title: Testing software by giving the output back as input

text: I want to apply an integrity test to a software by giving it input which is based on its output of a previous calculation. If the new output is then again the same as the previous output, the software has passed this check. Is there an English term that describes this kind of test? Integrity test? Self-consistency test? Or more on the technicality of the test something like feedback test? EDIT: It is a scientific model fitting software, where the result is a best- fit model, and the input an observation. So I simulate an observation of the best-fit model and put that back into the fitting software. Then I want to see if the result is the same as the previous best-fit model. If the test fails, the results might e.g. 'drift-off' (if the model would be the percentage of male vs female students, feeding an observation from the last result might increase the percentage of males, and an observation of that fed back into the software might increase the percentage further). I realize from the answers and comments that this test might not have a common/well-known English name, so I might ask on statistic or software QA. **Fixed point test** seems to be the term that describes best what I'm looking for. However, some answers are clearly **not** what I was looking for: **regression testing** does not refer to giving a (modified) result back as input, but just to compare archived results with current results. **recursion** seems to apply an algorithm, not a test. Also, in recursion algorithms, the idea is mostly that the result changes over time.


title: What's the difference between 'addictive' and 'addicting'?

text: Some people use 'addicting game' and others use 'addictive drugs' - What's the proper usage?


title: "Free bacteria!" on mineral water bottles

text: When I was traveling in Vietnam 15 years ago, I had great fun discovering on mineral water bottles the proud advertisement _Free bacteria!_. Is it common in English that the position of the adjective (before or after a word) changes drastically the meaning of the sentence? I'd like to read more examples.


title: Can something be "exactly" and "probably"?

text: I was watching a breakfast show the other day and a reporter was at a museum where they had an exhibition that the lady said was: > _Exactly_ like what the scientists think the surface of Mars is probably > like Is this possible? Can something be _exactly_ like something that's probable?


title: Is "best" an adverb?

text: In the sentence below, is _best_ an adverb? If so, what does it modify, _left_ or _are_? > We’re best **left** alone.


title: Origin of using "clocked" to mean "noticed"

text: The word "clocked" can be used to mean "noticed", as in: > Bob: I'm gonna park here a minute. Did you see any traffic wardens about. > > Geoff: Actually, I **clocked** one down the road on my way up. I'm not sure how widespread this term is, but it's very common here (The Midlands, UK). I've always thought it a bit of a curious term. Can anyone suggest as to how this usage came about. It is something to do with "time" (i.e. "clocking" someone on a stopwatch)?


title: Correct usage of "so would" and "a priori"

text: Is this phrase syntactically correct? > Because X may take different forms, **_a priori so would_** Y. I am especially asking about the usage of "so would", but also about the place of "a priori". Maybe it is better to say > Because X may take different forms, **_a priori it would be the same for_** > Y.


title: "The" and superlative of uncountable noun — "the clearest water"?

text: Uncountable nouns are usually used without an article. Superlatives require definite article. What comes out of these 2 rules when superlative meets uncountable article? We need an example, I hope it is good: > This lake has clear water. > > This lake has clearest water. > > This lake has the clearest water. When I searched the web I found both "clearest water" and "the clearest water". I read on this site, that in informal speech _the_ is frequently omitted, so let's concentrate on formal speech or writing. If there is Am/Br specific it would also be interesting. Please comment on the examples and in general. Thanks.


title: "What/when is the right time for doing this?"

text: Which one of the following sounds more natural? >   * **What** is the right time for doing this? >   * **When** is the right time for doing this? > It seems like these both mean the same thing. If they convey different meanings, what is the difference?


title: Word meaning excess pieces of fabric

text: There’s a word I’m trying to recall, it means something such as “extra pieces of fabric hanging from clothing.” I believe it ends with _-gibles_ or _-gables_ , and perhaps it starts with _im-_ or _ex-_ , and it’s a noun. I’ve spent the last hour trying to figure it out.


title: Difference between "vague", "unclear" and "ambiguous"

text: What is the difference between "vague", "unclear" and "ambiguous"? All three have the same meaning to me, so when should each be used?


title: origin of the expression "never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel"

text: What is the origin of the expression "you argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel"? I heard it on the news and I would like to know who coined the expression.


title: What's the correct term for horizontally and vertically on a map?

text: The horizontal (left-right) dimension is called longitude. The vertical (top- bottom) is called latitude. However, I'm not sure how to adjectivize and adverbize those terms. The best shot expressing the meaning I can think of is " _latitude-wise_ " for the vertical case. Here, I have two questions. Is there a more sophisticated term for that? And if not... What is the most recommended way to express the work-around of mine?   a. latitude-wise   b. latitudewise   c. latitude wise   d. latidudelly   e. lati-what-ever-else-combo-might-be-conceiveable Of course, the same wonderings go for the horizontal dimension, i.e. " _longitude-wise_ ". However, I'd be strongly surprised if it differed in principle from the vertical one.


title: Indenting Lettrines or Drop Caps

text: A lettrine or _drop cap_ is a large initial letter (usually with some illustration) at the start of a chapter in a book. In the English language, which is preferable: "lettrine" or "drop cap"? Incidentally, is it correct to indent a lettrine?


title: "Is idle" or "Is idling"

text: I'm working on an app which displays status messages, like:   * "XY is now available"   * "XY is now offline" I'm wondering which of the followings is correct:   * "XY is now idle"   * "XY is now idling"


title: Can I also use 'outsource' to refer to goods, not just work or service?

text: I know _to outsource_ is to subcontract work to another company. But for example if company A, a TV maker, wants to buy panels from a panel making company B instead of producing panels themselves, can we say: > Company A outsources panels from company B. If not, how else can we put it?


title: What's the meaning of "Bueller" as a joke?

text: Somewhere on the internet I've read about a guy ordering a coffee in the name of " _Bueller_ ". Apparently, the cashier called out that name repeatedly. I've looked up the term but it gave me no clue as to why it's so hilarious. Is that a cultural reference or a linguistic one?!


title: When 'business' means a 'company', how do I use the word?

text: _Business_ can sometimes mean _company_ or _firm_. However, can it be used in the way _company_ or _firm_ are used? For example, can I say:- >   * "He is the CEO of the business." > >   * "It's a TV business." > >   * "A business dealing with drugs." > >


title: Expression for "Respect them and suspect them"

text: There is a Hebrew expression explained here: > A common Hebrew expression is "Respect them and suspect them". We should > always act in a respectful way towards others, but that doesn't obligate us > to trust them with our property. The source of this is in a story of the > Talmudic sage Rabbi Yehoshua. A complete stranger asked to stay the night. > Rabbi Yehoshua obliged him by giving him a room in the attic, but also > exercised prudence by removing the ladder so that the guest wouldn't be able > to sneak out. The guest turned out in fact to be a thief; he wrapped all the > valuables in the top floor in a cloak and tried to sneak out, but fell in > the dark because of the missing ladder, and was caught red-handed. > (http://www.aish.com/ci/be/48918612.html) Do we have an expression in English to this effect?


title: Correct usage of "help" and parallelism

text: I want to combine "A helps B to Verb1." and "A helps C to Verb2." into one sentence. However, "A helps B Verb1." and "A helps C Verb2." are also correct sentences. ("to" can be omitted.) So, my question is: Are there any incorrect sentences among the following?     1. "A helps B to Verb1 and helps C to Verb2."   2. "A helps B to Verb1 and C to Verb2."   3. "A helps B Verb1 and C Verb2." Here are examples.   1. This test will help students to find their talents and it will help their parents to understand them.   2. This test will help students to find their talents and their parents to understand them.   3. This test will help students find their talents and their parents understand them.


title: hand-holding versus holding hands

text: An author has this sentence: > Kids should not be forced to show physical affection through hugs, kisses, > roughhousing, lap sitting, or handholding. I checked the dictionary* to see if _handholding_ needed a hyphen, and saw that the definition in the dictionary related to the metaphorical use of the term to mean "solicitous attention, support, or instruction (as in servicing clients)." Is there not a way to use the -ing form of the word to mean the literal act of holding hands? Do I need to change the sentence to _holding hands_ to avoid confusion? > Kids should not be forced to show physical affection through hugs, kisses, > roughhousing, lap sitting, or holding hands. * * * *Updated in response to comments: I actually checked two online dictionaries: _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary_ and _Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary_ , which includes _Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged_. Both gave only the definition I quoted above.


title: Name for number format used in "Section 3.2.1"

text: Does that kind of numbering style have a common name or names? To be fair, it is really more of an "identifier" since it certainly not a scalar (one- dimensional) number. It isn't fair to call it a floating point number either. If I were to hazard two guesses, I would say:   * a document identifier (but that seems so vague)   * a multi-dotted number (silly, yes, but it gets the points across) So in reality, I've got nothing.


title: Would you start this with "however" or "but"?

text: The Chicago Manual (2013) calls _however_ a "ponderous" way to begin a sentence, while _but_ is more direct--it has more "impact." So let's put this stricture to the test with a sentence from UPenn's "National Map" of American dialect. What would you English Language Users choose to start the third sentence? > "Many scholars believe that there are no discrete dialect boundaries, and > that there are no clear and discrete dialect divisions of a language. That > is the explicit position of Carver 1987, whose location of American dialect > boundaries on the basis of regional vocabulary is not radically different > from our own. **However** , the results to be given here show clear and > distinct dialect boundaries, delineating areas with a high degree of > internal homogeneity."


title: Is "gonna have to" an Americanism?

text: First of all, I have read the answers about "gonna have to" usage, and they are quite clear: > _I am gonna have to vs I have to_ and > why-prefix-a-request-with-im-going-to-have-to-ask-you The answers say that the extra words work as a politeness device. OK. But I have heard _gonna have to_ only from American English speakers, so my question is: Is it an Americanism?


