title: Use "the" before a scientific method name?

text: I'm writing a paper about an algorithm that I have developed. Just for illustration, I will say that the method name is "quicksort". My question is about the usage of _the_ in the following context: > This paper proposes quicksort, a novel and fast algorithm. The advantage of > quicksort is that... My question is whether I should use "The advantage of _the_ quicksort..." or "The advantage of quicksort". I am also looking for resources explaining the usage of _the_ in this context. * * * [Meta]   Usually, to check if a certain sentence is correct, I search Google using wildcards. However, in this case, the correct answer is depends on the context. I have also tried to find a answer in the following book but without success: Science Research Writing: A Guide for Non-Native Speakers of English.


title: Single Quote Marks to Denote Plurals of Letters and Words

text: I heard that the plurals of letters, numbers and words could be punctuated - with single quote marks on both sides - in this manner (especially in Britain): 'X's 'd's '5's 'thank-you's 'maybe's 'his's 'as's I am sufficiently aware that we could italicize the letter, number or word and follow it with an unitalicized apostrophe 's'. We could also use just one apostrophe: x's, thank-you's, maybe's. This makes 'thank-you's and 'maybe's look possessive, not plural. In the two examples I just used in the previous sentence ('thank-you's and 'maybe's), the insertion of a single quote mark before and after each word (followed by an 's') definitively defines the plural of the word as a word. The same logic is applied to individual letters and numbers ('9's, 't's). Bottom line, is my usage (albeit probably somewhat antiquated) correct?


title: Italics used for the plural treatment of words?

text: Do these look right to you? I'm pluralizing the following words. In doing so, I'm italicizing the word to be pluralized but not the 's': _and_ s (instead of and's)   _wherefore_ s (instead of wherefore's)   _his_ s (instead of his's)


title: A word for a book or list of people that you need to contact

text: > I have to remember to contact Sarah sometime this week about the party, so I > add her to my _person-listy-thing._ I think there may be a (somewhat archaic?) concise term for this along the lines of 'datebook'. Thoughts? **EDIT** : To clarify, this is a to-do list but with contacts' names; not simply a list of contacts.


title: Jane Austen use of triple negative in Pride & Prejudice (Chapter 28)

text: Jane Austen once said: > When Mr. Collins said any thing of which his wife might reasonably be > ashamed, which certainly was not unseldom, she involuntarily turned her eye > on Charlotte. Now readers of the book will know Mr Collins is pretty shameless and socially inept, yet if we remove the double negative it becomes > When Mr. Collins said any thing of which his wife might reasonably be > ashamed, which certainly was seldom, she involuntarily turned her eye on > Charlotte. which is certainly not what the author intended (I assume). Does anybody have an explanation for this ?


title: Will marry vs will get married

text: I have seen both sentences below: > I will get married. > > I will marry. So what is the difference? Which one is recommended? Is there any difference in meaning or just grammar?


title: What is the proper hyphenation of "and a half" in the context of age?

text: I'm trying to write "3 and a half year old," as in, "He is a 3 and a half year old dog". I know a hyphen or two is supposed to go in there somewhere. Per Ways to write "2000 year old" , I suspect it should be "3-and-a-half-year-old", but that reads like death-by-hyphen, even if it is correct. What's the proper way to hyphenate "# and a half year old" in this context?


title: Not "schadenfreude", but related?

text: I'm thinking that there must be a word that means, rather than "feeling pleasure in the misfortune of another", "the pleasure of feeling superior to another". This certainly seems (at least) as common a phenomenon as schadenfreude, but has it been condensed into a single word? Addendum: I see that I ought to have been much more specific in my question. Feelings of _smugness_ or _self satisfaction_ do not require another person to whom one feels superior. _Elitism_ , is far too general and is usually applied to groups or classes, not individuals. Naturally when you feel superior you feel " _Superiority_ ", but I was looking for a word that means _taking pleasure in_ superiority, not the feeling of superiority itself. I intended a specific instance, such as when one person has just bettered another in a game. I believe schadenfreude is usually also applied in specific instances / for specific events - as when one sees someone get what is viewed to be their "comeuppance", for example. It's not something one goes around feeling more or less continually, which in many cases might validly be applied to superiority, elitism, or arrogance.


title: Adjective clause with 'so'

text: I can't find any grammar reference to the correct usage of a specifying adjective clause. Consider an example: The physical activity, **so vital for the developing body** , is often overlooked by the child's parents. Is it grammatically correct? Am I right to surround the clause by the commas? Thanking you in advance for any help.


title: Can a software name that uses combination of different words be called an english word?

text: When a new software is developed, often it is named using a combination of different words, which may or may not me in English, or be partly English and partly in other language. Example: WhatsApp made from the words What's Up and Application Can such a word be said to be in English?


title: Can a person be described as fugue?

text: Can a person be described as "fugue" or is it reserved only for a state? Can the word be used as a modifier for something other than a living thing's state? **Fugue:** (from merriam-webster.com) > a disturbed state of consciousness in which the one affected seems to > perform acts in full awareness but upon recovery cannot recollect them


title: "Airfoil" - why it is called "foil"

text: What is origin of word airfoil (e.g. wings of the airplane)? Why it has part "foil", which is a very thin metal sheet. "Dictionary.com Unabridged" says only "Origin: 1920–25; air 1 + foil 2" (© Random House), and "foil 2" is defined by them exactly as thin metal, e.g. aluminium foil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foil_(metal)).


title: What is the story behind the word "hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia"?

text: Was someone just trying to be funny by being ironic?


title: Words with opposite meanings in different regions

text: I can't recall it, but there is a word in American English which now means the opposite of itself in British English. What words are there that have opposite (not just different) meanings in different regions?


title: "cross this line" versus "cross the line"

text: This is written on a railroad platform: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/Prxur.jpg) Is the English text OK? Or "cross the line" is better? Or both are equally correct?


title: Which comes first:  cat or  dog?

text: Which comes first in a sentence? I know some word pairs such as _bacon and eggs_ , where _bacon_ always comes first. E.g: > Make me bacon and eggs for dinner, honey. Cats and dogs are the two most common pets I know of. What is the preferred order?   1. Dogs are superior. > Don't put dogs and cats together, they might fight!   2. Cats are superior. > Don't put cats and dogs together, they might fight!


title: Metaphoric meaning of "racket"

text: How does the original meaning of _racket_ lead to the following metaphoric meanings?   * an illegal or dishonest scheme for obtaining money   * a person’s line of business or way of life


title: Word that means "reduce to unique parts"

text: I'm working on a program that essentially removes all duplicates from a list, i.e. reducing the list to its unique components. Is there a single word or small compound word that conveys this transformation?


title: Is it considered proper English to say "You best be..." or "You'd best..."?

text: Often, I hear people say something like this: > You best be going. Or: > You'd best sweep the floor before you leave. Essentially, _you'd best/you best be_ just means _you should_. Is it grammatically correct to use these phrases?


title: Is “Lend a cachet” popular phrase?

text: I found the phrase “ _lend a cachet_ ” in the following sentence of the New York Times’ (November 11) article, titled “Picking brand names in China is a business itself”: > “For some products, having a foreign-sounding name _lends a cachet_ that a > true Chinese name would lack. Many upscale brands like Cadillac (Ka di la > ke), or Hilton (Xi er dun), employ phonetic translations that mean nothing > in Chinese. Rolls-Royce (Laosi-Laisi) includes two Chinese characters for > “labor” and “plants” that more or less have become standard usage in foreign > names - all to achieve a distinct foreign look and sound. “ I understand “lend a cachet” implies “give prestige, or add prestigious image” from the context of the above statement. I checked both Cambridge and Merriam-Webster online dictionaries to find neither of them registers “lend a cachet.” On Google, I found the following examples of the phrase in use.   * Her presence _lends a certain cachet to_ the company. – The Free Dictionary.   * Where's the party? Sun Bowl _lends cachet to_ Camino Real's New Year's bash. - El Paso Times.  From the above, I realized “lend a cachet” is a simple combination of “lend” and “cachet,” not an idiom that I first conceived. However, is “lend a cachet” frequently used phrasing as opposed to other plain expressions, say “give prestige or “add a fashionable (Western) image”?


title: Commas around "which"

text: I was talking about a new logo with a friend and I asked him why there's so much white. He told me that it's not white, he just doesn't know what colour will it be. I replied: > Then use transparent background, which, unlike white, couldn't end up in the > final logo. The question is, are the commas properly placed in the sentence?


title: Antonym of "Device" in computer terminology

text: How would I talk about something that is either a laptop or a desktop, but not a smartphone or tablet? Is "computer" ok, even though technically speaking, smartphones and tablets are or contain computers? For example, how would I say something like "If you're on a [computer], click on the arrow to see the relevant chat message"?


title: Can you use the abbreviation 'ID' as a verb?

text: Although I could substitute ' _identify_ ' in place of 'ID', would it be considered improper to use 'ID' as a verb? Here's what I mean: > That boy looks underage, I think we should ?ID him.


title: Meaning of "paddling hell-for-leather away from a harmless seal"?

text: I'm reading The Inflatable Volunteer by Steve Aylett, and I'm stuck with this sentence: > Last week I was flooding the banks with saliva, slivers of gill and drifting > snot, paddling hell-for-leather away from a harmless seal. It's a pretty bizarre novel, so I don't know if I don't understand because of my bad English or if this was the author intention.


title: "They slipped from my hands the moment I picked them [up]"

text: > They were like puzzle pieces that slipped from my hands the moment I picked > them [up]. Is the _up_ necessary? Why or why not?


title: How do I pluralize "horsepower?"

text: Should I say that an engine can output 552 horsepower or 552 horsepowers? I've heard people use both. If it is just "horsepower", what is the justification for the nonstandard pluralization?


title: Are "egotistical" and "egocentric" synonyms?

text: Depending on where you look, people state that the words "egotistical" and "egocentric" are and are not synonymous. There is certainly some overlap, but are the two words technically interchangeable?


