Blog

i.e. "So then she goes, 'Hey!' and I go, 'What?' because I was on my way out..." I was musing about this the other day, so I decided to try to find out. Unfortunately, my skills lie in different areas than language research. My instincts tell me that this is an outgrowth of hippie culture in the West during the late 60's, but I have no proof of this at all. I remember being in elementary school in the 80's and my teachers would absolutely flip out over this construction and lecture "People don't GO, Brian. People SAY." Lecturing notwithstanding, listening to students at recess revealed many students 'going' this or that. It seems now to be relatively accepted in spoken English, though not written. It also seems to apply to a wider range of use cases than say , e.g.: "So he goes ( makes face like a duck ) and then..." So, it kind of has taken on a meaning of 'to communicate, to embody a message, to say' as well as

Sentences like "I do believe" or "I do love you" are common. But I was wondering what do they mean? I've never seen structures like this in grammar. In fact I don't understand what is the diference between these sentences and ,say ,this simple one: "I believe" or "I love you" Thanks in advance.

My student needed an adjective which means "irreligious" or "does not believe in God/a god." I suggested the words "heathen" and "ungodly". Would you say there's a difference between the two sentences below? My student has the impression that the Poles, a deeply religious nation, think of their Czech neighbors as a heathen lot. My student has the impression that the Poles, a deeply religious nation, think of their Czech neighbors as an ungodly lot. Thanks a lot!

I try to use the 2nd or 3rd definition of words (to slow down speed readers). However, I am not sure if "ignorance" has a 2nd definition. (common meaning) is "a lack of knowledge". With this meaning, no syllable is stressed. My ignorance of hardware means I cannot build my own pc. (2nd meaning?) If pronounced differently, I think that "ignorance" can also mean "a willful and careless disregard of something". The "nor" syllable in "ig-NOR-ance" must be stressed. The French were aware of the strategic weakness of the Maginot Line, and their ignorance of it enabled the German blitz through the Low Countries . My ignorance of my girlfriend's hourly text messages quickly caused our break-up. In a dictionary, "ignorance" is only defined as "lack of knowledge". But, I am not talking about that "ignorance". I am talking about the "ignorance" that is derived from "to ignore" and thu

As the title indicates, these three forms of words/phrases can be quite confusing to me sometimes. When should they be written as one word ("boilinghot"), when should they be written in two words ("boiling hot"), and when should they be written as a hyphenated compound ("boiling-hot")? Does it make any difference which is used? There are other terms like this, such as blackboard/black board/black-board; swingman/swing man/swing-man etc. Answer In the first place, I've never seen boilinghot used. As for the other two, there are different times for different uses. Only use the hyphen when it is a compound adjective Let's speak of why the sea is boiling hot. Let's speak of the boiling-hot sea. @drm65 illustrates how Google NGrams may be misapplied. Searching for a hyphenated expression will cause it to flat-line unless you put a space between the hyphen and the words: e.g. "boiling hot,boiling - hot" So while boiling hot appears to be

I am a little bit confused, when somebody told me that a student is the same as a pupil. Would it be correct, if I said "He is a pupil of MBA."? Which of the following expressions is the most appropriate? He is a student of MBA or He is a pupil of MBA And which situations should I use either words?

What is a single word, or phrase, for something that necessarily causes both harm and benefit? For example, a coal-fired power plant will harm human health through air pollution, but will bring electricity and economic development to a poor area.

Does this slang originate from half asked, since the difinition means exactly that. You only did half what I asked you.

Just a pronunciation question. Is it a vestige of the spelling battle between i and j, where in English the j lost out to the i, but with soldier we retained the sound?

