Blog

I recently tried to use the expression "bounce an opportunity off someone" in writing, but using it seemed awkward to me. The expression "bounce an idea off someone" felt much more comfortable, but it didn't convey what I meant to get across. I believe the expression means something like "I want to conversationally determine what someone's thoughts are about a particular idea", but I'm not even sure if that interpretation is correct. What does it mean to bounce an idea off someone? Does the expression have a known origin? Can I only bounce "ideas" off someone? Can it extend to other concepts (such as "opportunities")? Is there a better way to idiomatically express the phrase "bounce an opportunity off someone", in the sense of "I want to conversationally gauge someone's level of interest in a particular opportunity"? Answer Bouncing an idea off a person means requesting that the person give a somew

I know it technically isn't correct, but to me it just looks awkward without it. For example (just reading through a friend's gig review): The videos were surprisingly hard hitting, although equally I don’t think Muse will ever get to the Rage Against The Machine level of political activism. I think this could be substituted for 'but', which is why I think it works best with a comma. However, the phrase 'even though' sounds better without one: It was incredibly heartwarming to witness even though I wasn’t able to see him myself. What are some opinions? I'm bad with commas (a serial abuser of them), and I'm only really starting to learn English punctuation properly!

What is the term for systems of measure whose units are not simple scalings by magnitude, but instead "arbitrary" units, that is, units unrelated by magnitude? I'd regard metric lengths scaling simply by magnitude. For the purpose of this question, I'd regard imperial lengths (foot, yard, mile) and common time reckoning (hour, day, week, month, year) as arbitrary. Answer Mathematically speaking, the metric system uses a fixed (or standard , or ordinary ) radix (or base ), whereas the imperial system uses a " mixed radix " (or synonyms per the preceding). From Wikipedia's article on mixed radix : Mixed radix numeral systems are non-standard positional numeral systems in which the numerical base varies from position to position. The most familiar example of mixed radix systems is in timekeeping and calendars . Western time radices include decimal centuries, decades and years as well as duodecimal months, trigesimal (and untrigesimal) days, overlapped w

Why are American names of German origin pronounced differently than they would be in German? For example: "Kreutz" sounds like "krites", not "kroyts" (same deal with Anheuser-Busch) "Boehner" sounds like "Bay-ner" Answer The German sounds do not exist in English In some cases, the name is pronounced in German with a sound that does not exist in English. In standard German, "Boehner" or "Böhner" is pronounced /ˈbøːnɐ/, but the /øː/ sound isn't part of the standard inventory of English sounds. (I'm using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) to transcribe sounds.) This is awkward for English speakers, and generally names like this are made to conform with the English sound system by replacing the foreign sound with one that does occur in English. This isn't specific to words from German; surnames from other languages like Polish or Chinese are also subject to this process. English speakers choose a re

The New Oxford American Dictionary reports the following definition for Middle America : Middle America |ˈˌmɪdl əˈmɛrəkə| noun 1 the middle class in the U.S., esp. when regarded as a conservative political force. • the Midwest of the U.S. 2 the North American region that includes Mexico and Central America, and often the West Indies. DERIVATIVES Middle American noun Middle-American adjective Why is Midwest in the Midwest of the U.S. written capitalized? Compare it with the following definition given for northeast : adjective 1 lying toward, near, or facing the northeast. • (of a wind) coming from the northeast: there was a strong northeast wind . 2 of or denoting the northeastern part of a specified country, region, or town, or its inhabitants: northeast Baltimore . In northeast Baltimore , northeast is not capitalized. What is the difference between the two cases? When I write Middle American to mean an American person of the middle class, why cannot I write middle American ? Ans

Can someone help me understand more precisely the connotative differences between "just might" and "might just I came upon this dilemma while working on a short comic strip. In the first panel, a person is attempting an unorthodox approach to a problem, saying: It might just work. The second panel, moments later: It didn't work. I'm unsure if the effect would be significantly altered if the words were swapped. Answer "might just work" sounds like "it might simply work--that is, without the complications one might predict." "just might work" has a blossoming optimism. It suggests that something that you'd think wouldn't work actually has a decent shot at working.