title: Is there a difference between "seemingly" and "apparently"

text: In the context of a business report would there be a difference (albeit subtle) between writing of "a seemingly unambitious plan" and "an apparently unambitious plan"? To me the first seems to suggest that in reality the plan is ambitious, we just can't see it. Is this also the case for the second? **Edit** — more explanation: One of my difficulties is the differences in definitions (seemingly doesn't appear in most dictionaries). The definitions from Google: > _seem_ : > >   1. Give the impression or sensation of being something or having a > particular quality: "Dawn seemed annoyed". > > > _apparent_ : > >   1. Clearly visible or understood; obvious. >   2. Seeming real or true, but not necessarily so. > Definition from Merriam-Webster: > _seeming_ : outwardly or superficially evident but not true or real So the MW definition of _seeming_ seems to closer to the definition of apparent in Google to me. My query really is whether and to what extent does either word imply that the reality is or may be different to the appearance.


title: Better phrasing for "year we started working with [them]"?

text: I'm making a database, establishing the fields where data is entered. The database stores a list of school systems that our company has worked with. So there's a field for the year we started working with them; but I'm drawing a blank as to how to summarize that in a small phrase. Is there a better phrasing for the title of the field, rather than "YearWeStartedWorkingWith"?


title: Which is preferred, "On the other hand, if ..." or "If, on the other hand, ..."?

text: Suppose you were presenting two different conditions. Which of the following is preferred? Does it matter? > If the flower is red, it may be a rose. On the other hand, if it is blue, it > may be a violet. or > If the flower is red, it may be a rose. If, on the other hand, it is blue, > it may be a violet.


title: "Obvious" vs. "Evident"

text: Are _obvious_ and _evident_ totally synonymous? I've noticed that both are generally translated to the same French word. However, as a native English speaker I kinda interpret them differently; _obvious_ indicates that something should be known to people already because it is common knowledge, or because it doesn't require complex thought to determine, whereas _evident_ suggests that something is obvious because there is a lot of evidence showing its truth. Do others make this distinction or am I alone here? :-)


title: What is the one word expression for 'wayside grass'?

text: I knew a word that meant wayside grass in English; but now I can not remember.


title: Meanings for "tea"

text: I would love to know the different meanings of "tea" in current usage in the U.K. I know that it can be the usual lovely cream tea one takes at four, while at the same time it means a light dinner around 5 or 5:30. I wonder about different class meaning of the expression.


title: Catchall term for "Junior", "Senior", "the late", "widow", and the like?

text: I'm analyzing a bunch of late 16th century Hungarian names, and I need a word for those extra bits that sometimes get appended to names, like _junior, senior, the late_ and the like. My "working title" has been _prefix_ (because they generally come first in Hungarian), but that's inaccurate, because they're not actually attached to anything. I thought of _appelation_ , but that's just another term for "name", and as such is too broad. Suggestions?


title: Is there a word for an acronym which spells out one of its component words?

text: The example I am thinking of is GNU, which stands for "GNU's not unix". It may be that there are no other examples. And maybe that's the whole joke. I was just wondering.


title: What is the name for a collective noun for a group of words or acronyms, that is a member of the group it describes?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  The same word used to define itself For example TLA is a three letter acronym; Antepreroxitone (words with the stress on the third from last sylable) is an antepreroxitone; Noun is a noun.


title: Does this situation have a name?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there a word for an acronym which spells out one of its component words? My coworker's wife is Margaret Elizabeth G... (I'll withhold the last name to protect the innocent). The joke is that the shortened form Margaret is Meg and her initials are also MEG. I hope this doesn't get closed as a stupid question but this situation feels like it might have a real name in the flavor of a palindrome (obviously not a palindrome, but in sense of a word or phrase having transmutable qualities).


title: What is/is there a word for singing through your nose?

text: I recall there being a word for nasal singing, I might be imagining things, but haven't had any luck finding that word on Google. Does any one have any suggestions?


title: Semicolon use: a quick question

text: Is the following sentence correct, and is its use of the semicolon correct? Note that the use of the word 'concurrency' is meant to indicate a computer science term. > A host of design issues are encompassed by concurrency; that of interaction > amongst processes, the sharing and competition for resources, the > synchronisation of the activities of multiple processes and the allocation > of processor time to processes.


title: Should I use 'I said to him' or 'I told him' in this dialogue?

text: I wonder if I should use 'said' or 'told' in the following dialogue: > I waited for too long. He took her away. > > I said to him crying, "I saw her first!" > > He said to me smiling, > > "finders keepers." (by the way, is it correct to use "finders keepings" in this situation?).


title: What does the word "rolling" mean in "rolling grassland"?

text: I found the following definition of "prairie" online: > An extensive area of flat or rolling grassland, especially the large plain > of central North America. I understand what "flat grassland" means, but what does "rolling grassland" refer to? I couldn't find my answer using Google. I do get different sets of images for each search phrase in Google Images, but can't figure out the difference between the two.


title: Is "annoyedly" a word?

text: I want to say: "Michael annoyedly turned to face his brother." I haven't found any solid evidence that the word "annoyedly" is an actual word, but I like the way it sounds for some reason. How _wrong_ is it if I choose to use this word in writing I'd ideally like to have others read?


title: How do I say "to record" meaning "to audio and video record" (in contrast to "to audio record")?

text: The context here is "You should record your speech". I mean you should record both your audio (the speaking) as well as the visual (gesticulation, etc.), but the context of this sentence strongly suggests that only audio is intended. This sentence appears in sales copy and so word count is limited. "You should video record your speech" sounds clumsy. How can I phrase this smoothly and succinctly?


title: Would you insert any hyphens in these?

text: Are hyphens needed in these? If so, where would you insert them? >   1. Joel applied for the assistant store manager position.   >  (Not: assistant-store-manager position, right?) > >   2. Joel was enrolled in the assistant store manager trainee program.   >  (Not: assistant-store-manager-trainee program, correct?) > >   3. Chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream   >  (Not: chocolate-chip-cookie-dough ice cream, correct?) > > Do you support my original versions without the hyphens?


title: Using "trade-off" in a right way

text: I'm writing a paper and would like to know whether my quoted sentence is right or not. To add more information, I have an improved algorithm which needs a threshold size. If we set that threshold size to a low value, algorithm 1 plays leading role, and if we set it to a high value then algorithm 2 plays leading role. > From what was said, it is clear that it could be argued that what is the > best threshold because of trade-off between using algorithm 1 and algorithm > 2.


title: Does the word "wireable" exist?

text: My current work is creating a kind of node that is connectable to other nodes. However, since the connection is made by wiring these nodes I always use the word _wireable_. > This node is wireable to other nodes that are exposing the required > interface. While creating a presentation I recognized that the spelling checker does mark the word as wrong. I first thought that this could be one of the words in which the _e_ is dropped but in none of the dictionaries (several Oxford Dictionaries, Merriam Webster, Urban, Wordnik) I found _wireable_ or _wirable_. I can only find some unreliable sources, so I wonder if this word does really exist or is just a kind of neologism. Is it appropriate to use the word _wireable_ or should I go with _connectable_?


title: How to describe the phenomenon of "small" people being ignored on the Internet

text: I live by Internet, as both a user and a developer. This dual role gives me a chance to observe. Every time I try to ask something in communities like StackOverflow, I always pick words carefully and provide sufficient information, hoping that my questions will be answered in a short time. But even so, sometimes my questions still get ignored. Maybe StackOverflow, or even the whole Internet, is too big a world, filled by floods of information. Small people try to fit in, but end up being swallowed by Twitter and Facebook, without even a sound. So, enough of complaining, I just want to know: Is there a word or a phrase to describe this phenomenon where people find themselves lost in the the great Information Age, ignored by others?


title: What does "Thundering typhoons" mean?

text: What does "Thundering typhoons" mean? Actually it was in the 2011 movie The Adventures of Tintin.


title: Descriptive word to describe nonprofit organization

text: Looking for a descriptive word or phrase to describe a nonprofit organization that includes the essence, values, mission and promotion of social reform. Not a place, or agency, business, but a word that describes more of the efforts, people, community, etc. Could be a word that suggests growing, building, promoting change, movement. An all encompassing word describing the entity. The sentence is in a letter to volunteers and supporters that starts with "without each and every one of you, we would not be able to create this amazing (need word).


title: "No point in" vs. "no point of" vs. "no point to"

text: _Point in_ , _point of_ , _point to_. ( _Point_ in the sense of "purpose".) What are the differences among these -- in meaning? in usage (each is used in certain constructions or with certain collocates, say)? in dialect? in register? etc. Some examples (though I'm asking more generally than just about these examples): > (1a) There's no point in going.   >  (1b) There's no point of going.   >  (1c) There's no point to going. > > (2a) Is there a point in his action?   >  (2b) Is there a point of his action?   >  (2c) Is there a point to his action? > > (3a) What's the point in that sculpture's being there?   >  (3b) What's the point of that sculpture's being there?   >  (3c) What's the point to that sculpture's being there?


title: What is the etymology of the word teeter totter?

text: Seesaw and teeter totter are two names for the same piece of playground equipment. I grew up using the word teeter totter mostly, but was aware of seesaw, as it was used in books. I was wondering whether it is a regional difference or a generational difference. From thefreedictionary, I found that there are even more terms used for this equipment: _tilt_ or a _tilting board_ , _teedle board_ , _dandle_ or _dandle board_. _Teeter_ or _teeterboard_ , and _teeter-totter_ , which is probably the most common term after _seesaw_. So it is indeed a regional term, which also explains why Google Ngrams has no recorded use of teeter totter in British English:   Link to Ngram for seesaw teeter totter in British English Yet, if seesaw was in use since before 1800, how and why did teeter totter come into use seemingly all of a sudden just before 1920?   Link to Ngram for seesaw teeter totter in American English Link to Online Etymology Dictionary for seesaw


title: Are the rules regarding absolute modifiers too absolute?

