title: Breaking comma rules to emphasize a pause in a character quote or elsewhere

text: My wife is writing a book, and just got a draft back from an editor. The editor noted extra commas in numerous sentences like this: > He looked at her closely, but all she said was, "I am truly glad we will be > living in a nice, safe fort, and not one of these wild frontier towns." The extra comma in question is after _fort_. The argument was that the comma was not needed because it was separating dependent clauses. My wife put the comma there to create a verbal pause. There were other places for which similar commas were not within character quotes (a character wasn't speaking). This may be a different animal: > Dani had begged for a day to rest some, and to catch up on the numerous > small duties she'd not been able to see to during the past week. She's gone through all of the grammar and style guides she has access to, and hasn't found whether it's permissible or not. I'd guess at least that it should be done consistently one way or the other, but don't know which way.


title: A single word describing a person who is impossible to live with

text: Is there a single word describing someone who is impossible to live with because of their bad manners? Such as in the example: > 'John, my housemate, has terrible manners; he's an awful person and > _impossible to live with_.' I thought about using the words 'unlivable person' but that sounds a bit strange to me and it's not a single word.


title: Difference between "full professional proficiency" and "native or bilingual proficiency"

text: When I logged on to LinkedIn the other day, I was prompted to add information about which language I speak and at which level. I consider myself to be pretty fluent both in written and spoken English, although I probably have a noticable Swedish accent when I speak. But how do I know if I have "full professional proficiency" or "native or bilingual proficiency"? ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/7tHbB.png)


title: Is to "tell off" a particularly British expression?

text: I'm translating a short story from Spanish into English. A small child says (literally): > Why don’t we knock?” I asked. “They’re gonna tell us off.” (The Spanish is: _Nos van a regañar._ ) I've already translated the story into a mostly American English and would like to keep that register, but can't think of another expression to use. Is "to tell off" a normal, acceptable American expression, or is it specifically British?


title: Origin of "smooth operator"

text: I'm interested in the origin of the term _smooth operator_. Does anyone know where it came from? What kind of operation?


when should I use the following sentence. I am little bit confused:   1. "May I help you?"   2. "What can I do for you?" What is the difference between above two sentence and when I can use them? Please explain.


title: Why do drug dealers "move" their product?

text: The process of selling drugs - either to a reseller, or the end-user - seems often called "move" in popular (American?) culture - for example in the TV Series, Weeds. Transcripts from the show are hard to find but here's a synopsis describing an episode: > Nancy wants to move product while working the shop, so she "interviews" all > her former Agrestic people to see what they can move. [...] Where does this originate from? Does it have its roots in a more legitimate field like agriculture, or is this limited to criminal activity? It seems to be used widely in connection with smuggling (Example: Colombian traffickers moving drugs in submarines) but that is not _selling_. The word definition at Merriam-Webster doesn't seem to offer any explanation.


title: What does get to mean in this sentence?

text: Gorilla babies and elephant babies and human babies are not so different, except that a gorilla gets to spend the day riding on his mother's back. What does get to mean in this sentence?


title: I want to know if this sentence is correct

text: > Jake decided to learn as many different artists, styles and works as often > as possible. I think the first 'as' is not needed. OR 'and' is needed between 'works' and 'as'. Let me know if the sentence itself is right or my thought is right.


title: What is the appropriate response to "I appreciate it"?

text: What is the appropriate response to "I appreciate it" ? I get this often and saying "No problem" just doesn't seem like the proper response. Maybe I'm wrong?


title: Which words of foreign origin kept a distinctive feminine?

text: The feminine of **confidant** is **confidante** , probably due to the French origin of the word ( _confident_ , whose feminine is _confidente_ ). I wonder which other words of foreign origin commonly used in English have kept their original feminine? _Edit:_ so there may be entire categories of such words, of course, I should have thought of that. Do people have examples other from languages other than French, Italian and Latin? I was trying to think, for example, of a pair of such words of German origin, but can't find any.


title: Why are so many terms nautical in origin?

text: I have joked that whenever I don't know the etymology of a word, I reply "of indeterminate nautical origin" (that's right - it's party 24/7 at my crib). What is it about the nautical tradition in the 18th century that seems to have spawned a wildly out-sized portion of our vocabulary? It's not as if there weren't other highly specialized professions with their own jargon.


title: What are some nice words to describe a very old age of a person

text: I wonder what some nice words are to describe a very old age of a person? I guess directly using the word "(very) old" may be interpreted as being impolite, such as following: > Are you saying your grandma still has grandparents? They must be very old. So I am looking for an alternative but nice way to show my surprise on the age.


title: Subject versus object in a sentence: how are they determined?

text: For example, if I tell > “I'm write-only” am I perceived as subject (who is writing) or as an object (who is written)? Related question:   * How do I determine subject and subject complement in “A side-effect is the spread of commercialese to other domains.”?


title: Is there a verb for "adding something in front"?

text: I was wondering if there exists a verb that is equivalent to saying 'adding something in front'. For example, if I have the numbers 1234, then I _add in front_ 9 and I will get 91234.


title: "Finite" and "infinite": another example?

text: _Finite_ and _infinite_ come from the same root word, but the prefix of the latter completely changes the pronunciation. Speaking English as a second- language and reading a lot more than I listen, it makes me nervous that I might be missing other such changes. Is this an isolated occurrence?


title: How do you pronounce "tuple"?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  How to pronounce "tuple"? I had always thought tuple rhymes with "couple". But I recently came across pronunciations like "tew-ple" and "too-ple". Which is right?


title: Is the use of the word "irony" correct in this paragraph?

text: I recently came across a Facebook post, about a city in India known as Patiala. I was arguing with the admin, about the correct usage of the word irony. Is the word correctly used in the following paragraph? If yes, what kind of irony is it? > Congratulation to Patiala as Royal City turns 250 year Older on 12-2-2013. > > It is an irony that Patiala will enter its 250th anniversary all alone, with > none to throw a party and none to congratulate it for the feat that it is > poised it achieved on Tuesday. It is an irony that nobody remembers the > ‘birthday’ of one of the most amiable cities of Punjab. Neither the district > administration nor any other organisation has planned any celebrations to > commemorate the historical feat.


title: When is "no rest for the wicked" used?

text: I've stumbled over some dialogue in a textbook, where some people have a chat at work, and at the end, when they get back to their urgent tasks, one character says (emph. mine): > Well, I'd better let you carry on then. _No rest for the wicked._ Now, I've found out where the phrase comes from, but I do not quite follow in which context it can be "used for mild comic effect".


title: What does "an apparent majority" mean?

text: What does "an apparent majority" mean in the following sentence? > An apparent majority of the public no longer believes this budget is > sufficient. Which of the following interpretations apply?   1. It seems that a majority of the public ....   2. It is clear that a majority of the public ....   3. any other interpretation


title: Could 'otwards' or even 'hotwards' ever be accepted into the language?

text: I've just woken early from a vivid dream. (must be the local ale - we are in Yorkshire at the moment). I was in an inferno of an industrial kitchen where they were manufacturing 'ready-meals'. One large individual with rolled up sleeves and sweat pouring down his arms was shouting above the din. Portion- sized food was going past on conveyors. Some was going toward ovens and some away from them. The noisy director of operations was shouting instructions for all he was worth. One word that he kept saying baffled me and, I couldn't fathom its meaning. It sounded like 'otwards'. Then I realised that what he was saying was 'hotwards' (he had a Cockney accent so it sounded like 'otwards) meaning in the direction of heat, or the ovens. When I awoke it occurred to me that this might be a good question for you folk. Is 'hotwards' an acceptable word in the English language?


title: Masculine/feminine nouns in English

text: Have there been any **significant** tendencies to distinguish nouns for male and female in English? Let's say in the past 100 - 200 years? E.g. you have only a bunch of them: actor/actress hero/heroine etc. Have there been any tendencies in English to make more nouns become male/female distinguished. E.g. actor will became               actoro(male)     actora(female)      or               acter or actorer (male)     actera or actora (female)


title: Math word for an object not centered at the origin?

text: Is there a word that can describe a geometric figure such as a circle or ellipse that is not centered at origin (0, 0) in cartesian space? I'd like to find an agreed upon mathematical word, but if it doesn't exist then a substitute "non-mathematical" word would do as well.


title: Should I use "even though" or "although" in the following sentence?

text: > Even though we were becoming closer and closer, we remained just as friends. > > Although we were becoming closer and closer, we remained just as friends. Which is the one above correct?


title: One of us is wrong, aren't we?

text: I have just learned from what I consider a reliable source, that the following sentence is correct: > One of us is wrong, aren't we? I would never in my life have written this, but I am assured that this is exactly how it would be written As I realize comments don't live forever I will quote the relevant parts: > _oerkelens_ : So you would really write _One of us is wrong, aren't we?_ I > guess by analogy you would not bat an eyelid at _One of these balls is blue, > aren't they?_   >  _Matt Эллен_ : yes, "Then one of us is wrong, aren't we?" is exactly how it > would be written. Same for the balls. Could someone please enlighten me how it is possible that the number in a question tag supposedly _has_ to be in discordance with the subject of the main clause? I admit that I am not the youngest any more, and my school days are long gone, but back in the days, I was taught that 1\. a verb and its subject concord in number 2\. a question tag concords with the subject of the main clause I was given examples like: > **It is** warm today, **isn't** it?   >  **We will** be on time, **won't we**?   >  **Mary is** pretty, **isn't** she?   >  **John isn't** the brightest, **is** he?   > Some people may notice that the subject of the main clause seems to determine every time the subject of the question tag. When the main clause subject is singular, so are verb and subject in the question tag. I was under the impression that a) this made sense and b) this would be a general rule. I fully realize that grammar does not have to make sense, so a) is immaterial. As for b), today I learned I was wrong :) So when (and possibly why?) do we form question tags that are different in number from their main clause? To exemplify, also the other example sentence that I used and was corrected on: > One of these balls **is** blue, **isn't** it? ( _so this is wrong_ )   >  One of these balls **is** blue, **aren't** they? ( _and this is correct_ ) As an afterthought, does this strange grammatical number mix-up only appear in question-tags, or should I always refer to singular subjects in the plural if certain conditions are met? And what are those conditions? Which versions are correct? > One of the cars is broken, aren't they? They (the car(s?) that is(are?) > broken) should be fixed.   >  One of the cars is broken, aren't they? It (the car that is broken) should > be fixed.   >  One of us must be wrong, mustn't we? We (the one(s?) that is (are?) wrong) > should make amends.   >  One of us must be wrong, mustn't we? He (the one that is wrong) should make > amends. (In the last one, _they_ could of course be used as the _singular they_ , but that would avoid the issue...)


