Blog

I was at a loss when I was asked recently by my grand-daughter who is a school girl about the difference between Emperor and King. She asked me why Great Britain has King and Queen, while Germany and Russia had the Emperors, and France had both Kings and Emperors. All what I could tell her was, ‘you’d better study by yourself, don’t count on others.” Being sorry for her, I checked dictionaries at hand, but was simply confounded. For instance, OALD defines: Emperor: the ruler of empire. Empire: a group of countries that are controlled by one ruler / government. King: the (male) ruler of an independent state / country that has a royal family. Kingdom: a country ruled by a king (or queen). The difference seems to be; King has a royal family. Empire is a group of countries (under one ruler). But emperors have royal families as well, and Japan that has had the emperors for a millennium has been a single country (except the imperialism era of 1910–1945), and China who had emperors wasn’t a g...

I'm writing a bullet list of traits for people to review so that they can self-select whether they fit into a certain group. What I have right now looks like this: Male 35-39 years old Highly-educated In a committed relationship Childless Athletic, fit But "Childless" feels problematic. It may have a provocative feel to it, and it focuses on the absence of children almost as if I (or society) expects men to have children. I'd rather describe a trait in positive terms. Is there a word (or phrase of 4 words or less) that can serve as an adjective meaning simply (and without negative connotation or judgment) that he hasn't fathered any kids? When I search thesauruses (e.g. this one ), the suggestions are even worse than "childless". They include words such as: sterile, barren, infertile, unproductive, impotent, arid, bereaved. None of those are appropriate. If I'm being overly cautious, and enough answerers say that "childless" meets my req...

I am constantly told "funner" is not a word. Even Google auto corrects. Yet "funner" is used very often in spoken English with people I meet. Is funner a word? If not why? What causes it to not be a word? Answer The AHDEL has this USAGE NOTE : The use of fun as an attributive adjective, as in a fun time, a fun place, probably originated in a playful reanalysis of the use of the word in sentences such as It is fun to ski, where fun has the syntactic function of adjectives such as amusing or enjoyable. The usage became popular in the 1950s and 1960s, though there is some evidence to suggest that it has 19th-century antecedents, but it can still raise eyebrows among traditionalists. The day may come when this usage is entirely unremarkable, but writers may want to avoid it in more formal contexts. So fun can hardly be called a central adjective even though it is here conceded to have an existence as an adjective. Thus, arguments that 'funner' and 'funnes...

I know the wiki origin puts SNAFU as appearing during WWII as the first in a long line of military slang, BUT, years ago I recollect reading in an electronics magazine, likely 'Wireless World' from 60's-70's (hence inclusion here), that this term was one of several similar acronyms which originated in US telegraphy around the time of the Iron Horse, Indian raids etc. A telegraph operator, on arriving at the scene of a break, might find that the local American Indians had pulled down telegraph poles. 'Situation Normal' meant that the raiders had gone and 'All Fouled Up' referred to the state of the wire. The engineer on scene would hook up his telegraph set and report, via Morse, certain terse messages to indicate state of play. There were other related messages; though I don't recall which they were. This all makes some sense, as when the US joined in WWII there was a chronic shortage of trained telegraph operators and history records that retired op...

I assume that in English there is a word for everything, and I am looking for one that roughly means "of few words" or "of no words". The closest I could think of is non-verbal, but it sounds a bit too dry. Is there a better word? Note: I did check for antonyms of "verbal" before I posted here, but didn't find any. Answer Consider laconic , taciturn , and synonyms such as pithy and terse : • laconic , “Using as few words as possible; pithy and concise” • taciturn , “Silent; temperamentally untalkative; disinclined to speak” • pithy , “Concise and meaningful.” • terse , “Abruptly or brusquely short” and “(of speech or style) Brief, concise, to the point” • and per tchrist's comment, pauciloquent , “Using few words when speaking”

In our line of work we often work with other companies as partners on some jobs, and then compete against them on other jobs. So they are partners and competitors. Is there a good term for this, along the lines of "frenemies"?

When I was a student I was taught that the stressed syllable in an abstract noun ending in -ity is always the antepenultimate. e.g. relia bi lity sponta ne ity a bi lity fe li city e ter nity ra rity etc. Is this rule foolproof? Can anyone think of an exception? Answer Unless you accept the loss of an i , the best such word is pity . That’s because in that case Latin pietās, pietātem was whittled away till it had no antepenult left to it, and so you have no chance to stress something that isn’t there. :) The version that didn’t get quite so pared down became piety , which is stressed antepenultimately like most of the rest of them. Even very short words of this pattern have the stress on the antepenult, like acuity, amity, deity, fatuity, laity, paucity, unity . The most common of these words end in ‑acity, ‑ality, ‑anity, ‑arity, ‑ariety, ‑bility, ‑eity, ‑idity, ‑ility, ‑inity, ‑iety, ‑ivity, ‑ocity, ‑osity, ‑uity . Some are even productive as Modern English suffixes in their own ...

