Blog

I came across the phrase ‘toss a bone’ in the headline of the New York Times article (July 15) in its Business section that reads “As a Watchdog Starves, Wall Street Is Tossed a Bone.” I checked dictionaries at hands to find no entry of this idiom, though I found ‘cast a bone between’ and ‘throw a bone,’ neither of which seems to be near ‘toss a bone.’ In this search, I found the phrase appearing in the lyrics of Confederate Railroad in Youtube that goes: "So toss a little bone to the working man Make it a law that we all get a raise And prices go a little l..." From the context of the headline of NYT article and the foregoing Confederate Railroad lyrics, I guess ‘toss a bone’ implies ‘to give a bate, or little reward (incentive) to somebody.’ Am I right? Is ‘toss a bone to somebody’ a popular English (or American) phrase apart from the Confederate Railroad’s song?. Answer Tossing a bone to someone is usually done out of pity or by someone with significantly more power ove

Do the following two sentences mean the same thing? If so, which is more commonly used? My car needs repairing. My car needs to be repaired.

What is the difference between try to do and try and do ? To me (non-native speaker), asking someone try and do this seems a bit rude. It's like saying you can try all you want but this must be done: try and fail is not an option. However, asking someone try to do this means I am asking you to try: success is bonus, failure is OK. Answer "Try and" has largely been relegated to colloquial use, and "try to" is generally considered the correct form. They are basically synonymous. "Try and" is not really more rude, in my opinion. According to alt.usage.english , "try and" is probably older than "try to," and, when used, implies success or failure of whatever action is being attempted. As far as speech goes though, they're the same thing. If you're writing, "try and" is generally discouraged.

A friend asked me earlier why it was that "gay" is an adjective, but "lesbian" is a noun. I've been doing some searching online, because it's an interesting question. According to etymonline , "lesbian" was originally an adjective describing someone from Lesbos; it got its modern sense because of the poet Sappho, who lived on Lesbos, and wrote a lot about female love. The question is: when did it get this modern sense? But also, when did it stop becoming commonly used as an adjective? Answer As a noun meaning "native or citizen of the island of Lesbos," Lesbian has been used in English as a noun since the earliest translations of Herodotus and Thucydides. As a result, the notion of using lesbian as a noun when the later meaning of "a woman who is a homosexual" (Merriam-Webster's current definition) arose, around 1890, would not have struck many hearers as being a startling innovation. Interestingly, MW reports that both t

My native-speaker's grammatical intuition tells me that: There is a sleeping man under the tree. is fine but There is a fishing man by the river bank. is wrong. Why? I've thought about this a little, and I've come up with some grammatical hypotheses, but I'd be very grateful if somebody could point me to a general reference on this matter. Addendum: Someone asked me what hypotheses I've come up with. I've identified two cases where an -ing modifier can come before a noun: When the -ing acts to modify the noun (like an adjective), rather than describe an action being performed at that time, it goes before the verb. E.g. flying fish , dancing girl . When the verb suggests a sensory impression. E.g. crying baby , shining light . But there must be at least one more class to account for expressions like a sleeping man . Second addendum: I should clarify precisely what fishing man is supposed to mean. It does not mean a man who fishes . That would be taken care o

Is this sentence right? Everybody is wasting his time. Is his or its the possessive of everybody ? Most people use his but in my opinion it should be its : Everybody is wasting its time. I want to know what experts say about this.

I have just installed Grammarly and it showed up something which i am not sure of. It corrected '13 month old' to '13-month-old'. The context is I ask because my 13-month-old God daughter seemed like she was a little resentful towards another child who was visiting at the same time. Which would be correct, and why?

We recently did a test and we stumbled upon the following sentence: This film is better than ... we saw yesterday. With the answers: a, which b, - c, what d, that I choose "what" and the book also confirmed it as the correct one, but my teacher insisted it is wrong and it should be "which". Could someone settle this argument for us? Preferably with some reasoning. Thank you in advance! Answer 1.) This film is better than what we saw yesterday. You are right, the choice "what" should be acceptable. The choice "which" seems to be ungrammatical. LONG VERSION: Your example is in the form of a comparison construction that involves a fused relative noun phrase. Your example is somewhat similar to: 2.) This film is better than [yesterday's film]. Notice how in version #2 that the subject "This film" is being compared to the noun phrase "yesterday's film". This is similar to what is occurring in your original #1 version:

I searched on YouTube for the reason why hair turns white then I found that Americans called it gray hair not white hair. In my opinion, its color is white so I don't understand why they call it gray hair.