title: "Cyclicity" vs. "cyclicality"

text: I can't find the difference between these two words. I want to describe the property of something that is repeating at a fixed period (don't ask me to use _periodicity_ , that would be for another question). For instance, in the sentence: > I can see that there is ... in candy sales. People are buying on average > more at the beginning of the month than at the end of the it. Which of the two terms "cyclicity" and "cyclicality" would best fit, and for what reason?


title: Not to want someone doing something. What shade of meaning is attached to this structure? (gerund rather than infinitive)

text: On page 137 of _First Certificate Trainer_ by Peter May (Cambridge Books for Cambridge Exams), the last paragraph in Test 4, _Use of English Part 2_ (a cloze test on a short text entitled _Safe camping_ ), reads: > After meals, pick up any bits of food that might be left on the ground, as > these can attract insects – or larger creatures. It also makes sense, for > the same reason to keep unused food in closed containers well away from the > camp. **You don't want a hungry bear or other animal suddenly appearing in > your tent!** Why not the structure "(not) to want someone to do something"? Why not " **You don't want a hungry bear or other animal to suddenly appear in your tent** "? (Or "suddenly to appear in your tent", or "to appear in your tent suddenly"… it is not the place of the adverb I am interested in here.) The structure "(not) to want someone doing something" is found in the Cambridge Dictionary online, with the example sentence "I don't want a load of traffic going past my house all night, waking me up." But no explanation is given as to when one structure should be used, and when the other.


title: different versions of "take into account"

text: The Free Dictionary collates a number of definitions for "take into account." >   1. **take someone or something into account** and **take into account > someone or something**   >  to remember to consider someone or something [McGraw-Hill] > >   2. **take something into account** and **take something into > consideration**   >  to consider something to be an important factor in some decision. [McGraw- > Hill] > >   3. **take something/somebody into account** also **take account of > something/somebody**   >  to think about something or someone when you are making a decision or a > judgement [Cambridge] > >   4. **take something into account** also **take account of something**   >  to include something when making a decision or judgment [Cambridge] > > I am wondering how you would take into account their difference? Or are they interchangeable? If so, when, where, or in which situation?


title: What is a collective term for castles, citadels, forts, palaces etc.?

text: We at Travel-SE are having an ongoing tag reorganization, and we're trying to find a collective term that encompasses the following:   * castles   * châteaux (which are really castles, but not every castle is a château)   * palaces   * forts   * citadels    * country houses (which are really palaces, but for non-royals) We'd appreciate if you guys can come up with an appropriate category that covers these all. We don't want to create separate tags because frankly people won't know the difference between these and won't care. We were thinking of `fortified-structures` or `palatial-structures`, but these don't work quite well. `residences` is just too broad, and `royal-residences` is not correct since country houses were not used by royal figures. Any other ideas?


title: A positive word for 'opportunist'

text: The word _opportunist_ seems to be used negatively for a person. Is there a word with the same but positive meaning?


title: The act of baiting someone into (incorrectly) calling bullshit

text: Is there a single word, or commonly-used term, to describe the act of _baiting another person into calling bullshit, when in fact you're not bullshitting_? Conceptually, this either a sub-type, or the direct opposite, of _bluffing_ , which is the act of pretending you have _better_ cards than you actually hold, in order to scare your opponent into folding. The word I'm looking for will describe (metaphorically) the act of pretending you have _worse_ cards than you actually hold, in order to bait your opponent into calling you. I'm looking for a word which implies "actively misleading" (as in _lying_ ); examples might be a basketball player _faking left_ (in order to make his guard shift left, so he can go around to the right) or generally _faking out_. This is not restricted to gambling (just as "bluffing" is not restricted to poker), I'm only using gambling terminology to make my meaning clear.


title: If one says "Amid much fanfare", what does he mean?

text: Just complete an article about Yao Ming, who is a great basketball star in NBA. The only thing I fail to understand is the phrase "Amid much fanfare" in this sentence: > Amid much fanfare, Yao Ming, 31, announced his retirement on July 20 from > the National Basketball Association's Houston Rockets, the US team who made > him a global star, and the Chinese national team five days later. After turning to Google and a dictionary for help, it seems still not so clear to me.


title: English country houses

text: Does an English country house count as a palace? Looking at dictionary.com they provided the following definition for palace: >   1. the official residence of a king, queen, bishop, or other sovereign or > exalted personage. >   2. a large and stately mansion or building. >   3. a large and usually ornate place for entertainment, exhibitions, etc. > An English country house is not necessarily the residence of nobility, so the first definition does not fit. Two and three do fit. Can anyone clear this up for me?


title: Why and when did 'hendiadys' change from its original 'hendiadyoin' spelling?

text: The expression ' _hen dia dyoin_ ' was not used by Greek grammarians, but it is frequent among Latin writers. Why did it come into English usage in this corrupted form? Can it be traced through English lexicons?


title: Meaning of 'made them out to be'

text: > Michelson-Morley experiments weren't the failure MIT **made them out to be** > , just as Cold Fusion wasn't the failure MIT made it out to be


Coming from my answer to question Is there a better noun form of “unreasonable” than “unreasonableness?” What does it mean when someone calls himself "non sequitur"? Examples:   * "I AM NON SEQUITUR" (blog)   * i am non-sequitur (livejournal)   * nickname "Non Sequitur" on twitter.com    * "I don’t have a favourite colour and I love Dr. Who. **I’m non sequitur**. I’m afraid of the future and stampedes"    * reddit.com: "Hi I'm non-sequitur. I'm here to make no sense or have any relevance to this conversation"


title: What is a term to denote someone who is obsessed with or erudite in geography?

text: What is a good term to denote someone who is obsessed with, or erudite in, geography?


title: Capitalization After Colon

text: Should the first word after a colon be capitalized? "For example: This." OR "For example: this."


title: "on time" vs. "on-time"

text: I'm in the "on-time" camp when it comes to describing, for example, delivering something by the deadline. Is this the correct usage?


title: Word meaning an object can be "empty"

text: I'm looking for a single word that can describe a container object as having the ability to be in a state of emptiness. The first word that springs to mind is "emptiable", but that implies an ability to change the state, rather than the possibility of "empty" being a state at all. I'm looking for a word that describes that possibility. What do you call something that may or may not be empty? I've been dancing around the word "void", but that seems to have the same issues (see "voidable").


title: "supposed to" or "suppose to"?

text: What is the actual spelling/pronunciation? What is the origination of this phrase?


title: Is it possible to describe something with a question?

text: On the of chance this being possible examples please.


title: Is the game, "go," a proper noun? What about "checkers" or "chess"?

text: > The game of Go is... or > The game of go is... Apparently the International Go Federation capitalizes it. Its dictionary entry doesn't appear to be (from what I have seen). It seems to fit the definition of a proper noun as it isn't preceded by an article (such as "the" or "an"). So which is it? Also, where does that put checkers, chess, basketball, football, etc. They are never (or at least not regularly) capitalized, yet they seem to have the same characteristics. I predict the argument is going to be that Monopoly is capitalized because it is a brand and go should not be capitalized since it is not a brand and it is not referring to a specific instance of anything. Is that correct?


title: Omitted words in a comparison

text: > The moon was smaller than yesterday. Is this correct, and the "how large it was" was just omitted and implied, as in > The moon was smaller than (how large it was) yesterday. or is this a faulty comparison, comparing something, "the moon," and an adverb, "yesterday"?


title: I am trying to come up with a term for actions Replace/Prepend/Append

text: Let's assume I have a text in the notepad: "Some Text". If I enter more words after the text it will be an append ("Some Text Another Text"), otherwise it will be a prepend ("Another Text Some Text"), if I don't replace the text with a new text completely ("Another Text"). So I am trying to come up with a term for these actions. How do you call it?


title: Antonym for gormless?

text: I was sitting at the card table this evening looking gormless (as I am wont to do) when it occurred to me to wonder, are the other players _gormful_? Is there such a word? Is there such a thing as _gorm_ , that one can either have or lack?


title: What do you call the person you have assigned a delegate for?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there an antonym for "delegate"? _Person A_ is a **delegate** (makes decisions for) for _Person B_ while _Person B_ is gone. What would you call _Person B_?


title: What would be the British Equivalent Words to "Freshmen" "Sophomore"

text: I know that to describe which year you're in, with American English, people usually use words like:   * Freshmen - 1st year college/university student    * Sophomore - 2nd year   * Junior - 3rd year    * Senior - 4th year However, since the British universities usually have three years in total, are there any equivalent words to these American expressions? Or Does British people just say "I'm a third-year" instead of "I'm a junior"?


title: Is "fair enough" the same as "OK"?

text: A quick question about the use of **fair enough** : is it completely equivalent to OK? If not, under what circumstances should I say _fair enough_ in my response? Any good examples will be most welcomed. Thanks.


title: First, Second, and Fourth Bracketed Letter of a Word

text: What do the first, second, and fourth bracketed letters in "retreating," "the," and "to" indicate below? I've frequently encountered similar examples like these in others' writing. What exactly is meant by the use of brackets around the second letters of words? Image below from http://dianahacker.com/pdfs/hacker-bish-cms.pdf -- one of Diana Hacker's handbooks [reproduced under fair use]: ![Image of PDF source](http://i.stack.imgur.com/Sq4xI.png) > A Southern reporter traveling with Forrest makes clear that the > discrimination was deliberate: “Our troops maddened by the excitement, shot > down the ret[r]eating Yankees, and not until they had attained t[h]e water’s > edge and turned to beg for mercy, did any prisoners fall in [t]o our hands . > . . . References given in the PDF are > 18 Foote, _Civil War,_ 111.   >  19 Cimprich and Mainfort, “Fort Pillow,” 304.   >  20 Quoted in Wills, _Battle from the Start,_ 189.


title: Meaning of "lead conversions"

text: In the context of enterprises developing software what is the meaning of the phrase "lead conversions"?


title: "Lung/brain cancer/tumours"

text: When people talk about illness, they tend to say they have _lung cancer_ instead of _lung tumours_ , or _brain tumours_ instead of _brain cancer_. Why is this?


title: What is the origin and meaning of conniption dido

text: My mother who was born in 1917 used this term just as someone might use conniption fit. When I asked her where the word dido came from she said that her grandmother used it. I can't find anything that puts these two words together. She was raised by her grandmother in Benton, AR.


