Blog

I understand that the letter "J" is relatively new — perhaps 400–500 years old. But since there has long been important names that begin with J, such as Jesus, Joshua, Justinian, etc., and which predate the introduction of a special letter, does that mean that the "J" sound predated the letter, or were such famous names spelled and pronounced differently? Answer The answer to this is.... complicated. The letter J is, as you mentioned, relatively recent, and originated as a variant of the letter I. Why that happens is a little complicated, and requires unpacking some assumptions in your question. In the original languages (Latin, Greek, Hebrew) which provide us with the names Jesus, Joseph, Justinian, etc., the sound which we write as J was pronounced as the English letter Y. (Just to make things confusing for English speakers, the phonetic symbol for this sound is [j].) In Latin, the letter for this was I/i, in Greek it was Ι/ι (iota), and in Hebrew it was י (yod)

I am finding that people use the word "serviced" in place of other verbs such as served, repaired, helped , etc. Has the use of the word service always been acceptable as a verb? Or is that a more recent phenomenon? Answer No, the use of service as a verb is not particularly recent. The OED’s earliest citation in support of the meaning ‘to be of service to; to serve; to provide with a service’ is this in a book by Robert Louis Stevenson in 1893: If I am to service ye the way that you propose, I'll lose my lifelihood.

Is hangry a real word? According to Collins Dictionary it means to be angry as a result of being hungry , but it seems far-fetched. Answer If it's in a dictionary, especially one with professional full-time editors, the chances are it's a real word. Of these kind of dictionaries, I can only find it in Collins , and their webpage notes it's "humorous" and also added from a recent suggestion: Comment byCollins Dictionary (Admin) on 7 Sep 2012 'hangry' definition based on an original suggestion by Jude made on 2012-06-29. Collins also say: Word Frequency: No usage level data available The word is in Urban Dictionary and first defined in 2003 . Their most popular definition was an Urban Word of the Day with over 10,000 upvotes so it must be fairly well known slang. You can find it used on Twitter , although often with an explanation it means hungry and angry. The earliest hangry I found with this definition in Usenet is in rec.games.trivia from 1996 : [H

I've heard the phrase "turn a blind eye" and I'm wondering if there is a single word to represent this. In my context, I'm looking to describe something negative, for instance: She turned a blind eye to her child's behaviour when she discovered he was bullying other kids at school. A bad supervisor will turn a blind eye to his or her employees' poor work habits. Neglect doesn't seem appropriate in some of these contexts. I've thought about using disregard or ignore but I'm not sure if they convey the same meaning/what the differences are. Is there a single verb to represent this phrase? Answer Tolerate and condone go to the other end of the spectrum: they imply that the person knows of the offense but does nothing about it.

Has the word terrorist evolved in meaning or context in recent times? Answer Terrorism is the deliberate use of civilian casualties to achieve a political/religious goal. In modern times, the western media (some more than others) have used terrorism to describe any attack against Western interests, be they civilian or military. The Russians have been doing this a lot longer. Personally, I don't think the word has changed its meaning. Rather, I'd say it has been deliberately misused to paint a skewed picture of a conflict. Unfortunately, this tends to obscure the motivations of the actors. An actor who wishes to attain a certain goal by killing 100 civilians is different than one who wishes to attain a goal in spite of killing 100 civilians. In either case, it would be cold comfort to the 100 civilians. I'll avoid any examples to avoid being downvoted into oblivion.

What does the phrase lemon on mean in this context? Is it an idiom? What is its correct usage? Excerpt from where I read this phrase: ... Hold on, for this deal, one that does not exist anywhere outside a very fertile imagination, could actually be a lemon on at least five counts. These are the lures that should alert you and beg a recheck before you book the deal. Source: How to Avoid Common Travel Traps Answer The words lemon on don't really constitute a phrase. Here, the word lemon means something that is bad or defective. The prepositional phrase "on at least five counts" means that there are at least five reasons. This usage is from legalese where each individual charge against a person in called a count . So the original statement for this deal ... could actually be a lemon on at least five counts. Can be restated as for this deal ... could actually be defective for at least five reasons.

