title: What does “pull sb. out of the hat” mean?

text: I found the phrase, “ _pull her out of the hat_ ” in the following sentence of the quote from Frank Bailey, the most relied-upon former aide of Ms.Sarah Palin, whose memoir, “Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin: A Memoir of Our Tumultuous Years” is due out on Tuesday this week. “I doubt if there's anything new in this book, just more detailed views of the gruesome story of her rise and fall. What would really be interesting is an account of who made the decisions in the GOP to _pull her out of the hat_. It certainly wasn't McCain.” I don’t find the idiom, _“pull one out of the hat_ ” in any dictionaries at hand. Does it mean to “pick up” (Sarah Palinfor (vice) presidential candidate) or “remove her from (the candidate seat)? Can somebody teach me the meaning of this phrase?


title: how to use verbs

text: Here I don't understand the grammar of this sentence-- > I never heard you say that. Why not 'I never heard you saying that' or 'I never heard of you saying that'?


title: Why is there confusion between depreciated and deprecated?

text: For at least a year and half, I read "deprecated" as "depreciated", even when writing it down myself, I would spell it as "depreciated", even though pretty much every time I read it, it was spelt correctly (the intended meaning, was the meaning of "deprecated"). (When I finally spoke the word in conversation, obviously in the wrong context, and got told I should use deprecated, I was somewhat freaked out, especially after reading the same material I previously had, only to find it had all magically changed.) I see from Stack Overflow I'm not the only one: http://stackoverflow.com/search?q=depreciated Can depreciated have a similar meaning to deprecated in any circumstances? (And why after reading it spelt correctly so many times, or just after the first, would I say it in my head and write it down incorrectly?) Secondly, what is the difference between deprecated and obsolete?


title: store, shop, restaurant, or branch?

text: When I talk about Subway or Tim Horton's, should I say it is a store, a shop, a restaurant, or a branch? For example, > XXXX University has both _shops_ on campus. In the above, _both_ means Subway and Tim Horton's.


title: difference between suffixes '-ish' and '-y'

text: Recently Prince Charles used the word 'Hitlery,' in the sense of "possessing some properties of Hitler." Is there any difference between the suffixes _-ish_ and _-y_ ?


title: Antonym of "recommend"

text: What's the antonym of _recommend_? For example: > I **recommend** that item! I tried to use _unrecommend_ , but the spell-checker throws an error and it sounds stupid as well!


title: How does one parenthetically amend a noun in a sentence so that both the singular and plural form are included?

text: In a complex sentence with two subjects, each taking separate actions, the second subject is _item_ (singular), which I want to amend to _item(s)_ with a parenthetical _s_. How do I direct the rest of the action? Do I say _was (were)_ , or do I just say one of them (either _was_ or _were_ ), or what? Here's the sentence I'm trying to write: > Of the women who specified where their favorite item(s) was purchased.


title: Commas and "but"

text: I was always taught that one of the primary uses of a comma is for when you're divvying up unnecessary parts of sentences (I'll just go ahead and assume that was right). So, when I'm constructing sentences I will read the sentence without the sections that have been sectioned off by commas and, if it makes sense, I will proceed on to the next sentence. One thing I have noticed, though, (particularly with the word "but") is that people tend to construct certain sentences like this: > "I'm not particularly one for this type of music, but I love this song." Now, in this case, the first part of the sentence is the unnecessary part. So, without the first part, it would read: > "But I love this song." This obvious makes no sense, as it is out of context and was not a reply to anything. Were it me, I would have constructed it like this: > "I'm not particularly one for this type of music but, I love this song." This way, without the first part it would read > "I love this song." which, obviously, makes more sense. So, which way of constructing the sentence is "right"?


title: Are effect and affect related to efferent and afferent?

text: In my work I occasionally write about neurons. A common description of the relationship between two populations of neurons is to describe one as being "afferent" or "efferent" with respect to another. One essentially means "downstream" and the other means "upstream," but, for the life of me, I have the hardest time remembering which is which. However, English boasts another pair of often-confused words that seem quite similar: "affect" and "effect." I'd like to port my understanding of "effect" and "affect" to help me understand how to use the neuroscience terms. Is it useful to try to bridge this gap, or is the similarity here a sort of _faux ami_?


title: "to like the idea of being able to avoid having to understand something"

text: Consider this text: > JavaScript contains weird parts and some people like the idea of being able > to avoid having to understand those parts. It contains the construct > to like the idea of being able to avoid having to understand something Is this construct grammatically correct? It seems fine to me but I'm not a native speaker so I can't tell for sure. Also, does it sound weird? If yes, how would you say it instead? * * * **Update:** I just noticed that I forgot to provide some context. Sorry about that. So the idea is that there is this other programming language called "CoffeeScript". Some people choose to write in CoffeeScript instead of JavaScript because that means that they don't have to understand JavaScript and its weird parts. (CoffeeScript doesn't contain weird parts.) So they like the idea of being able to avoid having to understand JavaScript **by writing in CoffeeScript instead**.


title: When to use "Ok noted"?

text: I'm a software developer. My situation is, I'm working with my customer (onshore project manager) via chatting using Skype. He helps me to make his side's server available and give me a link to the test page so that I can test the page. After he send me the link. I reply:               OK.     I will test it now.      But my boss (solution architect) immediate talk to me (via Skype too)               You should say "Ok noted"      Could anybody please explain when to use "Ok noted"?   What are differences between "Ok" and "Ok noted"? Sorry for my English. Thank a lot!


title: Word for "non-unpleasant"?

text: What would be the expression to describe making something "not unpleasant"/"less unpleasant"? Specifically, not making it pleasant (adding comforts) but minimizing the expected discomforts. Let's say, a convict is being put in prison. The stay will not be pleasant, that much is known, but the guards learn facts that make them feel sympathy for the convict, so given the little wiggle room they have, they will try to make it as non-unpleasant as possible.


Should I say "3 half days" or "3 half-days" or "3 half-day"? I mean I want to refer to, for example, the a.m. of Monday, the p.m. of Wednesday, and the a.m. of Friday, together.


title: Hypernyms for "reactants" and "products"?

text: I’m looking for a hypernym of both _reactant_ and _product_. That is, I want to be able to say that both reactants and products are < _unknown term_ >, but I don’t know what term applies to both.


title: What's the opposite of "from the outside"?

text: There are two ways of describing something: from the outside (how external entities engage with it), and _ _ _ (how it actually works). What's a phrase that could go in the blank, meaning "in the inside"?


title: Is there a word for someone who is usually in the minority?

text: My original question was _"Is there a legitimate word for ' **a balancer** '?"_ but I think it's a little hard to understand... Let's just say there is a person, and most of the time, he is _in the minority_. It can be very simple, such as: he simply hates a song everybody likes (and vice versa), or he has a very long list of ' _underrated movies_ '. I guess he has a different (if not eccentric) taste comparing to most people.. On the other hand, he often does things that most people would refuse to do, too (whether he wants to or not). For example, most people wouldn't buy damaged goods, but he would. You can say he is sacrificing himself. To his mind, "If everybody wants perfection than who will care for the damaged?" or "There are certain people who would only accept the best, so there must be people who accept the worse, coexisting with the former." This person does things that most people would never do, he stays in the minority so other people can be in the majority => some sort of "balancer"? You know, since he balances everything.. **So, is there a word for people like him?** I know this is a long shot but please help me if you can, thank you!


What do “parergonal” and "parergon" mean in the following sentence? Can anybody suggest some synonym? > Thus, the figurative signification of structure does not escape but instead > confirms the _parergonal_ and supplemental status of ornament. If structure > in its metaphorical sense is the fully conceived structured idea of the > building, then ornament becomes the _parergon_ that reifies the underlying > essential idea, the recessive unseen structure. ( _Source: > "Structure/ornament and the Modern Figuration of Architecture" by Anne-Marie > Sankovitch_ ) I checked them out in American Heritage Online English dictionary and Wikipedia, but I wasn't able to figure it out, and I'm struggling because I'm actually not able to understand what Anne-Marie Sankovitch said.


title: What is the origin of the reference to the "ancient Marks"

text: From the historical reference included: "Kemble, in his (appendix) list of "patronymical names," which he regards as "those of ancient Marks," has two references, from the "Codex Diplomaticus"...", what is meant by ancient Marks in this reference. The source in question doesn't include the term in its index and I have never heard of it before but it seems from the source title it might originate from England. Scholarly expertise is needed here I believe. Source: The Project Gutenberg EBook on Some Ancient Battle-fields in Lancashire, by Charles Hardwick, page 198


title: "See you in the funny papers": etymology and meaning

text: I've heard people saying that "See you in the funny papers" means "I'll see you later," as in "Good Bye," but I always thought that it means "Good bye," as in "I'll never see you again." I thought that it was used when someone meant to say: "I'll see you on the other side!" or something in that manner. What does the expression mean and what is its etymology?


title: Antonym for lying?

text: Is there an antonym for lying? The lyric "You keep lying, when you oughta be truthin'" in "These boots are made for walkin'" made me wonder: does a single word exist which means to speak the truth?


title: A word for "positive side effect"

text: > Planting a tree will help the environment. And, as a [positive] side effect, > you will have a nice decoration in your backyard. Is there a word I can use to describe a side effect that is also positive? I considered **_bonus_** , like: > Planting a tree will help the environment. And, as a bonus, you will have a > nice decoration in your backyard. Is there something else I can use?


title: Why do I instinctively want to use the present tense with a conditional?

text: My boss is not a native speaker of English, so he often asks me to correct his writing. The problem is, he wants me to explain _why_ I make changes, and doesn't accept "it just sounds better that way" as an answer. Usually, I come up with some likely-sounding ~~nonsense~~ reasoning, but this afternoon, I just couldn't articulate why I corrected his > We might be able to figure this out from the schedules you will send us. to > We might be able to figure this out from the schedules you send us. I know that the version with "will" is perfectly understandable, and I don't think it is ungrammatical _per se_ ; but it just sounds better without "will", and I'd like to know _why_. Edit: the current highest-voted answer answers the question "why did my boss write it with a future tense". **I don't care about that.** That's **not** my question. I want to know **why the present tense sounds more natural**. Is there a "rule" about this? If it's not the subjunctive (since people keep downvoting the answer which says it is), what is it?


