title: What does ‘Point Omega’ mean? Is it becoming a popular English word?

text: I found the word ‘Point Omega’ in the article of New York Times (February 17) titled “My life with boxes” written by Anne Biattie, the author of recent work “New Yorker stories,” who loves to collect free cardboard boxes to store her valuables and non-valuables including family albums, books, manuscripts, stained letters, a long ago invitation she couldn’t attend, underwear, socks, 15 nightgowns and so on: > There are actually more socks since last I looked, they’ve expanded in the > dresser drawers, and the family albums have apparently been keeping pace > with them: my parents’ (deceased; this makes everything more difficult, of > course) trip to St. Martin, with no photograph showing their presence. It > could be a Don DeLillo novel; it’s my own “ **Point Omega**.” I understand > that what I have is the absence of that presence I wish to have. Still: what > monster could drop the album in the garbage? Thanks to her mention of Don DeLillo, I was able to locate where the word, ‘Point Omega’ came from, but I don’t know what it exactly means only from the following quote online as a clue: > If you reveal everything, bare every feeling, ask for understanding, you > lose something crucial to your sense of yourself. You need to know things > that others don't know. It's what no one knows about you that allows you to > know yourself.― Don DeLillo, Point Omega. Does “Point Omega” mean the core of self-identity i.e., my being? What does it exactly mean? Is it becoming as popular English word as 'big bang,' '1984' and 'big brother,' or a buzzword as being proudly used in a newspaper article?


title: Use of "Pretty cool, huh?"

text: Would it be grammatically correct to use "Pretty cool, huh?" or would you need to use e.g: "Pretty cool, right?" I think that the "huh" would be asking a "what?", although that doesn't make sense in the context. However, a search on Google reveals many uses of "Pretty cool, huh?" So in brief, is it ok to use the term "Pretty cool, huh?"


title: The etymology of "Adam" has anything to do with "Adom," hence "dominion"?

text: My Sunday school teacher once talked about the origin of the word "Adam" being associated with "Adom", which takes on the meaning of "dominion". Biblically speaking, I think this unconventional explanation could be quite appealing to Christians alike, but I'm really doubtful of its validity. As Merriam-Webster Dictionary says, Adam originated from "Middle English, from Late Latin, from Greek, from Hebrew Ādhām", meaning "man" (New Oxford American Dictionry, 2nd ed).So this is the first time I heard it explained otherwise. Any evidence of that?


title: Collection of mathematical formulas

text: What is the correct term for a collection of mathematical formulas in the form of a (small) handbook? I'm looking for a translation of the German noun “Formelsammlung”. Several dictionarys suggest the word “ **formulary** ”, but the disambiguation page on Wikipedia does not indicate a meaning of this kind. Wiktionary does support this meaning, but only as one among several. It appears that a pharmaceutical meaning is more common than a mathematical one. So I suppose that I should disambiuate the term. But I'm unsure whether to choose “ **mathematical formulary** ” or “ **mathematics formulary** ”. Or perhaps something completely different, like “ **mathematical handbook** ”. Which term is most common or best suited to describe this kind of book?


title: What is the difference between taking courses, classes or lessons?

text: Currently, I am preparing a letter of my study objectives for an university application.   I ask myself what is the exact difference between the following terms? Or can I use them synonymously?   1. taking courses   2. taking classes   3. taking lessons


title: Whispering "sweet nothings"

text: Where does the term _sweet nothings_ come from? What is an example of a "sweet nothing"? Does the term connote _sincerity_ or has it been hijacked to represent _deceit_ and _seduction_? After all, the devil does whisper sweet nothings into my ear all the time. * * * **Edit:** Wiktionary carries a rather extreme definition of the expression: > ( _idiomatic_ ) Insubstantial or romantic words that are **only meant to > flatter, woo, or seduce.** Examples of usage: >   * 1904, George Gissing, Veranilda, ch. 28:   >  Hearing such words as these, in the sweetest, tenderest voice that ever > caressed a lover's senses, Basil knew not how to word all that was in his > heart. . . . Side by side, forgetful of all but their recovered peace, they > talked **sweet nothings.** >   * 1922, James Joyce, Ulysses, Episode 16:   >  [T]he facts, to make matters worse, were made public with the usual > affectionate letters that passed between them, full of **sweet nothings**. >   * 2004, Joe Klein, "Does Bush Really Get Us?," Time, 25 April:   >  It is difficult to know how accurate this portrait is, and how much of it > consists of **sweet nothings** whispered into the author's ear by loyal > retainers. >


title: Is this passage an example of a metaphor, analogy, or both?

text: > "The movement of humanity, arising as it does from innumerable arbitrary > human wills, is continuous. To understand the laws of this continuous > movement is the aim of history. . . . Only by taking inﬁnitesimally small > units for observation (the diﬀerential of history, that is, the individual > tendencies of men) and attaining to the art of integrating them (that is, > ﬁnding the sum of these inﬁnitesimals) can we hope to arrive at the laws of > history" -Leo Tolstoy, _war and peace_


title: Is "to have a perfect ear for music" a metaphor or a metonymy?

text: This phrase seems to be a metaphor to me, however I guess you could say "ear" might be referring to a concept of being able to make music well. Would you say it's a metaphor or metonymy?


title: Was "nowadays" ever spelled with hyphens?

text: etymonline doesn't note that nowadays ever had a spelling with hyphen but I found a few random sites claiming that it once was hyphenated. Was it ever spelled as "now-a-days"?


title: "Rather than doing" vs. "rather than do"

text: >   * I can't do anything rather than waiting. >   * I can't do anything rather than wait. > Which one is correct and why?


title: Grenade or Granade

text: There are a lot of words that have slightly different spelling, but same semantic and sound, such as gray or grey, color or colour. There is also the case of dialog vs. dialogue (*see stackexchange question What is the difference between dialogue and dialog?), where the semantics are actually different (dialog is the exclusive name for a input/ouput box/window in programming/computing while dialogue is generally speech between a person. I happen to know this b/c I am a computer programmer). On further research of the word 'granade', there appeared to be little reference to the word except for unrelated names and a unstable/questionable slang meaning on Urban Dictionary (*see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=granade). Is Granade the first case, the case of dialog vs. dialogue, or simply not a word?


title: Better word than "district"

text: I'm trying to describe a country that isn't divided up into anything so distinct as states, or anything terribly specialized, but is divided for the purposes of government, etc. "Quarter" is out because it makes me feel like there can only be four of them, even if that isn't true. "District" is out because, frankly, the Hunger Games has colored the meaning of that term for quite a lot of people. "Region" sounds too open and nebulous. "Sector" sounds too space-stationy.


title: Expression for "work productively"

text: Say you're having a chat with someone and as they're about to leave, they mention that they're about to do a particular task. How do you wish them a productive time, besides "Go kick some ass!"? Or is this just something not done by English speaking folk?


title: "Swim teacher" or "swimming teacher"

text: I am pretty sure that both "swim teacher" and "swimming teacher" are valid, but are there any rules that would make one preferable to the other? As a British English speaker, "swimming teacher" is what I would naturally say and "swim teacher" sounds more American to me. However I have just been debating whether "swim" or "swimming" sounds better with my girlfriend (who is also a native speaker of British English), and she would say "swim teacher" more naturally. She argues that "swimming teacher" reads more like "someone who teaches while swimming". So, is there any real difference between the two?


title: Why "afraid of" and not "brave of"?

text: Recently my preschooler's teacher started teaching kids that they should be "brave of" something and not "afraid of" it. Maybe it is simply because "brave of" is never used, but that syntax strikes me as off. Unfortunately, I can't quite articulate why. So, I would like to know:   1. Is that syntax incorrect?   2. Why is it incorrect/incorrect? My guess is that the implication of "brave of" is that the item is the _cause_ of bravery (thus "brave of the dark" actually means, "brave because of the dark"). Perhaps because "of" can mean "from"?


title: 'Meeting us' or 'meeting with us'?

text: What is the difference between meeting with someone or meeting someone? For example when I would like to ask someone if he is happy to meet with me and my friend for the first time, how should I ask? "If you are up to meeting us" or "if you are up to meeting with us"? I tried to google this and use the search, but I couldn't find an answer.


title: Is "numerous" somehow different to "common"?

text: From this Wikipedia page (referenced by this deleted question)... > Buckley is the 99th most numerous name in Ireland. Can anyone explain why I find the above usage "odd", whereas I have no problem with... > _Helobdeila stagnalis_ , a carnivore, is the most numerous and widely > distributed leech in Colorado. (I know _"most **common** "_ works for both contexts; why doesn't the same apply to _numerous_?)


title: Does ‘long-molared’ have any special meaning?

text: > “You’re joking, Weasley!” said Malfoy, behind them. “You’re not telling me > someone’s asked _that_ to the ball? Not the **long-molared** Mudblood?” > (Harry Potter 4 [US Version]: p.404)[Bold font is mine] **N.B.:** Malfoy, who hates Hermione very much, is insulting her. In the past, he hexed her front teeth into long, beaver-like teeth. However, her teeth are normal now. Mudblood is an insulting word in the magical world. I know a molar is any of the large teeth at the back of the mouth. So I can’t understand why he refers to _back teeth_ after his hex to her _front teeth_. Does ‘long-molared’ have special meaning? Or does he say so on purpose in order to express his indifference to Hermione?


title: What is the meaning of a parenthetic ‘that one’ in a sentence?

text: > “It is too ‘eavy, all zis ‘Ogwarts food,” they heard her saying grumpily as > they left the Great Hall behind her one evening. “I will not fit into my > dress robes!” > > “Oooh there’s a tragedy,” Hermione snapped as Fleur went out into the > entrance hall. “She really thinks a lot of herself, **that one** , doesn’t > she? (Harry Potter 4 [US Version]: p.404)[Bold font is mine] **N.B.:** Fleur is one of guest students from a foreign school. She is very proud. Hermione is one of the students in Hogwarts, the host school. I’m not sure if ‘that one’ in this sentence means ‘that girl’ (a noun phrase) or ‘considering what she said’(an adverbial phrase). I’d like to know the meaning of _that one_ and its function.


title: Is that right to say "For the first time we show..."

