Blog

For example, to answer the question, "How tall are you?" valid answers include: Five feet . Five foot three. Five feet , three inches. Why the discrepancy between feet and foot , seemingly only in the second case. This question is inspired by this question: "Forty foot" or "forty feet"? edit: I do not believe the answer to this is related to the other question. The explanation for the other question is because of how adjective modifiers work. My question is a very different case, unrelated to adjectives. My observation is that I am asking about a particular exception case which applies only when "foot" is followed by a number which is assumed to be inches. That's extremely specific, and I doubt that the etymology has any relation to why we leave adjective modifiers singular. Answer I think it's "idiomatic by association". ( this NGram should be enough to at least prove a trend) There's long-standing 'idiomatic'...

Match the two sentences with their meaning: 1) I had a discussion with a friend and a programmer. 2) I had a discussion with a friend, and a programmer. Meanings: a) I talked to a friend who is a programmer. b) I talked to two people, a friend, and a programmer. Intuitively, I know that 1 => a, and 2 => b. Is there a rule? Does this grammatical construct have a formal name or definition? Answer "I had a discussion with a friend and a programmer" does not mean "I talked to a friend who is a programmer". Both 1) and 2) have the same meaning b). However, the use of comma before and is now discouraged by some and flagged by some software. For the first meaning, you would say "I had a discussion with my friend, a programmer" or better still, "I had a discussion with a programmer friend".

How would you convert the imperative sentence: "Go to school now." to the passive voice? While discussing it in class, our teacher gave the following solution: "You are ordered to go to school now." However, I felt that this must be wrong, since the sentence is still in the active voice. It seems to be in the passive voice with reference to the verb 'order', but we need to convert the sentence with respect to the verb 'go'. I thought of a solution: "Let you be gone to school now." or "Be gone to school now." Are any of them correct? And if not, how would you convert the sentence into passive voice? Edit: Just realised that 'go' is an intratransitive verb. Does that mean that there won't be a passive version of it? As mentioned here : You CAN'T. You can only turn into passive verbs those verbs who can have the "direct object". For example: I eat (what do you eat?) an apple I see (what do you see?) a bird I...

This is noticeable in conversation when person A keeps trying to educate the person B. Person A automatically assumes a position of higher knowledge. What is person A doing to person B? It's not patronizing is it, because he isn't necessarily trying to talk to the other person in a condescending manner. Answer There are several words depending on the context. When you say, person A keeps trying to educate person B It can mean that Person A genuinely had more factual information and it was actually a dialogue between Person A and B, then Person A could be educative or informative . If on the other hand it was one-way traffic and Person A was speaking far more than Person B, then Person A was trying to edify Person B and Person A would be a pedagogue or a pedant ; the latter if Person A was being persnickety. If Person A was condescending to Person B, only in that case would Person A be patronizing Person B.

Ok, see this word entertainment has IPA of /en.təˈteɪn.mənt/ . Ok, now in American English if /t/ is between 2 vowel sounds then it will become /d/ cos it is flap T. But /t/ will become flap T only if the sound in the word is not stressed. Is that correct? For example, for the above example, we can pronounce /en.dəˈteɪn.mənt/ but not /en.dəˈdeɪn.mənt/ , right? Answer t/d/n become flaps when they are (1) after a vowel or glide (including r but not l), (2) before a vowel, and (3) at the end of a syllable. (Condition (3) is stated with the assumption that an intervocalic consonant before an unstressed vowel goes at the end of the preceding syllable.) "Entertainment" has a rather involved derivation. After nasalizing the preceding vowel, the first n is lost by a rule that deletes nasal consonants before voiceless consonants at the same place of articulation. The first t is now between vowels and at the end of a syllable, so it flaps. The flap assimilates in voice to the preced...

When following the formal English rule of Reverential Capitals , any reference to God Almighty is capitalized, as are equivalent non-Christian entities such as "Allah" or the neo-pagan "Goddess" (and various similar entities from fiction, like the Creator from Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time .) Does the rule extend as well to polytheistic deities of infinite character? If discussing a variation of Greek gods where each deity has infinite and omnipresent control over their particular sphere of influence, would pronouns be capitalized when they wouldn't otherwise be? Zeus controls lightning. Do not anger Him . or Zeus controls lightning. Do not anger him . (Assume, of course, that reverential capitals are otherwise used, as in "Jesus and His apostles.") Answer No, only monotheistic gods are capitalised by those who adhere to this convention, not Zeus or other dieties. ...but the other gods were gathered together in the halls of Olympian Zeus. Among th...

