niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Is there a word for reverse homesickness? Let's say, if you visit a place, and you like it so much, you don't want to leave.
Output: referring to this link... The opposite of homesick is 'Wanderlust' when you have a big desire for traveling or going to a journey and exploring the world. However there was an interesting comment in a forum about the opposite of homesickness: It's still homesick. 'Boy, I am homesick!' 'But you live at home.' 'Yeah, and I'm sick of it!' hope it helps
Today, I received a folder of Recruiting candidate CVs from one of our HR. In this folder, there is a sub-folder named 'pass'. Question is does this 'pass' mean the CVs inside are OK or not OK? If I want to mean the CVs in the folder that are not OK, what exact word should I use?.
Output: I have encountered many people using the term 'pass' in recruiting. Each time, the person believed they were making a clear statement. Roughly half of them mean 'I don't like this one, pass' (as one might say when playing cards). The rest mean 'I like this one, please pass him or her to the next round' (as the term is used in quality control). Each group is surprised to learn about the existence of the other. I now insist that recruiting feedback never use the ambiguous term 'pass.' Useful terms to replace it are 'proceed' and 'no hire.' 'Proceed' makes it clear that the candidate is moving to the next round, as opposed to 'hire' which may convey a stronger meaning of 'make an offer now.' Simply using 'yes' and 'no' may suffice in some contexts, such as your example of labeling CVs.
Possible Duplicate: When do I use 'I' instead of 'me?' A friend of mine asked me for advice about an e-mail he was writing. There was a sentence like this: I and my partners we are interested in investing in your product. I figured it was wrong, so I suggested: I and my partners are interested in investing in your product. This looks grammatical to me but sounds strange. Also, I have seen a lot of people writing this: Me and my partners we are interested in investing in your product. which I believe is not grammatical. So, which one of the options above is correct? Also, what would be a better choice of words?.
Output: 'I and someone are interested' is grammatically correct. It is the convention in English that when you list several people including yourself, you put yourself last, so you really should say 'Someone and I are interested.' 'Someone and I' is the subject of the sentence, so you should use the subjective case 'I' rather than the objective 'me'. 'Someone and I' clearly means two people, so you should use 'are' and not 'is'. If it was 'Someone or I ...' then you would use 'is', because only one person is interested, either 'someone' or 'I'. It is not uncommon to hear people say 'Me and someone are ...', but this is wrong because it's the wrong case. When an educated person hears 'Me and Billy is going to the ball game', he immediately thinks this is either a child or a very uneducated person speaking. 'I and someone we ...' is incorrect because it is redundant. 'We' is simply another way of saying 'I and someone'. It adds no new information to the sentence, and so there is no reason to include it. You can't just string together alternative ways of expressing the same idea: If you really need it for clarity or emphasis, you have to surround it with some additional words, like a 'that is', or sometimes just punctuation that show its purpose in the sentence. You could say, 'We, that is, Bob and I, are interested ...' All that said, 'I and someone' or 'Someone and I' sounds strange to me, and I suspect most English speakers, because it is an unusual use of the word 'someone'. When 'someone' is used in a list with identifiers of other people, we usually say 'someone else'. Like, 'Bob and someone else are interested ...' rather than 'Bob and someone are interested ...' (I have no idea why this is so; it's just the convention.) 'Someone' without 'else' is normally only used when it's the only person: 'Someone is interesteed ...'
Upon answering the telephone, the person calling asks if Joan is available. If Joan is the person who answered the phone, should she say 'This is her' or 'This is she'?.
Output: Traditional grammarians prefer the nominative ('she') for the complement of the verb 'to be'. Most usage in my experience prefers the accusative ('her') and regards the verb as having a direct object rather than a complement. I suspect the traditional grammarians, as they often did, have misapplied a rule of Latin grammar. In Latin, 'esse' takes a complement in the nominative case, but Latin declines the verb strongly enough that it doesn't bother with a pronoun as the subject of a verb unless needed for emphasis. 'It is she' in Latin would be 'illa id est', which looks far more natural than the English. Note that it's 'c'est lui' in French, so there isn't a general rule for a complement of 'to be' being in the nominative. Explanation: A normal (transitive) verb, like say 'have' has a direct object, which is in the accusative case. So, for example, 'I have her' uses 'her' as a direct object, and 'her' is in the accusative case, where 'she' is in the nominative case. In Latin, the verb 'esse' ('to be') is special; it doesn't have a direct object in the accusative case, it has a complement in the nominative case. English grammarians in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries adopted a number of rules of Latin grammar into English; this was one of them. In Latin, 'it is she' and 'she is it' are both the same thing 'id illa est' or 'illa id est' can both be translated either way - the point being that the 'is' ('est') just equates to things to each other - it's like in maths you can have x=y or y=x and they both mean the same thing. English, though, takes word-order very seriously, and a pronoun after a verb is very strongly marked as being in the objective case and you don't get the benefit that you get in Latin from the exception - there's still one before the verb and one after; you don't get to make clear that it's commutative. So you have a special-case for a verb, which you get no useful benefit from. It's hardly surprising that most English speakers have reverted to 'it is her' rather than 'it is she'. A note on cases: Latin is conventionally described as having seven cases (though only five are actually different for most nouns and pronouns). It has two cases, accusative and dative for the objects of verbs. English's residual case system only has the one case for both, which merge into the objective case (in fact, a third Latin case, ablative, merges in too). That's why the two paragraphs above appear to use two different words for the same case.
