Blog

I'm a surveyor and we are currently setting up our network. However, there seems to be a disagreement on the proper name of the group. The group is composed of young surveyors under the age of 35, hence the name Young Surveyors Network . However, somebody in the group has challenged it and has asserted that it should be Young Surveyor Network . Personally I think the original name is just fine but I'd prefer more ammunition wink wink Can somebody resolve this issue? Should it be Young Surveyors Network or Young Surveyor Network ? Or does it need to take an apostrophe and be Young Surveyors' Network Thanks in advance!

As I understand, ö in coöperation is considered archaic (or is it?) and words like résumé , cliché and naïve are copied directly from foreign languages. Are there any contemporary native (non-borrowed) English words left that contain characters with diacritics? Update: Note that a word from any contemporary dialect of English would work for this question. Also, of course, as is noted in answers below, besides borrowed foreign language words, there are English words with diacritics, that were created from non-English given names — like ångström for example. Such words, arguably, also can be considered borrowed. And, at least with ångström , Wikipedia claims that version with diacritics is archaic as well. Update 2: To clarify: Contemporary = was a norm in XX century at least (preferably after twenties as well). When I said "archaic" in comments, I meant "non-contemporary". Diacritics, which appeared in anglicization of a borrowed word (i.e. foreign original do

Betty learned that Albert telephoned after Isaiah visited. Can anybody explain whether " after Isaiah visited " tell us: (1) when Betty learned something about Albert or (2) when Albert telephoned? Could a large pause between "Albert" and "telephoned" or after "telephoned" disambiguate the sentence in sense (1) or (2) respectively? (1) Betty learned that Albert [... large pause ...] telephoned after Isaiah visited. (2) Betty learned that Albert telephoned [... large pause ...] after Isaiah visited. Also, what are the possible meanings or interpretations in written English? For example, could we conclude that: (1) Betty learned that Albert telephoned after Isaiah visited. ["after Isaiah visited" attaches to "telephoned"] (2) Betty learned that Albert telephoned, after Isaiah visited. ["after Isaiah visited" attaches to "learned"]

Air and breeze are termed as synonyms but they do not mean the same thing. Air is a general term while breeze would actually mean a cool flowing air. Do we actually have exact synonyms for nouns in English? In other languages, for example Hindi, we have 4–5 words meaning exactly the same thing; Hawa , Vayu , and Pawan all mean “air”.

If you have a more illustrative title, feel free to change it. I searched but I couldn't find one. This may be an easy and trivial question; if so, I am sorry. What are the differences between these two sentences? These two guys seem to be inseparable. These two guys seem inseparable. I can intuitively say that the latter one is grammatically wrong. Could you please explain? EDIT : What I think is John Lawler's and FumbleFingers' answers are worth to read. The reason why I noted that someone who wants to learn the answer of this question, accidentally misses FumbleFingers' answer. Answer Your intuition is incorrect. They are both grammatical. And they are identical in meaning. The only difference between these two sentences is how many syllables they have. The cluster to be , consisting of the infinitive complementizer to , plus the predicate adjective auxiliary infinitive be , is frequently deleted after the predicate seem (or appear ) before a predicate adjective, l

I would like to know the subtle difference between hook up and have sex . I'm asking because hook up seems have a subtly different meaning than have sex : in the situations I've heard this word it seems to mean sex without compromise, while have sex is more general. On the other hand, the dictionaries say hook up = have sex. Answer "Hook up with" is ambiguous in meaning. It can mean to meet up with friends to hang out, but it can also mean to have sex with someone. Generally, if you are using it with a singular person I hooked up with this person I met last night at the hoopda. or in particular if you include "totally," as in I totally hooked up with my friend last night. the implication is that a sexual encounter occurred unless there is other context that suggests otherwise. It also implies that the encounter was casual and perhaps almost random; you don't usually "hook up with" someone that you have a long-term relationship with. By cont

