibboleth?

text: As I was reading a deleted question that asks whether > If I would have sweet dreams, they would be about you. If my dreams ever > come true, it will be with you. is correct, I noticed that the incorrect use of “if I would have” in the first sentence somehow made me feel like the poster was Indian. I don't know exactly why, but it felt like something my former Indian colleagues could have said. So, is this particular error typical of (or quite likely to be made by) Indians, or is it just some weird feeling I'm getting for no reason?


title: What does "blow over someone's quest" mean?

text: What do the following sentences intend to convey to the reader? >   * One blew over the industrialist's quest. >   * One blew over the ford's quest. >


title: Is this redundant pronoun use "grammatical"?

text: Is this sentence grammatically valid or not? > People who achieve they do this with perseverance. One of the two answers to the earlier question Unnecessary pronouns: “The President he issued…” says _clearly **it's not** "correct grammatically", as it is redundant_. The other says _it **is** grammatical, [but it's] missing a comma [before the pronoun]._ The first of those two earlier answers has only a single upvote, and the second has none at all, so I don't know which to believe.


title: What do you call the impressive short sentences catalogs and magazine use to write product descriptions?

text: A couple of years ago I heard a word descriptive of short and impressive sentences that are used in catalogs and websites for product descriptions. I don't remember that specific word. Do you have any idea what it might be? I need it for use in place of the words _short description_.


title: When are "from" and "by" interchangeable?

text: Today I listened to a performance by Stephen Lynch in which he said "A public service anouncement from Stephen Lynch" which confused me, a non-native English speaker. Is the usage of "from" correct here? When can I use "from" instead of "by"?


title: Meaning of 'deprive them of any sense'

text: > Thus they are compelled to cut all connection between their statements and > experience; and precisely by this procedure they **deprive them of any > sense**


title: Using active voice without personal pronouns

text: When writing scientific research proposals I have been advised to try and stick to active voice because passive tends to sound indirect and to imply doubt. However, when writing in active voice, I find it difficult to not use personal pronouns. Does anyone have any tips for maintaining active voice without using personal pronouns?


title: What is the etymology of "BFE"?

text: BFE is an abbreviation for "Bum Fuck Egypt" or "Butt Fuck Egypt," which is used to denote "out in the middle of nowhere." I'm curious how this expression came about. UrbanDictionary.com has a user- submitted definition with the following etymology: > As I understand (and other people have corroborated), it derives its > existence from another expression “bumble fuck” (I am unsure if it's one > word or two), both of which mean "out in the middle of nowhere." I am fairly > certain that the inaccurate “butt fuck Egypt” derived from bum being the > English term for buttocks. Clearly the definition of BFE is the same > regardless of what one believes the “B” stands for, but I thought is was > worth correcting. I have no idea how accurate or reliable the above etymology is. There is no entry on EtymOnline.com.


title: Another way of saying "easily deceived"?

text: What's another way of saying _easily deceived_? I want to have a better vocabulary. _Easily deceived_ sounds a bit basic to me. Is there a better word for that phrase?


title: What does "write the bill with a ‘double meat ax’" mean?

text: What does _writing the bill with a "double meat ax"_ mean? I found the phrase _double meat ax_ in today's _Washington Post_ article, House approves dramatic cuts in federal spending in 235-189 vote, dealing with last night's House vote on drastic federal budget cuts. I know the meaning of _double ax_ as a double-bladed ax, but I don't know _double meat ax_ , and why the phrase was used with quotation marks, which suggests the writer used the phrase with special implication. Can you tell me exactly what _writing the bill with a "double meat ax"_ means? The text reads: > During the bleary-eyed final roll call at 4:35 a.m., 235 Republicans were > joined by no Democrats in support of dramatic spending reductions that they > said were needed to address a soaring annual deficit of $1.6 trillion; 189 > Democrats—as well as three Republicans—opposed it, accusing Republicans of > writing the bill with a "double meat ax."


title: Does the word "apparently" imply that I personally do or don't believe the statement following it?