Is there a word that describes or denotes a type of conversation in which two speakers speak two different languages. In our country, Pakistan, there are approximately 75 languages, from which Urdu, Punjabi and Sindhi are common, excluding English. So today I found two women speaking two different languages. For example: Speaker 1 has Urdu as their mother tongue. Speaker 2 has Sindhi as their mother tongue. Speaker 1 and 2 spoke their own mother tongue, which are different (Urdu and Sindhi) but both can understand each other's language. I thought that this is known as 'intermingling conversation,' or a 'code switching.' In my opinion, we can't use such words because code-switching refers 'shifting completely to the other language for a word, a phrase or sentence, and then revert back to the base language.' Example sentences: They were in a bus and had [adjective] conversation. They were in a bus and had [noun or noun-phrase for such conversation]. I agree that the question (which is suspected as a duplicate one to this question) is really a duplicate, but its single answer still doesn't satisfy all. In that question, the phrase 'bilingual dialogue' was suggested, which I (and others may) think that this refers to the code switching as well, which I don't want here. Some words confuse the readers which sense do they mean. I would also love to quote the comment of @Lambie regarding the term 'bilingual' over here: 'Bilingual refers to one person. Not two people each of whom has a passive knowledge of the other's language but do not speak it well enough to use it actively.'.
Output: In his book Talk in Two Languages, Joseph Gafaranga examines, among other things, the patterns of conversation within bilingual families. He calls the pattern described in the OP's question the parallel mode. Here is a screenshot from Google Books of the introduction to his discussion of the parallel mode pattern. So by Gafaranga's terminology the Urdu and Sindhi speakers were conducting a conversation in parallel (language) mode.
I am just wondering about the difference between: in contrast to and in contrast with.
Output: In fact, they could be used interchangeably, however, 'in contrast with' is more common in UK English. Moreover, When we say 'contrast with', CONTRAST is behaving as a verb. Example: 'He likes to contrast his checkered jacket with plain pants' or 'his checkered jacket contrasts with his plain pants.' But when we say 'in contrast to', it is behaving as a noun. Example: 'His checkered jacket stands in contrast to his plain pants.' (As you can see, in this sentence 'stands' is the verb). (Testluv, GMAT Instructor, Beat the GMAT forum)
There is an Urban Dictionary entry saying Of Old English origin, shortening of 'Good Speed,' and contrary to popular belief has nothing to do with God. People would say this to others who were leaving on a long and perilous journey, wishing them success, but more importantly wishing for their return. Edited: Can it be used without invoking any nuance of religiosity ? Well guys, I did check the references and did find the explanations which ended up becoming the answer for the question. What I meant was to get an educated opinion on the usage of the term in modern times. How a question with so many votes gets put on hold is beyond me.
Output: 'God speed you' is an example of a term with religious origins. Whether that makes it a 'religious term' depends on what your definition of a 'religious term' is. It's pretty archaic now. Perhaps surprisingly, it's not (originally) wishing 'speed' to the person - it's from the old English word 'spede' which means 'success' (and from which 'speed' is derived). So it's saying 'May god give success to you'. There are several phrases in common usage which have religious origins - often they now exist in a contracted form which isn't obviously recognisable as religious. For example, 'goodbye', which is a contracted form of 'God be with you'. I think that most people wouldn't say that 'goodbye' is a 'religious term' (again, dependent on whatever that actually means), despite its religious origins. Because 'god speed you' clearly contains the word 'god', it's more likely to be described as religious, I would say.
Opening doors, offering to pay the tab, helping with a coat or a light of the smoke: we may describe these acts of a man to be gentlemanly. In a word, how may we describe these acts of any person?.
Output: I'd go with courteous, the etymology of which also hints at a closer fit to gentlemanly than, say, decorous, polite, or respectful.
I am looking for a list of all English words that are their own antonyms. Off the top of my head, I can only think of 'either', 'fast', 'to dust' and 'to lease', but there must be dozens more. Can you provide a link to a comprehensive list, if such exists? Also, what are such words most commonly called? I like the term 'Janus word' I once heard, but is that widely understood? Edited by popular demand to make it absolutely clear that this is not a community wiki poll.
Output: I think you're referring to Auto-antonyms. They are not the same word but a homograph (a word of the same spelling) that is also an antonym. I guess, Janus word is also acceptable. There was a list on Wikipedia (List of Auto-antonyms in English), since moved to Wiktionary's Appendix of English contranyms.
