Blog

Damn all , Bugger all , Sod all etc., etc. What does all mean here? How did the expression originate? Was there a single original term (expletive or not) preceding all in this usage? At the risk of overbroadening the question, does the underlying linguistic mechanism that gives rise to this expression generate others that are very similar? And are there close parallels in other languages? Answer It is widely accepted that the others are all variations of F**ck All. It is further thought that F**k All is in fact a misunderstanding of the phrase 'sweet F.A.', meaning 'nothing at all'. The story: The phrase 'Sweet F.A.' is of British military origin and refers to Fanny Adams, a girl who was murdered quite gruesomely in the mid-1800s. British naval soldiers likened their unpleasant meat rations to the remains of Fanny Adams. 'Sweet Fanny Adams' or 'Sweet F.A.' was then applied as a slang term for mutton and eventually for anything worthless. Late

Not long ago I found on the Internet a lot of different road signs from India. Here is one of them : It says: "Be Mr Late Better Than Late Mr". I can't understand the meaning of this phrase. I understand that it's some word play but can't catch the idea. Can you explain this to me? Answer It is a road sign that is meant to implore drivers to slow down. In this case, being "Mr. Late" means that you are habitually late. In other words, you are late so often that it may as well be your name. Being "late Mr." means that you are dead. For example, someone might refer to "the late Mr. Smith" if they were talking about someone named Smith who died recently. (see definition 2a here : living comparatively recently : now deceased ) So, all together, the phrase is advising you that it is better to be late, even if it means you are known as that guy who is always late, than it is to speed and risk getting killed in an accident. So that you can s

If I use a computer command like: bind keystroke macro I refer to that keystroke as being bound to that macro. Is it also correct to say that they are bonded? If I bind a bunch of twigs together, they are bound, but I don't think they are bonded. Can "bound" and "bonded" be used interchangeably? Under what circumstances? Answer Bound is the past tense of bind , while bonded is the past tense of an entirely different word, bond . I don't believe I've ever met a situation where the two words could be used interchangeably.

Can we interchange the sentences " What's the date today?" and "what day is it today?" In grammar is it correct to use these sentences interchangeably? For example "What's the day today?" and "what date is it today?"

A British colleague asked if these two sentences are grammatically acceptable in American English: They found already high recognition in Europe and we wish to carry that further. Furthermore, they will perform a Shostokovich cycle at London's Wigmore Hall, which they presented already in Chicago and New York. He says that the "already" directly after the verb sounds off key in British English.

Schadenfreude is "enjoyment obtained from the trouble of others." I'm not looking for the antonym of that, but instead if there is a similar word for the object of schadenfreude. For instance, is there a word for me knowing (or being troubled that) others are experiencing schadenfreude at my expense?

when the phrase "Can't complain" is pronounced [ˈkænt kəmˈpleɪn] I think that the T is dropped in fast speech because of the alveolar plosives. Right? I read that when T comes before these letters: / s, f, n, l, p, k / it's silent. I know that in American English the T is held in "I can't do it" but above I'm talking about dropping it completely. I recorded myself: https://clyp.it/zqgvfxh3 Does it sound okay? Answer The relevant rule: Elision of alveolar plosives /t/ /d/ In rapid, casual speech the alveolar plosives are commonly elided when preceded by the following consonantal sounds: In the case of /t/ preceded by /s, f, ʃ, n, l, p, k, tʃ/ ... In the case of /d/ preceded by /z, ð, n, l, b, g, dʒ/ Working with Words: An Introduction to English Linguistics , edited by Miguel Fuster Márquez. In other words, when the clusters /st, ft, ʃt, nt, lt, pt, kt, tʃt/ are followed by any other consonant sound, they are often simplified by dropping the /t/. Th

I'm looking for a word that means a desire/wish that is improbable to be fulfilled ( and you can not do anything to change it). Answer "Pipe dream" encompasses the first requirement (that the word or phrase must define a desire or wish that is improbable to achieve), but I don't know that it fully satisfied your second component (that the desire or wish in question be intrinsically unattainable) If you need a single word only, "chimera" means basically the same thing, but is probably less widely known.

