title: Where does the period go in an MLA in-text citation?

text: I've always been confused when citing like: > "The windows misted over from the heat and the smoke inside.” (Hemingway 1) Does the period go inside the quotes (as above)? Or after the citation (as below)? > "The windows misted over from the heat and the smoke inside” (Hemingway 1).


title: Is there an English idiom for Bengali idiom "সবজান্তা গামছাওয়ালা"(wise towelsman)?

text: In the Bengali language there is an idiom, _"sobjanta gamchawala"_ (wise towelsman), meaning a man whose occupation is merely to sell towels, but claims to know everything and gives _valuable_ advice on any and every topic. As you can imagine, _wise_ and _valuable_ are used here as sarcasm. In Bengali, the phrase is used to point out a person who always makes a comment on every topic without knowing the context. Is there is an English idiom or phrase for that? I'm not looking for _jack of all trades is a master of none_. A jack of all trades is able to do a lot of things fairly well, but _sobjanta gamchawala_ isn't.


title: What is the etymology of "So long"?

text: What's the origin of this strange substitute for farewell? We say it all the time, but I can't figure its meaning.


title: Word for someone who is ignorant and proud?

text: Many a times, we tend to meet someone who is ignorant yet arrogant; to the extent that they can go a long way blabbing about something they don't really know with so much vigour. What can you refer to such a person as?


title: Shall, third person singular, archaic form

text: The second person of _will_ and _shall_ are _wilt_ and _shalt_ in the archaic form. The third person singular suffix is _-eth_ , so we get _willeth_ but what about _shall_? Thank you for your answers!


title: end of the e-mail "warm wishes"

text: I have received an e-mail form a recruiter regarding a conference. > Warm wishes,   >  Jane Doe, Recruiter Isn't it too personal for an e-mail with business connotation?


title: What does "vipers" mean here?

text: > Yeah, the cut throats and the pigs. But who wants all that blood spilled, > judge, huh? Isn't there a simpler way of not pissing off the big vipers?” – > Al Swearengen From the show _Deadwood_ What does vipers mean here?


title: 'to check' versus 'to verify'

text: My interpretation is that sentences like > Check the application output.   >  Verify the application is running. have a slightly different meaning. Are there any differences between "to check", and "to verify"? Are they used in different context, or are they interchangeable?


title: Where is the root morpheme in Middle English talon (talon, claw) and muscheron (mushroom)?

text: Is it possible to consider _-on_ , _-eron_ as suffixes (as they are in Middle French)?


title: What is a "Snail Toss"?

text: What does _snail toss_ mean in the following sentences? > I'll drop this in the snail toss on the way, all right?   >  I was thinking about some hardcore snail toss later.


title: "That my results are not reproducible" or "that my results are unreproducible"?

text: What is better to write? > that my results are not reproducible   >  that my results are unreproducible How can it be re-written as positive affirmation (preserving the same meaning)? Edit:   Do not I remember correctly that it is better to write negative sentence than positive but much more lengthy?   This question is about technical copywriting Update: When I was writing the question, I did not account for the fact that there are 4 "synonyms":   * non-reproducible,    * unreproducible,    * irreproducible,    * not reproducible  Update:   the post with this phrase that provoked this question


title: Is "Didn't used to have been" a valid structure?

text: Are the following sentences valid: > It _didn't used to_ happen. > > It _didn't used to have been_ there. And if so, what tenses are they?


title: When should you use "then" and when "than"?

text: As far as I know, _then_ is used in a conjunction and in time-related sentences; _than_ in all other cases. I believe that these are correct:   * Because I'm older than she, I should be the first chosen;   * I loved her and then she died;   * If it rains [then] it pours;   * I've had more then enough;   * Would you rather be a mouse then a rat?   * Who, other than you, likes the color red? Or not? Can someone help me out clearing the mud? I think I'm 90% there, but I like to finally understand it completely. If you have other uses of then/than that I missed, please add yours.


title: Are you well? Happy New Year's Eve!

text: 1. What are more formal ways to say "How are you" with a hint of positive expectation, in the sense that you want the other person to confirm that his/her life is just fine. Does "Are you well?" work?   2. During new year season people greet "Happy New Year" etc. What would you say if you want to wish the other person's celebration of the new year be enjoyable and nice, instead of wishing good things for the entire year that is coming?


title: How to call certain kinds of tall shoes that women use to wear?

text: Because their strange features, even in my own language I find it difficult to decide by what name to call the shoes shown in the image below. I'm not looking for a technical term, but for a cute and funny name whose meaning, in the right context, elicits a positeve sense of hilarity. Some terms to which I thought are _stilts_ and * _ballasts_. _Stilts_ and _ballasts_ can function as funny words in my language, thus my question is: In the aforementioned sense, do they function in the English language? Or, perhaps, are there more appropriate or even slang terms? * * * ![](http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4146/5042125419_505eae7ecb_z.jpg)


title: Can "run-through" be possibly a noun?

text: Can "run-through" be possibly a noun? Is it possible at all? If yes, can you, please, come up with a sentence that would contain this noun? Can you also, please, describe a situation, in which that sentence would naturally apply? Please note that I don't need those cases, in which "run-through" would act more like a modifier to another word ("He chose a run-through mode for his system", "There is a need in a run-through program", "Another run-through strategy will ruin the whole project", etc.)


title: Double negation "does not any"

text: I understand that _any_ has negative connotations, as can be seen in the above link, but I need to say that there are no pages in a book. I've come up with the following sentence: > That book does not have any pages. Is this a correct way to say that there are no pages in that book? It seems to be a double negation, with _does not_ and _any_ , so that would seem to mean that the book _does_ have pages. Should I use a different word to _any_?


title: Do I use commas before the word "to" in the following sentence:

text: The JP-8 pipelines included 7.4 miles of parallel 10-inch pipelines from the Navy's transfer pump house manifold to the custody transfer to the Anderson Air Force Base.


title: When a phrase ends with a period, do you put ... or .. after it?

text: I was just reading this question: When "etc." is at the end of a phrase, do you place a period after it? And it brought to mind something similar. If a phrase ends with a . (such as e.g. or etc.), and you want to use ..., how many periods should you put? That is, which of these is correct? > something something etc... > > something something etc.... To preempt the objection that ellipses never follow abbreviations, they can when used for aposiopesis in dialogue.


title: "How does this proof/prove that ..."

text: > How does this proof that the halting problem is undecidable work? I am essentially asking how something works; in this case "this proof that the halting problem is undecidable." * * * BONUS: Is the following sentence, which is how someone "corrected" me, grammatically correct? > How does this prove that the halting problem is undecidable work?


title: Is there a single word when the clock hands meet?

text: I'm not sure if such word exists, but English is not my native language. The word I'm looking for describes the time when the clock hands overlap. In my language there is such a word, it is "cager", so the sentence > It is now _cager_. means > It is now [the time when clock hands are overlapped]. This word is considered slang in my language, and I'm wondering if English has a similar word.


title: Utilise or Utilize

text: I am writing in UK English and would like to confirm that we use utilise instead of utilize. I cannot seem to find a answer for this online.


title: Responsibility, the Gerund, and the Perfect Aspect

text: In the process of answering this question on ELL, I hit upon something I can't explain. The sentence in question is: > Who is responsible for leaving the window open? I think anyone hearing that sentence would think:   1. A window was opened at some point in the past   2. Someone had an opportunity and/or obligation to close the window   3. That person is at fault and will be held accountable for their negligence once identified I believe the _-ing_ form of “leaving” forms a gerund clause used as the subject, and I came to wonder if it wouldn't be “more correct” (proscriptively, say) to use the perfect aspect: > Who is responsible for **having left** the window open? I'm not sure if it matters, but just to be clear:   1. The speaker is inquiring about a present state of culpability   2. The events in question are entirely in the past (the window is closed) I'm forced to ask this as one question because I don't know which part of it is responsible(!) for shaping how the other parts should be. I am very open to reforming the question if someone with an idea of how to make this more focused and useful suggests a change that is supported by others.


title: Word for feeding poultry?

text: Is there a traditional or established word or phrase for the way one scatters food when feeding chickens or other animals that like to scratch, scrape, and search for food? I’m translating a story and need a word/phrase to fill the following the gap: > She fed the little hens, ___ing the corn.


For example: >   1. _No student_ goes to school today. >   2. _No students_ go to school today. > When and why do I have to use singular and plural nouns following "No"?


title: “best thing since X”

text: If you were to read some news like “Movie X is the highest-grossing since (earlier) Movie Y” or “Earthquake X is the deadliest since Y” or “Gold prices are highest since the spike in year Y” or similar — does that imply that the new, recent event X _surpasses_ the historical reference event Y, or was Y still bigger/deadlier/higher?


title: Etymological origin of "deosil" and "widdershins"

text: I've been hearing the words "deosil" used for clockwise and "widdershins" for anticlockwise, but where do they come from? I'm told that "widdershins" is from a Scottish term meaning "against the way", is this correct? I can't find any evidence of the origin of deosil. Where did it come from? Did it originally mean something else?


title: Is there an English word for "removing stem from a cilantro" (coriander)

text: My native language has a word for that process hence I am curious to find out if English has one. I searched for it on the Internet without success. Apart from "removing stem", I found "removing leaves" from cilantro.


title: Jukebox - I know what a Box is but what exactly is a Juke?

text: What exactly is a Juke? I only know this word if: 1) it's attached to -box; 2) an athlete confuses his/her opponent with a series of moves. But what is its exact origin? JEP


title: Is this correct: "Once you'll figure out how this works, you'll love it"

text: Is this sentence correct? > Once you'll figure out how this works, you'll love it What I am trying to convey is: The person that I am addressing does not understand a certain concept. I want to tell that person that once he/she understands that concept, he/she will love it. I am not sure about the tenses. I am using Future Simple in both parts of the sentence. Is this OK? Should I use Present Simple in the first part: > Once you figure out how this works, you'll love it Which one is correct? (Or at least better)


title: word to describe one's ability to speak truthfully in a given situation

text: I'm looking for a word that has the specific connotation/denotation about the speaker's ability to speak truthfully based on their knowledge of the subject that they are speaking about. For example: > I cannot speak with **_** about your legal problem, because I am not an > attorney. I'd like the word to render the phrase after the comma redundant.


