title: "ground occupied.." meaning

text: I cannot figure out the meaning of this sentence: > There is a ground in between the voluntary and the involuntary occupied by > expressions that were once learned but come to operate automatically without > choice, or even despite choice, and typically without awareness. For me as a non-native speaker it is kinda complicated. I guess the "ground" goes together with "occupied". However, it does not make any sense to me. Could you help me with synonyms here to understand the first part of the sentence?


title: What does ‘On its good days’ of “On its good days, all this (live for love, die for love, kill for love) seems to make perfect sense mean?

text: There is the following sentence in the Time magazine’s article “The science of romance: Why we love,” (Jan. 28, 2008), dealing with the mechanism of Love: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1704672,00.html, > “People compose poetry, novels, sitcoms for love," says Helen Fisher, an > anthropologist at Rutgers University. “They live for love, die for love, and > kill for love. It can be stronger than the drive to stay alive. > > **On its good days** (and love has a lot of them), all this seems to make > perfect sense. Nearly 30 years ago, psychologist Elaine Hatfield of the > University of Hawaii and sociologist Susan Sprecher now of Illinois State > University developed a 15-item questionnaire that ranks people along what > the researchers call the passionate-love scale.” I cannot get the idea of “ _on its good_ days.” ‘Good day’ here doesn’t seem to be a usual greeting word when parting from someone. I can understand “love has a lot of good days,” but I don’t understand what “(On its) good days” accounts for, and how “good days” are related with “Live for love, die for love and kill for love make perfect sense.” Can you exlain me?


title: Can "respectively" be used with a single sequence if clear to what each item refers?

text: Typically, the word "respectively" is used to relate two sequences of identical lengths: > ... expectation of finding two and three cats in the left and right room, > respectively. Meaning, in this example, that the expectation was to find two cats in the left room and three in the right room. Now I'm wondering if omitting the latter sequence is acceptable if the reader can be expected to still understand what is meant, e.g., if this is something that has been extensively discussed before and is now only mentioned again to remind the reader. > ... expectation of finding two and three cats, respectively. If this is highly unusual or even completely incorrect, is there a better alternative? Thanks!


title: Difference between 'awarding marks' and 'rewarding marks'

text: There is already a similar question but doesn't answer me. My teacher distributed answer sheets today and I felt aggrieved because I was not evaluated properly and deserved more marks. I gave the paper back to teacher and asked for re-evaluation. To this my teacher said: > If I find you deserve more marks, I will award you more marks; not reward > you with more marks. Is this simply a punch dialogue? Is there any grammatical meaning to what my teacher said?


title: Why is "from overseas" grammatical?

text: "Overseas", as far as I am concerned, is an adjective or an adverb. If "from overseas" is a correct phrase, why is it grammatical? "From" is a preposition, and it should be followed by a noun, not an adjective, nor an adverb.


title: What would you call size that fits between small and medium?

text: Our UI supports small (32px wide), medium (64px) and large buttons (96px). Now need appeared to add 48px wide buttons and it would be nice not to rename all the rest, just to give them a name which will fit them between 'small' and 'medium'. Can you suggest that? Informal names are okay.


title: At and To can be used together?

text: I have read these lines on a blog and I have doubt : > Look at to the sky.. I guess we can not use at and to together. What is right?


title: A word for someone reporting about other people to the government

text: Is there any pejorative word for someone reporting about other people to the government or other power about other people, but who is not working for that power (is no spy)? That reporting is usually for money, for eliminating rivals, or just because of hate/revange. Examples:   * reporting oppositionists to the secret police   * reporting sexual/ethnic minority members that hide from prosecution   * reporting that someone is reading forbidden books/watching forbidden movies Is there a word for such a person? In Poland it's called 'konfident' but in English that word has quite a different meaning. The translation services give words like 'informer' but they hear quite neutral for me, while Polish 'konfident' is very pejorative.


title: A word that says a person is both female and your friend

text: It's often confusing for me to talk about my friends, especially my female friends. This is because in Dutch there are words for both male ("vriend") and female ("vriendin") friends. In English however, there's as far as I know only the word friend, which can mean both a male or a female friend. For this reason I was wondering if there is a word to say a person is both female and a friend.


title: girlfriend / boyfriend confusion

text: During a discussion, I was trying to make a point; I told the woman I was speaking to, > You're wrong! I have a girlfriend who plays videogames! This backfired; she assumed I had a girlfriend. How does one refer to a female/male friend?


title: Looking for a Verb / Idiom to Make a Wish Come True

text: Let say I wish to have a car, and somebody bought me that car. Which verbs or idioms can describe the "somebody's" action?


title: Meaning Of Arrangement

text: I want to know the meaning of the word **_arrangement_** in the following sentence and the overall meaning of this snetence: > “Reinforcers,” are rewards or punishments used to encourage desired > behaviors, and “contingencies,” are the **_arrangements_** of those > reinforcers to shape behavior.


title: Origin of "to be in fat city"?

text: What is the origin of the phrase "to be in fat city" meaning "to do well" (financially or otherwise)? A search with an internet search engine suggests that it is of fairly recent vintage, as the two earliest occurrences in newspapers I could locate are from the 1990s: http://articles.latimes.com/1994-03-20/local/me-36359_1_earthquake-readiness I kept thinking we would be in fat city if the house was left standing. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/03/realestate/appraising-the-role-of-the- appraiser.html When the appraisers got licensed they thought they would be in fat city, but Federal licensing standards are so high that they had to do a lot more work.


title: is "How is conditions being unfair not an issue?" grammatically correct?

text: I wrote "How **is** conditions being unfair not an issue?" instead of "How **_are_** conditions being unfair not an issue?" as I believe the subject of the sentence is 'conditions being unfair' rather than 'conditions'. However, I'm not quite sure. Which is it?


title: The very concepts of the "present" and "existence"

text: In the following sentence I want to understand the meaning of the bolded part: > The light from most stars takes millions of years to reach us, so not only > the present existence of these stars debatable, but so are **_the very > concepts of the "present" and "existence"._** What does it mean?


title: Use of the plural form for "flotsam"

text: I'm having a discussion on whether the word flotsam is used only in a singular context or if it can be used as a plural. Can you help me which sentence is grammatically correct? Instinctively the first sounds better to me, however I cannot explain why. Do they have a different meaning? > Marine flotsam **includes** wood, algae and plastic. or > Marine flotsam **include** wood, algae and plastic.


title: What are other ways to express "something becomes more and more important"?

text: For example, if I would like to use the word "importance", how can I make the sentence?


title: Usage of myriad as a noun

text: Can the word _myriad_ be used in a stand-alone fashion, without a subsequent _of_ prepositional? _He rose to address the myriad, and wept._ The word is a noun, and this usage sounds poetic to me, and I can't think of any reason beyond convention why it must precede an _of_ (especially if there is sufficient context establishing the items being vaguely quantified) Perhaps switching the article makes it more awkward: _He rose to address a myriad, and wept._ However, qualifying it suddenly brings it around: _He rose to address an assembling myriad, and wept._


title: Larry Trask seems to be violating rules about commas as mentioned in his own guide

text: I was reading Larry Trask's guide on how to use the comma. His node11.html mentions that we should not use a joining comma before any word other than _and_ , _or_ , _but_ , _while_ and _yet_. But in node13.html, he seems to be making some dubious uses of comma violating the rules he has mentioned in his guide. For example, > **"So, the bracketing commas shouldn't be there."** The comma used in that sentence is not a listing comma. It is not followed by _and_ , _or_ , _but_ , _while_ or _yet_. It is not a gapping comma either, and doesn't seem like a bracketing comma. Then why is the comma there? Trask suggests that we fix such punctuation using semicolons. A comma should precede only the five connecting words he has mentioned: and, or, but, while and yet. For anything else, we should use a semicolon. But he doesn't do so in the next example. Why not? > **"This is a good sentence, so you have now got the bracketing commas in the > right places."**


title: Single word which means "keep moving forward"

text: I need a single word which means "keep moving forward". What are my options? I need word as persevere Be persistent, refuse to stop cognizant (sometimes followed by 'of') having or showing knowledge or understanding or realization or perception [] keep moving forward I want to make meaningful name for firm please help me


title: Origin of "I can haz"?

text: I see some domain names have "icanhaz" in them. I think there must be some story behind it. Do you guys know?


title: "Would" with a present meaning—is this correct?

text: A great example I can think of: > "Please, leave! I would be alone!" With **would** meaning something like, "I want to be alone." Is this correct, or not? **EDIT:** To further clarify, I am not aiming for **would like to**. My original question/sentence is not a typo.


title: Do all syllables belong to open syllable or closed syllable?

text: Is there any other category for a syllable which is neither an open nor closed syllable?


title: "can hardly" vs. "can't hardly"

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "Can hardly wait" versus "can't hardly wait" These two seem to be opposites of each other because of the additional "not" in one of them. However, they seem to be interchangeable. Are they? What's the difference?


title: Simple sentence that I'm not sure is right

text: I just want to know if this sentence is right: "It contributed to the decision of start respecting people" If it's not. How can I fix it? I've no idea if I should use contributed for or start to instead. Thanks a lot!


title: usage of "no matter...or"

text: Can I use "no matter...or" in the following way? Also can anyone help me verify the whole sentence? > When I first joined the lab, Haijing provided a lot of help for me no matter > in study or in life.


title: I'm looking for help with a word to describe a concise theory

text: I'm looking for a word that describes the simplest, most complete theory: concise, elegant, complete


title: Difference between ‘English school’ and ‘school of English’

text: I'm a Spanish speaker and I need to know the difference between _School of English_ and _English School_. Sometimes I see these phrases, and I don't know which one is the correct one.


title: Look forward to meeting you both vs. Look forward to meeting you

text: I'm confused about the need to add the word "both", when you're using "you" as a plural that refers to more than one individual. The below sentence refers to two people (the "you") is as follows: > We look forward to meeting you this evening as well as getting to know you > both over the coming year. Any comments / edits would be greatly appreciated!


