Blog

I don't understand, because if 'don't' is 'do not' then wouldn't the sentence without conjunctions be 'do not you dare' which I'm pretty sure isn't grammatically correct. Like, when we say the term it means something else, certainly not 'do not you dare' anyway. Any ideas on why? I am so glad English is my first language.

If you say, "it is fun playing golf", I think "fun" is a noun. When I hear people say, "it sounds fun," is it a noun or an adjective? I understand the verb "sound" is followed either by a noun or an adjective, and I think they should say, "it sounds like fun" if they use it as a noun. Or can the word "fun" be used as an adjective on its own? Please clear this up once and for all.

Is there any difference between the following couples of sentences? Dress as you would if you were having guests. Dress like if you were having guests. She kissed him goodbye, as usual. She kissed him goodbye, like the usual. Sweet as she is, she doesn't pay his bills. Sweet like she is, she doesn't pay his bills. Answer As far as the first two sentences go, they mean the same things. However, a couple points of usage: Dress like if you were having guests. If is not necessary in this sentence. The word like here means similar , so it is not a conditional, but rather a comparison. The original sentence uses if because of as —how should you dress? As someone expecting to have guests = as if you were to have guests. Also, the original sentence might be more succinctly found as "Dress as if you were having guests". She kissed him goodbye, like the usual. The is not necessary, like the original sentence. The third example, however, is different, as it uses a differe

I recommend you to define those parameters beforehand. I recommend that you define those parameters beforehand. Are both sentences grammatically correct? If yes, do they mean the same thing? If yes, which one should I use? Answer The following variant is correct: I recommend that you define those parameters beforehand. You can also omit the word that , giving the following: I recommend you define those parameters beforehand. However, the variant with to is incorrect. The verb recommend always takes either a noun object or a subordinate clause as a complement, never an infinitive.

When we have a button on a website for creating an account, should it say "sign up" or "signup"? I see "sign up" in most places, but which is the correct one? Answer It should be sign up , as that is the verb form (see definition 30). Signup (or sign-up ) is a noun. That pattern usually holds: log in (verb) vs. login (noun), sit up (verb) vs. situp (noun), etc.

Is there a word, phrase or allusion which represents the opposite of a Pyrrhic Victory: a tactical defeat which led to a strategic victory, either accidental or intended? After all, there must be one for almost every Pyrrhic victory. Answer If the victory was so costly it led to defeat, then its opposite would be a loss that was so advantageous it led to victory: Gambit 2(In chess) an opening move in which a player makes a sacrifice, typically of a pawn, for the sake of a compensating advantage:

In the following is it better to use a possessive noun with an apostrophe or an attributive noun without an apostrophe? The following list details the assumptions that have been made in conjunction with Company’s staff. Or The following list details the assumptions that have been made in conjunction with Company staff. Assume Company is the name of a company, such as Dell.

I am looking for a word for phrase for when a word (usually a noun) is broken down into "simpler" words. It might also have derogatory undertones but that is not necessary. Example 1: Soccer is just "guys kicking a ball" Example 2: Origami is just "folding paper nicely" Answer You can try reductionism , defined by Merriam Webster as A procedure or theory that reduces complex data and phenomena to simple terms. Also see reductionism , defined by oxford dictionary online as The practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of phenomena that are held to represent a simpler or more fundamental level, especially when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation.

I want to ask this question, but I'm not sure which preposition to use: Are you new to/at/in school? If a student asks this question to a new teacher, which preposition sound better?

'Male'/'female' is to 'gender' as 'left-handed'/'right-handed 'is to...? Is there a word to describe this? For example, if I ask a guy What's your ____? It should mean I'm asking whether he's left or right-handed. Another example could be Our designs are not biased against your ____. Basically, I'm looking for something that means the state of being left- or right-handed which could be used analogously as gender. EDIT: Sorry for the delay in the edit, but I was tied up. There are some points I'd like to clarify: I'm not looking for a way to paraphrase my questions. I'm looking for a single word. I know people normally ask something along the lines of " Are you left-handed or not? " People also ask " Are you afraid of the dark? " instead of " Are you scotophobiac? ". The word for it, along with 3 others still exists, right? It has been pointed out that I should go with Our designs are not

Arkansas is typically pronounced like so: “ahr-kuhn-saw”   IPA: [ˈɑɹkənˌsɔː] However, Kansas is typically pronounced like this: “kan-zuhs”             IPA: [ˈkænzɨs] Why are these two words that are so similar in spelling pronounced so differently? Both are apparently linked to “Native American” origins. So what’s the difference in the original usages?

