Blog

Back where I come from, we would usually say 'I started the patient on a drip'. But for the 'word' put up ... I only find it natural to say 'I put the fluid up just an hour ago'. What would happen if I were to include a patient in my sentence: 'I put the fluid up (in/on/for) the patient just an hour ago.' Are all of the options unusual?

In my country, we call it “kilig.” When a guy, for instance, unexpectedly smiles at a girl who happens to have feelings for him, chances are the girl will feel so jubilant she would scream inside and smile. Joyous, jubilant, and happy are too general to describe that specific feeling (you feel toward a person you like) that I want to describe using a “naturally occurring” word or phrase. Can you suggest some terms?

Is there a specific word to express when you only understand the written form of a language? For instance: I can read Portuguese, but I can't understand it when it's spoken to me. Answer Presumably you want a word to describe a non-native or learner of the language. For Europeans learning other European languages (where the writing is in the Roman or Cyrillic alphabet and learning to read is trivial in comparison to speak and listen), you would say that a person has having reading proficiency in the language. For a single word adjective, I don't think there's a wod for any particular ability like 'speakability' or 'readability' (that means what you want it to mean). For languages where the accepted writing system takes much more study like Chinese or Japanese, most people learn those languages academically where the proficiency in both go at about the same rate (it's almost like learning two different languages at the same time, spoken and written)....

I’m working on a problem for a programming class that states the following: Write a for loop in the space below which will add the numbers between 1 and 20. To me this means the question is looking for the total sum of all the individual numbers from 1 up to 20 (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + … + 20). Is my understanding correct? Are there any other ways to word this?

In BrE style, can the full stops be omitted in: C. J. Harris (Charles James Harris) Can it be written like this? C J Harris And if we abbreviated just the middle initial, is the following acceptable? Charles J Harris

In multiplayer online gaming, the term "Smurf" (noun) is used to refer to an experienced player who creates a new account for the purposes of being matched against inexperienced players for easy wins. Where does this usage of the word come from? Answer This definition of smurfing comes from 1996 and the game Warcraft II when certain well-known players made up new names, pretend to play badly, then beat the other players. They picked the names PapaSmurf and Smurfette. It was used in alt.games.starcraft, and defined in April 1999 as: someone who makes a new account then pretends they are a newbie. An origin was offered in the same group in February 1999 : How prevalent do you think fake newbies are? You know, good players who lure real newbies in for an easy win. Why do they get their jollies from doing something so stupid? I think it's interesting to note, however, that this kind of thing was started in Warcraft II days by Shlonglor and his buddies, who seem to be demi...

What would be a word or short phrase for "someone who learns from their mistakes"? I thought of insightful , but am not satisfied with it.

Why do some British speakers of English emphasize the second syllable of words such as con-TRO-versy. One British woman I knew (living in Oxford) did this to many words including (unbelievably) the search engine yuh-HOO. I had never heard anyone (Yank or Brit) put the em-PHA-sis on the second sy-LAB-le quite as much as she did.

I'm searching for a word representing "Negatively surprising", or "Negatively amused" in an appropriate form. Example: Someone who proclaims he aims to do things in the right way has done something in the completely opposite way. How could you have done such a thing? That action is very ___. Said with the purpose of showing the contrast between the expected and the actual , and asking for change to adhere with his set goals, instead of just pointing out disappointment. It is different from What's a word for being disappointed in a surprising manner? because it asks there about surprise of being affected by the disappointment. The meaning of surprise here is different. Answer shocking : that offends or upsets people; that is morally wrong Oxford Learner's Dictionaries Oddly, this definition does not mention the "surprise" element. However, if you look up the verb " shock ," you'll see it is defined as: to surprise and upset someb...

I would like to know what the rule is, if there is one, behind the use of commas after all sequence words except then. I have seen "then" written both with a comma and without one, but I remember reading somewhere that you never put a comma after the word "then". is this true? Examples: -First, we went to the movies. Then we ate dinner. Finally, we went home. -Outline your paragraph. Then write your thesis statement.

