title: Origin of actual order pattern in English

text: It is well-known, or better said, well-accepted, that the ancestral language Proto-Indo-European (PIE) was a OV language with a very limited (or nonexistent) use of subordinate clauses. In Proto-Germanic, subordinates was more common (but not too much) but yet a OV language. However, both Old English (OE) and Old High German (OHG) had a VO structure in main clauses, and ancestral OV in subordinate clauses:                                                            |-> OE (VO/OV) -> English (VO/VO)        PIE (OV) --> PGmc (OV/OV) --> ¿?(VO/OV)-->|                                                  |-> OHG (VO/OV) -> German (V2)      If I'm right, a possible source of shift OV -> VO (in main clauses) is the original topicalization of the verb in PIE/PGmc. In PIE/PGmc the verb occupied the first (or second) position in the sentence to mark some special type of sentences, for example, to mark imperative sentences. This original topicalization of the verb could have became more frequent even changing completely the sentence word pattern. _Quaestio_ 1: What process created the appearance of subordinates and subsequently how and when did it change the structure in main clauses? And why were only main clauses affected? _Quaestio_ 2: What process caused English to be strict SVO and German to be strict V2? _Quaestio_ 3: Was OE really a V2 language like German, or only a left- peripherical language? (V in first or second position, that means, a not strict version of V2).


title: Is this grammatically correct?

text: Using MS Word, I typed, "As Roblin and Adelaide are reading the reviews, Roblin thinks that women may get the vote and their rights after all. MS Word puts a green squiggle under "reviews," and it asks me to change the comma to a semi colon. If I do, however, my entire sentence is wrong. What can I change to make it correct?


title: What's the name of this kind of act?

text: What's the name of this kind of act? It is commonly seen between friends. (I mean the act between two people, not necessarily 4 people like this one.) Or can you describe it with a few words? ![](http://i.stack.imgur.com/4rvB1.jpg)


title: Difference between addressing and answering a question

text: "To address the question", "To answer the question". What's the difference?


title: Correct usage of adjectives related to amounts of time

text: What are the correct adjectives to use when talking about amounts of time (when one needs to quantify an amount of time)? In particular, which one of the two: little / small big / large For example: the airplane had a _ _ _ delay.


title: What does “on the stricken” mean in this passage from The Hobbit?

text: The following passage comes from _The Hobbit_ , in the chapter “The Clouds Burst”: > The goblins gathered again in the valley. There a host of Wargs came > ravening and with them came the bodyguard of Bolg, goblins of huge size with > scimitars of steel. Soon actual darkness was coming into a stormy sky; while > still the great bats swirled about the heads and ears of elves and men, or > fastened vampire-like **on the stricken**. Now Bard was fighting to defend > the Eastern spur, and yet giving slowly back; and the elf-lords were at bay > about their king upon the southern arm, near to the watch-post on Ravenhill. > Suddenly there was a great shout, and from the Gate came a trumpet call. > They had forgotten Thorin! I would especially like to know whether 'the stricken' are dead (this is what I find in two Polish translations of the text, the third one states that they are dead and wounded) or not. Maybe this expression describes a completely different state? I also wonder if it refers back to these 'elves and men' from the same sentence.


title: Meaning of "pit technically something against something"

text: Is " **to pit technically something/somebody against something/somebody** " an idiom ? I'm not sure whether it is an idiom or not. If it's an idiom, then how do I use it in a sentence? Does it have another meaning in any other context? Could anyone help me to understand it?


title: What meaning of "character" is implied when we say that a person has bad character?

text: What does the word `character` represent in these kinds of sentences? What qualities of the person do we refer to when we say this? Does it refer to the general nature and disposition of the person?


title: Can “cloven” be used instead of “cleaved”?

text: Can _cloven_ be used in its verb form like the way _broken_ or _eaten_ is used? > gets cloven to give rise to > > is cloven by _Cleaved_ is a perfectly fine word in this context, but can _cloven_ be used instead?


title: One word for things that would be nice to have, but not required to have?

text: Something a bit professional sounding? In a scenario where there was also a bunch of **_Requirements_** , this situation could be easily solved by labelling one as **_Required_** and this specific bunch of things as **_Optional_**. But in an independent context, where no **_requirements_** exist to provide contextual flavor, what can be a concise way of referring to a bunch of things that would be great if you could have / have access to, but they're not things you _need_ to have / have access to. Perhaps the word which fits - Required : Optional :: Requirements : ???? ETA: Though I'm also hoping for a better word than optional which also conveys the extra / positive nature of 'it would be really good to have this, even if it's not a requirement'.


title: "... gets my goat". What's my goat and why does it get it?

text: To _get someone's goat_ is make them annoyed or irritated. But what is the goat and why does getting it annoy them? When and where does the phrase come from? What's the first known use?


title: When is it correct to use the "-wise" suffix?

text: I found myself writing the following in a bit of technical documentation: > The Trainers' and Students' clients have very little in common, both user > interface-wise and code-wise. At first, I wondered whether I should have written _user-interface-wise_ , _user interface-wise_ , _user interface wise_ or _user interfacewise_... or some other combination. A quick Google search suggested however that the "-wise" suffix actually isn't one you can or should use on any word. What do you suggest? I guess the easiest way out is rephrasing (e.g., _not only for what concerns the user interface, but also for actual methods_ ), but I wanted to learn whether appending "-wise" to arbitrary words is incorrect, frowned upon or merely a stylistic choice.


title: Do you switch between things in plural?

text: I was just now watching a TV programme where a character said "I'm concerned when we switch brands of coffee". Ignoring the choice of: > switch brands of coffee // switch coffee brands Is it correct to say _brands_ (pl.), because to me both the above and: > switch brand of coffee // switch coffee brand sound fine, or at least, I do hear both. Which is "more correct"? I feel as though I can justify either: the sentence speaks of switching to a singular thing, but then it switches between plural things.


title: Single word for the quality of being waterproof — "waterproofness", "waterproofity", something else?

text: If someone is _happy_ , I can refer to that state as that person's _happiness_. If a watch is _waterproof_ , do I refer to the watch's _waterproofness_ , _waterproofity_ , or what? TFD has an entry that fits for _happy_, but not for _waterproof_. I realize _resistance_ is related ("I have a water resistant watch."), but I am curious if there is a word based on _waterproof_ specifically. In other words, is there a noun form of the adjective _waterproof_?


title: "Space" as a synonym for industry, sector or business segment

text: When, and from where, did "space", as a synonym for industry, sector, or business segment, enter the language? For example, one wouldn't expect to read "His family made a fortune in the buggy whip space", but sentences such as "Is this a game-changer, in a negative way, for other IPOs in the social media space?" are common. UPDATE: Thanks for answers so far. I don't believe any of them answer the question as to the etymological derivation and date of entry into the language of this meaning of the term.


title: How to avoid ambiguous wording: "Each has the same number of each type of flower"

text: I'm editing a math word problem that has the following ambiguous set up. > A florist has 18 carnations, 24 daisies, and 12 lilies. She wants to make > flower arrangements that each have the same number of each type of flower. The question is about greatest common factors, so the intended interpretation is that each arrangement has _c_ carnations, _d_ daisies, and _l_ lilies. However, the second sentence can also be interpreted as meaning each arrangement has _n_ carnations, _n_ daisies, and _n_ lilies. How can I reword the second sentence to ensure the first interpretation without resorting to technical descriptions like above? (Added difficulty: the question is for 6th graders.) Edit:   I should add that test items are best when they are _clear_ and _concise_. I'm looking for a solution that is both.


title: At practice vs of practice

text: Suppose I want to know how many hours are needed to be able to do it on my own, like for instance, driving a car. > How many years of/at practice do I need to became a basic user? In the quoted sentence which one preposition would you use? If both are acceptable, in which context would one fit better than another?


title: Should I add commas anywhere within this sentence?

text: Our expert services range from preparing proposals of best practice designs to value added engineering service for post-bid projects to field service start- up.


title: How can a human being be a part of useful endeavor?

text: http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/EconEdLink-print- lesson.php?lid=556&type=educator > the students will identify useful endeavors they can be a part of. How can a human being be a part of _useful endeavor_? We just can do useful endeavor, and we can be a part of, say, a crowd.


title: Use of the word "praxis"?

text: According to dictionary.reference.com the word _praxis_ means: > practice, as distinguished from theory; application or use, as of knowledge > or skills. I recently saw another stackexchange post now deleted, which used _praxis_ in place of _practice_. > When it interferes with one's chosen religious praxis. Is this a proper usage of the word?


title: "Regardless to the fact" vs "Regardless of the fact"

text: I want to say that something will happen regardless of whether something else happens. However, in my particular situation, using _regardless of_ sounds awkward. > Some arrangements work better than others, **regardless of** the number of > detectors used. Is _regardless to_ a suitable replacement in this situation? Or is my first sentence fine? Are there any alternative ways of phrasing this? > Some arrangements work better than others, **regardless to** the number of > detectors used.


title: Is there a word meaning a problem that has to be solved in order to work on another problem?

text: I work in the computer trade and frequently find that when I'm assigned a problem to solve, it invariably happens that other problems need solving before I can work on the real issue. Is there a word for these on-the-way problems?


title: Why do we talk a blue streak?

text: We might say that someone who is exceptionally chatty can "talk a blue streak." What is the origin and meaning of this phrase? Is it generally insulting, or a nice way of saying someone is a chatterbox?


title: Does the word "please" come from "plea"?

text: I thought that the word _please_ came from the plural of _plea_. But then why is it _please_ instead of just _pleas_? Why the e? Are "plea" and "please" really related to each other?


