Blog

Say we had the following: Higher Education spending, clout, and influence in New York State is substantial. Within the State’s borders... Should the latter instance of State be capitalized or not? Answer I would say it's six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. First, here's the general pattern for AmE... ...and for BrE... Those charts suggest that the modern trend (led by American usage, with Brits rapidly catching up) is not to capitalise. Perhaps because I'm British and/or because I'm over 50, I tend to capitalise "the State" when I mean the British Government, Civil Service, NHS, etc., collectively , on the grounds that I think of it as proper noun referencing a single entity (the British State). But I don't capitalise forms such as state-sponsored industries , because it's a more "general-purpose" reference (to any nation-state). I'm not going to wade through 46,700 (not case-sensitive) results in Google Books for passages c

People often refer to the country US as America and to the people from the US as Americans. As far as I know, that's the only case in the world where a continent's name is used for a country's name (let me know if I'm wrong). Why does that happen? Answer This is a topic that leads to huge debates (and often flamewars) online whenever it is brought up. Logically, it makes perfect sense to use "America" and "Americans" for this country. The name of the country is "United States of America". Why would it be strange to shorten this? It is common to shorten the official name of a country — most people don't even know the official names for the various countries. For example, the official name of Mexico is "los Estados Unidos Mexicanos", which means "the Mexican United States"; nobody is surprised that it is referred to as "Mexico". People would be surprised if you called them the "EUM". (Also, this ex

After reading an article recently, I wondered when one should use contemplate over consider . I searched for the issue on Google and found that: In that context, they're essentially the same. Contemplating is more reflective, thinking about problems that aren't solved, puzzling >over mysteries. Considering is more like analyzing known choices. You'd contemplate the mysteries of the universe, you'd consider what kind of car to buy. ( wordreference.com ) Yet, the article I mentioned above, contains the following sentence: As Iraq erupts in civil war and America again contemplates intervention, that unfinished business should give new urgency to the question of how the United States military controlled the media coverage of its long involvement there and in Afghanistan. I would say that the possible intervention that is contemplated here is a known choice more than a mystery. When should I use contemplate over consider? Answer Consider gives a stronger indication a

Is there a convention for the spelling of the name of the main page of a website? Should it be home page , with a space between the two words; or homepage , all one word? Answer "Home page" was used first, but "homepage" followed soon after, is also acceptable and I prefer. Homepage was used to refer to the main page of a website as early as July 1993. Home page was used to refer to the main page of a website as early as September 1992. The first web browser was only written (by Tim Berners-Lee) in 1990-1991. Home page was used to refer to the main page of a HyperCard system as early as March 1991. HyperCard was a successful hypermedia forerunner to the WWW. Style guides These style guides use homepage : These style guides use home page : (More style guides here .) homepage The OED has home page from August 1993, and homepage from 1997, however I found homepage in Usenet as early as July 1993. The first uses both homepage and home page in the same paragraph

Many websites use the phrase 'Forgot password?' when prompting users to renew their login passwords. Is this correct usage or should it be 'Forgotten password?'. Answer Both are acceptable depending on the context. "Forgot password" could simply be an informal (shortened) way of saying "I forgot my password." We commonly miss out pronouns to be succinct. In this case, the words form a statement . Similarly, "Forgot password" could be a shortened form of the question "Have you forgotten your password?". "Forgotten password" uses the gerundive ( Attributive Verb ), and thus is also perfectly fine, in that the page is directing the user to their forgotten password. Here, the words form a noun phrase .

In Japanese, the particle と is used within an exhaustive list of items, to separate each item. E.g. りんご と バナナ と メロンがあります。 (Ringo to banana to meron ga arimasu.) I have an apple, a banana, and a melon. (implication: I have nothing else.) The particle や is used to list items in a way that suggests that you have other things, but there's no point in listing them all, similar to how we use "etc.": りんご や バナナ や メロンがあります。 (Ringo ya banana ya meron ga arimasu.) I have an apple, a banana, a melon, etc. (implication: I also have other things.) What type of listing would the second example be? In other words, what is the opposite of an exhaustive list?

I recently microwaved a plastic glass to get rid of micro-organisms on it. I accidentally dropped the glass after taking it out. I said "Damn it! This glass is not sane anymore!" Am I right in saying that? Usually the word sanitary is used in contexts like that. But, is it still right if I use the word sane? Does American English allow me to use the word "sane" it that sentence? Answer I'd say the plastic glass was no longer germ free . I can't imagine myself in a situation saying a contaminated object is "not sane". Come to think of it, contaminated , is the word you should have used.

