Blog

Recently as some of us were getting ready to take a walk through the snow, somebody said to me "you're wearing sensible shoes". Now my shoes haven't developed cognitive abilities so far as I know (and I spend enough time with them that I think I would notice), but everyone there knew what this means. It's a common phrase in my experience, but it got me wondering. The adjective sensible here, while syntactically bound to the noun shoes , really applies to another noun in the sentence instead. Is there a term for this sort of modifier migration, or is this sentence technically ungrammatical? I checked dictionary.com for alternate or obscure meanings of sensible but found none, and a Google search on the phrase turned up uses but no explanations. I also don't think this construct is limited to this particular phrase, but I don't have any more clever ideas. Answer An adjective modifying the "wrong" word in a sentence is known as a transferred epi

Can anyone suggest any alternatives to the "on the one hand... on the other hand" construct? Example: (On the one hand/alternative) I like product A. (On the other hand/alternative) product B also appeals to me strongly. Answer I like product A. Alternatively , product B also appeals to me. I like product A. Then again , product B also appeals to me. I like product A. But then , product B also appeals to me. While I like product A, product B also appeals to me.

When I was learning English back in school (in the nineties), there were pupils and teachers . Now there seem to be students and professors , where a "professor" can be anyone who happens to teach people in a school environment. Maybe this strikes me as odd because of the fact that both "Student" and "Professor" are used in German, too. However, "Student" refers to someone at studying at a university, and "Professor" strictly is reserved for someone who has earned a habilitation or has been appointed to a professorship (possibly honoris causa ). Has that strict use ever been the prevalent case with English? Is it the difference between AE and BE usage? Or is it just to euphemism-creep? Answer In the most general sense, here's the breakdown: primary/elementary school: pupils/students and teachers secondary/middle/high school: students and teachers university/college: students and lecturers/instructors/professors A high school t

"The most very best you will ever in the universe" There's a word for the category of words such as the above, words that are used to emphasise something without adding any content by themselves. Those words that are used a lot in marketing and in reviews to convey "wowing". I can't find it. Edit: In retrospect the question wasn't clear enough, and the word I was looking for ( Superlative ) isn't necessarily the correct answer to the question. But the answers to the original question are good, so I'm not changing it. After rereading the question and the answers, I'd say that both Intensifier and Puffery are good answers to the question as-is. I decided to mark Intensifier as the answer because it relates to the modifiers themselves rather than to the phrasing as a whole, and because it was interesting to read about it. Answer I believe the term you are looking for is intensifier , which is a term for a modifier that makes no contribution

What are some slang words for “police” in countries besides the US? What is the origin of the word copper for referring to a police officer? There is no shortage of explanations available on the Web, and as near as I can tell they fall into three categories: It is a variation of the Latin capere , meaning, to grab or apprehend — a meaning preserved in expressions like “ cop a feel” — that came into use in Britain in the 1700s. Early English police forces had very large copper helmets (or, in some versions, buttons). The badges worn by early New York police officers were made of copper. In addition, some sources have the word arising from “the color of the early police or sheriff cars in the western states”, and even from an acronym for “Constable On Patrol”. What I can’t find is an authoritative reference on the matter. The OED entry seems to support (1) as an application of the word, at least for cop , but is ambiguous about its origin and says only that “other conjectures have bee

What difference do different stress positions make to the meaning of the following sentence: What would you like? What would you like? What would you like? What would you like ? Answer A. They sell all kinds of toys in here. Pick something and I'll buy it for you. B. I don't like anything round. A. Well, what would you like then? B. Something red. A. Okay, something red, but what would you like? B. I hate that bear. A. I don't want to know what you hate. What would you like ? B. Jane likes drawing. A. What would you like? So the meanings break down as: What would you like? (as opposed to some other property such as when or how you would like it) What would you like? (as opposed to what you wouldn't or don't like) What would you like? (as opposed to what another person would like) What would you like ? (as opposed to what you might hate, or remember, or do something other than liking with)

Which one of the following two sentences is correct? We are only concerned with crystal systems which consist of an inversion center. We are only concerned with crystal systems which consist an inversion center. I really can't tell the difference. If they are both grammatically correct, which usage is more formal? (I hope I am not being too vague). Answer The verb consist is never used without a preposition and it usually takes either of or in . In your example, it should be consist of . Thus, the first sentence is correct while the second is wrong. From the Oxford Dictionaries : 1 ( consist of ) be composed or made up of ( consist in ) have as an essential feature 2 ( consist with ) archaic be consistent with I should also add that it is probably not uncommon for some speakers to drop the of in conversation, but this should by all means be avoided in written contexts.

