niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
I'm referring to the peculiar habit I sometimes see in formal documents, where a number is given numerically after it's spelled out. It seems quite redundant: I need five (5) kumquats, stat! (Though it isn't always in a legal context, might it be related to this answer on this question?).
Output: The redundancy is presumably intended to reduce typos, forgery, and other types of error or manipulation in order to make the intent as clear as possible. It is known professionally as a CYA. It's obvious what my intent is when I rather carelessly write an I.O.U. for sevum kumquats, but alas, sevum is not really a word and opens up our contract to litigation. Adding the numeral 7 in parenthesis after sevum clarifies the intent. Similarly, if I were to write an I.O.U. for 3 kumquats, one could easily change that 3 to an 8, but it is far more difficult to make three look like eight. The practice appears to be a legal tradition rather than a universally honored rule. If you've ever written a check (known as a cheque to the Queen), you've written out a number with words and followed it with a numeral (albeit without parenthesis).
Is there a specific name for the thick glove worn (or may be any cloth used) to touch hot dishes in the oven? For example, we wear a glove and take the dish containing baked food from the oven. It's use is to save our hand from being burnt by touching the hot dish.
Output: In order to identify the object the OP is describing, I posted this answer with the term I use. At first I didn't think about alternative expressions based on geographical location. Other users did that after mine. I think the OP can enjoy a lively and useful discussion on the theme. Oven glove: BRITISH ENGLISH - a thick covering for the hand, used for taking hot things out of an oven (Cambridge Dictionary)
I'm looking for a word the describes the concluding text of a document, i.e. the opposite of the document's preamble. Is it just 'conclusion'?.
Output: Conclusion, afterword, and epilogue all seem to fit the bill. There's also postamble, but I believe that's more of a computer science term for data transactions.
I am referring to someone who makes people 'buy' what he says and gets things done by them through nothing but clever speech something one can describe as crafty or beguiling, but not fraudulent. I pondered over con man and con artist for a while but those terms seem to hold a hint of crime, so those terms won't fit in. I am wondering if there is a more suitable phrase or word.
Output: Sophistry is crafty speech intended to deceive, not necessarily out and out lying. So then a sophist is someone who does it. This is mostly just to win arguments though, not necessarily to get people to do things. That would be a demagogue, but that is someone, yes, who is clever with words but in a very specific way, appealing to the listener's baser instincts.
As a programmer I use the word Authentication and the word Authorisation in my code. I'd like to find nice abbreviations or alternative words for each of them that are not ambiguous and has reasonably large 'psychological distance' between. i.e. they don't look too similar i.e 'Auth' is not OK because it is ambiguous. At the moment I have just removed some letters Authtictn Authristn Any suggestions?
Output: I've worked with IETF people and developers who spend a lot of time on Apache, who tend to use: AuthN - Authentication AuthZ - Authorization You'll find these abbreviations in a lot of IETF technical documents. Yes, I know British spelling prefers s over z (authorisation).
Are there programmers here? I'd like to know how you guys pronounce cURL. Because I don't live in a country that uses English, I haven't heard it yet.
Output: According to the authors of the library, We pronounce curl and cURL with an initial k sound: [kurl]. This same FAQ notes that one of the reasons for which the name was chosen was '[t]he fact it can also be pronounced 'see URL'', an obvious pun on the use of the library, which as you know is to retrieve web resources. For what it's worth, I always pronounce it with the initial k sound, as in the English word 'curl.'
What would be the opposite of 'sexy clothes', as in 'clothes that hide sexual bits' ? Like for a woman, a top that would hide and make her breasts much less pronounced? Thanks in advance.
Output: OED Modest (of a woman) dressing or behaving so as to avoid impropriety or indecency, especially to avoid attracting sexual attention. 'the modest women wear long-sleeved dresses and all but cover their faces' I think modest clothing conveys the meaning you're looking for.
This question, 'Discrete Units of a Continuous Quantity', asks whether units of a continuous quantity should be spoken of as discrete or continuous. The top answer states The rule is simple, and you obviously know it: discrete quantities require the use of 'fewer' and continuous quantities require the use of 'less'. Calorie, as a unit, requires the use of 'fewer'. Energy, as a continuum, requires the use of 'less'. 'Fewer calories means less energy.' I do not understand the logic here though. Calorie is a unit, yes, but it is a continuous unit (it is possible to have half a calorie, or 4.582394 calories). Since a calorie is such a small unit of energy compared to what it is usually used for (food energy and human metabolism), it is very seldom expressed in a fractional form and instead is rounded (usually to the nearest 10 or higher). Why then should 'fewer' be used with calorie instead of 'less'? Is there another relevant rule than just 'continuous quantities use 'less' and discrete quantities use 'fewer'?.