text: When I say "Apparently, xyz", does that imply one of the following, and if so, which one?   1. From observation, I believe xyz to be true, but I leave open the possibility that I might be wrong.   2. I believe xyz is not true, but I am aware that it may seem so, and want to point that out. Merriam-Webster gives "open to view", "clear or manifest to the understanding" and "appearing as actual to the eye or mind", which to me seems to lean towards the first interpretation, but when discussing synonyms it also states > apparent, illusory, seeming, ostensible mean not actually being what > appearance indicates. which sounds more like the second. Can I use _apparently_ for both situations, or is there a better word for one of them?


title: Is "tell neither X nor Y" equivalent to "not tell both X and Y" or "not tell either X and Y"?

text: Given the sentence "John told neither the boss nor the secretary.", which of the following has the same meaning? >   1. John did not tell both the boss and the secretary. >   2. John did not tell either the boss and the secretary. >


title: What does the cause for your feeling like “downing a quart of Red Bull” mean?

text: Again in the _Time_ article (June 29),“Roberts Rules: What the Health Care decision means for the country” that many of my familiar ‘teachers’ criticized the style of writing as too pretentious and the analogies too outdated, there is the following sentence: > “Romney wasted little time in reacting (Chief Justice’s ruling). – Our > mission is clear,” he said. “If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we’re going > to have to replace President Obama.” ---Polls show little appetite for > repeal among independent voters, but for the Republican base, the Roberts > ruling was cause for _downing a quart of Red Bull_.” I know Red Bull is an energy drink brand, but what does the writer want to say by using this phrase? Does it mean Republican voters are angry with Roberts’ ruling? Does it mean that the Republican base need to rouse themselves to repeal Obamacare? In what particular occasions is “down a quart of Red Bull” used? Why should it be Red Bull? Can’t I replace it with other drinks such as beer, whisky, vodka, juice, or just water? Furthermore, is “downing a quart of Red Bull” a popular phrase?


title: Can I "make up for someone"?

text: I have a question about the phrase "make up for". You can make up for the loss, the delay or someone's mistake, right? I used to think you can also "make (this/it) up for someone", meaning that you will do something nice to that person because you feel obligated for your not-so-nice conduct prior to this conversation. ex) Hey, I'm sorry I'm late. I will totally make this up for you. Since I can't seem to find a valid example for this usage, I noticed that I might have picked up this phrase mistakenly.


title: Is "setup" an acceptable noun in formal writing?

text: I'm editing a draft of a scientific paper which repeatedly uses the word "setup" to refer to the, well, experimental setup. Example: > The dimensions of the setup are 250 mm × 250 mm × 50 mm. Every time I see the word "setup" appear by itself, I cringe a little, thinking of, say, Microsoft Windows' `SETUP.EXE`. However, the phrase "experimental setup" sounds OK. Is " _setup_ " accepted as a valid word to use for an experimental apparatus, in formal scientific writing in American English?


title: Somebody/someone gets/get *

text: Which is correct: "Somebody gets punished" or "Somebody get punished?" I have the same question with respect to "Someone gets" and "Someone get." Is there a rule which applies to this kind of sentences?


title: "We help consumers pay less" vs. "Helping consumers paying less"

text: Since English is not my native language I can not decide which one of the following two sentences is better.   1. We help companies sell more and consumers pay less.   2. Helping companies sell more and consumers paying less.


title: Negating ‘to’-infinitive in negative clause

text: The sentence: `There aren't any reasons to do it.` I'd like to say other form of this phrase with opposite meaning. Something like this: There aren't any reasons to _don't_ do it. How to say this form of the phrase with double-negations of affirmative meaning correctly? And are there some rules to make a sentence of such form?


title: Word for "to make changeable"

text: What is a verb meaning _to make changeable_ or _to make variable_? For example, > Though normally his opinions were final, a recent stroke had ___ed his mind. > > When group policy changed, a ton of files were ___ed. If at all possible the word should be terse, but clear meaning is most important.


title: Word for very-fine, see through

text: Uh, I know there is a word starting with d. it sounds kinda like diophanus or something similar. It referes to very fine clothing, nearly see through clothing. I really don't know the word. Any help is greatly appreciated.