title: Is there a technical term for when verbs in a sentence appear as if they have been swapped around?

text: Is there a technical term for when verbs in a sentence appear as if they have been swapped around as in the example here? > 'her fingers creased in gold [and] her body ringed in folds' In this line, the poet appears to have swapped transitive verbs so that a hall of mirrors is created; the _gold_ refers to the _rings_ , the _creases_ to the _folds_ , the _rings_ to the _fingers_ , and the _creases_ to the _body_. I know what the poet is doing, but I have searched online for the technical term for swapping transitive verbs from their expected contexts and am unable to find any.


title: Difference between 'Redundant' and 'Superfluous'

text: (I made a search for this question on this forum but surprisingly did not find related questions. Which is odd because surely this question is asked often.) First, the sentence I'm trying to use redundant/superfluous in: > From what I know, fiction is created from fantasy by people you call > authors. At the risk of sounding discourteous let me say that I do not trust > fantasies. Life is not a fabrication played out on stage. This is why I feel > people who write fiction are redundant. I myself never speak of things I > have not experienced firsthand. I was told that 'superfluous' would be a better word choice in place of 'redundant' because using 'redundant' would suggest that the speaker is scornful of only those 'authors' who are 'extra' when he is scornful of 'all' authors. But using 'superfluous' here sounds simply odd to me. OED gives the definitions of the two words as: > **redundant** (adjective) - not or no longer needed or useful; superfluous: > an appropriate use for a redundant church many of the old skills had become > redundant > > **superfluous** (adjective) - unnecessary, especially through being more > than enough: the purchaser should avoid asking for superfluous information This site explains them as: > **Superfluous** (from Latin, and literally meaning “overflowing” — the > second part of the compound is related to fluid) means “extra, more than is > necessary.” > > **Redundant** has the same literal meaning as superfluous — the second part > of the compound is related to wave — and the identical basic connotation, > though it also has the senses of repetition, abundance, or extravagance, or > duplication as a safety measure. The more I try to dig into the meanings and connotations of these words the more I'm left confused. Any inputs on this?


title: Is the expression, “Who do you trust (speak / teach / give / vote / fire ...)?” predominantly used today?

text: The popular TV game show, “Who Do You Trust?”, aired from 1957 to 1963. I learnt this from the New York Times’ (March 29) article written by Dick Cavett under the title “Tonight, Tonight, Its World Is Full of Blight.” http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/tonight-tonight-its-world-is- full-of-blight/?hp > “When Jack departed the show for good in 1962 it was predicted that > “Tonight” would die on the vine. Who could replace that sentimental, > explosive, compellingly neurotic master of late-night? And where would you > even begin to look for such a one? The answer came. The boyishly nice- > looking guy from Nebraska, collegiate and witty, who killed ’em out of the > public eye at Friars’ roasts and trade lunches while hosting _the > ungrammatically named game show_ “ **Who Do You Trust**?” (TV’s earliest > dumbing down?) Though it comes with the author’s proviso (‘TV’s earliest dumbing down’), is the expression “Who do you trust (speak to/teach/scold/fire/vote for, and any transitive verbs)?” predominantly used today? At middle school a long, long time ago, we were taught we should use the objective case for an interrogative followed by a transitive verb. If an English teacher corrected my writing “Who did you teach?” to “Whom did you teach?”, can I counter him by saying this usage is common among Anglophones?


title: Usage of hain't

text: According to Dictionary.com, ain't has two meanings: >   1. _Nonstandard except in some dialects._ am not; are not; is not. >   2. _Nonstandard._ have not; has not; do not; does not; did not. > When I lived in the southern part of the US, I also heard hain't with some frequency as well. Dictionary.com has this definition: > _Nonstandard Older Use._ ain't; have not; has not. From this, it seems like _hain't_ and _ain't_ are possibly interchangeable, but because _hain't_ includes specifically _have not_ and _has not_ in this definition, I wonder if the usage of _hain't_ is restricted to these senses of _ain't_. If that's the case, then I would expect that > I hain't ever satisfied.* would sound wrong in these dialects, but > I hain't ever been satisfied. would be the correct expression. Can anyone confirm that this is the case? Also, are _hain't_ and _ain't_ used in the same dialects, or is _hain't_ 's usage more regionally restricted than _ain't_?


title: What sentence parts needs to be repeated here?

text: What of the following is right? "We need to find out..."   * "...how to lower the costs or _how to_ produce more."   * "...how to lower the costs or _to_ produce more."   * "...how to lower the costs or produce more."


title: Why are I and O always capitalized, but a is not?

text: There are three single-letter words. They are the article _a_ , the pronoun _I_ , and the interjection _O_. The pronoun _I_ and the interjection _O_ are always capitalized, but the article _a_ follows normal capitalization rules. Why is this the case? When and where did this originate? **Edit:** As described in the answers to Question 7988, the pronoun _I_ was first used in the 13th century, to avoid confusion with the dotless _j_ , and was retained as a typographic convention because _i_ "gets lost" due to its small size. However, this does not explain why _O_ is always capitalized, but _a_ is not, since _a_ and _o_ are approximately the same size.


title: What do you call the person who performs an action?

text: What do you call the person who does the verb? For instance, in the sentence > John killed Frank what is the grammatical term for _John_? I don't know if "agent" is the right word?


title: What number bus is that? or What bus number is that?

text: Imagine you are at the bus stop. You see a bus coming, but you can't read the number, so you ask: "What number bus is that?" However, usually the noun used as a determiner precedes the main noun, for example: _house number, ticket number, seat number, phone number_ , etc. So why, in this case, don't you say "what bus number is that?" By the way, my English teacher told me the right way to say this is, "What number bus is that?"


title: Rephrasing "patient with suspected cancer"

text: Is it possible to form a sentence like > A patient who is suspected _for/with/??_ cancer and if so, what is the correct preposition after suspect?


title: What do you call a student who always need to volunteer an answer to show off how smart they are?

text: I friend of mine, when teachers address questions to the whole class, always need to volunteer an answer to show off how smart they are. Therefore, I'm looking for a term which define that my friend. A bit of googling come up with 'suck', but Merriam-Webster doesn't have an entry which matches that description, being the best 'to act in an obsequious manner'. So, what do you call a person like that student?


title: What does 'under subsection' mean in the following clause?

text: > 40\. (4) The Secretary of State may not make an order _under subsection_ (2) > if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless. What does _under subsection_ mean in this context?


title: Term for 'Short frame of time'

text: I have sent a document for review by a peer, and I know he has a very short time in which to complete the review. What is the formal way of telling him that I am sending the document at the last minute?


title: "For dragons are fire made flesh, and fire is power."

text: This quote is from "A Clash of Kings: A Song of Ice and Fire: Book Two" _By George R.R. Martin_. This is the full quote: > "They shall come day and night to see the wonder that has been born again > into the world, and when they see they shall lust. For dragons are fire made > flesh, and fire is power." Is this separating a full sentence into two? What kind of usage is this? Was it supposed to be like this: > "They shall come day and night to see the wonder that has been born again > into the world, and when they see they shall lust for dragons that are fire > made flesh, and fire is power."    * * *    Additionaly: Is there an **inversion** here? If yes, what kind of inversion technique is this? Also, "fire made flesh" is a phrase made with past participle deverbal adjective. Hence, Can we say: > Dragons are fire made flesh. or/and > Dragons have fire made flesh. Then, we go back to the beginning again, why is "for" there? Was it supposed to be part of the previous sentence? Are these structures only used by authors? Do you have any other examples like this?


title: "cleared from" vs "cleared up from" vs "cleared away from"

text: I always have problem deciding which one to use. Example: > After understanding that, the darkness finally [...] from my eyes. Should I use _cleared from_ , _cleared up from_ , or _cleared away from_?


title: Difference between wreath, garland, and laurel

text: Dictionary definitions: > **wreath** an arrangement of flowers, leaves, or stems fastened in a ring > and used for decoration or for laying on a grave. > > **garland** a wreath of flowers and leaves, worn on the head or hung as a > decoration. > > **laurel** the foliage of the bay tree woven into a wreath or crown and worn > on the head as an emblem of victory or mark of honor in classical times. The definitions sound very similar to me. When is it appropriate to use each word (and when is it not)?


title: Preposition used with the verb convert

text: Which preposition is used with convert: to or into? For example, convert the requisition into (or to) a PO.


title: When using ellipsis to omit list items, is a comma required after the last item before the ellipsis or not?

text: Which, if any, format do you consider preferable? "10, 11, 12, ... 19, 20." "Violet, Indigo, ... Orange, Red." -OR- "10, 11, 12 ... 19, 20." "Violet, Indigo ... Orange, Red."


title: What's a word/phrase for a player/seducer?

text: I can't seem to remember this particular word/phrase. I'm almost certain it's a two-word phrase. It specifically refers to someone who is skilled with the ladies, ie, someone who knows the tricks of the trade. Usage:   \- "Unless you're a X-Y, that's not going to work with her." Edit : I'm not looking for 'ladies man', 'casanova', 'womanizer' etc. This phrase refers to someone who's more of a pro and one who is serious about his business.


title: What's the origin of the idiom "miss the boat"?

text: What is the origin of the idiom _miss the boat_? This is the definition of the idiom from Dictionary.com: > a. to fail to take advantage of an opportunity: _He missed the boat when he > applied too late to get into college._ > > b. to miss the point of; fail to understand: _I missed the boat on that > explanation._


title: What is more appropriate to say “pay especial attention to” or “pay special attention to”

text: Merriam Webster > Special > > 1 : distinguished by some unusual quality especially : being in some way > superior 2 : held in particular esteem 3 a : readily distinguishable from > others of the same category : UNIQUE b : of, relating to, or constituting a > species : SPECIFIC 4 : being other than the usual : ADDITIONAL, EXTRA 5 : > designed for a particular purpose or occasion and > Especial > > being distinctive: as a : directed toward a particular individual, group, or > end b : of special note or importance : unusually great or significant c : > highly distinctive or personal : PECULIAR d : CLOSE, INTIMATE e : SPECIFIC, > PARTICULAR Online Etymology Dictionary > especial (adj.) > > late 14c., from Old French especial "pre-eminent, important," from Latin > specialis "belonging to a particular kind or species," from species "kind" > (see species). Latin words with initial sp-, st-, sc- usually acquired an e- > when borrowed by Old French. Modern French has restored the word to spécial. > Originally with the same sense as special, later restricted to feelings, > qualities, etc. I gather from these definitions, the proper adjective to use is “especial”- to pay **especial** attention to. But I hardly encounter this use in common usage. Any insight would be highly appreciated.