title: "A dual nationality" vs. "dual nationalities"

text: Which one is correct? >   1. He has a dual nationality. >   2. He has dual nationality. >   3. He has dual nationalities. >


title: "when you are done" vs. "when you are through" vs. "when you are finished"

text: I am in the habit of using the phrase “when you are done.” It has been suggested to me that “when you are through” or “when you are finished” would be more desirable. Is any of these incorrect or less desirable than the others?


title: "I specialize in system programming by using C++"

text: > I specialize in system programming by using C++. This is a résumé of an applicant. Is it grammatically correct?


title: What is the origin of the idiom "tight fit" meaning a good joke?

text: I've recently been studying etymology and I received a book titled _Flappers 2 Rappers: A Study of American Youth Slang_ written by Dr. Thomas Dalzell. Dr. Dalzell's research goes as far back as the 1850s and one of his entries of that decade is "tight fit" meaning a good joke. According to http://www.etymonline.com/ the word "killing" meaning extremely funny dates even further back to the 1840s. I understand why a killing is something very funny because when one laughs too hard it causes stomach muscle spasms and shortness of breath, almost restricting the lungs from getting air. I haven't the least notion why a "tight fit" is a good joke. Any thoughts?


title: Is the use of the definite article in English peculiar compared to other European languages?

text: Example: The novel by Gabriel García Márquez is titled "El amor en los tiempos del cólera", which, if transliterated to English, should be " _The_ love in the time of _the_ cholera". But in fact the "correct" translation in English is "Love in the time of cholera". For comparison, in German we have "Die Liebe in den Zeiten der Cholera", in French "L'Amour aux temps du choléra", and in Italian "L'amore ai tempi del colera". Is it correct to say that English is peculiar in its use of the definite article? And if so, how did this come to be?


title: Word With Similar Meaning to Wiki but Not Community Driven

text: I want to add essentially add a series of informational pages and pages that I will add to overtime. It will be a Sub-domain of the existing site. A am looking for a good word to call this Sub-domain and the site menu button to get to it. I am hoping that these pages may in the future be used by Engineering and students. It will contain information on standards, facts and design recommendations. I initially had planned on 'Wiki' but this will not be open to the general public for editing. The site will look very much like a wiki type site where a page containing information will link to several pages with similar relevant information. Other words I have brainstormed were: Information, Info, Design Info, Resources, Library.


title: Asking very strongly

text: I have a problem, how to intensify _asking_ for something without turning to loaded, negative _begging_. Two heroic fugitives run from authorities and find a temporary hideout. Then two other brave souls full of adventurous spirit offer to take their place, throwing the pursuit off track. It's dangerous, it's generous, but hey, above all it's an adventure the two always dreamed about! So here's what I wrote. > "Also, please don't forget you're helping us two fulfill our secret wish. > We're not just offering. We are asking you **humbly** to let us do it!" "Humbly" doesn't quite ring right for what I want to convey: the two are almost begging to be allowed to take up that mission. They aren't actually lowering themselves to begging, but they want it very much, and try to politely pressure the fugitives into complying. Is there an adverb, or a phrase that would convey that better? How to make a request strong, still polite (vs 'ordering') and not groveling?


title: Is "pejorative" used correctly in "no pejorative bone in his body"?

text: > He doesn't have a pejorative bone in his body. This is meant to describe a timid, non-confrontational person. Is _pejorative_ being used correctly here, in a figurative sense?


title: How to determine which part attributes which in a complex context?

text: I'm not sure what the grammatical terms are called so please accept my apology if I explain it a bit unsophisticatedly (is that a word?). First, let's take a simple example. > living room   >  work method   >  dog party Those are self-explanatory. It's a room used for living (activities), a method of conducting a work and a bunch of four-leggers getting together. But how about constellation of three word, such as this? > human computer interaction Of course, we know what this means, because there's a consensus on the term (and it's vastly known from it's hyphenated correspondent). But what implies that it's not an interaction between computers (across the web using services) which is humanized? Or a cyborg (humanized computer) that's interacting? So, the question pondering me is this. How should one interpret **grammatically based correctly** an **ambiguous** phrase on the following form? > something-a something-b something-c Are there any rules or preferences as to whether it's:   1. a-b'ish c,   2. a'ish b-c, or   3. something else'ish?


title: Single word for "from then" or "from it"

text: I would like to use the _archaic_ expression (from the family of _hence, whereby etc._ ) to refine the sentence: "..the weights introduced in Exercise 2 and determined _from it/from there_ " meaning the weights were presented and their utility described with Exercise 2 during which their optimal values were selected. My instinct would point towards _whence_ , used as in ".. in Exercise 2 and determined _whence_." but I'm not too sure whether the meaning (Merriam Webster: from what place, source, or cause) can be bent to what I'm thinking or if the word can even be used this way at all (at the end of a sentence). Any insights would be greatly appreciated, thank you all.


title: Adjective for "can't think of it now, but I'll know it when I see it"?

text: This happens when someone asks you about a fairly new song. You can't remember the lyrics or the music, but when it comes on the radio, you'll know that's the one. What adjective would describe that "elusive" song? I don't think "elusive" is the right word here because the song itself isn't sneaky or hard to identify or define (according to general consensus). This works the same way when you can't remember a face, but when given a bunch of photos, you'll be able to quickly identify that `adj. I need here` person you're trying to remember, if among those photos. I would be having what I've been told a "brain fart" or a "senior moment", but what would you call that which you just can't think of at the moment? Is there also a noun form for it?


title: Simpler and more common way of asking "Where could he/she had gone?"

text: I'm not a native English speaker, and I though asking "Where could he/she had gone?" was very common. But when I searched that phrase in Google I got only 6 results. Is there a more simpler, more common way of asking that question?


title: What does “Barack Obama’s real crime is presiding while black” mean?

text: I thought it’s unusual for me to be able to come to the end of Maureen Dowd’s’ article without any second thoughts on her particular turn of phrases when I’ve read today’s NYT article titled “Reindeer Games,” in which Dowd dealt with Michigan Congressman Kerry Bentivolio’s plan (or dream) to impeach President Obama for mishandling core issues from Benghazi to Obamacare to T.S.A. screenings. \- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opinion/sunday/reindeer-games.html?hp However, I had a hiccup at the very end of the article: > “The Democrats never impeached W. and they had real grounds: starting a war > on false premises and sanctioning torture. “The Republican Party is in a > constant struggle between its ego and its id,” Axelrod says, “and the id has > mostly won out lately.” > > It isn’t the president who should leave. It’s the misguided lawmakers trying > to drive him out. For some of the rodeo clowns clamoring for impeachment > around the country, **Barack Obama’s real crime is presiding while black**.” It sounds like it's saying GOP extremists think it’s a crime for a black person to be President. Putting aside nonsense of the argument, how can I interpret “while” as a conjunction in the line, “Barack Obama’s real crime is presiding **while** black”? OALD at hand defines ‘while’ as a conjunction meaning;   1. during the time that sth is happening.   2. at the same time as sth else is happening.   3. used to contrast two things   4. (used at the beginning of a sentence) although, in spite of. Although I think the definition 1. applies to the above text, I’m not confident. Could you paraphrase “presiding while black” with more explicit or concrete wording? By way of precaution, I’m simply asking grammatical and rhetorical interpretation of a word, ‘while’ used here. Please don't misunderstand. I haven’t the slightest intention to get into any of U.S related political or racial arguments. **P.S.** I found the article titled “ **Walking while black** in the ‘White gaze’” in Sept 1 NYT, which begins with the following sentence: > “Man, I almost blew you away!” > > Those were the terrifying words of a white police officer — one of those who > policed black bodies in low income areas in North Philadelphia in the late > 1970s — who caught sight of me carrying the new telescope my mother had just > purchased for me. > > “I thought you had a weapon,” he said. I got a clue.


title: "the class of 1991" versus "the class of '91"

text: which one is used? and if you have "the class of 2001" is it more proper the former or the latter ("the class of 2001" or "the class of '01" or "the class of '1")? and are there differences between spoken and written english?


title: "Set of techniques"; singular or plural?

text: I have an English course book that contains this question: Fill in the blank "The book is a set of techniques that systematically **__** the learner for interaction with target language speakers".   (A) prepare (B) preparing (C) prepares (D) prepared." The answer given in the book is A, but isn't C correct? I used Google and found this example "DNA technology is a powerful set of techniques that ALLOWS scientists to examine, change, and create new genetic material"


title: "New York is a great place to live." (no preposition?)

text: > New York is a great place to live. > > New York is a great place to live in. I've seen the former usage a lot and I've started wondering what the grammar aspects of it are. The main question I'm asking involves the grammar when the preposition in the end of the sentence is deleted. Is it equally formal or correct to omit it? What are the grammar properties of this? Some more examples of similar usage: > This organisation is a great place to work. > > This is a great place to stay/sit/study/travel/go. Just to show that ' _live_ ' isn't special in this case. Note: I'd posted the same question on ELL before, but the answers were not satisfying enough (the answers there did not seem to provide the precise grammar aspects of this, those that could be in a serious grammar book), so I'm posting this here to get some more views on the question. I hope it is acceptable.