I can say that something exists or that is does not exist. Should there not be some way to express the opposite of the verb "to exist" as a substitution? Or can something the doesn't exist be allowed to have a positive verb at all? Or do verbs ever only have one opposite? "not sit" could be "stand" or "lie", so that wouldn't, but "not breathe" seems to be "suffocate" and maybe not anything else.

I know several questions were asked about the difference between "going to" and "will". Based on several answers (see, for instance, here , here and here ), I understood that "will" is more spontaneous and "going to" is used with more planned actions. So, it seems that everything is pretty fine. However, in this question , Kosmonaut has an answer in which he states: "Let's say that tomorrow you will walk your dog from 7 - 8 AM". On the one hand, you probably planned to walk your dog long before and thus I should use "Let's say that tomorrow you're going to walk your dog from 7 - 8 am". On the other hand, since I'm saying "let's say...", I'm deciding right now (thus, unplanned) that you will walk your dog. So, even though in this hypothetical situation you made a plan, I'm in a more spontaneous mood deciding right now that that's what you will do tomorrow, and, thus, I should use &quo

Is there an abstract noun for 'deserve'? If not, is there a criterion for words to have an abstract form? For example, say I am creating a game where I need my character to gain some "Co-efficient of (abstract noun for deserve)" to access something. Answer In this context, I think this would suit your character's description: Merit - MW A good quality or feature that deserves to be praised The quality of being good, important, or useful : value or worth For an in-game character, deserve is too vast. You have to wonder how and why he deserves something (like to enter a new zone, or to get a new aptitude) before actually putting a noun on it. See: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/merit , goodness , virtue , integrity , talent are all features that could make your character deserve something.

A Washington Post article titled " Justice Dept. concludes that no, Michael Brown’s hands probably were not up " has this: According to the report, here is what investigators believe most likely happened on Aug. 9. There is not evidence to suggest Darren Wilson’s use of force was unreasonable ... Michael Brown likely did reach into Wilson’s vehicle and grab the officer ... Michael Brown did double back toward Darren Wilson ... (Boldface as shown in the original.) The writer lists these boldfaced sentences as important points, so I believe extra care must have been taken to makes these sentences grammatically correct. And my question is about the first boldfaced sentence: Is it both grammatical and natural to use "not" as is, instead of "no" or "not any"? Or is this a typo? Also, please check to see if the contracted form ( There isn't evidence ) is any better than the original.

There are a number of questions e.g. What is the difference between “speaking” and “talking”? and “Speak to” vs. “Speak with” that deal with the slightly different connotations of the words "speak" and "talk". However, there also seem to be some grammatical differences between the two words. This question is about whether there's a way to formally pin down these differences, or whether they're just contingent features of the two words having different histories. Some examples of grammatical differences are as follows: be talkative ... be speakative speak French ... talk French give a talk ... give a speech (as opposed to a speak) speak up ... talk up (the meanings of the two phrases being completely different, with "up" being a preposition only in the latter case) speaking of which ... talking of which grammatically speaking ... grammatically talking On the other hand, many other constructions work just as well with either (though they might hav

How can I use an apostrophe to show possession after a dot? Example: Martin Luther King Jr.'s world-view. Is this correct?

How do you say in English, when one describes the matter in a more complicated manner than it is? For instance, one has two options, A and B; and either of them has to be accepted. One wants to say the same matter in either of the following two ways: Incorrectly failing to reject A. Incorrectly accepting A. Both 1) and 2) are equivalent statements, but in 1) the person is speaking in a complicated way. In other words, what a situation/way is called when it is being described in a complicated manner, instead of simple one. I hope, you understand what I want to ask. Answer The first sentence is verbose and uses a convoluted language. verbose: Using or expressed in more words than are needed: much academic language is obscure and verbose ODO convoluted: (Especially of an argument, story, or sentence) extremely complex and difficult to follow: the film is let down by a convoluted plot in which nothing really happens ODO

I am sometimes confused the usage of prepositions. I say, "It happened in the bathroom." Native speakers of English would say, "It happened on the bathroom." Is one, both, or none correct? What is the actual difference between "on" and "in"???