title: Meaning of 'up/down' after a verb

text: There are lots of instances of using 'up' or 'down' after verbs.   _Instances: eat up, drink up, meet up, finish up, start up, fill up, clean up, wipe up, tie up, etc._ What do they add as meaning to a verb exactly?


title: Error in "Better call Saul" phrase

text: Is it correct to say "Better call Saul!"? Or do I need to say "It's better call Saul!"? Or even "It's better to call Saul!"? I guess the third one is the correct one. Obs.: "Better call Saul" is from the "Breaking Bad" crime drama of AMC.


title: What special implication does ‘totally’ have in “He’s totally going to call you”?

text: There was the following sentence in an article titled, “Like, Degrading the Language? No Way” in New York Times (April 5), in which the author says Americans are moving backward on language: > “(Like the use of ‘like’) the use of “totally” mines the same vein. “He’s > **totally** going to call you” does not mean “He is going to call you in a > total fashion.” It has a more specific meaning, although only handled > subconsciously by speakers, as so much of language is. “He’s totally going > to call you” contains an implication: that someone has said otherwise or > that the chances of it may seem slim at first glance but in fact aren’t. As > with “like,” “totally” tracks and nods to the opinions of others. It’s > totally civilized.” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/opinion/sunday/like- > degrading-the-language-no-way.html?hp&rref=opinion Although the author explains “totally going to call you” contains an implication of someone having said otherwise, I’m not still clear with the meaning of “He’s **totally** going to call you.” What does it mean? He’s totally going to call you “what”? How does “He’s **totally** going to call you.” differ from “He’s going to call you.”? Is this expression (use of totally) ubiquitous today as the author asserts?


title: Can't we tell which is which by sound (effect, affect)?

text: > “We’ve adjusted for lots of other things that we know **effect** children’s > development and IQ.” LOE has the “effect” in its transcript above. But the audio from the same page has the sound of /əˈfɛkt/ (2:22~2:28). Then is this the schwa pronunciation of /ɪˈfɛkt/ ? If yes, can’t we tell which word is which just by sound?


title: Is it "dent" or "dint"?

text: It seems both _dent_ and _dint_ can mean an impression or hollow in a surface. Is there a reason for the two spellings? Do they have different connotations?


title: Problems with usages of "of"

text: I do not understand some _of_ usages. >   * It's more of a sanity check than anything. > >   * even more of a hack > >   * I'd argue that a course in algorithm design would be of more utility in > understanding how most efficient inference schemes boil down. > > Why should we use _of_ the above examples? Especially, the last one is the most complex example for me. If I remove _of_ from the first sentence, the sentence will be awkward, I feel it, but for the last one, I am totally speechless. By the way, Is it legitimate to say:   * It's more _like_ a sanity check than anything?


title: What exactly is an idiom?

text: A recent question on the phrase "take my word for it" sparked a tangential discussion about calling it an idiom. I disagreed with the word since "take my word for it" is not figurative. Wikipedia summed up my idea of an idiom: > An **idiom** [...] is a combination of words that have a figurative meaning > owing to its common usage. An idiom's figurative meaning is separate from > the literal meaning. Dictionary.com went a bit further, allowing an idiom to consist of a set phrase featuring grammatical abnormality rather than metaphor, but this only muddies things more: > an expression whose meaning is not predictable from the usual meanings of > its constituent elements, as _kick the bucket_ or _hang one's head_ , or > from the general grammatical rules of a language, as _the table round_ for > _the round table_ , and that is not a constituent of a larger expression of > like characteristics. And finally, another commenter said the OED (which I do not have) has the following definition: > Idiom: 3a ...a peculiarity of phraseology approved by the usage of a > language, and **often** having a significance other than its grammatical or > logical one [OED/Supplement; bolding his] And further he showed that Cambridge Dictionaries Online calls "take my word for it" an idiom. I suggested that this is possibly a clash between technical and colloquial usages of the term _idiom_ , but if possible I would like an authoritative definition. Perhaps there are two distinct usages of _idiom_ , or perhaps there is nothing authoritative - I'd just like to know.


title: What is the term when a phrase means just the opposite of what it used to mean?

text: 'At glacial speed' used to mean something that went very slowly, but with global warming, the glaciers are retreating at a much greater and increasingly faster rate. What is the term that describes this change in phrase usage?


title: Dust vs. Undust?

text: The entry for " _dust_ " from LDOCE says: > **dust 1 (n.)** > >   1. [uncountable] `→ HOUSEHOLD` dry powder consisting of extremely small > bits of dirt that is in buildings on furniture, floors, etc. if they are not > kept clean: > > _All the furniture was covered in dust._ > >   2. [uncountable] `→ HOUSEHOLD` ... > >   3. [uncountable] `→ INDUSTRY`, `HARD SCIENCE` ... > >   4. a dust (BrE) `→ CLEANING` the act of dusting something: > > _I need to give the sitting room a dust._ > >   5. ... > > > > * * * > > **dust 2 (v.)** > >   1. `→ CLEANING` to clean the dust from a surface by moving something such > as a soft cloth across it: > > _Rachel dusted the books and the bookshelves._ > >   2. ... >   3. ... > Now, the entry for " _undust_ " from Wiktionary says: > **undust (v.)** > >   1. (obsolete) To free from dust. > I do notice the entry being marked as "obsolete" for _undust_ , and also I remember my English classes as a child where we had a rectangular cubic sponge called " _duster_ " that we used to **dust/undust** the chalk on the blackboard, however everytime I'm cleaning my desk, computer, furniture, etc. I'll automatically think of " **undusting** " and then will force myself undo, say " **dusting** " instead, just to convince myself that the latter is the grammatical one; however I can't see the logic behind this verb and its usage based on general English grammar. Google Ngrams also shows up some results (even if not many) for _undust_ : ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/4xHNz.png) Is _undust_ incorrect? Did it exist as a correct verb years ago, and can I still use it? I feel paranoid to say: " _I'm dusting my keyboard!_ " because it makes me feel that it has the opposite meaning, as if I'm spreading dust and particles on my keyboard, especially that these chores aren't all that commonly spoken with nowadays's lifestyle, and stating the former sentence might sound a bit odd. P.S. Note that " ** _dust something off_** " is slightly different in usage e.g. " _They were dusting off leaves and twigs._ ", and based on my understanding from the definitions in dictionaries, saying " ~~I'm dusting my keyboard off.~~ " isn't correct.


title: "Has anyone run into the same problem" or "Does anyone run into the same problem"

text: What is the difference between "has anyone run into the same problem?" and "does anyone run into the same problem?" in a situation like: > After midnight when I installed this new app on my system, the system > stopped working. The screen went black. **Does anyone run into the same > problem?** Or **Has anyone run into the same problem?**


title: What is the difference between "affect" and "influence"?

text: For example, if I want to say "the performance of this bike could be affected/influenced by many things", is there a difference between these two words? My gut feeling is that "affect" sounds better, but I cannot find evidence in dictionaries.


title: Is "A Moveable Feast" more than home catering?

text: I read Hemingway's _A Moveable Feast_ before I knew the term describing moveable feast days on the calender. Comparing Hemingway's famous quote about Paris: > "If you are lucky enough to have lived in Paris as a young man, then > wherever you go for the rest of your life, it stays with you, for Paris is a > moveable feast." with what happens in the liturgical calender, I can't see what he's talking about. So, a feast date is chosen because of where it falls in relation to some other annually changing dates; thus it "moves" every year. How is Paris like one of these feast dates, in the way Hemingway describes it? I understand him to mean that you may leave Paris, but Paris never leaves you. But that doesn't mean it stays the same. You don't stay the same. And other places stay with you too. Easter stays the same--same celebration for the same reason, no matter what you do. Phrase finder traces its figurative usage back to 1882, before Hemingway, to a newspaper from Bismarck, North Dakota: > The most sublime creation of modern times is the ideal woman of the average > man. She is a migratory bird, a sort of movable feast as it were. But that doesn't have much bearing on holidays that occur on different days from year to year either. The ideal woman is different for every man, and this quote makes her sound fleeting, out of reach. True, the piece hedges with "as it were", but it seems that they are using the expression somewhat idiomatically--the "as it were" suggests that. From 2000, a book called _Spirituality, Healing and Medicine: Return to Silence_ states: > "Indeed, maybe the reason that we fail to categorize health is just that we > do not wish to locate it, it is a moveable feast." This idiomatic usage of the term suggests that health is hard to codify or pin down, which, again, doesn't relate with a religious holiday that is classifiable, though it moves. A radio broadcaster was talking about a Christmas party here in Barcelona that would be at the beach this year. It was on a hotel roof last year. He called it "a moveable feast". He's right; it is a moveable feast, but not by any relationship to the _idiomatic_ use of the term. I'm italicizing idiomatic because, I can't grasp the sense of the idiom, though it exists. In fact, the free dictionary defines it and then discounts its figurative usage. >   1. Lit. a religious holiday that is on a different date from year to year. > Easter is the best known movable feast. >   2. Fig. a meal that is served in motion or with different portions of the > meal served at different locations. (Jocular or a complete misunderstanding > of {1} but in wide use.) We enjoyed a real movable feast on the train from > Washington to Miami. > This definition seems to be the least like the other usages, but googling "a moveable feast catering" shows that people around the anglophone world are jocularly using the term this way. My question isn't to do with understanding Hemingway's use of the expression, but what the expression "A Moveable Feast" means at all. Is it right to call it an _expression_ or _phrase_ or _idiom_? Or did Hemingway just hoodwink us into using some clever bit of liturgical jargon whenever we wanted to say something is constantly changing? If not, if it describes something, what does it describe?


title: What does the word “practical ” mean in “Old Possum's book of practical cats”？

text: There is a T.S. Eliot title, Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats. As the Wiki entry says: > _Old Possum's Book of Practical_ Cats is a collection of whimsical poems by > T. S. Eliot about feline psychology and sociology, published by Faber and > Faber. It is the basis for the musical _Cats_.


