Blog

What is the meaning of the following sentence, said from a person that is at home, and is going outside? I will go up to the stores. Answer "I will go to the stores". The "up" is fairly meaningless; it may refer to the stores being "uptown" from one, north of one, above one vertically, or have no real referent at all. It's much the same as the New Jersey, USA colloquialism of "going down the shore", which means "going to the shore" regardless of where one is situated relative to the shore.

The whole sentence is "Prices to be set when the collection arrives". I guess it's a future tense but in a passive voice tense form, So it's not very clear for me why we didn't use "will be set" instead of "to be set" and when we use it? Thanks in advance

A colleague of mine wrote the following sentence: I have worked on the below mentioned issues: Now, I'm not a native speaker, and certainly not an authority on grammar. I construct sentences based on what I can only describe as intuition (what sounds right based on what I've previously read/ heard.) I told him below mentioned issues didn't sound right and I thought it should be issues mentioned below instead. His counter: He was reluctant to end with a prespostion. If above mentioned is valid, below mentioned should be, too. I don't subscribe to the notion that prepositions can't end a sentence. But I didn't wan't a debate about that. I replied: The phrase which the preposition governs goes without saying (as in, mentioned below/above this sentence ) above mentioned isn't really two words. It's a one-word adjective . He was satisfied, but he insisted he had seen it being written as two words. Later, out of curiosity, I did an ngram search , whic

He has two sisters who live in southern and northern California, respectively. I saw this on IMDB and I was wondering if the respectively was grammatically correct. Since nothing is being listed off, is it even needed? Edit: Josh Radnor , 7th in the list If you were wondering, lol Answer It's not needed because, as you said, nothing is being enumerated. If, instead, it said "he has a sister and a brother who live in southern and northern CA, respectively", that tells you something -- the sister lives in southern CA and the brother lives in northern CA. I don't know if the usage you found is wrong or just unnecessary.

six /sɪks/ and sit /sɪt/ Why do they have the same phonetic symbol /sɪ/, if /sɪ/ is pronounced differently in those two words? The main focus in my question isn't the difference in pronunciation of /sɪ/ between accents. More precisely, why is the same /sɪ/ pronounced differently in different words in the same accent? I'm an English learner, and that confuses me. I have made a video for demonstrating the question: https://www.youtube.com/embed/WTabk66hGfk (Sounds in the video are not mine, they were downloaded from a website) More appropriate examples could be: sick /sɪk/ , sit /sɪt/ and sip /sɪp/ Answer Consonants, as Ladefoged has said, are just different ways of starting and ending vowels. The difference you are hearing are the two different ways of ending the vowel. Bringing the tongue dorsum up to make a complete closure with the velum is a relatively slow gesture that changes the resonant properties of your mouth. Raising the tongue dorsum up towards the velum ca

If a person shares my name, in Dutch there is the word "naamgenoot", meaning roughly 'member of the same name '. John A : Hi, my name is "John" John B : O, then we're insert solution word here ! Similarly, 'classmate' is 'klasgenoot' in Dutch 'roommate' is 'kamergenoot' in Dutch I'm pretty sure I cannot call someone with the same name as mine a 'namemate' :) Edit Because sceptics appear to be frustrated mightily by an apparent lack of research, there was some discussion on this in chat, with no satisfactory conclusion. According to WP /Merriam Webster namesake appears to be linked to intentional name correspondance (being named after someone). There may be a US/UK English divide there. "I was named after my grandfather. I am his namesake." - usage per Wikipedia Also, the introduction seems to hint at much broader meaning: " Namesake is a term used to characterize a person, place, thing, qual

There are instances when I have difficulties with the agreement between the subject and the predicate. Which of these should I say: Neither you nor I am to blame Neither you nor I are to blame.

I'm often confused by the meaning of two nouns in a row. Specifically, I came across this word in a TV show: Demon Hunter Without looking at the context of the show, I feel like this word can mean either "A hunter who hunts demon" OR "A demon who is also a hunter". Which one is the right one? Similarly, words like: Child abuser Most people would understand it as "a person who abuses a child", but why can't it mean "an abuser who happens to be just a child"? Answer The short answer is that there's no reason they can't mean "a demon who hunts" or "a child who abuses". The long answer is that we won't instinctively parse them that way: in general English usage a construct like this is understood to be [attributive noun] [noun] where the attributive is modifying the one that follows. In the case of your first example, we know we have a hunter. What kind of hunter? Demon. A hunter who hunts demons. In the seco