title: Confusion with 3 forms of the same sentence

text: I've a doubt about the formation of a sentence. There are 3 forms of the same sentence which I'm confused with. >   1. This is your plan which is what I'm a part of. >   2. This is your plan which is I'm a part of. >   3. This is your plan which I'm a part of. > Can anyone explain which form is the correct one & why ?


title: expression "get above/off your sofas"

text: Is the expression "get above your sofas" equivalent to "get off your sofas" or have they got different meanings? PS: I was sitting on my sofa when I heard that...


title: What does "flush to the top" mean?

text: "Place your hand around the neck of the bottle, so that your hand is flush to the top". From WikiHow.


title: What does "to whip the burn with a cardinal" mean?

text: In "Five Red Herrings," at least in the BBC TV adaptation, Lord Peter Wimsey declares at one point that he plans to "whip the burn with a cardinal." He seems to be referring to fishing. The _burn_ is a stream; we suppose _whipping_ refers the motion of the fishing rod, maybe a particular technique. But what does he mean by a _cardinal?_ None of the usual senses of the word (a bird, a church official, a number) seem to make sense here. Is it some sort of red bait or lure? Later on, Wimsey catches a trout, if that helps at all. P.S. I found this line of fishing reels called Cardinal, but I have no idea whether they're old enough to be known by Wimsey.


title: Born(e) (out?) of the desire

text: I'd be most grateful to anyone who could tell me which of the following is right   * xyz was born out of the desire to...   * xyz was born of the desire to...   * xyz was borne out of the desire to...   * xyz was borne of the desire to...   * xyz was born of desire to...   * xyz was borne of desire to... The context is is an explanation of how/why a software utility was created.


title: What meaning does the word "remaining" add to a sentence?

text: From a paragraph that I was reading about the inoculation theory had this sentence: > Those receiving a one-sided message showed almost no **_remaining_** > attitude change after they were exposed to counterpropaganda. What confuses me in this sentence is the word _remaining_. By reading the sentence without the word remaining, it reads as "showed almost no attitude change", which means the attitude of the people stays the same. Now, with the word " _remaining_ " added, I don't quite understand what extra meaning is added to the sentence. Does the sentence mean there is " _almost no attitude change_ " or " _a great change in attitude_ "? Similarly, in the _paragraph's_ following sentence, probably talking about its converse, using the word "remaining" again: > In contrast, those receiving a two-sided message showed almost as much > attitude change **_remaining_** after counter propaganda as they did when > they were not exposed to counterpropaganda. Again, the word "remaining" confuses me about the logical of the sentence. Does it mean that there is a change or not change?


title: Does the word "discussion" imply any length?

text: Does a discussion among two or more people have to have a certain amount of words or sentences or people involved? I'm interested in both the technically correct definition and the way people use the word. I always thought that every person said to be involved in the discussion must speak more than one sentence for it to be considered a discussion. Is this right or could a person asking a question and another replying constitute a discussion? The dictionary definitions I read didn't say anything about length. This is why I ask about common use. I presume most people would agree one person saying to another "we need more chairs" without the other person giving a response, is not a discussion, though it seems to fit the dictionary definition. **Edit:** so then where is the distinction between speech and discussion or a speech with a question period at the end? For example in school you wouldn't say a class is a discusion with the teacher just because the students have the opertunity to ask a question.


How should I fill these blanks on an agreement? The agreement starts like this; **__ legally represented by ___** , residing at **__ on __** hereinafter referred as "Contractor"... 1)Name 2)as the person not company herself/himself? 3)Address 4)? Is "residing at ... on ..." a common usage? I searched but couldn't find anyting like this.


title: What does the reviewer mean?

text: I submitted my paper in a journal and after five months the reviewer replied as follows. I cannot understand him. Would you please let me what is really he means ( **bold** words below). Words are omitted ('even [if] an intruder', p. 3), misspelled ('asses' instead of 'assess', p. 4), and **extraneous** ('a multi-objective problem is about to find a vector', p. 6). Some of the carelessness is **substantive** (e.g., the definition of pareto dominance, p. 7). In my Paper: ![In my paper](http://i.stack.imgur.com/BLj8o.png) Thank you for your help.


title: Impugned and pugn'd

text: In Jingo, by Terry Pratchet, Lord Vetinari says: > "... Sergeant Colon and Corporal Nobbs have never _been_ pugn'd in their > entire lives." What about "pugn'd"? Is it just a contraction for "impugned" or there is pun that a non-native like me can't spot?


title: Origin of the word "mainframe"?

text: What might be the origin of the word "mainframe" for describing a type of computer?


title: "Deliver using/with/by the certificate"

text: In the fragment "to complete and deliver construction works to the customer using the Certificate of Work Completion", how can I change the word _using_ (in the sense of "by what means")? Should I write "with the Certificate" or "by the Certificate"? Or is there a better option still?


title: When we should use "freak out" & when "afraid"

text: What is the difference between _freak out_ and _afraid_? When should we use _freak out_ and when _afraid_?


title: An adjective which suggests "does not support itself"?

text: I'm looking for an adjective which suggests that the noun it modifies can't support or justify itself, thinking mainly in terms of an argument. There is "self-defeating", but this isn't the sense I'm looking for. I don't want to suggest that the argument has proved itself _wrong_ , but rather it has failed to prove itself _right_. E.g. > A.J. Ayer's verification principle is [failing to support itself] because > the statement "Only verifiable statements are meaningful" is not itself > verifiable."


title: "Scratch-work" synonym

text: Mathematicians often have to perform calculations on paper (maybe often is an understatement). To describe this, I have always referred to it as "scratch- work". Is there any alternate way I could refer to this in a more formal or professional way?


title: What is a "paying gig"?

text: I was invited to do a project for someone, and she mentioned " _Obviously this is a paying gig._ " What exactly would this mean?


title: Is Australian English closer to US English or British English?

text: It would seem obvious to me that Australian English is closer to British English due to the historical events that led to English people living here. But it seems when differences occur that US English aligns more. Is this due to content from the US vs. Great Britain?


title: Is it rude to call a gay person "homosexual?"

text: I was talking to one of my co-workers today. We have two homosexual persons in our office. I forgot one's name, so I asked my co-worker, "What's his name?" My co-worker said "Who?", and I replied, "one of the homosexual persons." Then, my co-worker told me that it is rude to call them "homosexual". I used "homosexual" because I thought it was better than "gay". Am I wrong?


title: Antonym of altruist

text: I'm trying to find an antonym for altruist but Google searching has been fruitless. The section of sentence is "... a population of altruists will therefore be fitter than a population of _non-altruists_." Would **egoists** work?


title: Proper term for people from eastern Asia

text: I once posted an article on the web in which I referred collectively to people from China, Japan, and the Koreas as "Oriental". I got an email from someone who informed me that this is an offensive term and that I should call such people by the specific country of origin -- "Chinese" or whatever -- or collectively as "Asians". She claimed that "Oriental" refers to an object, like "an Oriental vase", and is insulting when applied to a person. I consider "Asian" inappropriate as it would include Siberians, Afghans, Pakistanis, etc. And of course "Chinese" is unacceptable if you want to include Japanese, Koreans, and related cultures. So my question is: Do people from this part of the world really find the word "Oriental" offensive? If so, what term do they prefer for themselves? I'd be particularly interested in hearing from someone who actually is of Japanese, Chinese, etc., background, rather than an American or European saying what he thinks someone else thinks. (Frankly I thought the argument about "Oriental" applying to an object was a little curious. I call myself an "American". I don't find it at all offensive that the same word used to describe me as a human being is also used to describe objects, like "American cars", "American food", etc. Both people and objects can be from the same physical place, so I don't see any problem with using the same adjective to describe both. But maybe there are different connotations to the word "Oriental". )


title: Is "embiggen" considered a formal or slang word?

text: If my memory serves me correctly, I first encountered the word _embiggen_ a year or so ago. I thought it seemed odd, but in context, the meaning was quite obvious. Since that time I've seen this word with progressively greater frequency. I tried to Google the word and I can find references to it in both Wiktionary and the Urban Dictionary-- both are not professional, formal dictionaries so that would lend me to believe that the word is certainly slang. However, in almost every context that I have observed this word in use, it has been within a professional or semi-formal environment. Is _embiggen_ considered a formal or slang word?


title: Is there an -ically suffixed word to describe a duration?

text: We know about chronologically to describe order by time, but is there a word to describe duration? I want to say something like "school is x-ically taxing", as in, school is heavily taxing on an individual's available time.


title: Word for both questions and answers

text: I'm preparing for an exam by answering some questions in an assignment, however, I am writing the answers in the same document as the questions. I would therefore like to name that file appropriately.   * `Solution` seems misleading, as the file does not contain only solutions, but the questions as well!   * `Assignment` seems like it's the opposite of one above, and therefore doesn't fit either. **What word is used to describe both questions and the corresponding answers?** The current name of the file is `questions and answers`, which is a bit too verbose.


title: Expression to say that you did something better than before

text: I remember that there's an expression in English for this situation but I can't remember which one. Three weeks ago I did my best drawing ever, and now I did one better. This is what's coming up "I think I topped it off with this one" but I don't think it's the correct one. Which one is the correct one?


title: What is the technical term for the area within a fort?

text: I would like to know what is the name of the area within a _trace italienne_ fortification, i.e. item 38 in the image here below (which unfortunately was omitted in Wikipedia): ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/gDEB7.png)


title: "The crying baby gets the milk"

text: Where does the saying "The crying baby gets the milk" come from? I don't think it's from English.


title: Hypernym for "day", "month", "week", "year"

text: I would like to know if there is a single-word hypernym for _day, month, week_ and _year_.


title: Is there a consensus usage to refer to the contents of linked text?

text: Everyone is familiar with what I am talking about though it's easiest to show by example: Three versions that differ only in how they refer to the linked-to document:   * _The performance of each of the leading web servers was compared inthis careful study._   * _The performance of each of the leading web servers was compared in a careful study locatedhere._   * _Nicholas Piel recently published theresults of a comparative study of web servers._ I don't claim that the correct answer is one of these three--rather these are just three common implementations to illustrate my Question.


