niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
When should whilst be used instead of while? For example, should I use the first or the second sentence? They don't do this whilst they do that. They don't do this while they do that. Which would be correct?.
Output: I believe while and whilst are interchangeable, but whilst is more archaic and adds a nice flavoring to the sentence. That being said, 'whilst' doesn't seem to come up so often in the middle of a sentence as you had it there, so I would use 'while' in that case, even though both are grammatically correct. Whilst seems more apt to be put at the beginnings of sentences, e.g. Whilst going about my merry way I chanced upon a vagabond. Taking this serendipitous opportunity to satiate my bloodlust I decapitated him with a fork.
What's the difference in meaning between 'register' and 'registry'? Can both be used interchangeably when talking about an official (public) list of items, records?.
Output: The online oxford dict says: Register noun official list or record, for example of births, marriages, and deaths, of shipping, or of historic places. a book or record of attendance, for example of students in a class or school or guests in a hotel. Registry: noun (plural registries) a place or office where registers or records are kept. But yeah, it also says that a registry too can mean a list. And I think 'Registry' is used more in the former context than the later. Even while talking in context of computers we say things like 'Windows Registry'. For me, the word register brings along a sense of being finite but registry does not. like when I think of a register of records, I usually get a quantified picture of the records list comes to my mind, like a page, or a notebook. but 'registry' brings along a picture of non quantifiable !! or its just weird with me. Anyone have other thoughts on this?
I need a single-word to describe something good that (unexpectedly) resulted from something bad. This good thing could not have occurred without the bad event happening first, as a precursor. Example sentence: 'I got in a horrible car accident and broke my leg, but falling in love with my nurse at the hospital was the ____,' (something like that).
Output: silver lining 'I got in a horrible car accident and broke my leg, but falling in love with my nurse at the hospital was the silver lining' From Wikipedia A silver lining is a metaphor for optimism in the common English-language which means a negative occurrence may have a positive aspect to it. Etymonline says: a 'bright side' which proverbially accompanies even the darkest trouble; by 1843, apparently from oft-quoted lines from Milton's 'Comus,' where the silver lining is the light of the moon shining from behind the cloud. Was I deceived? or did a sable cloud Turn forth her silver lining on the night? I did not err, there does a sable cloud, Turn out her silver lining on the night And casts a gleam over this tufted grove. To which Thomas Warton added the commentary: 'When all succour eems to be lost, Heaven unexpectedly presents the ilver lining o a able cloud to the virtuous.'
My company is developing smart eyewear and I'm looking for a short word to describe the users of our smartglasses for English documents. The ideal wording would be understandable by British, US, and international audiences. It's primarily intended for internal usage, product specification, and exchanges with partners. It doesn't need to be formal; it can be some mild slang instead as long as it's generally friendly. We want to be able to use it openly in user documentation. It can't simply be 'users', because we also have other kinds of 'users' of our products who won't necessarily be using the smartglasses. So far I like the sound of 'speckies' or 'speccies' found in online dictionaries. Do they sound appropriate to you or would you have anything else to suggest?.
Output: eyeglass wearer a person who wears spectacles in order to see better If there's a brand you could substitute 'eyeglass' with the name of the product, e.g. Persol wearer
Is there a word to describe an object that excels in form and function? I am trying to avoid very general words like great, superb or excellent.
Output: Could it be described as an elegant solution or an engineering marvel?
How do I say all sensitive information has been obscured, what is the correct word? For context this is data that contains encrypted passwords. While these are difficult to get meaningful info from, there is still enough information to get a password from this given enough time and effort. What I refer to is the password field replaced with '******' No information left.
Output: The correct word is redacted. From dictionary.com: Redact - to hide or remove (confidential parts of a text) before publication or distribution, or to examine (a text) for this purpose: My example (edited): 'Here is the document. We have censored classified information, replacing it with black boxes. The redacted information is only available to certain individuals.'
'Vomit' is not a recent addition to English, and nor does it have a peculiar pronunciation. Yet, the past tense of vomit does not follow the notion that a vowel followed by a consonant and emphasis on the consonant. (For example, past tense of 'emit' is 'emitted'.).
Output: The crucial thing is that the last but one syllable of 'vomited' has no stress. Not even secondary stress. So the final consonant doesn't double. By contrast, the last but one syllable of 'emitted' has stress (because the last syllable of 'emit' has stress). This issue is raised in this question, to which a good answer is given. Compare: (No stress) marketed, budgeted, edited (Secondary stress) combatted, formatted (Primary stress) patted, petted, pitted, potted, rutted
What did 'Four-F.' mean in the United States of the 1940s? Here is the quote from Catch-22: They had to send a guy from the draft board around to look me over. I was Four-F. I had examined myself pretty thoroughly and discovered that I was unfit for military service.
Output: It's a classification for military service. 4-F means 'Registrant not acceptable for military service.' The context clue here you might have used to deduce an area of inquiry would be the reference to a 'draft board', which is part of the Selective Service System that determines the eligibility and thus the classification of potential draftees.
