Blog

Someone who enjoys discussions could be described as?

How acceptable is it to use wanna, gonna, etc in business or more formal US environments?

I've been having an argument with a colleague about this sentence, could you please let me know which one of us is correct: There are no shortage of applications for our product in this space. She is convinced that are should be replaced by is , and I think it should stand as it is. Thanks for your help!

I'd like to know how the sentence "That don't impress me much" sounds to a native English speaker. The phrase is the title of a song by Shania Twain, and to my eyes it contains a clear error. It is obviously intended, and I want to know what was the effect that the author wanted to obtain. Other examples that come to mind: “She's got a ticket to ride, but she don't care” — The Beatles “My love don't cost a thing” — Jennifer Lopez “It don't matter” — Akon “She don't care about me” — heard in the Lost series “It Don't Mean a Thing” — a jazz album title “The Sun Don't Lie” — another album title Answer The intentional misuse of don't is a form of code switching (or code mixing ). The form is extremely characteristic of working-class southeastern Americans ("southerners"), who are also the primary audience for American country music. What is most interesting about the song is that Shania Twain is Canadian — and that is where th

Older users of this site may recall the 'Bill & Ted' 'Wayne's World' series of movies of the early 1990s. They were mindless but fairly amusing and their eponymous characters spoke in a unique vernacular, part-stoner, part-surfer, part-moronic generation MTVer. One of the features of this sub-language was the use of the word 'Not' usually written as (NOT) , a convention which served to negate the content or validity of what had been said previously. E.g. "I think your wife is very attractive. (NOT)" or "I love your new hairstyle. (NOT)" Does anyone know if this usage is a modern invention or whether there are antecedents in ancient or more recent languages which are similarly employed to, wittily or otherwise, invalidate previous statements spoken? I'm not necessarily looking for usages of 'not' itself, but any similar linguistic devices. Answer The Oxford English Dictionary includes this form of not as an interjectio

A simple question that has sparked some debate, and I couldn't find a concrete answer anywhere. There seems to be two camps: The word plethora indicates plural, so therefore it should be "There are a plethora"; and the other camp says that there is only one plethora (which contains multiple), so it should be "There is a plethora". I've seen many examples of both. Is there a consensus, or is it just one of those things that can go either way? Answer This look at the matter of the grammatical plurality of single groups of plural items is well worth reading in full. To summarise: Some do hold it must always be singular. Both can be found, from the middle of the 18th Century on. The plural is the more commonly used, has been for some time, and its relative popularity is growing. Respected writers who use the plural include Charles Batteux, William Hazlitt, John Keats, William Makepeace Thakeray and Mark Twain. (John Keats' was once considered a grammatical

Ok, this is a somewhat nonstandard English question. In the Southern US, or at least in Central Virginia, there is an idiomatic use of the phrase it is that is equivalent to the expression there is, as in It is not enough gas in my tank to make the trip. Not being from the South myself, I'm puzzled by this particular usage. I thought the proper (not to mention, less ambiguous) way to phrase the sentence above was There is not enough gas in my tank to make the trip. Compare these two sentences: Is it anything for dinner? Is there anything for dinner? How did this expression originate? Answer The origin is somewhat surprising. It dates back to Old English, according to the OED's entry for it : As the subject of an existential clause: = there adv. 4d. Now chiefly U.S. regional (south. and south Midland). In Old English esp. with following that-clause; compare A. 4a(b). The earliest example they give is this one, from "early Old English" (luckily I was able to find a

Is the following sentence grammatical? "Whom who was in his prime has Floyd Mayweather fought in his career?" I want to question whether Floyd Mayweather has fought any boxer during the boxer's best, so is it okay to use the relative clause "who was in his prime" to describe the word "whom"?

In software engineering we use version control systems. Every time we check in modifications we usually leave a message with a summary of change. The question for me has always been: what is the most appropriate and practical tense and form for these messages? Examples: Changed the function argument type to int Function argument type changed to int Function argument type is changed to int Function argument type has been changed to int Function argument type is now int By "practical" I mean, because most messages are in the same form, they should be succinct, to the point, technical/formal. Best candidate in this regard is probably (2). Sometimes it is tempting to use (5) but you end up flooding your message log with "now", which is not nice. (4) is too long although looks (to me) appropriate in many cases. And finally, (1) and (3) feel wrong somehow, although (1) especially is a widely used one in programming, as far as I can tell. Any thoughts, suggestions? Edit: s

My research has resulted in theoretical reasons for the usage of the term "nigger", and I have failed to uncover any evidence as to how this nasty little epithet evolved into the usage and connotation it had and has to this day. When the African slave-trade was in full-swing , my belief is that a good percentage of black slaves were captured and sold in Nigeria. If the ship's captain could read, he would probably not be able to pronounce "Nigeria" or "Nigerian" properly nor would he care. Since a four syllable word is difficult to pronounce anyway for the education level of seamen in the slave-trade of that era, I believe the term was shortened from nigerian to nigger which was easier for them to say.