Why do they say " love fifteen," in tennis? Answer "Love" is one of the ways you can read the number "0". So " fifteen love " means " The score is 15-0 ". There are many theories about its origin. One is (taken from Wikipedia - but you'll find this anywhere): The origin of the use of "love" for zero is also disputed. It is possible that it derives from the French expression for "the egg" (l'œuf) because an egg looks like the number zero.

Is there any difference between saying "I am not really sure where the noise is from" and "I am really not sure where the noise is from"? are they interchangeable? Answer There is a difference between the two: I am not [really sure] You're anywhere between almost completely sure and quite unsure . Really amplifies sure , and really sure means you's as good as completely, totally sure. The not just says you're not that sure yet, or even that you are not that sure at all. The exact amount of uncertainty depends on many things like context and intonation. I suspect a difference between BrE and AmE as well (cf "quite"). I am really [not sure] You're not sure at all! Here, really amplifies not sure . While not sure implies you have doubts, really makes that stronger: you have serious doubts. Another, slightly different example would be: I am not completely happy. Meaning you're happy, but not 100%. On the other hand, if you change

If I call a Black person "nigger", how bad is this today? If a Black calls another Black with this word, is it wrong? Answer Pretty bad! I remember I was with an African-American friend in line to get into the movie hall and I said it(the color) out a little too loud and the whole area went silent with everyone trying to avoid eye contact. It was pretty embarrassing. Don't even want to think what would have happened if I had used the n word instead. :( Besides here is the definition from Oxford online dict: nigger : noun offensive. a contemptuous term for a black person. That should suffice to ans your first half of the question. And for the second half, it totally depends what mood or what group is it used in. Among friends, it doesn't matter. You will see African-Americans use it in a joking manner all the time. Also, you can hear a lot of rappers using it too. Nor will it matter if an old African-American uses it. ;) But these are examples from the States as fr

What's the difference between these two phrases? Answer To add to Martha's answer : The simple past ("Did you see this") refers about an event in the past The present perfect ("Have you seen this") suggests a link with the present time. If "this" is something you could have seen but cannot anymore (you should have been there seeing "this" at the time, but it wouldn't have the same impact if you see it again now), then "Did you see" is more appropriate. It is about an event that happened once in the past. If "this" is something you can check out whenever you want, "Have you seen" is more to the point, because it suggests that, if you haven't seen it in the past, you could consider seeing it now or in the near future. It is about an event which can happen again or is still relevant in the present.

There seems to be a fair amount of confusion surrounding the meaning of the prefix bi when used with units of time measurement. Biweekly, according to dictionary.com, can mean either "occurring twice weekly," or "occurring once every two weeks." Falling within the same realm of confusion are bimonthly and biannually. As of late, it seems that we've begun replacing the bi prefix with semi when the intended meaning is "occurring twice within," while continuing to use the former when the intended meaning is "occurring once every other." Though this is a step in the right direction, there still seems to be confusion around proper usage. Whose genius idea was it to start using the bi prefix to mean two very different things? If my employer told me my pay periods were bimonthly, should I assume they meant semimonthly or once every other month? Answer The obvious distinction is between biannual and biennial which although originally cognate f

The whole story is given in the past. Is the sentence in the middle of the story "But why did she wish to do it now?" grammmatically correct? Is it correct to use the Past Simple tense with the adverb "now" talking about past events?

I'm trying to work out any possible pluralization strings for an application that handles dynamic values, and I'm a little stuck on the English here.. What I think sounds right doesn't feel right. Pluralization options: Selected 1 entry (correct) Selected 2+ entries (correct) But if I want to include the total as well: Selected 1 of 1 entries (is this correct? it sounds correct to me) Selected 0 of 1 entries (is this correct?) Selected 1 of 2 entries (correct) I know it's trivial, but these little details matter to me.. EDIT: If the count is the max, another option is to express this as: Selected all 2 entries (correct) Selected all 1 entry (this doesn't sound correct? is it?) Answer Using entries for a single entry is not correct, which can be demonstrated by describing them/it. Adding an adjective to break up a standard expression helps analysis because it’s no longer the customary expression which “just is ”: There is 1 available entry (Indisputably correct) S

Is it correct to say "The development team are seeing a new trend", when you're certain that the team consists of several members? Or, is the word team strictly singular in any context? Answer According to a variety of references, you may use is and are depending on the context. Here is an excerpt from Grammar Girl's appropriately named Quick & Dirty Tips: Let’s use the collective noun “couple” as an example. When you are thinking of the couple as two separate people doing separate things, you would probably use a plural verb. For example, you would say, "The couple are vacationing separately this year," because they are two different people doing two different things. On the other hand, if you're thinking of the couple as a single unit, you would probably use a singular verb. For example, you would say, "Each couple is going to Bermuda on a different day." You just have to use your best judgment, and even though this seems tricky, the

