niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Not quite sure how to word this, but I'm looking for an idiom or phrase/saying that describes when somebody who's done nothing to deserve it has hit a streak of bad luck. Wish I could be more descriptive, but that's about as well as I can elaborate on the idea.
Output: To be dogged by misfortune is an expression used to convey the idea that you are constantly unlucky. To dog: to pursue or follow after like a dog. The Free Dictionary
What's a word that means 'not knowing everything'? This would serve as a complementary antonym of omniscient, which means having infinite knowledge, or simply 'all-knowing'. Thesaurus.com shows these possible words: stupid (opposite of being clever, which = being omniscient) unknowing (opposite of being knowing, which = being omniscient) fallible (opposite of being infallible, which means 'not able to make mistakes', which = being omniscient, since I can know everything and still make mistakes) erring (which means 'capable of making mistakes', which = being omniscient, since I can know everything and still make mistakes) imperfect (opposite of being perfect, which is a superset of being omniscient... how could I be perfect if I'm both omniscient and fallible?) faulty (which means 'to have fault(s) / defect(s)', is the opposite of 'to have no fault(s) / defect(s)', which means being perfect, which = being omniscient) ignorant (which means 'having inadequate knowledge', is the opposite of 'having adequate knowledge', which = having infinite knowledge) uneducated (opposite of being educated, which = being omniscient) unaware (opposite of being aware, which = being omniscient) uninformed (opposite of being informed, which = being omniscient) Yet, none of them are true antonyms for omniscient. Is there an alternative?.
Output: According to reference.com, the Random House dictionary registers unomniscient as a legitimate word. There are a handful of hits on Google Books which include the following examples: Chaucer deepens Jean de Meun's joke about the God's ersatz divinity: immediately after the God has just issued some clearly unomniscient judgments ... If at every world, God knows at that world only the propositions whose truth-values are modally constant, then it would seem that God is necessarily unomniscient. There are actually two types of unomniscient focus, since the narrator may know the same as or even less than the characters. The impossibility of an unomniscient intelligence demonstrating the supposed contradiction, and thus transforming our universe into an untrustworthy universe, with which one can have no intercourse, is the attitude primarily assumed towards ... Also of interest is the term bounded rationality: Bounded rationality is the idea that in decision-making, rationality of individuals is limited by the information they have, the cognitive limitations of their minds, and the finite amount of time they have to make a decision.
From Wikipedia: In the expression a b = c, a is called the dividend or numerator, b the divisor or denominator and the result c is called the quotient. What's most common (in the context of programming)? dividend/divisor numerator/denominator.
Output: Dividend and divisor are terms commonly associated with long division while numerator and denominator are the preferred terms when working with fractions. Operators, operands, parameters, and arguments are usually the terms employed in programming. If any of the OP's listed terms are at all utilised, it will very likely be numerator and denominator (in their mathematical sense).
In French, if I want to quantify a very small amount of time (but not fixed: it can be 5 ms or 0.1 ms) I can use a pouieme. Is there an equivalent in English? I'm not looking for an expression but for a standalone word. EDIT : In fact, I need to create a c++ class which will measure time and be equal to a 1/600s. In French, pouieme is a cute word which can means a very small but undefined amount of time. The issue is that I must write english code and that's why I would like to find a standalone equivalent.
Output: A blink of an eye and a split second come to mind. Edit: If you insist on a single word, you'll have to go with an instant, or get creative and change the sentence structure to accommodate a different part of speech, like momentar(il)y.
Imagine you're in a bar and order a pint of beer, which is 3.20. You only have a 10 note but want to tip the barkeeper. As you can't use 'keep the change' for obvious reasons, what do you say to tip the barkeeper 80 pence, making the total price 4?.
Output: I am occasionally in the same situation when I want to tip a taxi driver. Converting to your problem, I would say: Make it 4 pounds. or if that is not clear: Make it 4 pounds and keep the difference. This is in my country (Australia) where tipping is uncommon, however. Edit: Thinking about it even more, sometimes I add the word 'Just' to the front of the sentence. Not sure why.
I'm trying to find different ways of saying that 'You don't have to be a rocket scientist', but I can't seem to get any good ideas. I got a variation, 'You don't have to be a brain surgeon...,' but are there any others ways. It doesn't have to follow the routine of 'You don't have to...'.
Output: Other related expressions are: You don't have to be a genius/it doesn't take a genius: 'You don't have to be a genius. You don't have to be superman. You don't even have to be a techie. Just have an idea.' All you need is a good imagination and you'll find fertile soil. And . . . the best ideas are right under your nose. Ron Gordon ... 'I know that it doesn't take a genius to work out that sleep is important for good health.' or, you don't have to be Einstein: They graduate! So, they end up going through life with this piece of paper that makes everybody think that they are smart, even if they are not. You don't have to be Einstein to have a place in college. He was not sure he really wanted to know, though one didn't have to be Einstein to put two and two together.!!