title: "How are you" in America

text: People in America ask "how are you" a lot. Many people would reply with "I'm good." If I am feeling OK, I would say "I'm well." Which version is right?


title: How to place pauses in a sentence when speaking?

text: I would like to know how to place pauses in a sentence when speaking (besides pauses on comma and semicolon) to deliver a better message to audiences. I researched this for a while but I don't find any formal documents on this subject on the internet. Here is an example I found: > Now that you have reduced the word count of your presentation // you need to > prepare your message in shorter, // simpler // chunks. To do this well // > you need to consider where to place stress in words and in sentences, // > where to pause naturally in your speech // and where // to pause for effect.


title: Can “zealot” have a positive connotation?

text: A zealot is a person who is _fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals_. I have never seen this word used with positive connotation, but could it (without causing raised eyebrows)? For example, “Gandhi was a zealot and should be admired by all who believe in non-violence.” Also, do “zealous” and “zeal” carry the same connotation as “zealot”?


title: What's the etymology of "props"?

text: Props can mean compliment / respect / credit, for example: > Erika gets props for the great work she did on the music. Wiktionary states that _props_ is: > ( _slang_ ) _proper respect_ or _proper recognition_ for another person; an > expression of approval or a special acknowledgment; accolade or accolades; > praise.   > \- _I've got to give **props** to Roger for the way he handled that > situation._ How did this word come about? What is its etymology?


title: "To Sam and to Tom" vs. "to Sam and Tom"

text: Which would be correct? Or are they equivalent? >   * I present this award to Sam and to Tom. >   * I present this award to Sam and Tom. >


title: "Moved to trash" vs. "moved to the trash"

text: Would you choose as a notification message displayed to a user on a website "your messages have been successfully moved to trash" or "... the trash"? What is the difference and which one is more accurate?


title: Writing deadlines

text: I'm currently using the following date format for setting deadlines: > Monday, 27 January 2014, 3 PM My questions are:   * Should I mention time at the beginning or leave it at the end?   * Should I keep the commas?   * Should I write _a.m._ instead of _AM_?


title: Verb meaning "to robust"

text: I am looking for a verb meaning "to make something more robust", especially in a software engineering context. Is "to robust" correct and understandable? "Robustify" seems to be another candidate but does not seem so common.


title: Less ambiguous synonym for "hold up"?

text: The fundamental, simple meaning of the phrase "hold up" is "keep in upper position" or close derivative meanings: "keep it active", "keep it running", especially in situation when _it_ would stop/drop by itself without _holding_. Unfortunately, due to it being a phrasal verb with a truly impressive list of meanings, using _hold up_ in its simple meaning becomes awfully ambiguous, especially if there's no context to qualify the meaning. In particular, I need to name a hold-up time, the time during which a signal remains active after its normal activation source is gone, and not have it confusable with the meaning of _hold up_ as _something that prevents start_. Can you help me find a neat synonym for such a meaning?


title: Would this be the correct way to punctuate this?

text: I know a more common way would be to say something like, > That crane is a beautiful animal, isn't it? But if one were going to word it as follows: > It's a beautiful animal, isn't it, that crane? Would this be the proper way to punctuate the sentence?


title: What is meant by the action to ‘curl up your fingers’? Is “Curl up one’s fingers” an English idiom?

text: I came across the phrase “His cheeks reddened as he curled up his fingers” in the scene, a six-year-old Ruthenian boy, Lubji Hoch, who later becomes one of the world’s most powerful media moguls, tries to buy an expensive brooch for his mother with small changes at a jewelry shop in Jeffery Archer’s novel, “The Fourth Estate”- P.35: > “The old man didn’t laugh, but gently explained to Lubji that he would need > many more coins than that before he could hope to purchase the brooch. > Lubji’s cheeks reddened as he **curled up his fingers** and quickly turned > to leave. What does it mean to “curl up one’s fingers”? I curl in (or inward) my fingers to sqeeze my hand, but I don't think I can curl up my fingers backward without being forced? Is “curl up one’s fingers” an idiom or cliché to describe special emotions such as an extreme tension or embarrassment, or just a plain description of a bodily reaction?


title: Stage direction like "Enter Hamlet"

text: I'm wondering about the grammatical structure of a stage direction "Enter Hamlet". Is "Enter" in the imperative mood or the present subjunctive mood? If it is in the imperative mood, who is the person that receives the command? The actor who plays Hamlet or the director who directs the play?


title: "Regret telling" vs. "regret having told"

text: Is there a difference between: >   * She regrets telling him (that) she didn't like his mother. >   * She regrets having told him (that) she didn't like his mother. > To me, the first phrase sounds more practical as I've heard it a lot, but when it comes to comparing the meanings, I don't really know the difference. Can someone clarify it please?


title: What's the meaning of "Ye Olde Timers got Ye Olde Tired of this."?

text: In a blog article posted by Joel Spolsky, there is a sentence saying "Ye Olde Timers got Ye Olde Tired of this." I don't know what the meaning is. I've checked the definition of "Ye olde" in wiki, but still couldn't understand. English is not my native language; can anyone explain the meaning to me?


title: determining the right grammatical form

text: below is a question from Manhattan gmat. Why are these considered wrong: "the winner was determined through a coin toss" and "the winner was determined from a coin toss". I cannot make out what exactly and why!


title: "Listening up and down?"

text: Is "listening this music album up and down" correct English? It's supposed to mean "listening over and over again", but I've never seen it used.


title: Usage of "she herself" or "he himself"

text: As I understand it, _he_ and _him_ are etymologically, and for purposes of grammar, different cases of the same word. If it's the same word, wouldn't it be sufficient to use _himself_ alone—with maybe the redundancy reserved for emphasis?


title: How to Properly Cut Content and Show Content is Cut

text: I hope this is the proper place to ask this question: I have a news article that I am citing for a post online. I am quoting part of the article but I am going to quote the first part of the article and then quote the very end. How do I properly show that the middle of the article is cut out? IE: > Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Phasellus > condimentum commodo purus. Vestibulum eget adipiscing mi. Morbi in consequat > urna. Vestibulum imperdiet ullamcorper risus vitae vulputate. > > [Cut Content] > > Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Phasellus > condimentum commodo purus. Vestibulum eget adipiscing mi. Morbi in consequat > urna. Vestibulum imperdiet ullamcorper risus vitae vulputate. I will provide a link back to the full article.


title: How else should I avoid using "under" at the end of the sentence

text: Although it's acceptable to use prepositions at the end of the sentence, it's not favorable to grammarians or grammar teachers. How else could I rephrase the question: > Which license are airplan models licensed under?


title: Is there a word for an individual item within a cache?

text: Is there a particular word that represents an individual _item_ within a cache, particularly from a programming perspective? Is _item_ the best choice in this particular context? Or do you generally need to know the type of objects within a cache ( _i.e. [object] cache_ ) to refer to them any other way? For example: _Weapon cache_ \- contains individual weapons. _Entity cache_ \- contains individual entities.


title: Is there a word for people who are afraid of change?

text: We would like to know if there is a single word to describe fear of change.


title: On TopGear, why is "Who would like to see. . . ?" replied to with "yes"?

text: I was always wondering, why is "Who would like to see [something]?" replied to with _yes_ or _yeah_ by the crowd on TopGear? Is it just for the sake of convenience or lack of better expression for this situation in English? Maybe the presenters are asking the "wrong" question? Or is this common? Examples:   * http://youtu.be/qexo0eI3eE4?t=2m2s   * http://youtu.be/kFnVZXQD5_k?t=6s


title: take the second road

text: **Edit:** I'm sorry for this question, it isn't correct question here. I haven't known about English Language Learners site. I can't understand what should I do in the next 'sentence'. 'If you take the second road on the left, you'll come to the post office.' What does the phrase 'the second road' mean?


title: The object of "I don't like people telling me what to do"?

text: In the sentences > I don't like people telling me what to do.   >  I'm fed up with you telling me what to do. What are the objects of _like_ and _with_? Is it "people" or "people telling me what to do" for the verb _like_? Why can't I use a sentence just after _like_ or _with_?. That is to say: > I don't like people tell me what to do.   >  I'm fed up with you tell me what to do.


title: Combine upgrade and downgrade

text: Is there an appropriate way to shorten the phrase "upgrade and downgrade"? I am writing a paper and have to use this combination frequently. I am trying to find a succinct way to let the reader know I'm referring to both upgrades and downgrades without making them read the phrase over and over again. I was thinking something like up-/down-grade, but if that is the case, I'm not sure what the appropriate punctuation would be. Edit: Forgot to add that this is for a scientific paper so meaning and brevity take precedent over style. Here is a sample sentence: > An _up/downgrade_ refers to an objective comparison of the consumer’s > currently owned product and its potential replacement.


title: How did "snookered" become a slang word for "to cheat or to steal"?

text: In this question we discussed the etymology of the word "snooker" as a noun, based on a game played on a pool table. But dictionary.com references a form of the word, "snookered" as a slang verb that means to "deceive, cheat, or dupe: to be snookered by a mail order company." (I wonder what the editor had against mail order companies?) Unfortunately, the word's origins are unknown to that site. Any ideas?


title: use of articles

text: I am always unhappy when it's time for geometry class. I am always unhappy when it's a time for geometry class. I am always unhappy when it's the time for geometry class. which one is correct? If the first one is correct then when do we generally use articles before noun and when we don't?


title: "Do you know where I might find them" VS "Do you know where I may find them"

text: What is the difference among the following questions: > Do you know where I **might** find them? vs > Do you know where I **may** find them? vs > Do you know where I **could** find them? vs > Do you know where I **would** find them? vs > Do you know where I **will** find them? vs > Do you know where I **can** find them?