This is from a song by Police, Darkness : "I can dream up schemes when I'm sitting in my seat I don't see any flaws 'til I get to my feet I wish I never woke up this morning Life was easy when it was boring" Shouldn't it be, according to www.eslbase.com , "I wish I havn't hadn't woken up this morning"? (though I agree the latter flows worse) Answer Strictly speaking, by the rules of grammar, it should be I wish I'd never woken up this morning. But if you Google "I wish I never" you find that lots of people use constructions like I wish I never woke up this morning. For example: I wish I never told you, I wish I never met you, I wish I never ever got drunk that night. So, while strictly speaking this should probably be called bad grammar, it is nevertheless a quite common usage.

I read this recently in The Economist : At the end of the summit, the French and European officials had claimed a points victory over the Germans by getting them to agree more firmly to a target date of January 1st next year to entrust the European Central Bank (ECB) with the ultimate authority to supervise the euro zone’s 6,000-odd banks. " Points " is a plural, and I suppose it doesn't function as a noun in this sentence since it's following the article " a ", so is it an adjective adorning " victory "? Answer When a noun is used this way it is called an attributive noun or noun adjunct . One big difference between attributive nouns and adjectives is that while an adjective is predicative, i.e., a big dog is big and is a dog, a points victory is not points, but rather it is a victory when using points as the determining factor.

Is there a technical term for combination, in error, of similar or related words? This question is prompted by the following malapropism or solecism, from an article by Elizabeth Montalbano in InformationWeek : The project also serves as a segueway into the next-generation Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), a program by NOAA that also will collect weather and climate data. The writer presumably formed segueway by miscegenation of segue with Segway . The problem does not seem to be a simple typographical error , which "includes errors due to mechanical failure or slips of the hand or finger, but usually excludes errors of ignorance, such as spelling errors." It also seems unlikely to be a neologism . Some processes of word formation -- agglutination, back-formation, blending, etc. -- of course are in play here, but those terms don't imply error. Answer Misjuxtaposition is used in these situations. It's something that exists in "common use", but not th

When an article (or any kind of document) is written specifically from the point of view of a citizen of the United States of America, I could complain about a US-centric bias. Are there other words for that? More specifically, is there a word that expresses this without reference to the country in question (in this case, the USA)? I was thinking of "geographically centric", or geocentric; but I think that's more (accurately) used for thinking that the Earth is the centre of the universe. Answer Ethnocentrism is “The tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of one's own culture.” More politically, nationalism is “The support of one nation's interests to the exclusion of others” and chauvinism is “Excessive patriotism, eagerness for national superiority; jingoism ,” or “Unwarranted bias, favoritism, or devotion to one's own particular group, cause, or idea.” Both chauvinism and jingoism have entertaining etymologies. :) The term nation

Why do English writers avoid explicit numerals? Based on my previous question regarding spelling out monetary amounts , is there a rule of thumb when a number should be spelled out? These examples are easy: I have two brothers. It's exactly 823 miles to New York. But do I have 15 minutes of fame, or fifteen minutes of fame? Edit: This related question asks how the practice of spelling out numbers originated; I'm looking for specific guidelines . Answer It's all about style and consistency. If you're writing for a specific publication or medium, you should adopt its guidelines. The rules tend, however, to follow the broad guidelines below: Small numbers (below twelve) should typically be spelt out. For larger numbers, consider the space available to you and the length of the number when spelt out. If you're restricted in space (journal column, letter, headlines, display text, etc.), use numbers. If the numbers are round or approximate, they're more likely

Situation: Alice is telling Bob that Charlie doesn't love himself, like Bob thinks. In fact, Charlie hates himself. "You don't know him. He's the antithesis of a narcissist. He's a ______" I'm looking for a single (preferably non-compound) word that describes a guy who hates himself (too much). I've already discarded self-hater and self-loather. These words are not listed (even as derivatives) in Oxford or AHD . And like this ngram shows, self-hatred and self-loathing come up frequently enough; but ' self-hater ' and ' self-loather ' don't. Besides, they're compound words. Neither Thesaurus.com nor Oxford lists an antonym of narcissist; which Oxford defines as a person who admires himself or herself too much, especially their appearance I'm not looking to paraphrase my sentence. I'm looking for a single word; which needs to be more impactful here. Just like saying "he's a narcissist" has more impact

"learn to [verb]" "learn how to [verb]" Is [1] merely a less formal version of [2]? If not, does [1] communicate something subtly different? Consider the following: In [2], the object of learning is explicitly "how to [verb]" (for instance, "I will learn how to speak French"). Is the object of learning in [1] "to [verb]" or is it something implicit and abstract that allows the subject "to [verb]"? For instance, in "I will learn to speak French", the object of learning would be the prerequisite elements for speaking French: "French phonemes, grammar, syntax, etc.".