My friends and I were walking down from the road. The road was too steep, so I said: I am climbing down the road. As I used to climb down with the word road, we had argument, and my friends said that climbing down the road is not correct usage. Were they correct?

Is there a word for 'four times as much', analogous to once , twice , and thrice ? Answer Not according to the Oxford dictionaries : These three are the only words of their type, and no further terms in the series have ever existed.

"Due to" seems more common than "owing to" in modern English. Is "owing to" simply an old-fashioned way of saying the same thing, or is there a rule to using it?

I'm looking for a word that applies to all the things a person can wear, e.g. clothes, shoes, accessories, etc. It musn't be too generic, e.g. product , item , etc.

I came across the following phrase: I was wondering if you might be able to give me some advice. Is it a natural construction for a conversational context? Can I use the following instead in order to sound less formal: I was wondering if you could give me some advice. Or is it less polite? Or which phrase would be better to use instead? Answer In practice, they're usually the same. The "might be able to" is a bit more formal -- perhaps because it implies more hesitation on the part of the asker if this is an appropriate time and place and topic for the question. The "if you could" might be read to imply that you doubt the ability of the person being questioned to help you.

How are the wife and kid? How is the wife and kid? Which is more correct?

So a friend of mine always works this type of joke into normal conversation and I always get a kick out of it. Example: Person 1: Why are you always hogging the TV remote? Person 2: Because I am shellfish! Obviously shellfish is not the correct word for that context, but it sounds similar enough that it works. Basically what kind of joke is this called or what use of word replacement is that called? P.S. Not required for a good answer, but if I wanted to respond to someone who has done this to me with the term "Grape job" what would be a good comeback/response? I was thinking "well orange you nice" , but feel like there is a more epic comeback that I just don't know of! Answer This is a pun: The use of a word in such a way as to suggest two or more meanings or different associations, or of two or more words of the same or nearly the same sound with different meanings, so as to produce a humorous effect; a play on words. One could also call it a play on words:...

Dukes have duchesses, counts countesses, princes princesses, mayors mayoresses, and even emperors empresses. Yet kings have queens rather than say, kingesses . Why is this so? If this was due to some historical quirk of fate, was there ever a word similar to kingess which was superseded by queen ? How about lords , ladies , and ... lordesses ?

Like a pantomath but without being an expert in each subject. A pantomath (pantomathēs, παντομαθής, meaning "having learnt all", from the Greekroots παντ- 'all, every' and the root μαθ-, meaning "learning, understanding") is a person whose astonishingly wide interests and knowledge span the entire range of the arts and sciences. I don't think this question is a duplicate of Is there a word for describing people who know many things but superficially? as "not specialised" isn't a synonym of "superficially" . Also the referred question has many answers not related to this one in terms of content and quality (as this one already has), and has been marked as a duplicate of What is the word for a person who does different jobs? ) so it won't make sense to mark this as a duplicate. Answer They're a jack of all trades . Some might add and master of none . " Jack of all trades, master of none " is a figure of speech ...

In all dictionaries the word question is pronounced /ˈkwɛst͡ʃən/ , with the sound /t͡ʃ/ (like the ch in church ) corresponding to the written ‹ti›. I wanted to know if any phonological change happens when pronouncing the word in colloquial language, whether in the sound corresponding to ti, or in the preceding s. I remember I heard an American articulate the word as something like /ˈkwɛʃt͡ʃən/ , pronouncing the letter ‹s› as /ʃ/ (the sh sound) followed by a ch sound. Answer The consonant sequence /st͡ʃ/ in this word, and others, can indeed be replaced in pronunciation by something like [ʃt͡ʃ] as the result of assimilation. (I don't know if it would be correct to analyze this as representing a distinct phonemic sequence /⁠ʃt͡ʃ/.) This assimilation is not mandatory, and different people may assimilate at different rates. I don't have any data about that, however. The people in the comments saying that this prounciation doesn't seem common in their area are not a particu...

