Blog

What's the difference between scenery and landscape ? In what situations can I use them interchangeably? The scenery/landscape at the school is beautiful. Does landscape sound natural in the sentence above?

Here are two parts of the US Constitution that would today be treated as having spelling errors: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws. (Art. I, Sec. 10, Cl. 2) ...no State, without it's Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate. (Art. V) When did prescriptive grammar specifically begin to target the preposed possessive pronoun it's as a bad spelling, and recommend exclusively its ? See related question on SE.

My fish's native habitat is rice fields. My fish's native habitat are rice fields. Which one is correct? I'm pretty sure it's the first, since 'is' modifies 'habitat,' but it still sounds weird... Answer It may sound weird, but it is still correct. Singular nouns take singular verbs. In this case, the singular noun is habitat . Thus, is is the correct form of the verb to be in this case. My fish's native habitat is rice fields. To make it sound more natural, you could reverse the order thus: Rice fields are my fish's native habitat.

@ZhanlongZheng asked the following question on ELL : Barbosa: I defended her mightily enough, but she be sunk nonetheless. Jack Sparrow: If that ship be sunk properly, you should be sunk with it. — Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides I don't understand why be is used here twice. Is it archaic? Why use this form? I think that the second instance of be could be present subjunctive in the third person, with the subjunctive being appropriate due to it being in a conditional clause . I'm less sure about the first instance. No doubt, use of the subjunctive has fallen out of favor, and nobody talks like that today. However, I'd like to know, were these conjugations of be ever considered proper archaic English, or are they strictly pirate talk invented by Disney screenwriters?

In Ludwig Wittgenstein's writings, I often see long dashes (both em-dash, and one even longer, shown in red circles). I can sense (at least I believe I do—perhaps, from the writer's point of view, the two thoughts are tightly-connected, yet they have to be separate sentences) their function; but is there such a usage? Never seen any punctuation guide mentioning such a usage.

Why do people say "I'm sorry" at the beginning of a sentence? For example: "I'm sorry, but I don't care for her one bit." On the same note, I would like to understand the meaning of "thank you very much" at the end of a sentence, thus: "I said I'll take it to go, thank you very much!" Any light shed will be greatly appreciated.

Definition of impolite in OD: not having or showing good manners; rude. Definition of unpolite in TFD: Not polite; impolite; rude. Answer The key difference is that unpolite is now archaic/incorrect and so should be avoided, though it was once the more common form (see Google Ngram Viewer ). When both were still in use, it appears they were largely synonymous. For example, Webster's 1828 dictionary defines them as follows: UNPOLI'TE , a. Not refined in manners; not elegant. Not civil; not courteous; rude. [See Impolite .] IMPOLI'TE , a. Not of polished manners; unpolite ; uncivil; rude in manners.

Listening to the recent film production of Macbeth with Patrick Stewart, I noticed that Duncan says: Give me your hand. Conduct me to mine host. Obviously, it's in the text (Act 1, Scene 6). I'm curious as to whether in Shakespeare's time (and dialect) this would have been pronounced with an aspirated 'h', or whether the 'h' was dropped. Presumably 'honour' did not have an aspirated 'h' in the second quotation below. This seems to appear in other works: As to take up mine honour's pawn and Mine honour is my life; both grow in one: Take honour from me, and my life is done: Then, dear my liege, mine honour let me try; In that I live and for that will I die. (Richard II, Act I, Scene 1) Looking further, in 'All's well that ends well' (Act IV, Scene 2) , we have this: Here, take my ring: My house, mine honour, yea, my life, be thine, And I'll be bid by thee. Where we have my house , rather than mine house , which suggests to m

(I made a search for this question on this forum but surprisingly did not find related questions. Which is odd because surely this question is asked often.) First, the sentence I'm trying to use redundant/superfluous in: From what I know, fiction is created from fantasy by people you call authors. At the risk of sounding discourteous let me say that I do not trust fantasies. Life is not a fabrication played out on stage. This is why I feel people who write fiction are redundant. I myself never speak of things I have not experienced firsthand. I was told that 'superfluous' would be a better word choice in place of 'redundant' because using 'redundant' would suggest that the speaker is scornful of only those 'authors' who are 'extra' when he is scornful of 'all' authors. But using 'superfluous' here sounds simply odd to me. OED gives the definitions of the two words as: redundant (adjective) - not or no longer needed or useful;

Lately I've been seeing a trend that I find disturbing for some reason, mostly in Indian publications but also in some American ones - prefixing people's names with "the". For example: The Mr. Gandhi said that taking the Narendra Modi's name was tantamount to committing a crime in the party. Is this proper usage? It surely doesn't sound right.

