Blog

Here's a published example of a problem I come across frequently: A cop is six times more likely to be shot by someone black than the opposite. Let us assume that the writer meant to say: Events in which a cop is shot by someone black are six times more frequent than events in which a someone black is shot by a cop. Obviously a concise way of abbreviating the second clause would be desirable. But is there a way to do it that is not ambiguous? The problem with the way the author did it originally is that the opposite could mean a number of things. E.g., White (or non-black ) is the opposite of black , so did he mean than by someone not black ? Not getting shot is the opposite of getting shot , so did he mean than not being shot by someone black ? Granted those may seem like less likely interpretations, but they are not inconsistent with the original sentence. My inclination is to replace the opposite with vice versa , but is that truly unambiguous in this example? I.e., is the o...

The American Dialect Society has voted because as the Word of the Year owing to its increased use in phrases such as "because happy," "because sad," and "because bored." Since it takes an object, it might be thought of as a preposition, but (as in the third example) it sometimes takes a participle or an adjective, can we really call it a preposition? I need to know because curiosity.

Recently I've noticed that many people are pronouncing the word 'height' as /haiθ/ That's right, heigth . I've only ever heard this pronunciation mistake in the last few years. Maybe it's just an issue in Texas? Has anyone else noticed this? Answer It is a misunderstanding that the spelling or pronunciation of heighth is an illiterate and uneducated error. Although many wrongly consider it such, history is not on their side, nor are the better dictionaries. Despite how in particular over the last century the heighth spelling has come to be stigmatized, heighth is a perfectly legitimate word of ancient lineage. It was used not only by Shakespeare and Milton, but even by Charles Dickens, who wrote considerably later than the first two. The spelling that is no longer used is hight , although it was once common. Interestingly, Shakespeare variously employed not only height and heighth but also hight , depending on the work: 1591 Shaks. Two Gentlemen from Vero...

I am new here, so my first question would be to ask about an annoying habit that I, as well as many other people out there, seem to have... During the telling of a story I will often say this one phrase: "I was like" (and I was like, "Don't be dumb, it's not weird to say it at all!"). I would really like to throw something into my brain that would replace this. I hate using this term, it disgusts me...

I'm completely confused when it comes to the combinations with over / down / out : Thank you for coming over / - coming down / - coming out. Come over here / - down here / - out here. Over there / Down there / Out there. How do I decide which one and when to use? Answer They're all perfectly good, and in some contexts, two or even all three of them will fit: it all depends on the spatial (or sometimes notional) arrangement of the situation. Come over means "come from somewhere else to here". Sometimes it is literal: from the other side of the road, or of a fence. But sometimes it is more abstract, meaning something like "from your notional space to mine". This might mean neighbourhood (from your town to here), or property (from your house) but it might be much more vague, "the place you happen to be in right now, to the place I happen to be in". In the latter case there is often (but not always) a slightly antagonistic sense to it, implying tha...

I have seen many articles that use quotes from players like: We gonna [sic] be working hard over the summer cause we gotta [sic] get better. What is sic ? Where does it come from? Answer sic is Latin (so, thus) and is used to call attention to an error in an original quote. Specifically, it is used when quoting another to say, "this is not a typographical, spelling or grammar error on the part of the reporter; rather, the error was in the original, and we're quoting it without change."

Someone criticized me for using the word "premises" to denote a set of assumed "propositions", due to its connotation with houses and buildings. Is that correct? If so, what should be the proper plural form of "premise"? Answer Merriam-Webster give an example using premises : premises of the argument>. I do not think there is anything wrong with this use of premises . I don’t find homophony or having multiple meanings to be valid reasons to criticize use of a word.

Neither Wiktionary nor The Online Etymology Dictionary seem to know anything. UPDATED (October 25 2015) dosh ‎(uncountable) (Britain, slang) Money Etymology Unknown. Possibly a combination of dough and cash Wiktionary Answer Chambers Dictionary 11th Ed.: ORIGIN: Poss *do*llars and ca*sh* Partridge Dictionary of Slang: Possibly a combination of dollars and cash ; there are also suggestions that the etymology leads back to doss (temporary accommodation), hence, it has been claimed, the money required to doss, or Scottish dialect doss (tobacco pouch, a purse containing something of value) – note, too, that tobacco is related to money via quid . US dosh didn’t survive but in mid-C20 UK and Australia the word was resurrected, or coincidentally recoined US, 1854 Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 8th Ed.: 1950s: of unknown origin Oxford English Dictionary: Origin unknown. 1953 H. Clevely Public Enemy xviii. 114 He hadn't enough dosh on him.

