Blog

I saw him crossing the road. I saw him cross the road. Which one is correct and why? Answer They are both correct, grammatically speaking. However, they have slightly different meanings. I saw him crossing the road. ... suggests that you saw a male person in the middle of crossing the road (he was probably walking in the middle of the road toward one of the sides). But, you didn't necessarily see him get to the side of the road I saw him cross the road. ... suggests that you saw him do the entire action of starting on one side, walking across, and ending up on the other side.

I'm confused about two particular examples where "who" is used as a relative pronoun: Example-1: ...people who I have no idea who are. ...people who I have no idea who they are. Example-2: ...people who we have no idea what their intentions are. What is the correct phrasing for these two examples? Also, is it okay to drop "who"? I've seen instances of example-1 on various webpages; in fact, a quick google search for "who I have no idea who they are" gave 97,200 hits. So, is it acceptable in colloquial usage regardless of whether it is grammatically correct or not? Thanks. Answer From chompchomp; Robin L Simmons [slightly adjusted] The Relative Clause Recognize a relative clause when you see one. A relative clause—also called an adjective or adjectival clause—will meet three requirements. First , it will contain a subject and verb. Next , it will begin with a relative pronoun [who, whom, whose, that, or which] or a relative adverb [when, where, or

This is one thing I never really bothered looking into, but have always been unsure of. punching, kicking, slapping or slashing [is/are] strictly prohibited That's what I'm trying to determine. Let's say multiple of these specified actions can occur simultaneously. Is it proper to use "is" or "are"? This is going to be used in a short legal notice.

I recently stumbled upon an interesting quirk regarding words that are both nouns and verbs. They seem to all follow the same stress pattern. Here are a few examples: NOUNS I have a really long add ress. There is a huge con trast between winter and spring. Not a single ob ject is blue. I'm not very good at creating pro duce. VERBS Make sure you add ress him properly. I try to con trast the two twins in my head. He will ob ject to any change you propose. Pro duce the paper right this instant! Why do the nouns have stresses on the first syllable and the verbs have stresses on the last syllable? Is there a good reason for this, or is it just coincidence? These are just the examples I thought of - I'm sure there are more. There are also some "noun/verb"s that have the same stress: That was a huge sur prise ! Next time I'll sur prise you! But I've yet to find a counterexample - one where the noun has an ending stress and the verb has a starting stress.

I recently heard shut up used according to this definition in Urban dictionary . shut·up (shuht-up) --interjection 1. An expression of disbelief. 2. Amazement; astonishment. I've only heard it used in a few movies ( The Princess Diaries and in an episode of Dr. Who for example). What is the etymology of this idiomatic phrase? I'm particularly curious as to when and in what country this use originated and in what circles is it used. Also, is there a proper or expected response to the phrase in conversation? Answer It's an evolution of other imperatives that could also be used to express surprise or disbelief, such as "don't joke around", or in slang "stop fooling" or "quit joshing". While these statements are commands, the implication is that the speaker believes he is being deceived in jest. If the listener were to obey the speaker's request, they'd stop talking, or "shut up", hence the introduction of the command as a

What is the difference between the following two sentences? I have been working here for 20 years. I have worked here for 20 years. The present perfect tense is used for repetitive or constant actions that began in the past and continue to the present. The perfect progressive tense is used for continuous actions that began in the past and continue to the present. But I really don't see the difference here.

What is the difference between the two adjectives: slick and sleek ? My dictionary returns almost the same explanation for both, like smooth and glossy . Could someone explain when it would be more appropriate to use one or the other. Thank you. Answer Both mean smooth or seeming to be smooth. To me, slick is more about touch : slippery, and sleek is more about sight /appearance. A wet moss-covered surface is slick. A satin skirt is sleek.

I have seen several questions dealing with the use of "respectively" but still I am not sure how to use it. Example: We saw two persons, standing on the hill and near the tree, respectively. I need a word to clarify that not both persons are standing both on the hill and near the tree, but that one person is standing on the hill and the other one near the tree. While this sentence is easy to rewrite (e.g. We saw one person... and another person...), this becomes more difficult in more complicated sentences and when I don't want to repeat longer words. I was told that "respectively" can only be used in lists and I am not sure if "two persons" can be seen as a list (while "Person A and person B" would be a list). Moreover, I was told to use "correspondingly" instead. Is "respectively" used correctly in the above sentence? If not, can I replace it with "correspondingly"? Answer The term respectively is used in tec

