Blog

The answer can be "Because it doesn't!" or "It wasn't needed!" in short but there might be a historical or linguistic explanation behind this. (Of course, every language might be lacking a word that another language has and you can give the meaning in a context.) This question came up mainly because there are several languages which has separate words for head hair and body hair. For example, head hair is capelli in Italian, saç in Turkish, cheveu in French and kopfhaar in German. But in English, hair is like a hypernym for head hair and body hair. When we check the etymology of hair , the origin is related to the German word haar . And interestingly, German language came up with kopfhaar which literally means headhair. Old English hær "hair, a hair," from Proto-Germanic *khæran (cognates: Old Saxon, Old Norse, Old High German har , Old Frisian her, Dutch and German haar "hair"), perhaps from PIE *ghers- "to stand out, to bri

I have observed a growing trend in which people substitute "no problem" for "you're welcome" as a response to "thank you". In particular, it seems to be an increasingly common response from servers and store clerks. It seems to me that "no problem" isn't appropriate for all situations as a response to "thank you", such as when I express thanks for receiving a cup of coffee at the local doughnut shoppe. To me, responding "no problem" to "thank you" implies there might have been a problem, which was somehow narrowly averted. Are there specific situations in which "no problem" is appropriate to use as a substitute for "you're welcome"? Answer The phrase "no problem" is a short version of "It was no problem," implying that it didn't cause the person any trouble or hardship to do the thing for which they are being thanked. It could be construed as an act of humilit

I was reading the etymology for 'come (v.)' when I encountered: [...] The substitution of Middle English -o- for Old English -u- before -m-, -n-, or -r- was a scribal habit before minims to avoid misreading the letters in the old style handwriting, which jammed letters . The practice similarly transformed some , monk , tongue , worm . Modern past tense form came is Middle English, probably from Old Norse kvam , replacing Old English cuom . [...] Are there any illustrations or depictions of texts, to help me visualise and discern how this problem of misreading caused this morphological substitution (from -u- to -o-)? I Googled to no avail. Answer In the notes of the Wikipedia article about minims, there's a link to the work of Heidi Harley , an author who supports the idea you transcribed, that is, that some spellings came from the scribes writing words differently to avoid confusion in minim clusters. Among other interesting things, the work says, in pages 292-93, that T

I am about to coin the word 'conundrous' because I needed it (and I think it deserves a place in the dictionary)! I would like comments on what you think about that (in the context of a serious article, or I wouldn't have to ask), but the question is as stated — if you can supply one or more adjectives that are synonymous with such an adjective, that's the answer for me. :) If there are none, I will be happy to accept close synonyms — the Merriam-Webster definition (of the noun) is here: conundrum I'm after the "difficult problem" (but not the "pun") synonymity. It's used to describe a word from an ancient text which is seemingly not in the dictionaries; hard to find information about. There's enigmatic , but it's just a mystery for the moment; it's not something that is by definition mysterious. There's elusive , but I think that carries the connotation of forever escaping one's reach. Answer > Perplexing. puzzling, c

What's a phrase that describes a unfounded tendency of a person to think that he or she is smarter or possesses more skill than average in a competitive environment such as the stock market or say, the casino, and as a consequence is entitled to great financial gain at the expense of others, although the same belief is more likely to instead cause him/her to lose badly? Answer That's the Dunning–Kruger effect. The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias whereby unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude. Conversely, highly skilled individuals tend to underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

It is becoming more popular on American talk shows to say "calculus" instead of "calculation." To my mind, calculus is either a branch of Mathematics or a stone like in the gall bladder. Any comments?

During a running debate or whether I Wonder as I Wander qualifies as a Christmas Carol, I looked up the lyrics. The first verse: I wonder as I wander out under the sky How Jesus the Saviour did come for to die For poor on'ry people like you and like I... I wonder as I wander out under the sky. I was surprised to hear that a fragmentary version of the song was heard in 1933 in North Carolina, and then transcribed by John Jacob Niles (who paid $1.75 in silver quarters). (Lyrics and history from A Kentucky Christmas .) I'm curious about the contraction on'ry in line three. Since it originates in the US, I'm inclined to believe it means ornery (stubborn). (This would require the deletion of the post-vocalic r as well as the unstressed vowel in the second syllable.) A definition of ornery traces it back to "ordinary." There are not many references to the contraction, but a 1973 Waylon Jennings album is entitled Lonesome, On'ry, and Mean . I believe that th