Possible Duplicate: Capitalization for a bullet list Let's say I have a bullet point list e.g: Point 1. Point 2. Point 3. Notice I have put a capital letter for the starting letter of every bullet point and a full stop at the end. Is this the correct way to do it? If not, what is the correct way to do it? Do I put a capital letter and no full stop, or, the other way around, a full stop and no capital letter? Alternatively, do I not put a capital letter or a full stop? Is it only necessary to put a capital letter on the first bullet point and full stop on the last bullet point? For reference, I'm from the UK so British-English grammar would apply.
Output: I found a site quoting the Chicago Manual of Style. I don't have the style manual handy, but this advice mirrors what I know from my personal experience. 'A vertical list is best introduced by a complete grammatical sentence, followed by a colon. Items carry no closing punctuation unless they consist of complete sentences. If the items are numbered, a period follows the numeral and each item begins with a capital letter. To avoid long, skinny lists, short items may be arranged in two or more columns. If items run over a line, the second and subsequent lines are usually indented.' CMOS (6.127-28) So if you're just listing points you would do: point 1 point 2 point 3 (it is only necessary to capitalize points if they are 'longer phrases' or follow a numbered list.) If you were describing them, it might be: This is something about point 1. This is something about point 2. This is something about point 3. Edit: Adding this to answer Ryan's question in the comment. Here is an example of combining both the enumeration of the items and the description, using one of the examples from the site I linked: A computer lab needs various equipment: Computers - Obviously a key component of a computer lab. Desks - You need somewhere to put the computers. Chairs - People need someplace to sit. etc.
As an adverb, what is the difference between forward and forwards?.
Output: The OED says this The present distinction in usage between forward and forwards is that the latter expresses a definite direction viewed in contrast with other directions. In some contexts either form may be used without perceptible difference of meaning; the following are examples in which only one of them can now be used: 'The ratchet-wheel can move only forwards'; 'the right side of the paper has the maker's name reading forwards'; 'if you move at all it must be forwards'; 'my companion has gone forward'; 'to bring a matter forward'; 'from this time forward'. The usage of earlier periods, and of modern dialects, varies greatly from that of mod. standard English. In U.S. forward is now generally used, to the exclusion of forwards, which was stigmatized by Webster (1832) as 'a corruption'.
Should e.g. and i.e. have periods, e.g. 'e.g.', or no periods, eg 'eg'? Should they be italicized, e.g. 'i.e.' or not, eg 'i.e'?.
Output: In formal contexts, I would go with 'e.g.' and 'i.e.', with two periods and without a whitespace. The spellings without periods are quite popular, but informal. For example, Merriam-Webster does not have an entry for either 'eg' or 'ie'. Wiktionary marks 'eg.' and 'eg' as informal, and offers the following usage notes: Opinion is mixed about whether this term should be italicized as although it is Latin, it has become part of standard English, and whether it should be written with a separating space 'e. g.' as it was originally two separate words. It also offers the following usage notes for 'i.e.': Opinion is mixed about whether the abbreviation should be italicized, or whether there should be a separating non-breaking space as in i. e.. ie is often found in current usage, and is perhaps now considered acceptable. Personally, I would argue that there's no need whatsoever to italicize 'e.g.' or 'i.e.'. Both expressions are extremely common in English, and have been for a long time. They are full-fledged citizens of the English language, and as such, they do not have to be italicized as if they were foreign words.
Let's say I'm always hungry, even after I have my meal(s). What would be a word to express that? IMHO, I think starving, famished won't be applicable as these words would only describe the current situation.
Output: Consider insatiable [appetite]. Insatiable means: always wanting more : not able to be satisfied (MW) Impossible to satiate or satisfy: an insatiable appetite (TFD) For example, Most children like to eat but for some an insatiable appetite means they always want more, causing real problems for parents. (BBC) The woman is insatiable. When the final whistle blows, she's eaten twenty-three sandwiches in ten minutes, setting a world record (Eat this Book) [Children] may go through phases where they seem to eat relatively little or are insatiable. (Feeding the Under 5s)
I'm describing what an opiate addict looks like before recovery. Instead of saying 'he looked like a vampire,' I'd like to say something like 'he looked [vampiric].' I actually just found out vampiric was a word, but I want something that sounds better (more colloquial/natural, I suppose) and covers a variety of traits (pale, emaciated, sickly, etc). Why I don't just use 'vampiric': As @chepner commented: I think the idea is to find a word that isn't so 'circular', and doesn't refer explicitly to vampires or require knowledge of vampires in context. If someone were to ask 'What does a vampire look like?', then 'It looks vampiric/vampirish' wouldn't be terribly helpful. I don't want to explicitly refer to drug addicts as vampires. I just want to capture those traits in the best way.