The question about " the role of infinitive in this sentence " prompted me to ask the following question. English uses a " dummy " such as it and there to start a sentence when there is nothing else to start an extra-posed sentence in the linked question or a sentence starting with "there". Please read the comments below the answer. I object to calling "there" a subject of the sentence in the following: There is a man at the door. There is redundant as it could be rephrased to "A man is at the door/A man is there (pointing at the door)" as "at the door" indicates the place where a man physically exist at this moment. Here, "there" is a dummy which means nothing. Another example: There was no snow yesterday. In this sentence, there means nothing and just indicates the existence of "snow" yesterday. Oxford Online Dictionary classifies this dummy "there" as an " adverb " 3 (usually the

There is this sentence: There are several parts to this problem, the most important (part) being that many of the learners find it rather boring. I would like to know if the phrase in bold-faced type is short form of a clause or something. If yes, what is the original form of the sentence? To me, it sounds like the original form is "the most important of which is that..." As in: The man who lives next door = the man living next door Does it follow the same rule or is the case different? And, can we simply use the verb "is" instead and say "the most important is that ..." If yes, what is the difference between "...being that..." and "...is that..." in the sentence? Is it only a matter of style? Answer There are several parts to this problem, the most important being that many of the learners find it rather boring. This is an absolute construction in which There are several parts to this problem is the main clause serving as anchor. Th

Is there a general rule whether to use the Verb + to infinitive or the Verb + ...ing format? There are cases in which I can't decide which one to use. Like: -They can't afford to go out very often. -They can't afford going out very often. Or: -I don't mind to wait. -I don't mind waiting. Or: -It was a nice day, so we decided to go for a walk. -It was a nice day, so we decided going for a walk.

This site has a number of questions and answers (e.g. this question ) on the use of the third-person feminine pronoun ("she" or "her") as a substitute for specific things like ships and hurricanes and even whales ("thar she blows!"). In certain rural dialects in the United States, however, one hears the third-person feminine pronoun her used as what I believe to be a dummy subject, a general catch-all for something that may not be defined. Probably the most common example is an expression of resolve: Let's get her done. This is heard most often as "Let's git 'er done." In this case, her appears to be a substitute for it , because the it refers generally to a task or mission, some form of undertaking that must be completed satisfactorily. Yet whatever "her" refers to is not really as specific as a particular ship or whale or whatever. In any event, it's not something you can point to and say "There it is" or

An advert for BBC iPlayer read [I've dropped the comma]: Making the unmissable unmissable. The first 'unmissable' obviously has the sense 'too good to miss', and the second 'always accessible' - but they're polysemes, different senses of the same word. This is neither the reduplication for emphasis of say 'very, very small', nor that used for establishing the authenticity of a referent as in say ' coffee coffee'. And the use of different polysemes in close proximity is usually best avoided: ?It's odd that all the numbers are odd. *It's a hurricane but not a hurricane. ['It's a hurricane but not a hurricane hurricane' works.] 'He wears short shorts' is a famous pairing, but here, the polysemes are intercategorial. Are there any other idiomatic usages of different polysemes?

Today’s New York Times picked up a line of the comment of Governor of California, Jerry Brown on California's tight budget, which calls for severe spending cuts to deal with a $15.7 billion shortfall as the Quotation of the Day. He said: "It's a ‘pretzel palace’ of incredible complexity." What did he mean by ‘a pretzel palace’? Does it mean a labyrinth winding like pretzel? Is it a popular phrase metaphorizing complexity of the issue? Answer "Pretzel palace" is not a popular phrase except as the name of several shops, mostly retailers of pretzels and other snacks; for example, Pretzel Palace in West Dundee, Illinois. I don't know what Jerry Brown meant to say in "It's a ‘pretzel palace’ of incredible complexity" . Many people have trouble understanding Jerry Brown, and it may be that he had no specific meaning in mind but thinks of typical pretzel patterns as quite complex. Such thinking is a mistake, as one can see from videos that show

In this answer about the non-word disabilitated , the word preventative is compared (unfavourably, if my reading of the implication is correct) to preventive . However, I have always used preventative , and can only recall hearing it in its longer form. Merriam-Webster online lists preventative (defining it as equal to preventive ) as being first used circa 1666, and lists preventive as first used circa 1639. Is this is a BrEng/AmEng difference? What is the etymology of these words? (There is a question about this on World Wide Words, but more, or more precise, information would be appreciated.) Answer These two words have come into being because there is arguably an -ative suffix in addition to an -ive suffix. The reason that -ative is emerging as a suffix unto itself is because of a high occurrence of -ate verbs ( differentiate , alleviate , demonstrate ), leading to a high co-occurrence of -at-ive words. (This is similar to how the -ical suffix emerged through the glommin

What is the origin of the phrase "filthy rich"?

