niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
I'm not a native English speaker. I am having difficulty with some words. Could anyone please tell me if there's any difference between the above mentioned short sentences, as I'm a little confused.
Output: The short answer is 'not much'. The two expressions are more or less interchangeable. But it can depend on distance. 'Come over here' would be used if the person you were calling was some distance away, at the other end of a hall, let's say, and there were other people in between. 'Come over here' is also perhaps a little more polite. Either expression would be enhanced by adding 'please', but 'Come here please' can sound slightly imperious in certain situations, depending on the relationship of the individuals. A parent or teacher might say it to a child, but it is not the sort of thing one would perhaps say to a colleague, without adding something like 'Would you mind coming here a moment'. 'Come over here please' sounds a bit better than 'come here please'. There are other things you can add to 'come here' which makes it sound less stark e.g. 'Come here a minute' said in a tone as though you have something important to show them, would perhaps not require even a 'please'. I'm sure a lot more could be said on the subject, but I hope that helps.
I just created an inch to mm conversion calculator and I am writing a blog post announcing its launch. When should I capitalize the terms inch and millimeter? Does it matter if I'm spelling it out? What if I'm using an abbreviation or symbol? What if it begins a sentence?.
Output: No, units generally do not need capitalization when spelled out. For SI units, the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures is the authority: Unit names are normally printed in roman (upright) type, and they are treated like ordinary nouns. In English, the names of units start with a lower-case letter (even when the symbol for the unit begins with a capital letter), except at the beginning of a sentence or in capitalized material such as a title. In keeping with this rule, the correct spelling of the name of the unit with the symbol C is 'degree Celsius' (the unit degree begins with a lower-case d and the modifier Celsius begins with an upper-case C because it is a proper name). The International System of Units (SI), 8th ed., Sec.5.2 However, capitalization is used in the following cases: Symbols for SI units named after people, for example: 1 ampere, abbreviated as 1 A 1angstrom or 1angstrom, abbreviated as 1A Note that the names of the units themselves are lowercase. The symbol for litre or liter is l, but is often written as L to prevent it from looking like the digit 1. It is also sometimes rendered in lowercase cursive form for the same reason: The litre, and the symbol lower-case l, were adopted by the CIPM in 1879 (PV, 1879, 41). The alternative symbol, capital L, was adopted by the 16th CGPM (1979, Resolution 6; CR, 101 and Metrologia, 1980, 16, 56-57) in order to avoid the risk of confusion between the letter l (el) and the numeral 1 (one). The International System of Units (SI), 8th ed., Sec.4.1 Temperature degree units, e.g. degrees Celsius or degrees Fahrenheit, abbreviated as C and F, as stated in the quote above. Note, however, that the kelvin follows the rule for units named after people: 1kelvin, abbreviated as 1K. Special non-SI units, such as the British thermal unit, abbreviated BTU or Btu, or the US gallon, for obvious reasons. The astronomical unit is abbreviated either as au or AU. The international unit is abbreviated IU. A byte is abbreviated as B; a bit is abbreviated as b. A decibel is abbreviated as dB. One unit where capitalization makes a huge difference is the calorie. A calorie (abbreviated cal) is the energy needed to heat one gram of water by 1C. This unit is used by physicists and chemists. A Calorie (abbreviated Cal or kcal) is actually a kilocalorie 1000 times the amount of energy of a calorie. This unit is used by dieticians and the general public when describing food. Naturally, at the beginning of a sentence, the usual rule that the first letter be capitalized overrides all of the above. For example, Watt for watt, a RISC chip delivers better performance than a CISC chip. Also note that capitalization is significant in the SI prefixes. For example, mW is a milliwatt, and MW is a megawatt.
Possible Duplicate: What is the difference between a phrase and a clause? Can you give me an easy description of the differences in meaning between clause, phrase, and sentence?.
Output: Phrase, clause and sentence are three of the structural units that create meaning. A phrase is a word or words that don't have much meaning on their own. If I suddenly utter the phrase My brother, you'll wonder why I said it, but if I say My brother drives, you'll feel I've said something that has meaning. There's a completeness about it, because it contains the verb drives. That makes it a clause, but it is also a sentence. But I needn't stop there. I can go on to say something else, almost without drawing breath. I can say My brother drives, but he doesn't drive very well. I've added another clause, and together they, too, make a sentence, joined by the little word but. It is perhaps helpful to see two or more clauses joined together as a clause complex, although sentence in general use describes both single and multiple clauses.
