Blog

Is there any particular word for a person whose partner (love) has passed away? Like he/she is keeping lonely now, crying or silent all the time because they miss their dead partner. Answer Bereaved Dictionary.com : (of a person) greatly saddened at being deprived by death of a loved one Merriam-Webster : suffering the death of a loved one Cambridge : people who are sad because someone close to them has died Oxford : be deprived of a loved one through a profound absence, especially due to the loved one’s death "Just because we're bereaved doesn't make us saps!" - Walter, The Big Lebowski

Is there any difference between these two forms? Examples: "How did I take that picture" vs. "How I took that picture" "How did I make the cake" vs. "How I made the cake" "How did I meet my wife" vs. "How I met my wife"

I'm looking for standard IPA but every book, even dictionaries implement it differently. for example [ɑ] and [ɑ:] or this symbol [ɛ] vs [e]. Some books omit the [i] sound which is the last sound of word happy , and some books say that this symbol equals [iː]. This also happens to [uː]. I know that colons like symbols are for length, but why is there so many differences? Even Wikipedia says: Please note that several of these symbols are used in ways that are specific to Wikipedia and differ from those used by dictionaries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English Where is the standard form that every text should obey? And what's the role of these ones in the game? Bold ones. [ɑ] AH [ɜ] UR [ɔ] AW Answer The range of sounds denoted by the symbols of the IPA are defined by the International Phonetic Association . Consider the T sound: it is pronounced differently in tick (aspirated as [tʰ]), stick (unaspirated as [t]), latter (flapped as [ɾ]), and pat (unreleased as

I am curious about the difference between the sentences I wrote below: what I did was to sit and wait the thing that I did was to sit and wait Another example with where : this is where I live this is the place where I live

What is the correct word to use here and why: I will get there quicker [than you] vs. I will get there faster [than you] There must be similar adverbs for "slower". Answer The definition of the two words makes them synonymous in virtually all cases. However, they do have slightly different connotations that lead to preference in usage. I generally think of something as "fast" if it can achieve a high speed. I think of something as "quick" if it responds rapidly to input. This generally leads to preference of one word over the other in context; "fast" is used in context of speed, while "quick" is used in context of time. So, you would travel fast to get somewhere quickly. In the same vein, "quick" is used to describe the quality of an action that is short and powerful, e.g. a "quick head-fake". "Fast" is generally used to describe actions that are more sustained, e.g. "a fast sprint down the field"

I'm curious about newscasters using the term "shot dead" in describing the death of a gun shot victim. Is this correct? They would never describe a survivor as "shot live".

I'm hoping to find a particular word to describe a variant of a cavalier attitude. I need to describe the attitude of an individual who, knowing that they themselves have been irresponsible, express an impartiality towards the issue and also thrust the blame on someone else. Such behavior would normally be found in extremely cold, distancing people who give off little emotion and who will uphold their own honor even if it comes at the expense of others. When something goes awry by their own hand, such an individual might coldly start barking orders at someone else to make it seem as if they had no role. Is there a good adjective to describe this attitude?

(Tried to search to see if this question had already been asked, but could not find it amongst the many questions concerning pronoun declension and objects and subjects as parts of speech.) What, exactly, is the difference between the following two sentences? Are they both correct -- or is one considered more correct in certain contexts or constructions? Jim's wailing child was the subject of much scrutiny. Jim's wailing child was the object of much scrutiny. Each of these usages is ubiquitous, and it's not uncommon to see both within the span of a few sentences. (For example, Google estimates over 60,000 results for "subject of study" "object of study" .) The difficulty seems to be that both words have several senses, and they are somewhat overlapping in this case. As a lover of grammar, I am frustrated that I cannot resolve this question in my mind. Can anyone help clarify this for me? Answer They're both grammatically correct and accepted. For

How do you pronounce 100ish and similar words? a hundred-ish ?

I often run into a case where I need to say I have a doctor's appointment, but how would I properly punctuate it if I wanted to use the abbreviation Dr. instead of the word doctor ? Dr.'s appointment looks strange to me. Answer Basically, the word doctor is a noun, and is the one to be used in any regular form of speech or writing. Dr. , on the other hand, is an honorific. Like Mr. , Mrs. , or Prof. , it isn't meant to be used as a noun at all. To answer more directly, there is no proper way to use the abbreviated form to indicate possesion, as it isn't a noun.