Please point out where 'abaft the beam' is on this picture. I cannot find it. abaft adv. Toward the stern. prep. Toward the stern from.
Output: Here is a another picture which points out all locations on a boat and which indicates where 'abaft the beam' refers to, whether port or starboard beam. I have highlighted the relevant terms for you, in red. 'Abaft' is formed (from 'baft') within English by derivation, says the OED 'Baft' : 1. Of place: Behind, in the rear; in later usage only Nautical: Astern, aft, abaft. arch.
I need to find a shortened format (abbreviation) for the words 'look at' (to be used when referring people to another website). For example: Example given e.g.
Output: In the past, the abbreviation cf was used in texts. It's short for Latin confer, meaning 'compare'. You could still use it, but not everyone will understand it. Probably the best answer now is simply See.
For example: A situation needs both Fact A and Fact B to be explained, but a person accepts Fact A and rejects Fact B, misconstruing the situation? Do you think this is just ignorance or deliberate _____?.
Output: You can call it a bias. Depending on the person's reason for rejecting fact B, you can use the name of the specific type of bias. For example, if the person chooses fact A over fact B because he already believes in fact A, it's called a confirmation bias. The tendency to prefer certain facts can be called partiality. Edit: the relation between the person and the fact they are rejecting can be called denial, and if the person does this often, you can say they engage in denialism.
In the book I am reading (Patrick Fairbairn, The Interpretation of Prophecy, 2nd ed., 1865), the abbreviation 'sq.' is used sometimes in referencing both Scripture and other books (as 'Typology of Scripture, vol. i. p. 100 sq.' or 'Ezek xxvi. 7, sq.'). What does 'sq.' mean in this context? (Instances of this abbreviation's usage may be found at Google Books here.).
Output: Sq. is short for the Latin word sequiturque, which means the following. So p. 100 sq. means page 100 and those following pages. Here's the source.
A word for the unexpected reaction of laughing in a situation of complete hopelessness or laughing with sad undertones.
Output: Gallows humor is 'humor that treats serious, frightening, or painful subject matter in a light or satirical way.' It has the connotation of someone laughing at their own execution. Urban Dictionary actually has a good summary: gallows humor Sense of humor that arises from stressful, traumatic or life-threatening situations where death seems to be an inevitability. Different from black humor in that comments of this sort are made by the person/persons affected (i.e. about to die). It is not always used to mean that the person is facing literal death, but the idea is the same. They are expressing amusement or using humor in the face of their own inevitable fate.
The phrase 'to break a butterfly on a wheel' is very evocative, but I can't bring myself to use it: I find the 'wheel' too disturbing. So: what are some good alternatives? (For those who are unfamiliar with this expression, Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable defines it as 'to employ superabundant effort in the accomplishment of a small matter'. [link]).
Output: Use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. to do something with more force than is necessary to achieve the result you want When he sent ten men to arrest one small boy, he clearly used a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Better yet: Use a sledgehammer to swat a fly! idioms.thefreedictionary.com
I am writing a report where I want to say something like: The number of structures in the PDB has been steadily increasing, with nearly 140 thousand structures currently available. However, this number feigns in comparison to the number of unique protein sequences that have been discovered, with over 210 million unique sequences present in the UniParc database. However, I am not sure about the 'this number feigns in comparison to' part. I have a feeling that I am using the wrong word here, but googling around didn't give me any leads.
Output: Pales in comparison, I suspect. To pale in comparison is to look weak, small, meagre, or inferior compared to something else. Pale here takes the little-used sense to become smaller. It's the same pale used in the common phrase (less common in the U.S.) pale into insignificance, whose meaning is obvious. (says Grammarist.com)
What do you call someone who knows all the gossip and stories about people in his neighborhood or surroundings, someone who's always informed. It doesn't have to be expressed in a word. Could be a sentence (e.g. she knows the ins and outs), but I'm looking for a better way to express it.
Output: You could descirbe them as being in the know. While this often refers to someone knowing confidential information, it can also extend to someone who is just generally well informed. Collins Dictionary If you are in the know about something, especially something that is not known about or understood by many people, you have information about it.
Please tell the single word for 'to completely root out a disease'.
Output: Eradicate. Etymology is from Eradicare. Eradicare, in turn, can be traced back to the Latin word radix, meaning 'root' or 'radish.' Although eradicate began life as a word for literal uprooting, by the mid-17th century it had developed a metaphorical application to removing things. Eradication is the reduction of an infectious disease's prevalence in the global host population to zero.
I want to describe: a job-position that is given to someone as a way to appease the person, but the position holds no real function. Context: He was, due to his importance to the secret project, offered an honorary ____ with disproportionally lucrative payment. The job is given by the authority to the person as a way to basically bribe him with undeserved salary, because he won't be given any real task. The emphasis here is payment, and not power, so 'figurehead' would be inappropriate.