title: Words similar to 'either' and 'neither' for 3 items

text: Given two options, we can use 'either and 'neither' to show no preference. > Do you want to watch A or B > > Neither, I don't like either. The only option I can see for more than two options is: 'any' and 'none' > Do you want to watch A, B, C ... ? > > None, I don't like any. **Actual Question** : Is there, or has there ever been a word to show no preference for 3 options? * * * **More Information** Sometimes we have an extra, sometimes uncommon, option for a 3-type question. This question is searching for a similar option for "either" > How many times have you eaten sushi? > > **Thrice** * * * > What is your phone number? > > Oh, seven, double five, **treble** zero * * * > 9 is **triple** 3 * * *


title: Idiom for "just because you give something a different name, it doesn't change what it is"

text: I'm looking for a way to idiomatically express the sentiment that just because you give something a different name, or precede it with a disclaimer, it doesn't change what it is, e.g.:   * "I mean this as constructive criticism, not an insult, but ..."    * "I'm not racist, but ..."   * "With all due respect ..."


title: Variations in the pronunciation of "the"

text: Although there are rather simple rules determining the pronunciation of "the", native speakers quite often deviate from these rules (including, e.g., TV shows). According to the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary, > The EFL learner is advised to use [ðə] before a consonant sound (the boy, > the house), [ði] before a vowel sound (the egg, the hour). Native speakers, > however, sometimes ignore this distribution, in particular by using [ðə] > before a vowel [...], or by using [ði:] in any environment, though > especially before a hesitation pause. Furthermore, some speakers use > stressed [ðə] as a strong form, rather than the usual [ði:]. My question is: when native speakers use [ðə] instead of [ði] before a vowel sound, do they do it on purpose or accidentally? If it is on purpose, how do they (typically) decide which pronunciation to use? What is a valid reason to use [ðə] before a vowel sound?


title: British usage: add verb forms of "do" after a conditional

text: Is it standard British usage to add forms of the verb "Do" after a conditional like "Would"? e.g., If I could, I would do"?


title: Is there a single word that is a more vicious connotation of "competition"?

text: I'm writing a mildly dystopian scenario where competition is taken to vicious extremes, and I was wondering if there was a word that I could use (specifically a noun that was a synonym of "competition") to describe the sort of vicious, cutthroat ... **_________** (the word that I want) that was going on. I'm specifically looking for a word that doesn't refer to a one-off event (like "contest" or "tug-of-war"), but rather is more about the _state_ of things.


title: Tense for online instructions over the phone

text: What tense should we use for giving online instructions? > Open your Kinlde application, click on the Cloud tab. Now, tell me **what > it's showing**?answer: **It is showing the list of the books.** > > Open your Kinlde application, click on the Cloud tab. Now, tell me **what it > shows**? answer: **It shows the list of the books.** Which one is more accurate?


title: Are there any online dictionaries that allow you to link to a single specific definition of a word?

text: For example, on my blog I want to link to the definition of 'nut' as'a perforated block usually of metal that has an internal screw thread and is used on a bolt or screw' which is the third definition on the page http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nut. Merriam-Webster only allows linking to the page for 'nut' but not highlight or link directly to a specific definition. In this case the definition I want to indicate is the third. Are there online dictionaries that allows you to link to a specific definition of a word instead of all the various definitions?


title: A word meaning "looking like the object that it describes"

text: Is there a word that means "the word looks like the object it describes"? For example: "bed" looks a bit like a bed, with the b and the d acting as head and foot boards, with the e as the mattress. "Shark" Looks a bit like a shark, with the capital _S_ looking like the tail fin and the _k_ looking like the mouth.


title: Is "I personally" incorrect?

text: Every time I hear someone trot out the phrase "I personally" it grates against my ears. I wouldn't mind so much, but it very commonly used by a wide variety of people. I grates most because I'm not sure anymore whether this is correct grammatically. Is it legal in American but not British English (or vice versa)? So, could someone solve this conundrum for me, finally, please?


title: Can "process" be used as an intransitive verb?

text: I am currently spending some time creating a (partial) Liferay translation for the Greek language, and I came upon this original English message text: > Your request processed successfully. Can the verb "process" be used intransitively in this manner? Or would this be the correct form? > Your request _was_ processed successfully.


title: The reasons are two. Correct?

text: I stumbled upon this phrase in this video's description. > A few words about this masterpiece: Brahms began composing this piece in > 1854 and finished it in 1876. **_The reasons for delaying finishing it are > probably two_**. First, Brahms' self-critical fastidiousness, and secondly, > the expectation from Brahms' friends and the public that he would continue > "Beethoven's inheritance" and produce a symphony of commensurate dignity and > intellectual scope, an expectation that Brahms felt he could not fulfill > easily in view of the monumental reputation of Beethoven. Is this grammatically correct? Can a numeral be a predicative in plural stating the number of the objects that are denoted by the grammatical subject? Could one say, for example > The pens are two, not three. instead of > There are two pens, not three. If the sentence from the video description is correct English, while my example is not, please explain the difference.


title: Is the “Beltway Stop" a popular metaphor meaning a concurrence of events or things?

text: I'm interested in the phrase, “ **Beltway Stop in the Oscar Race** ” which is the title of an article appearing in December 21 New York Times. It comments on the concurrence of movies focused on the country’s politics in Oscar prize race as follows: > “In the last few weeks Washington and its corridors of power have become an > unusual second front in the annual battle for Hollywood’s best picture > Oscar. No fewer than three leading contenders — _Lincoln_ , _Zero Dark > Thirty_ and _Argo_ — have found their prize campaigns entwined with the > nation’s politics.” OALED defines Belt-way as 'an AmE - a Ring road, especially the one around Washington DC.' But I surmise that “Beltway stop” here implies a succession of events or things, represented by the concurrence of three politics-focused films as contenders in the Oscar race. I wonder if this expression is used very often in writing and conversation, or just a nonce-word invented for this specific article. Additionally, why is the ‘stop’ in singular form when there are three political-theme contenders (instances) of “Lincoln,” “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Argo” in the Oscar race?


title: Using "a" in the title of a scientific paper

text: Is it OK, to use indefinite article in the title of a paper? Should it be omitted? Or even replaced by the definite article? Here is the title: "A Fuzzy Event for a Set of Events".


title: Is there a word or an expression that describes the bad mood caused by bad weather?

text: "Gloomy" comes to my mind naturally for God knows what reason. I'm not sure it's appropriate or not. Maybe some even better words or expressions?


title: Word meaning you accept someones beliefs without believing in them yourself?

text: What is a word for when you accept someone else's beliefs, but do not believe in them yourself?


title: What's the origin of the English infix?

text: A linguistics teacher of mine said in class that English is one of a small number of languages that uses infixes, that is, additions to the middle of words that alter the meaning. Most of the examples are profane, for example, abso-fuckin'-lutely or fan-fuckin'-tastic. When did these constructions first come about, and are there other instances that aren't profane? New to the site, please retag for more relevance.


title: Is there a term for your parent's ex-spouse who is not your biological parent?

text: How would one refer to one's parent's 2nd spouse, whom they have divorced? For example, I have a biological father, and a step-father, but what about the man my mother was married to before my step-father? I doubt there's a single word for this, but I need _some_ way to refer to him that isn't so cumbersome. Best I have come up with so far is "my mom's second husband", but I feel this really doesn't convey his importance in my upbringing, so I tack on "they were married all the time I was in school", but it's not great.


title: Why are the bleachers called the bleachers?

text: While I was reading about why the 'nosebleed' seats are called such a preposterous name at the ballpark, my curiosity was piqued in reference to another ballpark term that has troubled me over the years. The bench-like cheap seats have always been referred to as "bleachers". I have wondered why my whole life and have asked no less than 3 wise men / gurus, but to no avail. Won't you all please resolve this issue for me and my linguistically starved children?


title: Does using the word "idealist" to self-describe carry an air of arrogance?

text: Forgive me if this question is off-topic as POB. But, I believe there is a language usage/philosophical question here. My wife and I were having a discussion about politics this evening, and she claimed herself not to be a liberal, but rather an _idealist_. My counter to this statement was that calling oneself an idealist carries the presupposition that one's personal preferences are ideal. And, hence, the term is actually arrogant. (I realize, that out of context this sounds far more heated than the actual discussion that took place.) So, in summary, can you describe yourself as an idealist without it being a form of arrogance? Does the term presuppose that your ideas are, in fact, ideal? Or does it allow that you would prefer an ideal world regardless of how it comes about?


title: What is the origin of using the term "lease" to signify a financing agreement with option to buy out an asset, as opposed to simple rent?

text: A formal definition of the word "lease" makes a lease out to be very similar to "rent" in meaning: > noun \ˈlēs\ > > **Definition of LEASE** > >   1. a contract by which one conveys real estate, equipment, or facilities > for a specified term and for a specified rent... > >   2. a piece of land or property that is leased > >   3. a continuance or opportunity for continuance > > > > **Examples of LEASE** > >   * They took out a five-year lease on the house. >   * _**We hold leases on both of our cars._** > But there is a problem with the second example! When a modern American talks about **leasing a car** , he most likely means something completely different: **a financing-like agreement, with a leasee's option to buy the asset for depreciated price at the end**. In effect, they use the word "lease" to mean " **Closed-end lease**". So, my questions are:   * Is my impression correct that modern American colloquial usage of the verb "to lease" largely stopped meaning what the original "lease" meant and now means "Closed-end lease" (which, despite the word 'lease' in it, has significantly different attributes). I specifically mean the _verb_ , since as a noun any legal rental agreement document is frequently called a "lease"   * If my impression is correct, is there any source that actually documents it? My googling didn't find any confirmation for the above point, despite the fact that I have not heard anyone in the last 10 years use it to imply that verb as anything other than "to enter into or hold a closed-end lease".   * If that is correct, when did the phenomenon start?


title: Is “aware of” used correctly in this sentence?

text: Is there a better way to write the following sentence: > After you called me at home – angry about a request I did not make, nor was > **aware of** – I cried in front of my family. Second, is _of_ a dangling participle in the sentence?


title: Why does this sentence seem to me to have an adverb for a subject?

text: > At the bottom of the device is a microphone and a microUSB port for data > connections and charging _(Source)_ _At the bottom of the device_ is an adverb of place. Why is the subject of the sentence an adverb? I didn't think adverbs could be subjects! Or, if it is not the subject, what is it? And why does the verb come right after it, just like a subject?