According to the dictionary, licence/license refers to an official document which proves you are permitted to do something. What, then, is the word for the permission itself? I'm from Korea, and in Korean the document and the permission are two different things; that is, the formal permission by the authorities is called 면허, and the document is called 면허증. Answer License is not only the document, it is also the permission . From the free dictionary: license : formal permission from a governmental or other constituted authority to do something, as to carry on some business or profession. It is from the Latin: freedom, licent- , s. of licēns , present participle of licēre , to be allowed. About St. Francis He was considered a madman for 3 years until the Pope gave him license to preach in 1208 A.D. From that date, he began attracting thousands of followers. Replace license with permission or freedom and that is how the word license can be used.

In scientific writing, I always feel the need to logically connect all my sentences to have a clear logical path between beginning and end of a paragraph, else it is just feels like a list of random phrases to me and not a complete argument. However, more often than not, the only fitting connector is "however", as "but" is informal. Is it acceptable to use "however" very often or is that bad style and in the latter case, how can I improve it? An example Blue data is better than red data. Standard algorithms, however, are all written with red data in mind and don't work on blue data. Violet algorithms handle blue data as well as red data, however they are very slow. Blue-only algorithms can process blue data really fast, however most blue data is mixed with a small percentage of red data. Answer Yes, however is fine and extremely common in scientific writing. There's nothing wrong with but either, by the way. You can also use other alternatives.

Is there an English word meaning "the use of uncommon words" or similar?

Clearly, in some cases an isolated list cannot be a sentence. For example, Apples, oranges, and bananas. is not a sentence. But what about a list of independent clauses following a declarative sentence? Consider the following: Autumn is an excellent time to enjoy the outdoors. The weather is warm, campsites are abundant, and insects are scarce. Is it acceptable to let the second sentence above stand alone as such? Or must it always be joined to the first sentence with a semicolon? Other alternatives would be to append "...for several reasons" to the first sentence, or prepend "The reasons for this are that..." to the second sentence. EDIT: The original version of this question incorrectly identified certain clauses as "adjective phrases". As EdwinAshworth pointed out, I am claiming that the first example above is not a sentence because it does not have a complete subject and a complete predicate. Answer The second sentence is not just a list of phrases. I

I would like to know what the rule is to explain why we do not use the genitive construction hotel's room . Instead, we say "a hotel room". Other examples: a hospital bed a bike stand Would it suffice to ask "What kind of..."? Answer Your examples use nouns that are used to modify other nouns (attributive nouns). Possessive (also called Saxon Genitive) constructions, on the other hand, show possession [in the extended (my bike's front wheel) rather than just the proprietorial (John's bike) sense]. "a hotel's room" - a room belonging to a hotel "a hotel room" - a specific type of room, somehow related to hotels (in this case also usually belonging to the hotel but that is not necessarily important) similarly "hospital's bed", vs "hospital bed" "the bike's stand" would imply that the stand belongs to the bike while "bike stand" describes a type of stand that is somehow related to bike

One who has potential, but never gives the effort to show it. What would be the best word or words that match this description?

I've spent years in the States and I'm still confused when I should use "the" in sentences. These are the cases that I know that I have to use a definite article. case 1: refer to specific objects. he was working at the firm where his colleagues were friendly. case 2: refer to unique objects. The earth is a planet. case 3: general statements The human is a foolish species. What I'm the most confused about are the situations where "the" makes a difference in meanings. For example, I went to the college means I was physically present at the college, and I went to college means I finished a degree. Using a definite article is very confusing to me. There seem to be many exceptions and special rules, and also idiomatic ways of using and not using a definite article. Could someone kindly clarify the usage of "the" for me? Answer When you say 'I went to the college' as you stated in your question it refers to a specific object. However '