Is it correct, and safe to say, that -- generally speaking -- verbal constructions with "with' are to a certain extent more widely and commonly used in AE than in BE and other varieties of English ? E. g. Speak/talk with (as opposed to the shared speak/talk to); visit with (=chat/converse with); meet (up) with (originally chiefly AE); get back with someone (as opposed to the shared "get back to"); stick with (as opposed to the shared "stick to"); check back with (as opposed to "check back to"); compare with (as opposed to the shared "compare to"); correspond with something (as opposed to the shared "correspond to"); interview with someone (as opposed to the shared "interview someone"); consult with someone (as opposed to the shared "consult someone"); conform with (as opposed to the shared "conform to");(...)

Here is a question I've encountered: How can you lift an elephant with one hand? The answer provided is: It is not a problem, since you will never find an elephant with one hand . Now, if I actually want this sentence to mean that can I lift an elephant with a single hand (meaning my own hand ), how would I say that? Answer The question is perfectly grammatical, but ambiguous (which is part of the joke, actually). Your own interpretation is just as valid as the one stated by the answer and makes more sense from a practical point of view. It's possible to remove the ambiguity with one of the alternatives provided by the other answers but, really, you shouldn't.

I found the term off used in the following way (technical document): ... a total of two (2 off) Single radio channels ... While the meaning seems pretty clear, I'd like to know what off stands for in such a context. I supposed it could be an acronym, but could not find any references.

I am wondering if using "I concur" in a formal context is OK. I am writing a formal email; I want to use I concur, at the same time don't want to sound ghetto. Maybe I shouldn't bother and use I wholeheartedly agree instead. I still want to learn if it is OK to use "concur" in a professional email. Answer Concur and agree essentially mean the same, but the former is more formal. Make your choice accordingly.

Synonyms for "multiple things that reside in the same location" - I can think of "colocated," which I've only seen in an engineering context. Do any other words fit the bill? Answer try juxtaposed from juxtapose To place (two or more objects) close together; place side by side. or even cohabit To dwell together; inhabit or reside in company or in the same place or country.

It is to be discussed. Is be + infinitive forming the future tense here? You are to be dressed and ready by 8:00. I was thinking it's almost commanding (or speaking of a command) but this doesn't seem to be the case, as sentences like this are commanding without this structure: You will be dressed and ready by 8:00. or You are going to be dressed and ready by 8:00. And there's sentences like this that don't imply commandment in any way: I am to go home tomorrow! or I am to be home tomorrow! (Slightly different meaning, same general sentiment) So what's going on with the be + infinitive structure?

What does I got you mean? Does it mean Ok, I understood what you said or Hey, I know that you did that? If they are both correct, when should we use which? Answer The meaning depends on the context. In (at least American) slang, saying "I got you" means either "I get what you're saying" or "I've got your back". In child games of tag, saying "I got you!" means that you caught someone.

I'm thinking in particular of dictionaries or illuminated bibles being displayed on these stands, which are at least waist-high on a standing person, constructed of wood. Is there a particular word for this, other than "book stand"?

What do you call a watch that isn't a smart watch? A dumb watch? Just "a watch"? Something else? I checked Wiktionary and it didn't have any antonyms. Answer You are looking for the retronym ("a new name for something that differentiates the original from a more recent form or version"). The adoption of a retronym requires two things: the new version being sufficiently popular time In the case of the smart-watch, neither has happened yet.

I was watching an episode from 2007 of the Science Channel's How It's Made in which a canoe was being constructed *. The narrator consistently pronounced "gunwale" as /ˈɡʌnheɪl/ (gunhale) with an aspirated "h" (and no "w"). I'm only familiar with the pronunciation /ˈɡʌnəl/ (gunnel) and that (or similar) is the only pronunciation given in a few dictionaries I consulted. Is there a dialect of English (or regional accent) in which his pronunciation is common? * Sign in required to view video.