What is a word for someone who is experienced and wise, but who deliberately acts naïve? I don’t intend it for sarcastic use; I’m trying to describe someone succeeding in making people think that that person truly is naïve. Is there a word for this? Answer I’d probably go for disingenuous : “Assuming a pose of naïveté to make a point or for deception.”

"For someone used to the tiny creatures we get in England it was something of a shock." I think, in this sentence, relative pronouns before some words have been omitted. I know rules of omitting relative pronouns, but in this case I have failed to understand before which words relative pronouns can be placed to understand the sentence perfectly, which has been stated above. Please, explain the rules of omitting relative pronouns with the help of the sentence stated above, so that I can be able to understand this type of sentences easily. You can also use other sentences to explain this fact clearly. Thanks to everyone. Answer There are four factors which decide whether a relative pronoun (or the word that ) can be omitted or not: Is it a defining relative clause? Does the main verb in the relative clause have a separate Subject? Is the relative pronoun the first word in the relative phrase? (or is it preceded by another word, for example a preposition) Is the word who, which

Which one should be used? To me, it makes no difference, but I'm not really sure why. vs For me, it makes no difference, but I'm not really sure why. Answer I think the general (most widely-applicable) one would be "to me". To my knowledge, it can be used in any of these cases where "for me" is used, and in some where "for me" can't be used. For example: For me, this is not a difficult problem. To me, this is not a difficult problem. Both of the above are fine. But look at the following pair (the "*" sentence is ungrammatical in this context): *For me, he is an idiot. To me, he is an idiot. The first example doesn't work as a way to express opinion, but "to me" still works fine.

OK, we all know that epistemic modals such as may and might can be interchanged to express possibility in present & future For example: he might be late , and he may be late are almost the same. Source But might is also the past form of may in indirect speech: For example: He said he might be late = He said " I may be late " I had some feeling that people lived 100 or 200 or 300 years ago may have used may and might differently from what we are using nowadays. I would guess, in the past, ‘ he might be late ’ means ‘ it was possible that he is late ’ and ‘ he may be late ’ means ‘ it is possible that he is late ’ The word might expresses it was possible and may expresses it is possible , but I may be wrong. I found this information in this book "Grammatical Change in English World-Wide" The book says: " something might happen " in the past (maybe 1000 or 200 or longer time ago) (might + inf) is equivalent to " something might / may ha

Should one say they shook their heads in disbelief or they shook their head in disbelief? The first kind of conjures up many-headed people? Similarly should one say they referred the question to their husbands/husband ?

The phrase temporary pause is unnecessarily long; just 'pause' is enough. Does a simple noun exist to use to describe this type of usage? 'Redundant' or 'wordy' are good adjectives but I can't think of a good simple noun. (suggesting 'redundant usage' isn't what I'm looking for). I'm looking for something analogous to 'oxymoron' but as it relates to the redundancy of the phrase. Answer The 75 cent word you are looking for is pleonasm the use of more words than are necessary .

Is there a special name to call words like Judeo-Christian , following the construction Xo-Y ? ( Same question for French ) Answer In general, this kind of word is called a compound . Wikipedia says: Compounding or Word-compounding refers to the faculty and device of language to form new words by combining or putting together old words. In other words, compound, compounding or word-compounding occurs when a person attaches two or more words together to make them one word. The meanings of the words interrelate in such a way that a new meaning comes out which is very different from the meanings of the words in isolation. The specific construction in your example (and in your French examples as well) takes a combining form Xo ( Judeo is the combining form of Jewish ) and compounds it with a noun Y . This is an example of a specific type of compound known as a classical compound .

In Chaucer and John Donne "was" is pronounced like "wahss" but nowadays we say "woz". When did the change occur? and why?

We've recently moved from New Zealand to New York City, and have noticed that many people (most of whom have good English) pronounce "ask" as "aks". For example: Could you please go aks her tomorrow? Sure, I'll ax her! :-) What's the origin/etymology of "aks"? It seems to be more common among African Americans, but it's definitely used by others too. Answer This phenomenon is called metathesis . I humbly direct you to my answer to a related question for details. Here, I will just note that aks goes back to Old English, where there were two versions of the verb, ascian and acsian . See this Language Log post : As the [Oxford English Dictionary] explains, the verb form spelled "ax", and meaning "To call upon any one for information, or an answer", originated more than a thousand years ago in OE. ("Old English")[.] [...] The crucial bit [is] this: Acsian, axian, survived in ax, down to nearly 1600 the regular

In my native language, there is a single word to express the high energy and enthusiasm shown by many at the beginning of a new job/project/romance etc. Normally it is used with a bit of skepticism/sarcasm. I am looking for a single word or phrase in English that expresses the same Answer Honeymoon period is often used to refer to this time. any new relationship characterized by an initial period of harmony and goodwill.