What does 'excited much' or 'stalker much' mean exactly, and which context are they used in? I don't get the usage of much after a noun or adjective. I often see this construction in comments, for example. Answer Mark Liberman of Language Log discusses the “X much?” idiom with a recent entry from OED (some emphasis mine, some examples omitted): colloq. (orig. U.S., freq. ironic ). With a preceding adjective, infinitive verb, or noun phrase, forming an elliptical comment or question. The use was popularized by the film Buffy, the Vampire Slayer and the television series derived from it. 1988 D. Waters Heathers (film script) 86 Heather Duke. It was J.D.'s idea! He made out the signature sheet and everything. Now will you sign it. Veronica. (queasy) No. Heather Duke. Jealous much? 1992 J. Whedon Buffy the Vampire Slayer (film script) 25 Pike and Benny have entered the diner, quite drunk.‥ Kimberly (to the other girls) Smell of booze much. 1998 M. Bur...

Is there any difference between using in-built or built-in ? Is one more correct than the other, or does it depend on the context, or ”house style”? This oven comes with a built-in extractor fan. This oven comes with an in-built extractor fan. Answer This is one of those ones where Google, whatever faults it might have, does tell you something significant: "built-in extractor fan" 643,000 results "in-built extractor fan" 137 results Subjectively, from the first ten results, it looks like the "in-built" hits are largely from the UK. I've never even heard of an "in-built extractor fan". Just at a guess I would think that "in-built" would go with "ability", so I tried it on Google: "built-in ability" 216,000 results "in-built ability" 75,500 results

This question is about the preferred style in medical scientific journals. Consider the following sentences: risk to develop a severe reaction risk of developing a severe reaction risk for developing a severe reaction Clarity and brevity should probably be the most important when writing in medical journals. So do these sentences have different meanings? Is one use preferred over another? Which use is the most suited for medical journals? Any other possible combinations that you suggest? Answer Ngram can be a helpful in this case. The more common (preferred) construction is " risk of developing " and if you check the numerous exemples they all refer to medical contexts. " Risk for developing and risk to develop " are less commonly used but they are just correct and from a literal perspective they convey the same meaning.

On my website, I allow the user to create a document - but if they aren't logged in, then the document will not have an owner and therefore be editable by anyone. I want to display a warning for any documents that are editable by anyone to explain that the document was created by a " non-logged in " user and that if they want to restrict access, they should log in and claim the document as theirs. What is a better term than " non-logged in user "?

I've noticed quite a number of religious professionals of late have used phrases such as "let's exegete this text" or "we need to exegete Paul's meaning here." Of course, an exegete is one skilled in exegesis, but I have never heard of "to exegete" being in accepted usage. Wiktionary included it as a possibility, but I would hardly consider that an authoritative source. Roger Wibberly critiqued a book titled Medieval Music as Medieval Exegesis in Music and Letters 82.2 (2001): 291-293 and argued that "the often-used verb 'to exegete' strikes a note of literary discord within a generally elegant text." Is the verb "to exegete" becoming accepted usage? Obviously, it has been used consistently in at least one published source and is currently being widely used in religious circles. Answer I'm afraid it's nothing new. In 1900, a review of A Problem in New Testament Criticism by Prof. Melanchthon Williams Ja...

If one wishes to add "non" in front of a hyphenated adjective, should one add a hyphen after "non?" Answer The Chicago Manual of Style, 14th Edition, addresses this question indirectly in section 5.117: The en dash is also used in place of a hyphen in a compound adjective when one of the elements of the adjective is an open compound (such as New York ) or when two or more of the elements are hyphenated compounds: New York–London flight post–Civil War period quasi-public–quasi-judicial body     but non-English-speaking countries not-to-be-forgotten moments Since your usage is of the latter form (a normally hyphenated element in front of a hyphenated compound adjective), the use of multiple hyphens is therefore recommended: He was the only non-red-haired person in his entire family.

A portion of chapter 16 of Dickens' Bleak House is shown below. Jo attends closely while the words are being spoken; [...] and nods his ragged head. "I'm fly," says Jo. "But fen larks, you know. Stow hooking it!" "What does the horrible creature mean?" exclaims the servant, recoiling from him. "Stow cutting away, you know!" says Jo. I don't understand either the gist or the details of what Jo says in the above. I've assumed I'm fly means he understands or is agreeable or something; that fen is a noun or verb and larks is vice versa; that stow means stop or quit; that hooking it and cutting away mean getting away. However, I don't understand what he is trying to communicate. Any ideas on Jo's meaning? (I presume it's all explained in annotated versions of the book, but I don't have an annotated copy; and the numerous occurrences of this passage on the web that I've looked at are given as examples of d...