Albert Einstein is a German-born theoretical physicist. He became world-famous for his general theory of relativity. If you turn these two sentences into one, a main clause + a relative clause, you find yourself with three possible sentences: Albert Einstein, WHO became world-famous for his general theory of relativity, is a German physicist. Albert Einstein, WHO is a German-born physicist, became world-famous for his general theory of relativity. Albert Einstein is the German-born theoretical physicist WHO/THAT became world-famous for his general theory of relativity. Why is it possible to use both WHO or THAT in sentence 3, but only WHO in sentences 1 & 2? Answer As F.E. mentions in his comment, the possible choice of relativiser is one of the defining differences between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses , along with prosody and semantic shift if the relative clause is left out. A restrictive relative clause is a relative clause that takes a more or less gener

Every sector has them: the employee who has had very little formal training about a certain program, device or concept, but has done research into it himself and figured out just enough to have a negative impact on the normal operations. I'm talking about something like a manager who knows just enough about Outlook to make a software extension to regularly delete some unneeded contacts, but not enough to realize that this extension will remove those contacts from the contact managing server as well. Or a soccer mom who knows that they can refill their oil under the hood, but can't tell their oil tank from their wiper fluid canister. I'm looking for a way to express this in as little words as possible, preferably a single word, but 2 or 3 words will also be fine. I'm specifically looking for an adjective, something you can say about a person like "He's X" or "That X man". Answer You'll probably get quite a few suggestions, but unless they'

All my life I've been looking for a single word in English to describe someone who draws . It would be the equivalent of "a painter", or "a ceramicist", or "a sculptor". "Draftsman" has a technical slant to it. "Illustrator" implies that the drawing accompanies text or implies a particular meaning. A "Drawer" is part of a piece of furniture. Haven't found anyone on either side of the Atlantic who has a good answer. Sample sentence: Hello, everybody! My name is Emily and I am a ______________ (someone who draws pictures, as in produces drawings as an art form).

Which one is grammatically correct? Happy Birthday sir! Happy Birthday, sir! And where should I put "sir" in this sentence? Congratulations for completing another trip around the sun! Also suggest the position of the exclamation mark. Is it necessary or not? Answer Because you are addressing the subject ('sir') directly, you use a comma. "Happy Birthday, sir!" is correct. In the second question, you can simply add sir to the end and separate it with a comma: "Congratulations for completing another trip around the sun, sir!" As for whether the exclamation point is necessary, that depends entirely on one's relationship with the subject, as well as how momentous the occasion is. If one is friendly and relatively informal with the subject, the exclamation point is perfectly acceptable.

I've heard of the word 'Occidental' or 'The Occident' used to mean the same as Oriental or 'The Orient' but applied to the European continent. This I've seen in historic fiction, such as the works of Patrick O'Brian, and 'The Occidental' - being a pub in Sydney. Apart from that - I've never heard anyone use this term in conversation. Is it still used? Answer Occident is the antonym of orient, not a synonym. Oc·ci·dent noun \ˈäk-sə-dənt, -ˌdent\ : west (from sunset) Occident is not "used to mean the same as Oriental". However, the word is very rarely used, and today, it is mostly limited to sense of the Western World . This ngram shows the limited and declining use or the words. Notice oriental itself steeply falling in recent years. 1950-2008: occident,occidental,orient,oriental Occident,Occidental,Orient,Oriental,OCCIDENT,OCCIDENTAL,ORIENT,ORIENTAL

Without the question mark, it is simple... Can we make it in one hour — as I want to eat my dinner now. (I like the dash as a clear separator for the question and statement parts of the sentence) Adding a question mark, it looks wrong to me in all permutations. What should I be doing with this? Can we make it in one hour as I want to eat my dinner now? Can we make it in one hour? as I want to eat my dinner now. Can we make it in one hour — as I want to eat my dinner now? Can we make it in one hour? — as I want to eat my dinner now. Answer This statement would obviously occur only in a non-formal context or as a direct quotation in a formal context. In either case, no formal ‘rule’ applies. Instead, placement of the question mark should be guided by the actual phonetic contour of the utterance. There will almost certainly be an elevated tone on ‘hour’, which would call for a question mark. There may also be an elevated pitch on ‘dinner now’, if the speaker is requesting rather than dem

I wonder what an English speaking person would call a roof pitch viewed from inside the house like seen in the image below: For example, how would I describe the location of the desk beneath the window if I want to make sure that my reader understands that it is situated beneath a roof pitch? The desk is placed beneath ___ Answer In the UK at least, the desk in the picture is in an area known as "in the eaves" , Also think about storage, as built-in space can often be included, especially in the eaves. (-- Home Owners Alliance website) or "under the eaves" : A bed tucked behind a curtain under the eaves makes for a charming den. (-- House & Garden magazine, Dec 2012) In my experience, it would be understood that "in the eaves" means an area with reduced ceiling height - no-one would expect to be able to stand upright there. Historically, the eaves themselves are the external parts of a pitched roof which overhang the outside wall. By proximity, the