title: What does “Awesome” mean when you are complimented by an Apple-shop salesclerk on your answer to a barrage of his questions?

text: “London. Hello, Awesome” is a comparative culture essay written by a writer at large of the New York Times who returned to her post in New York office from England after 18 years, and it wraps up with the following episode she experienced back in New York: > “I was at the Apple store the other day, asking basic technical questions > and trying not to take up too much of anyone’s mental space. > > I told the salesclerk that I had to change my address, since I’d just moved > back. > > He asked me a million questions: Why? Where was I going to live? How about > my family? How did I feel? > > He considered the whole thing for a moment — me, the move, New York, life. > > “ **Awesome!” he said. And I think he really meant it**.”   >  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/opinion/sunday/ta-ta-london-hello- > awesome.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Oxford English Dictionary defines “awesome” as an adjective meaning;   1. Extremely impressive or daunting; inspiring awe.   2. (informal) Extremely good; excellent. If I take the salesclerk’s reply simply for the latter, what was “Excellent!”? Her answer to his questions, or her being back in New York? What did “he really mean it?” Is this usage of “Awesome” current outside U.S. as well?


title: Which word fits better in this case: focused, aimed or oriented?

text: * My research is focused to find life in other planets.   * My research is aimed to find life in other planets.   * My research is oriented to find life in other planets. In formal writing, which one is better and why? Also is it better _to_ or _on_?


title: Qualifying a profile

text: Which of these adjectives is better used to qualify a profile (the width of an elongated object, such as in _crossing profile_ )?   * low or small   * large or high _Low crossing profile_ seems more common than _small crossing profile_ , even though _large crossing profile_ is more common than _high crossing profile_. It seems there is some influence from the expression _to keep a low profile_ , but there seems to be a contradiction in the way the two directions are dealt with. Is it normal? Or should I just use _high crossing profile_ for consistency?


title: What will happen if I say to my boss, “"I'm not going to kiss your ring and I'm not going to kiss any other part of your anatomy."?

text: I was a bit surprized to find the line which was delivered by the former Governor of Utah, Jon Huntsman in December 5th Time magazine. It reads: “In Fox News interview, Utahan tweaks the Donald, charges the real-estate mogul typifies "what is wrong with politics" and says "if he had any courage at all, he would be running for President." Huntsman: " _I'm not going to kiss his ring and I'm not going to kiss any other part of his anatomy."_ If he said simply "I'm not going to kiss his ring,” he is simply saying “I’m not fawning him.” But by adding “I'm not going to kiss any other part of his anatomy" I think it comes to have a smack of "pervertedness." Maybe I’m taking his word wrong way or too serious in interpreting. But in our country, if our politician delivers literally translated words like "I'm not going to kiss his (say, his opponent’s) ring and I'm not going to kiss any other part of his anatomy," in TV, he’ll be frowned by audience, particularly by sensitive women, or it can lead to losing his seat in the worst case. Is this kind of “anatomy related” rhetoric used by dignitaries just casually, or day-to-day in public and granted as a matter of course in United State? If I said "I'm not going to kiss your ring and I'm not going to kiss any other part of your anatomy” to my boss, say, president of the company, what would be his reaction? Does he just chuckle, or fire me?


title: How to express "brewing coffee" in CV interests?

text: I'm not a professional barista but I have a hobby connected with brewing espresso and making all kinds of coffee. I'm also interested in various coffee beans, espresso machines etc. How to express it in CV's interests?


title: comparative construction used with pronouns, especially 'her'

text: I was recently pulled up by a colleague when I made a statement along the lines of _I am a better player than her_. My colleague suggested the correct statement should be _better player than **she is_** because _her_ is a possessive pronoun, and my colleague was waiting to hear what noun _her_ referred to. I was unconvinced. I am able to say: _I am taller than Jim_ , which can become _I am taller than him_. So, just because _her_ is both the feminine possessive and personal pronoun why does that exclude me from saying _I am taller than her_? Or, have I made a false assumption, and should never have a noun/pronoun without a verb at the end of a comparative structure? Should I always have been saying _I am taller than Jim **is_** , and _Rabbits are faster than turtles **are_**? This seems awfully cumbersome


title: American Pronunciation of words in England and vice versa

text: I realise this maybe a touchy subject for some of the members on here but i have found that a lot of people in Britain have taken to Americanising the pronunciation of words. I was wondering if this is the case in the USA? Take Schedule, Laboratory and lever for example, we all know the differences, does anyone find people in america pronouncing words in the same way Brits do? Is there some sort of linguistic divide? or is it just us!?


title: Phrase to means "something a hipster would like"

text: I've been trying to come up with a phrase that means "something a hipster would like" in the modern context. _Cool_ and _hip_ seem kind of dated, so what would be a good recommendation for a more modern phrase (that a hipster would use?) Downvotes only make this hipster post more valid!


title: "We're pregnant!"

text: I noticed a rash of couples recently who will announce to friends and family, "We're pregnant!" At first I thought this was just a cutesy way of announcing a pregnancy that was intended to be humorous, with the joke being that one partner was somewhat less pregnant than the other. But since first noticing it a few years ago, I've heard and seen it in print much more often. Here's an example of an image that appears to use it in a humorous context: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/e1hqw.jpg) Contrast with this image, which seems to be entirely serious: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/lJerx.jpg) Is this an acceptable use of the word 'pregnant'? And if so, how far back does the usage go?


title: "I am a big fan of you" or "I am a big fan of yours"?

text: Which one of them is correct? _**_"I am a big fan of you"** or **"I am a big fan of yours" ?**** I think the last one, but the first one seems ok.


title: Are there any variations on nouns ending with an -al suffix?

text: _-al_ can be added to a word to form a an adjective or a noun. If the adjective-forming suffix is added after a base word that ends in [l] then it can change to an _-ar_ suffix (e.g. _polar_ ). But are there any examples of this, or another sound change, with the noun- forming suffix?


title: What is a woman who make a lot of fuss but does little or nothing called?

text: According to a web log article, titled "Weird Words Starting With 'M'", published on Squidoo, the "word" _maulifuff_ means: > maulifuff n. a woman with little energy, a fussy female who does little or > nothing Thus, I'm looking for an English word or expression meaning "a woman who make a lot of fuss but does little or nothing." Frankly, after some searches and after having verified that Merriam-Webster Dictionary and MacMillan Dictionary don't have that entry (malifuff), I surrendered, and, now, I'm not able to search something that can help me to solve the problem. Can anyone help me?


title: Do people really think "muslin" has something to do with "Muslim"?

text: My boss just floored me with a doozy of an assertion: he had me change someone's password, which contained the word "muslin", _because "you can't go calling people Muslims in this day and age"._ Yeah, jaw, meet floor; floor, meet jaw. Anyway, so I looked up the etymologies, and sure enough, while both ultimately derive from Arabic words, that's as close as the relationship comes. But my boss was adamant: he believes that, all facts aside, people associate "muslin" the fabric with "Muslim" the religion. I certainly have never encountered such an association. Has anybody else?


title: What is the meaning of this cartoon by Dr. Seuss?

text: I don't quite understand what the author was trying to say in this picture. Could anyone explain? http://libraries.ucsd.edu/speccoll/dswenttowar/#ark:bb4813149f


title: Kilo as 1 024, Mega as 1 048 576

text: Under SI, the _kilo_ prefix refers to 1,000 and mega refers to 1,000,000. In strict computer terms, _kilo_ refers to 1,024 (210), _mega_ refers to 1,048,576 (220) and _giga_ is 1,073,741,824 (230). The original question was how widely known outside this domain is this distinction? Going by the answers provided, I should be using binary prefixes in order to remove the ambiguity in my documentation.


title: Any individual or any individuals?

text: The Newyorker reports: “Any responsible individuals, any responsible groups will feel the full weight of justice,” Obama said. What is correct? 'Any responsible individual' or 'Any responsible individuals'? Similarly, shouldn't we say, 'Any responsible group' as opposed to 'Any responsible groups'?


title: Is it good style to factor out the common root word of two (or more) prefixed compound words?

text: I see sometimes in conjunciton or disjunction, the common root of two or more compound words are factored out, for example, "super- and sub-script" (maybe bad example, but it suffices to describe the situation). Is this good style? To me, I would prefer "super-script and "sub-script".


title: When is it appropriate to use a comma before “which”, “with”, and “who”?

text: Is it appropriate to use a comma before _which_ in the following sentence? > The group has helped me to make new friends and become more independent, > which has increased my self-confidence. Is it appropriate to use a comma before _with_ or _who_ in the following sentence? > This is an important group, with committed members who enjoy their > activities. I have been looking up restrictive and non-restrictive clauses, and although I understand the theory, I am unsure how to apply it to the two sentences above.


title: "Be mother" - Etymology and usage

text: I recently came across the idiom "Be mother" in a crossword. It is supposed to mean 'to pour tea'. I was surprised by the meaning, and want to ask if there is any etymology or history behind this curious idiom. Is it informal/facetious/slang?


title: Is past perfect necessary in the following

text: I read the following on abcnews, but couldn't convince myself to accept the past perfect form the sentence. What is the action before which the 'had mailed' part has occurred and completed? And why would he use had given up? > "Abdulfattah "John" Jandali, a Syrian man who fathered Jobs, **had emailed** > his son a few times in a tentative effort to make contact. The father never > called the son because he feared Jobs would think the dad who **had given > him up** was now after his fortune."


title: What is the difference between "meat" and "flesh"?

text: When do we use "meat" and when do we use "flesh"?   I think the difference is very subtle: maybe meat refers to food, and flesh to human or animal bodies, but as English is not my mother tongue, I want to be sure of the specific meanings and usage of both words.


title: What does it mean to say "The greater of _ or _"

text: I am reading a document, and it is confusing me and want to be certain of the meaning of this sentence: `OUR COMPANY'S TOTAL LIABILITY TO YOU FOR ACTUAL DAMAGES FOR ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER WILL BE LIMITED TO THE GREATER OF $500 OR THE AMOUNT PAID BY YOU FOR THE SOFTWARE THAT CAUSED SUCH DAMAGE.` If the amount paid for the software equals to $200, then the greater will be $500 ? and If the amount paid for the software equals to $700, then the greater will be $700 ? Or is it the opposite? **Question 2:** Lets say I want to reword the sentence to be: `... Limited to the greater of $500 or %25 of the amount paid by you for ...` Any thing grammatically wrong with that?