I'm working on a humorous project in which one character is called the Outspoken Mime. The adjective "outspoken" means the mime in question is "free, bold, or unreserved in speech." On one side, this describes the mime as gregarious, talkative, and friendly — while visually implying the mime literally speaks out , making the character a walking oxymoron. Is there an antonym to "outspoken" that could imply the opposite double meaning? Something to suggest a different mime is shy or reclusive, while visually appearing to (redundantly) claim they do not talk? Answer I'd suggest taciturn : : temperamentally disinclined to talk or even closemouthed : : cautious in speaking : uncommunicative; also : secretive

I always use the phrase less than perfect in a sarcastic way, meaning that something is not good at all. For example: My date was obviously less than perfect. She was late and in a hurry, and she kept talking about her ex-boyfriend. But I start to wonder if this phrase can be used in a non-sarcastic way, as a parallel to almost perfect . As an example, could it be used in this context? Enjoy your day to its fullest. If anybody in the office makes your day less than perfect , go and talk to them. Answer Seriously, although some have noted that less than perfect can be uttered sans sarcasm (depending on context), I hardly think it ever means a positive thing. Certainly it doesn't mean almost perfect . Enjoy your day to its fullest. If anybody in the office makes your day less than perfect, go and talk to them. Enjoy your day to its fullest. If anybody in the office makes your day almost perfect, go and talk to them. Sentence 1 is saying someone marred the perfection of your day.

Some verbs can have double Ls in the gerund form; for example: modeling; modelling traveling; travelling Which form should we use, or which form is used more in the literature? Answer Actually, to my understading, the form with double l (e.g. "travelling") is more common in British English, while in American English the spelling would be with single l ("traveling"). It seems that Irish, Australian, NZ, and Canadian varieties generally prefer the (British) double l versions. More information e.g. at the Wikipedia article on British/American spelling differences . (Do note that the opposite also happens: "there are words where British writers prefer a single l and Americans usually use a double l".) So, there is no all-encompassing answer to "which form should we use" – it depends on the context and your preferences. Due to the sheer number of American English speakers, the single l versions are overall "more common in literature", of co

I'm not sure what to add here. I think the title says it all. I just need to know and would like to try this service because I believe it's really useful.

since James Jeans was that famous British physicist, shouldn't there be: Jeans's instability instead of: Jeans instability (wiki link) I have read couple (maybe not all) of saxon genitive related topics here but I haven't found the answer.

The word wont - for example: 'I wont do it!'. Should it be spelled wont or won't, is there an American/English difference?

I read this article and now I'm confused when got can be omitted when using have . Could this be explained in plain English without technical terms? Is there a different usage in past tense? Answer You can safely omit it pretty much always. I think it's largely a regional variety issue. As the article explains, in the UK "I've got" might be used more commonly where Americans would say "I have". I remember being taught phrases like this in elementary English classes (due to British English emphasis in Finnish schools at that time): I've got a cat. But rest assured, it is never wrong to omit "got" in a phrase like this and just say: I have a cat. Also in those cases where it's used to add emphasis or indicate obligation... I've got to go now! ... you can always omit it and still be perfectly understood (you can add the emphasis in other ways): I have to go now!

What does quiescing mean in the following context? Quiescing a Database http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14231/start.htm Answer "Quiescing a Database" refers to: Occasionally you might want to put a database in a state that allows only DBA transactions, queries, fetches, or PL/SQL statements. Such a state is referred to as a quiesced state, in the sense that no ongoing non-DBA transactions, queries, fetches, or PL/SQL statements are running in the system. "Quiescing" is basically the action of putting the database into a quiesced state Yes, "quiescing" is a valid word, as can be seen in this Wiktionary article: quiesce (third-person singular simple present quiesces, present participle quiescing , simple past and past participle quiesced) Nota Bene: Emphasis added

I am reading The White Spider , a book on mountain climbing, and I got hung up on this passage which sounded wrong, although I can see why it isn't... Herman couldn't be expected to hear him in that raging tempest; nor could he have come down a hundred feet of hard-won ground again, after such a struggle to climb them ." "Them" is agreeing with "a hundred feet" in this sentence, but would it be wrong to replace "them" with "it" because 100 feet represents a unit of distance more than it does individual feet? Or would "it" be preferable on the grounds that the entire noun phrase "a hundred feet of hard-won ground" should be considered the unit? Or is it simply correct as is? The reason it stands out to me is because I commonly hear runners in conversations where the following is said: "How far did you run today?" "I ran about 20 miles." "How long did it take you to run it ?" "Abou