What do Online Dictionaries Say? Cambridge Dictionaries Online says each is used as an adverb in the following examples: There are five leaflets – please take one of each . Each of the brothers has a different personality. It’s 500 miles each way. The bill comes to $80, so that’s $20 each Oxford Dictionaries says each is a determiner and a pronoun in the following each one of us was asked what went on (determiner) Derek had money from each of his five uncles (pronoun) Merriam-Webster 's entry for each states it is an adjective , A rope was tied to each end of the boat. Each student had a different explanation. a pronoun , He took shot after shot, each missing by inches and an adverb They cost 50 cents each . We were allowed two tries each . But Wikipedia tells me that each is an indefinite pronoun Each of the players has a doctor and Grammar Monster (which btw I really like) says that each is an indefinite adjective An indefinite adjective is used to describe a n

They agreed to stay connected for hours in their provisional support group, looking for answers in their counterparts . I want to change the bold part to say that they all shared the same problem. Might end up using one of the above, but I feel like I need some more options to weigh in. Edit for context : they all share the same rare cognitive impairment

The building is shaped like a matchbox. Or like a beehive. Designs of this sort need very little engineering and less imagination. It's mostly glass and concrete. More glass than concrete. It is a residential building. In order to make room for it, an entire block of 19th Century buildings (very quaint and very much in keeping with the city's spirit) was mercilessly razed. A handful of half-hearted protests from the neighbors followed. Those were ignored. The local media assessed the situation and found there was nothing worth reporting. The monstrosity went up in no time. It now towers over the street, faceless and depressing. Because the windows are walls, and the walls windows, it costs a fortune to keep the apartments warm in the winter and cool in the summer. Not that I think the tenants give a rat's ass: to those who can afford to rent a place in that building, the utility bill of any size is a trifling matter. Ordinary pejorative words that people normally use to des

A recent question asks whether the modifier "clearly" changes the meaning of "evident". I would have said, prior to examining a few dictionaries, that evident did not necessarily mean readily apparent , but to my surprise it does. This brings me to ask what word or expression would mean something can be taken as a true fact, but not through an easily constructed (not obvious or readily apparent) rationale? For example, if Sherlock Holmes says something is true while everyone else is still sitting on their hands, then it is evident to Holmes, but not to the rest of the world. So, from everyone else's point of view, it is not readily apparent, and (by definition) apparently it is not evident , clear , or clearly evident at all, based on the dictionary definitions. But (let's stipulate) it is true and deducible from the observable evidence. What would we call this? Update An update is highlighted above. I can see from some of the answers and comments that I

What is the difference between "economic" and "economical"? Answer Economic and economical can only be synonyms in two senses. Things relating to the economy. eg. You could speak of economical growth, although economic growth is more common. Using the minimum amount of effort or resources. eg. You could speak of someone making economical use of their time. Economic would also work in that context. Otherwise, when you're talking about wealth, financial rewards, or the science of economics, it's always economic . If you mean the sense of thrifty or frugal you would use economical .

What is the correct way to pluralize an acronym? I am defining an acronym which will be substituted for some unwieldy term in a document. One thing Gary has talked extensively about is his inclination towards extracting domain objects into Plain Ruby Objects (PRO). The trouble is that the first time I use the unwieldy term (Plain Ruby Object), it is plural. However, the acronym is more useful in the singular. Should I just hold off defining the acronym until I use its singular form further down the page? Answer Either recast the first use of the full expansion into the singular, or else write the acronym in the plural. One thing Gary has talked extensively about is his inclination to extract a domain object into a Plain Ruby Object (PRO). One thing Gary has talked extensively about is his inclination to extract domain objects into Plain Ruby Objects (PROs).

I don't understand the meaning of this phrase: "It is just that " It is just that the specific policies and practices associated with transnational liberalism are not the same as globalization tout court.

My question arises from this one , where OP asks whether he should use the singular or plural verb form after "the title, as well as the tone," As luck would have it, when I searched Google Books for exactly that text , I found... The title as well as the tone of this volume errs, perhaps, in being unduly modest. ...and... The title, as well as the tone, of the novel derive from Lady Molly Jeavon's household At the risk of having this question closed as just peeving, I feel that the first one should have been plural " err ", because without the commas it seems to me both "the title" and "the tone" have more or less equal status as "joint" subjects of the verb, making it plural. On the other hand, I feel the commas in the second example effectively demote "the tone" to "parenthetical" status (the clause is almost incidental). Since this encourages us think of "the title" as the primary subject, it sh