Say I developed something called "Methodology for Establishing Remaining Life of Components". Basically, at work, we have components (or equipment). I wanted to develop a way to identify how much longer the components / equipment can last before they ware out and cannot be used. It takes into account "the degree of damage currently in the component, the rate of future damage accumulation based on realistic operating scenarios, and the degree of damage required to cause failure." Taking these three into account, the remaining life of a component can be assessed. This is what I call "Methodology for Establishing Remaining Life of Components". My question is, would this be considered a 'methodology for establishing remaining life of components' or just a 'method for establishing remaining life of components'? Or do you need more information to figure out if it is a method or methodology? I cannot provide all the information for business purpos

Assume that a certain word is capitalised, for example "Microsoft." Say (for whatever reason, perhaps slang) you were going to shorten that certain word, using an apostrophe. Today, I'd say we would write: 'soft (So for example: "I've worked at 'soft for years...") We would not (I'd say) keep the capitalisation through the contraction. (So, I'd say, we would not write "I've worked at 'Soft for years...") Question: what happened in 1850? (Of course, the overall study of changes in capitalisation is a big topic; hopefully there's an expert here.) PS. Please do not edit italics in to this question, as italics makes it a little hard to follow apostrophes perfectly, thanks. Still very little information on this, other than one (great) example found by Stoney. Anyone??

I'm wondering where the term "ballpark estimate" comes from? Sometimes "ballpark" is said stand-alone to mean a rough estimate, as in "these numbers are a ballpark". I understand it must come from baseball or some other sport. Does it refer to the idea that a batter might point in the direction he'll hit the ball? Or is it something that relates to a rough guess at the attendance that day? What part of the ballpark or sports does one use a rough estimate? Answer Etymonline has this interesting bit : ballpark "baseball stadium," 1899, from ( base ) ball + park (n.). Figurative sense of "acceptable range of approximation" first recorded 1960, originally referring to area within which a spacecraft was expected to return to earth; the reference is to broad but reasonably predictable dimensions. But I'll bet there's more to the story. . . Edit #1: Looks like the first figurative use of the phrase is from Kenneth Patchen&#

What does the term "hot dog lawyer" mean? I've heard this term quite a few times, and I am not sure what does the term "hot dog" as an adjective describe? For example: “And they usually don't have a hot-dog lawyer waiting for them when they arrive at the station.” From the book: 'Death by Sudoku' by Kaye Morgan Sally Yates is a hotdog lawyer who never should have been the acting attorney general. Joe diGenova, on Fox News (with transcript of video ). He was a hot-dog lawyer from Dallas with one of those seven-figure houses on Truman Annex. From the novel 'Air Dance Iguana' by Tom Corcoran Answer hot-dog lawyer (or 'hot dog' or 'hotdog', there's no difference here) is not a lawyer that eats hotdogs or represents hotdogs in court or is made of hotdog. This is a very figurative use of the word 'hotdog'. Here it means someone who shows off or is self-aggrandizing in an ostentatious manner . Of course, the first meani

I have been posting on a forum recently, and every time I express my opinion, someone says I'm using the word incorrectly, and I want to confirm this. I said something along the lines of: "In my opinion, this thing is bad" Surely this acceptable? I would have thought the "In my opinion" would automatically render anything that follows part of my opinion, and not a fact that I am stating is true, so this would be the equivalent of "I think this thing is bad", would it not? Otherwise, what is the correct usage of the word "opinion" in this context? Edit: An addition to avoid confusion: Take this example: "In my opinion, the realism in some videogames hinders the enjoyability, because etc.". This was actually the point I made in the first place, and the other person said that my opinion was invalid because there is evidence against my claim (as in they thought it didn't hinder the enjoyability), though I thought this was closer to

The word just is one of those overused words that carries little meaning and appears to just clutter up a sentence (oops, did it again). When is the use of just justified? What are better, clearer constructions (e.g. replace just with only ) When should the word be dropped altogether? Answer I'd say a good rule of thumb is to use it when you need it for clarity or to add a special emphasis. There were just three jars of honey left. This is different from There were three jars of honey left. because it gives the sense that three jars of honey is not a lot, or at least that you don't think it is. So the answer is no, don't give it up entirely. Just trust yourself to use it less. Think of it as dieting. If you have the willpower, you can write lean sentences.