title: Does the word "indefatigable" have positive or negative connotation?

text: Example usage: > Terence, you have indefatigable enthusiasm. The effect it has on people is > inspiring. In the sense of exuberance, but you feel positively about it.


title: Is "Thank god", as opposed to "Thank God", acceptable?

text: People are quite stingy lately about anything with religious connotations, so I'm worried that the phrase "thank God" might tick some people off. Is "thank god" acceptable? Would that offend people of monotheistic faiths? Or would "thank God" be acceptable to atheists/polytheists too?


title: "To do this or do that" or "to do this or *to* do that"?

text: I saw on the bottom of an email: > To change your email preferences or unsubscribe from certain messages, click > here. Is that correct or should it be: > To change your email preferences or _to_ unsubscribe from certain messages, > click here.


title: What does “There’s nothing bulldog about Britain” mean?

text: I came across the phrase “ _There’s nothing bulldog about Britain_ hovering somewhere in the mid-Atlantic,” in the following sentence of New York Times (December 12) article, titled “The British Euro Farce” commenting on British PM Cameron’s veto of Europe-bolstering treaty change: > “After uncertain mumblings, the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, managed > to reach beyond this theater to something approaching strategic reflection. > Declaring himself “bitterly disappointed” at Cameron’s decision, he said: “ > _There’s nothing bulldog about Britain hovering somewhere_ in the mid- > Atlantic, not standing tall in Europe, not being taken seriously in > Washington.” From the preceding line of the article: > “Since Cameron’s “No,” there’s been much chatter about the return of > Britain’s “bulldog spirit.” Self-delusion is a lingering attribute of former > imperial nations adjusting to a lesser reality,” I can interpret “bulldog” as “British-ness i.e., British persistence” or “going UK’s own way,” but I’m not sure. What does “There’s nothing bulldog about Britain doing something” mean? Is the expression, 'nothing bulldog about Britain doing' grammatically right? Is this expression (animal name / country name combination) exclusive to Britain related description? Can I extend this analogy to “There’s nothing shepherd (bear, Uncle Sam) about German (Russia, America) behaving ..,”?


title: What is the proper pronunciation of "kitten?"

text: The American Heritage Dictionary says 'KIT-n' but speakers in my locale (west coast US) say 'Ki with short i, glottal stop, n.' There is no 't' sound. Do we speak slang, a dialect, or are we pronouncing it correctly? The only reference I found here was from last May: "Intervocalic /t/ almost always reduces to a single flap [ɾ] there. That’s why ladder and latter are homophonic, although kitten and kiddin’ are not. Indeed, kitten may become just [ˈkʰɪʔn̩] (sometimes written [ˈkʰɪʔən]) , often enough." I don't understand IPA code. Thank you!


title: Meaning and Correctness of "to have masses said for someone's soul"

text: What is the meaning of "to have masses said for someone's soul"? I failed to find it in my dictionary. And grammatically, is it correct to say, "to have masses (which are) said for someone's soul"?


title: Aren’t there English equivalents to Japanese word, Senpai (先輩) meaning a senior in school, career, or age?

text: In Japan, we call a person who is a senior in school, office, and social activity even a-year-ahead arriver “Senpai.” We address quite casually and lightly to a senior who entered school and office even a year ahead “Senpai!” in school, office, club and even on street. The opposite of Senpai is ‘Kohai (後輩)’ literally meaning ‘late-coming (born) guy,’ but it is rare that the Senpai calls junior(s) ‘Kohai’ to his/her/their face(s). When we call somebody 'Senpai,' we don’t need to prefix Mr. / Ms, or even add the surname. Though 'Senpai' can serve as a mentor to juniors and freshmen(women) in school, on sports, on profession in many cases, the nuance of the word would be just "Hey, my elder peer!" I understand Chinese have the same word / characters (先輩) besides "xiansheng (先生)" = Mr., literally meaning 'earlier- born'. As I looked for the English counterpart of this word in Kenkyusha’s Readers Japanese -English Dictionary, it provided the following explanation: > Senpai – One’s senior. There is no English counterpart to this word because > the relationship between senior and junior is not regarded as so important > in English speaking countries. It would be more natural to say “He entered > the company (university) five years before me,” if you wish to say “He is my > Senpai.” in English. However, this explanation doesn’t address what to call / address to Senpai as a courtesy title or addressing word in school, office, and business, social, cultural circles. Is it true that there is no equivalent or alternative to “Senpai” as addressing word in English? If there are, how do you call?


title: Caesar and caesura

text: Caesar and caesura are two similar-sounding Latin words which have made their way into English unsullied in terms of their orthography. The same can however not be said of their pronunciations. The original Latin pronunciations of `/kaisar/` and `/kaisuːra/` have evolved into `/siːzər/` and `/sizjʊrə/` respectively. Why/how did this come to pass? Furthermore, why does _Caesar_ have the long `/si:/` while _caesura_ doesn't?


title: Antonym for "exceed"

text: I am trying to find a single word antonym for "exceed". I am using the word as a verb (so "beneath" doesn't work) and it should have a positive connotation (as in a golf score which falls below par). I thought of "subceed", which I like, and found a few Google hits but it doesn't show up in any reputable dictionaries. I've reviewed answers to similar questions and found no suitable alternatives. For example, the selected answer to What would be an appropriate opposite of "exceed"? suggested:   * "eluded" — has a mostly negative connotation and implies intention   * "beneath" — is not a verb   * "are below"/"did not meet" — phrases I'm looking to replace "exceeded" in the following quotes with a single word (meaning something like "went below", "were under", etc.): > "He never gets tickets because he always exceeds the speed limit."   >  "To win the match, Tiger Woods must exceeded 4 strokes on the twelth hole."   >  "To prevent freezing, do not exceed -20 degrees centigrade."


title: What does "If you’re not chicken" mean?

text: In a technical text, I read that author at the end of article says: > If you’re not chicken, do it now! What means **If you’re not chicken**?


title: Is the phrase “you can’t wait for your life to begin” a pattern phrase?

text: In Jeffery Archer’s popular novel, “Kane & Abel,” there is a scene where William Kane, a brilliant student of St. Paul’s and one of two leading characters of this novel seduced by the wife of the school’s homemaster during her husband being out of home on trip for attending a conference. When William reported Mrs. Raglan Rags, the homemaster’s wife that all the lights of the dorm were out and he had locked the front door, and bid ‘Good night,’ to her; > She swung her legs on to the ground, and a pale flash of stockinged thigh > appeared momentarily from under the draped silk. “You are always in such a > hurry. William. **You can’t wait for your life to begin** , can you?” She > walked over to a side table. “Why don’t you stay and have some hot > chocolate?” Is the phrase, “You can’t wait for your life to begin,” a well-used pattern phrase, cliche, or just an ad hoc line invented for this situation? What does it mean? If it is a pattern phrase, in what else cases can I use it for example?


title: "I left before they had decided what to do" Why is 'decided' in the past perfect?

text: **I left before they had decided what to do.** Is this because this is a past version of "I leave before they have decided what to do"? Because "left" doesn't come before "decided".


title: What do you call someone who gets along with children?

text: What do you call someone who gets along with children/babies? A simple example: > He is such a **____** , he makes all children smile. A single word noun would be ideal but a phrase is acceptable also. There might be a colloquial word or phrase too. * * * For example, there is a phrase **_good mixer_** which means someone who can get along with everyone [See: second meaning of mixer]. So, what we are looking for is almost like a subtype of this characteristic. There are words like _likeable_ or _easygoing_ but they are too general. The closest word I could find is **_avuncular_** but it does not sound that suitable for this usage. I have never used this word in this way. > Kind and friendly towards a younger or less experienced person: _he was > avuncular, reassuring, and trustworthy_ > > [oxforddictionaries] Also, I'm not sure if we can use avuncular as a gender neutral word for this sense. [Because it is a masculine word for its anthropological sense]. It seems like there isn't a common word as a feminine version. _Amicular_ and _materteral_ is proposed in this previous ELU question: Is there a feminine equivalent to the adjective “avuncular”?


title: "Syndicate something to boot" Definition

text: What is the meaning of the bolded part? > Fewer people seek critical opinion, especially when they’ve been bludgeoned > by aggressive (and effective, as it turns out) viral marketing campaigns > that extend far beyond traditional means, and editors are conscious of this > fact. Why pay salary and benefits for a single critic when you can hire > three free-lancers for less money, and **syndicate their 250-word > minireviews to boot?** does it mean ignore their 250-word mini reviews?


title: Is "Firestarter" something that native a English speaker would think as negative?

text: I'm thinking of Firestarter as a name for an upcoming software project. However, I justed Googled it and as it turns out, Urban Dictionary says it's when two males rub their _parts_ together. Can I use this name without fearing someone is gonna look at it negatively?


title: Is "over-saturated" redundant?

text: For me, "saturated" implies there couldn't exist more of given quantity, like concentration of substance in a solution. So "over-saturated" (as in "over- saturated market") seems redundant.


title: "Building to" — idiom or typo?

text: The title of this article is "Building to New Super Mario Bros." Is "building to" a typo or an idiom? What does it mean if it's not a typo? I've never come across that phrase before.


title: Is it "D.J., "DJ" or "deejay"?

text: This is in the context of a person who plays recorded music at a party or club. Referring to such a person as a "disk jockey" or "jock" seems hopelessly old fashioned. Three variants are in vogue and all are heavily used. Wikipedia redirects _deejay_ to disc jockey and states it is "also known as _DJ_." From the NYT in 2011: "a not-so-green affair with 50 to 80 people at a hot club with an open bar and a hip-hop deejay." The same source a couple of days ago: "after having spent 30 years as an entertainment industry functionary — as a D.J., promoter and record label exec." The Washington Post earlier this month wrote: "Martin Solveig will serve as the house _deejay_ at the Gibson Amphitheatre show." Also, many stage names in the music business favor one form, as in DJ Spooky, DJ Jazzy Jeff, DJ Skribble, etc. Is there a preferred version of the term?


title: Why is putting some spin on a ball described in some circles as giving it some "English"?