Is it correct to use the phrase "Think on it"? You can use sleep on it for thinking about something overnight and you can say "I'm thinking on my bed" to mean that I am sitting on my bed and thinking, but is it correct to use "think on it" as a replacement for "think about it"?


title: Is 'lackness' a valid word?

text: Firstly, I'm not a native speaker. My question is about the word 'lackness'. I've heard it many times.   Is it a valid word or do we use just 'lack'? For instance: > "... lack of something..."?


title: Use of "untick"/"uncheck" in Canadian English?

text: I'd be grateful if any Canadian speakers can tell me: in the context of an option in a computer dialog box/menu, which of the words "untick" vs "uncheck" is most commonly used (or are they used interchangeably)?


title: What does ‘Camel gets his nose under the tent’ mean?

text: In the article of New York Times co-ed columnist, Maureen Dowd dealing with Republicans’ objection of the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ under the title, “Mad Men and Mad Women”, I came across an unfamiliar quote from Republican Representative (west Fla), Allen West - ‘like the camel getting his nose under the tent.” Although, I guess the phrase means ‘poke and pry’ from the context of the following introductory sentence, correct me if I’m wrong. Is this the representative’s coinage, or established cliché? Can I use this phrase for a person who is curious? “Republicans hate social engineering, unless they’re doing it. Wishing they had the power to repeal the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and get back to the repressed “Mad Men” world they crave, some conservative lawmakers grumpily quizzed upbeat military brass on Friday. “We’re starting to try to conform the military to a behavior, and I remember going through the military, we took behaviors and we formed it to the military,” said Representative Allen West of Florida, warning ominously (and weirdly) that _“this could be the camel getting his nose under the tent.”_


title: How to change this to active voice?

text: > The matter was reported to the commissioner. My teacher told me that it should be > The commissioner reported the matter. But I think that this is not correct since it implies the commissioner was the one who reported the matter, which is incorrect. My guess is > Someone reported the matter to the commissioner Is this correct?


What is the player called who has a turn? I am guessing something like _turning player_. But I would like some confirmation or maybe is there an idiom for it? _**Explanation:_** In a round based game what is the general term to refer to the player that everyone else is waiting on? With my current knowledge I would have to resort to > "I am playing a turn-based game, and it's my turn." but I would rather say something like > "I am the ... player." _**Offtopic:_** ~~_My use case:_ Programming a card game, I am trying to come up with a short variable name to store whose turn it is. The variable will contain the player object. ~~


title: "Are you kidding me?"- Is it grammatically correct?

text: I often hear people saying "Are you kidding me?". To me this is grammatically wrong- it should be "Are you kidding?", full stop. "Are you kidding me?" sounds wrong, but is it actually wrong?


title: Etymology of "Mother Nature" and "Father Time"

text: Why are "Mother Nature" and "Mother Earth" (and perhaps other similar connotations I am unaware of) feminine personifications? The same question stands for "Father Time" - why masculine? Any explanation as to the history and/or origin (and/or anything else enlightening) of these phrases would be appreciated, particularly as they pertain to the differing genders.


title: A verb for fluid rushing out in small amount

text: What is a verb to describe fluid rushing out from an opening _in small amount_? "Gush out" sounds like in huge amount. "Seeps through" on the other hand lacks the force that brought the fluid out, like with in "gush".


title: "in order that" vs "in order to"

text: What's the difference between "in order that" and "in order to"? For example, is there any difference in nuance between the two sentences below? >   * We are all servants of the laws in order to be free. >   * We are all servants of the laws in order that we be free. >


title: What is the sound made by a handbrake being pulled?

text: I was considering using "creaking" or "rattling". After some googling, I saw they're both associated with a faulty handbrake. Any other suggestion?


title: Linguistic name for verbs like 'want', 'expect', 'beg',

text: In linguistics, there is this certain group or class of verbs that can be used as _We <VERB> you to come._ Verbs like _to expect_ and _to want_ are in this class:   * We expect you to come.   * We want you to come. but most verbs aren't:   * *We eat you to come.   * *We type you to come.   * *We grow you to come. Does anyone know the name for this class of verbs?


title: What is a “cuff ”?

text: What is a _cuff_ is this context? > The rotator cuff muscles are important in shoulder movements and in > maintaining glenohumeral joint (shoulder joint) stability.[2] These muscles > arise from the scapula and connect to the head of the humerus, forming a > **cuff** at the shoulder joint.


title: “All you have to do is read” vs. “All you have to do is to read”

text: I was speaking to an English learner and said, “All you have to do is read a lot.” And they thought that sentence wasn’t grammatically correct because I dropped the word _to_ between _is_ and _read_. They thought it should be “All you have to do is **to** read a lot.” That sounds weird to me. How do I explain to them the reason you drop the _to_? Or am I incorrect and it really should have a _to_?


title: "What I have to do is" + verb inf

text: I'm confused about the following examples, and I'm pretty sure I've seen both of them in books and white papers.   * What I have to do is find her.   * What I have to do is to find her.   * What I would like to do is to buy it.   * What I would like to do is buy it Can anyone please tell me which one is correct? Many thanks


title: To use ‘to’ or not is the question ;)

text: I believe the grammatically correct way is to omit the _to_ before the verb ( _find_ in this case). Can someone confirm? > What you have to do instead is find a way to redefine the problem ... I ask this because I have also seen constructions like > What you have to do instead is _to_ find a way to redefine the problem ... Are both correct?


title: "I've got more to do than wait" or "I've got more to do than **to** wait"?

text: I did some reading in other places online about using the bare infinitive after the word "than," and while in a lot of cases it seems correct, I'm having a hard time telling whether it's correct in this particular case. Are both of the following valid?   * 1.) "I've got more to do than wait."   * 2.) "I've got more to do than **to** wait." I also noticed that it seems like the first one sounds better if there's something after the word "wait":   * 3.) "I've got more to do than wait _around for you_." Is this any more valid than the first sentence with the bare infinitive after "than"?


title: What is the appropriate construct for stating that "A and B oppose each other's positions."?

text: For example, in a sentence that states "Person A and Person B reacted with terror at each others' views," is there a more formal way to phrase this? The current phrasing seems like an awkward way to convey that Person A reacted with terror at Person B's views, while Person B simultaneously reacted with terror at Person A's views. EDIT: I think I obfuscated my question in the initial post. I'm wondering if there is a more formal way to phrase that the opinions in question are each others? The current phrasing seems like an awkward way to convey that Person A is reacting to person B's opinions and person B is reacting to A's positions.


title: Etymology of "catch a bosso"

text: Reading _Look to the Lady_, by Margery Allingham, I came across the apparent slang "catch a bosso," used by Lugg, the Cockney manservant, at the beginning of Chapter 6: > As soon as I caught a bosso of 'im and 'is 'arem going up that street, I > come up to see what the 'ell you was up to---sir. The meaning seems clear enough---Lugg caught a glimpse of "'im and 'is 'arem" ---but I'm wondering about the etymology. Is this an instance of Cockney rhyming slang and, if so, what is the origin? I should add that _Look to the Lady_ is set in the late 1920s or early 1930s, so this slang might be localized in both time and place.


title: How to use "text" as a verb

text: > –verb (used without object) Digital Technology.   >  15\. to send a text message: _Texting while driving is an accident asking > to happen._ Can I use: >   * I text to her but she didn't text me back. >   * I will text on your facebook later. > What about the simple past and past participle forms? Is it _text, text, text_?


title: Synonym for the word "time card"

text: I'm looking for a synonym for the word "time card" or "clock card". I try to find a word for a card with which you can track your work times on a certain device your employe installs for its workers. I used the expression clock card but a native friend from uk said it is not a common expression. Can u help me?


title: Is there a specific name for these sentence parts?

text: Is there any specific name for the bold portions of the following sentences, or for their structure? > **It has been suggested** that drinking water is good for your health. > > **It is unknown** how long could this last.


title: Doctor Jekyll (Ph.D.), I presume

text: I am writing an analysis paper (not related to title), an need to introduce someone with a doctorate in English. Do I write "Doctor [name]" or do I use suffix?


title: Is "forwent" used much?

text: I see "forgo" used quite a bit, and "forgone" is quite common too. I can't say I've ever seen or heard of "forwent" and in fact, I had to look it up to make sure it even was a word at all. Is it used much? Is there an alternative that is more common? I suspect it's more common to say, for example, "I decided to forgo treatment" rather than "I forwent treatment." But why?


title: Tenses after "as if"

text: > "I'll always remember this rule as if I had just learned it" Do you consider this sentence grammatically correct? The main clause refers to the future, so I guess that the Past Simple would convey the same meaning and would at the same time be grammatical. Nonetheless, the choice of the appropriate tense is problematic here. Which one would you go for, and why?


title: Acceptance- vs staging environment

text: In application development it is common practice to push newly developed versions of code to an environment other then the life environment to have other people test it. In my previous company we were told by Americans that we couldn't translate the Dutch term 'Acceptatie omgeving' to 'Acceptance environment' because that's not proper English. In my current company however this term is actively used and when I search online dictionaries it seems this word does exist. Is acceptance environment correct English?   Is it a en_US vs en_UK thing? **UPDATE**   Google says: the action of consenting to receive or undertake something offered. Or the process or fact of being received as adequate, valid, or suitable.   Which sounds about right to me. So other then the 'weird' feeling, I can't make my case about changing 'Acceptance' to 'Staging'


title: Because in the middle of a question

text: Do I put a question mark after the following sentence? > Do you know where it is because I cannot find it? I guess it is quite simple but I get really confused when the 'because' is there. To me the question doesn't seem like after the 'because'. Should it be two sentences?