“Foliage trip” (meaning a trip to the forest in autumn to see the beautifully-colored leaves before they fall) is a fairly recent US expression , apparently having made it into print in the 1950s . A very casual web search suggests that the term is predominantly from New England, or at least from the US North-East. Is this the case? Where do people use “foliage trip”? Outside of the US North-East (in similar climates, and in climates where the beautiful colors of fall leaves isn't a thing), do people understand the expression? Does British English have an equivalent expression ( for French the jury is still out )?

Are there any areas of writing, literature or science where æ or œ are still used? Are there contexts where they are still considered mandatory? Answer I'd say that history and linguistics are two of them. In the area of history , you will probably be better understood if you spell " Alfred the Great " instead of "Ælfrēd" - especially if you write for an audience of non specialists. Although, this is a matter of personal taste; I prefer to see " Ælfric " rather than " Alfric of Eynsham", because having to deal with several spellings for the same name means more effort for the reader. However, the use of the "Æ" is probably not mandatory in history. In linguistics however things are different. In studies pertaining to Old English, the use of the "Æ" is expected. Besides, Old English modern spelling conventions has a number of special characters (ð, þ being the most common) which makes "æ (short)" or "ǣ...

What should I understand from "steep learning curve"? When a computer program (for example a translation program) has a steep learning curve, does it mean that it is not good at learning or it's hard for it to learn? Answer In informal usage, a "steep learning curve" means something that is difficult (and takes much effort) to learn. It seems that people are thinking of something like climbing a steep curve (mountain) — it's difficult and takes effort. As it is technically used, however, a learning curve is not anything to be climbed, and is simply a graph plotting learning versus time. Thus, a steep learning curve would look like this (excuse the poor drawing): One natural interpretation of such a curve, which was the predominant early usage (according to Wikipedia) and still exists in some technical circles, is that the thing being learnt is easy — a great amount of learning happens in a small amount of time. This is the opposite of the popular usage. ...

I was watching the film A Game of Shadows starring Robert Downey Junior and Jude Law when this line came up, " ...neither you nor I is in control..." (I can’t remember the exact words that ended the phrase; if anyone can supply them, it would be much appreciated.) It immediately struck me as being odd. When I mentioned this to my boyfriend; an English native speaker, with a PhD in something sciency, he told me it was correct. When I asked why, he couldn't explain but put forward the following sentence as an example. "Neither of us is in control..." However, I disagreed with the wording and said the sentence should have been: "Neither one of us is in control..." The genderless third person, one , is singular, and hence, so too the verb that follows. And we say, "one is" NOT "one are". "Neither you nor I are in control over ..." I believe the above sounds better, but it is more logical to say: "Neither you nor I...

I'd appreciate your assistance in helping me particularly understand how to use the phrase "as of" properly. What is the proper interpretation of the following sentence? "I need you to get me all transactions as of January 23rd" That I need all transactions from the beginning of time (so to speak) till January 23rd, or That I need all transactions from January 23rd to now? Would "as at" be more appropriate to express (1)? Would "as from" be more appropriate to express (2)?

What is the difference between till and until ? When to use till or until ? Please explain with examples. Answer @RegDwight is correct in every particular. Till is indeed older and the two can be used pretty much interchangeably. There is really only one usage I can think of where you would not use till : in setting up a negative conditional. Until my landlord fixes the plumbing, I am not going to pay the rent. I am not going to pay the rent until my landlord fixes the plumbing. Here it would sound strange to use till , and I'm not really sure why. Perhaps it is the negative. One more thing. Sometimes you will see people spell till as a contraction of until : that is, as 'til . This is simply wrong, and not seen outside of old poetry and modern greeting cards aiming for a "poetic" tone. Anywhere you see 'til being used, till would be the correct word.

I've never liked the word black to describe people with dark skin. Those of us with pigment-enriched skin are certainly not black in color. Why was the term black used to describe people with dark skin? Why not the more accurate brown or chocolate ? Was this use of the word black originally intended as a pejorative or as a neutral descriptor?