While checking the exact pronounciation of the term deuce , I noticed that there is a clear difference between BrE /djuːs/ and NAmE /duːs/. While it is true that pronunciation has more exceptions than set rules, I’m surprised by the missing “e” (/j/) in the AmE version. Is it just another exception, or are there other similar examples that might suggest a sort of pattern for similar clusters of letters? Answer The elision of /j/ in deuce etc. in North American English is known as yod-dropping and occurs after coronal consonants (those that involve the tongue tip, i.e. /t, d, n, s, z, θ, l/) within the same syllable. This makes dew/due and tune homophonous with do and toon , respectively. It is present in all of North America except some parts of the Southern US . /r/ is also a consonant that involves the tongue tip, and rude, brew, true , etc. used to be pronounced with /j/, but it's now completely gone even in British English. /j/ after /s/ and /l/, as in suit and lute , i

What is the difference between saying: Are you still working there? Do you still work there? Which is more common in spoken vs written English? Google books returned results for both of them.

To which extent is just interchangeable with simply , as in the example? It's becoming more than just annoying. It's becoming more than simply annoying. Is just synonym of simply in just any case or are there situations where the two adverbs convey slightly different meanings? Also, Google gives 1,800,000,000 results for just and only 295,000,000 results for simply . Is one preferred over the other?

When I want to go outside, there are times I wish to avoid running into certain people such as friends or colleagues in order to have some private moments. In such cases, I frequently find myself finding routes different from the ones mainly used by these people, just to avoid being seen. Is there an English word to describe this kind of action?

In computer science, you should have a username or a user name or a user-name and a password to be able to log into the system. Which one is the correct spelling? Answer The OED gives ‘username’ and has three citations, from 1971, 1997 and 2007, in support.

Why is it that the plural of goose is geese but the plural of moose is moose ? The same goes for mouse and house . Mouse becomes mice , yet house becomes houses .

Is there any lingual way to differentiate between the family that I’m a child of and the family that I am a parent of? (I.e., the first family consists of my parents, my siblings, and me; the second one consists of my spouse, my children and me.) Answer @JAM is right about 'family of origin.' (It does not mean one's 'original family', as contrasted with one's 'new' family.) It does have a clinical feel, though. "Me and my brood" is a slangy way to refer exclusively to the second group: you and your spouse and children. It's interesting that the spouse is implicitly included (a quick google search will verify this. From a lexical standpoint, I can't think of anything else. From a pragmatic standpoint, I would usually go for adverbial or metaphorical expressions in the kinds of cases when the constrasting expressions you are looking for seem necessary. For example, "Under my parent's roof, a kid couldn't sleep over on weeken

Although similar questions have been asked before, I am still not clear as to official or, at the very least, preferred position from punctuation rules point of view on comma after coordinating conjunction that precedes a parenthetical expression or a conjunctive adverb at the start of the sentence. Consider examples below (not the exact sentence but purely punctuation logic): And[,] also, we will be coming to the party. And[,] consequently, they failed to produce a report. But[,] on the other hand, they can offer you advice. But[,] unfortunately, the government has failed to address our country's economic issues. Would you put or drop the bracketed comma if the pause is intended after the parenthetical but not after the conjunction? The comma would certainly be there after the parenthetical if the conjunction is dropped and according to both William Strunk, Jr, in Elements of Styles and Gregg Reference Manual, 10th Edition, the comma, in analogues situation, should be dropped af

I've seen cases where a noon-time meal is referred to as dinner , and the evening meal is called supper . There's also lunch around noon followed by dinner in the evening. Is there a particular difference between dinner and supper , or a circumstance where lunch becomes dinner ? Answer Dinner is considered to be the "main" or largest meal of the day. Whether it takes place at noon or in the evening is mostly a cultural thing. For instance, many people who grew up in the American South and/or on farms traditionally ate larger meals at noontime to give them the strength to keep working through the afternoon. Supper is more specifically a lighter evening meal. Rooted in the word "to sup", it comes, again, from farming traditions — many farming families would have a pot of soup cooking throughout the day, and would eat it in the evening — specifically, they would "sup" the soup. Lunch is almost the midday equivalent of supper — it's also a

What is the proper use of [square brackets] in quotes? What do brackets around a word or words in a quote mean? This may seem silly, but I've never figured this out. Bad fictional examples: "That's what all this is about it is [terrible]" It's also used at the beginning of a quote sometimes like: "[Albert Einstein] was genuinely a genius."

When I try to fast-forward through a program that I am watching through my cable company's "On Demand" feature, an error message displays: fast forward and other functionality may not be available... Why is functionality used instead of function ?

For verb conjugations, I know that in English we have certain verbs which umlaut ablaut in their principle parts: sing-sang-sung We have verbs that add an -ed to the end: laugh-laughed and then there are verbs which just don't change at all: cut, put etc. So which of these verbs are strong, or weak, or have a different category altogether?