text: Why is putting some spin on a ball often called "putting some English" on it? Does it have anything to do with the history of billiards, the sport I most often see this phrase used? What's special about English, exactly? I tried doing some research on Google, but all I could find was an article on ESPN that was too jocular for my taste.


title: Why do we say "to boot"?

text: Here's an example of the phrase "to boot": > My wife made a disgusting looking dinner, and it tasted awful to boot! The implication of the "to boot" is that the fact that the dinner tasted awful was as disappointing (or perhaps more so) than the fact that it looked disgusting. It's a colloquial, possibly slang phrase, but I'd like to know what it's origin is, and whether it perhaps has other more esoteric uses.


title: Is it "after 9-hour drive" or "after 9 hour drive"?

text: The sentence is: "I arrived NYC after 9 hour drive." What is the appropriate way to punctuate 9 hour? and whether it is "x-hour" vs "x-hours" or "x hour"? (possible wrong tags)


title: Swapping the order in an idiomatic expression

text: I may have sounded general in the title but my question is very specific. Recently I was writing a poem and I needed it to rhyme this way > Some will stand to watch you go down quick > > But no one will follow you through thin and thick It didn't seem right to me to change the order in the expression _"through thick and thin"_. Is what I have done acceptable? Or should I stick to the right order?


title: Why is imperialism not spelled empirialism?

text: If the goal of imperialism is to create an empire, why is the word not spelled "empirialism"?


title: Are expressions like "When studying, When playing, ..." just expressions or something more?

text: My first question here. I am wondering whether expressions like the ones in the tittle are just expressions or represent another thing in the english language. I will give you some more examples so you can understand me. Very often I read sentences like these:   * When studying the brain waves of people in the flow, researchers find the slow alpha rhythms typical of meditation.   * When clicking the 'search button' I discovered a bug.   * When playing soccer I feel good. Are above sentences well written? I want to know if this is a simple use of gerund or an expression and how to use it. After the 'when+gerund' part which verb tense can I use?


title: Word with the same meaning as "good moments" or "pleasant memories"?

text: Is there a single word with the same meaning as "good moments" or "pleasant memories"? I'm looking for a word which describes good thing(s) that happened to someone. The only word I can think of is "joy". Some examples might be:   * Wayne has many pleasant memories of the days spent with the family.   * She could remember many good moments from the last weekend.


title: alternatives for 'finding your feet'

text: I need alternatives for the expression > _finding your feet_   >  or   >  _getting used to something / doing something_ Can anyone help?


title: Is "believe you me" proper English?

text: I understand the phrase "believe you me" to be an emphatic version of "believe me" but how did it come to be? Is it a poor translation into English?


I am reading this The Elements of Style book by Strunk and White, I am confused about rule number 11. **A participial phrase at the beginning of a sentence must refer to the grammatical subject** There are several examples given, I understood all except this one:   * On arriving in Chicago, his friends met him at the station. (Wrong)      * When he arrived (or, On his arrival) in Chicago, his friends met him at the station. (Correct) (according to here: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~jms/doc/elos.pdf)   * On arriving in Chicago, he was met at the station by his friends (According to the fourth edition of the book) For me the third one seems correct, but I am confused about the second sentence. Do you think it is correct?


title: What led to the increased usage of "schtupping"?

text: I was listening to a television show the other day and one of the characters used "schtupping": > schtupping -- to have sexual intercourse with Dictionary.com notes that the term's origin is Yiddish: > _shtupn_ -- literally, to push (in), press Etymonline doesn't have the word in its dictionary so I'm not sure how accurate this is. But what really piqued my curiosity is that I've been hearing the word frequently used in pop culture as a humorous reference to sex. Since it seems like such a strange word, I checked on NGrams and noticed something very strange: ![schtupping](http://i.stack.imgur.com/EOtDf.png) The usage rate massively spikes in the 1980s. Why did this increased usage occur? If the word really is of Yiddish origin, it seems like the word should be much, much older than that.


title: Carry we who die in battle

text: A song by the heavy metal band Manowar includes these lines: > Carry we who die in battle > > Over land and sea The "we" sounds wrong for me. I'd use "us" in this sentence. A quick google search didn't show any similar constructions with "we". The "we" is a rather long-drawn sound in the song, so my best guess is that this wouldn't have worked with the sharp, short "us". But it is really completely wrong, or is there some way to justify this usage? Note that all band members are born in the US, so they are native speakers.


title: Use of singular they on articulated sentences

text: I've understood how to use singular they on a single sentence, but the problem comes with articulated sentences like this one: > If a person lies to you this way, they are probably thieves. My doubt is about its correctness, I would also say it this way: > If a person lies to you this way, they are probably a thief. Is the second sentence correct?


title: How do you say "question de cours" in English?

text: In French, _une question de cours_ , is a question in a test for which you just need to know the content of your course. It is an easy question (usually) which does not require any reflection.


title: Is it true that etymology is the leading tool to understand the correct use of words?

text: In discussions about the meanings of words I often find participants bring up the etymologies as though they are conclusive deciding factors. On the other hand there is concept of the "etymological fallacy" as discussed in Wikipedia. Which is true? Or is the truth somewhere between? If words change over history how relevant is their origin to their current meaning? If the etymology of a word is a trump card which can settle debates about correct usage of words does this mean words cannot in fact change over time?


title: What is the meaning of "personnel"? What is its plural form?

text: From Wordweb:   1. Group of people willing to obey orders   2. The department responsible for hiring and training and placing employees and for setting policies for personnel management The two are kind of clashing. One says group ready to obey, while other says group that would make someone obey. Are both meanings valid depending on context? That means, can service staff performing tasks like cleaning be considered as personnel? Also, what is the word's plural form?


title: Differences between 'Ideology' and 'Paradigm'?

text: What are the differences between the terms 'ideology' and 'paradigm'? **paradigm** : the generally accepted perspective of a particular discipline at a given time. **ideology** : an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation I feel that these are very similar in meaning. Could someone give examples of the differences? Thanks.


title: Usage of "would have been"

text: In the movie "A Walk to remember" Jimmie's father says the following to his son-in-law who got into medical school. Actually Jimmie is dead when he says, > We are proud of you, son. Jimmie **would have been proud of you, too**. I wonder if the use of "would have been" is correct in this case. Shouldn't it simply be "would be"? I mean why past of _would_ instead of present?


title: Irregular past tense confusion with compound noun/verb. More examples?

text: Students of martial arts may be familiar with a _breakfall_ , which can (depending on the situation) be treated as a noun or a verb. I am often amused when speakers, even native English speakers (myself included!), stumble over the past tense because of the double-irregularity. I've heard _breakfalled_ , _breakfell_ , _brokefall_ , and _brokefell_ \- most try one combination or another and then switch to _did a breakfall_. I was wondering if people had other examples of this phenomenon, and whether there is a canonically correct past tense form? _EDIT: Prompted by the discussion, for those interested, a breakfall may be defined as any of several ways of 'receiving' a technique, but in Western parlance most often refers to a method of slapping the ground (mat) just at the moment of impact, when you are thrown. This provides a reactive force and lessens the whole body impact if you are unable to roll out. (Seeuke/ukemi for the Japanese perspective)._


title: How to use "for some reason" in a sentence?

text: Some examples (right or wrong, I do not know)   * He went to the store--for some reason.   * He went to the store, for some reason.   * For some reason, she went to the store. A grammatical explanation as to what exactly "for what reason" is would be great too.


title: In what circumstances are people's names shortened and given an '-ers' ending?

text: The Test Match Special team are known variously as Jonners (Brian Johnson - deceased); Aggers (Jonathan Agnew), Blowers (Henry Blofeld), Tuffers (Phil Tuffnell) etc. This laddish public-school nomenclature, outside of cricket, is seldom heard nowadays, in my experience. Does anyone else know of where such chummy banter is exchanged today?


title: What colloquial word is used when you don't remember a word but you want to use something for it?

text: I checked some dictionaries and found out the following words to be used for objects whose names are forgotten: > whatsis, whatchamacallit, thingummy, dohickey, dojigger, doodad, doohickey, > hickey, gizmo, gismo, gubbins, thingamabob, thingumabob, thingmabob, > thingamajig, thingumajig, thingmajig. Which of these words are really used in colloquial cases? What colloquial word do native English speakers use when they don't remember a word at that moment but they still want to use a word instead of it?


title: "Blue sky thinking" phrase

text: Recently I was received mail and found there the `blue sky thinking` phrase as an agenda for the next company team meeting. Quick googling does not bring any appropriate results. What does the `blue sky thinking` mean?


title: Is 'Updation' a correct word?

text: I was wondering whether 'updation' is correct English or not. Sample sentence: I was involved in the updation of the website.


title: "You could do it better" Past/Future?

text: While showing my work to my adviser, he uttered a sentence, "You could do it better!". Is it analogous to:   1. You could have done better **OR**   2. You can do it better (so improve it)? It seems to me this sentence can mean both of these.


title: Is it right to say "Thank you" in the response of "Thank you"?

text: When two persons help each other and one said "thank you" then is it right to say "Thank you" in the response.


title: What is the term for a person with same first and last name?

text: What is it called when a person has the exact same first and last name (and same spelling), whether named by parents or as a result of marriage? For example, _Thomas Thomas_.


title: He took the fun/zing/excitement out of it?

text: I have a expression like this: > He was supposed to tell us about his experiences of his recent trip and we > all were looking forward to it but he took the > **fun/zing/excitement/anything else** out of it as he skipped the LA, Vegas > part. I know they are correct but which one of these is most common/appropriate or in other words most instinctive one.


title: Is this expression correct "Don't worry about it; it is supposed be one of the features of this year's release"

text: I have always been little confused regarding the use of _supposed to_. One meaning I am clear on is "obligation," another one is "a theory/concept accepted by a group of people," as in _This restaurant is supposed to be a good one_. But I can't make any sense out of the sentence given that definition. So is this phrase correct? If so, then how I am supposed to interpret it?


title: "All that glitters" or "Not all that glitters"?