In English we often add "as it were" to indicate that a phrase is not to be taken literally; for example: He's flown from the nest, as it were. ... would indicate that a boy has left his parent's house, via the "flown from the nest" idiom. But, why does "as it were" clarify that this is an idiom? Answer Interesting thought: that as it were might be an idiom, used to emphasize that something else in the sentence is also an idiom. Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines as it were thusly: as it were : as if it were so; in a manner of speaking Wordnik lists these synonyms: so to speak in a way in a manner of speaking

If north is the antonym of south , then what is the relationship between north and all other non-north directions such as east, west, south, south-east, south-west , etc.? Similarly, if male is the antonym of female , then what is the relationship between male and the other non-male genders such as transgender variants, female , etc.? Perhaps I can illustrate my question as: antonym north<--------->south ? north<--------->everything non-north They are perhaps mutually exclusive . But I expect that there's a semantic term that better describes this relationship. If there's no straightforward technical term available, I'd appreciate non-technical alternatives as well. Answer A good question, but not an easy answer. Antonymy comes in several flavours: Simple antonyms that are binary pairs - dead/alive, hit/miss, pass/fail etc. One is the absence of the other. Dead = not alive. Gradable antonyms - hot (warm, tepid, cool)cold. One is not ne

"Put" and "but" both end in the same letters, so why don't they rhyme? Did they start out with the same sound, and then one of them changed? Or did they start out with different sounds, and just got spelled with the same letter because there weren't enough vowel letters to represent all of the vowel sounds in English?

Of all the ways I could come up with to pronounce the word "busy", "bizzy" would be very low on my list. At least "bussy" or "boosy". Why "bizzy"? Answer The problem isn't so much that "busy" is pronounced "bizzy", but that "bizzy" is still spelled "busy". An awful lot of English spelling is based on a language that would sound very foreign to most English speakers today -- English as it was before the Great Vowel Shift (and at a point when we still had velar fricatives, which is why there are words spelled with "gh"). The language has undergone major changes in pronunciation, while the spelling has merely been tidied up a bit so that words are spelled the same way every time. (Mostly.) If you really think about it, almost none of English spelling makes any sense with regard to vowels. It used to, at least to the same extent that alphabetic writing makes sense in any language. Your

Coming from my answer to question Is there a better noun form of “unreasonable” than “unreasonableness?” What does it mean when someone calls himself "non sequitur"? Examples: Answer They are trying to give you the expectation that things they say will have no connection to anything that other people are saying, nor even anything that they themselves have previously said. If some folks are talking about their favorite cheese, Mr. Non-Sequitur will feel free to barge in and say something like "I want the sun for my pet." Which has absolutely nothing to do with cheese or anything else that anyone was saying; it's completely random and unconnected. If someone then asks why he wants the sun for a pet, Mr. Non-Sequitur will be perfectly happy to "explain" by saying something like "It's a good day for making snow forts in my basement." (Which, again, is totally unrelated, random, and rather nonsensical.)

We are preparing an ad for pictures, and we would like to write that we have certificates of authenticity for the pictures. What would be the best way to write it? My suggestion is to use passive (but feel free to suggest your own way), but I'm not sure about the 'to be' verb: The pictures are issued with an international certificate of authenticity. The pictures were issued with an international certificate of authenticity. The pictures have been issued with an international certificate of authenticity. Also, should I prefer 'certificate of authenticity' or 'authenticity certificate' in the given sentence? Thank you :) Answer I would go with are because each new order includes the certificate, not just orders in the past. And go with "certificate of authenticity." Somehow the other one sounds weird. It's correct, but not idiomatic and doesn't roll off the tongue well.

