Blog

A few months back I met a celebrity and seeing his glamour I felt that I have/had no past or future. Which is to be used, had or have ?

I have been reading Meaning and the English Verb (Leech, Geoffrey N. 2004). I like its systematic treatment on tense, aspect, mood, and modality. I think it's a must-have for any advanced ESL learners. It's just amazing and extremely accessible, really a perfect complement to Practical English Usage by Swan. But only one thing I still feel uncertain about is whether could can be used alone without adding "if-clause" to express irrealis thoughts. I know it is true of would (e.g. it would be fantastic to get to the moon), but I'm not sure it's also true of could or might . Meaning and the English Verb §183 HYPOTHETICAL POSSIBILITY. Used hypothetically, could and might are substitutes for may in expressing factual possibility (see §121): There could be trouble at the World Cup match tomorrow. | The door might be locked already. | Our team might still win the race. The effect of the hypothetical auxiliary, with its implication ‘contrary to expectation’, is...

I use the word “Seedy” quite often in my daily speech, mostly to describe how sick or poorly someone is feeling (I.E. “I’m feeling quite seedy today.” “Are you feeling seedy?”) or describing something of poor quality or standard (I.E. a seedy Wi-Fi connection or seedy driving skills). However, I am unsure if I am using the right word. The only examples I could find were things that described places (seedy bar, seedy motel) and attire (seedy clothes). I also use it when describing something dodgy or shady (a seedy website).

Growing up in the US, I was taught to say "math" and the British "maths" sounded very awkward to me until I noticed mathematics had an 's' at the end, and it occurred to me that it could be considered plural. (To any British reading this, we use the full word "mathematics" in a singular sense also.) I suppose from this perspective, algebra is a math, calculus is a math, topology is a math, etc., though it seems to me that a Brit doing only algebra would still say they are doing maths. From this new perspective, it occurred to me that physics must be plural as well, but I suppose it would be more granulated. The various physical phenomena themselves (comparable to theorems I suppose) would be too "small" to constitute a single subject (comparable to algebra), and various related phenomena would be grouped together into subjects for study and specialization. (Perhaps this is why we both abbreviate it as the plural physics ... er, wait.) I l...

I've heard Ukonian used, and I must say I rather like it, but I don't think it's a fully accepted word yet. British leaves out Northern Ireland. Answer Wikipedia gives the demonym of the UK as British or Briton . It's also worth noting that although Great Britain is England, Scotland and Wales , Britain is sometimes used as an abbreviation for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . From the Guardian style guide : Britain, UK These terms are synonymous: Britain is the official short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Used as adjectives, therefore, British and UK mean the same. Great Britain, however, refers only to England, Wales and Scotland. Take care not to write Britain when you might mean England and Wales, or just England – for example when referring to the education system.

Is asking question with intonation grammatically correct? the context: had a discussion with colleague about the correct formal way to ask a question in English language . From all what i recall about grammar, seems that the formal way would be: " is that your mug? " However, the statement was made that: " that is your mug? " is grammatically correct, despite the fact that it is the statement and intonation can be used to indicate the question. So, is the latter grammatically correct in formal language? Answer There is a term for the non-inverted interrogative sentence: the declarative question . It is marked with a question mark in print and by intonation in speech. From Richard Nordquist at Grammar About.com : A [declarative question is a] yes-no question that has the form of a declarative sentence but is spoken with rising intonation at the end. Declarative sentences are commonly used in informal speech to express surprise or [to] ask for verification. The most...

It is the doctrine I believed to be right . It is the doctrine I believed was right. It is the doctrine I believe is right. What is the difference between "to be right," "was right," and "is right" used in this sentence? And why using "was right" and "is right" possible? Is it because it is used the same way as "doctrine which I think was right"? Also, is it possible to change this question What would you predict the mass of rocket to be? to this what would you predict the mass of rocket is? since the answer would usually be "I predict that the mass of rocket is...", not this: "I predict the mass of rocket to be." Is it possible? Thank you!

I am continually surprised to hear people use has and is interchangeably. The erudite Peter Segal has been guilty of saying: This song is been written by XXX. YY is been a producer on the show ZZZ and now lives in California. Should the two sentences use has since they refer to events in the past? Are is and has really interchangeable? If so, under what circumstances can one be substituted by the other? Answer They are not interchangeable. What happens is that the contracted forms of has and is sound the same in sentences like: He's been doing that for years. (He has been doing that for years.) and He's not a doctor. (He is not a doctor.) In your example, I think he might have said: This song's been written by XXX. (This song has been written by XXX.)