What is the difference in meanings of the following pairs of sentences? It's very confusing to me. a. I have lived in Paris for 4 years. b. I have been living in Paris for 4 years. a. I lived in Paris for 4 years. b. I had lived in Paris for 4 years. a. I had lived in Paris for 4 years. b. I had been living in Paris for 4 years. Will there be any difference in meanings if I do not write "for 4 years" in each of the above sentences?

Last week, as I was departing from work, a co-worker said, "Stay warm!" It was very cold that day. My question is how is the word warm functioning in this sentence? What part of speech is it? It appears to be modifying the word stay, but stay is a verb and warm is an adjective. My understanding is that adjectives cannot modify verbs. Please explain?

There is the following line in a December 8 New York Times article titled “Clinton’s countless choices hinge on one: 2016”: “But being Hillary Clinton is never a simple matter, and her next few years are less a blank check than an equation with multiple variables . Her status is singular but complicated.” Though it seems to me the author is simply saying Hillary Clinton’s plans and stand for next few years is unpredictable, I’m not clear with the phrase, “less blank check than an equation with multiple variables.” Cambridge Online Dictionary defines less than ... as an idiom to describes “behavior which does not have a stated characteristic that is good or attractive.” Readers English Japanese Dictionary defines “less than ...” as an idiom meaning “never be ....” I know what a blank check is. In the phrase “less a blank check than an equation with multiple variables,” is a blank check more unpredictable (difficult to fathom) than a complex equation, or is a blank check as unpredictab

Is there any single word which can substitute "weekly twice" or "twice in a week"? Answer The word is twice-weekly with semi-weekly as a synonym and semiweekly as an alternative spelling.

Context: Top Notch 2 Conversation: Agent: I have you returning the car on August 14th here at the airport. Renter: Yes. That's correct. I am puzzled by this sentence in a conversation between a rental car agent and renter. We use the simple form of the verb after have when it is used in causative sentences, but here we have the -ing form of the verb. Do we have such a structure in English? Is it a grammatically correct sentence?

Following is the stanza: Teach us delight in simple things, And mirth that has no bitter springs; Forgiveness free of evil done, And Love to all men 'neath the sun! What does second line and third line mean? And does the last line mean love to all people who work hard under the harsh sun? A brief explanation will suffice. (I hope that this is not a subjective question! Also, please change the tag; my reputation is not quite enough to create new one.) Answer "Bitter springs" means, basically, "springing from something bitter." So the second line means: may we learn to not be happy because of others' misfortunes. "Forgiveness free of evil done" means that we'll forgive those who wrong us, and never remember again the evil they did. (Sort of the opposite of "I may forgive, but I'll never forget.") In the last line, "under the sun" means "everyone in the world" - the expression is borrowed from Ecclesiastes (1:3).

Like when you want to say that you'll tell a short version of something which would alter the accuracy of the original version. I was thinking of "In a nutshell" and "To make a long story short", but I felt like those phrases did not place emphasis on the "there might be an insignificant loss of accuracy" aspect.

I've seen someone type "All of a time" before and I've often used "All of the time". Should it be: All of the time All of time All of a time As in: I make mistakes all of the time . Answer "All of the time" is correct, but the more commonly used version is " all the time " ( dictionary reference ). "All of time" would be wrong in this context, but "for all of time" can be used to mean forever (as opposed to continually, habitually, or continuously). "All of a time" is just wrong, and I've never heard it.

Some words or phrases have 'special' meaning beyond the combination of constituent parts. For example: 'White House' is the white house where the US president lives. 'black board' is where you draw on with chalk at school [actually more recently a green board and in the past 20 years a 'white board' (which is white)]. Negative examples (phrases or constructions that are not examples of the concept): 'quasi-' anything: (I find) is -not- a 'special thing' for me, it is not a new word with a meaning all its own, 'quasi' is just a productive modifier that doesn't mean anything more than itself and the new word it makes can be judged simply as 'almost like an X' colors usually (with some example exceptions above) don't make anything 'new' - a 'red door' is just a door colored red. If it took on some cultural connection, then it might need an additional dictionary specification for that term 'red doo

I wonder if "iff" is considered a real word (as LEO says) or is it just an abbreviation (as in Wiktionary )? Answer I would count it as jargon and I'd never use it in prose. It's a programming/maths term meaning if and only if and should be restricted to circles where it's likely to be understood ( edit like XKCD ). The question of whether it's an abbreviation is interesting. It's obviously shorter than "if and only if" but I think I'd say it was a more of a symbol. Perhaps that's my programming background coming out [where symbol has a particular meaning ( see number 2 here )]. However as it consists of more than one recognisable letter, it might be better to say it's an abbreviation Here's an Ngram which shows that iff has become more popular recently, corresponding to the increase in computing. That may explain the increase in "if and only if" as well. I have no idea whether the incidence around 1800 is simpl

