Blog

When we're comparing two or more things, there are times when we have to weigh the advantages or disadvantages of each one. There are other times when one of the things is better for every way in which it's being judged, and the final decision is not based upon trade-offs. I know that I've heard a phrase for this (I want to say it was two words), but I've had no luck in remembering it. I don't think 'clearly superior' or 'clear winner' quite fit the bill, as that might still suggest that the disadvantages are significantly outweighed by the advantages. Is there such a phrase, or even a single word, that would convey this meaning without using idioms? Answer Dominated - typically used in game theory.

The following is an excerpt from a New York Times article of April 6. “Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the air base in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched,” Mr. Trump said in remarks at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. “It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.” Shouldn't that "from where" be either "from which" or else just "where" without "from?"

Is there a good word like halcyon except in the future rather than halcyon's more commonly used reference to the past? Basically, a single word that will mean something like "future days will be better/peaceful". Edit: The context would be "We're struggling now but _______ days are coming." Answer Halcyon days says Fourteen days of calm weather were to be expected when the Halcyon was nesting - around the winter solstice, usually 21st or 22nd of December. The Halcyon days are generally regarded as beginning on the 14th or 15th of December. Now while Halcyon days may refer to peaceful days of youth -- think of long, summer days, sitting on a swing or gathering flowers when you were, say, eight years old -- its primary meaning is closer to "peaceful." It wouldn't be wrong to say: We're struggling now, but halcyon days are coming. But the OP desires to use a different word (without a possible connotation of the past). How about: We're s

I'm confused about how to combine an open-form compound word with a word that would normally be hyphenated. There's excellent guidance for making the open vs. closed vs. hyphenated decision, but I don't see how to apply this when hyphenating the open-form word looks wrong. For example, make a compound word out of North, America, and based. North America is open formed and something -based is hyphenated. Is Coca-Cola a... North America-based company : this seems very wrong as it de-emphasizes North America as a proper-noun place and makes it sound like the company is based in the North part of America (which is neither accurate nor the intent of the phrase). North America based company : feels jolting to read and omits what seems like a necessary hyphen before "based" North-America-based company : looks best(?), but has hyphenated the open-formed compound "North America", which unlike " well-thought-out plan " still seems wrong, despite the gui

My question is for example when closing a call with a customer which is the proper way? "Once again my was (name), have a great day!" or "Once again my is (name), have a great day!" need this cleared up lol

Which of these sentences is more correct? ABC should not be referenced from file X. ABC should not be referenced in file X. ABC should not be referenced by file X. Answer They're both correct and the meaning is essentially the same. I'd say that the preposition choice depends on how you intend to communicate the message. If you think of the reference as an arrow in a diagram coming from file X to ABC, then from works better as the preposition, as it indicates movement and direction: ABC should not be referenced from file X. If you think of the reference to ABC within the boundaries of file X, then it is in that works better as the preposition, as it indicates inclusion within a space: ABC should not be referenced in file X. I would probably write the sentence with from in a technical document, as I usually think of arrows and direction when I'm thinking of references between files or objects.

Is there a collective noun for words that describe something that this word itself contains or is? Here are some examples of what I mean: ‘noun’ is a noun itself; ‘háček’ contains a letter with a háček; ‘plurals’ is plural itself. Answer Such a word is autological and can be called an autonym .

Was there ever a real distinction between the two? I always have the urge to use maybe for discussing state and perhaps for actions. I know this is only because perhaps ( by hap ) and happen ( befall by hap ) share a root, but at least it's logical. Am I totally misguided here? Answer The differences between perhaps and maybe are the following: Maybe is used as a noun, in phrases like no ifs, buts, or maybes . Perhaps is used in polite requests: would you perhaps consent to act as our guide? The meaning of maybe is possibly, perhaps . Except in set phrases, you can replace maybe with perhaps . As far as I know, there is no distinction in the usage of the words you describe; both the words can be used with actions. [The examples are taken from the NOAD]

I'm looking for an uncommon term for an excellent orator that doesn’t include adjectives such as “good” or “excellent,” or the noun “orator.” I've googled this request but haven't encountered anything compelling. Answer If you want something very unusual and yet historically resonant, you might try chrysostomic (that is, "golden-mouthed"). Here's the OED definition of that word: Chrysostomic a. rare. {f. Gr χρυσοστομος golden-mouthed, an epithet applied to favourite orators which became a kind of surname of Dio and John Chrysostom.} Golden-mouthed. [Example:] 1816 Month[ly] Rev[iew] LXXXI 245 By the majesty of his Chrysostomic eloquence. The quotation from The Monthy Review (November 1816) runs at greater length as follows: Dean Williams, also, with the plasticity of a Roman cardinal, after having subdued by his arguments the puritan chieftain Dr. Reynolds, stalked into the see of Lincoln, which he disdained to illustrate, but, changing his career, too