My English teacher taught us that there is no such thing called "future tense" in existence. Instead we were asked to use present indefinite tense. He said that we should use "I am to go to London" instead of "I will/shall go to London". In that case, how should this sentence be rejuvenated: "Freedom is my birthright and I shall have it"...? I consider it worthy sharing another side of the story which started the above mentioned discussion in the classroom. My teacher said that if some action is confirmed to occur in future then it 'must' be stated using Present tense. For example, " The school reopens in July ". After this discussion he said that nowadays books are being published wherein the authors state that there are only two tenses namely,The Present and The Past tense. He reiterated that the use of 'will' is only confined to express the conditional statements of the future happenings. For example, ** If is rains t

How can one remember the pronunciations of consummate , which depend on its state as a verb or adjective? I venture that because its verbal definition involves intercourse, thus the "mate" rhymes with the single noun mate. But is this right? Moreover, what's the rationale or reasoning behind the differences? Answer Whenever the stress in such - ate words is not on the final syllable, then generally the last syllable will be: for verbs: /eɪt/ [long vowel] for adjectives: /ət/ [short schwa vowel] The speaker may use a glottal stop in either case as an allophone of the /t/. When the word stress does fall on the final syllable, however, the word will end in /eɪt/ regardless, even if it is an adjective: irate /aɪˈreɪt/ If the word is a verb, then usually the suffix - tion can be used to convert it into a noun. You will note in this case that the /eɪ/ sound will not change, as it will be full length in this position. This is because it will take the main stress in the word.

A source says that the word "each" should always be followed by a singular noun, but however I look at it in this sentence it just doesn't seem to fit: foo [comprises] multiple binary programs that each performs a single task. Should it be "performs" or "perform"?

The Tomb of the Unknown Solider has the engraving "KNOWN BUT TO GOD", as presumably no man knows his name, but shouldn't it read " un known, but to God", as the default for everyone is "unknown", with the exception "but to God"? Is the construction older? How should it be parsed? Answer In the phrase Known but to God but functions as an adverb, and, as such, it means only . Thus, the inscription could very well read: Known only to God

Is it fine to use due to in place of because of  ? How about the other way around? Are any of these sentences ungrammatical? He was lost because of the storm. He was lost due to the storm. He lost his way due to the storm. He lost his way because of the storm. Answer ( EDIT : This is a traditional set of rules for "due to" and "because of", but there is disagreement over whether these rules apply to modern English. See further discussion below.) They are not interchangeable. He was lost because of the storm. (correct) *He was lost due to the storm. (incorrect) *He lost his way due to the storm. (incorrect) He lost his way because of the storm. (correct) These examples highlight the difference between "due to" and "because of": He failed because of bad planning. His failure was due to bad planning. In short, "because of" modifies a verb, but "due to" modifies a noun (or pronoun). In common usage, though, you will often hear/s

What day is next Tuesday? When I refer to the very next Monday that will occur in the future, I say "next Monday". Some colleagues refer to it as "this Monday", with "next Monday" meaning the second Monday which will occur in the future (I would refer to that as "Monday week", "this Monday" to me would mean the most recent Monday in the past). Are these both acceptable usages, or is one more correct than the other?

The context is below. Bansal is the famous coaching center to clear Engineering Entrance test. Bansal students had a chip on their shoulder, even though they weren't technically even in a college The meaning for the phrase chip on their shoulder is a form of physical challenge, inviting opponents to knock the chip off and so provoke a fight . I can understand its meaning refers to they are so much alert to face any question or puzzle related to engineering entrance test. But why author added the clause even though they weren't technically even in a college ? It confuses me. Does it mean only students those goes to college should pocess that kind of attribute or mindset? Answer First, this is a metaphor . Like all metaphors it has a number of possible interpretations. It's not literal, and people do not in fact put a physical chip on their physical shoulder . I'm 70 years old, and I've never seen any actual human being who literally had a chip on their shoulder. S

If I issued a payment to a company, and I wanted them to notify me when receiving the payment, could I say ' please acknowledge the payment when receiving it ?' Is the word ' acknowledge ' alright to be used here?