Word for 'so simple you'd think it's obvious but it's not' .. for example I learned today that people who are easily distracted are more like to become addicted. Is there a word for that?


title: Is there a reference book that lists words by usage or theme?

text: Similar to how a Thesaurus lists synonyms, is there a book that groups words (or phrases) together by conceptual usage? For example, this question is looking for words that describe a person's character. I would be interested in a book that would help me identify words commonly used to describe   * an inanimate object   * a physical motion   * nature  Ideally this would highlight what is considered a cliche description


title: Meaning of a "cheap person"

text: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/mPW8m.jpg) ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/CN3OM.jpg) What is the meaning of this, i have tried to search on dictionary but couldn't find it. Context as in image attached. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cheap+person Savior is referred to the person she is attacking.


title: Is the word "the" required in "...fundamental for the successful functioning..."

text: The sentence is this: > I believe that contributing to the scholarly community is fundamental for > successful functioning of academic institutions and progress of scientific > research. Does "sucessful functioning" need a "the"? Also, does "progress" need one too? I have a feeling that they're optional as the progress and functioning are in general and unspecific.


title: What's the phrase for things that get better with age?

text: What's the phrase for things that (seem to) get better with age? For example: JJ Abrams Star Trek is to TNG as Lucas's prequels were to Star Wars.


title: A word for "to claim a position or place above something or someone else"

text: The verb I seek is defined as: to claim a position above something, to position oneself higher than something or someone. The important aspect is the claim of superiority over something, without necessarily being superior. For instance: When the mind answers all the whys about God, it {situates itself in a position higher than} God. Any ideas?


title: “Take long/longer/less long”

text: Which of these are correct English and which ones aren’t?   * This took long.   * If we do X, it will take longer.   * If we do Y, it will take less long.


title: Phrase about movie stars

text: Is there a phrase about those movie stars who are just good-looking but mediocre acting and those maybe not so good-looking (compare with those good- looking ones) but amazing skilled acting movie stars? Something like, 'teenager eye candy'? Is there any specific words or phrase for these two?


title: Pronunciation of foreign words in American vs. British English?

text: One of the differences between modern US English (hereafter referred to as "American English") and British English is the way in which we pronounce foreign words, particularly those of French origin and/or related to food. For example, Americans…   * drop the "h" on "herb" and "Beethoven";   * rhyme "fillet" and "valet" with "parlay" as opposed to "skillet"; and   * pronounce paella as /paɪˈeɪə/ (approximating a Castilian or Mexican accent), whereas the British pronounce it as /pʌɪˈɛlə/. In general, the British seem to pronounce foreign/loan words as they would be phonetically pronounced if they were English, whereas Americans tend to approximate the original pronunciation. I've heard some people claim that this trend is due to the melting pot nature of America, and others claim that the French pronunciation, in particular, is due to America's very close relations with France during its infancy. This latter hypothesis, however, seems to be contradicted by the following: > Avoid the habit of employing French words in English conversation; it is in > extremely bad taste to be always employing such expressions as _ci-devant_ , > _soi-disant_ , _en masse_ , _couleur de rose_ , etc. Do not salute your > acquaintances with _bon jour_ , nor reply to every proposition, > _volontiers_. In speaking of French cities and towns, it is a mark of > refinement in education to pronounce them rigidly according to English rules > of speech. Mr. Fox, the best French scholar, and one of the best bred men in > England, always sounded the x in _Bourdeaux_ , and the s in _Calais_ , and > on all occasions pronounced such names just as they are written.   >   >                   —THE LAWS OF ETIQUETTE; or, Short Rules and Reflections > for CONDUCT IN SOCIETY. BY A GENTLEMAN. PHILADELPHIA: CAREY, LEA, AND > BLANCHARD. 1836. **Question:** At what point did the USA drop the British convention of pronouncing foreign words as they are spelled? **Edit:** Cerberus brought up the topic of upper-class (U) English in the comments, below. It is interesting to note that there seems to be a trend in U English to substitute words that have an obvious counterpart in French with words that are either of Germanic origin or those that do not have a direct equivalent in modern French. For example:   * _scent_ is preferred over _perfume_ ;   * _looking glass_ is preferable to _mirror_ ;   * _false teeth_ is preferable to _dentures_ ;   * _graveyard_ > _cemetery_ ;   * _napkin_ > _serviette_ ;   * _lavatory_ > _toilet_ ;   * _drawing-room_ > _lounge_ ;   * _lunch_ > _dinner_ (for a midday meal); and   * _what?_ > _pardon?_ This is admittedly a stretch, but perhaps there is some connection between the US's lack (and some might say derision) of a noble class and its preference toward non-U/French pronunciation?


title: origin of expression 'at the double'

text: me maw used to say to me 'at the double', meaning for me to come as quick as possible. just wondering today, what was the origin of this saying? it seems to me that the words don't apply to anything really specifically, so can some one provide a feasible explanation?


title: Subject-verb inversion / verb-subject-object -- is this correct?

text: I recently read the following in a schoolbook: > Wrote the researchers, "[...]" I wonder if this is correct English. I have seen it a couple of more times. Is this just a matter of preference? English doesn't really have a very liberal word order, unless you're writing poetry or the like. Can anyone tell me what this is called? I found some information on subject- verb inversion, but it only seems to be when the object is in front, but in this case, the word order is verb-subject-object.


title: Point "made by" intersections?

text: There are lines and when they intersect, there is a point. I am not sure if "make" is the correct here: > With 4 points **made** by interesections of both vertical and horizontal > lines.


title: Is "Milk and honey" a way to describe curvy women?

text: In Czech there is a term used for curvy women: > krev a mlíko "Krev a mlíko" means "blood and milk". In this term, "blood" is a reference to red cheeks on a girl (which was considered a sign of health) and "milk" was probably a reference to the fact that milk was considered a healthy part of the diet. It may have also been a euphemism for breasts. Anyway, is there an equivalent term for a curvy woman in English? Is "Milk and honey" a way to describe curvy women or does it mean something different? By _curvy_ , I mean the classical hourglass shape — i.e. the right waist-to- hip ratio. Something like this: ![A picture of a woman with a curvy or hourglass figure.](http://i.stack.imgur.com/T4y7em.jpg)


title: Using "despaired" as a replacement for "said" or "asked"

text: May I say: > "Why does this happen?" despaired Ralph. Or if not, do you have any suggestions as to a suitable replacement for the placid "asked". What I'm looking for is a mixture of despaired and entreated.


title: how many types we can use the word dog

text: There are various set expressions, idioms or merely collocations, which include the lexeme 'dog' – such as 'a dog's life' and 'every dog has its day'. What other expressions including this lexeme are there, may I ask?


title: Is there a word for a person that can do impossible things?

text: Is there any word for a person that can do impossible things? For example a person that can walk on water. And not magician.


title: What's the correct usage of this sentence?

text: > Had you been there, you would have understood. or > If you had been there, you would have understood. Which of the above sentences is a grammatically correct sentence or usually preferred over the other? Please throw some light on the correct usage of similar kinds of sentences.


title: why use a 'statistics' at the end of this sentence? is it correct?

text: You lock your car, you put valuables in the trunk and you even leave the empty glove box open. Is this sufficient to keep your vehicle off the car thefts statistics?


title: A word meaning discord between the phonology of a word and its meaning?

text: The word 'lauded' always gets to me, because I instinctively consider it to hold the opposite denotation. Is there a specific word for a word that holds that (completely subjective) quality?


title: Why is "hopefully" treated so mercilessly?

text: Is the word "hopefully" unjustly treated? We don't like the sentence: "Hopefully, my ship is just over the horizon and due in real soon now." But we don't mind saying: "Happily, the tree fell on that eyesore shed." "Sadly, the swallows have not returned." Why is "hopefully" so unwelcome at the adverb party? ObJoke: From The New Yorker a few years ago, to illustrate proper use of "hopefully:"               Dad (shaving):   Ouch! Damn!     Son:             What's wrong?     Dad:             I cut my chin!     Son (hopefully): Off?


title: Can we determine a proper verb form of "exegesis" for Biblical scholars to use?

text: This is related to a conversation here in EL&U SE.   Apparently the noun _exegete_ is being used as verb in religious circles. For Biblical Scholars, the word _exegesis_ carries with it a connotation of properly drawing out of Scripture only what is there rather than reading into it what is not there. No other English word immediately brings to mind that specific meaning. Webster's New World Dictionary, 4th ed., indicates that the probable origin of the word _exegesis_ is the Greek noun _exegesis_ , "explanation", which in turn appears to come from the Greek verb _exegeisthai_ , "to lead, explain". If the misuse of the word _exegete_ arises from the lack of a verb form of this word, then could we not use this Greek source to introduce a proper verb, i.e. _exegisthai_. That is difficult to pronounce; but, if there are other English words derived from Greek words with the same verb ending, one could see how that verb ending comes over into English and provide the same verb ending for our word. Then we would have a proper verb to introduce which carries the desired meaning and is easily recognizable as related to exegesis. Does anyone have any idea as to how this Greek ending comes over into English? I found this page pertaining to Greek words coming into English According to what it says here very few verbs come over from Greek, such as _baptize_ and _ostracize_. So, what about _exegize_?


title: Which preposition do I have to use in this case?

text: Which one of the following is correct?   * tutor of a tutorial group   * tutor for a tutorial group   * tutor in a tutorial group And is it tutorial group about a topic?


title: Is it grammatically correct to add "anyway" at the end of this sentence?

text: This is a sentence from a short story I'm writing: > "It's all the same to me, because when it comes to our deepest fears and > insecurities, we are all alone." I'm not very sure if this is more grammatically correct: > "It's all the same to me, because when it comes to our deepest fears and > insecurities, we are all alone anyway." **EDIT:** I'm not sure if this is necessary, but here I include the two lines preceding the sentence. > "Do you think there is something on the other side of the fog?" > > "I'm not sure. Do you wish there were something else?"


title: What is the aural equivalent of eye-witness?

text: On the news this morning, the following was said: > "Eye-witnesses say they heard two explosions" Somehow this seems wrong, because the witnesses did not use their eyes, but their ears. Yet the phrase "ear-witness" sounds wrong.


title: Is there a difference between "less ambiguous" and "more unambiguous"?

text: Relevant examples: > If you make the following changes your sentence will be less ambiguous. > > If you make the following changes your sentence will be more unambiguous. Do these sentences have a significant difference in either meaning or connotation?