If they dispatched the parcel yesterday, Jim will receive it next Friday. But if they dispatched it last week, then A: Jim will have received it yesterday. B: Jim received it yesterday. Are A and B both grammatical? Do they differ in meaning? Is there other forms to express the intended meaning of associating a real (not counterfactual) past event with its past conclusion? Edit: Max suggested the use of ‘should have’, but is that the only valid usage? I’ll provide some more examples with comments below: Have you talked to Jim recently? Did he go to confront the neighbours when he was having issue with their noise last week? I told him not to because they’re violent people. If he went there: A: They assaulted him. B: They have assaulted him. C: They would have assaulted him. D: They should have assaulted him. E: They could have / might have assaulted him. (variation in modality) F: They will have assaulted him.. G: Something else. Another example: Did Jim pay the fine when I told him to...

I'm trying to get a proper understanding of exactly what a long, run-on sentence really says. The actual text is from Michigan law, but I'm not seeking a legal interpretation rather a full understanding of the grammar. The full text is ADVERTISEMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ADVANTAGES , but the part which of interest is ... an amount to be used for advertising agricultural or industrial advantages of the state or county or any part of the state, or for collecting, preparing or maintaining an exhibition of the products and industries of the county at any domestic or foreign exposition, for the purpose of encouraging immigration and increasing the trade in the products of Michigan, or advertising the state and any portion thereof for tourists and resorters. ... For what specific things may "an amount" be used for? More to the point, is/are "for the purpose of encouraging immigration ..." (an) enumerated activity (activities) of its own? Or, is does it qualify the activ...

In the following sentence should it be "you who is" or "you who are"? I can make a case for either in my mind. For example, if you turn the sentence around a little bit, you could say, "Tonight, you are the toast of the town. Or you could reimagine it as "The toast of the town is you." Help - not sure which reasoning is correct. Thoughts? We couldn’t be happier that tonight it is you who IS the toast of the town. or We couldn’t be happier that tonight it is you who ARE the toast of the town.

Is there an idiom I could use if I wanted to say that someone is doing something with a lot difficulty and slowly? I cannot think of anything. Thanks Edit from comment: For example: You have learnt a lot of things and you will sail through the exams. Your lazy friends on the contrary will slog their way through it. Is there an expression I can use instead of slog to convey a similar meaning? Answer Wading through treacle gets several hits on line If the effort is doomed to failure it can be described as a Sisyphean task > Merriam Webster Definition of SISYPHEAN : of, relating to, or suggestive of the labors of Sisyphus SISYPHUS : a legendary king of Corinth condemned eternally to repeatedly roll a heavy rock up a hill in Hades only to have it roll down again as it nears the top

Other examples are: I'm not sexist but ( sexist comment ) Not to be a dick, but ( dick comment ) No offense, but ( offensive comment ) And so on... where they are trying to excuse themselves from what they are about to say? What is the name of these kinds of statements?

How should I phrase a question that must be answered with an ordinal number (e.g., the third prime)? How do you convert the sentence “George Washington was the first president.” to a question? How manyth son to your father? What will be the correct question to get an answer like "he is my second son". Here the actual answer is the word ' second ', which denotes the order. Can the phrase ' ordinal status ' be used? Like "What is the ordinal status of Mr. Singh among the prime ministers of India"? Is this correct?

Is there a difference between "think of something" and "think about something"? I've also met "have heard of/about something". Answer In many contexts, think of and think about are effectively interchangeable... "They say Greece may leave the Eurozone. What do you think of/about that?" "I'm thinking of/about looking for a new job" In other contexts, to think of something means you're at least aware of the thing, but may not have given it a great deal of consideration. If you think about something this normally implies more focussed or extended attention. "I never thought of doing that!" (that possibility never crossed my mind) . "Have you thought about my birthday present?" (have you considered/decided what to get me?) Much the same distinction applies to hear of/about . You might say you've heard of something meaning no more than that you're aware "something" exists. But i...