title: Present Perfect Simple versus Present Perfect Continuous: a tricky case

text: The parents come back home, see the living-room is in a terrible mess. Do they ask their little ones "What have you done?" or "What have you been doing?" What is understood in each of the questions? I call this a tricky case because the usual criterion to distinguish between Present Perfect Simple and Present Perfect Continuous, the focus on the result of the action for the simple, and on the action itself for the continuous is a bit difficult to use here, isn't it?


title: On Saturday afternoon or in the Saturday afternoon?

text: > She said she would give me her final answer **on** Saturday afternoon. Should it be _in the_ or _on_ in this case?


title: Is an embankment always man-made?

text: Is it possible for nature to create an embankment or is the word used exclusively for the result of human activity?


title: To use vs Make use of. when to use what

text: I often hear 'to make use of something'. Is there any difference from just 'to use something'?


title: Is "underlying" the right word?

text: I am describing a mathematical model, where the probability density function of a variable is made up of two contributions, two distributions. Mathematically we would say that f(x) = g1(x) + g2(x). Now: in the text I am writing something like this: > "the distribution f(x) is the sum of two underlying distributions, g1(x) and > g2(x). [...] in order to estimate the parameters of the underlying > distributions we use a parametric approach...." I am trying to use "underlying" in the sense of "lying under". What do you think? Is underlying the right word or should I address those distributions in a different way (how)?


title: Someone just told me that my business website structure should be "well-siloed"... what does that mean.

text: I know they're referencing a silo but i'm not understanding how it correlates/translates to business structure and presentation. are they talking about the function of the silo?


title: Difference between "classical" and "classic"

text: What's the difference between _classical_ and _classic_? Should we say _classic content in textbooks_ or _classical content in textbooks_?


title: Difference between "leverage" and "utilize"

text: > Sooner or later, you want to **leverage** Zend_Application better by > creating your own resource plugins. Can _leverage_ above be replaced by _utilize_?


title: Term for animals that live under water

text: What is the term for animals that live under water (not necessarily in an ocean)? Ideally this would include sharks, dolphins, crabs, seashells, salmons and pet fish. Here are some I can come up with, but none sound right:   * Aquatic Animals   * Ocean Creatures   * Ocean Animals   * Marine Lives   * Marine Animals   * Marine Creature


title: Literary technique from quote in Frankenstein

text: > How much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, > than he who aspires to be greater than his nature will allow The above quote is taken from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and I read it described as an example of 'antithesis'. I don't quite agree that categorisation and was after a second opinion. Also, if it isn't antithesis what type of literary technique would it be classified as?


title: Can ";" be used to replace the word "but"?

text: Are these two sentences both correct and equivalent? > People say stuff like "all lawyers are liars", but it's not true. > > People say stuff like "all lawyers are liars"; it's not true. Is there any difference in nuance or anything at all?


title: How do I use the prefix 'de-' correctly?

text: Is there a dictionary dedicated to word prefixes? I'd like to know more about _de-_ , but there's no uniform meaning; for example, in _demystify_ it signifies a reverse action, while in _delimit_ it's a positive meaning, like _set_.


title: First known occurrence of the word "technique" in English

text: I’m trying to track down the first printed use of the word _technique_ in English. Can anyone tell me the name, author, and date of the publication in question? It would be especially valuable, on top of that, to have an excerpted passage containing the word, in order to infer its intended meaning from its context.


title: Should I always insert "and" between two verbs in imperative mode?

text: As far as I understand, the word _and_ is usually inserted between two verbs used in imperative mood in English. For example, “Go and make me a drink.” How obligatory is this? Can I claim that it is ungrammatical (or at least less typical) to have to consecutive verbs in imperative mood? Also, what about the phrase “Go make me a drink”? Should I treat _go_ and _make_ in this phrase as two imperatives?


title: What's the origin of the word party pooper?

text: A **party pooper** is defined as: a person who refuses to join in the fun of a party; broadly : one who refuses to go along with everyone else I'm interested to know about the origin of this term and the person who first coined it. Any idea?


title: Word for "credit increase"

text: I'm designing an interface of a web-based application and want to let users increase their credit amount online in one of its sections. What is a label for this action? Is there a technical banking term for it, or should I use a simple term like _credit increase_?