title: Are there counterpart English expressions to Japanese proverb, "the nail that pops up is always hammered down?

text: I was once reminded by Robusto-san of a Japanese popular saying, ‘出る釘は打たれる - the nail that pops up is always hammered down,’ when I complained about sequential down-votes that I received. I wondered at that time if this expression is unique to the Japanese collectivity-oriented patterns of thinking, which Shichihei Yamamoto defined as ‘rice-growers’ mindset’ to simply mimic what others do without having your own thought - when the neighboring farmer starts planting rice, you plant rice. When your neighbor crops rice, you crop yours. When the neighboring farmer starts to repair a thatched roof made of rice straw, you mend the thatch of your cottage. In the famous book, “Japanes eand Jew ” written by the pseudonym of Isaiah Ben-Dasan, Yamamoto argues basic differences of the ways of thinking between the Japanese and the Jew - agricultural people vs pastoral people in his definition. We have a lot of proverbs to teach us to be meek, or flexible at best, such as “泣く子と地頭には勝てぬ‐You cannot argue with a crying child and your magistrate,” “長いものには巻かれろ- It’s better to be obedient to those in power,” “喬木は風に弱し-A tall tree is weak to a gale,” “柳に風折れなし‐Willows don’t break in storms (because they have branches and leaves supple enough to fend off strong wind).” “触らぬ神に祟りなし‐Don’t get involved (with the problem), and you won’t get a slap from God,” and “Silence is gold (I think this is a Japanese version of German proverb, 'Reden ist silvber, schweigen ist gold' transplanted in the Meiji era in late 19 century),” can be classified into the same “Don’t be conspicuous” lesson group. I understand westerners value assertiveness based on individualism against oriental collectivism, and wonder if the concept like ’出る釘は打たれる- the nail that pops up is hammered down,’ is viable at all in the western societies as a matter of comperative culture. Are there any proverbs or sayings that admonish values of being unnoticeable (not saying insignificant) or an advantage of staying just in average that can be compared to ‘the nail that pops up is hammered down’?


title: What is the meaning of this expression?

text: Does "next player's turn" mean "next turn of the player" or "turn of the next player"? Or can it mean either depending on the context? In this particular case the context is a two player board game such as chess (but not chess) where players alternate to take their turns. Meta: also I'd appreciate some help with the good question title, as mine clearly is not good.


title: Using Remark instead of Note

text: I ran across this sentence: > Remark the small differences between this procedure and the one written by > xxx. Is this valid usage in English? I would typially write "note the small ..." or "notice the small ..."


title: What is the difference between "Lisbon is a city on the water” and “of the water"?

text: There was the line, “It’s one of those places that’s _not on the water but of the water_ ,” in the article of May 25 New York Times titled “How I fell for Lisbon,” an enticing reading for anyone who has ever been there. It goes as follows: > A major port in a country with a rich and proud seafaring history, Lisbon > has a connection to the ocean – the Tagus meets the Atlantic only a dozen or > so miles away – that is essential, intimate and palpable. _It’s one of those > places that’s not just on the water but of water._ I’m not able to get a clear idea about the difference between ‘place on the water’ and ‘place of the water.’ How can I interpret the difference of ' _on_ ' and ' _of_ ' (the water)?


title: Is "amend XX" a commonly understood English term to express "add something to XX" or "modify XX"?

text: In our company, we've recently had a discussion about the usage of the verb _amend_ in the context of a screen in our software user interface, where a button reads _amend set_ (meaning _add something to this set_ or _modify this set_ ). We're mostly non-native English speakers and this word seemed a bit exotic. Is it commonly used in this context? From a non-native English speaker perspective, I'd prefer _modify set_. Our target audience is native (British) English speaking, though.


title: Is "upcoming" too informal?

text: I'm writing a PhD thesis. Should I use "upcoming" in the following sentence, or is it too informal? > . . . the modifications will be included in the **upcoming** fourth version > of the manual . . . By upcoming I mean "to be released".


title: Mixed tense sentence + When clause

text: Is it legal to write something like this: > When I'm trying to post a form system alerts me with a warning message. I've seen people use this kind of writing. **EDIT** I don't know why (perhaps that's the influence of my native languages and their semantical constructions) but my brain is considering such a form > when I try to do something + present simple a.k.a something happens I know that it would be just a description of usual activities like > each time I ... construction. My activity I want to describe holds repetitive character: I do some routine jobs but in the perspective of **now** , and this may not happen in the future. Sorry if this sounds confusing.


title: Does a "blue mouth" mean something as a figure of speech?

text: In _The Deptford Trilogy_ by Robertson Davies there is a passage referring to the memories of a character who is, essentially, crazy and I can't tell whether or not the term "blue mouth" is literal or if it has some figurative meaning: > She hasn't any idea of the past, except for horrible mixed-up memories of > being tied up, and Paul disappearing, and Amasa -- she always remembers him > with a **blue mouth** , like a rotten hole in his face-- telling God he > forgave her for ruining his life. I'm confident the urban dictionary definition isn't applicable here, but don't know if anything else fits. The story takes place in Canada circa 1920's.


title: Are there examples of terms named after a person that are no longer capitalized?

text: Are there any grammatically correct examples of terms named after someone that are no longer capitalized? I know certain _brand names_ have become so ingrained in the lexicon that they are no longer capitalized - xerox, coke, hoover, etc. - but are there examples where the now-lower cased item is named after a person?


title: What is the difference between "assess" and "evaluate"?

text: What is the difference between _assess_ and _evaluate_?


title: Single verb for "explained hesitantly"?

text: So far my ideas were: started, mused The context: [[The narrator, born and raised in the States, is visiting her family in a foreign country for the first time. She and her cousin are at a shopping mall.]] In the middle of my explanation of dating norms in the States, he tsked at me and asked, “Why you walk so fast?" “Don’t tell me you're too tired to keep up, now!” was my playful reply, but I paused. Why indeed? I _explained hesitantly_ , “I guess this is how fast I normally walk. We have seven minutes between classes at my school, and it's a big building.”


title: How should the punctuation work for "and, therefore,"?

text: I'm unsure where to place the commas: > [some argument], and, therefore, [blah blah]. or is it > [some argument] and, therefore, [blah blah]. or is it > [some argument], and therefore, [blah blah]. or none of the above?


In what case you would say "I speak things" instead of "I say things"?


title: Yellow versus orange

text: I have observed several people over the years refer to something that is orange in color as "yellow". Is that some linguistic difference or a difference in perception?


title: Term for people who don't joke at all

text: _Joker_ is the term that describes people who joke. Are there any terms to describe the opposite of _joker_?


title: Does "Bounce" have a negative sense when you want someone to leave?

text: I hear sometimes that when someone want other people to leave, they say _Bounce_. And I recently heard that someone said " _I'll bounce_ " when they wanted to leave (nobody asked them to). So my question is: _Bounce_ always has a negative sense or it depends on the context?


title: The pronunciation of 'Aryan'

text: An (English) acquaintance of mine pronounces the word Aryan as `/ˈɛːrɪən/` (~Aerian). I have only ever heard it pronounced `/ˈɑːryən/` (~Aaryun). I have it on good authority that the word comes from Sanskrit's `ārya` which is pronounced `/ˈɑːryə/` just as I expected. The ODO cites 'Aerian' as the correct (as these things go) British pronunciation while accepting both to be acceptable in American English. Webster is another dictionary that accepts either variant. MacMillan, just to be difficult, only accepts 'Aerian' as the correct pronunciation for American English, and either for BE. Now, in all my years of watching Nazi flicks, I don't believe that I've ever heard the word pronounced "Aerian"; I'm pretty certain that I would have noted the difference if I had. Is it a recent change? Or is it a regional peculiarity? How do the Germans pronounce it? Also, how would the word _indo-aryan_ be pronounced?


title: Is it wrong to use "never" for a specific time period?

text: I usually come late to the daily scrum meetings (but I do compensate, by working late!). For the last 6 working days, I have been coming on time, or even slightly earlier. At lunch, I told my manager this > I have never been late for the daily scrum for this sprint (last 6 working > days). He told me that my usage is incorrect because, I cannot use _never_ and restrict it to a time period. _Never_ , apparently, is for eternity, e.g, I have never drunk Russian vodka. What is the correct usage?


title: "Race" is to "racism" as "religion" is to what?

text: I've heard "racist" being used in a few cases to describe bigotry towards people of a certain religion. It's a bit annoying because it implies that all people of a religion are the same race, which is hardly the correct case. However I'm also bewildered that there doesn't seem to be an appropriate one- word substitute coined to describe prejudice/discrimination/sense of superiority in terms of religion. What (if any) word exists for it?


title: Would this qualify as "racism" or would it be called something else?

text: I was listening to an Aboriginal women speak about indigenous rights and the government. She made a few references juxtaposing Christianity and their beliefs. For example, it is perverse and uneducated to think Adam and Eve (and their children) could populate all of man. Immediately after she went on to talk about Turtle Island which is the belief that North America is on the back of a living turtle (I know wikipedia says it's just an Aboriginal name for North America, but the speaker definitely stated her people believe it to be more than that). What world would be used to describe the speakers attitude or speech towards Christianity? At first I thought it would be racist but then I realized religion has got nothing to do with race. Also she did not necessarily say it's inferior to another. Is my understanding correct: that by definition for something to be considered racist it must make a generalization about a race (usually based on skin colour) and say it's inferior to another? What would a better term be used to describe the way Christianity was disused?


title: Is there a word for 'religism'?

text: I'm searching for a word with a meaning similar to Racism or Sexism but within the context of religion. Is there a word for this meaning?


title: Specific word for discrimination based on religion

text: How would one refer to discrimination purely based on religion? Is there a single word?   For example discrimination based on sex is often referred to as sexism, discrimination based on race is often referred to as racism. I found one similar question online, at Yahoo Answers, but unfortunately as expected the quality of the answers is laughable, and outdated.