I'm looking ideally for a word to describe someone who does something even when they're told not to. Like, if they're told not to do something like a dare, or just to not go and do such-and-such, they will do it. In fact, it will only make them more determined that they can do it. Examples: She was described as ___ because she was told to not go to the party, but did it anyways. She was called ___ since her father told her to not do any stupid dares but she didn't listen to him. He has a tendency to be ___ - he likes to prove he can do it, despite others telling him he can't. Thanks for your answers! Answer I have always used contrary : [Merriam-Webster] 2 : being not in conformity with what is usual or expected // actions contrary to company policy // contrary evidence 4 : temperamentally unwilling to accept control or advice So: She was described as contrary because she was told to not go to the party, but did it anyways. She was called contrary since her f

According to Maureen Dowd's article in New York Times (May 20) under the headline, “Remember to forget,” the European Court of Justice ruled last week that Google and other search engines can be forced to remove search results about ordinary citizens linking to news articles, websites, court records and other documents if the information is deemed “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant” - even if it is truthful. She wrote; Jaron Lanier, the author of “Who Owns the Future?” and a man known as “the father of virtual reality,” vehemently agrees (the ruling). He thinks the ruling rebuts Big Data’s “infantile desire for immediate gratification" where you get to know everyone else’s secrets even as you seek to keep your own. In order for others to be free, that means you don’t get to stuff your nose into all their orifices all the time . http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/opinion/dowd-remember-to-forget.html?hp&rref=opinion I was unable to find out the meaning of the phras

The verbs dare and need do not require auxiliaries when used in the interrogative; for example, “need I?” is as acceptable as “do I need?” Excluding the auxiliaries themselves (like be , do , have ), are there any other such verbs that work that way?

I was pondering the names of haircuts the other day, and I could understand the origins of most of them: pudding basin , crew cut , duck's arse , and bog brush are all reasonably obvious, but I was rather stumped by mullet . A mullet is defined here and here as a man's haircut in which the hair is short at the front and sides, but long at the back. Does anyone know how it got this name? The sources both say "etym. unkn.", but differ as to the time of origin, one saying 20th century, and the other 1990s. Answer Etymonline says The term in reference to the haircut seems to have emerged into pop culture with the Beastie Boys song "Mullet Head." Wikipedia also mentions that source: According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term mullet was "apparently coined, and certainly popularized, by U.S. hip-hop group the Beastie Boys", who used "mullet" and "mullet head" as epithets in their 1994 song "Mullet Head". but

Ive often heard people say: "Your ears are burning." Specifically after someone hearing people talking about him or her. I'm curious what the origin of this is. There's got to be an interesting story behind this one. Answer According to tinyonline : One's ears are burning : one is being talked about . A tingling or burning sensation in the ears supposedly means that a person is being discussed by others. The origin of this belief goes back to Roman times when augurs (see Under the auspices of) paid particular attention to such signs. Pliny wrote: 'It is acknowledged that the absent feel a presentiment of remarks about themselves by the ringing of their ears' (Naturalis Historia, AD 77). The ancient belief that the left signifies evil and the right good applies here also. Both Plautus and Pliny held that if a person's right ear burns then he is being praised, but a burning left ear indicates that he is the subject of evil intent. English literature, fr

I'm an ESL teacher. Normally I teach lower intermediate but I also teach a mixed level grammar review class. I pride myself on being able to explain things clearly but today I found myself in THREE sticky situations all in the same class! I'll explain here the two problems involving conditionals. First Case: Is it better to say... If he knew that I WERE/WAS home now, he would call. OR If he knew that I AM home now, he would call. Does the second verb in the if clause also take the subjunctive form because it is in the if clause or should it take the present simple form because it is not a hypothetical (I am home now is not hypothetical, his knowledge of it is.)