When the phrase is used as an object, why so many native speakers are saying "you and I" instead of "you and me"? I'm not a native speaker but I thought "you and me" is correct. Not sure if this falls into the same category, but "Just between you and me" sounds more natural than "Just between you and I". Answer This is an example of hypercorrection , which is when native speakers make an accidental error in their zeal to avoid a different error. In this case, the error that's being avoided is the error of writing "you and me" in subject position, as in the following sentence: You and me are going to the store. This is formally incorrect, although it's very common in contemporary spoken English. Because they have been taught that this is incorrect, many people hypercorrect and change "you and me" to "you and I" in all positions. That is, they incorrectly learn the rule about when to use "y

He teaches Potions, but he doesn't want to—everyone knows he's after Quirrell's job. Knows an awful lot about the Dark Arts , Snape . From time to time I stumble upon this type of speech with comma + name after the main text to emphasize on a person. So, pronoun-text-comma-name. Is this a specific dialect? Like, for example "I gonna kill'em" sounds southern-ish US. English is not my mother tongue though I read a lot and such subtle things are of highest interest to me.

There was the following sentence in the New York Times (February 8) article titled, “Azerbaijan is rich. It wants to be famous.”: “Oil-rich, velvet-rope-poor Azerbaijan, a country about the size of South Carolina on the Caspian Sea, would very much like to be the world’s next party capital.” Curiously enough, none of Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster online dictionary and English Japanese dictionaries at hand carries the word, 'velvet rope' under the heading of velvet as I checked, though some include 'velvet carpet' and 'velvet glove.' I understand velvet ropes are seen in airports, hotels and event arenas as well as a red carpet to receive dignitaries and stars. Please correct me if I’m wrong. It seems to me that Velvet, the symbol of the rich and Poor seem contradicting each other. What does “velvet-rope-poor” mean? Answer Given the text says Azerbaijan wants to be the world’s next party capital , it's probably a reference to the velvet rope you often

I came across this sentence, "Modi understands only one alphabet, and that is the capital I" in the Indian writer Dr. Shashi Tharoor's recently published book "The Paradoxical Prime Minister". When I looked the word 'alphabet' up in dictionaries, I get the definition as 'a set of letters or symbols in a fixed order used to represent the basic set of speech sounds of a language, especially the set of letters from A to Z'. ( Oxford Living Dictionaries ) Is it correct to call a letter an alphabet? Answer In standard US and UK usage, an alphabet is a system or collection of letters, a letter being A written symbol or character representing a speech sound and being a component of an alphabet. [AHD] In Indian English, however, the word alphabet is sometimes used synonymously with letter , which is all that has happened here. A web search turns up innumerable examples, including sources one might expect to have a good level of English proficiency: O

I know the main idea behing the reported speech (shifting of tenses) but one of the textbooks I have says: I like pizza. He said he liked pizza. But I think that if he likes pizza, he likes in in general and he still like it when we report that statement of his/hers. So I think it should be: He said he likes pizza in case he is still alive and has not changed his mind. Is that correct?

I realize it's usually better to just say "A and B are redundant". But, I've also seen A is redundant with B ... to B ... of B all with basically the same intended meaning. Are any of these more (or less) correct? Answer The correct idiom is: A is redundant with B. Google hit counts confirm that "redundant with" is by far the preferred usage: "redundant with" — 310,000 results "redundant of" — 45,900 results "Redundant to" actually shows more results that "redundant with", but the vast majority of those are actually "redundant" followed by an infinitive, eg. "It is redundant to specify both height and width."

I'm looking for a word to describe someone who is sensitive to the point that other have to tiptoe around her. In other words, someone who can't handle routine jokes, normal criticism, or a comment that can possibly be interpreted in a negative way, even when it wasn't meant like that. Answer Someone who is hypersensitive is often said to be thin-skinned .