I am writing some technical documentation and I'm wondering whether of or for is the best word to use in the following sentence: The framework and architecture will form the basis {of|for} our web applications. This is a fairly specific example. Is there a general rule for this? Or is it more of a case-by-case decision? Answer Both. Forming the basis of means it is essentially the sole basis. OTOH, Forming the basis for could mean it is one of the factors forming the basis. basis of : Agriculture is the main occupation, with tobacco and cotton crops forming the basis of much local industry. basis for : The company continued to prosper, forming the basis for much of the commercial activity of colonial Canada. [emphasis mine] Regardless, it seems there's a tendency these days to prefer for over of , especially in AmE. English: American English: eCFR : A complaint shall be filed within one year after the date on which the (...) receives a grievance forming the basis of th...

Is there a word, or phrase, to express when someone makes a bet with the intent to lose? I’m looking for one of two things (or both). Either a verb to express the action of making such a bet, or a word that is defined by this specific type of bet. An example would be in Seinfeld: Elaine makes a bet with a guy, and if the guy “loses” he must buy her dinner (with the assumption being he made a bet knowing he would lose). I realize this is basically just a swindle, but I’m hoping there is something more specific. Answer You're throwing it, like a fight. : to lose intentionally

For hypothetical situations, I've read that mostly, it is safer to use "were" for ifs. If the world were peaceful, there would be no wars. But, I've also read that for some unhypothetical/past situations, it is correct to use "was". If he was here, he would have gotten perfect. That's indicating the past, not the future. "If he were here" conveys a slightly different meaning I believe. Though it is understandable, it is still quite a blurry line, especially when "as if" comes into place, which is my original question: For "as if" circumstances, like the one below, is "was" or "were" more appropriate? He gazed upon the massacre before him with tranquil eyes, as if he was/were a spectator unrelated to it all. The above does seem to be somewhat hypothetical, so "were" would seem to be the correct answer. However, it also seems like a comparison, as it is comparing a spectator to him . So, questi...

My friend is adamant that "touch base" is the one and only correct usage, although he admits to hearing "touch bases" in regular use. Which was the original phrase, where did it come from, and do you think either/or is okay today? Answer "Touch base" is the significantly more common usage and is listed in phrase dictionaries. The general impression is that it comes from the sport of baseball: In baseball, a player who is touching a base is not in danger of being put out. Another explanation is that a player briefly touches each of the bases when he runs around after hitting a home run; therefore "touching base" is briefly checking in (this is more similar to the meaning in the above example). The above quote is unsourced from Wikipedia , so it isn't terribly authoritative. I would use "touch base" as it is the clear winner in terms of usage and definition. "Touch bases" isn't going to be misunderstood but it appears ...

If I have three consecutive words where each adjacent pair can be contracted, e.g. "I would have" or "You are not", is there a difference between the two possible contractions, e.g. "I would've" or "You aren't" versus "I'd have" or "You're not"? If so, when is each form preferred? Does the preference depend on what comes after it (such as its part of speech), e.g. "You are not a fool" versus "You are not foolish" versus "You are not going to fool me?" Answer Negation and in particular how negative contraction competes with verb contraction is a very large area of research. For example, The Longman grammar of spoken and written English devotes thirty pages to it, and there's some information in the appendix, too. Since there is so much detail there, and your question is about "I've not" vs. "I haven't", I'll answer that particular question. Seve...

I am no native speaker and always confused about the comma in introductory phrases, in particular in prepositional phrases. Is there any hard rule when a comma must be set? If I make a google search for certain phrases, I often find both variants. Typical examples where I am not sure whether a comma must be set are: In this case[,] we must... For simple problems[,] the algorithm... From Lemma 1.2[,] we obtain... For a typical user[,] the algorithm... In our theory[,] we... Answer Larry Trask’s advice in cases like this is to see what happens if you remove from the sentence the words marked off by the comma. If you are left with a meaningful sentence, then the comma is appropriate. If no meaningful sentence remains, you don’t need the comma.

The word dooblidoo is used by several different youtube channels as a different word for the youtube description bar. I've seen it used by the vlogbrothers and by PBS Idea Cahnnel . Who was first to use and invent the term? Answer Also spelt "doobly doo". There's a related page here tracing usage of the term back to a guy called Craig Benzine (a Youtube user). But to my ear, "doobly doo" sounds like a familiar idiom that's much older than that, used to name something you don't know the name of. " You know, the doobly doo ... the doobly doo for flipping eggs. "

This guy thinks a person is arrogant when he knows nothing about that person and just telling everyone about how arrogant that guy is. So what is the term for this kind of person?

