Blog

'Hark' calls attention to something that we hear - for example: "Hark, the herald angels sing" ( hymn of the same title, by Charles Wesley) 'Behold' calls attention to something that we see - for example: "'Behold, the Lamb of God...'" ( John 1v29, ESV ) Is there an equivalent for smell? That is, is there a similar word to call attention to something that I can smell? For example: __, the roast dinner is ready...

I've searched multiple dictionaries and Etymonline but the only origin for "flog" that I can find is: 1670s, slang, perhaps a schoolboy shortening of L. flagellare "flagellate." This clearly relates to its proper meaning, to whip or beat. However, in (British, and perhaps other) slang, the verb "to flog" has come to mean "to sell" with an implication being that something being flogged is being sold quickly or cheaply. The meaning is confirmed in several dictionaries, but I am at a loss as to why the meaning has arisen. And so I turn to you. -Update- I've not managed to find any further links between flogging and selling, which has led me to consider this possibility: Is it possible that the two meanings are unrelated? I had made the assumption that the "selling" variant was somehow derived from the same word which means "to whip or beat", but perhaps it's not. Judging by the demographic from which the word appears ...

Perhaps this is more of a Linguistics question, so I apologize if this is not posted in the right place. Why is it that these words in English sound so different? earth   = /ɜrθ/     “urth” hearth = /hɑrθ/   “harth” heart   = /hɑrt/    “hart” hear    = /hir/      “heer” ear      = /ir/        “eer” heath   = /hiθ/     “heeth” Looking at the first two examples, the only difference is the preceding h , which makes me think that’s the reason for the change. The second and third together sound the same, despite the removal of the trailing h , which supports that — for now. Then the last three examples sound still different from those already mentioned; however, the differences in spelling are not consistent. My assumption is that there is some linguistic property of both the h and the rt , which I will describe like this: A trailing rt (not simply r or t ) will have an effect — let’s call it “Effect A” — on the sound of ea . A leading h will have an effect — let’s call it “Effec...

Reading The War Illustrated (January 30th, 1915 number), I came across this passage:- At this speed they offer a comparatively stationary mark for the German anti-aircraft guns, always known as Archibalds , which begin to burst their shells uncomfortably near them. I wondered why that term was used. Green's Dictionary of Slang is silent on the matter. The Online Etymology Dictionary explains:- British World War I military slang for "German anti-aircraft fire" (1915) supposedly is from black humor of airmen dodging hostile fire and thinking of the refrain of a popular music hall song, "Archibald, certainly not!" This source quotes Ernest Weekley’s An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English (1921) with an alternative explanation:- “It was at once noticed at Brooklands [where much aviation development and testing was carried out prior to 1914, and portrayed in the film Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines] that in the vicinity of, or over, water or...

Some time ago, a question has been asked here about the meaning of the famous toast from the movie Casablanca : ‘Here's looking at you, kid’. Several answers have been posted to it, including a very elaborate and informative one by Sven Yargs. The gist of the answers is that such toasts had been widely used well before the 1940s, and that there is therefore nothing surprising about the inclusion of this particular toast in the script of Casablanca . It has also been pointed out that the choice of this wording may have been due to the fact that it is peculiarly American, and that the scriptwriters were keen to emphasise Rick’s being an American. The OP of that question accepted Sven Yarg’s answer, so it seems that the answer satisfactorily resolved what she found puzzling about the toast. The answers posted there, however, do not really explain the confusing syntax of such toasts. Their beginning with here is strongly suggests that they have been derived from the more usual toast...

I watch the TV series Glee to learn English and came across the phrase if anything . It's in a sentence Rachel said. If anything , she is gonna kill all of our chances to achieve that elusive goal (she means nationals by that). The context is that Mr. Shue the teacher wants to recruit Sugar Mota who sings awfully. At first, I thought that meant if anything happens but it didn't feel right. Then I thought of the phrase if nothing else , which means Mota might do a lot of damage to the Glee Choir and killing all the chances was only one of them and probably the most important one. But it didn't feel right, either. What does the phrase mean here? Answer Mr. Shue believes Sugar Mota adds value to the team, increasing their chances of winning the nationals. Rachel seems to disagree with the teacher's decision to recruit Sugar Mota. Rachel does not share the same confidence in Sugar Mota as their teacher does. In this instance, "if anything" is Rachel's way of...

Ex. What would be right: ... that caught everyone's eye. ... that caught everyone's eyes.