I want to know firstly if it's grammatically correct to start a declarative sentence with "Am". For example: Am excited about the game today. Secondly, if it is grammatically incorrect, then I wanted to ask how much "head room" there is for the above usage. I can't think of an example now, nor find one here at english.stackexchange. However I imagine there are usages of the english language that grammatically are illegal, yet have somehow become accepted as colloquial or idiomatic perhaps. Answer Some languages are subject-drop languages, but English is considered a subject-obligatory language. The sentence as it stands is non standard. It's the type of telegraphic language you might see in a text message.

I would like to learn about phrasal verbs and idioms in English.Which book(s) would you recommend for them? Answer I found this useful http://a4esl.org/q/h/idioms.html It contains a bunch of Self-Study Idiom Quizzes.

Which of the following sentences is correct? A variety of dishes are being prepared. A variety of dishes is being prepared. I believe that both can be used, though I'd stick with the plural use of the verb. What do you think? Answer Both sentences are grammatical. The first makes us aware of the individual items in the variety. The second foregrounds the variety itself.

Traditional English grammar teaches us that a well-defined function is a function that is well defined. With the hyphen in the adjective role before the noun and without the hyphen in the role of an adverb with a past participle after the noun. (E.g., see a question about well-organized , which is following the general rule, while the current one is about mathematical jargon.) However, continuing an argument of Mr. West, a function that is well defined is a function for which we have done a good job of giving a definition, but a function that is well-defined is an object that has been given a valid definition as a function, with every domain element given a unique image. Said that, in the second meaning (an object that has been given a valid definition as a function, with every domain element given a unique image), should the mathematicians use the hyphen in "well?defined" in the after-the-noun position? PS. I asked the same question at math.se, but they put it on hold, cla

I personally have a hard time accepting the use of "may or may not." To me, it seems as if "may" and "may not" effectively cancel each other out, so the semantics of the sentence in which it appears are no clearer: I may go to bed early tonight. This seems to indicate that it is likely I will not go to bed early tonight. I may not go to bed early tonight. Contrariwise, this seems to indicate that it is likely I will go to bed early tonight. I may or may not go to bed early tonight. This seems to leave me with absolutely no clarity as to which eventuality is likely to occur. Am I missing something obvious here, or is this particular expression just a rhetorical device for saying, "I'm on the fence?" Answer "May or may not" is used to indicate that the point is under thought or scrutiny. It's not meant to give a clear indication that one option is more likely than the other. For what it is worth, you're not alone in your dif

Which sounds better: When Canadians do initiate conversations, they tend to be more reserved than Americans do. When Canadians do initiate conversations, they tend to be more reserved than do Americans. Answer Okay. I'm going to remove the first do in each statement, and come back to it later. When Canadians initiate conversations, they tend to be more reserved than Americans do. When Canadians initiate conversations, they tend to be more reserved than do Americans. Both read fine, but which is stronger? There's an interesting thing happening in the second, which we can see if we rewrite them to not use do-support: When Canadians initiate conversations, they tend to be more reserved than Americans tend to be. We can't actually do that with the other one and come out with the same meaning, the closest I can get is: When Canadians initiate conversations, they tend to be more reserved than is the tendency of Americans. Which is more than a simple, direct rewrite. Indeed, it&

Many say that "prefer X to Y" has a more formal ring to it than "prefer X over Y". Are there any dialects where you wouldn't use "prefer X to Y" in colloquial speech at all? Conversely, are there any manuals of style that discourage using "prefer X over Y" in formal writing? Answer The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage (MDEU) suggests that to is the ordinary word used to construct comparisons using prefer : “when it is used to compare two things in the same sentence, the second […] is usually introduced by to .” They note that over (“Nine out of ten dentists prefer Crest over the competitors”), and rather than (“He prefers to stand rather than to sit”) are also used. Rather than is especially helpful when the compared items are infinitive clauses beginning with to , therefore avoiding the problem of too many to s ( * “He prefers to stand to to sit”). Above can also be used (“Prefers this brand above all others”), although th

Why aren't the myths circulating out there called "rural legends" ? (Especially if a UFO lands in a cornfield and the locals are temporarily abducted)

While reading this article, I was struck when one of the "sources" are quoted as saying There is never more than a fag paper between them I have always understood "fags" to either refer to cigarettes or homosexuals, but what does it mean in this context? Answer It means "cigarette paper". It is in Cassell's dictionary of slang , 2nd edition by Jonathon Green. The thickness of a cigarette paper is not a very large distance so the quoted sentence means they are always close. It's a metaphor. Urban Dictionary provides a example of similar usage " four foot and a fag paper " which is supposedly Scottish slang to describe someone who is very short.