Is there a more succinct expression for "the day before yesterday"? In German for example, gestern = 'yesterday.' The prefix vor roughly means before , so logically, vorgestern means 'the day before yesterday.' Similarly, morgen = 'tomorrow', the prefix über roughly means over , so again, übermorgen means 'the day after tomorrow.' (In Mandarin Chinese also you have respectively 前天 & 後天.) Presumably, there are also similarly logical ways to say "the page after the next" or "the paragraph before the last", etc. Are there no similarly succinct, and graceful, expressions in English? Answer The words you are looking for exist in English, but they have been abandoned and are only found in old texts. 1535, Coverdale, Bible, Genesis 31:2 And Iacob behelde Labans countenaunce,   And Jacob beheld Laban’s countenance, & beholde, it was not towarde him as     and behold, it was not toward him as yesterday and ereyesterday

Sometimes I see two variants of following sentence: "there are not any employees" in the department "there is not any employee" in the department What is the correct sentence? Answer As long as you are referring to more than one subject, I would go with: There are not any employees in the department. For referring to a single instance, I would go with "there is no" There is no employee in the department. If the topic has no plural form (or is rarely used with a plural form), then I would consider "there isn't any": "There isn't any water" = There is no water

What animal is depicted in this image labelled “weefil”?

My inclination is to say that the sentence needs to be “It provides people with an easy way to communicate.”, but I'm struggling to explain why . Certainly provide can be used transitively (“I provide food.”) or intransitively (“The government provides.”)—is it a question of valency?

“Trainer” is to “trainee” as “mentor” is to what? My employer has instituted a formal mentoring program for new employees. I was horrified (but should not have been surprised) to read the company information that referred to the new employees as "mentees" in the mentoring relationship. Apparently the word has been in use since the 1960's (I don't know where it was first used). Is this word really considered correct English?

Is anyone aware of any word form dictionary available (online): If we were to take a common word. For example: eat Then you would have the following: Present: eat Simple past: ate Past participle: Eaten Gerund : eating Adjective: edible Adjective: eatable (edible more correct) Please note: I am not looking for synonyms. So therefore the use of a thesaurus would be an unfitting solution. Thank you for your help

surname noun [ C ] mainly UK (US usually last name ); (UK also second name ) ​ the name that you share with other members of your family; last name: I am aware that speakers of British English generally use the term "surname" and AmE speakers use "last name." What I want to know is how long it has been this way, i.e. if AmE speakers ever used the word "surname" and if so, when did they switch to using "last name"?

Not a question of grammar but one of pronunciation. I notice many educated Americans mispronounce the word "antisemitic". The word is derived from "semite" which I pronounce to rhyme with "she might" or "Sem might". I hear more often than not a transposition of the vowel sounds which results in "an-ti-sim-et-ic" (with /ɪmɛ/) rather than the correct "an-ti-sem-it-ic" (with /ɛmɪ/). (This pronunciation is listed in the Merriam-Webster entry for "anti-Semitic" .) That is, the second syllable of semitic i.e. SEM is pronounced as though it is written SIM and the third syllable IT is pronounced as though it was written ET. The word is not written SIMETIC but that is the way it is pronounced by some. A Jewish friend of mine also mispronounced the word until I asked him to pronounce it in syllable while looking at the spelling. Why do some of us, I wonder, when we add the prefix anti- mess up the pronunciation of the rest o

Which is correct? Everyone were convinced that he would go to the game. Everyone was convinced that he would go to the game. I think it's "was", because "everyone" is singular, but I just wanted to check. Answer Everyone agree s that everyone is singular and therefore singular verb forms agree with everyone .

Wikipedia says alveolar clicks are found only in Africa/Australia , which isn't true at all. For instance, there's the one usually done twice in rapid succession with the tongue against the upper side teeth/gums - to "gee up" a horse, indicate "mock-conspiratorial" agreement, etc. So far as I know, we don't even attempt an onomatopoeic written representation of that one, but the one formed by suction against the back of the front teeth/palate is normally written as either "tut" or "tsk". Sometimes people actually say "tut" or "tut-tut" (presumably, influenced by the written form). But I've never heard anybody say anything remotely resembling "tsk". So where does the "k" come from in that written representation? Answer Presumably for the same reason that dogs barking don't say "woof". "Tsk" is a phonetic sound that corresponds roughly to the tutting sound. I note th