If it rained tomorrow, I would go to the cinema. If it didn't rain tomorrow, I would go to school. Which conditional is the best for this use case? Is it correct to use the Second Conditional or do I have to use the First? ("If it rains tomorrow, I will go to the cinema.")

Third grade teacher here. I plan to teach students to distinguish between simple, compound and complex sentences — but only if I can demonstrate a clear and meaningful difference between the latter two! Complex or Compound? Each sentence in the following pairs is similar to its partner. All dogs are mammals, so huskies are mammals . All dogs are mammals, therefore huskies are mammals . I come bearing soup, for Kate is sick . I come bearing soup, because Kate is sick . Are the sentences above complex or compound? First, we need to decide whether each italicized clause is independent or dependent. To me, they all look dependent. If that is the case, there's not much need to teach about compound sentences. Is there a meaningful difference between the sentences in each pair that I am missing? (Are the FANBOYS as special as they'd like to think?)

Okay, so today I first came across the word relevancy in written. I grasped its meaning without problem, checking in a dictionary that my hunch was right. So it would appear that relevance and relevancy both mean the same. They only differ in one letter and both are nouns (i.e. there is no distinction like adjective vs. adverb here). All that said: what are the actual differences, however subtle, in the meaning of the two words? E.g. in what situations would I use one but couldn't use the other? Is one or the other used only in particular dialects of English (e.g. American vs. British vs. Australian)? Are there even any differences? My rationalization for encountering both words would be that there must be a subtle difference as explanation why both words exist concurrently/ Answer Relevance is the more common form, according to grammarist.com: Relevance vs. relevancy : There is no difference between relevance and relevancy. Though the latter is the older form, relevance is now

I am doing homework and I got confused about this phrase when I was writing. I am not a native English speaker. (...) and the only way to do this was taking control of everything and being authoritarian towards the people who/that could not do anything about it. I would be grateful if you help me clarify which word should I use. Answer "Who" refers to people; "that" may refer to either people or things. Use "who" if doing so would help your reader identity the antecedent. That's not a problem with your text. "... the only way to do this was by taking control ...."

Prompted by this question I got to thinking about the placement of the word now . If it's placed before the comma, it refers to an immediate condition: You don't want to answer this word-placement question now, do you? You might want to answer the question, but the situation is not urgent. You could answer it tomorrow. In fact, it might preferable to answer that question tomorrow if, say, it was your lawyer talking to you and your answer was going on the record. But if you place it this way, You don't want to answer this word-placement question, now do you? it hasn't anything to do with time. Now functions in a different capacity, but I'm not really sure what that is. An interjection, perhaps? Something else? Answer The deictic temporal use of now is Semantic. The meaning of the now of now do you? is not Semantic but Pragmatic. It's what's known as a Discourse Particle or Pragmatic Particle in the trade. It's called a Conversational Management M

Which is correct? "Blazing Fast Speed" or "Blazingly Fast Speed"? In my opinion, the latter because one can't say, for one, "Amazing Fast Speed", right? Admittedly NY Times use it a lot but...: NY Times search for 'blazing fast' (via Google) Answer Either blazing or blazingly could be valid. We can use blazing to intensify fast , just as something can be burning hot or sopping wet , which sound redundant but are idiomatic. Blazingly , the usual adverbial form, would of course work in this manner. We could alternatively read blazing and fast as parallel descriptors for speed , just as we can have soothing sweet tea or an amazing technicolor dreamcoat .

I've found this definition of triage : "The process of sorting people based on their need for immediate medical treatment as compared to their chance of benefiting from such care." So I can understand that triaging an issue list means giving some priorities to the items and sorting the list. But what does triaging an issue mean? Giving it a low priority or the other way round? I suppose the former but haven't found any evidence for it. All the dictionaries I've found deal with triaging some set only. Answer "Triage" also has this meaning: the determination of priorities for action in an emergency. So, if I was to triage an issue, I would just determine how important this issue was, whether it is an urgent matter, then on the basis of my diagnosis, put this issue on a list, based on its importance.