When dealing with abbreviations, should you parenthesize the abbreviation or its expansion? I have seen it both ways. Can anyone make a good case for preferring one style over the other? Answer The Modern Language Association (MLA) style, which is commonly used, always puts acronyms and initialisms in parentheses after the first time they are used (not the other way around). For example: The Modern Language Association (MLA) publishes its own style guide. The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers devotes an entire chapter to abbreviations. The Associated Press Stylebook is a little less helpful in handling abbreviations. It says that the first time an item is used, it should be spelled out fully. Then, if the abbreviation or acronym is common enough to be well known publicly, it can be used on subsequent reference. AP style does not use a parenthetical explanation behind the first mention. It just uses the acronym or abbreviation after the first full mention. For example: The

Subject-Verb Agreement, wondering which is correct in the following? Our years of grammar experience have / has taught us... Assuming "have" is correct. And that phrase "of grammar experience" doesn't determine. But I'm confused now after having read that plural "years" is thought to be singular because "years" is a measurement, I believe was the argument, here: Measurements Generally a number, fraction, or quantity of things is considered singular if considered as a mass (ten gallons is enough) and plural if considered as separate units (ten dishfuls were slowly doled out). Sums of money, time, distances, and other similar measurements are often singular ( Only years of dedication earns a climber the right to stand on such a peak ). I realize there are somewhat similar questions already on your site but I can't find one that solves completely. There are many opinions but not many final words. Thanks Answer The choice of verb number

I am looking for a term with bad connotation. I am aware of the popular terms like "he/she has no personality", pliable, malleable, weak-minded but i couldn't find any more on the insulting side. It could be an idiom or a single word. For example: I just bought this bag yesterday and he came today with a new one too He never talks to her and now he does –just because I did in the morning. He is such a ____

There are two slightly different expressions which do mean the exact same thing, these are: On the one hand [...]. on the other hand [...] On the one side [...]. on the other side [...] Is using side here correct? I'm sure the hand version is tremendously widespread, whereas the side version just shows up from time to time. My English teacher always told me "'on the one side..., and on the other...' does not exist!", however I do see it sometimes. So is it grammatical or not? Answer It's not a matter of "legal" or not, but hand is far more common in OP's construction... I doubt it's meaningful to explain this as anything other than an accident of linguistic history and idiomatic usage - people tend to repeat the form they hear most often.

Semi- is a Latin prefix meaning "half" and colon is another punctuation. Should I therefore say that semicolon is a halved colon?

Do in-between and between have different meanings? What is the difference between in-between and between ? Answer Well, between all by itself acts as a preposition, but in between functions as an adverb. preposition : I found myself caught between a rock and a hard place. adverb : There was a rock and a hard place, and there I was lying in between.

If A is one time bigger than B, it is equal to 2B. So if A is three times bigger than B, it is equal to 4B. Yet I am seeing "two times bigger" to mean "twice as large" in more and more places. Any insights?

I know there is the word "spendthrift" — but what word denotes the habit of spending too much money or resources on things that are not essential? Answer Any of these: Profligate (n./adj.) Squanderer (n) Prodigal (n./adj.) Waster (n) Wasteful (adj) Thriftless (adj)

Is there a simpler or better way of saying "promises that hold no meaning" or "promises without meaning"?

I am looking for a term, expression, word, or idiom to describe a task as an easy one to do or to go through. What I’d normally say is: Actually it’s not difficult, it’s as easy as drinking a glass of water. Does that make sense to a native English speaker? Is there a common idiom? Answer Piece of cake -- “A piece of cake literally refers to a slice of cake. Idiomatically, the phrase refers to a job, task or other activity that is considered pleasant – or, by extension, easy or simple.” See examples in Google books . Doddle -- “A job, task or other activity that is simple or easy to complete.” For a dozen brief examples, see page 34 of Materials Development in Language Teaching , edited by Brian Tomlinson. There also is a slew of “as easy as falling off an X ” expressions, where X typically is a log, a horse, a barn.