According to the dictionary definitions (e.g. in Merriam-Webster) , "should" is the past of "shall" and "might" is the past of "may" : But are these modal verbs really used as such? I know they are frequently used with other meanings (as confirmed by their other definitions in the dictionary), but my question is if they are really used with their original meaning of past tense for "shall" and "may". I give two examples below. Do the present and past versions have the exact same meaning (except for the tense, of course)? 1) MAY / MIGHT Present: When he is at school, he may not go to the bathroom without asking for permission. Past: When he was at school, he might not go to the bathroom without asking for permission. 2) SHALL / SHOULD Present: He thinks that they shall go the restaurant. Past: He thought that they should go the restaurant. Answer Both of the past-tense examples sound somewhat archaic, but that is to some

Looking for a word that describes the feeling of being told something in an overly simplified manner that feels offensive.

I am looking for a single word similar to a turn of events, changing one's stars/destiny, passing a crossroads or doing something that would cause someone's life to have a dramatic change. From a writing perspective it is similar to a "plot twist" except happening to a person, if that makes sense. It does not have to necessarily be a catastrophic change, which for example happened as a result of guilt or a loss, but a change which sets a person on a very different path. Eg.: After that happened George's life would never be the same; he'd reached a/an ______________ . Answer The term watershed is often used for this. From Cambridge Dictionaries: watershed noun (BIG CHANGE) ​[Uncountable] an event or period that is important because it represents a big change and the start of new developments: a watershed event/moment The discovery of penicillin was a watershed in the history of medicine. The origin of its figurative usage appears to be from the geological te

Why is service pronounced the way it is and not like device even though the last 4 letters of the words are identical? I would think that if they end the same way, the same pronunciation rules should apply as well. I also checked Wiktionary.org and it says both words evolved from Old French where 'service' originated from 'servis' and 'device' originated from 'devis'. Again identical end of the word spelling. Answer I believe this is due to the Great Vowel Shift . In Middle English the "i" in device used to be prounounced as in service but later shifted to a /ai/ diphtong because it was bearing the stress.

From the roots ortho (straight) and gon (angle), its meaning in mathematics is understandable. Outside of mathematics it has various meanings depending on the context: Debate - orthogonal: not relevant Statistics - orthogonal: unrelated Computing - orthogonal: isolated or partitioned There are other definitions. Most seem to imply a meaning of independence or separation. Does anyone know how it came to mean this? Answer If you think about (simplified for convenience) mathematical usage of "orthogonal" , it is referring to vectors at right angles to each other, so motion in the direction of the first vector produces no corresponding motion in the direction of the second vector. This independence is what motivates the other meanings; an orthogonal line of argument in debate might be interesting in itself, but doesn't advance the main thrust of the debate, for instance. It's just as well that the mathematical use of "normal" doesn't bleed across like this,

I found the following blog title without a question mark from The Hindu site : How to ease Afghanistan’s progress in cricket Is it grammatical, if we don't put question mark in questions of titles? I think this blog title should have been like this: How to ease Afghanistan’s progress in cricket? I also found the following blog title from DAWN site without a question mark: Election rigging 101: How to steal a mandate However, I found a question mark from other blog title of DAWN site : Elections 101: What is the ECP and what does it do on election day? Answer In regards to: How to ease Afghanistan’s progress in cricket Is it grammatical, if we don't put question mark in questions of titles? I think this blog title should have been like this: How to ease Afghanistan’s progress in cricket? These are titles and thus do not necessarily follow standard grammatical rules, so don't let the absence of punctuation fool you. As to your suggested edit, questions simply do not start

I've heard that the word Oriental , if used to people, is racism. Is it true? And if it is, why? Answer Possibly because people are not carpets. I have several oriental carpets given to me by Asian friends Do note that in the UK, Asian are not Chinese or Japanese. Also note that some Asians may call themselves oriental like African American may call themselves whatever they want. Lastly, my Asian friends are just my friends, I luckily never need to specify their genetic makeup. If I have to, I say "from Pakistan" or "from India" or in other cases, "He's Chinese" The only collective expression I use is Antipodean to not offend Kiwis and Aussies when I do not know from whence they come :)