Is there a name for these kind of doubled words? For example: hanky-panky flim-flam hoity-toity boo-hoo zig-zag Note that some rhyme and others do not.
Output: hanky-panky is an example of rhyming reduplication zig-zag is an example of ablaut reduplication.
Is it ok to talk about 'personal PCs', in the sense of distinguishing it from a work PC? Or would it be regarded as a case of RAS Syndrome?.
Output: Though the word personal is repeated in the expansion 'personal personal computer', the two repetitions use different meanings of the same word. The first personal means 'owned or used by a specific single person' (definition 1 here), while the second indicates 'designed to be used by a single person' (definition 2 here, again). Both instances are required to convey the full idea and thus are not redundant. Consider the following examples spelled out in full: Personal PC: personal personal computer, (the usual case of a personal computer owned by a person) personal mainframe computer (I have a Cray in my bedroom), Public PC: public personal computer (a PC that is installed in a kiosk usable by anybody)
I'm watching them demolish a building near me and thought that the JCBs were rather animalistic almost dinosaur-like. Anyway, it just got me onto thinking that it's not anthropomorphy if I want to give a non-human (animal) trait to an inanimate object. Another example is that the comedian Isy Suttie once described an elderly person, hunched over and using a pair of walking sticks as resembling an insect (except she was funny). I suppose this is the same thing. The only thing I can think of that might fit is 'xenopomorphism'. Any ideas?.
Output: zoomorphism zoomorphic 1 having the form of an animal 2 of, relating to, or being a deity conceived of in animal form or with animal attributes
How did 7 come to be an abbreviation for 'and' in Old English? is a beautiful question about the Tiroian 'et', which is now the '' character 1. My question is what impact did the association of this 7-like-glyph have on the eventual placement of keyboards placing the & on Shift+7 combination? The Wikipedia article on the QUERTY keyboard shows that the ampersand was a separate key in the bottom left of the keyboard in the original patent application drawings. The patent was filed in 1878. The Das Keyboard blog shows a Full Duplex keyboard (with separate keys for upper and lower case letters) from 1897 with no ampersand key at all. I have not yet been able to find a reference to the first keyboard to place the ampersand and 7 together. The Wiki article on the ampersand only mentions that it is usually keyed via Shift+7, but occasionally on 6 or 8 instead. Dvorak layouts appear to share similar associations between 7 and &. So is it a coincidence? Or is there some association? 1 This looks really different in the EL&U site fontface. See the linked question or the Wikipedia article for more faithful renderings.
Output: Although the 7 was the ampersand on IBM's standard keyboard layout, that is hardly universal. The first nine printable characters in ASCII are ! ' # $ % & ' ( ), which should give a good clue as to what the top row of a teletype keyboard looked like. On many early teletypes and terminals (and also, BTW, on the Apple ][), the shift key toggled bit 4 of the character being produced, thus it would turn a 1 (011 0001) into ! (010 0001), and , (010 1100) into < (011 1100). Since the digits 1-9 received consecutive code, so did the characters produced by combining them with the shift key. Shift-7 on those keyboards was apostrophe; the ampersand was shift-6. Other typewriter keyboards also varied considerably in where they put the ampersand. Its association with the number 7 is nowhere near as consistent as the association between 1 and !, 3 and #, 4 and $, or 5 and % which existed in both older computer keyboards and today's US arrangement.
It is for a cover letter, where I want to express my interest in the position and also to indicate that my profile matches the requirement. I find the proposed job interesting and matched by my profile and career goal. First, does 'I find the proposed job interesting' sound too ego-centric? Second, shall I break the sentence into two or keep it compact in one? Third, any better way for saying that my profile meets their requirements? Any help on any of these questions will be appreciated. //////.
Output: Oh my. About the only thing good I can say about your cover letter is that you knew to ask for help. Your original statement doesn't convey what it literally says. The primary point any reader is going to take away is 'English is not my first language and I have difficulty communicating.' masarah's improvement is... an improvement. But it's not going to get you the job in a competitive market. The awkward word choice and sentence construction is gone, although it still is passive and overly wordy. Worse, it still gives the distinct impression that you're sending the same cover letter to dozens of companies, and probably didn't even read the requirements that you say you meet. The primary problem is that you're trying to evaluate your own suitability for the position. That simply won't fly. For one thing, it implies that the recruiter or HR department is redundant, which is going to make a bad impression on the first person to see your resume, even if it were true. Bigger issue: why would they trust your assessment, since you're obviously biased (you want them to offer you the job). My high school English teacher (English is my first language, so this was a writing course, not a foreign language course) gave the advice 'show, don't tell', and this applies in this situation. Don't tell them 'My profile matches the requirements.' or 'My experience matches the requirements.' Instead pull a couple highlights from your resume that you feel give you the necessary background, and say something like 'I look forward to applying my experience taking notes in class to making sure your medical records are clear and concise and don't miss any important details.' Of course, you should talk about your actual experience and the tasks that you will do in the position you are applying for. Same thing goes for expressing interest in the position. You did some research on what the company does, right? You don't want to say, 'I'm interested in this position because it meets my career goals.' Instead, 'I'm excited about joining your team that is on the cutting edge of research in whatever.' or 'I feel that the work your company does in providing education to the unemployed is vitally important. I would love to help give people a second chance at life.' Make it specific to the work this position entails, and your prior related experience. Let them draw the conclusion that you're a good fit. If you want to make it easy for the recruiter to check that you meet the requirements, use a highlighter on your resume. But that's not what a cover letter is for.
