niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Possible Duplicate: What day is next Tuesday? Imagine that it's Monday, the 1st. The weekend would be the 6th & 7th. How do you refer properly to the coming weekend, 'This weekend' or 'Next weekend'? I believe that using 'next weekend' would refer to the 13th & 14th and 'this weekend' would refer to this week's end. Technically the coming weekend (6th & 7th) would be the next weekend on the calendar. So which is correct? I'm hoping for a definitive answer with backing since this is an argument over opinion.
Output: The issue isn't as definitive as you might think. Ultimately, it comes down to what interpretation of 'next' you consider to be correct. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed) defines 'next' simply as Immediately following, as in time, order, or sequence Following this definition, 'next weekend' will always mean the weekend with the start date in closes proximity in time. If the phrase is used during a weekend, of course, you'd be referring to the weekend following the one you are currently experiencing. However, the issue gets more complicated if you look to other definitions. The Oxford American Dictionary has a specific definition for 'next' when used in the context of time: (of a day of the week) nearest (or the nearest but one) after the present : not this Wednesday, next Wednesday Here, we're given the choice: it can either mean the weekend with the closest start date, or the following one (as specified by the parenthetical addition or the nearest but one). This definition has come about mostly because of usage development. Many words and phrases in the english dictionary have meanings contrary to their technical definitions, and yet are still used commonly and considered valid. Thus, while technically 'next' implies immediate sequence, it is used in other ways (which dictionaries like the OAD have accommodated for validity), so it's really a matter of personal preference. For example, it is unlikely that I will even use the phrase 'next weekend' during the week, because some people might be confused as to what I am referring to. Instead, I will say 'this weekend,' unless it is currently the weekend, in which case I will say 'next weekend.'
What is the difference between 'Did you find?' and 'Have you found?' When should I use the first sentence, and when the second one?.
Output: Did you find is the simple past and indicates that you are no longer looking for it. Have you found is the present perfect and indicates a link with the present, specifically, that you could still be looking for it.
I'm a little bit confused with the following phrase. I was reading an article about concurrency in Java and there was a sentence saying: It is worth noting that both unlockRead() and unlockWrite() calls notifyAll() rather than notify(). This phrase seemed quite strange to me. What does it mean?.
Output: 'It is worth noting that' simply means 'here's something, which you should remember:' or 'here's something you should pay attention to:' or 'here's something that is worth reading and remembering:' It's that simple. Regarding (1), there is no connection at all to 'apropos' or 'besides...' Regarding (2), it always means exactly the same thing. It simply means 'Here's an interesting point:' (There is utterly no connection in any way to 'useless' or 'costs nothing'.) It is worth noting that, the ELL site exists for basic questions about the meanings of phrases.
This year there were: many more people much more people Alternatively: many fewer people much fewer people Which is considered better English?.
Output: Both much and many can be used, but which is appropriate depends on whether the noun they're referring to is countable or not. With countable nouns, use many more or many fewer: I had many more bananas than Tom. I had many fewer nickels than Alice. With uncountable nouns, use much more or much less How much more fiber does a banana have than an apple? How much less water does this process use?
Persistence and perseverance seem to have very similar definitions. Googling shows persistence: Firm or obstinate continuance in a course of action in spite of difficulty or opposition. perseverance: Steadfastness in doing something despite difficulty or delay in achieving success. What is the difference between them?.
Output: 'Persistence' is used in the sense of 'stubborn' (obstinate). There could be a slight negative connotation. For example: The telemarketers persistently called us. We don't say they 'perseverantly' called us. 'Persistent' is used when there continuing action, and the purpose is either bad, or neutral, and sometimes(rarely) good. 'Perseverance', is used when the purpose is good. That is, you're doing something to help someone, or to achieve a desirable goal, such as climbing Mt. Everest. Depending on how you feel on something, you could use 'perseverance'/'Persistence'. For example, the telemarketer calling you, could annoy you, and you could call him 'obstinately persistent'. But to the marketer, you might be to him, a tough customer, and he might seem to himself 'bravely perseverant in trying to persuade this tough customer.' As you can see, it gives a different 'feel' about the thing described.
When to use a or an before a noun when there are adjectives before that noun? like the following example: An operator pressed the button. should that make: A professional operator pressed the button. An professional operator pressed the button. same for: A Hypertext markup language. An Hypertext markup language. Sometimes it seems a bit confusing, especially when there are more adjectives like: An omen was revealed to the priest. A terrible omen was revealed to the priest. An overwhelming terrible omen was revealed to the priest. What is the rule?.
