Blog

Thin has a meaning of "not well fleshed," but does it also carry a meaning of "being weak or feeble"? In the Merriam-Webster, it does carry a meaning of "lacking substance of strength," but it uses "thin plot/broth" to make the example. Is it okay to say someone is to thin to do anything which needs a lot of strength? I just find it misleading to say, because thin doesn't always means weak . If you google, there is a title such as "Michael Jackson is too thin to play live." Is it OK to say so? Somebody argued that it's a euphemism to say so.

Is there any justification for using “is” at the end of an English sentence, or is there a rule that forbids this?

Why does "Do you read me?" mean "Do you hear me?" This phrase is used (in movies) during radio communication, for example. Answer The use of the word "read" in spoken radio transmissions was used to ask "how well is my message being received" When using electronic voice communication, it is useful to know the quality of the signal being received. So the question "how (well) do you read (my transmission)" is asking for an indication of quality. The speaker wants to know if he needs to speak slower or louder to insure the message is received. This is all part of voice procedure Voice procedure communications are intended to maximize clarity of spoken communication and reduce misunderstanding. It consists of signalling protocol such as the use of abbreviated codes like the CB radio ten-code, Q codes in amateur radio and aviation, police codes, etc., and jargon. A typical response might be "I read you 5 by 5" where the first numb

What is the correct word for "dependee"? In other words, what is the word for something that is depended upon? The relationship here is in the context of software engineering Answer Depending on the situation and relationship, "parent" and "child" work to describe the two parts of a dependent relationship. Likewise with the terms "master" and "slave".

The phrase someone used to is used to talk about habits in past. A year ago, I used to (not) do stuff. Now I was wondering about a particular kind of question. They are kind of rhetorical and they contain a negative: Wasn't he British?! Here's an example: I read a book and 10 pages in I realize how much writing sucks. I actually like the author. I tell a friend and he or she says... Really. Didn't he use to write really well?! Is that correct (I suppose not)? Would it be understood? What could I say instead? Also... would the following be understood as an attempted play with the language: Usedn't he to write very well?! Answer Didn't he use to write really well?! There is some debate around whether it should be "didn't he use to" and "didn't he used to" which is discussed at length in Are there alternatives to the common construction “didn't used to”? The short version is that "didn't use" to is more commonly consider

Situation: The batteries in your cellphone are running out of charge. How would a native English speaker quickly and naturally describe this situation? Answer My phone is out of juice This is how a nerd would describe the situation My phone has died on me This is how many people refer to this situation My phone needs to be recharged This is also a way to express the same fact I need to charge my phone Indirect method Is there a cell-phone charger nearby Another indirect method. Can I use your cell-phone? Cannot always be used effectively :-(

It's well known (and several past questions on this SE have covered) that to convert a two-syllable Latin-derived English verb into a noun, you shift the stress to the first syllable. This is apparently called " initial stress derivation ". Some examples: permít (v.) ~ pérmit (n.) addréss (v.) ~ áddress (n.) recórd (v.) ~ récord (n.) expórt (v.) ~ éxport (n.) However, I've just realized there's a class of verbs that obey a different rule: verbs ending in -use . When these verbs change into nouns, they keep the final-syllable stress , but devoice the final consonant : so the verb ends in /uz/, and its derivative ends in /us/. abuse : abú[z]e (v.) ~ abú[s]e (n.) diffuse : diffú[z]e (v.) ~ diffú[s]e (adj.) reuse : reú[z]e (v.) ~ reú[s]e (n.) excuse : excú[z]e (v.) ~ excú[s]e (n.) My question: Why do verbs that end in "-use" follow this pattern rather than initial stress derivation? (Or perhaps not strictly "rather than" - I can also think of one e

The shops are open only until 5.30. they will be closed by now. The shops are open only by 5.30. they will be closed by now. Greetings Would you kindly tell me the differences that are in the sentences? I mean the difference between UNTIL 5.30 and by 5.30. In addition, I wonder the reason why it has been used the tense future, that is they will be closed by now. ! (I am learning English. would you possibly elaborate your explanations in details readily?) I think I'll be wait by/until thursday before making a decision. which one and WHY? Thank you so much, but my last question: Are these the acceptable reasons for your previous arguments about that you did not agree with "by 5.30"?, because when we use the following sentence as if the shops are closed twice- for example: once at 3 o'clock and the other one at 7 o'clock or after 5.30 The shops are only open by 5.30. They will be closed by now. ................. As a preposition of time “by” means “on or before”. She