title: In AE, is "tin" used instead of "can" to designate an eco friendly BPA free can of sardines?

text: I've always thought that "can" was the typical term to refer to a can of sardines (or the like) in AE, and "tin" the BE equivalent, until I recently stumbled across "tin" used instead of "can" on a US website to designate a can of smoked trout. And so, I was wondering whether "tin" could have migrated across the Atlantic from the UK to the US, and gained ground into regional or mainstream AE to designate -- along with "can" -- a small airtight flat container adapted for storing a pack of processed fish. Or, does "tin" have a specific meaning to it in AE? I thought it might designate a can made of special metallic alloy suitable for food products, and also good for the environment. > Consider the Web page in question: source


title: What does "cut the odds" mean?

text: What does the expression _cut the odds_ in the context of _betting_ mean? The complete phrase is > While we're not sure what is going on in Greece, it is safer for us to > suspend betting rather than keep cutting the odds. (as found here).


title: Why is quixotic pronounced as it is?

text: Since "quixotic" was coined with Don Quixote as its basis, why is it pronounced "kwicks-OTT-ick" when it should by rights/origin be pronounced "Key-HO-tick"? It even sounds more onomatopoeiatic the latter way, as it resembles in its sonorous qualities "chaotic," which suits the subject. Or is trying to make sense of English pronunciation a quixotic quest?


title: Is this DFW line a run on sentence?

text: Is this sentence from _Infinite Jest_ by David Foster Wallace a run on sentence? My guess is not, but I am not sure. > “(She) says that she's finding it especially hard to take when these earnest > ravaged folks at the lectern say they're 'Here But For the Grace of God,' > except that's not the strange thing she says, because when Gately nods hard > and starts to interject about 'It was the same for--' and wants to launch > into a fairly standard Boston AA agnostic-soothing riff about the 'God' in > the slogan being just shorthand for a totally subjective and up-to-you > 'Higher Power' and AA being merely spiritual instead of dogmatically > religious, a sort of benign anarchy of subjective spirit, Joelle cuts off > his interjection and says that but that her trouble with it is that 'But For > the Grace of God' is a subjunctive, a counterfactual, she says, and can make > sense only when introducing a conditional clause, like e.g. 'But For the > Grace of God I would have died on Molly Notkin's bathroom floor,' so that an > indicative transposition like `I'm here But For the Grace of God' is, she > says, literally senseless, and regardless of whether she hears it or not > it's meaningless, and that the foamy enthusiasm with which these folks can > say what in fact means nothing at all makes her want to put her head in a > Radarange at the thought that Substances have brought her to the sort of > pass where this is the sort of language she has to have Blind Faith in.”


title: Difference between "read-only" and "write-protected"

text: Essentially, both mean the same, so is there any clear difference in the meaning of those two words?


title: Is there an alternative (more poetic term) to avoid making the choice between "simpler" and "more simple"?

text: I am trying to translate a Greek essay in English. Let me give you the text above and below the word " _simpler_ ": > Actually the first, more systematic - and most effective - propagandists > were, since the dawn of time, the founders, preachers and apologists of > religion. Their work was arduous and complex. It required creativity, almost > sophistic ingenuity, imagination and unsurpassable persuasion. Because it is > much easier to propagate and spread an ideology than a quite complex, and in > many occasions cruelly harsh, religious faith. **It is simpler** to create a > positive image for a sovereign or political leader than to convince billions > of people that an invisible (but almighty and most merciful) Father exists. The word "simpler" at that particular spot does not sound good to me. Is there an alternative that I could use? P.S: please let me know of any other mistakes that you may have noticed in my translation (: P.P.S: Since someone asked for the Greek version. Essay Source: http://www.ndimou.gr/articledisplay.asp?cat_parent=2&time_id=70&cat_id=2


title: Usage of the phrase "We have been made."

text: I was watching a TV show in which they showed this two friends who were hiding in disguise to escape from bounty hunters. Then one friend upon realizing that the bounty hunters have recognized them says to the other **"We have been made."**. I can understand the meaning of this phrase from the context but I would like to know more about its usage. Being a non-native speaker i find this phrase quite odd and elegant at the same time. Is this a common phrase used in that context? Is this considered proper English or a slang? Is it considered American English?


I am writing an article and want to simplify the content by avoiding repeating a long sentence to represent a waiting period between 2 consecutive harvests. What is the terminology of the waiting period between two successive harvests? Any activities are allowed during the waiting period, whether the plant is growing, or anything else.


title: “is like” , “are like” comparison between singular and plural

text: So I had a debate with a friend, where that friend is of the opinion that you can't compare singular entities with plural ones Eg : Women are like a magnet, always attractive! (Just an example)   Women - Plural   A magnet - Singular is wrong according to my friend. Whereas, I think the above is right. The only thing that should matter grammatically is, using "is like" or "are like" based on which is used first, Singular or Plural. Eg: The above sentence if Singular entity is used first should be - "A magnet is like women, always attractive!" Am I right in the above two sentences? I'm also looking for sources which can validate this usage. Thanks.


title: What's exactly I'mma? I'mma go now, I'mma open that for you

text: When I chat I hear sometimes "I'mma ..." like in: > "I'mma go now" or "I'mma open that for you" I am not sure how it's written, I have never got a precise answer when I asked. Should I learn to use it to speak more natural? Where does it come from by the way?


title: The meteor/meteorite fell over there

text: Let's not get too pedantic on the exact difference. What I'll stick with is this:   * If it is still in the air, falling, it's a meteor.   * If it has hit the ground, it's a meteorite. In this case, which of the following is correct?   1. The _meteor_ fell over there.   2. The _meteorite_ fell over there. This sets up a scenario where the object is now a meteorite, but was previously a meteor. The action we give to it, i.e., falling, corresponds to its state as a meteor, but it is a meteorite now; it is no longer a meteor. If we're talking about an action of something that changes state, do we use the current state, or the state it was in at the time it was performing the action? Could it be that the verb form we pick affects this, i.e., that using "was falling" would cause "meteor" to be the correct choice, as falling in the present tense is something only a meteor can do, and that using "fell" would cause "meteorite" to be the correct choice, as only a meteorite can be done falling, mandating a past tense form?


title: Is there a good rule of thumb for plurals from words ending in "o"?

text: The following words and their plurals seem to be somewhat inconsistent:   * combo / combos   * concerto / concertos   * grotto / grottos / grottoes (?)   * hero / heros (?) / heroes   * potato / potatos (?) / potatoes   * tornado / tornados / tornadoes   * tomato / tomatos / tomatoes   * volcano / volcanos / volcanoes Is there a common source for `-s` versus `-es`? With regards to words such as "heros", is it likely to see more words start dropping `-es` in favor of `-s`? (If you have any other good examples of strange plurals from words ending in "o" feel free to edit them into the question.)


title: What part of speech does “here” have in “I am here”?

text: What part of speech does _here_ have in the following sentence? > I am here. I say that in that sentence, _here_ must be an adverb because:   * It modifies the verb _am_ by describing where I am.   * _Am_ is a “being” verb in this instance, not a “linking” verb. My friend contends that _here_ is a noun because the word _here_ is, in this instance, defined as _this place_ , which in _Merriam-Webster_ is the definition for the noun _here_.


title: SSD Analogue for non-SSD

text: Sorry for the pun, but I couldn't resist. Is there an easy to speak and explain acronym or word for non-solid state drives? Or what, if any, is the antonym of solid-state? Addendum: After reading the wikipedia article on HDDs linked to by @FumbleFingers I think that it is the proper mechanical analogue for SSD. The essence of my question now is there a single word antonym for solid-state?


title: Is Millenial a common term?

text: I would like to use the word "Millenial" in an article. This is a reference to people between (roughly) 18-30. Is this a common enough term to use? Will the average reader know exactly what I am talking about?


title: Does paralepsis require explicit invocation?

text: (I apologize for the title, it's the best I could do to phrase it concisely.) Paralepsis (Wikipedia suggests the spelling Paralipsis) is defined as: a rhetorical device wherein the speaker or writer invokes a subject by denying that it should be invoked. An example would be a politician who says something like, "I will not stoop to mentioning my opponent's drinking problem." Every example I can find has basically the same structure: "I won't say ... (and then says whatever it is.)" My question is: is it still paralepsis if the phrase "I won't say ..." is implied, instead of explicitly stated. The example that prompted this question was the exchange: > A: I've been in the business for 15 years with 50+ transactions a year. > > B: Congratulations on your success but personally I don't care how many > deals you do a year. Reliability, integrity and keeping my clients happy are > the only things I care about in this business. To me, there's an implied "I won't point out that you don't care about integrity..." in person B's statement. (Although I'm less certain now that I've written this question.)


title: What's the metaphorical meaning of "Tone-deaf"?

text: I understand the literal meaning of "Tone-deaf". As Wiktionary puts it: > Unable to clearly distinguish the difference in pitch between different > notes. But what's the metaphorical meaning? As a random example, how would I interpret it in this op-ed > That is a tone-deaf statement, on a couple of levels.


title: Any difference between “I have a lot of work to do” and “I have a lot of work to be done”?

text: What is the difference between “I have a lot of work to do” and “I have a lot of work to be done”? Does sentence one mean that “I” do the work? Does sentence two mean that “someone else” does the work?


title: Antonym for piling up?

text: I am looking for a verb that would be something like an antonym for piling up, describing the action of raising a pile from the bottom, specially making the base of the pile wider. For example, like adding the lower layers of a pyramid from the bottom -- if that was technically possible. Another way of putting it, after reading some of the comments, would be something in between "prop up", "jacking up" and "churning". The suggestion to use "churning" reminded me of the tale where a mouse fell into a bucket of milk and desperately began to kick and kick and swim and swim and churn. Until the kicking and swimming and churning turned the milk into cream, and then butter. And the mouse climbed to safety. So would one say that the mice was "raised" or "jacked up" by the butter...


title: "Let him wait" or "Keep him waiting" or "Make him wait"

text: There is someone I do not want to see. What can I say to my assistant: > Let him wait. > > Keep him waiting. > > Make him wait. What is the difference among these?