Output: The article changes based on the word immediately following, not necessarily on the noun. There is no difference in meaning between 'a' and 'an' - the distinction is used to preserve an alternation between vowels and consonants when the sentence is spoken aloud. Be aware that speakers of American and British English observe different rules (mainly because we can't agree on whether to pronounce the letter H or not!) In your example: A Hypertext Markup language. An Hypertext markup language. an American speaker (and, to be honest, most British speakers) would find the first one correct, while an exaggerated aitch-dropper would use the second. In these examples: An omen was revealed to the priest. A terrible omen was revealed to the priest. An overwhelming terrible omen was revealed to the priest. all three are correct as written, whether the speaker is American or British.
Suppose I tell something to my companion and I want to make sure he understands me. I thought I may simply ask 'Do you understand me?'. But recently I heard that in such cases I should ask 'Does that make sense?' instead. Is this true? Which option is appropriate to use in business communication?.
Output: 'Do you understand me?' slightly carries the implication that it is your fault if you do not understand. 'Does it make sense?' carries the implication that it is my fault if you do not understand. So politeness suggests that the latter is better.
Possible Duplicate: Definite article with plural nouns I recently reviewed (as I believe, rather thoroughly) the rules of using articles in English and I do not recall any rule on absence of definitive article THE with plural nouns. Can you give me a reference on such a rule?.
Output: Plural nouns with the definite article are, well, definite. Consider Cats don't like me. versus The cats don't like me. The former implies every cat on Earth doesn't like me; the latter, that some (contextually obvious) specific group of cats don't like me. ADDED In my opinion, yes, unmemorize that reference in your other question and memorize the following: use the definite article with a plural only to denote a known or stated subset of the class ('The elephants [in this zoo] are dangerous'); omit the article for the whole class ('Elephants [all of them] are dangerous'). Use an indefinite article with a singular to denote the whole class when you want to emphasize the singular nature ('A glass of wine is healthy, but two can lead to dissolution.') Use the definite article with a singular when referring to a specific instance or when you need, for some reason, to sound like Sir David Attenborough in a BBC nature documentary ('The elephant is a regal creature, reigning over his home, the savanna ...'). Of course, an indefinite article with a plural ('An elephants are dangerous') and omitting articles with the singular of a countable noun ('Elephant is dangerous') are both just wrong, wrong, wrong. Edit Two years later and I realize another rule: 'the' is used to mark adjectives that have been promoted to nouns. When Paul Revere said, 'The British are coming', he was referring to the British 10th Regiment of Foot, not to every subject of King George, so the 'the' was de rigeur under the above rule. However, when Quentin Crisp wrote, 'The British do not expect happiness,' he did mean every single Briton. The 'the' is only necessary to make it clear that the word 'British' is being used as a noun. With an ordinary noun, it would be different. 'Plumbers [all plumbers] do not expect happiness' but 'The plumbers [in London] do not expect happiness.' Compare Jacques Brel's lyric, 'The naked and the dead should hold each others' hands' with Dean Wormer's line, 'Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.' 'Naked' and 'dead' are nouns (or adjectives being used as nouns); 'fat', 'drunk', and 'stupid' are adjectives, which is why he uses 'is' instead of 'are': the subject of the verb is 'no way'.
Is it more correct to say a computer program is erroring out, or it is erring out? Or are both statements grammatically incorrect?.
Output: erroring error (third-person singular simple present errors, present participle erroring, simple past and past participle errored)
I am developing some software where users are assigned tasks. They will see a date and time for when they were assigned to the task, but if they were later removed from the task, there will be a date and time for that also. 01/02/14 - Assigned 03/02/14 - Unassigned I'm pretty sure unassigned isn't correct. I suppose the task itself could be in a state of being unassigned, but the user wasn't 'unassigned' from it. Notes: I don't want to use the word 'removed', as I don't think it conveys the correct meaning and also sounds too harsh. I would like to avoid using a word your average person would never have heard of, as this isn't very user-friendly from a software point of view.
Output: 'revoked', 'withdrawn', 'retracted', or simply 'reassigned'
What's the difference between transparent and translucent? I am trying to describe this record pressing.
Output: These are both Latin words, and the etymologies help here. trans simply means through luceo simply means to shine So translucent means 'shining through' -- i.e, light passes through, though nothing is said about an image. pareo means to look, seem or appear; to think (of); to sound (like) So transparent clearly refers to identifiable images, most likely visual (hence implying light), but also any sensory percept involving a mental image, as in a transparent lie. Since transparent usually entails light passing through a substance, translucent has become specialized in its sense to entail light passing, but no image.
Possible Duplicate: What is the correct way to pluralize an acronym? What's the plural form of 'SMS' (if X), like: I'm concerned, I sent him over a million X but got no response. I usually use text message to get rid of that situation.
