Blog

"Supposably" sounds awful (to my ear) and I'm surprised at how often I hear it said. How often would it have to be used within the general population for it to become an acceptable alternative pronunciation to the correct word "supposedly"? Answer This phenomenon happens all the time. What we call "language" is nothing more than the words that people are actually using. When enough people use a word or pronunciation or spelling for a long enough time, it becomes part of the language. How long this takes is hugely variable, and depends largely on how useful people find the new construction to be. Thus, new tech jargon is assimilated very quickly. Other things (like "gaol" becoming "jail") take hundreds of years. "Supposably" is very far from the point of becoming standard English. The reason that "supposable" sounds so wrong is that you expect the "-able" adjectival ending to be used with transitive ver...

The word confrère(s) in French is used to refer to males sharing the same profession; the word for females is consoeur(s). How about English? Is this term used for both genders? Answer The definition of confrere is gender-free in American dictionaries ( AHED , Merriam-Webster , and Dictionary.com , to name three). Note that the usage example given by MW is this: Many of the judge's confreres on the Fifth Circuit bench don't feel as she does on the issue So, yes, confrere (or confrère) is used for either gender in English. (A French confrère tells me that lawyers in France start letters to fellow lawyers with " Cher Confrère " regardless of the gender of their addressee.)

In using a contrasting simile, I think I have fallen into a trap. I want to say: The academy is far from a placid house of learning. In the sense of: The academy is not at all a serene place for study. Unfortunately, the literal meaning connotes physical distance, as in: The academy is 500 miles from a quiet school that I know. I have checked Ngram Viewer, and is far from a place does not come up with any hits, and the limit is five words per phrase. I could not pinpoint the problem in any of the usage dictionaries either. Might one say: The academy is far from being a quiet place of study? That doesn't sound right at all. Being should not be a verb. Answer That same connecting phrase has several forms: "...far from..." "...far from being..." "...a far cry from..." Here are some examples: The academy is far from calm. The academy is far from being a calm place of study. The academy is a far cry from a calm place of study. To say that something is ...

I have a student from Virginia who says she has heard the use of all y'allses ; does anyone know about this? Is it that the second person plural being used is all y'alls (with the -s at the end here not indicating possessive but plural) and then the es is the possessive being added to that?

"I see", said the blind man, as he waved his wooden leg. is an expression used by someone on whom comprehension has just dawned, or a catch-phrase addressed to that person. Sometimes it can be divided amongst the crowd New comprehender: "I see!" First onlooker : "Said the blind man" All : "As he waved his wooden leg" I've been hearing it quite a bit recently (I had thought I was the only person who said idiotic things like this), and am wondering where it came from. Was there a historical figure who was blind with a peg leg? Or is there some other explanation? I have turned up a couple of variations on the phrase here and here but no-one seems to know where it came from. Answer This appears to be the result of two apparently unrelated wellerisms. I see, said the blind man Eric Partridge's A Dictionary of Catch Phrases (1986) says: I see, said the blind man. An elab. and humorous way of saying 'I understand', but implying, ...

Are both of the following sentences correct? Let me know if there is still something I need to send to you . Let me know if there is still something I need to send you . Which one is more appropriate to use? Answer Both are semantically correct as they are. But compare I'll send it to you. and I'll send it you. The second sentence wouldn't make sense in formal writing, but is found to be understandable in northern England spoken usage. There is also the case of I'll send you this thing Which flow much better without the to . In this light it might be more prudent to use send to you , as it is more formal, but send you in your context would also be accepted. EDIT : I precised my conclusion and added one example following precisions made in the comments.

Consider: I would rather the walls remain painted in a neutral tint. Is this proper use of 'I would rather..', without an infinitive immediately following it? EDIT This suggests that 'I would rather ...' is either followed by an infinitive or by an object (?) + past tense if you would want to include other people. But not the use I propose. Answer This sentence is a proper use of would rather . And it contains an infinitive. Would rather is an idiomatic predicate that means prefer, and has many of the same syntactic affordances and restrictions as prefer , although would rather doesn't use the infinitive complementizer to , while prefer requires it. Both are negative triggers and can trigger NPIs , for instance, I would rather do anything else. I prefer to do anything else. In addition, both predicates can take a that -clause complement with an untensed verb: I would rather (that) he sit down immediately. I prefer (that) he sit down immediately. * I wou...