Output: Divisibility does not mean something is not countable or that it isn't a discrete unit, requiring use of 'fewer'. A calorie is not 'energy' it is a 'unit of energy', and therefore, countable and discrete, even though it's divisible. It's divisible into further discrete units - half a calorie, in this case, is still a discrete unit. Using another example, you would have 'fewer' jars of peanut butter, even though someone might have eaten half of the peanut butter in some of the jars. You could even cut the entire jar in half, none of that matters, you still have fewer jars. And you also have less peanut butter, in the same way that fewer calories means less energy. The calorie corresponds to the jar, not to the peanut butter (that would correspond to the energy the calorie measures). It doesn't matter that there is 'less' peanut butter in some jars than in others any more than it would matter if some of the jars were a gallon in size, and some were just single-use jars with two tablespoons of peanut butter inside. Put another way, your 'half a calorie' is still a unit, and thus, you'd still say 'fewer calories'.
What is the idiom for a situation that 'If people-in-authority don't follow their own set rules, then what can one expect from rest of us' in similar examples given below in different settings: When HR themselves are tardy, undisciplined then what can you expect from the employees (punctuality and discipline)? When traffic police themselves are offending (driving without belts, smoking while driving) what can you expect from the vehicle driving community in the city? When parents themselves are undisciplined (smoking in front of children), what can you expect from the children themselves? When the management is insincere, what can you expect from their staff?.
Output: Do as I say, not as I do Model yourself after my instructions, not my actions. The phrase implies that the speaker is imperfect and makes mistakes, so one should follow their advice but not imitate them.My dad, a big smoker, always told me not to smoke. 'Do as I say, not as I do,' he used to say. Better quote: Prov.Take my advice, even though I am acting contrary to it. (Sometimes used as an apology for behaving hypocritically.)Jill: Why are you walking on the grass when I told you not to? Jane: But you're walking on the grass. Jill: Do as I say, not as I do. free dictionary Generally, in British English, this is always used from either a superior point of view, as a reply to a comment about how the figure of authority is doing something they've told people not to do... Or it's used as a pejorative term from those below the person who is 'doing', often with sarcasm: So it's a case of 'Do as I say, not as I do' then is it?
I have been using the term ofcourse ever since kindergarten. However, I recently stumbled upon a site that claims of course is how the term is correctly used and not ofcourse. I would like to seek the community's opinion about which is the correct usage of that term.
Output: I'm not sure what novels you are referring to, but ofcourse is a typo. Wiktionary doesn't have an entry for it, and neither does Merriam-Webster or any dictionary I have checked. Here are the usage stats from the British National Corpus and the Corpus of Contemporary American English: BNC COCA of course 29651 100939 ofcourse 1 12
I've been looking around the Internet. Some websites say that foods is incorrect but others say it is correct.
Output: Food in its commonest sense is a non-countable noun, with all the effects of that. It's already a plural. You would eat 'some food' not 'a food'. You would say 'less food' not 'fewer foods'. However, there is a less common usage where 'a food' means 'a type of food': 'Cheese is a food made from milk' ... and in this form, you can pluralise it ... 'Italy is the source of many delicious foods -- pizza, pasta, salami, biscotti...' For comparison, think of 'a people' - Are there meta-plurals beyond 'peoples'?
I am writing a resume. I want to specify that I started my education in 2009 and as of now I am at the 4th grade (in other words, still learning), so how should I specify that in resume: 2009 - present 2009 till now Any suggestions?.
Output: On resumes, the most common way to indicate that a period is ongoing is either 2009 present or 2009 to present The en dash is the preferred punctuation. Many word processors replace a double hyphen with an en dash once the next word is typed.
Possible Duplicate: How do I say 'Our meeting is preponed'? A friend of mine asked me this question, and it caught my curiosity. Is there an explicit opposite of the word postpone? As in, do something in advance? Clearly what I just said is functionally equivalent to the answer I am seeking, but I was wondering if there was a single word that is the antonym. More context: Bob was supposed to start work in July, but due to a work visa issue, he had to begin in advance.
Output: The most business-speaky option is expedite. Other alternatives include accelerate, hasten, and advance. Technically prepone is in fact the precise antonym, but I honestly wouldn't be caught dead using it.
Which one should I prefer? Is it worth it? or Does it worth it? Additionally, is the following form (without it) correct? Is it worth?.
Output: Which one should I prefer? Is it worth it? or Does it worth it? 'Is it worth it?' is correct. Additionally, is the following form (without it) correct? Is it worth? No, that's wrong, worth always needs another word, like 'worth twenty pounds' or something.
In math, we use the term series a lot, and there are many types of series. How should I craft my sentence when I have three different ones in mind to talk about? Should I settle down for a less mortal alternative of 'list of series' or something like that? The existing question on The possessive and plural forms of 'series' suggests the usage of series'. But is that all? If that's the only solution, then could you please explain the usage of apostrophe symbol at the end? Is that a plural marker or a possessive marker, or both?.