My mother used to correct me all the time when I was younger when I would talk about bringing a toy to a friend’s house instead of taking it there. Which is correct, and why? Answer Your mother is right. It boils down to knowing the definitions of the words. The definition of bring from dictionary.com is: to carry, convey, conduct, or cause (someone or something) to come with , to, or toward the speaker: Bring the suitcase to my house. He brought his brother to my office. Bringing with involves coming to . Taking with involves going away from . When you were talking to your mother, your were going away from her. That is why it was correct to say that you were taking something with you. If your were talking with your friend over the phone, it would be correct to use bringing, because you were going toward him. Bringing or taking is relative to the (future, present, or past) presence or absence of a person at the destination to which something shall be, is, or has been brought or

It seems to me that "leading edge" is the more established phrase, while "bleeding edge" is basically the same thing but the user has adapted the phrase for extra (rather meaningless) emphasis. Or is there a meaningful distinction between the two? Answer There is, in fact, a distinction. Leading edge in this sense, means cutting edge . It refers to the most highly sophisticated development in a field. However, it rarely or never has the connotation of risky or untested. It is almost always used to describe the best ; not necessarily the newest . Bleeding edge would refer to a development that is so new that it could have a high risk of being unreliable and may incur greater expense in order to use it: Bleeding edge: A pun on "leading edge." It implies that using the latest technology is often risky because it has not been tested with enough users and may not perform as expected. Introducing an advanced product or service is also risky because the user

A friend recently used the phrase bane of my existence , and while I’m familiar with the phrase, I would like to know its origin and meaning. Answer bane : a cause of great distress or annoyance Therefore the bane of your existence is the chief annoyance or distress in your life, it is something that prevents you from enjoying life, turning it instead to misery. From White Fang by Jack London: But the bane of his life was Lip-lip. Larger, older, and stronger, Lip-lip had selected White Fang for his special object of persecution. White Fang fought willingly enough, but he was outclassed. His enemy was too big. Lip-lip became a nightmare to him. Whenever he ventured away from his mother, the bully was sure to appear, trailing at his heels, snarling at him, picking upon him, and watchful of an opportunity, when no man-animal was near, to spring upon him and force a fight. As Lip-lip invariably won, he enjoyed it hugely. It became his chief delight in life, as it became White Fang's

"Why is the sky blue?" vs "Why the sky is blue?" It seems both sentences are correct, is there any difference in meaning? Addendum My question is inspired by this book's title: Edit : I added question mark to the "Why the sky is blue" based on the wrong assumption that if a sentence begins with "why" it's a question". Answer "Why is the sky blue?" has the grammatical structure of a question , and cannot be interpreted in any other way. "Why the sky is blue" has the grammatical structure of a phrase standing in for a noun ; it could be replaced by "the reason for the sky's blueness" or "the reason the sky is blue". E.g. one can say "Why the sky is blue is a fascinating question". It can also be interpreted as a question, but technically this is not grammatically correct.

The word doesn't carry much connotation, maybe something like "that person cares about looks". What I mean is it doesn't carry any double meaning, it is very strictly related to appearance only, maybe a little bit about being self-important/self-obsessed? I'm relatively sure you could use it like this in a sentence "She got boob implants, she's so ____" The word is not vain, narcissistic, superficial, conceited, snobby, cosmetic, shallow, flamboyant, ostentatious, classy, exhibitionistic, gay, extravagant. It's not a very complicated word, probably 6-10 letters. The definition would be something like "To do with (outward/physical) appearance".

I found this on SO and googled the idiom "suit yourself", but I couldn't find a matching translation. The context was that the questioner was nitpicking and the answerer lost his patience. Answer "Suit yourself" means, basically, "ok, do whatever you want; I'm done arguing". It implies that the speaker made some attempt (perhaps small) to get the listener to do something; it's not generally something you say out of the blue. It's a pretty common idiom in US English. I don't know the derivation.

I checked some dictionaries and found out the following words to be used for objects whose names are forgotten: whatsis, whatchamacallit, thingummy, dohickey, dojigger, doodad, doohickey, hickey, gizmo, gismo, gubbins, thingamabob, thingumabob, thingmabob, thingamajig, thingumajig, thingmajig. Which of these words are really used in colloquial cases? What colloquial word do native English speakers use when they don't remember a word at that moment but they still want to use a word instead of it? Answer I have used or heard almost all of those words used in the context of tip of the tongue name replacement. The three I've not heard in that context are gubbins , which I have heard as a reference to a person, much the same as muggins : And who do you think will have to clear up this mess? Gubbins, here. hickey , which I've only heard with respect to love bites , and I've not heard dojigger at all. One that I think is missing from that list is hoojamaflip . I think the mo

On an average Sunday, you might find yourself In the sentence above, the possibility of the person reading finding themselves doing what it says is pretty high. It's almost certain. Should I use may instead? Might still sounds better when the sentence is read. I often find sentences where may might be more appropriate but might sounds better. Even in this previous sentence I used might even though what I'm describing is much more likely than not.