Sober as a judge is a simile that is used for someone completely sober. Drunk as a lord is a simile that is used for someone completely drunk. Why is judge equated with sobriety and lord with insobriety? What is the origin of these phrases? We can guess that judges shouldn't drink during duty hours but why specifically this occupation? We can also guess that lords were drinking a lot in the olden times and that's why it might be associated. But why not "drunk as a king"? I did some research and "drunk as a king' is used indeed; but it is very uncommon and appears in a very few sources. They tell you “he's as drunk as a beast;” then, again, we are constantly hearing of a man “as drunk as Chloe,” or “as drunk as a lord,” “as drunk as a king,” or “as drunk as a —,” anything, in fact, that never gets drunk at all. Will-O'-the-Wisp. 1869 According to OED , Drunk as a Lord first appears in John Evelyn's A character of England in 1659: The Gentlemen

Why don't we use the indefinite article with 'software'? In France I have always been told that saying "a software" is not correct English (as a nominal compound), and that "a piece of software" or "a software program/package/product/system" must be used instead. Recently I have doubts... is there any case where it is actually correct? Examples found on the Internet: SalsaJ, a software for data analysis at school So if you sold a software which required your customer to pay a monthly fee, [...] Answer No, this is always wrong. Both examples you provide contain incorrect usage of the term "software." (A mistake is still a mistake even if many people make it.) However, there might be special cases where you'd see the article preceding software. For example: A software solution would be better for the problem than a hardware one. The indefinite article "a" modifies "solution", not "software", in this ca

I am quite sure that there is a word for a symbol which was originated by a real-life, physical prototype but has since then outlived its origin. Most notable example: the save button with floppy drive on it. Also, to a lesser degree, envelopes in email clients, and so on. The "anachronism" or "metonymy" are close, but not exactly what I'm searching for. Answer A skeuomorph is "a derivative object that retains ornamental design cues to a structure that was necessary in the original."

How should "undoes" be pronounced in the following sentence? The git revert command undoes a committed snapshot. Should it be pronounced as " un + does " ( /ʌn'dʌz/ ) or as " undo + es " ( ʌn'duːz )? I think the latter one sounds fine here. But if pronouncing as /ʌnˈduːz/ is fine, why is "does" not pronounced /duːz/ ? Answer It is definitely /ʌn'dʌz/. If you look at etymology, you see the archaic words for 'does' used to be 'doth' which is pronounced as /dʌθ/ and 'dost' /dʌst/ and such.

If someone who is a linguistics expert could explain this to me in a way I can understand, I'd really appreciate it. I get that /ʌ/ is used on stressed vowels and /ə/ on reduced vowels, but they sound exactly the same to me. 'Strut' (/strʌt/) is given as an example word for the former, and 'comma' (/ˈkɒmə/) for the latter, but I pronounce both of those words the same. I'm confused as to how these differ from a sound perspective. Answer "I get that /ʌ/ is used on stressed vowels and /ə/ on reduced vowels." No. Yes, "/ʌ/ is used on stressed vowels", but there is no phoneme /ə/ in English. There is only an allophone [ə] of various unstressed vowel phonemes, including /ʌ/. (I am giving you my own idiosyncratic opinion here -- some linguists will disagree.) You're not going to be able to deal with the difference you're concerned about until you have some idea of the difference between phonemes and allophones. Phonemes are perceptual, whil

I know this phrase, but for some reason it is blocked in my mind. What is the term for observing a rule, but doing so in a way that subverts it? I'm almost certain that malicious is one of the words in the phrase, but I’m not positive about that. As an example, suppose there is a rule that in your workplace, you must put boxes to be mailed out in a certain place. Ralph considers this inconvenient, so he puts his boxes there, but he places them so they are in the way when you walk down that aisle, or in a way that makes the mail people work harder to organize the boxes before mailing them out. Ralph does this as a sort of protest against the rule. I don't think the phrase is malicious observation , and it’s not passive aggressive , but it’s something that means that. Help, this is worse than hearing a particular song in my head for hours!