What is the meaning of “every other time”? What does the phrase every other day/week mean? I got some hint from here . But, it is still not clear to me what is the need to add other . Can we also say every alternative day/week ? Answer Every day means: day1, day2, day3, day4, day5, etc., i.e. every single day, not skipping any. Every other day means: day1, day3, day5, day7, etc., i.e. skipping every second day - one day on, one day off, and so on.

If I'm not healthy, am I sick or am I ill ? Are these interchangeable, or do they merely overlap? Answer They're generally used synonymously these days, though there was originally a distinction in meaning. "Ill" generically referred to being unwell, whereas "sick" referred to vomiting — this still persists to some degree. In modern times there has been (and still is to a degree) a distinction between upper-class and non-upper-class usage in British English. See the Wikipedia article for example. The upper-class usage, unsurprisingly, seems to preserve the more traditional meanings of the two words. U Non-U Ill (in bed) Sick (in bed) I was sick on the boat. I was ill on the boat. Finally, if you're curious you can take a look at the etymologies of sick and ill . The latter originally only meant "morally evil", curiously enough. This is going back to the high Middle Ages, however. Meanings have been a...

It would be similar to trying to be extremely careful or precise. In French it would be "application", For example: "Qui est fait avec application". Example usage: John worked with ________. or ...it was done with _______. Answer diligent adj. Marked by persevering, painstaking effort. diligence Earnest and persistent application to an undertaking; steady effort; assiduity. The Free Dictionary Final tasks that had been neglected for months, and in some cases years, were being done with diligence under Jenny's eyes Google Books

I often hear 'to make use of something'. Is there any difference from just 'to use something'? Answer When someone "makes use of something," it implies greater effort and significance than if that person just "uses" something. Consider "Andrew uses his old telephone" versus "Andrew makes use of his old telephone." In the first example, there doesn't seem to be anything special about the way that Andrew is using the telephone, or the fact that it's old. A reader might be more interested in who he is calling, what he wants to talk about, and other such questions that don't have much to do with the telephone itself or the specifics of how or why Andrew is using it. The full sentence might end up being something like "Andrew uses his old telephone to call his old doctor." But in the second example, it is clear that there is something more interesting going on. Perhaps it is important that it is an old telephone...

I know the usage of This is a new car. This is singular. These are some books for you. These is plural. Shall we use There exists some people who agree with me. There exist some people who agree with me. Which one is the correct usage and why? Answer There exist some people who agree with me. The subject of the sentence is people , which is plural. Because of subject-verb-agreement , we need a plural verb to match the plural subject ("people"). The plural form of the verb is exist .

How did the English language come to this? The play was awful. Is the complete opposite of The play was awesome. But if you break it down to awe followed by ful or some , it doesn't make sense at all. Can someone shed a light on this? Is there a rule to this, or is it one of those things you need to just memorize? Answer The words have been around hundreds and hundreds of years. While they were constructed by combining awe with -ful or -some , once they became lexical items as complete words, their meaning was able to drift like any other lexical item — the fact that each word is composed of a stem and suffix doesn't stop this. (Also, bear in mind that -some , the suffix, doesn't mean "some of X", it means "having the quality of X". Think fearsome , loathsome , cumbersome . And -ful is basically the same as -some in its meaning, with all words.) Originally, awful had the meaning of being awe-inspiring (including positive connotations), as well as...

If a talk is desirable/desired, I can drop by your office any time. Should I use desirable or desired here? Or some word else?

I’m specifically thinking about emails I receive all day where someone will write: Haven’t seen it yet. Will respond when received. If it were spoken, we would certainly hear: I haven’t seen it yet. I will respond when I receive it. It’s mostly the dropping of I that I wonder about. Is there a name for this phenomenon? Answer It's not just pronouns that are getting dropped. It's whole chunks of sentences. Will respond when received. lacks not just its subject I , but also the subject it and the auxiliary verb is from when received . This is the written version of Conversational Deletion , a very common practice in speech, discussed here .

I have a few female employees working at my office, and being a manager, I need to text them via Skype or Messenger to come to my room. How can I ask them politely to come? Please come to my room Please come here I don't find either of these formulations helpful; what is appropriate?