I would need to understand the difference here: He was being beaten. He was getting beaten. I know "get" + ppt can be either passive voice or a change of state. What is that in this example? I guess this is the passive voice. But what about this: He is getting ready. He is being ready - obviously wrong but I cannot say why.

Brothers and sisters are siblings. Husbands and wives are spouses. Mothers and fathers are parents. Sons and daughters are children. Grandparents, grandchildren ... but what about uncles and aunts, or nieces and nephews? In writing this, I scanned the "Similar Questions" sidebar and found that half of my question is already answered; there is no real term for nieces and nephews. Bummer. But I'm still wondering about aunts and uncles: does anyone know about that? Answer The answer to the similar question you mention actually has your answer. No, there is no gender-neutral word for your parents' siblings. From the answer : This thread also mentions: that there is no encompassing word for aunt/uncle either that there is no male/female form of cousin. the article " There isn't a word for it ":

This conversation is from "Youth in Revolt" movie. A boy named Nick met his colleague, a girl, in a music shop while purchasing a DVD and after a little talk, her boyfriend hugged her from behind in front of Nick. Then the girl chuckles and says: "Chad, fuck you". He replies — "Oh, fuck you, you love it." Obviously, fuck here doesn't mean "sexual intercourse" or "destroy or ruin" or "make someone angry", which are meanings from Oxford Dictionary online. What is the meaning of fuck you here? Answer "Fuck you" can be used to mean roughly "go to hell." However, in this particular sentence I think it is used jovially. In some cultures it is common to use a pretty brutal insult against a friend and mean it in an affectionate way. In essence saying "you're an ass but I like you anyway." So literally it means "go to hell", but in this case it probably means something closer to "

I have been asked by a young friend, "Which is correct: bored by, bored of, or bored with?" My instinct is to say that "bored of" and "bored by" are fine, but "bored with" sounds like she is being bored alongside someone else who is also bored. My trusty Dictionary of English Usage has failed me. Any thoughts?

I notice that "let alone" is used in sentences that have a comma. The structure of the sentence is what comes before the comma is some kind of negative statement. Right after the comma is "let alone," followed by the rest of the sentence. What does "let alone" mean here? Does it mean the same thing as "or even?" Can someone explain this phrase and sentences that have it? Answer It is roughly synonymous with the terms "not to mention" or "to say nothing of", except that those terms require a change in tense for the following action. The sentence "I wouldn't go near a stingray, let alone pet one" implies that the speaker would stop far short of even being in a situation to do what follows the "let alone" clause. They wouldn't go near a stingray, therefore it is out of the question that they would pet one.

Does anyone know what it's called when you interpret evidence to reach the conclusion you want? Answer Biased interpretation , a type of confirmation bias , one possible reason for which is wishful thinking .

What's the adjective for the country of Ireland (Eire in Irish) that specifically excludes Northern Ireland? For example when referring to the accent of people from the the Republic of Ireland but not to Ulster. Ireland is geographically the whole island and politically consists of two countries: in the north is Northern Ireland, or Ulster in the south is Ireland, or the Republic of Ireland, and Eire in Irish Language Log lists only "Irish" as the adjective to refer to the Republic of Ireland. For Ulster, "Northern Irish" is sometimes used as the adjective but "Northern Ireland" is 10 times more common (plus "British" is sometimes used). You could write "Southern Irish" but I think this is wrong because it suggests the name of the Republic is "Southern Ireland", which it is not. I think "southern Irish" is better as it doesn't make this suggestion, although it leaves some ambiguity: it could instead refer to

A dictionary says that Hello could be a verb, noun and interjection . I'm not sure I saw it to be a verb though. Q: Could someone provide an example of 'hello' where it's used as verb . In the meaning of its synonym phrase 'say hello'. Can I say for example: "I hello you?" (Probably not but what can I hello ?)

In Chinese, there is a four-character phrase, 竹马故友 which could be translated word for word into: Bamboo Horse Old Friend: Friends who played together riding toy horses made of bamboo. I know there is a similar term in Japanese and Korean. Japanese is 竹馬の友 which means a friend of bamboo horse. I heard from a Japanese expert that it is not very common, but not difficult to understand for Japanese. I wonder how a native speaker of English describes a best friend since childhood. For example, when you introduce him or her, you could say: (S)he is my best friend since childhood. We are [best friend since childhood] or We used to [do something] together. Is there any suitable term or idiom? Answer "Lifelong friends" is about as far back as you can go because most people would understand that tiny babies don't really have "friends" so to say "lifelong", it's generally understood that as long as someone were capable of having/being a friend, they'v

Trying to find out what double words in a sentence are called. I know there's got to be a word for it. There is for everything! Examples: I had had a good day, until you arrived. We know better now that that is complete bullshit. I gave her her hat back.