According to any grammar table I can find, any , anything , anybody should be used in questions and negative sentences. But if I look in Google for Anyone can do it. , I have 6 mil. results. The sentence is obviously correct. Why can I use anyone here? And are there other cases of using any... in affirmative sentences? Answer Any and its compounds are Negative Polarity Items (questions are Negative Triggers ), though that's probably not what a grammar table would tell you. But that's not the only use of any . There is also a different sense of any , with different grammar. It's called "Free-Choice any " and it belongs to that set of quantifiers like each, every, and all . Whereas all means 'complete group, taken together', and every means 'complete group, taken individually', and each means 'an individual, as part of a group', free-choice any means 'choose an individual from a group at random'; sort of a syntactic Axiom o

[Etymonline:] unless (conj.) [:] mid-15c., earlier onlesse , from on lesse (than) "on a less condition " (than); see less . The first syllable originally on , but the negative connotation and the lack of stress changed it to un- . Except could once be used as a synonym for unless, but the words have now drawn entirely apart" [Century Dictionary]. [Source:] The only ( very slight) semantic shift I can see is that originally the condition was effectively a minimum (the LEAST thing that's required), but nowadays it's normally used without the speaker being consciously aware of that original nuance (now it's usually the ONLY thing that will do). Despite the above, I still don't understand what is less in 'unless'. What does condition mean above? Does it refer to the clause before 'unless', 'unless' itself, or the clause after 'unless'? Footnote: I changed the formatting of the original quote for clarity, but not the te

According to dictionary.com , the adjective arguable has two definitions susceptible to debate, challenge, or doubt; questionable: Whether this is the best plan of action or not is arguable. susceptible to being supported by convincing or persuasive argument: Admirers agree that it is arguable he is the finest pianist of his generation. I find that these two definitions are a bit contrary to each other. The first one emphasizes that something is doubtful, while the other means that something is probably convincing. How to distinguish between the two definitions from a sentence? Example from google news (including the adverb "arguably") Carl Lewis, arguably the world's greatest-ever Olympian, is involved in another running battle – to become a politician. Here, the appellants have an arguable case that the minister's decision exceeded his jurisdiction Answer As always in such cases, you must rely on the context. In both of your examples the word clearly has its positi

What is for the better or worse ? I remember hearing this a few times before but am not really 100% sure on the exact meaning of it. Answer Usually this is said, "for better or (for) worse" (without the ). This phrase is used to indicate that a fact you are mentioning is not necessarily a good thing or bad thing. Often it is used if you say something, and you do not want to imply that you think it is a good thing. Nowadays, anybody can easily publish articles on the Internet, for better or worse.

This has been bothering me for a while and I'm finally at a forum where I feel like I might get an answer. I have heard people say "I can hardly wait for summer to get here" and I've also heard "I can't hardly wait" variation. Which is correct? It seems to me like the double negative of "can't hardly" is incorrect but I'm unable to specify a clear reason as to why it is. Is it just grammatically incorrect or does it mean something different than what I'm trying to convey? Answer The phrase " I can't hardly wait " is incorrect . I suspect it is the result of a confusion between: I can't wait and I can hardly wait which are both correct . The phrase I can't hardly wait doesn't make sense: it would mean "I don't find it hard to wait", which is probably not what is meant. Probably adding to the confusion is the 1998 teen movie "Can't Hardly Wait" . It is possible that the title itse