title: When to use a hyphen to coin a new word and when to omit a hyphen?

text: Someone has asked for answer to these topics. However, I still want someone to provide me with simple and universal answers. I recently read a sentence from the English-speaking person. It is in an article. It is, ' The available options for mitigating pad cratering are not universally effective (see link below), but they may be helpful on a case by case basis until more crack resistant laminates are developed and become available. ' If I am to write this, I will use 'a case-by-case basis until more crack- resistant laminates' Can anyone tell me when to use a hyphen to coin a new word?


title: Origin of phrase "I slept at"

text: I have recently heard a lot of people (most of whom have learned English as a second language) use the phrase "I slept at 9 o'clock" instead of "I went to bed at 9 o'clock" or "I fell asleep at 9". I was wondering if there was any idea as to the origin of this phrase.


title: Correct spelling/italicization of e.g., i.e.?

text: Should e.g. and i.e. have periods, e.g. "e.g.", or no periods, eg "eg"? Should they be italicized, _e.g._ " _i.e._ " or not, eg "i.e"?


title: Prepositions at the end of sentence and whom

text: I believe it's okay to end a sentence with a preposition. That seems to be the consensus here as well. Now I think that when who is the object of a preposition, it should technically be whom, e.g. "To **whom** it may concern..." So, is it acceptable to use whom and have a preposition at the end of the sentence? Which of the following sentences are okay:   * Who are you talking to?   * Whom are you talking to?   * To whom are you talking?


title: "He was playing when he fell" or "he fell when he was playing"?

text: Which one is correct? > He fell down when he was playing in the field.   >  He was playing in the field when he fell down. Why?


title: What is the meaning of this complex sentence?

text: > The historical roots of democracy in India are well worth considering, if > only because the connection with public arguments is often missed, through > the temptation to attribute the Indian commitment to democracy simply to the > impact of British influence. For context — this is taken from Amartya Sen's speech (PDF).


title: What does the phrase 'make the girls tick' mean?

text: I read the following phrase in a dating book. > find out who they are and what made them tick? What does the phrase _make the girls tick_ mean?


title: Lists Without "And"

text: I just came across this sentence: > Everyone has lost his country, his home, his equilibrium. I've seen such structure used numerous times but I'm not sure how this works. What effect does it have on the sentence to remove _and_ before the final item of the list? What rule of grammar makes this sentence grammatically correct? In terms of grammar, how do the two sentences below differ? > He sat there thinking about the past, the future. > > He sat there thinking about the past and the future. My guess was that instead of creating a list, such sentences added bracketing phrases/clauses. I'm not sure if that's the case, though, since the information added sometimes appears to be unrelated to what has come before and essential to the sentence. For instance, thoughts about the future are more important than thoughts about the past in the sentence above.


title: Is "increment" perfectly synonymous with "increase"?

text: My advisor replaced all the occurrences of "increment" with "increase" in one of my papers. Is it true that "increment" can always be replaced with "increase"? If not, please show me some examples.


title: The phrase "iron out bugs"

text: Any idea how the moderately gruesome phrase _iron out bugs_ originated? It brings a wonderfully vivid picture to my mind's eye!


title: What is a non-humorous 19th or 18th century alternative to the contemporary insult 'jerk'?

text: Most web sites and forum posts I've come across covering archaic insults are usually devoted to listing polysyllabic compound words of the Shakespearean variety, such as : you artless, swag-bellied, cod-piece! What I'm looking for are serious insults that could have actually been used between the 1700s and the 1800s. It does not matter whether they are British, American, or translations from the French. I can't find anything and I am desperate for at least some words. Especially insults that could have been directed at men (rather than the usual synonyms for loose or low woman like 'hussy', 'slattern' etc.) I know that words like 'asshole' and 'jerk' are very contemporary in usage, but try as I might, I can't think of any archaic equivalents. Is it possible that it is impossible for what might have been a serious insult in the past to be anything but humorous to us now?


title: "to pine away from"

text: Definition 1.1 states: > Suffer a mental and physical decline, especially because of a broken heart Yet what does "pine away from" mean? Does it equal "to pine from" = to suffer from? Is the **away** optional, such as as follows? > P182, Dialogues and Essays By Seneca : > > Accordingly, it is not open to you to claim your female sex as an excuse for > persistent grief, as your own excellent qualities make you stranger to this; > you should be as far removed from the tears, as from the vices, of women. > Not even women will permit you **to pine away from** your wound, but will > tell you to make a swift end of necessary grief before rising with a lighter > heart, if only you are prepared to contemplate those women whose evident > courage has won them a place in the ranks of great men.


title: What does "military profile" mean?

text: The word "military profile" is sometimes in the news. For example, (1) India Monday said it was 'conscious and watchful' of China's growing **military profile** and... (2) NATO to raise military profile around Kosovo.(Headline) According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, "profile" means: 1\. a side view of someone's head 2\. a short description that gives important details about a person, a group of people, or a place 3\. something that is high profile is noticed by many people or gets a lot of attention 4\. to behave quietly and avoid doing things that will make people notice you 5\. **if a person or an organization raises its profile, it gets more attention from the public** 6\. an edge or shape of something seen against a background In this case, "profile" probably refers to the definition of 5. But I am not sure what (1) and (2) mean. Does "military profile" mean "military might", military role", or "military WHAT"? What would you paraphrase this word as?


title: What is the oldest still-in-use English word?

text: I recently looked up the origin of "mooch", and the root of the word is apparently very, very old: > Whatever the distant origin of mooch, the verb *mycan and its cognates have > been part of European slang for at least two millennia. [Liberman] Are there other known words with origins this old? What current word has the **oldest origins**? * * * EDIT: I should specify that I mean traceable origins. I'm sure there was some word for "fish" being used since the dawn of language. I am not a professional, so I do not know the terms for this, but I imagine there's some form of measurement for the strength of links.


title: What does the word "fixed" mean in this sentence?

text: I was reading feedback about the television show _Survivor_ , and some people wrote that this show was "fixed". I could not understand or make a guess what they meant. I searched on the Internet but I did not find any example or definition, either. Can you tell me its definition and when I can use it?


title: Idiom to mean "one must avoid going into dangerous situations"

text: In my native language, there's an idiom that someone warn you not to go into a dangerous situation when you're sure you'll get into trouble but you still feel like doing it. For instance, making jokes about your boss at work because he/she has shamed you in public. One of your co-workers might say: > Don't play with lion's tail! Is there an English idiom for such a situation?


title: where did the word 'golliwog' come from?

text: I am aware of the fact that it is considered offensive. And I know it refers to soft faced black dolls. but before that character was introduced did 'golliwog' have meaning? I mean was it made up or was it coined from other words? I am not really sure I made myself clear.


title: Difference between "chance" and "opportunity"

text: What would be the difference between _chance_ and _opportunity_?


title: Which of these two sentences is correct ("processes" vs. "process")?

text: Which of the following two sentences is correct? > Read more about the processes behind my projects. ...or... > Read more about the process behind my projects. The one on top looks right technically, but the one on bottom sounds better to me.


title: "Melted" vs "molten"

text: Is there any difference (e.g. regionality) between the two forms of the past participle of _melt_ ( _melted_ and _molten_ )?


title: Is there a maximum number of suffixes that can be added to an English word?

text: You can add various derivational and inflectional suffixes on to most English words to create new longer words (or forms of words). But is there a definite or theoretical maximum that can be added in the case of English? If not is there rough upper limit in typical vocabulary? Trying to think of examples the best I can come up with off the top of my head is: > _ego + ist + ic + al + ly_ > > egoistically


title: How to express that the temperature is high?

text: Saying somebody is hot seems to mean somebody is sexy. So how would one express that the temperature is high? Is "I feel hot" OK?


title: The expression "And how!"

text: Where does the expression, "and how," come from? How can we reconcile the literal meaning with the idiomatic one?


title: Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde unknown ( Biblical?) Reference

text: Okay, so I am an _avid_ reader, and have recently undertaken a challenge to read Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, along with Robert Louis Stevenson's other literature. Having recently completed Jekyll & Hyde, which, during my reading, I had marked a few phrases or terms that I did not know and came across this text: (pg.69) "Small indeed was my appetite. This inexplicable incident, this reversal of my previous experience, seemed, like the Babylonian finger on the wall, to be spelling out the letters of my judgement; and I began to reflect more seriously than ever before on the issues and possibilities of my double existence." I have no clue as to what the late Robert Stevenson is referring to by the seemingly Christian-based Babylonian "Doom Hand", although I have heard there have been paintings of it by the likes of Rembrandt & John Martin.


title: Is "incorrect facts" an oxymoron?

text: I've seen this so many times and it drives me crazy. The latest was the actor Paul Giamatti setting some story straight in the press about him: "It's unfortunately an _incorrect fact_ about me and it's all over the place." I've seen this written so many times, in magazines, books, but surely a fact is, by definition, true. So there cannot be any such thing as a "false" fact. Right?


title: What is the difference between "probably" and "possibly"?

text: Recently I saw the movie "Pursuit of Happyness", which is actually quite good, and I noticed the actor (Will Smith) asking the difference between _probably_ and _possibly_ to his son. So I would like to have people's opinion on this question as I am still yet to find an answer myself.


title: what will be after "you" body or bodies

text: to be healthy we must keep our bodies clean by having bath as water and soaps wipe away the germs and dirt from our body and keeps us healthy - i want to know that in that line what will be after "our"- "body" or "bodies"?


title: Usage and meaning of "plus"

text: I have a question about this word: "plus". Where can we use "plus"? Do these phrases have any meaning? What are they? >   * America Plus >   * American Plus >


title: Why is "poison" in English pronounced so differently from French "poison"?

text: Why is _poison_ in English pronounced so astonishingly differently than the French pronunciation of _poison_? Considering that they have **exactly the same** origin. Is it just randomness or is it on purpose just to not sound "like the French"? > From Old French poison, from Latin pōtio, pōtiōnis, from pōtō.


title: Does "neath" have any standalone meaning?