This may be a Programmers Stack Exchange question, but I don't think so, because I don't believe there is an accepted term for this in the industry, so I turn to all of you for suggestions. Say I'm at work, and a co-worker doesn't know what to do, and comes up to me to ask a question. If they are explaining the question, and half way through, they suddenly realize what the answer is, we call that "Rubber Ducking" (because all I do is sit there and nod my head like a rubber duck in a bathtub, and by explaining, they have to think about the problem correctly). If they finish explaining the question, and they don't have that moment of clarity, but I know what the answer is, then I'm being an "expert". If I can see how they should have figured it out for themselves, and I make a suggestion like "In cases like this, I usually find it helpful to ask myself ...", then I'm being a "mentor". Ideally, they get half way through a

I am not sure which one is grammatically correct. It could be both or none. Could you select which sentence would be grammatically correct? The only difference between the sentences is even to vs. to even : Students over the age of 16 who are considering to be employed by business companies should be incredibly concerned; it is extremely difficult to even get an opportunity for an interview. Students over the age of 16 who are considering to be employed by business companies should be incredibly concerned; it is extremely difficult even to get an opportunity for an interview.

Here’s the original: The veterinarian was caught off guard when, regaining consciousness, we were again attacked by the cat. My rewrite of this sentence is either: The veterinarian was caught off guard when we were again attacked by the cat regaining consciousness. or else: The veterinarian was caught off guard when, regaining consciousness, the cat attacked us. Is either of these rewrites satisfactory? Answer Based on our exchange of comments, your third sentence is correct: The veterinarian was caught off guard when, regaining consciousness, the cat attacked us. Since you're trying to say that it is a second attack, I'd add "again": The veterinarian was caught off guard when, regaining consciousness, the cat attacked us again.

I was trying to convey my opinion about a person I knew, when I faced this question. I had to describe a person who cared only about himself: his personal well-being, wealth, luxury, happiness are his only priorities in life. He does not really care for his family members, or spare some time or thought to alleviate their problems. What adjective is best suited to describe such a person? My instantaneous choice was along the lines of self-important or egotistic , but these adjectives intend “thinking highly of oneself ”, which is not what I meant. Nouns describing such a person are also welcome. I am looking for a word as little disparaging as possible. Answer How about "selfish" or "self-centered."

Please carefully read the text below: On 24 November, 1993, a meeting of Leftist intellectuals occurred in London under the auspices of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), which is a Labour-leaning think-tank. A short document was circulated in advance of the said meeting to clarify its purpose. Among other things, the document declared that the task of the IPPR was: "To do what the Right did in the seventies, namely to break through the prevailing parameters of debate and offer a new perspective on contemporary British politics." The explanatory document also said, "Our concern is not to engage in a philosophical debate about foundations of socialism." If this meant that those foundations were not the appropriate thing to talk about at the 24 November meeting, then that might have been right; not every thing has to be discussed at every meeting. But if what was meant was that discussion of philosophical foundations is not what the Left now needs, then

When do you use “Did + 1st form” instead of “2nd form” When is do used in affirmative sentences? For example: I do think that this is going to be... Is it only used to emphasize a concept? Answer Well, since I do think apples are good. and I think apples are good. mean the same thing. I think it's just for emphasis.

In English we have: "beef" for "cow", "cattle" "veal" for "calf" "pork" for "pig" "mutton" for "sheep" I'm not aware of this separation for "fish", "goat" or "chicken" (Spanish has "pollo" and "gallina") and other poultry. Are these words used simply to distinguish the meat from the animal (i.e. to avoid saying "cow meat") or is there a psychological separation to avoid the association? I doubt the latter since these words developed when people were likely less squeamish than some are today. Why are there not meat words for some animals? What are some others I didn't list? Answer I believe that many of these come from the use of French in England amongst the aristocracy after the Norman conquest. Thus 'pork' (porc) is the posh word, 'pig' is the vulgar peasant (or English) word. I don't have any reference for

Non-preferred sounds clunky to me and words like alternative , I feel, don't convey the sense of "the set of things I really don't like". Edit: Perhaps the context will help. In this version, I've used tchrist's suggestion of disliked : Most parts of the brain have preferred patterns of input that those parts link to characteristic patterns of output. Many disorders arise when a brain region receives patterns of input it dislikes or cannot link the preferred input to its characteristic output. I want to avoid too much anthropomorphism because this is for a scientific paper. The field already uses the word "preferred". In the section intended for a general audience I wanted to avoid using technical words but not accidentally convey something.