This is a follow up to this question: What is the difference between "quicker" and "faster"? "Quicker" is an adverb, as are "more" (in this context) and "quickly". So is there a difference besides preference between these? Answer Quicker is the comparative of quick , which is an adjective; more quickly is the comparative of quickly , which is an adverb. Informally, quick is also used as adverb, with the meaning of "at a fast rate, quickly." These are the examples reported by the NOAD (third edition). He'll find some place where he can make money quicker. Get out, quick!

Related to, but I believe distinct from, the following questions: What do various valedictions mean in the context of a written (business) letter, and what do the following typically convey? Best, Best what? Is this short for best wishes or best regards? If this is a shortening of the phrase, is it rude? Regards, Also unclear what this means in a valediction. Does this mean I'm thinking of you? Best Regards, Cordially, Good Wishes, Many Thanks, Is this more or less formal than "thanks"? Thanks, Am I right that this is a rude way to close a letter? Most Sincerely, Is this expression too much? Sincerely, Thank You, Yours truly, Answer I end almost all my emails with one word only: "Bill". When I applied for a teaching job last year, I ended it with "Sincerely yours," & when I send letters to some clients, I end them with "Bill Franke, Medical Editor". "Thanks; Many Thanks; Best; & Regards" are all informal but not rude. They&

Question is self-explanatory. Just curious and want to expand my knowledge of English. Answer A pregnant pause is a pause that builds up suspension in the listener/viewer, for a greater dramatic (especially comic) effect of what follows after the pause. Edit: Merriam-Webster has this :  3. rich in significance or implication Wikipedia has this bit specifically on comic timing: A pregnant pause (as in the classical definition , "many possibilities") is a technique of comic timing used to accentuate a comedy element, where the comic pauses at the end of a phrase to build up suspense. It's often used at the end of a comically awkward statement or in the silence after a seemingly non-comic phrase to build up a comeback. Refined by Jack Benny , the pregnant pause has become a staple of stand-up comedy .

For what values of x does one write the number of x , the amount of x , or the quantity of x ? Answer Number is used with plural nouns, things that can be counted. I saw a number of pigeons on the shed this morning. Amount is normally used for nouns that can't be measured. The amount of animosity generated by his comments was out of all proportion to his words. But it can also be used for things that can be measured (as @psmears points out below), especially money: Please send your payment in the amount of $253.79. Quantity is used for nouns you can measure. I have a large quantity of pumpkins for sale. It is pretty much synonymous with number .

How can I describe the difficulty of somebody who is trying to explain something to people who are not in his/her professional field, and is afraid of using professional terms that will be unclear to his/her listeners? In my native language, I would say "it is hard to go out of the professional circle". How can I say it in English? An example: I have tried my best to explain this subject as clearly as possible, but it is hard to______ I do not think my question is a duplicate because I looked for a term expressing a difficulty of explaining. I didn't get a direct answer, so I deduced there is no such a term. Answer ... hard to explain in layman's terms : simple language that anyone can understand Merriam-Webster

According to Google's dictionary (and MacOS/iOS dictionary), egregious has the following definitions: I've seen words with multiple definitions, but not ones that are exact contradictions. Some references state that "remarkably good" is archaic - is it possible that the meaning of this word has changed over time to be the exact opposite of what it once meant? Answer I found the following reference ¹: Bill Bryson is a more popular writer on the subject of language. Discussing changes in word meanings, Bryson writes: Surprisingly often the meaning becomes its opposite or something very like it. Counterfeit once meant a legitimate copy. Brave once implied cowardice — as indeed bravado still does. (Both come from the same source as depraved). Crafty, now a disparaging term, originally was a word of praise, while enthusiasm, which is now a word of praise, was once a term of mild abuse. Zeal has lost its original pejorative sense, but zealot curiously has not. Garble once

I'm looking for a single word, for someone who... keeps seeing everything that is wrong with everybody else. never seems to see the good of other people, only the bad things. points at others, as if he forgets he has weaknesses himself. does not brag about himself, he just seems to be dissatisfied with everyone else. I prefer a word that is as unambiguous and clear-cut as possible.

Say I have the concept of a "Range", which is basically an "Interval" in Mathematics . If a range is inclusive ("closed") on one end and exclusive on the other, it has the following property: It can be placed immediately before or after another range with the same inclusiveness of both endpoints and leave no gaps or overlapping. For example, given the ranges 0-5 and 5-10, if their starts are inclusive and their ends are exclusive, they can be appended to form the range 0-10. However, if their starts and ends are both inclusive or exclusive then appending them will result in either an overlap or a gap. What is the most suitable adjective or adjectival phrase I can use to describe a range that has this property? The best I can think of is tessellatable , which is really more about geometry and seems uncommon.