I remember I learned a structure like the one that this post’s title mentions: All I {need to do | have to do | must do} is do something. But is it correct to use "to do something" after the "is" — as compared with just plain "do something" without the "to"? Or to be more specific, which of the following sentences in each pair is correct, or are both version correct? The second one in each case adds "to" to the formula: Pair #1: All I must do is prepare myself for the test. All I must do is to prepare myself for the test. Pair #2: What we should do is teach children how to think. What we should do is to teach children how to think. As far as I could remember, both forms should be fine. But it seems that all the materials, texts, and articles I've read so far use the first form only. Furthermore, I'd really appreciate it if you could show me some references, like webpages or some book, where I could find more information ab

I am looking for a generalized term for "the belief that there is a single or narrow range of correct interpretations of events or a circumscribed set of permitted actions in a particular situation as prescribed by an unquestionable authority." Fundamentalism fits to some degree, but has a religious connotation whereas people can hold the above belief without also believing in a deity or god. Also, people who identify as fundamentalist have a much different usage for the word. Any suggestions for a term that captures the belief without referring specificity to the religious? ETA: Very good suggestions. To clarify a bit more, what I am looking for is a word or short phrase that emphasizes a reliance on an unquestionable authority. Many words that have that connotation also seem to to be used to mean a steadfast belief. Answer Those who want to return to the 'foundations' of their particular ideology or concept or system practice fundamentalism ; those who return to t

I recently saw the etymology of the word technology and it comes from Greek thchni meaning art and logos which means word , reasoning , and stuff like that. So I reckon technology means doing something such that people consider it as a work of art. On the other hand, we sometimes see state-of-the-art which is used as adjective, or adverb in some contexts. My question is, are they equal in meaning? Can we use them interchangeably? Is state-of-the-art a literal translation of technology ? Answer No it isn't a translation, but there are connections. The crucial thing to realise is that "art" (and its equivalents in Greek and Latin) have had a broad range of meanings. The Oxford English Dictionary lists 12 primary meanings for the noun (some of them further subdivided). It starts off meaning "skill", and then comes to denote different fields in which one might apply skill. But the modern distinction between "art" as in fine arts and "technology

Imagine I want to quote this text (the parts in bold): If there were such a thing, I think I'd be a champion. You know, baking under dangerous conditions, high-speed frosting... all hypothetical examples, obviously. Of course assuming I don't live in a madhouse. Should I quote it with 4 dots, because I'm skipping a full sentence? If there were such a thing, I think I'd be a champion. . . . Of course assuming I don't live in a madhouse.

If a woman keeps her maiden name what is the proper way to address her? Mrs, Ms, or Miss? I have seen it done multiple ways, but am unsure what is the proper way.

My girlfriend messaged me earlier to say "I will drive into town with my mother". I thought this was odd, since she doesn't have a licence. Turns out she meant that her mother will be driving, and she pointed out that it is perfectly fine to say "I will drive" in that case, citing the second usage of the verb from here . I guess she is right then. Really though? I drive, can also mean I will be in a vehicle that somebody else is actually driving? Answer It's a bit pedantic to quibble over such use of drive . I've never heard anyone take issue with... He is sailing to Calais this afternoon He flew to New York yesterday ...in contexts where he is a passenger (not a sailor or a pilot).

What's the etymology of the British informal usage of the word "nutmeg" as a verb to mean "kicking a ball through a player's legs", usually used in football? It doesn't seem to bear any relation to the noun. Answer This is what Wikipedia considers the most likely: The most likely source, however, was postulated by Peter Seddon in his book "Football Talk - The Language And Folklore Of The World's Greatest Game". The word arose because of a sharp practice used in nutmeg exports between America and England. "Nutmegs were such a valuable commodity that unscrupulous exporters were to pull a fast one by mixing a helping of wooden replicas into the sacks being shipped to England," writes Seddon. "Being nutmegged soon came to imply stupidity on the part of the duped victim and cleverness on the part of the trickster." It soon caught on in football, implying that the player whose legs the ball had been played through had been t

I found the term "anti-example" when googling for a word that means "example of what not to do" but I've never heard of it being used in common usage and googling it doesn't seem to lead to any dictionary entries. A "bad example" seems me to mean "an example that's not very representative of the subject matter" rather than "an example that conveys the exact opposite meaning". Is there a commonly used word that most people would agree means "example of what not to do"? Answer An example of what not to do is called "a bad example" or a "cautionary tale." Lecturers on morality and other scolds worry that the bad example will not teach the object lesson of what not to do, but rather will encourage imitation. From one such scold, William Dodd, in his 1792 Sermons to Young Men [I]t is unquestionable that] ... that bad company and bad example will for the most part be sufficient to corrupt.