Microsoft Word loves underlining things I am typing with a green squiggle. One thing which I find rather annoying is its labelling of sentences as "fragments". Here are two which it catches: Things of this sort. Bad timing though. I am rather puzzled where this strong objection to fragments arose from. They seem quite normal parts of English to me. What does anybody else think? (PS I don't need answers telling me how to switch off the grammar checker etc, I can do that already).

Is it considered bad style to use abbreviations contractions like "it's" and "that's" (instead of spelling them out as "it is" and "that is") in a textbook or academic publication? Answer It depends on the context. "[A] textbook or academic publication" includes a wide range of publications, including textbooks for grade school, where I can see that's being used (perhaps not in running text, but at least in a sidebar). Even published journal papers in some fields may include such words: mathematics papers are not known for their careful attention to formal writing, and may well include it's and that's . (It will depend on the journal, however, and, of course, the authors.) But as an overly general rule, yes, it's considered bad style to use them in textbooks and academic publications.

I am trying to explain to non-native speakers how to use "almost." I can't formulate (a) rule(s) to follow with regard to nouns/pronouns. So far, my only ideas are that almost can be collocated only with words (or in situations) that describe measurement or comparison. However, even this seems to fail. For example: almost they = incorrect (no concept of measurement or comparison) almost everyone = correct (measurement of individuals) A platypus is almost a duck. = correct (comparison) They are almost the same. = correct (comparison) It is almost midnight. = correct (measurement of time vs. temporal adverbial) We are almost there. = correct (but spatial adverbial) However: He wrote almost a book. = incorrect, although in this case "book" would be a comparison or perhaps a measurement of the written material I am pretty much at a loss. Thanks.

A Code monkey is a computer programmer or other person who writes computer code for a living. This term may be slightly derogatory, meaning that this developer can write some code but is unable to (or not supposed to) perform the more complex tasks of software architecture, analysis, and design.[1] It is usually applied to junior programmers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_monkey If a code monkey has dedicated his efforts to improve his knowledge and skill, what should we call him after at the next level/rank? Answer IMO, "code monkey" is much more than just "slightly" derogatory. It's also very difficult to actually have hierarchy of nomenclature, as many really skilled developers call themselves coders or programmers (because they still do write code). But if you'd attempt to create such, I'd say it would be something like: coder programmer software engineer software analyst software architect These might be prefixed with "junior", "

The suffixes -ist, and -er are added to a base word to name a person who does an action: pitch, pitcher. Some more examples: carpenter artist painter nationalist banker dentist These all seem to be professions, but is there a conceptual difference between names ending with "-ist" and those ending with "-er"? Any history behind it? Answer From Wiktionary : -ist Added to words to form nouns denoting: a person with a particular creative or academic role; one who subscribes to a particular theological doctrine or religious denomination; one who owns or manages something; And : -er (added to verbs) Person or thing that does an action indicated by the root verb; used to form an agent noun. (added to a noun denoting an occupation) Person whose occupation is (the noun). The etymology part says that : -ist comes from Latin -ista from Ancient Greek -ιστής (-istḗs), from -ισ (-is) + agent suffix -τής (-tḗs)... one who practises or believes. -er comes

From what I understand, the word "midnight" is usually interpreted incorrectly. Midnight is written as "12am" which would imply that it's in the morning. Therefore, it should be at the start of the day. On the other hand, both Dictionary.com and the Oxford Dictionary define it as "twelve o'clock at night". Some examples: "Midnight on the 10th of December" "Midnight Thursday" "Midnight tonight" are usually interpreted as: Straddling the 10th and the 11th of December Straddling Thursday and Friday Straddling today and tomorrow but should they technically mean: straddling the 9th and the 10th of December? straddling Wednesday and Thursday? This is much less clear. Technically is there a midnight "tonight", or is midnight "tomorrow morning"? What do you think? How should "midnight" be interpreted? Answer It's a matter of convention, and the informal convention is that "midnight on