text: _Beneath_ and _underneath_ both indicate similar concepts, and since _under-_ is a free morpheme in many contexts, is _neath_ a bound morpheme or does it derive from a standalone root? I bring this up since many instances of _underneath_ and _beneath_ can be replaced with _under._ > "Where were your keys?" > > "They were under the couch." / "They were underneath the couch." / "They > were beneath the couch".


title: "Communications In English for Engineers" — what does it exactly mean?

text: A lecture at my university is titled "Communications In English for Engineers". Somebody from my year stated that 'communications' (in plural) relate to telecommunication and generally engineering/science discipline, rather than process of communicating between two or more entities (people/devices/anything else). However, my brief Google research have not confirmed this. Most dictionaries queried about 'communications' in plural show a page for this term, but description seems more like one for 'communication'. Could you then please explain:   1. What does 'communications' mean?   2. Is this term interchangeable with 'communication'?   3. Optionally: where does this difference (if there is one) come from?


title: The + vowel sound

text: I've been told that when "the" is proceeded by a vowel sound, like "apple" or "hour", it's pronounced as "thee" and not as "thu". But after listening to a couple of songs, I noticed that sometimes this "rule" is not followed. Take for example the two Katy Perry's songs, "Roar" and "The one that got away". In the first she sings "I got _thee_ eye of _thu_ tiger", but in the second she sings " _Thu_ one that got away". I don't know if it was sang this way to better suit the song melody (I understand nothing about those techniques), but I got confused. What's the correct pronunciation? Thanks in advance.


title: Is there a word describing someone who is ignorant in the ways of Science?

text: I am not sure if dogmatic or doctrinaire covers it, but I am looking for a word to describe someone (like a politician) who is willfully unknowing of how the scientific method works and what science can and cannot accomplish. I am looking for a descriptive word, and not a derogatory term like "ignoramus". And somehow it has to convey the idea that their ignorance applies to scientific domain only.


title: What's with the third degree?

text: Where did the phrase "third degree" (referring to intense interrogation) originate? Additionally, how did "grill" come to have its related meaning?


title: Synonym for nirvanic

text: To me, nirvanic sounds like a butchery of nirvana. Is there any adjective describing a feeling of nirvana? You know, the serenity/transcendence after meditating for a long time. I know I just listed a few but do y'all have any more? EDIT: I'd like this synonym to be used to describe a kind of enlightened connection with a person after having a really deep conversation with them.


title: Scrape Data from Somewhere

text: Lets say I have such a data in somewhere on my computer: > HELLO WORLD NANO TECH YAHOOO OOO GOOGLE 1111 MICROSOFT It is a .txt file and has the value above. I want to say: > I scraped some of the data and wrote it on the screen, the result is : > > HELLO WORLD I am wondering if the usage of "scrape" is correct in this context? Does it sound similar to "pull data from" ? Or what can I use instead of "scrape" if it sounds wrong here?


title: Etymological root and usage of 'create'

text: Does _create_ come from the Latin word _creatra_? Is it linguistically correct for a person to use the word 'Create' for other than the meaning of bringing from non-existence into existence, which is only for God? Did this word undergo a natural change over time to the extent that we recognize a new authentic meaning, like 'make' or 'construct'?


title: meaning of "the binding is fragile"

text: what is the meaning of "The binding is fragile" ? I saw it in one of the harry potters movie. But didn't know what it means UPDATE: pretend that someone wants to take your book away from you and you don't want it to do.It insists and tells you why you say "The binding is fragile" Thanks.


title: Noun for "a person who deeply appreciates aesthetics"

text: I'm looking for a noun for a person to convey two things: their particularly keen appreciation of aesthetics, and their ability to create aesthetically appealing objects. For example, Steve Jobs. A man with a famously keen sense of what is beautiful, at every level, be it user interface design, the connectors on cables or the stairs at retail stores. The closest I've got is "aesthetician", but that conveys more the study of aesthetics, rather than the appreciation and ability to craft aesthetic perfection. Any ideas?


title: difference between apt and fit

text: **Question** I'm particularly interested in the meaning of apt, but while I was searching through some dictionaries and examples it struck me how close the words _apt_ and _fit_ seem to be. Thus: what exactly is the difference between apt and fit? **Etymology** As I understand from etymonline.com the word apt came from - next part copied from etymonline - from Latin _aptus_ where it meant "fit, suited" which is related to _apere_ "to attach, join, tie to". The Proto Indo European root is _ap-_ and means to grasp, take, reach Fit on the other hand seems to be somewhat more difficult to trace back. Etymonline states that mid 15th century it meant "suited to the circumstances, proper," though of unknown origin, perhaps from Middle English noun fit "an adversary of equal power" (mid-13c.) which in turn might be connected to Old English fitt "a conflict, a struggle" **Additional Thoughts/Questions** Reading the etymologies above, would it be fair to say that the difference between an apt student and a fit student would be that:   * an apt student is a student that has the right **conduct/behaviour** in regard to studying?    * a fit student is the student that is (especially physically) well **equiped** to engage in a struggle, e.g. study? Anyway, the above is just an example to get the discussion started, but if you have broader views on the difference of apt and fit please share them as well. Thanks in advance!


title: The deeper meaning of "not enough coffee yet on my end"

text: What's the deeper meaning of this phrase? > not enough coffee yet on my end


title: Logic: Interchangeability of Roles in Sentences

text: Do the changes in the following sentences change the meaning at all? > He's my friend > > I'm his friend Or > He's my co-worker > > I'm his co-worker Or > he's my brother > > I'm his brother Besides emphasis - is there any change in meaning in these sentences? Can they be interchangeable? (Assuming friends are not just one sided!)


title: dressed in tails

text: What is _dressed in tails_? > Last night I dressed in tails, pretended I was on the town   >  As long as I can dream it's hard to slow this swinger down http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/nancysinatra/flowersonthewall.html


title: Can this sentence be worded in this way?

text: Instead of saying: I was eating a steak, and John was eating the lunch he brought from home. Could I word it as such: I was eating a steak, and John the lunch he brought from home.


title: Single verb for make something equivalent

text: Is there a single verb meaning to make something equivalent to something? I want to use this possibly existent word to express the following: "We transformed Problem A into the following problem B, which is proved equivalent to Problem A."


title: What part of speech is "turn" in the phrase "it's my turn"?  What's its origin?

text: > Hey! It's my **_turn_**! This is a very acceptable usage of the word _turn_. It seems to me that in this sentence, _turn_ is a noun, because it's something that I **own**. Now, I could be really wrong here — that's why I am asking you folks — but doesn't that seem rather a strange usage when compared to all the other ways to use _turn_? Does anyone have any insights into this?


title: What do you call a person that won’t act?

text: What would you call a person that just stands by and won't act? Is kind of acting like a spectator when in reality that person should do something? I know there is a word for this because I knew what it was a few hours ago but now I can’t remember it.


title: Is there a term for phrases which were once literal but now figurative?

text: We still _hang up the phone_ , even though we really only push a button, not suspend it in a cradle. Sometimes we _tape_ a television series, even though the DVR does the heavy lifting, not the analogue insides of a VCR. Is there a term for these words and phrases? I'm not sure about using words like _obsolete_ or _archaic_ , because the methods they describe may be, but the phrases themselves are not.


title: Is "Everyone is welcome along." a valid sentence?

text: Is "Everyone is welcome along." a valid English sentence? My English grammaticality is basic at best and I'm not sure how to even research this...


title: Punctuation to ensure that both objects are meant

text: > In addition, a weak interaction between light and matter in free space > renders the observation of many QED effects, like e.g. quadrature squeezing > [3] or the phase shift [4{7] of a single emitter, difficult. How do I have to set the commas, so that it is clear, that both the squeezing and phase shift are observed for single emitter?


title: this is/was the best meal I have ever had/had had

text: We are currently discussingq with my colleagues what the correct grammar would be in this context: you have just finished a meal and want to say it was/has been the best meal you ever had. What tenses would be used here? This was the best meal I have ever had. - some say past simple should not be mixed present perfect like this and would choose past perfect.


title: Slang names for souteneur

text: What are some common slang names for the souteneur - the illicit "manager" for prostitutes? I'm fairly sure there are a few, but I can't find any in the common online resources and I need it for a fiction story - souteneur sounds way too 'official'.


title: Terminology vs jargon vs lexicon

text: Though this subject is somewhat discussed here; what are the differences? From Merriam-Webster online: **Jargon:** _The technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or group._ **Terminology:** _The special words or phrases that are used in a particular field._ **Lexicon:** _The words used in a language or by a person or group of people._ (Also: _The vocabulary of a language, an individual speaker or group of speakers, or a subject._ ) Can you please give examples where it is appropriate to use only one but not others.


title: "Accuse as" in comparison to "accuse of"

text: I stumbled upon this sentence: > I **accuse myself and others as** having been irrational in the way we have > been using statistics on a key notion of rationality. Is there a difference in meaning/usage between "accuse X as" and "accuse X of"? Are they used in different contexts? Intuitively I prefer "accuse X of" every time.


title: How to answer "The applicant’s overall rank is ? out of ? "

text: I am filling a reference form and I met 2 questions that I am not sure how to answer : >   1. The applicant’s overall rank is **__ out of ___ __** >   2. Please describe the comparison group: **__** > If the applicant is my colleague and I am comparing him with other engineers who works in the same area, how should I answer this 2 questions?


title: "Ironic" vs "ironical"

text: I just read something where a phrase was described as _ironical_. To me the word _ironical_ jars terribly. It just doesn't sound right at all. I would have said _ironic_. Is _ironical_ a feature of American English, or am I just missing something? Where would you use it over _ironic_?


title: Enquiry forms on websites

text: My university has registered with an online e-book website. But, after downloading an e-book, I was asked for a password. The enquiry that I wrote is: > _I want to know where can I find passwords for e-books that I have > downloaded_. Is this statement polite? How can it be re-framed so as to be more coherent?


title: Where can you use “and/or”?