In the following example, I have one wife, one daughter and one son. (1) My wife, Angie; my son, Mike; and my daughter, Danielle, will be at the picnic. I think the semicolons are very technically correct, but they are an eyesore. Other possibilities: (2) My wife, Angie, my son, Mike and my daughter, Danielle, will be at the picnic. (3) My wife Angie, my son Mike, and my daughter Danielle will be at the picnic. Which is preferred -- 1, 2 or 3 above?

I am talking American English now. Usually when a "t" comes at the end of the word "wheat" or before "n" or "m" sounds as in "mountain" and "treatment", the t sound is not pronounced and i pronounced as a glottal stop instead. Can I do the same with the word "netflix"? Answer In certain parts of America (but not all), you can use a glottal stop for a t in Netflix, as well as many double t's (kitten, button), terminal t's (but, net, fit, cat, pet, cot, bought). This will net you some strange looks in your travels, though. Being from New England originally, this was standard to my ear, but I had to change it as I moved around because of the unwanted attention it called to itself. If you can avoid it, it might to be to your benefit; those who use glottal stops will hardly notice it, and those who hear t's will find your English good.

Why is it "runners-up", as opposed to the naïve "runner-ups"? Is there a rule to remember for these situations? Answer The hyphenate runner-up contains a noun and an adverb/preposition. Only nouns can be pluralized. Since it is still hyphenated, the parts maintain their grammatical value.

What is the difference between saying "during summer" and "during the summer"? As in: I work during the summer. I work during summer. Are both common? Is my feeling correct that the first stresses that I work (only) this summer, and the other is more a general statement — every summer, during summer, but not in (the?) winter?

If I'm not mistaken, score can mean "a group or set twenty". What I don't understand is why you say for example "Four score and seven years ago...", instead of saying "four scores" (since there are four groups of twenty years). Answer The word score follows the same rule that applies for the words dozen , hundred , thousand and million . When they are used with a number to denote exact quantity, their form doesn't change, e.g. we say two hundred, ten thousand, three dozen, five million. The plural form with these words is used when the number denoted isn't exact and we just want to emphasise the fact that there are many items, e.g. hundreds of years ago, dozens of times, etc.

Sometimes in a written text I express a ton of things I would desire for something to have even though I know it is absolutely impossible to fulfill those desires. For example in Spanish we can use: "La lista de los reyes magos" which means something along the lines of: "Santa's letter". It has a small component of irony in it. The purpose in the context I'm using the sentence is: "I know that I'm asking for too much. I'm adding a lot of requirements for you to have more context in the direction I want to take. I know this is unfeasible.". That is why I want to give that small component of expressing that the result is impossible to reach.

Why are "done me wrong" and "did me service" established phrases instead of the more standard "He wronged me" and "He serviced [helped] me"? EDIT : I just realized whatever connection I saw with French was spurious. The curious thing is why do takes the object "me" here, which PLL has amply answered. Answer The main issue here is the form to do someone wrong , and so on. Grammatically, this is a ditransitive construction: the verb takes two direct objects. Ditransitivity is more common with verbs such as give : “she gave me five dollars”, and so on. Ditransitive do is certainly of quite limited use, but it’s hard to narrow down to just a few idioms. Searching Google Books for did me a reveals many more examples of the construction than I’d thought of at first; but it does seem that it’s no longer forming new examples — in a quick flick-through, I didn’t find any new ones in the 20th century that hadn’t already appeared in the 19th

At the risk of saying something foolish, I won't attempt to answer the question myself. I understand that all three synchronically more or less equivalent and substitutable, but it would be quite nice to know the traditional usage notes on the abbreviations. Answer As far as I know, pg. is not an acceptable form, at least in formal writing. The correct forms are p. for a single page, and pp. for a range. In many cases, actually, you don't need any of them. Quite commonly you'll find references in the form volume:page(s) , like 5:204 or 8:99–108 (or, for works of a single volume, something like Blah Blah Blah 108).