From a Raymond Murphy book on English grammar, I saw the following sentence: I saw Sue in town yesterday, but she didn't see me. Why is there no article before "town"? Is the following incorrect? Why? I saw Sue in a/the town yesterday. Answer In town here uses a special sense of town , which refers to whatever is understood to be the local region. Saying someone is in town is akin to saying they are in the neighborhood or in the area ; as the LDOCE has it : where you live [uncountable]: the town or city where you live: Cam left town about an hour ago, so he should be out at the farm by now. I'll be out of town for about a week. Guess who's in town ? Jodie's sister! Do you know of a good place to eat? I'm from out of town (=from a different town). We're moving to another part of town. To say Cam left town means he departed from the local area, or from wherever area he had been before. To say Cam left his town means he departed from (perhaps ab...

There are already topics very close to my question, but not quite there. Does anyone know what to do about this: We review our accounts p.a. (at the end of the year). Normally, without the text in parentheses, the "." after "a" would suffice to end the sentence, but then the parentheses come into play. Should there be another period after the parentheses like in my example, or no?

My teacher introduced the quote: You look but you don’t see. You hear but you don’t listen . But I also saw books saying: You look but you don’t see. You listen but you don’t hear . So which one is correct? I am between a rock and a hard place. In terms of grammar, I think the second one is right because it is more parallel as look and listen are both intransitive while see and hear are both transitive. But the first one also sounds reasonable to me as listen implies the person is doing the action intentionally. You can hear a foreign language without knowing it but you can only listen to a foreign language if you understand it, right?

Is it correct to use possessive case for referring to the time in consideration, like in in today's US in modern's US in last century's England etc? Answer Possessives in English can generally only be used to modify nouns (strictly speaking, noun phrases ). In your examples, two are nouns but one is not: in today's US = in the US of today (OK) in modern's US = * in the US of modern (not OK) in last century's England = in the England of the last century (OK, but note we need to add the definite article)

What exactly does the phrase 'Woe is me' mean? A google search returns many results ranging from FML to just having a bad day. There are many references to the phrase being grammatically incorrect and thus meaning nothing, but it seems like it is in use. So, is the phrase acceptable in common English despite being grammatically incorrect? Or is it, infact, grammatically correct? Edit : What I was able to find using Google: Phrases.org.uk : "I am distressed; sad; grieved." onlinecollege : "Woe is me: It sounds a bit like Yoda-ese, but instead of saying FML, go biblical with "woe is me." UrbanDictionary : "Both answers that tried to explain are incorrect in explaining the grammaticality of the phrase. The verb "to be" is an intransitive verb, meaning it cannot take an object." (Refer to the link for complete text)

Technically, you should expect the term low speed , not slow speed (which is obviously illogical). However, it seems the two phrases co-existed as long as one can look back: with low speed fighting a desperate battle to prove its merit. It is only recently that English users seem to have seriously recognized the difference as this nGram shows. How did this obvious error survive and even now continue to assert itself? Or is it that from the language point of view, there is an argument that both the phrases are correct, grammatically, especially, semantically? [Edit-1] Some backgrounder on slow and speed slow /slō/ Adjective: Moving or operating, or designed to do so, only at a low speed. Adverb: At a slow pace; slowly. Verb: Reduce one's speed or the speed of a vehicle or process. If slow = low speed then slow speed = ?

I know that a language evolves with time and constantly keeps itself up to people's needs. But when I read a bible or a poem of Shakespeare, I can see English was very different by then with sentences like: "I love thee." "O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo? Deny thy father and refuse thy name! Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love, And I'll no longer be a Capulet." "Draw, if you be men. Gregory, remember thy swashing blow." "Such is my love, to thee I so belong." "Come, night; come, Romeo; come, thou day in night; For thou wilt lie upon the wings of night Whiter than new snow upon a raven's back. Come, gentle night; come, loving, black-brow'd night; Give me my Romeo; and, when he shall die, Take him and cut him out in little stars, And he will make the face of heaven so fine That all the world will be in love with night And pay no worship to the garish sun." I concur that "Thou" is a single version ...