Seesaw and teeter totter are two names for the same piece of playground equipment. I grew up using the word teeter totter mostly, but was aware of seesaw, as it was used in books. I was wondering whether it is a regional difference or a generational difference. From thefreedictionary , I found that there are even more terms used for this equipment: tilt or a tilting board , teedle board , dandle or dandle board . Teeter or teeterboard , and teeter-totter , which is probably the most common term after seesaw . So it is indeed a regional term, which also explains why Google Ngrams has no recorded use of teeter totter in British English: Link to Ngram for seesaw teeter totter in British English Yet, if seesaw was in use since before 1800, how and why did teeter totter come into use seemingly all of a sudden just before 1920? Link to Ngram for seesaw teeter totter in American English Link to Online Etymology Dictionary for seesaw Answer The answer to your question is that it is a regio

I usually come late to the daily scrum meetings (but I do compensate, by working late!). For the last 6 working days, I have been coming on time, or even slightly earlier. At lunch, I told my manager this I have never been late for the daily scrum for this sprint (last 6 working days). He told me that my usage is incorrect because, I cannot use never and restrict it to a time period. Never , apparently, is for eternity, e.g, I have never drunk Russian vodka. What is the correct usage? Answer Never means not ever and the timespan of ever is from the beginning of time to the end of time. In day to day use, the timespan of ever/never is the lifetime of the subject of the sentence. They are also used as intensifiers, for example: I would never eat radish with fish. This is an intensified version of I wouldn't eat radish with fish. The use of never here just means "in my current state of mind, this is not going to happen" or "I strongly advise against". Anothe

I am wondering if there is a word that is a verb and describes an operation that is the opposite of ignoring, but not in the sense of appreciate . I want a short way to describe the operation that follows ignoring, i.e. un-ignoring. But "un-ignore" doesn't sound good. Do you have any better alternatives? Context: The context is computer science. I have a set of automatically extracted semantic tags, which are used to characterize the contents of a text. A user might find some of them uninteresting, e.g. bare names of people like Paul. So there is an operation of ignoring such tags. Yet, in the future, some of them might be found interesting. So I need another operation allowing for un-ignoring such previously ignored tags. Answer Reconsider — M-W verb To think carefully about (someone or something) again especially in order to change a choice or decision you have already made "She refused to reconsider her decision not to loan us the money." "Local op

When two persons help each other and one said "thank you" then is it right to say "Thank you" in the response. Answer I personally would respond with "No, thank you " or "thank you ." That is, there's an emphasis that I consider the other person to have been of equal or greater help. (American English)

Why do we call frivolous, lame or naff things cheesy? Answer Interestingly enough, Etymonline suggests that it has nothing to do with cheese : "cheap, inferior," 1896, from Urdu chiz "a thing," from Persian chiz , from O.Pers. * ciš-ciy "something," from PIE pronomial stem * kwo- (see who ). Picked up by British in India by 1818 and used in the sense of "a big thing" (especially in the phrase the real chiz ). By 1858, cheesy had evolved a slang meaning of "showy," which led to the modern, ironic sense. Cheese , on the other hand, ultimately comes from Latin ( caseus ), taking a detour via West Germanic (compare German Käse , Dutch kaas ).

Can you explain to me whether I should or should not use ‑s at the end of the verb allow in this sentence? This function requires that the container class allow[s] random access The sentence in the book I read wrote allow without ‑s . However, the container class is a third-person singular, so the ‑s must be required. Is that right? Answer This is an example of the subjunctive: The Subjunctive is used to emphasize urgency or importance. It is used after certain expressions (see below). Examples: I suggest that he study. Is it essential that we be there? Don recommended that you join the committee. http://www.englishpage.com/minitutorials/subjunctive.html

What is the origin of the word tada — as used as an exclamation? Is it an onomatopoeic form of sound effects used in, say, television or does its origin lie elsewhere? Answer "Tada" is indeed an onomatopoeia (from OED): Imitative of the sound of the musical flourish or fanfare (composed of one short note followed by one long note) which often accompanies an entrance, trick, etc., in various kinds of performance. The word is imitating this classic horn sound . Here is the first citation in 1913: Coming front in utter disgust, he [sc. a conjuror] tells them [sc. the orchestra] that that won't do, that he wants something like ‘tadaa!’ from all of them. They seem to understand, so he goes off again. On his reappearance, however, he is met with a loud tumult, as all the orchestra shout out in unison the word ‘tadaa!’.