The function f(a,x) returns the value in the array a specified by x , where x is a percentage of the length of the array, divided by 100. (i.e. x can be any number between 0 and 1, corresponding to a percentage between 0% and 100%) Examples: if a = [1,2,3,4,5], then f(a, 0.5) = 3; f(a, 0) = 1; f(a, 1) = 5; Is there a better way to express that some variable is a ' percentage divided by 100 '? Preferably I am looking for a single word. Alternatively a phrase, and a single word that can be used later on to reference that phrase. My first idea was ' fraction ', but I am not sure whether that conveys the concept. Update based on long's answer: I am looking for a term for the first item in this list: ?, [0-1] ?, [0-10] percent, %, [0-100] per mille 0/00 [0-1000] basis point, permyriad 0/000, [0-10000]

This word—used to mean an elementary textbook, not a painting material—annoys me to no end. Does anyone know why, exactly, "primer" is pronounced with a short "i" sound? I don't know why, call it intuition, but I can't see why this word isn't spelled "primmer." Are there any particular etymological reasons for this spelling/pronunciation combination? EDIT: Apparently this situation is only recognizable to American English speakers. I've only ever heard it pronounced with a short "i," but this seems to be completely unheard of to British English speakers. Answer Personal experience: It's not. Primer is pronounced with a long i sound, like miner or buyer, and I've never heard it ever pronounced differently. Linguistic answer: Dictionaries vary on which is the correct pronunciation, but the OED, which is generally considered the final word on the English language, accepts both pronunciations as valid. The "long i...

I'm trying to describe a person who is young (in his youth 19-24, past teenage years) who at a first glance might look mature or wiser for his age. But if you talk to him you get to know him as a little naive though only in experience but not in wisdom. So I have a description like "His face is calm and impassive and combined with his white hair makes him look wiser than 19" Can I use a word or phrase that can define this kind of person without giving away details? And is the description even correct to explain this kind of person? Answer Older than his years may fit, applying both for appearence and mind. Example 1 : But he’s only 38! Colin Farrell looks older than his years as he shows off scruffy beard on way to yoga class in Santa Monica . Example 2: All this profuse, indiscriminate reading helped to educate him and to give him the air of a "wise child," older than his years and familiar with the ways of the world .

Fluent seems to most commonly refer to language mastery, but in that context isn't it just saying that its delivery is fluid ? If so, am I communicating something different when using one over another or are they essentially interchangeable? Answer I will compare the adjectives fluent and fluid . The etymologies of the words are shared and so is one of the meanings: smooth and unconstrained in movement So, when you speak about movement (literary or as metaphor), it is interchangeable. Otherwise it is not: fluent - easy and graceful in shape - expressing yourself readily, clearly, effectively fluid - characteristic of a fluid; capable of flowing and easily changing shape - subject to change; variable - affording change (especially in social status) - in cash or easily convertible to cash NOTE: If you read the etymology entry, you will find that fluent was Used interchangeably with fluid in Elizabethan times.

Often English grammar (as well as Koinê Greek, e.g "deponent", and probably others), has often been ruled by what I call "totalitarian grammarians" who impose Latin structures on it rather than doing a thorough internal study of the language; this is part of why the rules of classic English grammar can be so convoluted. (My father couldn't make any sense out of grammar in grade school but after studying linguistics is now a grammarian). Has English historically had a subjunctive, or is that an imposition of a Latin form upon the English construct that translates it? In other words, is there a more accurate description of what is often termed subjunctive in English? Answer Old English most certainly had a subjunctive. In fact, it had two, present and preterite, and they were inflected for person and number. English now has three kinds of subjunctive (perhaps two, see below), the mandative, the formulaic and the were –subjunctive. The mandative is seen in sentenc...

For example: I like how you conveniently informed us after most of us had eaten already and we are [feeling full]. The phrase in brackets sounds unnatural to me. Would you suggest how to rephrase that better? Answer A few possibilites: stuffed to bursting engorged fat and happy glutted well sated replete

I am curious as to why "nay" replaces the simple unequivocal "no" in the context of voting. My research in Merriam-Webster tells me that "nay" means "no" (not the other way around) and the first known use of "nay" appeared in 1400s. Since the use of "no" existed before 1400 and the word remains to be used afterward, why would "nay" become the preferred choice of word when it comes to voting. Any idea?

I'm not really satisfied with what the thesaurus is giving me. Full, stuffed, and satiated don't quite taste right in the context I'm using. Any suggestions?

I have a family member who worked at a cat boarding facility. There, she met a couple who jokingly described their cat as "beautiful but worthless." Is there a word in the English language to describe such a purrradox? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Which is correct, "politics is out of scope" or "politics are out of scope?" Answer The correct form is: Politics is out of scope. Politics , like mathematics , linguistics , economics , and other domains ending in - ics , is syntactically singular.