text: I know that in formal contexts, the construction _and/or_ is very ugly and undesirable (and there are many questions here that deal with said formal usage). Has it become acceptable to use it informally, however, as a sort of rhetorical _faux_ formalism or something else altogether?


title: survivors list grammar question

text: Obituaries often include lists with this grammatical structure: > John Doe is survived by his children, Steve Doe and his wife, June; Will Doe > and his wife, Janet; Susan Richards and her husband, Walter...." It seems to me that the above is incorrect because, despite phrases like "his wife" and "her husband," the wives and husbands still fall under the rubric of "his [John Doe’s] children." So my first question is, am I wrong about this? According to obituary convention, you could write, > "his children, Steve (June) Doe, Will (Janet) Doe, and Susan (Walter) > Richards." However, many families do not like how this looks. Would "His children and their spouses" followed by their names be right? I have some doubts about this because, without the word "respectively," it’s potentially ambiguous. This brings me to my second question: Other than using parentheses, what would be the correct way to write this list?


title: Meaning of "match Greek with Greek"

text: From _Christmas Storms and Sunshine_ by Elizabeth Gaskell (4th paragraph): > Jenkins had his wife too. Wives were wanting to finish the completeness of > the quarrel, which existed one memorable Christmas week, some dozen years > ago, between the two neighbours, the two compositors. And with wives, it was > a very pretty, a very complete quarrel. To make the opposing parties still > more equal, still more well-matched, if the Hodgsons had a baby ("such a > baby!—a poor, puny little thing"), Mrs. Jenkins had a cat ("such a cat! a > great, nasty, miowling tom-cat, that was always stealing the milk put by for > little Angel's supper"). And now, **having matched Greek with Greek** , I > must proceed to the tug of war. It was the day before Christmas; such a cold > east wind! such an inky sky! such a blue-black look in people's faces, as > they were driven out more than usual, to complete their purchases for the > next day's festival. What does _having matched Greek with Greek_ mean? Is this some quote or allusion? What is its origin?


title: Expression that refers to an event that appears in the news very fast?

text: The first thing that came to my mind was _an event like this would makes the headlines very quick_. But after checking on Google, I realized there were 0 results. So, obviously I was wrong. What's the right expression for a case like this?


title: When is it appropriate to use the idiom "various and sundry"

text: To my ears the term "various and sundry" sounds redundant. What is the proper use of this idiom?


title: Is there a word to refer to the cap some British soldiers wear?

text: Whenever Britain is abuzz with some celebration, I find these people (cops or soldiers?) in red strutting about in parades wearing an elongated black headdress. ![Royal parade](http://i.stack.imgur.com/quiyn.jpg) Is there a word for this peculiar hat, just like there is a _zuchetto_ to refer to the Pope's cap?


title: Is there a name for this characteristic of the human body (picture)

text: Is there a name for this characteristic of the human body (see the arrows in the picture below)? They seem as 'holes' on the back. I'm not able to imagine one ![picture of feature](http://i.stack.imgur.com/lIFHW.png)


title: 'On the web' vs. 'In the web'

text: When do we use ' ** _on** the web_' and when ' ** _in** the web_'? > Roombeats provides image content marketing solutions by linking images to > product or brand information and distributing it on the web.


title: What's the reason of prepositioning Internet with "on" but not "in"?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "in the internet" and "on the internet" Why do we say "on the Internet" but not "in the Internet"? This seems to be against the meaning of these prepositions.


title: "Changes would not be reflected" vs. "Changes will not be reflected"

text: Following Martha's advise I am splitting up a question Compound sentences, the punctuation and mooore.   1. When I describe consequences of some actions one can take, what form of the verb "will" should I use?   2. If both are generally allowed, how do they change the meaning? Consider the following sentence: > Changes [will/would] not be reflected in the tree structure until the node > is manually toggled. To understand the context, suppose one have performed actions that indirectly affect a tree structure. In an amicable way, these changes should be reflected in the structure. But they would not for some reason, and one must take an additional action for them to appear. The problem is that I don't know whether these action have been taken by anyone or whether anyone will ever perform them. It's just about that such actions exist.


title: "so that" + present/past tense

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Should I say 'What I wanted to say is' or 'What I wanted to say was'? Which one is correct: > Introduce additional user interface widget so that it **was** possible to > enter phone number or > Introduce additional user interface widget so that it **is** possible to > enter phone number I noticed that the first form is often used by my english-speaking manager when he asks me do do something (defining tasks), but on the other hand, the second form seems to be more widely used elsewhere.


title: Using a comma after "that"

text: I would like to know if you can use "that" with a comma after it. For example: Findings show that, during the initial stages of love, there is increased blood flow to the brain.


title: What does "pay its own way" mean?

text: Does “This product will pay its own way in one year" mean "This product will pay back your investment in one year"? If so, why? As a foreigner, I can't connect "pay its own way" with earning back my investment. I am a little confused.


title: Why do we do things 'to the tune of' an amount of money?

text: A common idiom in English is that something is done "to the tune of" an amount of money, eg. > The company profited to the tune of $5 million. This idiom is almost always used with a monetary amount. How did it come to be used this way? and why do we usually use it with money rather than, say, 'eating food to the tune of a 3 course meal'?


title: Shows the reader?

text: I am writing a thesis and I have the following sentence: The section [...] shows the reader, that [...] I am not sure about the "shows the reader"? Should I use it or just "shows"?


title: Investors assets or Investor's assets?

text: I am wondering about which sentence is correct? > It is therefore measuring the volatility of an investors asset. or > It is therefore measuring the volatility of an investor's asset.


title: adjective for "related to monogamy"

text: The "monogamous lifestyle" is a strange word, because lifestyles are not known to be married. I wonder whether a word like "*monogamial" or similar acts in a more appropiate way.


title: How do you pronounce "grimace"?

text: How do you pronounce _grimace_? My parents taught me a long time ago to say "gri-MACE". Then the Burger King character Gri... came along.


title: Email Capitalization: "Hi Michael, please bring..." or "Hi Michael, Please bring..."

text: In an email, if I don't put a new line after the heading, how am I supposed to capitalize the next word? With a new line, it's straightforward: > Hi Michael, > > Please bring the books. But without one, is it: > Hi Michael, Please bring the books. or: > Hi Michael, please bring the books. I would appreciate sources citing a related rule.


title: Is this an attributive clause or an adverbial clause?

text: > **The radial-velocity method used** Dr Dumusque and his colleagues will > reveal the presence of a planet and its mass. This sentence is from an article at economist.com, and it's the first sentence of paragraph 10. I only understand the main clause, but I don't know the function of "The radial-velocity method used". I want to know the structure of this sentence.


title: Can an -ing or -ed clause be seen as a relative clause?

text: I'm confused with reducing clauses. I need help to understand reducing clauses in English. **For example:** > The amount of goods transported by train totaled about 70 tonnes. I think the full sentence may be 2 kinds below: > The amount of goods that were transported by train totaled about 70 tonnes. **or ( Ing or -ed clause** ) > The amount of goods were transported by train, and the amount of goods > totaled about 70 tonnes. Can anybody explain this kind of sentence clearly for me?


title: What types of antonyms are there?

text: As we know, _Schadenfreude_ is defined as "the feeling of joy derived from witnessing the misfortunes of others". This question defines the antonym of _Schadenfreude_ as "the feeling of discomfort derived from witnessing the misfortunes of others". Assuming you can find a word that means this, call it W1. Would a word (W2) for "the feeling of joy derived from witnessing the good fortunes of others" also be considered an antonym? Is there a name for the type of relationship between words of type W1 as an antonym and W2? What if we forget about the antonym aspect, and just consider W1 and W2, are they antonyms of each other as well? Or is there some other name for the relationship between such types?


title: Does the plural include the singular?

text: Does the plural include the singular? And if so, in what sort of cases? This question has arisen because of the example sentence below. Amendment shall be permitted only in cases of: 1\. deletion of claims 2\. correction of error My co-worker, who is not a native speaker of English, insists that if only one error is corrected (or if only one claim is deleted), then amendment will not be permitted. Is this the necessary interpretation? Is there a specific name for this issue? And if plural does include the singular, what are some less legalistic examples that can be used to explain that the plural form is not necessarily, well, plural?


title: Is it derogatory to call user a punter?

text: I've been wondering whether it is somewhat derogatory to call a user a _punter_. For instance, > We should encourage punters to participate in the discussions. **Update:** My apologies — I owe you an explanation. I do a lot of User Experience work for an organisation (online service) where internally users are occasionally referred to as _punters_. Because _personas_ , _customers_ and _users_ are centric to my line of work, it bothers me every time I hear a word that may even remotely indicate users' inferiority. You know what they say — "Great UX is cultural". I've read a few references, but because English isn't my first language I wanted to find out whether there is a subtle nuance beyond a dictionary definition.


title: A different sort of antonym for Schadenfreude?

text: _Schadenfreude_ is the joy or pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others. What is the word for the feeling of discomfort derived from witnessing the misfortunes of others?


title: Is it all right to say "all men have one head"?

text: I've just found this quote, "All things have two handles: beware of the wrong one." (Emerson, **_The American Scholar_** ; after Epictetus, **_The Enchiridion_** , 43) My questions are:   1. Why shouldn't it be "Everything has two handles"?   2. Is it grammatically correct to say "all men have one head"? I mean, all the men cannot share the same head. Right?


title: What does"take our life as we might find it" mean?

text: In Mark Twain's "A Dog's Tale", there is a sentence like this,"said we were sent into this world for a wise and good purpose, and must do our duties without repining, **take our life as we might find it** , live it for the best good of others, and never mind about the results" What does "take our life" mean? Also, what does "it" in "find it" really mean? Apparently "it" refers to life, but what does "find life" mean?


title: His brother "hooked" him up with this bachelor party

text: I was watching the film "Bachelor Party Las Vegas" and one of the characters utters the phrase: > His brother **hooked** him up with this bachelor party (emphasis mine) When I looked up _hooked_ in the Oxford English Dictionary I found >   1. Curved like a hook >   2. Addicted > This does not really make sense in the context of the film. What is the meaning of _hooked_ here?


title: When a patient goes to the doctor and does not have a health insurance plan, how is this appointment classified?

text: When a patient goes to the doctor without a health insurance plan, is there a term for this kind of appointment? Just to give a context:   * _Me_ : I want to schedule an appointment   * _Secretary_ : What is your insurance plan?   * _Me_ : I don't have any. This appointment is going to be **___ __ ___ __** .