I'm almost sure it's 36 thousands, since we're talking about 36 not 1. But I'm in doubt because 36 already indicates that it's more than 1, so maybe, just maybe, it could be 36 thousand?.
Output: Oh, The grand old Duke of York, He had ten thousand men; He marched them up to the top of the hill, And he marched them down again. You can have thousands of soldiers, but when you are being exact, you have n thousand of them. same for hundreds, dozens or millions.
Is there a feminine equivalent for 'Casanova' without negative connotations?.
Output: I don't think you can find a term that is entirely symmetrical, because the cultural concepts of romantic and sexual pursuit aren't symmetrical. Identical behavior in a man and a woman will usually be interpreted differently in most cultures I know. The reason it's hard for you to find a non-perjorative female counterpart to casanova, and the reason so many of the suggestions given here are either negative in connotations (maneater, siren) or full of other connotations (Mata Hari, Cleopatra) isn't in the words and names, they just reflect a cultural bias inherent in our society.
I know the ultimate meaning of this is 'I have no money.' But why? If ain't means have not, then isn't it true that 'I ain't got no money' would be read as 'I have not got no money'? Can I have not got [no money] be interpreted as double negative, and hence determining that 'I have money', which is not the true meaning of such saying?.
Output: Ain't, in I ain't got no money means have not. With that meaning, it originally represented the London dialect, which uses sentences such as they ain't got nothing to say. About the usage of ain't, the NOAD has the following notes: The use of ain't was widespread in the 18th century and is still perfectly normal in many dialects and informal contexts in both North America and Britain. Today, however, it does not form part of standard English and should not be used in formal contexts. The sentence then contains a double negative, but the double negative is sometimes used to give emphasis to a negative. The NOAD has the following notes, about the usage of double negatives: According to standard English grammar, a double negative used to express a single negative, such as I don't know nothing (rather than I don't know anything), is incorrect. The rules dictate that the two negative elements cancel each other out to give an affirmative statement, so that, logically, I don't know nothing means I know something. In practice, this sort of double negative is widespread in dialect and nonstandard usage and rarely causes confusion about the intended meaning. Double negatives are standard in other languages such as Spanish[, Italian] and Polish, and they have not always been unacceptable in English. They were normal in Old English and Middle English and did not come to be frowned upon until some time after the 16th century. The double negative can be used in speech or in written dialogue for emphasis or other rhetorical effects. Such constructions as has not gone unnoticed or not wholly unpersuasive may be useful for making a point through understatement, but the double negative should be used judiciously because it may cause confusion or annoy the reader.
Someone who, in normal settings, dresses like this: (Without falling in the category of a transsexual or a cross-dresser.) Example sentence: S/he wears _______ clothes and costumes all the time. Maybe s/he is a _______. Sources: Mad Hatter, Japanese Goth.
Output: I would use Flamboyant. A person with a showy style. The word doesn't just apply to clothing but to any extravagant style of behaviour. As others have said, in times gone by the words fop and dandy would have been common. However, they would nowadays be taken to referring to the Regency period.
What's an antonym for 'virgin'? A single word would be preferable.
Output: This is OP's second question on EL&U, and the previous one refers to the fact that he's 'writing an application that deals with blind studies'. In light of that, I assume OP is effectively looking for a medical term. I'm not a doctor, but these people are, and they use the term coitally experienced. Here's an NGram showing they're not alone. In case anyone objects that (besides not being single-word) coitally experienced applies to males as well as females, I suggest post-coitarchal or perhaps my own neologism coitarchated (which I think would be well enough understood on first encounter by people working in that area). Coitarche (first experience of full intercourse) didn't really enter the lexicon until the early '80s, but it's clearly formed by association with menarche (a pubescent girl's first period), so I think that's good enough to say coitarche and derivatives relate more to the female than the male side of the experience.
My programming peers suggest to use the term count with discrete things: count of words, count of sentences and so on. Then again my instructor suggest me to use the term 'number' for the discrete things in a thesis. I have used the word 'amount' but my instructor says that is only for continuous measures. Please, clarify the different usages. It may be that programming jargon misuses the words. How and when to use the words in official language? Examples about the usages with count, number and amount -- wrong or right? I have 7 liters of juice. This amount is too much to drink alone. I have 17 sparse polynomials. This count is irrelavant. (how my programming would say) I have 17 sparse polynomials. This number is irrelavant. (Used amount but guided to number).