Comments on this question considered whether the verb be could be modified by an adverb. This seems a question worth pursuing in its own right, so may I ask what completely modifies in the following sentence, if it doesn't modify be ? Whatever you choose to be, be completely. Edit: And how about these? He is almost a doctor. Finally he is a doctor. Answer To be certainly can, because it has its existential meaning, as well as its copulative meaning. To painfully be, not to painfully be. I find it interesting though that while this suggests more motive for the dilemma than the original it weakens it not just in ruining the scansion (it's not like I thought I could improve on Shakespeare) but because the existential meaning is so much rarer than the copulative that the misinterpretation "to be or not to be what?" is easier to make here. (We could explore the effect of the decision as to whether or not to split the infinitive on various phrases that modify the exis

When using a trademark as a verb ("hoovering", "xeroxing", "photoshopping" and "googling"), should it be capitalized or uncapitalized? Strictly speaking, Google and Adobe are opposed to their trademarks being used as verbs or as generic trademarks, but that's a separate topic. Answer It depends on popularity and usage. As brand names become more and more familiar, they evolve into regular words in the English language. A common example that comes to mind is the British English word, sellotape . One would hardly, if ever, find this verb capitalized. Google is still in the works; one may find that its capitalization is not consistent, hence, googling and Googling . I must add that using g/Google as a verb is not yet considered formal. Some quick dictionary research will reveal that it is standard practice not to capitalize proprietary nouns-turned-verbs. In some cases, the capitalized equivalent is also acceptable. This is a rule that large

I am not a native speaker. So please excuse my "silly" question. I have learned in my school that one can only use the word "where" in contexts describing locations, positions [or directions]. But I have come across two sentences used by a native speaker and I wonder if they are correct. 1) It can fill in details where experimental methods cannot. 2) Computer simulations are accurate on predicting molecular motions but work poorly where quantum effects are important. Can someone explain to me why he can use the word "where"? Many thanks!

I’m looking for a word that could be used to describe someone that does whatever he wants and doesn't listen to anyone else. Someone like Julius Caesar maybe?

Please consider the following sentences: It's part of the life. It's a part of the life. What is the difference in the meaning between these sentences? Why are we allowed to omit the article from the first sentence?

Because Middle English was a hodgepodge mélange of Old English (a Germanic tongue) and Norman French (a Romance language), it seems like Middle English was actually a kind of pidgin or creole . My question is: Was it such, and if so, which one was it: a creole or pidgin ? If so, when did it stop being such — or didn’t it stop being such? Related musings of my own that I don’t expect answers for follow. I do wonder whether in today’s world of English becoming the lingua anglica of common communication as French gave rise to the lingua franca of yesteryear, such a creolization might not be recurring, at least in certain places with a dominant alternate language, such as in India or Singapore. I’ve found several articles on the notion, but they are unclear about what is happening today with World English and how that relates to what happened after 1066. Perhaps the English of tomorrow will look as much like today’s English as Chaucer looked like Beowulf . Answer I think this is an

This answer to the question Camouflage is to sight as ____ is to sound? includes the sentence: " I obfuscated our conversation with loud music to avoid recording ." The linked definition says: The action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible. ‘ when confronted with sharp questions they resort to obfuscation ’ [count noun] ‘ ministers put up mealy-mouthed denials and obfuscations ’ Origin: Late Middle English: from late Latin obfuscatio(n-), from obfuscare ‘to darken or obscure’ (see obfuscate). The most up voted answer there (and the one I like) is mask . When I think of obfuscate, I think of manipulating information to confuse or misdirect someone's interpretation of a situation or a communication, so I was surprised to see this use. Yes, sound is information in some sense, but the information we extract from the sound of speech is not the same as the initial waveforms and vibrations in the air. Can one obfuscate a conversation by masking it acousti

Although Children's books is what everybody says, I would like to understand why the genitive case is applied in such case. If I write books for children, children is an adjective here; not the owners of my book! The word "children" just defines or characterizes the type of books I write. Therefore, it's an adjective. So, I understand that genitive/possessive case ("I write children's book") is incorrect grammar. My question is: is the genitive case here really accepted as right? If I use "I write children books" (following the grammar principle) as as I say "I write pets books" (books about pets, and not possessions of pets) - would I be incorrect? Why?