Output: I'd suggest cadaverous. It incorporates many facets of what I believe you're trying to convey: a corpse-like appearance, including pallid and underweight. From Merriam-Webster.com: 1a : of or relating to a corpse b : suggestive of corpses or tombs 2a : PALLID, LIVID b : GAUNT, EMACIATED grossly underweight
A friend posed the following word puzzle to me: Can you think of a sentence that keeps the same meaning whether you use 'it's' or 'its'? He asserted that this puzzle does in fact have a solution. However, it has me completely stumped. I tried to solve an easier problem, to find a sentence which is still grammatical if you change an 'its' to 'it's', but all I could come up with is examples like 'It's light!' (which is, strictly, more of a sentence fragment). What is the solution to the word puzzle? Or, is there some way I can 'prove' that the puzzle should have no solution?.
Output: I gather from previous answers that there are two ways in which this question can goeither we interpret it strictly, and don't make assumptions about what it's asking, or we interpret it loosely. If we interpret it loosely, we can bend the rules a bit: As in the Hans Adler's answer, which I was picking on earlier, we can interpret 'same meaning' more loosely. In this case, the solution works well (and I'm sure there are more that work even better) wherein one sentence indicates that you see the tree's apples, and one indicates you see that the fruit which the tree bears is the apple. We can also use a construction (I took this idea from another answer) like: 'I cannot comprehend it's red.' = 'I cannot comprehend its red.' A sneaky solution can be to put 'its' and 'it's' in quotes in the sentence, to come up with something like: 'I wrote a sentence with 'it's' and 'its' in it.' = 'I wrote a sentence with 'its' and 'it's' in it.' We can spell something incorrectly, as Hans Adler ironically points out in the most downvoted answer. Or, as my girlfriend suggested, we can replace the 'it' in the contraction 'it's' with a proper noun (like that clever guy Stephen King did), making 'it's' refer to something that belongs to someone or something named It. In this case the solution becomes again trivial, since 'its' is also a possessive. 'This clown is named It. It's nose is red.' = 'This clown is named It. Its nose is red' (we sadly, in the last case, refer to a clown as an object, but it does have the same meaning) Alternatively All of these answers, to me, are trivial and make the puzzle somewhat boring. If we don't want the puzzle to be boring, we can't cut corners. In this case, as a few have pointed out, it is most likely impossible.
Is there a proverb that fits the following situation: John and Anderson (while walking): John: [sees a $100 bill lying in the road, and shouts] Yahoo! $100! Anderson: [takes the money and puts it into his pocket] Reflection: John exclaimed when he saw the money in the road, but he didn't try to take it. Anderson was smarter, as, when he saw John exclaiming, he took the money and put it into his pocket. Consequently, John now repents his foolish excitement. My question is, is there a proverb for such situations? EDIT: When I asked my friend, he suggested the following saying: 'Some feel the rain others just get wet.'.
Output: you snooze, you lose informal if you do not pay attention and do something quickly, someone else will do it instead of you: Cambridge Dictionary If you wait too long to do something, that opportunity might become unavailable. Farlex Dictionary of Idioms John: Yahoo! $100! (Anderson takes the money) John: Hey, I saw it first! Anderson: You snooze, you lose.
As per title of the question, I see this a lot. 'We will release the product when issue 51 has been finalized.' 'We are waiting for it to be finalized.' Is this just a case of people trying to sound professional with corporate jargon , or is there a real difference between 'finish' and 'finalize'?.
Output: The definitions of finalise and finish are pretty similar, with finalise referring to the production of, or agreement on, the finished version. The single word finalise carries the connotation of just the last bit, whereas finish needs helper words to carry that connotation (e.g. finish off, finish up). Saying that something is finished can also carry the unwanted sense that it is done for, that is, that it is of no further use; finalise doesn't carry that unwanted sense. In commerce (including the fields of software engineering and management that you specifically referenced), completion isn't always enough. The customer wants confirmation of completion. Transacting parties want the signed agreement that follows the completion of negotiations, or the invoicing and payment that follow the completion of work. So it isn't enough that the work is finished (even in the positive sense); it needs to be finalised.
What is an English adjective to describe the following skill: 'able to learn new things quickly'? For example: Billy is very _________, as he learns new skills more quickly than an average person.
Output: Fast learner or quick learner
What can I call someone (a friend) who is always asking for favours such as: if you are going downtown, can you buy this for me please or, can you lend me your car for an hour or, if you have some spare time, can you post this letter for me please because I am so busy today He doesn't seem to realise or, pretends not to, that there is a limit to asking for help or favours from other people.
Output: He may be called a moocher. It is used for a person who tries to get to something free of charge.
Is the word 'Customizable' a valid English word? Every time I write that word, the spell checker underlines it, and it suggests using 'Customization' or 'Customize'. I'm not a native English speaker, but that word exists in online dictionaries so I wonder why the spell checker underlines it.
Output: The Oxford English Dictionary in its revision of March 2012 defines it as: That may be customized; able to be changed to suit the requirements of the user. Frequently with reference to computer software and hardware. The earliest citation is from 1960. If that definition of customizable suits your purpose, then there's no reason why you shouldn't use it.
What is the mark of punctuation called that sometimes separates sections of a chapter with a glyph placed in the middle between the margins? It's hard to explain, but here's a picture. Does this have a name? (Yes, I know this is a asterisk. Sometimes it's three of them, sometimes it's a stylized graphic. I'm looking for the general name of the...methodology/practice (?) of doing this.).