In my language, when I write an email to my professor, boss, etc, there is a greeting part in the first part of email right after 'Dear prof. ...'(in my language of course), e.g. 'How are you', 'I hope everything is alright' and so on. But I don't have any idea how can I write a proper email with such a greeting in English? Or do I have to ignore it because the email is kinda formal?.
Output: I almost always start formal e-mails with Dear Professor _, I hope this note finds you well. Some guidelines will suggest ending your salutation with a colon rather than a comma, but in many circumstances a comma is acceptable. If the person's title is 'professor,' you should spell it out (not 'prof.') and begin it with a capital letter when it precedes the person's name (as it would in your example). 'I hope this note (or letter) finds you well' politely establishes a friendly connection between you and the recipient of your letter and in most circumstances is a great way to start it. Especially if you're asking for something, it's good to indicate your concern for the person you're writing to. For the same reason, it's a good idea to end the letter with a phrase or sentence that will similarly show interest in their work or their well-being. 'Best regards,' is fine, but if you can tailor it in a way that's a bit more thoughtful, it's better. 'I hope your book/project continues to go smoothly.' (This can be followed by a 'Best regards.') If this is a person you don't know, you may have to settle for a generic 'Best regards' alone.
So I thought I'm sure about this and my instincts say that: 'If anyone has seen them ..' would be right but then again when I said it like: 'If anyone have seen them ..' I started thinking which one would be the right one. Can you please guide me through which is the right one and why? P.S. English is not my first language.
Output: It's 'if anyone has', because 'anyone' functions as third person singular. It probably just seems right to use 'have' because you would for any other number or person.
What does 'I'm game' mean and what is its correct usage?.
Output: I'm game means that I am up for the challenge, but arguably more commonly, I agree... Q: Fancy going for a drink? A: Sure, I'm game... or Q: I was thinking of going shopping. Do you want to come? A: Yes, I'm game... As for correct usage, as with most idioms, use it as you will... there is no correct usage as such.
Someone told me that I shouldn't use the phrase discuss about, but should say, instead, discuss (the topic). He said discuss means talk about and using discuss about is like saying talk about about, which is redundant. Is he correct? Could somebody elaborate on this?.
Output: Your friend is correct. You can discuss something, or you can talk about it, but discuss about is redundant for the reason you identified. discuss: to speak with another or others about But if you want to use the word about, you can have a conversation about, confer about, debate about, or even have a powwow about. Most of the other synonyms for discuss don't take about, nor is it needed to converse (or debate).
Possible Duplicate: What is the difference between an expression and a phrase? Difference between 'phrase' and 'idiom' What is the difference between a phrase, an idiom and an expression? I am looking for the context where one is more appropriate than the rest. I've been using idiom and phrase more or less interchangeably.
Output: This question asks nearly the same thing. This is the difference between an idiom and a phrase: A phrase is 'a small group of words standing together as a conceptual unit', while an idiom is 'a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words'. So, the difference is that an idiom as an established meaning not directly linked to the individual words. Any idiom is a phrase. As an example, 'raining cats and dogs' is both an idiom and a phrase. 'A herd of cats' is a phrase but not an idiom. Expression has about the same meaning as phrase, except it is usually used of a phrase which is in common use. So an idiom is a certain sort of expression, which in turn is a subset of phrase: idiom > expression > phrase.
Any situation, any time; this person has always something negative to say about it. It should be a noun or an adjective to describe a person who is a damp cloud walking over every sunshine situations at the cubicle, hoping to drench other people with his miserable comments. I considered 'sourpuss' but would prefer something more important sounding, like 'misogynist.'.
Output: In British English, 'Naysayer' is common for someone who says that something is not possible, won't work, shouldn't be tried, etc.
Are shit, shat, and shitted all correct and fine to use as the past tense of shit? After a little bit of searching it seems that they are, with shat being Old English. Is any form more common in British or American English? Erik Kowal claims that shit is mostly American English and shat British English. [M]ost Americans don't change the verb form for the past tense of certain short verbs ending in -it. So fit, spit, shit, slit and pit are thus formed both in the present and the past tense as far as Americans are concerned, whereas people from Britain would almost always use fitted, spat, shat, slitted and pitted for the past tense. What about shitted?.