Output: Series (like deer, salmon, and sheep) is pronounced and spelled the same in the plural as in the singular. If either the singular or the plural is used as a possessive, an apostrophe is added to show that in print, though there is no pronunciation difference in speech. Thus, The series doesn't converge. (singular) The series don't converge. (plural) This series' limit is unknown. (singular possessive) These series' limits are unknown. (plural possessive) More examples can be seen here.
A co-worker and I are fairly strongly divided on how to pronounce Linux. For a northern Midwest American (Milwaukee area, Wisconsin, to be exact), should it be pronounced lin-uh ks or li'nuks? pronunciations from: Linux. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved August 15, 2011, from Dictionary.com.
Output: From the Linux Wikipedia page, here's how Linus Torvalds pronounces it: /'l.nks/
I frequently encounter phrases like this: 'It allows to apply these features to customisable sets of fonts'. My question is whether this is proper English or not? In my mind, 'it allows the application of ...' or 'it allows one to apply ...' sound much better. I suspect that this is a Germanism (that would explain why I hear it so often), but it would be nice to know for sure.
Output: I just ran a Google Books ngram and saw that from 1800-2012 the incidence of It allows to has risen from 0.0000011% to 0.0000053%. The biggest rise was from 1980 until now: 0.000002%-0.0000053%. From what I can tell from the books in which this appears, the most recent are technical writing by non-native-speakers of English. A couple from the 19th century are legitimate English: the assembly may compel the observance of a proper decorum by all persons, whom it allows to be present at its proceedings. and It assembles more frequently, and at its own time, without any control from the king ; and it allows to him only a ... Jim's example, It allows to pass certain particles while trapping others, is certainly, as he says, unwieldy because it's not parallel: It allows to pass certain particles and {allows not / disallows} others. which is a style monster regardless of the parallel construction. It should be: It allows certain particles to pass {while trapping / but traps / but disallows} others. The syntax is so bad in that sentence that, however grammatically valid it is, Fowler would retch after reading it. Merely thinking it up would violate the admonition against secret sin in the Sermon on the Mount, and actually writing it for public consumption would cause the reader as much pain as would driving a wooden stake through the heart of the sleeping Dracula cause the vampire. Your conclusion that ''it allows the application of ...' or 'it allows one to apply ...' sound much better' is absolutely correct. That's what language is about in part: what it sounds like. If it sounds bad, it is bad, grammar be damned.
In a few days, I have to do a class presentation project about the 1920s Harlem Renaissance. I want to say that the movement's original name was the 'New Negro Movement,' but I'm not sure if that's okay. I'm white, and I really don't want to offend anybody in my class. Is it all right to say this word in context? Or, should I ignore its original name, and only refer to it as the Harlem Renaissance?.
Output: Is it okay to use the word 'Negro' in a historical context? Yes, absolutely. If that was term used, even in a pejorative sense, in the context of serious research you can always include things that are true and relevant. I'm white, and I really don't want to offend anybody in my class. That is impossible to answer even if the members of this forum were in your class. It is entirely possibly you could offend somebody. Whether or not your report or talk will offend someone should be the least of your concerns if what you are writing or saying is well researched and based on reliable facts. Academic study, even of sensitive social issues, isn't restricted to nationality, gender, religion, or ethnicity.
What word means to make something obsolete? For example, the automobile made the horse and buggy obsolete. How would the word obsolete be applied as a verb? obsoleted The automobile obsoleted the horse and buggy. bleech. made obsolete The automobile made obsolete the horse and buggy. Not bad, but there's room for improvement. EDIT: I'm looking for a verb that has an edge; that captures the upheaval and aggressiveness involved in displacing a product or industry. Killed is a bit strong. killed The automobile killed the horse and buggy. A bit overstated. ran out of business The automobile ran the horse and buggy out of business marginally better, but still not good. disrupted the automobile disrupted the horse and buggy Better applied to an industry, like so the automobile disrupted the transportation industry in the early 20th century; particularly the horse and buggy. Wordy. smashed The automobile smashed the horse and buggy. More along the lines of what I seek, but a bit improper. XXX The automobile XXX the horse and buggy. What verb fits best here?.
Output: Interestingly, you automatically used a word in your question that you didn't even comment onperhaps without realizing what you'd done: displace: 1 a : to remove from the usual or proper place specifically : to expel or force to flee from home or homeland // displaced persons 1 b : to remove from an office, status, or job 1 c obsolete : to drive out : BANISH 2 a : to move physically out of position // a floating object displaces water 2 b : to take the place of (as in a chemical reaction) : SUPPLANT So, in your example sentence: The automobile displaced the horse and buggy.
I am writing a poem for school. The verse with the word I need to change is this: 7 hours is too long In much too short a day You really don't care if you get an answer wrong Because you don't care a _____ about radioactive decay The only thing I can think of is the word shit, but that word is too offensive. I have tried looking for inoffensive alternatives at Real Life English's Not so Offensive Alternatives to Bad Words in English, and wordhippo but these alternatives do not sound great, especially in a poem. I also searched for don't care a ___ on the free dictionary by Farlex's idioms website and 'don't care a fig' came up, alongside some other suggestions I tried from the autofill suggestions. Most worked literally, but I am looking for a more clever and poetic word or words that could be used in a way that relates to my poem. I am not just looking for any old answer. I do not want you to simply search for 'don't care a' on google. I want suggestions that fit creatively into my poem.