Is it possible to use un- with new words such as sit, sleep, sad ? I'm currently seeing many words (in programming) which use un- in the meaning of undoing something. For example, is it possible to use "make me unsleep" (the Chrome spell-checker underlines it) as a synonym for "wake me up"? If yes, why is it so rare? And if not, why can't it be used? Answer Normally un- with a verb means to reverse—“undo”—the previously-taken action of the verb. You “unscrew” a jar lid someone previously screwed on; you “unwrap” a package someone previously wrapped. You can even use un- with verbs signifying actions normally regarded as irreversible— create or kill , for instance—as long as you are speaking or writing in a context where those verbs have non-literal meaning, such as game design. But it is semantically awkward to use un- with activities or statives — verbs which signify actions without particular goal or existence in a particular state. “Sleep” is nor

We use "under" for the measurement of time and weight, like this: The egg was boiled under 12 minutes. The bag was just under 10 kilos, so I was able to bring it on the plane. [ from here ] In the sentences quoted above, I think that "within" can also be used in place of "under", as they both imply the same meaning of incomplete time or weight: The egg was boiled within 12 minutes. The bag was just within 10 kilos, so I was able to bring it on the plane. So, can we use under and within to mean the same in such context? And is it appropriate to use them interchangeably? Answer Yes, for example quoting from Fire Tests with Textiles (6 December 1911): Of the 12 washed samples 11 were wholly consumed within 60 seconds , and of the remaining sample 98 per cent was ... washed samples, an average of 98.91 was consumed in 60 seconds, six of which were all consumed under 60 seconds . and similarly, from Public Problems - Private Solutions?: Globalizing Cities

Is there a grammatical rule to compound a set of words such as a single one? e.g. word1 word2 --> word1word2 or word1-word2? Bye.

Note that this is not the same as What is it called when words are deliberately spelled incorrectly but pronunciation is kept unchanged? because that question is about deliberate misspellings, whereas this one is about unwitting misspellings. Many people unknowingly spell an English word exactly as they would pronounce it, which can lead to a misspelling. Examples: 1.Elifant or Elifent for elephant. "She ran away on seeing the elifant." 2.Shiwawa for Chihuahua. "Their dog is a Shiwawa. " This is related to not knowing the correct spelling of the word, and is a common type of mistake made even by native speakers of English, though probably not with 'elephant'; for instance I remember a native speaker cuttingly reject some good advice from a moderator at a car audio forum with the sentence: You need not lekcher me about the rules of this forum. I am no neofite here. Sample sentence for SWR: Writing 'elifent' for 'elephant' unwittingly, based

What is that word that is used to say someone "takes advantage of the situation". This word usually has a mildly negative connotation. It is related to being clever. Answer The word closest to that definition is probably opportunist , although historically it has been used in a rather specialised sense.

I'm an American and my daughter is learning British English in school, so when I help her with her homework, I have to know the British rules. She writes: I have got a horse poster. I understand that that is correct expression of the present tense in British English (even though I would write "I have a horse poster"). But now she wants to write in the past tense, so she writes: For my birthday, I have got a horse poster. I think this is incorrect even in British. I think she should write: For my birthday, I got a horse poster. But that sounds too American to me. Which is the correct version?

When you raise or lower a window blind with a one quick movement, it produces a sound, what do you call that sound in English? I rolled up/raised/opened/ pulled up the window blind quickly with a/an ______(?) I found " squeak " for opening a door, in an onomatopoeia list, but I'm not sure if I can use it in my sentence or not. PS: I'm looking for a word that can be used for any kind of blinds, Wooden or metal, but since this sound is produced by rapid opening, I think the blinds aren't that old. (However; in my sentence, the blinds I have in my mind are metal and new, like the white blinds in the picture below). Unfortunately I don't know how to describe this sound, so you should imagine the last time you pulled the string on a blind and it was rolled up with one movement,to remember that sound! :) I found these, please check them for hearing the sound! http://www.freesound.org/search/?q=blinds http://youtu.be/LLab_9MV22U I just found this sentence too, ( By N

A number of questions “has been” or “have been” asked? There is a large number of labourers who want to migrate to Japan for work. I type this sentence in a word processor, and it reports an error that "is" should be "are" (subject-verb agreement). I doubt this is a valid error. Could anyone confirm this?

What is the correct way to pluralize an acronym? What's the plural form of the acronym POC , short for proof of concept ? ...for his contributions to many POCs or ...for his contributions to many POC What is the correct way to pluralize an acronym? is not a duplicate as it is focused on cases like "ATMs" where the expanded form "automated teller machines" ends in a noun with a regular plural form ending in "s." In "proof of concept," the noun is in the middle of the abbreviated phrase. If we pluralize the uncontracted phrase, we get "proofs of concept," which has an "s" in the middle rather than at the end. It's unclear from the linked answers how abbreviations with this structure should be pluralized. (POC, POCs, PsOC?) Answer POCs is ok. To pluralise an abbreviation (or number) just add an "s" to the end.