title: Word meaning "narrow minded person" that ends in "an" if such exists

text: I'm looking for a word which is opposite or similar to _Cosmopolitan_ and also ends in "an". I'm trying to title something opposite or related to Cosmopolitan the magazine which sounds similar. So the goal is either an antonym or something that rhymes and is masculine. I am specifically looking for an antonym for the word, but barring that such does not exist that ends in "an" at least in sound, I'll go with any word that rhymes that is in some way a masculine word. From dictionary.com cos·mo·pol·i·tan/ˌkɒzməˈpɒlɪtn/ Show Spelled [koz-muh-pol- i-tn] Show IPA adjective 1\. free from local, provincial, or national ideas, prejudices, or attachments; at home all over the world. 2\. of or characteristic of a cosmopolite. 3\. belonging to all the world; not limited to just one part of the world. 4\. Botany, Zoology . widely distributed over the globe. noun 5\. a person who is free from local, provincial, or national bias or attachment; citizen of the world; cosmopolite. 6\. a cocktail made with vodka, cranberry juice, an orange-flavored liqueur, and lime juice. Antonyms: narrow, narrow-minded, specific So are there any words that mean "narrow minded person" that end in "an"?


title: Can't 'fail' have noun as its direct object?

text: > He failed to appear.   > > > (1) ✲ What he failed was to appear.   > (2) What he failed to do was appear.   >  (Angela Downing, English Grammar: A University Course) Oxford has the case that _fail_ takes noun phrase as its direct object(She failed her finals), but the book above says ‘He failed to appear.’ can’t be said as (1). Does the usage of _fail_ without infinitive clause be limited only to certain meanings, like exams, tests?


title: Verb agreement in the sentence

text: > Every morning right after I **went** to the bathroom, I **tell** myself In the sentence above should _went_ and _tell_ agree? Is above correct?


title: Why does "information" not have a plural form?

text: Why doesn't the word _information_ take an "S" in English even if the meaning is "plural"?


title: What meter is best for songs, especially hymns?

text: I realize that this may be somewhat open-ended, but although I am not a poet, I want to try my hand at writing a song, perhaps a hymn, and wonder if perhaps iambic pentameter is best, or perhaps tetrameter? Shakespeare did a lot of iambic pentameter, I understand, but his works were not intended to be sung. Can you put Hamlet's Soliloquy to music? Anyway, I will accept the most erudite response which convinces me what meter to use for my poem/song.


title: When does the "historic/historical" in "historic/historical records" refer to the documents or to the events?

text: After checking many Web sites, I found much inconsistency in whether "historic records" or "historical records" is used.   * Which of these terms simply means "a document, created at any time, which describes the past"?   * Which of these terms means "a document of much significance, itself considered an important part of history"?   * Which of the terms means "a document of much significance in itself, which also contains descriptions of prior events"? Why is it "geometric" but "theoretical"? describes the meaning of the "-ical" ending found in "historical", but I could not see how to determine its usage in this confusing context.


title: How do I footnote an item that appears twice on the same page?

text: I need to add a footnote to an item that appears twice in the same page. For example, if I need to provide a footnote for the following **bold** terms: Lorem ipsum **dolor** sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do... Duis aute irure **dolor** in reprehenderit... Do I need to call attention to the footnote in both instances where the text appears, or is it sufficient to only put a superscript (or other footnote indicator) next to the first instance on the page?


title: Why does the incorrect plural "aircrafts" seem to be occurring more often?

text: My first reaction to _aircrafts_ was to think it was a typo, but I just checked usage on NGrams... ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/72hRt.png) ...and compared it to usage for the singular / collective noun form _aircraft_... ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/nIJ6o.png) ...which seems to indicate that the "regular" plural form is gradually being taken up. Does this represent a tendency for English speakers to enforce regularity on the language? Are there any other examples? I'm not expecting to find that "sheeps", for example, is displacing "sheep" for the plural meaning, but maybe there are other "less established" usages that could be changing. **EDIT** Please note that I'm _not_ asking whether "aircrafts" is correct, or common. I'm asking if there's any reason why it seems to be occurring more often over recent decades (even though it's still pretty rare). And whether this effect occurs with other nouns having "non-standard" plural forms.


title: What is a collective noun for "a set of policies"?

text: I'm having trouble find a collective noun (or similar word) that describes a "set or collection of [business] policies" for some documentation I'm writing for my domain of work (without going into specifics, I'm involved in reselling inventory for clients/suppliers). My initial thought was "contract", but that already has an established meaning in our domain (a contract is an agreement with a supplier). The word I'm looking for is to describe the set of specific policies tied to an individual piece of inventory (i.e. "return policy", "terms and conditions of use", "pick-up instructions", etc.). Any other ideas?


title: Is "consistently helped" grammatically correct?

text: Which is better (and why)? > I think you will agree that I am a conscientious professional that has > **consistently helped you**.   >  I think you will agree that I am a conscientious professional that has > **helped you consistently**.


title: "Thousand Dollars Worth" or "Thousand Dollars' Worth". Is this a Possessive?

text: I was writing the following sentence: > Five thousand dollars worth of equipment does not a professional > photographer make. Apart from the other questionable syntax in this over-stylized sentence, what occurred to me, courtesy of Microsoft auto correct, was that "thousand dollars" may need to be in possessive form, though it's not immediately occurring to me why this would be. So which is correct: > Five thousand dollars worth of equipment does not a professional > photographer make. or > Five thousand dollars' worth of equipment does not a professional > photographer make.


title: maybe you don't already know that/maybe you don't know it yet

text: are there any differences between these two construction? I've heard a native speaker say 'maybe you don't already know that'. The context implied that if I didn't know that thing, then he would explain it to me.


title: "Soccer mom": why soccer?

text: ...why not _football_ mom, _baseball_ mom, or _basketball_ mom? **_Soccer mom_**, as far as I can tell, is an American term made popular during the 1996 presidential elections, used to describe a key demographic - mothers who, by spending lots of time shuttling their children to and from soccer practice, demonstrate that they were concerned about their children. Other attributes often associated with this demographic are _suburban_ , _married_ , _busy_ , _drives a minivan/SUV_ and so on. What puzzles me is the choice of sport in the term: why soccer? Globally, soccer is an extremely popular sport, but there are many sports more popular than it in USA, and I imagine this would extend to after-school activities. I see that in Canada there's the equivalent term _hockey mom_ which makes more sense. Was the term coined in a place and time where soccer was a more natural choice? Is soccer a more prominent sport in the after-school world? Or was there some other historical accident?


title: Should I write "calling himself in this/that way" here?

text: In my text I am trying to say, that it is not clear what intentions the person had, by calling themselves in a certain way (let's say Foobar). My question is should I use "calling himself this way" or "calling himself so"? Here is my sentence in context: > Many unsuccessful attempts have been made to explain the meaning of Foobar. > To this day it is not clear what Mario meant by calling himself so. Or: > To this day it is not clear what Mario meant by calling himself in this/that > way. Is it clear what this sentence means? I am not sure if a person can "call" himself... Perhaps I am over-thinking it.


title: What is the meaning of "two-sidedness"?

text: What is the meaning of "two-sidedness"? I'd like a direct or indirect definition.


title: Is there a single word or phrase for "inability to say no at a behavioural level"

text: I have an aquaintance who is unable to say no directly. Any conversational transaction which would lead to them saying no is redirected toward the questioner. Is there a single word or phrase to describe them. It's not cultural. It's a (learned?) behaviour. _Indecisive_ is not the word I'm looking for. Neither are these. The use case was that a person was giving out to a group of friends, treats from a recent trip to the USA, and they were offered a packet of sweets (Jolly Ranchers) which they don't like. The gift was non-personal and other members of the group were happy to receive them. No rudeness would have been perceived by directly refusing the gift or taking another offering. E.g "Sorry I'm not into those. Someone else can have them" would have been the quickest conversational route. Instead of saying no directly the receiver then entered a long negotiation to say no without actually saying no. This inability to say no directly is a repeating pattern in their interactions in general hence the curiosity about a description.


title: Comma in a two-item list?

text: How would you punctuate list of two items that has the word AND in the title? For example: > ... two documents with titles of Power of Attorney and Living Will and > Appointment of Health Care Agent.


title: Should we say "borrow from" instead of "borrow off"?

text: I hear and read the term "borrow off" frequently however I say "borrow from" as that makes more sense to me. Is it grammatically incorrect to say, "may I borrow the book off your friend"? In my mind this sounds as though the book is on the friend? Edit: The use of "off" and "from" isn't solely related to the word "borrow". I hear "off" used in sentences like "I bought it off eBay".


title: Usage of "Trainers having experienced working with XYZ organisation"

text: I am preparing a creative brochure for a workshop, where I need to mention our trainer's experience as "Our trainers have experience working with XYZ(elite organisation)". Could any one help me to get a better way of writing the same in a more creative and attractive way.


title: Is "details" singular?

text: Which one of the following sentences is correct? >   1. Here is the details you requested. >   2. Here are the details you requested. > Having googled "Here is the details" and "Here are the details", I've got 18m+ results for the former and 11m+ results for the latter.


title: "Sport" as an informal appellation

text: I was watching a film ostensibly set during the American Progressive Era (1900 to 1918 or so), in which two teenaged boys used the line > "Ah, be a sport, Charlie!" That got me to thinking, was the term "sport" or "be a sport" in use in that way, that early? Around which time did the word "sport" become used to describe, as my dictionary puts it, behavior in a "good or specified way" in response to teasing or defeat? What resources could I use to learn the answer to that question?


title: Does "Paraphernalia" have a negative connotation?

text: By definition, the word _paraphernalia_ does not portray either negative or positive emotions. Does it, in everyday usage? In my particular case, I am making a website about programming. I have a section called   _Pleasant Programming_ **___ __ ___ __**. I thought it would be nice to have a 'p' word as the last word. However, I didn't want it to seem like negative thing. (In fact, it was supposed to be upbeat).