When punctuating the dimensions of something, if both dimensions share the same units, does the punctuation occur after each measurement or just after the last one. For example, if I'm looking at a sheet of paper, which is correct: {8 1/2 x 11"} or is {8 1/2" x 11"}? Answer You want to use the punctuation after each number. Otherwise you may get confusion on the first number - not just about feet vs. inches, but also because it's common notation to write (number) x (thing) to indicate quantity and it may be read as "8 of the 11 inch widgets". Also this may be personal preference but decimal is much easier to read than fraction for measurements, e.g. 8.5" x 11" instead of 8½" x 11"

How can you explain that this double negation is not a double negation? Is there a rule in English about this kind of sentence? PS / Do I have to mention Pink Floyd Copyright ? :-) Edit : Since there are a lot of Pink Floyd related explanation, I'll bring a Freddy Mercury one : " I don't have time for no monkey business ", which I also understand as "I don't have time for monkey business". Am I right ? Answer Doubled negatives are often used casually in certain dialects to indicate negative concord , an intensification of negation rather than an inversion of it. This typically happens when both words involved are simple negatives, and is most common with no standing in for a , an , or any alongside don't or ain't . So you can safely assume that He isn't not going to the concert. is double negation proper, because it has emphasis, as is She wasn't unimpressed. because this is litotes , whereas I ain't no hillbilly. is negative con

I am used to saying "I am in India.". But somewhere I saw it said "I am at Puri (Oriisa)". I would like to know the differences between "in" and "at" in the above two sentences.

I have read the post Enquire and inquire . It was illuminating, but I am unsure which version to use. I am an American, but am writing to a woman in England. It is a formal business letter, and the context is: "I am writing to enquire ..." Is this appropriate, as I believe it fits the criteria mentioned in the other post, or should I use inquire ? Answer Almost certainly OP should be writing to enquire , since he's presumably writing to ask about something, but not in the context of an official inquiry. To the extent that there are two different words (and, frankly, many people don't distinguish), inquire conveys more a sense of formal, official investigation . It's unlikely OP's correspondent would make that distinction and be alarmed if he wrote inquire (or indeed, be concerned about OP's vocabulary), but better safe than sorry – if in doubt, use enquire .

Can you tell me the difference in the meaning of the two sentences below? As a defining relative clause. The location which was called Central Park was a park in New York. As a non-defining relative clause. The location, which was called Central Park, was a park in New York.

I can't distinguish the difference in meaning between these two sentences. It really doesn't matter. It doesn't really matter. It seems that there is a nuanced difference, but I cannot see what this is.

Growing up there was a friend of my family who would often use son of a gun as a slang term. For example, And that son of a gun has a 300hp motor in it. Like any father, my Dad wanted to raise me right, so he banned me from using the phrase. He implied that the phrase was synonymous with son of a bitch . However in more recent years I've often wondered: What is the origin of son of a gun , and does it really have anything to do with illicit relationships?

SEWING the cassock,John pricked his finger. Mercy and Mary like smiling . The Municipal Assembly has a towing car. The boys are playing their roles well.

A(n often male) paternal figure could use the term 'son' in a fatherly way without referring to his biological Son. Imagine a man has been verbally abused by a customer at work. His manger might say to him: Come here son , I have something to tell you about rude customers Emphasis on the word I want gender-swapped Is there a feminine equivalent for a subordinate that you respect? From TFD son (sŭn) n. 1. One's male child. 2. A male descendant. 3. A man considered as if in a relationship of child to parent: a son of the soil. 4. One personified or regarded as a male descendant. 5. Used as a familiar form of address for a young man. 6. Son Christianity The second person of the Trinity. Is there an equivalent for talking to a woman in a fatherly way? The equivalent for TFD entry for daughter does not qualify it as 'familiar' (often capital) a form of address for a girl or woman Further more often such 'father-daughter' language patterns are negative, dismissive

"Ridiculous" means laughable , laughable because it is obviously and hilariously not good enough . However in English "a ridiculous amount of money" is "a ridiculously large amount of money". In general it seems that "a ridiculous amount" is always "a ridiculously large amount": «That's an absolutely ridiculous price for that sweater» «Don't be ridiculous! You can't pay £50 for a T-shirt!» «They ate and drank a ridiculous amount» «The meal was ridiculously expensive» «Hedge fund giant David Tepper made a ridiculous amount of money in 2013» «Beyoncé has sold a ridiculous amount of albums since Friday» «GTA role offered to Alec Baldwin for “a ridiculous amount of money”. Alec Baldwin turned down an “incomprehensible amount” of money» «… it's a ridiculous amount of pain for such a light touch …» «5 year old genius knows a ridiculous amount of geography, turns down a Sony tablet» «Our teacher gave us a ridiculous amount of

I was wondering when and how the expression "Whatever floats your boat", meaning "What makes you happy; what stimulates you" ( Wiktionary ) came to be. My research hasn't yielded anything which could be described as objective. Thus, I'll leave the urban dictionary and reddit assumptions aside. The ngram shows a steep rise starting in the early 80s. However, I was not able to pinpoint a definite source. Can anyone shed light on this issue?