Chuck Norris can lead a horse to water and make it drink. I read this on http://chucknorrisfacts.com . What I think this sentence means, is: Chuck Norris can take his horse to where the water is and then his horse will drink the water. So, what is funny about this? Isn't it something pretty normal? Answer "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink" is an English proverb. If you want the horse to drink, the most you can do is lead it to water; after that, the horse drinks only if it wants to. More generally, the proverb is used in the senses of "there's only so much you can do" or "people will do what they want" or "you can't help people who don't want to be helped". This proverb is one of the oldest in English , having been recorded in Old English Homilies , 1175: Hwa is thet mei thet hors wettrien the him self nule drinken [who can give water to the horse that will not drink of its own accord?] So "Ch

From Nate Silver's "The signal and the noise:" The amount of information was increasing much more rapidly than our understanding of what to do with it, or our ability to differentiate the useful information from the mistruths. Why is there a comma before or ? Isn't the second clause dependent, since it refers to the increasing amount of information (so it's not self-contained)? If it is indeed independent, how exactly do you tell when a clause is dependent? Answer The second clause is neither independent or dependent as there is no verb in the phrase "our ability to differentiate the useful information from the mistruths". This sentence is a compound sentence and is equivalent to writing "I don't like signal, or noise". I see two possibilities of why there is a comma: Provide clarity in a long sentence. It helps break up the sentence for easier reading and gives the reader a place to pause for a mental or real breath. Style choice, either

There are some sentences I hear regularly: Ask me anything Ask anything to me. If you ask me whether he was right, I would tell you "No". If you ask me about whether he was right, .... If you ask to me whether he was right, I would tell you "No". If you ask to me about whether he was right, ... So I hear the construction between ask + me + something but I like to know which sentences are correct above? And also could you please explain the grammatical rule of these sentences? And more quick thing, I told my native english speaker friend this "Do you know whether Eric asked me today". And his reply was "I don't know what Eric asked you about." However I meant to ask whether Eric ever looked for me or not. Was my question wrong? Answer All of your examples with to me are grammatically incorrect . The verb ask takes an indirect object and a direct object, and the indirect object cannot usually be moved to an oblique phrase with to . So

During an episode of Archer, he criticized a journalist's grammar for her misuse of the word 'child-murderer'. She meant one who murders children, and Archer argued in using the hyphenated form, she implied the accused man is a child who murders. Is this correct? I searched "child-murder" and "child-murderer", only to find columns eschewing the hyphen in nearly all cases. Instead, the columnists, relied on context as to whether they are referring to a child who murders or one who murders children. I, however, am purely interested in the proper use of the hyphen in this situation, as it could possibly extend to other situations as well. The trouble seems to arise from child not having an adjective or descriptive form. With 'teen', one does not run into this problem: Teenage murderer vs teen murderer However, if one uses 'adolescent murderer', it becomes unclear as to whether one means an adolescent who murders or... you get the picture. Th

I got a translation assignment where I am to use UK English but with -ize spelling. The European Union switched from -ize to -ise some years ago in its English language publications, meaning that -ize spellings are found in older legislative acts and -ise spellings in more recent ones . Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-ise.2C_-ize_.28-isation.2C_-ization.29 The wikipedia link is interesting. Apparently -ize used in British English is used in Oxford publications (which refuse -ise) even though -ise seems to be preferred in Australia and New Zealand and UK itself (3:2 ratio). What are your thoughts on this. Is using UK English with -ize spelling the right or wrong way to approach it? And is -ize prevalent in US English? P.S.: I'm not a native speaker, these things are not obvious to me.

Recently, I started using just 'That' instead of 'The fact that' at the beginning of some sentences. What is your opinion on this? Example: The fact that he answered the question wrong shows... That he answered the question wrong shows ... What is better style? 1 or 2?

No article is used when introducing a person. This ended terribly for Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi ; eight years after giving up his nuclear program, the US intervened against him in the Libyan civil war. A definite article is used when introducing a person. Thomas Homan, the acting director for ICE , said the first instance is if parents could not prove family ties to the minor. An indefinite article is used when introducing a person. Also running in the primary are labor organizer Valerie Ervin, state Sen. Richard S. Madaleno, tech entrepreneur Alec Ross, lawyer Jim Shea and Krish Vignarajah, a former policy director for Michelle Obama . Does the article difference depend on the sentence structure? Or is there a rule that dictates when to use a definite or indefinite article when introducing a person in writing. Thank you in advance.