text: In a PhD thesis, I would like to express that I am the first one who has proved the result. Is it right to say "For the first time we show..."?


title: What is the opposite of "upsell"?

text: The dictionary defines the verb "upsell" as such: > **Main Entry** : upsell > > **Definition** : to try to persuade a customer to buy a more expensive item > or to buy a related additional product at a discount It's a fairly common word that gets used a lot in most retail trades. But the dictionary does not list "downsell" as its opposite. However, it seems to me that the concept of upselling does have a clear opposite concept. i.e. Trying to persuade a customer to buy a cheaper item or fewer items. Granted, there are fewer situations where this would be used, but I wonder why the word does not exist, and whether there is another word that could be used in its place.


title: Is there such a word as "lightweightness"?

text: Is there a good translation for the German word " _Leichtgewichtigkeit_ " (lit. "lightweightness")? According to leo.org and dict.cc, there is none, but according to these translations, there are several. What I want to express is that there is "...lightweightness compared to...". I don't want to use the adjective "lightweight" but a noun. Is there a better choice? EDIT: I want to describe that an API is not as extensive/expensive as others. Thus, _lightness_ is not what I'm looking for.


title: Barkeeper, or bartender? How to address them?

text: I dunno if I'm right about the meaning of these words. What do you call the person who owns a bar, or a pub? And the person who serves you with drinks at the counter? [As the two may not be identical ...] What to yell [though maybe it is not that polite, but who cares when a bit tipsy anyway] to address either of 'em? :-)


title: What do you call a disgusting mixture you don't want to drink?

text: What do you call a drink (usually an alcoholic one, say a long drink or a cocktail) that you don't want to have, because you consider it a low quality, disgusting mixture, maybe even of suspicious, unclear origins? Infamous drinks like _the sponge_ (drops of shots spilled on the counter all night, then collected with a sponge, squeezed into a glass and sold to the undemanding, or some poor homeless guys) could be an example here. Or your friend's first, experimental cocktail... :-) Context: I want to reject a drink that I don't like, so I reply humorously and a bit sarcastically: > No, thanks. I don't want any of this ____?


title: Dough, paste, or pastry?

text: I'm a bit confused here. Could you help me to differentiate between the meanings of these words?


title: What is the opposite of using something judiciously?

text: I want to tell a colleague to use a particular file wherever possible. Basically the opposite of using it judiciously. I ended up saying "use the file at will" — but it got me wondering if there is a one-word antonym for _judiciously_. Google suggests _foolishly_ or _carelessly_ , but that's not what I want to convey.


title: Is it "to be left free to do something" or "to be let free to do something"?

text: I know "to leave someone alone" and "to let someone be on their own". What happens when the adjective is followed by a verb (in the infinitive)? Is it "*Leave me free to do whatever I want." / "*I was left free to do whatever I wanted." or "*Let me free to do whatever I want." / "*I was let free to do whatever I wanted." ?


title: Difference between "to posit" and "to postulate"

text: What exactly is the difference in meaning between the two words _posit_ and _postulate_ , besides the fact that the latter one is also used as a noun? * * * Both words are formal and their definition are quiet equal; in some learner's dictionary they're even identical. > postulate/posit: to suggest (something, such as an idea or theory) > especially in order to start a discussion Based on COCA both words are commonly used with _theory_ but _postulate_ is the appropriate word for Khazzoom–Brookes postulate. But since both words _posit_ and _postulate_ are not very regularly used this is the only hint the corpora gives (and BNC contains even less material). It doesn't look like there's a general tendency to use one word more commonly for a particular area of expertise, for instance science(e.g. astronomy) or religion (existence, God), except the Khazzoom–Brookes postulate, of course. At any rate, it seems like the words can be interchanged.


title: "It's too late for me to do that now."

text: Is this sentence OK? Is the "now" at the end of the sentence redundant?


title: "At this late hour"

text: Can "at this late hour" be used to mean, "it's too late", even though it's not said in reference to time?


title: "Did you like what you saw/see?"

text: So I heard this in a movie and I'm not sure if it's grammatically correct . . . Should it be:   * 1.) _"Did you like what you_ **_saw_**?" or   * 2.) _"Did you like what you_ **_see_**?" Which one is right, you guys? I'm getting a bit rusty I'm afraid.


title: "Time settles everything"

text: Is this a common phrase? A google search found only 6 pages using this exact phrase. What do you think of this phrase? What about "time solves everything?"


title: Regional usage of "Violet" and "Purple"

text: I am looking to describe a flower such as the one in the following picture for a game: ![Violet Flower](http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2067/2342594348_3582df9d5e_z.jpg) After showing the game to a number of beta testers, I noted that about half of them were fine with "violet" while the other half seemed confused by the term and insisted it was "purple". After doing some research, it turns out that the definitions for these terms are (roughly):   * Purple: "A color between red and blue"   * Violet: "Light with a wavelength between 380nm and 450nm" Those definitions overlap. It seems to me (subjectively) that Australians and British are in favor of the term "Purple" while US Americans prefer "Violet". However I was unable to find any statistical proof or study on the subject. Question: What is the adequate word to describe the flower above to the majority of native English speakers?


title: Must an "accident" evolve from human error?

text: I've been censured for calling the nuclear plant incident in Japan a "nuclear accident". I've never exclusively reserved the word accident only for those things which evolve from or are precipitated by human error, but it appears that others feel it should only be used in connection with human error. Dictionaries seem to suggest I'm ok, but I may have to bend to peer pressure. Partly it seems to stem from this particular usage in connection with anti-nuclear groups. Has the connotation shifted away from merely unforeseen and undesirable events? If so, what is a better word to use? I'm shying away from problem and incident as they seem inadequate, and disaster as it seems to inflate things beyond what is necessary.


title: Is "more mainstream" a valid thing to write?

text: I'm writing a report talking about how a certain technique in my field has become 'more mainstream', but that phrase looks rather wrong. Is it a valid thing to say? Can something become "more mainstream" or are things either mainstream, or not? If it isn't a valid thing to say, how else should I phrase it?


title: Word that covers the following: A single episode of a series, a single movie (in a series of movies or not), an audio track (on an album or not)

text: As described in the title, I'm searching for a word that covers all this different meanings. All of these meanings are in the field media but that didn't help me finding a word. One first guess of a friend of mine: _work_. This might be accurate enough. Do you think this is the best word for it?


title: Why do we say "to fall in love"? Is it something unwished for?

text: I was exploring the phrases for "to fall in love" in some other languages. And I came out with the result, only English describes the state of starting to feel love for someone as "falling". I wonder why this idiom is that way? Only logical explanation came to me is, falling in love is something unwished for, undesirable or unplanned. I'd appreciate If you can share your own thoughts about the idiom, or help me to deepen my research.


title: How common is pronouncing the past tense of beat as /bet/?

text: Personally, I pronounce the past tense of "beat" (to win at a game) as /biːt/, to sound identical to the infinitive. However, I have heard a few people under the age of 30 and from either the west or outer south of Melbourne pronounce it as /bet/. Does this phenomenon happen in other places? In Melbourne it seems to be socio-economic as the west and outer south are the currently developing regions. Is there any documented information about this? Has it happened recently paralleling "to read" /ɹiːd/ "have read" /ɹed/ or is it a long-standing alternate pronunciation?


title: Using "I" or "we" to refer to sole proprietorship?

text: I have a company which consists of only myself. The company has its own distinct name which is registered. Should I use "I" or "we" to refer to my own sole proprietorship when writing marketing materials, introductions, offers, etc? If both are generally acceptable, what sort of different nuances these writing styles convey? For example:   * We provide the following services: blah, blah, blah.   * I provide the following services: blah, blah, blah. I am hesitating to use "we" because I am afraid that it will look like I am trying to make my sole proprietorship seem like a bigger company. I am hesitating to use "I" because it would be silly to re-write everything if I ever hire someone or get a business partner one day.


title: Saxon genitive usage question

text: My colleagues are in the design department of a given product, and when asked to add that information to the e-mail signature, they have written: > _ProductName_ 's Design I'm objecting that the usage of the Saxon genitive there is incorrect, because the product is neither a person or animal owning anything, and Design in this context is not even a property of the product (Maybe I would admit the Saxon genitive in a context like "I think _ProductName_ 's design is not fail- safe"), but an activity. Am I right? ^_^ **update** : After reading the answers and the comments, I think the issue has been clarified a little bit. In this case _ProductName_ is acting as an adjective qualifying Design [Department], so that's the actual reason for not using the genitive case (rather than the product being a "weak entity" unable to possess things, that is merely an stylistic rule of thumb).


title: Who can explain this poem?

text: I want to know whats the meaning of part 2 Afterp( the perceiving...) Four a.m. in the Woods > Darkness softens, a thin   >  tissue of mist between trees.   >  One by one the day's   >  uncountable voices come out   >  like twilight fireflies, like stars.   >  The perceiving self sits   >  with his back against rough bark,   >  casting ten thousand questions into the future.   >  As shadows take shape, the curtains part   >  for the length of time it takes to gasp,   >  and behold, the purpose of his   >  life dawns on him.   >


title: An English expression for 'femme fatale'

text: _Femme fatale_ , meaning "an attractive and dangerous woman", is a French expression which has become part of the English language roughly since the beginning of the 20th century. Is there another English word or idiomatic expression which conveys the same meaning?


title: “And those who were seen dancing, were thought to be crazy, by those who could not hear the music.” Are these commas required?

text: Just spotted this as an answer in Quora: > And those who were seen dancing, were thought to be crazy, by those who > could not hear the music. At first look, I thought the comma between _dancing_ and _crazy_ was wrong. Will this be grammatically wrong? What about the comma between _crazy_ and _by_? Is that wrong too?


title: Is it possible to abstain from blame?

text: Blame is a verb which is applied to a person without that person's choice, so can they use a verb like 'abstain' in terms of blame if abstain implies they are choosing a relationship to that blame? I don't believe you can 'abstain from blame' - if so, is blame a verb that can cancel out other verbs? If a person chooses not to accept blame, is that the same as abstaining from it?


title: What does the term 'fatal conceit' mean in this instance?