My eldest is a beginning reader. Yesterday we read one of my favorite books, The Wreck of the Zephyr . He pointed at wreck and asked me why that one looked like it said "wuh-reck." I explained that spelling is funny like that sometimes. This didn't satisfy my curiosity though. Silent w is not uncommon—we see it in the question word 'who' for instance—but it often appears in the combination wr-, and this is what I am curious about. Was the w ever pronounced in these words (and if so, how)? Do these kind of words all share a common lineage that has some unique sound represented by this combination? (I am thinking of, for instance, that someone told me once that most words with ph come from Greek.) Answer Not My Field, so subject to correction: In Old English the “voiced labiovelar approximant” /w/ was in fact pronounced in the initial clusters /wr/ and /wl/. Lass, Cambridge History of the English Language describes the loss of this pronunciation in the contex

I'm wondering which one of these expressions is correct? This stuff or these stuff ? Answer Stuff is a collective noun — it represents a group of objects. Just as one would say "this group" or "this pile," one would say "this stuff".

You can place the script in the head or body as you like. The script will behave as if it was located exactly where you put the script tag in the document. The sentences above are taken from this JavaScript tutorial (at the very bottom). I think they made a grammatical mistake here: it should be behave as if it were rather than it was . I'm not 100% sure, so want to confirm it. Answer Peter's comment indicates he feels 'were' is the preferred phrasing, and so do I. 'behave as if it were' is meant to indicate it is counter-factual (substitute 'even though it's not') so the subjunctive should be used. Also it just sounds better that way to me.

In the following sentence, I am listing multiple areas of study. Should they be separated by commas or semi-colons? "In my exposure to this field so far, I have come to appreciate just how multi-disciplinary it is, requiring knowledge in a number of key areas, including the science and technology of robot motion-planning and control; sensing and perception; and artificial intelligence." In this sentence, the items being listed are: 1) the science and technology of robot motion-planning and control 2) sensing and perception 3) artificial intelligence Each item is part of the same area of study; hence the pairing of multiple subjects with 'and' in items (1) and (2). If commas are used to separate the items, it's hard to tell whether any given 'and' is ending the list of items, of if it is part of a single item. So I think semi-colons should be used. Is this correct?

Many 'Latin' words in English have both Latin-style plurals and English-style plurals: referendum – referendums, referenda. minimum – minimums, minima. gymnasium – gymnasiums, gymnasia. aquarium – aquariums, aquaria. amoeba – amoebas, amoebae. antenna – antennas, antennae. formula – formulas, formulae. index – indexes, indices. appendix – appendixes, appendices. In technical language, generally, Latin-style is the only proper form of Latin plurals. In all other contexts where both Latin-style and English-style are proper, which style of plural should I use?

A noun describing a person who is emotionally strong. For example: My Aunt Sally was the [emotionally strong person] in our family.

I'm not looking for a particular part of speech. A corollary to this idea, and in some ways the opposite, is when something is defined by/as itself. A lot of times you will find this in bad dictionaries when the definition of a word refers to a word whose definition refers to the original word. I am wondering if there is a word to describe this phenomenon. I also recognize that using 'whose' above is grammatically incorrect, as it refers to a person. What would I replace it with?

I understand that when trying to describe a person who has a resemblance to another, the common term is spitting image . As in: Person A is a spitting image of Person B. Here's my issue, I've recently heard some people saying splitting image as opposed to spitting image and upon thinking about it, splitting image makes more sense. That may be because I am unaware of the etymology of spitting image . My thinking is that Person A looks so much like Person B, that they have appeared to "split" from the same person, hence splitting image . Wouldn't you agree? Answer To expand a little on Claudiu’s excellent answer , there seems to be an interesting progression/evolution here: metaphor : “it’s like he was spat out of his father’s mouth” (1689). metonymy : “he’s the very spit of his father” (1825) — when the metaphor is commonplace enough, it no longer gets spelled out in full. idiom/cliché : “the spit and image of his father” (1859) — a particularly effective word

“Did it close” vs “Has it closed”? As a English non-native speaker it is difficult for me to understand when I must use present perfect or past simple because in my official language there isn't the present perfect tense. I know that present perfect is related to something that happened in the past but its result is important now. But for instance: The message has been sent. The message was sent. Please help me point me out any examples/contexts where I should use 1. instead of 2. Answer 1 means that the action happened just now. You would typically see it in your e-mail program just after you send an e-mail. Your program might give you this message to let you know that the message you just sent has indeed been sent. 2 refers to something that happened at some time in the past. It could have been an hour ago, a day ago, or even a century ago! But it wasn't just now .

We say: "the meeting will last two hours". But we say: "how long does the flight take?" Please let me know the difference between last and take and when we should use each.