This seems to me to be a kind of rhetorical figure, but I cannot find a classical term for it in Silva Rhetoricae . Examples include the following from Tristram Shandy (Vol. 2 Chap. 24): I define a nose, as follows,—intreating only beforehand, and beseeching my readers, both male and female, of what age, complexion, and condition soever, for the love of God and their own souls, to guard against the temptations and suggestions of the devil, and suffer him by no art or wile to put any other ideas into their minds, than what I put into my definition.—For by the word Nose, throughout all this long chapter of noses, and in every other part of my work, where the word Nose occurs,—I declare, by that word I mean a Nose, and nothing more, or less. This of course makes it quite impossible not to read nose in the book as also referring to penis. Another example is an advertisement for Joyce’s Ulysses in America, citing the 1933 decision of the United States District Court for the Southern D

I think many foreigners who have lived or worked in Japan heard this set of words, “Honne 本音– real intent” and “Tatemae 建前– outward reason.” Actually many expatriate colleagues I had worked with in office used to use “Honne and Tatemae” as it is in Japanese. According to Kenkyusha’s Japanese English Dictionary (KJED), Honne is ‘one’s real intention, underlining motif.' Tatemae is ‘principle, a rule, one’s public position’ For example, we use “Honne” and Tatemae” as in, What you are saying is Tatemae. You cannot live only on Tatemae. Look at the reality. He says he decided to live apart from his wife, considering the convenience of commuting office, but it’s Tatemae. His Honne is to get divorced from her. The company says they transfer a group of middle managers to the frontline of sales force to give them a chance for self-development. But it’s Tatemae. The company’s Honne is to get rid of them. North Korea says development of the rocket is for space exploration purpose. But it’s T

Is it ever acceptable for a period to come after a quote at the end of a sentence? How should I punctuate around quotes? I graduated with an English Major from Radford University back in 1991, but over the years I've done a lot of technical writing as a web developer, and it does not make sense to me to put punctuation inside quoted terms. For instance... When you find the item marked 'Lever A', please move it near 'Lever B'. ...rather than... When you find the item marked 'Lever A,' please move it near 'Lever B.' The reason is because I'm not quoting what someone said. Of course, when we use double quotes or single quotes for these terms, that's just a problem with typography where we might not have italics available to us. The best way to compose this, then, would be: When you find the item marked Lever A , please move it near Lever B . However, sometimes when composing an email or other form of communication where italics may not necessari

I would like to know which is more correct: "above question" or "question above"? "Above mentioned" or "mentioned above"? I have already read different explanations and I cannot understand which one is the most correct? Many thanks

We have a word, “並立 - heiritsu” meaning “to stand / line up in parallel” and “鼎立 - teiritsu” meaning “to stand on three foot facing each other” in Japanese. For example we say “三者鼎立 – three parties coexist or stand against each other,” when we describe three big countries of England, France and Germany go their own way or stand against each other. What is the English word to describe “presence of three or more parties on their own way” as an alternative to “in parallel” for two parties? Let me clarify my point: My question lies on the point – the phrase “並立‐in parallel” applies to two straight lines facing each other keeping the same distance on both ends, but the word “parallel” wouldn’t apply to the lines linking three points that forms an equilateral triangle , then how we should call the status of three points / lines combining each other in the state which we call “鼎立” both in Japanese and Chinese using the same characters and different pronuciation (teiritsu in Japanese, dingli

As an adverb, what is the difference between forward and forwards ? Answer The OED says this The present distinction in usage between forward and forwards is that the latter expresses a definite direction viewed in contrast with other directions. In some contexts either form may be used without perceptible difference of meaning; the following are examples in which only one of them can now be used: ‘The ratchet-wheel can move only forwards’; ‘the right side of the paper has the maker's name reading forwards’; ‘if you move at all it must be forwards’; ‘my companion has gone forward’; ‘to bring a matter forward’; ‘from this time forward’. The usage of earlier periods, and of modern dialects, varies greatly from that of mod. standard English. In U.S. forward is now generally used, to the exclusion of forwards, which was stigmatized by Webster (1832) as ‘a corruption’.

Do you make an experience or gain an experience ? For example, I made rewarding volunteering experiences ... I gained rewarding volunteering experiences ... Are either acceptable? Is there a finer distinction? Answer Experience meaning knowledge or skill from doing something is used as an uncountable noun and goes with gain . I gained much experience from the job. Experience meaning something that happens that affects you is used as a countable noun, but that is another situation altogether. He made it an unpleasant experience for me. It is not clear what your example sentences mean and it is best to rewrite them.