text: From Paul Ryan Is 'Not A Fan' Of Romneycare And Compared It To Obamacare: > They see how this idea of having the government be the sole, single > regulator of health insurance, defining what kind of health insurance you > can have, and then the individual mandate, it is a fatal conceit. I have tried to understand the meaning, but I could not grasp it all. I don't understand the usage of "conceit" here. Someone please re-write this sentence so it's simpler to understand.


title: "We shouldn't do that, now * we?"

text: "We can't do that, now can we?" The above sentence has nearly 10 million Google results. I've seen it used in books, television shows, and in casual conversation. But what if I want to replace the word "can't" with "shouldn't"? How would I phrase the second half of the sentence then? "We shouldn't do that, now should we?" seems like the obvious choice, but based on a Google search, it doesn't seem to be very common. Is there a more common way of wording that sentence?


title: Meaning of 'I didn't think you were'

text: What is the meaning of this sentence: > I didn't think you were Why is 'were' used here instead of 'are'? How is that different from: > I didn't think you are


title: Quote positioning on a long sarcastic-explanation phrase

text: In the following excerpt, would it be more correct to close the quotation after "pose"? > ...and they stand in the ISO-standard "security man waiting for you to walk > through the door so he can escort you" pose by the door. (Also, is there a better word for what I did there with the quotes, since "sarcastic" doesn't really fit?)


title: I'm looking for this word that means showing understanding or assent but may be faux assent

text: The word had been used with "nodding _[such-ly]_ ". If I remember correctly, the person I heard this from was describing one of the attributes you needed to be a manager was to be able to listen to someone and "nod" this way, maybe rubbing your chin with your hand or something to signal to that person that you are listening (even if you're not). There is even a Wikipedia article about this word, but I cannot remember it at all. At 58-y.o., this is one of the few times i hear a new word i never heard before (and look it up). Unfortunately, i forgot it right after.


title: Is it "dressing" if I cooked my "stuffing" outside of the turkey?

text: I've always cooked my Thanksgiving stuffing without actually putting it inside the turkey. Does it have to be stuffed into the turkey to be called _stuffing_?


title: Do we "resolve a doubt" or "dispel a doubt"?

text: When writing in a academic setting (think of a letter to your professor), what is the most appropriate way of saying this? > I will be grateful if you could resolve this doubt in your paper.   >  I will be grateful if you could dispel this doubt I have in you paper. You can suggest better alternatives than those in the title.


title: "In 15 minutes" or "15 minutes later"?

text: Several years ago, when I was watching a show, it was 15:45 and the show started at 16:00. A foreigner asked me: "When will this show start?" My English is not good, and I never talked to foreigners. I was very nervous then. I told him: "15 minutes later", but he seemed to not understand. So I thought it wasn't correct, and told him: "in 15 minutes". This time he understood. I want to know if "in 15 minutes" is correct and "15 minutes later" is wrong under that condition? What's the difference between them?


title: Is there an expression for someone who often takes things too literally?

text: E.g., if you use an idiom (in a context) like: "To throw the baby away with the bathwater." and your conversation partner says: "Huh, seems I don't have a baby/bathwater!" Also, when you explain the meaning of the idiom, the other guy will still say: "Oh, but I really don't have a baby/bathwater!" Or say something sarcastic like: (context: excellent tennis player on his way to a match. Everyone knows he wants to and it will be easy for him to defeat his opponent. Yet, on their way (tennis player and friend in his car) to the court, they are stuck in traffic and there is no way the excellent tennis player can turn up at his match in time (which means he will be disqualified). He goes "well, I am glad, at least I don't need to get all changed and tired to play my tennis match now." On which the other guy says "But I thought you wanted to win the trophy? You could have easily beaten that other player!! Why did you say that?!"


title: Could you list some more of these kind of words?

text: Words like thenceforth, aforementioned, notwithstanding, wherein, therein, thereof, whereof, henceforward, aforesaid, therefore, thereto... And also, under what classification do these words go?


title: Why is it "get" and not "gets", in "watch her get hit"?

text: > He likes to watch her get hit. vs. > He likes to watch her gets hit. No matter how much I research, I still can't explain simply why _get_ is correct and _gets_ isn't. Here's what I think, though. It's a combination of issues: _get hit_ is _having gotten hit_ in present tense. It's passive, because we don't specify the agent that is hitting her. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_passive_voice > "The subject of a sentence or clause featuring the passive voice denotes the > recipient of the action (the patient) rather than the performer (the agent). > The passive voice in English is formed periphrastically: the usual form uses > the auxiliary verb be (or get) together with the past participle of the main > verb. So the _get_ here is definitely acting passively. Ignoring tense: _get hit_ ~= _be hit_ ~= _being hit_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund#Gerunds_with_a_specified_subject So, the key phrase in question is in passive voice ( _get_ is a helper verb), and _get hit_ similarly acts nominalized. _get hit_ here can be substituted with _beatdown_ : > We're watching (that someone received a) beatdown. vs. > We're watching (whose?) beatdown. In either case, it's still an argument between _her_ being a direct object or acting possessively, so that's why it can't be _she_. And because you can use any of _them_ , _her_ , _him_ , _it_ with _get_ (and never _gets_ in this context,) it just is.


title: Independent/independently of/from

text: Which of these are correct, and why? Suggestions for rephrasing it are also welcome. > [noun] was developed independently of [noun] > > [noun] was developed independently from [noun] > > [noun] was developed, independent of [noun]


title: Is there a name for the kind of sounds commonly found in profanities?

text: _Fu_ **ck**. _Shi_ **t**. _Bi_ **tch**. **C** _un_ **t**. I remember reading somewhere -- a very long time ago -- that these "hard" sounds are virtually necessary in profanities. The explanation I roughly remember is that because these "hard sounds" are unmistakable, that is, because there is no half- hearting them in phonation, that lends to them to use in words that one wants to be unmistakable in intent, e.g, in profanities where one wants to intensify a phrase or rile someone up. I remember these being called _fricatives_. Unfortunately I'm not a linguist, not even a fair amateur one, and when I went to check Wikipedia for the definition of _fricative_ , I really couldn't make heads or tails of the lingo. I have no idea what those weird letters or the adjective "voiceless" mean. Moreover, I think I'm just plain wrong about those sounds being _fricatives_ \-- the examples I found on that page don't seem correspond very well to the hard sounds I mentioned above. My memory about what I read is obviously horribly dashed. Am I in fact correct in observing that profanities tend to have "hard" sound somehow, and if so, could someone give me a name for them so I can go about content I know something really cool?


title: Concise form of "remove from the list" and "add to the list" in the same sentence

text: I a technical correspondence, I wanted to express the fact that there are two outcomes of "onclick" event: > Also, "onclick" event removes the group in question from the list > "excluded_groups" or adds it to the list. However, the above sentence looks too long to me. Is the following sentence grammatically and stylistically correct: (note that there is no "from" after "remove", or anywhere else in the sentence) > Also, "onclick" event removes or adds the group in question to the list > "excluded_groups".


title: "Amount" vs. "number" vs. "quantity"

text: For what values of _x_ does one write _the number of x_ , _the amount of x_ , or _the quantity of x_?


title: Differences between Amount, Count, Number and Quantity

text: My programming peers suggest to use the term **count** with discrete things: count of words, count of sentences and so on. Then again my instructor suggest me to use the term **"number"** for the discrete things in a thesis. I have used the word _"amount"_ but my instructor says that is only for continuous measures. Please, clarify the different usages. It may be that programming jargon misuses the words. How and when to use the words in official language? **Examples about the usages with count, number and amount -- wrong or right?** > I have 7 liters of juice. This **amount** is too much to drink alone. > > I have 17 sparse polynomials. This **count** is irrelavant. (how my > programming would say) > > I have 17 sparse polynomials. This **number** is irrelavant. (Used amount > but guided to number)


title: When do nouns convert between mass and count?

text: I confess to having the pedantic hangup of refusing to use `email` as a count noun, but it's a lost cause. Over the past week I've been working on a modeling and simulation proposal, and I've noticed that the M&S community seems to find `code` as a count noun to be acceptable usage, _e.g._ , > Conservative codes adopt the approach of … What are the rules that make conversions from mass noun to count noun grammatical? How about the other direction, of which I'm having a hard time producing an example? > **Related Questions**   >  Explanation for “emails”?   >  Is it wrong to use the word "codes" in a programming context?


title: Is "e'er" a true English word?

text: Are poetic contractions, such as "e'er", "o'er" and "ne'er" (and other less common ones), English? As in officially recognized?


title: Is "dress" in this sense a stative verb?

text: When one uses "dress" to show the particular way that one dresses, is dress a stative verb? For example, "She **dresses** well" or "He **dresses** extravagantly."


title: A word for something you keep coming back to to feel grounded, oriented

text: Is there a word for an object like this? Mantra is close, but is more like a ritual than a physical thing. For example, a rosary could be a physical object that a Catholic uses to calm, center, orient themselves when stressed. A specific blanket helps my child do the same. A teddy bear serves that same purpose for another. I once read a story about a bulldog that wouldn't go anywhere without this specific log. Is there a more general word or phrase for an object of this sort? "Comfort item" doesn't have the lyricism I'm looking for, but may be the only choice.


title: Antonym of "phobia"

text: If a _phobia_ is to have an irrational fear of something, what is the word for having an irrational affinity for something? For example a numerologist may fear the number 13, but be attracted to (or even have a love for) the number 8. (Some would say this is irrational.)


title: meaning of "Winner quote" - best "saying" or best "offer"?

text: Since the word "quote" can be understood as "saying" and also as "offer" I have the following question. If you hear someone saying "that's a winner quote", what would you understand? Would most people understand "the best saying" or "the best offer"?


title: "Behaves similar to" or "behaves similarly to"?

text: I wrote the following comment in a programming forum: > Objects in JavaScript behave similar to a regular associative array. This is how I would use the word "similar" in normal conversation. However, the dictionary says that "similar" is an adjective, and "similarly" should be used in this context instead: > Objects in JavaScript behave _similarly_ to a regular associative array. Both constructions look grammatically correct to me, but the second one sounds weird. Searching the internet, I see both "behaves similar to" and "behaves similarly to" are used. So are both considered grammatically correct?


title: What is the meaning of ''until the shine wears off''?