What is the difference between a part-of-speech and a function? In other words: What is a part of speech. (e.g. noun ) What is a grammatical function. (e.g. head , subject ) [read " grammatical relation " or possibly " syntactic role ", if you prefer that terminology to " grammatical function " - see John Lawler's comments below] What is the difference? If we use a part of speech which is often used in one function, in a different function, does it change the part of speech of the word? For example, if we use a noun (let's say some nouny word that we can often observe functioning as a subject) as an adjunct, does it become an adverb? Bounty Edit Note These don't have to be addressed in different sections. One well illustrated paragraph which addresses the different concerns would be as welcome as a longer post with several parts! I am hoping, though, that an answer to this question will, of course, give a description of what a grammatical funct

For example: Now available in all good stores. . . where to not agree to stock an item suggests that your store is not good, or: All rational people agree that. . . where to refuse to agree suggests that you are not rational, or: Those who can, teach. (a slogan used for encouraging people to become teachers) which suggests that if you aren't teaching a subject you are implicitly "worse" at that subject. Obviously, all of these are subtle phrasing tricks that may be used casually or quite deliberately. Is there a term for this type of phrasing?

A positive alternative to “smelling” to describe something with a pleasant odor What do you call a smell that is good? I've been wondering this question since childhood. Answer I agree with tchrist, but I also think of a good smell, such as bread baking, as an aroma . There is also redolence , which is defined as: pleasant odor; fragrance

In school I learned to say 'crisps' but I don't want to mix it with french fries. So what's the correct term for potato chips, and what synonyms are there? Answer Wikipedia has a nice list of Terms at the beginning of their article : Potato chips (known as crisps in British and Hiberno English; either chips or wafers in Indian English; and chips in American, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, Singapore, South African, and Jamaican English) ... They chose potato chips as the article's lemma, which seems to be the least ambiguous term in common use.

Which one of the following is the correct one? I should have seen it glow. I should have seen it glowing. Or are both correct? Would you parse them please?

I’d like to use the Latin word for garlic, allium , as an adjective, but can’t find any examples of this being done. Is there a rule for doing this with nouns ending in ‑um ? Alliumnal sounds good, but I suspect that’s just because it sounds like autumnal . Any help much appreciated. Answer Alliaceous is used botanically for plants of the garlic/onion family; might it fit the bill? (It’s much more standard than allial , I think, going both by dictionaries and google.) Now I want to go out and order something big and garlicky at a restaurant, just so I can smack my lips and say “Mmmmm! Alliaceo-licious!”. Or, not quite, because it would just confuse people. But I’m enjoying the idea…

For example, I have a database and several tables in it. One of the tables is named Clients for this example. When I speak about a table and need to mention its name do I have to use the definite article? Insert a record into the Clients table. or Insert a record into Clients table. Which one is correct? Answer I would go with either Insert a record into the Clients table. or Insert a record into Clients. In most of my professional writing I would prefer the first option, although the second may be better in some cases for style reasons. "Insert a record into Clients table" would not be correct, because "Clients" is a modifier to the subject "table" in this sentence, and not a proper noun.

When someone speaks of "holding down the fort," it basically means keeping an eye on things temporarily while the person in charge is away. The expression seems rather nonsensical, though; a fort is a large, solid building constructed as a stronghold. A person in an actual fort might need to hold up the fort (or its walls) if it came under attack, but you don't hold down an inanimate object that is too heavy for the wind to blow away. So where does the term originate?

As an ESL student, sometimes I wonder whether I use too many pronouns. For example: She grabbed her purse, she took some money and then she went to buy some groceries. After that she returned happily with a lot of things she bought. Can it be changed to something like this? She grabbed her purse, took some money and then went to buy some groceries. After that returned happily with a lot of things she bought. When can you get rid of the pronouns without losing the sense of the person or object you’re referring to? Where can I get more information about this? Answer You need at least a subject and verb in each sentence and independent clause. Sometimes the independent clauses in the same sentence can share a subject. As you suggested She grabbed her purse, took some money and then went to buy some groceries. There are three independent clauses in this compound sentence. She grabbed her purse, [she] took some money and [she] then went to buy some groceries. The second and third clauses a

If my birthday is on the 15th August and I tidy up on August 16th I can say: "I threw a huge party and tidied up on the morrow.". But if I prepared for the party on August 12th then what do I say? "I threw a huge party which I prepared on the ......". I don't want to use "the day before". Is there another more eloquent word/phrase? Some thoughts:on the yesterday, yestern, ereyesterday.