I noticed that my American friends tend to use the past perfect form when they use the verb mention in its past form, almost despite of the context of the sentence. I hear them say "you had mentioned" a lot more often even in situations where the use of simple past would have been perfectly fine. Have you noticed it too and is it one of those unwritten rules, or is there a more formal explanation to it? It seems like there was more verbs like that, but I am having a hard time remembering it now. If I do, I will edit the post and likely change the title to accommodate other verbs. Answer I agree that these are politeness forms that don't seem to relate directly or literally to the standard point in time corresponding to the tense being used. It seems to me that what "I was wondering" and "You had mentioned" have in common is that they soften the statement by moving it farther into the past. "I was wondering ... [but I'm only now bringing it u

The violence pit pro-Russian separatists against Ukrainian forces and those who support the government in Kiev. A friend of mine says pit is used as a past tense verb in this sentence. What is the present tense form of pit ? Answer This is an example of usage differing in Britain and the USA. For some reason, most Americans don't change the verb form for the past tense of certain short verbs ending in -it . So fit, spit, shit, slit and pit are thus formed both in the present and the past tense as far as Americans are concerned, whereas people from Britain would almost always use fitted, spat, shat, slitted and pitted for the past tense. However, even in Britain hit, split and quit follow the American pattern (though quitted is also used); and Americans do say sat rather than sit .

Things I know so far: The OED is the Oxford English Dictionary. It's widely regarded as the definitive record of the English language . The ODE is the Oxford Dictionary of English, previously The New Oxford Dictionary of English (NODE). The NOAD is the New Oxford American Dictionary. The ODO is Oxford Dictionaries Online but has since been rebranded as Oxford Living Dictionaries. This might not be a separate dictionary and may be an umbrella term for the ODE and NOAD? I believe all of these are published by Oxford University Press. And I believe Google has licensed ODE and NOAD for its definitions. (And Apple and Microsoft too.) I have a huge beef with those definitions so I'm trying to get clear on exactly which dictionary or dictionaries I'm complaining about and who publishes them. PS: There's also the Oxford Dictionary of Current English. I haven't figured out yet if that's something distinct or another name for one of the ones above. PPS: I think the OED

There's a proverb in my native language (Norwegian) which is used as a reply to a person who complains about a poor answer given to his/her poor question . It says that the quality of the answer is relative to the quality of the question. You asked me a poor question, so I'll respond with a poor answer. Roughly translated: As asked, so answered Is there a similar proverb in the English language? Answer The literal, direct translation is the English idiom: " ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer ". Or, as we say in computer science: garbage in, garbage out .

This is a quick question mainly because I want to remember this word that I saw somewhere on Wikipedia. What is the name for the word structure noun-adjective? For example, director-general , directorS-general , etc.

I'm looking for info on how this idioms origin was documented to the USA? Can I grammatically eliminate any tie to the german book listed below. Could a latin spanish or Russian form translate well enough to our non literal meaning ? Malleus Maleficarum, (Latin for "Hammer of The Witches) was an infamous witch-hunting manual written in 1486 by two German monks, Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger. It was used by both Catholics and Protestants[17] for several hundred years, outlining how to identify a witch, what makes a woman more likely than a man to be a witch, how to put a witch on trial, and how to punish a witch. The book defines a witch as evil and typically female. This book was not given the official Imprimatur of the Catholic Church, which would have made it approved by church authorities, but was used by the Inquisition nevertheless.

Can I say «n» instead «and»? Example: I like apples n pears.

In the following sentence, "Hurry, give me anything that will hold water!" What verb tense is "will hold" ? Not future simple, I presume. Answer You have only two possibilities: a) future simple - will as auxiliary verb b) will as modal verb such as can As future tense makes no sense at all it can only be possibility b) and then the tense is present tense of "will". The meaning is nothing but 1 something that holds water or 2 something that can hold water. Due to the ambiguity of will + infinitive the use of "will" as a modal verb is somewhat limited, mostly to negative forms as in I tried but the door would not open. The door is jammed. As to your sentence above this use of "will" looks like the language of an earlier time or like individual or regional habit of speech. As to your sentence above this use of "will" looks like language of an earlier time or an individual habit of speech or a regional variant of speech.

Is “I medalled in volleyball” a grammatically correct sentence? According to OED, medal is a verb and a noun. I haven't seen any usage of the word as a verb, but I am assuming the above sentence is correct. Answer You hear that usage every time you watch the Olympics. "Medalled" is very much a verb in that community, and the announcers have picked it up wholesale.