Word nick seems to be used to describe many things. According to the dictionary, the main meanings are: a small notch, groove, chip, or the like, cut into or existing in something. a hollow place produced in an edge or surface by breaking, chipping, or the like. a small dent or wound. And other similar meanings, both nouns and verbs. In British English (mostly slang level), word nick may also refer to a prison or a police station, but at the same time it may also mean to steal . While I can make a guess that a prison cell is a small hollow place (of sort) and hence further a police station may be called a nick , I'm puzzled as to the meaning to steal . How could it have come about? Answer Nick refers both to a prison cell and to the process of a police officer arresting someone. I suspect that the slang nick meaning to steal led to this meaning as arresting is taking someone away which, in turn, led to the slang for a prison cell.

I need to explain to a person that the word "we" doesn't necessarily mean "all of us" in some contexts. For example, a speaker giving a speech may say, "What we learned from the Great Depression was that.... Obviously, not every one to whom the speech is being delivered might have learned the same lessons from the Great Depression. Indeed there might be some who haven't even heard of the Great Depression. So the speaker, using the word "we", doesn't really mean "all of us". How is this usage of "we" described ? I know I can simply say "We doesn't necessarily mean 'all of us'", but I want to know if there is a better word or a phrase that can describe this usage of "we". Answer "We" is a collective term that is usually used to refer to a group of people, including the speaker. Similarly, "they" is a collective term that is usually used to refer to a group of people,...

I am editing for a writer that consistently uses a form that I'm not sure is correct or not. What is this style of sentence structure, is it good or bad, and how do I make it better? 1) "She felt her eyes creak open as consciousness seeped into her, producing a soft gasp from her tired lungs." 2) "She stumbled back in horror, shielding her crying child." 3) "She leaned in close, her face as kind as ever." Etc. Answer A bit of nomenclature may be helpful here. In some grammars, a (clause) has a subject and a predicate , the latter containing the verb and adjuncts not modifying the components of the subject. Your examples contain one clause apiece, call it a main or independent clause if you wish: ( She felt her eyes creak open as consciousness seeped into her ), producing a soft gasp from her tired lungs. ( She stumbled back in horror ), shielding her crying child. ( She leaned in close ), her face [being] as kind as ever. Each part outside the par...

What's this notation for marking up pronunciation? analgesic: ann-ull-JEE-zick What's a good introductory article or book to learn it? Answer Pronunciation respelling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronunciation_respelling A pronunciation respelling is a regular phonetic respelling of a word that does have a standard spelling, so as to indicate the pronunciation. Pronunciation respellings are sometimes seen in dictionaries. Specifically, your example is a non-phonemic pronunciation system . ( source )

From users of British English, I have noticed the pattern of adding time after a unit of time, as in: He has class in 30 minutes time . My initial impression as an American is that this is quite silly as the fact that we are talking about time is already implicit in the unit minutes , which can only be used to describe time. (Edit: Okay, they can also be used to describe latitude or longitude, or angles, but I find it hard to conceive of an example where it isn't already obvious whether we're talking about time or a location on a map even without adding time .) However, I wonder if saying “he has class in 30 minutes time ” contains more information than, say, “he has class in 30 minutes”. Is there some bit of information encoded into the use of the word time here? My questions are these: Does the use of the word time in this sense add additional information, or would removing time from any sentence (when used in that way) not alter the meaning? Is this slang? Is this formal...

What do we call a person who believes in god but not in a particular religion? Answer A theist is a very general term for someone who believes at least one god exists. Barrie’s answer of deist specifically refers to the notion that the existence of a god is evident from reason and the observation of the universe, but such a god does not intervene in the lives of humans.

In association with my question about possibility of using Etch-a-Sketch as a verb, I found the expression “turn a lemon into lemonade” in the related article of Five Star. It says: Etch-a-Sketch had a dilemma as it faced one of three choices: Say and do nothing, and wait for the story to go away. Object to the use of the Etch-a-Sketch brand in such contexts, and publicly reinforce its core brand values. Seize an opportunity to turn a potential lemon into lemonade . Happily, the folks at Etch-a-Sketch chose the last option. As I was interested in the expression “turn a lemon into lemonade,” I googled, and found the following example of usage: “How to turn lemons into lemonade . Bob Chambers. Most of us are so busy building our business that we often forget some of the simple principles that will turn our business into a powerhouse.” We have Japanese sayings 災いを転じて福となす or 奇貨とするmeaning “turn disaster into fortunateness.“ But “turn lemons into lemonade” seems to imply to make an ordinary ...