Whenever I hear the phrase I struck gold the fact the person had to have done a certain search is implied to me. Is this correct? For example, if I say: Janet loves sex so much! I've struck gold with this one! In the above example, is the fact that I've been looking for a woman implied in the phrase or is it possible, from how the sentence stands, that I wasn't looking for a woman at all and she just came to me out of the blue? If the effort is implied, what would be the phrase for an "effortless gold strike"? EDIT: According to the current comments, I'd like to add that this question is not related to sex only. The example was just an example. I'm referring to the phrase generally as used in any situation. Answer Among terms for a stroke of fortune are godsend; stroke of luck; lucky break, strike, or stroke; fluke; windfall; fortuitous. These words are used in phrases like "What a godsend she has been!" and "That really was a lucky brea

It is ungrammatical to say "He is a little more sophisticated man" OR "He is a little more smart and sophisticated man". My reasoning as to why is as follows: The problem is that 'a little' is a construction in itself. 'Move over a little'. 'Move over a little more'. Whatever you analyse 'little' as here, it isn't a noun. Realistically, it is probably a contraction or ellipsis of 'a little bit'. Either way, if you say 'a little more', the 'a' is part of the construction, it is not the indefinite article to a noun. In 'a little more sophisticated movie', the 'a' belongs to 'a little', not 'movie'. So we are short of an indefinite article. If we say 'an a little more sophisticated movie', that too is wrong. The solution? Don't use 'a little', use 'somewhat' or 'slightly' or some other construction that doesn't already use 'a'. 

Can the word "sufficient" be used in a negative sense, i.e. relating to something that has a negative effect when augmented? Example: These problems influence the results for sufficiently high speeds. Since "sufficient" is a fundamental logical concept (as the logical opposite of "necessary"), I feel it shouldn't be "biased" in this way. On the other hand, maybe in linguistics it is different. The meaning of "sufficient" is equivalent to "as much as needed", so I can imagine that the "positive" nature of the verb "need" influences the meaning here. So, can "sufficient/ly" be used in this way? Answer I see nothing wrong with that sentence. Here's one of my favorites you see on the internet that uses "sufficiently" in a similar manner (sometimes known as Grey's Law ): Sufficently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

What is the difference between "denizens" and "residents"?

I came across the phrase "I've gotten over [tool] recently" in an article written by someone who had tested the tool. From the article's context, it seemed that the author was not particularly fond of the tool and that therefore the phrase means something like "I stopped using [tool] recently". Is that correct, or is there another meaning behind the phrase? Answer Without further context and using only the fact that the author was not particularly fond of the tool, it could mean one of the following. (1) He liked it very much in the past but dislikes it now. (2) He found it difficult to use but has mastered it now. (3) He had a bad time using it but is not troubled by it now.

With all due respect is an idiomatic expression which has been used with he following meaning since the 19th century:. This phrase always precedes a polite disagreement with what a person has said or brings up a controversial point. [c. 1800] (From AHD) but according to the following extract from the Grammarist its meaning has changed in recent years and its usage now suggests a sarcastic and possibly disrespectful tone: With all due respect has become an overused phrase, it is now often used sarcastically to mean the exact opposite of what it states. Political debaters and others may preface a rebuttal to an argument with, with all due respect. In this case, a subtle disrespect is intended. In 2008, the Oxford dictionary compiled a list of the most irritating phrases in the English language , the phrase with all due respect came in as the fifth most irritating phrase in the English language. Perhaps because of its changing function from a phrase meant to mitigate hard feelings to

Does one translate a word or phrase into another language or to another language? For example: Translate the following phrase to Spanish. Translate the following phrase into Spanish.

How do you pronounce it would, it was, etc ( in American English) ? That is, how do you pronounce the "T" when it precedes a semi-vowel like w? Is it a stop T, or even no T at all when pronounced fast ? When followed by a vowel, it's a "flap T" ( ex: " it is") , and when followed by a consonant, it's a full T ( ex: "it looks"), as far as I can see, but this I can't nail down. Answer In many dialects, /t/ before a consonant (including w) is pronounced [ʔt] or even [ʔ], that is, glottalized or preglottalized . ( Edit to clarify: that is, /t/ before a consonant, except for initial /t/ which is not glottalized. )

A recent question on EL&U asks " Where did the 1920s slang word "grungy" (meaning "envious") originate, if the modern word "grungy" (meaning "dingy") doesn't appear until 1965? " I ran Google Books searches and regular Google searches for contemporaneous examples of grungy in the sense of "envious or jealous" from the 1920s or thereabouts, and I consulted a number of dictionaries of slang in hopes of finding citations to actual instances of this usage, without success. I did find, on the wider Internet, multiple virtually identical lists of "Slang of the 1920s" that included the entry "Grungy: envious" or "Grungy: jealous"—without citation of any authority or quotation of any historical example or identification of the originator of this list of terms. So I am looking for answers to three questions: What published reference work has confirmed the 1920s usage of grungy to mean "envio

Which one is grammatically correct? I worked at X company ... from Aug 2005 to Sep 2007. from A up to B. from A until B. from A till B. between A and B. Answer All are grammatical. If you’re looking for advice on which to use, the first is the simplest and likely to be suitable in most contexts (although I prefer to write the names of months in full in formal writing).