Output: The common way to pluralize acronyms is to add a lowercase S, so it would be SMSs. But SMS (short message service) is not usually used like that. SMS is the service you use to send text messages. SMS can also be used to talk about a feature-set ('It's got unlimited SMS.'), or a technology ('This tablet supports SMS.'). Both text (sometimes abbreviated txt) and text message are used. I'm concerned. I sent him over a million texts, but got no response. or I'm concerned. I sent him over a million text messages, but got no response. Google Ngram seems to support this:
Everybody deals with this phenomenon daily but I had my curiousity piqued when someone claimed that punishing the many for the actions of the few was just called 'group punishment.' Group Punishment is simply punishing a large group of people. Is there a specific word for when a large group is punished because of the actions of the few? Such as in the following: Little Jimmy wasn't happy when the entire class was forced to work through recess because of 3 kids getting into a fight yesterday.
Output: Collective punishment is the formal expression: Penalty imposed on every member of a group without regard to his or her involvement in the group's actions and conduct. Related: collective responsibility. (www.businessdictionary.com) Is collective punishment fair in the classroom?: Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishment is considered a war crime. 'No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.' Unfortunately for our students they do not have rights as general citizens or even our war enemies and common criminals in society. They shed their rights as they enter the double doors of the school and us parents shed our ability to ask for fair treatment of our children.
In a scientific article, should I write '3m', '3 m', '3 meters', or '3 [meters]'?.
Output: This guide at the NIST site is a good place to start. In particular, you should write '3 m' as in 'The bar is 3 m long.'
I sometimes see the term 'critical but stable' in the news. It is often used to describe someone who has been very seriously injured. For example (15 December 2019): '[A police officer] said the man who had been shot was in a 'critical but stable ' condition in hospital.' I understand that 'critically ill' means that life is in danger. Similarly 'stable' is the opposite. Quotes from www.lexico.com critically To an extreme degree with a risk of death. 'two critically wounded people died in hospital'. 'critically ill patients who were awaiting surgery' stable (of a patient or their medical condition) not deteriorating in health after an injury or operation. 'he is now in a stable condition in hospital' What does 'critical but stable' really mean?.
Output: You specify British English but the only other answer with a quote is from a US source. I was curious if it was materially different in the UK. The UK newspaper article critical and serious condition: what hospitals mean when they report a patient's state indicates it means much the same here. (the bolded part is the direct answer to your question) Sometimes, people will include a suggestion of whether someone's condition is stable, improving or getting worse. A 'Critical but stable' condition, for instance, indicates that someone is in a bad state but not likely to get worse in the short-term. Others recommend against using that phrasing, however, since being in a critical condition implies that a patient vital signs are not stable.
It is quite easy to separate preferences, and configuration, but options, and settings have much similar meaning; So similar,in fact, that I can't pick one over another. Could you please describe the meaning of these two words? What is it common between them, and what is it different? I have removed 'software UI' from the title, as it seems to lead answers off topic. I'm genuinely interested in subtle difference in meaning of named words.
Output: Options refers to things you may choose;you may select one over another. So, the options you chose are 'preferences'. Settings mostly implies the 'context' that the options you chose are in and is more like configuration. E.g; Color is 'setting'; red, green, blue e.t.c are options. Font is 'setting'; Arial, Times New roman are options. Settings: color, font
I'm a programmer and often create login/register forms. I'd really like a single word to use to describe a form that lets the user login/register. Sort of like 'authentication', but that's really more specific to the login part. The next best I can come up with is 'onboarding', but that really applies more to the register part. Does such a word exist? Edit: I'm really looking for this from a coding perspective, not to display on the page (i.e. it doesn't need to be user-friendly). I just want it to be concise so that I can avoid variables like 'login_register'.
Output: This form is the single point of entry for new and existing users, so I suggest entry as an appropriate name for a single form for both login and registration. The name makes it clear it's the entry point. The only other name that springs to mind is account, but I think that would be better kept for something that allows you to change your email, password, settings etc.
The US emergency telephone number 911 seems to be almost always pronounced as nine one one whereas the Porsche model is typically pronounced as nine eleven One reason I can think of for preferring 'nine one one' for the phone number is that there is no 'eleven' key on a phone. On the other hand, '0800' is often pronounced 'o eight hundred'. Is there a logical or historical reason for the different pronunciations?.
Output: How a car manufacturer names its models is more of a marketing preference than anything, but in general you'll find that the Porche model is the norm. Ask any schoolchild to read aloud the number '911' and you'll get 'nine hundred and eleven', not 'nine one one'. The telephone number 9-1-1 was, as you speculated, spelled out specifically to prevent people - particularly children - from getting confused looking for the 'eleven' key on the telephone. I have heard this anecdotally countless times, but I'm having a hard time finding an authoritative source. Closest I can come are various 'history of 911' websites like this one: Dr. Phil Shaenman, head of the U.S. Fire Administration's research department, authored a paper explaining that children should be taught to dial 'nine-one-one,' and not 'nine-eleven.' He pointed out that a child's conceptual abilities prevent them from recognizing the difference between '11' and '1-1.'