title: Word to refer to computers as opposed to consoles

text: I'm looking for a word that you'd use to refer to all computers that distinguishes them from gaming consoles. The word " **computer** " is too general - that would include servers and other industrial machines - and technically consoles as well. I could go with " **home computer** " or " **personal computer** ", but I'd like to find a single word that works. My gut tells me that " **PC** " fits the bill, but most people who see "PC" associate it with one running some version of Windows - Mac and Linux machines are not included (even though they do meet the original definition of "personal computer"). I thought " **desktop** " would be a good word, but it excludes laptops and tablets. It's specifically needed relating to games. For the opposite, there's one word: " **console** " is generally considered to include all versions of XBox, Playstation, and Nintendo (and Sega, Atari, etc. if you go back far enough). What I'm looking for is the opposite. The sentence is: > More and more, game consoles are starting to resemble **__** _s, with > internal hard drives, network connections, etc.


title: Who are the witnesses in a court hearing?

text: **Among the witnesses called by petitioner were Mr. Allen; Ms. Farrow** ; Dr. Susan Coates, a clinical psychologist who treated Satchel; Dr. Nancy Schultz, a clinical psychologist who treated Dylan; and Dr. David Brodzinsky, a clinical psychologist who spoke with Dylan and Moses pursuant to his assignment in a related Surrogate’s Court proceeding. ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/Hn8KY.png) My question is: Mr. Allen is the Petitioner and the witnesses called by petitioner at the same time? ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/Y7qDT.png)


title: Does the word "out" carry sexual-minority flavour?

text: My NGO and partners are producing a feature film about Russian speakers in the world, and to explain its point as bias-breaking, we came up with the name **_out_** , that's nicely expanded in the slogan as _out_ of politics, _out_ of bias, _out_ of propaganda. Today a colleague from the US brought to my attention that _out_ has strong sexual minority connotations. Having a reasonably good command of English I disagree, but then I thought I need another opinion. We just started crowd- funding for it and wouldn't like to be looking funny. The context may be seen at http://outfilm.cmpip.org. Advice is much appreciated!


title: May vs Might in Sentence

text: > On an average Sunday, you might find yourself In the sentence above, the possibility of the person reading finding themselves doing what it says is pretty high. It's almost certain. Should I use _may_ instead? _Might_ still sounds better when the sentence is read. I often find sentences where _may_ might be more appropriate but _might_ sounds better. Even in this previous sentence I used _might_ even though what I'm describing is much more likely than not.


title: What is the difference between "fair" and "festival"?

text: The words "fair" and "festival" seem almost identical to me, but they have separate Wikipedia entries (here and here) with similarly structured, yet different information. In terms of the meaning and usage of the word, what is different about "fair" and "festival"? Are there examples of activities that are "fairs", but not "festivals" and visa versa?


title: "page 2" or "Page 2"?

text: When referring to a page in a text, should the reference be e.g. "see page 2", or "see Page 2"? Since I write "see Section 2", I would lean towards the latter, but I think I have seen the former more often in the texts of others.


title: Do the words "jail" and "prison" refer to different things?

text: In everyday speech, the terms _jail_ and _prison_ are used interchangeably in many situations. However, my understanding is that, at least in the US, they actually refer to slightly different things. For instance, it appears to me that it would be rather unusual for an American to use the expression _federal jail_. He'd most probably say _federal prison_ instead. Am I right? What is the correct usage of _jail_ vs _prison_? Are there any (historical or legal) differences between the US and the Commonwealth?


title: Does this sentence make proper use of the semicolon and colon?

text: I have the following sentence: > Relationships once so convoluted and beyond me were now clear: Pain became > love; betrayal, loyalty; nonchalance, care. What I'm trying to accomplish is list the relationships that are now clear by using the colon to begin the list, and by using the semicolon as a "supercomma" of sorts. Does this follow all English rules correctly? Or, am I doing something completely wrong here?


title: "Vendor" vs. "vender" in Standard American English

text: Which is preferred? I've always thought that _vendor_ was the only spelling. The question was brought up by a typo, which the Word spellchecker did not correct.


title: "Never slap a man who's chewing tobacco"

text: Is this a proverb? What does it mean and what is the origin?


title: What is the word for bright colors such as green?

text: What does one call these bright colors such as pink, green, or yellow? You see those in posters frequently.


title: "They develop skills at this age" vs. "they are developing skills at this age"

text: Which one is correct? If both are correct, are there any differences in meaning? >   1. For children, the age of 3 is very critical time, because they develop > their language skills rapidly at this age. > >   2. For children, the age of 3 is very critical time, because they are > developing their language skills rapidly at this age. > >


title: What does "Aqua-compliant" mean?

text: I read the following in a article on _apple.com_ (the emphasis is mine). > This section presents some key principles critical to the design of elegant, > efficient, intuitive, and **Aqua-compliant** user interfaces. Sometimes > overlooked by developers, these principles are as relevant today as when > Apple first published them decades ago. In fact, they drive the design of > the Mac OS X user interface. What does Aqua-compliant mean? The article is _Human Interface Design_ (only visible if JavaScript is allowed from _apple.com_ ).


title: Word to refer to the person who creates something that gets reused or remixed?

text: I am looking for a noun to describe the role of "Person A" in the following scenario.   1. Person A makes a digital project (e.g. a video game, animation, video, etc).   2. Person B creates a digital project using Person A's project, either parts or the whole thing. I am calling Person B's project a **_remix_** of Person A's project. Also, I am calling Person B a **_remixer_**. What would you call Person A? Some of the terms I've used are but that I am not 100% happy with are:   * **remixee**. I like this one but its a bit obscure and easy to visually confuse with the term remixer.   * **original creator**. This is easy to understand but it's two words and it has the problem that it makes it seem as if the remixer is not original, which has a subtle but negative undertone.   * **originator**.  Other ideas?


title: The counterpart of "inside"

text: If X is inside something, what is that something's relationship to X? > The dog is inside the house.   >  → The house is _ _ _ _ the dog. I was thinking of _around_ , but it really sounds ugly, and it hardly works when _inside_ isn't a cavern of some sort ("I'm in the park, the park is around me").


title: "Is" vs. "Are" when using the word "Pair" in a mathematical setting

text: I've seen equally good arguments for and against using "is" for this sentence. _The pair of polynomials (f,g) is/are related by the reciprocity law._ Which verb is used correctly?


title: "Distribute to" vs. "distribute among"

text: > Sumit distributed the sweets **__** his friends. In the above sentence, I couldn't tell whether to use _to_ or _among_. The answer given is _among_. Why not _to_?


title: London dialect usage

text: I found the following sentence in this article and was trying to understand it. I could get the meaning from the context, but I cannot deconstruct the sentence at all. > They introduced pugnacity, backbone and bottle, the latter in the old > cockney rhyming slang sense of "bottle and glass" – arse. I understand that cockney rhyming slang refers to the way London East Enders use multiple phrase words in place of single words, but other than that I am completely at a loss in understanding the sentence. So,   * What does "bottle and glass" mean in London dialect?    * How does one understand the use of 'arse' in this sentence. (I mean   grammatically, not the sense in which it was used)? P.S. If the question seems to be muddled, it is because I could not understand the sentence enough to even ask a coherent question. Also, I searched google and ngrams for the usage of "bottle and glass", but came a cropper.


title: Case of USD — "United States Dollar" or "United States dollar"

text: What is correct, _United States dollar_ or _United States Dollar_? In the examples below the emphasis is mine. Example 1 (context) > The United States **dollar** (sign: $; code: USD; also abbreviated US$) is > the official currency of the United States of America. Example 2 (context) > As a result, the United States **Dollar** was defined as a unit of weight > equaling 371 4/16th grains (24.057 grams) of pure silver. Example 3, in definition of the word _cable_ (context) >  9\. (finance) The currency pair British Pound against United States > **Dollar** * * * Is there a general rule about currencies? What is the explanation in grammar terms?


title: Does British English have a word for dry, starchy savoury snacks that are not fried slices of potato?

text: Everyone, the world over, enjoys savoury snacks, particularly dry, starchy ones. Far and away the most popular kind in the Anglosphere are the ones made from deep-fried (sometimes baked) thinly-sliced potato (sometimes other root vegetables), almost always salted, and very often flavoured in some way. In Britain, we call these _crisps_ , whilst in America, they call them _chips_. However, there are dry, starchy, savoury snacks that are not these. There are (taking UK examples) Twiglets, Mini Cheddars, Quavers, Skips, Cheesy Wotsits, tortilla chips, Hula Hoops, Scampi Fries, small rice cakes, pretzels, various Phileas Fogg thingies, etc. They are made of potato, maize, wheat, or frankly who knows what (wood pulp?), with plenty of salt and vegetable oil thrown in to ensure deliciousness. I wouldn't call these crisps. So what can I call them? There is _snack_ , but that is a much more general term, that just means a small amount of food eaten between meals. Do we have a word for these things or not? A New Zealander friend calls all these things " _chips_ , bro", but that doesn't seem at all right to me. However, it did set me to wondering if we had an equivalent term.


title: What is the English equivalent for the Spanish saying "God gives bread to those who have no teeth"?

text: There is an interesting popular saying in southern European countries, that in Spanish, for instance, says: "Dios da pan a quien no tiene dientes". Literally, "God gives bread to those who have no teeth". Its meaning refers to the fact that often in life those who have solid means (money/opportunities/connections) are not interested or have no aspirations to get the best out of them, and vice versa. I can't think of an English saying that conveys a similar meaning. Can you think of any?


title: If something is broken on the ground, it lies in _____?

