title: When did the use of acronyms begin?

text: What are some of the earliest acronyms and did they know it was an acronym at the time?


title: A word or idiom for a religion which gets blamed for a single person's misguided activity

text: The title is self-explanatory. Thanks for any help you are being able to provide.


title: Why does Britain use "Way Out" rather than "Exit"?

text: At public transport interchanges throughout the English-speaking world (and where there are English signs for the benefit of travellers in non-English- speaking countries), the exits are marked, appropriately enough, _Exit_. The one exception seems to be Britain, where they're marked _Way out_. I'm just back from Northern Ireland, where _Exit_ is used. Does anyone know the reason for this?


title: Which English language variety is best to use for global e-commerce?

text: Which variety of English — like American English, British English, and so one — is better to choose when translating to Englis, or building it from scratch, for an e-commerce site which intends to operate globally? Is American English a standard choice for such a use? Or is there a trend for some artificial mix of different varieties of English to become such a standard?


title: Placing however at the start of a sentence vs placing it in the middle of a sentence?

text: Basically, what's the difference between this: > However, it didn't mean that I didn't have the potential to become a rock > star. and this? > It didn't mean, however, that I didn't have the potential to become a rock > star. Or does it mean exactly the same thing?


title: What do you call these plastic that wraps around books/magazines?

text: They look like this: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/xT44P.jpg)![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/heuhm.jpg) Do you usually just call them plastic wrappers or wrappings?


title: When should an adjective be followed by a comma?

text: > This happened whenever she was left alone in someone else's home. She'd feel > as if she had been put inside **a huge, abandoned turtle shell.** I don't know why, but I just put a comma in the example above (I think I learned this in some writing course.) I searched for a similar sentences on Google and found this: > Living in a huge abandoned turtle shell called Big Green So I'm a bit confused, when should an adjective be followed by a comma?


title: Is there one term for grammar, punctuation and spelling?

text: I"d like to find one term which unites three parts of writing: _grammar, punctuation, and spelling._ Could **orthography** or **proofreading** be used to describe this?


Is there a word that describes a person whose given name and surname each contains but a single syllable? Some examples are:   * Mae West   * Bill Fold   * John Doe


title: What the gesture of sticking out the tongue signify as a body language among native English speakers?

text: My question does not regard the word, but a facial expression. Albert Einstein’s picture of sticking out his tongue is so popular and humorous, but I’ve been wondering under what situation the picture was taken, and what the picture connotes, every time I’ve seen it. In our country, the gesture of sticking out one’s tongue means rejection (No!), denial (I told you a lie) or embarrassment (I made a mistake). This gesture is more often made by children rather than by grown-ups. What does the gesture of sticking out one’s tongue mean as a body language among Anglo-Americans?


title: Lose Attendence Numbers

text: When some sport is "losing attendance **_numbers_** ", what does " _numbers_ " refer to? I can't find a good definition in dictionaries that would fit this usage.


title: Should "pseudo" words be hyphenated?

text: While this question talks about the meaning of the word "pseudo", I'm wondering what the rules are for hyphenating words that start with this prefix. For example, would it be correct to call someone a pseudointellectual, or a pseudo-intellectual? I asked Google, and he showed me plenty of examples of both, so I figured I would ask the experts.


title: Cooking apples and cleaning ladies

text: Consider the following sentences:   1. _Cooking_ is my favourite activity.   2. _Cooking apples_ are essential for this recipe. _Cooking_ functions in the first sentence as a gerund. How does it function in the second? A similar question could be asked of the term _cleaning lady_. However, while a _cooking apple_ represents an apple which is ( **itself** ) _cooked_ , a _cleaning lady_ represents a lady who _cleans_ ( **something else** ). Is there a difference? Other examples:   * _Talking point_ vs. _Watering can_   * _Reading material_ vs. _Cutting board_


title: Is there a single word for a "friend of a friend"?

text: I am looking for a word that I could use instead of "friend of a friend". On certain occasions, it happens that you may want to talk about a friend of a friend with someone else. In such cases how would you refer to this friend?


title: "Currently online now"

text: About 12,600,000 results in Google for this exact phrasing: "Currently online now". Is it a kind of online jargon? It sounds redundant to me; shouldn't it be either "currently" or "now"? Examples of usage: > many of your friends are currently online now! > > I'm currently online now and will most likely be online for the rest of the > day > > There are almost 300 titles currently online now, and we have more that are > being put up every week. Is it grammatically acceptable to use "currently" and "now" in the same sentence?


title: Is "ignorably" a word?

text: I would like to use _ignorably_ as the adverb of _ignorable_ but I am not sure whether this is correct. I did not find _ignorably_ in any online dictionary. To give the context: Normally, you cannot ignore a thrown exception in programming: You are forced to handle it if you want to make you program work correctly. I have a method that does something similar to throwing an exception but you are not forced to handle it immediately. So my question is whether the following sentence is possible: _An exception was thrown ignorably._


title: Occupy vs. occupying

text: Please read the following sentence: > Determine the mechanism by which the elements occupying the system interact > with one another. Is _occupying_ grammatically correct in this context? Should _that occupy_ be used instead?


title: "Enquire about whether" vs. "enquire whether"

text: >   * I'm writing to you to enquire whether you have a need for >   * I'm writing to you to enquire about whether you have a need for > Which is proper?


title: Is there a word to describe a claim that cannot be disproved because the situation will never occur?

text: I'm looking for a way to describe a statement or claim made by a person that can't be disproved purely on the basis that the situation itself will never occur (or is highly unlikely to). For instance, a person giving a talk about his commitment to a vegan diet might make the claim that "If I was stranded on a desert island with no food, I wouldn't kill animals to eat even if I was starving to death." It's clear that there's no way to disprove this as it's highly unlikely they would ever be in the situation in the first place, so what would you call these kinds of statements?


title: A person who travels from place to place without good reason

text: I am looking for the best word for a person who is continually moving from place to place without good reason, job or fixed home.


title: Is ‘eclectic bunch’ trendy instead of simply saying ‘a group of different types of constituents'?

text: I found the words ‘ _eclectic bunch’_ in the following sentence of a New York Times (July 29, 2011) article reporting increase in foraging in city parks, which is titled ‘Enjoy Park Greenery, City Says, but Not as Salad.’ > Foraging used to be a quirky niche, filled most notably by “Wildman” Steve > Brill, who for years has led foraging tours in the Northeast, including in > Central Park. But foragers today are _an eclectic bunch_ , including > downtown hipsters, recent immigrants, vegans and people who do not believe > in paying for food. As the word ‘eclectic bunch’ was new to me, I checked its meaning on Google and found a flood of examples of its usages including the name of a musical band. From those quotes and examples, I deduced that ‘eclectic bunch’ simply means ‘hodgepodge’ — a group of different types of constituents. Is this right? However, I wonder why this ‘eclectic’ expression like ‘eclectic bunch’ became so ubiquitously used as I saw in Google. Is it because the word ‘eclectic bunch’ sounds trendy?


title: Origins of the phrase “You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”?

text: > _You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows._ This phrase is famously used in Subterranean Homesick Blues by Bob Dylan. The metaphor itself is so simple and powerful I'm sure it would've been a proverb by now had we weather forecasts a couple of hundred years ago. Now imagine my surprise when I learned that Dylan apparently coined the phrase himself: > Most famously, its lyric "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the > wind blows" was the inspiration for the name of the American radical left > group the Weathermen, a breakaway from the Students for a Democratic > Society. In a 2007 study of legal opinions and briefs that found Bob Dylan > was quoted by judges and lawyer more than any other songwriter, "you don't > need a weatherman..." was distinguished as the line most often cited. Does this mean that there is no factual evidence of this phrase being used prior to the song, or did he just make an existing phrase (more) popular? I'm not trying to belittle Dylan's influence—just plain curious how far it extends in this case.


title: Better way of saying "those who are curious"?

text: I am writing a note in which I want to ask (curious) readers to refer another paper. The phrase curious minded comes to mind, but it seems somewhat awkward. Is there a better way to convey similar import?


title: Is there a word to describe something that is bad/harmful, yet needed/imperative?

text: I am trying to describe the nature of pesticides. Although they are mostly harmful, we need them in order to produce the amount of food the world requires. Is there a word or phrase besides "necessary evil"?


title: Origin of "minibeasts"?

text: What is the origin of the term _minibeasts_? Growing up in the UK I never heard the term, but recently I have heard it prolifically used in preschool education and children's television programmes.


title: What's wrong with "stupider"?

text: On online boards I've seen some people claim that "stupider" is ungrammatical. I can't see any reason why it would be, and it seems like it's commonly used. Google Ngram Viewer And it's also in online dictionaries... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stupider http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stupider http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stupider So what's the opinion here?


title: Tolerance for or to

text: Which is the correct statement: adopt zero tolerance "for" or "to" discrimination in the workplace?


title: Etymology of "Feeding the dragon"

text: I have heard the phrase "feeding the dragon" used to describe pouring time, resources, and energy into a situation that is self-perpetuating, caught in a positive feedback loop with negative consequences, or is growing out of control because of actions being taken. I think "giving a mouse a cookie" has similar meaning but with much less harsh connotations. Searches for the phrase online reveals many hits on Chinese economics and references to another phrase, "chasing the dragon" none of which shed some light on the meaning of " _feeding_ the dragon". I have not been able to find much else. What is the etymology of this phrase?


title: Meaning of 'Must not' and how to make the another meaning

text: I want to ask a question. The opposite of "must" is "must not", everybody knows.   But, what does "must not" mean? Does it mean that you "may choose to do or not do" or you "may not choose to do"?   Or it depends on the situation?


title: "Tune to <something>" - does it make sense?

text: I am wondering if saying "tune to this music" would make sense?   Guitars can be tuned to particular note, can people tune to song, or music, or idea? Google doesn't return many results for "tune to" so I guess it sounds strange, but I found a song "Tune to the Music" by _Status Quo_.   I am asking this question because I am looking for a name for new web site related to music and songs and _tune-to_ also came to my mind.