Recently I read an article on Wired.com "Apple Hires Hacker Who Helped Save Windows From Security Hell", http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/12/apple-hires-hacker/ Here is a sentence I'm kind of confused: Back then, Paget was known as Chris. She switched genders last year. Why it is switch "genders" instead of "gender"? Thanks

How a sentence sounds when read aloud or in your head can often "sound" different for each individual doing so; however, I was reading details regarding the usage of "data" and "datum" and was intrigued by the alleged usage of it and how said usage flowed within a sentence/phrase. It is explained here that the word data should not be used as, ...the data tells us... but rather, ...the data tell us... Reading the first seems natural, I've heard it quite often; however, the second seems very hard to read or say - simply unnatural in my mouth. A similar situation is found with Hoi Polloi where it is incorrect to say, ...gone to meet with the hoi polloi... but often corrected to, ...gone to meet with hoi polloi... due to the redundancy of the term "the" (where Hoi Polloi meaning "The Many" ). While my specific usage of these two situations may not be finely crafted, I believe the concept/question to be evident: Is it better to

In today’s Washington Post’s “Today’s Quote,” picked up from the comment of Former Reagan Budget director David Stockman in an interview with The Daily Beast (hat tip to Political Wire), I came across the phrase “Obama will fold faster than a lawn chair.” As I could not get the idea of “fold faster a lawn chair,” or even “fold a lawn chair,” I consulted Merriam Webster, Cambridge Dictionary Online and The online Slang Dictionary in vain to find none of them carry the definition of the above phrases. Is David Stockman predicting that President Obama will withdraw his agenda easily like folding a lawn chair, (or give up lawn chair i.e. his stand) and succumb to Republicans to accept their budget reduction plan? What is the exact meaning of “fold faster a lawn chair”? Is this a well-established cliché, though I couldn’t find it in any of dictionaries available? The sentence containing this phrase is as follows: Bring it on. I think the Republicans need to stand rigidly firm and shut the g

For example, can I refer to the main gate of a university as the school's main gate? Or say school begins in September instead of university begins in September (especially in informal speech)? Answer Merriam-Webster defines university as: a school that offers courses leading to a degree (such as a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree) and where research is done Therefore a university is a type of school and you can use the word school to refer to a university. Here is an example of Vanderbilt University referring to their "school's main gate": More than 1,800 new Vanderbilt University students, including about 1,600 first-year students and more than 200 transfer students, will march into the school’s main gate Sunday, Aug. 23, at 5 p.m. during Founders Walk, a tradition that formally welcomes new students to the Vanderbilt community. It is also perfectly acceptable to say "school begins in September", although some people might prefer to

Why is English written and read from left-to-right as opposed to right-to-left, top-to-bottom, or (not even sure any language does this) bottom-to-top? Answer Writing in English was derived from writing in Latin (it's mostly the same alphabet, after all), which in turn was derived from writing in Greek — which was written from left to right. So this is why all European writing systems go from left to right: because they're derived from Greek. But why did the Greeks write from left to right? I'm not sure. They adopted their alphabet from Phoenician (or, if you wish, Proto-Canaanite), which was actually mostly written right to left (and sometimes boustrophedonically : direction alternates every line, so that each line starts just below where the previous line ends). In fact, Greek used to write from right to left for a while, before they switched to left-to-right. Another derivative from Proto-Canaanite was Aramaic, from which Hebrew, Arabic, Persian etc. are derived, and t

Does anyone have an idea? Close friends? I usually see this term in stories where the friends were best friends and then they fight for some reason. Answer From Merriam-Webster : fast [...] 2 : firmly loyal fast friends> From Wiktionary : Of people: steadfast, with unwavering feeling. (Now only in set phrases like "fast friend".) [from 10th c.] Etymonline provides some background : O.E. fæst "firmly fixed, steadfast, secure, enclosed," probably from P.Gmc. *fastuz (cf. O.Fris. fest , O.N. fastr , Du. vast , Ger. fest )

There are so many questions on this website. There is so many questions on this website. The former "sounds right," but the contracted form of the latter does as well: There's so many questions on this website. Which is correct? Answer It is There are so many . There ... are ... many.