text: I love the songs _Lost!_ and _Lost?_ (well, it's the same song but in different versions) by Coldplay. In these songs, we can hear: > I just got lost > > Every river that I tried to cross > > Every door I ever tried was locked > > O-oh > > and **I'm just waiting 'til the shine wears off** What does _until the shine wears off_ mean?


title: Antonymic idiom for "adding fuel to the fire"

text: Please tell me an antonymic idiom for "adding fuel to the fire". With meaning something like "downplay the problem", "close eyes on problem".


title: "Raspyness" vs "raspy-ness"

text: If I'm talking about someone's voice is _raspyness_ or _raspy-ness_ correct? > The **raspyness** of Cobain’s voice adds another layer of complexity to the > song. > > The **raspy-ness** of Cobain’s voice adds another layer of complexity to the > song. Spelling checker doesn't like _raspyness_ , but _raspy-ness_ doesn't look quite right.


title: The comparative of "environmentally friendly"

text: When using the comparative with _environmentally friendly_ would it be correct to say _environmentally friendlier_ , or _more environmentally friendly_?


title: Equation "solved through" or "solved by"?

text: Which one is better? >   * "The equation _x² = 4_ is **solved through** _2_ and _-2_." >   * "The equation _x² = 4_ is **solved by** _2_ and _-2_." > Which other suggestions do you have? Just by googling, I could not resolve this problem...


title: When and why did most educated people start saying "all of the <noun>"?

text: It is correct to say : > "All of them are lovely."   >  "I'd like all of those." "All of" before a pronoun is correct. It is not correct to say: > "All of the airlines are on strike."   >  "All of my friends are going to a party". In those sentences you leave the "of" out if you want to be correct. Why is everyone doing that now?


title: Why don't we teach slang in schools?

text: The English language is always evolving, and current day slang will soon become mainstream, just as much our current vocabulary originated as slang. If so, then why is it is writing/speaking slang discouraged in many US schools?


title: Should I consider the phrase "filthy rich" offensive

text: I am not a native English speaker. Somebody used this sentence when talking about me. > Unless his parents are **filthy rich** everybody needs some form of income. While most dictionaries define it as "extremely rich", some define it as "very rich, possibly having become so by unfair means". The answer at Origin of the phrase "filthy rich"? also didn't tell a clear distinction between both meanings. So, in context of the given sentence, should I consider it to have a negative connotation or not? The full context is this discussion in the comments on a sister site. See the fourth comment.


title: Are there other verbs that work like “dare” and “need”?

text: The verbs _dare_ and _need_ do not require auxiliaries when used in the interrogative; for example, “need I?” is as acceptable as “do I need?” Excluding the auxiliaries themselves (like _be_ , _do_ , _have_ ), are there any other such verbs that work that way?


title: How would I cite Magna Carta according to MLA6 citation standards?

text: I would like to cite the Magna Carta document for a project that requires me to cite sources according to the MLA6 standards. How would I cite Magna Carta, because it's not a book, nor magazine or any other periodical.


title: Are the words "sillily", "uglily", "friendlily", "livelily", etc., valid English?

text: I have wondered about how to make the words _silly_ , _ugly_ , _friendly_ , _lively_ , etc. into adverbs, so I researched in the Internet. I found many different answers, so I tried checking Oxford Dictionaries. However, Oxford Dictionaries still gave me **two** answers:   * this is from Oxford Dictionaries’ online grammar reference, “forming adverbs” page > Adjectives that end in -ly, such as friendly or lively, can’t be made into > adverbs by adding -ly. You have to use a different form of words, e.g. ‘in a > friendly way’ or ‘in a lively way’ instead   * from the dictionary entries: there are results from typing sillily, _uglily_ , _friendlily_ , _livelily_ into Oxford Dictionaries’ website (online dictionary) That’s quite an obvious contradiction from one of the most famous dictionary providers of the world! So, are the words _sillily, uglily, friendlily, livelily_ , etc. valid English? * * * Note: I already saw the _“comparative and superlative adverbs”_ question that asked about the word _sillily_ but I don't see any sources in there that are trustworthy enough (compared to oxford dictionaries), so I'm asking a new question. EDIT: I've already reported the mistake to Oxford Dictionaries. They said that those words are valid (although rare) and it's a mistake in the reference, They say they will get it fixed soon.


title: "Please note" vs. "please notice"

text: When I'm writing a text and want to ask the reader to pay close attention to a point, should I write "Please note" or "Please notice"? Is there any difference?


title: Is it alright to have a sentence with a parenthetical remark that has an "i.e." and an "etc."?

text: An example would be "The first field is the number (i.e. A001, A013, etc.) in accordance with..."   The actual details of the sentence do not matter, it is the parentheses that is being referenced in my question.


title: Is it "to play a game on someone" or "play games with someone"?

text: I find this expression strange because it's clearly widely used, but seems sort of "unofficial", the "official" version, meaning the one described in dictionaries and grammar books, being _playing games **with_** , not **on**. Both expressions seem to be current and valid, according to Google Books. I'm just not entirely clear on the context and the usage. My understanding is that _playing games with_ implies some sort of tricky, mischievous behavior, which may or may not be intentionally malicious, like office politics or standing someone up on a date ("Jane didn't show up...again. Is she playing games with me?"), while _playing games **on_** implies a form of studied deception. ("The ad said that the comic book was in mint condition but there are barely noticeable tears... are they trying to play a game on me?")


title: Plural of title of form name

text: I am writing a letter referencing a document title. I have several of the same document that I need to include the title of the documents in the letter. Do I write "please find six Form 2322" or "please find six Forms 2322"?


title: Should I use commas or semi-colons in this multi-item list within a sentence?

text: In the following sentence, I am listing multiple areas of study. Should they be separated by commas or semi-colons? "In my exposure to this field so far, I have come to appreciate just how multi-disciplinary it is, requiring knowledge in a number of key areas, including the science and technology of robot motion-planning and control; sensing and perception; and artificial intelligence." In this sentence, the items being listed are: 1) the science and technology of robot motion-planning and control 2) sensing and perception 3) artificial intelligence Each item is part of the same area of study; hence the pairing of multiple subjects with 'and' in items (1) and (2). If commas are used to separate the items, it's hard to tell whether any given 'and' is ending the list of items, of if it is part of a single item. So I think semi-colons should be used. Is this correct?


title: What does "f***ing pay" mean?

text: I have never seen "fucking pay" before. what does it mean. I have read this in this sentences " Let's hope you're right. that's all I have to say. Because otherwise... you know? soneone, somewhere is going to fucking pay."


title: 3 meter square area vs 3 square meter area

text: > A. 3 meter square area > > B. 3 square meter area I’m wondering what the easiest way is to clearly express the difference between A and B above. In A, one side is 3 (meters). In B, one side is the square root of 3 (meters). Also, can both A and B be expressed with all the modifiers on the left, such as with hyphens? Or would word order such as the following be required for A? > area of 3 meters squared


title: from the 16th century downward?

text: I'd like to know what the difference is between "from the 16th century downward", "from the 16th century onwards", and "since the 16th century". > Many polyglot collections of the prayer have been published from the 16th > century downward.


title: Use of "rather" instead of "whether"

text: I would like to correct what I see as a frequent mis-speak from a friend of mine, but I first want to make sure that I am not the one in error. > I'd like to know whether the following use is correct, or rather if it is > incorrect. The above sentence uses both the words "whether" and "rather" as I expect them to be used, but this friend says things like "Rather you like it or not..." or "Rather you're black, white or Asian..." I wonder if this is just a regional usage, or is it incorrect as I suspect?


title: Why is "visitors to London grouped by mode of travel" better than "visitors by mode of travel to London"?

text: Is there a specific rule of grammar or which makes the title "visitors to London grouped by mode of travel" better than "visitors by mode of travel to London"? The context for this question is a label for a chart/table which shows the mode of travel used by visitors to London. I'm trying to convince a colleague of mine that the former is preferable to the latter. My feeling is that if we're talking about visitors to London who are grouped by their mode of travel, it doesn't make sense to split "visitors" from "London" in the title. I'm not a pedantic follower of grammar rules but I'd like to be able to point to something specific to bolster my argument. Can anyone help? P.S. I have actually suggested we go with the alternative title "Mode of travel used by visitors to London" which I think works better but I want to be able to point out why "visitors by mode of travel to London" doesn't work.


title: Ghirardelli chocolate commercial song "Me and you..."

text: Is _me and you_ correct English? Lyrics: > _Me and you,   >  A little rendezvous,   >  That special something will carry you through,   >  That little reward for all the things you do._


title: Pleasure from taking a risk

text: Is there a word that means the " _pleasure from taking a risk_ "? " _rush_ " comes to mind but needs modifiers to make sense - thoughts?


title: Intonation in the phrase "How are you?"

text: From native English speakers I often hear the phrase **"How are you?** " intonated differently. Sometimes the word **"are"** is stressed, and sometimes the word **"you"** is. What is the difference between these variants?


title: What are the components of a word called?

text: The etymology of the word _parasol_ states that it arises _"from **para** \- (“to shield”) + **sole** (“sun”)"_. I would like to know what the two components, _para_ and _sole_ , are called in this example. Units/components might work. But, I suspect that there is a more fitting linguistic term for them ... Also, would this term also be applicable for the components of words such as _jaywalk_ which is a result of " _jay + walk_ "?


title: Noun of-phrases: Rules as to plural form of each noun in the pair

text: Nouns of Noun vs Nouns of Nouns Example 1: I face different   * types of financial constraints vs   * types of financial constraint Example 2: Different kinds of reasons vs Different kinds of reason And here is a generalization version of the examples: Are there any particular rules as to the plural form of the two nouns in a of- phrase? Which case would it be in which circumstance: Nouns of Noun vs Nouns of Nouns? And when the first noun is in single form, could the second noun be in plural form? Thank you very much.


title: Can "origin" be used as an adjective?

text: I found the following on today's Wired edition: > Apple’s Software Boss Reveals the _Origin_ Story of iOS Can _origin_ be used as an adjective or some sort of modifier for other words? I couldn't find any source that defines it as an _adjective_. Am I am being thick or is there something wrong with the title above?