title: What does a library mean other than a place for a collection of books?

text: Does the word "library" mean other than a place for a collection of books as in the following sentence? > Instead of purchasing what they need like a normal customer, wardrobers turn > retail stores into their own private libraries.


title: Word for inaccessible neighbour of a node in a graph

text: If a node's (as in graph) neighbors are nodes connected to it with passable edges, what can I call nodes connected to a node with impassable edges? They would both be neighbors but only some would be "accessible neighbors" but I would like a more concise word. Note that I have no real idea about proper terminology of graphs in maths, but would just like a word that an everyday man would understand. EDIT: I realise I am not being clear; let me explain: I am a novice programmer trying to write some graph software and each node must store a list of nodes connected to it by an edge and this edge may be passable or impassable. All of the nodes are neighbors but only some of the nodes (those connected with a passable edge) are "accessible neighbors". Here is a very crude depiction: ![graph](http://i.stack.imgur.com/EvBNl.png) Nodes 2, 3, 4 and 5 are "neighbors" but only 2, 5 and 4 are "accessible neighbors". If it remains unclear - please say! I guess I have not asked a very good question.


title: Is "pseudonym" used for names other than authors'?

text: A **pseudonym** is a fictitious name for an author. Is the term ever used to denote an alternate or made-up name for anything else, such as a book, a product, or another kind of object? (The use can be in a figurative way, but if so, I'm looking for examples in mainstream use.) If not, what would be an equivalent term?


title: Read ( Beautiful + Interesting ) stories

text: I'm looking for a word to express something that is beautiful and interesting at the same time, to use in this sentence: > Read [term] stories Can you help me find one?


title: Inverse word order

text: Is the following sentence correct? > Within the class NP dwells the elite group of problems labeled NP-complete. What rule allows to flip "group" and "dwells" in this case? I thought one should write something like > The elite group of problems labeled NP-complete dwells within the class NP.


title: When talking about possibilities, is it possible to say "what one(s)" instead of "which one(s)"?

text: Although I've never heard "what one(s)?" before. But if we talk about many elements, I think that "what" should be used. Examples: > A: Do you know that hotel in London? > > B: What one? I believe there are many hotels in London, so, "what one" should be used.


title: Why must 'galore' be used postpositively?

text: Just a short while ago, I discovered that the English adjective 'galore', as Merriam-Webster reads, must be used postpositively -- e.g., 'bargains _galore_ '. Thus, my question is, what is the reason why, differently from all? other adjectives, 'galore' must be used postpositively?


title: Etymology of "rabona"

text: In association football, rabona is used to describe a specific technique: > a method of kicking the football whereby the kicking leg is wrapped around > the back of the standing leg—effectively with one's legs crossed. Do we have anything regarding the etymology and origin?


title: What does "take stock of" means here in this sentence?

text: By the divine is meant that which, being greater and more excellent than man, enjoins upon him, as he comes to a recognition of it, the need to take stock of his own shortcomings and enter into a new mode of being, wherein those shortcomings are somehow resolved or transcended. ( _The Presocratics_ , ed. by W. Philip) Dictionaries say that "take stock of something" means to make an appraisal of it. But I want to find what it literally means, and then figure out why it can be understood as explained in those dictionaries. So what does take stock of something literally mean? By the way, some distionary say it is an American phrase, so what will Brits look on it?


title: What is the difference between "we" and "one"?

text: After a bit of back-and-forth looking over nosisms and the use of "one", I wonder at what purpose is truly served in choosing one over another. For example: > What one finds, in the end, is peace. As opposed to: > What we find, in the end, is peace. Is it considered more aloof on the write's part to use one instead of a more inclusive "we"? This is assuming that one(we) is(are) not attempting to patronize the person(s) being spoken to. Is there anything akin to a definitive ruling on this, or is it simply style?


title: In formal writing, is there any difference between "couple" and "some"?

text: For example in a résumé, are > Experience in a couple of rendering tools and > Experience in some rendering tools the same from the point of view of formality?


title: Word for someone who overly nurtures their online image

text: I have a friend who sometimes removes comments from his Facebook posts that are slightly off-topic or detracting from the point of his post where the post is intended to boost his reputation and kudos in a certain topic. It's not egotistical or egocentric or really narcissistic as it can be seen as a valid thing to do, but it's in contrast to what others do, and allow conversations to flow freely and even go off-topic and don't remove any comments unless of course they are offensive or insulting. So, what would be the word to call this person, someone who is overly self- conscious about and overly nurtures and maintains their online presence/image/persona?


title: The "ask". Is this a buzzword or just bad grammar?

text: _The ask,_ or _my ask_ is used in places such as: > _My ask_ of you is that you fill out the true and false questions first. Similarly, I have see _the ask..._ Why are people using this? I believe it is a buzzword and grammatically incorrect but we still see it. But my issue is I can't back up why I think it is wrong, so I just need clarification if I am wrong. If I'm right, why is it incorrect?


title: Is code written by a programmer "handcrafted"?

text: The immediate definition of "handcrafted" that I found was: "Make skillfully by hand.". In the same way a woodsman would craft a wooden toy with tools, a programmer using tools such as a computer and keyboard, arranges bits or states to create code. In this sense, is code or the resulting program "handcrafted"?


title: Why don't we use an apostrophe to denote ownership on 'it'?

text: We use apostrophes to denote ownership: > I wrapped the cat's claws so he wouldn't scratch me while I handled him. However, we don't use an apostrophe when 'it' is the owner. > The cat licked its claws. This seems inconsistant - the claws belong to _it_ , it being the cat. Is there some formal reason, or a decision in the formation of language where this came to be?


title: Its/It's for "It", but not for other words?

text: Why is there a distinction between "it's" and "its"? You can write "The cat's walking." where "cat's" might ambiguously be either "cat is" or "cat (possessive)", and I don't think anyone considers this to be a major problem of usage. What's different with its/it's? Perhaps it is better to compare with other pronouns. Its is substantially different in form than other genitive pronouns, in that it appears to be a relatively modern construction (OED has the earliest attested use in the 15th century) which in fact generalizes from the apostrophe possessive, or is a result of the same transformation that produced the apostrophe from OE strong|singular|masc./neut. -es. "Him"->"his" definitely isn't generalized from a widely attested grammatical rule; they've been in the language from old english essentially unchanged. By the logic that "its" operates similarly to other pronouns one would expect its (its' ?) modern form to be something like "his" which was its' original genitive form. So my question is, who decided that its doesn't get an apostrophe, and why?


title: Why do we use "its" for possessive?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Why doesn't "its" have an apostrophe? Generally, there is an apostrophe when someone possesses something: > That's Gerald's cat. > > Gerald's cat is dead. But when it comes to the possessive of _it_ , _its_ is correct, and not _it's_. > The common house cat is endeared for _its_ ability to land on _its_ feet. Why is this? If _Gerald's_ is correct, why is _it's_ not correct?


title: What is the best way to explain how to choose between "its" and "it's"?

text: Probably one of the most frequent grammar mistakes in the English language is: > The dog sat on it's mat. Since spelling checkers don't catch it, and it is even logical, since you would correctly write: > The dog sat on Fluffy's mat. What is the best way to explain to a learner of English how to choose between `it's` and `its`?


title: When is it appropriate to use "its" and not "it's" (and vice versa)?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the best way to explain how to choose between "its" and "it's"? Hello, I am always confused when is the usage of its or it's appropriate. Basically when should I use its and not it's (and vice versa).


title: Comma placement in "Another, just as important, aspect"

text: Is the comma placement correct in > Another, just as important, aspect is. . . . or should they rather be omitted?


title: What adjective means "sequential" as it applies to words or numbers?

text: Is there an adjective to mean "sequential in ascending order" regardless of object type (word or number)? I need the word to imply "alphabetical" if the object is a word; or "numerical" if the object is a number.


title: The difference between "have a lunch" and "have lunch"

text: Is there any difference between > I am not having a lunch tomorrow. and > I am not having lunch tomorrow. This is a follow up question of : About the use of future tense.


title: About the use of future tense

text: Which is better:   1. "I am not having lunch tomorrow unless I am really hungry."   2. "I am not having lunch tomorrow unless I will be really hungry."   3. Something else


title: Question? or Question? sentence structure

text: I'm not exactly sure on how this should be structured. I have a question, or, question that reflects first question. > Does the media change the way we think? or Does it have no effect on us?


title: precede versus take precedence of

text: I would like to describe the relationship between two start dates. I have been repeatedly using "start date of A precede the start date of B." I am wondering if an alternative expression "start date of A takes precedence of the start date of B" can be used to say the A happens before B. I've looked up the dictionary and it seems to me that A would have to be more important than B if this expression is to be used. However, A and B are equally important in my case.


title: Emissary / Ambassador / Representative / Envoy / Delegate

text: These words are all more or less interchangeable, but I'm wondering which is most distinguished. If I have a group of representatives, but some are the leaders of their groups and others are just regular members of their groups, or some are from influential groups and some are from uninfluential groups, which terms would I use to hint at who is most important?


title: What does “You hit singles, you hit doubles,” mean?

text: Roger Cohen, New York Times’ op-ed columnist wrote under the caption, “Ambivalence about America” in New York Times August 18 issue.; > Geostrategic shifts over the past year indicate that the United States is > Imperial Rome, A.D. 376, with various violent enemies playing the role of > the Visigoths, Huns, Vandals et al.; the loss at home of what Edward Gibbon, > the historian of Rome’s fall, called “civic virtue,” as narrow interests > paralyze politics; the partial handover of American security to private > military contractors just as a declining Rome increasingly entrusted its > defense to mercenaries - - and the apparent powerlessness of a leader given > to talk of the limits of what the United States can do. There is no record > of the Emperor Valens’s saying, as Obama did, “ **You hit singles, you hit > doubles** ,” but perhaps he thought it. > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/opinion/roger-cohen-ambivalence-about- > america. I don’t understand what “You hit singles, you hit doubles,” mean? In what context has President Obama delivered this phrase? Is it associated with a serial baseball hits? Does it mean the U.S. has suffered repeated internal and external difficulties?