Do the phrases "Fish in a barrel" and "Sitting ducks" convey the same thing? In my opinion, they have the same tone and express something to be an easy target. Eg: Out there, they are just fish in a barrel. Out there, they are sitting ducks . Can they be used interchangeably or are there some differences in their usage? Answer Yes they are similar, but not interchangeable The wording is It is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel: ridiculously easy and They are like sitting ducks: someone or something vulnerable to attack So you would say - Making them look stupid is like shooting fish in a barrel e.g. you are actively hunting them versus The noobs are like sitting ducks in this flame war e.g they have made themselves an easy target In your case: Look at them out there: Like sitting ducks or Look at them out there, getting at them would be like shooting fish in a barrel

Could anybody describe me difference between I've added and I added? Answer The key to the difference is "that has present consequences". If you are regarding the event as complete in the past, use "I added"; if you are considering its present relevance (eg the state of whatever you have added to) use "I have added". Note that there may not be any difference in the event: you can describe the same event either way, but you are focussing on different aspects of it. Generally you cannot use the perfect with a explicit time, unless that time is a period which includes the present: I saw him yesterday I saw him today *I have seen him yesterday I have seen him today (The * means unacceptable) To me, the difference between I didn't see him today and I haven't seen him today is that the first implies that the possibility of seeing him is over (perhaps he was only here this morning) whereas the second doesn't. I believe that North American usag

I want to describe how someone is saying something but hidden behind their words they are blaming the person they are talking to. It's kind of like sarcasm but not quite as strong. With sarcasm the meaning is obvious and it's meant to hurt. With the situation I'm describing it's not really about cutting down the other person and making yourself feel smart, more like blaming them for something that went wrong and feeling sorry at the same time. The speaker isn't really trying to hit the listener with the hidden meaning, but with just a tiny bit of effort the listener can infer the extra meaning in the speaker's words. If sarcasm doesn't describe this, then what does? What words or phrases can be used?

I know that Street is abbreviated as St . But does the t in St represent the first t or the last t in Street ? Drive is abbreviated as Dr , which means it could be the first t , but Road is abbreviated as Rd , which means it could be the last t , if we were following the same pattern. (Please note that this question is not opinion based. By looking at the patterns of other common abbreviations we can conjecture as to, or even deduce, the origin of St .) Answer The "t" in "st" should be taken as the first "t" of "street." Consider that abbreviations of common nouns (especially in the domain of roadways) beginning with a consonant-vowel pair usually take the first consonant and the last consonant (or strategic consonants which appear throughout), as evinced by: road --> rd lane --> ln point --> pt cove --> cv view --> vw highway --> hwy parkway --> pkwy boulevard --> blvd doctor --> dr Abbreviations of common nou

I think of an epiphany as a "eureka moment" as in a goldminer crying out, "Eureka!" upon discovering a vein of gold (I'm a native Californian (and former resident of Eureka ), so that example comes readily to mind). What about the opposite, though - an "Oh, no!" moment? Such as, "What I thought was gold turned out to be iron pyrite."? Is there a word for it - an apiphany? Antipiphany? Malpiphany*? Or...??? Since "epiphany" seems to refer to a good sound (epiphone), would the opposite be a bad sound? Answer Epiphany has nothing to do with phones —it is etymologically an ‘out-showing’ or manifestation, and until recently was used primarily for the manifestation of a divine being: most often, as in the Feast of the Epiphany, the manifestation of Christ to the world at large. The modern sense derives primarily from the work of James Joyce (though he had predecessors), who employed ‘epiphany’ to designate moments of revelation and insi

I have always wondered about the similarity of the two words Astronomy and Astrology that describe two very different things but have their beginning in common and are sometimes confused in everyday language. The linguistic difference (if one can say so) between them is only in the endings '-onomy' and '-ology' . Two further examples are Topology and Topography Geology and Geography where now we have the endings '-ology' and '-ography' . What are the meanings of the different endings '-onomy' , '-ology' and '-ography' ? I would also be curious about whether it is a coincidence that '-ology' appears in all the examples above? Does it maybe have historical reasons? And furthermore, are there more such pairs to be found? (I can't think of any others) Answer The suffix -logy means a branch of learning, or study of a particular subject. The suffix -nomy means a system of rules or laws, or body of knowledge of a p

What is single word in English for a fake/false image (in terms of personality, not in terms of photograph) of someone?