Output: One option for a word is whit1 : the smallest part or particle imaginable Don't care a whit2 is even an idiomatic phrase: didn't care at all. Sally thought Joe liked her, but he didn't care a whit about her. I don't care a whit what you do with my old clothes. 1 Webster's Third New International Dictionary s.v. whit2 2 The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs s.v. didn't care a whit
Is there a specific reason for this? After all, it is 'boys and girls', rather than 'girls and boys'. If the boy (male) comes first here, why doesn't it come first in 'ladies and gentlemen'?.
Output: It probably has to do with the phonetic and metrical properties of 'ladies and gentlemen' versus 'gentlemen and ladies.' Say them both out loud and see which one sounds better to you, intuitively. The metrical pattern of 'ladies and gentlemen' consists of (arguably) two dactyls. A dactyl is a group of three syllables where the first is stressed and the second two are unstressed. When these occur in succession, they are pleasant to the ear. ladies and gentlemen DUM da da / DUM da da The metrical pattern of 'gentlemen and ladies' falls into a much less regular pattern. It is less pleasant to the ear. It is something like a stressed syllable followed by three unstressed syllables followed by a stressed syllable followed by an unstressed syllable. gentlemen and ladies DUM da da da DUM da Our language tends to organize itself according to regular and pleasant stress patterns. My guess is that is why we feel more drawn to 'ladies and gentlemen' than 'gentlemen and ladies' and why the former has conventionalized.
Possible Duplicate: How should I punctuate around quotes? When should end punctuation go inside quotes? Or is it region specific? I was always taught that when ending a quotation, that punctuation remains inside of the quote. I think he said, 'we should go to the store.' Are you sure he said, 'we should go to the store?' As opposed to: I think he said, 'we should go to the store'. Are you sure he said, 'we should go to the store'? This is just an arbitrary example off of the top of my head, and it's hard for me to come up with an example for the second usage because it looks completely wrong to me. I actually got into a small argument with my girlfriend earlier this year because she uses something similar to the second example, and said that's how she was taught (which is why I ask if it's region-specific.) Anyway, is there a correct usage for ending a quotation with punctuation?.
Output: In American English, commas and periods go inside the quotation marks. Semi-colons, question marks and exclamation marks go inside the quotation marks only if they're part of the quotation. E.g., 'What time is it?' he asked. Did he really say, 'I don't care'? So your example should be the following: I think he said, 'we should go to the store.' Are you sure he said, 'we should go to the store'?
I live in Australia, but am expected to use US English in my work. I am therefore used to spelling '-ise' as '-ize'. I was a little surprised to find that 'enterprise' is almost universally spelt with '-ise'. Is there any particular reason that this is the case for this example, when '-ize' is so widely preferred in US English?.
Output: For one, because the etymology is different. -ise (-ize) is a causative suffix in formalise, realise etc. (to make something formal, to make something real...) But enterprise is not 'to make something enterpre' or similar (whatever that might mean). The prise bit comes as a past participle of French prendre (to grasp, to take). Another answer is that enterprize is actually attested, and was apparently used more than enterprise in the second half of 18th century (N-gram viewer).
I'm currently writing an article that includes two contexts of communication: effectiveness and competence. Incompetent people can misuse terminology all day and the ideas are effective and do technically work. However I'm looking for a word or term that has two or more meanings and the misuse of could lead to bodily harm or even death; this is to promote the idea of the aspect of competently communicating one's ideas. What word if not used competently could end up leading to injury or death in a context that most people could understand with little-to-no explanation?.
Output: Does it have to be a single word? Derek Bentley was convicted of the murder of a policeman in 1952 and hanged the following year. He and an accomplice, Christopher Craig, were burgling a warehouse and Craig was armed with a pistol. When the police cornered Bentley and Craig, Craig drew the gun. A policeman told Craig to give him the gun and Bentley allegedly responded, 'Let him have it, Chris.' Craig shot the policeman in the shoulder and later shot another policeman dead. During the trial, the prosecution claimed that 'Let him have it' meant 'shoot him', whereas the defence claimed that, if Bentley had said those words at all, he meant 'give the gun to him.' Bentley was subsequently posthumously pardoned in 1993 and his conviction quashed in 1998, because of a multitude of problems, not least Bentley's mental state, an apparently falsified confession and the trial judge failing to properly direct the jury.
Is penultimate commonly used in English, or are its variations (such as second to last) more common? I need to use it in conjunction with the expressions First Payment Date and Last Payment Date to name variables while programming. In my mother language (Portuguese) Penultimate Payment Date would be fine, but it feels strange in English. (I know feels strange is not very helpful, but I'd like to know how to convey the meaning in the most natural way.).