title: Difference between "slacks", "pants", and "trousers"?

text: I wonder what differences are between usage of _slacks_ , _pants_ , and _trousers_? Their meanings seem the same by looking up _Google_ ’s Internet dictionary and _Wikipedia_.


title: Font/Fount of Information?

text: I have seen it both ways: > He is a veritable font of information. > > He is a veritable fount of information. The first is referenced by M-W's definition and seems to match the pronunciation I'm used to: > source, fountain (a font of information) The second seems equally sensible given that 'fount' can be an abbreviation for 'fountain'. An NGram shows that 'fount' outpaces 'font' in written usage (seemingly in contradiction with the dictionary), but both seem to be pretty widespread. Are there any reasons to use one over the other, or are they really wholly interchangeable?


title: Usage of "even if"

text: Could you please suggest me the usage of "even if" in the English sentence? For example, is the following statement correct grammatically? > Even if this approach scale for a large number of similar nodes, it is > impractical for large scale heterogeneous system. Please correct my punctuation errors also. In my opinion, the above sentence should be written the following way. > Even if **,** this approach scale for a large number of similar nodes, it is > impractical for large scale heterogeneous system.


title: In the sentence "My house is down the street", which word does the adverb "down" modify?

text: > My house is down the street. Does the adverb _down_ modify _is_ , or _street_?


title: Is "unexpected repercussion" repetitive?

text: Is the phrase _unexpected repercussion_ unnecessary redundantly repetitive? When I looked up _repercussion_ I see that _unexpected_ is implicit in its meaning. Should I prefer to say _unexpected consequence_?


title: "A plough makes a furrow in the ground"

text: Engaged in a conversation/discussion about spiritual life, a master said: > A plough makes a furrow in the ground. My original question: What is its implicit meaning exactly? That master, a native speaker, said it is from old English. _*_ *I am trying to understand the meaning that implies a practical thing in life. A _plough_ is a tool (or machine) used in farming for initial cultivation of soil in preparation for sowing seed or planting. A _plowshare_ (or _ploughshare_ ) is a component of a plow (plough). ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/7MChS.jpg) My analysis: To make the furrow in a long straight line is not too easy, it requires close attention (including the state of being diligent), passion and patience for doing it. It is a kind of manual art assisted by horse, because you have to feel for it so you could sense. The horse provides the pulling power, and the man controls the plough and direct a horse. When they have gone the whole line from one end/edge of the field to the other, he has to leave the ploughshare out of the ground, turn horse around, and push the ploughshare back into the ground and then repeat. The line created is called a furrow. My conclusion is that "a plough makes a furrow in the ground" implies a philosophy of life; "a plough makes a furrow in the ground" means that doing something in life requires close attention, passion and patience to get the best result. It also needs a synchronization amongst things in your life. _*_ 05/23/2013 EDIT: I do not feel bothered whilst few people have agreed to close this question, and some others do have their own argumentation. I have found the essence of that "A plough makes a furrow in the ground" in accordance with a practical thing in life. That master (an England) said that my analysis and conclusion are right, when I delivered it after my previous edit here. It is from about 2 thousands years ago, master told me so. I learned that "The Sumerian maxims were unable to exert any influence on the European languages because the cuneiform script was not deciphered until the 19th century. And yet the modern European languages have borrowed innumerable proverbs from other sources - particularly from the riches afforded by Classical Antiquity, the Bible and Mediaeval latin culture." Humbly to speak that I am only a learner. However, living in this life everyone is a learner, n'est ce pas? Well, you plough your own furrow. :)


title: Criticizing someone of lower income who buys/lives like someone of higher income?

text: I have a friend who criticizes people who lives at the place she lives at who make a lower income than her. I thought it would be snob or ignorant, but I feel like those definitions are lacking/vague. Ex: "This girl who only makes 120K a year does not deserve to be living here. It's almost 1/9th of their income. She should be spending her money on cheaper things"


title: out of the reach or out of reach

text: I have seen the following on different products.   1. Keep out of the reach of children.    2. Keep out of reach of children. What is the difference between the above statements?


title: Is there such a thing as an idiom thesaurus that delivers synonymous phrases?

text: Is there a resource that anyone knows of that is a searchable idiom list that can provide synonymous phrases for idioms. For example, I saw on your site: step-by-step, day-by-day, inch-by-inch, and bit-by-bit. When I Google a phrase, I most often get a one-word synonym, but I'm looking specifically for additional synonymous phrases instead. In other words, is there something that can find synonyms and antonyms for idioms that are also idioms? If so, please provide a link to it. Thanks!


title: What is the difference between "phonetic" and "phonemic"?

text: I've read several descriptions but I still don't understand. From what I can gather, the main (or only) difference is phonemics is not concerned with "nondistinctive elements" but I don't know what that is. Also, is there such a thing as a "phonemic transcription" (as opposed to "phonetic transcription")?


title: Defining or Describing

text: Sometimes, when someone asks you for a "definition," he/she bugs you because you either "defined" when you should have "described" the subject in question or vice versa. What does this mean?


title: What is “wrong” with this sentence?

text: I was told that there is an error in the following sentence, but I cannot find it: > As a native speaker, writing grammatically correct sentences is difficult > for me.


title: Why is there an "h" in "pulchritude"?

text: I'd assumed that _pulchritude_ was derived from Greek, because of the "ch" but it turns out to be from Latin _pulcher_. I've been taught that "c" always has a hard pronunciation in Latin, so why would there be an "h" there? (Although _pulchritude_ is an English word, this might be more relevant to a Latin StackExchange, which unfortunately doesn't exist yet.)


title: Does "shake his booty" mean "shake his butt"? And does it make it more attractive?

text: I seem to see the phrase "shake his booty" being used to say something is good and attractive. But does it mean "shake his butt"? And if they are the same, why does "shake his butt" seem a somewhat distasteful action, but "shake his booty" all of a sudden becomes somewhat glamorous?


title: how to use comma in the first line of Cover Letter

text: May I ask a question? is one of the sentence below correct?   1. "Dear Dr. James, Department of History Chair, and Selection Committee,"   2. "Dear Dr. James, Chair of Department of History, and Selection Committee,"   3. "Dear Department of History Chair: Dr. James, and Selection Committee,"


title: They cheerleaded for it? or cheerled?

text: Is this the best way to conjugate "cheerlead"? > they cheerleaded for it just the same "Cheerlead" becomes unrecognizable when you say "they **_cheerled_** ", so I'm guessing this is why you don't conjugate it like "lead", but I cannot find any references that include conjugation of the verb. This is not the same issue as found here, since it's not about the placement of the suffix, but rather the choice of suffix. EDIT: I think @KristinaLopez is correct, if you're speaking about literal cheerleaders, although the context here is more figurative, casting the media as "cheerleaders". If you say the media "cheered", it doesn't have the same connotation of "leading the cheering for". I suppose though "cheered" still is correct in that case, and you'd need to recast the sentence to get the word "cheerleader" into it, such as: > ..., and yet they acted as cheerleaders for it just the same


title: Usage of the definite articles with personal names

text: Could you tell me if the following sentence is correct or not? It seems to me that it is not correct because as I know, definite articles are never used with personal names. The only thing that I worry about is that I found this sentence on a website for learning English. > That evening, jack saw **the** Maria and Angela. They looked hungry so he > offered them a hot meal. Source pdf: http://www.cmlab.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cathyp/eBooks/LearningEnglish/EnglishTown/Unit%20overview%20-%20Level%207%20Unit%204.pdf


title: Reported to Direct speech conversion

text: This is one of the questions in an exam. According to the official answer key, correct answer is (B). But I found that the most correct answer could be (A). Can any one please point out the right answer with justification? > DIRECTIONS: The following sentences are given in Direct speech. Change these > sentences into correct reported speech: > > Q. He said to him, “ Is not your name Ram”. > >> (A) He asked him if his name was Ram. >> >> (B) He inquired whether his name was not Ram. >> >> (C) He said to him if his name was not Ram. >> >> (D) He narrated him if name was not Ram


title: Is it 'what it looks like' or 'how it looks like'?

text: I live in a country where English is not the native language. Oftentimes I hear my coworkers say they want to know or determine "how it looks like". This is grammatically closer to our native language than "what it looks like", which is the version I try to use. I there a difference between the two, or should I just stop being bothered?


title: Preposition used after "do"

text: I am an English native speaker working as a teacher in Germany. When marking my pupils' essays I often encounter the phrase "to do something against something", which is as far as I know simply a direct translation of a German phrase. But I cannot find any answers in my dictionaries. One current example: "The USA never did anything against violence." My gut feelings says the preposition has to be _about_ instead of _against_ here. Is that correct? If not, fine; but further, can _against_ ever be used after _do something_?


title: Using many / much / a lot of with *population*

text: In an English course book that I use for my Intermediate class, I encountered this problem. The exercise required students to complete the sentences with 'many' or 'much' where possible, otherwise use ' a lot of '. Now, there is this question which I am not sure of its given answer. The question is : Is there ----- population in your country? The answer from the course book is : 'much' I have checked the dictionary for the word 'population'. It is an countable noun. Why is the answer 'much' and not ' a lot of ' ? If the answer is 'many', the whole sentence sounds weird to me. Of course, I might be wrong. Would you please advise me?


title: Please accept this intimation

text: What does the phrase "accept this intimation" mean in the context of a funeral notice? Is it appropriate to use when announcing the consecration (Unveiling in the Jewish ritual) of a tombstone?


title: What does "minute maid" mean?

text: I understand the meaning of both words, but I can't figure out what the expression means.


title: A word for someone who is overly cautious?

text: I am thinking along the lines of a hypochondriac, only not necessarily limited to health. Overly anxious comes to mind but I don't think it fits exactly... In context: > 'I don't want to come across as being a XXXX but I am concerned that it will > get damaged' I need it to sound more formal than just slang


title: Is there an alternate term for "the power behind the throne?"