I have just learned from what I consider a reliable source, that the following sentence is correct: One of us is wrong, aren't we? I would never in my life have written this, but I am assured that this is exactly how it would be written As I realize comments don't live forever I will quote the relevant parts: oerkelens : So you would really write One of us is wrong, aren't we? I guess by analogy you would not bat an eyelid at One of these balls is blue, aren't they? Matt Эллен : yes, "Then one of us is wrong, aren't we?" is exactly how it would be written. Same for the balls. Could someone please enlighten me how it is possible that the number in a question tag supposedly has to be in discordance with the subject of the main clause? I admit that I am not the youngest any more, and my school days are long gone, but back in the days, I was taught that 1. a verb and its subject concord in number 2. a question tag concords with the subject of the main clau...

Looking on thesaurus.com I can find only synonyms for "desert" with negative connotations. Are there any synonyms with positive connotations? Specifically, something that invokes the sense of clean desolation and unspoiled nature. Answer The Etymology tells the story: The Classical Latin word deserta (abandoned, deserted wife) is derived from the Latin word desertus (deserted, uninhabited, without people), which is derived from the Latin verb deserere (to cease to be concerned with; to fail, fall short; to leave, depart, quit), which is derived from negative or past de- plus the verb serere (to plant, sow). Hence, a desert is unused or unusable land. Arabia Deserta is the classical Latin name for guess which country? And guess what it means? There really aren't many positive connotations available for the word desert ; perhaps that's one reason why we often spell it dessert and vice versa. There's rarely any confusion about which word is meant.

This is a 1024-byte length string. How to pronounce the sentence above? This is a one-thousand-and-twenty-four byte length string. or This is a one-oh-two-four byte length string.

What do you call the state of tiredness or lack of interest . It is subtly different from ordinary boredom. A feeling like " the world is so boring "but just a little different, implying that the state of weariness is a result of too many encounters with others. There is an exact term but I can't remember it. Answer A good noun describing such a state is ennui . ennui noun : a feeling of listlessness and dissatisfaction arising from a lack of occupation or excitement. synonyms : boredom, tedium, listlessness, lethargy, lassitude, languor, weariness, enervation (Google)

Reading a science article on Huffington Post , titled "Dinosaur Farts, Prehistoric Climate Change Linked In New Methane Gas Study", I came across the following sentence: The gassy emissions from these giant dinosaurs may have been enough to warm the Earth, the researchers say. I'm wondering, if the farts are produced and emitted by dinosaurs, is it proper English using 'from' instead of 'by' in that sentence? Answer The gassy emissions from these giant dinosaurs may have been enough to warm the Earth, the researchers say. From: The preposition from , which is modifying the noun emissions in the Original Poster's example, indicates the source , or origin of the noun. It is a very common usage of this preposition and is frequently observed. Consider the following examples: wines from France shouts of abuse from the audience posts from users letters from friends excerpts from the novel strange noises from the fridge Here, the source of the wine is Fran...

What are people trying to imply by using the phrase "just saying"? It sometimes seems they are trying to lessen the negative impact of a prior statement, or perhaps adding legitimacy to it. Perhaps it is only used because it is popular and makes a person sound contemporary rather than cerebral.

What is the word used to describe a job given to a person just to give him/her the status of being in employment? The role does not effectively fulfil a purpose other than status and prestige. I read this word in an article months ago and have not been able to find it. I am referring to an adjective, not nepotism or tokenism, and the concept is more general. Example sentence: Jim has a |word| job, it was given to him just to give him status and prestige. Answer A Sinecure is a "cushy" job that is usually given as a reward. It literally means "without care" and is a job without the cares of actual results. It is typically given for reasons of status, prestige, or patronage. As an adjective, the word "titular" would be sufficient, implying that the job is one in title only. E.g. The titular Crown Steward and Baliff of the Chiltern Hundreds did such and such.

Great is one of the few common English words in which "ea" is pronounced /eɪ/ ( ay ). Why is this pronunciation associated with this spelling? As an aside, I remember from researching for my answer to a previous question that a Middle English spelling of great was grete . Was it ever pronounced that way? Answer First, I don't quite agree with this statement: great is the only common English word in which "ea" is pronounced /eɪ/. Break and steak are pretty common, and both have the /eɪ/ sound. That aside, this goes back to the Great Vowel Shift , which is the cause of many of the peculiarities of English spelling. The linked Wikipedia article gives plenty of information, but the short version is that while most words with "ea" shifted to the /i/ sound, as in beak , some didn't, possibly because of the influence of the consonant following "ea". Great , break , and steak all have plosive consonants after the vowel; the "r" ...