In a user interface, we are offering the user to combine searches using either AND, OR or NOT http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/logic-gate-AND-OR-XOR-NOT-NAND-NOR-and-XNOR We have little graphics explaining the effect, but what would be good, laymen, human words to describe these operations in english as separate items in a menu list ? Short sentences like 'combine searches','intersect searches','exclude from previous search' spring to mind .. but I'm not a native speaker.

I did the best I could. The sentence above can be rephrased: I did the best that I could. In these two examples (that) I could is a relative clause. However, I am not sure whether it is modifying best or the best or an ellipted element. What exactly is this clause modifying? Secondly, what type of phrase is the best here and what type of word is best ? Answer This doesn't answer OP's question, but it addresses the confusion another answerer here has. He said in his answer " best is a noun in I did the best I could , but an adjective in I did the best thing I could " . I strongly oppose that conclusion. In my opinion best is an adjective both in I did the best I could and in I did the best thing I could . Here are the reasons - A noun can't be modified by an adverb (A noun phrase can, but we are talking about only noun not the noun phrase). An adjective, however, can be pre-modified by an adverb like very . This time they cared enough to serve the very poor

I've seen online dictionaries defining the word differentiate as (along with other definitions): to mark or show a difference in : constitute a difference that distinguishes To perceive or show the difference in or between; discriminate. Now, I understand the meaning difference "between things." However, I don't understand what "difference in " means. Does someone have an example usage that can help my understanding? Answer "Difference in" is usually used to refer to a change in one thing, instead of noting the dissimilarity between two things. "I noticed a difference in the way you play piano now. It's so much softer than it used to be." "There's a difference in my attitude. I am happy at last." "In" is also used when you are referring to the difference between two things by pointing out the difference itself (i.e. the ONE thing that's different). Consider these two ways of saying the same thing: "

Is the acronym "O.K." generally pronounced as an iamb or a trochee? Or is it context-dependent? Answer This specific question can be answered by any dictionary. However, there is a more general question underlying it which may merit closer attention, and that is how pretty much all two-letter letter-pairs in English place the stress on the second letter not on the first. A.D., B.C. B.A., B.S., M.S. U.S., U.K. P.S., M.C., D.T., A.I., G.I., O.D. This includes O.K. — at least when pronounced as initials. The only exception is when the initialism has been assimilated into a pronounced word, in which case the stress falls more naturally on the first syllable, as in a Let’s welcome Deejay Somebody or that’s an okay try . I suppose it’s possible that it’s actually the attributive use there that triggers the stress regression more than it is thinking of those things as spelt-out words. That, I’m not sure of.

I have difficulty when there is more than adjective trying to modify more than one noun. What is the meaning of this sentence? - "We have new and pre-owned cars and trucks" Also, where can I obtain practice exercises so I become good at this task? Thanks

In the book, "The Crystal Shard," by R.A. Salvatore, a character is surnamed "de Bernezan." Which of the following complete sentences uses the correct English-language capitalization: de Bernezan entered the room. De Bernezan entered the room. The Wikipedia page on "de Vries" capitalized "De Vries" as a standalone, but writes "Marc de Vries" when using the full name. Edits in response to comments: The book starts sentences as "de Bernezan," which seems incorrect. Hence my question. The Wikipedia page is neither authoritative nor clear. It seems to refers to "De Vries" as the correct capitalization of the surname, except when actually used as a surname. Since I am not Dutch, I do not know how their names work, especially when used in an English-language context. Again, hence my question. Answer Fortunately, The Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition) deals with this question on page 388: 8.5 Names with particles. M

I found an amusing story titled “Lobster salad, but a key ingredient was missing” in today’s (August 11） New York Times NY/Region section. The article reports that Zabar’s, the famous grocery in Upper West Side, have being selling “lobster salad” at $16.95 per pound for years. The only inconvenience being that the main ingredient is crawfish, the salad itself doesn’t contain a single bit of lobster meat. It has long been a very popular grocery item with New Yorkers. When the secret was betrayed by a reporter of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans, the news spread quickly to local newspapers. Saul Zabar, the 83-year-old president, insisted that selling lobsterless lobster salad was not dishonest at all, citing the case of a Japanese version of crab meat using pollock as the base, widely sold in Japan under the category name of “Crabmeat Resembling,” – which caught my eye on this particular topic. Cutting to the chase, the following phrase caught my attention, “We didn’t think that we we

I came across this sentence at http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/period.html . Why is "Does" capitalized? The question is, Does anyone support this legislation?