title: When the subject of a sentence is the same as the object of the previous sentence

text: What is it called when the subject of a sentence is the same as the object of the previous sentence? For example: > _I'm going to Freddy's house. Freddy lives down the block. The block is > paved with gravel. The gravel is jagged._


title: How to use " as .... as " to mean something is beyond someones experience

text: I found the following means something AT the limit of someones experience > "The wooden stair descending to the Capitol's subbasement were as steep and > shallow as any stairs Langdon had ever traversed." So I was wonder how to use similar expression to say something is beyond someones experience.


title: What is the meaning of the word "savvy" in this context?

text: I'm not a native speaker of English. I wish to know what the word _savvy_ means in this context: > network-savvy


title: Why don't Americans refer to Indians (and others from the subcontinent) as Asians?

text: I know there is a related question here, but I am not seeing an answer to "Why is there a difference?" Merely that an explanation of what is used in each country. I am a speaker of American English, and I understand why the British refer to people from India as _Asians._ This is quite sensible given that the Indian subcontinent is located in Asia. But, we in America use _Asian_ only to refer to people from the Far East. ( _i.e._ China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc.) We completely exclude all people from Asia Minor, the Indian Subcontinent, etc. And, I'm given to understand that the British and many other countries use _Orientals_ to refer to the folks we refer to as Asian. In America, this term is only applied to inanimate objects, and is considered rather offensive to be applied to a person (since the rise of the PC movement in the late 1980s, in any case.) Historically, Istanbul was considered the Orient (therefore the Orient Express). So, why is this term applied to people of the Far East, instead of the Near East? Can anyone point out the reason for the divergence in terminology? Or is this yet another case of two nations separated by a common language?


title: Finish, complete, submit, or finished at the end of a short drag and drop word bank quiz that isn't graded?

text: What term's better for the finish or submit button at the end of a short, optional, test quiz? The quiz is a drag and drop with a word bank, and the button I'm talking about will check their answers, and tell them if they're good to go, or might want to go back and review the material before continuing. I thought of the following:   * Finish - A little informal, and I think there's a slight connotation of being required to do so and so, or considering it a chore when the word finished is used. These are optional.   * Finished - Past tense seems a little more awkward than future tense, and the same issue as above.   * Submit - The short quiz is not to be graded, rather it serves as one of many practice interactive pages to break up the monotomy of reading through a 70 page course and give the user a small recap of the last several pages. The word submit makes me think something is formally being handed it for grading or review. The button does serve to check the answers, give the use a score, and tell them whether they're ready to move on, or may want to consider reviewing the last section first.   * Complete - Similar issue to the word submit. It seems a little like this is important, is required, or might count towards the students grade in the class.


title: What is the origin of the word "What"?

text: Where does the word _what_ come from? Why do we say **wot** when it's spelt the way it is?


title: How to use possessive apostrophe with words in quotation marks?

text: How to us possessive apostrophe with words in quotes? For example, ...a few days later I discovered that those five little boys were not that well-behaved (as I firstly thought). In fact they were quite mischievous and conniving. The broken tree next to my house and the cat with its legs tied were all their "inventions". And Lilly, as it later turned out, was able to get to Denver so fast not without those **_"little inventors'"_** help.


title: English for academic purposes

text: Sorry if this is not the place to ask this question. I would like to ask if there are any online resources that could help me to learn English to pass all the assignments and thesis. Thank you in advance.


title: Is there a verb "refactor" meaning "doing refactoring" in English?

text: Code refactoring consists of changing the structure of the code without changing its functionality. The term _refactoring_ is currently used by software development industry to refer to this process. But what about the verb _refactor_? Does it exist in this context? Can I say, for example: > After two weeks, I finally _refactored_ the code of this library. or: > Tell the management that we can't work on the spaghetti code like this. We > must _refactor_ it first, which will take a few months. By the way:   * Microsoft Word spell checker accepts the term _refactoring_ , but considers _refactor_ as a mistake, suggesting _refractor_ , which has nothing to do with refactoring.   * Wikipedia avoids using the verb _refactor_ and prefers using combined terms as _perform refactoring_.   * When searching for pages containing _refactor_ but not _refactoring_ , the first results are either using _refactor_ as a proper name, like a name of a product, or have nothing to do with software development.   * Other sources are not helpful. Spell checker in Chrome considers _refactoring_ as an invalid word. The same is the case with Google Translate and several other online translators.


title: What usage arguments are persuasive?

text: Given the recent blog post that some kinds of subjective questions are OK on Stack Exchange sites, I thought I would try to formulate a good subjective question about usage to see what kinds of arguments people find persuasive and why. So, for questions about a usage dispute:   1. What basis do you use for deciding what is correct or grammatical?   2. Why do you find some arguments persuasive and others not?    3. Does the pervasiveness of a usage affect your opinion of it?    4. What kinds of authorities on usage do you respect and who do you find to be not authoritative?


title: Comma Delimitation

text: I just started reading Terence Tao's second edition analysis textbook, and I came across the following sentence. * * * **1.2 Why do analysis?** _It is a fair question to ask, "why bother?", when it comes to analysis._ * * * I am wondering if this is the "correct" way to write this sentence in modern English usage.


title: Some techniques to replace infinitives?

text: My English teacher doesn't like infinitives and she wants me to replace most if not all of them in my essays. Writing them is habitual for me and I always catch myself writing them but I'm always unsure of how to revise it without sounding awkward. What are some ways I can replace infinitives in my sentences?


title: Tense for an event that is about to occur as the reader reads

text: I came across this sentence today in a wait screen for a twitter client: > Did you know that this wait is actually Twitter's fault, not ours? Is "Did" correct usage in this case? I didn't know it earlier, but I became aware of it as I read it. Hence this seems logically correct. But a "Do you know..." sounds more natural in this case. What tense would be correct in this case?


title: Is there any difference between "All the night" and "All night long"?

text: Is there any difference in nuance between these two expressions, any examples of where one would be more appropriate (or even just sound better?) _(On reflection, I'm not sure I'd ever say All the night, but someone just asked me the question)_


title: What is the meaning of "gather way" in "The idea gathered way"?

text: As far as I know "gather way" means "to attain headway" in navigation. So I believe this is a kind of idiom or something like that. I just found this sentence with no context, so I don't know if you could help me with the meaning of it.


title: What's a good adjective to whether a set/range can be "tessellated"

text: Say I have the concept of a "Range", which is basically an "Interval" in Mathematics. If a range is inclusive ("closed") on one end and exclusive on the other, it has the following property: > It can be placed immediately before or after another range with the same > inclusiveness of both endpoints and leave no gaps or overlapping. For example, given the ranges 0-5 and 5-10, if their starts are inclusive and their ends are exclusive, they can be appended to form the range 0-10. However, if their starts and ends are both inclusive or exclusive then appending them will result in either an overlap or a gap. **What is the most suitable adjective or adjectival phrase I can use to describe a range that has this property?** The best I can think of is _tessellatable_ , which is really more about geometry and seems uncommon.


title: – at scale – definition?

text: Whats does the expression **_at scale_** mean? Does it mean "on a larger scale" or it means "at a level appropriate to the what's available"? I came up with these two definitions by looking the expression up on the internet, but I still feel very confused. Here are two sentences: > Over the course of that first afternoon, the next months, and finally over > several years, we honed our practice activities into tools that could help > make teachers better, **at scale** > > If you seek to do somethings great, you most likely live a battle for talent > – for smart and capable people who can do great things **at scale**.


title: When to, and when not to pluralise month?

text: Can someone please explain the correct way of pluralising month, for instance why do we sometimes use months or month, such as: "Victor is a 7 month old baby" and "Victor is 7 months old" What is the grammar behind this?


title: Visual connotation associated with “lucid”

text: I’m interested in the definition and connotation of _lucid_ when it comes to physical objects: what does a lucid object look like? From _Merriam-Webster_ : >   * suffused with light : luminous >   * translucent <snorkeling in the lucid sea> > From _Dictionary.com_ : >   * shining or bright. >   * clear; pellucid; transparent. > From these definitions, it seems like the term _lucid_ can describe stars in the night sky, light bulbs, the ocean in Aruba, and wine glasses. Is this true? Are some of those objects more correctly associated with the word _lucid_ than with the words _bright_ , _glowing_ , or _transparent_? Also, links to any images containing lucid objects would be great.


title: Is there a language or subset of English for technical writing

text: I read a lot of technical documentation, especially in the computer programming space. Today I was reading the following paragraph: > Any type that implements a Read (or Write) method with this signature is > said to implement io.Reader (or io.Writer). For the purposes of this > discussion, that means that a variable of type io.Reader can hold any value > whose type has a Read method: [http://golang.org/doc/articles/laws_of_reflection.html] This paragraph could be re-written like this: > Any type that implements a Read method with this signature is said to > implement io.Reader. _Also, any type that implements a Write method with > this signature is said to implement io.Writer._ For the purposes of this > discussion, that means that a variable of type io.Reader can hold any value > whose type has a Read method: I'm guessing the first paragraph was used instead of something like the second because the second (my) example is longer. This all got me thinking, "It'd be great if there were a way to write this paragraph that is clear and concise". Something like: > Any type that implements a [Read|Write] method with this signature is said > to implement io.[Reader|Writer]. For the purposes of this discussion, that > means that a variable of type io.[Reader|Writer] can hold any value whose > type has a [Read|Write] method: In my example above, one could imagine the square brackets allowing for a choice of words with the options separated by a pipe. Before going down the road of thinking more about what a language like this may look like, I'm wondering if this has already been done? I.e. is there a language or writing style that addresses these concerns? ("These concerns" being how to be clear and concise in technical writing.) One specific issue I'd like to address is have a construct for xor.


title: Why do people say “Why don’t you not?”

text: Why do people say “Why don’t you not?” — what is meant by that? It seems especially to be a Dublin thing.


title: Use of "yet another" in the middle of a sentence

text: Is the usage of _yet another_ correct in the following sentence? > This sentence might need **yet another** piece of work for you! Where can I place _yet another_ in a sentence?


title: What does "Per [person's name]" mean?