Position of the adverb “of course” Should an adverb go before or after a verb? I was wondering what position of an adverb relative to more than one auxiliary verbs are generally? For example, "have basically been doing something" or "have been basically doing something"? Thanks! Answer To pick a more concrete example, I basically have been practicing violin. I have been basically practicing violin. The first says that other things have happened, I may have other occupations, but I'm mostly practicing violin. The second says that what I'm doing is, essentially, not playing randomly or performing, but practicing violin. These are generalizations; either sentence can carry the other sense depending on context, but that is how I'd compare the two. EDIT: Changed the 1st example a bit to move the adverb out away from the main verb to show that it tends more to modify the auxiliary ("have been", which could be replaced by "am in the habit of&qu

Judging from the spelling I always thought Theresa was pronounced with an interdental fricative. On the German news I often heard it pronounced with a /t/ as initial consonant. I thought this was due to the fact that German does not have interdental fricatives which often results in Germans replacings those with plosives (/t/ or /d/) or sometimes with the dental fricatives /s/ or /z/. The other day, however, I watched BBC World News and heard the prime minister's name Theresa May being pronounced with the plosive /t/. On the German Wikipedia page for Theresa May the IPA pronunciation is also given with the plosive sound. Is there any reason for this pronunciation and, if so, are there other exceptions where the th-spelling is pronounced with a plosive instead of with the usual interdental fricatives? Answer There are a number of other words or names where "th" corresponds to /t/. Uwe listed some in a comment : Thomas, Thames, Thailand, thyme. The digraph "th&quo

Why am I not to say "… found in Mary'r room," which ought to be the logically correct way to use the genitive apostrophe? Something could as reasonably be found in Mary'r room if it could be in John's room.

When I was at school I was told that a quote should end with a comma. For example: "The car is on the road," said Tom. "No it isn't," replied Dick. "He's right — it's over there!" said Harry. However, I've recently been advised that this is not correct, and that the preceding text should read: "The car is on the road." said Tom. "No it isn't." replied Dick. "He's right — it's over there!" said Harry. I'm specifically interested in British English — can anyone tell me if either/both of these are correct? EDIT From the answers below, it seems like this depends on what follows. For example: "The car is on the road," said Tom But Tom said, "The car is on the road." Is this correct? Answer I learned the same way you did, and have not seen anything recently to the contrary, in any reputable source. The second way you showed looks wrong. I would ask the person who advised you for a

I want to find a synonym to "is going to be" in a sentence like: "X is going to be outdated after Y joins X". I could have chosen "will be", but I want something more incisive, and less "in the future"...

Considering that: The antonym of day is night . The antonym of light can be either darkness or obscurity . Is there any exact antonym for daylight , a word that would mean " the darkness of the night ", the same way daylight means " the light of day "? I would use darkness in a conversation, but darkness is not necessarily associated with the night : it could be used to describe a dark room even when it's sunny outside. However, daylight cannot be used to describe a room lightened by a light bulb when it's dark outside. Edit : I do not specifically look for a word recognised by a dictionary. A neologism used by a published author, and a culture reference would also be interesting. Edit 2 : From tchrist's answer, it is now clear that no single-word expression exists for the concept I'm talking about (which is why I accepted the answer). However, moonshine , moonlight cannot match correctly since they define light , when the question is abou

Is there a name for this construction or wordplay? It can be both: Cancer be beaten Cancer can be beaten ("Can" in "Cancer" is emphasized for the purpose) It can be called a wordplay or a pun but I thought there might be a specific name for it. In this example, it is a phrase within a phrase because there is a word within a word. I checked this Wikipedia article but nothing seems to fit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_word_play Answer I've found the term typographic pun . It is mentioned as a kind of connotative typograhic treatment in the book Street-Smart Advertising: How to Win the Battle of the Buzz (by Margo Berman). The book says that when connotative type works as part of the concept (main message), it contributes to the overall idea of the promotional material. It is the combining of the verbal and visual message into one total expression. Here is the relevant excerpt from the book:

Every cloud has a silver lining. Please provide some historical perspective and meaning of this expression. Answer According to The Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs , the phrase "Every cloud has a silver lining" is a poetic sentiment that even the gloomiest outlook contains some hopeful or consoling aspect. Cf. [1634 Milton Comus I. 93] Was I deceiv'd, or did a sable cloud Turn forth her silver lining on the night? Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/silver-lining#ixzz1Cu5fvfWP and http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=silver+lining&searchmode=none Both cite John Milton's Comus 1 as the first instance of this expression.