I have a question regarding terms for trade and commerce. What is the antonym of 'consignment sale'? On consignment sale basis, sellers just keep the goods and pay manufacturers or suppliers only when it is sold. Until it sells, the goods is owned by manufacturers or suppliers. So the sellers have no risk about the stock. But if sellers buy goods from manufacturers or suppliers at the time of purchasing and the goods is delivered to sellers and owned by the sellers from that time on, what is this called?

Is it ok to start a sentence with also ? Also, I had given him the file you sent me. Answer Certainly , it is correct to begin a sentence with also . All adverbs ( also inclusive) can be used at the beginning of a sentence with the proper punctuation. For instance, the first sentence in this answer begins with an adverb. Other examples are: Furthermore , we have exhausted all the other options. Definitely , you can use my car. Surely , he could do better. Besides *, she had my number and could have called. *Note that Besides is used here as an adverb not a preposition.

I am confused about what is the relative meaning of zeugma compared to syllepsis , both in its current meaning and possibly in former understandings of these words. The New Oxford American Dictionary has: zeugma a figure of speech in which a word applies to two others in different senses (e.g., John and his license expired last week ) or to two others of which it semantically suits only one (e.g., with weeping eyes and hearts ). syllepsis a figure of speech in which a word is applied to two others in different senses (e.g., caught the train and a bad cold ) or to two others of which it grammatically suits only one (e.g., neither they nor it is working ). According to this, there is some overlap, though zeugma is more about semantics and syllepsis about grammar. Online sources on this issue conflict, with some insisting one the difference (“not to be confused with zeugma”) and others stating that the two have merged. Can someone offer a clear view of the differences, present or pa

I'm solving a problem that people face every day: Developers spend a noticeable amount of time writing this type of code. Stating it's a "significant" problem seems too strong / an overstatement. However, it's a problem I expect people to have experienced / be aware of. Ironically, "remarkable" seems like the perfect word - i.e. it's a problem one might remark about - but this word inexplicably means "astounding" / "marvelous" (I don't know why that came to be...). "Noticeable" and "comment worthy" seem like appropriate words/phrases. Can anyone suggest other words? Answer Noteworthy Worthy of notice or attention; notable; remarkable: A noteworthy addition to our collection of rare books.

Today, I was reading an article on pharmaceutical companies making minute changes to a drug in order to extend the patent. In one instance, the company profiled did not actually change the content of the drug, just the outward appearance. This got me thinking, is there a word in the English language that means “to change without changing” or “a change so small that it’s not a change at all”? I thought about the word superficial , but that doesn’t seem to fit. Answer English doesn't get much more precise than this... Infinitesimal — immeasurably or incalculably minute. It gets a bit mind-boggling when infinitesimal amounts are involved in, for example, homeopathic remedies that are so diluted there's only a very low probability of even a single molecule of the original substance being present . Which to me means an amount so small it's not actually there. EDIT: I can't resist pointing out this answer itself now embodies an (almost) infinitesimal change. It was recently

I'm working on designing characters for a game, and the main group of villains consists of characters that have a two-word epithet in the form "The ___" where the word in the blank describes their personality or what they do (i.e. "The Languid," "The Reminder," etc.) One of these characters acts like a trickster/jester, but in an uncanny and rather malicious way. (Think Batman's Joker or The Legend of Zelda's Happy Mask Salesman). Is there a word to describe this type of person? Basically I'm looking for a noun or adjective that includes meanings or connotations of "strange," "unpredictable," and "malicious." Some near misses include "uncanny," "fickle," and "capricious." The latter of which comes closest, in my opinion, but doesn't quite encapsulate the connotation of malice or foreboding.

She ran towards the display, her nose pressed against the glass. My friend and I don't understand the same thing when reading this sentence, and neither of us can explain why. To me, it doesn't make sense. The meaning I get is: She ran towards the display with her nose pressed against the glass. My friend says it's one action after the other, basically: She ran towards the display, and pressed her nose against the glass. Does anybody know which one of us is right? And why? What does this sentence mean, grammatically? I have some wild theories of my own, with independent and dependent clauses, and different subjects, and... yeah, wild theories...