I came across the word “off-the-shelf” in the following sentence of Time magazine’s article “The 50 Best Inventions of the Years (Nov.11 issue). He (inventor of the first synthetic cell) started with ‘off-the-shelf chemical’, and managed to reconstruct the genome of bacterium that successfully ‘booted up.’ I checked out the word “off-the-shelf” with a dictionary at hand, which defines it as “in stock, ready-made, easily available.” Although this may be a naive question to most of native English speakers, it casted me a question, why does “off-the-shelf” which sounds to me “off the store-shelves” akin to “out-of-stock” on its face come to mean ready made and easily available? Can somebody explain it to me? Answer Compare to "off the rack" as opposed to "tailored" for clothing. The implication is that it is a readily available product that can be obtained without a considerable lead time. Contrast with "bespoke" or "custom made".

RegDwight's excellent answer showing the historical usage of despite got me thinking about the processes by which new prepositions are coined. Prepositions are generally considered a closed class, and there are no active derivational processes for generating new ones--yet new prepositions do occasionally arise. The 17-century examples in the linked question show despite being used as a sentential adverb taking a complement with of , though contemporary usage has despite as a preposition that directly governs its object. At some point the of started to disappear from "despite of", and the word despite was reanalyzed as a preposition rather than an adverb. This got me thinking: What other words are documented to have transitioned from adverbs to prepositions? Do any words other than adverbs ever make this leap? Are there any nouns or verbs that have somehow transitioned to prepositions?

How do you add text which provides context to a quote? For example, consider if I were to quote someone as having said: This is unacceptable! Were that the whole quote, can I add any text to the quote to indicate what "This" refers to? I think I've seen it done with square brackets... This [the death threats directed towards bloggers] is unacceptable! Is this correct? If no, how can it be done? Note my citation is simply from the top search result for the term "This is unacceptable" Answer The following comes from the Purdue Online Writing Lab's MLA Formatting and Style Guide. Go here to check it out for their citation of the original MLA handbook. If you add a word or words in a quotation, you should put brackets around the words to indicate that they are not part of the original text. Jan Harold Brunvand, in an essay on urban legends, states: "some individuals [who retell urban legends] make a point of learning every rumor or tale" (78). And h

Can anyone give me a really short & sharp distinction between these two words? Are they notorious for often getting mixed up? Answer Sorry, but Malvolio's answer is too simple in some parts, and the other parts are simply wrong. Let's see what NOAD has to say: invidious |inˈvidēəs| adjective (of an action or situation) likely to arouse or incur resentment or anger in others : she'd put herself in an invidious position . • (of a comparison or distinction) unfairly discriminating; unjust : it seems invidious to make special mention of one aspect of his work . That's not eVil. It's not even evil. It can be used as a pejorative, but it is decidedly not simply a synonym for bad. insidious |inˈsidēəs| adjective proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with harmful effects : sexually transmitted diseases can be insidious and sometimes without symptoms . • treacherous; crafty : tangible proof of an insidious alliance . This in a sense means "sneaky" — but

Being an Indian, I don't like the way we Indians use the English. Of course I also make mistakes, but I will try to learn from time to time. I see and hear some phrases like, Please do the needful , Years back etc which are absolute blunders, I was wondering if Single Sitting is also Indian made ;)? (Actually I am pretty sure it is Indian made :D ) Generally we hear this phrase as in http://goo.gl/y3gl06 . By Single Sitting we Indians mean the job attached to this phrase can be done in single visit. Answer Outside of India, single sitting is and was certainly used, as attested in the comments, but it will nowadays usually refer to a meal. The (extended) meaning of in the time frame of a single occurrence may be typical Indian usage currently, but I would certainly not qualify such usage as a “blunder”, let alone an “absolute” one. It is no more a blunder than an American calling a pharmacy a drug store !

Is it proper to speak of units of a continuous quantity as if they are discrete or continuous? For example, I never know whether I should say that some food has "less calories" than another food (because the calorie is a unit of energy, which is continuous) or that it has "fewer calories" (since the calorie is a unit of measure and spoken of in plural).

Say my last name is Soloniewicz and I'm writing a holiday card. Is it: Happy holidays from the Soloniewicz's Happy holidays from the Soloniewiczs Happy holidays from the Soloniewiczes I'm leaning towards the number three, but looking for input. Answer Definitely not option 1 (as an apostrophe does not belong here). Option 3 is closest to what one would actually say, so of the choices, is the one to choose. But still, it's an awkward word, so it's worth considering an alternative, such as— Happy holidays from the Soloniewicz family.