What is the difference between "has to be" and "is to be"? This is the example sentence: In case a diarization is desired, a proper XYZ algorithm is/has to be used. I would like to point out, that my personal opinion is using the XYZ algorithm. Answer "Is to be used" is grammatically acceptable but stylistically weak. Better to stick to one of these: "has to do": it is required (Sometimes people use this hyperbolically: "I have to go to the movies, all my friends are."). In a technical setting like you allude to, this often means something that fundamental to the project blows up if you don't: CEO goes to jail, client withdraws funding, people get fired, etc. It is usually too strong to use it for an alternative implementation that is merely a mistake. "should do": there are other valid alternatives, but it has been decided that this is the best one "will do": this usually is reserved for a future certainty: &qu

I occasionally use "retarded" when chastising myself or other friends. I know it's not Politically Correct, but am I only allowed to say stupid? How long before we can't say that anymore? Other words like "ignorant" don't work well because well, I don't like that word because it's misunderstood (even though it works well for how I say retarded . . for me it's like if you don't know something you should know). Answer Here are several examples: When referring to someone who has mental retardation Speaking as someone with a few years of experience working with people with developmental disabilities the current politically correct term is what I just used. "They are retarded" becomes "They are people with developmental disabilities.". When referring to myself "God, I'm so retarded" becomes "God, I'm so silly". Other possibilities include: foolish, dumb, and stupid. When directing it at someone

Dictionaries don’t define the pejorative use of gay , but the term is used in common parlance. For example: That’s so gay. or You’re gay. Is there a way of establishing what gay means when used pejoratively? Answer Dictionaries don't define the pejorative use of gay Some of them do: Dictionary.com: Gay : "awkward, stupid, or bad; lame: This game is really gay . Oxford Dictionaries: Gay : "Foolish, stupid, or unimpressive: he thinks the obsession with celebrity is totally gay ." Wiktionary: Gay (English) : "Used to express dislike: lame, uncool, stupid: This game is gay; let’s play a different one. = I dislike this game; let’s play a different one. "

My understanding is that "utilise" means to use an object for a task for which it was not intended. However, in American English, it seems that "utilize" is synonymous with "use", and it seems that "utilize" is used to make a sentence sound more complex or formal. Is this the accepted usage now? Is the benefit people find in making a sentence sound more complex overtaking the benefit of being able to express the different meanings?

What does "to this effect" in the following sentence mean? (This sentence is in a reply of an application). However, if you are not successful, we will inform you to this effect. Does this mean, if I failed I will still get informed(by a mail or phone-call) or if I failed, I will have no idea that I have failed already? Answer Here, "to this effect" is a specific instance of "to the effect" where "this" refers to the demonstrated meaning in the sentence. Really, the phrase could be replaced with "thus" - ie "we will inform you thus", even more plainly, "we will inform you that you were not successful "

Please compare He shrugged. and He shrugged his shoulders. Is there anything else that can be shrugged, besides shoulders? To me it sounds like duplication when used in this way. I'm aware of constructs like "He shrugged it off." but that's not what I'm interested in, and it also implies the use of shoulders, doesn't it? So why the need to specify the shoulders as an object? [edit: I also find "he shrugged his eyebrows" but that's rather rare.] Answer Browsing through COHA and Google Books , I can’t find any body parts that can be shrugged apart from shoulders. In any case, the intransitive use — she shrugged etc. — is certainly always understood as the shoulder-gesture — it is, as you say, essentially redundant. So shrugged is very nearly a stormy petrel . The only other thing you can do with it (that I can think of or find in the dictionary) is to shrug something off . (If anyone at a subscribed university or library is reading, by the way,

The suffixes -ise/-ize -ify -ificate are all used for verbifying nouns and adjectives. What are the differences in meaning/connotation/usage between them? (This is generalising from the sinification/sinicisation question, and is partially answered by @Garet Claborn’s answer there — an expansion of that answer would be great for this as well!) Answer Short version: According to my sources, those suffixes share roughly the same set of meanings. The choice seems to be motivated phonologically and/or etymologically. -ify attaches to: Monosyllabic words Words stressed on the final syllable Words stressed on the penultimate syllable followed by a syllable ending in unstressed /ɪ/ It differs from -ize in that it may be used derogatorily in some cases, as in preachify , Frenchify , etc. Like -ate , it is a Latinate suffix, and formations outside the neo-classical lexicon are “often facetious or pejorative” (via A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language ). According to corpus finding