title: A feeling of there is "something more to it"

text: Sometimes after encountering certain events or incidents, we may consequentially sense a kind of uncanny feeling. It often feels like there is "something more to it" or "certain enlightenment or revelation" ahead for us to find out. The feeling is generally positive, something that we are looking forward to know "what's next". What do we name/describe this kind of feeling as?


title: Usage differences between "glum", "grumpy", "sulky", "glower", and "morose"

text: I learned from my English book these are synonyms. However I am curious to know what the specific usage of each word is. How much interchangeable are they with each other? Consider the sentence below. > Raghu has been reprimanded by the principal for his low scores in term > exams. His face is **_**. Which word is suitable to fill the blank, and why? I have difficulty in choosing the right word in this case. **Dictionary meanings:** > Glum: looking or feeling dejected; morose; > > Morose: sullen and ill-tempered > > Sulky: morose, bad-tempered, and resentful; refusing to be cooperative or > cheerful > > Grumpy: bad-tempered and sulky. > > Glower: have an angry or sullen look on one's face; scowl For me, all the words seem suitable to fill the blank.


title: Someone who goes to medical school?

text: What should I call someone who goes to medical school? A medical student?


title: Can I start a sentence with a singular noun with no article?

text: For example, which one of the following sentences can I use? > Consumer of Product X needs to fill out a rebate form […].   >  Consumers of Product X need to […].   >  A consumer of Product X needs to […]. This is for a general-purpose announcement.


title: What is the reciprocal verb of "to thank"?

text: I know that _to express gratitude_ or _to thank_ are verbs that basically mean _to say thank you_ , but what is the verb for the reciprocol action (i.e. saying _you're welcome_ )? Is there a word for this, and does it vary based on the response?   Like if I say _thank you_ and you say _go to H-E-double hockey sticks!_. What did you **do** other than _reply_? In short: > "Thank you" = _to thank_   >  "You're welcome" = to _???_


title: Are there words or concepts for ‘Real Chocolate,’ Obligatory Chocolate’ and ‘Reverse Chocolate’ for Valentine Day gift in English?

text: Valentine Day is nearing. In our country (Japan), Valentine Day is characterized as the day for young girls and ladies to present chocolate as a sign of love to their boyfriends, or thanks to their family, work colleagues and superiors. Among gift options, chocolates are overwhelmingly chosen as the Valentine gift. For confectionery manufacturers and retail shops, Valentine Day season is a critical moment. The chocolate presented to one's man is called _Hon Choco_ ( _favorite (sweetheart) chocolate_ ); the ones presented to family members, colleagues and boss are called _Giri-Choco_ ( _obligatory gift chocolate_ ) which means it doesn’t accompany special love (affection) sign to receivers; ones given to ordinary friends,'Tomo-Choko (friendship chocolate), and the ones presented from males to females are called _Gyaku Choco_ ( _reverse chocolate_ ). I understand Valentine Day gifts are not limited to chocolate in Western countries and that Westerners don’t bother with the character of chocolate or the purpose of giving Valentine Gifts. However, I’m curious to know if there are any words or concepts to correspond to our _Honchoco_ , _Girichoco_ , and _Gyakuchoko_ in English.


title: Froth, foam, lather or suds?

text: I know this topic is unlikely to pique any native speaker's curiosity, but bear with me, I am trying to learn the difference between **_froth_** , **_foam_** , **_lather_** and **_suds_**. I feel these terms are not always interchangeable even though they mean more or less the same. There isn't anything called **_shaving froth_**. Yet, I can't explain clearly the difference between _froth_ , _foam_ , _lather_ and _suds_. I would appreciate if someone could enlighten me. ( **Edit** ) ODO definitions:   1. _Froth_ – a mass of small bubbles in liquid caused by agitation, fermentation, or salivating.    2. _Foam_ – a mass of small bubbles formed on or in liquid, typically by agitation or fermentation.    3. _Lather_ – a frothy white mass of bubbles produced by soap, washing powder, etc. when mixed with water.    4. _Suds_ – froth made from soap and water.


title: Is "as is" grammatically correct?

text: Is it grammatically correct to write "as is", instead of "as it is"? > e.g. > > Bob: Shall I change the title? > > Geoff: No. Just leave it _as is_ , for now. And if so, under what circumstances should it be used?


title: What is the noun for "committable"?

text: I am coding a program and want to raise a signal whenever the data of a form is in a state that allows it to be committed to a storage. > signal committabilityChanged(); However, I don't find the word _committability_ in the dictionaries I checked. Is committability a word? Else, what is the noun form of “committable”?


title: Is a question mark needed at the end of a question if the sentence ends with a period or an exclamation mark?

text: For example, in the two sentences below, are you supposed to end with a question mark? > Which of Shaw's plays has the line "If only parents would realize how they > bore their children!" And > Is the next board-meeting going to be held in Washington, D.C. Edit: Why do I ask? Because the Webster's New World College Dictionary (3rd edition) that I have at home says if two marks of punctuation are needed at the same place within a sentence, 'only the stronger is usually retained'. And they give the first sentence as an example, omitting the question mark. I made up the second example. There's nothing said about how to decide which is stronger.


title: Why don’t we write poetry like Beowulf any longer?

text: _Beowulf_ , the Old English epic poem, uses a characteristically Germanic style of poetry in which the number of strong beats per line is what counts. Instead of counting syllables, strong beats alone were counted. There were always exactly four such strong beats per line, and there was always a pause (called a _caesura_ ) between the two pairs. These strong beats may have made it easier for the pre-literate bard to recite long verse, and for one to pass along these unwritten minstrel poems to later generations. Other Germanic verse from the oral tradition also followed this scheme, such as the Norse Eddas. However, today this form of poetry is virtually never seen in English any longer. Instead, as our language grew explosively in vocabulary through the admixture of Romance terms, many with stress patterns that were alien to Old English, we also began to adopt a more Romantic style of composing our poetry, whether written or oral. Now it is only with training that the old forms are even recognized for the poetry that they are, even though any schoolboy can recognize a Petrarchan sonnet as a poetic form. And it need no longer be written in Italian for them to do so, either. It just “seems” like poetry to us now; the other, not so much. ## And my question is:   * Did we lose our old poetical form of _Beowulf_ , the alliterative poetry of the _scops_ (Anglo-Saxon equivalent of the _skalds_ ), as a direct result of English gaining phonemic stress? Does phonemic stress somehow fit our current style of poetic meter in a way that breaks the old style? Does phonemic stress interfere with the old alliterative form in some fundamental, mechanical fashion?  I am looking for a discrete answer, not a long opinion piece. I figure that if the answer to my question is that yes, it does, then this will be easily demonstrated — and conversely, that if it cannot be easily demonstrated, then it may well not be true. * * * **PS:** Although I am thinking here more about basic meter here than I am about rhyme schemes, I have also wondered whether switching from the so-called “head-rhyme” of alliterative verse with occasional assonant rhyme intermixed that we find in _Beowulf_ to the so-called “tail-rhyme” of what is called full-rhyme in modern metered verse in English from Chaucer onwards might be related to the loss of the _Beowulf_ style. Or not.


title: What are the origins for the phrases "Knock it off" and "Cut it out"?

text: When taken literally, the colloquial phrases "Knock it off" and "Cut it out" do not seem to mean "Stop what you're doing." How did these two phrases get their current meanings?


title: Non-union-affiliated shop steward

text: I'm looking for an English word or short phrase to convey a meaning which is similar to “union representative” or “shop steward”, except that the person in question is not (necessarily) associated with a union. That person is an employee of a company who is elected by his fellow employee to represent him in various relations with the employer. The point is to distinguish between two concepts in French labor relations: a “ _délégué syndical_ ” (lit. “union representative”), and a “ _délégué du personnel_ ” (lit. “representative of the workforce”). While it is possible for a _délégué du personnel_ to also be a _délégué syndical_ , they are separate roles, and the _délégué du personnel_ does not have to be a union member, and even if he is he does not speak for the union in his role as a _délégué du personnel_. IATE is decidedly unhelpful here, suggesting only “shop steward” and “trade union representative” for _délégué du personnel_ , both of which are wrong. Linguee offers suggestions, but none that strike me as clearly making the difference between union and union-agnostic representatives. There evidently is no similar concept in labor relations in English-speaking countries, so I'm looking for a good enough approximation. What would be a good way to translate _délégué du personnel_ into English (taking care not to imply a union representative)? A way to describe this role in a sentence or two that makes sense to UK and US audiences would be appreciated too.


title: How to say "A has X, and B has X" in a single clause

text: How can we say > Mike has an apple, and Jane has an apple in a single clause? Can I say > Both Mike and Jane have an apple or > Mike and Jane each have an apple? They sound fine to me but I am not sure. Is there any alternative? > Each of Mike and Jane has an apple might sound too complicated.


title: What does the word 'plotting' mean in this review title?

text: From a software application review: > Tic-Tac-Toe Becomes A True Challenge Again With This Plotting Puzzler


title: Popular alternatives to "thank you"

text: The context for my question might be a bit strange. I have stuttering and therefore I have some difficulties pronouncing some words starting with particular phonetics. And I've found that if a sentence starts with a /th/ sound, it makes me feel uncomfortable. Especially in the word is "thanks" or "thank you". So I want to know if there's a popular alternative for "thank you" that may not seem strange and that unnatural. I've searched the website and I know there are alternatives like "I appreciate your help." but that sounds a bit overly formal for me. (Or is it? correct me if I'm mistaken.)


title: "to get to know someone" vs "to know someone"

text: I'd like to know what is the difference of each of these options: > to get to know someone > > to know someone in the context of meeting someone for the first time, become friends, to know the identity of a person... What is the different uses of each? Can I use them in any tense? Can you give examples? Thanks


title: Meaning of expression "take contingency on someone"

text: What exactly does a phrase 'we need to take contingency on them' mean? This is an expression I heard from a project manager so I presume it has to do smth with risk mitigation. However, I'd rather not guess. Thanks.