When I read these two sentences out loud, I feel that they express very different things. 1. Job interviews don't always go well. 2. Job interviews always don't go well. At least to me, 1) implies that job interviews often don't go well, but there may be some that go well, and 2) is literally what it says, i.e. job interviews never go well. I believe I am correct as the " I don't always " meme also seems to imply the same concept. Am I correct? Answer Your intuitions are correct. They do mean different things. The particular difference is predictable from the relative positions of the negative don't and the universal temporal quantifier always in the propositions. There are two possible positions. The negative can include the quantifier in its scope Job interviews don't always go well , in logical terms NOT ( ALWAYS ( Go-Well ( Job-Interviews ))) The quantifier can include the negative in its scope Job interviews always don't go well , i

The “ s’s” construction comes up quite often in signs, at least in my neighbourhood. I haven’t seen a legal use of the arrangement, though — and I wonder, is it at all possible? If it is, under which circumstances?

This is in reference to holding an MLS degree. Am I a "Master"? Would it be correct to say When I become a Master of Library Science, I would like to... That sounds somehow kooky, but I can't think of a better way to say it. Answer Yes. If you graduate with a BSc or BA, you are a Bachelor of Science or a Bachelor of Arts respectively. Similarly if you graduate with a master's, you are a master, and if you graduate with a doctorate you're a doctor. But it's almost unheard of nowadays for people to routinely refer to themselves by their academic title for qualifications lower than doctorate level (and that's becoming rarer too in my experience), so something like "After I graduate with my master's, I would like to..." might be better.

I came across the word eye-glazing in the article of today’s Time magazine (Sept 9) titled ‘Slow Down! Why Some Languages Sound So Fast?’, which I'm sure will interest 'language buffs'. It begins with (Sorry for a bit lengthy): “Here's one of the least-interesting paragraphs you've ever read: 'Last night I opened the front door to let the cat out. It was such a beautiful night that I wandered down to the garden to get a breath of fresh air. Then I heard a click as the door closed behind me.’ OK, it becomes a little less eye-glazing after that, with the speaker getting arrested while trying to force the door back open. Still, we ain't talking Noel Coward here.” I checked online dictionaries to find the exact meaning of eye-glazing . I was able to find many examples of usages of this word, e.g., But the rest of my audience was growing restive, with here and there an eye glazing over. —The Burglar on the Prowl I mean, thousands of pages, stuff that's alm

Here dilogy is defined as "a series of two related works". I can't shake off the feeling that there is a more commonly used word for this. Is there? If yes, what is it? Answer A duology is a pair of related novels, plays or films.

I have a sentence that currently reads "All they want is to be extraordinary." There's nothing wrong with that. I can certainly live with it. But what I want is a sentence in the form "All they want is 'extraordinariness.'" Is there a good word for that in English? My vocabulary doesn't usually fail me so spectacularly. In case it helps anyone, I'm writing an essay about the inevitable choice between dual mediocrities which characterises the identity of East German youth in Sonnenallee . ....I'm also writing it in German. So if anyone happens to know a word in German that doesn't necessarily have a good English translation, I'd be happy to learn of it (preferably in a comment.) :) Answer I think the word you are looking for is greatness . Shakespeare in Twelfth Night coined what is probably the most famous usage of this word Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon t

Any verb has a mood , a voice and a tense . The mood will be indicative , imperative . infinitive etc. Voice will be either active or passive . Tense will be present, future, past,perfect,pluperfect, future perfect etc? How does subjunctive fit into this schema? What is the alternative called? I find it difficult to understand it as a mood , since any subjunctive verb is written indicatively, which is a mood in its own right. E.G. If I were rich, I would travel widely Later edit I can now see from comments and answers that the above sentence is not indicative (which is effectively its opposite and something I should have realised). Though I also appreciate that if one accepts John Lawler's dictum there is no subjunctive in English. Answer You're confusing traditional Latin grammar terminology with English grammar terminology, and with modern linguistic terminology, as well. Mood, Voice, and Tense were traditional inflectional categories of Latin verbs. I.e, every verb

“Alternately” or “alternatively” What is the difference between alternate and alternative ? For example, I have two versions of the same software and I want to write one of the following: Software Name ( alternate version) Software Name ( alternative version) Answer In British English, an alternative version is one that can be considered as a possible choice, while an alternate one changes places at regular intervals with another version. However, I understand that in American English ‘alternate’ is an alternative to ‘alternative’.