My teacher was explaining how sometimes a comma isn't enough to make a sentence correct, and that sometimes you have to use a semicolon. I am having trouble figuring out when you should use which. Can someone please explain? Answer Use a semicolon when you link two independent clauses with no connecting words. For example: I am going home; I intend to stay there. You can also use a semicolon when you join two independent clauses together with one of the following conjunctive adverbs (adverbs that join independent clauses): however, moreover, therefore, consequently, otherwise, nevertheless, thus, etc. For example: I am going home; moreover, I intend to stay there. Use a comma after the first independent clause when you link two independent clauses with one of the following coordinating conjunctions: and, but, for, or, nor, so, yet. For example: I am going home, and I intend to stay there. Google your query and you'll find it..

Why do we say my goodness ? It doesn't sound appropriate for the contexts in which it is used. Both the my and the goodness don’t seem to bear on a surprising or startling situation. When was it started, and why? Answer The Phrase Doctor writes that my goodness is a minced oath: My goodness --> My God My gosh --> My God So the phrase was used instead of swearing, with goodness being a euphemism. The Oxford English Dictionary adds that goodness! has an established meaning in this vein, writing: In various exclamatory phrases, in which the original reference was to the goodness of God (cf. sense 2a above), as goodness gracious!, goodness (only) knows! , †for goodness!, for goodness' sake!, in the name of goodness!, (I wish) to goodness! , surely to goodness!, thank goodness!, etc., or simply goodness! The first written usage is by Shakespeare, who wrote: 1623 Shakespeare & J. Fletcher Henry VIII Prol. 23 Therefore, for Goodnesse sake, and as you are knowne The Fi

Does it sound strange to say "An emergency meeting is expected to be held soon." or "The new highway is proposed to be built across the swamp." Should we avoid this type of construction ? Answer No, there is no reason to avoid those sentences. It is often simpler and clearer to use the active voice than the passive voice. And the active voice is especially helpful when the agent of the action is important to the message. Otherwise, the passive voice is alive and well, and there is no reason to fear it blindly. It's all about deciding what your message is and then finding a clear way to get it across. And in that quest it is important to consider your audience or readers. In some contexts they might well expect and appreciate the passive voice.

Is it ever okay to pluralize the noun "support"? When talking about several support systems, for example, is it okay to say that people "need supports"? If not, why not? Thank you!

I would like to know what would be the correct sentence here. I just want to say that I left the city on the weekend. I went out of the city on Saturday. I went outside the city on Saturday. Answer Your sentences are fine. As J.R. mentioned, it's better to say, I left the city on Saturday . Out of is better suited in situations like, I am out of town right now, I will get back to you when I return. Although outside the city is grammatically correct, it sounds a bit unorthodox in this context.

It's quite easy to find lists of commonly misused words. They are all over the internet. But it's not clear which of them are the MOST commonly misused words. This article says that there are 38 commonly misused words. But the words in this article are so obvious, like then and than , cant and can't . I am looking for something more meaningful!!! I found another article on Wikipedia which has a huge list of commonly misused words. But even native speakers don't know the half of these words!And it's just pointless to learn them all. I am a non-native speaker. Please, tell me which MOST commonly misused words I should learn! Thank you all.

I have always assumed that the adjective "big" meant "large in size/width/height" when used with physical things and had related figurative meanings (eg of major importance/relevance, outstanding, large-scale, known) when used with abstract things. For instance, I have always understood "a big restaurant" as a "large restaurant" and a "big problem" as a "complex problem". Recently, an English native speaker has told me that he understood "big" in the sentence "I'll take you out to a big restaurant" as "famous", "known". May the figurative meanings of "big" may apply to any noun then? If this is true, the real meaning will depend on context, of course. note: I mean only things on this question. I know that all meanings of "big" may apply when it refers to people.