Output: The word you're looking for is sinecure noun 1. A position or office that requires little or no work but provides a salary. TFD Online.
I understand all the individual words in the following remark, but there doesn't seem to be any connection between the first half and the second. I am left wondering whether there is an English idiom that gives a double-meaning to part of it (perhaps 'picking my belly button'?), but if so it does not appear to be in any dictionary. I'm not Catholic, but I gave up picking my belly button for lint. Reference: The best God joke ever - and it's mine!.
Output: In Catholicism (and indeed many other branches of Christianity), the six weeks leading up to Easter are a time of contemplation and purification before the major festival. This period is known as Lent, and it is common to deny oneself something (say, sweets, chocolate, or playing computer games) as part of one's preparations (or at least it used to be these days there is a strong trend towards doing something positive such as doing something for charity). Thus in Catholic households, at a certain time of year, it's not uncommon to hear declarations such as 'I'm giving up [chocolates] for Lent'. The joke puns on the similarity in sound between Lent and lint, a word that can be used among other things to describe the fuzzy accumulation of clothes fibres that sometimes builds up in one's navel: he's saying he's giving up picking the lint out of his bellybutton, but in such a way that it sounds like he's giving up picking his bellybutton for Lent. For this he deserves an almighty thwack.
This very well may just be outside our lexicon at the moment, due to the fact that space travel is extremely limited, but I am looking for the proper terminology to refer to a space vessel that had been rendered a wreck or a derelict, and was repaired and refitted into a workable vessel. In naval terms, a sunk vessel would be refloated, but that term is awkward to use in space. Something like reatmosphered fits the context, but it is awkward and not in the lexicon (though its form makes its intent clear, and could be readily used). Any ideas?.
Output: Consider recommission, which is defined (somewhat obviously) by oxforddictionaries.com as 'commission again'. This sense of 'commission', in turn, is defined by oxforddictionaries.com as Bring (something newly produced) into working condition
I need some information from person A. Person A is not willing to give it to me. So instead of asking directly I keep asking secondary questions hoping that he may say something that might (partially) hint me the information I need. I may even ask other people. Or keep asking so many times that person A would have had it and just told me because he can't stand my questions any more. It's like extorting, but without using threats or violence, but cunning and perseverance. What word am I looking for? Although he refused to tell me where he got the money from, I persevered and finally <???> the information from him.
Output: Finagle I think the word finagle has all of the connotations you are looking for. Although he refused to tell me where he got the money from, I persevered and finally finagled the information out of him. Merriam Webster defines finagle as follows: finagle - intransitive verb 1 : to obtain by indirect or involved means 'finagle a ride home' 2 : to obtain by trickery 'He finagled his way into the concert.' 3 : to use devious or dishonest methods to achieve one's ends 'A con man finagled my neighbor out of $400.' Some synonyms for finagle: deceive, manipulate, scheme, swindle, trick
I am composing a sentence like: 'Some people think we are this, some think we are that...'. Then I want to say that we are neither this nor that. Can I write it in short like this: 'But we are neither.'? Or should I alway add nor after neither, even in this case?.
Output: Yes, you could say for example 'Some people are pro gun control, others are anti gun control. We are neither.'
For example, let's say I'm copying instructions by hand. The original instructions say: Multiply the first by the second Integrate the third with the fourth Integrate the third with the fifth And on a page I write: Multiply the first by the second Integrate the third with the fourth '' with the fifth I know this example is silly, but hopefully it's clear what I mean. What is this called?.
Output: They are ditto marks. ditto stems from the Tuscan dialect of the Italian detto - 'said'; Latin dictus - 'said'. Oxford Dictionaries Online.
Is there a term for a well informed person who is not believed, or not listened to, or is even ridiculed? I do not necessarily mean some one before their time... I am thinking in more general terms. (I have googled this but the question is too broad and has too many keywords and if I try to narrow it down I lose the original meaning.).
Output: You could try Cassandra:- Greek Mythology A daughter of Priam, the king of Troy, endowed with the gift of prophecy but fated by Apollo never to be believed. One that utters unheeded prophecies. [American Heritage Dictionary] This would be particularly apposite if the person was something of a pessimist.
Possible Duplicate: Real quick question If you listen real close... Can you swing by real quick... Sentences like the above two are what I often hear in daily life. If I didn't hear them in the real world, I would probably be more ready to say 'If you listen really close...' and 'Can you swing by really quick...'. Is real being used as an adjective in this scenario? If so, is the usage of adj.+ adj. a common practice in English language?.
Output: As intensifiers (words that make an adjective stronger), the adjective form of a word (without the ly) is used very often instead of the adverb form in English. As some of the other answers and comments have remarked, these words are indeed adverbs because they modify adjectives. For example: bloody stupid (U.K.), wicked cold (Boston), dead certain. If you said bloodily stupid in England, wickedly cold in Boston, or deadly certain pretty much anywhere, it would sound real funny. People say real hot but don't often say real true, because real is an intensifier in the first but not the second. (See Google Ngram).