A question mainly for Americans: Could you please confirm if some Americans indeed pronounce the "e" of "obesity" as the "ea" of "steady" rather than the "ee" of "bee" (o-be-si-ty instead of o-bee-si-ty? Merriam-Webster lists it as a variant pronunciation, yet, i haven't heard any American say the word this way. Thanks a lot!

Lately I stumbled across a sentence where one person was talking to another person and used But you was thinking about it! I'v always used "But you were ..." in this case and assumed that it just was a mistake or a joke I didn't get (as a non-native speaker). However, I stumbled across a similar case again today! Were I living a lie? An earlier question on EL&U, Historical usage of "was"/"were" with "you" , asks about this usage during the American Civil War, whereas the current question is about contemporary usage. However, Peter Shor's answer to that question mentions contemporary usage. Answer It's impossible to answer this without context. Using "was" (when "were" would be the correct form) may be locally idiomatic, or ironic, or stylistic, or just poor English. For example, a common idiomatic usage is: We wuz robbed! Also, we was robbed or we were robbed . We were cheated out of a victory; we were...

1.1. [consist in] = Have as an essential feature How did the Latin com- + sistere compound to mean 1.1 above? It may help to read ODO's own conjecture of the etymology (see the link above). [Etymonline for consist (v.) :] 1520s, from Middle French consister (14c.) or directly from Latin consistere "to stand firm, take a standing position, stop, halt," from com- "together" (see com- ) + sistere "to place," causative of stare "to stand, be standing" (see stay (v.)). Related: Consisted; consisting.

I've always used "gender" when I want to talk about whether a person is male or female. But I came across this comment on a similar question here: Correct usage is "sex" for humans and other animals. "Gender" is for things like connectors and pipe fittings. People are just squeamish about the word "sex." So which one is more correct and more importantly which one should I use? It would be great if you can base your answers on facts, references, or specific expertise rather than just personal opinions. Note: I've already seen the question What is the difference between "gender" and "sex"? but it does not answer my question. Answer For most purposes, the terms sex and gender are interchangeable. There are not many people who will be confused when met with a box on an immigrations or medical form asking "sex" (although I have seen this answered with a yes/no/rarely (etc.) These people really are confused...

When using the word "department" after the name of a department, does one capitalize it? For example, "Advertising Department?"

No offence!! Please take it just for knowledge. I heard one of my friends saying Americans can eat Chinese but Chinese can't eat Americans . He said so for fun, and everybody was just laughing. But I want to know how the English language comes into the picture. One thing, I guess, is that there is a game of plurals. Where Chinese in singular and plural has same letters, but not American? P.S Of course, it was about Chinese food. Answer It's very common in the UK to say 'Let's go for an Indian' meaning let's go to an Indian restaurant and eat Indian food. Historically this is because of the large number of people arriving from India who opened restaurants, a novelty in the 1960s and 70s. This was brilliantly satirised in the 1990s by the sketch show Goodness Gracious Me where the cast 'go for an English': One of the more famous sketches featured the cast "going out for an English" after a few lassis. They mispronounce the waiter's name, or...

What are the differences between trite, cliché, and passé? They seem to all have a similar denotation, but what are the subtleties of their connotations? The only difference I really see is that cliché is an expression that has become trite or passé, whereas trite and passé can be related to anything, e.g. ideas, words, fashion, etc. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

I was reading about various terms for incorrect words, but they didn't seem to fit. I saw a post where someone said "what do you like to do when you're board?". That kind of thing. Also, would that be considered a mistake in grammar? I didn't think so, but my friend insists it is. I'm not sure if there even is a word for that kind of mistake, but was just curious about it. Thanks!

In the book " Scientific Style and Format : The CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers" it says: The octothorp ("8 fields" ) has been used in cartography as a symbol for "village "... . But the octothorp, as a number sign, is used in the U.S. to signal an apartment or unit within a block at a particular address. For example: Mr. M Murphey 72 President St #4 NORTHFOLK Is it possible that this use of the octothorp has its roots in its use in older cartography to mark the site of a village?