How would you refer to a gender neutral subject with a reflexive pronoun ? It is unbelievable how a perpetrator will cast oneself in the role of victim. That does not seem right. Is there a better word other than "oneself"? I thought "oneself" would refer to the narrator. Here I try to refer to the subject. Themselves: It is possible to use a 'singular they' for pronouns, but to say "themselves" surely can not be correct as a gender neutral reflexive pronoun? According to this article , it would only seem to make sense when qualified by a singular they. Themself: "The form is not widely accepted in standard English" according to the Oxford dictionary . It is unbelievable how they, as a perpetrator, will cast themselves in the role of victim. I'd like to avoid making the sentence this complex. Answer This is just another version of the he/she, him/her dilemma: English lacks singular pronouns that include both genders. I like @drm

Can 'revert' be used as a synonym of 'reply'? Is it correct English to refer to replying to someone or giving feedback as "reverting back"? People in my workplace are using that term more and more. It sounds completely wrong to me. Here are some examples: We will investigate and revert back as soon as possible. Will reschedule and revert back! Please let me know who will be able to go and who won’t by COB tomorrow so that I can revert back to her.

I'm trying to understand when to use classic compound prepositions. Is there any particular reason to prefer/avoid any of these patterns? In what field could we put it where it wouldn't interfere with the existing code? What field could we put it in where it wouldn't interfere with the existing code? What field could we put it wherein it wouldn't interfere with the existing code? Answer All three are grammatical, but the last is archaic, or at least legalistic and exceptionally formal, and you might therefore want to avoid it for other than some special effect or other. Some people might not like the second one because of the stranded preposition. That's up to them, but there's nothing wrong with it.

What is the antonym of recurrent ? This is like I have to few activities which I have to perform each month so these are recurrent but there are few activities which I only perform once. So what should I say this activity is recurrent and that activity is one time ? What is the proper word in this situation?

I have heard this pattern used before in American English: She's 6 feet tall if she's an inch. It was a gallon of blood if it was a drop. The baby was 10 pounds if it was an ounce. I understand that it means something like, "She is 6 feet tall, which is very tall." But this to me is such a bizarre and illogical way of conveying the message that it's distracting, and I cannot get myself to say it even if it comes to me. Anyone know the origin of this, or can breathe some reasoning into this phrase to justify its appreciation? Answer I'll repeat what I said in the comments. Firstly, the meaning of "She's 6 feet tall if she's an inch" is not "She is 6 feet tall, which is very tall", but "She's definitely 6 feet tall" or "I'm very sure she's 6 feet tall". That is, it's an emphatic version of "She's [at least] 6 feet tall", with the emphasis being on the truth of the statement, not nec

I was teaching my young nephew some math the other day, and from discussing the typical sort of word problems he's encountering in class, I noticed that the "-th" suffix adds a distinct meaning to adjectives. For example: If a ship is long, it has length . If a woman is wide, she has width . If a person is strong, he possesses strength . If what I say is true, I'm speaking truth . A lumbering panda moving slow is full of sloth . Now, I've learned some linguistics from English L&U, and I'm guessing this "-th" suffix is an affix that changes adjectives into nouns. My questions are: What exactly is this "-th" suffix adding to the meaning? Secondly, does the "-th" originate from a separate word in Old English? Lastly, is there something to say about the vowel shifts that seems to be occurring in some of the transformations (e.g., strong going to strength ) that somehow fits in with the ablaut system of strong verbs/weak verbs, th

If there are many service classes, and each service class has many services, is the following sentence correct? Selecting the locally optimal service from each service class does not create a globally optimal solution.

Is the tournament open for "anyone" or "everyone"? Answer There's a subtle distinction, as noted that's likely unimportant -- unless you're at all concerned about subconscious reactions from speakers of American English. "Anyone" does have some negative connotations and usages attached to it that people don't necessarily think about: " Anyone can do that." "They'll take anyone ." For your purposes either would probably be fine, but "everyone" will be perceived as more inclusive.

First, I check that my native language is not English, and the problem described below met on one of the exams. With this sentence: "The most important news is that my parents [...] a new restaurant a few weeks ago." Is the correct tense to use the Present Perfect ( have opened ) or Past Simple ( opened )? I know that the word "ago" but rather that time Past Simple, but is it also possible to use the present perfect in some cases? I would be grateful for clarification. Answer The present perfect tense, as you asked about, is when Event 1 (your parents opening a restaurant) happened at an unspecified time before Event 2 (your present conversation). The reason that there is obfuscation and confusion is because of "a few weeks ago". If you had just stated "The most important news is that my parents have opened a restaurant.", it would be clear that the perfect tense is appropriate because Event 1 was completed at an undisclosed time before Event 2.

Is there a word to describe "a piece of information that you only want to know until you know it, then you regret you ever asked about it"?

What do we call someone who imagines positive things ahead which never come to pass? Answer Pollyanna may fit the bill. Dictionary.com defines Pollyanna as "an excessively or blindly optimistic person." The adjective form of the word, Pollyannaish, is defined as "unreasonably or illogically optimistic", which suggests that the optimistic results hoped for will most likely fail to materialize.