Apple is somewhat notorious for omitting articles when talking about their products, and statements such as "People love iPhone" hit my ear a little strangely. But when I stopped to think about it, I realized that I wouldn't say "the Windows" or "the iWork". I couldn't come up with a reason that I use the definite article before some product names and not others. Is there some sort of convention (probably not a hard-and-fast rule) for usage here? Answer I think we instinctively use determiners with countable things and omit them with non-countable things. "Windows" or "iOS" or "time" (the concept) are not countable, but "iPhone" and "PC" and "schedule" are. So we install run Windows on the PC and use iOS on the iPhone and report time on the schedule, but we do not run the Windows on PC or manage the time on schedule. Edit (per comments): this is all for singular objects. If you use the pl...

"To delete" is to "deletion" as "to discard" is to what? Answer The thing that is deleted is a deletion ; the thing that is discarded is a discard . The act of deleting is a deletion ; the act of discarding is a discarding . If you like using incredibly rare words, you can use discardure for the act of discarding, as Jon Hanna's answer says. Expect people to think it's not a real word.

"Mornings came and cast a blinding sunlight over everything, and he felt like nothing worthwhile could be accomplished." For some reason, I feel like "a blinding light" is ok, but if its sunlight, then I should drop the "a" and write "cast blinding sunlight", but I'm not sure why I feel this way. Can anyone offer some enlightenment? edit - alternate phrasing, closer to being a literal translation: "Mornings came without warning, flooding the day with a strong sun, and he felt like nothing worthwhile could be accomplished." I would still like an answer to the technical question of whether I should drop the "a", but would also appreciate knowing if anyone thinks option #2 is a better choice. Answer You feel that way because "light" can be countable, but "sunlight" really can't. Thus, "a blinding light" is fine, but "a blinding sunlight" isn't. (Regarding your edit: I don't...

As I am a person who frequently intends to do nothing (or at any rate as little as possible), I wondered if there was a word meaning "the act of intending to do nothing". I had the impression that floccinaucinihilipilification meant this, but sadly it turns out not to be so. Answer Not sure about "the act of intending to do nothing", but idling is the "act of doing nothing": v.intr. 1. To pass time without working or while avoiding work. 2. To move lazily and without purpose. 3. To run at a slow speed or out of gear. Used of a motor vehicle. v.tr. 1. To pass (time) without working or while avoiding work; waste: idle the afternoon away. 2. To make or cause to be unemployed or inactive. 3. To cause (a motor, for example) to idle. n. 1. A state of idling. Used of a motor vehicle: an engine running quietly at idle. 2. A mechanism for regulating the speed at which an engine runs at rest: set the idle >higher to keep the motor from stalling. You could get ...

Which is better (and why)? Which feature should I attach this task to? or To which feature should I attach this task? Answer The first phrasing is what one would use in casual conversation; it does a good job of establishing the subject, object, and verb to a listener whereas the second phrasing takes some "decoding", in my opinion. The "rule" that you can't end sentences with prepositions is a myth; it's generally agreed that ending sentences with prepositions is fine as long as the preposition is not extraneous (i.e. you wouldn't have the same meaning by removing it.) So, the first sentence is not ungrammatical. However, the idea of this rule indeed exists because as TLP said, it is a bit of mouthful. It might make sense to go with an alternate phrasing. Which feature is this task associated with? Which feature involves this task?

Unless I am mistaken, when referring to a single thing or entity, one can say there is or there's (the contraction of the same). When referring to more than one of something, the correct wording is there are , however, I am not aware of an actual contraction of the latter, or there're . As a native speaker, it seems perfectly fine to hear (and to use) there's in place of there are (at least for some examples, but I can't think of any that really don't work), but is this a valid grammatical usage? e.g. There are many ways this can be stated. There's many ways this can be stated. Am I wrong in accepting this? Should I try to break myself of this? Answer It's an informal usage, but many native speakers have no problem at all with constructions like... There's two ways this can go . ...even though they would balk at the full form There is two ways this can go . By traditional rules of grammar, obviously, it's "incorrect". But in the cont...