I'm looking for a word that would describe a third category following a "minor" and "major" category. (For compatibility reasons it won't do to insert a middle category of "moderate" or the like.) Example usage: After fighting past several minor encounters, and a few major encounters, the adventurers finally made contact with the _____ encounter. Answer If it's implied that there are no further obstacles - final . If it's implied that there's no greater obstacle - supreme . If it's implied that there's no passing the obstacle - overwhelming . If it's required to keep some kind of hierarchy - capital .

OK, the Free Dictionary defines this as one's cup of tea : Something that is in accord with one's liking or taste. For example, Quiz shows are just my cup of tea , or Baseball is not her cup of tea . This expression is very strange to me and I am not sure whether an American would understand me if I said it in the USA. Do Americans say this expression? Answer In its negative form the expression is very common in American English. "Sorry, heroin isn't my cup of tea." In the positive, less so. Americans might stop to think if you said, for example, "Romantic comedies are my cup of tea." I imagine the speaker might even be asked for clarification. "Romantic comedies aren't my cup of tea," however, would be instantly understood. Edit: I realized the other night that Americans also use this expression with conditional if-clauses. "Yeah sure, dude, if it's your cup of tea then go for it." This is similar to, "if that's yo

I was wondering how to determine what an attributive clause modifies? For example: It has been associated with neoclassical economics and with the neoclassical synthesis, which combines neoclassical methods and Keynesian approach macroeconomics. Does "which combines neoclassical methods and Keynesian approach macroeconomics" modify "the neoclassical synthesis"? If without the second with , i.e., It has been associated with neoclassical economics and the neoclassical synthesis, which combines neoclassical methods and Keynesian approach macroeconomics. How can one tell if the attributive clause modifies "the neoclassical synthesis", "neoclassical economics and the neoclassical synthesis" or "It has been associated with neoclassical economics and the neoclassical synthesis"? Answer While attributive clauses don't always modify the immediately previous noun, that is the default assumption, as the other answer says. If this reading p

I'm curious to find out why we talk of freshwater (or fresh water ) when we refer to water with a very limited amount of salt dissolved in it. Looking at various sources, both online and in books, I have learnt that the term sweetwater may also be used. Do you know the origin of the expression and is sweetwater a valid alternative? Answer The NOAD identifies the etymology of fresh : ORIGIN Old English fersc [not salt, fit for drinking,] superseded in Middle English by forms from Old French freis , fresche ; both ultimately of Germanic origin and related to Dutch vers and German frisch . Sweetwater , I would assume, is at this point (don't know about originally; cf. @BarrieEngland's answer) the antonym of saltwater , and therefore synonymous with freshwater .

I'm looking for a verb that would go with policy . Our company has a policy, which defines a set of requirements. I want to say that I am responsible for ensuring that the company meets the requirements of the policy, but I don't really want to use the word requirements . Is there a word that I could use like this: I am responsible for [some verb] the policy. Answer Perhaps, comply ? I am responsible for complying with the policy. If only transitive verbs are allowed, then: I am responsible for meeting/fulfilling the policy.

There is a related discussion on this Q&A site. My question is different. I'm all for gender awareness, but why hasn't a properly defined pronoun "it" been used instead of "he/she" or "he or she", etc. Am I missing something? Oxford English Dictionary: It: 1. a. As the proper neuter pronoun of the third person singular. Dictionary.com: (used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded): **It was the largest ever caught off the Florida coast. Who was it? It was John. The horse had its saddle on. ** Answer I believe that "it" in the case of "it's me" or "it's John" is an expletive. Like Coline Fine commented above, it is a syntactic placeholder, because in English we can't just say "is me/I am" or "is John/John is" (which is fine in other languages, e.g. Spanish). So, dictionary.com is being extreme