Example caption text for a photo: Little Diane necklace 1a) No full stop is correct, yes? Now a longer example of caption text: Little Diane necklace. The photograph of the young Diane was taken after a polio vaccination and appeared in the local newspaper. She smiles bravely into the camera to reassure other children. 1b) Is a full stop necessary at the very end if there is more than one sentence? 2) How are the name and description separated? By a period or semicolon? Answer End punctuation for captions is ultimately a house style issue. I would certainly expect a caption containing more than one complete sentence to have end punctuation. But sentence fragments are subject to idiosyncratic handling. At the magazine where I work, for example, we would leave unpunctuated a fragmentary caption consisting solely of a manufacturer name + product name: Samsung Galaxy S4 but we would punctuate even a slightly longer fragmentary caption that conveys additional information: Samsung's And

I always wonder if there is difference between "to + verb" and "verb". For example, "It is not only to deepen students’ understanding of positive values, but also to enable them to know how to uphold positive values." vs "It not only deepens students’ understanding of positive values, but also enables them to know how to uphold positive values." Is there any difference between the two structures? Answer Your first example (with the infinitive) expresses purpose. Whatever "it" is, its intended purpose is to deepen understanding and teach positive values. Your second example (with the finite verb form) make a declaration. Whatever "it" is and whatever purpose anyone had for "it," what happened was a deepening of understanding and a teaching of positive values.

In computer programming, when you append a "string" to another, you add it to the end of the former string. E.g. String string1 = "abcd"; String string2 = "efgh"; Appending the two strings would give "abcdefgh" But what if I wanted to add string2 before string1 to have the result: "efghabcd" What would be a good name for that that reverse operation? What is the opposite of "append"? Answer Prepend : ( computing, linguistics, transitive ) To attach (an expression, phrase, etc.) to another, as a prefix.

Etymology Online dates chatterbox to 1774, understandably as a concatenation of the words chatter and box. To me, it seems like the connection stems from "a heavy blow of gossip/chatter". When was this word first used and in what context, more specifically as a noun? Answer The OED 's first citation is 1774   C. Clive Let. 13 Jan. in D. Garrick Private Corr. (1831) I. 604   But I suppose his father can, for he is a fine chatter-box. but it's easy to find a couple of antedatings: 1761   C. Morell The History of James Lovegrove, Esq II 95   Hold, hold Chatter-box! To your Buſineſs— 1762    Monthly Review Vol. XXVI 112   a ratting braggadocio, a conceited fop, an eternal chatter-box! Neither citation sheds any light on the etymology. But I note that prattle-box is obviously formed on the same lines as chatter-box and appears somewhat earlier: 1671   J. Glanvill Disc. H. Stubbe 2   Gross Ignoramusses, Illiterate Fools, Prattle-boxes, Catch-Dotterels,..Tories, C

I knew that Joe was used to mean the average man , and I discovered that joe is used to mean also coffee . What is the origin of such meanings? When it is used to mean the average man, should I understand that Joe is/was the most common name? Answer Michael Quinion at World Wide Words claims that the use of joe for coffee first appeared in print in 1930. He agrees it's of unknown origin, but outlines two of the more prevalent theories before concluding it's most likely a military-slang modification of other j -words for coffee: It is significant that an early example appears in 1931 in the Reserve Officer’s Manual by a man named Erdman: “Jamoke, Java, Joe. Coffee. Derived from the words Java and Mocha, where originally the best coffee came from”. The earliest print reference I could find was from Eugene O'Brien's 1937 naval novel He Swung and He Missed :

Earlier this week, I told someone, I would never intentionally leave you out to dry . I realize, just now, that the more common idiom is hang you out to dry . Is the first one also acceptable? is it common? or is it preferable (and more correct) to use the latter? Beneath is a good definition of the idiom. hang someone out to dry Leave someone in a difficult or vulnerable situation. If the variation leave out to dry is indeed acceptable, then I would be interested in any instances of this variation from respected sources.

Can backward and forward be used interchangeably with backwards and forwards , or is there some particular situation in which one pair is consistently used over the other?

Is there a known style guide or documented set of stylistic rules for the English language that Queen Elizabeth II and/or her office uses in emitted correspondence? Is there any way to know how QE2 would write something without digging through old correspondence for similar uses?

Is there a rule for "some time" vs "sometime"? For example: Don’t trust your memory to recall noteworthy situations and events some time (sometime) later.