title: Difference between "pardon me" and "I beg your pardon"

text: What is the difference in meaning between "pardon me" and "I beg your pardon"?


title: What does "pay you out" mean?

text: I came across the following passage of text in one of the original _Thomas the Tank Engine_ stories, and realised there was a phrase in there that I didn't understand. > "Be careful with the coaches, James" said Edward, "they don't like being > bumped. Trucks are silly and noisy; they need to be bumped and taught to > behave, but coaches get cross and will _**pay you out**_." > > _James the Red Engine, Rev W. Awdry (1948)_ So what does "pay you out" mean?


title: Why does legal English sometimes repeat the antecedent noun after "which"?

text: Here's a standard English sentence: > The folder which is missing from the principal's office contained the > answers to today's exam. (Separate question, discussed elsewhere I'm sure, whether it should really be "which" or "that".) But simpler is usually better, so I would actually just write: > The folder missing from the principal's office ... But my question is: I have seen _legal statements_ which would write: > The folder, which _folder_ is missing from the principal's office, contained > ... Assuming that the writer is actually correct in thinking that s/he's adding some value by repeating "folder" after the "which", what value is s/he adding?


title: Is "which [noun] ..." correct?

text: I came across this literature recently: > An Owner may apply for a Change of Name of a registered Greyhound by > submitting to the GBGB the appropriate form duly completed, which form shall > include details of existing and/or prospective Part-Owners of the Greyhound, > where relevant. Is "which form" correct in this example? Why does the noun "form" need to be repeated; isn't the word "which" supposed to imply a noun from the previous clause? If the noun being implied is ambiguous, is it standard practice to clarify it by repeating it after "which" or not?


title: intermix vs mix

text: What are the differences? Are they everywhere interchangeable? Isn't intermix redundant, because if you mix A and B, then you must be mixing them _together_? For example, can **mix** be used in: > Law and opinion are here so **intermixed** that it is difficult to say > whether opinion has done most to produce legislation or laws to create a > state of legislative opinion. Source: P14, How the Law Works, Gary Slapper


title: Alternative expression for saying "piece of someone's mind"

text: **Sentence example:** > I am really upset and frustrated with one of my friends. So when I meet him > next time around I will definitely not hold myself back and give him a piece > of my mind. What alternative expressions can I use instead of "piece of my mind"?


title: Is the expression, "...it extended miles and miles around..." correct?

text: Example: > The forest extended miles and miles around the house. Is that expression grammatically correct? Does it make sense?


title: Is this grammatically correct? “Thinking of you and I”

text: http://vaadin.com/ makes a tool for User Interfaces (UI). Their tag line is “Thinking of U and I.” A play on words, I suppose, for UI, and “you and I.” It bothers me, though, because I think both pronouns should be in the objective case, i.e., “you” and “me.” Is “Thinking of you and I” grammatically correct?


title: Whence came the different varieties of long /i/?

text: What is the origin of “long long /i/” before voiced consonants (the [ai] of _wide_ , _while_ , & _tribe_ ) versus “short long /i/” before unvoiced consonants (the [ʌi] of _white_ , _wife_ , & _wipe_ )? When did this difference appear? Is it just a secondary distinction, or are there minimal pairs for these two diphthongs? Obviously the distinction is not present in all accents—though its presence in most leads me to believe it's not a late arrival—and yet I've never found a dictionary that distinguishes them.


title: What is the meaning of "chewing the carpet"?

text: I was digging about Load-Balancers (computer networking stuff) and came across this expression: Sometimes it (Load-Balancer) sits down chewing the carpet while backends go idle ... I guess "chewing the carpet" means wasting time here. Am I right? What exactly does it mean?


title: I am going nowhere or I am not going anywhere

text: Is there any difference between               I am going nowhere.     I am not going anywhere.      and are these sentences correct?


title: Send money / Request money

text: The person you are sending money to is the _recipient_ of that money, but what would you call a person you are requesting money from? A _requestee_?


title: What is a 'first enemy' called?

text: We have "best friends" and "close friends", because you give first importance to them. Like that, what should I call an enemy who is first enemy? I.e. you want to hurt him most then the rest of your enemies. What should we call them?


title: What do "it doesn't work" and "phrase" mean?

text: I'm confused with these two and their usages.


title: "glad to know you?" or "nice to meet you"

text: can we use this sentence ? > glad to know you? I didn't met this person so I think I can't use "nice to meet you"


title: "Hold the hope" vs. "keep the hope"

text: I'm trying to decide whether I should use "hold the hope" or "keep the hope" in a composition I'm preparing. It seems to me they are equivalent. Personally I like "hold the hope" better because sounds less common. Also, it seems to me "hold the hope" would be more suitable where that what I'm hoping for is less likely to happen and "keep the hope" would be either, more likely or equally probable of happening than not happening. Is this assumption correct?


title: Which is correct: "you and I" or "you and me"?

text: I was told the correct usage is for example: "My wife and me" but I hear often "I and my wife" or "my wife and I". Google gives 34M results for "My wife and I" and 909K results for "My wife and me" Which is the correct form and why? It occurred to me that maybe it could depend on the rest of the phrase? (subject or object) > "My wife and I are eating an apple" > > "You can see my wife and me in this picture"


title: Present perfect in subjunctive past tense (I wish I had done)?

text: It's an exercise, imagine you're in the situation, and write a sentence with "I wish".   the situation is: > "You've painted the gate red. Now you think that it doesn't look very nice." Because it's talking about past( the gate is already painted), my answer was _I wish I hadn't had painted the gate red._ Which is wrong, because the second "had" is unnecessary.   Could anyone please tell me why? Thank you.


title: How do you use the word "arguably"?

text: Does _arguably_ mean "something could be argued", or "could be arguable, is debatable or questionable"? But more often it seems to emphasize an adjective, for example: > It is arguably the best, the finest, the most powerful, etc.


title: Meaning of "higher thought"

text: Can anyone explain to the the meaning of "higher thought" in this context? > As the studies of Wilder Penfield shows us, the cerebral cortex— which > resembles a crumpled-up sweaty T-shirt— is likely the center of higher > thought.` I am totally aware of there was a mind-healing movement that originated in the U.S. in the 19th century. Yet in this sentence, the meaning seems different to me.


title: Etymology of "Canvassing"

text: In trying to discover the roots of the verb "canvassing", I found this: > [From obsolete canvass, to toss in a canvas sheet as punishment, from > canvas.] .1 What does this mean?


title: Answering a singular question with a plural answer

text: If somebody asks a question in the singular, how do we give a plural answer? Here's an example, with three different possible ways to answer. (The part of the answer that has the plural sense is marked **in bold** ): > Q: What's the most important thing to you? > > A1: The most important thing to me is **my friends.** > > A2: The most important thing to me **are my friends.** > > A3: **The most important things to me are my friends.** I am a native speaker of British English. I prefer A1. An American told me she preferred A2. I suspect that a formal prescriptivist would recommend A3. Is there any rhyme or reason to this? What should I recommend to a student learning English?


title: Footnote editing

text: A riddle for the weekend. If _p_ stands for _one page_ , _pp_ stand for _a range of pages_ , which one should I use in a footnote with _J. Jones, page 21 and other pages_? I.e. do I write **_pp. 21 and further_** or **_p. 21 and further_**?


title: I thought they must be poor

text: How different is (1) 'I thought they must be poor' from (2) 'I thought they had to be poor'? Does (2) emphasize David did think so but that he does not think they are poor any more now that the counselor told him they are not? I think with (1) you can't tell whether he still thinks the drawings are terrible or not. Is this right? (And I think you hardly say 'I thought they had to be poor.') Counselor: David, you are so bright. So sensitive! Just look at these drawings! How marvelous! David: (whispering to himself) Gee, and here I thought they must be poor! (A cartoon 'Stitches' by David Small) Is he still thinking they are poor? Or, is he now convinced they are rather good? With 'must do/be' after 'thought,' is it always like so? =recap of my question= I want to know if the speaker still thinks the drawings are in bad quality in (1) and (2), and if you could extend that observation to other circumstances where 'must'/'had to' is used after 'thought.'


title: What does "several states of mind away" mean? Does it mean a strange place or something else?

text: In this sentence, > I met him at the coffee place where I was working after I’d dropped out of > graduate school out West, many states and **several states of** **mind > away** from the New England college town to which I’d returned. I know "many states away" means that it really far from a place, but what does "several states of mind away" mean? Does it mean it is a unfamiliar place or anything else?


title: "Upliftment of poor" vs. "upliftment of the poor"

text: > The Government has decided to introduce the new scheme for the upliftment of > poor. Should it be "of the poor" or not?


title: How are "i.e." and "e.g." pronounced?

text: How are _i.e._ and _e.g._ pronounced?


title: Position of "to" in a sentence

text: Which of the following is grammatically correct and why? >   * I got less time to focus per course. >   * I got less time per course to focus on. > **Edit:** I want to convey the idea that because I took a higher number of courses I get less time to focus per course.


title: How do you use etc. with or?

text: I have a sentence where I want to say that X is one of several things in a category, i.e. "...where X is an A, B, C, or D, etc." The elements A, B, C, or D are not exhaustive, so I want to include etc. to indicate that, but I don't know where to place etc.


title: What is the counterpart to 'reply'?

text: So if someone posts a message, and someone responds to it, we call that a 'reply'. However, I am struggling to think of a good phrase for the situation where you have the reply, and you want to see what it is a reply to? What would we call the entity that it is a reply to? "See message" doesn't seem to semantically capture it. e.g. something like "antecedent", but that seems overly wordy. Any suggestions?


title: What is the function of "doing" in "when doing something"?