When expanding an abbreviation in parentheses, sometimes the thing that was abbreviate was used in a possessive context. Consider the following example: If the Giant Ostrich Bomb's (GOB) fuse is too short, you may be too close when it goes off and you may get kicked in the face. Is the above correct, or should it be rewritten this way instead: If the Giant Ostrich Bomb (GOB)'s fuse is too short, you may be too close when it goes off and you may get kicked in the face. If this is a matter of style, do any of the popular style manuals have a recommendation? Answer In your question, the two alternatives that you permit readers (and yourself) to consider are If the Giant Ostrich Bomb's (GOB) fuse is too short, you may be too close when it goes off and you may get kicked in the face. and If the Giant Ostrich Bomb (GOB)'s fuse is too short, you may be too close when it goes off and you may get kicked in the face. But there are clearly at least two other plausible options who...

What is the difference between " I am gonna have to " and " I have to "? When would you use the first one? update: I am specifically asking about situations like the one described here . Answer Strictly speaking, "I am gonna have to" means the request is conditional. In the type of case you're talking about, the request is not actually conditional. It's used in conditional form as a way of making it more polite. The basic idea is that if you're merely going to have to do something, that isn't as direct as if you actually had to do it right now. Indirection and extraneous words are typical ways of making something polite.

I don't know if this is an example of rhetoric. How has CVS changed over the past few years?

We have a Japanese old saying, “俎板の上の鯉－manaita no ueno koi, a carp laid on a chopping block” for describing (1) a critical situation you cannot avoid, and (2) a person who is self-poised at such a critical moment. This metaphor comes from the legend that carp is still and composed unlike other fish, like eel when laid on a chopping board. I think it corresponds to the spirit of ‘葉隠-Hagakure’, the Bushido’s bible written by Yamamoto Tsunetomo, a senior samurai in Saga-Nabeshima fief in 1716, in which he says the ultimate goal of Bushido is to recognize when, where, how, and for what you should die. Though I’ve never seen a carp placed on a cutting board, we use this simile for various occasions for facing predicament and requiring rational judgment / action in such a way; “The company is considering a massive layoff, I’m a carp on a chopping block,” “The governor behaved like a carp on a chopping block when he was sued for sex scandals,” "My husband said "I'm a carp on a c...

If I look in the corpus of contemporary American English, I mostly find the ... greater than I am/he is/etc. ... version. But there are a couple of instances, even in academic texts, of the sort ... greater than myself/himself etc. ... sort. As far as I understand the rule, comparative + than is followed by a clause - i.e., subject and verb. Where do the reflexive pronoun ...self instances come from? Am I missing something, or are they just falling for the "looks like an object position, so let's use an object pronoun" trap?

Beth is a nurse. Nurse is the predicate nominative (noun). Beth is a nurse and a sailor. Nurse and sailor appear to me as compound predicate nominatives (nouns). Beth is funny. Funny is the predicate adjective. Beth is funny and clever. Funny and clever are the compound predicate adjectives. Beth is a nurse and funny. Can nurse and funny be considered a compound of predicate nominative and predicate adjective? Is the sentence grammatically correct?

My brother and sister-in-law are arguing about whether "train" meaning locomotive and "train" meaning teach constitutes one word with two different meanings or if it's two different words. I said that the etymology appears to be the same, so it would be one word with two different meanings ... but the more I think about it, the less sure I am that this is correct. One's a noun, the other is a verb, so ... does that make it two different words? Help! Answer This is a question that is discussed by eminent British linguist David Crystal in his article How many words? , in which he attempts to come up with a reasonably accurate count of the number of words in the English language. Basically, he says that no accurate number is possible because there is no universally-agreed definition of what constitutes a word. Here is an extract that addresses your question, but provides no definitive answer: Is the lock on a door the same basic meaning as the lock on a cana...

I know that AM/PM is for ante/post meridiem, but what is it actually called? Meridian indicator? 12 hour indicator? Something way more clever? Answer Oddly enough, this question seems to already have been answered at StackOverflow . The distinction is called the period . As for the actual meanings of AM/PM, they come from the Latin "ante meridiem" ("before noon") and "post meridiem" ("after noon").

" May I know your good name ” is a typically Indian way of honouring another person by asking their name using an adjective like sweet, good, beautiful, et cetera. Of course there won’t ever be any bad or sour name (unless we feel it such) when asking. If this manner of asking someone’s name is incorrect or inappropriate, then how could I make it sound more polite and amicable without negotiating the basic principles of English?