I don't think you understood me. / I think you misunderstood me. Do these senteces mean the same thing? If not, what's the difference? Edit: I just realized that I asked something different from what I originally wanted. So I am also interested in the following comparison: I don't think you understand me. / I think you don't understand me. Answer Think is one of the verbs that govern the rule called Negative Raising . Nothing actually gets raised, though. What this means is that the verb think is transparent to negation, because it doesn't really mean anything except to identify what you're thinking about. Consequently - X think ( not Y ) is equivalent to - X not think ( Y ) Other predicates that govern Neg-Raising include believe, feel, appear, intend, expect, seem , and suppose . These are all verbs of mental state that take complements. This is not true, however, with most verbs that take complements. Neg-Raising is a minor governed rule, with rela

Where did these interjections: man! (oh) boy! oh brother come from, and why are they all male? If you don’t know their current meanings as interjections, it sounds very strange to say Man! when you are disappointed or frustrated, and Oh boy! when you are excited (although people are increasingly using it for other emotional contexts), and Oh brother (well, I'm not even sure of this interjection’s usage). Why are they used as interjections, and why are they all male? Answer These are all considered "minced oaths". "Oh, man" could be replaced one-to-one with a Commandment-breaking "Oh, God" or "Oh, Jesus", which are generally shortenings of some prayer for strength. An alternate etymology is that of friendly condescension; the terms can be literally used when talking to one's peer, junior, or brother: "Oh boy, you've screwed up this time" could be used when talking to your son or one of his friends after they break a windo

I have observed some English speakers in North America who seem to produce this assimilation in words like "running" /ˈrʌnɪŋ/ (as /ˈrʌnin/) or "winning" /ˈwɪnɪŋ/ (as /ˈwɪnin/). I'm specifically interested in when the final vowel becomes /i/ or /iː/ not /ɪ/ (as in some Southern American English accents which produce "runnin'" and "winnin'"). Is this a regional accent? I found some additional anecdotal discussion at the following links: Answer As @JohnLawler points out, it would take an extensive sociolinguistic study to arrive at something definitive. Based on various bits of research provided in the comments, this accent appears often in speakers from California who perform a "velar pinch." I'm marking this answered because I think until a deeper study is done, this is what we have:

I know there's a word for "like-minded" people, generally used in a negative context. For example, you could say employees of the CIA are _ _ , in that they all want to ensure the security of the nation, whatever the price/cost. I think it starts with a "c", it's on the tip of my tongue and I can't think of it. Any ideas? Just editing this a bit. Thanks everyone for your responses. It may not start with a "c" but the word "cadre" is close to what I'm looking for, but once again with a potentially more negative association.

Bats and rats are mammals. 1 and 2 are positive integers. Oaks and maples are trees. Carrots and cake are food. I seek a word to describe this, the process of finding a concept that encompasses several given concepts. Is there such a word? Answer Your question relates to the concepts of hyponymy and hypernymy, which describe the specific-to-general relationships that your examples illustrate. We can think of branching trees of examples or subordinate ideas, with general or superordinate concepts at the top and more specific concepts branching out below. Hyponymy / hypernymy demonstrates "type of" relationships, aka to the computer scientist as "is-a relationships." In your first example, bats and rats are hyponyms of the hypernym "mammal." In turn, mammal , along with marsupial and reptile , are hyponyms of the hypernym "animal." You could take "bat" as a hypernym and branch down with the hyponyms megabat and microbat . And so on.

— I ever tell you how much she depends on you? — I ever tell you what an asshole you are? — Nah. But that's okay, just about everybody else has. They both laughed. Is it "...everybody else has told", or what? I cannot be sure. Actually, I wanted to ask about the meaning. Is it saying that "... everybody else has told me that I am an asshole" or something else?

What does the expression [x] for the money mean? I remember hearing the topic title in a rap song (can’t remember which, might be Eminem), and there seem to be movies named after this pattern: Two For the Money with Al Pacino and One For the Money , an upcoming comedy. Urban Dictionary does not seem to know this expression, neither does dict.cc give a proper translation. What does it mean and where does it come from? Answer My impression is that One for the money. Two for the show. Three to make ready. And four to go. (or " three to get ready " in contemporary English) is something that children say when they start a race (the running starting on "go"). Anyway, it's appears in this 1872 book , (it's not a race here, but FumbleFingers has found another 1872 citation where it is used for a race). I would assume that "the money" refers to the prize for winning, and "the show" to the spectacle of the race. Generally, a children's race

What's the difference between emigrate and immigrate? They seem to have the same definitions in the dictionary but they are antonyms... Answer The difference is fairly subtle To Emigrate is to leave one country to settle in another. (The focus is on the original country) To Immigrate is to come to a new country to live. (The focus is on the new country) So if I were born in Ireland, and then migrated to the US, all of the following would be true and grammatical: I emigrated from Ireland. I immigrated to the US. (Now the tricky bits) I emigrated from Ireland to the US. (This focuses on the leaving bit) I immigrated to the US from Ireland. (This focuses on the arriving bit) And finally, relatives in Ireland might say: Dusty emigrated to the US last year. (from their perspective, I left) While new friends in the US: Dusty immigrated to the US last year. (from their perspective, I arrived)