title: Precise names for parts of a day

text: I have learnt these words so far, please correct me if I'm wrong:   * Dawn, maybe 4am–6am?   * Morning, maybe 6am–9am? The food for the morning is called _breakfast_. People greet each other _Good morning!_   * Noon, maybe 11am–1pm? The food is called _lunch_.   * Afternoon, maybe 2pm–4pm? People greet each other _Good afternoon!_   * Evening, maybe 6pm–9pm? The food for the evening is called _supper_. People greet each other _Good evening!_   * Night, maybe 9pm–11pm? However, _Good night_ means "have a good sleep".   * Mid-night, maybe 11pm–1am? You see, I've missed some parts of a day, I may be not correct on the time boundaries of each part, though. I would like to complete the list, especially the part after the morning but before the afternoon. My teacher never told us to use the word _noon_ , and _good noon_ seems never used by anyone. I would like to know each part of a day, its corresponding food term (like _lunch_ , _supper_ , etc.), and its corresponding greeting words, thanks. **Summary** I'll update the table to reflect the answers:               Part          Begin End   Meal             Greeting     ------------- ----- ----- ---------------- ---------------------     morning/dawn   0:00  5:00                       early morning  5:00  6:00                  Good morning     morning        6:00  9:00 breakfast        Good morning     mid-morning    9:00 11:59 elevenses/       Good morning                               morning tea/                               brunch     noon          12:00 12:00 -     afternoon     12:00 17:00 lunch/           Good afternoon                               afternoon tea     evening       17:00 21:00 supper           Good evening     night         21:00 23:00 night-time snack Good evening     midnight      23:00  1:00 midnight snack   Good night


title: "Haven't known" and "haven't knew"

text: Google search gives about 19,500,000 results for "haven't known" and about 12,500,000 results for "haven't knew". So I am a bit confused about this. Could anyone please explain how should I say and why?


title: Is there a suffix in "masquerade"?

text: Is there a suffix in _masquerade_? in _masquerade_ , _masque_ means mask, so is _-rade_ or _-ade_ its suffix? _-ade_ is a suffix in _lemonade_ and _blockade_ , meaning "product". Note: I have searched it in etymonline, but couldn't find my answer


title: Word for the behavior of people who complain at everything you do

text: I usually tend to see the behavior in which someone takes an action, and people criticize, and even suggest what they should have done, yet when they take that same suggestion people still criticize. For instance: I'm slim; when I eat with my family, everyone exclaims at the amount of food I'm eating. When I eat normally, they ask "Don't you know, you should eat more so you can grow better?" When I don't eat, the same shouting takes place. So in other words, is there a word I could use to describe them or their behavior in this regard?


title: Does "show how" mean repeat, or just show?

text: In the dictionary, _how_ has meanings of _the manner or way in which_ and _to what extent, degree_. > By the end of the lesson, only Hermione Granger had made any difference to > her match; Professor McGonagall **showed the class how** it had gone all > silver and pointy and gave Hermione a rare smile. Did Professor McGonagall repeat what Hermione did (demonstrate how she did it), or did she just pick up the match that Hermione had changed, to show how much it had been changed? AND Can you _show me how_ I may tell which of these meanings is in play?


title: Word-order of "overall"

text: Long story short: A player can choose from different items, and wishes to have the best one. Would the player say: > I want to have the overall best item. or > I want to have the best item overall. ?


title: That's the way it worked

text: * _Mendoza said that's the way it worked._ In this sentence why are we using _that's_?   Why not _that was_? Wouldn't _that was_ be much better?   To clarify my question, Mendoza originally said   * _"That's the way it works"._


title: Are brackets greedy?

text: I have the sentence fragment: > each in itself for achieving this pure abstraction of being-for-itself and I'd like to incorporate it into my paper so that the quotation reads as follows: > They eventually "achieve the pure abstraction of being for itself" I know that brackets go around any modified text, but I'm unclear if they "jump across" word boundaries. Do I render this as: > They eventually "achiev[e the] pure abstraction of..." or > They eventually "achiev[e] [the] pure abstraction of..." I also tend to use "verb[]" to indicate that a suffix has been dropped from a word. Would the usage be the same in that case? Say, for example, I want to make "She was reading the book" into "She read a book." Would this be: > "She read[] [a] book" or > "She read[ a] book" In both cases, the version with two sets of brackets looks awkward to me, but the version with a single set looks like it might be a typographical error. I looked at existing questions about brackets but I couldn't find any relating to brackets that cross word boundaries, I apologize if this is a dupe.


title: One or more of A, B, C, [and, or, and/or] D?

text: In the expression "one or more of A, B, C, [and, or, and/or] D," what is the correct conjunction? Examples of all three choices abound with apparently equivalent intended meaning.


title: The questions of sentences using linking verbs

text: I understand that the word "look" in "He looks happy." is a linking verb. As "look" here can be replaced by "is" My question is what is the correct question form of this sentence? Does he look happy? or Is he look happy? Thank you.


title: "I went to bed hungry" vs. "I went to bed hungrily"

text: What is the exact difference between "I went to bed hungry" and "I went to bed hungrily"?


title: "Kamarka part" etymology?

text: I know of some people in south Arkansas and north Louisiana that use this phrase. An example of its use would be when you have almost used up something, you have reached the "kamarka part." I hear it pronounced kah-MARK-ah. I have no idea of the correct spelling or where this comes from and can't seem to find anything about it and would like to know more.


title: What's the word for a sportsperson who always makes his team win?

text: For many years I have tried to describe the great cricketer Ian Botham ("Beefy" Botham) to other people in my international language school. I try to think of a word to describe someone who always makes his team win even when other people team are not very good. I want this word to describe "Beefy" or maybe Michael Jordan in basketball, or Ronaldo in football. Can you help me please?


title: A word for a person who is made a villain by their circumstances, not necessarily by their actions

text: I was watching the movie _Leon: The Professional_. The protagonist, Leon, is a hitman — not somebody we traditionally sympathize with. The antagonist is a crooked DEA agent, pretty despicable himself. Near the end, Leon is gunning down dozens of DEA agents who've been ordered by the antagonist to kill him. As the viewers, we're supposed to support Leon as he kills cops who have done nothing wrong themselves — they're just following (presumably reasonable, and since Leon is actually a hitman, perhaps _actually_ reasonable) orders. Just because the person giving the order is the villain, they end up dead, merely doing their usually noble job (and honest cops generally have the viewers' sympathy). **I'm asking specifically about the DEA agents here:** Is there a word or a phrase for this situation or literary device — where I'm made to feel that somebody is evil because of their association, where they've done nothing wrong, and they could even be considered the heroes from a different viewpoint? (Say, Leon were the villain and the cops had finally cornered him — I'd feel bad for these cops as they were gunned down). I checked the movie's entry on TVTropes.org and I don't see anything that seems to describe this situation accurately.


title: Idioms meaning to do something at great cost

text: What I'm looking for isn't quite the same as a Pyrrhic victory, as the action isn't necessarily done to obtain victory. Rather, it is any action that will ultimately result in the person taking said action to pay great (preferably terrible) cost either along the way or afterward, whether or not they realize it in advance.


title: quotes and brackets

text: I'm programming a parser for a new language, and need a word which references all kinds of quotes and brackets: `""` `''` `<>` `()` `[]` `{}` Up to now I always used "quotes and brackets", but is there another, single- term word, that can be used? (Related: Bracket vs brace) **Edit:** The language will be relatively simple. However, it's commands are completly defined by modules, and they decide how delimiters are used. Here's an example:               function "a subFunction"         set background color #FFF              //No semicolons - one command per line         put image "/path/forest.jpg" size [1080px auto] position [0 0]   //square brackets for additional information     end          set background color "black" animation [fadeIn 500ms linear]     <$variable == 42.5> call "a subFunction"   //function is only called, if  the condition is true     sleep 5.6s                                 //dots and commas have no special meaning     set background image /path/img.jpg         //Quotes are always optional


title: "both of" + possessive, which noun does "both of" refer to?

text: > Both of the boy's parents were happy with the new school. Is it proper English to say "both of the boy's parents", as in the above sentence, to mean "both parents of the boy"? Or do we have to use the latter? **Background** A similar question appeared on a private advanced-level English test. The task was to spot a mistake in a sentence similar to the above. The correct answer was apparently the place of the apostrophe: in terms of the above example, it should read "both of the boys' parents" (meaning "parents of both boys"), with the argument that, in proper English, "both" can only refer to "boys" in such circumstances. I found this argument a bit shaky though. I am not a native English speaker, but I have studied and spoken it for many years, and the above sentence looks perfectly correct to me. I also could not find any helpful references on the internet that address this scenario.


title: What does 'are you implying me' mean?

text: I was showing off for a woman and I told her that I am falling for an older woman. She replied back saying, "Are you implying me?" I am confused about its meaning. What does it mean?


title: Relationship Literary Term

text: What is it called in text when a character refers to someone as "son of_____" or "descendant of_____". Like when they refer to a person as the relation to someone else


title: Why is "distro", rather than "distri", short for "distribution" in Linux world?

text: Why is _distro_ , rather than _distri_ , short for _distribution_ in Linux world?


title: Does "renege" have any racial overtones, or is it otherwise offensive?

text: I used the word "renege" in a meeting the other day (something like, "the vendor decided to renege on their offer of shipping replacement SAN disks"), and got a few wide eyes. My supervisor sat me aside just today and told me that my word choice has racial overtones, especially in mixed company, and that I should avoid using it. I've heard that "niggardly" is somewhat taboo, but should I stop using "renege" as well? Is there a less offensive word I can use?


title: Does "notified by [date]" include the end date?

text: I have read the Rules of a competition. The text of the Rules include a sentence as follows: > As per stated in the Rules the entrants will be notified by May 30th 2010. Does the sentence above mean that May 30th is included in the term of notification or not?


title: Is "do something by date X" inclusive?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Does "notified by [date]" include the end date? For example, if John says: > Return it to me by March 24th. Does it mean that I need to return it to him before 23:59 p.m. March 24th, or before 23:59 p.m. March 23rd?


title: "Please finish this by May 15" — can I still do it today?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Does "notified by [date]" include the end date? Today is May 15. I have an email in my inbox that says > Please respond by May 15. My question is: what does 'by' mean in this context? Is it synonymous to 'no later than'? Or should I have done this on May 14 at the latest?