Output: The OED's etymology for this word is: The form shite represents OE. *scitan, pa. t. *scat, pa. pple. -sciten (in be-sciten), corresponding to OFris. *skita (NFris. skitj, pa. t. skad, pa. pple. skedden), MLG. schiten, Dutch schijten, OHG. scian (MHG. schian, mod.G. scheissen), ONor. skita (MSw. skita, Da. skide), f. OTeut. root skit-. The now more common form shit is influenced by the pa. pple. or the related sb. As far as modern/current forms go, it says that: The present tense is either shit or shite. For the past tense, the OED gives all three of shit, shat, shitted as current. So the answer to your question is yes. For the past participle, the OED provides only shit and shat, with shitten last appearing in the 19th century. That means you won't find any one 'correct' answer. Because those variant forms are all used natively by speakers born to the language, all are therefore 'correct'. Use whatever you please.
Is there a way to indicate that somebody is your girlfriend without using the possessive term my? I think saying She/He is my partner/other half is OK for married people, but it doesn't feel right for girlfriends and boyfriends.
Output: There is nothing wrong with using my. Saying my medical appointment does not mean the medical appointment belongs to me, but just that it is connected to me in some way. Stick to my for there is no alternative which expresses the idea succinctly.
Possible Duplicate: Do you use 'a' or 'an' before acronyms? Does one use 'a' or 'an' before the word 'X-Ray'? Quite simply, should a sentence read 'a XML report' or 'an XML report'?.
Output: It's 'an XML report', because which form of the indefinite article to use is decided by how the next word is pronounced. In this case, it's pronounced: An ex-emm-ell report 'XML' begins with a vowel sound, 'e', so an is used rather than a.
When you are writing about the seasons, should you capitalize their names? For example, would you say: I love the colors of the leaves in Autumn. Or should you say: I love the colors of the leaves in autumn.
Output: The names of seasons should be left uncapitalized. However capitalization may be used to achieve a poetic effect.
The first time I encountered the word 'gondola' was as a 20 year old on her first visit to Venice. Gondolas, to me, were written in my memory as a flat, fancy, romantic (and expensive to ride) boat structures that traverse the canals of Venice, Italy. But soon thereafter, on my first visit to Banff, Canada (Canadian Rockies) -- Gondolas was also the term for ski-like lifts (enclosed from the elements) to get from the bottom to the top of steep mountains (vice versa). What is the etymology of 'gondola'? And how did it develop to reference two completely different transportation devices? One on water, the other on mountains? What is the relationship besides their obvious transportation connect?.
Output: Some of the successive meanings given in the OED are: 1a. ' A light flat-bottomed boat or skiff in use on the Venetian canals, having a cabin amidships and rising to a sharp point at either end; it is usually propelled by one man at the stern with a single oar.' U.S. A large flat-bottomed river boat of light build; a lighter; used also as a gun-boat. 4a. '= gondola-car n. U.S.', which is glossed as 'U.S. a railway car having a platform body with low sides.' 4b. 'An elongated car attached to the under side of a dirigible balloon or airship. [German, Dutch gondel.] Also transf., applied to a structure that resembles such a car in its purpose and mode of attachment.' 4c. 'The car attached to a ski-lift. Also gondola lift.' So the crucial step appears to be the cabin of an airship (which is long and low), and then a cabin suspended from something. This kind of semantic drift is very common.
I've heard people say 'be king' (as in 'I can't wait to be king') in movies and TV. Why don't they say 'be a king'? Which is correct?.
Output: Since 'a king' uses an indefinite article, it suggests that he may become any one of a number of kings. In most cases where a person may become king, there is only one king in the political structure he inhabits. For instance, if he is in the line of succession for the English throne, he probably cannot become king of France or Denmark without marrying into that royal family. The equivalent phrase to 'I can't wait to be king' would use a definite article - it could be rephrased as 'I can't wait to be the king', since there is only one kingship he is eligible to accede to.
I am looking for a term to replace formulations like 'the activities of the morning', 'the rituals pertinent to the morning', 'the morning report' (that one is from the Lion King, I couldn't resist). I tried perusing the internet search engines of my knowledge, including some searches on merriam webster's website, but I can't get a hold of what I am looking for. In fact, I will eat a better breakfast and pray every morning, now.
Output: matutinal adjective [formal] happening in the morning: We chatted over our matutinal coffee. [Cambridge Dictionary] Though normal people have morning coffee.
I am looking for a word that describes a person described in the description of the title. An example of such a person would be a person who comfortably passes the (easier) qualifiers and gradually performs even better as opponents get tougher in the final stages of a tournament. The person does not necessarily relax when he knows he can easily win, but 'naturally' performs better as the stakes get higher.
Output: How about 'clutch (player)' per. Clutch performance in sports is the phenomenon of athletes under pressure, usually in the last minutes of a game, to summon strength, concentration and whatever else necessary to succeed, to perform well, and perhaps change the outcome of the game. It occurs in basketball, hockey, football, esports, and other sports. The opposite is 'choking': failing to perform as needed, when under pressure.