I have a friend who in the two-three years I've known her will say "whileas" wherever I or other English speakers I know would say "whereas". She is a native English speaker and has read extensively (mostly fantasy, but has read some Shakespeare, if for some reason the Bard uses this construction). We're guessing at this point that she sourced it from her mother, who also says it. Googling reveals that there are some usages of "whileas" (or "while as") in older texts, such as The Book of a Thousand Nights and a Night (Yes, really). Merriam-Webster says it's archaic, and a "helpful" commenter adds that "a highly educated person uses whileas in place of whereas". However, I don't have access to the OED to see more of its history. Could anyone enlighten me? When was this used? Was it always a lesser-used form of "whereas"? Any historical background you could give me would be much appreciated. Also, is t...

Could anybody please tell which one is correct? The President is going to give speeches in Belgium, in the Netherlands, in Luxembourg and in France versus The President is going to give speeches in Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and France Answer Both are fine. The second is an example of a rhetorical device called "zeugma," in which one word applies to many in a set of parallel constructions. Here you have a set of countries that are all the objects in a prepositional phrase, but the preposition appears only once.

After reading this discussion , I'd like to know what example sentences distinguish the meaning of the words lept , leapt , and leaped from each other? Answer The past tense of leap is today rightly spelt leapt when pronounced with the DRESS vowel rather than with the FLEECE vowel , so /lɛpt/ rhyming with kept . In contrast, lept is an obsolete spelling of leapt seldom seen since the 1500s, back before the standardization of English spelling. Consider: bleed > bled breed > bred creep > crept dream > dreamt feed > fed feel > felt kneel > knelt lead > led lean > leant meet > met plead > pled sleep > slept speed > sped sweep > swept weep > wept As you see, the sound change is more consistent than the spelling, but leapt is not wholly without precedent in other forms even when spelt that way.

I often hear people say something like For whose benefit is that? Should it not be For whomse benefit is that Who -> Whom Whose -> Whomse I know "whomse" is not a real word. My question is: why doesn't it exist? Answer The easiest way to think about this is to compare to he him his : Who gets the benefit? He gets the benefit. To whom does the benefit accrue? The benefit accrues to him . For whose benefit is that? That is for his benefit. For whomse benefit is that? That is for hims benefit. Obviously that last is unnecessary/wrong—in place of hims (or him's) we have his , and in place of whomse (or whom's) we have whose . (Also, sound aside, whose is no more related to who's than his is to he's .) That's the quick-and-dirty, functional answer; it's also accurate that whose and whom evolved alongside each other, subject to different influences than what might make sense from our modern English point of view. From the OED Online...

We were shocked when we found/find out the toilet had/has no flush. My natural intuition would lead me to write this way: We were shocked when we found out the toilet had no flush. Then I thought that I was really trying to say that it's the kind of traditional toilet where there is no such thing as a flush — they cover them with banana leaves (seriously). So, I am stating a fact that still holds true. Hence I revised as below. We were shocked when we find out the toilet has no flush. Can someone please explain and/or correct the sentence above?

I was talking to one of my co-workers today. We have two homosexual persons in our office. I forgot one's name, so I asked my co-worker, "What's his name?" My co-worker said "Who?", and I replied, "one of the homosexual persons." Then, my co-worker told me that it is rude to call them "homosexual". I used "homosexual" because I thought it was better than "gay". Am I wrong? Answer Rudeness is perceptual. The co-worker has associated the (correct) term "homosexual" with negative connotations. The term "gay" is a slang word for homosexuality. Therefore, the word you selected is more appropriate. The bottom line is your co-worker has personal issues with the word, "homosexual". Ironically, many homosexuals also have this problem. Logically speaking, the matter should be moot. However, arguing a emotionally charged matter such as this is rather difficult, and usually does not end well. My advi...

Since, perhaps forever, I had always ‘known’ that the English word salary was derived from the Latin salarium , to the time when Roman soldiers were paid in salt for their service. Salt was a highly-prized and sought-after commodity due to its ability to preserve food and was, in part, also responsible for the development of civilization. However, my world turned upside down, when I read the following extract in a blog Here’s the simplest form of the myth. The word ‘salary’ comes from the Latin word for salt because the Roman Legions were sometimes paid in salt. – Wikipedia , ‘History of salt’ Pure fantasy. There isn’t the tiniest scrap of evidence to suggest this. At all, to any extent, ever . Peter Gainsford, the academician and author of the blog, Kiwi Hellenist , adds ‘Roman soldiers were paid in salt’ may be the simplest form of the myth, but it’s also a secondary form. […] that seems to indicate that people first started writing about the idea around the 1860s ( here , for exam...