The two works are similar and it is not just because they are both from franchises (that are) notorious for (their) poorly-written characters. Is it acceptable to omit the "that are" in the above sentence, and if so, what is doing so called? Similarly, is it acceptable to omit the "their", and if so, what is doing so called? My gut tells me yes to both, because it "sounds fine." However, why then does omitting those words sound so wrong in the following examples? The two works are similar and it is not just because they are both from franchises (that are) notorious. The two franchises are notorious for (their) badness. Answer The two works are similar and it is not just because they are both from franchises (that are) notorious for (their) poorly-written characters. It is perfectly acceptable to omit the "that are" and "their" in your first sentence, as they are attached to relative clauses , and match the case when their omission is o

I keep re-reading this sentence and it just sounds so wrong to me. I am not quite sure which part is wrong but I am sure that there is something wrong with it. Am I supposed to use the word bigger or larger? and is moles supposed to be plural or singular? "In the empirical formula, there would be a bigger number of moles of water per mole of anhydrous salt than if the compound had not spilled. "

The prefix "milli-" means "thousandth" (e.g. 1000 millimeters in 1 meter) and the prefix "kilo-" means "thousand" (e.g. 1 kilogram is 1000 grams). Why is the period of 1000 years called a "millennium"? Why don't we use the term "kilennium"? In fact, we already use Y2K as an abbreviation for "Year 2000". Doesn't it make more sense that a "millennium" should be the time period of one-thousandth of a year? Likewise, instead of "century" or "centennial", of which the prefix "centi-" means "hundredth", shouldn't we use "hectennial" for 100 years? Answer The Latin for thousand (not thousandth ) is mille, and this survives in words like millennium for a thousand years and millipede for an animal with "a thousand feet." Similarly for cent- as a prefix in words like century ; it comes from the Latin for hundred, not hundredth . Just as in

I'm leaving next week. As shown here, the present progressive can represent an event that will happen in the future. I'm wondering what's the reasoning behind this feature. The one I can think of is that in English the act of "leaving" can start when you've decided in your mind that you will leave or when you've arranged for your leaving, either of which can be some time (e.g., a week) before your actual leaving. I'd like to know if native speakers agree with this reasoning. If not, please articulate what you think is the reasoning. EDIT Both the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL) by Pullum and Oxford Modern English Grammar (OMEG) by Aarts clearly say that the progressive futurate (i.e., the present progressive indicating a future event as in I'm leaving next week ) does not have a progressive meaning to it. OMEG on page 270 says: It is important to be aware of the fact that [the progressive futurate] is not aspectual, that is, the si

One of my linguistics professors speaks English as a second language, and remarked that she never knows which of the two is appropriate. Given a list of examples, all native speakers in the classroom were able to unanimously agree on which to use, but we couldn't give exact rules. The closest we came was in the context of proximity ('this' being on the speaker, 'that' covering most of the rest), but with the exception of properties of objects on the speaker e.g. "this jacket is beautiful, I love that color." Answer For a Linguistics class, start by reading Fillmore's Deixis Lectures . Demonstratives like this and that are deictic, contrasting distal that with proximal this . And they're not nearly as complex as they used to be in English, as this puzzle demonstrates. Since "distal" and "proximal" are formed from the Latin words meaning far and near , I'd say you and your class were on the right track. But there are man

This is probably best explained with an example. Alice and Bob have a child, Erin. Bob and Carol have a child, Frank. Carol and Dan have a child, Grace. Clearly, Erin and Frank are half-siblings, because of their father, Bob. Similarly, Grace and Frank share their mother, Carol. Erin and Grace have no parents in common, and are thus not half-siblings. However, is there a term for their relation?

How should this sentence be phrased? Please, do also visit this house. Please also visit this house. It seems like that the answer might be dependening on the actual context, however, in that case, which context does each of these sentences belong to? Answer Neither of your examples sound natural. Adding "do" before the verb sounds rather archaic and formal. Putting "also" before the verb makes it unclear what "also" modifies and splits the verb from "please", which sounds unnatural. If you mean "visit this house in addition to another one", I would say, "Please visit this house also. " On the other hand, if you mean "visit this house in addition to doing another activity", I would say, " Also, please visit this house. " Strictly speaking, however, either of these sentences would be correct in either situation (and the former sounds a little better). The main problem with your original sentences (besides t