Given that... If Jeremy is a "parent" to Sarah, then Sarah is a "child" to Jeremy. If archaeopteryx is an "ancestor" to chicken, then chicken is a "descendent" of achaeopteryx. It seems to me that if a letter is written in response to another, then there is a similar two-way relationship between those two letters, but I'm a bit stuck on coming up with a good word to describe that relationship. Perhaps: If B is a "reply" to A, then A is an "antecedent" to B. If B is a "reply" to A, then A is a "precursor" to B. But I'm not particularly fond of either. Is anybody aware of a term that has been used within the context of such communications? Note - I have re-worded the above considerably, as it seems that a number of answerers were under the impression that I was looking for correct phrasing to write in a reply, such as "in response to your letter dated..." Hopefully the re-phrasing of the que

I am working on a project where I need to be able to distinguish between one who is offering something for rent, and one who is renting from someone. The phrases used need to be short and concise. The context is not real estate thus commonly suggested alternatives like landlord or tenant do not fit. I was thinking maybe rentee could work, thinking it followed the same style as employer versus employee , for example. Some quick googling, however, seems to indicate that rentee is not a valid word, but some people do occasionally use it. Answer "er/ee" and used to describe the person or thing doing something, and the person or thing it is done to. So, for example, an "employer" is someone who employs people, and an "employee" is someone who is employed". This doesn't work the way you want with "rent". A "renter" who would be someone who rents something, and a "rentee" would be someone who is rented. But we don'

Does such a word exist? I don't mean to excess (IE, a glutton), but rather one who eats because he enjoys eating. Essentially, I'm looking for a word that's synonymous with "a food hedonist", or "a hedonistic eater." A word would be ideal, but a term would suffice as well :). I love to eat! Answer "Foodie" is a more informal term. From Wikipedia : "A foodie is a gourmet, or a person who has an ardent or refined interest in food and alcoholic beverages. A foodie seeks new food experiences as a hobby rather than simply eating out of convenience or hunger."

Where does the phrase along the lines of come from, and what are you really saying? For instance, if you were commissioning a sculpture you might sit down with the artist and a pen and paper and say I want something along the lines of this and then draw a sketch. Or if you were describing a book you wanted you might say The plot was something along the lines of a murder and a police man. Answer The phrase means: similar in type I can't remember exactly what words he used but it was something along those lines . I was thinking of doing a dinner party along the lines of that meal I cooked for Annie and Dave. There is some discussion of its origins here , noting: Probably from the meaning of "line" defined as sense #15b in the Oxford Engl. Dict.: "fig. Plan of construction, of action, or procedure: now chiefly in phr. 'on (such and such) lines.'" "In all very uncultivated countries . . . there are but obscure lines of any form of government" .

This is something I always get confuse with (native language German). As far as I know "did + verb" is something done and finished in the past. But isn't it the same with "verb + ed"? Answer The normal way of talking about something in the past tense is to use "verb + ed". For example, " I finished the project on time ". You might use "did + verb" if you wanted to emphasise the point. In the previous example, if someone claimed that you completed the project late, you might say " I did finish the project on time, and here's the evidence ". Using "did + verb" where there is no doubt about the truth sounds strange to native English speakers. Saying something like " I did go shopping for food yesterday " will probably lead to the response " Well nobody said you didn't! "

Please consider the following passage from my English textbook: ... The commander of the troops called on his men to gather together on deck in proper drill order...Meanwhile, the lifeboats had been lowered. When all the women and children had filled the boats, there would be room for only a very few others. This is a passage from the reading-text Birkenhead Drill . The lifeboats could only carry one hundred and eighty passengers in total, and there were one hundred, and seventy women and children. Hence, there was room for ten more passengers only. I'm confused as to the sense in which would has been used in the passage, I have written that in bold. I consulted my Little Oxford English Dictionary to see the use of would , and it describes it thus: would (modal verb) - expressing an opinion or assumption . Can we use 'might have been' in place of 'would be'? I have read that structures such as might/may/could + perfect infinitive are used to express something tha