In a scientific article, should I write "3m", "3 m", "3 meters", or "3 [meters]"? Answer This guide at the NIST site is a good place to start. In particular, you should write "3 m" as in "The bar is 3 m long."

I'm trying to find a word like 'predatory' that refers to prey instead. Looking through some physical books gave some information about the root word 'praedor', for which I found this Wikitionary page . A quick search on Merriam-Webster only returned some near-antonyms for 'predatory': herbivorous, vegetarian; gentle, submissive, tame None of these words really capture what I'm after. I'm trying to catch more of the behavioural side of prey, but I want to use this word almost like a quality for a human. Example sentences of how I would like this word used; "Jack had been noted for his ... tendencies." "Rabbits are mammals of a ... nature, [...]" Thanks in advance.

I encounter this fallacy frequently in online discussions where an opponent completely disregards all of my premises and says my conclusion is invalid because it's an "opinion" and "not objective." This is not merely questioning the bias of my sources: the opponent often makes no attempt to refute my premises. In extreme cases, they argue that only a 100% objective argument can be valid. I had this happen even in debates involving game design, visual design, or other disciplines/topics requiring subjective judgment. I know from my critical thinking class that this is a fallacy because debates (by their nature) can be described as a clash of formulated opinions. But does this have a name? Answer One term for the fallacy you describe appears to be the subjectivist fallacy . From the Fallacies section of the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The subjectivist fallacy occurs when it is mistakenly supposed that a good reason to reject a claim is that truth on the...

I have traditionally learned that a first-person pronoun should always come last in a list, e.g. Bob and I found this to be interesting. However, it sounds awkward to me when this rule is used with 'others': A couple others and I found this to be interesting. I would be more inclined to go with: I and a couple others found this to be interesting. Which sentence is (more) grammatically correct? Answer They are all grammatical. Whether or not you put yourself first is a matter of etiquette.

When someone says "He is smarter than I and she put together," what is the function of the phrase "put together"? Is it considered an adjective? Answer Yes, contemporary traditional grammar would call this a "reduced adjective clause." Of course, it's not an adjective at all. It's a verb phrase functioning as a modifier.

I had always associated the construct I'm sat here (as opposed to I'm sitting here ) with the north of England. I know I've heard it from people with Yorkshire or Manchester accents, for example. Yet, I was recently speaking with a couple of Londoners, one of whom used it and the other stated it sounded natural. Here are some examples I found in Google Books to clarify the specific usage I am referring to: Don't think: I'm sat here waiting for my plays to be produced; think: I am sat here waiting to write those plays that can only be produced, now. [ source ] I'm sat here in Vittles waiting for a second pot of tea, and life is OK, on the whole. [ source ] I'm sat here, in the back of a van with my Thermos full of hot tea, protecting a car-park. [ source ] And it'sonly now that I'm sat here to with Emma that the absurdity of what I'm doing is starting hit home. [ source ] I'm sat here watching and listening to them talk. [ source ] So, how c...

What's the opposite of oxymoron ? That is, two words put together that seem identical?

It is true that as a fox, I should know this, so consider this a spoilers warning. In a recent post, Geek Girl mentions that the mating call of the fox is a series of sharp, eerie barks and that this is called gekkering . This is supported by a citation in Wikipedia , but the reference is not one I have access to. I am very curious about how this sound came to be named gekkering . There is nothing to be found on Etymonline, and gekker only appears in Wikitionary as far as I can tell. A Google search of the word turns up Gekker as a surname, but not much else. Interestingly though, there is Chris Gekker , who is a master trumpteer and has a published series of "Gekker Articulation Studies" . I don't know if he is old enough to have any sort of influence on the naming (his pictures make me think he is younger than the term) but I wonder if there is some connection there. Does anyone know the etymology or history of the term "gekkering"? Answer There's a p...

(You may well say this doesn't fit into an "English language" site, but the scientific Latin terms could be said to be part of English.) My young daughter loves snails; I would like her to learn the scientific name for the common garden snail, or Grove Snail: Cepaea nemoralis , but how do I pronounce the word Cepaea ? Answer The normal English pronunciation of Cepaea , believe it or not, would be /səˈpiː(j)ə/. Some speakers would use an /aɪ/ dipthong there for ae instead of /iː/ English pronunciation of Latin (and Greek) has an extremely long and complex history. So words like Linum (the genus of the common flax plant) end up coming out as /ˈlaɪnəm/ not as /ˈlinum/. Yes, I know this is strange, but if you don't do it this way, it messes up our poetry, where this pronunciation is expected. You can, and probably should, read the Wikipedia article on the Traditional English pronunciation of Latin . That means that Caesar is /ˈsiːzəɹ/ not /ˈkaɪsaɾ/, while things like...