text: I cannot remember the synonym for lying broken on the ground. I remember that it starts with "lies in "... For example, if a plate is shattered on the ground, it lies in **_**


title: I want a word that means surveillance

text: I know that surveillance means: > close observation, especially of a suspected spy or criminal. But I need a word that is : `watch` \+ "`something`" for example: watch-out --> be careful the word should exactly mean surveillance and should be formed of "watch" + "any word" Kevin


title: What is the meaning of the phrase "we-find-each-other's-lame-jokes-funny vibe"?

text: I learned the specified phrase from the book "Revolution 2020" by "Chetan Bhagath". > I didn't like the **we-find-each-other's-lame-jokes-funny vibe** between > Raghav and Aarti What is the meaning of **we-find-each-other's-lame-jokes-funny vibe**?


title: Expedience or Expediency

text: I have been using the word 'expedience' for years. Today I discovered that the oxford dictionary does not have this word. Instead it has 'expediency' for a noun.


title: Contact us "on" or "at"

text: I would like to know what is the correct form and the use for inviting peoples to calling you by phone, specially in the context of written materials). >   * Contact us **on** +123 123 123 >   * Contact us **at** +123 123 123 >


title: "Call on" or "call at" or something else? Which is appropriate?

text: Which one of following sentence is correct? > You can call me **on** my cell. > > You can call me **at** my cell. Or is there some other preposition? Or both are right?


title: What is the difference between a scenario and situation?

text: Based on a survey done globally I have been tasked with writing a help guide to cover scenarios and situations - for a cloud app I created. But I don't understand what the difference is between a scenario and situation. I feel like they are all scenarios but when on global calls the pair keeps coming up. Is there any difference in this context?


title: Is "Beginner" a measurement of time, or skill?

text: The definition is: > A person just starting to learn a skill or take part in an activity Which makes me think it's time-related, although I see it's used as a synonym for novice which relates to skill. What exactly does it mean?


title: Difficult and rare words/expressions that never show up in vocabulary lists

text: I've come quite far in my studies of the English language; ask me what "eleemosynary," "perspicacious" or "rambunctious" means and I'll give you an instant definition. But I'm still not on a native level, because there are certain words and expressions that slip past the radars of vocabulary lists. Right now, I'm reading Mark Twain, and he might use expressions such as: "Well, I lay that if get hold of you--" which is a very mysterious way of using "lay" that I don't fully understand. "Look at your hands. And look at your mouth. What is that truck?" Truck, in this case supposedly means some worthless rubbish. Never heard it before. Most of the words I'm annoyed by are either very short, unconventional usages of common words or phrasal verbs. Where can I learn this part of the English language? How did Mark Twain learn it? Is it just a matter of reading a lot and attempting to infer it from the context?


title: Determining who wrote what parts of a book, e.g, the Bible

text: Is there a special word for determining who wrote what part of a book, e.g., the Bible?


title: Is an ampersand formal?

text: I've noticed that there are many companies whose names contain an ampersand. A quick Google search for "& Sons, Inc", or something similar, should yield countless examples. Though it's not common to see it used in a formal letter or bulletin, etc, it seems that the _name_ of a company is formal indeed, and many of those do contain "&". Does this mean that ampersands can be used as formal, or that a company name is not really formal?


title: "On the underground" vs "in the underground"

text: Which is correct? > I travel **on** the underground/subway to work. > > I travel **in** the underground/subway to work. I'd choose the first option as we say _on a bus/tram/street car_.


title: "I have done every bad thing in the good book" - what does it actually mean?

text: This question might be very specific to a situation in "Revolution" but I cannot understand this sentence. ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/Iu7AO.jpg) From my understanding, he was saying that he has done everything that the book (he believed) said, but it turned out that everything he did was bad. Am I correct?


title: What is the origin and meaning of the term 'Chubby Chubs'?

text: I have this expression stuck in my head and can't figure out where I've heard it. I think it can be a term of endearment for 'plump babies'. But not sure if it has any other connotations because of the terms 'chubby' and 'chub' being linked to the gay scene. These are the only references I found about this on the web:   * Is It Wrong To Call Your Toddler “Chubby Chubs” And “Greedy Guts”?   * Rootabaga Stories By Carl Sandburg


title: Is it correct to use two present verbs sequentially?

text: "We are currently in the process of **finishing planning** for the outage." It the above sentence grammatically correct?   Is the above sentence ideally structured?   If not, what would be a better way of saying it?


title: OED Appeals: Antedatings of "party animal"

text: The _OED_ has made a public appeal for help in tracing the history of some English words, including: > ## party animal > > noun _earlier than 1982_ > > When the _OED_ added its entry for _party animal_, meaning ‘an exuberant > reveler’, in 2005, the earliest quotation we were able to include was from > 1982, but we knew that the term could almost certainly be traced earlier. As > our entry notes, the slang lexicographer Jonathan Lighter has recorded > hearing the term in a _Saturday Night Live_ episode which aired in 1978: > ‘Here is the party animal himself—Bill Murray.’ There is also a record of > the similar term _party hound_ being used in 1973. Yet, the first verifiable > evidence we had at hand was from an interview with the playwright Israel > Horovitz: > >> 1982 _New York Times_ 2 July c8/5 If this movie stops one couple from getting a divorce because it’s the groovy, party-animal thing to do, it’s worth everything. > > Can you help us uncover _party animal_ 's earlier history? Records of spoken > language such as television and film sources may hold the key, including any > leads on establishing the original air date for the usage on _Saturday Night > Live_. I've found the original air date of the _Saturday Night Live_ in question, and some examples on the same programme from the previous year. But can you find anything earlier?


title: Etymology of testosterone-charged men?

text: A couple of weeks back I read the story _2 States: The Story of My Marriage_ by Chetan Bhagat. In the story, I found a weird phrase: _testosterone-charged men_. What is the etymology of that phrase **testosterone-charged men**? > _"I’d have much preferred her place, as I didn’t want her to be the only > woman in the dorm with twenty **testosterone-charged men** "_


The period between sunset and noon is called "morning", between noon and sunset is "afternoon". Is there a term for the period between midnight and sunrise? Edit/Clarification: Wikipedia defines night as "the period of time between the sunset and the sunrise when the Sun is below the horizon", and I think most people would agree (please correct me if I'm wrong). So, "night" is not the answer I'm looking for. Is there a term specifically for the period between midnight (00:00) and sunrise, excluding the period between sunset and midnight?


title: What do you call someone who exploits people and their confidence using ‘clever speech’?

text: I am referring to someone who makes people ‘buy’ what he says and gets things done by them through _nothing but clever speech_ – something one can describe as _crafty_ or _beguiling_ , but not _fraudulent_. I pondered over _con man_ and _con artist_ for a while but those terms seem to hold a hint of crime, so those terms won’t fit in. I am wondering if there is a more suitable phrase or word.


title: Usage of “isn’t it” in the sentence

text: Being a non-native speaker of English, I am less aware about the distinction between Asian and standard English. While conversing with my client, I came to realize that _isn't it_ is used wrong in this sentence: > You didn’t wait for us before you went to meet him **isn’t it**? According to him, that _isn’t it_ should be replaced with _didn’t you_. Could anyone explain why it must be _didn’t you_ instead of _isn’t it_ there?


title: Is the 're' in 'return' and 'repeat' a prefix?

text: Can anybody tell me whether the 're' in 'return'and 'repeat' is a prefix?


title: What's the meaning of "be as"?

text: What's the meaning of "be as" in the following sentence: > "Intellect isn't everything; being is just as important". What would be the difference if the word "as" were omitted?


title: The meaning of the word "impediment" in this context?

text: **ATTENTION:** _While reading this question and especially the two answers provided below by Parjánya and David Wallace, you may naturally think that I am being either too picky here or am trying to do some unnecessary hair- splitting. However, though in general the question has already been answered and I am really very thankful to the above-mentioned supporters, the specific break-up into "the context", "the process" and "the performer" (see the details below) that was requested in my question was not provided. But that break-up is quite important to me — in fact, it was the main reason why I asked this question. Therefore, I decided to start the bounty._ I asked a question about praying to the saints on Christianity.SE and got into a quite a lengthy discussion with one answerer there. There was one point that kind of puzzled me — it's about the word _impediment_ — about how it was used in the answerer's first answer (actually it was his first comment). I have already asked him about that word a few questions and he answered them, but I am still not clear. And I also feel awkward now to ask him any further questions as he may get angry with me (and also lengthy discussion are not welcome on .SE). So I decided to ask it here as it is now a question about the usage of one English word (impediment) and not a question about a doctrine in Christianity (though it will serve as the context now). What I don't understand there is how _being dead_ works as an impediment. According to my understanding impediment is a kind of obstacle or a hindrance that prevents somebody from doing something. Thus, in a case of impediment there should be a kind of action or a process that is being impeded and also there should be a performer of that process or action. Here are a few examples: > Political pressure remains the main impediment to free speech in Bulgaria               The context: political situation in Bulgaria     The process/action being impeded: free speech     The performer: mass media in Bulgaria      > "I do solemnly declare," said Jenny. "That I know not of any lawful > impediment why I Jenny brown may not be joined in matrimony to John > Wilkinson"               The context: marriage ceremony     The process/action being impeded: joining in matrimony (to John Wilkinson)     The performer: Jenny      If you can break it up for me in the similar way the usage of impediment in our following discussion, it will be just great. So, here is the discussion: **Me** : Do those who pray to saints ascribe to them the quality of being able to hear many people at once? I mean, there could be thousands of Orthodox Christians at this moment praying to, say, Saint Blessed Xenia of St. Petersburg, and there could probably be even more of Catholic Christians praying right now to, say, saint Patrick, let alone Mother Mary. Does that mean that all those saints have the All-knowing God's ability to hear all of those praying to them, distinguish their prayers one from another, and later adequately act on each one of them accordingly? **Answerer** : I hate to bring up the obvious, but after small impediments like _being dead_ , and hearing you despite not being physically present, even if you are praying silently (internal voice), probably not in their native language... the issue of distinguishing multiple voices seems almost trivial. I can, however, see that time management to "act on" could be a concern — reminds me of a scene in "Bruce Almighty". **Me** : "after small impediments like _being dead_ " — What would you say about Moses? On one hand, God told him that he would die — "will sleep with his fathers" (Deu. 31:16), and later he did die (Deu. 34:5), on the other hand, we see him talking to Jesus along with Elijah on the mount of transfiguration (Matthew 17:3), which is even before Jesus' death and resurrection. Does it not indicate that being dead is not an impediment? **Answerer** : you have my point backwards; I'm saying that the rules being considered ("only listening to one thing", "need to be present (or use communication tools of some form)", "need to understand the language" ... "need to be alive") are rules dictated by being a living mortal human. Once that is no longer the case, removing the "only listening to one thing" is no different to all the other rules that people seem happier to discard. Your question about Moses is post-death, so again: I am saying it is meaningless to apply any mortal rules, even if we make the assumption that it happened. **Me** : I am sorry for being "dumb" here, but would you please explain to me what do those impediments that you mentioned in your first comment actually impede? Since you said that being dead is an impediment I took it as if you meant that that impediment impeded the dead saints from being able to hear others' prayers(let alone being able to hear all of them at once, understand them, act upon each one of them accordingly, etc.). Did I interpret your words correctly here? **Answerer** : I'm saying that "listening to one thing" is a feature of living mortal humans. What I am saying is: given all the other things necessary for the question, the "one thing" is very minor, and I'm not sure there's any justification for suggesting/imposing that restriction, but accepting the others. So in answer, "yes, they do".