Which is correct? I am king of the world. I am the king of the world. Additionally, which would be the better choice, if I wanted to use the expression "king" to signify dominance in a metaphorical way or in slang. I am king of the backstreet. I am the king of the backstreet. And is there a difference, if we are not king of a place but of a group of people? I am king of (the) thieves. I am the king of (the) thieves. Is there a general grammatical rule for that? Answer I can't find an authority on this, so this answer is based on my intuition and anecdotal evidence. That said, I think that technically you should include "the", though in this case you can get away without it. The general rule is that if you use a noun in the singular and it is not a proper noun, it requires an article (or another adjective indicating "one", like the word "one"). So: That man is the king. (article required) But That man is King Charles. (no article) "King ...

Could you please tell me which sentence is correct? It's not worth learning many a language when you haven't got the opportunity to use them . It's not worth learning many a language when you haven't got the opportunity to use it . Until now, I've only known that "many a + singular noun" takes a singular verb. Unfortunately, I've never heard about the correct pronoun for it. Before I posted this question, I'd done some searching and this is the only one that I've found useful. But it seems to be a mere opinion, not an officially accepted usage or something like that. What I really want is a widely accepted usage. Please enlighten me. Thanks in advance. P/s: This is not a duplicate of this question . In other words, I've already known the use of "many" vs "many a". You can clearly see that my question isn't about "many" vs "many a". In addition to that, the link above refers to a question that doe...

Is either "in a call" or "on a call" incorrect usage when referring to someone attending a phone (possibly conference) call? If not, what's appropriate usage for both? Answer The two are used interchangeably as to be in or on a call is a fairly new expression, with some very slight contextual differences. "In" is more often used to describe whether someone has successfully connected (especially in conference calling): "Are you in yet?". However, it is sometimes used more generally "I'm sorry, he is in a call" because it sounds similar to "in a meeting". You wouldn't ask someone having technical problems "are you on yet?" though. (This is a bit confusing, because we talk about logging on, but once someone has logged on, they are usually described as "in".) "On" is more often used to describe someone who is in the process of taking part in a call more generally. "Will you be on tha...

The wax in the phrase "wax philosophical" is a pretty strange bird. Its wax is obviously not the ordinary definition of wax , which my dictionary summarizes as an "oily, water-resistant substance", a definition which also serves as a fair summary of other, closely related "waxes", as in earwax or beeswax. Neither is, I think, the wax in "wax philosophical" referring to another sense of wax , as in to grow , and which I know best in reference to the Moon "waxing and waning"; it means, as best I know, that the Moon is shrinking and growing in size. So is waxing philosophical "growing philosophical"? Sounds pretty strange to me. The truth is, I only know how to use this set phrase, and can't really break it down into its constituents. It seems fairly archaic; the philosophical isn't even in the standard canonical form of an adverb, with no ending "–ly". So I was wondering three things: What is the canonical...

The following is taken from a website. In the context below why the second part, "had signed", is in past perfect? ... The case was scheduled to be tried before the justice of the peace in the back room of the general store. The attorney for the railroad immediately cornered the rancher and tried to get him to settle out of court. The lawyer did his best selling job, and finally the rancher agreed to take half of what he was asking. After the rancher had signed the release and took the check, the young lawyer couldn't resist gloating a little over his success, telling the rancher, "You know, I hate to tell you this, old man, but I put one over on you in there..." source

Is the following correct? Can I get some chocolate for myself? Yes, you can but not much. Is two bars OK? Is there any rule to explain the sentence above? The dialogue's taken from Grammar Textbook Round-Up Level #3. Answer Is two bars okay? Usually, that is acceptable. And often the singular verb might be preferred in the type of sentence like yours — but it can also depend on the context. Notice that a declarative version could be "Two bars is okay". The subject "two bars" is a measure phrase , and so, usually, the speaker can use singular subject-verb agreement in this type of sentence. Often, the singular override is strongly preferred. (Sometimes, such as when the predicative complement is a singular noun phrase, the override is obligatory.) Similar declarative clause examples could be: Three eggs is plenty. Five miles is rather more than I want to walk this afternoon. Interrogative clauses that are somewhat similar to those above two could be: Is three e...

Can anyone please explain what is the difference between "Letter" and "Alphabet" in English? Answer It may be worth noting that in Indian English , the word alphabet can take on a similar meaning to letter , which can cause confusion. In standard English, the difference is basically that an alphabet is a collection of letters.