Store names & possessive What is the correct grammar for saying that I worked for a chemists (that is, a shop that sells medicine)? Is it I worked in a chemist or I worked in a chemists or perhaps I worked in a chemist's ? Had I been working for multiple different chemists, would it be correct to say I worked for chemists during my first two years of university Answer I worked in a chemist Er, no: that would be rather uncomfortable for both of you! I worked in a chemists Chemists is a plural noun, so a chemists can't be correct. I worked in a chemist's This is an example of ellipsis : "I worked in a chemist's [shop]". Using the possessive is entirely correct. I worked for chemists during my first two years of university. This is correct: chemists is a plural noun, indicating that you had more than one employer/mentor. Store names & possessive deals with people's names, not shop types.

I came across the term "sex film actress" in the Op-Ed column The Disposable Woman . I could guess what the phrase meant, as "sex worker" is a new term for "prostitute", and therefore "sex film actress" would be the equivalent for "porn star". I checked if this term had been used before, and there were a smattering of uses, but it looked so infrequent it seemed as if the term was coined each time. Is there a name for such a phenomenon? Answer I don't think there's currently a word for it, but you could probably get away with calling it a re-neologism . (Although in the case of "sex film actress", the re-phrasing is so pointless even by PC standards that I'd have to label it a "useless euphemism".)

I have been intrigued by the word o'clock since I learned English. Although there is an equivalent to this word in my native language (Spanish en punto meaning on point or on the dot ) I want to know the origin of the term o'clock , especially why it has an apostrophe. Is it meant to contract on the clock or something similar? Answer According to The Time-traveller's Guide to Medieval England 'of the clock' was used to describe time when it was being sliced in 24 equal parts (hours) of the day. It was used to differentiate the practice, used equally as much, of using solar time , whereby the 7th hour would shift in actual time, however would always be 7/12ths of a solar day after sunrise, and the length of an hour would increase in summer and decrease in winter.

Get has a lot of meanings in English, but which one is used in phrase get paid ? Get is often used for describing a change of state, similarly to become . But does get paid fall into this case? From what I know, when used with the verb in ING/ED state it means "begin with". Considering the change of state, should I think of it as that a person who gets paid is "becoming paid", and also his state changes to "paid" when he possesses the money? An additional question: My textbook says that GET + adjective expresses the change of state but I think it also applies to ppt past participle of verbs, right? Answer In the words of noted Minnesota folk grammarian Robert Zimmerman : Get sick, get well, hang around the inkwell Get jailed, jump bail, join the Army if you fail Get born, keep warm, short pants, romance Learn to dance, get dressed, get blessed, try to be a success. These are all examples of "change of state". The examples using get above f

A major political row has broken out in Britain over the colour of this bus. [Image from The Daily Telegraph ] The bus is sponsored by the Labour Party to take high-flying female politicians around the country, to capture the votes of women at the forthcoming General Election in May. Political opponents say it is patronising to women, and gender stereotyping, to make the bus pink. Some Labour members are now saying the colour is 'Magenta'. (capital letter justified since Magenta colour, the result of a new dye introduced at the time, after the Battle of Magenta.) So what is it, pink or Magenta? Answer All Pinks Are Magenta—and All Magentas are Purple Pink and magenta have the same hue. What distinction there is to be found between magenta and pink lies along other axes than that of hue. All pinks are magenta and all magentas are purple, and by extension, pink is a purple. However, it does not work the other direction: it does not mean that all purples are magenta nor that all

Is there a single word to describe the canary in the phrase "Canary in a coalmine"? The best I can come up with is sentinel, but I'm nearly positive there's a more precise option. Edit: To clarify I'm not looking for words that describe the canary but rather for a word the encapsulates the entire phrase. That is, I don't want to finish the phrase "the canary is a ...". I do want to finish the phrase "$PERSON was a ..." where the blank implies as many of the attributes of the proverbial canary as possible (e.g. going down the dangerous road first, warning those that follow, connotations of captivity, &c). I'm reluctant to use the phrase, or "canary" as it strikes me too colloquial/lighthearted for the work at hand. @senex suggestion of bellwether and @bib suggestion of tocsin are closest to what I'm looking for thusfar. Answer Consider tocsin A warning; an omen. [ American Heritage Dictionary ] It also means alarm

Some people used to say: Thank you very much. Where others say: Thank you so much. Could anybody please explain what differences there may be between those, whether of correctness or usefulness or anything else that separates one version from the other.