How to pronounce # in a proper way? Currently, I know it's used to pronounce "pound" in US English, "hash" in British English, "sharp" for C#--a programming language, and number sign to list items. Not sure if I'm right or not. Also, I lives in non-English speaking country and many pronounce "hashtag" for this symbol, though I'm suspicious about this. I'd be glad if you can list more examples about this. - Update: To be clear: The question is about the pronunciation, not how it came from. Answer The name of the symbol in AT&T patent filings is "octothorp," but no one ever says this. If it precedes a number, say "number" as in "#2 pencils." If you're talking about a telephone key pad or if it follows a number say "pound" or "hash" (if you are using US or UK English respectively) as in "enter your password followed by the # sign" or "a 5# bag of sugar." ...

This ques­tion is specif­i­cally for those who are fa­mil­iar with the 2002 edi­tion of The Cam­bridge Gram­mar of the English Lan­guage by Hud­dle­ston and Pul­lum. The book has this pas­sage at page 272: Strictly speak­ing, an in­tran­si­tive prepo­si­tion may have a com­ple­ment other than an ob­ject NP – e.g. ow­ing in ow­ing to the rain has a PP com­ple­ment. In this sec­tion, how­ever, we will be con­cerned only with in­tran­si­tive prepo­si­tions that have ei­ther no com­ple­ment at all or else a pred­ica­tive, as in That counts [ as sat­is­fac­tory ]. The book also says that prepo­si­tions can take fi­nite clauses as com­ple­ments as fol­lows: They ig­nored the ques­tion [ of whether it was eth­i­cal ]. (page 641) Here, does the book con­sider the of a transitive preposition (because it takes a clause as a com­ple­ment) or an in­tran­si­tive prepo­si­tion (be­cause it doesn't take an ob­ject NP)? Also, how about verbs tak­ing fi­nite clauses as non-ob­ject com­ple­men...

The creek has dried up. In this example sentence, you should say "dried up." If you say just "dried," it sounds incomplete. Is this an example of an idiom or is there a grammatical rule governing this instance? If so, what is it? Answer In this case, "up" is used to express that something is "complete" or done "completely". Examples: At a restaurant. Don't fill up on bread, otherwise you'll have no appetite when the entré comes. Re: driving Did you fill up the gas tank? I got $20 worth. (= No. I only got some gas(oline)/(petrol)). Grammar note: This kind of verb is called a phrasal verb . Phrasal verbs are verbs that are 1 part verb + 1 or 2 parts preposition. The result is usually an idiomatic expression or some deviation from the base. With the word(particle) "up", the meaning does not always mean "completely" but in this case it does. So, I hope this answers your question, and I haven't "used up...

It's ironical that Linux, the most secure OS, is commonly used to hack other machines. Is that sentence correct, with respect to the irony part?

This seems to be argued back and forth by my Writing and Reading teachers. Here is the problem. For example I write this sentence: And I went to bed to get some sleep. Just a simple sentence with the conjunction And at the beginning. My teachers disagree whether this is correct or not. So is it correct to start a sentence with a coordinate conjunction? This is not a duplicate because my question is about all the FANBOYS, not just the conjunction "and". Answer Yes: in fiction. No: in formal/academic papers, or in many non-fiction books. Thomas Pynchon is one of the greatest American novelists and a great stylist. You'll find in his work: "Bigger, not softer, ése. And speaking of lunch, how about tomorrow at Vineland Lanes?" Zoyd had played a few mob weddings in his career, nothing the kid couldn't handle, and besides the eats would more than make up for any awkward episodes, so it wasn't as if he were running a mean trick on his daughter's boyfrien...

Is there another term to specify who is being celebrated - e.g., @ a BD party? ('Celebrant/celebrator' could be anybody celebrating, I believe. But isn't there a term which will specify the one/ones being celebrated?) Is there, e.g., such a word as 'celebrantee,' or 'celebratoree' (&, if not, oughtn't there be (the situation comes up repeatedly))? Thank you.