Output: I believe that amount should only be used for uncountable things, like 'pudding' number and count should only be used for countable things, like 'baby aardvarks' quantity can be used for either, and all of the above are measures of 'quantity'
Consider the following two sentences: Statement 1: The parameters were calculated a priori, and the other variables were calculated iteratively. Statement 2: The parameters were calculated a priori, and the other variables were calculated iteratively. This may seem trivial, but the only difference between the two sentences is the way in which the , has been formatted. In the first statement the , is in italics. In the second, the , is not in italics. Does it depend on the writer whether or not to italicize the punctuation marks adjoining the affected words? Or is there a definite rule governing this? The same question can be extended to other types of formatting, e.g. bold.
Output: Here's one style manual's answer to that question: Italics do not include punctuation marks (end marks or parentheses, for instance) next to the words being italicized unless those punctuation marks are meant to be considered as part of what is being italicized: 'Have you read Stephen King's Pet Semetary?' (The question mark is not italicized here.) Also, do not italicize the apostrophe-s which creates the possessive of a title: 'What is the Courant's position on this issue?' This is really a style-manual problem, not an English usage or grammar problem. Each publication has its house style. Newspapers have their own style manuals, academic fields have theirs, and technical fields have theirs. There is no definite rule.
Overheard on an elevator today, I didn't realize it was him. Corrected by the know-it-all, He. 'I didn't realize it was he.' The know-it-all then went on a rant about how everybody is a dolt for not knowing that. I swear I have never heard this before in my life. Is the know-it-all correct? If so, why is 'I didn't realize it was he,' grammatically correct? What rule makes 'him' incorrect here?.
Output: The 'rule' is that the verb to be, in any of its forms, is a copula that takes a predicate rather than an object, hence 'It is I' and other phrases beloved of English teachers in junior schools. There are various theories about the reasons for this, but the truth is that it has become a shibboleth to distinguish those who had 'a proper education' from the hoi polloi who just learned English as they went along. [Another such is to point out that hoi is the definite article in Greek, so 'the hoi polloi' is a tautology; please don't comment to that effect unless you wish to be mocked.] Nobody pretends that this rule is used in everyday speech; Barham's 'Jackdaw of Rheims' has a distinguished audience of prelates and clerics observe a jackdaw His eye so dim, So wasted each limb, That, heedless of grammar, they all cried, 'THAT'S HIM!-- showing that, though you are supposed to know that the 'correct' phrase is 'that is he', you are not expected to use it in moments of stress.
Variation lock seems more accurate by mathematical definitions Edit(to give it more context) Hey, can you tell me the combination of your lockbox ? Why don't we say variation(or permutation)? The order matters in this case and combination is an unordered set of numbers.
Output: Because most people are not mathematicians. I know that sounds like a flippant answer, but it's genuinely the answer. There are many words which have a more precise (or even different) meaning for specialists, and the fact is that these words simply have both meanings. The question 'Is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable?' is an all too familiar example: to a botanist, it's a fruit; to most of us, it's a vegetable. So the fact that mathematicians use 'combination' in a more restricted way is irrelevant to almost everybody who uses the locks.
You won't catch the train if you don't leave in time You won't catch the train if you won't leave in time I'm pretty sure the correct version is 'You won't catch the train if you don't leave in time', but I'm trying to explain it to someone and I don't know how to explain it. I also don't know how to google it. Can you please help me with a simple explanation or a link that explains it?.
Output: As implied in the comments, the specific meaning of the two are slightly different (albeit both grammatically correct). It helps to break down the contractions. You will not catch the train if you do not leave on time This phrase is neutral in its blame: not catching the train will happen if you, for whatever reason, do not leave on time. You will not catch the train if you will not leave on time This places blame more directly on addressee: 'will not' implies that the addressee plays a causal role in themselves being late for the train, as if they refuse to leave at the correct time.