Examples: Data can be imported to and exported from the application. Data can be imported and exported from the application. Data can be imported to the application and exported from it. The manager defined the products that should be added to and removed from the store. The manager defined the products that should be added and removed from the store. The manager defined the products that should be added to the store and removed from it. I assume that the third sentence is correct in my examples. My question is whether the two other sentences are correct. Answer Examples #1 is correct in both sections, and are examples of basic parallelism. However, example #2 is wrong is both sections. The basic test is if you can deconstruct your parallelism into two grammatical sentences without adding new words : Example #1 works Data can be imported to and exported from the application. deconstructs to Data can be imported to the application. Data can be exported from the application. Example #2 ...

Because of a certain 140 character limit I've learned where I can trim characters on responses but even after all this time I still reply with "Well, so and so . . ." and I go back and have to delete it (even on comments to this site I start with well and then delete it). Is it because that's generally how I would speak a response and I should watch out there too or is this just me? Answer Well, it is a context marker, showing that you are launching a story. Examples of context: "Did you do your homework today?", "Yes" is an acknowledgment of dialog. "Did you do your homework today?", "Well, yes" means you want to shift to a story. "Did you do your homework today?", "Uh, yes", another context marker, means that your answer is unofficial, off-the-record, or unverifiable.

It's always intrigued me what the difference is between these two terms. I can guess that translation is a contextual translation whereby the original foreign text is maintained with any language idiosyncrasies intact, whereas transliteration is translating the text verbatim , during which any context may be lost. Any help clearing up this would be appreciated, and an example from another language would be awesome! Thanks is advance. Answer Transliteration is a conversion in the script. eg: arabic كتاب = ktʾb (ISO-233) hebrew זכר = zkr (ISO 259-3) Transcription is a conversion according to the phonological rules. The IPA is one common target for such conversion: arabic كتاب = ktaːb (direct transcription, omitting unwritten vowels) Translation translates text from one language to another arabic كتاب = book

As well as being an adjective, fast is an adverb. We use it all the time as such: He ran fast. However, though slow is definitely an adjective, it sounds wrong when used as an adverb, because slowly is more common. He ran slow. We would always say: He ran slowly. My question is, why isn't fast treated the same way as slow ; why is there no fastly , while there is a slowly ? Answer Because real, living languages have quirks and are never entirely systematic. The "ly" ending is generally indicative of an adverb in English, but not all adverbs end in "ly", and not all words ending in "ly" are adverbs. Absolute consistency in a language is an indication that the language is a pidgin, a relatively new creole, or an artificial language (like Esperanto or Volapük). Any language that is in everyday use and has been around long enough to gather scratches and dings, will have them. Quick and fast are both words that may or may not be related to rapidity....

I can hardly describe this, which is why I need the one word. When you shout "Ta-daa!" and throw your arms out at your sides, does anyone have a one-word description for what you're doing? Argh. Answer Generally, it would be a flourish, but I believe the specific gesture you're talking about is sometimes described as "jazz hands".

Can I use it and its for people? Example: The fear is the essential attribute of a human nature. It figures a crucial role in its survival. where its means human's. Can I use it and its for animals? Answer This is probably better: Fear is an essential attribute of human nature. It plays a crucial role in their survival. It is not generally considered appropriate for humans. We use he , she , etc. It implies that the human in question is an object, or has no gender (which is generally considered offensive). As far as animals go, it and its are fine. The beaver, commonly known for its ability to cut down trees, is known as a national symbol of Canada. It was regarded as valuable (for its hide) many years ago.

When do we use "at" and "in" with "arrive" talking about place, not time? Answer Arrive carries 3 prepositions: in , on , or at . He arrived in New York. He arrived at the station. He arrived on the scene of the accident. Also: He arrived here. [no preposition] He arrived at 12 o'clock. He arrived within 10 minutes. He will arrive in an hour. So it turns out that ' arrive ' either carries or doesn't carry a preposition depending on the place or time that follows it, i.e. if the place or the time carries a preposition.

Why do strait-laced and straight-laced have the same meaning when strait and straight have different meanings? Answer While I agree with kiamlaluno on the matter of pronunciation leading to confusion, I believe that the order is reversed: strait-laced is the correct version, and people who don't realize that strait is the appropriate spelling hear the word spoken and spell it the "normal" way; the word "straight" is much more common these days than "strait." Checking etymonline.com shows that "strait-laced" dates from the 1550s, and was used to refer to bodices and stays, meaning that the woman's clothing in question was very tightly bound and allowed little to no freedom of motion: it was laced in a strait fashion (strait = narrow, constricted, tight, limited, or strict). Extrapolating from that definition to behavior in general would be a fairly small step.