Help please! What does the boy on the bus say? Is that an idiom? https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=85114404&v=dKUy-tfrIHY

My relative is a fairly big academic and works at a university. Is this correct? or should I have used in instead? Answer My relative is a fairly big academic and works at a university is correct. My relative is a fairly big academic and works in a university is wrong. See a similar example at Cambridge Dictionaries Online .

The poet Medbh McGuckian often lacks subjects in her sentences, for example: "From behind the moon boys' graves \ bleed endlessly" ~ From Love Affair with Firearms She doesn't ever define the subject of the sentence, is there a word for this or literary device?

Each of these CDFIs are finding solutions for communities that lack access to traditional financial products and services, and the NEXT Awards will accelerate their success. OR Each of these CDFIs is finding solutions for communities that lack access to traditional financial products and services, and the NEXT Awards will accelerate their success. The difference is, the first one uses "CDFIs are" and the 2nd sentence uses "CDFIs is" Which one is correct? Any why? Answer The problem seems to be in the linking ", and". Possibly replace it with a period? Given: "Each of these fish are tasty." - improper. "Each of these fish is tasty." - proper. Then: "Each of these fish are tasty, and they look good too." - improper. "Each of these fish is tasty, and it looks good too." - improper. "Each of these fish is tasty, and looks good too." - proper. "Each of these fish is tasty, and they look good too." - m...

My brief researches only bring up the word "auntlike" to render the feminine equivalent of avuncular. Surely, though, and given the etymology of "aunt" [ amita -father's sister, old feminine past participle of amāre to love, i.e., beloved ], there must be a more lyrical word to hand. Answer Deriving from your own explanation in the OP, the natural choice would be amicular . I do not seem to find any dictionary entries. Need to see why. Preliminary: Book Doctor Gwen : 92 Feminine and Masculine Word Pairs Feminine term / Masculine term /// neutral or inclusive term 4. amicular* / avuncular (*Terms that are slang or recently coined.) Contemporary Pragmatism - Google Books Result books.google.com/books?isbn=9042018445... John R. Shook, Paulo Ghiraldelli - 2004 - Philosophy - 200 pages ... be offered as amicular advice to discourse generation researchers, along the lines of the earlier 'Don't ask for the meaning; ask for the use', ...

A. Our system can detect a sudden increase of water levels. B. Our system can detect a sudden increase in water levels. Which sentence would you say sounds more natural? Are they both actually correct? Many thanks Answer a sudden increase in water levels is the (only) correct one. You would use of to describe the magnitude of the increase, e.g. an increase of 10 percent . See more examples here: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/increase

Where does the term, "on the nose" (to mean accuracy) come from? Dictionaries such as Oxford Dictionaries list the expression both under "nose" and on its own page , but the only etymology they list is of "nose": Old English nosu, of West Germanic origin; related to Dutch neus, and more remotely to German Nase, Latin nasus, and Sanskrit nāsā; also to ness.

Someone who practises medicine is a professional. Someone who practises the piano is still learning. How have these two apparently opposite senses of the word practise arisen? Answer The short story is: the "apparently opposite" meanings are in reality not opposite at all; they are merely applied to different spheres. Dictionary.com on practice : Origin: 1375–1425; (v.) late Middle English practisen, practizen ( practical work I put the original meaning practical work in bold. From here, it is easy to derive the two current meanings: practicing the piano is practical work if you want to get better at it; practicing medicine is practical work if you are good at it and want to keep a job. They're just two senses of the same thing. It doesn't require a large stretch of imagination to go from practical work to either current meaning.

What are some other kennings in any of the major dialects of Modern Standard English ? Here are a few examples in use in American English that I offer for starters: rug-rat rice-rocket eye-candy eye-opener tongue-lashing jail-bait mind-share belly-buster tear-jerker coin-toss nail-biter (suspenseful movie) spine-tingler (eerie/scary movie) night-owl grease-monkey disk-jockey code-warrior bit-cruncher stud-muffin saw-bones moon-shine block-buster (a very popular movie) This is a form of single-word request. I'm not looking for words with a particular meaning but a compound-noun with a particular structure. A kenning is a compound consisting of two nouns (though sometimes adjective + noun) whose semantic relationship yields, indirectly, a nominal that is not a synonym for either of them, though one of them might be a metonym for part of the idea. Rice-rocket , for example, is a name for 'fast Japanese motorcycle' (though I've heard it used of souped-up Japanese subcompac...