Why is "was" used here while there must be "were"? If the foe-caster made the correct observation and the campaign was successful,....... conditional type-2

For articles on GL&U it is usual to use German words in English texts. While writing an answer, I was unsure how to use articles in a right way. Finally, after I had read my answer again, I became aware, that I mixed up several possibilities. Especially for German words starting with I, U, E... ( An as for an English words or A because it is foreign) Moreover, I can imagine that the environment is important. I think on GL&U it is important to name the German article (as you know, in German articles are much more complicated as in English), so "Ein/Der Fehler" could be the better solution. This is in contrast to dissertations in which the German article doesn't matter. Which one is the correct way to use articles for foreign words? A "Fehler" can be affected by an "Irrtum" A "Fehler" can be affected by a "Irrtum" " Ein Fehler" can be affected by "Irrtum" "Fehler" can be affected by "

I have been seeing phrases like, "That sentence isn't grammatical" etc. recently, and at first I wrote them off thinking, "Oh, well that technically isn't right, but I get what he's saying so I'm not going to make a fuss..." The thing is, I've been seeing it more and more, by different people, and I can't tell if it's just that the speakers (well, this I've been seeing this on the internet, so I guess it "the posters") aren't native English speakers, or I've missed some sort of shift in the usage of the word "grammatical". Can anyone shed some light on this? Answer To say that a sentence is grammatical is to say that it conforms to the rules of English grammar as found in the way in which native speakers normally use the language and, in the case of Standard English, as codified in various academic works of grammar such as ‘The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English’ and ‘The Cambridge Grammar of th

I'm providing the following sentences as representatives of other similar instances. The survival of a TV channel depends on it attracting as many viewers as possible. The survival of a TV channel depends on its attracting as many viewers as possible. Which one would be preferable? I've seen both of the forms before. What is the related grammar/usage called so I can study further? Answer The survival of a TV channel depends [on it /its attracting as many viewers as possible]. There’s no difference in the meaning or the grammar, though using the genitive pronoun "its" is seen as being slightly more formal - that’s all. The bracketed element is a preposition phrase headed by "on"; the PP functions as complement of the verb “depends”. Functioning as complement to the preposition “on” is the gerund-participial clause, which has "it /its" as subject, "attracting" as verb, and the comparative expression "as many viewers as possible"

Why isn't near , near to and nearby always interchangeable? They can precede the noun. I live nearby the railway station I live near the railway station I live near to the railway station When they are adverbs they can follow noun + be The railway station is nearby (my house) The railway station is near my house The railway station is near to my house But we don't normally say: ?Meet me at the near railway station or ?Meet me at the railway station near (to) The accepted version is: Meet me at the railway station nearby Meet me at the nearby railway station Why?

I understand that the alphabet for the English language is not strictly English as languages such as French, Dutch and many more use the same alphabet, with few additions in other languages. Is Roman alphabet the common term to refer to this set of symbols for writing texts? Answer The term for the name of the script is Latin, at least according to Unicode. U+0041 ‭ A LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A U+0042 ‭ B LATIN CAPITAL LETTER B U+0043 ‭ C LATIN CAPITAL LETTER C U+0066 ‭ f LATIN SMALL LETTER F U+0067 ‭ g LATIN SMALL LETTER G U+0068 ‭ h LATIN SMALL LETTER H U+00DE ‭ Þ LATIN CAPITAL LETTER THORN U+00DF ‭ ß LATIN SMALL LETTER SHARP S U+00E0 ‭ à LATIN SMALL LETTER A WITH GRAVE U+01BF ‭ ƿ LATIN LETTER WYNN U+021D ‭ ȝ LATIN SMALL LETTER YOGH Contrast those with non-Latin letters, like these: U+0393 ‭ Γ GREEK CAPITAL LETTER GAMMA U+0394 ‭ Δ GREEK CAPITAL LETTER DELTA U+03B4 ‭ δ GREEK SMALL LETTER DELTA U+03B5 ‭ ε GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON U+03B6 ‭ ζ GREEK SMALL LETTER ZETA U+041

When the Sun or the Moon shines through a window, there's a corresponding bright spot on the floor or wall. Conversely, when an object blocks light, it casts a shadow. What would the term be for this opposite? EDIT : I'm searching for a word that describes the bright spot, not the shadow. Maybe some context will help. I have this large picture window in my living room that, on the night of a full Moon, produces this stunning effect after Moonrise. When describing it, I find myself saying: "If you turn out the lights, the moonlight entering the window casts an eerily beautiful {{word}} on the opposite wall." Best I've come up with so far is sheen . Answer I did a great amount of digging for this, but I think we all might agree that there might not be a word to uniquely describe this phenomenon. I went through a large amount of solar and planetary terminology to make certain there wasn't anything I was missing. While "sheen" is probably acceptable, I

What is the difference between these two sentences? I have been told that with the comma the speaker has only one sister, whereas without it he could have multiple ones, of which one lives in England. I have a sister, who lives in England. I have a sister who lives in England.