I'm looking for two words: Specifically, is there a word to describe the activity of eating or being compelled to eat something despite its hot temperature or spiciness? The second word I'm looking for would describe same concept but at a more general level: a word for doing something eagerly despite the pain that it causes because it feels so good. I'm looking for a single word, but idiomatic phrases capturing the same meaning would be helpful too. Edit: Some clarification; while masochism is pretty close, per ermanen's answer, the word I'm looking for isn't about pleasure from pain, but pleasure despite pain. In other words, the hypothetical person is compelled to eat the hot food (temperature) because it tastes so good, not because she derives pleasure from the pain. Answer It is called benign masochism or hedonic reversal . While most scientists still do not quite have a handle on the human preference for spicy foods, the best explanation comes from a mec

The back of my VIP card reads: Present this card before payment Why is there no any article before 'payment'? Shouldn't we add 'the' before 'payment'? I understand in this case, maybe there is no article because 'payment' is uncountable, but are there any other reasons? (i.e. what if the word is countable, like 'before lunch / bath'?) Answer This is known as telegraphic style . See this answer to a previous question. To be sure, the other answers to this question are not wrong. However, the main reason for the lack of an article is that this is an example of telegraphic style, which omits the less important words, and is often found in signs and newspaper headlines. Your VIP card is a sort of a sign, so use of telegraphic style is not unusual.

In this sentence: Ben and Jen went home. Is home both an adverb and a noun?

Are there any general rules or guidelines for how to create abbreviations of a word when there isn't any established abbreviations of it already? Context: I'm writing an article in which I have to abbreviate the word "questionnaire" (it's going to appear in a figure and have to be cut down to size) and I just don't want to wing it if there actually is a more or less proper way to do it. Answer all-acronyms.com states that "Quest" can be used as an abbreviation for "Questionnaire". I have seen this used before, though the word "quest" has an entirely different meaning then questionnaire does, so I generally avoid trying to abbreviate the word so that there is no confusion. But in the context that you are using it (in a figure), perhaps if you labeled it as "quest." it would be suitable. When in doubt, spell it out. As for general rules, Wikipedia has the following : If the original word begins with a capital letter, so

Last week I was attending a communications training program. The trainer said that the term 'come again' has sexual meaning in American English. I was surprised as I have seen many Americans using the term in movies and meetings. Is there any such negative sense to the phrase? Answer Sure, this phrase has sexual connotations, inasmuch as the word come has sexual connotations. But only someone being intentionally perverted would think of sex when hearing the phrase "come again", or another phrase with come in it, in day-to-day situations.

My mother tongue is Chinese, and as I read English articles, I find a convention in written English that I can't explain. If a quoted word appears at end of a sentence, the period is written inside the quote instead of being written outside , which is quite counter-intuitive to me. For example, a paragraph from Samsung SSD White Paper. Notice it is written as: ... called a "strobe." instead of ... called a "strobe". Can someone help explain this?

For reasons I cannot explain, I hate the phrase consists of . Does anyone have an alternative? An example is: Testing consists of continual operation, alternating between random writes and random reads. To me, that phrase just sounds pompous. As a technical writer for international audiences, I try to keep my words as simple as possible.

I want to know what the longest palindrome word is. Answer Detartrated . Edit: surprise, surprise, Wikipedia has more : The longest palindromic word in the Oxford English Dictionary is the onomatopoeic tattarrattat , coined by James Joyce in Ulysses (1922) for a knock on the door. The Guinness Book of Records gives the title to detartrated , the preterit and past participle of detartrate , a chemical term meaning to remove tartrates . Rotavator , a trademarked name for an agricultural machine, is often listed in dictionaries. The term redivider is used by some writers but appears to be an invented or derived term—only redivide and redivision appear in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. Malayalam , an Indian language, is of equal length. So let's see: tattarrattat (onomatopoeic) detartrated Rotavator (trademark) redivider (disputed) Malayalam

What do you call someone who works in the same field or occupation as you do, but in a different company or organization?