In school, I learned to use 10 cent words, so instead of saying: (updated: from a paper that says a scientist doing experiment with fish would make it complicated to say:) All biota exhibited 100% mortality rate. just say: All fish died. which is plain and simple, and gets the idea across, so that people understand what you are saying. But in the real world, time and time again, verbally or written, I see people higher up purposefully using $2 words, to convey that they are educated, and to convey they can use difficult words that you don't understand, and suggest possibly they can do things that other people cannot, so they have power over you (maybe to write something like that to the CEO or board of directors, and if you are against him, the board of director probably won't believe you or not on your side when you write something all with 10 cents words versus his $2 words every where). So, was I too naive to believe "use 10 cent words"? The world may not be simply

Possible Duplicates: Question about Capitalization for a Bullet List Periods for bullet point items Should each item be in uppercase or not? I've seen both forms: Yada, yada, yada, such as: standardized bananas Standardized bananas And if each bulleted item is a complete sentence, should it be punctuated? And even if it isn't, should it have a comma?

As for the British English it's always taught - compel, compe ll ed, compe ll ing Some of the books/dictionaries say that in American English you say compel, compe l ed, compe l ing instead, you simply don't double that l. Moreover, Merriam Webster (11th Collegiate) doesn't mention "compeled" at all. With counsel - both options are listed. Interestingly, ngram doesn't indicate much usage of "compeled". On the other hand, "counseled" is more popular than "counselled" in AmE How is it really in American English? Answer A rule of thumb guide for consonant doubling before suffixes is this: If the last syllable of the root is: stressed ends in: consonant vowel consonant we usually double the final consonant before the suffix. There are some letters that we don't generally double before suffixes. The most important are 'w' and 'y'. The letter 'l' is not one of these letters: be' gin ning ' lag gin

Stumbled along the use of the feminine pronoun for "baby". Previously, I've used it and singular they when the sex of the baby is unknown. Is it correct to use the feminine pronoun (she) for "baby" when you don't know if it is a boy or a girl? Can somebody please explain that to me? Here's an example: "At about 6 months, when your baby can sit up, she'll probably be too big to be bathed in an infant tub" ( http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/baby-bathtubs/buying-guide.htm )

it refers to a discrete life form that has properties of mind (i.e. experience and character, cf. sentience) Answer cf., an abbreviation for the Latin word confer (the imperative singular form of "conferre"), literally meaning "bring together", is used to refer to other material or ideas which may provide similar or different information or arguments. It is mainly used in scholarly contexts, such as in academic (mainly humanities, physics and biology) or legal texts. It is translated, and can be read aloud, as "compare". -wikipedia

Well, the title pretty much says it all. A Sparmeister (noun), briefly speaking, is a person who is concerned about his finances and tries to avoid spending money whenever possible. a person who always tries to get the best (lowest) price on things. I would consider this word neutral, rather than offensive or complimentary. The context for which I need this word is gonna be a sentence similar to this: Looks like you are quite the "Sparmeister", you only spent --insert low amount of money here--. Is there any better wording for "Sparmeister" ? Answer If you're looking for a neutral word which doesn't carry value judgements, try " frugal ". If you want a word with fairly positive connotations, try " economical " or thrifty (noun: saver ; note: spendthrift is a noun, but it has the opposite meaning to thrifty ). If you want a word with negative connotations, try " cheap " (nouns: skinflint , miser , cheapo ). There are plenty

For quite some time, I've been hearing the phrase "to be honest" almost every day. I've heard friends say it, characters on TV shows, and even an NPR reporter said it in an interview. Example: "To be honest, I don't like spaghetti." Why do people have to specify when they are being honest? Or I've thought maybe the phrase is actually supposed to mean "to be blunt" or "let me tell it to you straight." How did the word "honest" get in the mix? Answer "To be honest" is an example of an adverbial disjunct , which indicates the speaker's attitude toward the sentence without affecting the meaning of the sentence. It is often used, consciously or otherwise, to preface a statement that the speaker believes is particularly candid in the present context, possibly to an extent that might cause mild offense. It's a bit of a set phrase these days, and as is usually the case with set phrases, it's best not to p

What is the usage of whatever ? Can I both use 'noun' and 'SVO' after 'whatever'? Whatever the motivation , haphazard clinical practice led to death. Whatever it costs, it doesn't matter. Thank you