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

text: The following is a verse from the song Billy Jean by Micheal Jackson (this is the full version of the lyrics of the song): > For forty days and forty nights   >  Law was on her side   >  But who can stand when shes in demand   >  Her schemes and plans   >  Though we danced on the floor in the round   >  So take my strong advice   >  Just remember to always think twice   >  (Do think twice, do think twice) In line 3 of the verse _But who can stand when shes in demand_ , what does "stand" mean?


title: Is there any (etymological) link between "affection" and "affectation"?

text: Is there any link between _affection_ and _affectation_ , especially in terms of etymology? I understand _-fect_ means something like "make". Does "make" play any role in conveying their distinct meanings?


title: Does "an accordingly big army" sound awkward?

text: Is it just me or does this sound weird? > To protect such a big empire with wide borders, _an accordingly big_ army is > required When I wrote it initially it seemed a bit off, but I read it again and it seemed okay, but then I read it once again a couple of hours later and now it just seems downright wrong. I'm looking for a second (more educated/experienced) opinion.


title: What's the difference between "XXX Lab" & "XXX Labs" for company or org name?

text: I've seen lots of companies and organisations are named with "XXX Labs", and some are named with "XXX Lab". I want to create a similar org, but I've no idea which one should be chose. Can you explain me why most of them added a `s` after the `Lab`? Doesn't it just one Laboratory? e.g. I want to create an org for testing & sharing iOS related source codes, so "iOS Labs" or "iOS Lab"? Which one do you think is better? Thanks!


title: use of present perfect tense as past

text: Our country president Manmohan singh has just finished his 5 years tenure. Can I say Mr.Singh, you have been great in these 5 years or should I stick with 'was' rather then have been? Does it mean 'have been' is for recent past and common in British English? Guys I'm confused with this 'has been' use for past or present or might be used in both depending upon context.


title: Meaning of "limbic system on two legs with waterfalls"

text: "it made me a limbic system on two legs with waterfalls pouring out from my armpits" Source : http://yourbrainonporn.com/what-are-the-symptoms-of-excessive-porn- use lymbic system on LEGS? pouring from armpit? Is this sentence doesn't make sense or i just don't understand it?


title: Does this parallel structure need coordinated prepositions to avoid being a faulty parallelism?

text: > ...on Finnis's view all distinct instances of basic goods are > incommensurable — none is of more, less, or equal value with any other. -- > Source I expect to see _more or less than any other_ , but then _equal_ shows up, and is followed by _with_. But since _with any other_ cannot replace _than any other_ , do you think this sentence illegitimately omits something?


title: What is grammatically incorrect here?

text: > When the administrator enters an ID of a user to be created, the system > checks whether or not this user has not been already created. I have been told it is not correct, where is the problem?


title: Which is correct "started to change" or "is starting to change"?

text: I got a question on my mid-term exam and I got confused. Which answer is correct? The sentence was: I believe that the weather ....... (start) to change. I felt rain drops on my hand a few minutes ago. Would it be **_started_** or **_is starting_**?


title: Is the pronunciation of the letters "Y" and "I" supposed to be identical?

text: My son and I were reciting the Spanish alphabet recently. "Y" is _i griega_ , which means "Greek i." This got me thinking about the English letter Y and its function in our alphabet. All of the words I could think of would be pronounced the same way whether we spelled them with an _i_ or a _y_. For example: > _dye_ or _die_   >  _chimera_ or _chymera_   >  _wild_ or _wyld_ Is there any case where Y makes a sound which could not be represented by I? If they don't overlap completely, when are they different, and is it for certain types of words (for instance, could we substitute "i" in all words with Greek roots that contain "y")?


title: How does one use 'moue' properly in a sentence?

text: I don't understand how to use _moue_ in a sentence. I know the definition of moue: > _**noun_** \- a little grimace : pout It says it is a noun, but whenever I've seen it used, it always comes off verb-like, unless I'm misreading. An example: > With a moue of discontent, he set down his mug upon the table at his elbow > and rubbed his hands through his hair, mussing it so that it would probably > be horribly tangled when he tried to brush it later. Either way, I still don't understand how to use this word properly. Do you always say 'moue **_of_** x' or can it be used by itself like 'His moue showed how unhappy he was'?


title: Where should I put the commas in a sentence containing "as well as"?

text: What is the proper way to punctuate a sentence containing "as well as"? For example, in the sentence: > I hope to provide students with a solid foundation in the field as well as > challenge them with the contemporary problems facing practitioners. Should there be a comma   * before the first "as",    * after the second "as",    * both, or   * other?


title: Difference in usage between the nouns "merge" and "merger"

text: As a non-native speaker I am having some trouble distinguishing between the two words "merge" and "merger". To me, it sounds like "merger" describes a major event, often occurring between legal entities such as companies, countries, pieces of industry,... In computer science, I have more often seen merge used as a noun, e.g. if in a version control system two branches are merged, the result is called a merge. The process while it is occurring is also called a merge. Are the two terms interchangeable, or are there clear distinctions in usage (in general practice)?


title: Should we change the spelling of English?

text: First. I am an American, born and raised in USA. I am a special education teacher in the US. I initially wanted to learn phonics in order to teach reading. Yet,there is really no way to teach phonics without saying, "Now this is the exception, and so is this, and so is this."..etc. In truth, the only way a student learns words is through memorization. The word has to encode in their brain and be recalled. If you look at our nation's reading statistics, they are dismal. I am not going to sit here and spout out stats on this reality. It is a fact there is a huge problem. At work, I struggle with students who are genuinely LD and then I also work with students who are just intellectually lower since almost all LD students are grouped at the bottom level and we co-teach.   Since there is no genuine code to teach our students, I get frustrated at the fact that our language has not evolved to create a spelling system that matches the sounds of our words. It seems the education field goes around in circles coming up with new approaches to tackle the same problems of poor reading performance. Yet, as long as the code is totally illogical, then we will never find an answer to the problem because it is obvious that the code of our language is too complex for a vast percentage of people.   To me, the solution is to change the code to match the sound. I know this would be a long process and there would be much resistance, but the end result of making this change would be a logical pattern to our words. These patterns would encode much easier in the minds of students and we could then spend more time with the essence of reading and that is comprehension.   I pose this question to the people of this forum because many of you have delved into the language much deeper than most of the population. I would guess that the strongest resistance to changing the language would come from people who have spent so much time learning the minute details of the language. Yet, I also see the same group of people being at the forefront of working on making the change.   So my question is do you think it should be done? Should we change the English spelling system to match how it sounds for the greater good of our society?


title: Avoiding ambiguity of "more" + complex comparative

text: > As hours flew by, we kept building **more and more sophisticated** fireworks > than I'd planned. At best this is a garden path sentence. Without the "...than I'd planned" it gets completely ambiguous and with wrong primary meaning different than intended. Most people will read that as _increasingly sophisticated_. My intention is to say _both greater number and higher sophistication_. Is there a consistent recipe for neat rephrasing of this kind of sentences not to come out with "more and more [adj]" interpreted as "increasingly [adj]" but instead separating that into count and comparative, when the adjective has no '-er' comparative form?


title: Meaning of "beaten to the punch"?

text: I just read about a guy that was beaten to the punch several times. I couldn't find a meaning of that using my dictionary or Google, so what does that mean?


title: Prefixing a two-word technical term with "sub-"

text: I have the term "verification code" and need a term for a particular code that is part of it. Normally, if the term were only "code", I'd use "subcode". How would I correctly prefix "verification code" with "sub-" such that the meaning is clear?


title: Meaning of "cookbook" in title of instructional book

text: I see many instructional books where the title of the book includes _cookbook_! What is the meaning of _cookbook_ in this situation? Example: Python Testing Cookbook. ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/N4Cil.jpg)


title: What is the function of this past tense?

text: What is the function of the past tense _was_ which I have put in bold in this quote? > After all, Sheen wouldn't want anyone to get confused and think the Currant > story **was** real! He's got a reputation to protect. > > Source Is this _was_ because of the hypothesis modal of _wouldn't_? Like the past tense of _could_ in "I wish I had a bird that **could** talk"


title: Does ‘the mighty’ take a verb in plural form as in “the mighty are rendered helpless”?

text: There was the following sentence in the article of Time magazine’s November 25 issue under the title, “John F. Kennedy's Assassination and the Conspiracy Industry.” > “This whiplash convergence of extremes — so sudden, so horrific, such > enormity — makes the assassination of John F. Kennedy an almost uniquely > deranging event. In a matter of seconds, **the mighty are rendered > helpless** ; the beautiful is made hideous; tranquility turns turbulent; the > familiar becomes alien.” > http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2157468,00.html#ixzz2khXYshkc I was drawn to the line in which only “the mighty” is followed by a verb in plural form – ‘are rendered,’ while all other nouns – the beautiful, tranquility, the familiar are followed by verbs in singular form. Isn't 'the mighty' singular in number? Shouldn’t it be followed by ‘is rendered in the same way as ‘the beautiful is made hideous’ and ‘the familiar becomes alien.’? Is there any special reasons to use a verb in plural form for ‘the mighty’?


title: "Development of technology" vs. "technology development"

text: I was wondering which form is the correct one, "technology development" or "the development of technology". For example: >   1. The pace of technology development affected me in several ways. >   2. The pace of development of technology affected me in several ways. > In the second example I _try_ to emphasize the speed of development more.