Sometimes I would like to use the word 'inappropriate' when it simply means not quite appropriate, but it usually seems to have the connotation of extremely not appropriate. For instance, if I wanted to say a person was touching inappropriately, it might not mean they are doing something lewd (e.g. touching private parts), but rather, sitting too close and touching in a professional environment where it doesn't make much sense. Or perhaps it's a meeting where a subordinate is dominating a conversation where multiple higher-ups or people more familiar with the topic should be speaking more. Their speech would not be appropriate, but calling it inappropriate seems to indicate that they were making crass jokes or saying something offensive.
Output: I think the problem here is that the word 'inappropriate' has acquired certain connotations. As the question says, particularly in a US business context, it has come to mean something heading towards sexual harassment. However, I don't think not appropriate has these connotations. Alternatively, just avoid the moral judgement implicit in discussing the appropriateness of the behaviour. If, for example, you describe somebody's behaviour as unnecessary or excessive ('sitting unnecessarily/excessively close', 'taking up an excessive amount of time at the meeting'), the reader can figure out that the person wasn't behaving in an appropriate way.
I am writing a technical thesis and find myself using the word the an awful lot. Here are some examples (I spare the technical gibberish): The main purpose of the presented applications is to visualize roses in space. The user can run around and experience the roses from different angles. The position of the roses can be stored in the ROS-fileformat. I tried to ask Google, but it filters out the main word the, which makes it impossible to find anything.
Output: Perhaps use the indefinite article 'a' sometimes instead? Or refer to things in general (or plural) or as mass nouns, so you avoid articles (see the first point here, and see this guide to how you can use nouns without articles). The main purpose of the presented applications is to visualize roses in space. A user can run around and experience the roses from different angles. And clauses to promote flow without always referring to a subject immediately: The main purpose of the presented applications is to visualize roses in space. By running around, a user can experience roses from different angles. Positions of the roses can be stored in ROS-file formats.
Example: The circular window was apparently made to match the shape of the sun. Here apparently expresses doubt, but with a certain level of conviction: that was the intent of the person who designed the window. Is there a word similar to apparently but with less level of conviction? Almost as if the conclusion were a rough guess? Or something that the speaker made up?.
Output: Seemingly is what you're looking for. Seemingly vs. apparently Apparently: Is used when you have read or been told something, although you are not certain it is true. Apparently it's going to rain today. Is used when the situation is different than what you thought it was. You know I told you Alice's party was on the 13th? Well, I just saw her and it's apparently on the 14th. How do you like that? Seemingly: Appearing to be something, especially when this is not true. He remains confident and seemingly untroubled by his recent problems. According to the facts that you know. The factory closure is seemingly inevitable. (Quora)
I was watching this video. At around 30:00, Chomsky exaplins that he never went to Chemistry class nor to Chemistry lab and he got a A nevertheless. Then he makes a joke: 'This approach has a name. It's called No Child Left Behind' (31:12 into the video). Can you explain the joke to me? I know that No Child Left Behind is an act of Congress, but I still can't get the joke.
Output: No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was a US Act of Congress which mandated that all schools which receive federal financial assistance (for the education of children from low-income families) had to administer an annual standardized test to all students. According to NCLB, each year, fifth graders must do better in the standardized test than the previous year's fifth graders. Schools that fail to achieve this for two or more consecutive years were required to take certain measures in order to 'improve the school'. As you can see, NCLB was an act centered around standardized testing. Students'and by extension their schools'performance was measured and scrutinized by the test scores. A common criticism of standardized testing is that it leads teachers to focus on test performance, instead of aiming to help students achieve in-depth understanding of the overall curriculum. Chomsky talks about how he wasn't able to successfully carry out experiments in the chemistry lab, and yet scored an A by filling out a paper with the results of the experiments, which were quite obvious. He mentions that the this test-centered approach to education had been going on for about 10 years with 'no reported progress', since, he believes, 'serious education' is different and does not focus on standardized test scores. When Chomsky mentions that this failing approach to education has a name, 'No Child Left Behind', the audience laughs and cheers in order to express their agreement with his ridicule and criticism of this act. The reason they laugh is that he refers to his chemistry lab experience as 'No Child Left Behind', even though it predates the passing of the unpopular act by several years.
I'm aware that when we say things like: It's a cheap cell phone. That's a cheapo, throw it out. It does mean something is clearly of bad quality. But how about when comparing things? for example: Those shoes are cheaper than these. That hotel is cheaper than this one. Does it give the impression of lower quality, too? How subtle is it? Should I avoid it in any case?.