Words exist to label periods of time - like week which represents 7 days and fortnight which is used for a 14-day period. Are there other such words used for certain numbers of consecutive days? Answer Fortnight is used (or was used until now) for 14 days. It is more tough with year and month , which stand for 365 or 366 and 29-31 days respectively (at least if they're solar ones). Leap year is 366 days. Quarter is 3 months and one fourth of a year . Archaic sennight (sevennight) was just another word for week , as well as hebdomad (more facetious than archaic). Quarantine is 40 days, though limited in its usage. Meteorologists may call 5 days a pentad . Catholics had octave for 8 days and still have novena for 9.

What is the origin of scut in scut work ? According to Merriam-Webster, scut work : routine and often menial labor Probably from medical argot, scut meaning 'junior intern' First known use: circa 1962 Usage example: ... women who generally feel that they are second-class citizens in the medical profession -- unappreciated and directed by (mostly male) doctors to perform largely scut work . This ngram shows that scut work was not used before 1960 when it took hold as medical jargon. It supports the idea that the term was not already in general use and subsequently popularized in hospitals, rather that it originated there. This returns us to the medical coinage. Could it be related to meaning (2) in the OED? scut 1. the short tail of a hare, rabbit, or deer. 2. ( inf. chiefly Irish ) a person perceived as foolish, contemptible, or objectionable. There is another theory that it is derived from Oxford University servants called scouts , but I consider this unlikely given the US...

I am interested in British English collective nouns for tiger. The wikipedia offers "streak" and "ambush". However, when I search google ngrams I get nothing at all for "streak of tigers" or "ambush of tigers". Are these collective nouns actually in use and if so, when did they start being being used and are there any respectable examples of their use in printed material? Alternatively are there more common terms?

If the singular it is: The baker's and the butcher's are closed on Sundays. Which one is the plural? Bakers and butchers are closed on Sundays. Bakers' and butchers' are closed on Sundays.

Such as when I say "Well, you can't just walk into a bar and yell fire" meaning anyone can't walk into a bar and yell fire.

When is it correct to use “yourself” and “myself” (versus “you” and “me”)? Doubt about the subject in this phrase: I, me, or myself? Use of “myself” in business-speak Does it make sense to say that? For example: Jim and myself could not attend the party. If not, how would I say it? Thanks.

In the sentence below: Manpower provides a range of services that satisfy/satisfies the needs of the whole employment and business cycle. Should the verb in the noun clause modify "range" or "services"?

If you wanted to describe the sound of a small brass bell that you can hold in your hand ( this is an example image of what I mean - what word would you use? Brrring ? Bling ? Answer The term should be tinkle . For example: A bell tinkled as the door opened. The maid tinkled a bell.

What is the lexical class of the word 'worth' when used in a sentence like “Is this apple worth $3?” In a sentence like the following: The knight’s statue had a tale worth telling. What is worth ? I wanted to identify it a preposition, showing relation between tale and telling .

Some pronounce the trailing "i" in Latin-derived words (e.g., "Gemini") as a long "e" and others pronounce it as a long "i." I was taught the long "e," but is this mere preference or is there a firm basis for one or the other? Answer The trailing i on most masculine nominative plurals in Latin is usually a “long e” /iː/ , as has already been stated, like ee in levee or tree . Latin pueri (the boys) would be /pu.eri/ poo-air-ee . A trailing ae like that found on most feminine nominative plurals is a diphthong which sounds a lot like a “long i ” ( /aɪ/ , [äɪ̯]), but, as it is a diphthong, is more of a switch in sound starting with a “short a” /ɑ/ and ending with a “long e” /iː/ , similar to the pronunciation of aye or eye /aɪ/ . Thus, Latin puellae (the girls) would be poo-ell-aye /puɛlːaɪ/ . I ’s at the beginning of words are pronounced like the y /j/ in yet /jɛt/ or yellow /ˈjɛloʊ/ , and C ’s were usually hard /k/ . So, Ju...