Which of the following sentences are correct? He will graduate in May. He will be graduated in May. He is going to graduate in May. Issue 1: Is the second one grammatical? Issue 2: There is high uncertainty that cause he may not graduate in May, like fail one course? Issue 3: In a formal letter, which one is correct? Besides, I heard from one of my friend whose mother tongue is not English: "I have been graduated from Boston university". Is that one grammatical as well? I know the second one is passive and not correct but in this article I saw somebody use it. Therefore I am confused. Answer They are all grammatical. Merriam-Webster gives three definitions of graduate in connection with schools. transitive verb: 1 a : to grant an academic degree or diploma to 1 b : to be graduated from intransitive verb: 1 : to receive an academic degree or diploma If you are talking about a single student, the intransitive verb— "He will graduate in May" or "He is going t...

A quote from "Bad tendency" (Wikipedia) : The principle, formulated in Patterson v. Colorado , (1907) was seemingly overturned with the "clear and present danger" principle used in the landmark case Schenck v. United States (1919), as stated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.. Is the usage of two consecutive dots at the end of the sentence correct? Answer This question actually has two parts: (1) Should an abbreviation such as Jr for Junior include a period at all? (2) If the abbreviation does take a period and if it appears at the end of a sentence, should the sentence be punctuated to include both the Jr period and the end-of-sentence period? The answers to both questions are matters of house style, and consequently may vary from publisher to publisher and from style manual to style manual. Having said that, I don't think that I've ever seen a house style guide in the United States that endorsed the use of consecutive periods in this situation. Mos...

More and more I see, especially in activist communities, Spanish-derived words ending in x or @ in order to neuter the gendering inherent in the original language. For example: latinx (or latin@) as opposed to latina and latino. How, though, are these endings pronounced? Please provide evidence of how this orthography is commonly pronounced. Note 1: I recognize this is in an English Language site, rather than a Spanish language site, but this phenomenon is very much happening in English, albeit with Spanish-loan words. Therefore the question is relevant to non-Spanish speaking English speakers. Note 2: A question like this can lead to politically charged or, at least, sarcastic comments. Please refrain from bringing in your biases for or against.

What is the meaning of the "a moment's worth" in the following Using this equation, we can generate the graph with a moment's worth of calculation and plotting. Is it equivalent to "more acurate" and "faster" or depends on the subject of the context? Answer It means that the equation is so easy/helpful/accurate that you can quickly make some calculations and generate a graph - it will only take a moment. The equation might make your calculations more accurate, but the 'moment' is a measurement of time, therefore it is referring to the speed of the whole operation.

Consider the following words: inflammable invaluable Each of these has the unusual property that its meaning is identical to its counterpart lacking the prefix. In almost all other cases, the prefix in- means "not". Where did such exceptions originate and what are some other examples of such exceptions? Answer "Inflammable" is derived from the verb inflame , which comes from in- and flame . The OED identifies the prefix as in- 2 , indicating the second definition of the prefix, rather than the third, which is the negation which is what you believed it to be from. I quote the right definition below: used in combination with verbs or their derivatives, [...] with the senses ‘into, in, within; on, upon; towards, against’, sometimes expressing onward motion or continuance, [...] . (emphasis mine) To inflame something is to set it on fire–i.e. to use motion to cause something to be in flames. "Invaluable" does come from in- expressing negation, and thus...

Which is more correct: This rule specifies that an object should be either visible or invisible, but not partially visible. Or This rule specifies that an object should either be visible or invisible, but not partially visible. Is there any rule for that? Also, should the be be repeated after the or in the second statement?

The question is quite clear. Is there any difference (semantically or connotationally, if that's a word) between nude and naked ? Nude seems more formal to me, but I'm not quite sure. Interesting: Merriam-Webster link from naked, to nude Definition of NAKED 1. not covered by clothing : nude Answer Nude is by and large used only to refer to the absence of clothing or any covering in general. Nude beaches Nude model Naked , on the other hand, has far wider connotations than nude . You can look them up here . Naked eye Naked truth Naked to one's enemies It's also worth noting that naked is a rather technical word in life sciences, which is not the case with nude .

How did the word buoy come to be pronounced "BOO-ee" in most of the US? The British pronunciation "BOY" as in the word buoyancy or buoyant (which both countries pronounce the same) seems to be pretty straight-forward, so where did the US version come from? Answer Apart from this related answer , Etymonline has: buoy (n.) late 13c., perhaps from either O.Fr. buie or M.Du. boeye , both from W.Gmc. **baukn* "beacon" (cf. O.H.G. bouhhan, O.Fris. baken). OED, however, supports M.Du. boeie , or O.Fr. boie "fetter, chain" (see boy), "because of its being fettered to a spot." So you have two possible origins, one originally pronounced [bɥi(ə)] (French) or [bœɛi] (Dutch), and the other [boi] (French) or [bœi] (Dutch), all of which could be Anglicised as either disyllabic [buwiː] (boo-ee) or monosyllabic [bɔɪ] (boy). I suspect both pronunciations have been around for a while in English, and the colonial divide just drew a more distinct (re...