text: Can anyone please explain if "doing" in "When doing something" is a base+ing verbal, or a present participle used as a verb in an elliptical sentence, or something else entirely. Here's an example of a sentence: > " **When training** , athletes build their endurance by practising their > sports for long, exhausting hours." And if it indeed is a part of an elliptical sentence, why is that so, and how is that different from this: > "Last weekend, I saw lots of **ducks splashing** around in the pond." I understand that in this sentence _splashing_ is a base+ing verbal, functioning as a modifier in a noun phrase.


title: Word order in subject sentences (questions)

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Usage of "What" \+ verb without auxiliary one I have probably not used the correct term but I am sure you will get it. If a question has do-support, then in the answer the word order changes back to indicative: > Q: Where does he live?   >  A: I do not know **where he lives**. But if there is no do-support in the question, does the word order remain the same in the answer? > Q: What is wrong with him?   >  A: I do not know **what is wrong** with him. Is it like that?


title: Highlit vs Highlighted, Lit vs Lighted

text: Most dictionaries seem to indicate that _highlighted_ is the past tense for _highlight_ , rather than _highlit_. However, we use _lit_ as the past tense for _light_ without reservation, with _lighted_ appearing much less frequently. Why the difference? Why isn't the derivation of the past-tense verb consistent for these two related words?


title: "who doesn't" vs. "who don't"

text: What is the difference between "There will be users who _doesn't_ buy something" and "There will be users who _don't_ buy something"? Are they both grammatically correct?


title: What does ‘Cocktail-party fool’ exactly mean? Is it established English word?

text: I found the word ‘cocktail-party fool’ in the following sentence of the article in the Book review section of the New Yorker (August 16), which is titled ‘How Do You Say Ralph Fiennes?’ > “The mini-videos are essential viewing for people fearful of making a > variety of conversational missteps that would immediately peg them as > philistines, charlatans, or general _cocktail-party fools_.” As ‘Cocktail party fools’ is laid in parallel with 'philistines' and 'charlatans' with antecedent ‘or,’ the author seems to have used the word as a synonym with philistines and charlatans. But naturally there should be difference among all three words. Though I can deduce the meaning of the word from its word elements, what does ‘Cocktail party fools’ exactly mean? How different it is from a ‘Party-pooper’ who is ridiculed by others by making an illiterate remark at a party?’ I checked the definition of ‘Cocktail-party fool’ on online dictionaries. Neither Cambridge nor Merriam-Webster online dictionary registers this word. Is ‘Cocktail-party fool’ an established English word, or the word just in making?


title: Etymology of "bridge" (the card game)

text: I've always thought that the name of this card game comes from the English word "bridge" (the structure) but it is not quite like that. It's the English pronunciation of a game called _Biritch_ , which was also known as _Russian Whist_. Etymology of the word from Etymonline: > card game, 1886 (perhaps as early as 1843), an alteration of **biritch** , > but the source and meaning of that are obscure. "Probably of Levantine > origin, since some form of the game appears to have been long known in the > Near East" [OED]. One guess is that it represents **Turkish *bir-üç "one- > three,"** because one hand is exposed and three are concealed. The game also > was known early as Russian whist (attested in English from 1839). Furthermore from the book "The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic" _By Richard A. Epstein_ : ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/hScoH.png) ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/YGAPp.png) * * * **Question** This is the furthest I can go in my research (looks like an answer already) but is it possible to go further? Even it says obscure, are there any sources that goes deeper and gives more details (for the below questions especially)? **Related questions:**   * Why is the word corrupted to a word - bridge - that is already used? For example, why not "britch"? Is there a folk etymology here?   * How come there is a Levantine and Turkish origin? Can it be that Russians learned this game from Ottomans in the era of wars or did they adopt a name from Ottoman Turkish language? (Also, the passage from the source book mentions that _Biritch_ is not a recognized Russian word) * * * **Note:** "Biritch" does not sound like a mispronunciation of some Turkish word or phrase meaning "no trump". Interestingly, a Turkish language etymology website says that the name of this game "briç" is a loan word from English "bridge". But this is about modern Turkish language, there is also Ottoman Turkish language used at that time which I can't trace back.


title: Is there a term for the phenomenon of not being able to pass the car in front of you?

text: During my commute to work, I primarily drive on a two lane road in a rural area. Every day, without fail, I get stuck behind someone driving at or below the speed limit and it frustrates me. I would simply pass them, but it seems EVERY time there is a passing zone, there is oncoming traffic preventing me from passing. Is there a term for this phenomenon?


title: How can I say four different colors for five different items using “one”, “another”, “the other”?

text: Am I saying this correctly? > There are five items in four different colors. One is in red, another is in > yellow, another is in green, and the others are in black. Also, can I say: > Two items are in black, and each of the rest is in red, yellow, and green. And, can “the” be omitted before “two items”?


title: Distinguishing whether "up" is a preposition or a part of a phrasal verb in this case

text: In the sentences below, “bill” and “hill” are both nouns.   * He ran up a big _hill_.   * He ran up a big _bill_. Can someone explain how one distinguishes whether “up” is a preposition or a part of a phrasal verb?


title: "Subtotal" vs "total"

text: I've always thought of _subtotal_ as a calculated value that is not the final amount on an invoice (for example, a sum of individual prices before discounts/taxes are applied, or the total for a selection of items depending on how the invoice is itemised). The absolute final amount (after all calculations) is then the total. But, I'm working with a third party shopping cart and it seems to insist on calling the final total _subtotal_. Is this acceptable, or should I fix this? * * * I think people are fixing on the specific situation I bring up in my question rather than the general 'subtotal' vs 'total' - I'm pretty sure I've seen other receipts/invoices where 'subtotal' is used where I'd have thought 'total' would be more appropriate. I'm asking which would be the correct word for the final amount on an invoice after all calculations and considerations.


title: "Should have meant"

text: In one of my recent edits, I revised a sentence from this wording: > I said surely she meant _seeing as_ , not _seems_ , (she’s used this word in > a similar way before). She replied: to the following wording: > When I asked her that she should have meant _seeing as_ not _seems_ (because > she’d used this word in a similar way before), she replied: However, I was berated and told that the rewording would not pass muster with native speakers. Is there something grammatically or otherwise wrong with the above sentence?


title: Etymology of "unhinged"

text: I have checked many online dictionaries - they all agree that _one_ of the meanings of "unhinged" is "disturbed" or "unbalanced" but none give a good explanation as to how this meaning came into being. Any ideas?


title: This rule admits/allows no exceptions. Which do you use

text: > This rule allows no exceptions. This sounds natural to me, but I am told "The rule admits no exceptions" can be an alternative way to express this. However, some say using admits is not correct or natural. I would like to ask how you feel it.


title: Person present at the right time and at the right place

text: Is there a word to describe "a person present in the right place at the right time"?


title: Is CAPTCHA a contrived acronym?

text: While I understand why _USA PATRIOT_ is a contrived acronym, I don't understand if _CAPTCHA_ should be considered a contrived acronym. Is _CAPTCHA_ a contrived acronym? Why?


title: What does "sunset" mean in this text?

text: In the definition of _USA PATRIOT_, I read the following text: > Many of the act's provisions were to **sunset** beginning December 31, 2005, > approximately 4 years after its passage. In the months preceding the > **sunset** date, supporters of the act pushed to make its sunsetting > provisions permanent, while critics sought to revise various sections to > enhance civil liberty protections. In July 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a > reauthorization bill with substantial changes to several sections of the > act, while the House reauthorization bill kept most of the act's original > language. The two bills were then reconciled in a conference committee that > was criticized by Senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties > for ignoring civil liberty concerns. What does _sunset_ mean?   In which cases can the word be used with a similar meaning?


title: Why the scratch in "up to scratch"?

text: _Up to scratch_ is used to mean _of acceptable quality_. Does anyone know why _scratch_?


title: Valid or not: "Treat others with the same respect you’d want them to treat you"?

text: Is this valid? > Treat others with the same respect you’d want them to treat you. I'd normally phrase this as: > Treat others with the same respect you'd want them to treat you with. Or, alternately: > Treat others with the same respect with which you'd want them to treat you. Is the abbreviated version correct?


title: Etymology of "count your blessings"

text: I am not a native speaker. I hope I have a more or less accurate understanding of what the phrase "count your blessings" _means_ ("not everything is bad, you should not really complain", is that so?), but I am struggling to understand the _literal_ meaning. I only know _bless_ from the context of "God bless monarch/country" and when someone sneezes, but I can't really connect that verb to the countable noun. What is the origin of the phrase "count your blessings"? Is it known when and in what context it was first used?


title: What's the origin of the phrase "around the horn"?

text: Yesterday as we were sitting in traffic, my husband said he would have gone "around the horn" had he known traffic was so bad, meaning to take a longer way. What is the derivation of this phrase?


title: Enforced Secession?

text: I've been trying to find a word for this concept and not had any luck in dictionaries or on Google. If a part of a nation or state decides to separate from the whole, it _secedes_. Is there a term for a nation or state booting part of itself out? For a (purely hypothetical) example, if Canada decided it no longer wished to govern British Columbia and rescinded its sovereignty claims, what would that be called? I thought of _expulsion_ or _renunciation_ but those are more general terms.


title: What is the word for a path that is made naturally by the action of people walking?

text: I remember one day, when I was supposed to be at school, hanging out at a friends house and watching an episode of Call My Bluff and there was a word that meant something like: > A path that is made (e.g. across a field) by people consistently walking > along the same way For example something like this (updated as some pointed out that my original picture was actually a footpath): ![path](http://i.stack.imgur.com/jJoG2.jpg) So, it is 15+ years later and I cannot for the life of me remember it so does anyone know what that word is?


title: go pay in "Why don't you go pay for them"

text: > Why don't you go pay for them? It's pretty common in USA to form this question in this form. However, I suspect that we need **to** or "and" between **go** and **pay**. Why one is correct and why? > Why don't you _go pay_ for them? vs . > Why don't you _go to_ pay for them? vs. > Why don't you _go and_ pay for them?