Some nouns have multiple plurals, this article from Merriam Webster names a few. I'm wondering if there is a word to describe this, a word meaning having multiple plural forms . To put it in a sentence (two sentences to allow noun and adjective answers): Syllabus is a(n) (insert word), because it has two plural forms . Syllabus is (insert word), because it has two plural forms . I have scanned through the Wikipedia page on English plurals which has a lot of terms for different plural forms, however, I have not come across a term for words with multiple plural forms. I've also scanned through some blogs on the Oxford Dictionaries website , but to no avail. Some of the examples from the aforementioned Merriam Webster article: One referendum, multiple referendums or referenda 1 One syllabus, multiple syllabuses or syllabi 1 One gymnasium, multiple gymnasiums or gymnasia 1 One referendum, multiple referendums or referenda 1 One miasma, multiple miasmas, miasmata or miasms 1 One t

I wrote “I know all these stuff; I don’t have to go over them again” in my writing-exam paper and the teacher corrected it to read, “I know all this stuff; I don’t have to go over it again.” The teacher is Irish so I don’t think he would make a mistake but I think even if the first one ( these ) was wrong, the second one ( them ) should have stayed the same. Am I right? Answer Stuff is singular, so it needs to be preceded by the singular demonstrative determiner this . For the same reason, it needs to be referred to by the singular pronoun it and not the plural pronoun them .

If I want to describe two things happening at the same time, I can use the words parallel or concurrently . In some cases, simultaneously would also work. More suggestions are available in the opposite question , already answered. In technical writing, most of the time, it is sufficient to identify a process or thread that is parallel; a lack of parallelism is assumed in absence of specificity. But in some cases, the ordinary expectation for something is parallel, so the reverse requires denotation. The word sequentially implies some of the same things as concurrently . But I'd really like a word that denotes the opposite and can be used in the same way as concurrently . Here's a few examples: "That procedure runs concurrently, so the system doesn't wait for it to finish before moving on." "That procedure runs ??? , so the system waits for it to finish before moving on." "The math library does all of its processing concurrently, so matrix multipl

He called her, emailed her, texted her, tweeted her—all to no use. Strictly speaking, I would need to write texted her and tweeted her , but I'm omitting and to convey a rhythm and sense of urgency. What do you call this kind of construction, and is it accepted grammar (at least for creative writing, if not in an academic context)? Answer It's a rhetorical device called asyndeton , and you can find its definition (as well as those of other rhetorical figures) here . Asyndeton consists of omitting conjunctions between words, phrases, or clauses. In a list of items, asyndeton gives the effect of unpremeditated multiplicity, of an extemporaneous rather than a labored account: On his return he received medals, honors, treasures, titles, fame.

A person or a group of people who betray their country, practises treason.

I want one word that means Date and Time. For example in "the date and time of the event will be announced later" I want to use single word instead of "date and time"

Many names seem to get a "-y" or "-ie" at the end when the speaker wishes to denote a hint of familiarity, intimacy, or tenderness. Examples can be seen not just in names, but in terms like puppy, kitty . Close friends of Robert might call him Bobby , whereas, if you think about it, it's hard to imagine Bobby used in a more formal setting. What is the origin of this practice? Answer The "-y" is a suffix for forming diminutive nouns, and Wiktionary has an entry dedicated to it, though it doesn't say anything about etymology other than "from Middle English and Scots". Thankfully, The Free Library provides lots of further insight , but the bottom line is that nobody really knows for sure, and "the etymology of the diminutive suffix -y, -ie [will] most certainly remain controversial". The same suffix exists in modern German, where it is spelled as "-i" (Mami, Papi, Mausi, Steffi, Susi, Schumi), but again, the connectio

Some people hold the irrational belief that one object (or possibly idea) can fix all their problems. For example, someone who is unhappy or anxious might think that smoking is a cure to all their problems. What's the idiom to describe this belief? I used to know it but it slipped my mind. Answer You may be thinking of magic bullet but panacea would also fit. magic bullet noun informal a medicine or other remedy with advanced or highly specific properties: there’s no magic bullet, and we should just try to eat as varied and well-balanced a diet as possible panacea noun a solution or remedy for all difficulties or diseases: the panacea for all corporate ills the time-honoured panacea, cod liver oil

Is there a clear-cut difference between dissatisfied and unsatisfied ?

After the therapy, eight children (43%) became able to crawl/move on their back. Or should I use "on their backs"? Singular because each child only has one back, or plural because we're dealing with eight backs? Answer Plural, because we are, in fact, dealing with eight little backs. And a back is a back, no matter how small. A child has a back, but children have backs. I'm sure others will back me on this.