text: A common grammar lesson that was taught to me in the US and that I've had to teach abroad in EFL classrooms is that we're not to use adverbs of emphasis with absolute modifiers, just as we're not supposed to use them as comparatives or superlatives. Classic egregious examples of this mistake include _very unique_ and _more perfect_ , which seem obviously flawed to me. Other instances of further modified absolute modifiers are similarly meaningless or contradictory in nature. I wonder, though, if the rule that I learned isn't overly broad, and whether it's taught similarly in the UK and elsewhere. I find myself modifying absolute modifiers quite regularly, and in some circumstances I think it's not only logical and correct, but quite meaningful. Phrases like _almost exactly_ or _virtually all_ or _practically infinite_ possess a specific meaning that can't really be replicated using nonabsolutes like _very nearly_ or _most_ or _quite long_. In my own speech and writing, I use such phrases exactly as I see fit, so this isn't a request for permission, per se. I'm more curious about whether there's a more appropriate rule regarding absolutes that you rely on (and might be used in a classroom).


title: Use of "unique"

text: UNIQUE should not have a qualifier? Does it not mean "one of a kind" and thus it is incorrect to say, for example, "more unique'? One sees this misuse in advertising frequently. Is it now acceptable as sloppy but common usage?


title: Is certain absolute?

text: Can you be more certain about something or is certain absolute? I have always understood that the word certain is absolute.


title: Use of "very unique" flawed?

text: This is a word choice question. Can something be very (extremely) unique? Or is it either unique or not unique?


title: Is "more optimal" correct grammar?

text: As a math and computer-science person, I use the phrase "more optimal" quite often, such as _"This algorithm gives more optimal results."_ However, I was recently corrected, and told that _"more optimal"_ is incorrect grammar, since "optimal" means "best," and something can't be "more best." I searched online, but this doesn't appear to come up very often. In this pointless flame war, someone suggests that the correct phrase is _"more optimized"_ or _"better optimized,"_ while this page suggests using _"more nearly optimal."_ However, aside from the fact that "more optimized" wouldn't actually mean the same thing to a computer programmer, Google NGram suggests that neither of these alternative phrases are widely used: ![ngram](http://i.stack.imgur.com/sCuVD.png) So, am I using the phrase correctly, or am I (from the first link) _"showing my ignorance of the basics of English grammar?"_


title: Can something be *slightly* critical?

text: I overheard someone at work describing a task as "quite critical", and then describe another task as (direct quote) "über critical". Forgetting for a minute the colloquial nature of the conversation, is it acceptable in English to use the word _critical_ with a magnitude or degree? In short, can something be more _critical_ than something else? Or are things simply _critical_ , or _not critical_?


title: Looking for words or phrases to fit the idea of this form of hierarchy

text: I'm using text as follows to categorize some information. It goes from the general to the specific much as is done in libraries with books.   * `languages/english/spelling`   * `science/biology/genetics` What I'd like to find is a word to describe the line above and also each individual word. There's `path` like in the computing world but that doesn't quite convey the idea.


title: Reading out decimal numbers in English

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  How to write decimal values in words How do you read numbers like these? 0.12 "oh point twelve", "zero point one two", "zero and twelve hundreds" And these ones? 0.345, 12.45


title: How would you call a picture where all the main characters are together?

text: For example, in this picture: ![tableau from Friends](http://i.stack.imgur.com/J9dPv.jpg) How would you call this kind of picture?


How does one decide whether an adverb of manner should precede or follow the verb? In some cases, it seems to be more natural to have the adverb follow the verb, as in:               “She moved slowly and spoke quietly.”      But in other cases, it seems to be more natural to have the adverb precede the verb, as in:               “The minister solemnly addressed his congregation.”      But I can’t work out why this is the case. Is there a general rule to follow to decide where to place the adverb? Does it have anything to do with whether the verb is used transitively or intransitively?


title: Does this sentence make any sense to you?

text: "Never play the podcast from anywhere but the start" What does this sentence mean to you? By podcast I mean a house music episode that is one hour long.


title: Start a sentence with "even though"

text: I was told by my thesis advisor not to start a sentence with "even though". Does anyone agree? May I know why?


title: What is the difference between "happy to hear that" and "happy to hear this"?

text: Let's say I've sold a product to a customer. A bit later the costumer tells me "wow, this is fantastic". Now, do I better answer with "Thanks, I am glad to hear that" or "Thanks, I am glad to hear this"? What's more correct?


title: "On the grasping hand"?

text: I understand _on the other hand_. But what's _on the grasping hand_? Source: Stack Overflow blog.


title: What is the meaning of "Set us up the [noun]"?

text: Why would someone frequently say "Someone set us up the (thing)" when referring to things done to or for them. > For example: > >   * "Someone set us up the breakfast." > >   * "Someone set us up the game." > >   * "Someone set us up the fail." > > Is this a common phrase?


title: A word that means 'excessive encouragement'

text: I'm looking for a word that means excessive encouragement. Example: "We encourage our kids to study - but when does encouragement become excessive encouragement"? punishment? overzealousness?


title: What is a term describing offensive word replacement with made-up slang?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What term describes a non-offensive substitute for a swear word? Is there a term for replacing one slang word with another made-up slang word? For example `f*cking` => `fricking`, `fracking`, `smurfing`, `frelling`, or `freaking` At what point do the made up words turn into recognized/official words? For example I'm pretty sure I can use most of the above replacements and people will know what I mean, `fricking` and `fracking` being most used. Even if a replacement becomes commonly used, at what point would it end up in say the OED?


title: Why "horseback riding" and not simply "horse riding"?

text: As a German _horse riding_ seems to be to the point. Why is it _horseback riding_ in English? Isn't it obvious that you ride on the back of the horse? Is there a difference between British and American English on this point?


title: Is this sentence using Subjunctive Mood?

text: Here is the sentence I'm confused about: > If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on > my shoulders. > > (Hal Abelson, MIT Professor) My difficulty is to understand the verb _were_. I know we can't use _are_ because that is not the truth. However, why _were_?


title: "Who doors wins"

text: What does this expression mean? > Who doors wins Is it an idiom? Or is it a typo? Apparently, it makes no sense.


title: When and why did competence become "competency"?

text: I don't remember ever hearing "competency" until circa 1970. When I first heard that form it sounded very silly, as if someone was trying to sound lofty via the addition of superfluous syllables. Is there a context where "competency" is correct usage, and "competence" wouldn't do just as well? Is it a recent (last 40 yrs) permutation, or is it my sheltered background that made it sound that way? (Is anyone here old enough to know?) Okay, that's _three_ questions, sorry!


title: What is a term for words that are both homophones and homographs?

text: While there are homophones like bear and bare, and homographs like sow, the pig, and to sow a seed, is there a term for words that cover both categories? The example that comes to mind for me is to cleave. Is there a term for when they overlap?


title: Strange use of the past tense by Dr. Watson in the Sherlock series

text: I’m trying to correctly identify the reason why the past tense of ‘’to be’’ is used in the following context: Sherlock Season 3 Episode 3 The scene: Dr. Watson is about to enter a drug den. His wife spots some kind of weapon tucked into his trousers and the following dialogue takes place: > – What is that?   >  – It’s a tyre lever.   >  – Why?   >  – ‘cos there **were** loads of smack heads in there and one of them might > need help with a tyre. The only guess I’ve got is that ‘were’ is used to express uncertainty and therefore add sarcasm, and the intended meaning is ’’there is a slight possibility that there may be a lot of smack heads in this drug den’’. But I’m not sure if this is the right interpretation, as I’ve never come across this kind of tense use before.


title: Is the following use of however correct?

text: > There was no way, however; my mind was still wide awake. I always see however after semicolons but never like the case above. Is the example grammatically correct?


title: Best way to phrase a sentence with parenthesis

text: I'm not sure exactly how to ask this question without giving an example, so here it is. What's the best way to phrase something like this: > Found 3 errors (and gave 2 suggestions) for 'Some Book' If these were to be written separately, you would want to write "Found 3 errors **in** 'Some Book'" and "Gave 2 suggestions **for** 'Some Book'". However, I want to write it as tersely as possible, in a single sentence, but all these ways seem awkward to me:   1. Found 3 errors (and gave 2 suggestions) **for** 'Some Book'   2. Found 3 errors (and gave 2 suggestions) **in** 'Some Book'   3. Found 3 errors in (and gave 2 suggestions for) `Some Book' I think the first is the best, but is there a correct way to have a compound statement like this?


title: What do you mean by "in production form"?

text: The contexts of the usage of this phrase is given below. _SAP Business Suite customers can now run the software **in production form** on Amazon Web Services, the companies announced this week during the Sapphire and Tech Ed conferences in Madrid._ Source: http://www.cio.com/article/721825/SAP_Certifies_Business_Suite_for_Production_Use_on_Amazon_Web_Services _After being displayed as a thinly disguised concept model at this year's Auto China Show in Beijing, the revamped Seat Ibiza Cupra has now been revealed **in production form**._ Source: http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2012/11/seat-ibiza-cupra-facelift- appears-in.html How is this phrase different from saying "generally available" or "generally released"? I appreciate all your intelligent answers.


title: What is proper grammar for a question that ends with a colon?

text: > "Would you mind completing the following?:" Is the above correct?


title: plural of compound nouns

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the plural form of “iPad 2”?   >  When can an adjective be postposed? I'm curious particularly with iPod Touch and iPad Mini The plural would be iPod Touches and iPad Minis, or iPods Touch and iPads Mini


title: What is the plural form of "iPad 2"?

text: With the introduction of the iPad 2, I find myself hesitating when trying to refer to several of them. Is it iPads 2 or iPad 2's?


title: Suffix order: -lessness vs -nessless

text: What is the correct order for combinations of suffixes `-less` and `-ness`? Are they combined in any order, or is there any rule governing a proper usage? > hope **lessness**   >  help **lessness** But: > weak **nessless** A side point; not sure if it is related to above. Although the suffixes `-less` makes an adjective while `-ness` makes a noun, it seems that people treat `-nessless` words as nouns:   * **Eventfulnessless**. Guys, I was serious about my running out of ideas.   * Office staff needs work, lack of **timelinessless** than expected follow through listening skills need attention... What am I missing?


title: Word for fruitless effort?