I have wondered from time to time about the phrase "attorney at law." Are there other kinds of attorneys? Attorneys at arms? If not, why do we specify? Answer One definition of an attorney is "A person appointed to act for another in business or legal matters." See also http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attorney . This usage is seen in such phrases as "power of attorney", which employs an attorney-in-fact .

I cannot understand what is wrong with "on the page 8" ? My instructor claims that it is "on page 8" . It is a specific page to which I referring to on a particular book. What is wrong with "the" in front of "page 777" ? Answer I'd say it's because, when referring to the page by it's number, the number is essentially the "name" of the page. In that sense, you wouldn't refer to someone named John as "The John". Conversely, when it's "the 7th page", you're referring to a page at a specific position, rather than referring to it by "name" ("the guy over there", rather than "John"). Hopefully that's helpful to you.

Occasionally I've seen the construct: If I would [verb], I would [verb]. ... used, to indicate that the second clause is a condition of the first. For example, If I would go there, I would be in trouble. The way I would usually express this is: If I [subjunctive-verb], I would [verb]. So for example: If I went there, I would be in trouble. Is the former correct, or in common usage among native English speakers anywhere? Answer No, the pattern used among English native speakers is as you say: If I [past tense], I would [infinitive] Because of native language influence on second language speakers, you may sometimes see "would" in both parts of the sentence, but it's not native usage. N.B. This doesn't mean that "if I" is never followed by "would" ever ever in English (there seems to be some confusion about this given the corpus examples cited by @kiamlaluno), just that it generally isn't in this particular pattern with the intended meaning.

Ann admitted that she hadn't seen her parents since she left London. Is the above sentence OK or do I have to write Ann admitted that she hadn't seen her parents since she had left London.

It has been suggested in some quarters that had have , followed by a past participle, is a regionalism that has no place in standard English grammar. If I had have known you were coming, I would have been prepared , or If I'd have known you were coming, I would have been prepared , mean essentially the same as If I had known you were coming.... . But the former is often used for emphasis, and it sounds perfectly idiomatic to me. So is had have seen etc. grammatically correct? Answer The had have construction in an if-clause is an example of what is commonly called the double perfect . This extract from grammar.about.com cites The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language 's discussion of the usage, which it calls non-standard : "Instead of an ordinary preterite perfect, a non-standard 'double perfect' is often found: (9i) If it had've come yesterday he would surely have told her. (9ii) I wish he hadn't've left. This is largely restricted to speech

What is the difference, if any, between these two words? Answer Yes, while they can mean the same thing, vacation is, also, a time when one decides to have a holiday , while holiday is the time when one does not decide, but when it is decided on some higher level (national, religious, organizational, etc). Etymology might be enough to see all the peculiarities: vacation late 14c., "freedom or release" (from some activity or occupation), from O.Fr. vacation , from L. vacationem (nom. vacatio ) "leisure, a being free from duty," from vacare "be empty, free, or at leisure" (see vain). Meaning "formal suspension of activity" (in ref. to schools, courts, etc.) is recorded from mid-15c. As the U.S. equivalent of what in Britain is called a holiday, it is attested from 1878. holiday 1500s, earlier haliday (c.1200), from O.E. haligdæg "holy day; Sabbath," from halig "holy" (see holy) + dæg "day" (see day); in 14c. m

I have always been intrigued by the word usage in the title of this Bob Dylan song . Wikipedia mentions that the song was influenced by Irish and Scottish ballads: Dylan recalled writing the song as a deliberate attempt to create an anthem of change for the moment. In 1985, he told Cameron Crowe: "This was definitely a song with a purpose. It was influenced of course by the Irish and Scottish ballads ...'Come All Ye Bold Highway Men', 'Come All Ye Tender Hearted Maidens'. I wanted to write a big song, with short concise verses that piled up on each other in a hypnotic way. The civil rights movement and the folk music movement were pretty close for a while and allied together at that time. Is there a dialect where the form a-< gerund > is common? e.g. a- cooking , a- cleaning , etc. If so, in what context would you use the form a-< gerund >? Answer The a- prefix is a reduction of Old English an/on , meaning on , used to express progressive aspect. Engl

Is there a phrase or word in the English language that describes a statement or a discourse that seems meaningless or so broad it lacks value? For example Society grows best when those who plant trees don't expect to sit in shade. While the sentence is cohesive, I personally find it meaningless. Is there a word to describe this? Saying this statement is trivial wouldn't be correct, as the implications are not obvious. Basically I'm asking what's a politically correct synonym for saying something is "bullshit". Another example is this quote We are prisoners in the present, locked in eternal transition between our past and our future. Perhaps in context it's meaningful but to arbitrarily say we are prisoners of the present, I personally find is idiotic.