Does it matter where either goes in this either/or sentence, and do I need to repeat from in or from if I've used either from ? Air pollution may come either from the ocean as natural contaminants given off by sea life or from the internal combustion engines of automobiles. Air pollution may come from either the ocean as natural contaminants given off by sea life or the internal combustion engines of automobiles.

What is a word to describe the behaviour where you do something because everyone is also doing this, to the point where you do it without any clear reason?

When one hears that something smells , one would generally assume that it smells bad. Isn't there a word which wouldn't bring to mind the idea of a bad odor? For example, how would you describe pot-pourri (assuming you like the smell of pot-pourri)? If possible, I would like an adjective, or a word that could takes the place of an adjective. Answer How about fragrant or scented ? Or you could try sweet-smelling , floral or something else referring to the specific scent.

Dong as in ding-dong is clearly onomatopoetic as confirmed by etymonline.com : ding dong imitative of the sound of a bell, c.1560. and similarly for ding : ding (v.) 1819, "to sound as metal when struck," possibly abstracted from ding-dong, of imitative origin. The meaning "to deal heavy blows" is c.1300, probably from Old Norse dengja "to hammer," perhaps also imitative. Meaning "dent" is 1960s. Related: Dinged; dinging. What, then, is the origin of dong to mean penis ? Etymonline.com is no help here: dong (n.) "penis," 1891, of unknown origin. We also have a much more recent word, dongle , which has no entry at etymonline.com but wiktionary claims it is: Apparently from dangle. This leads me to the theory that the anatomical and onomatopoetic dongs are not related and that the former usage, like dongle , derives from dangle . So, my questions are: Is that so? Does dong (penis) derive from dangle ? Sounds reasonable enough but I...

This words are always written with æ but I always hear them pronounced like thenk, lend, end... I read that this pronunciation was and old-style, but I have hardly ever heard them pronounced -[ænd]. How would I have to pronounced them ?

What is the rule regarding comma usage when but is used between two contrasting adjectives or adverbs? It is a vey interesting, but stupid question, and one that I have had a hard time finding a definitive answer to. Or should that have been "very interesting but stupid question" or "very interesting, but stupid, question". Since a comma is sometimes used to introduce contrast, my instinct would be the way I phrased it the first time, but I can't seem to find a definitive rule on the subject. My own opinion on the subject seems to change with either my mood or slight nuances in the particular sentence, e.g., if the adjectives/adverbs are before or after the noun/[verb/adjective] or if the but seems particularly parenthetical. A few more examples taken from the web, illustrating inconsistent comma usage for similar constructs: 1A) In case of a fire alarm, please exit the building quickly but calmly. 1B) It was time to quickly, but calmly get out of the water. 2A)...

I set a test with the following direct sentence, which the students were supposed to put into reported speech: Interviewer: "Are you fluent in English?" I expected the students to write: The interviewer asked me if I was fluent in English. However, some students wrote: The interviewer asked me if I were fluent in English. I know that "was" and "were" are sometimes both possible, like: If I was/were rich... But to my knowledge this is used in unreal situations. Is it correct to say: The interviewer asked me if I were fluent in English?

Just curious as to where "for the win" (commonly abbreviated FTW) originated? Answer Numerous internet sources, including a hotforwords video , claim that FTW , "for the win", originated with Hollywood Squares , a 1966-1981 US television show. It's likely that Hollywood Squares popularized the phrase, using it in show after show for 15 years, but I believe the true origin of it is in football or rugby. For example, after making a touchdown in football, a team faces the choice of kicking for 1 extra point ( PAT ) or running the ball in for 2 points. This can make the difference between tieing the game, vs. winning it; in the latter case, the team is said to "go for the win" (or to go for broke ), both usages which far predates Hollywood Squares.