text: What does "Per John:" mean? From the context of the article I'm reading (article unlinked), it seems to mean "From John:" or "John (said):" What exactly does the word "per" mean when used as such?


title: Is the English Language becoming more generic, in the sense that English is distinguishing less between masculine and feminine?

text: To clarify: what I mean is that in Australia for instance there is a trend in English to use words that do not distinguish between men and women. E.g. Chairperson instead of Chairman. So the question relates to whether or not English is (both in terms of the adoption of new words and the adoption of words into common usage) moving away from distinguishing between masculine and feminine gender terms.


title: Usage of "for" in this passage

text: Non-native speaker here. Be kind :) From TLOTR Book 1, Chapter 7, "In the house of Tom Bombadil" > 'Let us shut out the night!' she said. ` **For** you are still afraid, > perhaps, of mist and tree-shadows and deep water, and untame things. Fear > nothing! **For** tonight you are under the roof of Tom Bombadil.' I have doubts about the exact meaning of "for" in the previous sentences. I believe the first time it indicates causation. Something like "Because you are still afraid ...". Am I right? The second one is more difficult for me. In this case, it could be causation (the reason why the hobbits should not fear is that they are in a safe place), or just used to set a specific time (tonight) like in "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face". Which one is correct?


title: Somebody who is kind, yet hard, but fair

text: > A person who speaks kindly. Sometimes she might be hard, but fair. What is an adjective to describe such person?


title: Is there a word for describing the shoulder and/or neck pain caused by bad sleep postures?

text: There is a simple word in my native tongue for this symptom but it is somehow hard to find a corresponding term in English despite how common this type of pain occurs in our daily life.


title: To download something ON or ONTO a device?

text: I've seen both these forms used and I was wondering, is either of them incorrect or are they interchangeable? > You can download something **ON** your device. > > You can download something **ONTO** your device.


title: Is "uplift your life" grammatically correct?

text: A superior would like me to go with this structure for advertising headlines, e.g. _Uplift your life / Uplift your recipe_. I'm not certain if this is grammatically correct and would like to check it with you before I go ahead with the work.


title: Is "else" in "someone else" necessary?

text: Since I'm already referring to a person in third-person by using "someone", isn't the "else" in "someone else" redundant? If it not, why is that? The only significance I see in the addition of "else" is the implication that a person other than myself is similar to me, so "else" is just indicative of equality. Context: > The man wants to be like someone else. More context: > Someone else created that control mechanism. Some more context: > When someone else wants to complete that task, they'll get it done. In all cases, I feel like taking "else" away allows the meaning of the sentence remain.


title: Adjective/adverb that means "seemingly clever, but actually foolish"

text: Is there a single word in English (or borrowed) that describes someone or some action as being clever or smart on the surface, but is actually quite foolish or unproductive? I used to think "disingenuous" meant this (which of course it doesn't). The closest word I'd use would be something like "dis-ingenious".


title: I was confused about “to be + past participle"

text: Why does the following sentence use "to be reinforced" rather than "was reinforced" > The fact that organisms evidently inherit the capacity to be reinforced by > certain kinds of event does not help us in predicting the reinforcing effect > of an untried stimulus. and in what case should I use **to be + past participle**?


title: Usage of the word 'warming'

text: I was just wondering how exactly the word _warming_ is used with different sentences which actually gives different meaning. For e.g., >   1. _My house warming ceremony_ >   2. _Global warming_ > How it is actually giving different meaning? I understand the meaning of both, but just curious about why it is exactly as such. I would be glad if any one would explain this to me in detail about this.


title: Does this phrase take an adverbial or adjective role?

text: > "Exactly," said Dumbledore, looking very seriously over the top of his half- > moon glasses. "It would be enough to turn any boy's head. Famous before he > can walk and talk! Famous for something he won't even remember! Can’t you > see how much better off he'll be, **growing up away from all that until he's > ready to take it**?" (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) Does the participial phrase take an adverbial role implying the cause of him being better off, or adjective role modifying ‘he’?


title: Why don't "-use" verb-noun pairs obey initial stress derivation?

text: It's well known (and several past questions on this SE have covered) that to convert a two-syllable Latin-derived English verb into a noun, you shift the stress to the first syllable. This is apparently called "initial stress derivation". Some examples:   * permít (v.) ~ pérmit (n.)   * addréss (v.) ~ áddress (n.)   * recórd (v.) ~ récord (n.)   * expórt (v.) ~ éxport (n.) However, I've just realized there's a class of verbs that obey a different rule: verbs ending in _-use_. When these verbs change into nouns, they **keep the final-syllable stress** , but **devoice the final consonant** : so the verb ends in /uz/, and its derivative ends in /us/.   * _abuse_ : abú[z]e (v.) ~ abú[s]e (n.)   * _diffuse_ : diffú[z]e (v.) ~ diffú[s]e (adj.)   * _reuse_ : reú[z]e (v.) ~ reú[s]e (n.)   * _excuse_ : excú[z]e (v.) ~ excú[s]e (n.) My question: **Why do verbs that end in "-use" follow this pattern rather than initial stress derivation?** (Or perhaps not strictly "rather than" - I can also think of one example that both shifts the stress **and** devoices the /z/:)   * _refuse_ : refú[z]e (v.) ~ réfu[s]e (n.)


title: About the meaning of "light smattering of applause"

text: I expected "light smattering of applause" to mean "few applause" because "light" has the meaning of "small, not heavy". However, the phrase seems to mean "a lot of applause" in the context. For example: > The critics were so fulsome in their praise that Scheinhauer, a librettist > known to become squeamish after a light smattering of applause, retreated > from public view. Does anyone know how to understand the meaning of _light smattering of applause_?


title: Is “ass-wise” an acceptable English word? Is it a noun, or adverb?

text: I was surprised to see the New Yorker’s (February 26) article titled, “Boehner defends decision to remain on ass,” which was chockablock with the word, “Ass.” > “Minutes after telling the United States Senate to “ **get off their ass** ” > to avoid the deep spending cuts that will take effect this Friday, House > Speaker John Boehner called an impromptu press conference to announce his > intention of **remaining on his ass** “for the foreseeable future.” > > Mr. Boehner’s words drew a strong rebuke from Senate Majority Leader Harry > Reid, who said that Mr. Boehner’s suggestion that the Senate **get off their > ass** while he remained on his “seems like the height of hypocrisy, **ass- > wise**.” My question:   1. Is it acceptable (or sometime welcome) for decent statesmen to repeat the word, “ass” in public, e.g. in a press conference and in mass-media in western world? In our country ass is “A-word,” not suitable to utter in public.   2. Is “remain on one’s ass” a precise antonym to “get off one’s ass”?   3. What dose “ass-wise” mean? Does it mean “in terms of the implication of Ass”? Is it used as a noun or adverbially here?


title: In what contexts would I capitalize "city" and "county"?

text: In the following context, it is obvious that _County_ is a proper noun and deserves capitalization. > Currently, Albemarle County has four main reservoirs. However, in these other contexts below, I am not sure whether _county_ and _city_ would be considered proper nouns. **Is a reference to a specific geographic area considered a proper noun?** > The James River lies south of the county and has a tremendous flow rate. > > The Ragged Mountain reservoir is located closest to the city of > Charlottesville. According to the Illinois Identity Standards, I should "not capitalize common nouns and various shortened forms of official names". In the first example, _county_ is referring to a generic county, so I suspect it is a common noun (and can remain uncapitalized). In the second example, I am not sure whether _city_ is proper (and consequently, whether to capitalize). On official documentation, this city is referred to as the "City of Charlottesville", but I have never heard anyone say it quite like that. I would appreciate any clarification!


title: Single word for "Where are you guys?"

text: What slang expressions can I use to express "Where are you guys?" in a single word? I am looking for a very short, informal phrase or a single word I could use to ask this question that would still be recognizable to an English- speaking person.


title: difference between "this very" and "this particular"

text: It grew to my attention lately that I've read multiple authors using the expression "this very" like:   * I will be writing on this very blog   * I recommend going to this very restaurant What's the value of using "very" on these sentences and what is the difference if we replaced "very" with "particular" ? Note: My native language is Arabic.


title: Are English speakers reluctant to use /l/ in a consonant cluster mid word?

text: A relative of mine recently went on a rant regarding the pronunciation of 'jewelry' (as joo-la-ree) and 'realtor' (as ree-la-ter). It reminded me of the oft criticized pronunciation of 'nuclear' and I wondered if this represents a pattern of native speakers avoiding putting /l/ in consonant clusters mid word. Are there more example like this? Is this a pattern?


title: What would you use for "one who contacts or contacted"

text: Google shows contactor as a word but not contacter.. But contactor is a term for an electrical component. I feel like contacter would be appropriate but I'm not sure. Which would be correct?


title: Is there a name to describe a video game player who plays for aesthetics?

text: Word to describe a video game player who plays for aesthetics or other useless-in-game achievements? I'd go with overachiever but it doesn't sound like internet slang, nor is it very concise. Stolen from this on-hold question, so I can answer it later. ;) http://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/179264/collector-gamer-or-player- game


title: Clause and noun as subject in a sentence

text: Can I use both a clause and a noun as the subject of a sentence? For example: > How the factors interact and their compound impact are not well understood. I find the meaning is clear but the structure of the sentence seems not valid.


title: Word for individual who tips the balance

text: Suppose there are two vice presidents vying for influence/supremacy within an organization. One vice president is admittedly weaker than the other, so he forms an alliance with a powerful underling who can tip the balance and make him (his team) the stronger. Is there a word for this third person, the underling on Team B, whose involvement would tip the balance? I'm thinking of a politically-charged word like "power-broker", but in a more subservient role. (Power brokers pull the marionette strings, whereas this fellow is talent.) _Note: I would create the tag "mot-juste" but I presently lack the required rep._


title: "Tradeoff" usage

text: How is this word to be used in practice when a subject is also mentioned? I am interested in both the static situation of _dealing with/being into/being subject to_ a tradeoff and the dynamic process of _accepting/entering/undergoing_ one. What are the proper terms/expressions to be used in place of my gross tentatives in italic? Please mention more choices if available...