text: What is a good word for describing how a pursuit or occupation requires a lot of effort without there being much reward or recognition? > eg. So much of his time and effort went into practicing the piano. He was a > mildly depressed person, knowing at the back of his mind that a career in > classical music is always difficult and often **___ __ ___ ___**.


title: "Would remain" vs. "would have remained"

text: What's the difference in meaning between the following two sentences? >   1. He thought that he **would remain** young. >   2. He thought that he **would have remained** young. >


title: In 'large herds of elephant and buffalo', why elephant not elephants?

text: I found the following expression in dictionary. > large herds of elephant and buffalo A herd must be more than one, why using singular not plural?


title: Biden Got Out ‘Over His Skis,’ Says Obama

text: I read the above headline in the New York Times. From the context, I understood that it means that Biden was a little too hasty. I would like to know the origins of this expression


title: Is “Open kimono with somebody” a popular English phrase?

text: According to AP and other news sources, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase acknowledged that his bank slipped-up $2 billion losses incurred by their trading and that the matter is now under investigation by regulators. Dimon told in NBC’s “Meet the Press”: > “Of course, regulators should look at something like this. It’s their job. > _We are totally open kimono with_ regulators. And they will come to their > own conclusion and we intend to fix it, learn from it and be a better > company when it’s done.” I am interested in the phrase, “We are totally open kimono with regulators” as I understand ‘Kimono’ is Japanese equivalent to dress. Is “ _Open kimono with somebody_ ” a popular English (or American) idiom or phrase? Can I say “open dress with somebody” instead of using “Kimono”? If not, what are alternative idioms meaning “open up one’s mind”?


title: Using 'would' to form reasons

text: In the following examples:   * Why would anyone want to eat something so horrible?   * Who would live for forever?   * Why would I ever lie to you? Is 'would' being used to refer to time in future or past Or Is it just being used to form facts and reasons or arguments?


title: Is there a single word for date of death?

text: Since we have a single word like _birthday_ , is there a corresponding term for the date of someone’s death?


title: Did 'fornication' ever mean vaulting?

text: The following dialog is an excerpt from Terry Pratchet's _Making Money_ : > “Isn’t the fornication wonderful?” > > After quite a lengthy pause, Moist ventured, “Is it?” > > “Don’t you think so? There’s more here than anywhere else in the city, I’m > told.” > > “Really?” said Moist, looking around nervously. “Er . . . do you have to > come down here at some special time?” > > “Well, during banking hours usually, but we let groups in by appointment.” > > “You know,” said Moist, “I think this conversation has somehow got away from > me . . .” > > Bent waved vaguely at the ceiling. > > “I refer to the wonderful vaulting,” he said. “The word derives from fornix, > meaning ‘arch’.” > > “Ah! Yes? Right!” said Moist. “You know, I wouldn’t be surprised if not many > people knew that.” I do not dispute the origin of the word which is confirmed by this definition: > Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.   > > > Word History: The word fornication had a lowly beginning suitable to what > has long been the low moral status of the act to which it refers. The Latin > word fornix, from which fornicti, the ancestor of fornication, is derived, > meant "a vault, an arch." The term also referred to a vaulted cellar or > similar place where prostitutes plied their trade. This sense of fornix in > Late Latin yielded the verb fornicr, "to commit fornication," from which is > derived fornicti, "whoredom, fornication." Our word is first recorded in > Middle English about 1303. My question is whether the word _fornication_ ever actually meant _vaulting_ in English as opposed to Latin. The definition above states that 'our' word first appeared in 1303 but did it carry both meanings or only the modern one? For that matter, does it carry both meanings today? None of the dictionaries I checked has that usage.


title: How do I represent the "-ed" in "witnessed" phonetically?

text: How do I represent the - _ed_ in _witnessed_ (or any other similar word) phonetically? Is there a reference sheet somewhere for these? I notice that other endings do not get shown in most dictionaries either (for example _-es_ in _phrases_) I use Word web which has a pronunciation guide for the root of the word, but I can't find anything to write the _-ed_ part phonetically. It does not seem to be on this Wikipedia page. I would prefer the same format as Word web. Many people could probably figure this out for themselves (without a direct reference), but I do not trust myself.


title: What is a word for implying someone else is wrong?

text: For instance, if someone says to you, "I like cake," and you reply, "I like to take care of my body," your response is a passive-aggressive way of implying that they don't like to take care of their body because they eat cake. I'm looking for an adjective to describe this type of response, something akin to passive-aggressive but more specific to the situation.


title: Another term for "instant feedback"?

text: I'm looking for another term for "instant feedback". Something perhaps similar to how common the phrase "instant gratification" is used to mean instant results from an action. For context, I'm trying to describe the way a video game's camera will capture and immediately display a player's movements on screen so they can react/correct their movements.


title: "Partially correct" vs. "partial correct"

text: >   * It's partially correct. >   * It's partial correct. > Which of the following is grammatical?


title: Do I need to use a comma before 'but' where the subject is not immediate?

text: For example, "This doesn't cause any crash but later it can cause unknown memory-crashes." I see here that the subject 'it' is not immediately after 'but'. Do I still need to use a comma before 'but' as it links another subject?


title: It's hard to pronounce some consonant combinations in English

text: I can't figure out any ways to speak fast and smoothly some sound combinations. Would you nativer speakers provide any help? Could you tell me how your tongues move while speaking them?   * The dental fricatives must be the damnedest, because it make me push my tongue forward to much. And they're even harder to speak if they're preceded by an alveolar sound such as /d/ or /n/. Some people (especially black American people) speak them like they're dropped, but I'm not sure speaking that way would be a good idea.    * A dental fricative followed by a labiodental fricative could be hard to speak fast, since they're pronounced in the same manner and they both require using upper teeth. I have to put my tongue blade after the my upper teeth instead of right under them to produce the dental one, because that's the place I've just used for the labiodental one.   * The /sts/ combination or any other alveolar ones like that are really big challenges. I can only speak them seperately, or sometimes I have to drop the /ts/, or replace the /t/ with a short i (which is how black people do it).    * An alveolar flap is a problem if it goes after an /n/ and a vowel, as in "don't I" or "can't I". After all, sorry about my bad English.


title: Should I write "any question" or "any questions"?

text: Are they both correct? Should there be singular or plural that right after "any"? If they are both correct, what's the difference? Here, I quote some sentences from the Internet and I wonder if the word "problem" can be changed into "problems" or vise versa. >   * I don't think there was any _question_ she wore the pants. >   * I can ask you any _question_ , and you will answer? >   * We were never asked any _questions_. >   * Any _questions_ about what is happening in mine are put aside until > dessert is served. >


title: Is there a word to describe curiosity in a positive way?

text: I'm looking for a word that describes a curious, interested state of mind- open minded, exploring, wondering, but without being nosy.


title: Proactive vs Preemptive

text: I need to explain the difference between "proactive" and "preemptive" and come up with a sample of the proper context of each word. Can someone point me to a previous post or give me their thoughts?


title: A word to describe the color of hair that is nearly jet-black, but slightly brown?

text: What is a word to describe the color of a person's hair whose hair is nearly jet-black, but slightly brown? For what it's worth, the person whose hair I have in mind is female with long, straight hair.


title: Does "peculiar" imply "unusual"/"hard to expect"?

text: When something is called _peculiar_ or _having a peculiarity_ what does that mean? Does it just mean it has some specific features or does it mean that those specific features are unusual, not normally expected?


title: Should I acronymize "Health, Safety, and Environment" as "HSE" or "SHE"?

text: Which abbreviation is most used for "Health, Safety and Environment"? I keep seeing different abbreviations, and a quick search on Google shows that they are all used widely. But does anyone actually know if there is one "correct" abbreviation?


title: Equivalent word which represents 'Team' or 'Individual'

text: I am developing a coding contest project with multiple contests. The participants can be a team or an independent individual, depending on the contest setting. I want to define only one model for the participant which could understood as a team or an individual. Is there a word that can be used for _team_ and _participating individual_? ### Update I am thinking to chuck the idea of implementing whole project based on smart team management complicating it whole and decided to implement separate team management and complicating that. But I would be very happy to change my mind if I could get a word, maybe even in some other language for this.


title: '(death) throes' - countability?

text: In my Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary the word 'throe' is not listed, only 'throes'. With other nouns, the dictionary clearly indicates whether nouns are countable or uncountable, however, with 'throes' it only indicates that it is plural. I am sitting with a term paper in which I have to comment on the countability and number of a set of given nouns from a text. 'Throes' is one of these words and although it is 'death throes' in the context ('This sudden burst of activity was actually the Expedit in its death throes')only 'throes' is underlined as the one I should comment on. Is the word 'throes' simply neither countable or uncountable? Is that possible? Or why does my dictionary not indicate it, as if it does not know it either? Has it something to do with 'death throes' being part of an idiom? I am unsure of the word and how I should comment. Hope someone can help me :)


title: Is there a common English phrase for the 'so absurd it must be true' logical fallacy?

text: There are various common (often Latin) phrases for various logic fallacies, such as _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ , _argumentum ad populum_ , _slippery slope fallacy_ , etc. Is there a common phrase used to describe the fallacy of saying that because a claim seems so unusual or specific, it must be true, because 'nobody would ever make something that unusual up'?


title: Term for marking stating the date or year something was built or established

text: An arch might be engraved with "MCMLXII". A company logo might say, "since 1873". A sidewalk might be stamped with "08/2012". What do you call these markings?


title: Does not or Might not?

text: This is the message: > The user might not fall under the scope of this policy. It denotes that a setting is not applied to the user because the user is not part of the policy. He's surely not part of the policy. In this case, which is more appropriate to use? >   1. The user might not fall under the scope of this policy > >   2. The user does not fall under the scope of this policy > >


title: The drone as autonomous vehicle

text: Why are these 21st century autonomous vehicles called _drones_? Why was this zoology inspired name chosen for this kind of technology? And who was the first to call this technology by this name?


title: Word for strength of will

text: As the title shows, can anyone tell me what is the word for _strength of will_? For example, > Her _strength of will_ was extraordinary.