Output: Cheap has two meanings. Cheap is often used to convey low quality. It easily gets attached to any object being described, even if the price is not low at all. These cheap shoes cost half my paycheck! It can also mean a price that is lower than expected. In fact, the original meaning of cheap was 'bargain'. To make sure it has this meaning, use the adjective to modify something related to the price and not the item itself. Look at the cheap price tag on these shoes! To illustrate, note how the meaning shifts in the following sentences: I bought a cheap laptop. I bought a laptop for a cheap price. The 'low quality' connotation is minimized when 'cheap' becomes the comparative adjective, 'cheaper'. It imparts some context that it is probably the price of two items you are comparing. However, because you are not stating clearly that it is the price that is cheap, it still conveys a the possibility of low quality.
Maybe this question is too simple for this site, and I should post it on the english-learners-site, but I will give it a try. Lets say we have 3 scenarios: A person who hates all followers of a specific religion, no matter what their background is, but otherwise likes people of all skin colors and origin countries who are not followers of a specific religion. A person who hates all people with a specific skin color, no matter what their background is, but otherwise likes followers of all religions and origin countries who do not have a specific skin color. A person who hates all people from a specific country, no matter what their background is, but otherwise likes followers of all religions and all skin colors who are not from a specific country. 'Hates' in this context means believing they are worthless, being prejudiced against them, generally discriminating against them, bad behaviour against them, and disliking them. 'likes' just means the opposite of my explanation above. So, based on this definition of the word racist: The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. Would you use the word racist to describe the person in all of the 3 examples I gave? Or are there better fitting words for specific forms of discrimination? Particularly for the first scenario (religion specific racism). I am looking for a better word to describe such a person. Religion is independent from race, and I am not sure if only country of origin is enough to relate to a specific race so that the word racist could fit here. Skin color is more obvious, but there could also be some discussion if a specific skin color already suffices to assign something to a specific race. (I am not a native english speaker, so sorry for any mistakes and if this is obvious for native speakers.) Edit: This question may be related to this Question and this Question, but I dont see it as a duplicate at all, because there are various different aspects in the question and answers. Also i could not find the questions by search before i wrote my question, maybe some of the answers and aspects are similar, but the questions itself are different in my opinion. But that is only my opinion, feel free to close this, if you think they are too similar. I got some useful answers already, so I dont insist to keep this open. I will accept the answer with most votes at the weekend, so the community decides which answer fits best.
Output: Bigot is the term that you're looking for. bigot: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.; especially: a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group) - (Merriam-Webster)
I'm talking about an incurable disease which is a lifelong affliction but is not fatal. Usage - She is suffering from a ____________ illness. I can't use terminal here because terminal means 'predicted to lead to death, especially slowly; incurable.'.
Output: chronic From the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) Of diseases, etc.: Lasting a long time, long-continued, lingering, inveterate; opposed to acute OED cites as an example: 1994 Jrnl. Internal Med. 236 685 A 23-year-old female student exhibited all the characteristics of chronic factitious disorder with physical symptoms (Munchhausen's syndrome): deliberate simulation of illness, peregrination, fantastic pseudology and dramatic circumstances on admittance. (Emphasis added) OED contrasts chronic with acute acute: Of a disease, symptom, etc.: coming quickly to a crisis or conclusion; of rapid onset and short duration; of recent or sudden onset; contrasted with chronic The Cambridge English Dictionary gives as examples (rearranged): chronic arthritis/pain She suffers from chronic pain in her knees. I have a chronic bowel disease
What is the etymology of shithole? Did it originate from A) the orifice through which excrement is passed, or B) the hole in the ground intended for the disposal of such excrement? (This is a serious question for professional research. You don't want to know the details.).
Output: The OED's earliest citation for shithole is from the seventeenth century, and it's given as 'coarse slang' for 'the rectum or anus'. The earliest citation for shithole meaning 'a toilet; a latrine' is only from 1947.
I want to use one word to express how people who have very different world views are naturally pushed apart, like water and oil. It's not quite repulsion, but it's the natural avoidance. Thoughts? Example below: I don't find them interesting and the feeling is mutual. So I'm happy for this natural [insert word here].