Is there an equivalent to the french idiom Jeter l'argent par la fenêtre which means throwing money through a window? (I'm not sure about the translation, especially through .) Answer The most commonly-used equivalent English phrase is: Pouring/throwing money down the drain Fig. to waste money; to throw money away. "What a waste! Buying that old car is just pouring money down the drain. Don't buy any more of that low-quality merchandise. That's just throwing money down the drain ."

In his book Overcoming our Racism , psychology professor Derald Wing Sue talks about "unconscious racial oppression" that leads well-meaning White people to say and do things that are harmful to people of color. Some examples he gives of this are claiming to "not see color," laughing at racist jokes, and using the terms white lie and black lie. I had never heard the term black lie before, and I had never thought of white lie in racial terms. Wikipedia defines white lies as "minor lies which could be considered to be harmless, or even beneficial , in the long term" (emphasis mine). I know there are plenty of other terms that equate "white" with "good," such as white hat and white magic . Is it racist, or at least politically incorrect, to use terms like this? Answer As with any question of political correctness, the answer depends on the audience : There is a claim (presumably ascribed to by Sue) that the English language is liber

I've recently encountered three sentences: I can't agree with you more. I can't agree with you any more. I can't agree with you anymore. What do these three sentences mean? Are they the same, or are there any differences? Answer "I cannot agree with you more." means that I agree with you to a complete extent, making it impossible for me to agree with you to a greater extent. "I cannot agree with you any more." means that I can no longer agree with you. I agreed with you before, but that has come to an end. "Anymore" is a somewhat controversial word which is equivalent to "any more", but does not substitute for "any more" in all uses: you would never write "I don't need anymore supplies". See for instance: http://alt-usage-english.org/anymore.html

I'm thinking of the type of person who would text while walking and end up smacking into a telephone pole. What would you call them?

Etymonline has this entry for dibs : Children's word to express a claim on something, 1932 , originally U.S., apparently a contraction of dibstone "a knucklebone or jack in a children's game" (1690s), which is of unknown origin. However, while Merriam-Webster's entry for dibs gives the same definition and origin as an abbreviation of dibstone , it traces the first known use to 1812 . An Ngram of dibs shows that it was indeed used in the early 1800s, having peaks in the 1840s and 1880s. After the 1880s peak, it drops gradually and does not really rise again until the 1980s. In fact, 1932 seems to be during one of the word's lowest points. Given this information, why does Etymonline trace its origin to this low point in 1932 when it was actually in use over a century earlier? I'm looking for an explanation for the disparity between these sources. As far as I can determine, there is not another meaning of dibs to explain its earlier appearances. Answer

We are being taught English by a native speaker from Alaska. He states that many of modal verbs we were taught are outdated and have been replaced. E.g.: We must ➙ We have to May I come in? ➙ Do you mind if I come in? We don't have to leave yet. ➙ We don't gotta go yet. Totally outdated: "ought to" and "shall". Is it true, and if so, to what extent? Which modal verbs do you regularly use in your spoken English and which in written language? Answer The question is to some extent a matter of opinion. However, I would say that your examples are not examples which are widely considered outdated, especially in written English. We must is used in formal speech and in writing. In informal speech, it has been largely replaced by we need to , we have to and we've got to . Gotta is slang for have got to , and the latter is certainly not outdated. We don't gotta go yet is terrible English, and I suggest you do not get into the habit of saying something

Wikipedia describes a "splash screen" as such... "A splash screen is an image that appears while a game or program is loading." and its purpose... [Splash screens] are typically used by particularly large applications to notify the user that the program is in the process of loading. But why is it called a "splash" screen? Why not "loading screen"? Where did this phrase come from, and how long has it been about? Answer While the image certainly splashes all over the screen, the immediate origins of the term might lie in the comic industry. A splash page or splash panel ... sometimes referred to simply as a "splash," is a full-page drawing in a comic book. A splash page is often used as the first page of a story, and includes the title and credits . A computer application's splash screen serves a similar purpose and was probably first introduced some time in the mid-90s. The comics terminology predates the software variant by a num

I've read somewhere that some adjectives cannot be used in the predicative position; for example "this is a major problem" is acceptable, but "the problem is major" is not acceptable. I'm wondering what other adjectives cannot be used in predicative position other than major . Is it the only one we have in English? Answer There are many kinds of non-predicative adjectives. A few examples: former president electrical engineer alleged criminal main reason http://eecoppock.info/CoppockSemFest09.pdf shows you many kinds of examples. It is a good reference even if you choose to not read the technical bits.