title: When a woman says ''no problem'' to thank you, is she being disrespectful?

text: I am curious to read your thoughts on the matter.


Rush Limbaugh’s “wrong choice of word” is causing a big fuss. And I was puzzled to find the following statement of Limbaugh from www.rushlimbaugh.com that was made 4 days ago: > The reaction that they are having to what I said yesterday about Susan Fluke > -- or Sandra Fluke, whatever her ... Look, _at least I didn't call her "a > woman driver_ ," and I'll tell you this, you people on the left: I'll > happily buy her all the aspirin she wants. and the quote of Limbaugh in www.doonesbury.com: > We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch. [...] Absolutely > hilarious... Look, _at least I didn't call her 'a woman driver_.'   > — Limbaugh, on uproar over his comments Limbaugh called the Georgetown law student a slut and a prostitute, but he _at least didn’t call her a woman driver_. What's wrong with woman driver? Why is "a woman driver" bracketed? It sounds like the word, “a woman driver” is more insulting than calling a woman a slut and prostitute. Does “woman driver” have a special meaning other than female driver?


title: Rules for rising and falling intonation in similar questions - what are they?

text: Consider these two questions: > Would you mind saying a little bit more about that? and > What do you mean by that? When they perform the same function, and I expect an answer to both, why does the first have a falling intonation and the second one which rises? My group of learners are as puzzled as I am - what suggestions does this group have?


title: "In person" equivalent for inanimate objects

text: This is much easier to explain by example. So you might hear someone say _this photo of her is ok, but she looks much better in person._ I am looking for the equivalent of "in person" that applies _to things_ , e.g., > _A photo of the house is on the museum's homepage, but it is more impressive > [in person]._ There doesn't seem to be a concise, elegant way to say this, though it seems there should be, perhaps a latin phrase like _in corpore_ (that's not it).


title: Is 'to' in "would to say" correct?

text: At a certain point of this article I read; > Sometimes [Lucas] would to say to Richard, ‘you can't do that’ It sounds awkward for me to see a modal verb followed by "to". Of course, when you're talking mistakes occur, but now I'm puzzled. Is that a mistake or is "would to" grammatically correct? source: Return of the Jedi cast reunited after 30 years


title: Scan through the video versus scan the video

text: As I was writing a plan for a video software which requires me to automatically scan the video. What is the right phrase to use? It seems I have heard both. **scan through the video** versus **scan the video** **EDIT** By _automatically, scan the video_ , I meant scanning the video using a computer vision methodology.


title: Why is the word "before" vanishing from common use?

text: Just in the last four years, I've noticed that the word _prior_ is increasingly used in place of _before_. _Prior_ has become customary enough that people commonly leave off 'to' in employing it: "Most of the guests appeared at 8:00, but I arrived prior." I don't know why this disturbs me so, but it does. My question to the linguists, though, is why it's happening now (in North America, anyway.) Both are two syllable words, both convey the same message, more or less -what's driving this change?


title: Are there any idiomatic expressions similar to "dig one's way"?

text: Please look at the usage in the following context: > He has spent his life as a treasure hunter, a real-life Indiana Jones who > has bought, sold, traded, and dug his way to a peerless collection of > artifacts. Of course I am interested in the metaphorical meaning. Can you think of any accurate examples?


title: A word/phrase for something that is outwardly fearsome, but in reality is nothing to worry about

text: I'm trying to think of a word or phrase that refers to something that appears dangerous or intimidating but is actually insignificant. "Ostentatious" seems to go in the right direction, (in the sense that it means "showy") but it doesn't have the connotations of "menacing". Is there such a word? EDIT: Perhaps I should clarify; I was thinking more of occurrences that caused panic but in reality had little effect (eg. the Three Mile Island accident -- it was widely reported to be a horrific disaster, but it didn't release enough radioactive material to be linked to any cases of cancer.) In this question, I'm referring to the occurrence having earned a _false reputation_ for being dangerous or fearsome.


title: Other than "Final Point"?

text: I'm writing a blog post, and I'm almost done. There's left a summary to write in my last abstract and I want to name it. So I came up with "Final Point", but that doesn't sound. Can you suggest anything? Thnx


title: Is there any significance in little curls joining the st and ct in old books?

text: I've been reading a facsimile edition of Defoe's _Captain Singleton_ and have noticed a little quirk of the text; where an _st_ or a _ct_ appear, they are joined with a little curl over the top, but _nt_ , _rt_ and _pt_ aren't. This appears to be the case wherever these combinations appear in a word. Is there any linguistic significance to this, or is it just a quirk of the printers? (I have been unable to find an example of this sort of text anywhere online; can anyone help?)


title: What is the origin of the idiom "like pulling teeth"?

text: I would like to know more about the idiom "like pulling teeth". For example, does anyone know its origin and first usage?


title: What are the fourth and fifth levels in this context?

text: One can use the terms primary, secondary, and tertiary to describe the first, second, and third levels of something. What would the fourth level be called? Would it be something like "quartiary" or "quartenary"? How about the fifth level?


title: Is there a system for creating words for ordinal numbers?

text: I'm not sure if "sequential" is the right word, but what is the system for creating a sequence of numbers like this:   1. primary (as in 1st in choice or importance)   2. secondary (as in 2nd in choice or importance)   3. tertiary (as in 3rd in choice or importance)   4. ???   5. PROFIT What would be the following words after "tertiary" if there are any?


title: "everybody sing" vs "everybody sings"

text: I have been told 'everybody' is singular. However, there was a film named "Everybody Sing". What are the differences between "everybody sing" and "everybody sings"? Which is correct? the former, the latter, or the both? Which is more natural?


title: A letter to/for Jason?

text: Suppose Jason were at home and a mail carrier came to his front door with a letter addressed to Jason. Which of the following is correct?   1. It was a letter **_for_** Jason.   2. It was a letter **_to_** Jason.


title: What does "As red as ripe new blood" mean?

text: From Steinbeck's _Grapes of Wrath_ , > In the morning the dust hung like fog, and the sun was as red as **ripe new > blood**. What does word "ripe" mean? Does it mean   1\. Fully developed; mature: ripe peaches.   2\. Resembling matured fruit, as in fullness.   Why in this case blood is new if it is mature? Or does it mean   8\. advanced but healthy (esp in the phrase a ripe old age)   In this case it would be "As red as healthy new blood". What variant is correct?


title: The ambiguous "until"

text: As a non-native English speaker, It seems to me that the word "until" is quite ambiguous. It's been told that when it's used with a date it includes the date. (Does "until [date]" mean "before that date"?) But it's still unclear to me. "X will be there until the 11th." When will X leave? On the 12th, right? "X won't be there until the 11th." When will X be there? On the 11th, right? If so, can anyone explain why it differs? Does it depend on whether it's negative and positive? And how about other periods of time, like high school. "X hasn't done it until high school" In this case X did it at some time during high school, right? "X has been doing it until high school" In this case it seems to be unclear when X stopped. During high school or before starting high school. Then with an attempt of clarification: "X has been doing it until he entered high school" Does it mean X stopped doing it before or just after he entered high school? Or could it be both? Is this clear to native speakers or is it just me? Edit: Seems like a lot of my confusion was made by this answer. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130205142054AAIqP06


title: Not shifting the adverbial of time in reported speech

text: I know that generally, in reported speech e.g. tomorrow shifts to "the following day". But I also know that in some cases it can remain, e.g: > He said he would do that tomorrow. That one should be correct if I say that on the same day (tomorrow has not begun) but he e.g. changed his mind and I know this is not gonna happen. But can it be also with another expression of future? > He said he was coming home the next week. Can it be correct? E.g. he says that and dies the same day in the car accident. So would be correct to keep "next week" in this reported speech, because it is still the future?


title: Prefix im- is for opposite or asserting

text: Is the prefix _im-_ used in a negative sense, as in, the opposite of the word following it, e.g.   * _Impenitent_ = " _not_ penitent" Or it is used in the positive sense that supports the word following   * _Impassive_ = more or less same meaning as _passive_. When do I know if it is opposite and when not?


title: "The meaning of this word" vs. "The meaning to this word"

text: Occasionally I observed that some native speakers will use preferably the construction "the meaning **to** (a word, phrase, etc.)" whereas others will go for the more common grammatical turn "the meaning **of**... ." What I would like you to tell is whether there's a subtle difference to using either of these. You might want to consider the following example to answer this question: > _It should be borne in mind that there are many other meanings to these > words..._


title: There is a continuity problem with (a film)

text: So if there is a continuity problem with X (for example a film), what is the way of describing it? > It is not continuous but that doesn't work because " _continuous_ " means > forming an unbroken whole; without interruption   >  -e.g. a loop of string. I imagine is would be pronounced " _kəntɪ' **njʊəs_** ", or " _con-ti- **newus_** " with emphasis on the " _newus_ ", rather than continuous - " _kənˈ- **tɪn** -jʊəs_", with empasis on the " _tin_ ". What is the word for something which has a continuity problem?