text: _NOAD_ describes a _figurehead_ as > a nominal leader or head without real power. I'm wondering if there's a complementary one-word term for the person who _does_ wield the power in such a situation. I'm aware of the phrase, _power behind the throne_ , > a person or organization that exerts authority or influence without having > formal status. I'm just hoping there's a way to refer to such a person more directly and succinctly.


title: Is a table of contents an "index"?

text: Is a **table of contents** considered an **index**? Typically, I would consider an index to be a _sorted_ list (e.g., the alphabetical list that appears at the back of a book). However, dictionary.com defines _index_ as "a sequential arrangement of material" in general. If that is indeed the case, is it correct to use the verb _index_ in the context of adding something to a table of contents?


title: Why isn't the ball used in football called "a football ball"?

text: We know that you need a ball to play cricket, golf, or tennis, and we refer to the balls used in those sports as "cricket ball", "golf ball" and "tennis ball" respectively: you take the name of the sport and then add the word "ball". But as "football" is the name of the sport itself, why isn't a football referred to as a "football ball"? The same applies to "netball ball", "basketball ball" and "volleyball ball" of course.


title: Ancient greek philosophy - looking for a quotation of the kind: "I am scared for the future, I don't trust the youth of today"

text: I am looking for a famous quotation that was written by an ancient greek philosopher and that basically convey the following idea: > I am scared for the future, I don't trust the youth of today Do you know it? If not, do you know any other famous quotation that convey a similar idea?


title: Can one use "known from" as "known for"?

text: I wonder if we can use the form "known from" instead of "known for" (saving the same meaning, of course). For example: "NY is known from its beautiful Empire State Building"   instead of "NY is known for its beautiful Empire State Building".


title: could versus be able

text: **Let me start by saying what is written in grammar books on this issue and after that I will put my question. (Take heed that this usage of "could" ONLY refers to the past and ONLY to affirmative sentences)** 1) "Could" shouldn't be used to address a single action/achievement in the past but it can be used to address a general ability in the past. _The examples are from M. Swan's grammar._ a) When I was younger, I could run 10 km in under 40 minutes. (CORRECT) b) I could run 10 km in under 1 hour yesterday. (WRONG) It's all been clear so far. But here are a few answers of native speakers which I have got trying to elaborate. **Examples and opinions of native speakers on which is correct/incorrect.** * _1) First native speaker's examples_ * "I could visit you yesterday" - (incorrect) "I could do it yesterday" - (correct) "I could see you yesterday" - (correct) _My thoughts_ I don't quite understand why "I could visit" is incorrect while "I could do/see" is correct. Does it have to do something with single/multiple action? **That is,** "I could visit you (only ONE TIME) yesterday" if (only ONE TIME) then it's (incorrect) "I could do it (MANY TIMES) yesterday" if (MANY TIMES) then it's (correct) "I could see you (MANY TIMES) yesterday" if (MANY TIMES) then it's (correct) 2) **1) Second native speaker's examples** "I could visit you yesterday, but I didn't want to" - (correct) "I could kill everyone at work last week, but I couldn't have done it." - (correct) _My thoughts_ I am confused as for why in this case "I could visit you yesterday" is considered acceptable. Does it mean that: "I could visit you yesterday" may have more than one meaning? Does it mean that "I could run 10 km yesterday" can also mean something and be correct? Plus one more question. What does it mean? Does it refer to the future or the past You could ask me before calling him. (WHEN? yesterday or in general?)


title: A better statment for "Get back to me"

text: I would like to know if there is a better statement for expressing the following statement in an email, "Please get back to me if you have any query".


title: Words that changed meaning in past hundred years

text: I am looking for a list of words that were used to mean something different from for what they are used now.   * some words are such that whose meaning has changed completely and   * some words have more than one meaning, but earlier one meaning was in popular use and nowadays another meaning is in popular use. I am posting two links here and here, both talk about the change of meaning of some words over a period of some hundreds of years, but I am only interested in past **one hundred years** period, not older than that. In case if it is too much for you to type to explain the earlier meaning and recent meaning, you can just type the word, I will try to find the two usages.


title: "force kill" vs "forcibly kill"

text: To my knowledge, force can be used as a noun or verb, but cannot be used as an adverb. However, google tells me: there are over 72,000 results for "force kill a process" while, there are only 9200 results for "forcibly kill a process" Why?


title: Word describing a pre-ordered order status?

text: I'm looking for the most concise order status descriptor for an order where the customer is still selecting items (for example, they've put stuff in the bag, but they haven't checked out). Other elements in the status list include:   * `ordered`   * `pending action`   * `cancelled`   * `ready to pack`   * `ready to ship`   * `shipped` So what goes before `ordered`? `pre-ordered` of course means something else. Alternatives I've thought of all seem too long or don't fit well somehow: `placed order`, `initiated`, `order in progress`, `preparing order`, `assembling`, and `selecting`. Is there a juicy word that nails the concept?


title: What does the phrase "Lady-Macbethed" mean?

text: > Colonel Hampton snorted contemptuously. Senile dementia! Well, he must have > been senile and demented, to bring this pair of snakes into his home, > because he felt an obligation to his dead brother's memory. And he'd willed > "Greyrock," and his money, and everything, to Stephen. Only Myra couldn't > wait till he died; she'd Lady-Macbethed her husband into this insanity > accusation. The above text is taken from the novel Dearest, by Henry Beam Piper. What does the phrase "Lady-Macbethed" means? Is it old usage, or do we also use this phrase in modern times?


title: Usage of [sic] in quote

text: If a quote contains a capitalization error, should [sic] be used? For example, in the following: “But, alas! this kind heart had but a short time to remain such", the t in this would normally be capitalized. When it is quoted in an essay, should it be formatted, “But, alas! this [sic] kind heart had but a short time to remain such"?


title: Using "single + superlative" to emphasize

text: Consider this question: > What is the single longest Presidential Campaign run in the United States? Is the word _single_ used here only for emphasis? Are there any sentences where its use (when followed by a superlative) cannot be avoided without changing the meaning of the sentence?


title: Using 'planet-struck' in context

text: I'm writing a novel narrating an imperfect man's attempts at resolving his doubts under the influence of a planet, Uranus. So I needed an adjective to describe this man and I thought of ' _planet-struck_ '. But Your Dictionary, the dictionary you can understand, says that 'planet- struck' means 'believed to be adversely affected mentally or physically by **the planets** ', whereas Merriam-Webster, about the same word, says that that word applies when that influence is due to **a single planet** : 'affected by the influence of a planet'. Since I wouldn't confuse the readers, I want to know whether I can use that adjective in reference to a person influenced by one planet or not.


title: usage of while and when and their interchangeability

text: I'd like to know whether 'when' and 'while' are interchangeable:   1. I was cooking when he came in.    2. I was cooking while he came in.    3. He came in while I was cooking.    4. The phone always rings when I am cooking.    5. The phone always rings while I am cooking.    6. The phone rang while I was cooking.    7. The phone rang when I was cooking.  1, 3, 4, and 6 are correct, aren't they? 2 and 7 seem downright incorrect. What about 5?


title: The opposite of close set (eyes)

text: What's the opposite of close set eyes? wide set eyes? far set eyes? :D I heard this in the TV show Grimm. I got curious what would be the opposite


title: Can we say that X is "indifferent between" two possible courses of action?

text: It strikes me as odd to use "indifferent between" rather than "indifferent to", but am having a hard time rephrasing the sentence so that it includes both options. The structure of the sentence I'm looking at is: "X is _indifferent between_ doing Y and doing Z" Now of course the fact that X is indifferent could allow me to write something like, "X is indifferent as to the future course of action", but I want to include the two options (not least since there may be more options to which X is not indifferent). I suppose there are two questions here:   1. Is "indifferent between" truly ungrammatical?      2. How can I more elegantly phrase such a sentence? **Edit** : Since I now see that my simplified example doesn't quite explain what I'm asking, the actual sentence I'm looking at is: > The risk adjustment should reflect the compensation that an insurer requires > for bearing this uncertainty and reflects the point at which the insurance > company is **indifferent between** fulfilling an insurance contract with a > range of possible outcomes and fulfilling a liability with fixed cash flows.


title: Why should "Hello" and "Health" be similar?

text: I have noticed that "Hello" and "Health" look(and sound) quite similar in English. The situation gets more interesting when you look into some other languages as well. For instance: In Russian:здороваться and здоровье mean to say hello and health respectively. Also in Persian: سلام(read as salaam) and سلامت(read as salaamat) look pretty much the same. Although this has probably been obvious to our ancestors, I have no idea why they should look similar. Why is this the case?


title: What does "on test" mean?

text: The phrase is: > ... 40x zoom letting you get closer to the action than anything else on > test. I googled "than anything else on test" and the results are related mostly to sports equipment descriptions and e.g. cameras. Is this some idiomatic expression or should I understand it literally?


title: Is there a term for a word inside another word?

text: Is there a term for a word that occurs unbroken within another word? For example, the word "fun" in "funeral", or "drag" in "hydragog". The closest thing I could find from my search was the term "kangaroo word", which refers to a word that contains the letters of its synonym, in the correct order (though not necessarily consecutively). I am currently using "substring" as a substitute in my essay. Unfortunately, "substring" applies to any selection of consecutive characters from the containing word, and doesn't convey the fact that the subset is a complete English word. I have tagged this phrase-requests, but I would appreciate single words as well. I will have to use the term quite often, so the less awkward it is, the better.


title: Tense for fulfilled thesis project requirements documentation

text: I reached a point at which I need to write about software project requirements in my thesis. Unfortunately I am not sure whether to go with past or present tense for this section. In this section I have various sentences like:               Once X was automated       -- or --     Once X is automated          The second step required the generation of X       -- or --     The second step requires the generation of X      The requirements are fulfilled so past tense seems appropriate to me. On the other hand the section should only introduce the requirements and not include information about the project status. Are there any rules (or guidelines) that one can follow in such cases? Thank you.