I could have: Two books One book Zero books Why is zero followed by a plural form? I don't expect English to always make sense, but everything has a reason, even if the reason is stupid. The definitions of "singular" and "plural" per Merriam-Webster: Singular (adj): of, relating to, or being a word form denoting one person, thing, or instance Plural (adj): of, relating to, or constituting a class of grammatical forms usually used to denote more than one or in some languages more than two So by this logic, our choices are "one" or "more than one". Maybe it's a bug :-) Answer Substitute the word "any" in the place of zero and it makes sense. Instead of saying "I have zero books." you are saying "I do not have any books." In this construction, the plural is not referring to the zero-quantity of books you have, but instead refers to a (vague and undefined) collection of books, none of which you have.

I can't think of this word. It's when somebody is doing something but they don't realize they are doing it. For example: Suppose you're a girl and you are falling in love with a guy. When he laughs, you think hes so cute and you love it, but he doesn't realize that you love it. Or maybe the way he kisses your forehead, and he doesn't realize you go crazy over that. I'm not looking for oblivious.

I know the word Francophile is someone who likes France and the French. I also know of Anglophiles that is a similar word for the British. Is there such a word for the Spanish though? Answer Iberophile seems to be commonly used to refer to a love of all things Spanish. This book even uses "Francophile" and "Iberophile" in the same sentence.

With the popularity and ubiquity of Google, it has become a verb to describe "searching for something online" and it appears in conversations and informal writing. How can I know if it is acceptable to use "google" in more formal writing? Answer It is now an official verb (since 2006), added to the merriam-webster dictionary and the OED. So I would say: yes.

I know that "Eskimo" is an offensive term in Canada; they use the term "Inuit". But I see the term "Eskimo" popping up regularly in news articles that I read; I hardly see the term "Inuit" being used. Why? Ignorance? Apathy? Is the term "Eskimo" offensive only in Canada, or in the rest of the world too?

I would like to know what's the meaning of "be blowed" in the following text: 'I'm going to smoke' Jenkins said; ' be blowed to Bertie dear.' (Mrs. Smythe had once addressed her husband in the office as 'Bertie dear', and thereforth that had been his name among the staff.) Richard made no answer. When a minute later Jenkins, discreetly directing his puffs to the open window, asked him for the titles of one or two of Zola's novels in English, and their price, he gave the required information without turning round and in a preoccupied tone. A Man From North , Arnold Bennett, 1911.

Somebody told me that - here or somewhere else on the internet - mention was made of a verb derived from a numeral, in the way of "they were sixty-foured". And that there was a lengthy discussion of the origin, e.g. some word sounding similar to the numeral, or the numeral being the number of a legal provision, rule, etc. The meaning of the verb may have been something like "neglect" or "leave unconsidered". Is there a chance to find that word and the discussion about it?

In the sentence "one in ten people hate..." which is the correct way to refer to 1/10: "One in ten" or "One-in-ten" I'm not too sure if the hyphens are entirely necessary here. I have however seen news articles that use hyphens with this phrase and some that don't, which leaves me unsure whether the hyphens are needed or not. Answer "One in ten people hate ..." is correct. But if you use the phrase as an adjective ("A one-in-ten chance") hyphens are a good idea.

I was watching a TV show and this term was used. I am familiar with the definition, but I was wondering the origin of the phrase. It does not make sense to me if taken literally. Reference Answer W.S. Farmer & J.L. Henley, Slang and Its Analogues , vol. 2 (1891), says that "dead to rights" means "certain; without doubt," and asserts that it is simply an amplification of the earlier term "to rights," meaning "completely to one's satisfaction." Dead appears in a similarly amplifying way in such current phrases as "dead broke," "dead certainty," "dead heat," and "dead ringer." Christine Ammer, The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms (1997) gives a sense of how much the meaning of the phrase has evolved: dead to rights In the act of committing an error or crime, red-handed. For example, They caught the burglars dead to rights with the Oriental rugs . This phrase uses to rights in the sense of ...

Geographically, there are voting districts, taxing districts, and school districts. There are also subdistricts. I have found different spellings of this word ( subdistrict , sub district , sub-district ). Which one is correct for the USA?

I'm curious to know if there is a type of speech or name for what I am about to describe... For example, instead of saying "let's go on a night hike," one would say, "let's go stumble around in the dark." -- I have no idea if there is a name for this type of speech, or if it is just one's own mannerisms.