Example: Peter got a perfect/flawless/impeccable score: 0 errors for 100 questions. John got a ? score: 100 errors for 100 questions (Yes, he filled out the questions. And probably smudged with the extra benefit of grammatical and spelling errors in hen scratching). The problem with "normal" antonyms is that they fit a range of results. The words "worst possible" or "best possible" are sounding more than statements than judgements. "Perfect"/"Impeccable" contains the information that it not only contains no errors, it gives the impression that it should not contain errors. The searched word should immediately inform the reader that if something is measured on a scale, this result is the worst possible result . Beyond fubar. We hit the rock bottom. A perfect screw-up. EDIT: If there is no such word and I am stuck with "worst possible", that would be nice to know, too. But I must admit, the "unworsenable score" has so

The class will be over in 10 minutes. The class will be over after 10 minutes. I know the first is correct but why?

This question was motivated by an interesting comment that was made at https://academia.stackexchange.com/posts/comments/123681?noredirect=1 Part of Answer: I don't think that particular research team would be a healthy place for you. The guy behaved badly. You need an advisor you can trust to act like a mensch . Interesting Comment: Your "be a mensch" comment might be a little localised for American English, I (as a British English / German speaker) wondered why you were telling them to "be a human" before realising it was probably a Yiddish import from the American Jewish community with the appropriate semantic shift. (I was using it in the decent human being sense; I checked the Wikipedia List of English words of Yiddish origin , and mensch does appear, in case that's helpful.) Is "act like a mensch" too localized for ELU readers? Please say which variety of English you speak: American, British, Indian etc. -- Edited to add: I would also lik

Why do native speakers pronounce "Anna and the King" as "Annarand the King?" Why do they put r in between the two a's? Why not use the "y" glide?

So, I typed the parenthetic statement 'Asked why did he come here'. Microsoft Word suggested that I change the sentence to 'Asked why he came here'. I agreed with the correction, but when I had word explain the change, the following came up: Order of Words If your sentence includes a statement about a question rather than a direct question, the subject should come before the verb. It then went on to give these examples: Instead of: He asked the bus driver when would the next bus come. Consider: He asked the bus driver when the next bus would come. Instead of: I wonder what did they serve for lunch. Consider: I wonder what they served for lunch. Now, I agree with the change to my sentence. It seems 'better sounding' and less awkward, and I thought that if I really wanted to keep the did, maybe the sentence would be better written: Asked 'why did you come here?'. But in the examples Word gives the subject comes before the verb in both the erroneous and cor

I'm a copy editor at a law firm and need to give a quick-and-dirty explanation of the difference between "sell" and "sale" to a native English speaker (a legal secretary) who is very self-conscious about her grammar knowledge. I've already given her info about how they are different parts of speech, and some example sentences. She's still not comfortable with her understanding but doesn't know or isn't able to articulate the area(s) of difficulty. Any suggestions?

This is one thing that keeps bugging me, and maybe there's a direct answer. Grammatically, which one is more correct of these two? Does it make a difference? I tried not to do that. I tried to not do that. Answer As some others have said, both are correct, and it is not wrong to say I tried to not do that. However, that is not the full story. Searching the Corpus of Contemporary American for various phrases ( not to hold vs to not hold ; not to know vs to not know ; not to go vs to not go ) reveals that the not to form is far more common: | Verb | Not to | To not | % | | Hold | 97 | 6 | 94 | | Know | 1130 | 69 | 94 | | Go | 452 | 57 | 88 | (Note that I didn't search for "not to [any verb]", because that also picks up certain fixed expressions such as "not to mention ..." which might distort the picture.) So it's clear that the not to form is far more common. Furthermore, looking