Output: As explained by this page on Wikipedia, it's called a section break. I point you to the text of the annotation on the right side of the page where it pairs this term with the same kind of glyph you posted: Open pages of the book Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, showing an ornate section break on the lower left page created from asterisks. It is used to signal a pause for the reader and a transition in the narrative. And also the section on flourished section breaks: Space between paragraphs in a section break is sometimes accompanied by an asterism (either proper or manual * * *), a horizontal rule, fleurons, or other ornamental symbols. An ornamental symbol used as section break does not have a generally accepted name. Such a typographic device can be specifically referred to as dinkus, space break symbol, paragraph separator, paragraph divider, horizontal divider, thought break, or as an instance of filigree or flourish. Ornamental section breaks can be created using glyphs, rows of lozenges, dingbats, or other miscellaneous symbols. Fonts such as Webdings and Wingdings include many such glyphs. In HTML, horizontal rules can be generated using the hr tag, which generates a paragraph-level thematic break. For more ornate presentation, CSS can be used to replace the line with an image. As you've rightly acknowledged, the form a section break takes is entirely up to the person creating the publication.
In English-speaking TV shows, characters sometimes say something similar to dips to say to other people they are taking something for themselves before others do. Neither Google, Wiktionary or Urban Dictionary give positive results for this so the word may be misspelled. What is the word and what is its origin?.
Output: The word you're hearing is actually dibs: 2: claim, rights // I have dibs on that piece of cake Etymonline says it's a children's word to express a claim on something, 1915, originally U.S., apparently from earlier senses 'a portion or share' and 'money' (early 19c. colloquial), probably a contraction of dibstone 'a knuckle-bone or jack in a children's game' (1690s), in which the first element is of unknown origin. The game consisted of tossing up small pebbles or the knuckle-bones of a sheep and catching them alternately with the palm and the back of the hand.
If I'm converting something from analogue to digital, I digitise it. What am I doing if I convert from digital to analogue?.
Output: You reconstruct, as in a reconstruction filter found in digital-to-analog converters: a reconstruction filter is used to construct a smooth analog signal from a digital input
How does one correctly apply 'in which', 'of which', 'at which', 'to which', etc.? I'm confused with which one to apply when constructing sentences around these.
Output: The trick to knowing how to use; of which, at which, in which, to which, from which is to analyse the prepositional phrases, phrasal verbs, verbs and prepositions: He /spoke of/ war and peace and many other topics that day. The topic /of which he spoke/ was complex. The verb here that means to speak about a topic is /to speak/ of a topic/: to mention The party /at which/ he spoke/ was noisy. Phrase: A party is held /at a place/. It is implied. The situation /in which/ we found ourselves was dire. Phrase: /to find oneself /in a situation. The bonds /from which/ we broke free were tight. phrase: to /break free/ from bonds. The town /to which/we were driving was 50 ks away. phrase: to /drive/ to a place. Summary (and not a complete answer but a general one): The preposition depends on the verb that takes a preposition, a phrasal verb that includes a preposition, or it depends on the prepositional phrase used. Also, there are many other prepositions that can be paired with which: under, during, about, over, etc.
My spellchecker insists on replacing 'furthest' with 'farthest'. I was under the impression that farthest is strictly speaking in terms of distance, whereas furthest is more abstract. A poster on this forum gives the following example: The further [quantity] you walk, the farther [distance] you get. What gives?.
Output: The NOAD I had on my Mac Mini reported the following note, which is the same note found on the Oxford Living Dictionaries about farther and farthest. Traditionally, farther and farthest were used in referring to physical distance: the falls were still two or three miles farther up the path. Further and furthest were restricted to figurative or abstract senses: we decided to consider the matter further. Although farther and farthest are still restricted to measurable distances, further and furthest are now common in both senses: put those plants the furthest from the window.
English isn't my mother tongue, and when we recently talked to a native speaker (during some company audit), he pointed out that the plural word 'trainings' is actually wrong (he pointed that it is a very common mistake and was almost amused by it). I couldn't understand why and wondered what the correct plural of 'training' would be. Online Dictionaries/Thesaurus don't answer it, so it's probably another opinion-based statement. I haven't found a source to back it up, though.
Output: Training is both countable and uncountable. Usually, referring to a process, it is uncountable and has no plural. It is sometimes used to mean 'a specific training event', and is then countable, and has the plural 'trainings'. The OED has examples of this use going back to 1578, with the plural recorded from 1598.
Possible Duplicate: Why don't we use the indefinite article with 'software'? In France I have always been told that saying 'a software' is not correct English (as a nominal compound), and that 'a piece of software' or 'a software program/package/product/system' must be used instead. Recently I have doubts... is there any case where it is actually correct? Examples found on the Internet: SalsaJ, a software for data analysis at school So if you sold a software which required your customer to pay a monthly fee, [...].