There are some questions related to this topic ( Usage of "expect to" and "expectation to/of" and "Need of" vs. "need for" ), but I haven't found one directly addressing this word combination. I'm trying to determine whether I should use "expectations of" or "expectations for," in the following: I had to reevaluate my expectations of myself. I had to reevaluate my expectations of college. I had to reevaluate my expectations of the future. OR I had to reevaluate my expectations for myself. I had to reevaluate my expectations for college. I had to reevaluate my expectations for the future. Is one more grammatically correct than the other in all cases (regardless of the type of noun that follows)? Or, are they both correct in different cases; if so, what are they? Thanks.

When I first read Romeo and Juliet in high school, I remember being intrigued by pairs of words such as, beloved/belovèd and learned/learnèd where there's an accent grave on the 'e' of the last syllable of one of each pair of word. One thing I've always thought is that, strictly interpreted, beloved can really only be used as an adjective; if one wants to refer to the noun, as in my beloved , it should properly spelt as belovèd . Similarly, I've always thought that learned is, strictly speaking, only acceptable as the past tense of the verb to learn , and that if one wanted to refer to the adjective form meaning "educated", as in learned scholar , it would properly be spelt as learnèd . I don't remember where exactly I got these impressions from, and I don't know if they are correct. So my question is: Were there or is there any semantic difference between such pairs of words, or is it just a spelling idiosyncrasy? If there were such difference...

If a set of parentheses lies between a subject and its verb, and the parentheses contain an substitutive subject whose singularity/plurality disagrees with the original subject, whose singularity/plurality should be chosen for the verb? In other words, in the following example, should " questions " (and its verb " are ") be singular, or should they remain plural as shown? Many (if not every) questions on this StackExchange are answered. My intuition tells me that the two words in question should remain in plural forms, since the text in parentheses only interrupts the sentence (and the sentence would be grammatically incorrect if everything in parentheses were removed and the words were in singular form). On the other hand, when read aloud (assuming one reads the text in parentheses), this has an uncomfortable sound to it, and I've seen others write in what would be the above example's singular-form case, so I'm curious to find out which is correct. An...

I often bridle at news articles that focus on a single individual who has suffered in some way, as opposed to on the wider issue and the many others who have suffered similarly. Often, the article will also simplistically demonize a particular thing or entity as the sole cause of blame. In such articles, the thing being demonized is the 'scapegoat', but what is the term for a victim arbitrarily picked out from many? 'Martyr' doesn't fit as typically they (the martyr) die pursuing an abstracted goal or cause. The unknown soldier is a good example of a martyr, but they fought for something and remain anonymous. The victims I am trying to find a term for are often acknowledged in sympathetic terms, but not revered, and their now unattainable aims always seem to be cruelly highlighted. 'Figurehead' is another term I considered, as the word often used for someone prominent in a campaign, but they are not always involved in campaign - and rarely lead - a campaign....

Is the word "versionize" a real word or is it a form of bastardization of English? Additional Info: I came across this word in a software feature tracker. The feature called for something in the software to have the ability to save versions of it. It went something like " ...Versionize feature X... " Interestingly, a lot of spell checkers seem to complain about the word too. Answer Yes, of course versionize is a “real word” — and no disparaging remarks about its parentage should be made in polite company. This is because ‑ize is a productive suffix in English that’s used to produce a new verb from various nouns and adjectives. That means that any word derived by combining an existing one of those using ‑ize is AUTOMATICALLY also a “real word”. This remains true under all conditions: The result is still a “real word” even if you cannot find that word in any dictionary howsoever complete, abstruse, current, or hip said dictionary should happen to be. The result...

“to a degree” vs. “to an extent” What's the difference between "to what extent" and "to what level"? Please support your answer with examples.

Is there a polite alternative to "We'll just have to agree to disagree" that can be used as an exit strategy from a relatively friendly debate when a person feels they've said all they have to say and no longer wishes to press the point, but doesn't wish to "walk out of the room and slam the door" or imply "having the last word"? My issue with the phrase is that it seems very cliché / overused, to the point of almost having a negative connotation (to me, it has a subtle ring of "superiority" that I can't quite put my finger on -- it almost has a "weasel word" quality to it due to its overuse). Answer There are different ways of saying agree to disagree that influences how it might be perceived. It was first recorded in a letter of 1750 by George Whitfield, who stated After all, those who will live in peace must agree to disagree in many things with their fellow-labourers, and not let little things part or disunite the...