Why is the form "flied" used in baseball instead of "flew"?

Example: "More Effort" is good for [non-creative] tasks, like building a wall or cleaning your room. But when it comes to creative tasks - like writing a novel or music - it is good to get your mind in a placid state where the work feels effortless. i.e, it's a task you don't really have to think much about while doing. It's not cognitive, per se.

This is not from real life, but from a movie on my local TV. A character in the movie is really bad, but when she talks with others, she pretends to be an innocent/ good woman. I want to know how to describe this kind of person. Answer A wolf in sheep's clothing is someone who tries to trick you into trusting them by presenting themselves as unthreatening, then unexpectedly attacks you. A poser is someone who pretends to have a "better" social/intellectual/economic position than they really do. @Jay's example is slightly odd (though not uncommon), in that the supposedly "rough" background is in fact considered "better" in certain social contexts (it has more "street cred"). It's an example of inverse snobbery . It's not clear from the question exactly what kind of "good" image our subject is presenting, what kind of "bad" reality is being concealed, or why she's doing it. Either or neither of the above m

I'm referring to something like the brown areas in this picture: Answer The edge of the road (as others have mentioned) is the shoulder . Beyond the shoulder is the verge . The whole strip of land the road follows is called a right-of-way in some places and a reserve in other places.

When to use Universe or universe? I'm editing a document where it is "The Creator of the universe". Is it correct?

Something a bit professional sounding? In a scenario where there was also a bunch of Requirements , this situation could be easily solved by labelling one as Required and this specific bunch of things as Optional . But in an independent context, where no requirements exist to provide contextual flavor, what can be a concise way of referring to a bunch of things that would be great if you could have / have access to, but they're not things you need to have / have access to. Perhaps the word which fits - Required : Optional :: Requirements : ???? ETA: Though I'm also hoping for a better word than optional which also conveys the extra / positive nature of 'it would be really good to have this, even if it's not a requirement'.

The antonym of "upgrade" is "downgrade", quite broadly used. What is the antonym of "update"? Update: Though, I hoped for something like "un-update" because reverting or uninstalling updates are much lengthier. Update2: After having further answers about "Restore", et al, I decided to restore the phrase from my original update. Yes, I can revert updates (uninstall service packs, hotfixes or restore the operating system to a previous state/image) Answer If you update your browser, you might want to rollback the update or to undo it. Mostly used in database management, I often hear/read about rollback of driver updates or program installs.

I see many words in English have the same phonetics but I don't know why they sound different. It means if we read the phonetics and pronounce, it will be wrong. Here are the examples. fun : /fʌn/ hunt : /hʌnt/ luck : /lʌk/ hulk : /hʌlk/ bulk : /bʌlk/ As you can see, the vowels in the words above are spelled with the same letter ("u") and transcribed with the same phonetic symbol ("ʌ"), but all of them sound different. Fun and hunt sound similar, but they sound quite different from hulk or bulk . If I pronounce the u vowel on hulk ~ luck or fun , it might be wrong Why? What's the role of the phonetic symbol "ʌ" and how do I pronounce these words correctly based on reading phonetics? Answer As Hot Licks said in a comment, and Peter Shor said in his answer, the pronunciation of a vowel may be altered by the surrounding sounds. But not all phonetically distinguishable vowel sounds are considered to be distinct "phonemes" of a language

I'm looking for a single word noun that would perfectly summarize the stereotypical nerdy uptight virgin student council president. Basically, a more proper version of the slang word "square": a person who always does what they're supposed to even if it means sacrificing things like fun and happiness and who casts a judgemental gaze on anyone who does otherwise. I'm trying to describe a certain person, and so far I've got "an OCD, judgemental, paranoid, uptight", but I need a noun to finish it off.