We are a Zhongguancun-based English training school looking for native English speakers from the US and Canada . If you are interested in this position. Please send your CV and photo to [email address]. For more info, pls check: [URL] It seems like a sentence element; what does it act as? Why not two sentences? Answer This participial construction is 100% correct and natural. The participle is used as an attribute to the subject of the main clause, "we" (or "a Zhongguancun-based English training school", but that doesn't matter because it results in the same meaning). It gives extra information about "we", just as an adjective would. This attribute is placed after its "head" (the noun or pronoun it modifies) because it is a sort of apposition.

I was wondering why semi-trucks are called that. Doesn’t semi mean “part of”? A semi-truck is a whole truck if I ever saw one! Answer Semi truck or semi is short for semi-trailer truck . ¹ The prefix semi- literally means half . ² The term describes a truck consisting of a tractor and a semi-trailer. A semi-trailer is semi-supported (half supported) by its own wheels, which support only the rear of the trailer. The front of the trailer is supported by the rear wheels of the tractor. ³

I was taught at an early age in the USA that when we write about our President, we are supposed to capitalize the title in order to signify that it's on the federal level. Is it correct to always do this? And what about saying "the presidency" -- should that be "the Presidency"? Answer I learned that in school too! But I don’t think many people actually follow that rule (which means it isn’t much of a rule). AP style does not have this rule. It prescribes what mgb suggests in an answer below: capitalize only when the official title precedes the name. President Clinton has served as president since 1993. This style seems most common in practice. The Chicago Manual of Style agrees, as Sven Yargs points out in the comments below. Some writers, maybe 5% to 10%, follow the rule you described. The question of which is correct ultimately hangs on what you mean by correct . This is one of the questions where there is no strong consensus. There is no ultimate author

I am not an English native speaker, and I have a question about the following sentences: I believe that Mary will arrive tomorrow. ( grammatical ) *I believe Mary to arrive tomorrow. ( ungrammatical ) Why can't we say "I believe Mary to arrive tomorrow"? I believed (that) he was honest. = I believed him (to be) honest. My dictionary says that both sentences are grammatically correct, so I am really confused. When can I use "S (subject) V (verb) O (object) OC (objective complement)" structure with the verb believe ? Answer Well, I guess this won't get the bounty since you want someone to explain why it's ungrammatical, but I mean, we don't usually use this structure for the verb "arrive", but we use it for "be", "have", "possess", "mean", "hold", "understand"... ( See also here .) I can immediately parse "I believe her to arrive tomorrow" as a formal, fairly stuffy answ

What is the difference between: 1. Design of a system vs. System Design 2. Type of cable vs. Cable type 3. Certificate of Compliance vs. Compliance Certificate 4. Obligations and Duties of Company vs. Company's Obligations and Duties

Kipling uses the word that way in “A Friend’s Friend” , Plain Tales from the Hills , 1888. The fictional Kipling takes his guest Jevon to a ball, and Jevon gets hopelessly drunk, annoys everybody, and is embarrassing Kipling. Then Kipling goes on: I set him [Jevon] in a quiet corner of the supper-room, and went to find a wall-prop that I could trust. There was a good and kindly Subaltern ― may Heaven bless that Subaltern, and make him a Commander-in-Chief! ― who heard of my trouble. He was not dancing himself, and he owned a head like five-year-old teak-baulks. He said that he would look after Jevon till the end of the ball. The Kipling Society confirms that a wall-prop is a non-dancer who leans against a wall. Now, I haven’t been able to find the word used that way anywhere else. So did Kipling coin it himself and it didn’t catch on, or was it used with that meaning somewhere?

Take this paragraph for example: I am a follower, not a leader. Hell, I'm not even that good of a follower either, just someone who will do your bidding for the right price. Even then, if it doesn't benefit me -- or put you in debt to me -- I won't do it. Answer Self-serving - MW Having or showing concern only about your own needs and interests. There are a TON of synonyms for selfish, pick yours: Thesaurus selfish . In my opinion, self-serving fits quite perfectly into your description.