Some one who is not good at keeping secrets. In my native language it is called "chugalkhor" but it's a slang. So I can't translate it. What do you call such a person who can't keep secrets because his instincts don't let him. Answer First thing I would like to point out - chugalkhor doesn't seem to just mean 'can't keep a secret'. More like somebody who is actively complaining about / revealing others' wrongdoings , not 'not keeping secrets'. So the question's premise itself seems wrong. Now going on to an English word: An English word meaning the same thing as chugalkhor : tattletale : someone who gossips indiscreetly tattler : synonym of tattletale taleteller : synonym of tattletale telltale : synonym of tattletale sneak : British Informal tattletale; informer snitch : Also called snitcher; an informer. backbiter : one who speaks unfavorably or slanderously of a person who is not present. - Source of words from shabdkosh.c

Which is correct to say: “It's me” or “It's I”? Tonight I watched a movie (The Gospel of John) in which Jesus said (as quoted from the written Gospel of John), "It is I." How does this expression differ from "It is me?" Answer This question about English pronoun case after copula (be) is a duplicate of Which is correct to say: "It's me" or "It's I"? , which links to a clear explanation . Note that many answers on this page (such as Bill and Ham_and_Bacon) describe English pronoun case after conjunction (and), which is not necessarily the same as after copula (be). To quote from the clear explanation : The rule for what [Fowler] and others consider technically right is ... that "to be" should link two noun phrases of the same case, whether this be nominative or accusative. ... Sometimes in English, though, "to be" does seem to have the force of a transitive verb. ... The occurrence of "It's me",

I was born and raised in South Africa. We frequently used the term "to suck out of one's thumb", implying that an answer was just a wild guess or the notion had no evidence but was rather just surmised. At best it was the product of a personal thought experiment. Is the phrase used elsewhere? I live in the USA and almost never hear it. Do Americans understand it? Can they figure it out or will they conjure up graphic literal images of my thumb in my mouth? Answer We have a vulgar version here in the US: "He pulled that answer out of his ass!" A more innocuous version is "She pulled that answer out of thin air." I have never heard the thumb expression.

Basically, if I ask a rhetorical question, it's not really prompting for an answer. Does that mean it should not end in a question mark? Here are two examples: "What's New" used as a title for a section. "Who wants to reinvent the wheel." This is meant to be rhetorical, so is a question mark correct?

There are three similar phrases which I would like to know the differences between: go to school happily go happily to school happily go to school I have long been confused by the placement of adverbs. From my personal view, there are definitely tiny differences, but I'm not sure what exactly they are. Please explain in detail! Answer These three phrases all mean the same thing: though the connotation might be slightly different. Let me expand them into sentences: Happily he went to school. This prioritizes happily 's attachment to he ; as he goes to school he is happy. This may or may not be due to his going to school. He happily went to school. Here happily is less focused on he . It could mean that he was happy to go to school. He went to school happily. Like the latter, this does not emphasize the he and more describes the action of going to school. He was happy to go to school. All three mean that the boy was happy as he went to school; just the first might mean that

Make the grade is an idiomatic AmE expression meaning: Satisfy the requirements, qualify; also, succeed. For example, Angela hoped her work in the new school would make the grade, or Barbara certainly has made the grade as a trial lawyer. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms , this expression uses grade in the sense of "accepted standard." [c. 1900]. The Indu offers an alternative meaning of grade: In American English, ‘grade’ is also used to refer to a gradient or a slope. In the context of the idiom, it refers to the steep incline a train has to climb. A train that makes the grade is one that is successful in climbing a steep incline or slope. and a similar interpretation is given by The Dictionary of American Slang 1912+; perhaps from a train's ability to climb up the grade or slope of the track. Questions: Is there more solid evidence of what "grade" refers to? If the "train" story is true, I guess the expression was probably p

According to Wiktionary: Noun sir or Sir (plural sirs) A man of a higher rank or position. An address to a military superior. Yes sir. An address to any male, especially if his name or proper address is unknown. Excuse me, sir, could you tell me where the nearest bookstore is? I assume you'd not use this for young boys for example, and certainly not for girls or women. In what circumstances are sir the right one to use, and are there alternatives when it's not?

Can someone explain the use of determiners (words like some or the ) for the word beans in the following dialogue: Aki: Lisa, here're some beans . Lisa: Why are you giving me beans ? Aki: Because it's Setsubun today. It means the "Coming of Spring". Lisa: OK, but why the beans ? Aki: We throw beans on this day so that bad luck will leave and good luck will come in. In particular, I'd like to know: Why does Lisa drop the determiner ( why are you giving me ø beans ) when she asks her first question? Why does Lisa then introduce a determiner ( why the beans ) when she repeats her question? Aki also drops the determiner ( we throw ø beans ) when she explains the custom. Is it for the same reason as 1, or for an entirely different reason? Answer Question 1 - She doesn't need to say "the beans", because it really doesn't matter which beans she's getting. Whether Aki gives her those beans, or some different beans, the question would still be

In this chat on github I found: A. I made some changes. Please review. B. Awesome, thanks! A. Why yes, of course What A means in his last sentence? In general, is "why yes" a stronger "yes"?