I occasionally use the colloquialism "all to cock" to mean "disastrously wrong". I've always thought it a benign phrase, but recently I've wondered whether the use of the word "cock" in this situation is vulgar. Is it? And if it isn't rude, would the 'average' person still consider it so? Answer alphadictionary offers as good a definition as any of the meaning of the word cock here... The verb cock means to move something from its usual alignment or kilter, to set it askew, askant or awry. You also 'cock' a gun with something of this sense, but that's a deliberate move away from 'safe' equilibrium. For OP's idiomatic usage, if it's all [gone] to cock , it's all messed up and gone wrong. Of course, some people won't realise that's the sense being used, even if the above definition is familiar. So you should treat it as potentially more offensive than the etymology would suggest . The situation i

I'm confused about the words dish and plate . Could someone please explain the difference? Answer A plate is a specific type of dish . A dish is generally something that food is eaten or served from. A plate tends to refer specifically to a flat dish that is suitable for holding food that does not have a high liquid content. The other common type of dish is a bowl . A bowl will be similar to a hollow sphere cut in half and is useful for serving soups and other foods with high liquid content which would run off of a plate. A large plate intended for serving food may be referred to as a platter .

Why is “xxxx doth not a yyyy make” considered valid English? I occasionally come across a sentence formulated in a manner similar to the following: Reading a book does not an expert make. I realize the grammar is quite irregular (I'm no grammar expert, so I'll just call it Yoda-speak), but I've heard this structure used a number of times in the colloquial. My questions are: Is anyone else familiar with this sentence structure? What's the origin? How should I use it properly? Answer The archetypal phrase is "One swallow does not summer make". This is a quote from Aristotle's Ethics , however I am having trouble finding the relevant translation. The translation by W. D. Ross at classics.mit.edu goes: For one swallow does not make a summer, nor does one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does not make a man blessed and happy. At Project Gutenberg, the translation by J A Smith et al , goes: for as it is not one swallow or one fine day that makes a spr

For the senses, we have: flavor for taste aroma/odor/scent for smell sound for hearing ____? for touch/feel ____? for sight/see So one tastes a flavor, smells an aroma, hears a sound, feels a(n) _____, and sees a(n) _____. For the former, part of me wants to say texture , but I feel that is too specific; for the latter, I want to use visual or sight , but but does that make sense, seeing a visual or a sight? Answer The sense verbs are an interesting paradigm. English has three types of sense verb (with a lot of overlap), and a number of derived nouns. Two of the verb classes differ in whether they're volitional , and the other one is an experiential sense with special "Flip" syntax. One type of verb is the Non -Volitional: hear, see, smell, taste, touch/feel Another is the Volitional : listen, look, smell, taste, touch/feel Hearing : You listen to something on purpose, but you can hear it by accident. Vision : You look at something on purpose, but you can see it

I don’t like the phrase "in order to." I think it’s superfluous, and I almost always delete it whenever I see it pop up in something I’m editing. I’m just wondering — is there a compelling reason to use it in certain circumstances? When might it be necessary? If it isn't necessary, are there times when it might be better to keep it than delete it? Answer The sentence To speak plainly, you need to remove the pebbles from your mouth. is ambiguous. It may mean [In order] to speak plainly, you need to remove the pebbles from your mouth. or it may mean [If I may be allowed] to speak plainly, you need to remove the pebbles from your mouth. In such situations, you do your readers or hearers a service by including the words necessary to make your intentions clear, as with In order to speak plainly, you need to remove the pebbles from your mouth. But setting aside such unusual situations, I also think that "in order to" is justifiable in many instances as a matter of st

I think I know what the verb 'fancy' means (feel a desire or liking for). But does 'fancy being' here have a different meaning? One needs to be audacious to proceed where no-one has gone before – and trail-blazers are often castigated for their effrontery. Fancy being ridiculed or ostracized for ascertaining the facticity of something ... for establishing a fact. ( ref )

My company is ordering a product and/or service from another company. When stating obligations on paper, would the company doing the work, from our point of view, be better described as Vendor or as a Contractor? What would be the fine differences between the two? Answer A contractor is a kind of vendor. Vendor is a relatively general term, referring to a company that sells any kind of product or service. ODO : A person or company offering something for sale, especially a trader in the street Contractor refers to a vendor that enters into a contract with the customer. ODO : A person or firm that undertakes a contract to provide materials or labour to perform a service or do a job So if the business involves independent transactions, the seller is just a vendor; if there's an ongoing relationship described in a contract, they're a contractor. However, in many business-to-business situations they're used interchangeably, I think because it's understood that certain typ