title: Is "There are many options to customize your preference" grammatically correct?

text: > There are many options to customize your preference. Is there such a pattern in English? Please avoid obtaining a wrong impression from the above sentence used actually to emphasize a pattern as follows.   * It is the tool to convert PDF to EPS.   * She is my secretary to prepare your document.   * I am a TeX expert to typeset your document. I was inspired by the following pattern.   * I am glad to help you.   * I am sad to hear this news. [ **Edit** : This question was originally posed concerning a quite different sentence. The OP has edited it to make it clearer (including the title), but many of the answers below no longer appear relevant].


title: Correct Usage of Quotation Marks

text: I was told the other day that when writing a report, the first occurrence of a word should be in quotes and all further occurrences should not. When I asked whether there was a rule to which words should be in quotes, he could not give definite criteria. I have since looked through some of his work and found that he puts an awful lot of nouns in quotation marks following the above rule. And it is not like he ever defines them in the text, they are just in quotes the first time that they appear. My question is: is the above an actual rule for proper grammar? If it is not, is there a similar one that he might have got mixed up with? Or is it simply not a rule and just something he made up? I certainly hadn't heard about a rule like it before talking to him.


title: Where does "otay" come from?

text: I've heard a few people (all native English speakers) recently use "otay" in place of "okay", both in writing and when speaking. Where does that word come from? For that matter, is it a word at all? I'm guessing it means the same thing as "okay", but are there any nuances in its usages that I'm missing?


title: Are "reckless" and "feckless" synonyms?

text: Both _reckless_ and _feckless_ imply not taking responsibility. When is it appropriate to use the one over the other?


title: "on a project" vs "in a project"

text: Which is the correct form? > I'd like to try CoolStuff 2.0 **on** a project or > I'd like to try CoolStuff 2.0 **in** a project


title: Is this a correct use for semicolons?

text: Is this sentence punctuated correctly? > Not only am I a wife, but a mother _;_ not only a daughter, but a sister _;_ > not only a coworker, but a friend.


title: History of use of the term "organism"

text: I have found that the term " _organism_ " does not originate from any writings of Aristotle or some other ancient Greek, though Aristotle freely uses the term " _organon_ ", spelled " _organ_ " in English, to denote a part of a living being or of man in particular. It is obvious that the term is of late origin by some European scholar. Wikipedia states that it "first appeared in the English language in 1701 and took on its current definition by 1834 (Oxford English Dictionary)". Still, no specific reference is provided. Who first used the term " _organism_ " and when and where was it used?


title: "otherwise directed" vs. "directed otherwise"?

text: I've seen conflicting usage of the two phrases below, and I wonder which is grammatically correct and why:   1. Do something unless directed otherwise.   2. Do something unless otherwise directed.


title: Which is grammatical correct "woke to the..." or "awoke to the..."

text: For instance, should I say: > She woke to the rattling sound of the alarm clock. or > She awoke to the rattling sound of the alarm clock. (If both are correct, which one is more commonly used?)


title: What does 'greatest' mean in art?

text: There's a whole bunch of lists of " **greatest** ..." in the world of art. Does it mean influence, artistic excellence, ...? **edit** : I've seen a number of **greatest movies** lists and I wonder what they mean if they don't specify what they mean by _great_.


title: Meaning of "to scratch"

text: Can the verb _to scratch_ mean "start from the beginning"? Can I say "I scratched" to say "I started from the beginning"?


title: Substitute for "The thought came to my mind"

text: I want a substitute for the sentence "The thought **came to my mind** ". It should be a slightly formal substitute as I am writing a formal letter. Can someone help me with that?


title: What does "to pick someone's cherry" mean?

text: Does it strictly refer to taking someone's virginity, or does it express sexual intercourse in general?


title: Meaning of "can't tell if he's coming or going"

text: I've heard this phrase in some lyrics and even read it in some online articles. > don't know if he's coming or going What's the meaning and correct usage of _coming or going_?


title: Internal Citations when Multiple Sources are Similar

text: For my research paper, I have multiple sources with the same title. I have 3 different sources all named "The Treaty of Versailles", with no author. They are all from internet sources. One is from the U.S. Senate website, another from the British National Archives, and a third from an online encyclopedia. How would I write the internal citations for this? I hardly think that writing ("The Treaty of Versailles" 1) for all three sources would be acceptable. Thanks for your help! EDIT: My teacher told us that we can use internet sources without listed authors. He said I definitely could use the sources because two of them are from respectable organizations (US Senate and British National Archives). He forwarded us to this website: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/02/ On this site, it says, > Include in the text the first item that appears in the Work Cited entry that > corresponds to the citation (e.g. author name, article name, website name, > film name). And for my works cited entries, they all have "The Treaty of Versailles" as the first item.


If the #2 pencil is the most popular, why is it still #2? Back when I was in high school in the '70s, the #2 pencil was #1 in sales and in popularity. In 2014 it's still the hottest-selling pencil. Why after two decades hasn't it been rated #1. It just doesn't make sense at all. What's the point?


title: A joke about blind date

text: I cannot understand this joke on Twitter: > Has a blind date. The dates blind. I know what blind date is, but what's the meaning of the second sentence?


title: Usages of word Would

text: I have some problem to understand the true usage of “would”. I have already reviewed many forums and websites, but I have not managed to come to any conclusion upon which it can cover all cases I am facing with the usage of "would". As I have got so far, the “would” can be used in these circumstances:   1. “Past Habits”: When I were child, I would play soccer a lot.   2. “Past refusal”: I asked him for help, but he wouldn’t.   3. “with Wish”: I wish she would leave   4. “Conditional”: If he were here, I would ask him.   5. “Future in past”: I knew it would rain.   6. “Politeness marker”: I’d like a coffee please. But still there are some sentences I cannot figure out why "would" has been used.   1. How much **would** a taxi cost to travel 50 miles? It **would** cost you $99.   2. Small flourishing companies **would be harmed** by increase in the minimum wage.   3. No man alive **would believe** it. From those 6 types of “would” aforementioned, which type are these ones? Thanks in advance for your kind helps.


title: How do you interpret 'up to'?

text: Consider the sentence: "The boxes must be filled up to the last box". Does this mean 'including' the last box or all 'but' the last box? If I ask you to start with 1 and count up to 8, you'll likely say "1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8". But, if I lay a Black, Blue, Red and Yellow marker in front of you and ask you to start with the Black marker and take the caps off up to the Yellow marker. Do you take the cap off the Yellow marker?


title: Place of an adverb in the passive present perfect progressive

text: I was wondering where an adverb should (or could) be placed in the passive present perfect progressive in English. > I have been being **carefully** tickled. OR > I have been **carefully** being tickled. OR > I have **carefully** been being tickled. An alternative position of an adverb is after the lexical verb, but I do not think that it is the only possibility. > I have been being tickled **carefully**. Do all progressive tenses share this place for the adverb? _Please provided references and/or sources if possible._


title: The use of "who" on non-human subject such as a virus

text: A question struck me one day when I was writing a blog post and wanted to use the relative pronoun _who_ on non-human subject such as a virus. I had seen many examples before where this pronoun, which is used chiefly to refer to humans, is being used on non-human subjects and they appear idiomatic: > Edwina, the Dinosaur Who Didn't Know She Was Extinct > > He plays Andrew Martin, a robot who, over 200 years, discovers what it means > to be human. (From a 1999 edition of USAToday. I discovered it on COCA.) > > They doubtless were Thark warriors who had been sent out to capture us. > (From A Princess of Mars.) > > In common usage ‘animals’ only refers to animals who aren't human If my analysis is correct, it appears that the use of _who_ on non-human subjects is acceptable when there are signs of personification (example 1), or the non-human subject actually possesses human-like properties and resembles a human in many ways (example 2, 3). In example 4 I find it a little bit tricky to justify the use of _who_. The reason why the author chose the pronoun _who_ rather than _which_ or _that_ probably has to do with how the expression reads and sounds, which he stated in the endnote as the reason why he/she didn't use the phrase _animals other than humans_. So here is my question: > It was due to the dengue virus who infected my stromal cells and impaired my > bone marrow. Can I justify the use of _who_ in this sentence I wrote by giving a similar argument such as I like the way it reads and sounds as the presence of _who_ makes the virus seem like a person and that's my intention? Or in other words, will the sentence be considered ungrammatical since I use the pronoun _who_ instead of _that_ or _which_ , even though my intention is to make in-human subject seem like a person?


title: Origin of "booty", meaning buttocks

text: According to etymonline the word _booty_ is used to describe the female form as a sex object. It says the word is black slang from the 1920s. The definition is placed in the entry for _booty_ meaning treasure. My understanding is that _booty_ means _buttocks_ , as explained at dictionary.com. Which slang meaning came first? Buttocks or the female form as a sex object? Also, can anyone explain the jump from _treasure_ to _buttocks_?


title: What is the antonym of the verb "to depend"?

text: I've found in this community this question and this other question mentioning the antonym of the adjective _dependent_ , which is _independent_. What I wanted to know is how to use a proper antonym _verb_ for _to depend_ , since there is no such a thing as _to independ_? This would be used in a context like: > The figures also show that the convergence behavior [independs] on the > number of terms.


title: What should be the correct form of the following interrogative sentences..?

text: I often come across people saying: > Why can't you understand such a simple explanation? or something like this > Why don't you join us at the tea party? However I recently read a rule which said: 'Do/Does/Wh-word (in case of present indefinite) and Am/is/are (in case of present continuous) are followed by "Subject" + not + verb (depending upon the tense) + other requirements.' The explanation goes on state that 'not' in the aforementioned structure is an adverb (qualifying the verb), so it should be placed immediately before the verb. So according to the rule, the above sentences are proven ungrammatical thereby getting transformed as: >   * Why can you not understand such a simple explanation? >   * Why do you not join us at the tea party? > I am a bit confused, a little guidance would be of immense help! All i need to know is whether placing 'not' before the subject is the actual rule or not. If yes, then the first two statements go wrong...!