What's the meaning of this sentence below from Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English? ▪ Blow me down if she didn’t just run off! http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/blow-blow-me-blow-it-etc The Longman Dictionary says you use 'blow me' to show annoyance or surprise and is usually used in British English. But I still cannot figure out what it means and in what situation it can be used. Answer It is a term like many others whose usage has metamorphosed. Begin with "When she just ran off, you could have knocked me over with a feather!" It suggests that sudden shock and surprise renders a person weak and liable to faint. Now "She's run off ? - well blow me down!". Modify that slightly "Blow me down if she just didn't just run off". It is idiomatic. For a wider treatment on the use of blow as an imprecation etc see the answer I have provided with OED reference.

English language usage has some logical word pairs including: Or | Nor Either | Neither With | Without But there doesn't seem to be an opposition to the word "and". In computer engineering and Boolean logic, this is referred to as a "nand" operation. For example, if I were to say "I eat pancakes when they have bananas nand strawberries in them," then what I want to communicate is that: I will eat a pancake with bananas I will eat a pancake with strawberries I will eat a pancake with neither bananas nor strawberries I won't eat a pancake with specifically both bananas and strawberries Is there an equivalent of the boolean operand nand in the English language (or a short phrase and not just a rearranging of the sentence)? Essentially, not how to say the phrase with the same meaning, but if there's a short phrase or word that conveys the same meaning. This question intends "to be less about the missing 'nand' word and more abou...

I sometimes have heard somebody replying with Why, thank you. instead of Thank you . What is the meaning of the first phrase? What is the difference between the two phrases? Answer It is definitely expressing mild surprise. Imagine you're giving a dinner party. You turn to the person sitting at the table next to you and ask them to pass the salt. They do. You say "Thank you." You wouldn't say "Why, thank you.", because there's no surprise, you were fully expecting them to pass it to you. But if someone says "I must compliment you, this stew is delicious!", you might well say "Why, thank you!", because you weren't expecting the compliment, it was a bit of a surprise. You could still say just "Thank you." in this case, but you wouldn't really ever say "Why, thank you." in the first case.

I am confused about the article usage in the phrase "time of (the) day". From my research, I understand that "time of day" ( day with the zero article) is more common and probably more idiomatic. It's also a part of an idiom not give somebody the time of day . But I'm interested in its more literal usage and sense. Is there any difference in usage or meaning between "time of day" and "time of the day". I went to the COCA for examples but I still haven't been able to come up with any reasoning when to prefer one over the other: With the : What's your biggest vice? - Dark chocolate. I'll have it at any *time of the day*; it's never too early or too late. Without the : These morning menu favorites taste good any time of day Answer If anyone is saying that any time of day is ungrammatical, I have to disagree. Both it and any time of the day can refer to an unspecified point on any day. Additionally, any time of the day...

In the following context, it is obvious that County is a proper noun and deserves capitalization. Currently, Albemarle County has four main reservoirs. However, in these other contexts below, I am not sure whether county and city would be considered proper nouns. Is a reference to a specific geographic area considered a proper noun? The James River lies south of the county and has a tremendous flow rate. The Ragged Mountain reservoir is located closest to the city of Charlottesville. According to the Illinois Identity Standards , I should "not capitalize common nouns and various shortened forms of official names". In the first example, county is referring to a generic county, so I suspect it is a common noun (and can remain uncapitalized). In the second example, I am not sure whether city is proper (and consequently, whether to capitalize). On official documentation, this city is referred to as the "City of Charlottesville", but I have never heard anyone say it...

I posted a question somewhere that said... Can anyone tell me how I can solve this? ...but someone edited it to... Can anyone tell me how can I solve this? ...and it was accepted. That's wrong isn't it? Can someone explain how that's wrong? Answer I posted a question somewhere that said: 1.) Can anyone tell me how I can solve this? but someone edited it to: 2.) Can anyone tell me how can I solve this? and it was accepted. That's wrong isn't it? Can someone explain how that's wrong? The difference between the two versions is that the subordinate interrogative clause has NOT undergone subject-auxiliary inversion in the first version (#1), but it has in the second version (#2). The expression "how I can solve this" in your example is a content clause, which in your example is a subordinate interrogative clause. In general, a subordinate interrogative clause does NOT normally undergo subject-auxiliary inversion (which it would have if it had been the m...