I want to ask whether I can use the word 'Fuck' in a formal context. Apparently, the word dates back to the early 16th century, so it shouldn't be considered slang (although, it is misused as slang for other reasons), but regardless of its vulgarity, could I use it in a formal context with its original definition? I imagine that people will be surprised, but when realizing in what context I am using it in, then it will be more understandable and acceptable to use it. Firstly, I do not even know the definition of the word due to its vastness in meaning, I always thought it was an exclamation-like word meaning nothing (for it to mean sexual activities is a slang definition, is that not correct?), but used purely for emphasis. What does it first and foremost mean in its original/accurate and/or formal definition? I also know of another definition of the word 'Fuck,' which is 'I will fuck you' as in 'I will defeat you' (in context of fighting or combat), is that a formal definition as well? I mainly ask for this, because I need to use the word in this context, specifically and especially. Also, side question, is it possible not to always make it a vulgar word? Thanks in advance.
Output: Let's just go ahead and say, no. It's questionable to use expletives here, so... unless you're writing a dissertation on the usage of the word in question, again: no. You shouldn't use any word you don't know the definition of, but here at Stack Exchange you may use them to talk about them. They are permissible when they are the context.
Possible Duplicate: Do you use 'a' or 'an' before acronyms? I got the following sentence from the book I'm reading: You can take a database-first approach by first creating a SQL Server database schema. From what I learned, I think it should be 'an SQL Server database schema', not 'a SQL Server database schema'. So which one is correct?.
Output: This depends, I would think, on your pronunciation of SQL. It can be pronounced as 'sequel', or spelled out as 'S-Q-L'. That perhaps doesn't help in written English. A thoroughly scientific survey of Google throws up many more hits for 'an SQL' than 'a SQL'. This is also the form used on that Wikipedia article and elsewhere, such as this Microsoft SQL Server documentation entitled 'Executing an SQL Query'.
Once when I was having a hard time a guy said to me, 'I'm sorry you're having a hard time, I'll pray for you,' in a way that made it clear that he was glad I was having a hard time because it gave him the opportunity to pray for me and feel good about himself. I am interested in this phenomenon but also the much more general (probably universal) phenomenon of human beings finding justification for things they want to do, often by lying to themselves about the utility of the behavior to other people. The best single word I can think of for this is contrived, but it is not close to precise. Similarly, dissembling, insincere, and so on don't really cut it. I also looked at this list of cognitive biases but was unable to find one that expressed this idea. Is there a single word for this? If not, a short phrase?.
Output: I am not sure if you are stuck to the notion of altruism, but in the context of making a show of being nice to others to make themselves feel good, you could use sanctimonious. Sanctimonious is a twist on the words sanctity and sacred, which mean holy or religious. A sanctimonious person might think he's holy, but their attitude comes across more like 'holier-than-thou.' Though sanctimonious people might try to act like saints, their actions are far from pure or holy, which just makes them sound like hypocrites. Vocabulary.com
There is a saying in Hindi in India 'teri lal' which translates 'yours is red' which means 'Whatever the case may be you are right' as in 'you are always right'. It is a sarcastic way of telling (usually) a know-it-all person (but not meant truly) 'you are right'. Is there an equivalent version of this phrase in English? Example Rohan (the know-it-all): The moon is a sphere John: hmmm Rohan: The moon has its own light. John: OK 'teri lal' (you are right sarcastically).
Output: Though I agree with the others that the sarcasm is usually implied in the tone of the speaker, there is an idiomatic expression which implies a non-committal agreement without sounding overly offensive: whatever you say TFD(idioms): whatever you say I accept what you say, and I'm not going to argue with you. Usually implies that one doesn't really agree with the other person, but is going to do it to avoid a conflict. A: 'Don't worry about the auditors, just run the numbers like I told you.' B: 'OK, whatever you say, boss.' A: 'I told you, my parents let me borrow the car whenever I want.' B: 'Whatever you say.' Farlex Dictionary of Idioms. © 2015 Farlex, Inc, all rights reserved.
For example, if I were to connect to a service with the following address: 68.146.63.194:3609 Is there a word for this type of address? I suppose I could call it just a generic address but I was wondering if there was a word for this specific type of connection..
Output: It is called 'Authority'. Please check the image below: This picture has been taken from C# 4.0 in a Nutshell: The Definitive Reference Joseph Albahari
I'm trying to find out what this symbol means and if it has a name: I've seen it being used in word processors.
Output: It's called a pilcrow. From Wikipedia: The pilcrow (), also called the paragraph mark, paragraph sign, paraph, alinea (Latin: a linea, 'off the line'), or blind P, is a typographical character commonly used to denote individual paragraphs.