Output: No, this is always wrong. Both examples you provide contain incorrect usage of the term 'software.' (A mistake is still a mistake even if many people make it.) However, there might be special cases where you'd see the article preceding software. For example: A software solution would be better for the problem than a hardware one. The indefinite article 'a' modifies 'solution', not 'software', in this case in spite of preceding 'software' in this case.
Ok, if I say 'this car is too expensive' or 'this car is very expensive', then I can not express the connotation of 'expensive'. However, if I say 'this car is damn expensive' then I better convey the connotation of 'expensive'. So my question is: What is the English idiom about 'expensive' that expresses the idea that 'It is so expensive that you feel like you got ripped-off and/or overcharged and/or unmeaningfully expensive'? For example, 'damn expensive' could be ok but is there any other term?.
Output: exorbitant is also used for extremely unreasonable prices. An example of using it, quoting the Oxford dictionary: some hotels charge exorbitant rates for phone calls
I have several expenses and incomes in the application I'm currently coding. What can I call an entity like that, that is either positive (income) or (negative)? It should be related to money, if possible. Edit: Not sure if I expressed myself clearly. I'm looking for a word like 'money-transfer', 'stream' or 'money that goes over the table' (no matter which direction). A word that fits in a financial context.
Output: In a ledger they would be entries. In a bank statement they would be transactions. The bank statement records your transactions debit, credit, deposit, withdrawal. New Oxford American Dictionary (Thesaurus)
What is the correct spelling, dammit or damnit? And what is the difference? Just writing this question brings up a red squiggly underneath damnit and the suggestions include dammit and damn it.
Output: The usage stats from the British National Corpus (BNC) look as follows: ALL SPOKEN FICTION MAGAZINE NEWSPAPER ACADEMIC NON-ACAD MISC dammit 125 3 99 3 8 0 7 5 damnit no results damn it 158 12 137 1 1 0 2 5 And here are the stats from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): ALL SPOKEN FICTION MAGAZINE NEWSPAPER ACADEMIC dammit 763 20 647 60 30 6 damnit 94 2 86 6 0 0 damn it 1307 83 1112 58 36 18 The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA) paints the following picture: (X axis: year, Y axis: incidences per million words)
'Jealousy' contains most of the vowels but lacks 'i'. Is there a word in the English language that contains every vowel (and preferably 'y')?.
Output: I totally rule at Clockwords by using sequoia and facetiously. Wikipedia used to have a list of words containing all the vowels, but the article has since been deleted. Some of the fun facts it mentioned included: The word Iouea, a genus of sea sponges, contains all five regular vowels and no other letters. [...] There are many words that feature all five regular vowels occurring only once in alphabetical order, the most common being abstemious and facetious. [...] Considering y as a vowel, the suffix -ly can be added to a number of these words; thus the shortest word containing six unique vowels in alphabetical order is aeriously, with nine letters (OED)[.]
What is the shortest comprehensive sentence in English?.
Output: 'Go.' The understood subject is 'You'. '[You] go' makes sense to me.
Possible Duplicate: Types of things vs. types of thing When using the phrase 'types of' or 'kinds of,' it often seems appropriate to follow with a singular noun (e.g., types of rock), but at other times a plural noun sounds better (e.g., types of sentences). Is there some kind of rule about this?.
Output: I think your essential concern is about countable vs. uncountable nouns. Countable nouns can be singular or plural; uncountable nouns are singular. Some words can be both, in different meanings. Take a look at this example discussing countable and uncountable nouns: The coffees I prefer are Arabica and Brazilian. (Here coffees refers to different types of coffee) You could write, 'The types of coffee I prefer are Arabica and Brazilian.' So with your example: The rocks I like are basalt and granite. [Rocks are countable] The types of rock I like are basalt and granite. [Rock is uncountable] When rock is taking on the uncountable meaning, it's not one rock - it's the idea of rock, the general concept. The only senses in which this is familiar to me are the 'solid mineral' one and rock as in 'rock music,' where you might say, 'The types of rock I like are grunge and punk.' Contrast the other part of your example: The sentences I like are about geology. [Sentences are countable] The types of sentences I like are about geology. [Sentences are still countable] Sentences don't have an uncountable meaning: *The types of sentence I like are about geology. [Ungrammatical for most speakers, I think]
Sometimes I go through articles and find the expression utilize, I've always been wondering if there are special cases in which it should be used instead of used. Also because google ngram clearly shows that used is used (sorry for that ;D) much more. Thanks for your help and happy new year!.