title: Meter in Tennyson's *Maud*

text: How should Tennyson's _Maud_ be read? I.e. what is its meter? Here are the first four lines: > I HATE the dreadful hollow behind the little wood,   >  Its lips in the field above are dabbled with blood-red heath,   >  The red-ribb’d ledges drip with a silent horror of blood,   >  And Echo there, whatever is ask’d her, answers “Death.”


title: Should "guest of honour" be capitalised?

text: > The Principal will invite the guest of honour to give the National Day > message at 9 o'clock. Is the _guest of honour_ capitalised?


title: Single word for "finding company"

text: This is my very first question here on `english.stackexchange.com`, so please don't bite me if I do anything wrong. Also sorry for my English, it's far from perfect. I need a single word (or a short informal conversational phrase) for `"finding company"` (to do something together, opposite to spending time alone), like in "He had finally found someone to watch the movie with". Thanks in advance.


title: Is there a good book about interesting grammar in any language?

text: I love reading about interesting differences in grammar in different languages, e.g. Finnish cases. Is there a good book, site or something else that treats "interesting things in grammar" in any language?


title: Single word antonym of "censorship"

text: What is a single word antonym of _censorship_? _Freedom of speech_ is too long. I would like to be able to contrast it like: > ignorance vs knowledge > > submission vs defiance > > oppression vs freedom


title: “all that” vs. “all what”

text: I’ve heard somebody say: > All what is needed is … I thought the correct way to phrase it was: > All that is needed is … However, thinking about it more, the former doesn’t sound _too_ incorrect, albeit a bit odd. Is the former grammatically correct? Am I alone in thinking the latter sounds more natural?


title: Why is "you cannot buy all what you like" wrong?

text: I got the following sentences from http://www.engvid.com/english- resource/50-common-grammar-mistakes-in-english-2/ > Wrong: You cannot buy all what you like!   >  Right: You cannot buy all that you like! Why is the first one wrong? I do see the structure "you can do what you..." many times, e.g. "how to talk about what you want".


title: "Money is all what/that I need."

text: * 1.) _Money is_ **_all that_** _I need._   * 2.) _Money is_ **_all what_** _I need._ Which one is right? or which one have you not ever seen? and is there any difference between them? But, what about the following?   * If we consider the word **_"all"_** as an **adverb** , not as a **noun** , what would you like to say? ( **In addition:** I am wondering the reason why my question is labeled as an answered question, because if you look at it you will notice that they are not the same at all.)


title: Meaning of the word "findings"?

text: I need to find a word to define the products you see in the capture. The best match I've found is _findings_. Is this word the correct one? Is there a better word for these products? ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/w0Sqp.png)


title: "This helps us how?" vs. "How does this help us?"

text: In the sci-fi movie _Inception_ by Christopher Nolan, in the first level of dreaming, they kidnap Cilian Murphy and Tom Hardy tries to get some information from him, by impersonating Browning, his uncle. Then they sedate him in a car. Tom Hardy removes the bag from his head, gets down from the car, and says to Di Caprio's character: > That boy's relationship with his father is even worse than we imagined. To which Joseph Gordon Levitt's character replies, > This helps us how? Is this a correct sentence? Why didn't he say > How does this help us?


title: "Succeeded out of luck" and "Is out of luck" To be out of luck

text: I understand the usage, but "out of luck" itself I don't quite grasp. Where does it come from? I want to know the etymology of "out of" in the sense of not having.


title: Is "Customizable" a valid English word?

text: Is the word " **Customizable** " a valid English word? Every time i write that word, the spell checker underlines it, and it suggests using "Customization" or "Customize", I'm not a native English speaker. That word exists in online dictionaries so i wonder why does the spell checker underline it.


title: Is there a single word for 'scaring a person for sake of fun'?

text: An example situation: > My friend is watching a horror movie. He is lost deep into the movie. Taking > advantage of this situation I wear a mask of a ghost and suddenly appear in > front of him just to scare him for the sake of fun. Does the act I did ie. 'scaring a person for sake of fun' have a single word equivalent?


title: Is 'disinstruct' or 'de-instruct' legitimate usage?

text: When you engage a lawyer or an estate agent, for example, you _instruct_ them. What is the most appropriate word to use when you decide you've had enough and want to get rid of them? There are several good contenders but _'dis- instruct'_ would seem most appropriate - and yet I'm unable to find this word in any of the common reference dictionaries. Is it a legitimate word? Google Ngram yielded the following, but only for ' _dis - instruct_ '. All other possible constructions of this word flatlined. Ngram Other possible constructions are _uninstruct_ (although as back-formation of _uninstructed_ there is potential for misinterpretation) and _de-instruct_.


title: Comma in "more than $6 billion to settle a long-running lawsuit, in a pact that also permits"

text: > Visa Inc., MasterCard Inc. and some large banks agreed to pay scores of > retailers—from giant Publix Supermarkets Inc. to an interior-design store in > Minnesota—more than $6 billion to settle **a long-running lawsuit, in a > pact** that also permits merchants to charge more to customers who pay with > credit cards. — WSJ How would the meaning change if that comma between "lawsuit" and "in a pact" is removed? Another example: >   * The two sides have agreed to stop fighting in a pact that allows further > peace talks. >   * The two sides have agreed to **stop fighting, in a pact** that allows > further peace talks. >


title: Why these sentences doesn't have auxiliary word in it?

text: In these sentences, why isn't there an auxiliary verb? I would expect that there will be one after "Who" in both sentences: 1) Who cooks when Karen and Andy have friends round for dinner, 2) Who chatted to people online at the weekend?


title: Hyphenation "kinetic"

text: What is the correct hyphenation of "kinetic" (if it matters in British English). I found two possibilities: > **ki-net-ic** (/kə-ˈne-tik/) in the Merriam Webster (which might be US > English) and **kin-et-ic** (/kI'netIk/ or /kaI'netIk/) in the Oxford > Advanced Learners Dictionary 8th edition (British version?). Is there a difference in hyphenation rules between British and US English?


title: What is the best way to say that something was done in teamwork?

text: In my resume, I'm describing several projects I've worked on in the past. Most of them were done in teamwork. What is the best way to say this? Examples: Together with XY, I built ... OR In collaboration with XY, I built ... OR XY and I built ... Are the first two examples grammatically correct? I'm unsure since first I state that something has been done in collaboration with a second person, but then I use "I built ...".


title: How should a person holding a foreign military rank be addressed?

text: While researching how to call a person that holds a rank at a foreign (non English speaking) military, I came to very confusing results: Wikipedia is not consistent on the issue:   * it sometimes gives the rank in the native language alone, as in the case for Erwin Rommel, Heinrich Himmler, Heinz Guderian, and Gerd von Rundstedt, all of whom are German, and the current Israeli Chief of General Staff Benny Gantz.   * In other cases, it gives the rank in the native language with an equivalent rank in English, as in the case for Israel Tal who was an Israeli general.   * And sometimes it only gives the equivalent rank, as in the case of Israeli Medal of Valor recipient Zvika Greengold and Japanese military aviator Minoru Genda. Other sources are also confusing:   * The Jewish Virtual Library, in their page about Erwin Rommel call Erwin Rommel, Heinz Guderian and Gerd von Runstedt Field Marshal, even though they have different ranks (Rommel and von Runstedt were _Generalfeldmarschall_ and Guderian was a _Generaloberst_ ).   * The site's www.auschwitz.dk page about Himmler give's his rank as _Reichsfuhrer-SS_ , while the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum gives his rank as the translation to English with the German rank in parentheses:  > Heinrich Himmler (1900-1945) was the Reich Leader (Reichsführer) of the > dreaded SS of the Nazi party from 1929 until 1945   * This article on rt.com about the letters of Erwin Rommel simply call him general.   * The articles in the Independent, the English version of Haaratz, The New York Times and Israel's Armored Corps Memorial Site about Israel Tal's Death all call him Major-General without mentioning the Hebrew rank. After all of this I'm left confused as I can't really see any pattern of proper use his,   * Should the rank in the original language be used, the equivalent "English" rank be used, or a translation of the rank?   * Is there any difference if the original language is a non-Indo-European language vs. an Indo-European language (Hebrew vs. German)?   * In the case that an equivalent rank is used, what set of ranks is the standard (Wikipedia uses the NATO Code)?   * Finally, since my rank is Rav Samal, should I call myself Rav samal, Sergeant First Class (the NATO corresponding rank) or Master Sergeant (the translation)?


title: Real Estate or Real-Estate?

text: Which is the correct way to write "Real Estate" - with or without hyphen? And when should we use hyphens?


title: "to be" as a phrase

text: Please edit this question's title, if you think it's inconsistent with my question: In an email, I wrote: "I've pasted a link that leads to my application list, **which will be completed** once I hear back from schools about their engineering school admissions policies." Is the use of "to be" in the following sentence an acceptable substitute. "I've pasted a link that leads to my application list, **to be completed** once I hear back from schools about their engineering school admissions policies."


title: Can a symmetry be "broken down" (to a lower symmetry)?

text: **Background** Symmetries are a key concept in physics, and describe the invariance of a system under certain operations (for example, rotation). Breaking a symmetry refers to modifying the system in a way so that it is no longer invariant under the same operation. A symmetry can be completely broken, or only partially broken with a lower symmetry remaining. For example: a circle always looks the same, regardless of the angle you rotate it by. A square also has a rotational symmetry, but you have to rotate by multiples of 90 degrees to get the same picture. Hence, the symmetry of the square is lower. **Question** In the scientific literature, people use the expression "to break down a symmetry" when referring to a reduction from high symmetry (circle) to a lower symmetry (square) as compared to a complete breaking (irregular shape). They might write > The original continuous symmetry was broken down to a symmetry under 90 > degree rotations. In my opinion, the expression "to break down" is not appropriate, because it means to separate into its parts or to destroy completely rather than to reduce to a smaller part. I would instead write > The original continuous symmetry was reduced to a symmetry under 90 degree > rotations. Does the use of "to break down" with this meaning deviate from the usual meaning of this phrase in other contexts? Here are some examples, suggesting that the use of "to break down" in the sense of reducing to a smaller part is at least common in the field: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2115 (native speaker, authority in his field) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.2934 http://www.science.uva.nl/~bais/broksym.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%E2%80%B2_and_Z%E2%80%B2_bosons


title: Does a nonessential phrase affect the pronoun?