This is a question for English wordsmiths. Is there a word that 'feels' like the word 'ethereal' that means something ethereal that quickly disappears. Or is 'ethereal' the correct word choice for this? Ethereal was the first word that popped into my head for this. From the various definitions that I've looked at for ethereal, it says delicate, beautiful, heavenly, etc. but not necessarily quickly vanishing, except for the secondary definitions related to ether that suggests it evaporates. I'm just wondering if there is a better word than this. I'm using the term 'ethereal skill' to describe a certain type of pilot skill (instrument flying) that requires tremendous practice to achieve proficiency, and once proficiency is achieved it is a beautiful thing, but if you don't practice it regularly, that skill vanishes after a few weeks. USAGE: Instrument proficiency is an ethereal skill that once obtained must be maintained through constant and regular practice.
Output: You are probably looking for the word ephemeral. ephemeral: Lasting for a very short time.
I've found this phrase here on a recent BBC report: '...the mare in the video died after suffering a cardiac arrest on a gallops in April 2016.' The same article has: 'A video on social media shows James mount the animal at a gallops while some present can be heard laughing.' (emphasis mine) It's a bit of a sad story, but I want to know what 'a gallops' is. Google Ngrams has some indication that it might be a phrase rather than just a typo, and also that it might be rising in popularity. TheFreeDictionary redirects me to gallop. I know what 'a gallop' is. It's the plural noun ('a gallops') that I have never heard used before. It feels like some kind of horse racing meet. Any formal (or informal) definition that fits this word? Is it short for something?.
Output: A gallops (or sometimes gallop) is a track or ground specially designed for training or exercising horses - see definition 1.3 here. They usually have a special surface, and might consist of a straight or circular track, often with a fence or rails. Note that this is a British English phrase, equivalent to the American English phrase 'training track'.
In conversation sometimes I'll say something like this: What's that do? which uses 's' as a contraction for 'does'. Is this a 'real' contraction, or is it incorrect usage of a contraction?.
Output: According to Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com, 'what's' is short for: 'what is' (What's the matter?) 'what has' (What's happened to the car?) 'what does' (What's that mean?) So it appears that 'What's that do?' is grammatically correct. Merriam-Webster: what's Dictionary.com: what's
It is said that XLAT is an abbr of translate. But I don't understand how come it ends up like that? There is no site on internet would explain it but they're all agree that XLAT is shorten of translate. I can get that LAT is in the end part of translate (LATe) but what about the X?.
Output: 'Trans' is a prefix meaning 'cross', as in 'Trans-siberian Express' or 'Trans-continental railway'. X is used as an abbreviation of 'cross', thanks to its resemblance to a cross, and despite the shift in meanings of 'cross'. So XLATE or XLAT is used as an abbreviate of 'translate'. XFER is similarly used as an abbreviation of transfer.
I wrote this sentence: Why wouldn't it be valid? --and I realized that without the contraction it becomes: Why would it not be valid? As opposed to 'why would not it be valid,' as the contraction would imply. What's going on here? Why can I contract across the middle word this way? Or, to put it the other way, why can't I 'de-contract' this without moving the not over by a word?.
Output: Even though the standard term for these combinations of an auxiliary + -n't is 'contractions', grammatically they act like single, indivisible words*; rather than like two words slurred together (though that was evidently their historical origin). This single word is a auxiliary, so it goes in the normal position for an auxiliary in an interrogative sentence: after the question-word and before the subject. Why wouldn't it be valid? Question word - auxiliary - subject - [rest of sentence] When you use 'would not,' on the other hand, you have two words: the auxiliary 'would', and the distinct word 'not' (a word that doesn't fit very well into the general part-of-speech categories). The auxiliary again goes into the normal position for an auxiliary. The word 'not' has its own, different rules for where it goes in a sentence. Why would it not be valid? Question word - auxiliary - subject - [rest of sentence] *In fact, some linguists think the negative suffix in these words is best analyzed as an inflection in modern English, like the suffix '-s' used in third person.
I often hear US citizens say something like this: <Some phrases>. Period. What does period mean when it appears in a sentence by itself in this type of situation?.
Output: Period at the end of the sentence means, the things said in the sentence are definite and no change is allowed. For example, 'I want the document without any errors, period' meaning that there should not be any errors in the document.
Possible Duplicate: Does 'notified by [date]' include the end date? When someone says 'I will do it by Monday', does it mean that they will get it done before the beginning of Monday or before the end of Monday?.
Output: Without further context, it generally means before the end of Monday. Now end can be defined as midnight, bedtime, end of work day, or any previously discussed time, depending on context.
I've heard this joke several times, but I'm ashamed to say I really cannot understand it. It just doesn't seem to make any sense however I look at it. I have a suspicion that it is supposed to be rude, so I'd like to offer my apologies if it causes offence- that is not my intension. Here's the joke: Two nuns are in the bath. Nun1: Where's the soap? Nun2: Yes, it does rather. Edit: I understand the pun on 'where's'/'wears'. But what I don't understand is why that is funny. Several people have mentioned that there is a sexual inference, but I don't understand where it comes from.