Output: Some dictionaries gloss utilize as using something for a purpose that it is not normally employed for. But prescriptive grammarians are pretty clear on such use. Fowler in Modern English Usage (p670) says: If differentiation were possible between utilize and use it would be that utilize has the special meaning of make good use of, especially of something that was not intended for the purpose but will serve. But this distinction has disappeared beyond recall; utilize is now ordinarily treated as a LONG VARIANT of use. A form is enclosed herewith for favour of your utilization is an example of the pretentious diction that prefers the long word. Partidge in Usage and Abusage (p343) is typically blunt: utilize is, 99 times out of 100, much inferior to use; the other one time it is merely inferior. And here is the more contemporary Grammar Girl's similar take on the issue: [link] Nevertheless, this Usage Note from TheFreeDictionary indicates when utilize might indeed be the better choice: A number of critics have remarked that utilize is an unnecessary substitute for use. It is true that many occurrences of utilize could be replaced by use with no loss to anything but pretentiousness, for example, in sentences such as They utilized questionable methods in their analysis or We hope that many commuters will continue to utilize mass transit after the bridge has reopened. But utilize can mean 'to find a profitable or practical use for.' Thus the sentence The teachers were unable to use the new computers might mean only that the teachers were unable to operate the computers, whereas The teachers were unable to utilize the new computers suggests that the teachers could not find ways to employ the computers in instruction.
These two seem very similar. What are the major differences between the two? For example, in the following sentence, Substitute the lesser punishment for the greater one. Can one use 'less' instead of 'lesser' here?.
Output: Less refers to quantity, lesser refers to quality. Your sentence could be rephrased as 'substitute less punishment for more punishment.' Here we are saying that the amount of punishment is smaller. But if you say 'substitute the lesser punishment' you are saying the type of punishment is not as severe. Forty lashes is less punishment than 100 lashes. Being pelted with rotten tomatoes is a lesser punishment than being pelted with rocks.
I've seen many people who say: This is a HTML page. Yet I've also seen many people who say: This is an HTML page. Are both usages equally correct? Or, which is the grammatically correct one? Possible Duplicates: 'A' vs. 'An' in writing vs. pronunciation Do you use 'a' or 'an' before acronyms?.
Output: It depends on whether you say aitch or haitch. An aitch tee em el page A haitch tee em el page
I know that Sussex and Middlesex are in England. It looks to me as if there is a pattern in names. What does the suffix -sex mean? Where does it come from?.
Output: The -sex suffix is from Anglo-Saxon / Old English, with the actual meaning being 'Saxon'. Sussex is essentially 'South Saxon'. Middlesex is 'Middle Saxon'. Essex is 'East Saxon'. Wessex is 'West Saxon'. Most of the wiki pages for these places will have the toponymy definition.
I am looking for a word that incorporates all, or most, of the following (when referring to a sentence or a piece of technical literature): Highly academic Not useful (despite being technically correct) Overly verbose/eloquent Superfluous (to be honest, this seems to incorporate the rest, but I want to see if there is a better word here) Sample sentence (I hear it's required): There are many ____ white-paper definitions which only serve to dazzle the reader with the author's purported intelligence.
Output: The two most common, apart from Lux's pretentious, are going to be pedantic in the manner of a pedant, hence a. excessively concerned with minutiae. b. needlessly displaying academic learning. and pompous (originally) characterized by pomp and splendor. (now the primary sense) affectedly solemn and self-important. You'd use the first if the important aspect was how unimportant the information being shared was, the later if you wanted to emphasize the (undeserved) self-importance with which it was being shared. Since scholars have been writing for ages and this kind of behavior was, if anything, more common during the era when all scholars were monks, there are absolute scads of synonyms for variants and subvarieties. Some, like precious, could be considered gendered slurs; others, like bookish or nerdy, may not be taken as negative at all in our present culture. Two of my favorites are mumpsimus and sumpsimus.
The meaning of Polish 'doing something on knees' or 'on a knee' is completely different than English. It is rather a metaphor to a student who instead of doing his homework properly at the home, he did it in hurry, supported his notebook on knees and did it in a short break between classes. In other words it means doing something in hurry, usually resulting in poor quality and unsophisticated enough. Some usage: Who designed this building? Looks like some architect 'made it on a knee'... Or nowadays according to software engineering: There are lots of bugs in this application! They came short on deadlines and 'wrote it on their knees' even without unit tests... My question is, is there an English equivalent (in idiom or phrase) which preserves this meaning better? Edit After reading some answers I realized that my examples were a little bit misleading. In reality, the phrase does not carry itself any negative connotations about the 'author'. Rather poor quality of his job results. The only negative connotations about author we can only deduce from the quality of his job: 'He did his job inaccurately so we can assume that he may be inaccurate.' or 'You Will Know Them by Their Fruits' sort of thing.
Output: slapdash ADJECTIVE Done too hurriedly and carelessly. She frowned at the messy handwriting and slapdash clump of phrases.
Is there a semantic difference between engine and motor? In some cases, would the use of one or the other word be technically incorrect?.
Output: I like the definitions provided by WordNet and their definition is the way I've understood the difference: A motor is a machine that converts other forms of energy into mechanical energy and so imparts motion. An engine is a motor that converts thermal energy to mechanical work. wordnetweb.princeton.edu So an engine is a specific type of motor. That's why it's not incorrect to speak of a motorboat, or a motorcar, or a motor speedway, even if the boat or car is clearly powered by combustion. Note that if there's no combustion, there's no engine. Purely electric cars don't have engines. As nouns, motor can also refer to a nonspecific agent that causes motion: 'happiness is the aim of all men and the motor of all action', and engine can refer to something used to achieve a purpose: 'an engine of change', a railway locomotive, or a machine used in warfare: 'medieval engines of war'.