title: Do phrases such as "by tomorrow" or "by Thursday" include the day mentioned?

text: I wasn't sure how to research this without being able to explain what I mean. When someone says something like "I will have it done by tomorrow", does that phrase mean that they will have it done before tomorrow, or does it mean before tomorrow is over? Also, how would less-defined times be affected by this? For example, "I'll have it done by tonight"...


title: What does "by spring 2013" imply?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Does “notified by [date]” include the end date?   >  “I will do it by Monday”. Does it mean before the beginning or before the > end of Monday? If something has to be finished " **by spring 2013** ," how long do I have? Does this imply the beginning, or the end of spring?


title: Meaning of "by" when used with dates - inclusive or exclusive

text: If, in a contract fr example, the text reads: "X has to finish the work by MM- DD-YYYY", does the "by" include the date or exclude it? In other words, will the work delivered on the specified date violate the contract?


title: What does "by 30 September" mean?

text: In the following sentence: "It came into existence on or by 30 September." What does "by 30 September" mean?


title: Adjective meaning 'using creative prose/being poetic'

text: Here's the context, somebody has written this: > Quiet workplace... then - all of a sudden, a loud voice; complaints, > criticism, aggressiveness. Everyone's attention is drawn to an argument - > and sometimes the spotlight is on the person being publicly executed. And I want to say something like, 'That paragraph is a bit melodramtic and [uses creative writing for the sake of being entertaining to read], could you edit it to tell us what actually happened?'.


title: Variations in the pronunciation of “ea”

text: Perhaps this is more of a Linguistics question, so I apologize if this is not posted in the right place. Why is it that these words in English sound so different?   1. _earth_ = /ɜrθ/ “urth”   2. _hearth_ = /hɑrθ/ “harth”   3. _heart_ = /hɑrt/ “hart”   4. _hear_ = /hir/ “heer”   5. _ear_ = /ir/ “eer”   6. _heath_ = /hiθ/ “heeth” Looking at the first two examples, the only difference is the preceding _h_ , which makes me think that’s the reason for the change. The second and third together sound the same, despite the removal of the trailing _h_ , which supports that — for now. Then the last three examples sound still different from those already mentioned; however, the differences in spelling are not consistent. My assumption is that there is some linguistic property of both the _h_ and the _rt_ , which I will describe like this:   * A trailing _rt_ (not simply _r_ or _t_ ) will have an effect — let’s call it **“Effect A”** — on the sound of _ea_.   * A leading _h_ will have an effect — let’s call it **“Effect B”** — on the sound of _ear_ , but only if already modified by Effect A. If this is more or less correct, what are these two Effects A and B, and what are they called? And if this is not more or less correct, please tell me what is. An alternative thought is that this really has nothing to do with phonology and instead more to do with orthography, and that the difference is just because someone at some point decided to transcribe a given word in one particular way instead of in some other way, such as _through_ vs. _threw_ (or even the non-standard _thru_ ). Any evidence to support either possibility, or supporting some alternative I haven’t thought of here, would be appreciated.


title: Is there a difference of meaning between "edit" and "modify" in this context?

text: > Please, do not edit this file. versus > Please, do not modify this file. Is there a difference? Is any of them preferred over the other?


title: "We choose our partners by..."

text: I want to say that we (as a company) choose only the best companies to join our partners program and I'm looking for a better way to say it. Something like: > We choose our partners by _____. Any other suggestions would be appreciated.


title: How can I teach what synonym to use according to context?

text: I'm a teacher of English as a foreign language, and today I was reviewing some vocabulary from a book with my students. We found "irksome" and "pestering" to refer to something that is annoying. A student asked if there was a way to know when to use "irksome" and when is better to use "pestering". So, it occurred to me that maybe there is a way to know what word is the best fit to a given context, maybe a dictionary or another type of resource.


title: Reason someone died (illness)

text: How might one ask the cause of someone's death? Not regarding the verb to die ( it could be sonething like pass away too, I know), but about the structure... Is it correct to ask "What did your mother die of?" or " How did she die" ( meaning why, ex: an accident? An illness? Murdered? Etc). What would be a natural question in American English?


title: where does the idiom 'driving me mad' come from?

text: any ideas? It's for use in an English Language class I teach.


title: Any term pertaining to geography, but not to toponymy?

text: Can you, please, come up with some term that would be directly related to geography, but would have no relation to toponymy?


title: Etymology: the wings of a bird

text: I just read about the symbol of Venice, the winged lion of Venice. As a German the German word die Schwingen for wings came to my mind. English has the word in the verb to swing.The connection between wings and to swing is obvious. By means of its wings a bird can swing up into the air. To my amazement, etymonline does not see the connection of "wing" with "to swing" and German schwingen and the noun die Schwingen. In my view etymonline gets on a wrong track by trying to make a connection with wind. I would like to hear other views.


title: What's the term describing someone who's obsessed with his/her own face?

text: I was think of narcissistic but this is a more general term describing someone's self-obsession with various aspects of himself/herself. I was wondering if there's not a more specific term, describing the fact of being self-obsessed with one's own face.


title: How would I say this sentence correctly?

text: > After six months of looking for jobs, she got a reply from a job application > she posted online from Macy's asking her to come to a interview. The sentence does not sound right to me, what would be the correct way to say this?


title: Idiom for saying "You are making someone go mad/angry."

text: First, a bit of context. Richard Stallman, father of the free software movement, has struggled all his life trying to explain that the "free" in "free software" is a "free" as in "freedom", not as "free beer". Now, let's say someone argues that the main reason for adopting free software is that it has no cost (free beer). How can I tell him that he would make Richard Stallman go mad by saying this? Is there an idiom that could communicate this effectively? (Obviously, this is a language question, not a free software debate.) **Edit** : I just realized that I am looking for a version of "to turn in one's grave" for alive people :)


title: Why does Hamlet not say, "ere he rots?"

text: > How long will a man lie i' the earth ere he rot? The quoted line is Hamlet's. I wonder why the "rot" is not "rots".


title: Is it grammatically sound to group nouns/verbs sharing a preposition that governs the same object using an "and" multiple times in one sentence?

text: For example, does the below sentence violate any grammar rules? "Global Connections" will be showcasing internship opportunities, job openings and training programs at, challenges and issues facing, and the latest information on 30 leading global businesses. I realize that there may be alternative ("better") ways of phrasing the above but I am not interested in improving this specific sentence; I just want to confirm whether the above structure is generally permissible according to the rules of English grammar. I would like to emphasize that I am not looking to have the above example sentence proofread. I would like to know, first, whether it is acceptable to group nouns sharing a preposition in the fashion that I have and, second, whether it is acceptable to do this multiple times (i.e. for other nouns affiliated with other shared prepositions) in the same sentence. My gut feeling tells me that it constitutes an over-usage of "and" in the same sentence but does not specifically violate any grammar rules. I would like to know for sure whether this is the case or perhaps there exists some grammar rule I am not familiar with.


title: How do you pronounce the << operator

text: How do you pronounce the << operator? For example it is used in here.


title: what does "it's time I told you" mean and why past tense here?

text: I'm watching Suits TV Series, and there was something that caught my attention. 2 guys meet, have a drink, chat, and then one guy says: > I mean it's time **I told you**. I made a deal with Darby to take over the > firm from Jessica. Why is "told you" in paste tense? What exactly does it mean? He is saying that news right now. If I were to say that, I would say "it's time to tell you" or "it's time I'm gonna tell you". Thanks!


title: What is a "numeric digit"?

text: I'm reading a technical documentation so every quirky detail, that a normal human being easily realizes to be a typo or just a less well chosen formulation, can, in fact, be a profound base for a concept and can fundamentally affect the future design. In the said document I can find the term " _numeric digit_ ". What is this? Also, what is it not? In my mind a digit is a character in the set of " _0123456789_ ", while something numeric is a a set of characters consisting of characters in the set of " _0123456789_ " (yes, it's the same set). Perhaps we can define the term in question by exclusion from all the other possible cases' definition. So what would be a good example of the following?   1. a non-numeric digit   2. a numeric non-digit   3. a non-numeric non-digit My guestimation is this.   1. NST, unless we switch the base (which is too mathematical).   2. NST, unless we declare a string of a digit (which is too programmatic).   3. Anything sans digits (which is a superfluous tautology).


title: How did the word "busybody" end up meaning so different from what it appears on its face to imply?

text: When I learned the word _busybody_ the first time, I was in 5th grade. It appeared in a story I had to learn for class. I figured it meant someone who was very busy, and didn't bother to look it up. When the teacher asked us if I had looked it up as I was supposed to as part of my homework, I lied and said I did. When I told her I found the meaning "in a dictionary" she asked me to bring her the dictionary. Needless to say, I was a very embarrassed 5th grader caught in a bad lie.


title: What to call the "things that nobody talks about"?

text: I am writing an article about “things that nobody talks about.” I feel sure that there should be a single word which can replace the phrase _things that nobody talks about_? It’s rather clumsy as it stands, in my opinion.


title: Adjectival step by step

text: When used as an adjective, is it _step by step_ or _step-by-step_? Example, > Thank you for this step by step guide. or > Thank you for this step-by-step guide.


title: Orally or Verbally

text: Which is correct/better to state: > He was orally informed OR > He was verbally informed. What determines when it is suitable to use either, i.e. verbally or orally.


title: "Recommendation of" vs. "recommendation for" – what is the difference?

text: Which of the following sentences is correct? >   * We are glad to provide a recommendation of a good work you did. >   * We are glad to provide a recommendation for a good work you did. >


title: What Are The "Living Daylights"?

text: In the turn of phrase "scared the living daylights out of me" what does "living daylights" refer to? Where does this particular idiom originate?


title: Has technology slowed or stopped the development of the core English language?