Let say I wish to have a car, and somebody bought me that car. Which verbs or idioms can describe the "somebody's" action? Answer How about He fulfilled my wish for a car or He satisfied my wish for a car

“Nikki’s and Alice’s X” vs. “Nikki and Alice’s X” Preferred way to apostrophise in case of dual or multiple ownership by distinct entities (writers' and teachers' wages) or (writers and teachers' wages) writers and teachers are both plural When you have multiple nouns, and all those nouns own the same thing, do you put the apostrophe showing possesion in all the nouns or just the last noun? Answer According to The Grammar Bible by Michael Strumpf (page 29), in a section on "Possessive Case": Sometimes possession is shared by several nouns. In these cases, just make the last word in the series possessive. America and Canada's timber resources are dwindling Thomas and French's discovery shocked the world. Leslie and Eric's lasagna is to die for. These sentences all contain nouns that show joint ownership. In the first sentence, the resources belong to America and Canada. In the second sentence, the discovery belongs to both Thomas and French. In the

If the text I am quoting is italicised or bold, does my quote need to include this special font treatment? If I want to emphasise something in the quote, can I make words italic? For example, suppose that the text I'm quoting is: I love apples. I really love them! Can I quote that as "I love apples. I really love them!"? Also, can I quote the beginning as "I love apples,"? Thanks! Answer Your question actually contains four questions—the third and fourth ones largely repeats of the first and second ones, respectively. I'll try to answer them in the order in which they appear. If the text I am quoting is italicised or bold, does my quote need to include this? If the original text that you are quoting contains certain individual words that are italicized or bold, then fidelity to the original text requires either that you reproduce them in their original italic or bold font, or that you indicate that you have done away with the author's differential, ty

According to Etymonline , history comes from the same root as story . If they are from the same word, where does hi- come from? Is it just because of the English habit of taking names from other languages verbatim or is there something more to it? Answer If you look more closely you will see that the hi- was there originally, in Greek historia from which it was borrowed into Latin. The initial syllable was weakened and sometimes dropped in Late Latin, and reduced to e- in Old French, from which the word was borrowed into Middle English. In ME it shows up as historie, istorie, estorie and histoire , all representing OF forms, probably influenced by Latin – for of course Latin was still a living written language of learning and scholarship. Alongside these a “native” version , with the initial syllable entirely dropped, began to show up; this appears as storie, stor, storri , with plurals stories, storise, storius, and storien . All these forms were used indifferently for any na

Consider these two sentences: "I gave him a pencil," and, "I gave a pencil to him." Is it correct that the important part of the sentence is placed at the end? When we want to emphasize the pencil that I gave him, must we say, "I gave him a pencil?" When we want to emphasize that it is him to whom I gave a pencil, must we say, "I gave a pencil to him?"

I've gone through all the questions and answers on infinities and although they explain whether or not an infinitive should be marked or bare with certain words, nowhere can I find an explanation as to the function of the marker. Is there a specific rule as to when infinitives should be marked or bare or when it is optional? And what is the actual function of ''to" with infinitives?

In the talk show titled “ How Dogs Evolved Into 'Our Best Friends' ” on NPR’s “Fresh Air” aired on November 8, naturalist Mark Derr offered an intriguing story about how humans and wolves developed a friendly relationship, and wolves evolved into today’s dogs. [Mark Derr] tells Fresh Air's Dave Davies that he believes humans and wolves developed a close relationship after recognizing themselves in each other while hunting on the trail of big game. "[That's when] they started traveling together, and they've been at it ever since," he says. "The dog is a creation of wolves and humans — of two equal beings that came together at a certain point in history and have been together ever since." I thought “ They’ve been at it ever since” means “they stayed in the same situation / status, or maintained the same (close) relationship,” from the context of the narration. As I wasn’t sure whether “be at it” is an idiom or not, I consulted both Cambridge and M

I’ve heard somebody say: All what is needed is … I thought the correct way to phrase it was: All that is needed is … However, thinking about it more, the former doesn’t sound too incorrect, albeit a bit odd. Is the former grammatically correct? Am I alone in thinking the latter sounds more natural?