Can coruscating be used as a one word adjective to describe "interesting and exciting"? Basically the usage is "his interesting and exciting research work" which will end up as "his coruscating research work". Referring to dictionary.com gives this: coruscate verb (used without object), coruscated, coruscating. 1. to emit vivid flashes of light; sparkle; scintillate; gleam. So does this mean "coruscating" cannot be used with an object (research in this case)?

Is there a word or an idiom for rich people who spend only their families' money and do not bother to work, just fool around?

English does distinguish between a regular pronoun and a self referential one in all persons. However, it seems like the reflexive form isn't always needed. She told him good bye and shut the door behind her. I (not a native speaker) feel like saying "behind herself" would actually sound odd here. Here are my questions: Is the sentence correct without a reflexive marker? Would it sound wrong to use one? If yes: What would happen if "she" shuts the door and there's another female in the room? How would we know who has left? Is there a rule to tell when one is needed? (I feel like it would be needed here: "She put the book behind herself"... sorry if that isn't idiomatic) Answer There's an exception when the reference is to location/place . But we use personal pronouns, not reflexives, after prepositions of place... See ngram for (behind her),(behind herself),(behind him),(behind himself) P.S. In response to the side-exchange with Araucaria...

When searching on Google, I found that it's a lot more common to use is than are in phrases such as "What is/are your name and date of birth?". Why is that? To me, it feels more natural to use is in the sentence; however, seeing as we're asking about both name and date of birth (i.e., two things) I wonder why the plural form (are) isn't used. What's grammatically correct in the following sentences, and why? What is vs. what are your name and height? What is vs. what are your favorite possession and dream car? Thanks.

Recently, I started noticing the word cuck appearing in internet discussions as a pejorative. I first encountered the word after a news media discussion on the term cuckservative last year, which was claimed to be a portmanteau of cuckold and conservative , denoting those in U.S. politics who claim to be conservative but give in to some demands of liberals. However, upon further investigation, it seems like the derivation of cuckservative and its use likely relate to a pre-existing internet tradition employing the word cuck (rather than cuckold ). Though the exact connotations seem to vary, cuck generally seems associated with a weak or emasculated male, often in a sexual and/or racial context related specifically to a white male. Unlike with cuckold , it seems the implication is not necessarily literal sexual abandonment: cuck (as in cuckservative ) can also denote a metaphorical or generic weakness. It also often seems connected to political correctness. I've seen discussi...

We seem to be stuck at an impasse on this issue. Is funnest a word or not? If so, does it mean "most fun"? Answer Taken from Wiktionary : Funnest is a regular superlative of the adjective fun . However, the use of fun as an adjective is itself still often seen as informal or casual and to be avoided in formal writing, and this would apply equally to the superlative form. Merriam-Webster, however, gives fun as an adjective without comment, and states that funner and funnest are ‘sometimes’ used. Because of the remaining stigma, most fun may be preferred in formal writing.

Who said "I am hungry?" The quotation is not a question, but do I put "my" question mark there anyway? This is related to, but not the same as Position of question mark when sentence doesn't end with question

I am writing a scientific paper and want to dedicate it to my former supervisor who passed away recently. The standard practice in this case is to write the dedication phrase just below the title of the paper. What I am not sure as I am a non-native speaker is the exact wording. It would be terrible if I write something offensive or inappropriate out of my ignorance. I have the following suggestions: To the memory of ... Dedicated to the bright memory of ... Dedicated to the memory of ... My questions are Is option 1 ok without the word "dedicated"? Is the word "bright" fine here? I like this choice, but my worry is that it might be reserved for the people who were very close to him, or "bright" would imply some strange meaning that I am unaware of. What would you write? Answer Omitting “dedicated” as in “To the memory of …” is accepted usage, attested for example by a Google Scholar search. On using “bright”, it depends strongly on your relationship wit...

This question may seem to be very simple, but something I get confused whenever I want to speak. I read a book entitled "re-start your English", and saw a sentence. This is a leg. It is part of your body. This is a neck. It is 'a' part of your body. Why didn't they use 'a' in the first sentence? And why did they use one in the second one? I'm not a native, so I hope you will please understand, even if there's something awkward about my question.