Recently, I came across the verb to bathe written as bath in two English coursebooks used by Italian students. The first time I saw it, I dismissed it as a typographical error and told my private student that the verb was bathe , but when it appeared a second time, in a different textbook, I checked with an online dictionary and read the following definition with which I am most familiar. Merriam-Webster bath verb : to wash (someone) in a container filled with water "to give a bath to (someone)" "to have a bath " : to wash yourself in a bath But in a different dictionary I read this Oxford Dictionaries [WITH OBJECT] British 1. Wash (someone) while immersing them in a bath: how to bath a baby 1.1 [NO OBJECT] Wash oneself while immersed in a bath: a) there was no hot water to bath in b) These are the people that quite happily let me shower and bath with no hot water for 10 days, because they couldn't be bothered to fix a tap. I told my student that it appea

What is the origin of the phrase "kettle of fish"? e.g. It's was a good film. But the sequel is a different kettle of fish. It seems to simply mean "thing", but in a fun and witty way. But I wonder- Did people ever put fish in kettles, and why would this come to be used in such a way? Answer The phrase means, as you said, 'a different thing.' According to this website : There was, it seems, a custom by which the gentry on the Scottish border with England would hold a picnic by a river. The custom was described by Thomas Newte in his Tour of England and Scotland in 1785: “It is customary for the gentlemen who live near the Tweed to entertain their neighbours and friends with a Fete Champetre, which they call giving ‘a kettle of fish’. Tents or marquees are pitched near the flowery banks of the river ... a fire is kindled, and live salmon thrown into boiling kettles”. The way the phrase became an idiom, however, is not clear. Visit that site to read more

As an American, I was never shocked to see the word "center" spelled as "centre." It didn't bother me at all. Honestly. But then I saw the participle of it spelled as "centring" as opposed to "centering," and it really made me reconsider the whole thing. Do UK (and Australian, New Zealand, etc.) speakers pronounce it similarly to US speakers (three syllables)? Do you guys ever spell it "centering?" Do you find the US spelling as weird as we find the UK spelling? Does it make you uncomfortable in a way you can't fully understand? Also, I see that my Chrome spell check is equally thrown off by the UK spelling. Is your browser's spell check disgusted by the US spelling? Answer British English doesn't use the spelling centering; it’s always centring . As to pronunciation, it’s two syllables, or maybe two-and-a-half with the hint of a schwa, /ˈsɛntriŋ/ /ˈsɛntᵊriŋ/. Spelling the word with a third syllable looks odd because w

Are both of these responses in current use in modern day AE to the question: What's your job? Is it I don't have a job, I'm retired . Or I don't have a job, I'm a retiree . Also, does the term of "retirant" have any currency in modern day AE? Source: source >/ Answer I've not heard retirant used and my spellcheck immediately rejected it. The other two are good. Retired is an adjective and retiree is a noun. I am retired is the more common in AmE.

I'd like to know more about how 'ends' came to mean 'hometown' in current London slang. I have heard it used to mean money, which is an extension of mainstream use - means to an end, for one's own ends etc. Can anyone enlighten me? Also, is there are decent source of general etymological information on current slang words? I know a lot come from Caribbean words and American hip-hop but a central source would be great.

What word can I use for a thing with positive and negative consequences? For example, taking a cab rather than driving has its advantages and disadvantages. Answer I'm not sure of a single word. You might use the phrase double-edged sword , e.g. Taking a cab is a double-edged sword. You don't have to worry about parking, but it is more expensive.

In a comment signed by Martha , she wrote that: "If I was an airline pilot" and "If I were an airline pilot" have different meanings. The latter is the subjunctive case (and presumably what most people mean, even if they say the former). The former is talking about the past tense - "if I was an airline pilot 10 years ago..." The comment above received 8 upvotes, and this confused me. Somewhere out there, are at least 9 people who hold the same view on this usage. I can't "see" how the sentence: " If I was a pilot 10 years ago " is speaking about the past. The sentence begins with "if" which means the speaker is thinking and talking hypothetically, imagining a situation which is unreal. He or she being a pilot never happened. Now I would understand the number of upvotes if (ha!) "was" had been said to be informal and "were" considered to be grammatically more acceptable, (especially if one were to sit a

Possible Duplicates: How to phrase an asking sentence that must be answered with an ordinal number? Framing a question whose answer is an ordinal number Given that I want to know Barack Obama is the 44th President of U.S.A, how can I frame a question like: The how manyeth president is Barack Obama? Answer I'd go with the following structure: Q: Where does Obama fall in the sequence of US presidents? A: [He's the] 44th [president]. This reflects similar usage when discussing, for instance, rankings: Q: Where did Harvard fall on the U.S. News & World Report list this year? A: 2nd.

In my native language German, every animal has an article. This is understandable, if one wants for example to distinguish a male pig (boar) from a female pig (sow). But if one just talks about the animal in genral, the article is basically at random. But how is it in English, when there may be the same distinction for animal genders, but for the animal a such there are no articles? So why for example does one say to a meowing cat She's hungry. without knowing if the cat is really a she ? Answer In very general terms, dogs are thought of as male, and cats as female. Where the sex of an animal is known, it will be referred to by the appropriate pronoun. Where it is not, apart from dogs and cats, and possibly a few others, it will be considered male and referred to as he , or as neither male nor female and referred to as it . These, however, are distinctions of usage, not of grammar.