A person who shows respect towards or fears those who are strong, aggressive, always ready to fight when pushed around or something unfair happens to them, but bullies the weak or those who dare not speak for themselves or fight back when treated unfairly or badly. What do we call this kind of people? Is there one word (adjective or noun) for that?

I'm looking for a word that refers to the set of common beliefs of a culture or era. Things like "psychics aren't reliable" or "flying is safer than driving." These are empirical propositions that lots of people believe and there may be a common understanding that others believe them too. Something like " zeitgeist " is very good. I'd like to be able to say "The understanding that bees are dying out is in the ____" and it works pretty well there. My only issue with zeitgeist here is that i'd like it to refer primarily to the empirical claims, rather than the more general culture, attitude, and values of the people. Something like " common knowledge " isn't quite right because things that are common knowledge are usually assumed by the speaker to be correct (except when using the term ironically) -- but I don't want to address the actual truth value of the propositions. And I'd like it to express that there mi...

Does anyone know another word or way to say double entendre — in the non-bawdy sense of the word — as this phrase was only invented in the latter 1600's and so not around when Shakespeare wrote his plays, specifically as ever, the Merchant … it is a straight statement... he is a good man... just one that two people take to mean two different ways is there a nice word for that when used purposefully?

"X as well as Y" singular or plural When two nouns are connected using "as well as", does that become singular or plural? For eg. Sam as well as his brother Dean has / have to come . Which one is correct? Answer You use "has" since Sam is the subject of the sentence. As well as Dean is just a phrase used to add detail. Sam (as well as his brother Dean) has to come. You should also consider adding commas: Sam, as well as his brother(,) Dean, has to come.

Consider the following examples: "And it is a bottle, too." "And it is a bottle too." Is there a semantic difference between these two sentences? Or do they mean the same thing, with or without the comma before "too"? If not, what is the correct usage of the comma in context of "too"? Answer According to the Chicago Manual of Style (subscription-based, sorry), you need to use the comma before too "only when you want to emphasize an abrupt change of thought." Here's an article that gives that quote and has other illuminating things to say on the subject: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/comma-before-too/ Edited to add example from the second link: He didn’t know at first what hit him, but then, too, he hadn’t ever walked in a field strewn with garden rakes. In most other cases, commas with this short adverb are unnecessary.

I don't really know if the term "hyphenate" is the correct here, I use it because of my LaTeX usage. What I mean (and if there is a word for this, please let me know) is: how to break "standardize" into syllables? I tried searching online, however I come with the forms I have in mind, but nothing for sure: How should one go on a proper method to "hyphenate" a word? Answer As you have already found, there seems to be discrepancies from various sources on how to hyphenate "standardize." The main problem is that there is no universal standard on how to hyphenate words, at least in English (can't speak for other languages). Depending on the dictionary or style manual you are using, each could give a different hyphenation variation for the same word. Syllables Syllabification is one of, but not the only thing, that can determine the hyphenation of a word in English. Syllabification is determined by the pronunciation of the word, not the spell...

Besides SVO , which are the word orders that can be found in English? Are there any that are peculiar to dialects such as Singlish or Indian English? Please provide an example sentence for each order along with pertinent information such as tense, mood, voice, etc.

At the beginning of a sentence is obvious. I'm referring to the following examples: A handful of earth. The earth under this house. The earth beneath my feet. What on earth? The heavens above and the earth below. The earth moved. We returned quickly to earth. Lower: 1,2,3,4 Upper: 7 Not sure: 5,6 Answer Generally speaking, I would write earth when referring to soil, the ground, or land as opposed to sea. I would capitalize Earth when referring to the planet (and even more specifically, our planet; there are many earths out there). In short: if it's a proper noun, it should be capitalized. A handful of earth. The earth under this house. The earth beneath my feet. I agree that earth should not be capitalized here. However, I could come up with contexts in which I would capitalize it even in these sentences, though they would be rather poetic or sci-fi (read: far-fetched).  4. What on earth? I would capitalize Earth here. To me, this question is equivalent to "What on t...