text: In the phrase finder (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/all-that-glitters-is- not-gold.html) I found the "correct" syntax of the saying: "All that glitters is not gold," and that's fine. The saying trips off the tongue quite nicely, I guess, which is good in and of itself. I've also read the OP's question at "All that is gold does not glitter", which does not really pertain to my question, which is this: > How is it that the logically "wrong" syntax becomes accepted and > traditional? In other words, for other than purely stylistic reasons is there a mini-theory which explains the phenomenon? I realize that people prefer on purely stylistic grounds the peculiar syntax of a given saying or quotation . As I said, sometimes the way that words come trippingly off our tongues is sufficient reason for embracing a saying exactly as worded. I also realize that some sayings become accepted into the repertory of a culture's proverbs by simply being repeated over the span of generations. Nevertheless, despite its seeming _almost_ fungible with "All that glitters is not gold," "Not all that glitters is gold" is preferable, logically, is it not? After all, if gold is NOT among all things that glitter, then why does it glitter? I mean, it does glitter, doesn't it? Perhaps I'm making too big a deal of this. Perhaps it's a non-issue. Perhaps language just evolves that way sometimes, and there is nothing necessarily illogical or irrational about it. Even if there is something illogical or seemingly irrational about it, language is, after all, illogical (if not irrational) at times. As the young people say today in their quasi-profound, ersatz way, "It is what it is." To wrap things up, I've posed at least three questions: > Does the basis for an answer to my question come from people's stylistic > preferences? > > Does the basis for an answer to my question come from the phenomenon of > perseveration? Or, > > Does the basis for an answer to my question come from some other explanation > (or from a combination of question one **and** question two **and** some > other explanation)? If I get one down vote, I'll delete the post, but I'm really curious about this!


title: Unexpected appearance

text: What would be the word for something that is opposite its _appearance_? Let me give you an example. Say there is a button that can be pushed which would instantly destroy most of civilization. Let's say that this button was decorated with a picture of a smiley face, or a kitten, or something equally "opposite". What would be the word for the fact that the button, which would destroy the world, was adorned with the picture of a cute, innocent, kitty cat?


title: Does the sentence "I recycle a paper" make sense?

text: Could the following sentence make sense? > I recycle a paper. It's from one of the school English exam's answers, and we're arguing about giving the whole point or half point. The teachers have given the whole point to answers such as "I recycle a piece of paper", "I recyle papers", etc.


title: When writing instructions, is it OK to leave "and" out of a quick chain of commands?

text: I'm editing a series of instructions, and I keep stumbling over this issue of whether using "and" in a chain of similar commands is necessary. > From the Start menu, select All Programs, then Quicktime Player. Is that line fine as is? Or should I add "and"? Maybe take out the comma too? > Select All Programs, and then Quicktime Player. Select All Programs and then > Quicktime Player.


title: What might "three several" mean?

text: The context is from a story I read recently in an omnibus (I found that link on the spur of the moment): > ...were afterwards burnt to death in three several fires. I suppose _three_ was meant, but this use of _several_ stumped me. What did it mean back in 1843?


title: 'Mushed' meaning

text: I've been translating the song by Johnny Horton, _North to Alaska_ and was stuck on the word **_mushed_** : > He talked to his team of huskies as he **mushed** on through the snow Searching through the dictionaries gave me nothing about it. Doesn't it mean 'crawling' or just 'going?' Or, maybe, there's a mistake?


title: What is the Specific Type of Word that Includes Stellar, Sylvan, etc

text: I have recently become fixated on the idea of words which are defined as "of, or relating to, [noun]"- stellar means "of stars", sylvan means "of trees". These are the only two samples that I have been able to find in the wild. Futility Closet fairly recently ran a post that listed roughly 20 of them, and identified them as 'modifiers' [1], but searching for modifiers on google only results in words like nearly or barely, which don't really fit my target. Is there a name for these words or some way I could find samples in a dictionary? [1]http://www.futilitycloset.com/2013/08/22/in-a-word-433/


title: What's the difference between notorious and infamous?

text: Are these two words synonymous or is there any nuance between these two words? Though they are used synonymously in sentences and also followed by the same preposition "for". I want to be expertly responded to these nuances with reference to their adequate collocations.


title: The Appendix in Orwell's 1984

text: After answering a question in SciFi if the Big Brother existed as a real person, I got responses that the last chapter, the Appendix (which can be found here), definitely proves that Oceania ceased to exist because it describes Newspeak from a historical perspective. One proponent cited an essay to put the argument forward. As a non-native speaker and unsure about the exact usage of English, especially during the time the novel was written, I would like to ask if the argument is correct. First I find the usage of the word "Appendix" strange which indicates normally a technical description outside the given text. The whole text sounds for me more like Orwell had worked out the technicalities of the Newspeak, but could not find a place in the novel where it really fits. Second I believe to remember that several old German books used past tense in descriptions, so I wonder if this might have been used in WWII English, too. So:   Does the text (especially "Newspeak _was_ the official language of Oceania and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism") in the Appendix definitely and unambigously prove that a) the Appendix really belongs to the story and   b) Oceania ceased to exist in the future of 1984 ? Further clarifications are welcome.


title: Single word for "time spent"

text: Is there a single word for an amount of time spent on a task for example? More specific than duration?


title: What is this kind of question known as?

text: A question that's not exactly rhetorical but the answer IS implied. for example; "am I annoying you?" you're meant to say no, and they are aware that they are indeed annoying you.


title: "I did it by myself" vs "I did it myself"

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Myself vs by myself "I did it by myself" and "I did it myself"; what's the exact and subtle difference between the two?


title: Once bitten twice shy

text: What is the meaning and origin of the idiom 'once bitten twice shy'?


title: Why do some words become amalgamated?

text: Why do some words in English become joined together and what is the criteria that prevents common phrases of doing the same? For example: > None the less > Nonetheless > > Never the less > Nevertheless > > Some what > Somewhat


title: Term for disrespecting people with lower social condition

text: What is it called if I have a good social condition (education, money, etc.) and I disrespect people with a lower condition?


title: A literary term meaning reversed repetition?

text: A quote from The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss lists > "actors and acrobats, musicians and hand magicians, jugglers and jesters" My first thought on reading it was that "hand magicians and musicians" (ABAB) would have a more quippish tone than "musicians and hand magicians" (ABBA), but upon reflection I decided that such a phrasing would be too singsong, whereas the inversion feels more cleverly poetical to me. Is there a literary term for the inverted repetition of similar sounds? I've come up with _ABBA internal rhyme_ or with _chiastic parallelism_ , but I'm wondering if there's a single word that describes this pattern better.


title: Term for "having terms for everything"

text: Is there a term for the phenomenon of creating a term for every single little thing?


title: A word to depict the degree of currentness

text: Please note that the nature of this question is based on position, not time. We are working on a control similar in functionality (displaying spinnable items, but not only restricted to displaying dates) to iOS' `UIDatePicker`: ![iOS date picker](http://i.stack.imgur.com/73R6u.png) Part of our API allows users to style the items within the control. Using the date picker as a scenario, if the user wants to display the text of the current month in a darker colour, they can write:               opacity: currentness * 0.6 + 0.4      `currentness` is a value from `0` to `1`, with `0` being the at the very top or bottom of the control, and `1` being the centre. `currentness` works well because:   * It very simply describes what the property represents.   * We have another property `current` which is either `true` or `false`, so it is easy to relate to this. It doesn't work well because:   * It's not a widely used term. **I'd like to hear what others think, including any alternative names.** I quite like `presence`, because it's more elegant, although it doesn't do as good of a job at explaining what the property represents. Other names we came up with were `distance` and `offset`, which would represent the distance from the centre of the control. The problem with these is that they would imply the reverse of what we'd like: for `0` to be least current and `1` to be current.


title: Has she heard it or not?

text: I was reading a fairy tale from Andersen, "It's Quite True", and there was one phrase that I don't understand the meaning of - 'she heard and she didn't hear'. It sounds ambiguous to me. I'm confused whether **she's heard it or not**? The context is: _'There it went,' she said. 'Indeed, the more I preen myself, the more beautiful I become!' It was dark all around. Hen sat beside hen, and the one who sat next to her did not sleep. **She heard and she didn't hear** , as indeed you should in this world if you are to have peace of mind. But still she had to tell it to her other neighbor. 'Did you hear what was said here...'_ Thanks!


> I moved to Huntington Beach, California, the home of my favorite band, > Avenged Sevenfold, and started school there as a junior. Are there too many commas in this sentence?


title: How to concisely put that two methods identify shared yet different results

text: What's a very concise, pithy but formal way (register is scientific English) to say that two methods identify the same set of factors involved in a process but that **one** method identifies more factors on top of the shared results? In essence, I what a short statement that captures the following: > Method X and Method Y identifiy a shared set of factors; however, Method X > also identifies some additional factors


title: "A snap on the back" vs. "a snap at the back"

text: > I have the hat which has a snap _on/at_ the back of the hat. Which preposition to use here? This is the sort of thing the sentence refers to: ![Baseball cap with snap-fix strap at the back](http://i.stack.imgur.com/EUOvu.png)


title: Differences between vertical restraints and vertical restrictions in Antitrust Law

text: I've read a lawsuit (link:https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/433/433.US.36.76-15.html) that uses both "vertical restraints" and "vertical restrictions", I'm translating this document so I wonder if there is any difference between these phrases in terms of usage and meaning and whatever you can figure out. I also wonder whether I can use these terms interchangeably. Please use plain english because I'm not a native speaker.


title: Is it appropriate to state a mathematical fact with the word "whenever"?

text: From time to time, in Math textbook, I encounter the statement using _whenever_ , e.g. on page 12 of Horst Herrlich's _Axiom of Choice_ "A has an upper bound in X whenever each pair of elements of A has an upper bound in A." In my mind, the assignment of truth value of a particular mathematical proposition is either a prior belief at the metalevel of reasoning, or a logical consequence of some other more “basic” axioms, both of which are irrelevant to time, which could be specified or not. Why not replace "whenever" by "if" and its timeless synonyms, say, "provided"?


title: "until the end of (the) time(s)"?

text: I'm trying to translate a phrase from Spanish ("Hasta el final de los tiempos") and I was thinking of using one of these phrases:   1. Until the end of time   2. Until the end of the times   3. Until the end of times I googled all these three and all show up in examples so I'm wondering. Should time be singular or plural? Should I use "the"? Personally I like 3) but I'm not sure if this would be valid or the most appropriate.