Siamese twins or binomials are pairs of expressions which are often conjoined. For example: back and forth ebb and flow near and far better or worse do or die Is there is a name for the rhetorical device of swapping their order? For example: forth and back flow and ebb far and near worse or better die or do One might call this device reversal or inversion , but I am wondering if there's a specific name. I couldn't find anything in Landman's Handlist of Rhetorical Terms or on web lists. EDIT: I don't think it counts as epanados since the words have not already (by hypothesis) been introduced in their standard order. Answer Consider Hyperbaton a generic term for changing the normal or expected order of words.

Mark's generosity in this crisis seems to more than make up for his earlier stinginess. Should those sentences always be avoided, or are there cases where they are valid? Answer The only thing that should be avoided is awkwardness. Putting adverbial phrases between the infinitive complementizer to and the infinitive can sometimes be awkward, but it is certainly never ungrammatical or “invalid”. Even the most conservative and staunchest prescriptivist commenters admit that there is nothing inherently ungrammatical about so-called “split” infinitives, which have been attested in all forms of written English for at least seven hundred years . Indeed, in many cases, putting the adverbial phrase in the intervening position is the only grammatical place to put it, such as in the example in the original poster’s question. There are a couple posts on Language Log discussing these “obligatorily split infinitives”: (“ Obligatorily split infinitive ”), (“ Obligatorily split infinitive in re...

Please refer the following questions asked elsewhere on this site: I am a native Hindi speaker; Hindi has a plethora of terms referring to relationships. To take a trivial example, the term uncle may refer to father's elder brother, father's younger brother, mother's brothers, father's sister's husband, mother's sister's husband, all of which have specific addresses in Hindi. I discussed the same with one of my teachers. She had the opinion that the development of language mirrors the cultural moorings of the society that uses the language. Now, since all of the above relationships have distinct status and reverence in the Hindi speaking society, that calls for different addresses. That may well not be the case in English speaking societies. Is that correct? What other linguistic reasons may account for such a dearth of vocabulary in English in this area?

I know it is correct to say He has been dead for three years. I've learned the present perfect tense , and it's said that non-continuous verbs are allowed. Is this sentence correct as well? He has died for three years. Answer Die is an Inchoative verb; that means it refers to a change of state. The Present Perfect construction can be used with a Stative predicate like be dead or own a house the way you suggest. This is called the Universal sense of the Perfect . But die is not stative; it's inchoative, and therefore punctual -- it refers only to the instant when the change took place. So, in principle, it could use the Existential sense of the Perfect , which is restricted to punctual, or at least completable, events. He has died for three years. which suggests that he has died several times over a time span of three years. However, dying is something that can only be done once, and therefore a sentence like this is apt to raise an eyebrow, at least. Hint: in sit...

Who is considered a native speaker of English ? I am a little confused by the various answers found online. Answer A "native speaker of English" refers to someone who has learned and used English from early childhood. It does not necessarily mean that it is the speaker's only language, but it means it is and has been the primary means of concept formation and communication. It means having lived in a truly English-speaking culture during one's formative years, so that English has been absorbed effortlessly as by osmosis. One can have been born and grown up in a country that lists English as one of its official languages and not be a "native" speaker. For example, Canadians from Quebec cannot automatically be considered native English speakers even though many speak English quite well; they were brought up speaking French as a first language and think in French (or Canardien , as I have heard unkind Parisians refer to it). But the rest of Canada does largel...

Can the "why" be removed from the phrase "have some reason why you?" Example: Do you have some reason you _ __ _ ? vs. Do you have some reason why you _ __ _ ? Are these both grammatically correct? What's the difference, if any? Googling I find a lot of both, but I'm still wondering about this.

Would you say "case-study-rich presentation" or "case study-rich presentation"?

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.". Answer 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 a...

In the expression "one or more of A, B, C, [and, or, and/or] D," what is the correct conjunction? Examples of all three choices abound with apparently equivalent intended meaning.

There is a sentence: No sooner had he sat down than he fell asleep. I just do not understand, is this an inversion? And if so, I still do not understand the sentence.

Since the late 1800s, the phrase "contains exclusively" has been consistently used more often than "exclusively contains". Ngram viewer: "contains exclusively" vs "exclusively contains" . What is the difference, if any?