In journalistic writing I often see writers, correspondents, and interviewers use questions in non-literal ways. Of course there are rhetorical questions designed to make a point and not meant to literally elicit an answer. Instead of that, I have in mind when an interviewer asks a correspondent, "why did she not go to the police?" when the interviewer already knows the story and knows the answer to the question, but wants the correspondent to articulate the answer for the audience's benefit. Is there a commonly used term for this sort of a question? A "leading" question generally implies an attempt to manipulate the respondent into giving certain responses, which is not exactly the same as what I'm describing. Answer A question like that is a “prompt”. From the Online Oxford Dictionary : An act of encouraging a hesitating speaker. ‘with barely a prompt, Barbara talked on’

I thought of this question right after I posted a tweet about a service upgrading me to a free student account since I am in college. I said " That really helps a broke college student out. " I actually paused for a second while I was writing that to decide if I should say That really helps out a broke college student. or That really helps a broke college student out . Are there any prescriptive rules about splitting phrasal verbs like this? I know this breaks the "don't put a preposition at the end of a sentence" rule, but that "rule" has an exception for phrasal verbs. To clarify: Is there any rule that says phrasal verbs can't be split, even if it is just an imposed, prescriptive rule? Does splitting a phrasal verb to put a preposition at the end of a sentence fall under the phrasal verb exception to the prepositions at the end of a sentence rule? Answer The informal rule is a stylistic one. Keep the complement as close as possible. That real

Why are there some people saying Me trying to... Should it be "I try to..." Is this grammatically correct? How should I then finish this? Answer The ACC-ing construction ( She didn't like me singing five nights a week ) is equally as grammatical as the POSS-ing ( She didn't like my singing the National Anthem in Klingon ). An ACC-ing construction can certainly be fronted as subject: John trying to dance is a sight best avoided. but tends to sound stuffy, and faintly ridiculous with a pronoun instead of a noun: Me / him ... trying to dance is a sight best avoided. .... As @deadrat says, the objective is the default case in a sentence fragment: [This is a picture of] Me attempting to dance .

Is a comma needed in the following phrases? 30-day, money-back guarantee 90-day, no-risk trial If so, why? If not, why not? I've seen them written both ways — with and without the comma — but certainly one way has to be more correct than the other.

When people like something more than something else, it's common for me to hear them say they like it better than something else. Is this proper English? I've always thought the word more fits better, but I'm not sure whether or not use of the word better is wrong. Answer I think that there is a very obvious answer to this question. The opposite of "better" is "worse." The opposite of "more" is "less." So, which of these sentences sounds correct: I like dogs worse than cats I like dogs less than cats? The answer is clearly " I like dogs less than cats. " The sentence " I like dogs worse than cats " would be flagged by any native speaker as being incorrect. No one would ever say that. The answer, in my honest opinion, lies in semantics, not grammar. Think about it deeply; it simply doesn't make sense to say that you like something better. The word "better" tells you something about the worth of so

I don't know if this is the right forum for this question, but, do what I would, I could not find a better one. During my visit to London I stumbled upon something I couldn't quite grasp: Why, even though the yard an acceptable unit of distance, height is invariably measured in feet ? For example: The Shard is 309 meters tall, which is sometimes presented as 1016 ft but not something like 338 yards? What is the reason for this?

I want a word that means "Selected from the pool/set" - randomness is implied but not necessary. What is a good word for this? It would be used in a sentence like: The parameter is selected from the set and used in the experiment. I want one phrase for selected from the set so that it can be used to form a terminology. Answer You could say: A parameter is drawn and used in the experiment. The definition for this use of draw is "to hold a drawing, lottery, or the like: to draw for prizes." The connotation is that a drawing is a random picking of the "winner." I think I would change the article from The (definite article) to A (indefinite article), though. Also, it needs to be clear from what preceded this sentence that there was a set from which this particular parameter was drawn.

For some reason, the word Jew often carries a pejorative or offensive connotation, which the related adjective Jewish does not carry. This is most obvious when either word is used as an attributive: The story was all over the Jewish media. [Not offensive; a factual statement about a story that was reported in Jewish-oriented media sources.] The story was all over the Jew media. [Very offensive; "Jew media" is likely interpreted as a reference to the mainstream media, with the implication that they're controlled nefariously by the Jews.] When used in a predicate, the same thing applies, though the differentiation is less sharp: Joel Spolsky is Jewish. [Not offensive] Joel Spolsky is a Jew. [Potentially offensive] Note that any of the above could be offensive or derogatory in the right context, but the versions using "Jew" are much more likely to be interpreted that way. The distinction seems to go away when we use either word for the subject of the sentence. S

George Orwell ends his essay The Road to Wigan Pier (1937) with (emphasis mine): And then perhaps this misery of class-prejudice will fade away, and we of the sinking middle class … may sink without further struggles into the working class where we belong, and probably when we get there it will not be so dreadful as we feared, for, after all, we have nothing to lose but our aitches . Earlier in the same book, he comments that (again emphasis mine) In almost any revolt the leaders would tend to be people who could pronounce their aitches . I am missing some context to understand this; probably both due to me not being a native speaker, and due to the comment relating to a situation 80 years ago. In both cases, Orwell is discussing class distinctions and class prejudice, so pronouncing the aitches is presumably a pars pro toto for a larger sociolect belonging to a particular class (and to non-linguistic class distinctions as well). But he chose to describe it by aitches , so that must b