This might take some background. Role-Playing Games Stack Exchange , like any other site, sometimes receives charged or leading questions, and people don't want to respond to the lead laid out for them and want to in some way challenge the premise of the question. Sometimes the question doesn't make sense such that an answerer may feel the only valid response is "mu", or they feel it's an XY problem and refuse to answer the actual question and instead tackle the problem they think lies behind it: for example, "my friend keeps kicking me, what shin guards should I buy" would likely get answered with "tell your friend to stop kicking you." Is there a term, phrase, or expression we use in English to concisely describe this type of response to a question, where people refuse to take on the question at face value and instead tackle some deeper premise behind it or take it on from a different angle? I ask this because at some point circa 2014 it b

In my quest to grasp the dichotomy between "on" and "in" I have found another example that left me in doubt. Initializes the widgets added on the tabs. Validates the information on the widgets. At the first example I think the widget is being added in / into the tab. As far as the second example once again I think the information is validated in the widget not on the widget because the information is inside the widget. Could you help me here clarifying this ? Note : If you are not familiar with the concept of tab and widget you can check it here . Answer Although a tab is technically a specific type of container element which you would think calls for "in" as the preferred preposition, the usage metaphor treats it as a sheet of paper, ONto which things are placed or written. A widget, although also a container element, is a more generic term; thus it is treated as an undifferentiated container, and then the metaphor clearly calls for things to be place

Somehow I am compelled to use the word "metal" to describe strong "intestinal fortitude", and perseverance however I can't find the spelling or any synonym like this. Does a word that sounds like "metal" exist when describing an individual's character? I'm looking for modern or historic usage of the word. Answer Mettle Defined by Oxford Dictionaries as: a person's ability to cope well with difficulties; spirit and resilience. It is commonly seen in the phrase: (put someone) on their mettle meaning, (of a demanding situation) test someone's ability to face difficulties. ‘there were regular public meetings where local MPs were put on their mettle and remorselessly pilloried’ Source: ODO Other constructions are possible too, for example: test their mettle , apparently an American version (thanks, @PeterCordes) show your mettle , etc. Origins According to Merriam-Webster , mettle was, as @Sparhawk points out in the comments, originally si

This is from the tabletop game Warhammer 40k rulebook: The turn Marines arrive they may not assault. I always assumed it means they are not allowed to assault. But the meaning "they may choose not to assault" (as opposed to "they must always assault") would be perfectly legitimate too, as far as game rules go. So how do you tell whether it limits your choices (not allowed to) or extends them (allowed not to)? How it should be worded if the meaning was "allowed not to"? Answer 'may not' is only slightly ambiguous in general ("is not allowed" is preferred to "can choose not to"). In this context though, it definitely takes on the "is not allowed" meaning because the negative, "they may assault" was not used. That is, though the literal meaning is ambiguous, the implication (because of not using the negation) forces the interpretation to be "is not allowed".

I've been trying to think of an adjective that expresses having two (or perhaps more) conflicting emotions or opinions simultaneously. Can anyone think of one? Answer Ambivalent ( adj. ) ambivalence and ambivalency noun, originally psychol the concurrent adherence to two opposite or conflicting views, feelings, etc about someone or something. ambivalent adj. ambivalently adverb. ETYMOLOGY: 1912: from German Ambivalenz, from ambi-, modelled on 'equivalence'; see equivalent. Source

Why is the plural version of deer identical to the singular version? If mouse became mice , then why did the singular deer not change to something else in the plural?

I've come across phrases like "What price freedom?" a lot. I speak British English and it doesn't read nicely to me. It seems some words are missing. Does it mean "What is the price of X?"? Where did this phrase originate from and why is it used in this way?

I wonder when verbs like think or know are followed by that ; I encountered both forms, is there a difference? For example, I know that he did it. // I know he did it. Are the two sentences both correct? Answer Yes, they are both correct. I'd use the second because that's more idiomatic and shorter than the first one. There are times when you don't need "that" in a sentence and this seems to be one of those instances.

There is a girl in my lab who, despite having been corrected numerous times in the past, continues to disregard the lab procedures regarding chain of command. She constantly goes over supervisors' heads, stepping far out of line and creating somewhat major problems. She is a snobbish type with an aura of undeserved superiority and arrogance that borders on a personality disorder and, if I were better read, I would have a much grander metaphoric comparison for her inflated sense of self worth. She is unwilling, or simply unable, to admit her mistakes and has an excuse or response at the ready for any and every question/action/accusation that comes her way. Anyway, she did it again this morning and I have been obsessed over finding a word that accurately describes this behavior of intentionally ignoring and disregarding her position and the rules set forth. I feel like it's on the tip of my tongue and that I know the word, but just can't remember. Any ideas?

I am wondering if you would consider the word hitherto to be outdated. I prefer it over its definition, "until now" and know of no equal alternative. I have been marked down (on papers) for using this "archaic" word. So, is this word outdated? If so, what is a good alternative?