Output: Someone I know who is a native speaker of Spanish and a professor at a university in the United States has complained that when he used the word 'penultimate' in class, the students don't know what he's talking about. The word is perfectly, unimpeachably, 100% correct. It is a bit of an upscale, literary word though. It certainly is a 'term of art' in fields like linguistics, where it is used commonly to refer to syllables. I searched for the word in the Corpus of Contemporary American English, and divided the results by section: spoken, fiction, magazine, newspaper, and academic, and got these results: spoken: 10 fiction: 53 magazine: 55 newspaper: 36 academic: 93 total: 247 So, it is certainly used in all areas of English, with a moderate skew towards higher registers like academic writing. Depending on the intended audience, a writer contemplating using the word 'penultimate' should consider that there is a relatively high likelihood that word will not be understood. Instead of 'penultimate', the phrasing in common usage is either 'next to last' or 'second to last'. Both of those should be universally understood. Interestingly, Google Ngrams shows that the word 'penultimate' rose in usage (in published books) steadily from 1800 to about 1990, and since 1990 it has shown a steep dropoff, taking us back to usage levels from the late 1960s. The better-understood terms 'second to last' and 'next to last' are less common (again, though, in published booksGoogle Ngrams tells us nothing about spoken usage), with 'next to last' having more historical usage but a slow tapering off of usage since 1960 and 'second to last' increasing in usage from 1970 on, with both enjoying approximately the same usage today.
Is there a term for a word that means itself? For example the word word means itself and is a word.
Output: From Wikipedia, emphasis mine: An autological word (also called homological word or autonym) is a word that expresses a property that it also possesses (e.g. the word 'short' is short, 'noun' is a noun, 'English' is English, 'pentasyllabic' has five syllables, 'word' is a word, 'sesquipedalian' is a long word, 'adjectival' is adjectival; see Wiktionary for a partial list).
I came upon this letter when reading a book, I couldn't find its name on the internet, you can imagine how hard it is to search about it. What is the name of the letter that follows 'sample space'? I know it's not really an English question, but I think this site is best fit for the question than say, the mathematics site.
Output: It's an S written in a fraktur font used by mathematicians. This one is easy to find out using Detexify.
When a user wants to delete something on a website, I would like to display a message for him/her to confirm. Which of the following is the grammatically correct way to say so? Are you sure to delete this item? or Are you sure you want to delete this item?.
Output: Are you sure to delete this item? Sure means 'certain, without doubt'. Therefore this asks if they are definitely going to delete the item. This isn't something to ask the user; if anything it's something for the user to ask about the program; 'will it definitely be gone'. Are you sure you want to delete this item? This asks not about what will happen (which is a question about the program) but what is desired (which is a question for the user). This is the one to go for.
I've heard meelee, meyley (maylay), and mehlay. Is there any 'correct' way to pronounce it in the U.S.?.
Output: NOAD gives these pronunciations: melee |mala; mala| (also melee) Which are, in order of usage, may-lay, may-lay, and also muh-lay
Possible Duplicates: How to phrase an asking sentence that must be answered with an ordinal number? Framing a question whose answer is an ordinal number Given that I want to know Barack Obama is the 44th President of U.S.A, how can I frame a question like: The how manyeth president is Barack Obama?.
Output: I'd go with the following structure: Q: Where does Obama fall in the sequence of US presidents? A: [He's the] 44th [president]. This reflects similar usage when discussing, for instance, rankings: Q: Where did Harvard fall on the U.S. News & World Report list this year? A: 2nd.
I've read this and this. I know that the underlying question has been answered, my problem is of a different nature: I'm currently writing my master's thesis in CS and my professor thinks that the apostrophe possessive is only applicable to people. He claims to have spoken to a linguist from Cambridge who confirmed his opinion. Neither my professor nor I am a native speaker and the thesis is being written in Germany. Now, I know that he won't care if I just send him a couple of links to the answers here. So my question is: How do I convince my professor? Are there any 'more scientific™' sources that I can point to? Examples of phrases: If each plant's humidity is displayed publicly [...] [...] shows an overview of the node's structure. Due to an issue in the network stack's IPv6 subsystem [...].