I'm having trouble finding a definition of vice that explains its usage in the following NYTimes article : The Monarch, no less boldly than her compeer, dashed among the rebel fleet, and singling out the Lovell, under full speed struck her fairly near the wheel, her prow crashing far into the hull, and remaining for a moment fastened as in a vice. The closest meaning I could find is "vise" ( British vice), which in the Oxford Dictionaries means: a metal tool with movable jaws that are used to hold an object firmly in place while work is done on it, typically attached to a workbench. Answer Vise or Vice, a tool that can apply enormous squeezing pressure.

When a referrer (noun) gives a referral (noun) to another person, what is the term (noun) used for the recipient of the referral? "The referred" may work, but am I missing another term? "Referred" indicates past-tense, but I intend to use the term in future and present tense as well.

I want to know, is there any difference between "stop + v.(ing)" and "stopped to + v.". These are example sentences. I stop working for a month. vs I stopped to work for a month. I stop watching movies. vs I stopped to watch movies. I stop cooking for a year. vs I stopped to cook. I read “I like to do (be) something” vs “I like doing (being) something” but I still don't understand what is the difference or when and how to use them. Answer Both are correct, but they have very different meanings. I stopped working means I once worked, and now no longer do. I stopped to work means that I once was doing something (unspecified, based on context), and I ceased from doing it so that I could work. The infinitive ( to work ) here has the meaning of in order to work and so that I could work . So I stopped cooking means I once cooked, and no longer do, but I stopped to cook means I stopped [doing something] so that I was then able to cook.

It isn't any of the words on this page and I believe it started with the letter 'e' (though please offer your word even if it doesn't). Example sentence: Because he researched what he had heard from his friends, he was able to refute many of their _________________. Factoid seems to be the closest one, but the word I am looking for only refers to a belief that is false.

I was browsing the internet, and found that "Please do the needful" is not an appropriate sentence to use or write. According to this link , this sentence used to get used in South Asia. What would be an alternative phrasing to use?

I was wondering how to list a small group of people, giving each of them a short description/introduction in a single sentence? (Or if that's bad practice, in multiple sentences?) Example: The A-Team consists of four members: John "Hannibal" Smith, their charismatic leader and master of disguise; Howling Mad Murdock, an insane pilot that can fly pretty much anything that has wings; B. A. Baracus, a mechanical genius and the team's muscle and Templeton "Face" Peck, the team's con man and scrounger, able to get his hands on just about anything they need. (I've marked the and because I wasn't sure if it could be replaced by another ";") I just picked the A-Team as an example since they already have a diverse group of people. What is a good technique (or norm) to summarize the names, roles and perhaps certain traits of 4-6 people? Especially while trying to avoid confusing comma placements or too many repetitions of and? I'm also not ...

Help my sister peel oranges. Help my sister to peel oranges. Help my sister peeling oranges. Help my sister with peeling oranges. Which of the above is/are correct, and why are the others incorrect?

I have came across this reference: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/styleforstudents/c3_p35.html This phrase is virtually meaningless, but we often hear it on the news and in bloated speeches. “In terms of” is really just a wordy and sloppy transition—usually an unoriginal disguise for a simple preposition, such as “in,” or a more elegant phrasing, such as “in relation to.” “In terms of the cost, it is high,” is easily revised to “Its cost is high.” Do not use “in terms of,” or do so trembling. Is the reference really right? Can I use the following sentence? The figures are expressed in terms of a percentage/in percentage terms. If so, the phrase "in terms of" seems not to be referred to relation.

Would someone please compare these two? Or is this correct, even though it adduces nothing? As a noun (and not adj), ethic = A set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct: ethics [usually treated as plural] = 1. Moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the conducting of an activity: I do see that the second definition for ethics on that page differs from ethic.

Regarding the phrase: Breaking windows with guineas What is its meaning, and origin? The 'guineas' part of it might mean more to the British audience on this site than the others.

I was reading wikipedia about a ship and it it's always refered as female. Is it unique to ships? I've learn in school that words in english does not have a sex, you can call a cats and dogs as "it". Answer The boat is not female in itself. You are correct that the English language does not have a grammatical gender (mostly). If you have a look at this blog there are several reasons offered for why people use female pronouns when referring to ships. I cite the most reasonable below. One prosaic explanation is that the gender of the Latin word for “ship” — Navis — is feminine. But people generally agree on the more romantic notion of the ‘ship as a she’ phenomenon: that it stems from the tradition of boat-owners, typically and historically male, naming their vessels after significant women in their lives — wives, sweethearts, mothers. Similarly, and more broadly, ships were once dedicated to goddesses, and later also to mortal women of national or historic significa...

I know people with an actual fear of olives. Is there a name in English for this phobia? I have not been able to find anything in the usual websites.