title: What is the rule in the sentence "she always had this twisted side to her"?

text: I can understand the meaning of the sentence "she always had this twisted side to her", but I can't really figure out why it is expressed like this. I mean, if I couldn't get the meaning, how should have I searched for it in the dictionary? Is it a particular use of the verb "to have"? Or of "to"? For me it would be more natural to just say "she always had this twisted side". I hope it is clear what I'm trying to ask.


title: Negative counterpart for the word "rave" in the sense "favorable criticism"

text: What is the one-word for a piece — art piece etc., maybe topic, subject — that has gained popularity through negative reviews or appraisals? In other words, I am looking for a one-word noun or adjective that is the opposite of _rave_ in the sense "favorable critism".


title: term for the review of available technologies

text: I'm looking for a phrase analogous to "literature review", but referring to the review of technologies available to solve a particular problem. That is, what would I call the process of comparing the features and functionality of available software or hardware with the intention of selecting one to be implemented in a project?


title: Noun-adjective reversal - was it ever in use in plain speech?

text: In some more or less archaic texts I found the order of noun and its adjective reversed at times, like: > I traveled through nights starless, and roads unmapped. I wonder, is it a stylistic tool used only in poetic/artistic texts, or was it used in day-to-day speech or formal, but not poetic writing in the past?


title: Is there a difference between "Frenchmen" and "French men"?

text: I was just reading a news article about a couple of _French men_ and was wondering what (if any) the difference between that and _Frenchmen_ is?


title: Reading actions back so as to intentionally make them appear fundamentally evil?

text: Looking for a word: essentially, it should be a noun. Described as: turning well-intended actions into ill-intended actions in rhetoric (i.e., by committing intentional fallacies or disrupting the counterpart). Possible definition: "the process by which descriptions of actions are turned into accusations". Also, a good synonym? ## Let's look at an example, then: I think you're really good at '~ion'--painting things in a positive light, or at least remaining optimistic. It's the opposite of '~ion', whereby people turn my past against me, or insist on pessimism. ## Possible: Reticence or interdiction; veto or blackballing; repudiation, rejection, or derision; counfouding, contrition, or impeding? ## Update I'm really looking for an utterance that encompasses the initial state of neutrality or even goodness. While demonizing and vilification fit, I'm hesitant to concede that they imply a full transformation, exclusively in delusion, from good to evil. I'm trying to put a word to this thing I've noticed that so many people seem to do: it's the opposite of coping: it's some mechanism of hysteria or obstruction/disruption--some kind of mayhem. It's important to me that I be able to find a concise, descriptive phrase (it doesn't need to be a single word). ## Update 2 I went with `swaying`, from Robert Frost's 'The Sound of Trees'. I think it captures the essence of what I'm looking for and encapsulates everything else mentioned. I was basically seeking a hyponym for the other words listed that had to do with people throwing off their responsibilities, if even by turning negative to positive. If anyone has other terms that are more widely known, please update your answers or add a new answer. Thank you.


title: "Happened to" or "Happened for"

text: If I am explaining and listing events that happened to someone or concern them in some way, should I say: > This is a list of events that happened to person x. or > This is a list of events that happened for person x.


title: Word for children that have a babysitter or au pair

text: In Dutch a babysitter is called an "oppas". This gave rise to the word "oppaskinderen" which translates literally to "babysitter children". As far as I could research, there is no single English word for this. Is there any combination of words that convey the same and doesn't sound like crap? **Example sentence**   Dutch: "Hoe gaat het met de _oppaskinderen_?"   English: "How are the _[babysitter children]_ doing?"


title: Why are female wizards called "witches"?

text: I was looking up these two words in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English: **_Wizard:_**   ![Wizard: 1. a man who is supposed to have magic powers 2. someone who is very good at something](http://i.stack.imgur.com/0JPi8m.png) **_Witch:_**   ![Witch: 1. a woman who is supposed to have magic powers, especially to do bad things 2. an insulting word for a woman who is old or unpleasant](http://i.stack.imgur.com/UcRWJm.png) It's mentioned in the Word Origin section that Wizard comes from "Wise", while for "Witch" it totally has a negative meaning, and all in all, apart from this definition, witch is usually negative, while wizard is neutral (or even positive sometimes?!). Isn't this somewhat sexist? P.S. Both words imply the same _occupation_ , where the female version is negative and the male one is just neutral or even positive. Is it only bad if a woman does it?!


title: How unusual are Nancy Gribble and Nero Wolfe?

text: Nancy Gribble and Nero Wolfe (at least the TV version played by Maury Chaykin) both use British pronunciations like "tomahto" and "shedule" rather than "tomayto" and "skedule", and yet both seem to be Americans (although Nero Wolfe originated from Montenegro). How unusual is it for Americans to use "British" pronunciations, and what kind of reaction does this get?


title: Is it formal to use "If" in a business email

text: Is it formal to use "if" in a business email. For instance, "If you have any questions or concerns...." Our division's seniors always use it to answer the customer`s emails. Is it formal or is there any other words to express the same? Thank you.


title: Should perfect and progressive tenses be avoided in research papers?

text: Writing a research paper, I came across a remark from one of the reviewers: > "Keep it simple" […] try to stay with present simple and past simple tense. This would discourage the use of perfect / progressive tenses. Now, I'm not a native speaker—and neither is the reviewer—but I'm sure there are valid uses for the present perfect tense. For example: > Research has shown that […] > > This effect has often been cited as […] > > The authors of […] have published a database […] This, specifically, would imply that whatever research has shown is still valid today, whereas using a past tense here would mean that the research isn't accepted at the time of writing. Regarding that reviewer comment:   * Why should these tenses be avoided in the first place? I wouldn't say that the "keep it simple" rule literally refers to the "simple" tenses. Or does it?   * Is that a general rule or are the examples I've mentioned valid uses of the perfect tense?


title: Comma before "which"

text: I am editing a court transcript for a class (cannot alter the text). For each change I make, I need to cite a rule for it. I have read a lot about the use of _which_ and _that_ , and I am still confused on this sentence. I feel that it needs a comma before _which_ , but I am unsure what the “official” reasoning would be. I know that, normally, _that_ should be used for restrictive clauses, and _which_ should be used for non-restrictive clauses, but I am unsure if it was spoken correctly. Or is it because there is only one Exhibit 2, making the _which_ clause non- essential (non-restrictive), and therefore a comma is needed? > We’ve put in front of you Exhibit 2 which is a Visa statement of account.


title: Help me with the expression "You can't announce him a cheater because it's speculation"

text: I want to say something like "You can't announce him a cheater because it's speculation." I know that _announce_ is the wrong word, so I need something to replace it. I thought of _proclaim_ , but I don't think it sounds right, either. Help?


title: Change "What are you doing?" asked Sally into indirect speech

text: Is "Sally asked what you were doing." correct? It couldn't possibly be "Sally asked what I was doing." right? Thanks.


title: Name for second mail accounts used only for unimportant websites to avoid being spammed

text: As the title suggests, what is the name or the best way of referring to the second mail accounts many users on the internet open only for unimportant websites in order to avoid being spammed. Disposable mail addresses are another thing, and spam mail accounts is too generic and would conflict with thousand of results searches for "how to avoid spam on my mail account". EDIT: They also are not throwaway addresses or temporary emails because people use them for extended periods of time and even forever as "unofficial email" just for unimportant websites.


title: How to ask if someone could add an example which improves the explaining of something?

text: **Aim:** to ask someone to add an example, which improves the explaining of something In Dutch one could say: Zou u een voorbeeld kunnen toevoegen om het antwoord te kunnen onderbouwen? Which means "Could you add an example to **...** the answer?" Should one use **underpin** , **substantiate** or **something else** in this case?


title: Ways of expressing the lack of ability to refrain from doing something

text: What are the ways of expressing the lack of ability to refrain from doing something? The only one I've found is _help + ...ing_. For example: > She can't help singing along when she hears this tune. Obviously **She can't not sing** is incorrect, and **She is not able not to sing** sounds clumsy. **Q1:** Are there other ways to express the same idea? **Q2:** Does the following sentence sound natural? If not, how would you rephrase it? > John can't help spoiling whatever he lays his hands on. (= It's an inherent > quality of John to spoil everything (possibly involuntarily) that he > touches) P.S. Couldn't figure out how to tag this question properly. Feel free to retag and remove this line.


title: What part of speech is “there” when used in “There is (blah blah)”?

text: What part of speech is _there_ in the sentence “There is a book on the table?” Also, while typing it out, another question pops up vis-à-vis punctuation. In my complete first sentence above, I ended it with a question mark since my main sentence is a question. The quote is not a question, but it looks like it because of the question mark. Is this the right way to punctuate?


title: Female equivalent of "fellow"

text: If _sistren_ is the female equivalent of _brethren_ , what is the female equivalent of _fellow_? Words usually paired are: _guy/gal_ ; _man/woman_ ; _boy/girl_ ; _lad/lass_ ; _brethren/sistren_ ; _fraternity/sorority_ ; but I have seen nothing for _fellow_.


title: Can you tell me what are "run-on sentences" exactly and why some people claim this blog post is unreadable?

text: I am currently spending some of my time as a blogger, I usually review each post several times before publishing it, although I (feel I) work really hard there were some comments in reddit about one blog post claiming that one of my articles is nearly unreadable, I think it has to do with "run-on sentences", I am willing to accept there may be some mistakes in it but not that much to say it can not be read, what they are refering for exactly and why did they claim it is unreadable? (it is almost as if they said unworthy). This is just a paragraph I picked up from that post, can you tell me where are the "run-on sentences" and tell me if it is understandable? "Someone once said this. "I think everybody in this country should learn how to program a computer because it teaches you how to think", Steve Jobs. Let us say you have learned some basics and principles about computer programming and you want to make a program to solve a specific problem, in order to make that program you have to solve the problem and then start writing the code, so what is making you think "solving the problem" or "writing the code"?, programming itself does not teach you how to think, it forces you to solve the problem (which is going to teach you how to think) before doing anything else due to the reasons explained above, if not I challenge you to do it otherwise."