I am creating a computer game in which the character needs to consume food in order to not starve to death. In the game I can display the level of how much food the character currently needs via 'hunger level' - the higher this value, the more desperately the character needs food. But what I want now is to turn that around, so that this level tells how full the stomach of the character is. In German we have a word for that, 'Sattigung', which means how full my stomach is (or better: how full it feels to me), it is basically the opposite of hunger. Is there a similar word in English, which means exactly that, the opposite of hunger? It might be something like 'saturation', but from what I can tell this word is usually used in a technical context, like in 'the saturation of a color'. Can I use that 'saturation' to describe the opposite of hunger of a human or animal, or is there a better word for that?.
Output: I think the apter word is 'satiety' than 'saturation' in the OP's context. satiety thestateof beingcompletely satisfied,especiallywithfoodor pleasure, so that you could not have any more.
'The worst student' is the student who is bad at things. In this case, 'worst' simply describes the noun. Following this logic, your 'worst enemy' would be the person who is very bad at being your enemy, thus is actually your best friend. Your 'worst enemy' is actually the enemy who is very good at being your enemy. Thus, in this context, 'worst' acts to amplify the inherent negative intent of the noun. 'Worst disaster' would be another example of this. Is this just a matter of context or there some science behind the interprettation of a negative adjective applied to a negative noun?.
Output: Don't confuse English language with the mathematical theory. The adjective worst qualifies the noun enemy with even more bad values. So, a worst enemy is more dangerous than a normal enemy.
I'm trying to find a humorous term for someone who still has an overdue library book after a number of years. I first came up with 'delinquent lendee', but I'm sure there's something more apropos or alliterative.
Output: Here are a few I came up with, choose one that suits you: Book-Bandit Book-Clip Book-Plunderer Book-Pocket Book-Lifter Library-Climber Library-Breaker Book-Breaker Biblio-Bandit Lendup-Artist Biblio-Bezzler Biblio-Prowler Book-Prowler
is it 'a usual' or 'an usual'? 'A usual' sounds more correct in my head ('Today was a usual day.') than 'an usual', but u is a vowel. Which one is correct and why?.
Output: Usual (pronounced /ju.u.l/ as in you) begins with a consonant sound and, as such, it should be preceded by a not an. As an aside, I cannot help but point out that the sentence Today was a usual day is not usually heard in regular conversation. Today was an unusual day is what one might hear, instead! Indeed, I rarely hear the construction a usual. The definite article is more commonly used, in my experience: That's the usual thing. In place of a usual, one would also be more likely to hear not an unusual: Today was a usual day / Today was not an unusual day This is a usual occurrence / This is not an unusal occurrence or This usually happens You are right in saying that a usual sounds weird. As speakers, we tend to avoid constructions which, though correct, do not flow easily from the mouth. In sum, the following are valid and commonly used alternatives: not [an] unusual the usual usually
Possible Duplicate: Which is the proper spelling: 'disfunction' or 'dysfunction'? What's the rationale behind dysfunctional being spelled dys- and not dis-?.
Output: From WordReference.com on Dysfunction vs. Disfunction: dys- is a Greek prefix meaning 'bad', 'abnormal', 'difficult', or 'impaired'. dis- is a Latin prefix with none of the above meanings. dys- has the right meaning, but function is a Latin word. Hence the confusion. Latin dis- can mean 'lack of', 'not', 'opposite of', 'away from'. This all explains why something dys-functional has a bad or abnormal function, rather than a lack of function that dis-functional implies.
Possible Duplicate: When is 'L' doubled? If I am using the word model in the context of financial models and the UK, then which of these words should I use? Also, are there any key difference in the meanings of the two?.
Output: There is no difference in meaning. The single-L spelling is more common in the United States; the double-L spelling is more common in the United Kingdom, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. I don't know which is more common in other countries.
If there are an odd number of competitors at any stage of a single-elimination tournament, one player is excused from play and continues on as if he had defeated his (nonexistent) opponent. This is called 'getting a by'. Or 'getting a bye'. Who knows, maybe it's even 'getting a buy', although I doubt it. My dictionary lists by as meaning 'pass' in card-games, so that suggests that spelling. On the other hand, the image of the referee looking from the single player, to the empty and undefended far side of the field, and then back to the player, shrugging, and saying 'Bye', is too strong to easily discard. Like other parts of the anatomy, everyone's got an opinion. I'm looking for a cite.
Output: Here's what you get: bye 1 |bi| noun 1 the transfer of a competitor directly to the next round of a competition in the absence of an assigned opponent. [From the New Oxford American Dictionary.]
I understand the capitalization rule for nouns, proper nouns require a capital letter. Also, I should begin a new sentence with a capital letter. When & why 'mom/dad' requires a capital letter ? (Reference- ELL- I am at Vapi where mom is hospitalised) mom: (n) informal term for a mother/North American term for mum.