This came up in an email discussion - we are arguing about the merits and demerits of a certain approach, and I mentioned what I thought was a drawback to a scheme. To that, my colleague replied : "Okay, we can table this, but I just want to clarify something..." after which he went on to elucidate his views.... Does that mean that the discussion is closed on this ? If so, did he mean to say "I agree to what you say, but I wasn't totally wrong either" or something similar, or is it the reverse ? Answer In American English, to table something means to postpone discussion on something. It might mean to postpone it indefinitely, but usually it just means that the discussion should be resumed at a later date. (As others have pointed out, in British English it means the exact opposite. Two countries divided by a common language, as someone said .) Edit: Etymonline notes : table (v.) in parliamentary sense, 1718, originally "to lay on the (speaker's) table

On a business website regarding the takeover of a radio station, I noticed this unusual phrase: Can't really see Orion Media changing Gold much, unless Global take their ball home and say that if you don't want Heart you can't have Gold and take away the licensing deal. What exactly does "take your ball and go home" mean? Is it a sporting metaphor? Is it a good phrase to use in writing (that is, informal writing), or not?

when can we remove 'that'? I've heard different opinions I bought the book that is required for this course I bought the book required for this course I recommend that you take my advice I recommend you take my advice I know that you are correct I know you are correct the report that was approved by the board was written by Susan the report approved by the board was written by Susan We are studying advertisement strategies that other companies use to recruit minorities We are studying advertisement strategies used by other companies to recruit minorities

I know that who is used when asking about a subject ( Who is at the door? ) and whom is used when asking about an object ( By whom was the door opened? ). How do you determine which one to use when the object becomes the subject of another clause? For example, take the sentence: I gave the prize to ____ deserved it most. Would it be whomever because it's the object of "gave," or would it be whoever because it's the subject of "deserved"? Is their a hard-and-fast rule to rely on in situations like this? Answer "Whoever" would be correct. The blank in your sentence is not the object of "gave". The entire clause "___ deserved it most" is the object of "gave", which in turn means you'll use "whoever", which is the subject of "deserved". The rule here is exactly like what you said: who = subject, whom = object. The trick in this case is understanding the clauses in this sentence.

In a gaming scene the word cheese is used to describe strategies or ways of playing that are really powerful and do not require much skill from the players side at the same time. The term is widely used both in video games and tabletop games alike. It is extremely subjective, there's no strict definition of what is "cheese" and what is not, but that's besides the point. What are the origins of it? What has cheese to do with "undeserved" victories, cheap strategies, etc.? Answer I'm not sure about the Korean explanation, but it definitely predates the strategy game Starcraft, which was first released in 1998, and was at least five years earlier in beat-'em-up games such as Street Fighter II . Searching Usenet, I found cheese strategy used on Aug 22, 1993 in alt.games.sf2 in a post called " SF2:HF(Turbo) Ken Strategy Guide ". <=-Zangief-=> He cheats a lot. You will get tough breaks every once in a while in this fight, so bear (heh)

I cannot quite understand why the 'L' is not doubled when forming 'detailed' from 'detail'. Is that an exemption to the consonant doubling, or did I simply not understand the rules? From the answers to When is "L" doubled? When you have a verb that ends in a vowel plus "L" and you are going to add an ending that begins with a vowel then you double the "L". Example: "They have tunnelled under the wall." vs "They have detailed the plan to tunnel under the wall." Answer In British English, in which L is often doubled before inflectional suffixes, it is normally only doubled when there is just one of the letters A, E, I, O, U directly before the last consonant before the suffix: detail[ed] (two of these letters, A & I, behind the suffix - no double L). travel[led] (just one E before the suffix, therefore double L). L is an exception in British English. It doesn't behave for doubling purposes like other

I'm looking for a single word synonym of evasion, fudging or dodging the question that does not imply deceit in the answer (apart from possible awareness of the respondent that they are not actually answering the question, and perhaps an intent to divert the questioner to other topics). Answers could be verbose or blunt non-sequiturs. This is similar but not identical to "What do you call a response which does not address the question?" There answers have other connotations, such as a word or phrase for an inappropriate response (such as a "non sequitur"). This is a new question, which differs particularly in that I'm looking for a word that does not imply an intention to deceive.

A friend of mine is telling me that " have to " is not a modal verb, even thought I have learned that it is. So is the " have to" a modal verb or not? If not which are the reasons?