title: accommodate somebody somewhere

text: I am writing a letter to an official body and I need to say that my friend will be staying in my flat. Is it correct to say that "I am able to accommodate my friend in my 2 bedroom flat at address" (specified above).


title: What is it called when punctuation changes the meaning of a sentence?

text: Is there a word describing a sentence whose meaning is changed by moving the punctuation? For example, > Let’s eat, Mommy! and > Let’s eat Mommy!


title: What do you call the person sitting behind the driver on a bike?

text: I know _pillion_ is a seat behind the rider of a horse or motorbike etc. I would like to know the word for the person sitting on pillion.


title: Is it “Check and mate” or “Checkmate”?

text: I found the expression “Check and mate!” in the following sentence describing furious exchange of words between CNN host Piers Morgan and rightwing radio host and anti-gun-control propagandist Alex Jones on gun-control in the video titled “Shoots off his mouth on Piers Morgan” in Time magazine’s (Jan 8) Entertainment Section. > When Morgan managed to work in a question like, “How many gun murders were > there in Britain?” Jones answered, “How many great white sharks kill people > and yet they’re afraid to swim?” Check **and** mate! From the definition of ‘checkmate” in Cambridge English Dictionary, "noun (2) a situation in which someone has been defeated or a plan cannot develop or continue", it is obvious that “check and mate” here means Jones’s answer was the finish blow that shut Morgan’s mouth up. However, I was unable to find “check and mate” in any of Cambridge, Oxford, and Merriam-Webster English dictionary, though they all register “checkmate.” Google Ngram registers “check and mate” at an average 0.00000006 incidence level since circ 1850, but I don't know how significant this number is. Can I use “check and mate” interchangeably with “checkmate” to mean being driven into a corner?


title: Can you say "at speed"?

text: I'm trying to make a tagline for my website, can I say "download files **at** super fast **speeds** "? Is this grammatically correct?


title: What's the meaning of "hit" here?

text: How do you define _hit_ here in this comment, does it mean attack? This comment was made by a poster in response to a discussion on car wheel thefts. > New model Chevy rims are hot as f-k, every Mexican wants them for his truck > he bought as a base model. Around Houston they hit entire dealerships for > the rims.


title: Derogatory term for electronic device

text: In German, the term "Kiste", literally meaning "box", is often used as a colloquial derogatory term for electronic and mechanical devices. It is comparable to "jalopy", which, however, seems to be restricted to automobiles (according to dict.cc). Is there a comparable term one can put into the following sentences? > I am lucky if this [term for desktop computer] boots without blue screen of > death. > > Most times this [term for TV set] shows nothing but snow.


title: use "past participle" instead of "ing"

text: How long had they been sleeping-when he woke them up? The more correct sentence should be "How long had they been slept-when he woke them up?" because they had ended their sleep after he woke them up. My question was raised after reading the topic "When to use 'had been' \+ past participle of the verb" Correct me if I am being wrong.


Can "would rather" be followed with a past perfect? Can it be used to express a regret, a wish the past had been different? Example taken from _First Certificate Language Practice_ by Michael Vince, page 43: > I would rather you did not tell John about this. Neither now, nor later, that is. How about earlier? "I would rather you had not told John about this."?


title: Fall Hard For Something

text: I am trying to find the right definition of "hard" in this piece of writing: > newspaper   >  Looking for a tranquil hideaway after years as a paparazzi magnet, Mr. > Frazier bought the single-level home on a one-acre property for $215,000 in > 1979, while visiting St. Croix with his 12-year-old son, Walter III. He was > shopping for a condominium, but instead **_fell hard for_** a house on hilly > terrain with four tentacle-like columns that reminded him of a space ship. There are many definitions for "hard" What does "hard" in "fell hard for" mean in this particular situation?


title: Ambiguities and use of infinite and "-ing" form

text: I was looking for videos on YouTube, in my (almost) daily exercise to attempt improving my understanding of the spoken English, when I settled for a video entitled: "Why you will fail to have a great career" When I picked this one, my first expectation was some monologue about how, in order to pursue some great career, you might possibly have to go through and overcome some hard times and initial difficulties and failures, which may, by reaction, push you towards great achievements. After some listening, I began to realize that the intended meaning of the title was actually different. That is, the reasons or the excuses why people actually fail to have a great career. At this point, I started wondering: how do we distinguish these different meanings, from the title alone ? Somehow, I feel that "Why you will fail having a great career" would have been perhaps less ambiguous to me. Would this have been correct? A more general question is: how to avoid such ambiguities and what is the most effective or correct way to convey this kind of meaning, in instances like this one.


title: 'Repeat the year' in English is 'redoubler une classe' in French. Would it be possible to say 'redouble the year' or 'redouble the course' in English?

text: When I googled 'redouble the year' I was directed to French sites, and I noticed that it is indeed used. Now, I want to have a confirmation from English native speakers. Can 'redouble' be used for 'repeat'? I'd be very grateful for your help.


title: Ending punctuation of "How are you"?

text: I've seen the "how are you" questions on this forum, but mine is a bit different. I read this in the Readers Digest once: > Don't tell your friends about your indigestion. 'How are you' is a greeting; > not a question. So if it's a greeting, should it be   **How are you!**   or   **How are you?**   or just   **How are you.**


While I was translating the sentence "Mi tío y mi tía estaban caminando en esa calle cuando vieron tu coche," on DuoLingo, I got dinged for translating the sentence to "My aunt and uncle were walking on that street when they saw your car." The "correct" translation on the site appears to be "My uncle and my aunt were walking on that street when they saw your car;" I can't put my finger on it, but something just feels wrong about this sentence. Are my suspicions accurate? Is my translation grammatically correct? _Does order matter when writing a sentence including aunt and uncle?_


title: When and how do words become offensive?

text: Disclaimer: Not strictly English language question, but still a question on language use I've just had a discussion with a member, who argued that the word "lunatic" is offensive and therefore should not be used, not even to address an actual lunatic, e.g. a mentally ill person. And if I type "lunatic" in Google, it tells me that it is a mentally ill person. Does that mean Google offends mentally ill people by telling me that's what a lunatic is? Or maybe Google has the right to use it, but not me? In that logic, if I call a person a "dog" this is obviously offensive, therefore following that logic strictly, that word should not be used, not even to address an actual dog. Does this mean black people offend each other by calling their buddies "dog"? And that is just an example, imagination is pretty much the only limit when counting the words which can be put in an offensive context. Another example, it has recently become offensive to call a retarded person retarded, the correct term is now "special needs", but how long before "special needs" becomes an insult too, which it inevitably will if it becomes the widely used term to refer to retarded people? "Special needs" can actually be offensive right out of the box, if used to address a non-retarded person and imply that person is retarded, and one can argue that in a way, using that word to insult a normal person is also insensitive and offensive to all "special needs" people in existence? And how come it doesn't even matter what kind of a context a word is being put in or whether offense is actually intended? Will this continue until half of the vocabulary is squeezed out of use and labeled implicitly offensive, even if explicitly stated to not be intended as such? Last but not least, are we doing anyone a favor by labeling more and more words as "offensive" and therefore granting previously inoffensive words the power to offend? I mean, if it is "inconsiderate assholes" who turn normal words into insults, how "smart" is it for the rest of the people to give in to that?


title: Attempt at formulating verb tenses when time travel is involved?

text: The _Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_ has an amusing section on the problems associated with verb tenses when time travel is involved. It has several examples which appear to be constructed for their humorous sound instead of any attempt at sensible rules. > You can arrive _(mayan arrivan on-when)_ for any sitting you like without > prior _(late fore-when)_ reservation because you can book retrospectively, > as it were, when you return to your own time _(you can have on-book haventa > forewhen presooning returningwenta retrohome)_. This TVTropes page has a list of where this trouble has been dealt with in various media, but none of them (as far as I can tell) are a serious attempt at laying out the rules. Do you know of any reference where someone has laid out what various verb tenses would even be useful and/or named based on various points of view from a non-linear timeline between speaker and recipient who have experienced time differently?


title: May en-dashes be used in sports scores?

text: The accepted answer to the authoritative question When should I use an em- dash, an en-dash, and a hyphen? currently has this to say regarding the _en- dash_ : > An en-dash is use to connect values in a range or that are related. Saying > "in years 1939–1945" or **"New York beat Los Angeles 98–95"** are both > examples where an en-dash should be used (as I did explicitly in the > examples). A good rule of from here is when you're expressing a "to" > relationship. The portion that I have bolded above is not a usage I had seen before. I was under the impression that the _en-dash_ should only be used in the case of a range. In the above, two distinct scores are being described, not a range that includes the values "96" and "97". The _"rule of from"_ [sic?] presented above allows its usage in that case _("98 to 95")_ but is broader than I believe in. Taken to the absurd, this might suggest that I could rewrite _"just between us, man-to-man"_ as _"just between us, man–man"_. :p What say you: must an _en-dash_ be used only for a range of values, or may it be used more permissively?


title: The word entropy

text: Could someone define the word entropy for me in the context below. "I have journeyed through the darkness between the most distant stars. I have beheld the births of negative-suns and borne witness to the entropy of entire realities..." Source: http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Zeratul


title: Moving the interrogative pro-adverb to the end of a question

text: I am not a native speaker of English. From what I learn, 'wh' questions in English should normally be like this: > Why should we believe you? > > How did she participate in the massacre? However, recently in TV shows (from US and UK) I often hear this: > We should believe you why? > > She participated in the massacre how? Of course, the latter form is still less common than the former. From the shows, I feel that it is used more often as a quick reply to some previous statement, and/or when the speaker has some attitude, and/or when the situation is urgent. In a sense, the latter form is easier: it does not need an auxiliary or modal verb, and it keeps the word order of a normal declarative sentence. I wonder:   * How often do you (who live in English-speaking countries) hear the latter question form?   * Is it a new form? (maybe a tendency for English grammar to become simpler?)    * Or have these two forms co-existed for long, just serving different functions?