Let's say I caused a minor car crash some time ago and today I meet a woman. The conversation goes: Woman: Hey, I remember that car with the scratch from the crash last week, you must be the one who caused it. Me: Are you sure? It didn't necessarily have to be me, I see a car with a scratch like this almost every day. What I was referring to was that I see the car every day when I drive it. Is there a word for this? Answer I never lie. I do, however, occasionally deceive . For example if someone asks me something I don't want to tell them, saying "I don't know" is a lie. Saying "I'm not allowed to tell you" may reveal the information, or encourage them to try harder to get it out of me. But "oh, I really couldn't say" or "yeah, nothing's been announced yet" often cause people to believe that I don't know, even though they are technically not lies.

What would be the correct plural of Prius , and why? A Latin professor would say Prium’s the best... Answer I suspect that Toyota's advertising department just made up a word they thought sounded nice. If it were Latin and a noun/adjective, the plural would be priora . Since this probably is not the case, Priuses seems to be the only choice.

What is the difference between sauce and dressing? Their purpose seems to be the same.

How can one determine what an adjectival complement is in an English sentence? Are there are any subcategories to this classification? I'd love concrete examples, to help me better understand this aspect of grammar. Answer I must say I always find such terms vague: is it an adjective that functions as a complement , i.e. a complement of an adjectival nature (I am large )? Or a complement to an adjective (I am large of mind )? Some interpret it as the latter; however, most linguistic Google results seem to interpret it as an adjective that is used as a complement , usually a complement to a verb. A complement, sometimes also known as a value, is a word or phrase that you would expect with a certain verb/predicate. Consider this sentence: I picked apples this morning. The verb to pick has two complements: a subject I and an object apples . The constituent this morning is not considered a complement, because it is not something you would expect with this verb; that is, you would

So, I develop for a company that does workplace-surveys. And one of our report-formats has just been translated into English. And with it a description on how to read the reports. This description contains the following sentence When historical reporting is included, the column for this year's survey will be thinner, and the column for last year will appear behind it in grey. Is this the correct spelling of year's in this context? I'm not a native English speaker/writer, but I do consider myself fluent, and this spelling tickled something in the back of my brain. If it matters, the report format only displays a maximum of two years at a time (this year, and last year). Answer Yes, it is. You would use years when talking about more than one year with no possessive involvement: It had been years since I last thought about her. We have been arguing over the same point for more than twenty years now. Between the years 1914 and 1918, Newfoundland lost an entire generation of

Are these two words interchangeable in most usages? My specific example is: It smells bad in this [quarter/quadrant] of the building this morning. Could both words be used correctly in this sentence; would they have the same meaning? Answer Quadrant is more specific than quarter as a word. A quarter is 25% of anything, whereas quadrant specifically refers to area. So if you're looking to indicate that exactly 25% of the building is stinky, either word would work. However while both words are semantically correct in your statement, in terms of common usage they're also both a little odd in the sentence you've used them in. Section, part, area or wing would all be much more common terms for building description.

I know it is something to do with universities, but as I have never come across the term before today (and have lived in England all my life including going to an English university), I am assuming it is only used by none native English speakers. Senior common room is the common room that cannot be used by students doing their 1st degree, so I assume “rising senior” must in some way be related to students doing a 2nd degree. Answer Senior in the USA refers to the fourth year of a standard four-year college degree (an undergraduate degree or BA, for most Commonwealth English speakers). Students in the four years of a standard US college degree are known respectively as freshmen , sophomores , juniors , and seniors . (Confusingly, the last two years of high school — roughly, ages 17–19 — are also known as junior and senior year. This is usually disambiguated by context, though.) Rising senior genrally means that the person in queston is in between designations, but that senior will

I can't figure it out. I've seen both been used, but a nugget is presumably gold, or can golden be used as well?