A growing number of languages are on the verge of becoming ... endangered endangering I know that when we discuss personal feelings we should use -ed . -ing is used when we talk about things that causes these feelings. None of the rules fit this example. Which one should I use here? Here's the full sentence: As economic and cultural globalization and development continue to push forward, a growing number of languages is on the verge of becoming ... and, eventually, extinct.

Is "indifferent of" correct in this sentence? Is it ever correct? Should I replace "of" with something? "In regards to hacking, do you approve, disapprove, or are you indifferent of the practice?" Thank you.

according to Wikipedia: A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply. Example: "How much longer must our people endure this injustice?" So would any question for which an answer is not expected be considered rhetorical? On SE, users are presented the following question. Have you considered accepting an answer or starting a bounty for this question? There is no mechanism for responding to the question but it is more reminding than persuasive. Is it a rhetorical question? according to reference.com rhetorical - used for, belonging to, or concerned with mere style or effect. By this definition, a question that was crafted (expected) to receive a certain response (such as a loaded question) might also be rhetorical if used merely for it's style or effect. In my experience, people often say a question is rhetorical if they do not expect (or usually want) an answer but it has little to d

A single t between vowels sounds like a d to me (or like an r in my language, Brazilian Portuguese). May I say the tt spelling the same way, or does that only work for a single t ? Answer Yes, the spelling doesn’t matter, just the pronunciation. In most North American and some Antipodean dialects of English, both Katie and kitty have an alveolar flap there, just like the one in the middle of Portuguese or Spanish cara . It is represented by [ɾ] in IPA.

I'm writing an college-entrance essay and for me it's imperative that I understand and implement the correct one of these two expressions: "Much of it is" or "Much of it are" If you need context: I'm having trouble with my writing. The reason I'm having trouble is that much of it is about.... Should there be an "is" or an "are"? Answer "Much of it is" is the correct grammar. Much always applies to singular nouns (i.e. quantifying a noun that is a singular entity). In addition, "it" is a singular pronoun. So it is without question that "is" is the correct verb conjugation to use. Were it plural, it would be "many of them are".

In sonnets from the Elizabethan period, "move" rhymed with "love" although they don't today. Recognizing that changes in spelling rarely keep up with changes in pronunciation, how were "move" and "love" pronounced in Early Modern English?

The following sentences sound right to me: The package arrives tomorrow. (The package is going to arrive tomorrow) We leave for Hawaii tomorrow. (We are going to leave for Hawaii tomorrow) But the following sound wrong to me: We watch The Avengers tomorrow. (We are going to watch The Avengers tomorrow) He likes it tomorrow. (He is going to like it tomorrow) The house is demolished next week. (The house is going to be demolished next week) I don't understand why the second group sounds wrong. Is it because there is an object or adjective? Is there a rule for when the present simple could be changed to indicate future time with only an adverb or preposition phrase? Answer The package arrives tomorrow. We leave for Hawaii tomorrow. We often use the present simple for scheduled events, events that appear on timetables, itineraries and calendars. In other words we use it for events whose occurrence is viewed as already firmly fixed for a specific time or date. This is why the sentences

This has been rattling around in the back of my mind for many years (way before Stack Exchange came into existence), so it's a relief to finally ask the question. There are words that can be "contracted" by removing one or more letter(s) (without changing the order of the letters) to form a shorter word with the same meaning, or one very close to it. The two strongest examples I can think of right now are: rapscallion -> rascal and satiate -> sate This is a slightly weaker example: rapine -> rape Even though "rape" has come, in modern usage, to refer almost exclusively to a sexual crime, it can still be used in a more literary (and purposefully anachronistic) sense to mean "the plunder and pillage of a country or region". In that sense, "rape" can be used in a similar fashion to "rapine"; in any case, the two words are etymologically related to the Latin rapere which is tied to the archaic usage. Another weaker example:

What word (or how do you phrase things) do you use when the ostensible word for the class is the same as the word for a subset of the class? For example, in the United States, there are many brands of sugared, carbonated soft drink that one can buy: Coca-Cola (or Coke), Pepsi, RC Cola, Sprite, 7-Up, A&W or Mug Root Beer, etc). The first two are kinds of 'coke' or 'cola' (but no one says 'cola'). But in some parts of the US (namely the south) , one asks for any type of such drink as 'coke'. How does one then ask for the particular kind of 'coke' that is 'Coke' (pronounced the same)? Does one reduplicate and say a 'Coke coke', does one repeat with emphasis (or without), does one use a different word like 'coca-cola' (co-cola), or what? The (perceived) difficulty (surely those in the South are able to get the drink they want somehow) isn't limited to there. Where the drink is called 'soda', if you ask for a &#

Why is it that much doesn't fit in many of the places not much does? Compare "Have you got any food in the house?" "Not much." "Would you like this old box?" "That's not much use to me." with "Have you got any food in the house?" "Much!" "Would you like this old box?" "That's much use to me!" Although much has the same meaning throughout, it seems we can't use it on its own much. Yet we can make much of something, and there can be much ado about nothing . What's going on here? Is this purely idiomatic, or is there some grammatical or linguistic light that can be shed? Answer The affinity of the negation is to the verb not the the 'much'. You can tell this is going on because you are more likely to see "That isn't much use to me" than to see "That is little use to me." And when you answer 'Not much', you are paraphrasing 'Yes, there is. But

Is it acceptable to use a gerund phrase as the subject of a sentence? More generally, can a gerund phrase be used interchangeably with other nouns? For example: Understanding history enhances one's judgment. I feel it makes more sense to write: An understanding of history enhances one's judgment. Answer It seems that virtually all nouns that are based on verbs and end in -ing are simply gerunds that have broken free. However, there can subtle differences. When used as a straight noun, especially with an article, the gerunds-now-nouns tend to refer to the specific: The acting was incredible. [This particular acting event was praiseworthy.] When used in a classical gerund form, the phrase is more universal: Acting is incredible. [The act of acting, in general, is transformative.] While both forms are grammatically correct, and both sound fine, there may be subtle differences depending on the context. Or there may not. The offered examples appear equivalent.

I need to update my fb status: in search for true love or in search of true love Which one is grammatically correct ?

Yesterday’s (September8) New York Times carried an article titled ‘ Setting Their Hair on Fire’ which was written by economist, Paul Krugman. It is followed by the following sentence: “First things first: I was favorably surprised by the new Obama jobs plan, which is significantly bolder and better than I expected. It’s not nearly as bold as the plan I’d want in an ideal world. But if it actually became law, it would probably make a significant dent in unemployment.” As ‘Set one’s hair on fire’ was unfamiliar expression to me, I searched on Google and found the following post on www.phrases. org: HAIR ON FIRE - ".That odd phrase - believed to have originated among Navy aviators, intended to convey a sense of hair-raising urgency - quickly became the phrase of the day as this week's hearings began before the commission investigating events that led to 9/11...(Donald) Rumsfeld used it, saying such alarm wasn't uncommon: '... From the above definition, I understand ‘Set

Why does it sound perfectly natural to say Our flight leaves tomorrow at 6pm but weird to say It rains tomorrow at 6pm ? What kind of scenario, if any, could make the rain sentence sound natural? Answer In continuation with the surety-prediction advocated in the other responses, you might also argue that we never know with a 100% confidence that the flight actually leaves at 6pm tomorrow. The technically correct usage would be (and because the flight schedule is present ) - "The flight is scheduled to leave at 6pm tomorrow." "As per the schedule, the flight leaves at 6pm tomorrow." But for all purposes of common usage, the sentence you quoted in the question suffices for audience communication. Regarding your query for the rain situation, the only situation where it would sound appropriate, was it coming from a soothsayer, an oracle or a psychic predicting tomorrow's weather. I guess it is within their business obligations to use such sentences to sound might

Sometimes after looking at a word for a while, I become convinced that it can't possibly be spelled correctly. Even after looking it up, sounding it out, and realizing that there's simply no other way to spell the word, it still looks wrong. Is there a shorthand way to describe this feeling so that people will know what I mean without the long explanation? Answer Eureka! Ok, so it's not a single word, but it's what I was trying to think of: Semantic Satiation : Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds. I also found a languagehat discussion on this topic.