title: Are there specific terms for "point up" and "point down" pentagram?

text: Pentagrams can have virtually any orientation but the two most common are "point up": !["point up" pentagram](http://i.stack.imgur.com/pVWQc.png) And "point down": !["point down" pentagram](http://i.stack.imgur.com/LFpMF.png) Is there a more appropriate term used to distinguish between these two variants?


title: How to memorize differences between ingenious, ingenuous, and indigenous

text: From etymonline, _ingenious, ingenuous, indigenous_ all share the same roots: _in-_ and _indu-_ mean "in", and "gen" means "produce". But the meanings of the words are not the same. So do you have some ways to remember the differences between their meanings?


title: What is the origin of "nerp" or possibly "nurp"

text: In the 1970s I asked a clerk at the lumber yard in Laguna Beach, California, whether I could have a hole drilled in a door hinge so I could put a set-screw in it. That would prevent the removal of the hinge, an action which would permit a miscreant to open the door even though it was locked.The clerk said, "So you want to have it nerped?" I have not had occasion to learn whether that word is still in use... or its origin.


title: Can "good" and "well" be used interchangeably?

text: I told someone I was doing good in my new community, and they thought I was talking about my well being. When I told them that I meant I was doing good in the community like in a helping out "do-gooder" sort of way, they told me that "good" and "well" can be used interchangeably in my context and _always_ refer to one's well being. But doesn't only the word "well" mean state of health to avoid misunderstandings like this? Doesn't "I've been doing good in the new community" mean I have been doing good things in the community to help out? And doesn't "I've been doing well in the new community" mean that I am healthy, not being harassed by the community members and whatnot?


title: When does "in-" mean which: "not" or "in"

text: "in-" can mean "not", for example, "inept", or "in", for example, "intoxicant". Are there some general principles that will help us know when "in-" means which: "not" or "in"?


What do you call unclean water that you can't see through? Probably contaminated with dirt, prolonged stagnation or mineral erosion, almost pale brown, like stagnated water on a rainy day.


title: How to join two phrases sharing a common ending

text: One of my professors asked me if I would be working on an assignment alone or in a group. I responded by saying: > I was looking at the assignment and I feel that I am capable of, and > therefore would benefit more from, doing it on my own. The second comma feels a little out of place, yet I think it is necessary because it denotes the point at which two threads join together: > I am capable of doing it on my own. and > I would benefit more from doing it on my own. If I were speaking, it feels natural to pause at that point, but the comma still seems odd. Am I structuring this sentence properly or is there a better way?


title: "Archetype" vs. "stereotype"

text: In terms of usage, is it fair to say that an archetype is a broader description of a class than a stereotype? Here’s a reference to the usage of archetype becoming blurry in my mind. Mindy Kaling, in a _New York Times_ article called “Flick Chicks”, describes different types of women characters who show up repeatedly in chick flicks. At one point, she refers to the Woman-Who-Runs-An-Art-Gallery type as a film _archetype_ yet her description of this archetypal character is quite one dimensional. Would _stereotype_ be a better term for these chick flick “archetypes”? The piece has a satirical tone, so I do admit that she overstates at times for effect.


title: "Mold" vs. "Mould"

text: While writing about a factory that produces pipes, I needed to refer to how the metal was melted and put into molds/moulds. Which one is it, and is there a correct spelling or are both acceptable?


title: One adj. word for "have never been used before"?

text: I am programmer and want to say "The programming language I have never used before" in very short word like "... programming language" What could that be?


title: Word for delimiters which are placed after each item?

text: The word "separator" can be used to describe delimiters which are placed between items. For instance, in this sequence: "abbbabbbabbbabbba" The 'b's separate the 'a's. I'm looking for a word similar to "separator" which can be used to describe delimiters in this sequence: "abbbabbbabbbabbbabbb" The 'b's come after each 'a'. Examples of this are periods after sentences and, in programming, semicolons after statements.


title: What is the term for sentences like these?

text: What are sentences like " _men are to women as culture is to nature_ " called?


title: Should initial e's after h-dropping be capitalized?

text: A new Victorian-set British novel begins sentences containing h-dropping with lower-case e's, as in " 'e took my money, 'e did." This seems incorrect but I'm at a loss to find the rule.


title: Difference between a sweater and a sweatshirt

text: Many clothing websites use distinct categories for both sweaters and sweatshirts. But what is the difference?


title: Who was real Frank (Lee)? Anybody know this?

text: In film actor George Kloony ask man 'can I be Frank'? But his name not Frank it Michael Clayten (I think). I get confuse so ask very good English teacher Paul. He say me Frank mean he honest man and you can speak to Frank Lee to be honest man also'. This very interesting. But later I think who real 'Frank Lee' was from a history. Like other stack exchange question I want ask where usage 'speak to Frank lee' to mean honest come from. I spend 3 hours 16 minuts on an internet find many names Frank lee but not correct one. Secondly I look 2 hours 34 minuts in oxford dictionery of national biograph but cannot find name Frank Lee. Then I try wikipedia find Frank Lee politician 1867-1941 might be the man but say nothing he is honest. Is this real Frank Lee? Please help me my friends!


title: Difference between "penetrate" and "compenetrate"

text: According to Merriam-Webster: penetrate — to pass into or through compenetrate — to penetrate throughout What is the difference between the two? Are they synonymous?


title: Term for verb+adverb with distinct meaning

text: There are verbs that, when paired with certain adverbs, can have a distinctly different meaning. For example, > I _looked up_ the word in the dictionary. The phrase _looked up_ functions as a verb with a distinct meaning than _looked_ in a sentence like > I _looked_ ridiculous. In all of these two-word verb examples I can think of, they become a single word when used as a noun or adjective: > The software performs millions of lookups per second. Is there a term for these verb+adverb pairs, and, if so, what is it? Additional examples: _back up_ , _run off_ , _hang out_ Once upon a time, I though these were called _verbals_ , but that was wrong. The term _verb phrase_ is not quite right either; a verb phrase generally encompasses additional modifiers, objects, etc.


title: Non-derogatory term similar to "inflexible"

text: I'm looking for a word that's somewhat similar to _inflexible_ , but non- derogatory, used to describe a characteristic of a person or their habits. For example, let's say we have someone who really cares about their oral health. He brushes his teeth on time shortly after every meal and tries to keep his teeth-brushing to no more than three times daily because he believes brushing too much is harmful to the teeth. As a result, he tries to avoid snacking whenever possible. So, he doesn't take any snack beverage or any food like chocolate, chips, coffee, fries, etc. outside of his three main meals during his commute or at social gatherings, parties, etc. even when offered. When offered he will politely refuse or save them for later until a main meal. Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing. His behaviour shows that he is a pretty [...] person, or he is being pretty [...] about his oral health?


title: To make a noun to describe everything that is known well, would it be 'the well-known'?

text: Does the hyphen belong there? Thanks!


title: "Now is the time to" or "Now is time to" – Which is correct?

text: Which of the following two phrases is correct? > Now is the time to   >  Now is time to Or are both of them correct? And if so is "Now is the time to" more formal?


title: Why is the noun 'sex' uncountable?

text: According to the definition of the noun 'sex' in dictionaries, it means 'the _PHYSICAL ACTIVITY_ that two people do together in order to produce babies or for pleasure.' If so, why isn't it countable? > **'I had sex with her last night.'** but not **'I had A sex / TWO sexes her > last night.'** How do you count the activity? You go like 'I had sex with her twice.'? I think that in general, a countable noun has a beginning and an end, viewed as a whole entity, while an uncoutable noun is undifferentiated and lacking in defined limits. Could the activity of sex continue no end? It must have a beginning and an end. The human can't do it forever even if he was cut out for it. Just saying the word is in itself an uncountable noun is a circular logic. > **You could have A shag with her if you ask her out tomorrow.** why is 'shag' countable, while 'sex' is not? Both seem to refer to the same activity. * * * You say >   * **Let's go for a drive.** >   * **I take a shower every day.** >   * **I had a walk in the morning.** >   * **I'm going for a stroll.** > All the nouns refer to activities, and are used with the indefinite article. I really want to know what you have in mind about the interesting noun 'sex' and the reason why it isn't countable.


title: Comparisons: "so [adjective/adverb] as" or "as [adjective/adverb] as"

text: When learning how to make comparisons, students of English as a foreign language are first told to use the structure "as [adjective/adverb] as". However, at higher levels, they are told that both options ("as/so [adjective/adverb] as") are correct. I've been wondering if there are any differences between them, but I can't find an answer in my grammar (Cambridge Grammar of English). In a school book, I saw two examples that led me to think that:   1. "as [adverb] as" is possible with both positive and negative sentences   2. "so [adverb] as" is only possible in negative sentences Is this correct? If so, does it also apply to adjectives? Examples for adjectives:   * This is as good as that.    * This is so good as that.   * This isn't as good as that.    * This isn't so good as that. Examples for adverbs:   * Anne plays as well as John.    * Anne plays so well as John. (not correct?)   * Anne doesn't play as well as John.   * Anne doesn't play so well as John.


title: "Angels fall, they are towers": what is "towers" here? Froma poem by G.M.Hopkins

text: From a poem of G. M. Hopkins titled "The Shepherd’s brow, fronting forked lightning, owns": > THE SHEPHERD’S brow, fronting forked lightning, owns > > The horror and the havoc and the glory > > Of it. Angels fall, they are **towers** , from heaven—a story > > Of just, majestical, and giant groans. What does "towers" mean here? Angels are supposed to be beings with wings. Doesn't seem to make sense.


title: "Not so much as...but..." or "not so much as...but as...?"

text: What's more grammatically correct? > I knew she would be standing here, waiting for me. **No, not so much as > waiting but *expecting me to be here.** or > I knew she would be standing here, waiting for me. **No, not so much as > waiting but as expecting me to be here.**


title: take into (an) account

text: Coming from an articleless language, I often have problems with things like this: > take something into account > > take something into **an** account Are both phrases correct? If yes, is there a difference?


title: Happiness + bewilderment =?

text: I am looking for a word that combines _happiness_ and _bewilderment_. Say, A and B are long forgotten friends. After a long time B sends A very very good news. A is looking for a short message, a word that expresses his happiness and bewilderment in response to the news. What would be the word combining these two — _happiness_ and _bewilderment_?