text: I was proofreading some text for a friend and I stumbled across this sentence: > Glen, along with his close group of friends, took their first trip to Hawaii > in 1986. My question is this: Is this correct, or should _their first trip_ really be _his first trip_? I see the phrase between the commas as an nonessential phrase, and it appears to me that the sentence should be written so that it could stand alone without it. Therefore, to me it seems as though _his first trip_ would be correct. However, the author is of the opinion that since there are multiple people going on the trip, _their first trip_ is appropriate. (My "real" answer would be to rewrite the sentence to avoid this issue in the first place, but I'm still curious.)


title: Difference between "premiss" and "premise"

text: In speaking of propositions, not buildings, are _premise_ and _premiss_ variant spellings of the same word, or are they different terms with different usages? The _American Heritage Dictionary_ (3/e) gives _premise_ as the main entry, with _premiss_ as a variant spelling, which I've assumed was British. But one internet source asserts that _premiss_ is preferable because of its etymology; another suggests that _premiss_ is always the correct term in logic.


title: Difficulty in interpreting a statute

text: In my home state, there is a statute regarding child seats. > >     § 20-137.1.  Child restraint systems required. >   > > (a) Every driver who is transporting one or more passengers of less than 16 > years of age shall have all such passengers properly secured in a child > passenger restraint system or seat belt which meets federal standards > applicable at the time of its manufacture. > > (a1) _A child less than eight years of age and less than 80 pounds in weight > shall be properly secured in a weight-appropriate child passenger restraint > system._ In vehicles equipped with an active passenger-side front air bag, > if the vehicle has a rear seat, a child less than five years of age and less > than 40 pounds in weight shall be properly secured in a rear seat, unless > the child restraint system is designed for use with air bags. If no seating > position equipped with a lap and shoulder belt to properly secure the > weight-appropriate child passenger restraint system is available, a child > less than eight years of age and between 40 and 80 pounds may be restrained > by a properly fitted lap belt only. Here's the source. I am confused on the first sentence in a1, particularly concerning a child who is older than eight but who weighs less than 80 pounds. Does he have to be secured in a child passenger restraint system? It comes down to the "and." If the "and" means a logical disjunction, then the statute has no bearing on either an 81 pound six-year-old or a 72 pound eleven-year-old. They may sit in the front with a lap and shoulder belt if they wish (and no one else has called "shotgun"). However, if the intent of the law is to keep smaller children from being injured by airbags, then perhaps the lawmakers should have rephrased, removing the age, to something like "A child above 80 pounds may sit in a lap and shoulder belt in the front seat. Children under 80 pounds shall be properly secured in a weight-appropriate child passenger restraint system in a rear seat." I'm having trouble interpreting the letter of the law. I'm not sure what the spirit of the law is, either. In a normal reading (as opposed to being tried in court by lawyers), does this statute apply to my 72 pound, eleven-year-old? That is, does 20-137.1 require me to put my eleven-year-old in a car seat?


title: "Ma'am" or "Miss" in American English?

text: Is it common to address a female sales clerk as Miss in the US? What about ma'am? If neither is proper, what would you suggest?


title: Can inversion be used without auxiliary verb?

text: Is the following sentence grammatically correct? > I don't like autumn to be honest, neither like I winter that's coming after > it. Can inversion be used in this way? Or does it requires auxiliary _do_? > I don't like autumn to be honest, neither do I like winter that's coming > after it. The meaning should be: _I don't like autumn, I don't like winter_. * * * Is inversion appropriate in this case? Or is it better to use the regular word order? >   1. I don't like autumn to be honest, and neither I like winter that's > coming after it. >   2. I don't like autumn to be honest, and I like winter that's coming after > it either. > Which of the two is preferable?


title: Indicator vs. Indication

text: The Merriam Webster Dictionary gives the following definitions.   * Indicator - "one that indicates"   * Indication - "something that serves to indicate" How are they different? Is saying that an "indicator gives an indication" correct?


title: How can I interpret the meaning of “narrative” in different situations?

text: According to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, the meaning of "narrative" is defined as: >   1. A description of events, especially in a novel. >   2. The act, process or skill of telling a story. > However, the meanings of "narrative" used in the following three examples of sentences I recently came across don't appear to necessarily match either of the above definitions. Here are three examples of sentences using the word "narrative". Can somebody rephrase the specific meaning of each in an easy-to-understand way for non native English learners like me? * * * > (In Charlie Sheen’s show held in Detroit,) Audience growing restless. This > show is all pump-up, **no narrative**. – The Guardian. * * * > I realize that with hostile Republicans controlling the House, there’s not > much Mr. Obama can get done in the way of concrete policy. Arguably, all he > has left is the bully pulpit. But he isn’t even using that — or, rather, > he’s using it to reinforce his **enemies' narrative**. – New York Times * * * > The story of Capitol Hill's week on the brink — which brought Washington > within an hour of a government shutdown — is a **narrative of three men** , > each with a confining sense of his own limitations. – Washington Post


title: Is "crevice" an abstract or concrete noun?

text: I can't find an answer to this question that my students and I are debating about. Is _crevice_ an abstract or concrete noun?


title: Proper use of passive and active voices?

text: My question is when passive voice is preferred over active voices and vice versa?   1. I remember that I was taught that in scientific writings, passive voice was preferred over active voice. Is it correct?   2. If I want to describe several actions of mine, for example: > I did thing A. I did thing B. I did thing C. I did thing D. ... If I keep using the active voice, will that make the description boring? That is why I thought juxtaposition of passive and active voice would make the description better: > I did thing A. Thing B was done by me. I did thing C. Thing D was done by > me. ... But a comment led me wonder whether juxtaposition of passive and active voice is good, or when it is good and when it isn't?


title: When to use passive and active voice

text: When is it better to use **passive** voice in writing and speech? When is it better to use **active** voice in writing and speech?


title: "much too [something]" vs "too much [something]"

text: Which are the differences in meaning and usage between the two expressions "much too [something]" and the most common "too much [something]"? Are they completely interchangeable? i.e.: "much too wise" vs "too much wise"


title: Is ‘12ers’ well-established alias for 2012 Presidential candidate?

text: I puzzled over the first line of the article of December 9’s _Time_ magazine titled "Des Moines Dust-Up", which reads; > '12ers (minus Huntsman) square-off at Drake University for ABC News/Yahoo! > News/WOI-TV/Des Moines Register/Iowa GOP debate from 9 - 11 pm ET. As it didn’t occur to me that _12ers_ means 2012 Presidential candidates (until I reasoned it out by the context), I searched for definitions of _12ers_ on Google, and found that only Wikipedia provides the following definition: > ‘12"ers’ is a 1987/1988 remix album released by Phil Collins. The album > contains six tracks from his 1985 hit album, No Jacket required, > remixed..... Is _12ers_ widely-accepted as the word representing for 2012 presidential candidates? Do Americans immediately associate _12ers_ with Presidential candidates, not Phil Collins’ album? Is this word automatically renewed every 4 years as _04ers_ , _08ers_ , _16ers_ , _20ers_ , and _n＋4ers_ without public consensus?


title: What is the meaning of "as with" in the following sentences?

text: To appear to flash as with light. As with any large organisation, Nokia had a unique problem in how to collaborate on a level playing field with 50,000 employees worldwide. (in the first example, the meaning is one of the definitions of the verb "to snap")


title: Non verbal predicates in English

text: Is a non-verbal predicate a synonymous term for "nominal predicate"? And moreover, do non-verbal predicates only appear with linking verbs or can also appear in other types of constructions? I acknowledge definitions of concepts, because I isn't clarified :)


title: "Neither-nor" as an adjective?

text: I'm reading in a newspaper: > "He is a neither-nor judge." Is the phrase correct?


title: Hypernym for "customer," "supplier", "manufacturer"

text: I need an abstraction for the above terms. In financial services, _counterparty_ is often used. Another hypernym could be _account_ (although this sounds more like a bank account, or user/login account). Also _third-party account_ (although I've never heard of this one). Which would be the correct way and/or most descriptive term? My reason for asking is that I am designing a new database schema and want a base name from which these three types will inherit. All of these people "transact" in business, and that's what they have in common.


title: reduced relative clause

text: Could anyone please look at the following sentences and tell me if the reduced version is acceptable, and if any any difference exists between the full and reduced versions? Thank you * * * a) Anyone who touches the wire will get a shock. a') Anyone touching the wire will get a shock. b) Women who look after small children get paid well. b') Women looking after small children get paid well. c) The person who looks after my child every day is sick. c') The person looking after my child every day is sick. d) The student who looks bright is John. d') The student looking bright is John. e) The man who lives is Tokyo is rich. e') The man living in Tokyo is rich. f) The boy who found the cat was Tom. f') The boy finding the cat was Tom.


title: Can I say "He recommended you much"

text: I need to mark that someone made some effort to recommend third person services and it was something more than "he is good in that". Checking a dictionary, _much_ is an adverb meaning "to a great extent; a great deal" Is the phrase "He the recommended you much" suitable for showing such praise? Is there a better way? If there is, why?


title: Origin of "City of ...", "County of ...", "Town of ..."

text: I'm curious about the numerous civic names (at least in Canada) which are in the 'of' form, by which I mean: City of Toronto, County of Wellington, etc. To me, this form sounds antiquated. I can accept when 'of' is adding some value to the phrase, like 'hall of fame', 'house of cards', but when it's merely referencing a civic name, where's the value? It's Toronto. It's Wellington County. No 'of' needed! I assume that these sorts of expressions have been part of the language for a long time, but am curious as to how and when this form may have originated.


title: How To Classify A Way Of Speaking Other Than Pronunciation Or Accent?