title: Was I driving more than 5 mph under the speed limit, or less than 5 mph under the speed limit?

text: Suppose I am driving 38 miles per hour in a 45 zone. This, of course, is seven miles per hour under the speed limit. Of course, I am driving this slowly because the road is wet, and safe driving habits suggest that when the road is wet, one should consider the safe speed limit to be five miles per hour less than the posted limit. For this situation, which is correct?   * "I am driving more than 5 mph under the posted speed limit"   * "I am driving less than 5 mph under the posted speed limit" To support the first case: my speed discrepancy from the posted limit is more than 5 mph. TO support the second case: my total speed was less than 45 less 5 (equals 40). * * * **Edit:** As many pointed out, there are certainly ways to assemble a phrase to remove any ambiguity. But that's not really the point of why I asked. My reason for asking is two-fold:   1. The scenario came to mind when I was driving after a recent snowfall. I was minding my speed, but thought about accident situations. I wondered what would happen if I got in an accident and told the officer, "officer, I was driving more than 5mph under the speed limit." Would that indicate careful or safe driving? Could that phraseology be used against me? Would the insurance company clamp down on that usage of a phrase to deny a claim?   2. More generally, how do comparisons work? There are (at least) two comparisons in either construction: "under the posted speed limit," which unambiguously means "slower than the legal limit," and "more/less than 5 mph." However, in this case, "5 mph" isn't a speed at all; it is a discrepancy. One cannot drive at a speed discrepancy; in fact, the only reason the quantity "5 mph" has units at all is because of the mathematical property that units be additively consistent (i.e. you cannot add 5 mph to 17 bananas). Restructuring the phrase to use a dimensionless quantity also removes ambiguity: "I was driving slower than 89% of the speed limit." So my question could really be more abstractly framed as: when relatively comparing something to another comparison, does the "relational arrow" point in the direction of the inner-most comparison? Other examples:   * It is less than 5 degrees below freezing (29 degrees, or 23 degrees?).   * I am more than 5 pounds below my target weight of 180 lbs (177 lbs, or 172 lbs?).


title: Does "shall no longer be" imply "forever not?"

text: Can "no longer" refer to a finite, forseeable time period, or does it indicate a long-term finality? For example, if someone says, in anticipation of a large meal, "I shall no longer be hungry," does that imply that they will never be hungry again?


title: "This question has been asked at Stack Overflow" vs. "on Stack Overflow"

text: How should I phrase it: > This question has been asked at Stack Overflow. Or, > This question has been asked on Stack Overflow.


title: Is it "View on Facebook" or "View in Facebook"?

text: Which is correct: _View on Facebook_ or _View in Facebook_?


title: "On website" or "at website"?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  This question has been asked at/on SO? Which sentence is grammatically correct?   * The papers are freely available **at** the journal website.   * The papers are freely available **on** the journal website. Using Google's search results:   * available **at** the website returns 72,800,000 results.   * available **on** the website returns 106,000,000 results. So, I inferred that both variants are popular. Is this method (comparing the number of results by Googling) sound?


title: Which of these is correct: "Sheila is now in Facebook" or "Sheila is now on Facebook"?

text: Can I also use _in_ when referring to someone who is already a member of Facebook?


title: Do you buy "in", "by", "at" or "on" a website"?

text: If test.com is my website name, which one is correct: > **In** test.com you can buy biscuits   >  **By** test.com you can buy biscuits How can I explain to someone that if you register on my site you can do something?


title: Do you say content is in a website or on a website?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "On website" or "at website"?   >  Which of these is correct: "Sheila is now in Facebook" or "Sheila is now on > Facebook"? Which is best in your opinion? "You can find this content on the X website." "You can find this content in the X website." "I posted the comment on FB." "I posted the comment in FB." Thanks for your opinions and advice!


title: Is it absolutely unacceptable to change tense in the middle of a sentence?

text: For example: > I probably wasn't paying attention because I was doing things I'm not used > to. If the _I'm not_ is changed to past tense ( _I wasn't_ ), it sounds like I might be used it now, even though I'm not.


title: What is the equivalent of "noughties" and "tweens" for 1900-1920?

text: > **Possible Duplicates:**   >  What is the name of the first decade in a century?   >  "nineteen-hundreds" I have often heard the period between 2000-2010 called the "noughties", and the period between 2010-2020 as the "tweens". Was there an equivalent of this in the 20th century (or earlier!), or is this a modern invention? Should we be using another, "correct" term?


title: Pronouncing "00's" (as in 2000's)

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the name of the first decade in a century? When talking about decades in the 20th century, it is customary to refer to them using only the last two digits. For example, the 1990's are typically referred to by "90's", and so on. As we move into the 21st century, I've noticed that similar conventions are being applied. The first decade has been called both "2000's" and "00's". However, while pronouncing something like "90's" is relatively simple, there is no clear way to pronounce "00's". None of the possible pronunciations I've considered seem correct, so **what is the right way to pronounce "00's"?**


title: The 00s equivalent for "so 90s"

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the name of the first decade in a century? When you wanted to state that something belongs to a previous era's fashion at the turn of the century you could say so 90s or so 20th century. Now when you want to say that something belongs in the 200xs what would you say?   (So zeros or so aughts just doesn't sound right.) Edit: This is **not** a duplicate of What is the name of the first decade in a century?


title: How to point out the year 2000?

text: 1970s - The seventies; 1980s - The eighties; 1990s - The nineties. What do you call year 2000 and 2010? If someone who is older says a joke that was funny in eighties. I mostly hear right after: "You won't get it, it's a nineties thing." But what if I make a pun over 20 years, that is funny now, but won't be in future? What do I say? "You won't get it, it's __ thing."


title: What is the name for the second decade in a century?

text: Inspired by this question, we have   * 80's : "The Eighties"   * 90's : "The Nineties"   * 00's : "The Naughts" or "The Naughties"   * 10's : ???


title: What is the name of the first decade in a century?

text: 80s the "Eighties"     90s the "Nineties"     00s the ???      For that matter, what is the second decade called? The "tens" just doesn't sound right.


title: An 'S' after dates

text: In 1980s, the letter 's' refers to a decade_ 1980-1989_ and in 1900s, the letter 's' refers to a century_ 1900-1999. If we want to specify 10 years from 1900 to 1909, how can we show this? Thank you.


title: What emotions do :3 and :S convey?

text: Often I find people in the chat using emoticons. Most are simple to decipher, but I can't figure out what these two mean. > :3 and > :S What do they mean?


title: Request for an idiom (if any) or an expression that describes the following phenomenon

text: I've been doing some data mining experiments, and something really weird happened one hour ago in the experiment result, and just now something similarly weird happened again. I'm trying to think of an idiomatic way to describe the phenomenon observed in my experiments as I have to prepare a report for my advisor. A commonly used Chinese idiom (i.e., 无独有偶 just in case you can read it) quickly and naturally came to my mind, and I looked for English translations of the idiom. I've found the following translation (apparently not idiomatic at all): > It happens that there is a similar case; it is not unique, but has its > counterpart.


title: Difference between "outfit" and "costume"

text: What is the difference between _outfit_ and _costume_? For example, if you don't typically go to clubs, but you buy a certain set of clothes that you think will make you look like a typical club-goer, which does that set of clothing constitute?


title: Were emoticon-analogues used in the past?

text: I don't mean the set of smileys we use today which are surely a result of the keys on a keyboard. What I do mean is: In casual conversation before the creation of the personal computer, did people who wrote letters or notes have the ability to attach an emotion to things that they wrote in a simple way? For example, today I might write: > Don't worry about it :) which establishes very many things in very concise way. Did the writers of the past have some mechanism for doing this, or did they write out everything?


title: "Those who qualify will be awarded a certificate" or "those who qualify will be awarded certificates"?

text: All my life, I have been confused with choosing plural or singular form to represent one-one correspondence notion. > Only those who qualify will be awarded a certificate. or > Only those who qualify will be awarded certificates. ? Another example, let us consider the following: "Each student gets one pencil". But it becomes ambiguous if I rewrite in plural form as "Students get pencils". I hope someone can give me a general rule to overcome my confusion. :-)


title: "On their back" or "on their backs"?

text: > After the therapy, eight children (43%) became able to crawl/move on their > back. Or should I use "on their backs"? Singular because each child only has one back, or plural because we're dealing with eight backs?


title: Does "two patients' excised livers" sound like that each of them has more than one liver?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  “On their back” or “on their backs”? Which of the following is correct/preferable? >   1. Two patients’ excised liver showed no histological evidence of HCC. >   2. Two patients’ excised livers showed no histological evidence of HCC. > Similarly, "they live their happy life" or "they live their happy lives", "they lead a happy life" or "they lead happy lives". There are lots and lots of this kind of problems in English!


Which pronoun best completes the sentence? Every woman received **___ ___** prize. Is it her or their? Please explain


title: "Had entries" or "had an entry"?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "Only those who qualify will be awarded a certificate" or "Only those who > qualify will be awarded certificates"? In this question, there is a part that I'm a little confused with. In the original question, before it was edited, this sentence appeared: > Both Free Merriam-Webster and Oxford Dictionaries **had entry** of 'cum > grano salis' Seeing this, it kind of looked wrong to me, so I edited it to: > Both Free Merriam-Webster and Oxford Dictionaries had an entry of 'cum grano > salis' However, right now, I still feel that there is something wrong. I have a feeling that it should be > "Both ...... **had entries** of ' _cum grano salis_ ' If it had been " **had an entry"** , I feel that it seems to imply both of them shared one entry. Am I right? Should it be "had entries"? Is there anything wrong with "had an entry?" Please explain the grammar behind all this. * * * edit: **Please explain the grammar behind all this.**


title: Plural negative

text: I want to make the sentence _This creature does not possess a liver._ into a plural form. Which of the following is correct? _These creatures do not possess livers,_ or _These creatures do not possess a liver?_


title: Using singular or plural in a prepositional phrase

text: I need your help to resolve a grammar related problem that I often encounter: I become confused about the use of singular and plural in course of writing a sentence. **Examples:**   1. Millions of people are searching for a house for their families in Delhi.   or   Millions of people are searching for houses for their families in Delhi.   2. Many people were trying to get a cup of coffee for themselves, but as cups were less in numbers than the people, so many of them could not get one for them.   or   Many people were trying to get cups of coffee for themselves, but as cups were less in number, so many of them could not get one for them.   3. They all were doing their best to get promotions, but only Jack succeeded to get one for himself.   or   They all were doing very hard to get a promotion, but only Jack succeeded to get one for himself. Could you please inform which sentences are the right ones and why? And what should I do when I have to write such a sentence.


title: Is this correct syntax:

text: the girls' nose or the girls' noses? We are talking about the nose of many girls.