I have come across the following three spoken variants for the fraction ⅞: Seven by eight Seven over eight Seven into eight I am also aware of seven-eighths but I don't want to use that as it isn't practical for larger numbers. As an Indian, the most common variant I have heard is the first one but somehow that doesn't seem right. Besides, since English isn't our native language, I wouldn't want to trust it. I want to know from native speakers what they use and what's the correct way to refer to such numbers. To make things even more complicated, most Indians use the third variant to mean something like 7×8 , which I guess should be more appropriately referred to as seven times eight . Answer There could be some differences between English speaking countries, but in Australia only "seven over eight" would be understood as 7/8. "Seven by eight" could be interpreted as 7x8 but could also be interpreted as the dimensions of a rectangle (length...

I have two complete sentences; the second is in parentheses, essentially a comment on the first. Where do I place the periods? I would use this: They played opera. (I covered my ears.) Is this punctuation correct? Answer Punctuation within parentheses If your parentheses enclose a sentence-within-a-sentence, don't use a period within the parentheses. Do, however, use a question mark or an exclamation point if it is called for. Mother love (hers was fierce) ruined the young boy's life. They finally said (why couldn't they have admitted it earlier?) that she had been there. The wedding reception (what a fiasco!) ended abruptly. If the parentheses enclose a complete sentence that stands alone, keep the period within the parentheses. (Her father was the only one who didn't attend.) From Cliffsnotes

This document does not cover the SDK interfaces nor any other reference material. I think the above is correct, but my grammatical checker in Microsoft Word underlines nor and suggests or . Why? Answer If the two options are negative (neither this nor that) then use "nor". Otherwise, use "or". Your example sentence can be reworded to read, "This document covers neither the SDK interfaces nor any other reference material." NOTE : In my experience, Word's grammar checker is mediocre at best. It has a tendency to look at a sentence and suggest the opposite of the correct word. It was especially bad with [your/you're] in versions up to and including 2003, so I just keep it turned off and rely on thorough proof-reading.

I have looked through several questions and answers on EL&U, and often there is an indication that American English prefers "have" while British English prefers "have got". In addition, there are several references to "have got" being more informal than "have" (e.g.: When to use "have" and "have got" , “Do you have” vs “Have you got” ). But where is it considered more informal? In American English alone or both American and British English? This point may seem obvious to those who made the above mentioned references, but the fact is that even the most fluent users of English in my country will say without a doubt that 'have got' is the preferred usage in the UK and, therefore, it must also be more formal. Why? Because in an academic environment, the more informal structures are generally frowned upon, outside some specific spoken exercises. And if the teachers insist on using "have got", it follows it isn...

For an event, I would like to add next to the name of some participants, that they "will be there". For example, Mr. AAA Mr. BBB (will be there) Ms. CCC Can any one suggest a better, professional replacement for "will be there". Thanks in advance. Answer You could say they are an attendee or that they will attend the event or occasion. Attendee - One who is present at or attends a function

Can the word "dabble" be used in a positive sense? As in, A true "master of all trades", he has dabbled in several fields & contributed to numerous scientific advances. Answer Dabbled in carries a not negative connotation, but a somewhat dismissive tone. As in, "I dabbled in witchcraft and it wasn't for me." Dabbling doesn't have a sense of permanency to it in terms of one's interest in a matter. That said, "I dabbled in novice physics books and am a bit wiser for the effort" would certainly bear a positivity about it. Mostly, it just depends on how one extends or qualifies the impact of dabbling. Dabbling seems to have a certain antecedent>consequent structure to it that implies the positive/negative; i.e. with both example phrases above there is no +/- value until the "and..." statement created one.

I'm looking for a derogatory term for people from liberal metropolitain areas who think they are better educated and more enlightened than those from rural, conservative areas. Carthage, TX is to redneck as San Francisco, CA is to ______________. EDIT: In response to comments below, I feel I must add that I do not believe the people of SF "think they are better educated and more enlightened than those from rural, conservative areas." If I did believe that, I wouldn't be asking this question now would I? BECAUSE I WOULD KNOW ALL THE DERAGATORY TERMS.