Which is more correct? Now I am the main stakeholder... or I am now the main stakeholder... Do the intonations imply different meanings? Answer Neither is more correct. They mean different things. You first example can be interpreted like so: Now that I am the main stakeholder ... Which means you are about to make a pronouncement about how things will be with you are the main stakeholder. E.g. Now I am the main stake holder, all developers will have their wages halved. As a statement by itself it can be used to mean I am now the main stakeholder , but you have to put emphasis on now and make it seem like you are marking the the moment. A similar idea would be to make a future announcement: From 6pm today I will be the main stake holder. Of course, if you put a comma just after now you get a different meaning: Now, I am the main stakeholder. This is using now as an interjection, it doesn't really mean anything with regard to the sentence. The rest of the sentence is just a stat...

Why is it that Americans invite all and sundry to "Enjoy!" without including an object noun in the sentence, when the dative case of the verb 'to enjoy' clearly demands one to be correct?

As this NGram shows, we nearly always use the possessive form of personal pronouns for friend of mine/his/ours/etc. But when it comes to actual names, we prefer friend of Peter without the possessive apostrophe . That preference is even more marked with, say, friend of America . Not that I think the usage itself is particularly American - it's much the same with Britain . Personally, I find friend of him grates. In general I've no strong feelings either way as to whether it's friend of Peter or friend of Peter's (though I deplore the possessive in this example ), but in line with many others, I really don't like the possessive in relation to things like countries. Why is this? Edit: Noting an apparent "progression" (pronoun -> person -> nation) marked by reduction in use of the possessive, I checked at a finer "granularity". NGram shows that although it does occur, friend of me virtually "flatlines" against friend of mine . ...

From what I can gather, "resourceful" seems to refer more to someone who can use the available resources in efficient ways. I'm thinking more about someone who has lots of resources at hand (money, connections, information, etc.), but doesn't necessarily make good use of them. regardless of how well they use them. edit : to clarify, I am not looking for a word describing someone who (purposely or not) makes wasteful use of the resources they have at hand. In fact, the use of the resources is irrelevant; I'm looking to describe only the existence (and abundance) of such resources. edit 2 : I was looking for something generic, to place in a sentence similar to: "when choosing the person to perform a task, one should take into account their skills, availability, and X", where X would ideally be "resourcefulness", but instead meaning something like "how good is their access to the relevant resources" (assuming resources could be various ...

I was thinking about these negations. Do these mean the same thing? There is no point in ... There is not a point in ... or: I have no clue I do not have any clue etc.

When I say "Adam will travel tomorrow." what form is the verb 'travel' in compared to "Adam didn't travel." and "Alex made Adam travel."?

“between” vs “among” I have a question which one of these two is the correct sentence: Find a new job between the posted jobs. or Find a new job among the posted jobs. Answer You could use either. Between is normally used with only two options, but it can be used with many. Among can be used with any number (greater than one) of options, although the dictionary suggests three or more. Between preposition (4) with reference to a choice or differentiation involving two or more things being considered together: "you have to choose between two or three different options" Among preposition (4) indicating a division, choice, or differentiation involving three or more participants: "the old king called the three princesses to divide his kingdom among them" "the State Council would elect a temporary president from among its members" However, because you are using the verb find , it makes more sense to use among because of how between works with find , search ...

Kindly tell me about the usage of following phrases 1) Gone are the days 2) Gone were the days 3) Gone are those days 4) Gone were those days Answer I only really use 1). It's idiomatic and used when wistfully describing something in the past. Gone are the days when children would play outside. Gone are the days when I could play football without worrying about my knee. 2, 3 and 4 sound odd to me, I wouldn't use them, but they are grammatical.

Which spelling is better, queueing or queuing ? Both words seem to mean the same, but there are two different spellings. My context is: Queueing Latency versus Queuing Latency If both spellings are applicable, when do I use which one of them? Answer Both occur and there's no difference in meaning.

'Just' and 'only' carry a similar meaning, and while my feel for language usually helps me decide which one to use, there are times when I'm at a loss. From my understanding, 'just' is used as a softener, to add flexibility and politeness. 'Only', on the other hand, is a relatively sharp exclusion. 'Just' also has a wider range of meanings, for instance to denote time. While this sounds simple enough, it can get messy in practical usage. The sentence that made me stumble was "Not only airports are part of the target customer group, but also other large infrastructures" . Would the meaning of this sentence change when using 'just' instead? The way I see it, there is no difference in this case, except 'just' would make it sound a tad more colloquial.