Output: 'Why is this funny?' may be one of the hardest questions to answer. Humor is subjective, circumstantial, and, not infrequently, ineffable. Personally, I don't think I'd ever encountered a nun joke before this, as I didn't grow up in a community with many Catholics and nuns didn't really seem relevant to our lives. Thus, like OP, I would never have understood the joke by myself. The other answers show that an understanding of the joke requires some basic cultural assumptions - here, that nuns are secretly lewd (and sometimes, apparently, lesbian). When the one nun asks, 'Where's the soap?', the other takes this as a declarative comment about her current (apparently masturbatory) use of the soap: 'Wears [out] the soap.' The guilty nun then affirms that 'Yes, it does, rather.' Why do some people find this funny? Because they already have a history of finding sexualized nuns funny, and this joke triggers their comic affection for that idea. There are innumerable jokes that similarly necessitate some level of preconceived notion for their humor to be apparent. Let's look, for instance, at this 'dumb blonde' joke: The waiter asked the blonde if she would like her pizza cut into six pieces or twelve. 'Six, please,' she said. 'I could never eat twelve!' Why is this funny (to the extent that it is)? Because its audience has been programmed (probably from a young age) to find the idea that blondes are stupid funny. The joke itself doesn't much matter in its details - it just has to trigger that automatic comic response. Examples abound - jokes about how Jewish/Asian/[insert modifier here] men have small penises, jokes about how 'you might be a redneck if...', and on and on. Ultimately, they're contextual, and no amount of explaining the context will make the joke funny (even if it makes it decipherable).
I have just seen an email containing the phrase 'Without further adieu'; I always thought it was 'Without further ado.' Which is it?.
Output: The common idiom is, 'Without further ado.' The words at play here are ado: fuss, esp. about something that is unimportant And adieu: another term for goodbye
Possible Duplicate: Should I say 'Your order is now complete' or 'Your order is now completed'? What is better, 'complete' or 'completed'? I want to know which sounds the most encouraging. Which of these two promotes more of an elation or satisfaction of accomplishment. Personally I'm leaning towards 'completed' as the 'd' suffix bring a more substantial and abrupt ending, which to me more clearly signifies the significance of the accomplished item.
Output: Complete, unlike completed, implies something whole or full. Completed means finished, accomplished, or done. A lot of the meaning overlaps, but I think completed gives a better sense of accomplishment, though it really depends on how you're using it.
How to describe a person in a word who keeps mentioning about his own life story or about himself for every topic that is being conversed? Be it interesting or boring, he has the ability to pick out something that has happened to him or he himself creates a chance to talk about himself. Edit: The person is not selfish. He does care for others. I am just saying that the person relates everything to his life and talks about it, that too not even in a conceited way. This person is experienced enough to relate everything to things that has happened to him.
Output: Self-Absorbed This is similar to self-centered, but perhaps has less of a negative connotation. A person who talks about themselves a lot may simply be introverted, and socially awkward, and therefore not have a lot else to talk about. They may also try to give themselves a sense of social relevance, not realising that it is actually counter-productive.
I've found that expression on a website, and I don't understand it. At first I thought it was because the canary is yellow and the coal black... but it doesn't make much sense.
Output: A canary in a coal mine is an advanced warning of some danger. The metaphor originates from the times when miners used to carry caged canaries while at work; if there was any methane or carbon monoxide in the mine, the canary would die before the levels of the gas reached those hazardous to humans. See here.
I'm having a serious argument with a friend on the status of the word 'suck' when I used it about him by saying 'You suck!' because he missed a train. We are both non-native English speakers. He claimed that I used it as a foul or slang term. I vehemently disagreed with him about it. I told him that the word 'suck' can be used to describe something inefficient or not good enough as well like it is used in the example 'Samsung mobile sucks'. Am I right to describe the use of the word 'suck' in such context?.
Output: Yes, you can use the word in the way that you have described, but it's considered more harsh than polite, and it has somewhat vulgar overtones. How it's regarded or received might be generational. I typed is suck vulgar? on Google, and found mixed responses. Feel free to do the same if you want diverse opinions on the matter. I thought this excerpt from a blog post, though, was worth pasting into an answer here: Some may not believe this, but suck as in 'Man, this class sucks' was also in the raw obscenity category when I was a teenager. It was used plenty in the school hallways but not in front of your teacher and never in front of your mother. I remember some agitation by certain culturally-advanced youngsters who tried to railroad their elders into accepting sucks as a safe and harmless substitute for stinks. The elders weren't having any of it, last I checked, but the liberalizing linguists seem to have carried the day. I have always assumedrightly or wrongly, I do not know that the word was originally intended to carry sexual overtones, which was the reason for its suppression. Today, the sexual overtones are either forgotten or are now acceptable in mixed company. I'm not sure which explanation disturbs me more. I think you and your friend are unlikely to come up with an agreed-upon viewpoint, because you're both right in a way. Feel free to use it on message boards and the like when you want to express a negative opinion, but realize you'll risk sounding a bit uncouth to some when you do. Then again, maybe I'm just showing my age here. As a footnote, you might want to check out our sister site, English Language Learners.