title: How to pronounce GUID

text: How do you pronounce "GUID?" Is it one syllable or two?


title: Starting Line of a Race

text: The following quote is from the NYTimes. > So I signed up for every and any race that anyone suggested to me. My > nagging injury — and slow pace — limited my weekday training. But I knew > that if I plunked down $50 for a race, there was no way I wouldn’t be at the > starting line. Could someone explain to me what the author means when she writes, "But I knew that if I plunked down $50 for a race, there was no way I wouldn’t be at the starting line."


title: What does "I gets mine" mean?

text: In the last episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" there was this dialogue between Larry and Leon (black guy who uses a lot of street slang): > Larry: You think I'd go out with a guy wearing a green wife-beater? Look at > you. This sh*t on your head. > > Leon: Are you kidding me? > > Larry: What the hell is that? > > Leon: Oh, I gets mine, Larry. I f*king gets mine. You know I gets mine too. What does "I gets mine" mean?


title: "Decimate": has it been used in the "classic" sense in modern writing?

text: In this question, I learned that "to decimate" meant to reduce by 10% (hope I got that right). And it is lamented that no-one uses it in this sense anymore. Now, given that I never until today knew that it once had this meaning: was it ever even used this way in modern times? When was it last used in a mainstream publication in this sense?


title: How to correctly write this conditional phrase?

text: I’m struggling with a conditional clause. This one is easy: > If I **were** you, I would do xyz ... But I have these three statements: > I **was** a student. > > It **was** my vacation. > > My professor **gave** me this assignment. Now, I want to turn these three into conditional clauses: > If I **were** a student, and it **were** my vacation, and my professor > **gave** me this assignment, I would do xyz ... Somehow, this doesn’t sound right. How do I fix it? (I want to keep the informal, conversational tone denoted by the repeated _and_ )


title: "These sort of things": is it grammatical? (2,670,000 hits on Google)

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What sort of thing? I was interested in the following sentence which appeared in an article titled “Colorless, Tasteless but Not Dangerous" by Dwight Garner in The New York Times (November 15, 2010). > People who do gravitate toward _these sort of things_ , he warns, sotto > voce, might be “the wrong kind of white person.” Can someone clarify if the fragment "these sort of things" is ungrammatical, as I think it is? I would reword "sort" with "sorts", but I'm not sure on this correction because the phrase "these sort of things" occurs on many occasions on The New York Times, it frequently occurs in others newspapers and, more generally, it has 2,670,000 hits on Google Search. So I am wondering if it is in common usage, albeit it isn't the highest register.


title: what is a word to describe a word-snob

text: I can't think of the word that describes a word snob and use of the word pretty much proves you are one. Anybody?


title: One's brilliant vocabulary and a tendency to show it off

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What’s a big-vocabulary word for someone with a big vocabulary? There are people who are blessed with a remarkable knowledge of vocabulary and diction – people who can come up with beautifully crafted sentences and expressions on most subjects at the drop of a hat. But some times, one tends to go overboard with a desire to show off the abundance of words one has at one's disposal and the result of that might create some confusion for a middling English speaker like me. Of course, what appears confusing to me may not do so to others. Besides, I believe there is no clear line or distinction between using and overusing one's rich vocabulary. So, this post is **not** about _what you would think showing off one's vocabulary is_ , but rather _what you would call it_. To cut it short, I am looking for a word or phrase to describe 1) someone with an exceptional knowledge of vocabulary and diction   2) using of words and idiomatic expressions by someone in a way that appears to be more a show off and less necessary.


title: A (highfalutin) word for a highfalutin word?

text: > To illustrate the question, badroit used the word "meretricious" > meretriciously. Is there an English word that describes highfalutin words like "meretricious" that are (gratuitously) used in place of better-understood words like "garish"? The word may or may not be self-describing.


title: If ______ gets outlawed, only outlaws will ______

text: What is the common origin of these and similar phrases, and how are they used? I've seen them in both silly and serious contexts. >   * If guns get outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. >   * If freedom gets outlawed, only outlaws will be free. >   * If evolution gets outlawed, only outlaws will evolve. >


title: What is the origin of the idiom "let something rip"?

text: I would like to know the origin of the idiom "let something rip". Does anyone here know where this usage comes from?


title: Are pronouns optional?

text: To resolve an issue on Christianity.SE I'd like to know whether it would be legitimate to forgo ever using pronouns to refer to the Holy Spirit. So, is it required to use a pronoun when the subject is well established, like it's required in the game of Checkers to make a jump even when doing so would be to your detriment? Is excessive wordiness acceptable in certain cases or is it always acceptable? Or does this have nothing what so ever to do with grammar and is simply personal preference? This seems bad (and unnecessary): > When Bob was seven years old, Bob went to the swimming pool. While Bob was > there, Bob jumped off the high dive. But substitute God for Bob and it doesn't sound as bad. I'd just write the big He, but the question came up on Christianity.SE and I'd like to know if it's required that pronouns are used.


title: Usage of the word "antiquarian"

text: This question concerns the word "antiquarian". Is it a legitimate adjective from the word "antiquity"? I want to say something along the lines of "antiquarian context", to mean context from antiquity; is this a legitimate usage?


title: Can ‘Walk the walk’ stand alone?

text: I found the phrase "walk the walk" in President Obama's remark on budget cuts in the Washington Post's _Today's Quote (Feb. 15)_. As I was unfamiliar with this phrase, I checked an online dictionary (www.phrase.org), that told me _walk the walk_ means _a lot of things are easier to talk about than to do_ , and is almost always said in combination with _talk the talk_ (for example, _if you're going to talk the talk, you've got to walk the walk_ ). However, President used _walk the walk_ alone, not accompanied by _talk the talk_. Is www.phrase.org’s _walk the walk_ definition that the phrase is almost always accompanied by _talk the talk_ wrong? How can I interpret _walk the walk_ in the specific context of the following President Obama’s remark? And what is the origin of _walk the walk_? Is this a well-worn idiom? > It would mean cutting things that I care deeply about. But if we're going to > walk the walk when it comes to fiscal discipline, these kinds of cuts will > be necessary.


title: How to conclude long "whether ... or" clauses

text: I have found that the form "whether this or that" does not work so well in long sentences. Intuitively, it seems that putting an "if" after the "or" makes it flow better, but is that grammatically correct? Example: > There is some confusion as to whether it is necessary for all of the board > members to be present when the meeting is called to order and the agenda is > read, or if a majority is sufficient.


title: What term means "the area beyond the surrounding area"?

text: I need to find a word which is a good match for the word "surrounds" (n., the surrounding land or territory), but which instead describes all of much the space not included in the "surrounds". To explain a bit more clearly, suppose "surrounds" approximately refers to the territory visible within the horizon in all directions. The word I am looking for likewise approximately refers to all of the land beyond that. Whether it refers to the entire rest of the globe or not is perhaps not important, but I am not looking for a strictly professional or scientific term, just one which might be a good pair with "surrounds", which to me, sounds a bit informal.


title: Hyphen for re when doing again

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Hyphens in verb construction containing prefix such as “re”   >  Adding a prefix "re" to a word, with or without a hyphen? I have a question about the use of the prefix 're', that means 'do it again' in my context. Let me explain: in mathematics we use the concept of 'parameterized' objects, that is, objects obtained while some parameter varies (think of the parameter as the time and the object as a point moving on a plane). Well, if we describe the movement using the parameter we say that **we are parameterizing** or **the object is parameterized**. So, if we change the parameter by another one (for example, change the speed of the clock) we say that **we are reparameterizing** the object. This is my question: Which is better: **reparameterized** or **re- parameterized**? I've just found this discussion but I remain uncertain.


title: What is the difference between “stiff” and “rigid”?

text: Could an object be stiff but not rigid or vice versa? When is each one used? And what is the opposite of each of them?


title: Acceptability of the phrase "While yet others" in formal English

text: Is it acceptable to use the phrase "While yet others" at the start of a sentence in formal English? Are there any alternative phrases that I could use? To put this into context, I wish to write something along the lines of: > In certain countries, the debate surrounding austerity versus growth [...]. > In others, [...]. **While yet others** , have decided upon [...].


title: Colon use when introducing a list split across sentences

text: I understand that a colon should be used to introduce a list: > We required three ingredients: eggs, milk and butter. However, what happens if there is a full stop between list elements? > We required three ingredients: firstly eggs, to provide a nice eggy flavour. > Secondly milk, for all its milky goodness. Finally we required flour, to > bind it all together. Is this a correct way to use a colon? Does the rest of the list punctuation make sense?


title: What is the adjective corresponding to Venus?

text: What is the correct adjective corresponding to the noun Venus?


title: Formatting a Title of a Book within a Book

text: How do I refer to a book-in-a-book? Which of the following is correct? (as my own writing) > Monte Becket is famous for _Martin Blight._ > > Monte Becket is famous for "Martin Blight." > > Monte Becket is famous for _"Martin Blight."_


title: What is the equivalent word for "compile" in an interpreted language?

text: In C, we say: > GCC _compiles_ `foo.c`. For interpreters (such as Lua), what is the equivalent verb? > The Lua interpreter **___ __ ___** `foo.lua`. When I write instructions for users of my Lua script, I often say: > Run the interpreter on `foo.lua`. I think this can be said more succinctly: > _Interpret_ (or _Translate_ ) `foo.lua`. but that sounds awkward for some reason (perhaps because I'm unsure of its correctness). I can't really say _compile_ because users may confuse it with the usage of the Lua compiler when I actually mean the Lua interpreter.


title: Club's entry - "chain"

text: What is the name of the "chain" that can be found near club's entry? e.g. http://www.vegasvipservices.com/nightclubs/bank/club-the-bank- entrance.jpg


title: Meaning of "I would venture"

text: On page 6 of The Remains of the Day, I read: > ...my new employer in several other instances had had occasion to call upon > such qualities as it may be my good fortune to possess and found them to be, > I would venture, dependable. This is a part of a sentence that I am having trouble with. Without the phrase "I would venture", I can understand this. I want to know how to comprehend this with the phrase.