What's the structure and meaning of this sentence in the following text: A friend lent this to me before I headed over to Italy and France this summer. I was a bit skeptical at first as he's heavily into the technical aspects of architecture. However, this book is anything but . Answer "This [object] is anything but" is another way of saying "This is nothing like what I had initially thought about .. [that object]" So the author thought the book given by his friend would not be to his liking, as the donor was " heavily into the technical aspects of architecture " and he was pleasantly surprised when that was not the case. The book was not as bad as he thought.

In the beginning of a sentence, should I capitalize abbreviations such as the following: hPSC (human pluripotent stem cell) mESC (mouse embryonic stem cell) rDNA (recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid) I have seen both lower and upper case for the two first, while rDNA always seems to be in lower case. I'm curious which is the linguistically correct form. Answer Whenever you encounter a situation where a "rule" (such as begin a sentence with an upper case letter) will reduce the readability of your test ( Is MESC the same as mESC? ) then rewrite. Do not try to find a loophole or a special rule that will need to be explained or justified. The meaning of your text is paramount. There is a reason why chemistry texts do not begin a sentence about acids and bases with pH.

I just googled the difference between as long as and so long as . The difference has alredy been discussed here . There are, it seems, two contexts for these expressions: lengths and physical comparisons (time, distance, etc.) “This bridge is as long as that bridge.” some logical implication or synonym for provided that or something like this. “You can do that so long as you keep in mind that. . . .” Somewhere else I found that you can use both expressions for context #2, but should avoid so long as in cases of context #1. Now, mmyers commented that so long as might be colloquial — or as he put it, “casual”. It seems that it’s possible to never use so long as , since according to what I have been told, you can use either expression in cases of context #1. Given that I am writing academic papers, my questions are: Is so long as truly non-academic or non–high-style? Should so long as therefore be avoided altogether? Answer The answer to your first question is no, so long as is ...

Can the word inlet be used for mountains, too? I'm looking for a word that describes valleys that reach into the mountain, but don't go across it. Here is a picture that tries to describe what I'm looking for. I found this picture with a coulee . Is that a good word? I'm not specifically looking for steep valleys or canyons, but rather for soft valleys. EDIT : Thanks a lot for the input. I think I'm going with “a valley that reaches into the mountain but doesn't cross it”. I think notch is also good, but isn't as easy to understand for non-native speakers, which are my targeted readers. Seems like notch isn't what I want either. Maybe combe ? Answer I suggest valley or, more specifically, U-shaped valley which, I presume means open-ended. http://www.sciencepartners.info/?page_id=1253 ravine a small, deep, narrow valley cirque A steep-walled hollow in a mountain side, shaped like an amphitheater, or bowl, with one side partially cut away. Place ...

I keep hearing people use the word sans in place of without which causes me to cringe. Can sans really be used as a drop-in replacement? Examples: "I prefer cheeseburgers sans pickles." "I went to the store sans my brother." "I typed my essay sans using a sans serif font." Answer Well, Merriam-Webster considers sans a word (meaning without ). Sans-serif is definitely correct; that is simply what sans-serif fonts are called. Shakespeare used it like this: My love for thee is sound, sans crack or flaw. I think it's safe to assume that if Merriam-Webster and Shakespeare use it, it's probably a safe word to use; the words that weren't words when Shakespeare used them became words anyways. As for how much one should use the word, I would suggest limiting its use, despite the fact that it may be legitimate; using it could make you sound silly (awkward wording sounds silly, IMO) or pretentious.

I see a lot of people saying things such as Nice work, Nick Or Thanks, Mat Is the comma really needed? I'm not 100% sure because my spelling and grammar is not great, but I think it reads very strange. Answer Yes, it is. The name is technically an interjection and must be separated by commas. Whether it is at the beginning of the sentence or the end, it must be separated off. Another reason is because commas save lives. It's time to eat Mat. Here, we're having fried Mat wrapped in noodles for supper. It's time to eat, Mat. Here, we're having supper with Mat. It can make a large difference in the meaning.

I tried to google the phrase "everything is everything" but can't find its origin. Where does this phrase originally come from? What does it mean?

Maybe the example would help to describe the expression I am looking for: Say - a sub-par school or organization makes a promotional video, whereby they make the school look way better than it really is. They accomplished this by interviewing a few successful students, showing only the best parts of the school/classes, picking a few angles, and omitting 80% of what really represents the true situation. I have heard the following expression, but not sure whether it's appropriate, or even phrased correctly: Turn chicken into a chicken soup. EDIT: actually the expression was Make chicken salad out of chicken $#!%" coined by Brock Lesnar. Obviously it's less befitting than others mentioned on the thread. Answer The one I like best is polishing a turd .