I was wondering to myself about the word "shirty". It seemed so curious a word. After all, what did its meaning have to do with shirts . "Were the two words even related?", I wondered. So I looked up " shirty " in the dictionary... shirty (ˈʃɜːtɪ) — adj , shirtier , shirtiest slang chiefly ( Brit ) bad-tempered or annoyed [C19: perhaps based on such phrases as to get someone's shirt out to annoy someone] This led me to another question. I have never heard the phrase " get someone's shirt out ". So I looked up this, to find out a bit more about the phrase. And what I found was that the only places it seems to be used were in dictionary definitions of the word "shirty" ! It seems that the phrase means "to annoy someone". But where did this phrase come from and why does it mean that? Answer The idiom seems to be the opposite of keep one's shirt on . After a bit of Googling, I found the following reason which make

I'm looking for a word to describe someone who is famous to a small group of people. For example I play a competitive card game and there are several people who are famous within the gaming community, but outside of that community they are just your average people. Most people wouldn't recognize them as celebrities. Answer Cult Hero - a writer, musician, artist, or other public figure who is greatly admired by a relatively small audience or is influential despite limited commercial success. OED

When I was a student of EFL, I was taught the word "mutual" implies a reciprocal relationship where X does to Y what Y does to X. If John admires Peter as much as Peter admires John, we can say their admiration is mutual. That said, can I say that Charles and I have a mutual friend ? Answer According to the following source the expression mutual friend , despite language critics objections, is commonly used and accepted. Mutual : Usage Note, Mutual is used to describe a reciprocal relationship between two or more people or things. Thus their mutual animosity means "their animosity for each other" or "the animosity between them," and a mutual defense treaty is one in which each party agrees to come to the defense of the other. But many people also use mutual to mean "shared in common," as in The bill serves the mutual interests of management and labor. This usage is perhaps most familiar in the expression our mutual friend, which was widespread

I’m looking for an adjective/ noun that describes a person who loves life, traveling, great food, always doing things which gets adrenaline kicking and is a always ready for attempting things for pleasure only

This name, which is spelled القذافي in Arabic, is spelled in so many different ways in the Latin alphabet: Gadafi, Gadaffi, Gaddafi, Gaddaffi, Gadhafi, Gadhaffi, Ghadafi, Ghadaffi, Ghaddafi, Ghaddaffi, Ghadhafi, Ghadhaffi, Kadafi, Kadaffi, Kaddafi, Kadhafi, Khadafi, Khaddafi, Khaddaffi, Khadhafi, Khadhaffi, Qadafi, Qadaffi, Qaddafi, Qaddaffi, Qadhafi, Qadhaffi, Qadhdhafi, Qathafi Why are there so many ways of spelling it? Which one should be used in general usage?

Rush Limbaugh’s “wrong choice of word” is causing a big fuss. And I was puzzled to find the following statement of Limbaugh from www.rushlimbaugh.com that was made 4 days ago: The reaction that they are having to what I said yesterday about Susan Fluke -- or Sandra Fluke, whatever her ... Look, at least I didn't call her "a woman driver ," and I'll tell you this, you people on the left: I'll happily buy her all the aspirin she wants. and the quote of Limbaugh in www.doonesbury.com: We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch. [...] Absolutely hilarious... Look, at least I didn't call her 'a woman driver .' — Limbaugh, on uproar over his comments Limbaugh called the Georgetown law student a slut and a prostitute, but he at least didn’t call her a woman driver . What's wrong with woman driver? Why is "a woman driver" bracketed? It sounds like the word, “a woman driver” is more insulting than calling a woman a slut and prostit

What is the origin of the word "duh" as in the interjection: — It's hot in the desert. — Well, duh! If it is of onomatopoeic origin and only appears in modern English as some sites suggest, I would be interested to know when it started appearing in English writing. Answer According to Merriam Webster, duh is an interjection which has two meanings : used to express actual or feigned ignorance or stupidity used derisively to indicate that something just stated is all too obvious or self-evident Apparently this first appeared in 1966 (per Merriam Webster). If you look at Google NGrams, "duh" has appeared even in the 1800s but a quick look at the results shows that in the early cases "duh" was used mostly as a syllable in a foreign language or as a form of "the". You can see that there is an increase over time, regardless, after 1960. The etymology of the interjection is, as you suggested, onomatopoeic in origin. One site, Think-Ink, devotes a