OK . . . another one similar to "What is a feminine version of 'guys'?" "Dude" is masculine; what is the feminine version? The usage I'm thinking of is that "dude" nowadays is used primarily as a way to address a person very colloquially, e.g.: "Dude, why are you squirting rubbing alcohol on the grill to start it up?" "Dude, pass me a brew." Again as in the other "guys" case, it might be culturally acceptable to say "dude" to a female, but I'm not sure, and it feels a little wrong (and has for 30 years). So what are some suggestions for acceptable female-gendered alternatives? babe: might work, but sounds a little too diminutive (or does it?) dudette: cute, but hasn't caught on (but could it?) Australians have "bruce" and "sheila" (I hear from the movies) but that just doesn't fly in AmE (and maybe that's already out of fashion). What do Californians say (as "dude&

The dictionary says that advice can only be used in the singular. But in a specific part of computer science (aspect-oriented programming) this word is used to reference some object that implements some specific functionality. There can be many such objects in the program, and sometimes it's required to say something about a number of them. Is it OK to use advices in this case, or is it absolutely wrong? What is the best solution?

I've heard certain titles pluralised in apparently odd ways, such as a Secretary General being Secretaries General when plural, rather than "Secretary Generals" as I'd have guessed, and I'm wondering if there's a rule on this. For example if you were addressing two female Presidents, would is be "Madames President" (multiple females who preside over something) or "Madame Presidents" (multiple Presidents who are female)? Answer The general in attorney general , surgeon general , etc., is actually a postpositive adjective (i.e., an adjective that comes after the noun it modifies). The general , therefore, is the adjective general and has nothing to do with the military rank. Edit: For the plural of Madam President, the plural would be Mesdames Presidents ; one is an honorific , one is a title, and both would be pluralized.

What is the proper way to address a light email/message to a small group of 2-or-3 people, where the group includes both sexes? I normally just use the term "guys" as in "Hey guys" or "Good morning guys". However, I'm wondering if I'm alienating the female(s) in the group. With a larger group, I would just use the term "all" as in "Good morning all", but that seems strange when I'm only writing to a couple of people. Any alternatives?

A friend of mine and I were talking about a party that we've had today and he told me the following: I won't have dinner at home, lol. And I replied: Neither am I. Based on these topics, Using either, neither and too and Is the statement "Neither am I" right? , my answer was not wrong at all in myself comprehension. I want to know your opinion, is the above wrong? If so, why? And what's the correctiest way to express equality in that situation? Answer To: I won't [= will not] have dinner at home, lol. The correct answer should be: Neither will I. But: I'm not [= am not] in a mood to go out for dinner tonight. Neither am I. I think I'll just stay home. Another option that works for both examples is "me neither." I won't have dinner at home, lol. Me neither. And I'm not in a mood to go out for dinner tonight. Me neither. I think I'll just stay home.

As a native Midwesterner, I was very puzzled to hear my wife (who is from northern New Jersey) use that idiom. I understand what it means, and as far as I can remember I understood what it meant from the beginning; but I thought that my wife's rapid speech was eliding the "to". My usual sources for etymology (Merriam-Webster.com and Etymonline.com) are designed for word etymology, not phrase etymology, and I don't see (after some search) a question here, so I'll now put the question: What is the origin and history of the New Jersey idiom "down the shore", used to mean "in the area along the southeastern coast of New Jersey?" Note The related question, here , correctly identifies the expression as being a local idiom, but doesn't address the question of where the expression came from (For example, was there a local dialect which used "down the" to mean "in the direction of"? If so, by whom was it spoken? Where? Does it s

"May I go to the bathroom?" and "I asked if I might go to the bathroom." The modal auxiliary 'may/might' is used to ask permission . "He may not have understood your question." and "He might not have understood your question." The same modal auxiliary is used for uncertainty . Why? Answer According to OED 1 , the oldest meaning (attested from the early 9th century) was “to be strong, have power or influence”—a sense still present in the noun might and the adjective mighty . No later than the end of the 9th century the word was in use to express “objective possibility, opportunity, or absence of prohibitive conditions”. The permissive sense developed somewhat later, around the year 1000: “To be allowed (to do something) by authority, rule, law, morality, reason, etc.”. This is a fairly obvious extension of the primary sense: to permit someone to do something is to grant them the “power” to do it. What you describe as the “uncertainty”