Output: As few people are addressing the ''more scientific™' sources' bit of the question, it should be pointed out that there are a number of English style guides out there, practically all of which should cover the topic of forming possessives with apostrophe-s (as it's a frequent issue even with native speakers). You should be able to find copies of at least one of the major ones in any decent University library. (At least at any decent University with English classes.) The Elements of Style by Strunk and White is the 'gold standard' for many Americans, although there are many who disagree with many of the details. The Chicago Manual of Style is a well-used standard for (American) University usage. - The online version is unapologetic and direct on this topic: 'The possessive of most singular nouns is formed by adding an apostrophe and an s', although it does go into more details. Fowler's modern English usage by Henry Fowler is also a well-regarded standard, particularly for British users. The Cambridge Guide to English Usage by Pam Peters has the benefit of the 'authority' of Cambridge. Oxford, of course, has their own: The New Oxford Style Manual, though the title has varied with edition. If physical copies aren't something you're interested in, a number of organizations (particularly journalism houses) have their house style guides online. For example, the Economist makes no mention of the conjectured rule in its advice. The Guardian gives additional examples, and also completely omits the purported rule. Others can likely be found by searching, and other major organizations (like the Associate Press and the New York Times) have theirs as printed books. Many dictionaries also have usage notes in them. (In particular, I'll point out the comment from @ps2goat mentioning Oxford Dictionaries's online page.) Ultimately, though, it's exceedingly difficult to prove a negative. Even confronted with evidence that a large number of style guides and usage manuals for English have nothing approaching the purported rule, your professor might not be convinced that he is mistaken. If that is the case, your best choice is probably to reword things to avoid the issue.
Is there a noun or adjective for the following or similar: a pleading before a judge for clemency a prayer before God begging for mercy Is there a better word than 'begging', 'pleading', 'petitioning', etc.?.
Output: Judge or God, clemency or mercy.. Supplication, a noun, can logically be applied to any situation in which you plead to someone in power for help or a favor. Supplication: comes from the Latin verb supplicare, which means 'to plead humbly.' (etymonline.com) Supplication (also known as petitioning) is a form of prayer, wherein one party humbly or earnestly asks another party to provide something, either for the party who is doing the supplicating (e.g., 'Please spare my life.') or on behalf of someone else (e.g., 'Please spare my child's life.'). (wiki)
This phrase is all over the internet. They will say that something is free as in 'free beer' and free as in 'free speech'. I have never really understood this. Are these the examples of two different types of 'free'?.
Output: Wikipedia on Gratis versus Libre: Gratis versus libre is the distinction between two meanings of the English adjective 'free'; namely, 'for zero price' (gratis) and 'with few or no restrictions' (libre). The ambiguity of 'free' can cause issues where the distinction is important, as it often is in dealing with laws concerning the use of information, such as copyright and patents. And further: With the advent of the free software movement, license schemes were created to give developers more freedom in terms of code sharing, commonly called open source or free and open source software. As the English adjective free does not distinguish between 'for zero price' and 'liberty', the phrases 'free as in free beer' (gratis, freeware) and 'free as in free speech' (libre, free software) were adopted. [...] 'Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer.' Richard Stallman Emphasis added.
Assume that I give my work information in my CV with the date (year) intervals. My last position started this year and is continued at the moment. Example Co. ABC Manager 2012 - cont. How should I abbreviate continued here? Is cont. correct?.
Output: There is no right or wrong with abbreviations, but you would do well to avoid them if possible. Here are three distinct pieces of advice: Just write '(continued)' (including parens), and you'll be fine. If you have some sort of mania for them, or horizontal-space consideration, then sure, write '(cont.)'. It's a good idea to set it in italic, no matter what you do. In your case, though, you should probably write one of: 2012 present 2012 As those both look better than '2012 (continuing)'.
What's the difference between everytime and every time? I'm a little confused about them, they both seem to have same meaning. Excluding their spelling, are there any other differences between them?.
Output: The difference is that 'everytime' is not a word, and 'every time' means all occurrences: 'Every time I go to the beach, I get a sunburn.' You may be thinking of the difference between 'everyday' and 'every day.' The former is an adjective that can mean either daily or ordinary and common, and the latter is an adverb meaning each day: 'I don't have any fancy clothes. I wear everyday clothes every day.'
We were discussing something like pre-boss era, post-boss era. What word describes the era where the boss is still there?.
Output: Peri-boss era. This prefix allows you to create delightfully clear parallel construction that covers all cases: pre-, before peri-, during post-, after Google [ pre- post- peri- ] for examples 'in the wild'. These prefixes are popular in medical terminology, such as pre-, peri-, and post-anesthesia.
I was writing something along '... I could only read upto page 34' when my spell-check app Grammarly complained that I should rather use 'up to'. So, what's the difference between the two and is there really any difference? Or is it that the condensation 'upto' is not technically allowed?.
Output: Upto is a misspelling of up to. -- Wiktionary Use up to with a space between the two words. Also, as Yosef Baskin says: You can use the following self-test: Does the single word say something different from the two words? If not, stay with two words. By contrast, into and onto do mean things other than in to and on to, so they work as single words.
Is there a specific rule, or set of rules, that can be followed to know when to use each word? I have noticed that not is usually used with a verb, but I think that there sometimes are exceptions although I can't think of one now.