title: Subjunctive or not subjunctive?

text: I'm trying to express the following with the verb laugh: > Given a certain condition (that has not been met yet), I will be happy. So: > When she laugh, I'll be happy. However, I'm unsure if the verb goes like above or with the "s", as in "laughs"? I feel like "laughs" suits this sentence: > When she laughs, I'm happy. But that is not the meaning I want to convey. I know that many times, there's more than one answer, so I'm happy to hear all opinions regarding informal and formal conjugations. If it helps in any way, this is what I'm trying to say in Spanish: > Cuando (ella) ría, seré feliz.


title: Pluralization of currencies like the baht and the ringgit

text: Some currencies like the baht (Thailand) and ringgit (malaysia) seem to be either singular or plural depending on context. As far as I know, these two countries don't use bahts or ringgits to denote more than one unit of their currency. For example: > 1 baht, 100 baht; 1 ringgit, 100 ringgit. When we want to use the plural in writing and speech, should we use bahts and ringgits or baht and ringgit? Merriam-Webster gives the plural of baht as: > baht, also bahts; and the plural of ringgit as : > ringgit, also ringgits. What should I write?


title: Linking word for two different ideas

text: Sometimes I found myself in the situation that I don't know how to link two different ideas in the same message. For example, writing an e-mail: > Hello. I can start working on the project, just tell me which are the > requirements. _ _ _ _ I would like to see if you can help me with my income > tax declaration. What word is a good option to fill the blank space? I thought `moreover` and `in the other hand` are good options, but they don’t convince me.


title: Should "Applied Cryptography" be capitalized? Is it a proper noun?

text: I'm trying to write a cover letter for a fairly prestigious job, and I'm aiming for (arguably too much) perfection in my cover letter. I don't want to be turned away only because the hiring people though I was too careless with my punctuation and capitalization. My sentence goes as follows: > I hope to one day go on to complete a Masters degree in Computer Science > with a focus in Applied Cryptography. I've never been great with the technical rules of the English language, despite being a native speaker.


title: Plurals in phonetic spelling

text: If I spell _doing_ as _doin'_ then how should I spell _doings_?   Would it simply be _doin's_?


title: Phrase required for "Defeated person is more dangerous"

text: In my native language there exists a phrase **Injured snake**   A wounded snake is assumed to be more vigorous/dangerous. Are there any similar phrase/idiom/proverb in English?


title: Lack intellectually or Lacking intellectually

text: I came across a phrase on the internet that seemed wrong (surprise): "[...] especially for those who **lack intellectually**." In my opinion, this should say "especially for those [who are] **lacking intellectually** ", and the first quote uses improper grammar. Am I correct, or is the first quote really a _proper_ use of those words together?


title: "in" versus "of"

text: I hope that both forms shown below are correct. What is the difference between them and which one seems more natural? >   1. the initial and final element _in_ the expression/clause > >   2. the initial and final element _of_ the expression/clause > >


title: What is the correct way to construct a conditional sentence with “would”?

text: I was told several times that a conditional sentence with the following structure is incorrect: > If I **would do** this, then he **would do** that. Rather it should be: > If I **do** this, then he **will do** that. But today I read a sentence like the first one in a paper written by an English speaker, and I’m wondering if it was just a typo or whether it is actually considered a correct form.


title: "the 1st" or "1st"

text: I'm wondering which is the right usage between "the 1st" and "1st" in these sentences: a) The United States ranked 1st in Bloomberg's Global Innovation Index. b) The United States ranked the 1st in Bloomberg's Global Innovation Index. I've seen a) in the news, however, it is like I've learned the definite article ('the') is required before an ordinal number (1st, 2nd, etc.) Thank you.


title: How does "spanner" come to mean "a wrench"?

text: **"Wrenching"** refers to an injury in which some muscle is forcibly twisted. A _wrench_ is a tool that applies a twisting force to something, so that seems consistent. **"To span"** means to bridge a gap. But British English calls a wrench a _"spanner"_ , and I've never understood that word. What is conceptually being spanned (bridged) here?


title: Capitalization of chemical element names

text: Do the names of chemical elements need to be capitalized? For example, in running text should it be _hydrogen_ or _Hydrogen_?


title: Does “gay” still include the meaning “merry”?

text: * Dictionary.com lists eight meanings of _gay_, with “merry, lively” as the first entry.    * Microsoft banned an Xbox user for listing Fort Gay (a real place) as his hometown:  > Xbox Live considered the term _gay_ absolutely inappropriate in any context. As a non-native English speaker, my question is whether in contemporary English, does _gay_ always mean _homosexual_? Are British and American English the same in this respect?


title: How dangerous is the acceptance of common usage on traditional English?

text: I mean how far should we flow on with the current called "common usage"? Is there a fear that the _real_ English is going do disappear someday? By the way, as for me, I like common English myself. :)


title: Whose feathers is Alexander Wang ruffling?

text: NY-Times Fashion & Style column (December 7) introduces Alexander Wang who was recently appointed as the Creative director of Balenciaga under the headline, “An American in Paris, again,” which is followed by the lead copy: > “The young, streetwise Alexander Wang is taking over at Balenciaga, putting > him front and center among his generation — and **ruffling more than a few > feathers.”** I'm interested in the phrase, “ruffle (somebody's) feathers.” OALD defines “ruffle sb’s a few feathers as “to annoy or upset sb or group of people. Did he annoy or upset the fashion world or his generation, instead of being frankly applauded for his success? I’m asking this because the author takes it for granted by saying; “ **It is fitting that Mr. Wang should become** the first American designer to take on a big, historic European design house since Marc Jacobs, Michael Kors and Narciso Rodriguez went to Paris in the late 1990s.”


Does "to be on the rise" have any other meaning besides "to start", "to begin" and "to be getting momentum"?


title: What's the deep meaning in the lyrics of "Heavy Traffic" by Elton John?

text: In the lyrics, some pieces I couldn't understand very well: > Shakey wake up thirsty from a night in the bar   >  And snake hips Joe is Mr. Cool What's `snake hips`? And, does the name `Joe` have a special meaning? > Out on the boulevard   >  The pimp from the Jack of Diamonds I guess `Jack of Diamonds` is somewhere similar to Casino, yes? > Just got another Jane Doe   >  She just got off the last bus from Montecedo Why `Jane Doe`? Is the guy very special? And where is `Montecedo`? > Sailor boys find trouble in the alien state   >  It's one on one from Las Palmas to the Golden Gate   >  Fly boys on the corner waiting for a ride   >  For twenty bucks he'll pull the cork on the man inside Why `on the corner`, but not `in the corner`? And what means `waiting for a ride`? I'm also confused with the phrase `pull the cork on the man inside`. > `Cause we're rolling in heavy traffic   >  Judy's in the jump seat and Jody's in the bucket   >  Billy likes to drive and Jackie's just high   >  And Cindy thinks we're all gonna commit suicide How to understand the word `rolling`? > `Cause we're rolling in heavy traffic   >  Yeah we're rolling in heavy traffic   >   >  Mack he's got his Marlboros tucked up in his sleeve   > FWIK, Marlboro is a brand of cigarette, yet? But how do Mack hidden Marlboro in his sleeve? > He's shacked up in his basement making P.C.P.   >  He used to shake the french fries What P.C.P was Mack making? > Down on 12th and Maine   >  And now he stays up nights on apple juice and cocaine How to understand `Down on 12th`? I know I have got too many questions, but any help pointing out answers is appreciated.


title: What is another way of saying "less premium?"

text: I'm looking for another way to say "less premium." This is the context: > The competition's brand was less premium. I do not want to change the overall structure of the sentence. This is not a super complex question, but I am having a difficult time with it. Thank you!


title: How to describe a person who loves everything about nature and the outdoors

text: I'm looking for a good adjective to describe a person who loves experiencing nature, as in a person who has been in the Boy Scouts for most of his life, loves fishing, hiking, mountain climbing, sleeping under an open sky, ice fishing, canoeing, crosscountry skiing and other things along those lines. A true-born “nature freak.”


title: Is the usage of latinisms perceived as common in the English language or does it sound like bragging in ordinary speech?

text: My question here is about _perception_. English has a great and wonderful variety in its vocabulary, and many concepts can be associated with different words, although with slightly different meanings maybe. And some of these words are directly derived from Latin. I am asking: in the case of a concept which has both a pure-English word and a Latin-derived one (or from one of its children, the Romance languages), would a native speaker use each of them interchangeably or would he consider the usage of the latter to be too formal/old-fashioned for a speaking interaction? I bet the answer is the second one, in which case I ask whether hearing the latinism from someone may be perceived as strange/funny. Some examples of this are > wish/desiderate (desire is already well English-suited) > > join/unite (in the sense of to link) > > reply/response (in the sense of answer) By the way, I'm not referring to those Latin nouns/phrases that are commonly used in certain contexts, like the legal one.


title: alternatives to "insurmountable issue"

text: What would be good alternatives to the expression "insurmountable [issue]" that would replace `issue` for something else and still convey the same or similar idea?


title: Verbal equivalent to Flesch Kincaid

text: The Flesch Kincaid readability test is a measure of a written document's readability. There are numerous methods of measuring written text's readability but processing spoken text is different than written text. Is there a similar way to measure spoken text but with the auditory reception of speech taken into account as opposed to the visual reception of written communication?


title: What do you call Xo-Y words? (ex: Judeo-Christian)

text: Is there a special name to call words like _Judeo-Christian_ , following the construction `Xo-Y`? _(Same question for French)_


title: What's the meaning of "in addition to" in this context

text: > You are almost always better off using Solr in addition to a database Does the sentence above mean: > You are better NOT using Solr with a database


title: Which one is more appropriate to use: "send you" or "send to you"?

text: Are both of the following sentences correct? > Let me know if there is still something I need to send **to you**. > > Let me know if there is still something I need to send **you**. Which one is more appropriate to use?