title: What does “Nate Silver’s deal with ESPN is about more than Disney vs. the New York Times” mean?

text: Time magazine (July 22) reported the move of Nate Silver, baseball-stats analyst who turned election data-cruncher, and predicted the last two presidential elections more accurately than politicians and pundits from New York Times to ESPN under the headline, “There is a 99.45% chance that Nate Silver is changing journalism.” http://entertainment.time.com/2013/07/22/there-is-a-99-45-chance-that-nate- silver-is-changing-journalism/#ixzz2ZoAXD0ZQ In the subhead line, the Time says: > “His deal with ESPN is about **more than Disney vs. the New York Times.** If > Silver-style analysis spreads, everyone can win.” What does “His deal with > ESPN is about more than Disney vs. the New York Times?” What is the legitimate link between Disney and the New York Times? Is this a well-turned expression?


title: When did "species" become the word for both the singular and plural?

text: I thought the singular version was"specie," and the plural was"species." Was "species" always an acceptable equivalent to "specie?"


title: correct usage of the single quotation mark?

text: So I was reading a book one day and I saw this. **He gave her the 'Shut up look'** is that correct? And, if so why? btw it was not in bold in the book.


title: The meaning of "lot" in "pragmatic lot"?

text: I'm watching the movie The Counselor and Brad Pitt character say this : "They are a pragmatic lot". What is the meaning of "lot" in this sentence.


title: Word for "personal reason for not being able to do something"

text: If a person wants to do something but he is not able to do that due to some personal reason, what is the exact word for that reason?


title: Difference in [ə] pronunciation at the end of a word in British and American English

text: I grew up speaking American English (San Diego to be specific). When I hear someone who speaks British English say a word that ends in [ə], like banana, I hear a weak but distinct 'r' sound attached to the end of the word. I have heard this from people from both London and Manchester, and friends of mine from other parts of the US also say they can hear it. What causes that sound? Which way is the correct way to pronounce it?


title: What's the difference between a "delegator" and "delegatee"?

text: I've seen both _delegator_ and _delegatee_ used interchangeably in a conversation, and it always leaves me ambivalent to which is correct to use, and when or under what circumstances/context? It would be nice if someone could point out the difference between the two, and an example would also be appreciated.


title: That of Tokyo vs. one of Tokyo?

text: >   * The climate of Sapporo is colder than one of Tokyo. >   * The climate of Sapporo is colder than that of Tokyo. > Which is correct?


title: What is the correct way to phrase this?

text: I asked this question on meta.stackoverflow.com, but I need some help. What would be the correct way to phrase "...diverse topics from software programming to cooking to photography and gaming." Or if this _is_ the correct way to phrase the phrase, please let me know.


title: Should I use these, those, or their in the following sentence?

text: > With these thoughts, I closed my eyes. All I could hear now was the hooting > of an owl, and the leaves rustling on the ground outside. > **These/those/their sound/sounds** gradually soothed me--and before I knew > it, my mind drifted into a deep, dreamless sleep. Should I use these, those, or their in the sentence above?


title: There are fifty who can reason synthetically for one who can reason analytically

text: > In solving a problem of this sort, the grand thing is to be able to reason > backwards. That is a very useful accomplishment, and a very easy one, but > people do not practise it much. In the every-day affairs of life it is more > useful to reason forwards, and so the other comes to be neglected. **There > are fifty who can reason synthetically for one who can reason > analytically.** What does the last sentence mean?   1. "Out of 51 people, only one can reason analytically."   2. "A person who reason analytically is a more valuable asset than 50 people who reason synthetically."


title: Balthazar, 'Caspar' and Melchior

text: The names traditionally given to the three Wise Men are Balthazar, Caspar and Melchior. But a friend of mine told me that in Australian English Caspar is not used. They use, instead, Gasper. Can anybody confirm, giving contestually some historical reason.


title: Formatting numbers in a book about mathematics

text: Would anyone be kind enough to point me to a reliable source (preferably on line) where I can find definitive answers to how to format numbers consistently within a book about maths aimed at popular readers. In particular, the use of thousand dividers (UK/US style commas) Dates, eg, 'written in 1992' don't have them. Long numbers, eg '10,000,001' seem clearer with them in text, but then you get lines that include things like '3141/1000'. Should this be as just typed, or '3,141/1,000'? Examples of other things I should look out for would be very welcome. Thanks


title: Meaning of "Nothing is working here like the rest of the world?"

text: I would like to know whether this phase has negative impact or it can be positive.


title: English for French word "équivalence", in an academic context

text: I'm looking for the English word for the French "équivalence", in an academic context. It is used when one has followed a course with material that is sufficient for another course, and as such, the school hands out an _équivalence_ and you don't need to do the other course. Here is a less abstract example. John has a bachelor's degree in computer science. He then decides to change field and go into law. In the law program, there might be a course like "Computers 101" where he is taught MS Word and such. Since this stuff is trivial for John, and given his previous education, he can ask for an _équivalence_ and not have to do that course. Is there such a word in English?


title: Word for making a sound out of the side of your mouth

text: It is hard to describe the action, so here is an example: What is the word or phrase that best describes this noise made by a person?


title: Origin of "tragically named"

text: I've recently come across the phrase "tragically named". I first thought the author invented it but I've googled it all over the place. The first time I saw its usage was on http://gizmodo.com/big-jambox/: > Before you buy, you should also take a look at Sony's **tragically named** > SA-NS500 Portable Wi-Fi Speaker, which boasts better sound plus Airplay. But > it's also far less portable—it's bigger and heavier and harder to set up—and > it costs an extra $100. Given that the entire point of wireless speakers is > portability (after all if it wasn't, just run some cable) that's an > important feature. What could be the origin?


title: Marking plural of code words

text: In my blog (which is about programming) I often use reserved words from different programming languages. Like this: > When column is nullable in both tables, this query won't return a match of > two NULLs for the reasons described above: no NULLs are equal. Here, `NULL` is a programming language keyword. For numerous reasons, I mark them with `<code>` tag so they are rendered with a fixed width font, not translated into the foreign languages by Google Translate, can easily be seen on the page etc. In the example above, which would be the best way to mark the plural?   1. `NULL`s   2. `NULL` s   3. `NULL`'s   4. `NULLs`   5. `NULLS` Option 1 looks ugly on the page (the word and the plural marker are rendered in different colors and fonts) Option 2 adds a space between the word and the plural marker Option 3 looks nicest but is not correct Options 4 and 5 may leave the reader under impression that `NULLS` is a reserved word (which is not true) and this may be confusing. Also, Google Translate would leave the word as is which would be definitely wrong in other languages. What would be the least of 5 evils?


title: Pluralizing keywords in programming languages

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Marking plural of code words In the language that I'm currently working in one of the keywords is `try`. I'm writing an error message: > No implementation for global level try statements. It's too long in my source and so I would very much like to reduce it to > No implementation for global level try's. Anybody using my code should understand it very easily as my code is entirely about dynamically determining what exception handling is in place and the `try` keyword is one of the cornerstones of exception handling in the given language.   1. Could we pretend for the duration that I'm not being overly picky?   2. Is this pluralization correct or at least acceptable? Both "tries" and "trys" look _very_ wrong to me.    3. Are there general rules pertaining to pluralizing keywords and other identifiers from programming languages. A quick google search and more extensive search of this site didn't quite do it. _I did findthis question._ The selected answer assumes the presence of markup (not available in my case) and the other answer sidesteps the issue by avoiding pluralizing the words in question. Are there any new insights to be had?  An answer to (3) would answer (2) of course and so I would be happy with just that. If it's not available though, I would appeciate input on (2).


title: Plurals and possessives of quoted words

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Marking plural of code words   >  Pluralizing Keywords in Programming Languages After asking a number of questions on StackOverflow, I keep running into some of the same phrasing issues. Typically these issues stem from variable names. ### How do I correctly pluralize or possessivize* a word or phrase in quotes or code blocks? Are there any differences in grammatical structure if `<code>` blocks, or ``` characters are used to delineate quoted words, phrases, or variables instead? * I don't know the right word for "possessivize" either; anyone who would like to correct it can be my guest As a simple example that involves some basic JavaScript code:               var chars, char;     chars = 'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz'.split('');     chars.forEach(function (char, index, chars) {       console.log(index, char, char.length);     });     console.log(char);      Possessive > within the callback, `char`'s `length` should always be `1`.   >  -or-   >  within the callback, "char"'s `length` should always be `1`. Plural > `char`s are defined in multiple scopes   >  -or-   >  "char"s are defined in multiple scopes I'm aware that these aren't the best of examples, as I would typically write "`char` instances" instead of "`char`s", but I couldn't come up with a better example at the moment. The general idea still stands.


title: Possessive s, apostrophe on end or not?

text: I am writing a project for college about smart phones. Which would you say is correct in a possessive context? > Windows Phone's applications or > Windows Phone' applications My thoughts say the top is correct as _Phone_ does not end in an S, but it just sounds horrible and wrong. The bottom one sounds correct but in my head is grammatically incorrect.


title: Verb choice 'do' in idiomatic expression

text: In common vernacular, an electrician or plumber might say something like "I'll do the plumbing for free". I know it's not exactly proper English but what exactly is going on (In a technical sense) with the construction of this sentence? I apologize for the lack of details. I composed this question on my iPhone last night during a debate over cocktails: That being said, I realize what I am actually curious about is the limitation of idiomatic expressions. While the composition of this sentence is correct, someone pointed out that there are far better verb choices available to the speaker. E.g. I will plumb for free. While it might be a technically sound expression in this case, is there ever a push back in the grammarian world against less technically sound idiomatic expressions?