How can I know, precisely, when to differentiate the sounds of the letter a, like in: apple and vault ? Answer This is an extremely broad question, actually, and I doubt there can be a single, definite, comprehensive answer. I will try to provide a few quick-and-dirty rules of thumb, but be aware that you will probably find exceptions to every single one of them. Also, as Colin Fine points out , note that things are not pronounced the same everywhere. For example, can't can be pronounced as /kaːnt/, /kɑːnt/, /kænt/, and /keənt/, depending on what variety of English we are talking about. As a second example, the vowels in Mary , marry , and merry sound identical in certain dialects but not in others . All that being said, on to the rules of thumb. First, the basics. Here are the Wiktionary usage notes for a : In English, the letter a usually denotes the near-open front unrounded vowel ( IPA : /æ/), as in pad , the open back unrounded vowel (IPA: /ɑː/) as in father , or, foll

I dont know how to describe it properly. I just translated what description to English that I use in my native language ( Bangla /বাংলা) The situation is like this, some people always needs other help to do thing. They seek help for every little steps. If you aggregate the helps you'll find that they didn't do anything by themselves. Some people always helps them to do every small task. For example, Robert asks Andrew how to post question. Then he asks where to type title even though the Title input label is seen very clearly. After that Robert will ask " Hey Andrew, Could you tell me some good title sentences that I can put here? " it goes on. You'll see Robert is not actually asking question. He is asking too many details that it makes Andrew do the whole task. My question is how do Andrew tell, "I can not feed you every time by my own hand" ? Is there any single word? any Idiom? Answer I think the idiom you are looking for is: I can't keep spoon

“between” vs “among” I know the word "between" is used when we are concerned with two things. But can it be used with more than two things? Answer According to OED , between usually involves only two limits, but when boundaries are concerned, there may be more than two limits. For e.g., Switzerland lies between France, Italy, Austria and Germany. Our house is between the wood, the river and the village.

How do you pronounce "would've", "should've" and "could've"? Answer In IPA, that's would've - /wʊdəv/ - WOULD-uhv should've - /ʃʊdəv/ - SHOULD-uhv could've - /kʊdəv/ - COULD-uhv where "uhv" is a schwa sound followed by a V sound. Frequently, in fast or informal speech, the V sound will be elided (omitted), and the results will sound like "would-a", "should-a", "could-a". Edit : I will note that “woulda, shoulda, coulda” (and the same words in different orders) is a very informal idiom that refers dismissively to regretting missed opportunities. The Corpus of Contemporary American English has about 23 examples of all three of them used together, mostly in fiction and spoken English, but also in quoted speech in a few newspaper and magazine articles.

I have 10 beans. Jim has four times more . Is this a valid sentence? And, if so, does it mean Jim has 40 or 50 beans? Answer I would recommend against using four times more in this context, although it would generally be understood to mean 40. What I would say is four times as many. Googling four times more and four times as many , it seems that four times more is generally used with uncountable nouns, and four times as many with countable nouns. four times more cancer-causing tar. four times more carbon emissions. versus four times as many journalists four times as many males. four times as many films. I won't do more than mention the confusing construction four times as many more , which I would recommend against using, as I think it's ambiguous. UPDATE: The grammatical rule is: use X times as many with countable nouns, and X times as much with uncountable nouns. The construction X times more is grammatical with both, but as many and as much are clearer in this cont

I learnt (or I think I learnt) that to express the immediate future, you can use to be + past participle: I am to make one of the most important decisions in my life. She is to be elected as the mayor of the city. Is it correct or did I make that up? [Edit: take->make ] Answer Is to v. can be used in a few ways, and does not necessarily state the immediate future— or state the future at all. Directives, for example, can be written this way: Employees are to wash their hands thoroughly and regularly. Enforcement is to cease and desist as per the injunction. As you note, you can express a prediction or expectation of the future in this way, but it is not necessarily the immediate future. Scientists say Betelgeuse is to explode within the next million years. In conversational English, it sounds somewhat formal or stilted, and we would more likely say something or someone is going to v. (or planning to , or in Texas fixin' to , or if truly immediate about to or just about to )

I have seen sentences similar to the following: (1) See the reference above . (2) See the reference below . And, (3) See the above reference. But not, (4) See the below reference. Are all these forms acceptable? Which is/are preferred in formal writing? Answer There is not really any difference between reference above and above reference , but some publishers may prefer one or the other. Below reference will be rare, if it is found at all.