You see these all the time in movies, usually when some poor guy has been wrongly imprisoned and begins counting the days since his incarceration, but what are these markings called? I used to know, but I've forgotten and now it's really bugging me. Answer They are called tally marks . Tally marks, or hash marks, are a unary numeral system. They are a form of numeral used for counting. They allow updating written intermediate results without erasing or discarding anything written down. However, because of the length of large numbers, tallies are not commonly used for static text.

A common tactic in the deliberate spread of misinformation such as is common in chain emails, is to state something true and easily proven in order to gain the reader's trust, then follow it with a lie that the trusting reader will not bother to verify. An example is the Obamacare/dhimmitude email , which correctly defines the term "dhimmitude" as a Muslim tax on non-muslims, and encourages the reader to "Google it." Then the email claims that the word appears in the Obamacare law, which it doesn't. But the email gets passed around anyway, because people never bother to check. So my question is, is there a name for this tactic?

What does it mean "as it was" in this context? She was awakened by a shock, so sudden and severe that if Dorothy had not been lying on the soft bed she might have been hurt. As it was , the jar made her catch her breath and wonder what had happened. It could be intended literally like: "as it happens" or but idiomatically, like "as it is" (in its current state / as the situation stands) or "as it were" (so to speak)? # Back to this question, which phrase was from The Wizard of Oz too, I would add other two phrases always from the same book were the meaning is of "as it is/was" in not so literal: "they would surely have destroyed me. As it was , I lived in deadly fear of them for many years" "There is only one thing I ask in return for my help—such as it is . You must keep my secret and tell no one I am a humbug"

I sometimes find myself writing something like this: XXX is a project I admire and am very interested in. The "I and am " feels strange here. It somehow sounds more natural in the third person: "He admires and is very interested in...." Am I just imagining things – is it OK to use this construction, or should I use something completely different? Answer This sentence is an example of Conjunction Reduction , the syntactic rule that deletes repeated material in conjoined constituents, for example Bill washed the dishes and Bill swept the floor. ➝ Bill washed the dishes and swept the floor. Bill washed the dishes and Bill dried the dishes . ➝ Bill washed and dried the dishes. The relative clause modifying project in the original sentence is the focus, so let's get it out of a subordinate clause and see what it looks like: I admire and am very interested in the project. which comes from I admire the project and I am very interested in the project. by a perf

If x said to someone I want to get a diagnosis for Parkinson's Does that imply that x already believes they have Parkinson's and want confirmation, or does it just imply that x wants a result no matter whether it is positive or negative?

I have just found the following sentence: Especially is this true in the field of psychology. I know the rule that says that whenever a sentence begins with an adverb that expresses negativity, it should come first the verb and then the subject. However, in this case, it does not seem to be the case for a subject-verb inversion. Can anyone explain the grammatical reason why this sentence is correct? Does this inversion have to do with the adverb especially ? Answer It's formally known as "Intro Adverbial" inversion. The "limiting" adverb goes to the front as an introductory to the sentence. Consider: Never had I met someone so interesting. Not often will he go to work Look up the uses of inversion. One of them is emphasis. Especially is this true in the field of psychology. This is an example of inversion for emphasis. Especially is brought forward using inversion so as to highlight its significance in the context. Saying "This is true" is simple;

Should the verb, in the following sentence, be singular or plural? A series of samples was produced. In a related question I found a reference . However the text in that reference seems to contradict itself. Nouns that are “collective” take a singular verb when the group as a whole is meant. Commonly used collective nouns include “number,” “majority,” “series,” and “variety.” Note that when collective nouns refer to a singular group as a whole they are often preceded by the word “a”; Based on these rules, I would expect that, since I am using an indefinite article a series , the singular form of the verb is to be used. However the reference uses plural in an example A series of western blots were performed to assay protein expression. Answer Apparently, there are two ways we could go about/around this issue. As Quantified Collective - treating the collective as the quantifiable: A {number of people} was offended by my opinion. A {lot of houses} was burned down. A {truckload of potat