title: Word order, e.g. in "Hotel California", "Brothers Quay"

text: This is a question about the order of words when a common name is associated to a proper name. Does it matter to say "California Hotel" rather than "Hotel California"? Similarly, there are two filmmaker brothers usually referred to as "the brothers Quay", which seems less common than "the Coen brothers". As a non-native English speaker, I'm interested to know is there's any difference, and which form is more natural or correct.


title: A noun which describes an object that fulfills a condition?

text: I'm currently working on my bachelor thesis in the major of Information Systems and I'm coding a small tool, which analyses other programs based on pre-defined conditions. So now I'm looking for an English noun, which describes **"an object that fulfils a condition"**. For example a condition could possibly check the type of an object. Like "is object x of type Integer?". I'm looking for a noun describing _x_. Is it possible to use the word _"trigger"_ or something like _"fulfiller"_ in this context? Which word fits best?


title: The most natural way of asking for telephone call redirection

text: What is the most natural way to ask a hotel receptionist or a secretary to transfer your call to a hotel room or an office? > Could you please connect me with room number 321? > > Could you please transfer my call to room number 321? and > Could you please connect me with [name]'s office? > > Could you please transfer my call to [name]'s office? I would like to know some more informal or maybe slang terms, specifically US ones.


title: Is it correct to use "branch" to describe type of industry?

text: I've always used the word _branch_ when describing the type of industry, line of business or operation category. Please note that I'm not referring to a part of a concern structure as in "Scranton branch of Dunder Mifflin". For instance, to express that John is in finance and doesn't understand the importance of well defined code structure, which a programmer or other IT professional definitely would, I'd state the following. "Jonh doesn't know jack. He's not in our **branch**." I've never got eye browse arousal on this so I lived happily ignorant that it might be an incorrect usage of the Swedish term (borrowed word from English) until my colleague had the cruelty to point that out for me. I tried to defend my position with an online dictionary but apparently there's a bug in their logic because it only confirmed the said colleague's critique of my expression. :) Seriously speaking, though, I'd like to get some light shed on the usage of the term. Is it understandable? Commonly used? Poetically or metaphorically expressed? Just plain wrong?


title: Sentence fragment: subject or object

text: Suppose I have a picture of me hanging out with Bob, and I want to add a caption to it. Is one of the following more correct than the other?   1. "Bob and me"   2. "Bob and I" More generally, do grammar rules apply to sentence fragments at all?


title: How to make proper use of my vocabulary

text: English is my second language. I would like to believe that I have a good knowledge of english words (My GRE verbal percentile is 90%). I learn words in very systematic ways i.e. by reading their origin, etymology and history. Hence, I can understand new words very easily by applying similar analysis and some hints from the context. However, when it comes to using those word in real life conversation, they don't come very easily at the moment. Is there something I can do about it?


title: "Entangled on / in / with X"

text: Example: > The dog climbed the fallen tree, then slipped and entangled his chain > **on/in/with** it. What's the right choice?


title: Word to describe team interactions (questions, updates, queries...)

text: I'm looking for a word that describe quick exchanges of information that happen in a team or between people that know each other (colleagues for example). Questions, queries and requests are too specific because they imply somebody "asking" something. Update is also too exclusive because of the it's "informative" nature. Thanks!


title: What are the rules to shorten phrases correctly?

text: I have a dilemma, I do not know how to shorten the expression, _room temperature_.   I used to write it as `RT`, but several times I've seen people abbreviate it as `rt`. Which one is correct? And what about _ultraviolet_? Why is it shortened to `UV`, but _visible_ , shortened, is usually written as `vis`? What are the rules for shortening words?


title: Can I start a sentence with "i.e."?

text: While writing a rhetorical question I ran into a case where it seemed natural to start a sentence with "I.e": > How do we handle the case when the list is empty? I.e., if the filter > matched no entries? Is that OK in this case? In _any_ case? Edit: Thanks, everyone. It seems the consensus is that it's legal but not attractive. I like the alternatives presented in the accepted answer and comments. For my part, I will probably be avoiding the construct in the future.


title: "Major location" versus "primary location"

text: I have a requirement that includes references to "major" and "minor" locations (referring to one main location and less significant ones). I have a feeling that "primary" and "secondary" are more correct in this context, but I can't prove it. Am I correct? And, if I am, where should I look to prove my point?


title: Preposition following "estimated"

text: I'm working on a scientific paper and I want to convey the idea that I have obtained some data by using a certain source. The phrase I wrote was: > The turbulent fluxes at the air-sea interface are estimated by using in-situ > data from a moored buoy of the Prediction and Research Moored Array over the > Tropical Atlantic Ocean. Is the _by_ in the phrase correctly used?


title: Is there a word for place and year of birth and death?

text: Imagine a form like this one:   * year of birth:   * place of birth:   * year of death:   * place of death: How would you name that form?


title: <something> and <something> is enough or are enough?

text: > You don't have to call me again to confirm about our meeting - just this one > e-mail from you and my reply to it **_is_** well enough. Should it be "is" or "are" in this case?


title: "Would" vs "Will"

text: In the following context is the word 'would' correct at all or do we have to use 'will'? > Some countries grow hashish, and sometimes they **would** smuggle it to > other countries. > > Some countries grow hashish, and sometimes they **will** smuggle it to other > countries. What is the difference between these two vs the present simple form?


title: What is the difference between Admiral and Rear-Admiral?

text: I know the meaning of admiral. But what does it mean when we use " **Rear** " before it?


title: Is there a difference in meaning when pronouncing paytronizing or pahtronizing?

text: I am not a native speaker of the language and I was recently corrected when pronouncing patronizing "paytronizing" when meaning condescending. I was told it is wrong to pronounce it that way; however, after looking it in dictionaries, I found both pronunciations to be accepted and no information on differences in usage. Should I stop pronouncing it paytronizing? Does it have a different connotation/denotation when using one or the other pronunciation?


title: What is the word for a university student who has a job at university?

text: I have to produce a copy of my CV in English and I don't know how to properly describe the position. When I was a Master student, I was employed by a professor at our department, for whom I did some software development, some research, and anything the researchers didn't want to do by themselves (yes I had to clean the coffee machine). I think that such positions are regulated by law (at least they are here) and have a special, generally recognized name. Only I don't know that name in English. If there are regional differences, I will need an American English variant.


title: What is the meaning of the expression "We can table this"?

text: This came up in an email discussion - we are arguing about the merits and demerits of a certain approach, and I mentioned what I thought was a drawback to a scheme. To that, my colleague replied : "Okay, we can table this, but I just want to clarify something..." after which he went on to elucidate his views.... Does that mean that the discussion is closed on this ? If so, did he mean to say "I agree to what you say, but I wasn't totally wrong either" or something similar, or is it the reverse ?


title: Regional word for paperboard that school children use in projects?

text: I'm talking about large paperboard that school children create their projects on. They might draw or paste things on them, usually to present some sort of information. You may see them carrying them rolled up and held with a rubber band. ![School project on paperboard](http://i.stack.imgur.com/oNJlu.jpg)   _M's global warming poster presentation by ttcopley._ What is this called in the New York region?


title: Examples/references for not changing tense when using reported speech

text: I'm sure people are familiar with the "rule" that the tense is moved backward when using reported speech i.e. _"I am..."_ becomes _"He said he was..."_ However, there are many cases where it is OK _not_ to change the tense e.g. "I'm going on holiday next week" being reported a short time later/the same day as _He said he is going on holiday next week,_ which in my opinion invalidates the original rule as it is an unhelpful attempt to be prescriptive about English usage. Can anyone offer an intuitive explanation as to why/when it is OK not to change the tense, or perhaps to explain what differences in meaning are implied when each is used?


title: When to use "have" and "have got"

text: When do I use _have_ and _have got_? Are "I have the answer" and "I've got the answer" both correct?


title: Origin of louse for the following: louse around--to idle and louse up--to ruin?

text: I understand louse being singular for lice; however, I'm uncertain as to why louse around means to idle and louse up means to ruin. Any ideas?


title: Is there an English word that means "out of place"?

text: I am looking for a word or short phrase that best describes a scenario in which an author seems to have copiously placed uncommon or higher educated vocabulary in a lower reading level book. Meaning that the book seems to be for a fourth grade reading level and then every few paragraphs an English Doctorate level word appears, possibly to impress readers.


title: Coinage of phrase "history sniffing"

text: "History sniffing" is an attack in which a malicious website can figure out what other websites you have visited by taking advantage of the way browsers draw visited and unvisited hyperlinks differently. This made headlines in 2010 thanks to a widely read academic paper and browser vendors figuring out how to block the attack. The oldest _description of the attack_ I have been able to find was in 2002, but the oldest _use of the phrase "history sniffing"_ I have been able to find was in 2008. Can anyone antedate the phrase, or the disclosure of the attack? (I tried Google's timeline search, which you would think would be good for this sort of thing, but it fails to limit its results to uses of the exact phrase "history sniffing" even when I use the quote syntax, so it's useless.)


title: Why is a ragtail an annoying person?

text: I've heard an annoying person referred to as a ragtail and I've found a reference to the word below; however, I'm uncertain of the etymology. I'm curious to know why a ragtail is an annoying person. Any ideas? http://books.google.com/books?id=DsFIAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=ragtail+an+annoying+person&source=bl&ots=vQb- bE9SEa&sig=sEpvDaVHBW9zz4fkmSj0z7w77qc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2LeUU57iK4iQqgbVrYCYBQ&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ragtail%20an%20annoying%20person&f=false


title: "Too" as a sentence modifier

text: I was recently having a discussion with a friend on the "sure-thing principle" (not relevant but Google if you wish to know what that is). We were discussing it in the context of a scenario and the discussion ended with my friend stating the following; > The scenario is **too** simplistic I argued that the scenario was not **too simplistic** but simply **simplistic**. This devolved into a discussion about how to use the word _too_. I argued that, in this instance at least, the word _too_ in that sentence changes the whole meaning. If you state > The scenario is simplistic then what you are really saying is > The scenario is simple and **could** be more complex. However if you state > The scenario is **too** simplistic then the definition would change to > The scenario is simple and **could** and **should** be more complex My friend argued that the word _too_ does not change the meaning of the sentence at all, and that they are in fact the same. Can anyone assert which is the correct definition, and why? Or if neither is correct, what would be the correct definitions?