The OED states that both "buses" and "busses" are acceptable plural forms of "bus". Is one generally preferred over the other? Answer To be more precise, the citations in the OED’s entry for bus include 2 instances of busses and 9 of buses . In its own commentary, the OED uses buses . The British National Corpus records 1438 instances of buses and 10 of busses . The figures in the Corpus of Contemporary American English are 5139 and 116. I think that means you’re in good company if you use buses .

Today’s (Aug 28) Washington Post carries the article titled, “ Red meat on the menu as convention kicks off” followed by the following sentence. "GOP delegates are scheduled to take the vote that will formally settle their party's long primary battle, although there were signs of the un-mended rift between Romney's backers and the minority of delegates supporting Rep. Ron Paul." I think I’ve seen the cases “ Red meat ” was used in the sense of the substance of political agendas in the past. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines ‘red meat’ as meat (as beef) that is red when raw something substantial that can satisfy a basic need or appetite. However, Cambridge Dictionary defines it only as ‘meat from mammals, especially beef and lamb.’ Oxford Dictionary likewise defines it only as ‘meat that is red when raw, for example beef or lamb. Often contrasted with white meat.’ Wikipedia gives a definition - Red meat in traditional culinary terminology is meat which is red when ra

If I understand it correctly, nouns for fruits (and certain types of foodstuffs, such as pizza) are used as mass nouns if thought of as "food substance", rather than "portions". So is it correct that I say "I like apple" instead of "I like apple s "? Is such reasoning as "I like apple as food , especially in cut pieces", just like "I like soup, pork, etc." (instead of "I like apple s as items served as food, especially as whole fruits") valid, or at the very least, applicable in any ways? I know there's a similar question on ell , but the given answer is not satisfying to me. It flat out denies such a phrase as "I like apple" as grammatically incorrect. But is it though? If it is, when exactly do we use the mass nouns instead of the count nouns? Does the same principle go with "chicken" (the meat) and "chickens" the animal? Edit: "Dog" is NOT a mass noun and the other qu

“Would you have liked to have been” vs. “would you have liked to be” Is "have" redundant when repeated in successive verb phrases? Well, let us read the following sentences: I would have liked to have seen New York before the cyclone, I would have liked to see New York before the cyclone. Am I right in saying that one instance of "have" seems to have prompted another? Or are there subtleties and shades of meaning?

If someone says "the Yankees are going to lose", and everyone starts believing it, including the players, and it actually happens — what is the word for that? Answer Self-fulfilling prophecy . (I am not aware of a single-word equivalent in English.)

From C.S. Forester's Hornblower and the Hotspur : [The naval captain] rolled his toilet things into his housewife and tied the tapes. ODO does provide a second definition for housewife which clarifies this usage: /ˈhʌzɪf/ a small case for needles, thread, and other small sewing items. Besides its curious pronunciation, I'd like to know how housewife came to mean the above. Any other related information will also be much appreciated. Answer The pronunciation of housewife is complicated. According to OED 1 two forms of compounds with hus existed in ME, one with and one without a connective /e/, thus: husbond , husebond ( OED 1 is unsure why). In the following couple of centuries, the two forms husewif and huswif diverged further in pronunciation: That without the /e/ elided the /w/ and shortened the vowel in the initial syllable, which developed regularly into /ʌ/; the second syllable was destressed (the ordinary English pattern) and consequently shortened the vowel,

How to write decimal values in words How do you read numbers like these? 0.12 "oh point twelve", "zero point one two", "zero and twelve hundreds" And these ones? 0.345, 12.45 Answer 0.12: " zero point one two " or " nought point one two " 0.345: " zero point three four five " or " nought point three four five " 12.45: " twelve point four five " for the number, " twelve forty-five " for the time and perhaps for money with implicit pennies or cents. " point twelve " is not acceptable for a decimal, as it leads to confusion as to whether " point one " means .1 or .01. After the decimal point you read each digit individually, though with times you can adjust as there may be an implicit minutes for the later digits. You can use oh for nought or zero if you think there will be no confusion between O and 0 and o; there might be with say a password.