title: What does 'mothercanuckers' mean?

text: First of all, sorry if it is offensive (I think it somewhat is).   I was going through http://bleacherreport.com/articles/424590-the-funniest- promos-and-moments-in-wwe-history#page/20 > The Rock owned everyone by calling the Canadians mothercanuckers I heard him saying this in the video but what does that mean?


title: How to quote in this situation?

text: > Mark said, "it would ruin our school's reputation!" If I want to quote Mark here, > Mark noted that doing so and so would "ruin ___ school's reputation." If I want to emphasize that Mark identifies himself as part of the school by using "our," can I say > Mark noted that doing so and so would "ruin our school's reputation." Is it wrong since "our" doesn't agree with "Mark"? I don't think it makes sense to change it to "his" as the school is not "his."


title: On a North American bus or subway, what do you call the long horizontal ads on the tops of the "walls"?

text: Is there an official term for the ads that you see on public transit _inside_ the vehicle or car, _above_ the windows/doors, long horizontal panels, usually about 24" x /12"?


title: facial expression of sympathetic pain?

text: How would you call a facial expression displayed at sight of someone hurting - the kind of involuntary grimace when you imagine just how much it hurt?


title: Factitious v. Fictitious

text: I came across "factitious" in this quoted sentence: > One can, however, come up with a **factitious** principle to underwrite the > latter argument. (Middle of last full paragraph on this page of this book.) It seems to me that one could equally well have used fictitious instead. So are they perfectly synonymous or are there circumstances where you would use one rather than the other?


title: alternatives for "guy"

text: I'm working in an English big company in Germany. Everybody speak English but most of us as second, or third language. One thing I noticed is that we are all "guys" in the office: "Ask the guy up there." "Call the guys of help desk." "Guys, we need to manage this now." "Who is the guy who said that?" "We need to tell this to all the other guys." Apart from some managers that says "Gentlemen" everybody else use only "guy". I'm wondering if is this normal also in natively English speaking workplaces or instead there are better and different terms that could be used in such situations.


title: Is there a technical term for insideout-ness?

text: So the technical term for right or left handedness is chirality. The technical term for evenness or oddness is parity. Is there a similar term for inside-out-ness vs right-side-out-ness? EDIT: I wish to speak of 2 objects. They have no interesting features except that each could be considered 'inside-out' relative to the other. Except there is no 'right' side. I suppose I could arbitrarily designate one side as Right and the other as In, but there are reasons to avoid doing so. "Object 1 and object 2 differ only in their **___**." I tried both chirality and parity but neither fit.


title: How to cite an author who spells his name inconsistently

text: I am writing a paper where I will cite several works by the Hungarian mathematician Gábor Szegő. Note that his surname includes the letter o with a double acute accent, NOT a letter o with umlaut ö. In his first paper (that I know of) he spells his own name this way, and biographies of him always use this spelling. However, in later works (such as a major book that he published) he usually uses an umlaut for his name instead. I am not sure whether this is because of technical limitations on what accents could be typeset at the time or because he moved out of Hungary (which did happen) and was trying to spell his name in a more appropriate way. Additionally, a theorem has been named after him (which is a great honour for a mathematician), but it is usually spelt as the Szegö limit theorem with an umlaut. Should I follow convention with the theorem name or try to correct it by using the original spelling of his surname? And how should I cite his work? To clarify, I am of course asking whether there is an accepted convention on such things, rather than looking for opinions on what people would prefer that I do. Unfortunately I plan to cite both his original paper and later book, so if I cite his name in the way it's spelt in the work then I'll have Szegő and Szegö right next to each other in my bibliography! And if I use author-year citations then I'll have them right next to each other in my text (see Szegő, 1915; Szegö, 1952)! (Thanks in advance for any help. Apologies if this is not the right place for this question. It applies equally in any language, but this seems the most appropriate StackExchange board.) Edit: I should point out that the 1915 article isn't written in English (nor Hungarian: it's in German). It seems that all of Szegö's work in English used the umlaut, so perhaps he considered it to be the correct way of writing his name in English. Just as we have Pythagoras's theorem rather than Πυθαγόρας's theorem and Sobolev inequalities rather than Со́болев inequalities, perhaps Szegö is always (and only) correct in English.