Here's a standard English sentence: The folder which is missing from the principal's office contained the answers to today's exam. (Separate question, discussed elsewhere I'm sure, whether it should really be "which" or "that".) But simpler is usually better, so I would actually just write: The folder missing from the principal's office ... But my question is: I have seen legal statements which would write: The folder, which folder is missing from the principal's office, contained ... Assuming that the writer is actually correct in thinking that s/he's adding some value by repeating "folder" after the "which", what value is s/he adding? Answer This, like much legal language, is archaic. This particular case is a Non-Restrictive Relative Clause , which in ordinary English would just be The folder, which is missing from the principal's office, ... As Tim says, it's the extra folder that's the unnecessary ...

Is "revelationary" a word in the English language?. If it isn't a word in proper English, then which word, if any, can be used for something that leads to a revelation? Answer You may be looking for revelatory of or relating to a revelation

May I punctuate letters-as-letters and words-as-words in this manner (in lieu of italics)? The professor said that Joel used too many 'why's, 'like's, and 'whereas's in his essay. If we're using single markers (quotes) for this purpose, would the word 'whereas' be pluralized as 'whereas's or 'whereas'es? My vote is for 'whereas's (without the 'es' ending. Do you agree)? And for letters and numbers (using this same method), are the following correct? His 'y's look like '4's. His 'j's look like 't's. I don't like this: 4s or 4's I want to give strong emphasis to the individual letters and individual words (for the plurals) by using this method. Is it a viable alternative? I think the British might employ this technique. Thanks for your continued support and guidance.

I'm not talking about the basic items in a list (e.g. X, Y and Z), but a list of clauses (I think). Example: I am interested in things like going to this place, going to that place, eating food, and other things . In that example, do the verbs have to match for proper grammar? What I learned in university writing class was that the entire series has to have verbs that match: going to this place, going to that place and going to eat .

I just created an inch to mm conversion calculator and I am writing a blog post announcing its launch. When should I capitalize the terms inch and millimeter? Does it matter if I'm spelling it out? What if I'm using an abbreviation or symbol? What if it begins a sentence? Answer No, units generally do not need capitalization when spelled out. For SI units, the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures is the authority: Unit names are normally printed in roman (upright) type, and they are treated like ordinary nouns. In English, the names of units start with a lower-case letter (even when the symbol for the unit begins with a capital letter), except at the beginning of a sentence or in capitalized material such as a title. In keeping with this rule, the correct spelling of the name of the unit with the symbol °C is "degree Celsius" (the unit degree begins with a lower-case d and the modifier Celsius begins with an upper-case C because it is a proper name).           ...

I've seen equally good arguments for and against using "is" for this sentence. The pair of polynomials (f,g) is/are related by the reciprocity law. Which verb is used correctly? Answer You should use the singular, because it refers to "Pair" and not to "polynomials". The pair in this case is one, so " is ". If it was " three pairs of polynomials.. .", for example, then you would have used " are ". Like: A pair of shoes is in my bedroom. - VS - Two (three, four, five, etc) pairs of shoes are in my bedroom.

I was wondering if the hyphenated version should be used? The context is: Introducing the World Cup box from McDonald's: the meal filled with out of this world experiences.

"Shambles" is one of the few singular nouns in English that blatantly resembles a plural noun. What is the origin of "a shambles"? Why do we really need to prefix an "a" in front of "shambles"? Which of the following is perfect? The country's economy is in shambles. The country's economy is in a shambles. The country's economy is a shambles. Answer The weird usage seems to have developed in the same way as "a headquarters". Consider the following Ngram: The original phrase seems to have been "shambles" or "the shambles", almost always plural. It meant "a place for slaughtering animals", but later came to be also used for scenes of carnage, scenes of great disorder, and certain dangerous shoals at sea. Etymonline says that "shambles" originally meant "meat market", having evolved from the word schamil meaning "table or stall for vending". I assume that it naturall...

On Server Fault, we were discussing this question in chat. There are non-native speakers in the chat and somehow we got on the topic of grammar and proper use of commas. The sentence of interest: I have just got a new Ubuntu LAMP VPS server, which I am trying to configure. Some people thought that the comma was superfluous. Others did not. When is it appropriate for a comma to preceed the word which , and is the example sentence above correct? Also, before you vote to close this question as a dupe of this , please consider the differences between the two questions and ignore the similarity of the titles. The OP's example sentence was restructured in that question instead of addressing the proper use of commas. Answer Supplementary (or non-defining, or non-restrictive) relative clauses are by convention set off by commas and integrated (or defining, or restrictive) relative clauses are not. The clause in the example, 'which I am trying to configure', is a supplementary rel...