title: Origin and meaning of "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar"

text: I'm having trouble understanding the rationale behind the meaning of an American English phrase of which I just became aware. That phrase is: > You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar From what I understand now, this phrase would indicate that _You make more friends by being nice than by being rude_. Please correct me if I'm wrong. My confusion comes from the fact that no one catches flies in order to do anything nice to them (Well, I suppose some people do. But it's not common!). When I first read it, I actually thought the phrase meant _You'll have more success luring people into a trap by being nice than by being rude_. This didn't make much sense in context, though, which led me to ask around about the phrase. Where does this phrase come from? More importantly, why does it have such a counter-intuitive meaning?


title: Word order in fractional quantities

text: Is the word order in the quantity correct in the following sentence? > The boy is **3 years and a half old**. If not what would be the right way to say it?


title: Is there a word for "back and forth"?

text: I'm struggling with how clumsy the term "back and forth" sounds, is there a word that essentially means a repetitive back and forth motion? IE:               The machine ____. (moves back and forth) or operates on a back and forth style of motion.          I waved my hand ____ly. (in a back and forth manner).


title: "They are not simultaneously positive, negative nor even"

text: What is a sensible, correct and non-ambiguous way of rephrasing the following? > The numbers a, b and c are not simultaneously positive, negative nor even. The idea is that the three numbers are not all three positive, they are not all three negative and they are not all three even. Saying it like this is too repetitive, but the first option is silly because it can also be read as saying that each of the numbers is not positive, negative and even at the same time. This is for a research math paper, by the way. Note that a, b and c are not really numbers for us to apply special properties. They are called numbers merely for illustration here.


title: Which of the following sentences is correct

text: Which one of these sentences is correct:   1) No regular classes will be there for Sunday School during June.   2) Regular classes will not be there for Sunday School during June.


title: "area" vs. "areal" to describe an estimate of space

text: E.g. an areal/area estimate of corn in Iowa "Areal" is commonly found in remote sensing and land cover literature (this article, for example). Which is most appropriate to describe the estimation of corn area?


title: Words for “everyday details” that illustrate life

text: When talking about things used in a performance to illustrate conditions of life (like jam-jars and baskets to show village life), can I call them _everyday details_?


title: "Road liable to flooding" — is this roadsign grammatically correct?

text: I passed the roadsign below while driving home late last night, and realised that despite how many times I had seen it, I was still surprised by the choice of words used and unsure if it was actually grammatically correct. After all, the wording on roadsigns is crucial. As we all know, it needs to be clear and succinct. So, to my mind the words > Road liable to flooding should be > Road liable to _flood_ or it could be rewritten > Road _prone_ to flooding Am I right, or is the original ok? ![photo of roadsign with text: Road liable to flooding](http://i.stack.imgur.com/COjlq.jpg)


title: What does “the details are ‘need to know’” mean here?

text: Part of _Covert Affair Season 2, Episode 9_: > Auggie: “When were you gonna tell me about Dr. Scott?” > > Annie tilted her head slightly and Auggie heard the smile in her voice as > she replied, “Sorry, those details are ‘need to know’”. Auggie smiled and > nodded slightly. As he listened to Annie’s heels click away, he leaned back > on the desk. Her teasing answer did make him laugh and yet … he felt like he > did need to know. He needed to know who Dr. Scott was and when Annie had > started dating him. The curiosity just wouldn’t leave him alone. So, what does “need to know” mean here?


title: A phrase as an interjection

text: Often in spoken English, I see one sentence or phrase "set up" another much like an interjection. For example: > I forgot to ask. Did you find that book I told you about? How do you generally punctuate this? I've seen a comma used for this, but I that's only correct if it can be argued that _I forgot to ask_ is a proper interjection (can it be?). Should I use a colon? Semi-colon? Does it matter?


title: What do the parts of malevolent and malicious mean?

text: I understand what the different parts of maladjusted, maligned, and malcontent mean. But what about malevolent and malicious? Could someone break these into parts e.g. mal - adjust - ed and explain the meaning of each of the parts for both of these words.


title: parallel sentence construction

text: "I have, and always will trust you." Do you read this as I have trust you and I always will trust you? The following is suggested by another member on SE: "I have, and always will... trust you." I'm trying to express that I have always trusted and hopefully will always trust you. Seems redundant. Any suggestions?


title: Meaning of "pro" before a noun

text: First, is "pro" an abbreviated form of "professional"? If yes, does "Pro American" mean "Professional American"?


title: What is the difference between "Aha!", "Ouch!", "Phew!" and "Aah!"

text: I was confused what to use in gap **11**. Kindly after going through the passage answer the following 4 questions and in question 3 please explain why you have chosen any option and what is the difference between those four options. **The passage** > I peered at the river through a gap in the roots of the strangler fig. The > thick branches of the tree **9** me without really protecting me. I noticed > the gentlest of ripples in the water and then something **10** began to > emerge from its depths. An enormous head upon a slender neck rose above the > surface. I looked into the beast's cold, reptilian eyes.I could sense no > mind or soul behind them. I had to refrain from letting out a frightened > **11**! The time for retreating into the depths of the forest had arrived > and I knew that it was **12**. _1._ Which of these fits gap **9**. (a) hidden   (b) was hiding   (c) were hiding   (d) hiding _2._ Which of these fits gap **10**. (a) wonderful yet grand   (b) amazing yet astonishing   (c) magnificent yet terrifying   (d) frightening yet scary _3._ Which of these fits gap **11**. (a) "Aha"!   (b) "Ouch!"   (c) "Phew!"   (d) "Aah!" _4._ Which of these fits gap **12**. (a) neither now nor newer   (b) neither sooner nor later   (c) either sooner rather than later   (d) either now or never


title: What is the meaning of the term "herbert" in British slang?

text: In the song _Get Out of My House_ by The Business, the chorus is: > Out, out get out of my house, you'd better take your sheepskin too   >  no son of mine's going round as a hippie   >  or a scruffy little herbert like you. What does the term _herbert_ mean? I found this definition here, but it doesn't make sense to me in the context of the song: > Noun. An dull objectionable person. E.g. "He's a real herbert, he watches > the news and weather on TV all day."


title: What would be the word equivalent of paperwork in the digital age?

text: The classic definition for _paperwork_ says > Routine work involving written documents such as forms, records, or letters. Now, given that we are in the digital age and computers have taken many tedious tasks away, we still have to cope with clutter... What would be the equivalent word for > Routine work involving electronic documents such as forms, spreadsheets, or > emails. The equivalent will be used in the context of phrases like   * Spare me the paperwork   * Take the clutter away p.s. It seems that Woody Allen is still using a typewriter.


title: What is the broader meaning of metonymy in literary criticism?

text: I already know the basic meaning of metonymy (e.g. In "Washington passed the bill." the word "Washington" stands in for "the government"). I also know that metonymy is a form of nebeneinander (side-by-side positioning--as opposed to a metaphorical superimposition). However, there appear to be a number of other dimensions to the term that elude me. For instance, the Wikipedia article claims that "sometimes, metaphor and metonymy can both be at work in the same figure of speech" and while I (somewhat) grasp the idea, the first part of my question is regarding which of the devices takes precedence in such a case, and whether a new semantic economy emerges out of such an interaction. I would also like to refer to Elaine Freedgood's _The Ideas in Things: Fugitive Meaning in the Victorian Novel_ (http://bit.ly/reading-things). Freedgood argues that there are "weak" and "strong" varieties of metonymy in (Victorian) literature. If I understand the notion correctly, the former is an instance of merely positioning things next to each other (e.g. "There was a desk, a chair, and a book in the room.), whereas the latter allows for an analytical insight (e.g. perhaps into a specific _kind_ of desk, chair, or book, or the specific interaction between the objects placed alongside one another). However, Freedgood ultimately concludes that "metonymy is, rhetorically, both too weak and too strong: it tends toward the conventional, the obvious, the literal, the material--if often conjures up the real so successfully that its status as a trope seems to disappear" (12). This still confuses me, because in this context the "weak" and "strong" readings seem to become entirely subjective, dependent on two unstable factors: the reader's status as insider/outsider of the culture to which the objects belong, and the reader's skill of "reading" the object metonymically. Thus, the second part of my question is whether there can be such a thing as a "solid-state" metonymic manifestation (or reading).


title: Expression "making a bid/break for freedom"?

text: What is the difference between "making a bid for freedom" and "making a break for freedom"? In which situations would one use one and not the other?


title: Extra pages for a magazine

text: In some special days, e.g. the days before the New Year, newspapers and magazines give away some extra pages or even an special magazine associated with those days, or related to the year passed. What are these extra pages called?


title: What is the difference between "dewatering" and "unwatering"

text: This report on the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy refers to the process of removing water as _unwatering_. However, I always thought that this process was called _dewatering_. What, if any, is the difference between these terms? The dictionary does not give an entry for _unwatering_. But a quick google search suggests the term seems to be widely used. If _unwatering_ is not a valid term, why is _dewatering_ not used instead?


title: how to explain the word "that" used in this sentence

text: > Only, she began to be afraid of the ghastly white tombstones, that peculiar > loathsome whiteness of carrara marble, detestable as false teeth, which > stuck up on the hillside under tevershall church, and which she saw with > such grim painfulness from the park.


title: "Lift the suspension" vs "Drop the suspension"

text: My sense is that these phrases mean the same thing: the suspension has been reversed or nullfied. Here's the Ngram, for what it's worth. The fact that "lifted the suspension" is much more popular than "dropped the suspension" surprises me, since I'm inclined to think that the way to counteract a suspension should be to put it down, not further up. So two questions. (1) Is the Ngram right that we should prefer _lift_ to _drop_ in this context? (2) Regardless of what is "right," how did the seemingly counter-intuitive phrase come to be the dominant one?


title: Relating to tournaments.. what's that word?

text: So, in a tournament, there are several events. Each event has so many people sign up for it. There is a total number of people attending the tournament, and each person can sign up for multiple events. If Joe signs up for 2 events, and Mary signs up for 3, John signs up for 1... There are 3 people/registrants, but 6 **somethings**. (2 + 3 + 1) What is that **somethings**? (Does it even exist?) Edit: "Entries" _just_ occurred to me as a possible answer. I've been thinking about this all night and wonder what else is out there.