Should the slash be avoided? For example every week/day in my head is translated to every week or day . I think I started using slashes because I saw them used in forums and in articles. Is using slashes U.S. specific, while British English is against it? Or do I understand it wrong? P.S. If you find any spelling errors here, please let me know. Answer Most style guides recommend against using the slash in phrases like “X and/or Y”, as well as “this is hard/impossible to do”. In particular, scientific publications now have strong policies against this ramping-up use, because it allows for a lot of imprecision in the writing, and weakens the scientific discussion. I know that is the case in the world of physics and chemistry publishing, and this entry , for example, seems to indicate it is so in other fields. The one place I find it's gained real traction in both written and spoken language is when it's used in, e.g., “he was a comedian-slash-banjo player”, where it is now oft...

How do you handle “that that”? The double “that” problem I sometimes seem to write myself into using 2 thats in succession, as in: "Now that that issue has been resolved, we can move forward." I am pretty sure that this is correct but is it bad form and should it be avoided?

If I had the phrase two blond haired, blue eyed people would the comma be out of place? should I hyphenate "blond haired" and "blue eyed"? Answer There is a two-part test for adjectives: (1) Can you replace the comma with the word and ? (2) Can you reverse the order of the adjectives and keep the same meaning? If the paired adjectives fail the two-part test, then no comma is used. This shows that they must remain in a certain order to make sense. These are called cumulative adjectives. *The feisty, little dog ran off with the sausages. – incorrect The feisty little dog ran off with the sausages. – correct *The little feisty dog ran off with the sausages. – incorrect *The feisty and little dog ran off with the sausages. – incorrect If two adjectives modify a noun in the same way, place a comma between the two adjectives. These are called coordinate adjectives. If the sentence passes both the two-pair test, then you have coordinate adjectives. Did you read about Maco...

Reminded by What is the grammatical function of so in this sentence , something that has always bothered me is that the word "so" can be used as a pronoun: It looks like rain Responding with: No, I don't think so. (Where "so" refers to the statement about rain "that it looks like rain".) Definition of 'so' - see items 21, 22, where they say it is a pronoun: –pronoun such as has been stated: to be good and stay so . something that is about or near the persons or things in question, as in number or amount: Of the original twelve, five or so remain . Rather, I am not bothered that it might function as a pronoun (weird things happen). I am perfectly fine with it being a pronoun and using it...so. But it never seems to be mentioned in a list of pronouns (as much as memory can serve). It is not in the set of canonical pronouns. "Thus" seems to share this use. So...(clears throat), what is the provenance and history of this usage? Do other ...

All my life, I have been confused with choosing plural or singular form to represent one-one correspondence notion. Only those who qualify will be awarded a certificate. or Only those who qualify will be awarded certificates. ? Another example, let us consider the following: "Each student gets one pencil". But it becomes ambiguous if I rewrite in plural form as "Students get pencils". I hope someone can give me a general rule to overcome my confusion. :-)

According to dictionary, a dabbler is "an amateur who engages in an activity without serious intentions and who pretends to have knowledge". I want a word that means a person genuinely interested in something, wishing to learn more, but currently not having much knowledge about it and not able to make it their primary activity. I used to use the word "dabbler" for this meaning but I recently discovered it has the above-mentioned negative connotation. What is the word that I should be using instead?

Microsoft Word has underlined a question I typed starting with "why not." Something along the lines of: Why not walk to the hall every morning before the sun has risen and while the streets are empty? According to Word, this is a non-standard question. Is it correct in a semi-formal article that's intended for the Internet audience? I thought it was standard enough.

I hear it often, and can usually derive a sentence's meaning with or without it. What does it really mean? When would one use it? Answer It means 'whether or not this is of any use/value'. For what it's worth, I'm very sorry I broke the window. means, for example, that it may not make any difference to the physical state of the window, but that hopefully the apology helps placate you. It's almost a kind of self-deprecation; it's saying 'No words of mine will be adequate, but...'

For example, I want to say " Students who didn't come here yesterday are lazy." But I say " Who didn't come here yesterday are lazy" instead because I talk to students and I don't want to say "students" again. Does it make sense? Answer This is called a "headless relative clause" or "fused relative clause". In English, the pronouns who and whom cannot normally be used as fused relative pronouns: The categories 'person' or 'people' are [...] so general in meaning that they normally take a further qualification, as in The people who came were all enthusiastic. [...] the head noun people is almost redundant; still, it cannot be left out in English, i.e. we cannot speak of *Who came were all enthusiastic. Obviously humans are too important to be left unmentioned as a head. The grammatical solution English has found is using relative clauses headed by the demonstrative pronoun those for plural humans (25a) ...