Please go through this excerpt from The Tales of Kasi by Madhira Subbanna Deekshitulu: 'Kasyam maranam mukti', goes the sanskrit saying, which means dying in Kasi leads to liberation. Hindus believe that if they die here, there is an automatic upgrade to heaven, no matter what the sin committed on earth. It is amazing how god provides this wild-card entry at death. I perceived the applicable meaning of wild-card for this context is a rarest luck or facility which comes with no cost. But what is the origin for this meaning? Answer Well, a "wild card" is from card games where it's a card that can be counted as any other card. You would say, starting a game of poker, "Jacks are wild". During the game you could use a Jack as a 10 if it would help your hand. And in software, a wild card is used in something called Regular Expressions. A regular expression is a series of letters and symbols that can "match" many words. In regular expressions, the

You were sent a package. If it is not received please call customer support. or You were sent a package. If not received please call customer support. Which version is correct? Is there a better version? Answer Both are correct. The second is using a form of elision that is only appropriate in some contexts like notices and headlines, but since this text is presumably in a notice, that's okay. If this was part of a larger piece of running text, that would not be okay. If this was followed by a larger piece of text, then it likely would be okay. Indeed it would be ideal; such headline-style notes are good for small pieces of text in a larger font or otherwise made particularly prominent, then followed by more detailed text that gives a fuller description. The elision of some words helps it stand out (one of the reasons the style is also used in headlines).

what do you call a person who has chosen not to have children ? a person who can breed but has decided not to for lifestyle or moral ethical or economical reasons

Is it correct to place two commas in this sentence? New York City plays a significant, albeit previously neglected, role in the urban narratives of [...].

Which one is it really: hear hear or here here ? Where does the saying really come from? Answer It's "Hear! Hear!" which comes from "Hear him! Hear him!" "Hear him! Hear him!" "Hear him! Hear him!" was referred to in Debates in Parliament in 1688 , and from the context it's clear it was a commonly heard phrase at the time. Sir Edward Seymour .] I see Gentlemen speak here under great disadvantages. If they are not free in this Convention, what shall we do in Parliament ? When Gentlemen speak with Reflections, and cry, " Hear him, hear him," they cannot speak with freedom. I speak not this to the Chair (the Speaker) who keeps Order well, but to what passed at the Committee. Seymour continues, and is followed by: Sir Henry Capel .] The Chair has taken care of Order' and I have seen no disorder to-day. When Seymour was in the Chair, I have heard "Hear him, hear him," often said in the House. "Hear! Hear!&quo

Is there a word or concept that describes words lacking simple (e.g. less pretentious, less technical, less subjugating) synonyms, or more generally words without single-word synonyms. I'm looking for lists of words that defy "plain-English" translation, in an effort to identify "essential" vocabulary. I'm thinking of the vocabulary equivalents of least-common denominators.

Adjectives are placed before nouns. But sometimes I've seen (though I'm not sure if they are correct), things like: The item placed there I know that it may be a short way of saying "The item which is placed there". Is the past participle "placed" considered as an adjective in that sentence? Can any past participle used in this way by ommiting the relative pronoun+subject of the relative clause? Is there any exception for the rule that adjectives must be placed before noun? Answer Answers: 1. This particular example is called a participial phrase . The whole phrase placed there is an adjective modifying the noun item . Placed is the participle, and there is the adverb modifying the participle. This example isn't actually a complete sentence, unless of course it were the answer to a question. Out of context, it doesn't have much meaning. Example: Which item did you touch? The item placed there. or The item placed there is very fragile. Do not touc

Why is the dropped in "I go to school by bus"? Why isn't it "I go to the school by the bus" if both school and bus are countable? Does the rule that a countable noun must have an article have an exception here?

One can contract I have to I've when have is a helping verb, e.g. I've got an octopus in my pants. Is contracting the main verb technically incorrect or merely antiquated? My father loves to say, I've a month-old smoked shoulder I can cook for dinner, and he sounds like a crazy old man when he does. I would like to know if I can shut him down by informing him that he is incorrect. :) Answer Contracting the main verb in a sentence is perfectly fine. It sounds awkward only when the pattern of prosodic stress falls on that word: I have to do it. * I've to do it. I have yet to do it. I've yet to do it. But this is probably just because you can't use a contracted form in a grammatically stressed position, such as: I don't know what it is. * I don't know what it's. But even then, there are sentences in which the stress falls on the contracted word and it doesn't sound awkward, showing that it's not ungrammatical except perhaps by the standar

Concerts, by definition, feature music. Isn't specifying a concert to be a music concert needlessly redundant? Answer Concert means "a performance of music" given by musicians or singers. So it's not true to use music concert . But it's fine to say "Rock Music Concert", because you're talking about the type of music, not the concert.