What is a strong expression for someone going though a hard ordeal to achieve something important? For example a mother who has lost her children will _______ to get them back. Answer Here are three fitting idioms for " going through a hard ordeal to achieve something important ": 1 ) move heaven and earth idiom : Exert the utmost effort, as in I'd move heaven and earth to get an apartment here. This hyperbolic expression was first recorded in 1792. 2 ) fight tooth and nail idiom : Engage in vigorous combat or make a strenuous effort, using all one's resources. For example, I'm going to fight tooth and nail for that promotion. This expression, with its allusion to biting and scratching, was first recorded in 1576. 3 ) go through hell idiom : to have a very unpleasant experience, especially one that lasts for a long period of time. The poor woman's been going through hell over the last few months, not knowing whether her son was alive or dead. (All linke

Ordinal numbers are traditionally considered to begin at 1: i.e., 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.  Yet, in the past 100 years , the word “zeroth” (0th) has begun to be used. Negative integers seem even more inappropriate as ordinal numbers, but there still are cases where we would like to form things like "minus sixth floor". How is it with -1, -2 and -3? minus first, minus second, minus third or minus oneth, minus twoth, minus threeth or maybe a mix of those? "Minus oneth" doesn't sound too awkward to me, might even sound better to some.

Is there a name for this type of sentence: "The higher the temperature, the higher the pressure"? Such a word grouping is generally accepted as a sentence in science.

What should I say at the end of the meeting, assuming that I've never meet that person before? Should it be something like: "It was a pleasure to meet you." or just "Nice to meet you."?

Another nitpicky comma question that I hope you will help me to resolve. How does one need to punctuate the noun of direct address (or vocative) in the middle of the sentence that goes directly after coordinating conjunction connecting two independent clauses in a compound sentence? Are the bracketed commas required in the examples below? Examples: I was going to accept your resignation later, but[,] John, have you considered all the options first? I will be flying with the executive committee to London, and[,] John, will you be coming with us? Ignore the actual examples. I just want to understand the punctuation. My research and some other threads on this site seem to suggest that eliding the middle 'after-conjunction' comma is allowed as the style decision in cases where the conjunction used to connect two independent clauses is followed by an introductory or parenthetical phrase (some references at the bottom). But would that be allowed for nouns of direct address as well, a

For example, imagine a student who goes to an international university where he studies for 8 months and then comes back to his home country for 4 months. And he has to do this for 4 years, and then an additional 2 years in Grad school. Maybe he also studies in another country for one semester as an exchange student. Therefore, every time he wishes to - let's say - buy something big (like a car or furniture or appliances), he says to himself something like: "I'm ___________ [only going to stay here for another few years]; there's no point spending that much money". Also, since he stays back in his home country for only 4 months every year, he does not really feel like it's his real home either.

“Nothing to tell” versus “nothing to say” Both words seem to be used interchangeably. I generally don't differentiate between them and intuitively pick one over the other. Is there a standardized way to distinguish between the two? Answer The verb tell is transitive, and takes a direct object. The verb said does not. You should use tell when you're emphasizing the fact that you're communicating something to somebody: Let me tell you how to get to San Jose. *Let me say to you how to get to San Jose. Let me tell you a story. *Let me say a story to you. You should use say when there is no communication involved: Say "rubber baby buggy bumpers" ten times fast. *Tell me "rubber baby buggy bumpers" ten times fast. Most of the time, both verbs can be used: Tell me you didn't mean that. Say you didn't mean that.

In New Zealand, as an island country, 'overseas' is taken to mean 'any foreign country'. eg. I'm going overseas for holiday. Overseas investors brought $1bn into the country last year. Instead of buying clothes produced overseas, consider supporting local producers. The question is - what word is used here when the foreign country isn't 'overseas' per se, for example, Germany talking about France. Answer Consider abroad : in or to a foreign country Examples: I'm going abroad for holiday. Investors abroad brought $1bn into the country last year. Instead of buying clothes produced abroad, consider supporting local producers. Source: Merriam-Webster

I am helping two students with their English. They asked me why there is -ed at the end of some words in the simple present tense, e.g. Are you married ? He is annoyed . I am worried . I wasn't sure how to answer this.