Which is correct “Is that yours?” or “Is that your’s?” ? I ask because it is possessive, so I would think it would be the latter, but I typically use and see the former usage. Are there particular cases in which one should be used instead of the other? Or is one simply correct and the other not? This is one of the few things that still confuse me, so help is greatly appreciated. Answer It would definitely, unequivocally, and undeniably be yours . Same with ours . No apostrophe needed, and if you put one in, dark things may happen. From NOAD: yours |yôrz; yoŏrz| possessive pronoun 1 used to refer to a thing or things belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing : the choice is yours | it's no business of yours.

What is the difference between as and like ? What is the difference between such as and like ? I take many private lessons like (such as) English, French and chemistry. He runs like a horse. He runs as a horse. Are these sentences correct and why?

If I intend to use a noun as an adjective, can I use the noun both in plural and singular form? e.g. "noun modifier", "Bacon Batch", "A news reporter", "Sports center", "email address" My feeling is that adjectival noun are usually singular. How come some of the above examples that are in plural? What if, says, "school uniform" or "Company law", If i really want to emphasise "schools" or "companies", could I use the plural form as an adjective? Why some of the nouns can be used as plural while the other not?

I'm aware of what a palindrome is. What do you call words that, when reversed, form other words, such as ton ( not ) and part ( trap )? Answer Semordnilap is a common name for them, which has been pretty well accepted. I know that Carroll used them in his work, but I think the term (read it backwards) was invented later.

In a document I found the following sentence: listeners are more accurate at understanding speech spoken in their own accent... Would it be an error to use "in" instead of "at"? Actually in this case "at" sounds better than "in", but in general before verb is "at" always used? Answer Here are the first 25 COCA results for Adjective + in understanding (the number on the right is the number of hits for a sequence). In all of these the adjective preceding the prepositional phrase characterizes instrument which leads to understanding rather than characterizing some person's ability at understanding. 1 HELPFUL IN UNDERSTANDING THE 26 2 USEFUL IN UNDERSTANDING THE 24 3 INTERESTED IN UNDERSTANDING THE 23 4 IMPORTANT IN UNDERSTANDING THE 15 5 HELPFUL IN UNDERSTANDING HOW 8 6 INTERESTED IN UNDERSTANDING HOW 5 7 IMPORTANT IN UNDERSTANDING AND 4 8 CRITICAL IN UNDERSTANDING THE 4 9 INVOLVE

Consider this question: Are you going to the birthday party? I know that the following response can be punctuated correctly in at least two ways: "I hope so. I have already bought a present." and "I hope so; I have already bought a present." But I'm not sure about punctuating it like this: "I hope so, I have already bought a present." Although I would be inclined to write the third version without thinking, on reflection it seems possibly/probably incorrect. The only way that I can see it being considered correct is if "I hope so" can be considered an introductory element. Is this acceptable?

Schadenfreude is the joy or pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others. What is the word for the feeling of discomfort derived from witnessing the misfortunes of others?

So on this answer here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12699791/finding-the-word-version-of-a-number/12700097#comment17146082_12700097 We were having the argument whether it is “three hundred and forty two” or “three hundred forty two”. I am going by British and New Zealand grammar and I believe it has the and in there. I have never in my life heard anyone say “three hundred forty two”, only “three hundred and forty two”. So when it comes to numbers, what’s the rule? Answer It seems that is the correct usage in British English: http://www.usingenglish.com/files/pdf/big-numbers-american-and-british-english.pdf In American English, the use of the and is uncommon for use in the integer portion of the number (I was specifically taught not to use it): http://www.eslcafe.com/grammar/saying_large_numbers01.html I was also taught to use and between the integer part and the portion to the right of the decimal point which is spoken as a fraction (two tenths, forty-five hundredths, etc.

Why is the word bloody considered obscene in the UK but not so in the US?