text: When you hear certain people talk, there's something distinct about the way they speak that you insist is not their accent. It's not even the pronunciation (e.g. can't vs. cahn't). It's also not their natural voice or emotion. This happens when you hear someone speak and the "accent" may reveal his or her sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, intelligence, popularity, subculture, sometimes disability, etc. What do you call this kind of classification?


title: Meaning of comment "Game. Set. Match."

text: What's the meaning of p2's comment? > P1: My gf is a doctor and she makes twice as much as I do. F-k I feel like a > weird mother f-ker. She makes all the bling at home. I only make around 42k > a year as a fund accountant :(. Although she owes a sh-t ton in loans and > I'm debt free. > > P2: "I'm debt free." Game. Set. Match.


title: A Preceded By B, so which comes first?

text: I was reading a technical requirement documentation and it says:               A Save Event preceded by the user un-checking the "Active" check box...       So does it mean: they un-check the "Active" check box and then they Save ?


title: Is there a term for "genocide" of the elderly?

text: The word _infanticide_ means: > killing of babies: the practice of killing newborn babies Is there an equivalent term for killing the elderly?


title: Questions about the subtleties of the genitive case

text: The AP style guide suggests that things like "Farmers Markets" or "Veterans Cemeteries" cannot "belong" to the members of the groups for which they were set up. I would posit that a thing _for the use of_ a group (e.g., farmers or veterans), has an implied ownership...more collectively, but I feel it's ownership nonetheless, and would write farmers' market and veterans' cemetery. Anyone have any experience with this, and can anyone explain the subtleties of ownership vs non-ownership in these cases? I'm trying to wrap my head around why AP chose the guideline they did.


title: Why pool of processes?

text: I hit the sentence: > The _ProcessPoolExecutor_ class is an _Executor_ subclass that uses a pool > of processes to execute calls asynchronously. I was looking for the word pool which means `swimming pool` in most cases. So, I'm asking the question: Why we're using in concurrent programming terminology the term `pool of processes` and not `list of processes`, `set of processes` etc. How did the term come into existence? Where is the origin?


title: Professor what is it?

text: **Email:**   Dr. Elbert Ainstein,   _Dear sir I have read everything you ever wrote. blah blah.. Your paper on so..more blah... I wish to study at your esteemed blahblahb...._   Yours Sincerely,   Beststud Youlleverhave Dr. Elbert Ainstein is a professor and Beststud Youlleverhave is a student. Students often write mails to profs before admissions(to get admissions). I have been to a University's webpage. It said we encourage `Professor ________ing`. I can't remember what that word was. What is it? What is the word for this thing?


title: Comma(s) when starting a sentence with both an introductory element and participial clause

text: If a sentence is starting with both an introductory element and a participial clause, where do I need to set the comma(s) appropriately? Consider the following versions of an example sentence: > (A): Finally, having explained the consequences, we recommend bringing the > car to the dealer's garage. (B): Finally having explained the consequences, > we recommend bringing the car to the dealer's garage. I do know that for short introductory elements (such as "Finally") the comma is not mandatory, but I am unsure if in the given example sentence it is at all possible. Personally, I prefer version A; however, this preference is driven by my gut feeling rather than by a specific formal rule. So, maybe someone knows? I appreciate any help!


title: Must OK only be written in capital letters?

text: Whenever I write **ok** the spell checkers underline it with a red line and suggest that I should **OK**. Not even **Ok** works. Why is this so?


title: What are the references of the words in the paragraph?

text: While reading an article about persuasive games, I stumble upon this paragraph, which I do not understand the meaning of the sentences from the way they are structured. > The concept of authorship incorporates another feature of art more broadly: > the pursuit of a particular truth irrespective of the demands of reception > or sales. The sense that the artifact has something to relate and will not > relent until that thing is expressed, rather than an experience to be > optimized, is at work here. > > ... > > **Player agency** in games of all kinds leads to unique interpretations of > play experiences; in proceduralist works, such meaning generation is > stimulated by the knowledge that **a specific human being** set the work's > processes into motion. What does it mean to say "player agency"? My interpretation of this term is an organisation of gameplay for the players in he game. But I am not certain. In its following sentence, it says "stimulated by the knowledge that a specific human being set the work's processes into motion". Here, who is the "specific human being" referred to? Is it the author of the work, or the player in the game?


title: What is the antonym of "blank" in "a blank sheet of paper"?

text: Say, you have a sheet of paper. It is blank. I begin to write on it. It's no longer blank. But then what it is? I have tried the usual sources for antonyms but came up, well, blank.


title: Is it correct to say "I'm not urgent to do something"?

text: I know it is correct to say "Something is not urgent for me". But it is correct to say > I'm not urgent to do something. If not, how do I state that I really want some problem to be resolved – maybe the problem is quite important in the future – but solving that problem is not urgent, and I would rather wait for some days or some weeks to find the best answer. That is, "I" is the subject, and the object of the verb or term I'm seeking may be a long phrase with long clauses.


title: What is: a made-up word used to rhyme with something you want to mock, called?

text: For example, "Apple schmapple" to mean "I scoff at your Apple product".


title: I don't get this joke. Sentence seems like nonsense to me

text: So, I was at the bar last week, Behind the bar they have these signs with jokes on them. One of them said "If your drinking to forget, please pay me first"(This isn't the question, I get this joke). Somebody at the bar, noticing it, said to the bartender: "I don't have a drinking to forget, but if I did, what about it?". The bartender, looked confused, and then the guy pointed to the sign. The bartender still didn't get it, and he laughed at her. But I didn't get the joke either. This sentence doesn't make any sense to me. Why is it funny?


title: What is the best way in which to understand bracketed text?

text: Though a native English-speaker, I've always had trouble understanding bracketed text. It's fairly clear that parenthesis indicate "optional" text, as in below: > The (unusually quick) man stormed into the store and grabbed every lighter > from the stand near the cash register. Above, it's not necessary to include the text "unusually quick," as it can be determined somewhat from the context, but its inclusion indicates a reaction of the author or a point desired to be emphasized. The general idea seems to be that a sentence with parenthesized text should be able to be read without the parenthesized text. While the parethesized text _adds_ to the sentence details, it is not _necessary_ in and of itself. However, square brackets seem to indicate complete literary freedom to rewrite a quotation entirely: > ...[he] had [indicated that he had] made the gesture without [complete > knowledge and] familiarity with [Taiwanese] custom. What are the rules with using square brackets and their general implication? I, as the reader, am completely at the mercy of the author in trusting him that he has conveyed the quote in its proper context and intention.


title: Is there a term for "distinguishing between different concepts through the use of different, though synonymous, words"?

text: **Background:** A friend mentioned that he wanted to organise a board gaming tournament with 21 players. He opined that there ought to be a way to schedule seven 3-player games so that each player plays each of the seven games, and no player plays any opponent more than once. I replied that there is indeed such a way to schedule games:               ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO PQR STU     SQO ATR DBU GEC JHF MKI PNL     PKF SNI AQL DTO GBR JEU MHC     MER PHU SKC ANF DQI GTL JBO     JTI MBL PEO SHR AKU DNC GQF     GNU JQC MTF PBI SEL AHO DKR     DHL GKO JNR MQU PTC SBF AEI      My friend asked me to explain how I had come up with this scheme. I replied as follows: "The players are arranged in three cohorts: ADGJMPS, BEHKNQT and CFILORU. The players in the first cohort appear first in each group, the players in the second cohort appear second in each group, and the players in the third cohort appear third. Each round, the players in the first cohort advance one group to the right; the players in the second cohort advance two groups to the right; and the players in the third cohort advance three groups to the right. The crucial reason why this approach works is that 7 is a prime number." * * * **Question:** The substance of my question is as follows. In my reply above, I used the words "cohort" and "group". These terms are synonymous, but I am using them to describe different things in an ad hoc fashion. I am using the term "group" to mean the sets of three letters (players) that are written with no spaces in between, representing players that are playing in the same game in that timetable slot. Meanwhile, I am using "cohort" to mean the three groups of seven players who never face one another because they move "in parallel" between the groups. Even though I am using two words that in principle mean the same thing, I am purposefully lending each of them a technical meaning and distinguishing between two concepts by choosing to describe each of them with one of those ostensibly synonymous words. Is there a term for this practice? Another examples would be the terms "set" and "group" in pure mathematics (in general English usage these words mean the same thing, yet in mathematics a "group" is a special kind of "set").


title: Difference between "scenery" and "landscape"

text: What's the difference between _scenery_ and _landscape_? In what situations can I use them interchangeably? > The **scenery/landscape** at the school is beautiful. Does _landscape_ sound natural in the sentence above?


title: Could I use "Ending projects(contests)"?

text: I have a menu item and a category that is called "Ending projects". It means that in this section are projects(contests) that will end soon (like in 1-2 days). I have also a block on my page called Ending Projects, to take attention. My question is if I can use this form or not. If not, what other form do you suggest, thanks.


title: What is the origin of ZOMG?