title: Is "received with thanks" stilted English?

text: I just got a receipt which said "Received with thanks the sum of ..." _Thanks_ stands for gratitude, so this looks fine to me as far as grammar is concerned. But is this old-fashioned and/or stilted? Are there more formal ways of expressing this idea?


title: Looking for word/expression/idiom that describes "difficult to describe driving directions"

text: On lives in a part of town which has new roads most cab drivers don't know. In effect, one needs to direct the driver to the part of town, instead of just saying "take me to street X that intersects w/ street Y" Question: I want say that "I am stuck to hard-to-describe directions, while you're NOT." My thinking is, "while I am stuck to less amenable directions"


title: Is this a correct usage of the word "only"?

text: "Only a single DVD movie is at least 4.7 GB, So there should be a lot of data on the Internet."


title: How to say that a problem has occurred previously in passive voice

text: I want to say this in a passive voice: > People must have had this problem in the past. The sentence starts with something like "This problem must ...". How do I say it?


title: "Integrity" vs. "honesty"—what's the difference?

text: In what situations would you say that someone "has integrity" as opposed to "behaves with honesty"? For instance, if an employee is meticulous about reporting his hours, does he have integrity or is he honest? (He's probably both—but which one fits better?)


title: How to refer to the 'sections' of an aquarium?

text: When you visit an aquarium, you see different species of marine life in different 'sections.' They are usually surrounded by glass. I want to build sentences like this: > I walked to another ' **glass/section**.' In it, I could see a many sting > rays." > > The shark whale swam from one corner of the ' **glass/section** ' to the > other. > > There was a jellyfish in the middle of the **glass**. (OK, this one sounds > weird). I'm not very sure which is the best word to use here. **EDIT:** For example, this would be a 'section': ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/v64wx.jpg) Is it right to say, for instance: > The people are looking through the **glass**. or > There are many people in this **section**. (I just need a general term that people would immediately understand. I need this for a novel I'm writing.)


title: Must be paid before the 8th May?

text: Does that mean I can pay on the 8th May, or before 23:59 7th May?


title: "Rounded", "heaping" and other types of teaspoon(fuls)?

text: Can you please elaborate what's "rounded" teaspoon, what's "heaped" teaspoon and what other "types" of teaspoons exists as a measures of volume? And is there any difference between, rounded teaspoon and rounded teaspoon* _ful_ *?


title: What is "dismal"?

text: I've struggled with this word for about 2 years (no joke). Every time I see it, I look it up, kind of understand what it means in that context, and then gleefully forget. Please help me understand the origin and meaning.


title: “Make sure to” vs. “Be sure to”: Is the first one correct?

text: These two versions below are used interchangeably where I live now in the United States:   1. Make sure to do something.   2. Be sure to do something. But I always have found the first version clumsy. I come from a strong linguistic background in the UK where there was an emphasis on grammar, and I can’t imagine my English teachers from private school using the “make sure to” version. Is “make sure to” correct English in its purest form? For example, would you approve of the “make sure to” version if you were a professional book publisher or a a grammar school teacher? PS: I'm not sure what the correct tags are — compound verbs? intransitive verbs?


title: Is there a casual way to say "this can wait" on a positive note

text: Is there a short and casual way (one or two words or the like) to express that whereas something is _truly_ important, the exact timing of when it gets handled or completes does not greatly affect overall plans? Saying `not urgent` isn't useful because that implies everything else _is_ urgent which would really be a distortion and lead to a digression into strange discourse. It also implies we only do what's urgent which would be a rather grim way of describing a mode of operation unless you're in emergency mode all of the time. Maybe something like `postponable` but I'm not sure this is a very proper or accessible word, it's also tilting towards a negative connotation. In mathematical style the answer may have been something like `not time- sensitive` or something like that, but that only resonates with about 0.2 percent of literate human beings or less... The meaning I am after is something positive that also conveys `'this will be great and awaited but time is not a factor relative to other things'`. Only much more concisely if possible....