We have racism, which implies hate against one or more races. We have sexism, which implies hate against one of the sexes. We have nationalism, which implies hate against one or more nationalities. Is there such a single word for hate against one or more religions? I realize that this might be difficult to answer because some religions closely identify with certain races and/or nationalities. If it makes it easier, the question can be narrowed down to Christianity, specifically, or broadened to describe a general hatred for all religion.
Output: The suffix -ism does not imply hatred; it merely denotes an attitude. Consider communism, nationalism or patriotism. The prefix mis- and suffix -misia carry the required meaning. Misogynist = hater of women. Homomisia = hatred of homosexuals: a much more appropriate word than homophobia which simply means fear of them. Religiomisia is a word awaiting its time.
What is the correct version of this common phrase? First come, first serve First come, first served Gramatically, I believe 2. is the correct form. However, it seems that 1. is commonly employed in spoken and even written English.
Output: The second is correct. It is a form of 'Those who come first are served first.'
What is the difference between 'day off' and 'off day'? What I found is 'day off' means a holiday when you are not working, while 'off day' is the day when you do not work up to the mark. Can anyone put more light on this?.
Output: you are correct, the word 'off' like many small english words has a large number of meanings, some of them are even opposites. 'day off' meaning 'not present this day' Either scheduled break or due to dishonesty, illness or other emergency. off(adverb) 'away from a place' 'off day' meaning 'not performing well this day' off(adjective) 'not up to standard; not so good or satisfactory as usual; inferior or subnormal'
In the morning of 19 April 2016, Taliban militants attacked a security team. Or On the morning of 19 April 2016, Taliban militants attacked a security team .
Output: 'on' is the correct preposition and 'in' is the incorrect one for this case. 'The morning of' functions as an adjectival phrase clarifying the specific time and date 'on 19 April 2016'. 'On' is used because it belongs to the date here, specific part of the day. The normal language constructions would be: on + date (with the year or without it) or day of the week in + morning, afternoon, evening (in the morning, in the evening) But, when we talk about a specific morning, afternoon, or when we describe the part of the day it should be used with on: on the morning of [date], You can't say 'I will see you on the morning' - it's incorrect. In or on? We use in with morning, afternoon, evening and night, but we use on when we talk about a specific morning, afternoon, etc., or when we describe the part of the day.
I'm wondering which one of these expressions is correct? This stuff or these stuff?.
Output: Stuff is a collective noun it represents a group of objects. Just as one would say 'this group' or 'this pile,' one would say 'this stuff'.
Possible Duplicate: Position of question mark when sentence doesn't end with question Take this statement for example: That's not the question. The question is what was Colonel Mustard doing in the bedroom with the revolver. or That's not the question. The question is what was Colonel Mustard doing in the bedroom with the revolver? or That's not the question. The question is 'what was Colonel Mustard doing in the bedroom with the revolver?'.
Output: I'd rather say: That's not the question. The question is: What was Colonel Mustard doing in the bedroom with the revolver? That's not the question. The question is, what was Colonel Mustard doing in the bedroom with the revolver? I used a colon or a comma because you're introducing a question that you are asking. I'll explain better: If you use quotes, it means someone else said it. The second one lacks the colon and it looks bad, because you must put a limit between the statement and the following question. I.E. I was wondering do you have a car? As you see, it makes little sense, unless you say 'I was wondering, do you have a car?'. The first one might be used, I guess, because indirect interrogatives might be written as statements. A small edit about this last sentence above: @Cerberus made me notice that indirect questions are such with no inversion. So I was thinking that if someone could add others point of views, it would be nice, in order to make this point clear for me and others once and for all. Native speakers are particularly welcome!
it refers to a discrete life form that has properties of mind (i.e. experience and character, cf. sentience).
Output: cf., an abbreviation for the Latin word confer (the imperative singular form of 'conferre'), literally meaning 'bring together', is used to refer to other material or ideas which may provide similar or different information or arguments. It is mainly used in scholarly contexts, such as in academic (mainly humanities, physics and biology) or legal texts. It is translated, and can be read aloud, as 'compare'. -wikipedia
The phrase 'I miss you' can be equivocal: suggestive of (a) romantic longing and/or (b) regret of loss. Certainly, context can shape its meaning, including geography, historical period, and the speakers and their relationships. Given the circumstances in which it would be desirable to eliminate ambiguity, such as a platonic friendship, is there an alternative phrase for expressing (b) without (a)?.