In a phone conversation like the one below is the present perfect form "I've thought it was Frank on the line" acceptable instead of "thought"? Matt: Hi John. John: Hi Frank. Matt: Oh, this is Matt speaking not Frank. John: Sorry Matt. I thought it was Frank on the line. You sound very similar. John's mixing up the voices happens in very recent past (seconds ago) and it has relevance with the present. Why do we generally prefer simple past tense when using the verb "think" in such contexts? In British English present perfect is used commonly for recent past actions and events such as "have told", "has said", "has happened", "have shown" etc. Does it sound natural to use present perfect in such phone conversation context? Can you explain please any linguistic differences?

The term "first world problems" refers to a petty thing complained about by someone living in the upper or middle class. Is there are word or phrase that means problems or complaints about things that you have relatively little to worry about compared with others (especially in front of those others). For example, a straight A student complaining about getting a B on a difficult math test that almost everyone failed. Answer There's the term world's smallest violin , which is used to express mock sympathy. In conversation, it's often accompanied by a hand gesture , as if someone is playing a miniature violin. For example, to that "A" student complaining about his B on the math test, I could say something like: Aw, that's a shame. Here's the world's smallest violin, playing I Feel Sorry for You. The website TV Tropes says this about the gesture: A predominantly Western gesture, the World's Smallest Violin is given to a person who is exagg...

More from the BBC adaptation of Charles Dickens' Bleak House . I've noticed in these sort of movies, when some very upper-class speakers talk, like the lawyer in the series, Mr. Tulkinghorn, they have a distinct way of pronouncing "wh" in what and when ; the "wh-" sounds seems to be prefaced with an almost sharp whistling "h", so that it sounds like they are really saying hwat and hwhen . I'd like to know three things: First, what is the specific name of this phoneme, as would be given by linguists? Secondly, what's the difference in articulation, in terms of tongues and throats, between this hwh- and wh -? And finally, the most difficult question of all: Is the hwhat these upper-class speakers produce a direct-line preservation of Anglo-Saxon pronunciation, through these many centuries? [I ask because I have seen the construction "hwæt hwæt" used playfully as an example of Anglo-Saxon speech, and figured that the "hw-...

To be clear, among There is one or several apple. There are one or several apple. There is one or several apples. There are one or several apples. which is correct? My guess: Because of the shortest distance rule 1 , apples is correct as it is near several . Though there seems to be near one , the actually object is apples , and thus are should be used. Thus There are one or several apples. is correct. To make things clearer, There are one or several apples and a table. illustrates the long connection between there and apples better. 1 Sorry, I do not know its English name. I just translate it from my language back. By the way, I do not want to emphasize at least one . Answer That is not a smooth phrase but of the choices "There are one or several apples" would be most common. See this and this for examples. "There is at least one apple" would be better.

I would use rope-a-dope, but it's got connotations of pretending to lose that I don't need. I'm trying to describe the behavior of someone who sends twenty detailed emails a day about various projects, and the recipient of his emails has finally gotten tired of trying to parse them, so the recipient just agrees to whatever he proposes. I'd like an expression that evokes both outward earnestness and hidden creepiness, like Uriah Heep, Dickens's "Humble servant" with veiled ambition, who overdoes it with professions of humility until he's in power. Water torture would work, but comes too close to a more racist expression that I'm not comfortable with. Answer Lately a favorite of mine while describing the amount of small finishing work left on our house is Death of/by a thousand cuts ( UsingEnglish.com ) If something is suffering the death of a thousand cuts, or death by a thousand cuts, lots of small bad things are happening, none of which are fata...

In an essay, a friend used the expression: It wasn't that bad of an idea. I think that it would be preferable to write It wasn't that bad an idea However, I can't explain why.

I was browsing through some very old English texts when I came across this page from The memoires of Sir James Melvil of Hal-hill , by George Scot (1683). The first thing that struck me was the anatomy of the capital letter Q in Queen . Its elongated tail dips well below the base line, and if you peer closely at the fourth Q you'll see it curl slightly upwards. It's not the first time I have seen a similar font but I was wondering if that particular letter style had a name. I know that lowercase letters that extend beyond the baseline are called descenders , but I didn't find any information about uppercase letters with flamboyant diagonal tails and ‘legs’, like the ‘K’ and ‘R’ in Kingdom, King, Retreat, Reader and Retriev'd . My last question; in the text you'll notice that each of the following nouns and adjectives: Hatten , French Knave, Bastien , Frenchmen , Bedford , English Gentlemen and Satyrs are in italics and each word begins with a capital letter. Wh...