What is this phenomenon called? Is it common in all English-speaking countries?

Which of the following is grammatical? Managers are one group to which these findings are relevant. Managers are one group to whom these findings are relevant. Answer Relative pronouns tend to refer to the most recent noun, and here the most recent noun, is group . Group could be perceived as inanimate, but in this context, at least, it is clearly a group of people, and that makes whom appropriate. That choice is reinforced by the fact that managers is the topic of the discussion. If you wanted to avoid the choice altogether, you could say ‘Managers are one group that these findings are relevant to’, but there are those who would object to that on stylistic grounds.

There is no social shaming that comes with knowing nothing about our local politicals. (Joe Clein Column, Time Magazine, August26) Can I change "come with" into "go with" here? It seems to me that "go with" is too much used as an idiom to mean something essentially or normally goes together with something else. But here the author is just to negate any necessary relation between the two things. Is the difference between "come with" and "go with" based on, or related to, the difference between "come" and "go"? Maybe the difference between them is just a product of habit?

As per this link , the word 'kidnap' originated to denote nabbing away of a child. When and how did kidnap come to denote nabbing of adults? Update : Just found a link to a 1650 book that mentions kidnapping of souls. Now not sure how correct the above link is. Answer Kidnap appears to be a back-formation from kidnapper ( 1682 ). This chart shows the relative use of “man was kidnapped”, “woman was kidnapped”, and “child was kidnapped”; there is a mysterious spike around 1850–1870 that may explain the subsequent increase in popularity of applying kidnap to adults, but I’m loath to draw any conclusions. My guess is that kidnap became the general English word for abduction because we just didn’t have another word for it. Abduction didn’t refer to kidnapping till the 1760s, and the verb abduct is from as late as 1834. It makes sense that kidnap would have been extended to close the lexical gap.

The following sentence is from George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four , occurring in chapter 5 of part 2: She was one of those people who can go to sleep at any hour and in any position. Why is who can grammatically correct when used with was ? Shouldn’t it be who could ? Answer The description is taken from a novel; in that context, it is usual to refer to people using the past tense. Who could relates not to the character just mentioned, but to the generic referent one of those people, whose characteristics can be described both by who can and who could.

Whats does the expression at scale mean? Does it mean "on a larger scale" or does it mean "at a level appropriate to the what's available"? I came up with these two definitions by looking the expression up on the internet, but I still feel very confused. Here are two sentences: Over the course of that first afternoon, the next months, and finally over several years, we honed our practice activities into tools that could help make teachers better, at scale If you seek to do somethings great, you most likely live a battle for talent – for smart and capable people who can do great things at scale . Answer See scalability (Wiki) scalability is the ability of a system, network, or process to handle a growing amount of work in a capable manner or its ability to be enlarged to accommodate that growth. In the given cases, tools that could help make teachers better, at scale implies those that could measure up to the size of the task. people who can do great things at...

I can be nonplussed (in fact that is practically the ground state of my existence), but not plussed . I can also be indifferent ; but if you are different , that doesn't mean you care, either. What do you call it when a word looks like the negation of another word but is not? The kind of words that Terry Pratchett takes delight in? (possible 2nd question) I had started by looking up wittingly , seeing that I've never seen it used except in the phrase "wittingly or unwittingly", or ironically , as the opposite of unwittingly. There might even be another class of word like "wittingly", words that are only ever used with their opposite. Answer It seems they are called Unpaired Words (maybe the best definition) or Absent Antonyms . Unpaired Words An unpaired word is one that, according to the usual rules of the language, would appear to have a related word but does not. Such words usually have a prefix or suffix that would imply that there is an antonym, wit...

In the following, which is better to write between two sentences: " . Also " or " , and also " : Another drawback in the convenient setting is that operational vector fields do not have integral curves. Also , for kinematic vector fields integral curves do not need to exist locally, and if they exist they may not be unique for a given initial value. Are there any grammatical errors?