I've always noticed that sometimes rain can have a pretty distinct smell. Do we have a word describing the smell of rain? How can we describe the smell of rain? "The rain smelt like..." "The rain had a ... scent." Answer I'm surprised this question isn't a dupe, and this word has never been offered as an answer to this question before. It's a famous example of a specific word for a specific sensation. petrichor /ˈpeˌtrīkôr/ noun a pleasant smell that frequently accompanies the first rain after a long period of warm, dry weather. other than the petrichor emanating from the rapidly drying grass, there was not a trace of evidence that it had rained at all This particular definition is from Oxford Dictionaries Online ( ODO ).

Tests are hard to solve for large number of users. Checking the similar usage of such expression, I think there is something wrong with the sentence. What's the best and correct? a large number OR large numbers OR even something else! Answer These are both correct: Tests are hard to solve for a large number of users. Tests are hard to solve for large numbers of users. The second sentence has a slightly more general connotation, like "users in general", whereas the first probably implies users of a specific application.

In reported speech, tenses are generally backshifted. If what was said is still true at the time of reporting then back shifting is optional. My question is, if someone doesn't backshift the tense knowing for a fact that the statement is no longer true, is that still acceptable? For example, suppose John tells me today: I am hungry. Then two days later, I happen to tell my friend: John said that he is hungry. Even though I know that John is no longer hungry, I used the present simple tense (is). Is this usage correct?

Having a bit of a debate about this with some foreign colleagues of mine. I've always used the phrase 'I'm walking in the road', they think that you should say 'I'm walking on the road'.. I'm not 100% sure why I use the word 'in', but there must be a reason for it! So... which is right?

I found an article, titled “The mystery of people who speaks dozen of languages” written by Judith Thurman in the latest New Yorker (September 3 issue) very intriguing. She introduces a 27-year old Peruvian linguist, Miguel Rojas-Bersia, a doctorial candidate at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistic, who has good command of 22 living languages including English, French, German,Italian, Spanish, Russian, Mandarin, Hakka Chines, Japanese, Korean, Serbian, Esperanto, and so on, 13 of which he speaks fluently and is versed to classic languages such as Latin, Ancient Greek, Biblical Hebrew. Thurman describes this young hyper polyglot as; “He looks like any other laid-back young tourist, except for the intense focus – all senses cocked –with which he takes in a new environment. Linguistics is a formidable discipline. I have no idea about the phrase, “all senses cocked,” and I checked several English dictionaries at hand as well as online dictionaries without avail. What does “all se

Today, I am writing technical documentation that instructs the user how to install software to a server. I encountered the following sentence and am unsure which is correct: When installing to a server other than that on which SQL Server is installed, ... Should on be changed to upon ? When installing to a server other than that upon which SQL Server is installed, ... It all seems like a mouthful, but appears to be grammatically correct. Answer Both are indeed acceptable. I agree with Peter that upon kind of reminds me of something being within a physical relativity of the SQL server which is something I do not think you wish to convey to the user. However, I would write When installing to a server besides the one on which the SQL Server is installed … instead of When installing to a server other than that on which SQL Server is installed …

Usually, because links the premise and the conclusion. But there is one usage of the word I come across often, not in contemporary writings but older works. These are of the form: "[subject did something] just because", where the the phrase "just because" is used to imply that the doer's actions were not guided by any purpose and the act was performed only for the sake of it, or on an impulse. How can this usage of the word because be explained?

In an academic text, I need to explain a section of a computer program. This section extends from line 10 to line 15 in the code. Is the following way to refer to these lines gramatically correct? The scopes of the two declarations overlap from lines 10 to 15 . Or should I use one of these alternative forms: The scopes of the two declarations overlap from line 10 to line 15 . The scopes of the two declarations overlap in lines 10 to 15 . Any other possibility?... Because this need appears frequently in the text, this is not just a matter of choosing the safest approach. I woul like to know what is correct and what is not so that I can use some variation trhoughout the text.