title: "Really" modification problems

text: I can read a French newspaper with the aid of a dictionary, but I cannot speak the language or understand it when spoken. So I do **_not really_** know French. Some people say that _really_ modifies _know_ ; others say that _not really_ is a phrasal adverb that modifies the whole sentence — that is, it is not really the case that I know French. Which of those two perspectives is correct?


title: Is there a word to refer to "changing TV channels"?

text: I wrote the following sentence: > As if she had just realized it was there, she grabbed the remote control > from the table, turned on the TV, and **changed the channel** to the news. I'm not a native English-speaker, but I think there was a word for "changing the channel." Is there one?


title: Can somebody help me to understand this love saying?

text: > If you press me to say why I loved him, I can say no more than because he > was he and I was I...


title: "Stands for" direction?

text: In the song YOLO I heard the lyric "You oughta look out also stands for YOLO." I thought that the correct usage of "stands for" with acronyms was only the "[acronym] stands for [meaning]" direction. Using 'stand for' in reference to acronyms says that that direction is correct. But I've heard it used a lot in the other direction. Is it misuse, or can "stands for" be used the other way?


title: What does "dirty" mean in relation to a drink?

text: I saw in a movie a girl asking for a "very dirty" drink. Did she want higher alcohol content? I searched definitions of _dirty_ but I couldn't find any related to a drink.


title: There is (there's) vs.There are

text: What are the roots of the creeping usage of "there's" for both singular and plural predicates? (This seems to be more common in spoken English.) I have 2 theories. Perhaps it is because spoken communication our society is becoming less formal by the day. Or perhaps it is a reflection of speakers of other languages having increasing contact with native English speakers. I am aware of German "es gibt" and Spanish "hay" constructions. Please comment. 3/06/14 I ran a couple of Google Ngrams and was surprised to find a greater rise in the use of "there's" in English fiction than in general English language books, since the turn of the century. This would seem to support my contention that informality is behind the shift.


title: To 'confirm' or to 'affirm' a finding, anecdotally?

text: I just saw this come across my Twitter feed: > RT @hackernewsbot: Your Commute Is Killing You... > http://www.slate.com/id/2295603/pagenum/all/ **My two + hours every > dayconfirm this...** That made me question for a moment if _affirm_ would be preferred here? They seem like very similar words, and from the definitions I viewed I could make an argument either way.


title: term for a brand run by a company without direct acknowledgment?

text: The classic example of this in my mind is the relationship between Lexus and Toyota. At least in the United States, Lexus is not presented as "Lexus... by Toyota". From a newcomer's perspective, it is a fully independent entity. For Toyota, Lexus was targeted at a specific market segment, sales to which might have been adversely impacted by using the Toyota name. The term I thought of for this was "house brand", but googling suggests that term's meaning is generally confined to supermarket generics like "Sam's Choice". Can someone please help me properly name this brand relationship?


title: Figurative expression for outrageous/unlikely/overly bold claim

text: What expressions could one use to qualify an expression as unlikely, to soften the impact by changing it from accusation or hyperbole into unlikely (if outrageous) conjecture? Something like "God forbid" but more neutral, with no deities involved?   * Assuming he knows something about the criminal case, or, ......... he's the murderer?   * That was a small event, but with enough coincidences, this could ......... lead to war!   * Watch out for your daughter, she might marry not just someone of lower stance, but a foreigner an outright commoner, or even ............ a godless Negro!


title: Word meaning "to create unrealistic expectations"?

text: I'm drafting a letter to my family to announce the date and location of my destination wedding. I'm asking my family to not tell others about the wedding for now: > We would appreciate your help in not sharing this information with others, > including but not limited to extended family and family friends, so as not > to **_**. Originally I wanted to use the word _offend_ but that doesn't seem right - the act of telling someone about a wedding is not offensive. _Disappoint_ doesn't really work either for the same reason. I'd like to use _set unrealistic expectations_ as this truly captures the intent in me asking my family not to tell others about the wedding, but this seems very wordy. Is there a word that captures the meaning I'm trying to convey?


title: "None so far" is this grammatically correct?

text: A: do you have any questions? B: None so far. Is "none so far" a strange English and was it correct to use it in the dialogue above?.I was told by a native speaker that it is strange to use it this way in the dialogue.


title: What does "anticipation" mean in this sentence?

text: > He sees Empedocles' work as a primitive anticipation of Plato, a significant > union of spiritual other-worldiness with the philosophical and scientific > traditions of the Presocratics.   >  (Empedocles' Cosmic Cycle, by D. O'Brien). An activity anticipates another activity, a product anticipates another product. So either Empedocle's writing anticipates Plato's writing his dialogues, or Eempedocles' work is the forerunner of Plato's books. Here the speaker says that a work of one thinker(an object) is an anticipation of another thinker. I donot know why, because it is beyond my understanding of "antipication" as set forth above.


title: Order of importance , time order and space order

text: Why can't I say "Importance order" while I can say "time order" or "space order".


title: Is it OK to replace the preposition “through” with “during”?

text: > You'll hear the determination in the voice of a young field organizer who's > working his way through college. This is a line from President Obama's address. My question is why it is _through_ college, not _during_ college? Sometimes these prepositions confuse me.


title: Antonym of "recurrent"

text: What is the antonym of _recurrent_? This is like I have to few activities which I have to perform each month so these are recurrent but there are few activities which I only perform once. So what should I say this activity is recurrent and that activity is _one time_? What is the proper word in this situation?


title: 'Would' for past events

text: For the sentence, > He said he would buy a new car. Does adding 'He said' in front make it sound like an event that happened in past? For example, if I write _He would buy a new car_ then that could mean he might be going to buy a new car in the future. But when I write it with _He said_ what difference would it make?


title: "Pricey" vs. "Pricy"

text: I've recently encountered these two variations of the spellings for the informal word for "expensive." My dictionary and the online dictionary seem to indicate that both of these spellings are correct, but I have yet to discover why there are two variations of this word.   1. Are both of these spellings correct?   2. Is this simply another difference between British and American English?


title: Meaning of "sharp"

text: Context (New York Times): > Still, rooms were large by the city’s pint-size standards, service was > **sharp** , and for the moment, they offer some of the best values around. Does _sharp_ here mean definition 20 (shrewd to the point of dishonesty) in Dictionary.com?


title: Difference between "at that time" / "that time"

text: What's the difference between **at that time / that time**? > When I faced the issue previously, at that time John helped us to resolve > it.   >  When I faced the issue previously, that time John helped us to resolve it.


title: "Requirement of" - correct preposition?

text: Is the use of the word "of" correct in the following sentence, or this there a better word? The meaning should be "which requirement the platform must fulfil". > The most important requirements _of_ the platform are performance and > functionality.


title: Is there a word for a personal or informal definition?

text: What's the correct way to say something such as "my definition of good C# code is _etc._ ". I could say "I would describe good C# code as having the following attributes and adhering to the following rules: _etc._ ", but that seems rather long winded. Similarly, I often hear the expression: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." I looked up the definition of insanity, and that's not it. If we're speaking English, the definition of a word should be its corresponding text in the dictionary. Is there something else to call those expressions like the above examples, other than personal or informal definitions?


title: The Historical Development of Nouns and Adjectives

text: Historically speaking, were nouns derived from adjectives or were adjectives derived from nouns? That is to say, as verbal communication developed which came first: the noun, or the adjective?


title: Word for someone who pays attention to details

text: I know I've seen a word that describes a person who has a high perception of details (for example, seeing specific information in a log file), but I can't recall it now. Insights?


title: What does ‘Adjusts playbook with a pencil, not a sharpie’ mean?

text: I was puzzled to find the headline – ‘ _D’Antoni Adjusts Playbook with a Pencil, Not a Sharpie_ ’ in the sport article in today’s New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/sport/basketball ). Although I understand ‘a pencil, not sharpie’ is a figurative expression comparing metal cylinder sharpie to wood pencil, what does it exactly mean? Adjust his hard style to softer style? Is ‘Adjusts playbook with a pencil, not a sharpie’ a kind of cliché? The headline is followed by the following sentence: > Mike D’Antoni is fighting against perceptions, resisting his impulses and > wrestling with his playbook. For years, D’Antoni cultivated an image and an > offense based on speed and small lineups, constant movement and contrarian > thinking. In Phoenix, that offense produced 60-win seasons and deep playoff > runs. In New York, it re-energized a moribund franchise. But circumstances > have changed, drastically.


title: Is "stepmother treatment" Indian English?

text: When I googled _stepmother treatment_ , I found that it was mainly used in India to refer to neglect, disregard or inattention. Most of the other non- Indian links talked about the literal treatment by the relative. Does this phrase/idiom belong only to Indian English? In India, stepmothers carry this stereotype of being vile women, by the way.


title: What is "left-hand driving"

text: What does left-hand driving mean? Does it mean the steering wheel is on the left side of the car? > Sure that's not Britain? > > Look at the traffic flow and the direction of the lanes, it's not a left- > hand driving country.


title: What's the meaning of 'cub/s'?

text: What's the meaning of "cub" or "cubs" and in what context is it used?


title: Meaning of "I command you for that"

text: I noticed this somewhere and I have no clue what it means, as I'm not a native speaker. Google hasn't helped out. Does anyone know what this means? (If you need additional context, let me know). > I command you for that.


title: What's the origin of "[X number of] souls onboard"?