How can I learn to speak with appropriate English accents when reading books aloud? For example, are there simple rules for each accent? My question is general question, but my application is specific and requires only a good enough attempt; as of now (currently reading "the Secret Garden") my accents are all over the place and inconsistent from page to page. Answer There is actually a book/CD set called Accents: A Manual for Actors that is a wealth of information on different accents, from native speaker regional accents to foreign accents. It does an amazing job of explaining how to physically produce those accents. It's geared towards native English speakers, but I see no reason it wouldn't be helpful to someone actively trying to lose a foreign accent.

In a recent open letter to “everybody”, famous visionary entrepreneur Elon Musk uses the closing statement “Thanks for being awesome” (emphasis mine): From: Elon Musk To: Everybody Subj. Staying Public After giving this a lot of thought, I have come to the conclusion that the best path for the foreseeable future is for Tesla to remain a public company. There are certainly a number of very compelling reasons to go private, so this is far from an obvious decision, but, on balance, being public appears to best serve the interests of the people of Tesla and those who have invested in our future. Thanks for being awesome, Elon I’m not familiar with this expression in business letters, so I guess it is sort of informal, “friendly” expression he, for some reason, used on such a delicate occasion. Searching in google it appears it is a sort of meme that has catched on in recent times. To my ears the expression sounds a bit disrespectful, considering all the fuss he created around the “go pri...

Which of these is most correct, and why? Our team kept in constant communication over email. Our team kept in constant communication by email. Our team kept in constant communication through email. Our team kept in constant communication via email. Our team kept in constant communication with email. Answer When dealing with email, it's important to remember that it is short for "electronic mail". When trying to find the right word to use with email, drop the "e" and just consider "mail". If you do this, then "Our team kept in constant communication by mail" is the only appropriate choice. Thus, by should also be used with email.

I know I've seen a word that describes a person who has a high perception of details (for example, seeing specific information in a log file), but I can't recall it now. Insights? Answer Consider punctilious , meticulous , and persnickety . punctilious : strictly attentive to minute details. meticulous : taking or showing extreme care about minute details. persnickety : paying extremely close attention to details. Also, consider " astute observer ."

Is it correct to say: What kind of CDs do you have? or What kinds of CDs do you have?

When I was a lowly copyboy for a newspaper in the 1970s, I wrote obituaries. My desk editor came to me with a criticism. I had written that the deceased lived "on Nevada Blvd." She threw my copy down and stood on it. "This is 'on'," she said. Standing to the side of the paper she said, "this is 'at'." OK, I can take a hint, from then on I said people lived "at" a certain address. But is that really the rule, or was that just my editor's pet peeve?

On an application it’s asking which rising class standing I am. I’m in college and came in with a full semester (half a year) of credits. Thus after finishing my first semester and at time of application, I will be a sophomore. However, over the summer I will still be a sophomore. Only after finishing the first semester of my second year in college will I be a junior. Which “rising” am I? Answer You definitely won't be a junior since you'll still be a sophomore that first semester. But on the other hand, you won't be technically a rising sophomore. You won't be 'between freshman and sophomore year'. You're still in the middle of your sophomore year. This is already what you've thought of and why you're asking the question. The difficulty is being forced into one of these choices by the form. Since you have to choose, 'rising sophomore' will be less of a lie. You won't be accused of exceeding your qualifications, which is most likely wh...

I am looking at the following usage in particular: "I want to confirm this theory."

I'm having trouble understanding the rationale behind the meaning of an American English phrase of which I just became aware. That phrase is: You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar From what I understand now, this phrase would indicate that You make more friends by being nice than by being rude . Please correct me if I'm wrong. My confusion comes from the fact that no one catches flies in order to do anything nice to them (Well, I suppose some people do. But it's not common!). When I first read it, I actually thought the phrase meant You'll have more success luring people into a trap by being nice than by being rude . This didn't make much sense in context, though, which led me to ask around about the phrase. Where does this phrase come from? More importantly, why does it have such a counter-intuitive meaning? Answer You catch more flies with honey than vinegar or, sometimes you catch more flies with honey is an English proverb . It doesn't ...