Slow has the adverb slowly . I tend to use fastly as the adverb for fast . However, it is underlined in most spell checkers I use, which makes me wonder about the existence of this word. Is fastly a correct word? If not, what should be used instead, and why is that different from its antonym? Answer There is no need for "fastly" because "fast" is both an adjective and an adverb. So, "I ran fast" is completely correct. The existence of "fast" as an adverb does not preclude the future development of a word "fastly", but it does hinder it. One might note that the corresponding adjective "slow" does take the -ly suffix, but this has no impact on the behavior of "fast". (There is also no real reason why, for example, we have warm/warmth, but cool/coolness. Semantically related things sometimes have similar morphological patterns, and sometimes not.) One interesting thing worth noting (that was brought up in a commen

The definition I am referring to: do me a solid do something for someone as an act of kindness; do someone a favor. Example usage: Hey Bob, can you do me a solid and help me move out of my apartment? An attempt at googling this found really different answers ranging from Seinfeld to drug usage. Answer Do me a solid meaning "do me a favor" (ODO) is an AmE slang expression whose origin, despite its recent usage, remains unclear. The issue is why "solid" came to mean "favour". Among different hypotheses ( solid meaning drugs, for instance) the " truncation " one appears the most interesting. Do me a solid "favour" is also predated by expressions like, "do me a solid "service". Earliest usages date back to the '60s, but the expression was made popular by a TV show in the 1990s. The following extract has the story: Semantic/pragmatic note: some commenters on the net treat solid simply as a stylistic variant of favor

I'm looking for an idiom or a synonym for a situation when someone has taken a heavy handed measure that achieves the desired effect, but also goes above this, affecting things that aren't a problem. For example: If one tree is diseased, but the surrounding ones are fine, chopping down all of the trees. I'm sure there's a phrase for this. I thought of "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut" but I'm sure there's something specific.

As I know about and around can be used when we estimate something, for example, I'll arrived around 3:00 PM. or I'm here about 10 minutes. I want to know, are there any rules or idioms when to use about or around ? Answer When used to indicate an approximate time (your first example), "around" is more common. When used to indicate an approximate duration, either will do, but "about" is probably more common. No particular difference in register, though. I'm guessing that your first example should be "I'll arrive around 3 pm" while your second should be "I've been here [for] about/around ten minutes". (British usage)

This seems to happen every time I go to my local bagel shop. Everyone is waiting in a line, and when the cashier is ready to help the next person, he/she asks, "Can I help who's next?" or "May I help who's next?" This seems wrong to me, shouldn't it be "Can I help whomever is next?" or "May I help whomever is next?" Answer This construction is indeed peculiar. Contrary to what one of the other answers seduces us to believe, it actually is not quite analogous to "I know who shot him" and the like. Geoff Pullum over at Language Log explains why : It's very important here to distinguish two separate structures for who's next . One of the two is an interrogative content clause, and that's commonplace. There is nothing remarkable about examples like this: I wonder who's next . Let's go and inquire who's next . Who's next is completely unclear. Who's next doesn't matter. In all of these, the

Let's say that this image (imagining that it has eight sides): is placed on top of this image (an octagonal prism): What will the resulting shape be called? Answer It's a heptadecahedron - a 17 sided solid. One of 6,415,851,530,241 topologically distinct convex heptadecahedra . You don't need to call it an irregular heptadecahedron, as all of them are. Sorry it's not a very exciting name.

Is it ok to use an exclamation mark in the middle of a sentence like in the following? (first exclamation mark) "Hurry!" said Mark," we can't be late!" Or in: Hurry! we need to go!

Making adult decisions are/is really not fun. What is the proper answer and why? My gut says "is" but I can't explain why.

How do you treat an emoticon at the end of a sentence? He probably caught his cold from the kids at school :( Should there be a period after the :(, or should I go straight into the next sentence (capitalizing the next word)?