Output: When it is their name, Mom and Dad would be capitalised: Dear Mom and Dad, I am just writing to let you know, that although everyone has a mom and a >dad, you are my special mom and dad. So, Mom, I just want to say 'brava!'; and Dad, 'bravo!'. I've just been telling Sis, that Mom's new coat is so cool. XX Here's the commentary from an exercise from BBC English on Line ...to have a roast chicken lunch with my mother. I can't wait! - mother does not need a capital 'M' as it is not being used to replace her name. If I said, 'I am going to lunch with Mum', it would need a capital letter, but 'I am going to lunch with my mum' does not.
I debated with my peers that we can use the word emails when referring to more than one and it would be grammatically right. But most of them said since we don't say we received mails today, similarly we won't say we received emails . Quick advice please.
Output: Dan Bron's comment (above) that e-mail/email at its inception was treated as a mass noun is correctand so is Kristina Lopez's comment (above) that e-mail/email is widely applied today not just to the medium of electronic mail but to individual messages sent and received in that medium. For many years the technology magazines where I worked enforced a strict house rule: e-mail (and later email) referred to 'electronic mail' as a mode of communication, and individual messages had to be termed 'e-mail [or email] messages.' But three or four years ago, the overwhelming weight of popular usage prevailed, and we began to accept the use of email as a singular noun that could take an indefinite article, and emails as a plural nounboth referring to individual messages. It is probably not coincidental that other forms of electronic communication receive similar treatment in popular (and some publishing) usage: a text and texts for 'a text message' and 'text messages,' respectively; and an IM and IMs for 'an instant messaging message' and 'instant messaging messages' (as I recall, people used to avoid 'instant messaging message' by conflating the technology with the individual message to produce 'instant message'). At publishing houses, the proper handling of 'an e-mail [or email]' versus 'an e-mail [or email] message' remains a house style issuethere is no universally agreed-upon preference. If you are beholden to no one's style guide, you are free to use the wording that you like better. But the overall tendency, I believe, is toward accepting an email and emails as collapsed forms of 'an electronic mail message' and 'electronic mail messages.'
For example In Sim Lim Square cheat cases, a person paid $1k for iPhone insurance. He 'agreed' to buy it because the price was not clearly written. In some restaurants, prices are not written clearly and people can then be charged exorbitant prices. Insurance costs can vary by up to 100 times because the cost is simply not written clearly. Many politicians use deceptive language. Also, they tend to tell only the benefits without telling the negatives. Say you are a scientist. You have 10 studies supporting your theory and 90 studies showing you are wrong. You only quote the 10 studies to people that can't expect. All of these are deceptions that would make people choose really really 'bad deals'. Is there a word to describe such deceptions? Lying? Sophism? Fraud? Scam? Pull a fast one? What?.
Output: Mislead/misleading One can be misled into thinking something, even if no lies are involved. Doesn't necessarily rule out lying though. The restaurant misled its customers by hiding information about extra charges
Is singular correct, or is plural of 'credential' correct for a single username & password pair?.
Output: This isn't a question you can answer by thinking about the grammar - it's just a case of conventional usage. I've previously worked in the tech industry, and we would always say credentials, never credential. That would still be true even if the credentials were a single item like a certificate. [Edit to add: but Samuel has provided a counter-example to this in a comment on the OP.] In wider English, credential is valid - it's used for example in this Wikipedia article - but it's still more common to use the plural (see Oxford Dictionaries for confirmation). For example, I could say that I have presented my credentials to someone if I have shown them my passport, even though I've only shown them one physical item.
I'm writing an essay for college admissions, and this snippet is highlighted by my auto-correct as incorrect: There are many obstacles I face while working on a project, most of which take a lot of time and energy to fix or work around. I can't see anything wrong with using work around in this context, but I'd like to know how to correctly use this phrase.
Output: Work around is a phrasal verb. Work-around is a noun (often written workaround, without the hyphen). Your example uses the verb, so it is correct as written. Ignore the auto-correct suggestion in this case.
I recently had somebody tell me that a mutual friend of ours who is genderqueer prefers that people refer to him/her using the gender-indefinite pronoun they. In some cases, this almost seems okay: Kris left their umbrella at our house. On the other hand, if Kris is sitting right next to you, it feels very odd to say They (meaning just Kris) would like more cake. Or even odder, Kris would like some more cake, can you please pass it to they/them?' Are these usages grammatically correct? Are they in the process of becoming grammatically correct? Are there more correct alternatives?.
Output: I think the reason for your friend's preference is that using either the male or female pronouns implicitly pigeon-holes the person in question as either one or the other. However, all of the examples you give seem to me to be forced, and to shout out loud 'Hey, look at how sensitive I'm being! I'm not calling Kris either male or female!' There are sensible alternatives to all of these examples that do not break any grammatical rules. 'Kris left their umbrella at our house' : Kris left an umbrella at our house (yes, it could technically then be somebody else's umbrella that was left behind, but would you really know?) 'They [Kris] would like more cake.' : Kris would like some more cake. 'Kris would like some more cake, can you please pass it to they?' : Could you please pass the cake? Kris would like some more. While my dictionary (Chambers 1990) does have a secondary definition of 'they' as 'he or she', it also says that this usage is 'with pl. verb', as in 'there are lots of people; they are happy'. 'They is' would not be correct.