"Непаханое поле" - a [big] amount of undone work. Updated example : a kid is leisurely watching TV while there a lot of undone homework (which he hasn't even started). Note: the example below is probably misleading. The thing that something is overlooked, the lack of information is an artifact of the example, not inherent to "untilled field" Russian expression. For example, a person does some finalizing, "polishing" bits of a work (or just lazying about) not realizing that actually the scope is bigger and he should be doing the intensive, more real thing instead. Imagine someone removing snow from some ground who keeps cleaning up little bits of remaining snow, not knowing that he has missed a chunk of ground with "untilled" snow. Answer The idiom a long row to hoe fits pretty well (given the clarification), and it also fits with the original's agricultural theme. Usage: That's a long row to hoe. or He has a long row to hoe.

When he participated in debates and round table discussions, Christopher Hitchens spoke with supreme confidence. I'd like to replace with supreme confidence with an adverb that implies supreme confidence, falling just shy of arrogance. Does anyone have any suggestions? Answer I'd go with: commandingly boldly brilliantly

If the title of a song ends a sentence, whether a statement or interrogative, where does the period or question mark go? For example, is it: The Beatles sang "She Loves You." or The Beatles sang "She Loves You". Is it: Did The Beatles sing "She Loves You?" or Did The Beatles sing "She Loves You"?

I'm reading some Sherlock Holmes stories (don't judge - it's good vacation reading) and Conan Doyle has Holmes saying things like "Sorry to knock you up, Watson..." which I'm finding very... odd. From the context I'm gathering that it means "wake up," but my head immediately goes to the modern American meaning of "impregnate." Is "knock up" ever used with this meaning anymore? And if not, did it disappear around the time that the pregnancy meaning became common, or did it vanish on its own? Answer The Google n -grams viewer suggests that the “impregnate” sense became dominant in the US around the 1940’s, but that in British English, other meanings were more common until at least the 1990’s. This is based on comparing the relative frequencies of knocked her up vs. knocked him up . It seems reasonable to conclude that when the “impregnate” meaning becomes dominant, knocked her up should become much more frequent than knocked

Given (as an example) an adjective form "liable" and the noun form "liability" what is the technical term (if any) that describes the relationships mapping one to the other? Here are some other examples: available (j) & availability (n) red (j) & redness (n) culpable (j) & culpability (n) The closest thing I could find was "derivationally related form" or "derivation", but I'd like to know the more specific way to describe the adj<-->noun relationships. Answer available (adj) & availability (noun) red (adj) & redness (noun) culpable (adj) & culpability (noun) The usual term is 'de-adjectival noun' for nouns formed this way. The process involved is called 'nominalisation'.

Fairy vs. faerie — which is the correct spelling? Answer As others have noted, fairy is the standard modern spelling, and faerie is a pseudo-archaism. However, in some contexts there is now a semantic distinction between the two spellings! In particular, fairy tales and the associated idea of fairies typically refer to the genre of folk stories printed by the Brothers Grimm, then sweetened and popularized for modern audiences by Disney et al. Faerie stories , on the other hand, are stories about the fae : otherworldly, unpredictable, and dangerous creatures who appear in the folk-tales and myths of England and Ireland. In origin, of course, the fairies and the fae are one and the same, but the connotations and usage of the words today are headed in opposite directions. A Google image search for fairy vs. faerie shows a lot of overlap, but some very significant differences in tone and content between the two terms. Note that the search for "fairy" turns up a number

I know this sentence is a little awkward. Bear with me. "I will kill whomever I despise." -- This one feels correct. However... "I will kill whoever despises me." -- Is this right? Would this one also be whomever? Or is 'whoever' correct here? Answer Both sentences are grammatically correct in that you've used the correct whoever/whomever in both. Break each sentence into two: I will kill him. I despise him. [him + him = whomever] I will kill him. He despises me. [him + he = whoever] But the meaning differs between your two sentences. In the first you are saying you will kill people you despise. In the second you are saying you will kill people who despise you. Which is it? Also, if you're a high school student in the US I wouldn't let my teacher see this.