I'm looking for a word for "All Being" to describe deity existing, always existing, and existing for eternity. Other words often used to describe deity include: omnipotent—all powerful omnipresent—present everywhere at the same time omniscient—all knowing None of these words describe a being/deity that has always existed and will always exist. A being that exists because he/she exists; i.e., needs nothing/nobody else to define his/her existence. Does such a word exist? Answer This may verge into theology here; but if you want to talk about the relationship of a deity to time, one common word is eternal : : having no beginning and no end in time : lasting forever : existing at all times : always true or valid (merriam-webster.com) Saint Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica , defines eternity (following the Christian philosopher Boethius) as the simultaneously-whole and perfect possession of interminable life and argues that this characterizes God . If this is what you

In the 2016 film Ghostbusters Dan Aykroyd states: I ain't afraid of no ghost! To which a lady who looks like Jennifer Anniston replies: That's a double negative! That means you ARE afraid of ghosts! Is this interpretation technically correct? I would've thought that a literal interpretation would've implied that he does not fear the absence of ghosts (or the absence of a ghost, or the ghost), rather than that he fears ghosts. Which is correct? Answer The lady's line is (probably*) doubly wrong. First, that's not what this construction means (as pretty much any native speaker knows). The presence of two negative elements in the man's sentence is due to negative concord, not the presence of two separate semantic negations. Here are some resources describing negative concord in modern-day varieties of English: grammar.about.com , Yale Grammatical Diversity Project: English in North America . Second, as you point out, even if we do ignore negative concord wh

What's the single word for someone who is either a plaintiff or defendant in a court case? Plaintiff -> the accuser Defendant -> the accused Plaintiff or defendant -> ??? I'd rather not refer to "plaintiff or defendant" every single time in my essay. Answer lit·i·gant (lĭt′ĭ-gənt) n. A party engaged in a lawsuit. adj. Engaged in a lawsuit. [French, from Old French, from Latin lītigāns, lītigant-, a disputant, from present participle of lītigāre, to bring suit; see litigate.] Wikipedia : The conduct of a lawsuit is called litigation. The plaintiffs and defendants are called litigants and the attorneys representing them are called litigators. e.g. The judge ordered both litigants of the lawsuit to attend anger management therapy.

How does one pronounce 'alphabetical' and 'pharmaceutical' in American English? Is it phar•ma•ceu•di•cal or phar•ma•ceu•i•cal ? And is it al•pha•bet•di•cal or al•pha•bet•i•cal ? Do you pronounce 'ti' as 'di' or do you pronounce just the 'i' with the 't' silent?

I'd like to know if someone has a better word than authored or produced , for both creating and updating something. Context: I'm a software developer and I'm trying to think of a clever way to name the function that will initially create an object, and if it's already created, update it. Answer "Save" seems perfect for this. As a developer I'd read "SaveRecord" as either inserting or updating the record depending on its preexistence.

I understand you can say either I'm president of the United States. or I'm the president of the United States. I also know of a rule that you may omit "the" in front of a title, position, etc. Since the omission does not seem to depend on the style of the text, I'd like to know what is the reasoning behind such a usage and rule. Is it because you tend to consider a title something like a proper noun?

The dictionaries list both possibilities to stress nineteen (or any other -teen , for that matter): ,nine -teen and nine- 'teen . Are the two pronunciations completely interchangeable, a matter of dialect, or a matter of meaning? I am asking because I've never heard nineteen stressed on the first syllable in sentences like: I am nineteen years old. He had only nineteen dollars. And I have never heard nineteen stressed on the second syllable in dates: He was born in nineteen sixty-four. Is it acceptable (where, when?) to stress the first syllable in the first set of examples, and is it acceptable(where, when?) to stress the second syllable in the last example? P.S. Surprisingly there's no stress tag. Am I using the wrong linguistic term? Answer All the number words for 13–19 are normally stressed on the first syllable (or none at all), but can be stressed on the second syllable for emphasis or contrast. It really depends on the sentence. I’ve got twelve. You’ve got thi

In Early Modern English, the second person plural (singular) declensions were: Nominative: - Ye (Thou) Oblique: - You (Thee) --and-- Genitive: Your (Thy & Thine) & Yours' (Thine) In Language there are exceptions to rules, or what-have-you, but it is to my understanding that "Be ye" is subjunctive, not imperative, unless it is a different form of subjunctive. Obviously in English Bēon was the original infinitive which evolved into "be," before the north received "Earon" from Latin, however the North readopted "be" for subjunctive. In my thinking, "Be ye" and "Be thou" would mean the same thing: subjunctive, e.g.: "Be ye good and good should come/be thou good and good should come" would both be the same as saying "If thou beest good, good should come --" it may not, but it is an obligatory return vs. all saying: "Be you good and good should come/Be thee good and good should come --" it m