title: Is "fires" the plural of "fire"? Is this sentence grammatically correct?

text: Can I say: "Do fires cause cancer"? Can "fire" be plural?


title: What is it called when something is unimportant for several years, and then it becomes important?

text: I've been writing a paper about a math concept (called "permanent") that, upon its discovery, nobody really cared about it because it has very few useful properties. It was until several years later that someone realised that it is actually pretty important/interesting. So, as you can observe, I'm talking about something that has been "on the dark" for several years, and then suddenly it was the boom. How do you describe such thing? Something that was apparently completely useless and then it became fairly important? For context, I'm trying to figure out a nice title for the paper. Here's a dumb version of the title I'm trying to make up: > The permanent: rise from nothing to something.


title: What is the best word or phrase for comments provided by a guide?

text: What is the word that can be used to describe commentary given by a guide during a tour? For example riding on guided tour of a city where guide tells you about different objects of interests. Edit: Looking for the word or phrase to replace blanks, hopefully this makes the question clearer. > The short and to the point ____ given by guide was welcomed by the tourists. > > The guide ____ on every historic item we encountered.


title: A more formal alternative for "go with" in the context of food or literature

text: ... or the literature on food. I need a verb for associating things that go particularly well together. Possibly with a wine or French lineage. It is not _pairing_. Other ideas thrown out are _go with_ and _complement_ , but I think that there should be a more sophisticated word.


title: "Older version of me" vs. "older version of myself"

text: I wrote: > "...," said an older version of **me**. But a native speaker of English — which I am not — replaced the _me_ with _myself_. Can someone tell me which one is correct and why?


title: Usage of verb "sounds" in written text, when not referring to an actual sound or sounds

text: I find myself using sentences like "that sounds great" and "it sounds like a good idea" etc. in written English. What are the formal guidelines here? Do native speakers use the verb "sounds" this way in written text, or is it just a handful of silly foreigners like myself who do?


title: Use of peri- prefix where sub- and super- are commonly used (Or, is periterranean valid?)

text: While trying to construct a description of the various train networks of London, I wanted to use the word _periterranean_ to mean "close to the ground", with reference to _subterranean_ (under the ground) and, I suppose, _superterranean_ (above the ground). I am aware that _superterranean_ would typically cover both the "on the ground" and "above the ground" cases, but I wanted a word to distinguish, say, the Docklands Light Railway (much of which runs on raised tracks) from the London Overground (much of which runs on surface tracks). Of course, both should be distinguished from the London Underground, even though 55% of the Underground is, in fact, above ground. Extensive Google searches failed to bring up anything of relevance, so my question is this: Are there any examples of _periterranean_ used in the context I have described, and, if not, what would be a more appropriate word?


title: Where did the adage, “Love the sinner, hate the sin,” come from?

text: In connection with my questions about the meaning of Pope Francis’s, remarks - 'Who am I to judge?' / 'You can add more water to the beans'. I found the following statement in a New York Times (July 30) article - “A Papal surprise: Humility" > Many will see Pope Francis’s remarks, like Cardinals Dolan’s, as simply a > retooled version of “ **Love the sinner, hate the sin**.” When applied to > homosexuality, that paradigm has always been unstable: the “sin” in question > is not some isolated misstep, like lying on a tax return or tweeting a > picture of your crotch. It’s about the fundamental relationships around > which people organize their lives.” The phrase, “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is well-known in our country (Japan) too, and often quoted by educators, men of religion, and the knowledgeable in argument on criminal cases worthy of sympathy with the accused's background. I was in understanding this phrase was derived from the Bible, like "Love your enemies" as commanded by Jesus, up until today. But wikipedia says it’s not from the bible. Then, what is the source of this popular adage?


title: Should I use “me” or “myself” here?

text: I know that many questions on topics similar to this one have been asked before, but I have read many of them and still not able to solve my problem. You could attribute it to my poor command of English. My question relates to two weird sentences, and I want to know which sentence is correct: > I am so hungry, it feels like my tummy is eating **myself**. or > I am so hungry, it feels like my tummy is eating **me**.


title: Word to Warn of Danger of Usage

text: I need a term or word to refer to something which is very powerful but if used naïvely will cause great harm. I could say: "This is a [noun], use with care." or: "Use this with care it is [adjective]." My example would be Fusion, it's powerful... but you better know what you're doing.


title: A person who cannot understand that there may be other perspectives

text: I'm searching for a word to describe a person who cannot understand that there may be different perspectives. I initially thought of _single-minded,_ but that pertains to determination. One example of several perspectives could be the difference between a process and an action. Please assume that a process is composed of several actions. A process may be composed of other processes, but these processes would be actions in this greater process. If you accept my definitions, then depending on the holistic or granularity level, we may consider something a process or an action, depending on whether we are considering its parts or how it's part of a greater thing. A person may have trouble understanding that it's not true or false that something is a process or an action, it depends on how it relates with everything else from the perspective that we take. From one perspective it's a process, from another it's an action. For some people, things seem to be in one and only one absolute way, which is wrong, IMHO. Is there a word to describe this kind of problem that some people seem to have? PD: It's like definition 1b for monism in dictionary.com. But I don't think most people know the word _monist._ Here are some other, superficially similar terms that actually mean something quite different. A _racist_ is (approximately) someone who considers other races inferior. A _narrow-minded person_ considers other perspectives wrong or irrelevant, or may not consider them, but is aware that they exist. A monist would not even understand that there is more than one race or multiple perspectives; there is simply one reality, and that's it.


title: Correct preposition for 'feature'

text: Which preposition would follow the verb 'feature'? For instance, which would be correct? > "A, B and C feature **_in_** the top 5 positions" or > "A, B and C feature **_at_** the top 5 positions" I'm leaning towards **_in_** but just want to confirm.


title: Origin of "Set on Its Ear"

text: I have seen both > Set something on its ear and > Turn something on its ear to mean _make a surprising change_ in a certain area. I've been looking for its origins, which google ngram registers as far back as the 1920s, but have come up dry. Does anyone have any knowledge--etymological or anecdotal--of where this came from and why "ear"?


title: What word describes the action of changing the grammatical person of a sentence?

text: For example, if I were to change the following the example sentence from: > I'm sure you could use your experience to help me out. to: > You're sure I could use my experience to help you out. what would I be doing to that sentence? I'm looking either for a verb to describe this action, or for a word that describes the category containing:   * pronouns like 'I', 'you', etc.,    * and inflected pronouns like 'my', 'your', etc.,   * but also verb conjugations like 'am', 'are', etc.


title: What is the pronunciation of "Software"?

text: I have heard the pronunciation of the word Software as "softwher".But recently i've heard Steve Jobs saying "sofwher" in a YouTube video. link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN4U5FqrOdQ


title: Word for taking users/consumers away from another

text: I am looking for a word or phrase to describe the act of _taking consumers away_ from one existing standard/norm in favor of an alternative. For example: 3D printing will _take away_ consumers from manufacturers and put the manufacturing into individuals hands.


title: Is it correct to use "got" when expressing the simple past tense in British English?

text: I'm an American and my daughter is learning British English in school, so when I help her with her homework, I have to know the British rules. She writes: > I have got a horse poster. I understand that that is correct expression of the present tense in British English (even though I would write "I have a horse poster"). But now she wants to write in the past tense, so she writes: > **For my birthday, I have got a horse poster.** I think this is incorrect even in British. I think she should write: > **For my birthday, I got a horse poster.** But that sounds too American to me. Which is the correct version?


Wikipedia's article on Geisha states: > "Geisha girls" were Japanese women who worked as prostitutes during the > period of the Allied Occupation of Japan. They almost exclusively serviced > American GIs stationed in the country, who referred to them as "Geesha > girls" (a mispronunciation). > > These women dressed in kimono and imitated the look of geisha. Americans > unfamiliar with the Japanese culture could not tell the difference between > legitimate geisha and these costumed prostitutes. Shortly after their > arrival in 1945, occupying American GIs are said to have congregated on the > Ginza and shouted in unison, "We want geesha girls!" > > Eventually, the term "geisha girl" became a general word for any female > Japanese prostitute or worker in the mizu shobai and included bar hostesses > and streetwalkers. > > Geisha girls are speculated by researchers to be largely responsible for the > continuing misconception in the West that all geisha are engaged in > prostitution. This would suggest that "geisha girl" isn't used for actual geisha. However, Google ngram suggests that the term was used about as much before World War II as after it, which seems inconsistent with Wikipedia's description of how the term became popular. Choosing one example of a novel written before World War II (The Ragged Edge, by Harold MacGrath), where the term was used for actual geisha: > The manager twisted his moustache. "The same as a Japanese geisha girl." > > "And what is a geisha girl?" > > ... > > "The geisha and the sing-song girl are professional entertainers. They are > not bad girls, but the average tourist has that misconception of them. If > some of them are bad in the sense you mean, it is because there are bad > folks in all walks of life. They sell only their talents, not their bodies; > they are not girls of the street." In addition, the definition of geisha girl given by several of the dictionaries linked to by onelook.com suggest that "geisha girl" is a synonym for actual geisha: > a Japanese woman trained to entertain men with conversation and singing and > dancing Is "geisha girl" used to refer to actual geisha? And has the term been used to refer to women who aren't actually geisha, such as prostitutes for American GIs, or bar hostesses? **Background:** I came across a tourism brochure, written in Japan and presumably by Japanese people, which captioned a geisha as a Geisha girl in a Chaya area, and I wanted to know if they made a bit of a blunder.