Is there a witty turn of phrase that indicates one's performing an act that, in its doing, undermines, contravenes, or obviates itself? This question relates to a similar idea, but I have it in my mind that there is a saying that describes this state of affairs. "Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face" is not quite what I'm going for because the act of cutting off the nose doesn't negate itself. I'm thinking more of a line speaking about someone who breaks the speed limit on his way to defend himself in traffic court, or wiping off a table with a dirty sponge. Answer “Don’t sell your mule to buy a plow” seems to fit your description pretty well? Although, that’s actually not one I knew until just now. I had a vague memory of a similar British one — “selling your X to pay for its Y”, or something — and googling to try to work out what it was, I found the above version, which seems to be from the southern US. I still can’t work out what the origin...

I am confused about how to use "Why don't you...?" with the verb be . I know that we can use "Why don't you" with other verbs as in: Why don't you go with me? However, I'm not sure if we can use these two sentences. Why don't you be a man? Why don't you be a doctor? Answer Normally, questions are only formed with do -support in English if the main verb is not an auxiliary or the copula ( be ). This also goes for questions with why : You go with me -> You don't go with me. Why do(n’t) you go with me? – but: You are a man -> Are you a man? Why are(n’t) you a man? So if your question is simply asking what the reason is that someone is X , then you cannot use do after why : you use simple auxiliary inversion instead. However , the construction “why don't you (just)…” has another, slightly different meaning, too. It can be used as a rhetorical question basically equivalent to a rather crude and exasperated-sounding imperative: Why...

My question is a little broader than the title and applies to a term which is described by more than one "word". Is the term (in this case "ice cream") one word, or two? Based on my research, the three dictionaries that I consulted, Merriam-Webster (MW), MacMillian (MM), and the Oxford Dictionary (OX) all seem to provide some leeway in expressing exactly what a word is and if it must be delimited by spaces and/or punctuation. See definitions below: MW(b)(2): "any segment of written or printed discourse ordinarily appearing between spaces or between a space and a punctuation mark" OX 1a: "single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed" MM 1: "[countable] a single unit of written or spoken language" MW and OX use words like typically and ordinarily indicating that there is the possibility for mul...

In conversation, I hear people say: "Please recommend me a book." Or: "Recommend me a book, please." They omit "to," as in: "Please recommend to me a book." Or variations thereof, such as: "Please recommend a book to me." And: "Recommend to me a book, please." Are all of the example sentences above grammatically correct? Edit: No, the referenced question did not answer mine, because it it asks how to is interchangeable with that , which is a somewhat different question. My question is specifically about the usage of to . Answer The structure of the phrase, "Recommend me a book," parallels that of "Give me a book." Let's look at that first. A verb such as 'to give' can take an indirect and a direct object. It is a ditransitive verb (see note below). 1. If the direct object precedes the indirect object, we must include 'to'. Give the book to John. However, if the indirect object pr...

As they always were interchangeable in an article, I just want to know the difference. Answer Travel ( uncountable n. ) and travelling are used to mean the general activity of moving from place to place. You do NOT say "a travel". When we use it as a verb, we talk about how we travel to work; abroad; school, etc. And we might mention the means of transport, e.g. "I travel to school by bus", "They travelled on foot". As a noun, travel or travelling is often collocated with holidays. We say: ‘I love travelling’ or ‘He had fond memories of his travels to India’, in those cases it is not interchangeable with journey . source (i) We decided to travel by car. We travelled through France and into Germany. (ii) When I finished college I went travelling for six months. source trip , n. is often said when going out somewhere; it could be taking a short holiday, or travelling some distance for business purposes, and staying at a hotel overnight; very often it...

The adverb "quite" has the following meanings according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary : 1: wholly, completely ("not quite finished") 2: to an extreme : positively "quite sure" —often used as an intensifier with a "quite a swell guy" "quite a beauty" 3: to a considerable extent : rather ("quite near") My understanding is that #1 and #2 conflict with #3. For example, when you say "She's quite right", do you mean "She's completely right" or "To a considerable extent, she's right"? Notice that in the latter case you're not saying that she is completely right. Another example is "I'm quite sure". Does it necessarily mean "I'm completely sure"? Does the word really have conflicting meanings that can possibly cause ambiguity? Or am I missing something? Answer No, you're not missing anything - the word has ambiguous definitions.

What are you going to do afterwards? What are you going to do after? Which one is the correct one and why?

Sometimes, I forget to use the proper form when an adverb is required. Or sometimes it simply doesn't appear to me one is required, unless I actually consider the grammar of my sentence. I suppose that's mostly because in my native language (German), there is no morphological difference between an adverb and an adjective. This led me to wonder: Is this distinction in English merely an idiosyncrasy or can I really semantically convey something other than intended, if I omit the suffix by mistake?

Is the following grammatically correct? My friend says the second sentence is grammatically incorrect, but couldn't explain why. I have always been fascinated by statistics. The different ways in which you could look at data and infer knowledge from it.