I am not a native speaker. I am doing the exercise "Put the words in the correct order to make question" from my workbook. I have this set of words: > your / best / see / did / friend / when / last / you? And I have three variants of the question: >   1. When did you see your best friend **last**? >   2. When did you see **last** your best friend? >   3. When did you **last** see your best friend? > Which variant is correct and natural? Why?


title: What's the adjective for "by distance"?

text: If I had to describe a state that occurred only for a certain amount of time, I'd simply use the adjective "temporary" to describe the state (or the adverb "temporarily" to describe the verb). What word describes a change by distance (without regard to time)? For example, if I were giving spoken driving directions that go through a road whose name changes from "Park Avenue" to "Main Street" and then back to "Park Avenue", I might say: > Park Avenue changes temporarily to Main Street. I think most people would hear that and understand clearly what I meant. However, _"temporary"_ refers only to **time** (not **distance** ), which makes me question whether I'm correctly using the word. After all, Park Avenue at mile marker 50 is always Park Avenue. What's a more appropriate adverb to describe _"changes"_ in this context?


title: "At least as much as skilled as"

text: Is this sentence right? > Xs need to be at least as much as skilled as Ys. If not what should it be?


title: Is there a connection between "pork barrel" and "gravy train"?

text: Have these two phrases evolved independently, and how much do their meanings overlap? Pork barrelling (as in "pork barrel politics") is pretty clear in its meaning, but how about gravy train? Where did it come from, and what is its exact/ original meaning?


title: How to respond to funeral request

text: This may not be the correct site for this question but I couldn't find a better alternative. How do I respond to this kind of question; > So I'd like you to be the pianist for my funeral. Is that ok? What is the polite way to respond to this if I decide to say yes? Something tells me that replying with: > Of course! I can't wait! ...might just be frowned upon (ok...so REALLY frowned upon), but at the same time I want to be friendly about it. If I just say yes and walk away I might appear to be cold and perhaps not willing to do it. Is there some thing I could reply with to lighten the mood? Note that the person requesting my services is by no means about to die (this isn't like a deathbed wish), but is merely, let's say "older" - in good health but in the latter half of life. EDIT: I am a college student who has known this person for about 15 years. We are not close friends but merely know each other from the fact that we both frequent the same groups. Thanks!


title: "Finish/complete/resolve an overdue project"

text: I use the number of results in a Google search of a phrase as a rough estimate of its usage. I googled all three and got:   * "finish an overdue project" — 1920 results   * "complete an overdue project" — 140 results   * "resolve an overdue project" — 0 results I feel that _resolve_ is the most appropriate word in this context since one of its definitions according to Merriam-Webster is: > **4** a : to deal with successfully : clear up And according to the Google dictionary: > **1** Settle or find a solution to (a problem, dispute, or contentious > matter) However, I am worried that this is not standard usage due to the number of Google search results.


title: Preference vs Favoritism

text: Could anyone please explain the subtle difference between **preference** and **favoritism**? Both of them basically give the same meaning, but there is something more than that in it. Can someone point that out?


title: Single word, or good words/phrase for "confusingly asked question where meaning changes."

text: I'm gonna simplify and clarify this question, since it has proved popular: Look at this SO QA ..   Where an ellipsis exists, is there a term for the missing text? Observe that **at first** it appears **AA was being asked**. **People answered this at length**. Then after some clarification it would appear BB was being asked. **Other people answered this at length**. Finally **it appeared CC was being asked**. The same sort of thing also happens particularly in business - it's thought that the client wants A but after some work on A everyone realises they really meant B .. and so on. (See my earlier over-long edit of this question for an example.) What's the best term for this **particular type** of snafu? There's kind of a **taxonomy of fuck-ups** in communications, in business, in rhetoric, in discussion: as DB mentions below, "spec creep" is an excellent example of something that would be in such a taxonomy! What's the best phrase or perhaps single-word here?


title: Can "about" and "around" be used interchangeably in some cases?

text: Example: > He paced about/around the room. Can those words be used interchangeably? If that's the case, which one is more common?


title: How did the silent 't' come into all these 'tch' words?

text: I'm curious as to how so many words with the 'ch' sound have the silent 't' in them. _Catch, itch, retch, hatchet, botch_ etc. The list is huge. They all have different origins, and yet they have the silent 't'. But words like _achieve, lecherous, spinach_ don't have the silent 't'. Can anyone see any phonological patterns that might have led to this?


title: What does the ‘-lite’ in Rick Santorum's ‘We're not just an Obama-lite’ mean?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What does “Japan-lite problems” mean? I found the word, ‘ _Obama-lite’_ in the headline of the Time magazine article (March 17) , titled “Santo: “We’re Not Just An Obama-Lite.” The article quotes the following remark of Rick Santorum aired on a Missouri radio: "If we keep winning and doing well and we keep winning the states were supposed to win and upsetting in states and do either very well..., we're going to win the nomination. I have no doubt about that whatsoever. We're the candidate that's energizing folks. We're the candidate that has the best chance of beating Barack Obama.... _We're not just an Obama-lite."_ As I am unfamiliar with the usage of suffix, -lite, I checked its meanings in dictionaries at hand; Readers English Japanese dictionary defines -lite as; 1\. the suffix used for fossils, minerals, explosives, products. 2.a believer of, or in a person. www.yourdictionary defines it only as stone: used in the names of minerals, rocks, and fossils, e.g. chrysolite, cryolite. wikitionary.org defines it simply as “used to form names of rocks and minerals Representing Ancient Greek λίθος (lithos, “stone”). I don’t think _Obama-lite_ has anything to do with fossils, stones and minerals, nor it does mean Obama-believer, because it’s silly if Santorum said “We're not just an Obama-believer.” What does Obama-lite mean, and first of all, is “-ite” used here as a suffix to represent for what?


title: When to use In the last year, last year and in the past year?

text: I'm curious about the difference of using "in the last year", "in the past year" and "last year".   * I went to NY in the past year   * Last year I went to NY.   * In the last year I went to NY (This sounds wrong to me). Could you please explain when to use each? Thanks.


title: "Started to work" vs "Started working"

text: What is the difference between the following: > Things started to work again. > > Things started working again.


title: How does one correctly punctuate a sentence that declares that one has a question?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Punctuation with "The question is…" '.', '?' or ' "… ?" '   >  Position of question mark when sentence doesn't end with question   >  How do I punctuate a question within a statement? My son, who is in fourth grade, wrote the following sentence in response to a story he'd read: "Another question I had was why were people swimming with dolphins." His teacher gave him no credit for this sentence. She contended that the sentence must conclude with a question mark. I believe that the sentence represents a declaration and not a question, and that the concluding period is appropriate and correct. Would someone kindly help?


title: Punctuation with "The question is..." '.', '?' or ' "... ?" '

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Position of question mark when sentence doesn't end with question Take this statement for example: > That's not the question. The question is what was Colonel Mustard doing in > the bedroom with the revolver. or > That's not the question. The question is what was Colonel Mustard doing in > the bedroom with the revolver? or > That's not the question. The question is "what was Colonel Mustard doing in > the bedroom with the revolver?"


title: Punctuation following "My question is..."

text: Forgive me if this has been asked before (if it has been, I couldn't find it) What punctuation, if any, should I use after "My question is..."? For example, > My question is why is ice so slippery? > > My question is, why is ice so slippery? > > My question is: why is ice so slippery? Which is the correct way to do it? (If it matters, MLA style please)


title: Position of question mark when sentence doesn't end with question

text: This is something that has always bugged me. I am never sure where to place the question mark, or whether to place it at all when the end of the sentence does not finish with a question, or a number of questions from the begining For example: > The question nagging me is to what extent can we encapsulate all what we > observe in nature into a set of simple computational rules, within which we > can leverage our existing knowledge. Should the final full-stop (period) be replaced by a question mark? Or perhaps even the comma?


title: Should I use a semicolon or a colon to introduce a question at the end of a sentence?

text: Which of the following is punctuated correctly? >   * My question for you is: how do I do that? >   * My question for you is; how do I do that? > Or should it be something different altogether?


title: Why do you use "much" when mentioning RAM?

text: > How much RAM do I need? Why do I need to use _much_ here? I was under the impression that if I'm mentioning anything countable, I should use _many_. You can always quantify RAM, so this seems very counterintuitive for me.


title: usage of see vs look

text: My fan is convenient to carry around. **_See_** it can be closed when not in use. OR **_look_** it can be closed when not in use. Which is correct?


title: Did President Obama break punctuation rules in his tweet?

text: After Clint Eastwood's RNC convention speech, President Obama tweeted as follows: > This seat's taken. Did he break any apostrophe punctuation rules? I am guessing he didn't as I haven't heard any objections to it. I am assuming the apostrophe is used to show the omission of letters, as in “This seat is taken”. I am confused about the usage as the apostrophe can also be used to form the possessive of the noun _seat_ , as in `My seat's cushion is red`. Can the apostrophe usage change the meaning of a word based on the context of a sentence? Are there other examples for this pattern?


title: What is the span between the thumb and the little finger called?

text: According to Wikipedia, "[i]n English usage the **palm** , or **small palm** , also called _handbreadth_ or _handsbreadth_ , was originally based on the breadth of a human hand without the thumb," as it is shown in the picture below where line #3 is the _palm_ or _small palm_ and line #2 is the _hand_. ![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Hand_Units_of_Measurement.PNG/250px- Hand_Units_of_Measurement.PNG) Thus, since it seems that there there is any name for the span between the thumb and the little finger, line #4, I wonder whether, nowadays, one can call _big palm_ that span. For what is worth, at least to me, Merriam-Webster is not so clear in reference to how that span is called, being its _palm_ definition "a unit of length based on the breadth or length of the hand."