The dictionary software 'WordWeb', when searched for the word 'lest' shows this as one of the sentence examples under the meaning 'In case' : "he worried lest he should be late." Now, I have even seen usage of the word in this manner: "He worried lest he be late." Which of the above is correct, if at all it is a matter of correctness? Or which is better? Or does it not matter at all? Answer Both forms of the sentence work and are understandable. However, the should version is expressing an unlikely situation. That means that it is wrong to be early or on time and that something, somehow is forcing him to not be late. The shorter, without should version is the likely and ordinary situation. It means that he should not be late and he is worried that he will be late.

A question on another site asks, I have a laptop ... Now I am trying to install Windows 7 and it shows a message saying "Driver not found". Whereupon a commenter asks, What is the "it" that shows the message? I would think that was an existential it , which cannot be attributed to anything in particular. In any case, if I had structured the question myself, I would probably have intended so. Q : Is this a case of an existential it ? [Edit-1] Clarification This question is not about the subject of the example. The question relates to English language, grammar and esp., the concept of the existential it . Please see also the tags for an idea.

I let him do it. and I allow him to do it. Why does the latter require to ? What are the "rules" of using to with an infinitive? When is it necessary?

For years I have thought the Oakland Athletics baseball team has misused the apostrophe. I've always thought the "A" is an abbreviation for "Athletic" and the "s" makes "Athletic" plural. Is my thinking correct? If not, why is "A's" an acceptable shortening of "Athletics"? The same is true with multiple versions of the Baltimore Orioles logo. I would like citations for reasoning. Thanks. Answer According to the MLA Handbook, section 2.2.7: A principal function of the apostrophe is to indicate possession. The apostrophe is also used to form ... the plurals of the letters of the alphabet (p's and q's, three A's). So, according to MLA at least, these logos have it right.

Capitalization of names that begin lowercased, at the beginning of a sentence Let's say that you have a word that should be typed with leading lowercase letter. Perhaps it's a computer command. Perhaps it's an Internet nickname. I can't find any more serious examples. When you put that word at the beginning of a sentence, should you capitalise it? cat allows you to display contents of a file. The convention is that commands are typed in fixed-width font, so this doesn't stand out as much. soccer_boy_89 turned out to be my sister's account. This does, though. Of course you could paraphrase the sentence such that the problematic word is not the first one, but that's not the point here.

The Simpson family becomes The Simpsons, does that mean I can call a family with surname Wolf, The Wolves or The Wolfs? I don't know if changing letters of someone's surname is appropriate or not.

Does anybody know the origin of the idiom " Hong Kong dog "? EDIT : I'm more interested in how the idiom came into being rather than when it first appeared in mainstream media. Something like the guess made in the following comment is most welcome except that trusted sources would be greatly appreciated. Answer According to Eric Partridge's A dictionary of slang and unconventional English , Hong Kong dog is a tropical fever, and the term is originally 20th century Royal Navy slang. His source for this is 'Taffrail', or Capt. H Taprell Dorling, DSO, RN, in Carry On , 1916, especially the article 'the Language of the Navy, originally published not later than 1915. The term is comparable with Malta dog , another local name for traveller's diarrhoea, is also from Royal Navy sailors. Hong Kong dog can be found as far back as 1899. The Philadelphia medical journal says: Sprue (psilosis linguae, Hong-Kong dog, Ceylon sore mouth, etc.) is a chronic catarrh

Example: "Baseball still boring" vs "Baseball still is boring" Which one is correct and why?

I have heard many (rather most) people, especially in the USA, saying: I don't know nothing about it. Is that correct? I always get a weird feeling hearing this and feel the correct one would be saying: I don't know anything about it. Answer The second one is correct for most dialects of English. The first one is a double negative, or as we call it in linguistics, exhibits negative concord. Wikipedia has a pretty good article on double negatives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative Most prescriptive grammarians will tell you that a double negative is incorrect because it is "illogical." However, there are many languages that operate just fine using double negative obligatorily. For instance, almost all Romance languages have obligatory negative concord: Italian: Non so niente. French: Je ne sais pas. Double negatives used to be grammatical in English, but there was a grammatical change sometime during Middle English. The Wikipedia article gives a sentence

What's a word for a statement that's not quite factual? Not quite a myth, but not quite a fact either. Like "truthy" but not an adjective? For example, "scientists are still looking for the missing link." It's true that scientists are still researching evolution, but not in the sense that there is a "missing link" since there will always be a fossil between any two fossils.