I received the following email today, we discussed the report before the email where I told the person that I hadn't (also can I use hadn't here) received it. I was wondering if it's all grammatical. The reason why I am asking this question is because the person is a native speaker. "I had sent you the report on the 20th of Feb" Answer Ordinarily I would simply say the email you received was ungrammatical in context , but this isn't the kind of error native speakers normally make, so let's consider it in more detail. " I had done sth " (Past Perfect Simple) is usually used in contexts where we're already talking about some period in the past, but we need to indicate that this particular action took place even earlier . OP hasn't provided the exact context of the preceding conversation, but possibly it was something along the lines of "I was expecting that report by now (or, yesterday), but I haven't received it" . Note tha

I never remember the appropriate use of either of nevermind and never mind . What's the difference and how can I remember? Answer The only time I can think of that "nevermind" is written as one word is when it's used as a noun in the colloquial idiom "Pay me no nevermind" (or "Don't pay me no nevermind"), which as you might theorize means "pay no attention to me."

This came up recently on programmers.SE, when someone (a Russian, presumably non-native English speaker) asked why we used the term "sister sites", instead of "brother sites". Of course, I'm a native English speaker, and I have no idea either , hence this question. The full question, for context, was "Several of our sister sites have taken to featuring Questions [...]". It does seem odd, considering that English (usually) uses masculine terms as the default. Answer I suspect the terminology sister sites is derived from sister cities. Traditionally, cities, countries, and ships have been personified as feminine in English, although this is growing less common due to the influence of women's rights.

To me, the word snob seems rather informal, although it appears in dictionaries, and I am unable to find anywhere on the internet a more formal word than snob . Are there any sophisticated synonyms of snob ? Snob is new to me and adding sophistication to it would make it more formal. Answer For a noun, elitist might work.

What is the term for accusing a person of invented wrongdoing in such a way that he cannot respond or even clearly understand the accusations? For example, frequently reversing the definitions of the terminology used, or basing argumentation on hints and roundabout phrasings, metaphors, invented-on-the-fly floating definitions and rules to fit with the accusations. Update: I think inquisitorial is the most proper term for context in which the result does not depend on the argumentation of one of the sides. Though, jargonaut was completely unheard by me and incrementally more useful. Answer "Jargonaut" would be a possible neologism.

What is the difference between "Bobsled" and "Bobsleigh"? Can they be used interchangeably? Which one is used more widely? Answer According to Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary and Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary , bobsled is used more often in North American English, bobsleigh is used more often in British English. There is no difference between them. Google Books Ngram Viewer — bobsled vs bobsleigh — American English Google Books Ngram Viewer — bobsled vs bobsleigh — British English

Is "not unpleasant" a double negative, and hence bad grammar? See the first answer (by Ham and Bacon) to this question , for the basis of this question. Are all "not un..." forms incorrect? They are very widely used, much more so than the blatant "not not" or "didn't not", etc. Answer There are two distinct meanings to the phrase "double negative": one (which most people understand by it) is a particular prescriptive rule that applies specifically to Standard English, but not many dialects. As mentioned elsewhere it only refers to using 'no' or 'no-' when 'any or 'any-' is supposed to be used. E.g.: I don't want nothing is OK in nonstandard English but in Standard English it is: I don't want anything This is the only thing referred to when people say "don't use double negatives". the other is 'more than one logically intended negative'. This is perfectly grammatical in -all-

I read that the definite article is pronounced differently depending on the word that follows it. Which is the exact pronunciation of the ? Answer I’m adding this answer because no one seems to have used IPA, or explained the matter simply. The word has three standard pronunciations, which vary by context. The definite article ‘ the ’ is normally pronounced /ðə/ before a consonant sound and /ði/ before a vowel sound. Neither of these is a stressed syllable. However, it also has a ‘stressed’ pronunciation used for emphasis, which is always /ðiː/ no matter what sound should follow it. The vowel here is held longer than in the unstressed version. That’s really all there is to it.

Is there a term for using a word that's often a euphemism to mean exactly what the word means? For example, in Terry Pratchett's Discworld , what would the act of using the word "seamstress" to refer to someone who actually mends clothes, rather than someone who is a prostitute? Answer Perhaps literalism ? Although it's perhaps most frequently used in religious contexts (e.g., interpretation of sacred texts), it seems to apply here: The disposition or tendency to accept a text, statement, etc., literally; the result of this, the interpretation of words in their literal sense. Occas. also: an instance of this. or Literal translation; this as a principle; (also) a peculiarity of expression due to this. (both from the OED). I think the second use applies particularly in this case: words that might typically register as euphemisms but are intended literally could be considered a "peculiarity of expression."