Which is correct? One in the same... or One and the same... A quick google-vote says the former is "correct". Answer The correct usage is "One and the same". A good dictionary or phrase compilation will confirm this. "One and the same" is used for emphasis, especially when there are seemingly different identities, characters, etc, in question. For example: Johnny Jackson and the blind beggar in that corner are one and the same.

A copywriter I'm working with wrote "One-Day Only Promotion" but my feeling is that "One-Day-Only Promotion" is correct. The first three words describe 'Promotion'. I know you don't hyphenate adverbs, but does that apply when one is part of a compound adjective? Answer It should be one-day-only promotion , for the reason you reported. Have a look at some more genuine, authentic, certified, they-really-happened hyphos (a word we've made up on the model of typos ): sung-lasses , barf-lies , warp-lanes , doork-nobes , broom-sticks , pre-gnant , air-trips , boot-traps , stars-truck , sli-pup , ong-oing . — Comma sense , Richard Lederer, John Shore

I was fascinated by an answer to a comment question I asked under Is the term “would-be” just an Indian usage or universal? about a term for a non-arranged marriage in India. Love marriage was the answer—rife with implications. Are there other English terms or phrases that convey the same meaning as love marriage ? I'm wondering specifically about regional terms that define an engagement or marriage in opposition to those that are arranged. Answer If I am understanding the term love marriage correctly, the closest English equivalent would be elope or elopement : To elope, most literally, merely means to run away, and to not come back to the point of origination. More specifically, elopement is often used to refer to a marriage conducted in sudden and secretive fashion, usually involving hurried flight away from one's place of residence together with one's beloved with the intention of getting married. ( Wikipedia ) The negative connotations I am hearing for love marria

Apologies if this is a duplicate, I am just curious. Are they both valid? Which originated first? Answer Either one is fine. Close to the vest has a more British feel to me, but I've heard both in the U.S. EDIT OK, since this apparently bothers someone, I did some research and it appears that the "vest" usage is more American. Note that my original statement of "British feel" was admittedly idiosyncratic. Note also that either one is still fine, despite any individual's peevish disapproval. Here are some NGram searches and their results: British English: American English: Combined British/American: Apparently the "vest" version came into British English in the late 1950s, but didn't gain widespread acceptance until the 1990s. Currently it looks poised to gain equivalence with the "chest" version, although such things are hard to predict. Disclaimer I am not a fan of Google NGrams, because they can be used without regard for proper

If multiple hyphenated terms share the same latter half, and I wish to list them without repeating that latter half, how should the hyphens be placed? For example: I will be investigating control issues in ground-based, water-based, and air-based robots. If I do not want to repeat based , could I write: I will be investigating control issues in ground-, water-, and air-based robots. Is it correct to just leave a hyphen dangling after ground and water ? If not, how should it be written? I know the original sentence doesn't sound too bad, but I really just want to know the punctuation rule (or the convention in American English if there is no rule).

If I have a bag of dice, and ask, "Is it possible to roll a 7?" what is the answer? I understand that, if I ask if I dump dice out of a bag, it's possible, but once I pick the bag, and don't know if there are 8 or 15, or 2 dice in it...is it possible, or just could be possible, since it could be impossible based on my information?

I recently got a message that says Haven't heard anything from you in a while. I always thought that the right way to say this would be to use for insdead of in . Are both versions correct? Would there be a difference in meaning? Answer I'm trying to capture a vague idea floating in my head. Not sure I can explain adequately. First off, both "in a while" and "for a while" are grammatical and idiomatic per se. However, to me, "for a while" would mean that their hearing from you is an ongoing process, which you interrupted for some time — or well, for a while  —, but then resumed. Which is not what the sentence is supposed to express. What you want instead is "in a while", which also means "for some period of time" but without implying that the contact has been re-established already, or indeed ever will be. Which is the whole point of that sentence, after all. It's just a reminder that it should be. So I would most definit