In written English, is it okay to emphasize words by capitalizing them? As in: I would NEVER do that! Are there other methods to achieve this? On an aside: Dutch uses acute accents for emphasis: Ik zou dat nooit doen! [normal] Ik zou dat nóóit doen! [emphasized] Answer In non-electronic written English, capitalization is rarely used for emphasis. Much more common is italics or underlining. While underlining was very common in the age of the typewriter, word processing has made italics more accessible (it has long been the preferred technique for emphasis in printed materials). In email and other electronic communication, capitalization is sometimes used, but it is generally considered akin to a loud voice, rather than an inflected voice. An entire sentence in caps is often called shouting , and is strongly discouraged.

Here is a line from the song " Popular " in the musical Wicked . I am trying to explain what we call the anticlimax of the last three lines, where a rhyme is expected but not delivered. When I see depressing creatures/ With unprepossessing features/ I remind them on their own behalf/ To think of/ Celebrated heads of state or/ Specially great communicators/ Did they have brains or knowledge?/ Don't make me laugh!He,he!/ They were popular! Is there a term for the rhyme scheme where we (arguably) expect knowledge to be rhymed with "college"? Another example: Roses are red/Violets are blue/Sugar is sweet/And so am I The comedic effect of that poem is in the anticlimax of the final line. Is there a term for that anticlimax created from an unmade rhyme? Answer It's a subverted rhyme . I hesitate to cite TV Tropes directly but the term has also appeared in ELU .

In the process of writing to two people I typed: "Are either of you free?" and was immediately called out by my grammar checker which suggested I should write: " Is either of you free?" The second of these options feels intuitively wrong to me, as I am addressing two people so should be using the plural. However I feel this is tied up in the whole issue of whether a group should be referred to in the plural or singular sense, e.g. Red Hot Chili Peppers is a band Uses "is" to indicate that the band is a singular entity, whereas Red Hot Chili Peppers are a band Uses "are" to indicate that the band is made up of multiple people. So, which is correct? " Is either of you free?" or " Are either of you free?" Answer Your grammar checker corrected you because "either" does technically function with a singular verb. If you think about your question slightly expanded it would be " is either one of you free?". H

Typically we don't use articles with city names, e.g. "Seattle" and not "the Seattle." I know at least one exception though which is The Hague . Are there any other city names which we use with the article? Answer In addition to The Hague and The Bronx, there are a few other minor English placenames that still include a definite article, including The Plains, Virginia , and The Dalles, Oregon . This article postulates that the usage of articles in front of place names began simply as descriptions of the place, and that the place name evolved with common usage from there. In the instance of The Hague/Den Haag, which is the colloquial term for 's-Gravenhage (truncated from des Gravenhage ), the descriptor translates to something like the Royal court . Other places dropped the article long ago after the descriptor no longer had the same conveyance. (For example, the city of Bath in England was known as Baðum - at the baths.)

A similar question has been asked. However, is it possible to give (general) differences in usage of fast , quickly , speedy and rapidly ? And with respect to the top answer : Are quick and fast absolutely interchangeable?

I have seen the following formula when writing an academic article: To the best of our knowledge , this is the first work that shows how to optimize a non-submodular function for .... I like this construction in a paper, and I am wondering if there is a way to replace "To the best of our knowledge" by a similar expression that conveys a similar message, i.e. novelty, as far as one can tell from the literature. Answer When you say "to the best of my/our knowledge," you're saying that "you think your statement is true, because it is based on what you know/believe, but you are not completely sure" [Macmillan] . So any phrase that expresses that lack of complete certainty that fits the context will do. In the context of an academic paper, you might say: We believe that this is the first work that shows how to optimize a non-submodular function...

I understand that if John and Mary own a house together, it is John and Mary's house. If they jointly owned multiple houses, they would be John and Mary's houses. I also understand that if John and Mary each own one or more houses, then one would refer to John's and Mary's houses. However, what if John OR Mary own a single house. Would that be John or Mary's house or would it instead be John's or Mary's house? To take this a little further, substitute for John and Mary an individual person who might be an owner or a renter of a single house. You don't know or care if the house is in the possession of an owner or of a renter but you want to convey that the person might be either an owner or a renter. Would one refer to the owner or renter's house or to the owner['s] or renter's house? In real life, I'm looking into "the Social Worker['s] or Attorney's employee identification card." A form must be accompanied by a copy of