For example: "I have a red ball and a blue ball. The red and blue balls are in the corner." "There is a first circuit for detecting motion and a second circuit for compensating for the detected motion. The first and second circuits are disposed on the same chip." "The driver applies an ON voltage and an OFF voltage to the scanning line. The ON and OFF voltages are alternated each scanning period." These all seem right to me, but I do not know why. This issue appears related to the "suspended hyphen" rule, but since the phrases in question are not hyphenated words, I am not sure if that rule applies.

For more than a decade, I have always seen/used the phrase "Take/Consider ... as an example" followed by a comma. Then, my recent visit on this page got me confused and raised more questions in me. Are the two phrases interchangeable, or do they differ in meaning/usage? Also, should either phrase be followed by a comma, or can it be a period or en-dash, depending on the context? Below are some sample sentences to better illustrate my doubts: "Take myself as an example, I threw a punch on the wall in response to his ignorance." "Take Applebee's for example. the waiters and waitresses there have no cultural awareness." "Consider your roommate for example – Her manner is definitely one of a kind." "Consider this PC as an example. The slightest scar on it is not acceptable to comply with her standard." Are these sentences all valid? Thanks in advance! Answer Your take/consider constructions seem like independent clauses (of the impera

What does the expression if you catch my drift mean? Where does it originate? I've heard it in the context to signify something like if you know what I mean . Answer The part "my drift" means there is a chain of thoughts or an inside meaning that is not clearly defined. the expression is used whenever you think the listener may be confused or not follow your main idea. The origin of the word "drift", according to OED , was in the 1520s: drift (n.) Sense of "what one is getting at" is from 1520s. Related: Drifted; drifting. I can't know for sure the origin of the expression "if you catch my drift".

Usage of Some: Does "some" require a plural or singular verb?

In the Slate article, The Curse of “You May Also Like” , the following sentence has a contraction of there is that doesn't sit well with my ear for American or British English. I wonder whether any of our native English-speaking users find it acceptable and grammatical. I think it's not idiomatic, is ungrammatical, and is unacceptable, but I may just be too old and ornery to cozy down to this level of change in language usage. NB: I first coined the phrase cozy down to and then found an apt example of cozy down on the Internet. Amazon's knowledge, however, goes deeper than Netflix's: Since it also runs a site where we buy books, it knows everything that there's to know about our buying behavior and the prices that we are willing to pay. Is this acceptable? Answer As usual, this sentence has been tampered with. Extensively. Stripping it to the bone, here's a much simpler sentence with the same rub: * A knows everything that there's to know about Y .

context Mary-Ann got home late from school. Asked where she had been, she said she had spent the afternoon at the library. Her father thinks she is lying and says: "I know you haven’t been there because I was there myself". He is lying because he thinks she will tell the truth if she realizes she has been caught. boyfriend – “your sister told me everything” (sister did nothing) - girlfriend – “Oh, did she? I’m gonna kill her. The rationale for doing this is to catch someone by surprise so he will admit having lied. Soemtimes, however, the person isn’t lying and the real liar will have to reap the consequences of his reproachable action, having to admit he was just/it was just ...........(saying or idiom)..... Answer Sometimes people set a trap in order to force others to make a mistake or own up to the truth. An English idiomatic phrase that fits this type of situation is to trip someone up ; if the victim falls (unwittingly) into the trap, then you have successfully caught

Occasionally, I will hear or read coworkers using "myself" in place of "me," as in: If you have any questions, you can contact Gimli or myself. I have sent the list to Legolas, Glorfindel, Aragorn, and myself. This sticks out to me every time I hear it, and seems like an attempt to sound more professional than if they were to say "Gimli or me". It seems wrong because you would not say "You can contact myself." I also wonder if "myself" is an attempt to avoid the confusion of "me" versus "I" in a sentence. Is this a valid use of "myself"? Has anyone else experienced this, or is it a Midwestern regional idiom? Answer This usage is justified by the usage notes in Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage and the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary. See my answer to You and Yourself, Me and Myself for a discussion of the grammaticality of myself in non-reflexive constructions. This usage probably comes f

1: They were running and jumping and playing in the field. 2: They were running, jumping, and playing in the field. 3: They were running and jumping, and playing in the field. In which of these sentences does "in the field" refer to (modify?)... A: All three verbs ( running , jumping , playing ) B: Only playing C: Either all three, or only playing . It's ambiguous. Also, I assume all three sentences are acceptable in terms of punctuation, tell me if they are not. And I'm sure you can rearrange the sentence or add/change words to make the meaning more clear, but for my sake, don't. Thanks in advance. Answer CORRECT ANSWER: A: All three verbs ( running, jumping, playing ) 1: They were running and jumping and playing in the field. 2: They were running, jumping, and playing in the field. 3: They were running and jumping, and playing in the field. Let's diagram: They / were running / were jumping / were playing / in the field Subject: They Verb: [Compound Verb (al