title: Using future simple tense in a thesis

text: Being a non-native speaker, I have of course a bit of a problem with writing my thesis in English. In the thesis, I propose a software solution and I describe it. What I am not sure is: should I use "going to" (as it is planned) or "will"? Because it seems there are too many "going tos": > The patient is going to activate the system. The system is going to show a > stand-by screen, which is going to disappear after 5 seconds.


title: What is an official collection of laws/books/etc. called?

text: **What do you call an official collection of passages, laws, books, etc.?** I'm thinking of a very official-sounding word, like "The ___crux" "The Index" or "The Axiom" or something sounding like that... I know I learned about it in gradeschool, but I can't quite recall it.


title: Footnote marks at end of a sentence

text: I find it common in my writing to end up a sentence with a footnote reference mark. Should the footnote mark come before the stop or after it? ... this is some text1. ... this is some text.1


title: Single vs double quotation marks for nickname?

text: I am trying to conform to the British practice (specifically Oxford Style Guide) and I am a little confused which to use to mark a nickname: Andrew 'Andy' Johnson Andrew "Andy" Johnson I know following the rules I should use single inverted commas, however the first one looks a tad weird to me. I have seen the latter option a lot on newspapers and business cards but not the former. I am going to use that for email signatures and names on business cards.


title: Is there a word that means "every four weeks"?

text: Is there a fourth word in this series: _weekly, biweekly, triweekly, ..._? If not, and I had to coin a word, then would "quadweekly", "quadriweekly", or some other word be more etymologically appropriate? For example, is there a similar series from which I could borrow the prefix for "four"? **UPDATE** : "Monthly" isn't appropriate because one month is a few days more than four weeks.


title: What did "cinema" mean before cinema was invented?

text: I was attempting to find out the other day why _cinema_ is spelt with a 'c' and not a 'k', as its etymology would seem to require. While doing so I noticed that the word _cinema_ was used long before it could have had the current meaning, because _cinema_ hadn't been invented. See here:- ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/r3OWy.png) Looking for definitions in the online dictionaries turned up the current meaning, variously dated C19, 1895-1900 or 1909, and no other meaning. So what did _cinema_ mean in the earlier 19th Century, and briefly around 1705?


title: Plural or singular verb for collective term

text: Should the verb, in the following sentence, be singular or plural? > A series of samples was produced. In a related question I found a reference. However the text in that reference seems to contradict itself. > Nouns that are “collective” take a singular verb when the group as a whole > is meant. > > Commonly used collective nouns include “number,” “majority,” “series,” and > “variety.” > > Note that when collective nouns refer to a singular group as a whole they > are often preceded by the word “a”; Based on these rules, I would expect that, since I am using an indefinite article **_a** series_, the singular form of the verb is to be used. However the reference uses plural in an example > A series of western blots were performed to assay protein expression.


title: Fixing a series of loose sentences: Strunk & White

text: Rule 18 of Strunk & White talks about avoiding a succession of loose sentences. It gives the following example for a bad construction: > The third concert of the subscription series was given last evening, and a > large audience was in attendance. Mr. Edward Appleton was the soloist, and > the Boston Symphony Orchestra furnished the instrumental music. The former > showed himself to be an artist of first rank, while the latter proved itself > fully deserving of its high reputation. The interest aroused by the series > has been very gratifying to the Committee, and it is planned to give a > similar series annually hereafter. The fourth concert will be given on > Tuesday, May 10, when an equally attractive program will be presented. What will be a good way to rewrite the above by avoiding loose sentences? I tried the following: > The third concert of the subscription series was given last evening. The > concert was attended by a large audience. Mr. Edward Appleton was the > soloist, supported by Boston Symphyony Orchestra on instruments. Mr. Edward > Appleton showed himself to be an artist of first rank, at the same time, > Boston Symphony Orchestra too proved itself of deserving its high > reputation. Gratified by the interest shown, the Committee has planned to > give a similar annual series hereafter. The fourth concert will be given on > Tuesday, May 10, with an equally attractive program.


title: Term for measuring in fractions of 1

text: When you measure in fractions of 100, you call it a _percentage_. When you measure in fractions of 1000, you call it _promille_ or _per mil_. There are even words for fractions of 10000 or 100000. But what do you call it when you measure in fractions of 1?


title: Hence vs Therefore in casual conversation

text: Trying to be concise, I have been using `hence` instead of `therefore` for some time.      In the context of a casual conversation, **which should be used** (and why)?


title: Meaning of "we leave at eight thirty for nine"

text: In the expression _we leave at eight thirty for nine_ , what time is the departure going to be?


title: What is the word for using one part of speech where another would be more grammatical?

text: There's a Greek word that means using the wrong part of speech somewhere in a sentence, as in: > I don't know the who or the how or the when. Where "who", "how", and "when" are being used for nouns. What's the word for this?


title: What does 'What kind of mischief are you up to?' mean?

text: One of my US users asked the following questions when she got information about my resignation from my manager. > What is this rumor I hear? What kind of mischief are you up to? I am not sure whether she is asking what I did wrong or what others did wrong by taking the resignation decision. Can somebody explain me the meaning of this sentence in this situation.


title: Should an embedded question be set in quotation marks?

text: For example, given the following sentence, is it proper to set the enclosed question in quotation marks? > The first question to ask is, “should quotation marks be used?” Any additional comments about the structure of the example sentence above would be appreciated.


title: Are any of these terms correct? "Known with" or "known by"

text: Suppose a famous building, i.e. a stadium, a concert hall, etc., known as a landmark in a place, being sponsored by a company, such that people may happen to use the company name instead of the building name itself to refer to it. How is it correct to talk about this? > The building A is known _with_ X. or > The building A is known _by_ X. I know there are terms like _known as_ , and _known for_ , but none of them suit this situation. LDOCE and OxfordDictionaries don't mention anything with either of _by_ or _with_ , and Google NGram Viewer says: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/ARgPL.png) Google search with double quotes has less than 1 million results for the former, but over 6 million for the latter. However not all of those results have the same meaning as this one, and I wonder how this can be expressed appropriately without sounding odd.


title: Term for "utilize for commercialization"

text: I'm making a résumé right now and I need a term for **"utilize for commercialization"** as in: > I have learned how to _[use for commercialization]_ the concepts learned in > school. Or something like that. I came up with this wild idea of: > I have learned how to _weaponize_ the knowledge learned in Economics class. But that sounds too hostile or so. Help me get hired! :)


title: "Synchronous events" and "synchronized swimmers" — what is the difference?

text: In JavaScript, why does _synchronous_ and _asynchronous_ appear to be the opposite to their definition? _Synchronous_ (in JavaScript this refers to running in sequence): >   * occurring at the same time; coinciding in time; contemporaneous; > simultaneous. >   * going on at the same rate and exactly together; recurring together. > _Asynchronous_ (in JavaScript this refers to something like AJAX): >   * not occurring at the same time. >   * (of a computer or other electrical machine) having each operation > started only after the preceding operation is completed. >


title: "should like to" vs. "would like to"

text: > “I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less > than half of you half as well as you deserve.” > > ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring In the sentence above, if I change "I should like" to "I would like", will there be a noticeable difference in the meaning or nuance?


title: How to describe a person who loves a very cold environment (below 20°C)

text: Is there a word or two words that describes a person who loves to be in a very cold environment (e.g. below 20°C) and dislikes temperatures that are not very cold?


title: "Compared with it", is it correct?

text: Consider the following sentence: > We consider a simple protocol as the base configuration and compare with it > three other cases. Which one is more correct, "compare with it" or "compare it with"?


title: Another word for return undamaged

text: May I know if there is a single word that can replace the word "Return Undamaged" or "Return in Original form"? **Details** Jack borrow a item from Joe for 10 days. After the last day, Jack return the item to Joe. Joe check the item and confirm that the item is return in its original form and does not have any damages (such as scratches, tear, etc)


title: What's the difference between "powerless" and "helpless" (and maybe "hopeless")?

text: Don't they all involve not having the power to do things? I guess being hopeless is a little different, in that it does involve not having power but that it's permanent. Like hopeless that depression lifts or employment improves or weather gets better. You couldn't be hopeless if you did have the power to change it. But "helpless" and "powerless" are more difficult for me to distinguish. When people are depressed, they can experience helplessness but for some reason psychologists don't use the word "powerless." But aren't they the same? So like if somebody was abused, you say you were feeling so "helpless" in that situation but I can imagine you could as easily say you were powerless. Please help me tell them apart. Thanks!


title: What is the origin of the phrase "zero, zip, zilch, nada"?

text: In the TV show _Batman: The Animated Series_ , the character of Joker said the phrase "zero, zip, zilch, nada". Looking at Google results for that phrase, it seems to be more widely used, so I assume the show didn't coin it. So, the question is: how did this phrase came to be? I understand that each of the four words means "nothing", and I'm not interested in the etymology of each word, only them being used together like this.


title: "Food" vs. "foods" — spelling and meaning

text: I've been looking around the Internet. Some websites say that _foods_ is incorrect but others say it is correct.


title: Which lexical class does "wont" fall into in this sentence?

text: > As he is wont to do. Is "wont" an adjective, noun, verb, or something else in this context? How would you determine which lexical class wont falls into in any given sentence, since it can be used as an adjective, noun, or verb?


title: non-typical copular and predicative expression

text: > SMASH!   >  The door was hit with such force that it swung clean (1) **off its hinges** > and with a deafening crash landed (2) **flat on the floor**.   >  (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) (1), (2) both seem to be the resultatives of the verbs: the former predicative prepositional phrase, the latter predicative adjective. When the verbs are not typical copulars, can we call them all the predicative expressions?