Specifically, in real-world use, I would think that "course" and "heading" tend to imply a vector of movement, while "bearing" and "direction" might refer only to which way one is facing. I am looking for two words to correctly assign to these physical components of a vehicle. I suppose I may be looking for military, or naval terminology. For example, if you were in a submarine, being buffeted by currents, so your vessel was being pushed sideways, how would you correctly say, "we are being pushed east but we are facing north?" Would it be correct to say "we are bearing 0°, but our heading is 270°?" It doesn't sound correct. Edit As I note in a comment below: when I clumsily wrote that I was "looking for two words to correctly assign to these physical components of a vehicle," what I meant was, single-word attributes to distinguish between the direction a vehicle was facing, and the actual direction the vehicle w

Is there a noun meaning "something that could be done to improve x "? If i was inventing one, i might call it "an improvable", but improvable is an existing adjective. Example: "I can give you some ___ for your project", or "There are a bunch of ___ you should do". Answer I don't know how I missed the word "improvement". a change or addition by which a thing is improved. ( Dictionary.com ) This was originally mentioned in a comment by Dan Bron .

I was reading this today: We look forward to following your progress. Am I correct in thinking that it is missing a be or that -ing should be removed? So We look forward to be following your progress. or We look forward to follow your progress. Interestingly I get the same jarring feeling when reading the examples here What's the difference between "I look forward to" and "I'm looking forward to"? Answer We look forward to following your progress is correct; the two proposed corrections are not. "Following your progress" is a gerund phrase ; it acts as a noun in this sentence.

In several books and TV shows, there have been characters who say "et" instead of "ate" (As in, "I et dinner yesterday at 6:00"). I looked it up on Wiktionary, which defines it but doesn't say where it's used: et (colloquial or dialectal) simple past tense and past participle of eat I live in the Midwest and I've never heard anyone say this in real life. Is there a specific dialect of American English that this is common to? Answer From Dictionary.com: et Chiefly North Atlantic, South Midland and Southern US Nonstandard A simple past tense of "eat".

What does "by now" stand for? Where should I put it within a sentence? starting or finishing? Is it right if I say "By now, I won't go to Melbourne"?

Below is my sentence. I'm pretty sure the word "knowing" is a gerund, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I assumed that the only subject is "knowing" and that the linking verb should be "is", but grammarly flagged it. Is the sentence correct? Is grammarly wrong? "I have found that knowing how to effectively manage and organize paperwork, requests, and deadlines is the only way in which to get the job done effectively." Is grammarly reading the sentence like this?: "I have found that knowing how to effectively manage and organize paperwork, knowing how to effectively manage and organize requests, and knowing how to effectively manage and organize deadlines are the only ways in which to get the job done effectively." It seems like in this sentence, it clearly needs "are" for a linking verb (even though it's obviously a cumbersome sentence that nobody would write). Is my original sentence correct???

In a technical environment, what is the most suitable sentence to use when answering to someone about a problem that they had and we solved it for them: The problem is solved The problem has been solved

I was reading the novel A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens. In Chapter 2, there are sentences like: “I hope there ain’t, but can’t make so ’Nation sure of that,” said the guard, in gruff soliloquy. “Hallo you!” I don't know what that apostrophe in the word 'Nation stands for. I searched for it on the Internet and in dictionaries, but could not discover the answer. Or is this just a printing error? (In China, Google is banned, so the only PDF I can find is the Project Gutenberg edition, which has the same text in this spot.) Can anybody help me with this?

I know there are differences between American and British English in this area. So when answering, please specify whether you speak American or British English. Answer The answer is that "I have just eaten them" is normal in British and I think US usage, but "I just ate them" is not normal in British use, or at any rate wasn't until recently (except in the different sense of mplungjan's answer). The aspectual difference between the simple past and the present perfect is that the perfect is used for past-with-present-relevance, the simple past for, well, simple past. So "I have eaten it" has some present relevance - perhaps I can still feel the curry burning in my belly; or somebody has just discovered the cake has gone and wants to know where it is now; or I am in the (present) state of having eaten polar bear at some time in my life. "I ate it" is regarding the event on its own without considering any present relevance - even possibly t

Look at this question: The Think Tank is the only place in the world _____ visitors have free access to this type of research. a. who b. that c. which d. Ǿ e. where f. when The answer says that both d. and e. are correct. Do you agree with it? If d is correct, why are b and c incorrect? Answer The Think Tank is the only place in the world _____ visitors have free access to this type of research. Relative clauses which occur after noun phrases headed by the word place behave in an exceptional way. Relative clauses have an antecedent , which is the phrase that is being modified by the relative clause, the thing that we are giving more information about. Some nouns, in particular the word place , can have relative clauses where the gap in the relative clause represents a locative phrase of the type that would normally be represented by a preposition phrase within the relative clause. This is not normally possible unless the relative clause uses the relative word where or that . However