I wonder whether there are rules or guidelines regarding plural nouns in nominal compounds. For example a compound university students list . If there are many lists and many universities is it grammatically correct to say universities students lists ? Must all elements be in the plural form or can some be left in singular, even though the meaning is plural? I've seen an expression universities student lists ; is it correct? Answer There is a cross-linguistic principle that words incorporated into compounds tend to lose any inflections (I remember an article in Language in the 80's - probably, from the index, one of the articles in Vol 62 No 1 , but I haven't a copy to hand). So in English, the norm is that nouns incorporated into compounds do not take a plural ending. Where they do, this is usually because the singular form would be ambiguous, often because there is a homophonous adjective. An example I recall is "solid modelling" - the company I worked for in

I believe that several words or phrases exist to describe the practice of thinking in a certain way or performing a certain action simply because "that's how it's always been done." Another way of phrasing this thought model is "We do this because it's best," with no proof of if that thing is in actuality the best. An absence of total failure or complete disaster is often given as support for the behavior. Also, the implied circular reasoning is "It's best because we do this." Ultimately, the actions are taken because the situation has never truly been studied and the best course of action has not yet been discovered. I'm curious if there are Words to describe a person who thinks or behaves in the manner above. Phrases to describe the general thought process of the above manner. Synonyms I'll offer up my own phrase (that I only just now recalled as I typed the above paragraph): Antonyms Some possible antonyms to this concept would

Do "justification of" or "justification for" mean different things? Is one more appropriate than the other? Answer If you are describing the action being justified, say "justification for". If you are identifying the person offering the justification or being justified, say "justification of". For example, "What was Bob's justification for arriving late?" vs "We listened to Bob's justification of himself." The same is true when the word is used in a theological context. "We receive justification for our sins through the atoning work of Christ" vs "The justification of the sinner is received ..." Or if you're thinking of "justification" in the sense of the placement of text on a line, you should always use "of". "The justification of the customer name on the form is determined by ..."

What do you call these? Please provide a reliable source with your answer. Answer It's a battlement or crenellation. This consists of a parapet (a short wall on top of a roof) with cops or merlons (the solid parts) and crenels or embrasures (the parts you can look through or fire arrows through). Those links are all to Wikipedia, which I know you might not consider a reliable source (although all of those articles contain references). So, here's the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of battlement : An indented parapet at the top of a wall, at first used only in fortified buildings for purposes of defence against assailants, but afterwards in the architectural decoration of ecclesiastical and other edifices. The raised parts are called cops or merlons, the indentations embrasures or crenelles. Also, you can read the entry for battlement in the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. You can also take a look at a page all about parts of castles in the Middle A

It is common to hear people say "used to" to indicate that they did something in the past but no longer do; for example, "I used to play basketball." How would "used to," used in that context, fit into a sentence diagram? What part of speech is it?

I'm writing a scientific/technical text which involves describing some low level code. I need to complete the following sentence: When two values are combined, their tags are _ _ _ _ _ _ together Where the dashed line should be filled with a word specifying the tags have been combined using a bitwise OR operation (or AND operation). I also need the word for the present tense.

Would it be acceptable to write the following using the hyphens below: I am trying to get back to my pre-secret-mistress bliss. Or should it be: I am trying to get back to my pre-secret mistress bliss. Is it ok to write: It's taunting me like some just-out-of-reach nirvana. Any advice would be appreciated. I have read a style guide on the subject and am now second-guessing myself. Thank you!

When something is called peculiar or having a peculiarity what does that mean? Does it just mean it has some specific features or does it mean that those specific features are unusual, not normally expected? Answer Pecularity means "an odd or unusual feature or habit", but also "a characteristic or quality that is distinctive of a particular person or place". For all her peculiarities, he finds her personality quite endearing. Her essays characterized decency as a British peculiarity. Peculiar means "strange or odd", but also "unusual", or (in peculiar to ) "belonging exclusively to". Her accent was a peculiar mixture of Cockney and Irish. The air hung with an antiseptic aroma peculiar to hospitals. Peculiar and having a peculiarity have both the meanings you supposed. Informally, peculiar means also unwell : she felt a little peculiar for a while . [Reference: the New Oxford American English .]