There are phrases which pair things up. For example, "checks and balances", "bells and whistles", What is the rational behind this construct? Any more examples? Answer One rationale for the pairings may just be that using them sounds better than a single word. They add a bit of rhythm to the sentence

I understand that "Deal breaker" is an expression used for a feature/characteristic that would make one not go for a deal (or terminate a contract), even if the deal's other features are great. What expression would be the opposite of "Deal Breaker"? I'm looking for an existing expression that would describe a feature that would make one go for the deal, even if there are other not so great characteristics. The expression could fill the sentence below: I know this phone carrier has higher rates and everything, but if they are offering free iPhone to us if we switch, that would be a ! We would totally go for it. Answer That would be the clincher - a fact, argument, or event that settles a matter conclusively . In OP's case, the matter in question being which deal to sign up for. EDIT: Since there's been some discussion about "levels of formality" in comments, I'll just say that clincher is far less informal than "we would totall

Apart from our palms and the soles of our feet, all human skin is covered with hair. What is the word for the fine hair on a human being’s skin? I would be especially interested in what you would call it on the shoulder of an adolescent girl — that is, skin that we normally perceive as “hairless” —, in non-medical terms. “Vellus hair” is of course the correct answer, but it seems to me that the average person would not know what that term means. “Peach fuzz”, on the other hand, seems to apply mostly to the face; that is, it denotes longer vellus hair in a place that has terminal hair in most men and many women. “Down” also seems to denote longer hair, both vellus and very soft and light terminal. At this point it seems to me that there is no word for this kind of hair, probably because mostly we are unaware of it, and that you would have to describe it, possibly as “(very) fine hair”. Sorry for the low image quality. Googling for an image of this is surprisingly hard. (But please don’

While quintessential means 'representing the most perfect or typical example of a quality or class' [OED], it defines essential as 'absolutely necessary; extremely important'. I have noticed frequent instances of the two being used interchangeably. How did this come about?

I was recently reading a review of Donald Rumsfeld's autobiography. The reviewer cited one of his famous phrases; he quoted it as "unknown known." Now my memory was that the phrase Rumsfeld used was "known unknown" not "unknown known" and it got me wondering: is there a difference in meaning between the two? Answer The full quote is: [T]here are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns ; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. That explains what known unknowns means: we know there are some things we do not know. As for unknown knowns , a philosopher by the name of Slavoj Žižek extrapolated to define this term: the things that we know, but are unaware of knowing. So, in short, there is a big difference.

I am looking for few nouns describing "a situation when one does too many things but achieve nothing important or useful".

I am wondering if there is a single word that describes things that can be used only once. My focus is links that usually sent to our emails in order to activate accounts or reset passwords. However, I do not mind to find a word for all kind of items that can be used only one time (e.g. Bullets, bombs, diapers, baby wipes, pads ... etc. Answer Single-use adjective : single-use 1 . designed to be used once and then disposed of or destroyed. " billions of single-use cups are thrown into landfill sites every year " The expression is also the de facto industry standard for that meaning. ISO 15223: Medical Devices and EN 980 cite that single use instruments or devices be labelled as such on their packaging with a universally recognized symbol to denote "do not re-use," "single use," or "use only once". This symbol is the numeral 2, within a circle with a 45° line through it. ( WP )

Is there any difference between "you are going to love it " and "you gonna love it"? Answer You're gonna get yourself in trouble To head off suggestions that these words are more than synonymous, but identical , let me cite the OED [paywalled] here: gonna , v. Pronunciation : Brit. /ɡənə/, /ˈɡɒnə/, U.S. /ɡənə/, /ˈɡɔnə/, /ˈɡɑnə/ Forms : regional and colloq. (orig. U.S. regional), gona , gonna ; Eng. regional... Frequency (in current use): *****--- (5/8) Origin : A̲ ̲v̲a̲r̲i̲a̲n̲t̲ ̲o̲r̲ ̲a̲l̲t̲e̲r̲a̲t̲i̲o̲n̲ ̲o̲f̲ ̲a̲n̲o̲t̲h̲e̲r̲ ̲l̲e̲x̲i̲c̲a̲l̲ ̲i̲t̲e̲m̲. Etymon: English going to . Etymology : Representing a regional and colloquial pronunciation of going to (see go v.), with reduction of the unstressed vowel and assimilatory loss of the initial consonant of the second element. colloq . With auxiliary be: going to (see go v. 51a(a)). As a simple modal auxiliary, followed by the bare infinitive. a. Used to express a plan or intention, or to make a prediction.