text: What follows is a hypothesis of mine. I'm wondering if there's historical merit for my hypothesis. It seems the English language has a much bigger change between the documents produced in the early 1800s to those produced in the early 1900s, than the early 1900s documents have until now. For example, in the late 1700s/early 1800s, the letter u was still sometimes represented as v (i.e. as in the US Constitution), but no such changes in the glyphs used to represent the language, nor "structure words" (words critical to language structure, i.e. "is" or "the" or "a"), have occurred in the last hundred years. There have been significant changes in typical vocabulary, but not in language structure. I suspect that a large reason for this is the spread of mass communication systems, such as office typewriters, Xerox machines, rail transportation, telegraph, and (most recently) computers. My guess is that the reason is that when you have mass communication at the scale these technologies span, standardized language becomes much more important. Consider if the letter u being represented as v (as I pointed to earlier) -- this would be a monumental change which would be unlikely to appear in the modern era, simply because of the number of standards (i.e. ASCII, Unicode, most all information exchange definitions, fonts, most programming language definitions, etc) which would be affected would be enormous. Couple this with the fact that English is already easy for computers to work with (no letters running together (like those which require complicated typesetting systems i.e. Uniscribe), relatively small number of glyphs, no stackable accent marks, etc.), and it seems like major changes to the language itself would be prohibitively expensive in the modern era. Does any of this make sense, and is there historical justification for it? Or is this my own subjective babble? :) EDIT: To clarify: I think the typical vocabulary of the language is still going to change (who ever heard of Googling something 15 years ago?), but that the glyphs and structure will not. EDIT: The reason for the bounty is that at this point th only posted answers have merely been opinions; I'm interested in historical precedent in either direction.


title: Possessive and plural of "Series"

text: I'm looking at the financial definition of series: _a group of stocks or options that have common characteristics_. Source How would I form the possessive and plural of this term? I'm guessing it is series' and series respectively. Sample sentences, not sure of correctness: > He purchased one series. > > He purchased multiple series. > > This one series' characteristics are worth researching. <\- This feels like > it should be series's, but it looks so wrong. > > These series' value is unmatched.


title: The Coordination/Conjunction Constituency Test

text: We've been covering constituency tests in my syntax class and whenever it comes to doing the Coordination (also know as conjunction) test, it isn't making sense to me. I'm just not sure how it proves constituency. Does anyone have a concise explanation?


title: Why do midwesterners say "the cancer"?

text: I was watching the TV show _Fargo_, which takes place in rural Minnesota. Most of the locals on the show speak with a recognizable midwestern accent, and there are some regionalisms that are common. The one that I noticed most was how when some of the characters were talking about another person they knew, they said _he has **the** cancer_. Most of the English-speaking world does not put an article before the names of most diseases — we would say _he has cancer_. I believe that many of the early settlers in this part of America were from Scandinavia, and it heavily influenced the dialect and accent. Is this phrasing quirk related to this heritage?


title: Are there good examples of compatible co-hyponyms?

text: It is often said that co-hyponyms are incompatible. For example, here's Alan Cruse: > Very often a superordinate has more than one immediate hyponym, and among > these there is typically a set of terms each of which is related to all the > others by the relation of incompatibility. ( _Meaning in Language_, 2004, p. 162.) So, ‘apple’, ‘peach’, and ‘plum’ are co-hyponyms of ‘fruit’, and an apple **is not** a peach, which **is not** a plum, etc. They are "incompatible": that bit of fruit can't be _both_ an apple _and_ a peach. However, it is also often said that co-hyponyms _are not necessarily_ incompatible. A little later on that same page, Cruse offers this example: > For instance, _queen_ and _mother_ are both hyponyms of _woman_ , but there > is nothing to prevent someone who is a queen from at the same time being a > mother. I'm not so sure this is a good example, though. It implies this relation: > ? _A queen is a kind of woman._ But this isn't quite so. Mary, Queen of Scots became queen (just a few miles from where I type, in fact) at the ripe old age of 6 days ... which hardly qualifies as "woman"! So it leaves me wondering whether, in fact, ‘queen’ is a proper (?) hyponym of ‘woman’. So I have been trying to come up with ANY good examples of compatible co- hyponyms, and failing in the attempt. I have done my web-searches, and while it is easy to find the theoretical position explained, as I have done above ( _viz._ , that co-hyponyms are typically but not necessarily incompatible), finding examples of the less common "compatible" sort is proving elusive. Can anyone help me? (P.s. I would have liked to tag this with "hyponyms" or "hyponymy", but these aren't yet in use, and I'm too new to create them.) **UPDATE** [2014.01.09] : (This is prompted in part by EricS's suggestion below.) There is a further problem with suggesting _queen_ and _mother_ as examples of compatible co-hyponyms, and it arises in an article by Cruse himself [D. A. Cruse, ‘Hyponymy and Its Varieties’, in _The Semantics of Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Perspective_, ed. by R. Green, C.A. Bean, and S.H. Myaeng (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2002), pp. 3-21; the Google Books scan has some problems]. In it, Cruse points out that some apparent co-hyponyms belong to different taxonomic classes, and so are not co-hyponyms properly speaking. Cruse uses the example of ‘book’ for which ‘novel’, ‘textbook’, and ‘biography’ are hyponyms, but so too are ‘paperback’, ‘e-book’, and ‘hardback’: but ‘there is no embargo on something being simultaneously a paperback and a novel’ (Cruse, ‘Varieties’, p. 4). They are not, however, ‘co- hyponyms’ since they describe different aspects of the hyperonym. This also applies to the example I originally used above. 'Queen' participates in a taxonymy to do with status relations and involves gender (like duke/duchess, etc.), 'mother' in a taxonymy of family relationship (like 'father', 'daughter', etc.), and of course there is no problem with intersections of taxonomies, much as with 'novel' and 'hardback' both of which have a superordinate in 'book'. I am beginning to doubt, then, that Cruse was correct to assert that both " _queen_ and _mother_ are both hyponyms of _woman_ ". _Queen_ is a type of (hyponym of) _noble_ ; _mother_ is a type of (hyponym of) _kindred_ (= _family relation_ ). Or have I gone askew here? At any rate, I'm still having trouble thinking of "good" examples of compatible co-hyponyms!


title: Syllables and mora

text: I have recently discovered the linguistic term 'mora' as a subset of a syllable and am thinking through some examples. How would the word 'stretched' be analysed? Is it one syllable? And what are its mora?


title: Which one has red color in this phrase "the red bottle's lid"? the bottle or the lid?

text: Which one has red color in the following phrase? > the red bottle's lid the bottle or the lid? ## Edit Now I understand the actual sentence with which I am faced. > A more insidious attack strategy is to coerce **an unwitting third-party > visitor’s browser** to send unwanted HTTP requests on the attacker’s behalf, > abusing the identity relationship already established between your > application and that victim.


title: Is this sentence correct grammatically?

text: > Do you have any knowledge _at_ photography? Is this sentence correct? I don't think so, the _at_ doesn't sound right, but my friend says some grammar checker tells that its correct?


title: Would a "comment" have an implied brevity to it?

text: I always thought that a _comment_ would be, in comparison to other kind of response, such as an answer, something brief. However, it doesn't seems like Wiktionary says anything about it. Am I mistaken?


title: Use of "so as not to"

text: Which is correct? > The thief carried the knife carefully **so as not to** cut himself. > > The thief carried the knife carefully **not to** cut himself.


title: 'Bramble Bush' has a figurative meaning?

text: Why might this introductory (denoted 0L by some law students) law book be entitled Bramble Bush http://www.amazon.com/The-Bramble-Bush-Classic- Lectures/dp/0195368452 ? I'm regardful of the definition of bramble as a verb and noun. Here, I guess that it means 'blackberry bush', but this doesn't comport with law literally. What did I miss or misconstrue?


title: What does it mean to be "correct" in pronunciation or grammar?

text: (Preamble: this post is literally about the meaning of the word “correct” in this context, but also, of course, overlaps with the philosophy of prescriptive perspectives in the process. I hope that this is not considered off-topic, as I cannot think of a better group of people to ask. ) I do not understand the meaning of the word “correct” in this context, as I cannot think of any objective or meaningful standard that correctness could be derived from. I understand the notion of clarity in pronunciation or grammar. Pronouncing a word such that it might easily be confused with a different word is unclear. Similarly impaired communication can occur as a result of using a word or grammatical structure in a way that is likely to be interpreted differently than intended. But what miscommunication could occur by saying “Feb-u-ary” vs. “Feb-RU-ary” or by responding to “May I talk to Joan, please?” with “This is her,” vs. “This is she”? There is a large set of “errors” that have no seeming impact on clarity. So, “correct,” as it is generally used, does not exclusively mean “likely to be understood.” But I don’t understand the notion of the word apart from that. Language is a naturally evolving phenomenon. It is a brilliant social tool that began to emerge millions of years, and has been evolving in the form of verbal grammar for at least fifty millennia, and likely much longer than that. At some point very recently in development, scholars decided to document their languages, basically taking a descriptive snapshot of a moving force at a moment in time. Are these documents considered the source of what is correct? Or is there some other authority? Regardless of the source, why impose a regressive authority on an inherently progressive phenomenon? In brainstorming, I conjured a few possible reasons. One reason is to intentionally prevent a natural evolution of language that might lead to a divergence of tongues. By formally encouraging adherence to a linguistic standard, localized communities are in less danger (opportunity?) of evolving a divisive dialect. However, with the prevalence of television alone, I don’t think we have much to worry about there. The second reason is to create a badge of pedigree; a way to distinguish those who have been formally educated in a set of (arbitrary?) rules from those who haven’t. Is this a worthy goal? The third reason relates to the precision and artistry that come with mastery. A deep understanding of the nuances of different word meanings and grammatical structures can allow ideas to be communicated more precisely, and can allow the words to sing rather than simply communicate. However, this is mostly a case for learning word meanings, and doesn’t apply to unambiguous word “mispronunciations” or grammatical “errors.” And so, I ask humbly, with a true desire to learn: what does it mean to be correct in pronunciation or grammar? If it is not the native speakers themselves, then who is the authority that can be appealed to?


title: Is it acceptable to say “It is one of my most important things.”?

text: My question is if I want to say > It is one of the most important things for me. In another way, can I say > It is one of my most important things. instead? And does the latter one sound strange to native speakers?