title: "Institution", "body" or "organ"

text: I'm a non-native speaker active in a labor union that does not use English internally. The union has a representative assembly (made up of representatives of branches), whose existence is mandated by our by- laws/statutes, with all sorts of functions and procedures. Which of the following shall I refer to the assembly as? What is the difference between them?   * a body of the union   * an organ of the union   * an institution of/within the union


title: When did "World War 2" start being called "World War 2"?

text: When did World War 2 start being called a "world war" and when did it start being called World War 2? Thurber's The Last Flower (copyright 1939) makes reference to World War 12 so I'm curious as to whether he invented the sequential numbering of wars. According to Wikipedia, the book was published in November of 1939 (so one would assume it was written earlier) and the conflict in Europe was still relatively young and had not developed into a "world war" yet. Another Wikipedia page says that WW1 "was predominantly called the World War or the Great War from its occurrence until the start of World War II in 1939, and the First World War or World War I thereafter." But there is no citation so I don't know if Thurber was following a convention within 2 months of the invasion of Poland or was creating a system of naming wars that others then followed.


title: Alternative definitions of wifebeater

text: I was a li'l nonplussed to find out that the word wifebeater can mean other things besides "a man who beats up his wife". Its definition reads: >   1. One who (usually as a repeated practice) beats one’s wife, or a husband > prone to violence >   2. **A kind of sleeveless shirt** , often but not exclusively worn as an > undershirt. >   3. _(uncountable, UK, slang)_ **Stella Artois** , a brand of lager beer. > ODO reckons that sense 2 is American and originates " _apparently from the association of such a garment with men who commit domestic violence_ ". It does not register the UK slang. I'm guessing that Stellas also have an unfortunate association with domestic violence. Are these alternative senses popular in their respective countries or are they perhaps nonce words that have lingered on? Any idea how these disparaging associations came about? I expect that the brewers of Stella Artois are none too happy about it.


title: Is this usage of "know to be" correct — "They want to eat food they know to be good for them"?

text: In the following sentence, is the construction _know_ \+ _to_ \+ _infinitive_ grammatical? > They want to eat food they know to be good for them. The dictionary says that "know to do something" is a correct construction. But can it be used in the above example? If correct, is the meaning of the sentence similar/identical to "They want to eat food they know is good for them"? If not, what's the difference? If yes, how do they sound to a native speaker? To me as a non-native speaker, the "...know is good..." one sounds OK, but the "...know to be good..." one is sort of clumsy.


title: How to distinguish "timesheets pending for approval" & "timesheets awaiting for your approval" in phrases?

text: There are two buttons. Button A is for the timesheets submitted by user but still waiting for someone's approval, I want button A displays like this: **Pending Approval (3)** Note: (3) means the quantity of timesheets that pending for approval. And button B is for the timesheets submitted by others but require for this user's approval. My question: How to describe Button B? Should I make it as "Awaiting for your approval", or any shorter pharse?


title: What does “I’m like, c’mon guys. I’m the president of the United States.” imply?

text: _The Washington Post_ (April 14) reported President Obama's off-the-cuff remark during a meeting with donors in Chicago held on April 13th under the title: "Obama riffs with donors: Where are the cool phones, and did you hear about the emir?" In this remark, he said: > I'm like, c'mon guys. I'm the president of the United States. What does this phrase mean? A dictionary at hand tells me _c’mon_ means "come on." Is he boasting of his being president? Or he is bitching on absence of advanced communication gadgets available at the site? The copy in question reads: > The president, in an unscripted moment with donors in Chicago, was talking > about the need to innovate in technology. > > "The Oval Office, I always thought I was going to have really cool phones > and stuff," he said during a small fundraising event at a Chicago > restaurant. " _I'm like, c'mon guys, I'm the president of the United > States._ Where's the fancy buttons and stuff and the big screen comes up? It > doesn't happen."


title: "B&W" or "B/W"?

text: I've seen both _B/W_ and _B &W_ used to describe _black and white_. Is one accepted over the other? If regional, then what would I use in AmE?


title: Describing the sound of liquid hitting the floor

text: I'm searching for a word describing the sound of liquid hitting the floor, nothing like water — more like milkshake/vomit. I know this sounds strange, but I was thinking of _plunge_. Only to discover that it's more in use for people diving into water...


title: "one or other" -correct or incorrect?

text: This is a sentence taken from one book: > He saw one or other of the men. Can it be considered correct? To my ears "one or other" doesn't seem grammatical. There's "one or another" or "one or the other".... But the above- mentioned one looks a bit strange.


title: Can a property be "idiosyncratic to" an object?

text: Is it grammatically correct to write `(property) is idiosyncratic to (object)` in the same way that one could write `(property) is unique to (object)`? For example > This feature is idiosyncratic to the Apple Macintosh.


title: What does "plutonomy" mean?

text: What does the word _plutonomy_ mean?


title: What is correct: "I am saying..." or "I am telling..."?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "Nothing to tell" versus "nothing to say"   >  "Told" vs. "Said to" somebody? Are both of these sentences correct? If so, what is the difference between them? My friend told me that first one is not commonly used. I would be glad if someone can clarify this. > I am saying this for the second time that I am not coming. or > I am telling you this for the second time that I am not coming.


title: What is the difference between 'tell' and 'say'

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "Nothing to tell" versus "nothing to say" Both words seem to be used interchangeably. I generally don't differentiate between them and intuitively pick one over the other. Is there a standardized way to distinguish between the two?


title: "Told" vs. "said to" somebody

text: >   * I told him that you hate him >   * I said to him that you hate him > I was choosing between these two options, and I can't help thinking about the subtle differences. For example, "I told him your secret" refers to something _real_ and _factual_. Whereas "I said to him the moon is made of cheese" can be a _lie_. Is it true that when you use the word "told", people would assume it is true (a true event that happened)? And if you use the word "say", people are taking it literally as a sentence that you have said, which may or may not be true. Or am I the only one who implies this?


title: Using "will" after "if"

text: I've been told that native-speakers don't ever use "will" after "if", and that saying it this way is a not-native style. So from the film (Harry Potter, pt5) I noticed a line that confused me. Look at this: "Well, if you won't tell her where it is, I will". See that? What was the necessity of using the future form? What does it add in the meaning? How does it sound to you? Why was namely this sentence used instead of "Well, if you don't tell her where it is, I will"?


title: Opposite of "prequel" when it isn't a "sequel", or an "original"

text: How do you refer to an item that was released earlier, but takes place after a "prequel"? "Sequel" gives the clear implication that it was released after, this is not what I want. In some cases "Original" applies, but that only works if the [word I want] was the first. Which isn't always the case. For example: "Caprica" is a prequel series to the "Battlestar Galactica" reboot released circa 2005. But when talking about "Caprica", you can't just refer to that specific earlier work as the original "Battlestar Galactica", because the original was released in 1978, and Caprica isn't really a prequel to the original. Another Example: "Lego City Undercover: The Chase Begins" is a prequel to the "Lego City Undercover" game for the Wii U, in this case "Original" probably refers to the aforementioned Wii U game, but might refer to the first Lego City game, or the first modern Lego, one could say "The original Lego City Undercover", but it is quite wordy, and due to the similarities in name might be a little confusing.


title: Word to describe someone who rarely gets upset

text: Is there a word to describe someone who rarely and almost never gets upset/angry? The words first came to my mind are _non-confrontational_ and _stoic_ , though they relate, they are not exactly what I'm looking for. The word I'm trying to look for describes a person that not only does he possesses the qualities of non-confrontational and stoicism, he basically doesn't get upset over anything whatsoever even the most upsetting situations imaginable. He is generally a pretty happy, calm and collected individual. Is there such a word exist?


title: Is there a better way to say: "My question is, is..." (e.g. "The question is, is it the right time")

text: It feels a little weird for me (or should I say to me?) to say: > So my question is, is having two 'Is' correct? And also this seems to me incorrect grammatically: > So my question is, is having two 'Is' **is** correct? Are any of the above grammatically correct? Is there a better way to ask the question in the examples?


title: What's the meaning of this phrase?

text: > "For a long time I had a strong desire in studying and research in sciences > to distinguish some from others, particularly the book [Euclid's] _Elements > of Geometry_ which is the origin of all mathematics, and discusses point, > line, surface, angle, etc." (Khayyam in Fauvel and Gray, 6.C.2, p. 236) I don't understand the beginning of the sentence. The author had a strong desire in what exactly ? In studying ? In studying, and research in sciences ? What does he distinguish ? From other what ? The syntax used confuses me.


title: Meaning of "thwarting centuries of would be conquerors "

text: I got the following sentence from one of the GRE teaching websites. But I am not able to understand the bolded part in it. > **Thwarting centuries of would be conquerors** , the Aztec fortress of > Chapultepec seemed impregnable, until U.S. forces under General Winfield > Scott were able to take the fortress with surprisingly little effort. Is the sentence as a whole grammatical?


title: "Through" vs "throughout."

text: How is the meaning of a sentences affected by chosing one of those words? For instance, what's the different between > The screech cicadas reverberated through the forest. and > The screech cicadas reverberated throughout the forest.


title: What do you call someone who is obsessed with video games?

text: A slang word which means someone addicted to playing video or computer games.   A _gameholic_? It can't be _nerd_ or _geek_ because those expressions denote the person may indeed be eccentric, a loner, and obsessive but nevertheless possess a certain expertise in the field of technology and/or a passion for things hi-tech in general. I would like a word for someone who continually plays online or computer games until the small hours. I was thinking of _midnight gamer_ or _RPG fanatic_ , but obviously they're not idiomatic. Wikipedia's Role Playing Game terms didn't prove to be very helpful. And I would also like to know if an equivalent term for a middle-aged man or woman exists, for example a house-wife who has only recently caught the computer-playing bug because her own children play video games. I did look at this question and although I quite like the term, **mouse potato** , and it's fairly accurate, it doesn't quite convey the obsessive and compulsive element I had in mind.