I use the phrase "SCAT" when I sneeze, and sometimes when someone in my presence sneezes. I have lived in different parts of the US and don't know where I picked up this expression. Has anyone heard of this practice before, or is it common anywhere?

I want to describe, in a phrase, a number of traits in a person. I'm looking to describe a self-righteous, pious person who cannot stop bragging about her/his moral values while trying to impose her/his ideas on to those with whom she/he talks frequently. One may imagine such a person to also have related characteristics such as being highly assuming and judgmental. The main things I want to describe are the person's bragging and imposing nature. I thought of 'self-righteous bragger' but I don't think it covers it all, especially, the imposing part (or can it be said that a self-righteous person is also imposing?). 'Self-righteous imposing bragger' also doesn't sound right. Can you suggest better ways to describe all these traits in another phrase?

I am bit confused on what to put - 'a' or 'the' before "better" for example better life better job better work

For 'time-consuming', I tried http://thesaurus.com/browse/time-consuming . For 'less time-consuming', I tried researching synonyms for 'productive' ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/productive ). But none of the above results pertain to time. Example of '(less) time-consuming' upon request: As Googling each bus route (e.g. in Hong Kong, London) is too time-consuming, what are some less time-consuming methods to see all the bus routes on the same map? Answer More Time-Consuming I can perhaps offer a few alternatives, in this order: Protracted = drawn out considerably, particularly in time. Exhaustive = comprehensive or thorough, but draining. Laborious ~ (As above - @Preetie Sekhon) Less Time-Consuming Again, in this order: Transient = brief, not lasting very long at all. Ephemeral = lasting a very short time, very brief, transitory. Brief = very fast, short-lived. Caution Be careful with ephemeral in particular, because almost no one typ...

I've been wondering that for a long time. And if it is rude, then why does everyone say commands/imperatives without saying please? I personally phrase them into questions, or say "you have to","you need to","you can't"...and such. Does anyone else do that? Just me? I feel like everyone is bossy but me lol. Also, I was wondering if saying "come on" is rude. It sounds mean or just negative when people do. Also when people say "let me" it also sounds mean-ish because it sounds like you are commanding permission from someone without them having any say.

In Hebrew, the difference between the words "Sister" and "Brother" is that "Sister" has an additional suffix, as might be expected given the structure of the language. Also, the Hebrew word for a female nurse and the word for "Sister" are the same word, and likewise for a male nurse and the word for "Brother". These are three things I've been wanting to know and haven't found any conclusive information about: It occurred to me that in UK English, "Sister" is another term for nurse (a female one I guess). What about a male nurse? Would he be called a brother, a sister or a nurse? The uncertainty indicates, for me, a rather archaic background (which I think is associated with different gender roles). What are the roots of referring to a nurse as "sister"? This could shed light on the previous question. It sounds very biblical to me. I would really appreciate perspectives on this topic. Answer Yes, nursing as a...

Is there any difference between have to”, “must”, and “should”? If there is some difference between them, when do I have to use (nor not use) each of the constructions below? have to do something must do something should do something Answer Yes, there are differences. These three modals refer to deontic obligation of various varieties. Like all modals, they're used in many idioms, all irregular. And they have different syntax, too. There have been many dissertations written about modals and necessity/obligation, so I won't belabor the point here. Well, I'll try, anyway. Must and should are modal auxiliary verbs, and contrast in their deontic sense in the strength (and often in the source) of the obligation. Must is stronger; it's used in orders. Should is weaker; it's used in advice. Plus, quite often, must obligations come from outside (fate, weather, boss, parents, mullah -- somebody or something who or which can enforce the order), while should obligat...

Doing such stunts are punishable. Doing such stunts is punishable. Should it be is or are ? There is a conflict. Stunts are punishable sounds right. However, I think whether is or are should be used will not depend on a plural or singular form of the noun stunts here. It depends on something else. Why do we need singular or plural verb agreement here?

Is sunlight a concrete or abstract noun? What differentiates an abstract noun with a concrete noun? Answer A concrete noun names something you can perceive with your senses; an abstract noun names something you cannot perceive with your senses. Examples of concrete nouns are: table , noise , pineapple . Examples of abstract nouns are: democracy , belief , sadness . [Reference: English Grammar —David Daniels, Barbara Daniels; ISBN 0-006-467109-7]