When is it appropriate to use certified vs certificated ? If a person has been trained in X skill and has acquired that skill, is that person certified or certificated ? For me, certified sounds more of a product or food while certificated sounds like formal education. If it helps, the word I use will help to describe a person that can now do X job because they now have the knowledge and skills required for the job, but it is not something as formal as gaining a qualification from a university or something like that, indeed, it's a training of 16 - 32 days. Answer When a verb has a companion verbed noun ( anthimeria ?), the forms can have different nuances. Note that verbed nouns tend to be informal (stickered, friended, SMSed etc), though some have become established ( booked , experienced , etc). For example, consider stuck vs stickered : an apple that is stuck may be wedged somewhere or otherwise not easily removed, but an apple that is stickered is one that has a sticker

To use examples from Star Trek, the original series and The Next Generation called their ships "The Enterprise", Enterprise varied between "Enterprise" and "The Enterprise", Deep Space Nine always had "The Defiant", and Voyager always called the ship "Voyager" rather than "The Voyager". "The Voyager" certainly does sound wrong to my ears, but I can't identify a reason for that. Is there a rule (or combination of rules) for this?

Inversion in “only [adverb] have they” Is there some rule governing the following, or similar, subject-auxiliary inversions (*"Rarely they do see the light of day", *"Never I have been so insulted")? In fancy sit-down restaurants, you can order a large meal and halfway through the main course, take a little dead cockroach or a piece of glass out of your pocket and place it deftly on the plate. Jump up astonished and summon the headwaiter. " Never have I been so insulted . I could have been poisoned" you scream slapping down the napkin. You can refuse to pay and leave, or let the waiter talk you into having a brand new meal on the house for this terrible inconvenience. ( link ) Rarely do they see the light of day ; it's generally judged to be in no one's commercial interest that they should. Just occasionally, however, like a seemingly dormant volcano, they explode into the open. ( link ) Answer Subject-Auxiliary Inversion with Adverb-Fronting i

Let's say that I have a collection of books, and someone requests one of them. How would that person would be called, in one word? The only thing I have been able to come up is "pretender", but does not sound right, for some reason. Answer Yet another option would be applicant . noun a person who applies for or requests something; a candidate: an applicant for a position. Reference: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/applicant

I recently learned that I have developed a consistent, but entirely wrong approach to punctuating direct speech in fiction. I am in the unenviable position of trying to relearn. Previously I wrote such things as: "I'm done." She said. when the quoted speech was definitely, absolutely the end of a sentence. So now I know I need. "I'm done," she said. This follows the rule that a period is only allowed when the end of the spoken sentence is also the end of the sentence in the narrative. For example: "I'm done." She slammed the door on the way out. So, it now looks odd to me when there are multiple sentences in the speech: "I can't take her. I'm done," she said. Can you reassure me that is correct, or give the correct form? Please don't suggest rewriting the sentence to put 'she said' in the middle - I'm aware of that: I'm specifically asking about the punctuation rules. The other odd case is speech ending wit

The following is a sentence I used - Read these stories. See how many you can relate to with your own childhood Somehow this relate to with was there in my subconscious mind, but now I feel it is not correct. Should I use relate to/with instead?

I was wondering why this expression is not “God saves the Queen”. According to my very first English teacher, when the subject is he , she or it , “to save” is conjugated “he/she/it saves”. Is it an exception? Answer It is not an exception. This is the subjunctive mood, being used to express a wish. See “Third person requests with a main-clause subjunctive” in the Wikipedia article on “English subjunctive”, which gives “God save our gracious Queen” as a specific example. You may think of it as short for “ May God save the Queen” or “ Let God save the Queen” if that helps you parse it better.

I was told that if an action is completed once in the past, the simple past is used. Ex: I saw that movie. If the action is completed more than once, the present perfect tense must be used. Ex: I have seen that movie twelve times. So, "I have seen that movie twelve times on Tuesday." is correct and "I saw that movie twelve times on Tuesday." is incorrect?

The verbs be and go have the nice peculiarity that their various forms ( be / was and go / went ) come from originally distinct verbs. Are there other such verbs? Answer I guess not. As stated here : Go is an irregular verb. Along with be , go is one of only two verbs with a suppletive past tense in the English language." (The link for "suppletive" will point you to the "suppletion" wiki page, where there are examples, also for other languages. Suppletion also applies to adjectives, nouns, etc.) This is another page for the English suppletive verbs, which are only two.