title: What tense is "If I were a bird, I could fly"

text: The sentence is not referring to any time past, present of future. It's just referring to an imaginary condition which has never existed and seemingly will never exist. Still, the sentence and other sentences of this type are said and spoken. So what can we say about their nature? Which tense are they, what type are they? Their clauses, etc.


title: Difference between "cross with you" and "angry with you"

text: Can anyone tell me what the difference is between 'I'm cross with you' and 'I'm angry with you'? I have the feeling that _being cross with someone_ (by the way, can you be cross 'at'? or is one always cross 'with'?) is more used in Britain than in the US. Is that correct?


title: Is “In following, ...” acceptable in place of “In the following, ...”?

text: In editing a recent question, I wrote: > In following, `realtype` stands for ... Later, it got edited (two words were added) to read: > In the following example, `realtype` stands for ... The latter edit is incorrect because `realtype` stands for the same thing in the whole question, not just in the example; but for the purpose of this question, that's minor and doesn't matter. The real question is whether _in following_ is acceptable; is there any semantic or grammatical error with using _in following_ instead of _in the following_? I realize that _in following_ is used only infrequently when _in the following_ might be used in its place. In instances I looked at after a Google Books search, it was used mostly by Indian or German speakers of English; for example: > ... the most relevant constraints ... are summarized in following. – > _Valuation of Network Effects in Software Markets_ , Andreas Kemper, 2009 Note, this question is not about how frequently one phrase or another is used; it's not about personal preferences or other ways to say the same thing; instead, it asks if use of _in following_ violates any important English- language tenets.


Is there a word for the word being described by an adjective? In other words, the "target" of an adjective. Or, by analogy, "Operators have _operands_ , adjectives have ____."


title: Is there a specific name for the activity of blowing the bellows?

text: In a few European languages, there are words derived from latin _calcare_ \- literally to tread, in these words it means to blow bellows, for example in church organs; in Polish it's _kalikować_ \- a nearly-forgotten word by now, along with _Kalikant_ , which was the name of the occupation - the person performing the work. Is there a counterpart to that word in English, or did English always use plain "blowing the bellows"?


title: Is "curiouser," in fact, a word (e.g., in the phrase "curiouser and curiouser...")?

text: Is "curiouser," in fact, a word? (Yes, this question is very short, but that's really all I need to ask.)


title: Grammatical structure of 'Halls Induction'

text: I have come across 'Halls Induction' word on my university's website, and I could not comprehend why there is a 's' behind the word 'Hall', if such word acts as a modifying noun for 'Induction'. So maybe that is not the case then? Maybe it is a common practice to make 'Halls' a proper noun and use it to modify 'Induction'? I'm really not sure which is the case here. In case its context is needed, it is a name of a section which entails all the fundamental information for students new to the university's accommodation. Here's the link: studenthalls.southwales.ac.uk/halls-inductions


title: "For the sake of" versus "because of"

text: Somewhat related to this question, but with more subtlety. I've found some places that define "for the sake of" as "because of":   1. Wiktionary   2. Cambridge Dictionary I suppose in a four causal perspective, "final cause" would qualify to assert "because of" as a definition for "for the sake of." However, it seems that "because of" is a bit too loose a definition for "for the sake of," since the former can have other ideas associated to it that do not relate to _purpose_ , whereas "for the sake of" seems to relate directly to _purpose_ (and I agree with this answer that it has no temporal distinction of present vs. future). Being related to purpose, it seems far better defined like thefreedictionary.com's definition of _sake_: >   1. Purpose; motive: _a quarrel only for the sake of argument_. >   2. Advantage; good: _for the sake of his health_. >   3. Personal benefit or interest; welfare: _for her own sake_. > Both Webster's dictionary and Oxford's dictionary also avoid "causal" language in defining it, and both place purpose as the first idea, with Webster specifically noting "END, PURPOSE" (all caps original) emphasizing an end goal idea. The ideas of "advantage" and "personal benefit" still contain "purpose" behind them, a goal desired to be achieved, a _reason_ for action (which admittedly "because of" can also relate), rather than what actually _effects_ or brings about a consequence. So to illustrate, one of the following sentences could have "for the sake of" replaced in it, whereas the other would seem not:   1. Because of money, she worked a job. --> For the sake of money, she worked a job. (OK)   2. Because of the bat, the ball flew far. --> For the sake of the bat, the ball flew far. (Not OK) To clarify, in my example (1), the money is not benefiting, but is the end goal the person is trying to achieve by working a job. This matches the (1) definition above of pure purpose, but not the (2) and (3) definitions where the object is what is being advantaged or benefited. My (1) example is a different category of usage, similar to the Oxford dictionary example: > for safety’s sake, photographers are obliged to stand behind police lines Like my example (1), it is for the benefit of the photographer (not for safety itself), showing how the object in the phrase "for safety's sake" or "for the sake of safety" does not always convey _what_ is being benefited, but can simply convey the _end goal_ for the purpose of benefiting some other thing. So the two questions I have are:   1. Is there ever an instance where "for the sake of" could be used appropriately and would not carry an idea of purpose behind it, but rather more of an efficient causal idea that simply results in an effect (similar to example sentence #2 above)?   2. If (1) is "no" (as I suspect, especially based on the definition of "sake" above), is it best to avoid using "because of" or other causal language at all when defining "for the sake of" (similar to freedictionary, Webster, and Oxford)? That is, is there any benefit to speaking about "cause" if it may just create confusion?


title: I'll say at farewell or at last?

text: Which of the following would be more comprehensible to say in English:   * At last I'll tell?    * At farewell I'll say?    * The Last word?  as the title in song А напоследок я скажу (words by Bella Akhmadulina, musics by Andrei Petrov from Eldar Ryazanov's movie "Cruel Romance", 1984), sang by Ponomareva (in movie "performed" by Larissa Guzeeva and Nikita Mihalkov)


title: "Four window layout" or "four windows layout"

text: To indicate a multiple object layout should I use _four building layout_ or _four buildings layout_? Maybe they are both correct?


title: Reason for different pronunciations of "lieutenant"

text: While Americans (and possibly others) pronounce this as "loo-tenant", folks from the UK pronounce it as "lef-tenant". Why?


title: Meaning of "move out of a walk"

text: In George Orwell's _1984_ , Part 3, Chapter 4: > He attempted more elaborate exercises, and was astonished and humiliated to > find what things he could not do. He could not **move out of a walk** , ... The previous sentences said: > In a little while he could walk three kilometres, ... What does _move out of a walk_ mean? Does that mean he could not walk?


title: Meaning of "common method bias"

text: What is the meaning of _common method bias_ in the sentence below? > A second limitation concerns the fact that we only used self-report > questionnaires. **Common method bias** may thus have influenced some of the > results.


title: Between or Among

text: This is what Ellen DeGeneres jokingly said in the Oscars this year: > I did a little bit of research and **between** all the nominees here > tonight, you've made 1,400 films. And you've gone to a total of six years of > college. I'm kidding. Kids, stay in school. > > Meryl has been nominated for an Oscar a total of 18 times. It sounds good, > but if you do the math, **between** dresses, hair and makeup, that's > hundreds of thousands of dollars. Can either of these two instances of "between" possibly be substituted for "among"?


title: Where did the phrase You "have a really punchable face" originate?

text: MS Paint Adventures references this phrase on this page in homestuck: http://www.mspaintadventures.com/?s=6&p=002224 I also distinctly remember hearing the same phrase in one of the three first books of the Avatar: the Last Airbender animated series. I know from someone I know IRL that the author of Avatar: tLA grew up in the 80s, and a lot of the humor from the show comes from humor of the 80s. If need be, getting the author's name and background should be trivial. Likely Avatar's author wasn't inspired to use the mentioned quote from MSPaint Adventures MSPaint Adventures seems at earliest 90s humor. So an educated guess points me to neither of these sources are an original source Does anyone have any clues?


title: What is the Grammatical mistakes in "The pity is that no sooner he had left the place than the fire broke out"?

text: What is/are the Grammatical mistakes in "The pity is that no sooner he had left the place than the fire broke out" ?


title: The word "but" used as negation

text: I would like to know the grammatical term for using the word _but_ in the following context: > John speaks loudly, but he's a nice guy. The word _but_ is used to signify a negation, to create contrast. Is there a term to describe this specific negation?


title: How popular is “sine qua non” in English? If I use it in day to day conversation, will I be scoffed at?

text: I saw the word “ _sine qua non_ ” in the article of New York Times (October 12) written by Gail Collins under the title, “The Gift of Glib.” The article deals with the big Republican debate held in New Hampshire this week, and the word appears in the following sentence: > 9-9-9 is the _sine qua non_ of the (Herman) Cain candidacy. It would scrap > the tax code and give us 9 percent corporate, income and national sales > taxes. He mentions it every 10 seconds (in the debate). I was able to find the definition of “sine qua non” in Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “something absolutely indispensable or essential” and “Reliability is a sine qua non for success” as a sample of its usage. I’m interested in how popular or common this word is among native English speakers. I’ve been warned in how-to-write books that abuse of Latin often gives a pedantic tinge and looks odd. If I use “ _sine qua non_ ” instead of "essential or basic requirement" in colloquial conversation with native speakers, or even in writing, will I be ridiculed?


title: Speaking for the sake of saying something

text: Is there a word or phrase that describes the act of saying something for the sake of it?


title: Is there any difference between 'represent' and 'represent for'?

text: 'Marriage represents love' 'Johnny represents for single men everywhere' When should I use 'represent', and 'represent for'?


title: What is the origin of the term "Urban Legend"?

text: Why aren't the myths circulating out there called "rural legends" ? (Especially if a UFO lands in a cornfield and the locals are temporarily abducted)


title: How to use "capitulate"

text: A guy at work said in an email > I won't **capitulate with** your demands! Is _capitulate with_ used correctly? Should it not be _capitulate to_?