I was reading my dictionary and I came across this phrase: "Before you can say Jack Robinson", meaning almost instantaneously to be used as follows: Before you can say Jack Robinson, I took the money and ran away. I tried searching it in Wikipedia but it simply says that it's a mythical person. It doesn't help much. It provides some hypothesis but no solid evidence. So, who is Jack Robinson? Answer Attested occurrences of the phrase “say Jack Robinson” A Google Books search reveals a cluster of published writings from the early 1760s that include the phrase “say Jack Robinson.” From “ Another Letter of the Sailor from the Havannah ,” in The Edinburgh Magazine (November 1762): I was sorry for the commodore of the castle, cause he was a brave fellow ; a ball came aboard of him, under the larboard-side of his breast, and clapped a stopper upon his commission, before one could say Jack Robinson . From "Truepenny," letter about “a filthy fashion,” in The Lond

The dictionary explains this as: To show somebody that you are interested in them and/or want to help them The explanation indicates the subject of the sentence is the one that offers help, but I think this one is also correct: I'll try it first, and if I can't handle it, I'll reach out to you for help. I am confused about who offers help because I saw my native speaker colleague write this in an email: Thanks for reaching out to me. Is this a "thanks" for helping or being asked to help? Answer The definition shown in your dictionary is unnecessarily narrow, which has led to your confusion. More broadly, "to reach out" means to initiate contact with someone , with the usual implication that the contact is helpful or beneficial. For that reason, either the helper or the person requesting help can be said to "reach out" to the other. The only stipulation is that the subject of "reach out" is the one who initiates the relationship. If y

Both /kɛlt/ and /sɛlt/ are considered acceptable pronunciations of the noun Celt and similarly of the adjective Celtic . Is there a reason for the different pronunciations? Which is the more common? Is each variant perhaps particular to a geography? Scottish vs. Irish, maybe? Answer According to OED 1 , Celt is first recorded in English in 1607, probably Anglicized from Latin. At that time it designated the peoples whom the ancients called Celtae (Latin) or Keltoi (Greek): the Gauls and those of Spain and Northern Italy “believed to be of the same language and race”. Celtic first appears in Blount’s Glossography as a French word, Celtique , defined as “pertaining to the people of Gaul”. The modern sense arose in the 18th Century; it began in French, and in reference to the language and people of Brittany, as the presumed representatives of the ancient Gauls: with the recognition of linguistic affinities it was extended to the Cornish and Welsh, and so to the Irish, Manx, and S

I know that usually with "so that" there is a modal verb. However, I do not know if this is correct because there is not a modal verb. I will wake him up so that he does not (will not) miss the train. I woke him up so that he did not miss the train. Answer The first one is correct. You can use either "won't" or "doesn't." The second example isn't Ok because "so that" talks about a cause and its intended effect. In other words, "so that" is used for purpose or reason. This is why your alternative is better (why did you erase it?): Ex. I woke him up so that he wouldn't miss the train. You can use "would" here as the Past Tense of "will." The Past Tense of "I'm going to wake him up so he won't miss the train." If you really want to keep "did not" in your second example, you have to change "so that" into "so." "So" just means the continuation of

I heard this phrase today and I'm pretty sure that there is something wrong with it. I do not know if it is the grammar or the syntax or the meaning of the words. Can you please tell me what the problem with this phrase is? Would a native American or British use it? If it's not correct, can you please tell me the correct alternative? I hope that you get what she was trying to say: a good coffee can always be used to battle a bad headache. Answer I think the main source of awkwardness is the missing object for "relieve". But it's grammatically correct. Compare the (simplified) negation, which is more obviously correct: There is a headache that a coffee will not relieve. I would prefer There is no headache so strong that a good coffee won't relieve it.

Plenty of time, space, and money is/are needed This was part of a question on indefinite pronouns. The textbook said are was the correct answer, but I still feel I would say is . I was wondering if both are possible and which one you would be more likely to use.

I'm a bit confused about this. Which expression is correct? You can't just do that. or You just can't do that. I'm trying to say: You can't just bash an ideology because of what someone has said/done. Answer As with only , one should exercise care in carefully placing just . In your sentence, you want: You can’t bash an ideology just because of what someone has said/done. Because you want to be perfectly clear that just applies to because . In the original pair of question, this one: You can’t just do that. Applies just to do , whereas this one: You just can’t do that. Applies just to can’t .