I have been kind of confused about the following sentences. Would you please give me any hint or guide about them? If I had eaten breakfast this morning, I would not be hungry now. Is this sentence correct? I suppose that since the main clause is “would not be” and has a present time marker (now), then the if clause should be simple past (conditional type 2). Am I wrong? If my brother would have been there, he would have known what to do. Is this sentence correct? Which type of conditional is that? If it wasn’t X, it would have been something else Is this sentence correct? Which type of conditional is that?

I'm looking for the noun form of "person with intermediate skill". For example, in the context of a particular activity, "person with no skill" might be designated a novice , and "person with much skill" might be designated an expert . However I know of no such word in between these two extremes. My only thought is amateur , which has a distinct meaning from describing level of skill, although skill level can often be inferred. I'm looking for a better solution. EDIT : due to the attention this question has received, I'll try to offer some clarification in order to reduce repeat questions. "Journeyman" would certainly not work. I am a software developer by profession. However the word I'm looking for should hopefully be profession-agnostic. I am trying to designate the skill level of the person that some learning material might be appropriate for. The word that I'm looking for follows the preposition "for". For Begin...

In "How I met your mother" TV series, there is a character Barney Stinson, who is the author of this semi-popular quote: When I'm sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. [sic!] Obviously, this is grammatically incorrect, because infinite form of the verb can't be used this way. However, I would like to understand why is it phrased this way. After googling a little, I found a few places where people were saying that it is slang. One of the best (in my opinion) comments also mentioned that What he meant here was "I stop being sad and choose to be awesome instead." If he said "I become awesome" it would change the meaning. He does not mean that he stops being sad and begins to work on growing more awesome, but that he is awesome. which, based on the character, seems very plausible. Now, what I really want to know is: is this really some kind of slang, or is it just something the scriptwriters invented? how would a native speaker understand the...

"Dark L" is "L" at the end of the word or after a vowel sound. Example: ball, pull . "Light L" is "L" at the beginning or before a vowel sound. Example: light, love . There are 4 explanations of how to pronounce "dark L": 1st explanation: the tongue tip must contact the ridge right behind the upper teeth. 2nd explanation: before the tongue tip must contact the ridge right behind the upper teeth, you must curl the tongue and make sound like /r/ before make the /l/ as in the 1st explanation. 3rd explanation: just put the tongue between upper and lower teeth is enough to make the dark L 4th explanation: the tongue tip must contact the ridge right behind the upper teeth & the back of the tongue raises up (a British teacher teaches that). see this vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pejo6YC_BnM and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4En7vG1wV4 for more info So what is the correct way to make the "dark L"?

For to pony up , etymonline.com says 1824, in pony up "to pay," said to be from slang use of L. legem pone to mean "money" (first recorded 16c.), because this was the title of the Psalm for March 25, a Quarter Day and the first payday of the year (the Psalm's first line is Legem pone michi domine viam iustificacionum "Teach me, O Lord, the ways of thy statutes"). (which in itself is one awesome etymology if true) For the more rare, although in use everywhere from Huckleberry Finn to modern San Francisco Chronicle, to pungle (up) , Merriam-Webster says, "Pungle" is from the Spanish word "pongale," meaning "put it down," which itself is from "poner," meaning "to put" or "to place," or more specifically "to contribute money." The earliest uses of "pungle" are from the 1850s But does that Spanish poner as in "to contribute money" come from the same slang Latin pone...

I'm writing a poem referring to humans as landlords of this planet. Which is correct: "they come to test this planet landlord's heart" or "they come to test this planet's landlord's heart" I would use the first one for what I consider better style. Not sure it is correct.

Are any of these verb phrases grammatical? allows the user of modeling and resolving allows the user to model and resolve Which version of the following sentence is correct/better? In particular, it allows to acquire a signal using a sample rate significantly lower than the one dictated by the Nyquist criterion. In particular, it allows acquiring a signal using a sample rate significantly lower than the one dictated by the Nyquist criterion. I searched Google Scholar for " allows to acquire " and " allows acquiring ", and it seems people use both more or less with the same frequency. Answer The semantics of the verb allow meaning "permit" has three arguments, making it a trivalent verb. Using the linguistic terminology for thematic relations , there is the entity that is granting the permission (the agent), the entity that receives the permission (the patient), and the thing that is permitted (the theme). The verb allow can be used in three different...