Earlier today on another site in the network, a user posted a question like this: Is there a better way to use [x]? There was a lot more to it, but the very first comment addressed this question directly and explicitly: Why do you want to use [x] and not [y]? Also have you considered using [z]? I took this latter sentence as: You should consider using [z] instead of [x]. And proceeded to explain why [z] is not a valid alternative to [x]. The commenter vehemently insists that it should be clear and obvious that by starting the sentence with "also," I should know that they actually meant: You should consider using [z] in addition to [x]. Can someone please explain from an English and grammar standpoint why having "also" at the beginning of the sentence - with or without a comma - does not associate with the thoughts in that sentence the way he/she thinks that it does? Answer "Also" when used in the beginning of a phrase is usually used to introduce a new po

Which of the following is correct? What he is looking for are books written by Jane Austin. What he is looking for is books written by Jane Austin. Is it are to agree with the object books or is to agree with the subject he ? Answer I believe either one is actually correct, since the thing that determines the verb's case is the noun that comes first in the predicate nominative expression (on the left side of the imaginary equals sign). In this sentence, that first noun is what , which is technically a pronoun, but stands in for the noun that comes later. But of course, at this point in the sentence, it has not yet been determined whether the predicate noun that what is referring to is singular or plural, so the verb is essentially given the benefit of the doubt and is allowed to take either case, regardless of what the predicate noun turns out to be. This flexibility really only arises out of the fact that what is naturally ambiguous in number. If the sentence had begun The

Some one asked this question: He is loved. This is something that I've always kind of wondered. In a sentence like this, is loved a verb or an adjective? Can it be considered either? The simple answer was this: Loved is still a verb, but it's the past participle, so it plays a similar role to an adjective. My question is why is loved here classified as a past participle and not simple past. If the sentence was: He was loved. In that sentence would loved still be a past participle or would it be simple past? Thank you.

It is said that "To give added punch, articles are often dropped in the titles" Source: http://www.davidappleyard.com/english/articles.htm Is there any general rule or reference about dropping articles, especially in academic research papers?

Recently I ran across the sentence: "Just why the law prescribed thirty-nine lashes instead of forty or forty-one and so on, must needs remain unanswered." How did a plural verb like "needs" wind up as an adverb? Is it alone in this phenomenon, or are there other examples that appear to be an odd misplacement of a second verb, but are actually adverbs as well? Answer Needs is an old-fashioned or even archaic adverb in modern English. It comes from the noun need and the Germanic masculine/neuter genitive ending -s , which at some point in time came to be used in older English and other Germanic languages to form adverbs. From the Oxford English Dictionary : In once, twice, thrice, hence, since, etc., the suffix is written differently. In against, alongst, amongst, amidst, and the dialectal onst (see once ), the original -es, -s has become - st . This suffix is still frequent and semi-productive with other stems in Dutch: onverwachts "unexpectedly",

and is such interpretation the norm? When something went from 4 units to 8 units, most authoritative sources seem to agree with the use of "a two-fold increase" , even though what was actually increased is more like "one-fold", i.e. the original quantity. But if the "two-fold increase" is the correct usage, why most people seem to interpret "a 100% increase" the same thing? Answer Yes, the correct usage is that 100% increase is the same as a two-fold increase. The reason is that when using percentages we are referring to the difference between the final amount and the initial amount as a fraction (or percent) of the original amount. So, if something gets multiplied by two, it experiences a positive increase equal to 100% of the original amount. The confusion arises because the word "increase" is used differently in each case. In the first case we mean the change between initial and final value; while in the second situation we interpre

I would just like to clarify if in this kind of sentence, where you state the name of a person, are commas always needed to offset Anne ? His sister, Anne, was not feeling well. Or is it acceptable to remove the commas? If yes, when? Thank you! Answer The traditional explanation for when to use commas around Anne is as follows: If the unidentified he in the sentence has only one sister (Anne), then the word Anne is functioning as an appositive, and you would set it off with commas: His sister, Anne, was not feeling well. But if the he in the sentence has two or more sisters, the word Anne is identifying which one was not feeling well and so would not be set in commas: His sister Anne was not feeling well. Here is a discussion of how to punctuate appositives, from Words Into Type , third edition (1974): Appositives. Set off words in appositives by commas [Relevant example:] He was replaced by a German leader, Odoacer, and thus a ruler from the barbaric tribes was recognized in Ro

Possible Duplicates: When do I use “I” instead of “me?” Which is correct, “you and I” or “you and me”? While reading an article from a certain newspaper this morning on grammar pet peeves, I noticed one that I had never heard of before, concerning the usage of "me" vs. "I." The examples were something like: "The pool amazed my friend and me"; and "My friend and I were amazed by the fireworks." I have never, ever heard of using "____ and me," but the writer of this article believes that when using the passive, it should be "____ and me." Is this correct?