In English the imperative mood is used only for the second person (differently from Italian, where what is called imperative mood is used also for the first, and third person). How is the jussive mood rendered in English? Answer Aside from the usage with "Let's", as in 'Let's (contraction: "let us") go to the theater', I am having difficulty thinking of a usage for what I understand to be the jussive mood. The use of 'shall' in Latin (as cited by @stacker 's link in the comments) does not appear to satisfy a third or first person case use of jussive; and it seems more akin to the imperative in some roundabout way. Even if I am commanding myself to go to the store, it is from the (you) person; aka 'you understood', a form of the second person. Moreover, despite the usage of us in "Let's", it is more intuitive as a second person command similar to as commanding oneself is more intuitive as a second person. It seems th...

Which idiomatic phrase can be used to express 'showing all the hidden stuff' (it's supposed that nobody should find that out, some scandal things)?

I was interested in the following sentences which appeared, respectively, in a news article titled “ Can’t Park? Blame a Condo " and in a news article titled " Senator Simmons on the Negro ", both in The New York Times. 1) “In the old days you had to provide parking,” Mr. Greco said. “Now it is to the contrary , and what we are seeing is a slow evaporation of the parking spaces.” 2) The spirit of Senator Simmons's article is not very humane or broad; it is, on the contrary rather narrow and harsh. Oxford Dictionary of English has entries for both "to the contrary" and "on the contrary": on the contrary used to intensify a denial of what as just been implied or stated by suggesting that the opposite is the case. to the contrary with the opposite meaning or implication. Reading what the vocabulary says, it seems that both journalists use the phrases in a wrong way inverting "to" with "on" and "on" with "to"...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this 'punctuation book' I'm about to refer to offering completely conflicting information in its chapter about Comma usage? On page 63 of 'Webster's New World: Punctuation', there's a section highlighting "When no comma is necessary" to separate terms connected by conjunctions. Here, it gives the following sentence as a poor example of punctuation, with the unnecessary insertion of the comma: "Maxwell did not please the Internal Revenues agent, or his accountant." And yet, on the previous page, the author writes the following sentence: "Don't automatically place a comma in front of every conjunction, or joining word." Isn't this exactly the same sort of construction? The comma is working against the author's own advice! I have studied syntax to the degree that I can tell you that sentence (1) has two two direct objects, 'agent' and' accountant', and it theref...

In the following expression, whom does 'who' refer to? The friends of the participants or the participants themselves? "The friends of the participants who were told to order soft drinks" This was an option in a multiple choice question and I suggested that it was ambiguous, yet the professor insisted that it clearly referred to the friends of the participants. Answer If I were writing this, and my intention was to convey the idea that the participants' friends were told to order drinks, I would write: "The friends of the participants, who were told to order soft drinks" However, if my intention was to convey the idea that the participants were the ones who were told to order drinks, I would write: "The friends of the participants who were told to order soft drinks" It is still rather ambiguous in print. To avoid this, I might split it into two along the lines of: "Participants were told to order soft drinks. Their friends ..." or ...

Consider the sentence E-books are on the rise, but they haven't suppressed paper books though. This usage seems to be quite common, but when I learned English I was taught to use "however" where I now read "though". My questions on this use of "though" are: Is this a new trend? Is it restricted to American English? Is "though" considered more colloquial than "however" ? And on a syntactic level: Do you put a comma before "though"? Answer You probably shouldn't use both but and though together like that, because you're saying the same thing twice; both words mark the clause as antithetical to what came before. So you should remove one or the other . If you decide to use though , you need a comma before it. I don't know whether it is new; it's just incorrect. I don't think it is related to American English; I would simply interpret it as a typo, not as a conscious choice. Both though and however are...

I never know how to order food correctly but succinctly the first time. :( Basically: I can't eat hot stuff (i.e. most pepper, similar spices, ...). On the one hand, I don't want to say "Please don't make it spicy" , because I really don't mind spice (heck, a lot of them are great!) -- I just don't want it to be hot spice. On the other hand "Please don't make it hot" would seem to imply I'd like my food cold! Possibilities I've considered: "Please don't add hot spice" just sounds weird "Please don't add pepper" is the best I've thought of so far, but I'm pretty sure I've come across foods without pepper (or apparently so) which nevertheless tasted pretty hot. And not just that, but it would also exclude bell peppers, etc. which I don't mind much. Any ideas for how to communicate this clearly? The fewer words the better, haha. Answer Personally, I've had no problems with being unders...

An English book tells me that the following sentence is correct: This publication is made from paper from sustainable forests. Shouldn't it be of paper instead? Answer There's no issue of should/shouldn't involved here - it's just a stylistic choice. I think the writer in this case chose to use from because made of more strongly implies that the publication is nothing more than paper , whereas from carries more the implication of using (perhaps along with other ingredients). That's to say, the publication in total is made from/using many things (including the labour of the writer, publisher, etc). And possibly some old recycled rags, since pure wood-pulp paper isn't always of the best quality. A similar situation arises with toilet rolls, which are often claimed to be made from recycled paper . The manufacturers know perfectly well that toilet paper made entirely of recycled paper isn't actually much good. They don't want to call attention to th...