Generally, one doesn't use the indefinite article with a noun because it's plural, but sometimes you get nouns where, for some reason, the indefinite article isn't used even though the noun is singular. I would never say 'a software', though it seems to be a singular noun, and I've heard it said (though it sounds wrong). Instead, we say 'some software' or 'a piece of software' (the latter implying that software is singular), so why does 'a software' sound wrong? EDIT: I really meant to ask why we don't consider software singular. Maybe I should have asked, 'why is software a mass noun?' Answer That's because software is uncountable , or a mass noun . In English, mass nouns are characterized by the fact that they cannot be directly modified by a numeral without specifying a unit of measurement, and that they cannot combine with an indefinite article ( a or an ). Edit: in reply to your edit, the key here is -ware : Used

I'm looking for an English word or short phrase to convey a meaning which is similar to “union representative” or “shop steward”, except that the person in question is not (necessarily) associated with a union. That person is an employee of a company who is elected by his fellow employee to represent him in various relations with the employer. The point is to distinguish between two concepts in French labor relations: a “ délégué syndical ” (lit. “union representative”), and a “ délégué du personnel ” (lit. “representative of the workforce”). While it is possible for a délégué du personnel to also be a délégué syndical , they are separate roles, and the délégué du personnel does not have to be a union member, and even if he is he does not speak for the union in his role as a délégué du personnel . IATE is decidedly unhelpful here, suggesting only “shop steward” and “trade union representative” for délégué du personnel , both of which are wrong. Linguee offers suggestions, but n

I know that there are two ways to form the past tense of to light (i.e. lit/lighted). Which one is appropriate for the sentence below? His thoughts lighted our way. or His thoughts lit our way. Answer I have a feeling that the best word for here is "lighted". "Lighted" is used more when referring to something illuminating another. When generally referring to a source of light that brightens up the room, "lighted" is preferred: The lantern lighted the whole room. "Lit" is generally more used for "setting on fire" : He lit the paper and threw it in the bin. The little spark lit the straw, and the whole barn burned down. Also,"lit" has an alternative meaning: Slang . under the influence of liquor or narcotics; intoxicated (usually followed by up ). Thus, I feel that "lighted" would be best here. His thoughts lighted our way. "Light" has two meanings, one meaning "to cause to take fire", and the o

I want to write that I have saved the file on the server. What should I write, on the server or at the server?

I was surprised that my spell checker did not complain for programing with one m , so I Googled it, and found on free dictionaries that both forms were acceptable. Which one is more common? Does it depend on the geographical location? My perception is that the spelling two m ’s seems to dominate. Is this part of a more general word formation rule, or mostly an exception?

The following etymological question has been slumbering in my head for a while, and was woken up by the post on the word "hella." My Concise Oxford English Dictionary, my faithful vade mecum , tells me that the word "hell" is derived from "hel" or "hell" in Old English, in turn derived from Germanic. Other sources have elaborated that the older Germanic root had a meaning of a thicket or wild, unruly, heath where one might get tangled among the hell of thistles. I've often wondered, considering the influence of Norse language on English during the Viking settlements, or invasions, if there is any etymological link to the figure Hel (or Hella, or Hela). She was one of the three "strange children" of Loki and the Giantess Angurboda; the other two were Fenris and Jormungand. She also ruled the eponymous realm, Helheim (Hel-Home). Aside from the possible English/Norse relation, there is, of course, a possible Judeo-Christian relation,

What is the antonym of the word destination. Here is some context: Every train has a destination and a ____ ? I was thinking it might be origin but I've never encountered that word used in this context so I'm not sure - there might be a better word. Answer According to a Google search , the word origin is used as the opposite of destination on several pages on the Amtrak web site. Amtrak is the largest train operator in the United States. Here are a few examples: This schedule lists the Origin and "Destination" of various routes. The Interactive Route Atlas page says the following: Once you have selected origin and destination stations by one of the methods above, click on the 'Go' button to send your custom route request. The Multi-Ride Ten-Ride Ticket page says the following: Ten-ride tickets are valid for ten rides within a 45-day, 60-day or 180-day period depending on your origin and destination cities.

In the song, you can hear how she pours her heart out with such intense emotions in her clear, powerful voice, complaining why everything in her life has gone so wrong. Please just listen to her voice and see how she wails; the wails that were not only for her but also for all those who across generations have found themselves in her situation. Can you tell me whether the "have found" written on the fourth line (bold) of the previous sentence is the correct tense to be used? Should it just be "found" instead of "have found"? Please tell me the grammatical reason for it. Or if you feel the sentence should be written in an entirely different way? Are any punctuation marks missing in the sentence?