I know chemist means someone who sells medicines or drugs. However, we use physicist for someone who studies/researches physics, and so will anyone naturally understand. But it has always confused me why don't we use chemist similarly, and selling medicines is not completely related to studying chemistry. So what is the word's origins and why did its meaning came to be so unnatural? Answer chemist (n.) 1560s, chymist, "alchemist," from Middle French chimiste, from Medieval Latin chimista, reduced from alchimista (see alchemy). Modern spelling is from c.1790. Meaning "chemical scientist" is from 1620s; meaning "dealer in medicinal drugs" (mostly in British English) is from 1745. Alchemist(n.) 1510s, from Middle French alquemiste, from Medieval Latin alchimista (see alchemy). Earlier forms were alchemister (late 14c.), alkanamyer (late 15c.). Etymonline.com Actually they used to produce medicines themselves, and some of them still do it today

I have heard it used several times recently, but I had no idea what it meant until I looked the term up on the Internet, because I had never heard it before. Where does whole cloth come from? How and where is it used? Answer Thefreedictionary has an entry: Pure fabrication or fiction: "He invented, almost out of whole cloth, what it means to be American" (Ned Rorem). "His account of being drugged, kidnapped and tortured was made up of whole cloth" (George Carver). [From the fabrication of garments out of newly manufactured, full-sized pieces of cloth.] Another meaning is captured by Answers.com : This expression is a hold over from the days when material was hand made and very expensive. If a garment was made new from material that had been custom made, it was said to be made of "whole cloth", not a patched garment... So the expression "created out of whole cloth" generally is admiration for an excellently told tall tale that is usually a new

Sorry if the title isn't clear. Some keyboards will put a pit/valley thing on certain keys to put some extra space between the key and its neighbor. A common one is on Caps lock, presumably so you don't accidentally press it when you want to press "A". I think I have also seen it on the "Enter" key. Is there a word for this type of key, or the characteristic? Answer From reading https://deskthority.net/wiki/Caps_lock the term step seems promising, so perhaps stepped keycaps or keycaps with a step ? I don't know how "official" the term is but that website has an amazing amount of information on keyboards and keycaps and seems as authoritative as I can find. And from same page ... It usually occupies a prominent place between Tab, Shift and A, and is easily engaged by mistake when reaching for A. To avoid this mistake, many keyboards have a stepped caps lock keycap that places a gap between caps lock and the adjacent letter key.

I have a book that explains how to speak in standard American English ( American Accent Training — Barron's). What does the term standard American English refer to? Is there a region in the United States of America that has a pronunciation similar, or closer to standard American English (in the same way standard Italian is derived from a dialect spoken in Tuscany)? Answer “Standard” American English (SAE), when used to describe accents, is identical to the term “General American English”, and means American English spoken without any clear regional dialect markers. Sociolinguists tell us that this means essentially English spoken in the north midlands region, like Iowa, but in reality it is spoken all over the country, even in places where many people speak with what others would describe as “heavy” or “thick” accents. SAE is the English used by most television and radio broadcasters—that is, those who don’t speak with an identifiable regional accent. In truth, a “standard” Amer

Can someone explain the structure of the following sentence? It was not until hours later did I find him . Does it have anything to do with emphasis ?

The Aesop's Fables translated by George Fyler Townsend book has a line which reads as follows: ... If you had but touched me, my friend, you ... I've seen the word 'but' used this way a couple of times, but I'm not sure I understand the meaning of this phrase correctly. What is the general rule for using 'but' this way? Answer In the fragment ... If you had but touched me, my friend, you ... but functions as an adverb whose definition , according to the New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd Edition) is no more than; only Thus, your example could very well read ... If only you had touched me, my friend, you ... Other examples: I am but a mere mortal. He is but a child. That was but a distant memory. This usage of but , though, is largely restricted to formal or literary contexts.

A juxtaposition of two of today's questions, Hyphenate or not and What does "zazzy" mean? , prompts this one. Shouldn't one use a hyphen? Or is there a pun I'm missing? Answer A hyphen is one way of specifying or clarifying that it is the bang and not the theory that is being called big. Capitalization, italicization, or enclosure within quotation marks can all effect the requisite grouping without hyphen. As the title of a television show, however, the phrase should simply be rendered as it is on the title cards (eccentric capitalization excepted), and italicized: The Big Bang Theory . If some sexual double entendre is intended for the word bang (as when Eccentrica Gallumbits terms Zaphod Beeblebrox “the best bang since the Big One”), it hardly affects the grouping or compound-adjective issue.