Please note, I'm not asking for a palindrome. I mean to say that only the word order is rearranged, not the actual spelling of the word. An example might be as follows: First ladies rule the State and state the rule: ladies first. Answer They are still called palindromes , but are qualified by the term word-unit . There are also word-unit palindromes in which the unit of reversal is the word ("Is it crazy how saying sentences backwards creates backwards sentences saying how crazy it is?"). Word-unit palindromes were made popular in the recreational linguistics community by J. A. Lindon in the 1960s. Occasional examples in English were created in the 19th century. Several in French and Latin date to the Middle Ages. - wikipedia

Title says everything. American English please (but if it's different in British English, please point that out as well)

I think I understood the general idea of fruits vs fruit , but what about the situation where you're saying: "My favorite fruits are grape"? This made me cringe when I saw it in an English course booklet. Would I be correct to assume that, in this case, we would say: "My favorite fruit is grapes"? The reason being that my favorite fruit is . But also, grapes is considered one group or type of fruit here, therefore fruit = is grapes. Did I explain this correctly? Is this the right assumption? I think that "favorite fruits are..." would be used if you're going to say "grapes and apples".

What are the connotations of production and manufacturing ? In what situation would you prefer one over the other? Answer The difference is in how the item in question is produced. Manufacture To make or process (a raw material) into a finished product, especially by means of a large-scale industrial operation. To make or process (a product), especially with the use of industrial machines. To create, produce, or turn out in a mechanical manner: "His books seem to have been manufactured rather than composed" (Dwight Macdonald). To concoct or invent; fabricate: manufacture an excuse. See how industrial machines or mechanical way are explicitly mentioned in every meaning Production is more general. The act or process of producing: timber used for the production of lumber and paper. The fact or process of being produced: a movie going into production. The creation of value or wealth by producing goods and services. The total output, as of a commodity: increased production at t...

The meanings for ameliorate and alleviate are quite similar, but I don’t think they are exact synonyms: what are the nuances behind choosing which one to use in a particular context? I’d like some example sentences to show where one of them can’t be substituted by the other. Answer The American Heritage Dictionary , 4th Edition, defines ameliorate as: to make better; improve. Under their entry for improve , there is this note about synonyms: improve, better, help, ameliorate : These verbs mean to advance to a more desirable, valuable, or excellent state. Improve and better , the most general terms, are often interchangeable: You can improve (or better ) your mind through study; I got a haircut to improve (or better ) my appearance. Help usually implies limited relief or change: Gargling helps a sore throat. To ameliorate is to improve circumstances that demand change: Volunteers were able to ameliorate conditions in the refugee camp. Alleviate is defined by The American Her...

I had never come across the word before but apparently a hypothecated tax is one in which ring-fenced funds are collected by taxation to pay for a specific government expenditure. This kind of tax is being suggested in the UK in order to fund the National Health Service in the future. The OED appears to be defining the verb 'hypothecate' in a way that is definitely different in meaning to 'hypothetical' : trans. To give or pledge as security; to pledge, pawn, mortgage. 'Hypothetical' is from 'hypothesis' which the OED tells me comes from Greek : ὑπό under + θέσις placing. So a hypothesis is an argument 'placed under' a statement. The OED gives the etymology of 'hypothecate' as : hypothēcāt-, participial stem of medieval Latin hypothēcāre , But this all seems a bit muddled to me both in the origin (would not 'hypothecate' have a Greek etymology, intially ?) and in the present English meaning (is not the ring-fenced tax an oppos...

How do you spell the word for phoning by Skype? I would like to use the word in a semi-formal way, in a work related email conversation, where I start emails with "Hi". Skyping or Skypeing Answer Use "Skyping"; just as you would "Googling" if you want to write what most people do (Based off Google hits per usage). Proper verbs (sic) seem to drop their final 'e' according to populism. That said, both are used. Imho; Skypeing and Googleing are more correct since proper nouns are usually immutable. We don't capitalize the "i" in "iPhone" and I know of the Kennedys but not of the Kennedies. That said I always suggest writing what others do when in doubt. TLDR: Skyping.

Is there a special name for small villages? Like a made up name of the village or a real one that functions as a recognizable synonym for a small village? E.g. "This 'town' he lives in is actually the size of _(the name of small village)" Edit: I was thinking more about something which sounds funny; also, the name does not necessarily have to fit the example. it can be 'as big as _' or whatever comes to your mind.

What would be the correct sentence and why: He is president of Finland? or He is the president of Finland?

Which is right: dad's corner or dads' corner ? I see dad's corner used regularly so I am assuming that's right, but in my mind dad's is singular whereas the corner belongs to multiple dads as it's a place for dads to go to meet. Answer Both are grammatically correct but they have different meanings: Dad's corner - a corner for a father Dads' corner - a corner for many fathers A useful comparison is Father's Day (or Mother's Day ). It's a day to appreciate many fathers, but is written this way as it's a usually day to appreciate one father at a time. This is a generic plural. Another example is Dad's Army , the name of a sitcom about the Home Guard during the Second World War.