What's a word for conflicting emotions that are felt at the same time? For example, loneliness , sadness , happiness , being content but also feeling as if something isn't right? To sum up: What's a word for something that is sad and funny at the same time? Answer The word you want is tragicomedy (noun) or tragicomic (adjective).

When writing papers, I meet typos/grammatical errors in quotations now and then. Should I correct them, or leave them as they are? Answer When quoting, the convention is to quote the text exactly as it appears in the source. It is common to mark a misspelling (or other problematical word) that might be otherwise thought to be an error by you (the quoter) by following it with "[sic]". The word sic (which is from Latin) means "as such", that is, the apparent problem occurred in the original text. The square brackets indicate that the text was added by the quoter. For instance, Our massage treatments help relive[sic] your pain.

They appear to me to mean almost if not exactly the same thing, but I am not sure. Are there differences in meaning between them? Answer They are related, but they don't mean the same, not by a long shot. "Pending" means something that one is waiting for. "Patent pending"; a patent for this has been applied for, but it has not yet been granted. Or "pending confirmation of these changes to the contract, we will sign it". Whereas "impending" means something that is about to happen soon(-ish). Hmm, I can only think of "impending doom". ;-) You wouldn't use one for the other. "Pending doom"? No, certainly not synonyms. All this from memory, I'm too much of a lazy bastard to look it up. ;-)

Is it “alright” or “allright”? Which is correct in English, "all right" or "alright"? These expressions don't cause any problem in verbal communication but I confuse them while writing. To be frank, I sometimes use "all right" and sometimes "alright" without actually knowing which one is correct. If both of them are correct, how should I know which one to use in a particular case?

I have studied "present perfect" and "present perfect continuous" for a week. I know forms, verb and helping verb I should use when I write them. For me, they have nearly same definition because I can use them interchangeably in Thai language. (My native language) For example, the sentences I have learned English language in the past few weeks. I have been learning English language in the past few weeks. have no difference in meaning to me. They both mean "I began learning the English language in the past and I am still learning it" Can I use them interchangeably in English? Or is there any difference between them? For example, when should I use present perfect but not present perfect continuous?

What is another word for "follow religiously" in a non religious context? Support will agree with their candidate's views religiously despite being obviously flawed, as he is their candidate Interns suck up to the decision maker religiously to gain favour and get access to their network Detailed Background: In a large company, coworkers automatically support the viewpoints of this high position individual, disagree with his stance, and he will scorn you, you won't get support from coworkers and will be a adverse on your career growth in the company as he is notorious for unfairly badmouth you behind your back for disagreeing with him as he has a tremendous belief of self worth. Strongly agreeing with him will be good for your career as he is trusted in the company and he is a key decision maker. The end result irrespective of the viewpoints made, his positions are blindly followed although some are clearly incorrect, but people don't call him out for it. People wi

"It is a lot of fun," sounds correct, but not, "it is a fun game." Isn't fun a noun ? Then why is it used as an adjective ? I have heard this usage even by literary giants, so this cannot be a common mistake. Should "funny" be used in stead? EDIT Moral of the story: Fun has become an adjective colloquially, hence it is impossible to see it as wrong.

It feels like there should be a story behind it, or perhaps a type of slang, but I can't find anything in various Web searches.

The phrase "Too Clever by Half" is used to criticize someone for being overconfident in their thinking. What is the origin of this phrase? I read somewhere that it started as a backhanded compliment meant to imply that they are only half clever, but I couldn't find any corroboration. Answer From Google Books, here's a couple of thousand for too slow by half and a few hundred too quick by half . Even a couple of dozen too fat by half , and I'm sure there are plenty more adjectives you can be too much of by half. The earliest usage I can find is Too Civil by Half A Farce in Two Acts by John Dent (1783) , which the reviewer judges "Too dull by half!" Obviously it was a current expression even then. Maybe someone else will find an earlier instance, but I doubt the expression has a literary origin. Richard Lovell Edgeworth Popular tales, 1837 has "Why, my horse Dobbin has more sense by half!" , showing that it's not always too [adjective]

"He was watching the television when I called on him." When I said this sentence to one of my friends (an English teacher) he corrected me saying that the definite article (the) should be omitted. Still, I can't understand why. ? Actually similar question has been asked earlier but the answers were so ambiguous. So I put complete sentence.

In German you may say something like In Film und Fernsehen spielen Schauspieler. which translates verbatim to English as In movie and TV actors act. While the German version sounds familiar to me as a native speaker, is the English version correct? What grammatical role does "movie and TV" occupy? Answer I would say "in television and film", but if you stick with the word 'movie' I think the correct usage would be "in movies and TV".