Since elementary school, I've known definition 1 (the most common) of such as = for example . Yet 2 confuses me, so what's an intuitive derivation or etymology behind it? 2. such as = Of a kind that; like [I crossed this out because how can like substitute for such as below?] I did try OED , but my limited English bars me from understanding its many entries with complicated linguistic terms. The following's an example, but I ask NOT only about legal contexts: I see no rational ground for excluding from conduct capable of giving rise to criminal liability, conduct which consists of failing to take measures that lie within one's power to counteract a danger that one has oneself created, if at the time of such conduct one's state of mind is such as constitutes a necessary ingredient of the offence."

I was reading an online book and there was the expression "useless like tits on a log". I googled to find more about this expression and I found a similar one: "useless like tits on a bull". Which one of them is more recognizable in everyday English? Why haven't I been able to find references about the first one? Edit: I think there is a whole group of expressions like that — "useless like tits on a boar", "useless like tits on a nun", "useless like tits on a turtle" etc. It is really interesting how we can make such an expression. Answer There is also a "tit bull," (East Texas), referring to a calf that was never weaned or steered and is still living off mama as an adult.

99% of the time, I'm clear on when I should use "a" versus "an." There's one case, though, where people & references I respect disagree. Which of the following would you precede with "a" or "an," and why? FAQ FUBAR SCUBA [Note: I've read the questions "A historic..." or "An historic…"? and Use of "a" versus "an" , but the rules given there don't necessarily apply here.] [Edited to add] Here's a shorter (and hopefully clearer) version of the question… In written English, which is correct (and why): "a FAQ" or "an FAQ"? Some references with differing opinions: Answer It depends on whether the abbreviation is an acronym or an initialism. As "fubar" and "scuba" are usually pronounced as a word (making them acronyms), it would make sense to say "a fubar" and "a scuba diver". "FAQ" is a bit harder, because I have heard

What does "a day's work" mean? Does it mean a full day's work? The quote below is taken from Charles Dickens' The Haunted House In the summertime, I often rise very early, and repair to my room to do a day’s work before breakfast. Answer "A day's work" typically means the amount of work one would normally do over the course of a day. There is no objective measure of this as the amount of work would vary by person and by job. For most people, though, it would not be possible to do "a day's work" between waking and breakfast, so in the Dickens quote the phrase is probably being used for literary effect. In the context of the quote, it could be hyperbole. The speaker may not actually be doing the same amount of work before breakfast that he would literally do over the course of a day. Rather, he may be exaggerating to illustrate how early he rises or how productive he is in the early morning. On the other hand, it is also possible that t

I was just wondering about this word to suggest it to my friend to use it for the NGO he is going to start soon.

It's kind of weird to get a grasp from just the title but most people can't really understand my mindset and it's hard to give them a word to accurately describe it. I'm extremely passive as long as something doesn't directly affect me. I usually just won't care. But even when something does directly affect me, it's hard to put into words how I'll react. My brother describes it as "He cares but he doesn't care" (where I got the title from) in the sense of being passive. For example, he tends to tell this to my mom, who'll then later on ground me, but it won't work at all because I will do something else with minimal effort to get un-grounded. So if I were grounded from my computer, I would play an old game; grounded from all games, read a book; grounded from everything, study ahead in class (as I had learned everything ahead of time for AB calculus). Even though I might spend most of my time using the item I was grounded from, I wou

Is it incorrect to say either of the following? In regards to your previous email In regards to your previous emails I was asked this by a non-native speaker, and after thinking about it I decided that in regards to sounds more natural than in regard to . Google confirmed that I have the same intuition as most speakers by returning 73 and 110 million results for the singular and plural expressions respectively. I came here and found the related question What alternative would you suggest to "in/with regard(s?) to"? Although my question was asked as a part of that, no one gave much of a defense of their opinion. The closest was this comment: No, I think that's just wrong. You have to watch out, people love to make up "just so stories" about grammar. This arises in part from the very common misapprehension that all points of grammar make some kind of rational sense, when in fact a lot of the details are purely conventional. For instance, you can still say "

Ok, so as an English teacher, I know that in the present and past perfect tenses, the auxiliary verb have is followed by the past participle form of the verb. Using most verbs, I find that this is true for all sentences I have heard. However, on several instances, I have run into a native speaker using the past form of the verb (drank) where the grammar calls for the past participle (drunk). For example: "I hadn't drank any coffee before I lived in Italy." According to grammar norms, this sentence should be: "I hadn't drunk any coffee..." More and more, I noticed that people tend to use drank instead of drunk after perfect aspect constructions. This construction was used across all communities of practice and wasn't subject to dialect boundaries. According to results from http://www.phras.in , have drank and have drunk are clear, with the standard have drunk being 4x more prevalent than have drank. However, with an instance rate of about 200,000 for th

Another one of vs for question, here for would be the right choice, because its use denotes the function of purpose as I think it's the case here, right ? When customers complaint of an error scenario.