I need to find or invent a word that suggests a system might be "adapted or improved to conform to a higher standard". A verb, noun, adjective or even adverb would be acceptable, but so far I haven't found quite what I'm looking for. Context Examples: "We are upgrading the current system for greater Enterprise [conformity to a higher standard]." "I believe we need to change our approach. We need to [adapt to conform to a higher standard]." "It will take some time to write an article that's more [improved to conform to a higher standard] than I've written before." Answer My immediate thought was kaizen . It isn't strictly English, and it isn't strictly a verb, but it is known widely in some circles. We need to kaizen our Enterprise compatibility. We need to kaizen our approach. I need to take time to kaizen my writing skills to make this article better. This isn't strictly English, but you said you were open to invent...

So basically, I know the name for both sides of a coin, yet not the coin itself. In other words, when you refer to a coin, you don't want to say 'this object with one side heads, and the other tails', you would want to say 'this coin'. What I want is a general term to refer to two ideas, that are the absolute opposite to each other. I can't really use the word 'concept', or 'idea', because such words are already assigned to the very concepts/ideas themselves. Answer polar opposites : polar opposite ‎(plural polar opposites ): The complete opposite, opposite in every way. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/polar_opposite "Polar opposites" might also refer to the scientific or technical definition of two things having exactly opposing or inverted polarity, sign, orientation, or some other property.

When you returned, I had been at home since 10 minutes. When you returned, I had been at home from 5 minutes. In such sentences, is it correct to use since or from ? When since is used? Answer This is an area which often gives difficulty between English and other European languages. over a period: "for", "I have been working for two hours" (In some cases you can omit the 'for', eg "I have been waiting two hours") from a point: "since": "I have been working since 12" "From" is unusual here: I think it is only used to give emphasis to the starting point, and notice that it would take a simple past continous, not a perfect continuous: "I was waiting here from 12 o'clock!" A difficulty that French and German speakers often have is that they want to say "I am here since ... ", which is never idiomatic in English. There is one instance of this that actually does cause confusion some times: when an ...

Recently I have been reading "The Lost Symbol" and there is a sentence I find hard to understand. The wooden stair descending to the Capitol's subbasement were as steep and shallow as any stairs Langdon had ever traversed. From the context, it sounds Langdon has never traversed a stair as steep as this one, but the sentence itself seems to be saying that Langdon always traverses stairs as steep as these. What does the author mean here? Answer Your first interpretation is almost right. It means he'd never traversed stairs steeper than these. (It's odd, however, to speak of 'traversing' stairs.)

Regarding an event between the interaction of two distant elements, an expert in this field states: As far as anyone knows, there is no transmission of any useful information We accept this statement as being truthful, with no attempt to deceive, or mislead...... it is an educational statement, made by an expert who is not setting out to deceive. This acceptance is a pre-requisite. As has been pointed out "language can be fuzzy", or could be structured to be intentionally misleading - which then opens up the possibility for any answers Therefore, from a genuine statement, we look to glean the maximum correct information. Question Can we definitively state that information is being transmitted (that is useless information)?

Are there any differences between "update" and "upgrade"? Answer If you're talking about software, there is, imo, even though the two do overlap. (A lot depends on the context: I'm assuming a general one below.) Usually, when you update a software, you apply patches and additional bits and pieces that the seller provides you for free, in theory to keep your copy in line with the official version (which is likely more stable, more secure and may even provide you with some new / better options, functionalities.) On the other hand, when you upgrade a software, you usually buy / pay extra for a version unavailable for free. Of course, an upgrade serves as an update as well (in most cases.) An example: say you have an antivirus program that you did not pay for (it being made legally available for free), but which has a commercial version as well: You usually update its database (to keep you safe from newer threats) - but if you upgrade it, it means you pay for a...

I tend to not use the word ‘the’ in front of acronyms, but I see this used in documents more and more. REIP provides regional outreach services to Northeastern Ontario. or The REIP provides regional outreach services to Northeastern Ontario. If the word ‘program’ is added after REIP, I would use ‘the.’ Which is correct?

You can add various derivational and inflectional suffixes on to most English words to create new longer words (or forms of words). But is there a definite or theoretical maximum that can be added in the case of English? If not is there rough upper limit in typical vocabulary? Trying to think of examples the best I can come up with off the top of my head is: ego + ist + ic + al + ly egoistically

I know that Google got its name from the word googol (10 100 ), and that Google/google referring the search engine/using the search engine are recent additions to the dictionary. Their definitions are easily found for such meaning ( example ). However, just for kicks, I did a Google Ngram search for the word "google" and "Google" and got some interesting results : There is a drastic spike in the use of the word "google" around 1900, well before the website, or even the internet, existed. There is then some use throughout the next hundred years, where it starts to climb (because we now have Google). Clearly this word had some meaning in the past ‒ does anyone know what it was? Answer Here's an attempt for an answer drawing from credible and/or official sources. The best sources we have are the books themselves that create the Ngram in the question. If we click through to some of the results between 1898 and 1902 (for example), we can categorise them...