As from object, is there a rational reason for saying "last night" rather than "yesterday night", though you would say "yesterday morning" and "yesterday afternoon"? Answer [Edited:] You couldn't say last morning in most cases, because you might be referring to this morning if the hour of speaking is late (today's morning is the "last" morning then): it would be confusing if last morning could be either today or yesterday. The same applies to the afternoon. But you can't go later than "night": the last night that has passed (you would not use "last" for a period that is not over yet) is necessarily that of the day before today. This could be the reason why we use "last" only with "night". But there might be some entirely different historical reason instead; it is impossible to say without textual research. We could theoretically use yesterday night as an alternative to last night ;

Not long ago I finished a project for a school assignment. After the assignment was done I left the office of this particular teacher. Just before I wanted to exit through the door I turned around and asked if he preferred the door open or close. The question I asked was "Door open or door closed?". This particular teacher always tries to be funny in a dickish way. He answered "Yes". After some research I found out that apparently the answer yes to an or question is valid, because "or" in a question is like the programmable "or". How would I ask exclusively "or" questions, programmable xor, so to speak. TLDR: How to ask "Xor" questions in english, A Xor B.

How can we unambiguously distinguish between I would and I had , if the native English speaker used the contraction I'd ? For instance, I'd read the newspaper. We can mean the above sentence as either I had read the newspaper . or I would read the newspaper. Any help will be appreciated!!! Answer I would must be followed by an infinitive without to ( or perfect infinitive as in I would have gone ). I had must be followed either by an object (a noun phrase, e.g. I had a little lamb , in which meaning it is rarely contracted) or by a verb's past participle. So it's (almost) always possible to distinguish between them by analyzing the words that follow. Examples: I'd go. (go = infinitive => 'd = would) I'd had. (had = participle => 'd = had) The only ambiguous case is when the verb's infinitive coincides with its participle. I'd put. (could be would or had) But these cases are rare and the meaning can be deduced if more context is provide

Upon answering the telephone, the person calling asks if Joan is available. If Joan is the person who answered the phone, should she say "This is her" or "This is she"? Answer Traditional grammarians prefer the nominative ("she") for the complement of the verb "to be". Most usage in my experience prefers the accusative ("her") and regards the verb as having a direct object rather than a complement. I suspect the traditional grammarians, as they often did, have misapplied a rule of Latin grammar. In Latin, "esse" takes a complement in the nominative case, but Latin declines the verb strongly enough that it doesn't bother with a pronoun as the subject of a verb unless needed for emphasis. "It is she" in Latin would be "illa id est", which looks far more natural than the English. Note that it's "c'est lui" in French, so there isn't a general rule for a complement of "to be"

This is the classic usage of neither/nor : I would neither hide nor run away. But is the following construction grammatical? (More than two choices, no neither ) I wasn't going to play dead. I wasn't going to hide. Nor was I going to run away. Answer Although the classic rule is to use neither and nor together, Grammar Girl writes: “Nor” doesn’t necessarily have to appear in a sentence with the word “neither.” “Nor” can start a sentence. For example, if you’ve just mentioned that you don’t usually wake up at 6 a.m. and you want to continue being negative, you can start another sentence with “nor”: “Nor do I like to wake up at 5 a.m.” Another option is to combine the two negative ideas into one sentence and then start the second part with “nor”: “I don’t usually wake up at 6 a.m., nor do I like to wake up at 5 a.m.” In your case, you have three options. From the above, it is correct that you don't need to use neither . However, in the same article Grammar Girl writes:

When is the perfect tense used? All examples illustrating perfect are always answer to the same question. So there is no way when I can simply said: I have written a note or I had written a note Is that right? Instead I need to say: I wrote a note But if someone asked me: Did you finish a note? then I need to use perfect: Yes, I just have written a note or Yes, I had written a note yesterday Am I right?

How I use en dashes and em dashes En dashes : Sybrand Engelbrecht (1814–2177): Unspaced en dash. January–December: Unspaced en dash. Sybrand loved three things – soccer, jazz, and living forever (he unfortunately couldn't.): Spaced en dash instead of an em dash. Em dashes : I don't use em dashes; I use spaced en dashes. Is it wrong to space en dashes and em dashes?

I am writing a small essay and I am confused about how to how to properly express this particular sentence below: Chapter 11 begins with the saint chastising the king who was thinking himself to be very intelligent. My Microsoft Word 2010 said 'himself' should be 'he' like below: Chapter 11 begins with the saint chastising the king who was thinking he to be very intelligent. Once I changed it as above, the word then said it should be 'him' and not 'he': Chapter 11 begins with the saint chastising the king who was thinking him to be very intelligent. At this point it doesn't complain any more. Is this the right way to use? I want to express that the king was thinking himself to be intelligent but I am not sure if that meaning comes out with him. I would appreciate some explanation on the correct usage and if possible may be some general rules around this. Answer Posting an answer using the comment by JohnLawler so I can close this. There is nothi