What is the accent of Mother Gothel in the movie Tangled ? In an interview with the voice actor (see here ), she has a pretty neutral American accent (GenAm + father-bother + caught/cot, from what I tell), but she switches to an almost mid-Atlantic pronunciation for the character. Is this a mid-Atlantic accent? I think I've heard this type of pronunciation among storytellers in movies: It gives them a fanciful, but not posh, sound. Here's an example of just the (as of now) unidentified accent, song . Update: In contrast to the mid-Atlantic accent, Mother Gothel uses [iɐ] and [eɐ ~ ɛɐ], not [ɪə] nor [ɛə]. Answer It sounds like a standard stage singer's accent to me. One thing to remember is that opera and stage singers must enunciate words differently from "normal people" in order to both "project" and be understandable to the audience. The accent isn't necessarily in emulation of anything so much as a necessary modification of the voice to be heard

What's the correct verb to say to forcefully do something you are not supposed to do or to attempt acts in the attitude of 'just go for it' ? Here, "forcefully" does not necessarily mean physical force. E.g. You push a pin into a plug, the plug does not fit, so you ____ and push it harder than you should, possibly deforming the pin in the process There is a traffic jam ahead. You ____ and switch to a different lane to continue the journey. There is enough space, but the markings on the road say you cannot switch lanes there. Someone asks you to perform a difficult piece at a concert. You promise to perform despite being well aware that the piece is beyond your ability and you're ____-ing , hoping that perhaps you have practiced hard enough and the audience will not notice. The important elements in those examples are: You are well aware that the act is against the odds You are well aware you are not supposed to act like that (i.e. an alternative solution w

I often find people (mostly American people) telling to me "you will want to do this" or "you will not want to do this" . Does it mean they are telling me that I should do something (in the sense of being authoritative ) or are they just requesting that I do something? Answer It literally is a prediction of a future condition. It's often used as a way of sharing your experiences with the hope of those experiences helping someone else. It can be a way of insinuating commands or requests, but only as a turn of phrase. For example, a person who just got out of the rain might tell someone about to leave that "You will want to have an umbrella." If a road is blocked, they might say "You will want to drive this other route." By alerting someone to a future condition, you help them make informed decisions without stepping on their toes.

...why not football mom, baseball mom, or basketball mom? Soccer mom , as far as I can tell, is an American term made popular during the 1996 presidential elections, used to describe a key demographic - mothers who, by spending lots of time shuttling their children to and from soccer practice, demonstrate that they were concerned about their children. Other attributes often associated with this demographic are suburban , married , busy , drives a minivan/SUV and so on. What puzzles me is the choice of sport in the term: why soccer? Globally, soccer is an extremely popular sport, but there are many sports more popular than it in USA, and I imagine this would extend to after-school activities. I see that in Canada there's the equivalent term hockey mom which makes more sense. Was the term coined in a place and time where soccer was a more natural choice? Is soccer a more prominent sport in the after-school world? Or was there some other historical accident?

And I saw Tityos, son of glorious Gaea, lying on the ground. Over nine roods he stretched, and two vultures sat, one on either side, and tore his liver, plunging their beaks into his bowels, nor could he beat them off with his hands. — The Odyssey This nor is not like not . . . either . This nor is similar to never could he beat them off. . . . Is this correct? Is this an archaic use? Answer It may be a little archaic, but it's perfectly comprehensible. Unlike the other respondents, I do not believe an implied previous phrase is required; it is simply and he could not beat them off... together with the rule that ` and not =nor ' (and possibly a reluctance to have too many ands in a sentence). The Oxford English Dictionary agrees: nor ... 5. Following upon an affirmative clause, or in continuative narration, with the force of neither or and…not. 1523 Ld. Berners Froiss. I. cxxxv. 162, I greatly desyre to se the kynge my maister, nor I wyll lye but one nyght in a place, ty

Recently, when writing an email, I used the following phrase: 'I hope this does not cause too big of an issue' However, in their response, the recipient (an English teacher) said that he was 'not too sure about the grammar of "too big of an issue"' (with no further comment). However, this site seems to suggest otherwise. What could he have possibly picked out as incorrect in my usage of the phrase, and is it really significant enough of an issue to remark on in a response? This question is not a duplicate because I'm asking about whether the phrase itself is correct, not the etymology of it. Further, it's considering the whole phrase (e.g can an issue be 'big', or should it be 'significant'?), and not just that one part. Answer Zwicky, in Exceptional Degree Markers , describes the too big of a dog expression as being confined to [some] American dialects (p 113; see also footnotes). He seems to criticise the usage, saying that 'Cl