Output: Your absence has resulted in a sense of loss. (Pretty impersonal and somewhat morbid. I can picture this being said by some distant relative at a funeral.) It would be nice if you were here. (Flirtatious.) I miss your friendship. (Suggests that they used to be friends, but no longer are.) How about: I miss hanging out together. It's boring here without you. Things aren't the same when you're not around. When are you coming to visit me? The answer is highly subjective depending on how close the friendship is, the type of humor, how well 'they' know each other. What I mean by that is if they are very close and have a slightly naughty side they can get away with sexual connotations because they know their friendship will never go that way nor do they want it to (or at least one of them doesn't). I miss sleeping with you! (As in spending the night together for some reason, but not sex.) Did you replace me yet? (As in, did they find a new friend while you've been gone.) Remember the times when we'd... (Good for reminiscing.) I miss your ugly mug. (Old style for: I miss your face.)
Is there any difference between the two? In a technical document I have used a phrase 'this is a temporal solution' and my coworker told that he'd use 'temporary' in the context. Is one of the two more correct than the second?.
Output: Temporal means 'pertaining to time'. Personally I have not enountered this word in normal speech at all, even in somewhat formal writing. I have only encountered it as a technical term. For example, in grammar, the part of the sentence that specifies the time at which something happened (e.g. 'today' or 'throughout the year') is a temporal adverbial. The word also comes up a lot in science-fiction wherever some made-up technical term pertaining to time (usually time travel) is required, e.g. temporal mechanics. In real science, the term is sometimes used as a complement to spatial (pertaining to space). Temporary is a much more common word. It means 'lasting for a limited time' and is the opposite of permanent. Politicians sometimes qualify their policies as a 'temporary measure' to give the impression that there are plans for them to be repealed in due course (which, of course, never happens, but that's a different matter). Edit: In the specific example in your question, I think you most likely mean 'a solution that isn't permanent', so temporary is definitely what you need. Temporal is wrong unless you are contrasting your solution against one that is spatial or in some other way not relating to time.
I see a lot of times when something is a politically-oriented scandal that the suffix gate is added to the end of the word the scandal revolves around. Examples include: Watergate Weinergate Valijagate (Spanish for 'suitcase-gate') I believe that it originated during the Watergate scandal, but I don't know why the suffix gate was perpetuated to other scandals. Is there a name for this literary mechanism of using part of previously popularized term to elicit a comparison or similar connotation?.
Output: This is a great example of a back-formation: a word is treated as if it were composed of prefixes or suffixes, then taken apart (incorrectly) and remixed to form new words. Another famous example is cheeseburger. The burger suffix is incorrectly taken from hamburger, which is a dish from Hamburg, not a burger made from ham. Watergate was a big enough scandal, and sounds enough like it's composed of Water and gate, that the suffix has been back-formed into plenty of other scandal names.
What's the difference between 'successive' and 'consecutive'?.
Output: First note that successive appears as a synonym of consecutive in dictionaries. (see Merriam Webster's entry here). Now compare these examples that I chose at random and extracted from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): Consecutive 'his unprecedented string of consecutive appearances' 'has own the best actor Emmy two consecutive times' 'named person of the year for the second consecutive time' 'account balance remains overdrawn for seven consecutive days' 'the Irish made six consecutive NCAA Tournaments' Successive 'on successive laps, Chris passed three cars' 'analysts say that successive governments failed to' 'dramatic walk-off style in successive victories against the Seattle Mariners' 'simultaneous and successive cognitive processes' 'who have challenged successive military governments' Here is what I observe in the examples (I hope I was lucky in my random choice of them): In the examples that use consecutive, the fact that the events happened in a row without interruption seems to be something that the author wanted to emphasize. However, in the examples that use successive, the fact that the events occur after each other with no interruption seems to play a secondary role. Notice that you can remove successive from some of these sentences and the meaning is not affected too much. If you remove consecutive, the impact is in general higher.
If a possessive noun, which is plural, is preceded by 'each', then should it use the singular or plural possessive form? For example, which of the following is correct? spend time in each other's presence spend time in each others' presence.
Output: Each other is singular, so the correct possessive is each other's. Edit: I found some controversy on this on the web because each other implies that there are multiple people involved, hence people think it is plural and should be written each others'. This, however, is wrong as each is always singular.
I am looking for a single adjective to describe someone who is easily discouraged. Example: Any person who is (easily discouraged) will not get far in life.
Output: Someone who is pusillanimous is one that lacks courage or strength of purpose. pusillanimous, adj. 1. Of a person: lacking in courage or strength of purpose; faint-hearted, craven, cowardly. (OED) If you want to include an element of reproach in your description you could call them a coward. coward, adj. 1. A reproachful designation for one who displays ignoble fear or want of courage in the face of danger, pain, or difficulty; an ignobly faint-hearted or pusillanimous person. (OED)
For example, for the original quote we shall use, 'One swallow does not a summer make'. If someone were to say 'One good quote does not a philosopher make' (No dig at Aristotle intended...), or 'A fancy suit does not a businessman make'. Essentially, a clear allusion to a quote, but not the quote itself.