I have the following sentence: The contents of those zip files are normally installed from the Setup. I found I have to use contents instead of content in the sentence. However, do I have to use the contents are or the contents is ? I guess it's "are", but it just sounds wrong. (I am a French speaker, and "contenu" is never plural in French, so that might explain why I think "are" is wrong.) Answer As you've deduced, you need to use " are " since the subject is plural. The contents of those zip files are normally installed from the setup.

# is an octothorpe * is a hexathorpe + a quadrathorpe - a duothorpe but What is a thorpe??? This question came from an argument in comments on stackoverflow that started over an American calling a # a pound sign. Answer Thorpe The -thorpe comes from octothorpe. Its origins are unknown. The other words are rare and likely variations after octothorpe . Octothorpe The OED says of octothorpe : The term was reportedly coined in the early 1960s by Don Macpherson, an employee of Bell Laboratories: 1996 Telecom Heritage No. 28. 53 His thought process was as follows: There are eight points on the symbol so octo should be part of the name. We need a few more letters or another syllable to make a noun... (Don Macpherson..was active in a group that was trying to get Jim Thorpe's Olympic medals returned from Sweden). The phrase thorpe would be unique. For an alternative explanation see quot. 1996; in a variant of this explanation, the word is explained as arising from the use of the

What is the right question tag (in British English) when we use the verb have ? I have interviewed a few native speakers and none of them could explain why sometimes they prefer "haven't/hasn't" and why other times they prefer "don't/doesn't". Here are 4 different groups of sentences. Which ones are correct and which ones aren't and why? Group 1 I've got a good voice, haven't I? You've got a dog, haven't you? She's got a new boyfriend, hasn't she? We've got very good friends, haven't we? They've got our address, haven't they? Group 2 I have a good voice, don't I? You have a dog, don't you? She has a new boyfriend, doesn't she? We have very good friends, don't we? They have our address, don't they? Group 3 I've got a good voice, don't I? You've got a dog, don't you? She's got a new boyfriend, doesn't she? We've got very good friends, don't we? They've g

A coauthor and I are drafting a letter, and we're not yet sure whom we're going to be sending it to. So I sent a draft to my coauthor, which started Dear [whomever]: Now, that line in a letter is in the vocative case (or would be, if English really had cases). I know that who is used in the nominative case and whom in the accusative/dative, but what about the vocative? Should I have written Dear [whoever]: instead? Obviously, my question is only about such dialects as use who and whom . But it could be just as well asked about he versus him : had we been authoring a letter with a known male recipient we didn't want to bother writing out the name of, we could have used Dear [him]: or Dear [he]: and the same question would apply. Equally obviously, because this is a draft letter and the word in question won't appear in the final copy, it really doesn't matter which word we use. I wish to know anyway. Answer One relevant piece of data (although I wouldn't say

I've been poking around the net trying to find synonyms for "renaissance man" which indicates someone that is proficient at many skills. I was thinking "jack of all trades" but that has a negative connotation that the individual is not good at any of them, but capable. Any ideas? Answer A single, and slightly formal, word which captures " Renaissance man " is " polymath ". From Vocabulary.com , for example: A polymath is a person who knows a lot about a lot of subjects. If your friend is not only a brilliant physics student but has also published a poetry collection and won prizes at political debates, you can describe her as a polymath. You can think of a polymath as a classic "Renaissance man." Imagine Leonardo da Vinci, for example, who was not only an amazing artist, but also an engineer, inventor, mathematician, and much more. When a person's knowledge covers many different areas, he or she is a polymath. Again from Mac

I found a sentence in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary: open weekdays from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. The bookstore opens weekdays from 9 p.m. to 6 p.m. . How do we understand the structure of this sentence? I know it means something is open on weekdays from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Answer In your reference, you can see that the word "weekdays" can be used either as a Noun (which you normally know) or as an Adverb: The centre is open on weekdays. (Noun) The centre is open weekdays. (Adverb) In the second example, the adverb is describing the verb. So it doesn't need a preposition anymore to connect to the rest of the sentence. In addition, we sometimes drop " on " before days in spoken English. For example: I work out Monday mornings. See you Friday!