The most obvious example I can think of is the Mortal Kombat series. They replace almost all hard sounding C's with the letter 'K'. A couple other examples off the top of my head are 'Froot Loops', 'The Beatles', the Red Hot Chili Peppers album 'Blood Sugar Sex Magik'. There's a tonne more. I'm just wondering if there's a proper term for these types of words. Answer I'm amazed there is actually a term for this. Yes, there is a name. It's : Sensational Spelling: Sensational spelling is the deliberate spelling of a word in an incorrect or non-standard way for special effects. Sensational spellings are common in advertising and product placement. In particular, brand names...

I'd like to find such a word instead of saying "greater than 10 but less than 100". Answer Assuming you mean 10-99 inclusive, the phrase you want is "two-digit number".

Why does the following phrase sound old fashioned? We went swimming later in the afternoon, Jack and I. I am trying to describe what is happening here by breaking the sentence down into its basic components, but I am having difficulty doing this. The "Jack and I" part is the Noun Phrase, right? Is there a certain language formality to placing this at the end of the sentence behind the comma? Am I crazy in thinking that the above format sounds more formal than "Jack and I went swimming later in the afternoon"? I'm adding some more information that has come up through the conversation below: I pulled the line from a young adult book written in 1942. I'm studying the text and trying to identify elements that make it 'feel old.' One of these elements is a general presentation of phrases in a more formal way (as compared to other modern YA publications.)

I've thought it had to do with the love that dare not speak its name, to put it ever so coyly, but what does this phrase mean and connote? And what's the approximate American equivalent? Answer Here's Eric Partridge from the Dict. of Slang and Unconv. English: sod. A sodomist: low coll.: Mid-C. 19-20; ob.-2. Hence, a pejorative, orig. and gen. violent: late C. 19-20. Often used in ignorance of its origin: cf. bugger. So your sense of "sod" is on the money. Suffixial "off" marks a general epithet as an insult, as seen in "piss off," "f-ck off," "bugger off," etc., all used in the manner of "please go away." Also note that "sod" in this sense is UK usage only. In US English it only refers to topsoil and turf grass.

Consider the following sentence: One of the items that needed a further development was a research on child nodes of a story representing its sub categories being updated the moment the list of sub categories is changed through edit page for stories. The part from the beginning of the sentence to the word "research" is more or less clear. And then I would like to clarify what the research was about. Other facts that you might need: The research is complete. Child nodes represents sub categories of a story. The research was investigating a possibility of establishing the update mechanism. The mechanism is designated to update child nodes. The update must take place every time when the list of sub categories is changed. Now to the questions themselves: Is my usage of passive voice (being updated) to describe what this research was about correct? What other options (all you can think of) are possible? How do they change the meaning? If you are going to suggest to split this sent

While the two names nail and screw have similar shapes and functions, why do the verbs differ so much? Someone has screwed something sounds like they have ruined something to me, while someone has nailed something sounds like they have successfully accomplished the thing. So why have these similar words acquired this much dissimilarity? From Merriam-Webster: Screw: (1) : to mistreat or exploit through extortion, trickery, or unfair actions; especially : to deprive of or cheat out of something due or expected (2) : to treat so as to bring about injury or loss (as to a person's reputation) —often used as a generalized curse Nail: to perform or complete perfectly or impressively From Urban Dictionary (which I am aware is not a reliable source, but sometimes it can be helpful): Screwed To be in serious trouble. A word describing something in a state of disrepair. A word to describe a person who is heavily under the influence of alcohol and/or narcotic material, to an extent where i

When should I use “in” or “on”? I am always confused with the prepositions to use when indicating an event happening at a place. Should I use "at" or "in" or "on"? For example: We had our dinner at the McDonalds at/in the shopping centre at/on Sixth Avenue. The McDonalds restaurant is in the shopping centre. The shopping centre is located at Sixth Avenue. So am I right to say "the McDonalds in the shopping centre at Sixth Avenue"? Now, what if it was a street instead of an avenue? Say for example: We had our dinner at the McDonalds at/in the shopping centre at/on Coral Street. Here, somehow, I find it natural to say "the McDonalds at the shopping centre on Coral Street". How do I determine the right prepositions to use? And how would the different prepositions give different meanings to the sentence? Answer These can get tricky as the conventions aren't always consistent. But in general, we use "in" when A is insi