Output: The word I've heard used for this on the linguistics blog Language Log is snowclone (it's derived from phrases of the format 'If Eskimos have N words for snow, X surely have Y words for Z.') Here's a Language Log post that describes the moment the word was coined and that links to some examples: Snowclones: Lexicographical Dating to the Second And here's how it's defined by Collins Dictionaries online: a verbal formula that is adapted for reuse by changing only a few words so that the allusion to the original phrase remains clear You might also be interested in looking at the answers to the following questions: This book will change your wife trope? Is there a general name for this: 'The more you X the more you'll Y' A term describing the replacement of a specific word in a saying with one that ryhmes
Can one use kindness as a synonym for politeness? What's the difference? Where do you draw the line between them?.
Output: I think this is a situation in which etymology is revealing. The background of polite, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, is: mid-13c., from L. politus 'refined, elegant,' lit. 'polished,' pp. of polire 'to polish, to make smooth.' Used literally at first in English; sense of 'elegant, cultured' is first recorded c.1500, that of 'behaving courteously' is 1762. Polite, both in its original literal usage and in its current usage, is more about superficial appearance. To be polite, one need only use polite words and manners. Nothing internal is necessary. The history of kind, on the other hand, is related to internal goodness: 'friendly,' from O.E. gecynde 'natural, native, innate,' originally 'with the feeling of relatives for each other,' from P.Gmc. gakundiz, from kunjan (see kin), with collective prefix ga- and abstract suffix -iz. Sense development from 'with natural feelings,' to 'well-disposed' (c.1300), 'benign, compassionate' (c.1300). Ultimately, politeness tells you little about a person's character; it may be sincere, or it may be highly calculated. Kindness, though, is directly related to a person's character, and is quite difficult to fake.
There is the verb quicken to make something quick or faster, but Merriam-Webster doesn't list slowen. What is the verb to make something slow (as in 'reduce in speed', not 'something that is slow')?.
Output: The word slow itself can be used as a verb. It is an antonym for quicken Slow, from M-W verb to make (something, such as a car) move at a lower speed; to begin to move at a lower speed; to become slower 'the car slowed to a halt'
Looking for a word that denotes both brothers and sisters without gender connotations (gender neutral), in a similar fashion as parents for father and mother.
Output: It sounds like you're looking for one of siblings (as in brothers and sisters), offspring, or children (as in sons and daughters). Sibling (OED): Each of two or more children or offspring having one or both parents in common; a brother or sister. Possibly sib (OED): chiefly Zoology A brother or sister; a sibling.
The Law of Demeter ('talk only to your friends') is a good place to start, but think about it this way: you can play with your toys, with toys that you make, and with toys that someone gives you. You don't ever, ever play with your toy's toys. Source: The Thoughtworks Anthology What could the last sentence mean? Could a toy have a toy? Assuming a toy means 'A toy is an item that is used in play', a toy can never have a toy, so one cannot play with a toy's toys (it's physically not possible). The context is object oriented programming.
Output: Toys absolutely can have toys. For example, this 'Barbie Kelly Playroom' comes with stuffed animals, dolls, a play kitchen, and UNO for Kelly (Barbie's sister and a toy): In this case, it would be possible to play with Kelly's toys directly (with the exception of UNO, which is almost certainly just a box). However, what you're supposed to do is have Kelly play with her toys.
How do you know when to use singular or plural nouns if they're used as adjectives? i.e. 32-bit computer vs 32-bits computer? teacher union vs teachers union? wedding planner vs weddings planner? sport medicine vs sports medicine? student council vs students council? Which one is correct?.
Output: You are thinking of noun adjuncts, or attributive nouns. Both Wikipedia and someone from Pearson Education state that traditionally, all attributive nouns are singular. However, the number of plural attributive nouns have increased over the years in a rather arbitrary manner. This means that there is no longer a set rule to determine whether the attributive is singular or plural. Despite this, there is a rough guide that you can use. The attributive noun tends to be plural in the following situations: 1: The singular form might lead to ambiguity an arts degree (a degree in the humanities) as opposed to an art degree (a degree in fine art) [I believe that this situation is what is referred to on wikipedia as 'lexical restrictions', providing the example of 'arm race' vs 'arms race'] 2. There is no singular form of a noun (in pluralia tantum) a customs officer 3. There is a need to denote variety a soft drinks manufacturer [but] a car manufacturer 4. A topical issue comes forth, often in newspaper stories... the tapes issue the tapes compromise the Watergate tapes affair the White House tapes mystery and other examples, including jobs cut. [I am not entirely sure what the point of this fourth category is] [Source: Pearson Education , directly quoted apart from what is enclosed inside square brackets] To this list I add my own: 5. [The attributive noun is plural if] it comes from the possessive form of the word teachers union ladies man However, this is more of an explanation rather than a rule you can use. There are too many exceptions, and you are unlikely to know the origins of the word. It doesn't make sense that it is teachers union but not students council. Note that we often 'choose by ear and it doesn't matter (employee lounge, employees lounge)' (Chicago Manual of Style). I would argue that it would be easier to just look it up every time and memorise words instead of trying to find a rule or categorise them. Even as a native speaker, I was not entirely sure whether it was 'sport medicine' or 'sports medicine' before looking it up. If you find yourself completely lost and without internet, go with the singular form because it is the traditional form and more common.