Output: Not is a negative adverb; no is a negative quantifier; non- is a negative prefix. Since negation is so important, thousands of idioms use each of these, among other negatives. Consequently there are lots of exceptions to the general rules below. Non- is not a word, but a part of another word, usually a descriptive adjective: non-lethal, non-professional, non-native, non-technical, non-playing (The hyphen is optional.) Each of these mean 'anything but ...' -- anything that doesn't kill you is non-lethal, anything that's not technical is non-technical, etc. This meaning contrasts with un- and in-, which refer to opposites instead of complements. No is half of the answer pair Yes/No, shading off vocally into Nah, Nuh-uh, and Uh-uh. But it can also quantify and negate any noun phrase: Some blade of grass ~ No blade of grass; One who saw it ~ No one who saw it. Not is the general negator for verb phrases, including predicate adjectives and nouns. In a verb phrase, not occurs immediately after the first auxiliary verb. If there is no auxiliary verb in the verb phrase, Do-Support supplies a form of do. Not is contracted whenever possible, with auxiliaries or subjects (especially pronouns): He's not interested ~ He isn't interested; She doesn't like it, but not *She not likes it. Any of these negatives (and many others) can negate a sentence, changing its truth value. It's easy to switch between them, too; the sentences below all mean the same thing: They allowed no phone calls. They didn't allow phone calls. No one allowed phone calls. Phone calls weren't allowed.
Do the English have an ancient (obsolete) verb for the action of the book opening? For example, in Russian we say otkrit' (open the book), but in the Old slavonic the verb razognuti (to unbend the book) was used.
Output: This is a very interesting question. There may not be an old word in English that does what you describe, but it is important to note that the English word 'open' relative to a book meant something different in earlier times. To open a book now usually means to part or spread the cover and the pages into a position so you can read the pages contained in the book. However, books used to be made by folding sheets of paper larger than the page size and they would be sold without trimming the edges, so when you got your new book, it would be 'unopened' meaning that you couldn't turn the pages. You had to 'open' the book with a dull knife (like a letter opener) by ripping along the folds. (This is why some books have ragged edges of the text block, to evoke the memory of those ripped page edges.) The OED has e. transitive. To cut open the leaves of (a book) when they have been left joined along an edge during the making; to cut open (the leaves) of such a book. You will find old books described (by knowledgable book dealers) as 'unopened'. This correctly means that the folded sheets are un-ripped; it doesn't mean that no-one has ever spread the covers and looked inside.
I believe there is a term for a person who uses 'expert sounding' terminology and exudes confidence, even when their actual abilities are significantly short of their 'presentation'. Using 'wine' a subject.... if a person described a taste as: Magnificent bouquet, the esters resonate with hints of mulberry and asparagus. This must be an oak-matured red from Bordeaux. Perhaps.... 2003 vintage, that was a year when unusual rainfall produced an outstanding crop that had the same rich tannins. A person describing the wine like that has apparent confidence, apparent technical expertise, and so on. Yet, if he was a fraud, and knew nothing about wines, and the 'wine' was really vinegar.... what would you call that person? Additionally, this would not be a one-off thing. This would be a person who consistently 'bamboozles' people, and only when you dig below the posturing, or put them in the company of a 'real' expert, do you see the reality. A fraud, a cheat, an imposter. Those would be true, but I'm sure there's a word which also covers the confidence, charisma, and presentation style too. I just can't think of it.
Output: My first thought for this would be charlatan:- A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud. [American Heritage Dictionary via The Free Dictionary] Another possibility would be mountebank:- a boastful unscrupulous pretender [Merriam-Webster]
The word year when pronounced starts with a phonetic sound of e which is a vowel sound making it eligible for being preceded by an. Yet, we tend to write a year. Why?.
Output: I reject your premise that the word year starts with a phonetic sound of e. Here's how it is pronounced according to the various dictionaries: Wiktionary: (RP) IPA: /ji/, /j/, SAMPA: /ji@/, /j3:/; (US) enPR: yir, IPA: /ji/, SAMPA: /jir/ Merriam-Webster: \yirAmerican Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: /yir/ Collins English Dictionary: /j/ Words that start with the /j/ sound are preceded by an a, not by an an. Compare: a user, a utility, a yak.
Duplicate: What day is next Tuesday? I have always considered next Friday to be not this coming Friday, but the one after. This Friday is the Friday at the end of this week. I have a Canadian friend, however, who enforces the more literal meaning of next Friday the Friday that comes next. Is there a correct meaning for next Friday, or does this entirely depend on cultural differences?.
Output: People generally understand next Friday as the Friday after this, that is, if you are on a Thursday, and someone tells you to meet him next Friday, it doesn't mean the next day, but rather, Friday week, the Friday after. Some pedantics will believe and argue that it is, as you say, the Friday that comes next. That is valid reasoning. However, if you want to be understood by the majority, 'next Friday' will mean Friday next week. So, in order to mean the Friday that actually comes next, you would say this Friday, but next Friday is generally understood by more people to mean the Friday after this.
The B strings tuned w/ low E 7th fret harmonic-(6th string,7th fret).