In Russian we have the term ''. I would translate it as 'asshands' which literally means that your hands grow out of your behind and you can't do anything right (or do anything at all). Example: Dad: 'Hey son, can you hang up this picture on the wall?' Son: 'No dad, my hands grow out of my behind, I'll probably end up hanging it upside down' (Or 'I am a _____' - i.e. the term I'm looking for.) Is there anything similar in English? Is the term 'screw up' the one? Or are there any other ones? I want slang specifically, preferably American.
Output: 'All thumbs', according to Wiktionary 'clumsy, awkward, not dextrous.' 'Klutz', according to Wiktionary 'a clumsy or stupid person.'
I was told in a Latin class that the name Christopher has Greek roots that mean 'one who carries Christ'. I assume that the Latin connection here is fero, which is the verb to carry. With that in mind, does the name Jennifer have a similar derivation? If so what would she be carrying?.
Output: No Jennifer is from From a Cornish form of the Welsh name Gwenhwyfar (see GUINEVERE). This name has only been common outside of Cornwall since the beginning of the 20th century, after it was featured in George Bernard Shaw's play 'The Doctor's Dilemma' (1906). GUINEVERE From the Norman French form of the Welsh name Gwenhwyfar, composed of the elements gwen meaning 'fair, white' and hwyfar meaning 'smooth'. In Arthurian legend she was the beautiful wife of King Arthur who engaged in an adulterous affair with Sir Lancelot. Her betrayal of her husband with Mordred prompted the battle of Camlann, which led to the deaths of both Mordred and Arthur. The Cornish form of this name, Jennifer, has become popular in the English-speaking world.
Is there a single word to describe birds that can fly? Am I struggling to think of a word because the default notion of a bird is that it can fly? So we generally only need to differentiate the ones that can't fly. I've seen the term 'winged' in a few google searches, but to my mind an ostrich is winged, but it is also flightless. I guess I'm looking for the word you'd put into this blank: Penguins are flightless because they cannot fly. Ostriches are flightless because they cannot fly. Pigeons are ____ because they can fly.
Output: I think you can just use flying to describe them; flying birds sounds perfectly normal and isn't a tautology, nor does it only apply to birds in the air, cf. the title of the Wikipedia article 'Flying and gliding animals'. It's obviously an awkward choice for your example sentence, where another option, volant, could be used instead: 2: flying or capable of flying (source: Merriam-Webster)
For example, a computer security expert can be an expert and making a basic mistake, perhaps unrelated to his personality but highly relevant to his field of expertise and a mistake that just about anybody could do but just because he is a security expert he especially should not have done it. I don't mean stupid mistake or stupid error but I mean contradictory and almost similar to a double-standard. Jeff teaches English but he couldn't spell 'occurrence'. Or for example George is a professional Microsoft Windows programmer but he doesn't know what alt+tab does. Or Henry is a surgeon but he cut himself shaving. I don't necessarily mean something like a police officer who himself is corrupt or a judge who is corrupt because those are not accidents or mistakes but deliberate. Albert Einstein was a genius but couldn't remember his own address and entered the wrong house when going home. (Perhaps the above Einstein example is not a great example because scientist could be absent-minded.) I mean more like actually mistakenly missing the basics of your own speciality or making a human error that anybody else could do except you because you are supposed to be the specialist. I think the classic example could be Bill Gates trying to show how good Microsoft Windows is and it crashes. Or a news anchor, who should be a specialist in not making a word mistake, actually makes a word mistake. Or a judge or an attorney, who should be experts in law and rights, wouldn't know something trivial about law and right e.g. unknowingly about that blackmailing is a crime. I almost made such a mistake myself. I was an IT specialist and computer technician at a client's office and their boss was teaching himself the basics of programming and asking me about something basic. I actually got it right but I was not completely certain about something basic while actually being able to solve complicated and advanced problems for them.
Output: Such mistakes are bloopers. ODO: blooper NOUN North American informal 1 An embarrassing error 'Home cooks perhaps identified with Mrs. Child, who, though she clearly knew her sauces and souffles, also committed bloopers on camera.'
What goes in the blank? Commerce Commercial Finance Financial Trade __________.
Output: One word is mercantile: Related to trade [ODO]
For example, my friend's anniversary is on 3rd August (03/08/2016-dd/mm/yyyy). If I interchange the Month and Day digit and write 08/03/2016 meaning 8th March, is there any special word for this kind of date in English? Like 'Reverse Date' or something. Ignoring the dates after 12th. Editing: I am not confused about date formats here. Think it like, If I want to wish my friend on 8th of March (instead of 3rd August), what should I say him? Like: 'Happy Reversed Anniversary'!?.