text: I have looked in a number of places, with contradicting results. The Urban Dictionary provides a whopping 73 "explanations", of which I will quote just a few. (Original spelling and punctuation preserved.) >   * ZOMG is a varient of the all-too-popular acronym "OMG", meaning "Oh My > God". ZOMG originated from the imageboard 4chan.org and one of it's members > Zardoz. > Even though 4chan is _the_ Internet meme machine, I would like to see supporting evidence for this particular claim. >   * zOMG is a varient of the all-too-popular acronym "OMG", meaning "Oh My > God". The "z" was originally a mistake while attempting to hit the shift key > with the left hand, and type "OMG" > The first sentence is copied verbatim from the previous (and older) explanation, with the "Z" changed into a "z". It appears that the author hasn't quite thought it through — if you mistakenly hit `Z` instead of `Shift`, you'll end up with "zomg", not with "zOMG". Besides, on my keyboard, there's the `>` key between the `Z` and the left shift key. >   * A more enthusiastic (if not sarcastic) way of saying OMG. The Z doesn't > stand for anything, but rather is added onto the O, thus making it > pronounced "ZOH MY GOD!!1" > Doesn't address the origin and is not very convincing anyway — why "Z" and not "S", "X", "W", "J", or in fact any letter? >   * ZOMG was the ruler of the planet XYRZON until 2451 AD, when he was > overthrown by KFOP after the battle of SHMUR. > Oh well. >   * zombies! oh my god! > This is actually the most convincing so far, since over at the Wiktionary I am told that _ZOMG_ is an initialism. Then again, I am not told anything about etymology, and in the usage notes for _OMG_ , I am told that _ZOMG_ is "emphatic, in the same sense of _LOLZ_ ". Which contradicts the idea that it's an initialism. On the talk page for _ZOMG_, there's only this brief exchange: > This entry should be amended to note that the "z" is added emphasis from the > common typo committed when hitting the "shift" key. [Unsigned, but the > history attributes this to Adjwilli, 19:50, 4 November 2008] > >   * Except that it's not: see [1]. Unfortunately, although this FAQ is > accurate, the fact that it has not been cited in a reliable source means > that we cannot include it on Wiktionary. Shii 14:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC) > That last link is dead, so I went to archive.org and dug up an old copy of the page: > ZOMG was originally coined in January 2003 by two individuals, James Curbo > and Matthew Milan, over ICQ > > The following chat log may or may not be exact, so apocraphycal information > has been used to recreate this event. > > Hannibal Smith: d00der!   >  Rick Feynman: zomg!   >  Hannibal Smith: ZOMG!   >  Rick Feynman: fag! ZOMG!   > I can see why reliable sources are hesitant to cite this FAQ, especially given the fact that it was written by Matthew Milan himself. Lastly, over at The Free Dictionary, I am told that _ZOMG_ is an acronym with the following definitions: >   * Zoh My God! _(gaming, World of Warcraft)_ >   * Zombies Oh My God >   * Zeus, Oh My God >   * Zerg! Oh My God! >   * Zebras on my Grass _(gaming clan)_ > Now I am utterly confused. Some of these suspiciously look like backronyms. So, can anyone, by any chance, provide a definite answer on the origin of _ZOMG_? Or is it lost forever?


title: Use of "Might" and "Might not"

text: I know "Might" and "Might not" means the lack of certainty, but is there an implied probability in the use of these terms? In other words, does "I might be coming" imply that "It is extremely likely I will be coming" or is it a case of "It is likely that I will be coming" or moving down even lower "It is feasible that I will be coming" ? Is the situation identical with the use of "Might not" ? When someone says, "I might not be coming" what approximate probability level are we talking about regarding their "not coming"? I realize this is a basic question -- sorry about that; Just was not sure about the usage.


title: Meaning of word "ford" in combination with "hurdle"

text: > First and foremost I'm not from an English speaking country hence the > question. When reading Wikipedia's article about Dublin it says that the meaning of original Irish name for Dublin is **town of the hurdled ford**. I know what _town_ is, I also know what _hurdle_ is, but to the best of my ability I really don't know what a _ford_ is. Could this be a spelling mistake and it should say _fort_ instead? Please help me clear the original meaning out? ## Edit ### ...after getting the _ford_ definition After checking dictionary meaning of word _ford_ I get the meaning of it that it's a shallow river passage. But then again _hurdle_ and _ford_ somewhat contradict each other. If a shallow section of a river is hurdled it can't be a ford any more, can it?


title: Difference between “have to aware” and " have to be aware"

text: Actually, I'm confused about the structure:"have to be" As the title mentioned, Can anybody explain for me the such difference.


title: What is the origin of the word “skunk” as a verb?

text: Merriam Webster defines the word as: 1 a : DEFEAT b : to prevent entirely from scoring or succeeding : SHUT OUT 2 : to fail to pay also : CHEAT While the origin of the noun form of the word is provided, there is no mention of the origin of the verb except that it has been around since 1843. Online Etymology Dictionary mentions “skunk” as a noun but not as a verb. Skunk (n) refers to – according to Merriam Webster- either: any of various common omnivorous black-and-white New World mammals (esp. genus Mephitis) of the weasel family that have a pair of perineal glands from which a secretion of pungent and offensive odor is ejected b : the fur of a skunk Or an obnoxious or disliked person Origin (Online Etymology Dictionary): 1630s, squunck, from a southern New England Algonquian language (probably Abenaki) seganku, from Proto-Algonquian */šeka:kwa/, from */šek-/ "to urinate" + */-a:kw/ "fox." As an insult, attested from 1841. Skunk cabbage is attested from 1751. How about the origin of the verb and is it related to that of the noun?


title: Is there a particular name for this kind of "poster"? Is this called a poster?

text: I was talking to a friend and wanted to speak about a particular kind of "poster" that has small hanging strips of paper containing information about services, sellers, or in this case the cat owner: ![Image of the poster](http://i.stack.imgur.com/3SgyX.png) What do you call this? Is this even called a poster? And what about the strips of paper? What do you call them in English?


title: Have there been any movements/tendencies to remove definite and indefinite articles from English in the recent history of English?

text: My question is if there were some "movements" that propose to remove definite and indefinite articles completely in the last 100 or 200 years (or even more older). E.g. **"a book"** will be just **"book"** **"the book"** will be just **"book"** If you think this is weird, well, for a non native speaker of English could be weird that the words doesn't have genders like for example in German (der Man, die Frau, das Auto). I just want to be sure that there were no such movements and tendencies. To make my question more "sane" for a native English speaker I would give you these examples of omitting indefinite and definite articles in English: **computer program menus, newspaper headlines, song/movie titles, dictionaries, computer languages and othertechnological areas where people don't use articles at all** I am sure you have noticed that at least on your Mac OS or Windows. Another thing is that some languages like Latin or Slovio and almost all Slavic languages don't have articles that need to be before a noun like in English (maybe except Bulgarian; but there it is as a suffix).


title: Most Common Parses of the English language?

text: I hope I've got the right forum. I want to know about English specifically, although this is a linguistics question. A common task in NLP and Computational Linguistics is to generate parse trees for various sentences. How these sentences are parsed, for one, depends upon POS tagging which itself depends upon how to enumerate the Part of Speeches of the language. What I am interested in is sort of a reverse view of the process. Just as I can ask what are the most common words for the English Language, I wish to ask what are the most common parses for the English Language which are found, if in fact this can be measured or approximated? I am interested in the fully expanded representations, not something as basic as `NP VP`. For example: one might render: `The bat eats a cat`               d    n   v   d  n      using one simplistic POS enumeration. Looking at this parse, I would ask what percentage of sentences in English follow this exact pattern?


title: What's the adjectival form of 'deficit'?

text: Does _deficit_ have an adjectival form? If my business loses a lot of money, can I say that I 'got a deficit', that my business is 'in a deficit', or that my business suffered 'a deficit'? Is there a common way to express the concept of _deficit_ adjectivally?


title: I was laying in bed or lying in bed?

text: I was laying in bed or lying in bed?


title: What is the saying to express a certain situation? It is like, you will find nails everywhere when you have got a hammer

text: I am looking for a saying to express a situation that one is apt to apply anything instantly when it is at hand. I do not remember the saying. It seems to be that 'you will find nails everywhere when you have got a hammer'. I know it was used in some article of the US. What is the original saying? For the saying, I think it implies that it is always easy for anyone to find an excuse for doing something. Does it sometimes mean that?


title: Would a comma be needed before, after or both of the word "hopefully" in this sentence?

text: In the future, I plan to learn to play several more instruments and hopefully become a member of the band.


title: When should I use "is" and when should I use "are"?

text: I always mixed them up, and use the wrong one on other sites on StackExchange. And the questions is edited by another person. When should I use **"is"** and when should I use **"are"**? Sometimes I write "Is there any ..." and sometimes I write "Are there any", and I guess that one of them is wrong. Is there any good rule of thumb for this?


title: Comma in compound/complex sentences

text: Is there a rule, which states that one must or must not use comma before "then" in a sentence like this: > If you can read this, then you might want to answer this question.


title: How can I deliver the meaning of "within a specified range"?

text: I am writing a manual for user to use a web application. One of the function requires user to key in the date, and then the number of weeks before that date, the number of weeks needs to be smaller than 52 weeks and greater than 25 weeks. But I think the phrase "smaller than 52 weeks and greater than 25 weeks" is a bit too clumsy, is the following OK? > Number of weeks for data retrieval is limited within 25 to 52 weeks. I wonder if _limited within_ or _limited between_ is grammatically correct.


title: Antonym of "smalltalk"?

text: According to wikipedia, smalltalk is an informal type of discourse that does not cover any functional topics of conversation or any transactions that need to be addressed. For example:   * William: Morning, Paul.    * Paul: Oh, morning, William, how are you?   * William: Fine, thanks. Have a good weekend?    * Paul: Yes, thanks. Catch you later.    * William: OK, see you. I haven't found a word to describe the opposite: an informal type of discourse that DOES cover a functional topic of conversation or a transaction that need to be addressed. Could we say "deep talk"? Maybe just "non-smalltalk" is the best option?


title: "dispatch" v "despatch"

text: Using it in the example of: > Can you log _despatch_ and delivery of documents? Three questions:   1. Is _despatch_ a misspelling of _dispatch_ that made its way into the dictionary? Could I use _dispatch_ instead in the above example?   2. Do you pronounce both of them the same?   3. Are they a _homophone_ of one another?


title: Nerd vs. Geek vs. Dork

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Which term correctly identifies those who enjoy programming/technology: > “geek” or “nerd”? I'm somewhat perplexed on the usages of these terms. Most references appear an ambiguity as to the definitions of the individual terms and the clear distinctions between them. Some sources would describe all these three terms as being similar while others differ. For example, google definition states that a nerd is "foolish or contemptible" and is also "boringly studious", while Wikipedia article on nerds made no mention of such characteristics at all, but rather although can be "socially impaired and shy, is overly intellectual". Wikipedia also defines _dork_ as "a slang word for a stupid or inept person; similar to nerd or geek"; however, its articles on the other two terms made no mention to such traits. So what are the common perceptions of a _nerd_ , _geek_ , and a _dork_?