Are there any differences between 'oval' and 'ellipse'?.
Output: I believe they can be used interchangeably in common English, but have specific (and different) meanings when used in mathematics. The online Cambridge dictionary contains the following definitions: Oval shaped like a circle that is flattened either at one place or at two opposite places, so that it is like either an egg or an ellipse Ellipse an oval; a flattened circle However, in geometry there is a difference. According to the Wikipedia page on ovals: In geometry, an oval or ovoid is any curve resembling an egg or an ellipse, but not an ellipse. In addition, from the Math Forum once the size of an ellipse has been fixed then its exact shape is mathematically determined. In other words, the line forming the perimeter can be drawn in only ONE way. This is distinct from an oval where the perimeter has only to be a concave curve, and there are many possibilities. Simply, an ellipse IS an oval, but an oval may or may not be an ellipse. Doctor Sarah, The Math Forum
What is the difference between born and borne. Can anyone cite any solid examples?.
Output: 'Born' means to be brought into the world, e.g. as a baby. I was born at an early age. 'Borne' is listed in the OED as meaning carried, sustained, or endured. Nowadays it mostly commonly seen in phrases like 'airborne', e.g. The virus is airborne. In the 'endured' sense: This terrible customer service cannot be borne! There is also a similar word, bourne: this has a totally different meaning, namely, a small stream.
So basically, I know the name for both sides of a coin, yet not the coin itself. In other words, when you refer to a coin, you don't want to say 'this object with one side heads, and the other tails', you would want to say 'this coin'. What I want is a general term to refer to two ideas, that are the absolute opposite to each other. I can't really use the word 'concept', or 'idea', because such words are already assigned to the very concepts/ideas themselves.
Output: polar opposites: polar opposite (plural polar opposites): The complete opposite, opposite in every way. 'Polar opposites' might also refer to the scientific or technical definition of two things having exactly opposing or inverted polarity, sign, orientation, or some other property.
In other words, which sentence is correct? At least one of them is not coming. At least one of them are not coming.
Output: In English, grammatical number often follows the form of the sentence rather than its meaning, especially in cases where the meaning allows for a variable number in the subject. In those cases, the verb usually agrees with the syntactic number of the closest subject noun instead of the meaning of the whole noun phrase. For example: Some of them are not coming. One or more of them are not coming. These sentences means the same thing as your example. They both use a plural verb because the nearest subject nouns, some and more, are plural. However, in your example, the nearest noun is singular: At least one of them is not coming. Therefore, the verb follows the same (singular) form as the noun, even though the noun phrase in the subject allows for the possibility of more than one. Note that this rule affects both the number and person of the verb: Either those jerks or I am not coming. In this case, the verb is the first-person singular am because the nearest subject noun is the first-person singular I. However, many people would find this construction awkward and rewrite the sentence in a more natural way, perhaps: Either those jerks aren't coming, or I'm not.
I'm looking for a short word that could describe people who are always going to every event in town. It doesn't need to be an existing word, feel free to create one of your own. It can also be made of words related to events and parties. (ex: club, event, guest list, etc.) Edit The word will serve as a new term to describ these people in a favorable way. It will probably be used for an app name so it need to be catchy and fun. ( Preferably ).
Output: You may be looking for socialite: someone who is well-known in fashionable society and is often seen at parties and other social events for wealthy people (Merriam-Webster)
Are Backronym and Acronym same? I don't understand the difference between these two terms.
Output: An acronym is a word formed by the initial letters of other words, such as Nato (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation). Note that this is different to an initialism where the initial letters are spelled out, as in BBC for example. A backronym is where the word comes first, and the initial letters are made to fit the word. An example is Alex the parrot (Wikipedia) who to date is the only non-human to spontaneously use language and throws doubt on the notion that a large brain is a prerequisite for language. The name Alex was subsequently said to be 'Avian Language Experiment', which then became 'Avian Learning Experiment. As this was decided (or at least stated) after naming the bird, it is a backronym. Another example would be the USA PATRIOT Act, where : The title of the act is a ten-letter backronym (USA PATRIOT) that stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (Wikipedia)
Possible Duplicate: 'Alternately' or 'alternatively' What is the difference between alternate and alternative? For example, I have two versions of the same software and I want to write one of the following: Software Name (alternate version) Software Name (alternative version).
Output: In British English, an alternative version is one that can be considered as a possible choice, while an alternate one changes places at regular intervals with another version. However, I understand that in American English 'alternate' is an alternative to 'alternative'.
There is a particular taste that I could never quite translate in English. It is not bitter, although it sometimes occurs with it. The best example is eating a raw quince fruit. The mouth and tongue get a sort of dry feeling. Similar taste can be experienced with some persimmon fruit, and unripe plums. I know the word in French (apre) and Bulgarian (). Google translates these as rough, but that somehow seems unlikely. Any ideas?.