I speak Persian, and in our language we have a word for a person who more often feels cold than warm (or reverse). The person tends to be cold even when others around them feel warm or when they experience higher temperatures. I was trying to find an English equivalent for this word, and I came across the expression "cold-natured" (and hot-natured as antonym). However, I think cold-natured can also mean cold-hearted or someone without soft emotions. Any ideas? Answer Nesh adjective describes something as very weak and sensitive to cold. It is rarely used, so it might not be easily understood by the listener. An alternative is perpetually cold . Or in simple terms "always cold". A perpetually cold person is someone who feels cold while others don't; turns off the AC while others don't want to; stays home bundled in the warmest attire even for the slightest temperature drop outside. You can guess what a perpetually warm person is, then. This might not be ...

"Please use other door" signs are common. But would you ever say this? Or would you say "please use the other door"? Answer No, you would not normally say that. Signs are often expressed in a short and unspecific way. By making the text short, you can use a smaller sign, or use larger text on the same space. The sign would have different meanings depending on the alternatives. Either: Please use the other door. or: Please use any of the other doors. By being unspecific, the sign can be used for both situations. Also, the text is half as long as the one you would need to use if there are more than one other door, saving valuable space.

I'm Italian so I don't know English very well. While listening to Bob Dylan songs I've heard some strange use of progressive tense (is that the correct term?), the title of this question is one example. Why "the times are a-changing" and not "the times are changing"? I heard other examples (always in Bob's songs), but now I cannot find any. Is this some sort of ancient English? Slang? Metric trick? Answer "A-" before a verb was a prefix quite common in 16th C. English. It is still, today, quite common in Appalachian English, in the US, which is where Dylan no doubt took his influence. It can mean "engaged in", as in "He's a-runnin! And fast!", or "She's a-birth, and there's no point in hoping she'll not." It can also mean "motion to, into", as in "I'm going a-long", "I'm going a-bout", "I'm going a-round", "I'm going a-breast". I...

I've been looking around the Internet. Some websites say that foods is incorrect but others say it is correct. Answer Food in its commonest sense is a non-countable noun, with all the effects of that. It's already a plural. You would eat "some food" not "a food". You would say "less food" not "fewer foods". However, there is a less common usage where "a food" means "a type of food": "Cheese is a food made from milk" ... and in this form, you can pluralise it ... "Italy is the source of many delicious foods -- pizza, pasta, salami, biscotti..." For comparison, think of "a people" - Are there meta-plurals beyond "peoples"?

I want to know what is the recommended way to use Re: in the subject line of an email. I use Re: in the subject line as a shortform of 'in regards to'. Whenever I have used Re:, people have told me that Re: is only to be used when replying to an incoming email and shouldn't be used when starting a new email thread. I remember being taught that Re is an preposition, which means “in the matter of, with reference to.” I have also observed that I get immediate responses if I use Re: in the subject line. So, should I continue to use Re: in the subject line or is that incorrect usage? Answer Etymology Online indicates that this has been is use as "with reference to" since 1707: "with reference to," 1707, from L. in re "in the matter of," ablative case of res "matter, thing." Fowler does object to it , as the Etymology Online page indicates. He also indicates that it's a popularized technicality from Law , where it is used from the La...

The implication is that when something bad happens, only then one will see the results. Is there a semantically identical idiom in English? Can this idiom be considered as an equivalent to the above-mentioned one ? - Shut the stable door after the horse has bolted ? Answer It appears that the proverb warns one to not wait until an unfortunate incident to see the results helplessly (the "harsh" reality of the "road" after the cart has overturned) but be prepared to prevent it (make sure the cart is moving smoothly by "driving" it gently, maintaining it in a good state of repair, etc). In that sense, a good English counterpart may be " Foresight is better than hindsight ". TFD(idioms): Foresight is better than hindsight . cliché It is better to anticipate and prevent future problems than to realize how they could have been avoided after the fact. If I were you, I would pay the extra $50 for full insurance coverage while you're traveling. You ...

I know that rural relates to living in the countryside, and urban and suburban refer to living in cities, towns or residential areas. But some places, like in upstate New York, have dense trees and woodland. A forest, basically. What do you call that? Urban life and (required word) life? Answer Try sylvan from the Latin silva , a wood. From Wingless Flights: Appalachian Women in Fiction by Danny Miller Likewise, much of Frost's language in this article emphasizes the golden age simplicity and wholesomeness of the Appalachian region. He speaks of his " sylvan hosts" on his visits to the mountaineers and of their " sylvan life".