Is it right to say He was telling me that he will go on a vacation next week. while recounting your experience? Even though "he told me that he is going..." seems more appropriate, I would still like to know if the above mentioned expression sounds okay or not.

Am I fascinated with consumer technology or fascinated by it? What about a book, an object, or a philosophical idea? Answer With: If the object of the fascination is something that can be held, handled, or manipulated (Rubik's cube for example), then someone can be fascinated "with" it. I was fascinated with his car. By: If - for example - someone is reading an interesting article, they may be fascinated "by" it. I was fascinated by her voice. See here .

I thrice presented him a kingly crown/ which he did thrice refuse" Just wondering what the rhetorical technique is in that phrase.

The words "challenge" and "challenger" are well-known, but is there such a term as "challengee" - as I read somewhere? In other words, what would be an appropriate term to describe the person challenged, for instance, to play a challenge match? Unsure whether to ask for the "antonym" of challenger.

I was reading a book called "The Penguin Guide to Punctuation" by R. L. Trask. It seems that the book doesn't explain all the uses of comma. It says "There are four uses of the comma, called the listing comma, the joining comma, the gapping comma and bracketing commas". Here's a brief summary of the rules as described in book: The listing comma : Use a listing comma in a list wherever you could conceivably use the word and (or or ) instead. Do not use a listing comma anywhere else. Example : The Three Musketeers were Athos, Porthos and Aramis. The joining comma : Use a joining comma to join two complete sentences with one of the words and , or , but , yet or while . Do not use a joining comma in any other way. Example : Norway has applied to join the EC, and Sweden is expected to do the same. The gapping comma : Use a gapping comma to show that words have been omitted instead of repeated. Example : Some Norwegians wanted to base their national language o...

This looks like a duplicate but it's not. Here is the 2013 question: In farms or on farms? The OP only wanted to know which sentence was grammatically correct. They live the quiet life on farms They live the quiet life in farms Instead I would like to know why we say “ on a farm” and not “in a farm” I was teaching English to a small group of Italian kids this morning, and we were playing "Guess which animal am I". While it was easy enough to get them to say Do you live in a jungle? Do you live in a house? Do you live in the water? Do you live in a tree? Do you live in a garden? For one kid the question Do you live on a farm? proved to be quite a battle, so I pretended to be deaf when he asked Do you live in a farm? until he got the phrase exactly right. However, it would be neat if I could provide an easy explanation or mnemonic for these kids to remember, apart from me acting decrepit and deaf again next week. Any ideas? Please, no comments on my being pedantic and ...

Possible Duplicates: “User accounts” or “users account?” Is it correct to say “lesson count” or “lessons count”? I'm wondering whether or not I should use a plural form noun with a collection name. For example, which one is correct, bookList or booksList (obviously they are variables in a programming language)?

As Lord Esher once noted, ‘Any proposition the result of which would be to show that the common law of England is wholly unreasonable and unjust cannot be part of the common law of England.’ Would someone please help unravel the bolded relative clause, step-by-step? Please explain your steps. I've never seen this construct before. Does the bolded clause = 'whose result'? Moreover, is it equivalent to ' the result of any proposition which would be to show ...' ? Source: P101, How the Law Works, Gary Slapper Answer The technical term for this construction is Pied-Piping .   (I don't make up these names, honest; this one, like many others, is due to Haj Ross ) Here's how it works: Relative clauses modify nouns; these nouns are called antecedents (because they "go before"). Every relative clause contains an anaphor of its antecedent, which becomes a relative pronoun, and, under certain circumstances, may simply be deleted. [ the man [ the man ca...

See the following two sentences. As per my knowledge it is right. According to my knowledge it is right. Are both the sentences right? What is the difference and use of "as per" and "according to"? Answer Though I would understand both in written and oral communication, I find the first to be pretty odd. I wouldn't ever use it, and strongly prefer the second, "according to". Why is this so odd? I looked a bit in the OED at the use of "as per" (odd in itself for combining two prepositions). It was first used in 1869 as a "slang" form "as per usual" by itself. I did however come across an entry that has a similar meaning to what you're looking for here: "by". By. 3. a. According to; as stated, indicated, or directed by, as per advice, per instructions, per invoice, per ledger, etc. Usually preceded by as. This was used as early as 1446 and as late as 1989. The difference here, I think, has been touched on: thi...