Is there a difference in nuance when using once, twice or thrice instead of one time, two times or three times, especially when counting occurrences? It has happened twice before. It has happened two times before. Are they always interchangeable? What about other usages (e.g. when comparing magnitude)? The blue book is twice as heavy as the red one. The blue book is two times as heavy as the red one. Answer It's actually quite unusual to see two times except in a small number of specific contexts... two times two is four (reciting multiplication tables) three tablets two times a day (medical prescriptions) the interval between these two times (where "times" is a noun) my salary rose two times last year (ugly, IMHO, but people do say this sometimes) I can't think offhand of any other usages where twice wouldn't be preferred. The picture is very different with thrice , where the short form is almost archaic, and the longer form is standard.

Where does the expression "ta" come from? Wikipedia has only this to say: "ta!", slang, Exclam. Thank you! {Informal}, an expression of gratitude but no additional information or links about its genesis. I have only ever heard it from englishmen and -women. Is it used anywhere else in the world? How did it come about? What is its history? Answer Online Etymology Dictionary says: ta : 1772, "natural infantile sound of gratitude" [Weekley]. Although possibly originating from the imitative of baby talk, this is in widespread use in the North of England and Wales as an informal "thanks" amongst adults. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language says: ta : Chiefly British Used to express thanks. ETYMOLOGY: Baby-talk alteration of "thank you".

What is the plural of syntax ? Would it be syntacies ? What rule would govern this kind of construction? Answer As FumbleFingers has commented, the plural is syntaxes . That's probably because the normal plural -es is added to the root word, or it may possibly be because the Greek/Late Latin word from which syntax is derived is syntaxis and Greek words ending in -is are pluralised with -es . If we were to create a spoof plural for syntax it would be syntaces (words ending -x get -ces ; the preceding vowel can change as in index/indices ). But no-one uses that, or would know what it meant.

At various times I've supposed the informal Australian phrase “not for quids” (which apparently is analogous to “not at any price”) derives from quid , which refers to sovereigns, or guineas. At other times I've imagined it derives from quid pro quo , “ This for that ”. What evidence is available about the origin of “not for quids”? Note, quoting from the Cambridge Idioms Dictionary , thefreedictionary says the following of “not for quids”: If you say that you would not do something for quids, you mean that you would hate to do that thing [ eg ] I wouldn't do your job for quids. Answer Not for quids is similar to not for love nor/or money : if you say that you cannot or will not do something for love nor money, you mean that it is impossible to do or that you will not do it whatever happens It's incredibly popular. You can't get tickets for love nor money. He's hopeless and unreliable. I wouldn't give him a job for love nor money. The Concise New Partridg

It is hard to describe the action, so here is an example: What is the word or phrase that best describes this noise made by a person?

To classify species we use a method called: dichotomous biological key. It works base on true and false cycles. In computer sciences true and fulse working is called boolean and binary is a 0 and 1 system (which is like true and false). What is the difference between them? Can I use term "Binary biological key"? Are these really different? (I have edited this question following Daniel's and MT-Head's comments.) Answer Boolean refers to Boolean algebra, named after George Boole. While Boolean true/false values have other uses in computer science - a heavy use of it today - the thing that makes it Boolean isn't just that it can such values can only be true or false , but that one can also do Boolean algebra on it (e.g. in the expression x ∧ (y ∨ ¬z) expressed in computer code as e.g. x && (y || !z) (C-style), x AND (y OR NOT z) (Basic-style) and others). If we had a programming language that allowed of branching on a two-way value, but didn't allow

Is "need of religion" grammatically incorrect as opposed to "need for religion"? Or "need of salt" vs. "need for salt"? Answer With "of" : have need of : This is very formal usage, though, as simply using "need" would suffice They had need of shelter. in need of : This is more commonly used in everyday English I am in need of clothing. With "for" : need for : There is [a] need for discipline in the classroom. Using the article "a" in the above example would be superfluous but it may emphasize that specific need. With a qualifier, the article becomes useful, although it can also be done away with, as in: There is [an] urgent need for discipline in the classroom. have a need for : I have a need for food. This usage is awkward, at best, but it is not grammatically incorrect. However, it is more commonly used in the negative I have no need for spiritual enlightenment.

I've always been confused by the terms washroom , restroom , bathroom , lavatory , toilet and toilet room . My impression is that Canadians would rather say washroom while Americans would probably say bathroom or Saint John's in the same situation. I guess the difference here is not only in different kinds of English, but also in whether one is referring to a room in their house or in some public place. Which do you usually use? Please specify the difference if you use more than two from those six with different meanings, and also where you are from (i.e. what type of English you speak). Answer I'm American, and I've never heard the bathroom referred to as St. John's . It's colloquially referred to as the john , but not politely. Usually this room is referred to euphemistically, and there are degrees of social class associated with the terms. Here are a few, in order of most to least polite or high-class. The gentlemen's (or ladies') room The men