E.g., if you use an idiom (in a context) like: "To throw the baby away with the bathwater." and your conversation partner says: "Huh, seems I don't have a baby/bathwater!" Also, when you explain the meaning of the idiom, the other guy will still say: "Oh, but I really don't have a baby/bathwater!" Or say something sarcastic like: (context: excellent tennis player on his way to a match. Everyone knows he wants to and it will be easy for him to defeat his opponent. Yet, on their way (tennis player and friend in his car) to the court, they are stuck in traffic and there is no way the excellent tennis player can turn up at his match in time (which means he will be disqualified). He goes "well, I am glad, at least I don't need to get all changed and tired to play my tennis match now." On which the other guy says "But I thought you wanted to win the trophy? You could have easily beaten that other player!! Why did you say that?!"

I was reading this book Gujarat files and suddenly I came across this word Narendra Modi’s Man Friday (describing Amit Shah) What does this title mean? And also is the word 'title' I used correct word here in this context? Answer It comes from the novel Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe: man Friday n. pl. men Friday or men Fridays An efficient, faithful male aide or employee. [After Friday, a character in Robinson Crusoe, a novel by Daniel Defoe.] From the Free Dictionary online. Also, from Wikipedia: Friday is one of the main characters of Daniel Defoe's 1719 novel Robinson Crusoe. Robinson Crusoe names the man, with whom he cannot at first communicate, Friday because they first meet on that day. The character is the source of the expression "Man Friday", used to describe a male personal assistant or servant, especially one who is particularly competent or loyal. Current usage also includes "Girl Friday".

I was under the impression that the phrase "mother's ruin" came from the England in the 1800's, where many people living in London did so in absolute poverty, and gin (the so-called "mother's ruin") was the cheapest way of forgetting your worries. But I've just heard a new possible origin: Canadians used actual jugs of gin as contraceptives. Hmm. Anyone got anything solid about its origin? Answer Historians compare the rise of gin as England's first drug craze . It was considered a bane on society and started becoming an endemic situation. In an attempt to control this rising problem, the government attempted to remedy the situation. The Gin Act of 1736 whereby the government imposed a high licence fee for gin retailers and a 20 shillings retail tax per gallon. These actions were unpopular with the working-classes and resulted in riots in London in 1743. The license fee and tax were lowered significantly within a few years. The Gin Act of 1751

Why is “xxxx doth not a yyyy make” considered valid English? Is Dazzling images do not a shining nation make correct grammatically? To me it should be Dazzling images do not make a shining nation. Does the shifting of make emphasize the meaning? Answer This is an example of the rhetorical device known as anastrophe . From the Wikipedia article: Anastrophe (from the Greek: ἀναστροφή, anastrophē , "a turning back or about") is a figure of speech in which a language's usual word order is inverted: for example, saying "smart you are" to mean "you are smart". In English, because its natural word order is settled, anastrophe emphasizes the displaced word or phrase. So yes, it is used for emphasis.

I have always understood that an "-ism" suffix on something implies that the word being applied to is a belief or doctrinal worldview or otherwise a philosophy. This blogpost sums up that perspective: http://blogs.transparent.com/english/what-is-an-%E2%80%93ism/ Examples: Conservatism, liberalism, anarchism, Globalism, fatalism, hedonism The odd duck is the word "magnetism" which (can mean) a physical force rather than a doctrine or belief or philosophy. How does this word fit in? Is it an exception to the rule? The online etymology dictionary (is it considered definitive by the academics?) has an entry on -ism that is a little broader and includes "action, state, condition." I suppose what I am asking is: briefly what is the history of -ism and what does it properly represent on words today?

What is the meaning of the phrase ask of in the following sentence? Trust and security are important for any application; before we move on to the meat of accessing data, let’s make sure the browser itself is capable of doing everything you’re asking of it. It is extracted from a technical book. Answer This meaning of ask (definition 7) is mentioned in the OALD: expect/demand [transitive] to expect or demand something ... ask something of somebody You're asking too much of him . So, "doing everything you’re asking of it" means doing everything you expect or demand of it.