The context: Customer pays for some service 100$. If he chooses an option X, we charge him 20$ more, so 120$ in total. As a programmer I want my variables to have meaningful names. How would you call this 20$ in this context? I consider two words: markup (but it is more related to the business than customer IMHO) and surcharge.
Output: The words that immediately come to mind are 'surcharge' and 'fee'. Consider the following: Basic cable service provides 50 standard channels for a set price of $30 a month. As for the premium channels, you may order them for an additional surcharge of $20. ...or the following: Standard repair service rate for a computer is $40 an hour. There is, however, an overnight fee of $10 for every night the computer is kept in our possession, after the repair is completed. We notify you after we have completed the service, and for every day that passes, you incur this extra fee. I am just utilizing random numbers on the example sentences, but I hope they help clarify usage.
The phrase to boil down to something can be found in most dictionaries. However, to me, it sounds colloquial to write Finding an exact solution to Eq. 1 boils down to ... A real-life example can be found here, and many more here. Interestingly, many of the examples are by non-native speakers. Is it good style to use this phrase in formal writing? (I am prepared to hear that if people use it, then it is OK.).
Output: As has been suggested in other answers, it is not very suitable in formal writing. Here are some alternatives you might consider: amount to be reduced to be a matter of be in essence
I'm looking for an idiom or expression that means someone just makes frustrating or disappointing remarks. Maybe some of you have watched the TV cartoon 'The adventures of Gulliver' in which there was as a character named 'Glum'. He was all the time pessimistic about everything and used statements like: 'We'll never make it'; 'We'll never get out of here alive'; and 'We're doomed.' I want to use that idiom or expression in examples like this: Husband: After getting my promotion, I will take you to a fantastic trip. Wife: Oh, stop talking nonsense! I know It won't never happen, it's impossible you get a promotion. Husband: You remind me of 'Glum'! All the time _____ (i.e. acting like Glum, just having a gloomy outlook on everything). Please stop using such remarks and be a little optimistic! I have found wet blanket for describing such people. PS: We Iranians use an expression that literally says 'to read a frustrating or disappointing verse'. So in above example, the husband might reply like this: Hey Glum, the only thing you know is reading a frustrating/ disappointing verse! (Sometimes we call these people 'Glum'.).
Output: I've got a gut feeling that this question is a duplicate, but 'naysayer' fits in your context: a person who habitually expresses negative or pessimistic views: 'Despite a general feeling that things were going well, a few naysayers tried to cast gloom. [Dictionary.com]
I've been asked to give lectures on electromagnetism in English, but I encounter many problems trying to express mathematical formulas since they are written and I do not know how to read them. Are there any references which elaborate the formulas and express what should we call any mathematical sign?.
Output: The following references are useful: Pronunciation Guides for Mathematical Notation, Expressions, and Greek Letters (Reference list) Reading Mathematical Expressions (PDF) How can we speak math? (PDF)
Is there a word or term for the state of a human or animal infested with ticks? Mainly just curious. Examples: He's suffering from ______. Don't get near him: he has _____.
Output: Ectoparasitism TFD is the medical term: the state in which the ectoparasite [ticks, lice] are living on the surface of the host's body. He went to the doctor with ticks, and was diagnosed with ectoparasitosis.
Perhaps you say a bad joke or you make a really awkward noise, and everybody suddenly stares at you?.
Output: This would be an awkward silence. An awkward silence is an uncomfortable pause in a conversation or presentation. The unpleasant nature of such silences is associated with feelings of anxiety as the participants feel pressure to speak but are unsure of what to say next.
If a proper noun includes the word 'the' and we want to refer to it using the definite article, should 'the' appear twice in succession? For example: 'Can you pass me The Who CD?' vs. 'can you pass me the The Who CD?' 'The US Government passed The Hague Act' vs. 'The US Government passed the The Hague Act?'. (this example inspired by a comment to this answer). To me the first versions seem incorrect, but the second versions sound very awkward.