Output: Astringent, maybe? Astringent taste is the least common of all the 6 Tastes and can be found in legumes (such as beans and lentils), fruits (including cranberries, pomegranates, pears, and dried fruit), vegetables (such as, broccoli, cauliflower, artichoke, asparagus and turnip), grains (such as rye, buckwheat, and quinoa), spices and herbs (including turmeric and marjoram), coffee, and tea.
But I am unsure, if I should write 'on' or 'at'. May anybody help me with that?.
Output: 'At url' would be the idiomatic way to say this. For these sorts of questions google ngram is your friend. There you see that the usage of 'at' occurs and 'on' does not. One of the commenters is correct though, when you are talking about a web site by name rather than by url you can say either 'at StackOverflow' or 'on StackOverflow' but the latter is more common. Again, using 'cnn.com' as an example, google ngram votes clearly for 'on' but certainly allows for 'at'.
First of all, I am not a native English speaker and not very good in English too. I had a technical problem in my software project and thus took help of somebody. She helped me to find the right way to resolve my issue. Can I say her, 'You are a path shower' to show my appreciation to her ? UPDATE: She always guides me when I am in trouble. Considering this, what more can I say her.
Output: It does not sound very natural to me, here are a few more alternatives - You are a saviour! Or You are a life saver. Or Thank you for enlightening me.
Possible Duplicate: Using the definite article before a country/state name Hearing the Ukraine used to make me unsure whether Ukraine was really a country. Now though I have realized Ukraine to be a country on the same level as Austria, for instance, I still don't understand why it is often the Ukraine in English, but never the Austria or the Poland. Where did that odd phrase come from, and why is it in use?.
Output: It was referred to as the Ukraine when it was a part of the former Soviet Union. Since they were split apart and Ukraine became a country it should properly be called Ukraine without the definite article. Note: The name Ukraine, which first appeared in the historical chronicles in 1187, has been common in the English language for almost 350 years. In the earliest years it appeared without the definite article 'the' but in this century the definite article increasingly preceded the name Ukraine. ... many Ukrainian immigrant scholars, due to their imperfect knowledge of English, used the form 'the Ukraine' in their books thus helping to perpetuate this usage. Ukrainians who understood why Soviets were using the article 'the' complained. In Russian, obviously, the word 'Ukraina' has no article. Since the Soviet Union broke apart, Ukrainians have been pushing very hard to have the article 'the' removed from the English translation, so as to be linguistically correct, ie to show that Ukraine is a separate, independent country, not part of another country. ~ Source
Consider this quote from Mark Twain: 'Familiarity breeds contempt - and children.' Does it mean having children is a bad thing? Could you explain what the children imply here?.
Output: Two thoughts are run together: Familiarity breeds contempt {knowing people very well lets you see their faults} Familiarity breeds children {physical familiarity between the sexes leads to children} Hence Familiarity breeds contempt and children. A similar example of this particular way of playing with words (called Zeugma) is: 'You are free to execute your laws, and your citizens, as you see fit.'
This came up recently on programmers.SE, when someone (a Russian, presumably non-native English speaker) asked why we used the term 'sister sites', instead of 'brother sites'. Of course, I'm a native English speaker, and I have no idea either, hence this question. The full question, for context, was 'Several of our sister sites have taken to featuring Questions [...]'. It does seem odd, considering that English (usually) uses masculine terms as the default.
Output: I suspect the terminology sister sites is derived from sister cities. Traditionally, cities, countries, and ships have been personified as feminine in English, although this is growing less common due to the influence of women's rights.
In Afrikaans, it is considered very disrespectful to use 'you' ( 'jy') when referring to someone who is above the level of a peer. Instead, it is expected that you use 'u', which is a very respectful form of 'you'. Also you can talk in the third person 'How is ma'am today' would be the equivalent. I cringe internally when I say 'How are you' to someone older than me, because in Afrikaans it would be very rude. I was bought up to only ever refer to my parents in the third person. 'how is mom today', 'what is dad doing' when speaking in Afrikaans. The lack of English equivalent feels very wrong and disrespectful. What is the best way to convey this in English? I have been reassured that saying 'you' to a parent isn't rude, and I understand that this can be cultural, but I'm particularly looking for what options English offers in this regard, as far as existing vocabulary, that convey respect. I'm in South Africa.
Output: I think you is the polite form (u). The less polite form is thou (jy), but us Brits, polite as ever, now call everyone by the the polite form and thou fell by the wayside a long time ago. Thou barely ever surfaces in normal English unless you want something to sound historical, but it is still in Holier than thou and used to be (20th century) common in regional dialects from Yorkshire and parts of the Midlands (anyone can feel free to correct my geography). So you shouldn't feel so bad using you it's not the same you (jy) that you think it is.