Whilst watching the 3rd Test match between England and Australia, from Edgbaston, this week, the Barmy Army of England fans were singing as ever (the Australians are not terrace-singers in quite the same way as the English). And among their repertoire the little jingle intended to needle the Australian bowler Mitchell Johnson, and put him off his stride: He bowls to the left, He bowls to the right, But, Mitchell Johnson, His bowling is shite . When I looked it up I was amazed to find that shite has an entry in the OED with examples of its use from as early as 1733. Intended as a word that takes some but not all of the offence out of using shit , it is also undoubtedly helpful to football and cricket fans when composing their rhyming ditties. One can think of other words crikey , bloody wars or bloody Hilda (avoiding by our lady Mary ),etc. What is the name given to a word intended to be a swear word- but not quite? Etymology: Variant of shit n., probably resulting from the influence

I have a question about the phrase "dismiss someone's concern" Suppose the following is a paragraph that is from a recommendation letter: I was worried about her performance due to the demanding nature of the curriculum and the fact summer session has a faster pace than regular semesters. But Michelle dismissed my concern by proving to be a person who is able to successfully develop plans and implement them. Is "dismissed my concern" correct use in this context? I think dismiss is a negative word. I am looking for a better phrase to express the meaning Thanks

In the sentence "The lowest in-game rank of authority is that of the Baron – variations are Timariot, Shaman, Mayor, Bishop, Patrician – of which only Patrician is a playable rank if the player owns the The Republic DLC", is "the The" correct, or should it just be "The"? "The Republic DLC" is the name of a place. This is the same idea as the following: The New York Times is a good newspaper. The The New York Times is a good newspaper.

Which is the correct form in this sentence: "in" or "on"? "I'm sending you the requested permission for using my photographs in/on your project"

“User accounts” or “users account” Which is correct: book market or books market ? Similarly, is it pirate bay or pirates bay ?

I'm wondering what the difference is between: It can easily be obtained. It can be easily obtained. Also, what's the preferred way to write it? If there is any... I googled for both options between quotes and it returned almost the same result (38 million for "can be easily" and 34 million for "can easily be"), so statistically both have similar usage from the people. Edit: fixed the second point which I had mistyped as "it easily can be obtained". Answer I would go with "it can be easily obtained". "It can easily be obtained" sounds fine, too, but "it easily can be obtained" doesn't. The complete Google stats look as follows: Searching the British National Corpus returns these results: it can easily be — 40 it can be easily — 20 it easily can be — 0

Can the sentence I hate Jill singing those songs. mean I hate Jill when she is singing those songs. Or does it mean something else?

Is this sentence grammatically correct? Who do I need to send product information to?

As I believe "alphabet" refers specifically to the latin a-z, is there a term that collectively refers to all collections of writing characters. ie, if I had a list that contained the entries "Latin, Kanji, Cyrillic" etc, what would that list be called? A single word is preferable, as I need the term to describe such a list in software I'm writing. Note the answer is not "language" - eg English, French, German etc are all languages, but all use the Latin alphabet. On the other hand, Japanese is a language that can be written using Kanji, Hiragana, Katakana and Latin 'systems'. It's a hypernym for these 'systems' I'm after, not the languages. Answer Alphabet is the correct word. As I believe "alphabet" refers specifically to the latin a-z Your assumption is wrong. The etymological origin of the word "alphabet" relates to the Greek alphabet, in which the first two characters are "alpha" and "be

If someone started a story thus, In a time lost, in a certain yet unknown place, is the Castle of Umberdeen ... How could an entity be a certainty and yet unknown? It does not make sense. But then, do we need to apply logical mathematical principles to a fantasy romance. Is the kick-off sentence to the story oxymoronic? Perhaps, someone has a different interpretation of "certain". Answer The use of certain in this context actually means particular , so if you imagine the sentence as ...in a particular yet unknown , it's not so confusing. Although the use of certain in this way is common and it's fine, it's not oxymoronic because the nuance of meaning is different from what you were thinking.

Can I also use in when referring to someone who is already a member of Facebook?

Temporary reopen note : Pleas note that this other question here does not address what or compare it to which or that : Original Question Which sentence would you use more, which is just simple wrong and why? This is the speech, that my father wrote. This is the speech, which my father wrote. This is the speech, what my father wrote. This is the speech, that my father wrote down . This is the speech, which my father wrote down . This is the speech, what my father wrote down . Answer This is the speech, that my father wrote (down). This is the speech, which my father wrote (down). This is the speech, what my father wrote (down). The vocabulary The difference between write and write down is quite subtle. Write down implies that whatever was written existed in some other form before it was written down. So it might have been a fully formed idea, or someone may have read it out. Write on its own just means write . If we just use wrote , it gives the impression that it was a