text: In nautical (and aeronautical) contexts, a vessel may declare a number of "souls onboard". I've googled around for origin of that phrase, but haven't found a definitive explanation. Most discussions of the phrase I've seen on aeronautical forums and obviously concern the usage in aviation, with the discussion often revolving around on rescuers tallying the dead after an accident. But the phrase is obviously older than that and used in situations besides emergencies. Of the explanations I've read, many claim that "souls" is used as it includes passengers _and_ crew, whereas a number on a passenger manifest would only include the former. But even so "people", "humans", or simply "there are 150 onboard" would seem as effective. While the inclusion of passengers and crew makes sense, I can't help but wonder what the requirements are for being counted as a "soul" and whether they've changed. Whether it's always meant "living human being" or if it was used to expressly exclude certain individuals rather than include them. For instance, would it include the (presumably non-babtized) "cargo" in the days of slave trade? A morbid thought, I admit. It may just be tradition based in "souls" sounding more dignified than "humans", and the religion-laden language of its day. Yet I can't help but wonder. * * * **Clarification:** The answers here so far concern aviation usage, yet I simply mentioned aviation because that's the context in which I've seen the phrase discussed. But my question is about its _original etymology_ ; not its current usage. The phrase comes from a nautical context, but why did sailors use the word "souls"? I understand the meaning of the phrase, and I understand that it makes sense as an inclusive term to mean "everyone onboard". I also understand that by now it's become traditional. But again the question is about its origin. Since a word like "persons" would be equally unambiguous (and as David Schwartz points out below, "persons" is indeed a valid alternative in modern aviation), why use "souls" instead? Was it for instance originally meant as an _exclusive_ term? * * * Some of the explanations I've seen elsewhere:   * "Souls" excludes human remains being transported (in an aviation context this would help crash responders sort out crash victims from those already dead, but again the phrase predates aircraft and aircraft crashes)   * It refers back to "S.O.S" for "save our souls" (which must be wrong since that's _not_ what S.O.S means. The code was chosen for its morse pattern and not as an acronym, and anyway the phrase is older than morse code too)   * "Souls" excludes lawyers and managers… (no comment) By the way, in aviation it seems the phrase is sometimes abbreviated as "S.O.B", much to the delight of some pilots, especially when pluralized: "We've got 40 SOBs here. And two pilots."


title: What's the difference between "false", "counterfeit", and "forged" when describing a document?

text: I'm reading Schengen Borders Code (2006R0562—EN) and in the Annex V Part B there's a list of reasons for refusing entry that includes > (B) has a false/counterfeit/forged travel document As far as I know, any of those would mean that the document bearer either obtained the document in an illegal way or has edited the document. What would those three qualifications exactly mean and what's the difference between them?


title: "Injunct" vs "Enjoin"

text: The _injunctions_ (and super-injunctions) that occasionally make the headlines restrain a defendant from doing something. It is fairly clear (e.g. OED) that the word was formed as a noun from _enjoin_ in the sense of stop, and has various uses. There is, however, a continuing need for a specific verb in the legal context (The Court granted an injunction to stop him doing it/ he was ???ed from doing it). It is increasingly common for this verb (both in the media and in court) to be "injunct", which is in the dictionary, but only as 'colloq.'. It seems to me that a word that is colloquial (and very ugly) has no place in a courtroom; but since most of the people who use it are High Court judges, I thought I'd see whether fellow EL&Uers agree with me. Is it worth campaigning to restore _enjoin_ here, or indeed is there a better replacement? TL;DR _Injunct_ is an illegitimate back-formation from _injunction_ , which actually came from _enjoin_. Is it too late to stop this word polluting our beautiful language?


title: Is "submittable" a valid word?

text: Is "submittable" a valid word to describe something that is eligible to submit?


title: Where can I get the list of diminutive forms of first names?

text: As the title suggests, where can I get the list of diminutive forms of people's first names? Like Mike for Michael and Dave for David.


title: "Housewife" vs. "homemaker"

text: What is the difference between **housewife** and **homemaker**? When can we use housewife and when can we use homemaker? >   * I am a housewife. >   * I am a homemaker. > > > Which is correct in the above examples for a married woman, who is > unemployed. She is filing up a registration form, applying for a ration card > in India. What should be written under Occupation.


title: Is there a word to describe rotation of ownership?

text: Is there a word which means that ownership rotates or moves around a known set of options? For example, the Olympics are hosted by a different nation each time, so they are [word I am looking for]. The only thing I can think of is something derived from "round-robin", which is a way of rotating ownership of tasks for scheduling in Computer Science, but I don't think that is a universally understood term.


title: Are there single words that are defined as "to remain to examine what others passed up"

text: I was beach combing the other day and I wanted to know a word for "to remain to examine what others have passed up." This happens in beach combing when you are following your fellow companion and are moving slower, searching for what they might have missed.


title: Antonym(s) for "antipode" / "antipodes" / "antipodean"?

text: Wiktionary says these terms refer to "the opposite" side, etc and offers no antonyms. But in practice, in the field of north vs south hemispheres, they are only ever used in my experience to refer to the southern hemisphere from the point of view of the northern hemisphere? What terms should be used to refer to this aspect "oppositeness" of the northern hemisphere from the POV of the southern hemisphere. Can I as an Australian refer to somebody from the northern hemisphere as "antipodean"? And even if technically correct will anybody understand me? Or do the terms in this set have accepted antonyms? Or what other solutions might I use when I want to convey this reversed point of view?


title: What is the origin of "tall tale"?

text: A _tall tale_ is a folkloric story that is generally wildly exaggerated and told for the amusement of the listeners. Tall tale tellers usually claim some sort of personal involvement in the story. I was curious about the origin of the phrase itself, and in the course of poking around, I found that _tall_ in this phrase means _exaggerated_ , so "tall tale" means an "exaggerated story." What I can't seem to find is where this term originated. It seems to be sometime in the middle to late 1800s in the US, but who coined this term? Was it a famous author? Did someone publish a book of tall tales around that time? (More specifically, the argument revolves around whether or not Mark Twain was responsible, although if it's not him, then who?) EDIT: According to Etymology Online, tall "meaning 'exaggerated' (as in **tall tale** ) is Amer.Eng. colloquial attested by 1846." (Now I will look to find where it is attested in 1846.) Another Edit: An additional bit of interest is that a tall tale is considered folklore, and this word (folk-lore) was very famously coined by William Thoms in 1846.


title: How did the word "chunter" come about?

text: Did it arise from a mixture of chattering and murmuring?


title: Synonyms of " in the case of"

text: Is there any word with the same meaning as _in the case of_? How we can say it in different ways if in one paragraph we have several copies of _in the case of_?


title: What is the difference between "quicker" and "faster"?

text: What is the correct word to use here and why: > I will get there quicker [than you] vs. > I will get there faster [than you] There must be similar adverbs for "slower".


title: Is there any word available for an incident occurred and vanished in front of eyes?

text: I was confused, when one of my friends was writing his name on a lead from vapor of mouth: I saw his name for a few seconds and after that it automatically disappeared. So what can I call this incident? Is there any word available for this incident?


title: What does “E!” mean in the phrases, a show “makes the debut Sunday E! sets in motion,” and “premiers on E! April 21”?

text: I came across a new interjection (seemingly) “E!” in the following sentence of the Washington Post (April 18) article titled, “Ryan Lochte, Ke$ha and the rules for celebrity reality shows”. > Ryan Lochte’s bold personal style: The Olympic swimmer’s reality series > “What Would Ryan Lochte Do?” **premires on E!** April 21. > > This week marks the debut of two such shows. **Sunday, E!** sets in motion > “What Would Ryan Lochte Do?,” a look at the Olympic swimmer who made > headlines at last year’s London games — not so much for his victories and > friendly rivalry with teammate Michael Phelps as for a flurry of awkward > interviews and self-deluded sound bites (trademarking the **frat- > thusiastic** phrase “ **Jeah**!”) that gave him a party-boy reputation. What does “E!” mean? Is it an interjection or a capital letter for something associated with TV entertainment programs? Additionally, is “Jeah” similar with “gee / jee”? Is the word, “ frat- thusiastic” which I presume to be a compound of “fraternity + enthusiastic” (Pls. correct me if I’m wrong) a current English word, or just a coinage by the author?


title: "Home page" or "homepage"?

text: Is there a convention for the spelling of the name of the main page of a website? Should it be _home page_ , with a space between the two words; or _homepage_ , all one word?


title: Having had nobody stood up for me -correct?

text: I'm not sure about the following: > Having advised to many of your colleagues (and yet having had nobody stood > up for me when the shit hits the fan), I have decided not to discuss your > issues anymore. or > Having advised to many of your colleagues (and yet having had nobody stand > up for me when the shit hits the fan), I have decided not to discuss your > issues anymore.


title: What's the connection between "Holy Grail" and "Killer Rabbit"?

text: This article says: > If there's a Holy Grail, there's a Killer Rabbit. I can understand that to be "even if there's a good solution, there's a catch to it", but what does _Killer Rabbit_ have to do with the _Holy Grail_?


title: phrasal verb or preposition at the end of a sentence?

text: "That bullet point is simply in place to ensure that projects are followed through with." I got blasted for ending the above sentence with with, and I feel it's a phrasal verb so is okay. Am I correct? The disclaimer here is that I'm terrible with the English language (probably seen in my question itself). Thanks ahead of time for the assistance


title: "The paper on Monday published X" vs. "the paper published on Monday X"

text: What would be the best position of _Monday_ in the following sentence — before or after the verb? >   * The paper on Monday published what the artist called a blunt attack on > people’s right to privacy. >   * The paper published on Monday what the artist called a blunt attack on > people’s right to privacy. >


title: Pronunciation of the letter 'W'

text: Why is the letter 'W' pronounced like double-'U' in English and pronounced as double-'V' in French? I've always wondered this. Typographically, the letter 'W' can be written with curvy bottoms (sorry for the lack of typography jargon) which looks like two U's side by side (uu). It can also be written with hard edges which make it look more like two V's side by side (vv). I thought this was pretty interesting.


title: Does this word qualify as a word - "evermore-so"?

text: I've not seen this used much. Can someone perhaps direct me to a more appropriate word. Edit: I would like to use it in emphasizing a current situation where something has become abundant over a short period. Ie: > Cyberspace is filled with various x, y and evermoreso now the extensive > option for z.