Output: Here, 'Repulsion' can be used. But it's a strong word. In simpler cases you can go with the words 'Aversion', 'Disinclination'. 'I don't find them interesting and the feeling is mutual. So I'm happy for this natural disinclination/aversion'
Does this Bible verse have the same unfortunate double meaning in American English as it does in British English? The photo is taken from the 1984 translation of the (US) NIV. It looks as though the UK edition of the 1984 NIV had the same text; but in the 2011 update, the UK edition has ill in place of sick, while the US edition remains unchanged. I have visions of people bringing little pots of vomit...
Output: The referent is just elided here. You can read this as meaning 'sick [friends]' or 'sick [relatives].' The reason it sounds odd to British ears is that the current British colloquial usage of 'sick' as a euphemism for 'vomit' is overpowering any other interpretation for you. Since that colloquial usage is relatively unheard of in America, you are correct that the phrase sounds less odd to American ears. Perhaps that did influence the translation choices made by the NIV.
How should often be pronounced in formal speech? 'off-ten' or 'of-fen'?.
Output: 'Should' is inappropriate in the question. Both pronunciations occur. In the 19th century /:fn/ ('aufn') was the normal pronunciation, so in The Pirates of Penzance, there is an elaborate joke on the confusion of 'often' and 'orphan'.
Why is the verb when paying for a service subscribe, but the noun form is subscription? Is there a rule that changes 'b' to 'p'?.
Output: The 'rule' goes right back to Latin (and probably to pre-Latin) where suffixes starting with an unvoiced consonant, such as '-tu' (earlier '-to') and '-si' caused a final voiced consonant on the root to be devoiced. Examples: scrib-o 'I write' -> scrip-si 'I have written', scrip-tum 'written' dirig-o 'I steer' -> direxi (direk-si) 'I have steered', direc-tum 'steered' So you see there are other similar pairs in English (eg 'dirigible' and 'direct' - though 'dirigible' is not a very common word, it's true) Unfortunately, rules like this that go all the way back to Latin, are not very useful to learners of English, because they don't always apply to every case that might appear similar. So although most English words that end in '-ibe' are derived from 'scribo', and have nouns in '-iption' (subscription, inscription, description, ascription), 'imbibe' is an exception: There is no noun '*imbiption'. And conversely, there are nouns in '-ruption' (disruption, corruption, interruption) but their corresponding verbs end in '-rupt', not '-rube' as you might have guessed.
Example: [f] moving said second cart to said proximate end of said scanning device so that said trays in said second cart be passed through said scanning device at said proximate end. Is the language used in patents archaic or simply intentionally obtuse?.
Output: Patent lawyer here. I wouldn't call the language you cited either 'archaic' or 'intentionally obtuse.' 'Pedantic' or 'hyperliteral' may be better adjectives. The language you cited came from Claim 1 of US Pat. No. 6888460 Language in the claims section of the patent are considered the 'metes and bounds' of the intellectual property right. That is, the claim language describes the precise extent of the patent owner's monopoly. It is necessary for the language to be as accurate as possible in order to alert everyone to the scope of the patentee's property right. Because human language is so imprecise, it is very difficult to write text that comes even close to the level of clarity one would want in such a description. Some of the terms used are also jargon. Because patents are interpreted by courts, there is an entire history of court decisions determining the meaning of specific words. For example, the word 'comprising' means 'including the listed things but also potentially including other things as well' whereas 'consisting of' means 'including only the listed things.' In the language you cited, the word 'said' in the phrase 'said proximate end' makes it unambiguous that the reference is to the same 'proximate end' as previously recited ('wherein said scanning device comprises a proximate end and a distal end'). One might also use the word 'the' rather than 'said,' in this circumstance, but that's a matter of style.
... Fiction writers (eye roll) To be burned at the stake If we can't come up with a verb, perhaps a corresponding noun or adjective would suffice. 15th century historical fiction, so modern terms such as marshmallowed wouldn't really help. Here is my sample: You, the accused, have been found guilty of practicing Judaism as a Christian. This heresy against our Lord Savior carries the penalty of ____(noun). Or [C]onvicted of heresy, you are to be ____(verb).
Output: There is immolate: to kill or destroy (someone or something) by fire You also have the noun immolation and the adjective immolated. Now the thing is it doesn't have to be at a stake. It could be, say, in a cage. The word has been around since the 15th century.