Please fill in the blank with the correct word and explain your choice. I am __ G-d made me. A. who B. whom Some people have suggested I elaborate on this question so here goes. The above was not copied from any test. It is a question about basically two things: (1) whether an objective complement should be in the same case as the subject ("I" => "who") or as the object of the verb ("me" => "whom"); and (2) whether the verb to "make" [someone into something] should properly be considered a linking verb (~a form of "to be") (or, if not, whether this sentence has an implied nonfinite linking verb, and, if so, whether that would indeed exige the predicate nominative: "I am who G-d made me [to be]" => "I"? Or conceivably--since "me" becomes the subject[?] of the complement clause-- =>"me"?). There are many other implications, just some of which are discussed here . It is a seriou

Certain nouns can often be used as noun adjuncts in place of a corresponding adjective, with no change in literal meaning, where: The noun is not pejorative when used nominatively by itself. Nor is the corresponding adjective pejorative. But the noun used attributively is pejorative. Is this a common pattern in English (besides the 2 examples below), and if so, what's the reason behind it? Also, is the phenomenon specific to proper nouns? Here are some examples of such usages that should be typical according to what I'm claiming: Jew Generally not pejorative when used nominatively (though that may depend on the company you keep...): Who is a Jew ? Corresponding adjective is not pejorative: The Haggadah (Hebrew: הַגָּדָה‎, "telling") is a Jewish text that sets forth the order of the Passover Seder. But an anti-Semitic slur when used attributively : I shoulda known they'd stick me in a room with a Jew cop. Democrat (the US political party) Not pejorative, used

For example: "Wow! How can he do that? Unbelievable..." or: "Wow! How can he be so insensible!? Unbelievable..." I would like to double check so I don't become the insensible myself... :)

Look at the following sentence. In order to keep fit, we must eat healthy food. Can we also say " eat healthy " and " eat healthily " to mean eat healthy food ? In order to keep fit, we must eat healthy . In order to keep fit, we must eat healthily . Are they both correct or is either of them wrong? Thanks for Kate Bunting's comment. I am asking this because I know "go to bed hungry" makes sense and is quite different from "go to bed hungrily" Does "eat healthy" also make sense?

Lewis Carroll popularized the use and creation of (what may be considered to be) a special form of compound or conjoined words. I propose that these are different than other compound words (e.g., per the comments, “grimdark” from grim+dark ) Since the concept of a portmanteau is by nature poetic and inventive, I think it is most productive to focus on the notion of disallowed constructions . For instance, I think that a portmanteau: cannot use a classical prefix or suffix as one half of the constructed word. (unbor, as un + bor -rowed ) cannot have parts that are, themselves, whole words (e.g. understanding) Either way, do rules exist in the construction of portmanteaux? Do all portmanteaux by nature have a light-hearted tone? Must they “sound good”? Or does their “lightness” arise from the wit used to create them? ( edit : incorporated comments)

Can you please tell me an English proverb which means "to give something to somebody who does not recognize the value of that thing"?

When I try to translate the German word "Krug" into English, LEO shows me without further distinction: flagon jar jug mug tankard pitcher But as far as I know, they cannot always used interchangeably, right? What are the differences (maybe also regionally)? Answer In American English, flagon is very old-timey. If you call a container a "flagon", people will probably look at you funny. That said, a flagon is probably most similar to a jug (see below). I think that "flagon" is more common in British English than in AmE, but don't quote me on that. A jar is a cylindrical container with a pop-off or screw-off lid, often made of glass. It is usually taller than it is wide. My impression of an archetypal jar looks pretty much like this: image . A jar can be used to store either solids or liquids, though solids are more common. A jug is a more oblong container, usually thicker near the middle than at the top, and usually not radially symmetric. This wo

Since she had given up smoking, she has been looking good. or Since she gave up smoking, she has been looking good. Shouldn't it be "had given up"?

Why are there different ways of indicating gender for animals? For instance, by inflexion we get: lion (male) & lioness (female) where the female is distinguished from the male. Here the male is also known by the general ( have I used this correctly ?) term for this type of animal, i.e. lion. But, in another instance, we have: duck (female) & drake (male) where the male is distinguished from the female by a distinct or different word and also from the general term for this type of fowl, i.e. duck. Then, for kangaroos and rabbits, we have: buck (male) & doe (female) where neither are known by the general term, nor is there any inflexion; instead, distinct names are used. Why do these different ways for indicating gender exist? Why is it that in some cases the male is differentiated from the female and vice-versa. And why in some cases are both female and male known by words so different from the general term used to describe them? Answer To take one of your examples, doe i

Over on English Language Learners, a non-native speaker asked a question about adding "the" before movie titles. I wanted to tell him or her that the rule in English is not to add a definite article before a proper noun, but to keep the article if it's part of the title, so you would have, for instance: I went to see The Big Sleep. but I went to see Sleepless in Seattle. But it occurred to me that there is an exception to this rule: boats, trains, and other means of transportation. My question is, why is it idiomatic to say: Tomorrow morning we set sail on the Titanic . or The murder took place on the Orient Express . when we would never use an article in that context with the name of a person, a city, or a country? Are there other categories of proper nouns that take definite articles, and if so, what if anything is the rule?