Can't think of any off the top of my head, and the thesaurus comes up with bland results.

How do you say to someone that you will reuse a sentence (or a joke) you've just heard from them, as-is, because you liked it a lot ? In Italian we say "Questa me la rivendo" , that translated is "I'm gonna resell that one" ( ri-vendo / re-sell is the idiomatic part, the other words could be recombined / replaced). I can't find anything in the web, so... what is the English version ? Answer When I hear a phrase I admire, I generally say "I want to use that" or "I'm gonna steal that" as well. To present or use (someone else's words or ideas) as one's own. (AHD)

While the word anymore is usually a negative context, the positive anymore is a well-documented phenomenon. I found this surprising, because I had never come across the positive anymore in a conversational or written context before. I consulted Bryan M. Garner's Dictionary of Modern American Usage , which seemed to suggest that the positive use of anymore can be considered correct. My question to you: is the positive use of anymore considered correct spoken/standard written English?

Is there a word that means “make someone (or something) redundant”? I'm looking for a word that I can use in a context where I say something like If you let me look in your garage it will eliminate the need for a warrant. Even if I have to rearrange the sentence, I wouldn't mind. Answer Obviate : to bypass a requirement or make it unnecessary.

Comedians seem to use phrases that employ this type of sentence structure - is there a name for it? Examples of Groucho Marx's one liners seem to fit this pattern — and if memory serves, Emo Philips. One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas, how he got in my pajamas, I don't know. I've had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it. Answer This is called paraprosdokian . A paraprosdokian (from Greek "παρα-", meaning "beyond" and "προσδοκία", meaning "expectation") is a figure of speech in which the latter part of a sentence or phrase is surprising or unexpected in a way that causes the reader or listener to reframe or reinterpret the first part. It is frequently used for humorous or dramatic effect, sometimes producing an anticlimax. For this reason, it is extremely popular among comedians and satirists. 1 You'll find exactly the example you mentioned on the page linked above. Here's one of my favorite example

I know that when a sentence begins with "I wonder" followed by a question, it is typically ended with a period. I wonder why that is. However, when "I wonder" is moved to the end of the sentence, does the same rule apply? Why is that, I wonder? It seems harder to deny the writer a question mark in this case if one is felt. Answer Both are correct English. The first sentence has an embedded question object complement of a mental perception verb, and, as described here , sentences like these are often intoned as questions, because they're intended as requests for information. When a writer wishes their sentence to sound like a question in the mind's ear of the reader, they use a question mark; otherwise, not. This is very ordinary. The second sentence has undergone a Dislocation, wherein the embedded question is moved to the front of the sentence, presenting a question form and signalling a bald request for information. And therefore, it is almost always pun

What is the earliest printed use in English, including relevant context, of 'white person' or 'white people'? As nearly as I have been able to discover, the term is first found in print in these contexts: 'white person': I don't have ready access to what seems to be the earliest appearance in print of this phrase, and am unable to determine what the context is. The term may be found in The lives, actions, and execution of the prime actors, and principall contrivers of that horrid murder of our late pious and sacred soveraigne, King Charles the First , by George Bate, published in 1661. 'white people' first appears in a translation of The discouerie and conquest of the prouinces of Peru, and the nauigation in the South Sea, along that coast , by Agustin de Zárate. The translation was published in 1581 . ...hee warned him, that whe[n] a white people, bearded, should come into that Countrey, that hee should submit him selfe vnto them, because (said hee

The term deadeye means (informal, chiefly North American) An expert marksman Oxford Dictionaries Online (There is an apparently unrelated sense of the term referring to a specific type of nautical block.) Numerous other online dictionaries give nearly identical meanings, and a few also list it as an adjective with an equivalent meaning. But none of these sources give an etymology. A search on etymonline.com gives no results. A quick review of ngrams shows the term being used as a name or nickname as early as 1829 and a character known as Dick Deadeye appears in Gilbert and Sullivan’s HMS Pinafore , but none of these 19th century cites seem to relate to a marksmanship characteristic. There also seems to be a series of dime novels featuring Deadeye Dick , but I cannot find any text to indicate if the name is associated with a sharpshooting skill. So, can anyone assist with the origin of the term deadeye to mean marksman ? Answer I think this is related to the phrase "dead on,&