'Hooker', 'whore', and 'prostitute' all mean whore; what are the differences between them?.
Output: They all can mean women who sleep with men for money. Prostitute is the most technical term. Hooker seems most commonly used in the United States, while in Britain this term is reserved for a position in rugby. Whore sounds much more violent to me. If one were seeking a woman to pay to sleep with him, he probably wouldn't say 'I'm looking for a whore tonight,' but use hooker or prostitute. Calling someone a whore can be used to insult them, implying they sleep with many people (though for men the term would be man-whore). E.g., 'She is such a whore.' Going back to a previous example, 'I'm looking for a whore tonight' implies more to me that he is looking for someone who is easy to sleep with, not for a prostitute. Not to say you can't use the others in an insult. From 'Baby Got Back,' by Sir Mix-A-Lot, we also have the opening dialogue: They only talk to her, because, she looks like a total prostitute, 'kay? But in this case the lady quoted is just saying that she looks like a prostitute, not that she is one, necessarily. If she said 'She is such a prostitute,' that would mean that is her profession, not that she sleeps with a lot of men for free.
What's the difference between the following examples: Neither of my teachers are mathematicians. None of my teachers are mathematicians.
Output: Neither - not either - implies that there is a choice of only two. So 'neither of my teachers' is only correct if there are exactly two teachers, 'none of my teachers' can be any number
There was the following passage in New York Times' (October 6) article commenting on GOP Presidential candidate, Carly Fiorina under the headline, 'If she's a feminist, then I'm a T. Rex': 'Her record at Hewlett-Packard firing skilled Americans by the thousands and outsourcing their jobs to China and India, while almost running her company into the ground with an ill-advised merger is hardly a sterling record for any sort of candidate, assuming we actually want a president of all the people rather than a modern Ebenezer Scrooge, - - This is a woman who would deny other women control over their own bodies, as well. 'If she's a feminist then I'm a T. rex.' According to Jurassic wiki, Tyrannosaurus rex, the most famous of all dinosaurs species and commonly known as T. rex, was the largest of the Tyrannosaur family and by extension one of the largest theropods, reaching 12 to 13 meters in length. But what does 'If she's a feminist, then I'm a T. Rex' mean? Does the writer sarcastically admit herself being anachronistic? Why should it be a T.Rex, not other monsterous or supernatural creatures, say, Moby-Dick and Godzilla? Is this a cute turn of phrase? Could you translate 'I'm a T.rex' into plain English?.
Output: All that that is saying is that she is no feminist whatsoever, being just as much of a feminist as the columnist is a giant extinct dinosaur. That is, not at all.
How can you explain that this double negation is not a double negation? Is there a rule in English about this kind of sentence? PS / Do I have to mention Pink Floyd Copyright ? :-) Edit : Since there are a lot of Pink Floyd related explanation, I'll bring a Freddy Mercury one : 'I don't have time for no monkey business', which I also understand as 'I don't have time for monkey business'. Am I right ?.
Output: Doubled negatives are often used casually in certain dialects to indicate negative concord, an intensification of negation rather than an inversion of it. This typically happens when both words involved are simple negatives, and is most common with no standing in for a, an, or any alongside don't or ain't. So you can safely assume that He isn't not going to the concert. is double negation proper, because it has emphasis, as is She wasn't unimpressed. because this is litotes, whereas I ain't no hillbilly. is negative concord, because it's obviously casual, and uses ain't no in place of am no or am not a. (It's also a patent lie, but that's beside the point.)
Does 'egoistic' and 'egotistic' mean the same thing?.
Output: No. While similar, they have some important differences. Consider this note on usage from the Oxford Dictionaries: The words egoism and egotism are frequently confused, as though interchangeable, but there are distinctions worth noting. Both words derive from Latin ego ('I'), the first-person singular pronoun. Egotism, the more commonly used term , denotes an excessive sense of self-importance, too-frequent use of the word 'I,' and general arrogance and boastfulness. Egoism, a more subtle term , is perhaps best left to ethicists, for whom it denotes a view or theory of moral behavior in which self-interest is the root of moral conduct. An egoist, then , might devote considerable attention to introspection, but could be modest about it, whereas an egotist would have an exaggerated sense of the importance of his or her self-analysis, and would have to tell everyone
In computer programming, when you append a 'string' to another, you add it to the end of the former string. E.g. String string1 = 'abcd'; String string2 = 'efgh'; Appending the two strings would give 'abcdefgh' But what if I wanted to add string2 before string1 to have the result: 'efghabcd' What would be a good name for that that reverse operation? What is the opposite of 'append'?.
Output: Prepend: (computing, linguistics, transitive) To attach (an expression, phrase, etc.) to another, as a prefix.