Output: I provided a long answer to the question 'Capitalisation in texts where the title is also a concept that is referred to within the text?' a while ago. Part of my answer to that question is directly relevant to this one. In the following quotation, The Boss is a nickname commonly used for the singer Bruce Springsteen. Sometimes what sounds natural can supersede what is technically correct from a syntactical point of view. For example: ✔ Those are the Gucci shoes I was talking about. Here, we have a proper noun acting to modify a common noun. But while the next sentence follows the same syntactical rule, it doesn't look right: ? That is the The Boss ticket I was talking about. Even though the second article is not actually an article per se (it's part of a name), it's not possible to look at the duplication and think it's appropriate. If something is technically correct, but is still incredibly awkward, it's better to rephrase it. In this case, we could omit one or the other word (knowing the meaning would be understood anyway) or we could actually restructure the sentence so it's not awkward to start with: ✔ That is the ticket to The Boss I was talking about. ✔ That is the The Boss ticket I was talking about. ✔ That is the The Boss ticket I was talking about. In the last two sentences, we know perfectly well which words should be capitalizedit's just that we're choosing to omit one or the other for the sake of comprehension. (And which we omit would be a matter of style or personal choice.)
Can you call a vegetable plot 'a vegetable bed'? Or is this usage uncommon? For example a bed of flowers is called a flowerbed.
Output: Yes, you can call a vegetable plot 'a vegetable bed', and this is not uncommon. bed Merriam-Webster : a flat or level surface: such as a : a plot of ground prepared for plants also : the plants grown in such a plot as in: 'The gardener planted a bed of roses' 'The gardener planted a bed of flowers' 'The gardener planted a bed of vegetables' 'The gardener planted a bed of vegetables and ornamental flowers' These are all correct, as bed means a plot of ground in which plants are growing. Examples: Build Your Own Raised Flower/Vegetable Bed ThePioneerWoman How to Build A Vegetable Bed Biodynamically MotherEarth Build a Raised Vegetable Bed Denver Post
I'm struggling to recall this word. If I recall correctly, it's of French origin. My search has so far been fruitless. The nearest equivalent I came up with was the idiom pulling strings but that is obviously English and not a single word. pull strings / wires (a) to use one's influence or authority, usually in secret, in order to bring about a desired result. (b) to gain or attempt to gain one's objectives by means of influential friends, associates, etc.: He had his uncle pull strings to get him a promotion.
Output: sinecure: sinecure (sini-kyoor, sini-) n. A position or office that requires little or no work but provides a salary. n. Archaic An ecclesiastical benefice not attached to the spiritual duties of a parish. More at Wordnik from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
I am studying English and I want to know the main difference between 'Have you got?' and 'Do you have?' questions. Are they the same? Is one more formal than the other?.
Output: Contrary to the above, 'Have you got' is more common in British English than 'Do you have' (about 2:1); but 'Do you have' is much more common in American English than 'Have you got' (more than 10:1). Note that the response includes only the relevant auxiliary: - 'Do you have a pen'; 'Yes, I do'. - 'Have you got a pen'; 'Yes, I have'. In fact, the most common form where I live (in Northern Ireland) is simply 'Have you', but that sounds old-fashioned to many English speakers elsewhere. Have a look at the 'Separated by a Common Language' blog.
Possible Duplicate: '-zation' vs '-sation'? Each post has an indicator which summarises who the post is shared. What is the difference between these two terms? Should I write summarises or summarizes?.
Output: Compare the results from the COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English) to the results from the BNC (British Natural Corpus): Summarize Summarise COCA 1135 10 BNC 199 264 Summarise is more common in British English, where summarize can also be found frequently. Summarize is more common in American English, where summarise is rarely used. Note: this page in the Wikipedia contains a long list of words that end with 'ize' or 'ise' depending on whether the usage is American English or British English. You will find words like summarize(ise), organize(ise), authorize(ise) and many others there.
I want to know what the longest palindrome word is.
Output: Detartrated. Edit: surprise, surprise, Wikipedia has more: The longest palindromic word in the Oxford English Dictionary is the onomatopoeic tattarrattat, coined by James Joyce in Ulysses (1922) for a knock on the door. The Guinness Book of Records gives the title to detartrated, the preterit and past participle of detartrate, a chemical term meaning to remove tartrates. Rotavator, a trademarked name for an agricultural machine, is often listed in dictionaries. The term redivider is used by some writers but appears to be an invented or derived termonly redivide and redivision appear in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. Malayalam, an Indian language, is of equal length. So let's see: tattarrattat (onomatopoeic) detartrated Rotavator (trademark) redivider (disputed) Malayalam
For example, a man's name is Jeff Smith. My question is: When should I call him 'Jeff'? When should I call him 'Smith'? When should I call him 'Jeff Smith'? in western.
Output: In general US usage, you would use 'Jeff' if you are friends, contemporaries, or Jeff has asked you to use his first name. First names are often used in casual settings. You would use 'Mr. Smith' (or 'Dr. Smith' or other appropriate title) if you are colleagues, younger than Mr. Smith, or in a formal or business setting. You would use 'Smith' in a very casual setting, particularly when playing sports. You would use 'Jeff Smith' when making an introduction, or if you needed to distinguish him from other Jeffs or Smiths, or sometimes when greeting him.