Will these expressions sound natural (to native English speakers)? Any better way to say: 1 - A turned on car 2 - A turned off car 3 - An idling car 4 - An idled car 5 - The car is turned off 6 - The car is turned on 7 - Turn on the car 8 - Turn off the car

I saw the word ‘Bash-a-thon’ in the headline of the Time magazine article (August 3) - ‘Palin Joins in Romney Bash-a-thon’ followed by the lead coy: “In an interview with Hannity, Palin takes Romney to task on debt. Says Bachmann performed better but "I'm not prejudging the field at this point." I searched several dictionaries including Cambridge Dictionaries online and Free Merriam Webster for the meaning of 'Bash-a-thon,' without finding any entry. There was an example of usage of this word – “I’m ready for a bash athon today. Bring it on.” in forums.silvertails. net. Although I understand that ‘bash-a-thon’ is ‘bash’ plus the affix, ‘athon’ meaning a long race, I wonder whether ‘bash-a-thon’ is an established English that worth for stowing in my English vocabulary, or just a casual combination of words like ‘McKinley moment,’ Reno era’ or ‘Snake metaphor’ as I posted question yesterday.

In another question in EL&U "Positives changes on the cards" — meaning? , it came up that at least one of us AmE speakers had always heard this idiom as "in the cards" and never as "on the cards", whereas at least one BrE speaker had always heard it as "on the cards", never as "in the cards". However, Ngram searches show both forms in literature from both sides of the pond, with "in the cards" clearly in the lead (since before "on the cards" occurs, up to the present); it is now about 20x more common in BrE corpus, and about 100x more common in AmE corpus. However, "on the cards" does not seem to appear in AmE corpus before c. 1850, and not before c. 1825 in BrE corpus. Answers to a related question favor the Tarot explanation for both. One quotes a source claiming Charles Dickens as first documented use. However, looking at quotations of Charles Dickens I have found, so far, only literal meanings, ref

As someone who has watched a lot of subtitled Japanese animation, it seems odd to hear a word such as ninja (used in the plural) in the dialogue and see it transliterated as ninjas . It somehow seems better to me to treat ninja just like antelope , bison , buffalo , caribou , deer , elk , fish , grouse , quail , reindeer , sheep , swine , etc., which are both singular and plural. Answer Would you also insist that Japanese speakers pluralize English words when used in the plural? Once a word has been borrowed into a language, it adheres to the grammar for normal words in that language. We don't borrow Japanese grammar, just words, so there is no need to use a zero plural with borrowed Japanese words. It is true there is a small set of animal nouns in English that have a zero plural, but they are not borrowed and are a special case. This is borne out by the results in the Corpus of Contemporary American English, which has 68 incidences of "ninjas". Of the 496 incidences

I know that a flat adverb is an adverb that has the same form as its related adjective, but does that mean any adverb without the -ly suffix is grammatically correct? For instance, if I said I am “ extreme angry,” is that the same as saying I am “ extremely angry”? Or is saying that it is “ dangerous hot outside” the same as saying it is “ dangerously hot outside”? I realize that flat adverbs are less common than they used to be, but that doesn’t change the question: Are flat adverbs always formed from words, namely adjectives, missing the -ly suffix? Thank you PS: This is what prompted my question: “Flat adverbs used to be much more common than they are today. For example, in Robinson Crusoe, Daniel Defoe writes of weather that is "violent hot." Samuel Pepys wrote in his famous diary of being "horrid angry." But most of these adverbs have long since been abandoned.” Bolded words are my emphasis.