Consider this example: He got into the car. Started the engine, checked the mirrors. Stepped on the gas and headed down Main Street. Omitting the subject from a sentence isn't proper construction, strictly speaking, but it infuses the writing with a sense of breathless urgency. I've seen a few writers use this style (notably in fast-paced suspense novels). How common is this style? Is there a name for it? (I was thinking staccato style , but that refers to short, choppy sentences in general) Answer There is grammatical ellipsis , which in general case might not introduce the sense of accelerated time, but quite the reverse, depending on how hard is it to parse, for example : The average person thinks he isn't. The parsing here needs backtracking which slows the reading, but gives an effect of delayed and double, in-depth comprehension. In terms of pure effect, look at diazeugma The figure by which a single subject governs several verbs or verbal constructions (usually arra...

Is it just a small percentage of the population in that region who stress the first syllable, or is it widespread? In other words, if I visit such a region will I find almost everyone talking like that or is it something restricted to a certain neighbourhood? Answer Shifting second-syllable stress to the first syllable is characteristic of Southern (US) accents. Indeed, it's a trope, reaching #59 on the Stuff Southern People Like blog: How to Sound Southern: Accent the First Syllable … HALLoween, THANKSgiving, TEEvee, UMbrella, and JUly The THANKSgiving pronunciation is also covered in a Language Log post which also mentions ADult and UMbrella among others. The association is borne out by at least one famous study, the Harvard Dialect Survey , started by Bert Vaux and Scott Golder in 2002. Joshua Katz , a Ph.D. student in statistics at North Carolina State University, created a series of maps using that data that made the rounds on social media last year thanks to the New Yor...

What is a word for a person who reiterates without adding any new content? (This person is not necessarily talkative per se.) Example of a conversation by such a person would be: "You know if we do this xyz , it will be good. No one has done xyz so it is going to be great if we finish xyz , I don't think anyone has done this. By summer if this is done then we can send xyz , of course we have to do it before and it's gonna be great and we have to keep doing xyz unless someone will do it, but no one has done it yet, it is going to be great if we do xyz ." It is not overzeal; it is just my example which came out to be like this.

I'm a native English speaker and I consider myself to have a very competent understanding of English grammar. Recently, I have started believing that there is no future tense in English grammar. Here are some examples of sentences that I previously believed were future tense, but now believe are either present tense or invalid (broken) English grammar: I will do my homework tomorrow. I say that this is present tense. The full (uncontracted) sentence is I (have the/a) will to do my homework tomorrow . Strictly, this sentence refers to the writer's will in the present. The usage seems to have been contracted in recent centuries, but "will" remains a noun and this seems to be the only grammatically-valid interpretation of this sentence. I am going to the bathroom. I say that this is present tense. The only valid interpretation of this sentence is that the speaker is currently going to the bathroom (in the present, right now). Whether "going to the bathroom" ...

I have come across the song "About that bass" by Meghan Trainor, and was wondering what "bass" and "treble" mean in the chorus, which goes: Because you know I'm all about that bass, 'Bout that bass no treble Pairing with treble suggests a musical meaning (low pitch vs. high pitch - treble), but it doesn't fit the song at all in my eyes, so I was wondering if those two terms have another (slang-ish?) meaning here, which it is and how it came about. Anyone knows? Answer bass is being used metaphorically to refer to the buttocks. I think the juxtaposition of bass and treble refers to the clefs in musical notation: the bass cleff is on the bottom, the treble cleff is on the top, and bottom is another euphemism for the butt, while top is often used to refer to a woman's breasts. And the low and high tones can represent the physical locations of these parts of the body. I'm not a student of current slang, so I don't know if this is...

Commonly, in writing, the country name in Vietnamese is Việt Nam , in English is Vietnam ; its capital city name in Vietnamese is Hà Nội , in English is Hanoi ; its largest city name in Vietnamese is thành phố Hồ Chí Minh , in English is Ho Chi Minh city . My questions: Should this rule apply to other normal city/province names like Đà Nẵng (to Danang ?), Nha Trang (to Nhatrang ?), etc? There are place named after a person name: Hồ Chí Minh , Hai Bà Trưng . Will it be written as Ho Chi Minh city or Hochiminh city , Hai Ba Trung ward or Haibatrung ward ? There are names formed by other names, like Bình Trị Thiên is formed by Quảng Bình , Quảng Trị , Thừa Thiên . So will it be written as Binhtrithien or Binh Tri Thien ? Lastly, how should I write people names? Mostly, people will change the order of the name in Vietnamese (last - mid - first) to English order (first - mid - last), like Lý Minh Nhật to Nhat M. Ly or just Nhat Ly . As a consequence, Hồ Chí Minh should also be writ...