For example: She made a killing on the stock market. The comedian killed the audience — they were slain with laughter. Did this meaning develop slowly over time or did some person or institution invert the definition? Answer Etymonline has an entry for killing : mid-15c., prp. adjective from kill (v.). Meaning "very funny" is from 1844 . As a noun, "large profit," 1886 , American English slang. While its usage to mean "very funny" is partly covered in another question , its usage via idioms like to make a killing to indicate a "large profit" dates back to 1886 (as noted above). The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms has the following to say about make a killing : make a killing Enjoy a large and quick profit, as in They made a killing in real estate . This expression alludes to a hunter's success . [ Slang; late 1800s ]

It has always been interesting for me to know how words are made and where they are coming from. Is there any reliable source for etymological studies? any books, or dictionaries out there? Answer Online Etymology Dictionary The basic sources of this work are Weekley's "An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English," Klein's "A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language," "Oxford English Dictionary" (second edition), "Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology," Holthausen's "Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Englischen Sprache," and Kipfer and Chapman's "Dictionary of American Slang."

I'm thinking that there must be a word that means, rather than "feeling pleasure in the misfortune of another", "the pleasure of feeling superior to another". This certainly seems (at least) as common a phenomenon as schadenfreude, but has it been condensed into a single word? Addendum: I see that I ought to have been much more specific in my question. Feelings of smugness or self satisfaction do not require another person to whom one feels superior. Elitism , is far too general and is usually applied to groups or classes, not individuals. Naturally when you feel superior you feel " Superiority ", but I was looking for a word that means taking pleasure in superiority, not the feeling of superiority itself. I intended a specific instance, such as when one person has just bettered another in a game. I believe schadenfreude is usually also applied in specific instances / for specific events - as when one sees someone get what is viewed to be their &quo

I mean, obviously "corrosion" isn't actually onomatopoeic, because corrosion doesn't make a sound (or at least not one that humans can hear). Yet it seems to me that the word corrosion sounds like its meaning, in some hard-to-define way. Is there a term for words that suggest their meanings, without necessarily recreating the sound, but that aren't quite onomatopoeic? There are a lot of similar ones, like grind, shuffle . Answer Words whose sounds refer to, suggest, or otherwise are associated with a particular meaning are cases of sound symbolism . Although onomatopoeia - direct imitation of a real-world sound - is one type of sound symbolism , it is not the only one. A common sound symbolism is sound iconism . With the related clustering , this is the re-use of sounds across a set of words with related meanings. Note that this is the re-use of sounds , not morphemes. One example is found in the set of words stamp , stomp , tamp , tromp , and tramp which ha

In a Blacklist episode, the following conversation takes place, the first and last speaker is the sophisticated Raymond Reddington: -'Ambition's debt must be paid'. -Julius Caesar? -One of my favorites. The play, not so much the man. The man was a bit full of himself. He did have a brilliant military mind, but he couldn't smell a plot to save his life. Intentional pun. I cannot for the life of me understand the joke. My only hypotheses circle around the words plot - also a place for a grave - and the mention of smell in the following soliloquy from the Shakespeare play, but I have found nothing satisfying: Antony: O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth, That I am meek and gentle with these butchers! Thou art the ruins of the noblest man That ever lived in the tide of times. Woe to the hand that shed this costly blood! Over thy wounds now do I prophesy,-- Which, like dumb mouths, do ope their ruby lips, To beg the voice and utterance of my tongue-- A curse shall ligh

If I'm off to catch forty winks, how long will I be asleep? I'm interested to know if there is a specific amount of time associated with a 'wink', or if there's no actual amount of time behind it? Answer "Forty winks" is just an idiom meaning a nap for a short period of time. From the Wikipedia entry: To take forty winks is to take a nap for a short period of time (usually not in bed), or to take a short sleep during the day. The term Forty winks is an English idiomatic noun that can be used in the singular or plural. This can be used in sayings such as "Tom had 40 winks during his dinner hour, while Brett was busy at work". Alternative idiomatic sayings such as could not sleep a wink provide the mental picture of a wink being the shortest type of sleep available and "forty winks" therefore gives an indication of an appropriate short sleep. A wink is a very short period of time, a moment; also known as "the blink of an eye&quo

I'm certain this can't be the only example there is of a hyphenated verb, but it's the only one I can think of right now. How should one appropriately convert "mouse-over" into the past tense? Should it be "moused-over" or "mouse-overed"? Also, are there any other verb-preposition combinations like this that could be used as examples? Answer The term in question is phrasal verb which is defined as a phrase which consists of a verb in combination with a preposition or adverb or both, the meaning of which is different from the meaning of its separate parts. Cambridge When changing the tense of a phrasal verb, only the verb is affected, for the simple reason that adverbs and prepositions do not change with tense, as they are not verbs. It is also crucial to note that phrasal verbs do not come with hyphens. However, a number of them can be hyphenated or compounded to function as adjectives or nouns with related or unrelated meanings. To use your