title: "never did" vs "never does"

text: Is the following sentence grammatical? : > Jack splits a blade of grass. He won't speak up. Never does. Tom will. > Always does. For some reason it sounds weird. I was wondering shouldn't it have been _"never did"_ instead of _"never does"_? What's the difference between the sentence above and this below? : > Jack splits a blade of grass. He won't speak up. Never did. Tom will. Always > did.


title: Origin of the phrase "under your belt"?

text: Today, I found myself discussing what students should have "under their belts" during a lecture, and I wondered to myself if there was some inappropriate undertone here that I might be unaware of. > **Question** : What is the origin of the phrase "under your belt"? A google search revealed some webpages (e.g. [1]) that assert its origin is related to consumption of food -- once a meal has been eaten, it's under your belt (which is a relief). However, with such websites, I have no way to determine fact from "random guy on the internet making stuff up".


title: English words mockingly derived from French?

text: According to Wikipedia, up to 30% of English words come from French, and I'm interested in a special subset of them. Not "loan words", but words that seem potentially derived in jest. For example, "hoosegow" seems to be a tongue-in-cheek corruption of the Spanish "jusgado". Three possible examples of cheerful manglings of "Frank-ase" are:   * "Mush" (verb) from _marchons_.   * "Alley-oop" from _allez hop_.   * "Crawdad" from _écrevisse_ \+ ¿dad? (I was told "dad" was mocking "dey at".) I've seen Western old-timers obviously relishing the use of those words around their Creole acquaintances. And, thousands of French words made it into English, with less alteration, both before and since these two examples. So, two questions:   1. What are some more of these words? Or better yet a good source of them? (My Google-fu has failed me.)   2. Any evidence to support or disprove the conjecture that these word-hijackings are mocking highfalutin French usage?


title: Is "case-sensitively" a word?

text: A colleague just asked about comparing values "case sensitively". I see those words together on technical sites, but nowhere else. I myself see no problem with the phrase, though it sounds a bit awkward. Is there a better single-word substitute for "in a case-sensitive fashion"?


title: "in response to" vs "for response to"?

text: "I am writing in response to your mail." What does it mean by "in" in this sentence? Is "I am writing for response to your mail." acceptable?


title: "Copyright on" or "Copyright to"?

text: What is the difference between "Copyright on something" and "Copyright to something", if any? Can I also say "I have rights on something" or only "I have rights to something" is correct?


title: Is there a word for "25 years" like "bicentennial" for 200 years? Is it "Quadranscentennial"?

text: I was looking for a word that means "25 years" in the way that "bicentennial" refers to 200 years. Wikipedia suggests "Quadranscentennial", but I can't find extensive use of that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anniversary Is there any word for what I'm looking for?


title: "Not listening" or "over ruled"; which is correct?

text: > I gave certain instruction to my subordinate, but he overruled my > instruction and acted on his own. Is it correct to say my subordinate overruled my instruction?


title: "would't have " or " would have't"

text: I did a worke without my bosse's permission. He told me that don't do nothing without his permission . Then which I can say among below sentance Sorry "I would't have done it without your permission" "I would have't done it without your permission"


title: Meaning and origin of 'concinnity' in an economics context

text: Wiktionary reads: > _concinnity_ : The harmonious reinforcement of the various parts of a work > of art. > Call it corporate social responsibility at work if you wish, but we simply > think that under Howard Shultz's inspired and inspiring leadership Starbucks > is just a damned well-managed company that has achieved the _concinnity_ > that distinguishes companies operating under the nontraditional FoE business > model. (Google Book's source) Since I don't have OED access, can anybody say from where **this** metaphorical usage of the noun 'concinnity' comes? And what is, precisely, its meaning in non-literary contexts? _P.S. Considering the relevance of this word in an economics context, I tagged this question by 'economics' tag._


title: What word can be used in place of "but" in writing or statements

text: I frequently write in online forums, mainly with regard to mental health materials and concepts. I struggle with grammatical correctness and the word _but_ gets inserted throughout a lot of my paragraphs, often repeated within a few lines. Sometimes I use the word _yet_ instead, but (there's that word again) unthinkingly revert back to _but_. The word, in the context of the writing, feels juvenile and redundant. So far, I have used _yet_ and _though_ **but** haven't found any other words to use and even these begin to sound tiresome. What else is there?


title: Referring to past times with "hence"

text: From Tor.com, an interesting use of the word _hence_ : > Minutes ago, J.K. Rowling finally announced her plans behind Pottermore, the > mysterious website that appeared **a week hence** with only a “Coming Soon” > sign to warns readers and fans. For me, the word _hence_ can only be used to refer to times in the future, and the writer of the above quote should have used _ago_. However, _hence_ is a pretty rare word, and it's possible that the past usage of _hence_ is in fact standard, but I've never noticed it. Is the past usage of _hence_ sanctioned by any important authorities? Does it have a long tradition of usage? Or did the writer trip herself up trying to be fancy? **Update** : The answers below all agree, but I'm looking for someone that can produce some actual evidence from usage or a respected authority. I've started a bounty with that in mind.


title: Is the sentence "It is removed" grammatically correct?

text: There is another form of the same sentence — "It has been removed". But in the sentence "It is removed," the last word is an adjective so I believe it is correct as well. Am I right?


title: Defining profit loss in laymans terms - without using loss in the explanation

text: I'm updating a training manual and need to define loss (in the context of a business) in a simple sentence. Currently it reads as (previous author): > Loss: Loss is profit loss due to product theft, damage, or sold at the > incorrect price I'm not sold on the overall wording, thinking along the lines of: > Loss: Loss is unmade profit due to the theft, damage, or incorrect sale of a > product. Two things:   * 1: I feel like 'unmade profit' isn't 100% correct English - is that the case? Or if nothing else, it feels like a stumbling block.   * 2: Incorrect sale doesn't carry with it that the product was priced incorrectly and sold at this wrong price. Yet to say "due to the theft, damage, or incorrectly marked and sale of a product" seems too lengthy to be part of the 3 facets of profit loss. Is there a single word (like theft, damage) that wraps 'incorrect price and sale of', so I can say "due to the theft, damage, ? of a product" ?


title: Are "preaching to the choir" and "preaching to the converted" synonymous

text: The following are acceptable expressions that I have heard: > "Preaching to the choir" > > "Preaching to the converted" To me, both mean essentially that you are trying to explain something to someone who already understands it. So you are wasting your time. _( **Edit** : Although GEdgar's definition is better: "Arguing a controversial subject only with those who already share your opinion")_ My friend is suggesting that there is a subtle difference in the meaning between the two. Is he right? _**Edit** : He suggests that the former has the implied context that very few people are listening- preachers normally preach to a congregation. The latter does not._


title: The meaning of mingle

text: If a girl tells you that she is single and ready to mingle, does _mingle_ here mean that she is ready to “hook up”? ¹ * * * 1\. That is, to have casual sexual intercourse.


title: Keen on vs keen to

text: I would need to understand the difference between the following sentences: > I am very keen to do that.   >  I am very keen on doing that.   >  I am keen that I can do that.


title: Appropriate usage of articles for the same words in different sentences

text: When writing about the same thing in several sentences, mainly in definitions, I am often confused about when to switch from the indefinite article to the definite article. Which rule can be applied to this? ### Consider this example: > Suppose we have **a** tree T and **a** vertex v in T. We say that **the** > vertex v is **a** leaf in **the** tree T if its degree is 1. In the first sentence, I would use the indefinite articles, because I only introduce the terms to the reader. In the second sentence, however, I would prefer to use "the vertex v", since I have already introduced it and it is clear for both me and the reader what we are talking about. Similarly, I would prefer to use "the tree T". On the other hand, I would use "a leaf", because this term has not been mentioned before. Is that correct? Or maybe I am just overusing the articles? This is just a minimum example, maybe trying to be a little too expressive. But I am sure there are real-world situations, where such a switch from the indefinite articles to the definite ones must be made. And I am just wondering how to do it properly.


title: Verb agreement for something that was discussed in the past, while the issue still exists in the present

text: How do you write something that was discussed in the past, while the issue still exists in the present? >   1. The discussion resulted in the committee members highlighting crucial > areas that **need** to be addressed if one **is to** achieve the desired > outcome...... >   2. The discussion resulted in the committee members highlighting crucial > areas that **needed** to be addressed if one **were to** achieve the desired > outcome...... >


title: subject - verb - ? and parsing

text: Compare these 2 sentences:   1. The capital of Belgium is Brussels.   2. Brussels is the capital of Belgium. I have a few questions:   1. What is the grammatical name of the non-subject, non-verb part in the first sentence?   2. If you dissect these sentences, you have the structure noun-verb-noun (I think). How can you can you tell which of the 2 nouns is the subject and which is the other grammatical construct?   3. is the verb "to be" transitive or intransitive in this case?


title: Mixing adjectives and nouns in scientific writing

text: I've noticed that biological scientists tend to use nouns as adjectives when detailing experiments both in writing and in speech. Examples:   1. The experiment was performed "in monkey cortex" instead of "in a monkey's cortex", "in simian cortex", "in the cortex of a monkey" and so on.   2. I study "rat cognition" instead of "cognition by/in rats" or "rodent cognition".   3. We used a "mouse model" instead of "murine model", "rodent model". However, people _do_ say that they study "human cognition" not "people cognition". One could argue that scientific writing is as it does. Or, that as long as the writing is clear this point is immaterial. But, interchanging nouns and adjectives does exercise some people.   1. Example 1 beginning on slide 68   2. Example 2   3. Example 3 <\-- A list of _frequent problems_ in scientific writing Does this occur in other technical areas? More speculatively, does it suggest something about grammar simplification, perhaps because many people who grew up speaking different languages must communicate in a technical version of English? Is it just an unnecessary abstraction? N.B.: I'm not singling out biologists. I just can't speak about any other group firsthand.


Is there any difference in meaning between "She is not around" and "She is not here"? I heard both, but never quite got the difference.


title: What job is a “word processor”?

text: I don’t mean as a program like Microsoft Word, but as a job. If someone says, “I found a job as a word processor,” what is this person doing? (My first guess would be typing).