Output: While it's difficult to prove a negative, having grown up speaking English and being fairly well-read, I feel safe saying: No, there is no commonly used word for this that would immediately be understood by the majority of people.
I was googling the reason for why it's called 'shotgun' to ride beside the driver when it suddenly hit me - why on Earth is the firearm called 'shotgun'?! Is there any other kind of a gun than one used for shooting?! Why is it called 'shotgun' instead of just a 'gun' or a more technical term (9-gauge, barrel gun etc.)?.
Output: The 'shot' in shotgun refers to the ammunition that the gun fires. Whereas a pistol or rifle fires bullets (single metal balls), a shotgun fires a shell packed with shot (hundreds of tiny metal balls).
Somehow I am compelled to use the word 'metal' to describe strong 'intestinal fortitude', and perseverance however I can't find the spelling or any synonym like this. Does a word that sounds like 'metal' exist when describing an individual's character? I'm looking for modern or historic usage of the word.
Output: Mettle Defined by Oxford Dictionaries as: a person's ability to cope well with difficulties; spirit and resilience. It is commonly seen in the phrase: (put someone) on their mettle meaning, (of a demanding situation) test someone's ability to face difficulties. 'there were regular public meetings where local MPs were put on their mettle and remorselessly pilloried' Source: ODO Other constructions are possible too, for example: test their mettle, apparently an American version (thanks, @PeterCordes) show your mettle, etc. Origins According to Merriam-Webster, mettle was, as @Sparhawk points out in the comments, originally simply a variant spelling of the word metal (which dates to at least the 13th century), and it was used in all of the same senses as its metallic relative. Over time, however, mettle came to be used mainly in figurative senses referring to the quality of someone's character, with a first known usage in 1581. Today, both words can mean 'vigor and strength of spirit or temperament,' but only metal is used of metallic substances.
I'm trying to describe a situation in which a person prepares for an event, then realises the event won't happen, and so they undo their preparations, returning to a state of unpreparedness. Whenever I search for the opposite of 'prepare', I get words that describe a failure to prepare in the first place, or at best words that describe what happens to the preparations, not words that describe what happens to the person. Is there a word that captures what happens to the person as they return to a state of unpreparedness?.
Output: There is the phrase 'stand down' about which Lexico says stand down PHRASAL VERB 2 Relax or cause to relax after a state of readiness. If something doesn't happen soon, I reckon they'll stand us down. An ambulance crew was dispatched immediately, however they were stood down shortly after. They have got to accept that the war is over and stand down their army once and for all.
Is it correct to say 'Wish you a happy weekend' or should I say 'Wishing you a happy weekend'?.
Output: Neither Wishing you a happy weekend nor Wish you a happy weekend would be used in normal conversation. As others have noted, spoken parting platitudes at the end of a week are normally started with have, such as: Have a good weekend Have a nice weekend etc. Change the adjective to be what you think most appropriate for the situation. On the other hand, if you are signing off some correspondence, such as an email, then Wishing you a happy weekend is more appropriate. Similar constructions include Wishing you a happy birthday Wishing you a merry Christmas Wishing you well To use *Wish you a happy weekend you need to add I to make the sentence grammatical. i.e. I wish you a happy weekend. A notable exception to this is the common postcard sign off Wish you were here where it is idiomatic to leave out the I.
Possible Duplicate: Is a company always plural, or are small companies singular? When I'm referring to a group of multiple things, should it be considered singular or plural for the purposes of applying a verb to it? For example, which is correct in the examples below? A sentence is a group of words that is followed by a period. A sentence is a group of words that are followed by a period. The group of people constitutes a jury. The group of people constitute a jury. A group of crows is called a 'murder'. A group of crows are called a 'murder'. My instinct is that it depends on whether the verb is referncing the group itself or the members of the group directly, but is that right?.
Output: According to the OALD, group can actually serve as either a plural or singular noun. The category they give is 'countable + singular or plural verb'. So, an example of correct use is: A group of us is/are going to the theatre this evening. For any of your examples, both is and are can be used. I think the difference between them is as you say: use is when you are referring to the group, and use are when you are referring to the members of a given group. This page on when to use 'group' as plural from Washington State University backs this up, saying: When the group is being considered as a whole, it can be treated as a single entity: 'the group was ready to go on stage.' But when the individuality of its members is being emphasized, 'group' is plural: 'the group were in disagreement about where to go for dinner.' To analyze your given examples, here are some notes: A sentence is a group of words that is followed by a period. Use this form if you're talking about the group itself. That is, a sentence is a group of words followed by a period. A sentence is a group of words that are followed by a period. This implies that 'This. Is. A. Sentence' is a sentence. The group of people constitutes a jury. The group of people constitute a jury. This would be more correct, since you are describing the nature of the group. A group of crows is called a 'murder'. This would be correct, since you're again describing an entire group. A group of crows are called a 'murder'.