I am writing a paper about Art Spiegelman's Maus , specifically the metaphor that Spiegelman creates by depicting his obviously quite human characters with the heads of various animals, or a couple times animal masks. The metaphor is used at times to bestialize/animalize the acts of the Nazis and, in some cases, to show the arbitrary nature of the classes/groups/divisions they and others applied to human beings. I considered "chremamorphism," but this describes the attribution of the characteristics of an object to, or the objectification of, a human. I also considered "animalize" and "bestialize," but those describe some of the effects that can be produced by Spiegelman's metaphor, not the metaphor itself - in many scenes in the book, the characters are extremely human, and I think that the negative or degrading connotations of these words makes them inappropriate for this use. Nor do "anthropomorphism" or "personification" fit

Are the words "backdrop" and "background" interchangeable?

Here are two examples of mutated plurals: more than one goose= geese; more than one man= men 1)Say you had 2 or more groups of geese. I.e. group #1= African geese & group #2=buff geese. If you wanted to associate these groups together but still observe the fact that they are different types of geese, would you say geeses? (Buff geese + African geese = geeses) Taking this one step further, if these two distinct groups of geese share in the possession of something, would geeses' be correct? Say, one type of illness is common to two sorts of geese. [illness common to Buff geese(=Buff geese's illness) + the same illness is common to African geese(=African geese's illness) --> geeses' illness? ] 2)Say you had 2 or more groups of men: men from France(Frenchmen), men from England (Englishmen), and men from Ireland (Irishmen). Let's say you want to refer to the "European charm" that these groups of men have in common while still noting that there ARE differ

I was wondering about the meaning of kick over and the type of context where it could be used. For instance: If you want to gather honey, don't kick over the beehive. Answer Kick over means exactly that, to topple something by giving it a kick. If you do that to a beehive, you won't get the honey you're after, but you will get an angry swarm of bees looking to sting you. So if you want something from people, maybe it's better not to stir up bad feelings. If you do, you won't achieve your aim, but it's likely you'll have angry people ready to attack you.

Is a comma required after the date (year only or day of week only) that is in a prepositional phrase before the subject of the sentence? For example: In 1966 I began college.

All lanthanides except for lanthanum have suffix "-ium". Why lanthanum is so special, and why this particular word form has been considered canonical? Is using of "lanthan ium " these days allowed, or it's forbidden? It looks like in 19th century both forms were utilized, but since 1900..1910 "lanthan ium " vanished from the grid: In 20th century only few authors ever used "lanthan ium ", e.g. some recent publications also include "lanthan ium ", but it is rather an exception than a rule. In the other hand, I haven't discovered any IUPAC rules explicitly declaring "lanthan ium " as a word to be avoided. There are also related topics on English.SE ( Suffix ‘-ium’ vs. ‘-um’ ) and Chemistry.SE ( Why do the names of most chemical elements end with -um or -ium? ), but neither provides a distinct answer. Answer I doubt that it is possible to say why lanthanum won out as the standard name. However, lanthanium is not nec

You can say, "I have a question." You can say, "I have had a question for a long time." Right? But what about, "I have had had a question ..."? Optional side question: how do you punctuate the previous sentence? Is "have had had" grammatically correct? If so, what does it mean? Also, is it then correct to use "have had had had had had had," and does each use with a different number of hads mean something different? Do these tenses have a name? Would you only use these tenses in unique time travel scenarios? "I have had had a question," sounds weird but not necessarily wrong. "Having had had a question, I asked it," sounds okay. Or something like "Having had been a person..." EDIT So it seems that "Having" in "having had had" does not necessarily have anything to do with the tense? It still seems grammatically correct and not completely unusual to say "having had had" or even &q

Example: The stranded fish were flapping desperately on the sand, their mouths closing and opening, seeking for the water that wasn't there. Is there's a word that means opening and closing the mouth ? I thought of gaping but I think it only means keeping the mouth open? Answer The idiomatic way of saying this is The stranded fish were flapping desperately on the sand, gasping for breath .