Example: It's all about apples, oranges, bananas, etc. VS. It's all about apples, oranges, bananas, etc.. Update What happens if the abbreviation is inside parentheses, do you place a dot after and before the closing parenthesis? It's all about fruit (apples, bananas, etc.). Answer The correct form of your example: It’s all about apples, oranges, bananas, etc. Jack Lynch’s Guide to Grammar and Style states : This one is simple enough: never double up periods. If a statement ends with “etc.” the period in the abbreviation does double duty, serving as the full stop to end the sentence. If, however, you need another mark of punctuation after an abbreviation, you can put it after the period. So: This was her first trip to the U.S. (The period does double-duty, ending both the abbreviation and the sentence.) Is this your first trip to the U.S.? (The period ends the abbreviation, but the question mark ends the sentence.) On her first trip to the U.S., Kristina lost her passport

It would seem that the Random House dictionary and the World English dictionary have different ideas about the etymology of the word embarrass , neither of which make it particularly clear as to how it got its current meaning: Random House 1665–75; < French embarrasser < Spanish embarazar < Portuguese embaraçar, equivalent to em- em-1 + -baraçar, verbal derivative of baraço, baraça cord, strap, noose (of obscure origin) World English [C17: (in the sense: to impede): via French and Spanish from Italian imbarrazzare, from imbarrare to confine within bars; see en- 1 , bar 1 ] So which is correct, and how did it come to have the meaning of making somebody self-conscious and abashed? Answer Etymonline.com says the meaning of making somebody self-conscious is first recorded in 1828 and shows a French and Italian origin: 1670s, "perplex, throw into doubt," from Fr. embarrasser (16c.), lit. "to block," from embarras "obstacle," from It. imbarrazzo , f

notwithstanding = {preposition} In spite of {adverb} = Nevertheless; in spite of this: Etymonline : late 14c., notwiþstondynge, from not + present participle of the verb withstand . A loan-translation of Medieval Latin non obstante "being no hindrance," from ablative of obstans , present participle of obstare "stand opposite to" (see obstacle ). As an adverb and as a conjunction from early 15c. withstand = [with object] 1. Remain undamaged or unaffected by; resisting : How can I understand 'not withstand ing', only by thinking in terms of the root withstand ? I try to rewrite not withstand ing below. Did I guess the right definition of withstand above? 1. Notwithstanding X, Y happens. 2. = NOT withstanding X, Y happens. 3. = Failing to withstand X, Y happens. (In 3, Y is suppressed in the adjunct. Expand it as: Y, failing to withstand X, Y happens.) Answer The OP definition of withstand is correct, but it has a passive construction that visually c

I used to pronounce 'detail' as ['di:teil] with accent on the first syllable. However, these days I hear people (and on the radio) say [di'teil] with accent on the second syllable. Is my pronunciation incorrect? Is there a regional preference for this? Answer According to Merriam-Webster , your pronunciation is fine as both are acceptable to convey the usual noun and verb form meanings of the word. According to this American, /ˈdiːteɪl/ is far more common from the mouths of my fellow Americans. Macmillan has the British as /ˈdiːteɪl/, and the American as both /dɪˈteɪl/ and /ˈdiˌteɪl/.

Sometimes, on the internet, particularly in online games, I see people using the indefinite article before someone's name: "I see a Joey" or "I hug a Polly". I know some of these people and I'm positive that they are from English-speaking countries, which means it is not a mistake, they do it intentionally. I was always taught that articles are not used in front of people's names. Maybe it is some sort of slang? What does it mean, when the indefinite article is put in front of someone's name? Edit: There is a group of people standing somewhere. And somebody, named Joey, appears. They all know Joey. And someone in this group says "I see a Joey". So it is used when someone sees his or her friend. But I don't understand why they use the indefinite article here. Answer More generally, using an article before a proper noun that doesn't have one built into it (as the United States and the Rolling Stones do) is one example of using a pr

I have read many dictionary definitions and there seems to be two possible sources of the word trivial . Online dictionaries say it's from latin tri and via , "three ways" or "crossroad", basically meaning "street talk" or "corner talk", however this Q&A site states it more likely from trivium , which means "first three of the seven liberal arts", and strongly influenced by the former. I am not quite sure how to interpret the etymonline.com explanation.

A total of 10 payments were made. OR A total of 10 payments was made. Which is correct? Or can both be correct? Answer Since "payment" is countable, I would go with "were" to reinforce the notion that there was more than one payment. This thread contains more examples: Number, majority and total are singular if preceded by the, but plural if preceded by a. A number of people believe he is innocent. A majority of residents want the town to reduce the recreation fee. A total of 15 people were arrested for burglary last month in our town. That being said, this is not a strict rule, and if the focus is specifically on the fact of something being a total, you would use "was". "A total of five cars is impossible: you must have miscounted."