title: Opposites of RSVP

text: I've googled the subject and got hits only along the lines of DRSVP and NRPSVP, which seem like an awkward mix-up of inter-linguistic confusion (the former) and incomprehensible abbreviation demanding understanding of foreign grammatic. Furthermore, I realized that, since RSVP means that **each** invitee should reply (independently of the attendance ability), there's no unambiguous opposite. There could be, e.g. _reply-only-if-you're-coming_ or _reply-only- if-you're-not-coming_. Moreover, that acronym is used mostly for confirmation of attendance at social gatherings and, sadly, is not that widely known to begin with (at least amongst people in the companies I've worked for). At one place, we used _MRIA_ (or, at another place, _ORIA_ ) at the end of an e-mail or SMS to declare that no reply (including, but not limited to, " _OK_ ") was needed **under the condition** that no changes were to be proposed. A, sort of, opt-out, so to speak. However, I've found that _MRIA_ is as seldom recognized as _RSVP's_ negations mentioned above. And I'm tired explaining that _MRIA_ stands for " _Missing Response Implies Agreement_ " (or " _Omission of Reply Indicates Acceptance_ "). Is there a term/acronym to be used at the end of e-messages to suggest that omission of reply is equivalent with accepting the contents?


title: Refer to a number which comes after every 5 numbers

text: I want to refer to a number which comes after every 5 numbers, (eg. 5, 10, 15, 20 .. ). How can I say it it in a proper sentence? Thanks.


title: What do "wonk" as against performer and “Wonking out” mean?

text: Time magazine’s October 22nd issue carries the article titled “Paul Ryan on the campaign trail: More performer than _wonk_.” The article begins with the following lines: > “Mitt Romney's running mate was doing what he likes best: _wonking out_." > I'm kind of a powerpoint guy, so I hope you'll bear with me," Paul Ryan told > about 2,000 people at the University of Central Florida gymnasium in Orlando > in late September.” OALED defines “wonk” as noun, AmE, informal, disapproving, meaning (1) a person who works too hard and is considered boring. (2) a person who takes too much interest in the less important details of political policy. So I surmise the meaning of “wonk” in the headline as defined in (2) of the above. Please correct me if I’m wrong. However, I don’t understand what “wonking out” means in the beginning line of the body copy. OALED doesn’t show usage of “wonk” as a verb, while Readers English Japanese Dictionary at hand shows the usage of wonk” as vi. meaning ‘to study extremely hard,’ and vt. meaning ‘to give an answer from highly technical view point.’ What does “wonking out” mean? Does it mean hard-working like a wonk? Why “out” is necessary? What nuance is added to by adding “out” to “wonk”?


title: In a jet cockpit: "console" or "instrument panel"?

text: What is the correct term for the panel containing standard indicators such as the altimeter and airspeed indicator in a jet aircraft cockpit? Is it called **console** or **instrument panel** , or are both terms equivalent? From reading on the subject, it looks like _console_ refers to an individual set of instruments (one for pilot, another for co-pilot), but I don't know if this is correct. **EDIT** I'm looking for the term used by a civilian pilot of a private jet.


title: The pronunciation of 'Hawaii'

text: Apparently some parts of the US routinely pronounce the name of our island state as 'Hawaya.' At first, I thought this was just incorrect, but apparently it's a regional usage. Where do they call it Hawaya?


title: Why are customers referred to as "users" in software and drug industry?

text: An interesting observation that has always fascinated me: it is only in software industry and drugs industry where we refer to customers as "Users". I don't know of any other. For instance, we talk of "User Acceptance Testing" as opposed to "Customer Acceptance Testing" when referring to final software acceptance testing. What are the origins of this?


title: in lunchtime or at lunchtime

text: How say correctly? I want buy a micro usb type b connector **in lunchtime**. I want buy a micro usb type b connector **at lunchtime**.


title: What does “good enough to lose” in “Red Sox were either good enough to lose, or just plain bad” in the World Series in the past”?

text: New York Times (October 31st) reported Red Sox’s victory in the World Series under the title, “Red Sox Rout Cardinals to Win World Series” It begins with the following sentence: > For much of the 20th century, the Boston Red Sox were a symbol of > frustration and pain for an entire region. As popular as they were in their > corner of the nation, either **they were good enough to lose** in agonizing > fashion on baseball’s grandest stage, or they were just plain bad. > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/sports/baseball/boston-red-sox-rout-st- > louis-cardinals-to-win-world-series.html?hp I’m comfortable with the expression, “they are good enough to win,” but feel somewhat uneasy with “they are good enough to lose,” no matter whether it’s in agonizing fashion or in happy fashion. If you are good enough (at game"), logically, you shouldn't lose (the game). Is “good enough to lose” a common expression? What does it mean? Can I say "My son was “good enough to fail" the college entrance exam," / "He was good enough to be fired because of frequent boobs," by the same token?


title: "My pigs are killing me!"

text: How has the word "pigs" come to be used as slang for feet? As in the phrase: > My pigs are killing me! It seems to me that "pigs" and "feet" have very little in common. I'm not sure how common this usage is. I've certainly heard it on several occasions.


title: Where did “Cleanliness is next to Godliness” originate?

text: I've often heard the phrase " _Cleanliness is next to godliness_ " used but as far as I know, while there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the notion, in spite of mentioning God the phrase doesn't have a Biblical basis. Where did the phrase come from and does it have its roots in Christianity or somewhere else?


title: One comma or two? I have since been

text: Which of the following is correct? _Context:_ I left AMD in early 2008. > I have, since, been the CTO of a large software firm near Oregon. or is it > I have since, been the CTO of a large software firm near Oregon.


title: Ordinal numbers usage

text: When you are delineating a set of statements which come one after another, could you use ordinal numbers but omit some of them in between ? For example, consider I want to describe the limitations in my study: > However, these results should be interpreted considering certain limitations > existing in the study. First, the small sample size ... ... . In addition, > our sample consisted of young people residing ... ... . The third limitation > is that ... . Is this style correct ?


title: What is the difference between "proven" and "proved"?

text: My question concerns when to use what of the above.


title: What's the appropriate response to the "door knock" when you are in a fitting room?

text: I'm an international student and I have had this question for a long time: When I'm trying on clothes in a store fitting room, the store employee sometimes knocks on the door to see if the fitting room is occupied. How should I response to that? Also, is there another way to refer to the people who works in the store other than" _store employee_ "?


> Your patience on this matter _behooves_. Is it okay to use the word "behooves" in this way?


title: Why is it "masterpiece" and not "a piece of art"?

text: Why do you say _masterpiece_ , and not _piece of art_?


title: What is the origin of "xox"?

text: What is the origin of _xox_ used to mean _kisses and hugs_?


title: Difference between "second cousin" and "first cousin once removed"

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there an accepted rule for naming all of our various distant relatives > (Kinship Terms)? What is the difference between _second cousin_ and _first cousin once removed_? Is "[ordinal] cousin once removed" generally used in English?


title: Term for relationship to cousin's child

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there an accepted rule for naming all of our various distant relatives > (Kinship Terms)? My relationship to my cousin's dad is nephew-uncle. My relationship to my cousin is cousin-cousin. What is my relationship to my cousin's child? Is it still cousin-cousin?


title: In Nothing - June 12th 1799 Letter by John Marshall

text: > He was in our late army a lieut. Colo. & he performd the duties of that > office with reputation. It is probable that he may feel wounded at being > offerd the same grade under others whom he then commanded & who are perhaps > **in nothing** his superiors. It is presumd that officers in the actual army > will command those of the same grade in the eventual army. If we are correct > in this then Colonels Bentley & Parker who were both subalterns when Colo. > Cropper was a field officer, & who are not supposd to have manifested any > superiority over him, will now take rank of him. (Source) Could someone please explicate and demystify **in nothing**? My guess would be that Colonel Cropper's superiors admittedly possesses nothing that would make them veritably superior?


title: If someone says, "Shoot, it was a great day to be alive." , what does he/she mean?

text: A example sentence from Oxford dictionary: > Shoot - exclamation   >  North American informal   >  used as a euphemism for ‘shit’: > > **shoot, it was a great day to be alive** What is the tone of this sentence? How to paraphrase it?


title: Other way of saying "with his/her back facing me."

text: Is there another common way of saying: _with his/her back facing me?_ For example: > The person was standing in the middle of the clearing, **[...back...]** me. I don't want to use **his/her** because I don't want to reveal the sex of the person. Any suggestions?


title: Mix and Mixture

text: What is considered the correct usage of _mix_ versus _mixture_? As an example, is either of these two sentences considered to be more correct grammatically than the other? 1) _The trip was a mix of hiking and climbing_ 2) _The trip was a mixture of hiking and climbing_ To my ear either is acceptable, but I presume one is better than the other?


title: What does 'authorizing against' mean?

text: I'm sorry if that question seems quite obvious for some of you, but I'm not native from english country and have some trouble with some expressions. Today, I found this sentence : > In the end, all software systems that need any type of authorization will be > authorizing against activities In this context, I can't manage to understand the meaning of against, it is supposed to show some kind of opposition, but where do you find an opposition in this sentence?


title: "Smiled at me" vs. "smiled to me"

text: I searched for the following two expressions and came across both being used in various places. > She **smiled at me** at the grocery store. > > She **smiled to me** at the grocery store. What is the difference between the two?


title: Is this sentence a dependent clause?

text: Not to mention the amazing embellishments that are sure to spark the interest of our well-healed clients: flowers, butterflies, crystals, and feathers.


title: What does "v." stand for?

text: In in the following sentence, what does the "v." stand for? > The new system was partially indebted to Stanley v. Georgia Does it mean "Stanley and Georgia" or "Stanley against Georgia"?


title: Against and Towards can be same?

text: _After I found this website, I have a chance to ask questions I used to hesitate to use in a sentence as I am not a native English speaker even though I am really interested in learning English._ Anyways, Can these sentences be legit and give the same meaning?   1. I feel something towards her.   2. I feel something against her. Do they have same meaning and also where can we not use `against` and `towards` interchangeably if we can use them interchangeably sometimes. **Edit:** Okay, it seems while feelings are coming to play they cause different meaning but where can I not use them interchangeably when there is no feelings involved?


title: West Country Pronunciation 17th to 18th century

text: I read somewhere that the West Country pronunciation of oi for words like fight and like would become foight and loik. Was this really more common in the 17th and 18th Century?