Consider the following sentence (off of the top of my head just to illustrate an example): I hate the N.C.A.A....but I understand that it's a necessary evil. When following an abbreviation with an ellipsis, should you have three or four dots? Should the period following the last "A" in "N.C.A.A." be omitted or included, given the ellipsis right afterwards? Answer The technique you are using is actually called aposiopesis . It's when you pause in a sentence for an effect. There are two ways of doing an aposiopesis, using an ellipsis or an em dash. However, when using ellipsis for aposiopesis after abbreviations, could be quite tricky. Ellipsis when used at an end of a sentence always have four dots, three-dot ellipsis and a period. So I would assume that is what is done for the period after abbreviations. But there's always the alternative of just using an em dash if unsure.

I was able to find a source that gave an average for sentence length in the english language of 14 words. I am curious as to what the standard deviation for that number is. Also, I couldn't find any averages for how many sentences are in a paragraph. Again, I am also interested in knowing the standard deviation for that. I know these averages can vary highly depending on the document. Answer This paper empirically fits a distribution to the sentence lengths in a variety of English and Greek works: Sichel, HS. On a Distribution Representing Sentence-Length in Written Prose. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General) Vol. 137, No. 1 (1974), pp. 25-34 This in turn relies on two other papers that measured average word and sentence length in the works of Thomas Babington Macaulay, HG Wells, and GK Chesterton: Williams, CB. A note on the statistical analysis of sentence-length as a criterion of literary style . Biometrika (1940), 31 , 356-361. Yule, GU. On sentence-le

Is there a single word or very short phrase to describe the act of contemptuously referring to someone by using a diminutive "nickname", with which that person is not normally associated? For example, referring to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow as Hank Longfellow? Or William Penn as Billy Penn?

When is it correct to use “yourself” and “myself” (versus “you” and “me”)? In one of my older questions I asked for an explanation of the difference between “people like you” and “people like yourself” , where it's clear that yourself can stand instead of you in such sentence. What bothers me more is another, more difficult situation: Let's define the correct sentence: My mother and I were standing at the bus stop. Now, in the above sentence, can I emphasize my own person by doing the following? My mother and myself were standing at the bus stop. Also, trying with another sentence, but a bit difference: They saw my mother and me standing at the bus stop. Can I do the same with this sentence too? They saw my mother and myself standing at the bus stop. If both of the above situations are correct, that means that myself can be used instead of both me and I , thus becoming ambiguous?

I suspect I might be wrong saying "We did were there", "I did was there". I presume there must be infinitive form of a verb after the verb "do" of a certain tense, i.e. "We did be there", "I did be there". Is it a common rule for this case or are there any exceptions? Also, could you point me out to the grammar where I can find some info about this? Answer The verb "to be" is unique in that it doesn't need "do" to do anything in simple tenses! Not to negate, not to form a question...it's a free agent! To emphasize just use intonation/pitch: But Honey, we WERE there!

Is there a secular alternative to the phrase "preaching to the choir"? Answer The only one that I am aware of is pushing at an open door , which has been around since the 1920s and was more popular than preaching to the choir until the 1980s.

I was reading Wonders of World Aviation the other day, published in the late thirties, and have found a couple of articles where alinement is preferred to alignment . While this seems to make sense, it also appears to be rare:- ( Google Ngram ) Does anyone know how alinement came into being? Was it a (doomed) attempt at spelling reform, or is it just a minority spelling (or mis-spelling)? Answer 'Alinement' over the years The OP's Ngram chart vividly illustrates the relative popularity of alinement and alignment during the period from 1800 to 2000. It does not, however, do a very good job of showing how the popularity of alinement changed across the same period. To remedy that shortcoming, I reproduce below the Ngram chart for alinement across the years 1600–2008: As you can see, alinement was an extremely rare spelling prior to the late 1890s, at which point it began an increase in frequency that continued (with quite a bit of fluctuation) until about 1950; it the