title: Synonym for "one flavor"

text: I would like to know if there is an appropriate word for "one flavor." For example:   * Monosyllabic: one syllable   * Monochromatic: one color What is the equivalent word for "one flavor," eg. "mono-gustatic" (obviously this is just a mock-up word for sake of the question)? _Note: I am asking this in reference to wine (if it helps in answering the question.) I encountered a glass which I thought was fairly "one flavored," and thus, the question arose._


title: Are words with negative meaning used to describe positive things by the youth?

text: In Germany, kids of age 10 to 15 tend to evolve a language pattern that uses a certain word that has a negative connotation to describe everything they approve of, be it an impressive slam-dunk or nice cars on the street. Every generation seems to choose their own word for this, so after some years the word changes, but the meaning stays the same. Examples that come to mind are > _übel_ (sick/disgusting) and more recently _mies_ (lousy): > > "Meine Mutter hat mir zehn Euro mitgegeben." "Miiiiies!" > > "My mother gave me ten EUR to spend." "Looooousy!" The only aquivalent i can think of in the english language would be " _sick_ ", but that's maybe connected to skater/surfer slang. Is this a common behaviour in UK/US/English speaking kids as well? Edit: After some discussions in the comments I thought to specify my question further. I'm especially interested in the described mechanism of one word replacing another over the years, allowing to place users of such word into a certain age range for example.


title: What does this sentence mean?

text: The following is from S. Fitzgerald's novel _Tender is the Night_ : > No friendship worth the name was ever destroyed in an hour without some > painful flesh being torn -- so Franz let himself believe with ever- > increasing conviction that Dick traveled intellectually and emotionally at > such a rate of speed that the vibrations jarred him -- this was a contrast > that had previously been considered a virtue in their relationship. _So, for > the shoddiness of needs, are shoes made out of last year's hide._ Yet it was > May before Franz found an opportunity to insert the first wedge. What does the italicized sentence mean?


title: Anticipation with a positive tone

text: I am looking for a word or phrase that **means** _I am happy that something will be happening_. Existing phrases along this line already exist in popular writing: > Movie Y is the _most anticipated_ since Movie X.   >  I am really _looking forward to_ Christmas this year _Look forward to_ and _anticipate_ are synonyms but nether spells out the mood in which one looks forward to something. Really, what does "most anticipated" actually mean? A load of people expect that a movie will be made? Great, but it doesn't mean they want to watch it. I respect that these phrases have built up a convention for meaning positive things,   I'd just like something more explicit. **Edit:** I did notice this question hit the wall before posting. I'd like to think I've been more objective but point out issues and I'll try to fix.


title: Is there a derogatory word for "mobile phone" (cellphone) similar to "idiot box" for a television?

text: My father called our TV "the idiot box". Implying either that it had idiots on it, was targeted at idiots, or you were an idiot if you watched it too much. Is there any similar term in use but referring to mobile phones?


title: When something sounds too good to be true, it is or isn't?

text: I'm having a hard time understanding why the phrase is > when something sounds too good to be true, it **is** and not > when something sounds too good to be true, it **isn't** Because "when something sounds too good be true," it "is **_not_** true", right?


title: Are "eery" and "eerie" equally acceptable spellings?

text: I used "eery" yesterday in a text and was corrected jokingly by my correspondent to "eerie." Looking at it after the fact, neither 'looks' right to me and both get through auto-correct with no red underline. Some cursory googling showed that both are at least technically correct, but I'm curious as to preferred or standard usage. I read a lot and I guess I've rarely seen the word in print, and even then it was probably the adverb form _eerily_. So, beyond actual correctness, are both equally acceptable? Regional differences?


title: Is a smiley at the end of a sentence like a period?

text: How do you treat an emoticon at the end of a sentence? > He probably caught his cold from the kids at school :( Should there be a period after the :(, or should I go straight into the next sentence (capitalizing the next word)?


title: Where does 'nom nom nom' come from?

text: I know that it refers to eating and as far as I'm aware, it is quite recent but does anyone know the origin of it?


title: Why is Q used in some words instead of K or C

text: For instance in words Iraq and Qashqai? Are there any historical reasons for that?