Output: The shorthand w/ is used to mean with. 2 pieces toast w/ gravy Is a shorter way of writing 'Two pieces of toast with gravy.' The B strings tuned w/ low E 7th fret harmonic-(6th string,7th fret). means 'The B strings tuned with low E, 7th fret harmonic . . .' Edited to add: As Denis de Bernardy correctly notes in the comment below, w/o means the opposite: without.
Possible Duplicate: What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in s? Before you vote to close as a duplicate, note that these two questions deal with similar issues to this, but none of them address all three criteria of this question: The singular already ends with an s. I am dealing with multiple of the thing. I want the possessive of all of them in general. The singular is class, and the plural is classes. The singular possessive is class's (as addressed here). What is the plural possessive? Is it classes's, or classes'?.
Output: It is classes', which sounds the same as the singular class's. I would have thought this was a general rule for plural nouns ending -s', -es' or -ies'.
How can I explain to people that the phrase off of is grammatically incorrect? I've heard this phrase used a lot, especially by Americans (though they aren't the only ones). In my understanding, off of should usually be replaced by off, as in, I took the book off the shelf as opposed to I took the book off of the shelf Am I wrong? Or is there perhaps some simple way I can explain this to most people?.
Output: I don't know how you can explain to people in general that it's grammatically incorrect, but here is one idea: when you go to a James Brown tribute concert and the singer says 'Get up offa that thing' what you could do is to trounce the security guards, climb on to the stage, pounce onto the singer, grab the microphone and say 'In fact you should be saying not 'get up offa that thing' but 'get up off that thing' since 'offa' is grammatically incorrect.' I'm sure everyone will thank you for your grammatical corrections. Being serious for a moment though, it's very difficult to decide what is or is not 'grammatically correct'. E.g. in the UK we say 'outside my house' but US people often say 'outside of my house'. How can you actually decide which of these two is grammatically correct? Unfortunately it's not possible since English grammar is not a science like physics but merely a description of what people actually do, and that has changed very significantly over the years. If I was teaching someone English I would definitely say 'off' is correct and 'off of' is wrong, but this kind of decision is based on intuition, based on the usages of educated native speakers.
Possible Duplicate: 'If I was' or 'If I were'. Which is more common, and which is correct? Is this correct grammar? What if there was a Stack Overflow on Shouldn't it be 'what if there were a Stack Overflow on'?.
Output: Prescriptively, you're correct, this should be were since this is being expressed with the subjunctive mood. Descriptively, I think you'll find both in the wild. In informal speech, most people I know would prefer was in this case (and those that don't are sticklers for the subjunctive). I do think that you are much more likely to see were written though, especially in formal writing. Either form is correct, and the subjunctive forms are far from dead. A more interesting question, I think, is whether or not the subjunctive mood is still being used and if the two forms have simply collapsed together. Is this a meaningful distinction? How could this be tested?
Which is correct? The thief carried the knife carefully so as not to cut himself. The thief carried the knife carefully not to cut himself.
Output: The first one. The second one sounds quite awkward, and in fact one way I can think of to improve it would be to add a comma: 'The thief carried the knife carefully, not to cut himself'. The slight pause is meant to suggest the missing 'so as'!
What is the antonym of the word destination. Here is some context: Every train has a destination and a ____? I was thinking it might be origin but I've never encountered that word used in this context so I'm not sure - there might be a better word.
Output: According to a Google search, the word origin is used as the opposite of destination on several pages on the Amtrak web site. Amtrak is the largest train operator in the United States. Here are a few examples: This schedule lists the Origin and 'Destination' of various routes. The Interactive Route Atlas page says the following: Once you have selected origin and destination stations by one of the methods above, click on the 'Go' button to send your custom route request. The Multi-Ride Ten-Ride Ticket page says the following: Ten-ride tickets are valid for ten rides within a 45-day, 60-day or 180-day period depending on your origin and destination cities.
Sometimes people are referring to mechanical objects as 'she': I love my car. She always gets the best service. Are there any rules when it is appropriate to use 'she' instead of it, and is 'he' ever used in such context?.
Output: The pronoun 'she' is sometimes used to refer to things which can contain people such as countries, ships, or vehicles, or when referring to certain other machines. This, however, is considered a stylistically marked, optional figure of speech. This usage is furthermore in decline and advised against by most journalistic style guides such as the Chicago Manual of Style.[9] If used, the terms she, her, and hers are always used, regardless of the entity's name - for example, 'The U.S.S. John F. Kennedy (CVA-67) was laid down October 22, 1964. She was launched on April 1, 1967...' 'He' in reference to an inanimate object has not, as far as I'm aware, ever been common usage in English.
I was wondering what 'take a stab at doing something' means? For example I'll take a stab at answering these.
Output: As everybody has said, to take a stab at means to attempt. I want to additionally note here that I believe it to be related to the idiom stab in the dark, meaning an attempt at something with little guidance or hope of success. It doesn't carry the full weight of that meaning, though, just an attenuated implication of not necessarily knowing what one is doing, more likely used as mild self-deprecating humor than anything else.