In a phrase like the usual yadda yadda , what does yadda yadda mean? What is its origin? Please read, this is not the usual yadda yadda! Three things: Because the dumps are quite a bit of work for us, we’re moving to a bi-monthly schedule instead of monthly. Meaning, you can expect dumps every two months instead of every month. If you have an urgent need for more timely data than this, contact us directly, or use the Stack Exchange Data Explorer, which will continue to be updated monthly. — Creative Commons Data Dump Jan ’11 . […] Answer I was introduced to this phrase by Jerry Seinfeld (well, technically, Elaine Benes ), but Wikipedia actually says that it's older : The ["Yada yada"] episode is one of the most famous of the series, specifically for its focus on the phrase "yada yada". "Yadda yadda" was already a relatively common phrase before the episode aired, used notably by comedian Lenny Bruce , among others. The phrase may have originated wit

We do not believe in over constraining the team beyond its capacity. I'm having trouble understanding that sentence. What does "over constraining" mean? I found this but I don't see how those answers help in this example. I think (hope!) the intent of the original was along the lines of: "We do not believe in pushing the team beyond its capacity." ... but is that restatement truly equivalent to the original example? many thanks, first time post to ELU!

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is the title of the fourth book in the Harry Potter series. However, J.K. Rowling also considered to call it Harry Potter and the Fire Goblet . I am from Argentina so the translation would be the same to Spanish, but what is the difference in English in both forms?

I'm a non-native speaker (actually from Russia) and for us the articles (a, an, the) came as a thing that we just have to adopt. We do not have not similar constructions in Russian. Menus I see in programs, and other short phrases related to computer user interfaces usually lack articles (for example Open Location and something like this). I'm wondering, does it look natural for a native English speaker or is it something one is getting used to? Answer This style of writing is not only used for computers. It is also used for short notes, newspaper headlines, road signs, and many store signs. I think it is done mostly for saving space, and English speakers are quite used to it. I believe that it was completely natural to use this style for computers when they came along. There is a brief entry about this in the last paragraph of this Wikipedia article : In contexts where concision is especially valued, such as headlines, signs, labels, and notes, articles are often omitted alon

English spelling is notorious in (literary) language learning for being chaotic . It would be better for reading and writing learners if the spelling were reformed to a more phonetic spelling like Italian or Finnish. other language spellings have had success with spelling reform. Chinese writing was 'simplified' in the PRC and was adopted universally in the PRC (mainland China) but notoriously not in ROC (Taiwan). Turkish converted from the vowel-less Arabic script to the vowelled Roman alphabet. there have been some unsuccessful reforms, for example German in the 1990's, which attempted to change some small handful of word spellings, which were used in newspapers and schools but just didn't catch on. My question is why haven't any attempts at spelling reform worked out for English? Answer A 'why' question is very difficult to answer definitively, especially when there are many social and political issues to consider. But there is one reason that seems to

Is there any rules regarding gerund that tell when to double the consonant of a word and when not to? I'm a little bit confused regarding this matter. Based on this link there are words that can be spelled with or without double consonant. An example given was "traveling" and "travelling" which was discussed further here while there are words that are required to be doubled and words that are required not to have double consonants like beginning and opening. Or should I just follow this rule, -If the base verb ends with consonant + stressed vowel + consonant, double the last letter. (This does not apply when the last syllable (thus last vowel) is not stressed.) but, -If the base verb ends in vowel + consonant + e, omit the e. and think that "travelling" is wrong (even though we knew that it is accepted in normative English). Answer "Travelling" is not wrong and "Travelling" vs "Traveling" is a "British English"

Can anybody give me a single word meaning to abide in a place for long time? I'm thinking in the context of "to remain in prison" (or elsewhere, against one's will). Answer "Languish" seems to be a popular word to evoke that incarceration feeling.

In the sentence 'She suggested that they go to the cinema' there is no way of telling from the sentence in isolation whether it means that the speaker gave advice on attending a moving picture show, or whether the speaker believed that some people were already in the habit of enjoying cinematographic entertainment. The same is true in relation to an individual when the past tense is used, as in 'She suggested that he went to the cinema.' We depend on context to tell us which meaning is intended. Now, when we come to the third person singular in the present tense, I understand that American English distinguishes between the mandative subjunctive ('She suggested that he go to the cinema') and the indicative ('She suggested that he goes to the cinema') to express the two meanings. Why does American English insist on an inflectional distinction in the third person singular here when it is obliged to rely on context elsewhere? Answer (this is totally "a