Blog

The French have "Bon appetit". In Belgium and the Netherlands we have "Smakelijk". Is there a short way to wish someone a good meal in English? Answer Unfortunately, no . However, the French phrase bon appetit is very widely known, and you can use that as an alternative. A very informal option would be to say Dig in! , though this has the connotation of eating sloppily or in large amounts, and doesn't necessarily carry the idea of enjoying an elegant, modestly portioned meal.

I've noticed some people who work with non-integers sometimes read out decimal points as "spot". E.g. "Pi is three spot one four one". Particularly found in finance, but I've heard non-finance professionals use it too. It makes perfect sense to me in terms of avoiding mumbling/mishearing, but I'm wondering about the origin and history? Answer The origin seems to lie in a switch from fraction-based pricing on financial trading markets to decimal-based pricing that took place after a U.S. government mandate in 2000. The story is explained well in an article titled "Traders learning decimal jargon" syndicated by the Associated Press in 2000 . The article starts with an interesting anecdote: Transactions were proceeding smoothly until one trader increased his offer for 1,000 shares of Hughes Electronics with a shouted phrase. "A teenie!" For the briefest moment, there almost was quiet in this one corner of the trading floor. Then McDevi

Is there an EBNF (Extended Backus–Naur form) that covers all of English, and if so, what is it? Answer No. It's been well demonstrated in the linguistic literature that natural human languages, including English, cannot be captured in a context-free grammar. Here's a link for you (PDF): Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language

Let's say I have a product/brand with a website, for the purpose of this question the product is called Acme and the site is http://acme.com . What's more correct when referring to the site without an hyperlink? For example, in PR: Acme.com acme.com Does it make any difference if I'm using it inside an article's caption? For example: You’re invited to the launch of Acme.com! You’re invited to the launch of acme.com! Answer Editor of the Jargon File here. If there is an authority on this question, I'm it. Never capitalize domain names unless you know for certain they were registered with that exact capitalization. In practice this means: Never, ever capitalize. If these means you have to rewrite a sentence to avoid having a domain name at the beginning, do so. The more general rule, which explains this one, is: never capitalize any name with a case-sensitive encoding. Other cases this includes are variable names in mathematical formulas and computer programs, an

I'm just wondering where does the word "News" come from. Is it from the word "New" which means things that did not exist before? Answer It derives from the French "nouvelles", literally "new things". Its usage regarding radio program is from 1923: News : late 14c., "new things," plural of new (n.) "new thing," from new (adj.); after French nouvelles, used in Bible translations to render Medieval Latin nova (neuter plural) "news," literally "new things." Sometimes still regarded as plural, 17c.-19c. Meaning "tidings" is early 15c. Meaning "radio or television program presenting current events" is from 1923. Bad news "unpleasant person or situation" is from 1926. Expression no news, good news can be traced to 1640s. Expression news to me is from 1889. (Etymonline) News : The word commonly used before "news" came into usage was " tidings " which meant &q

Is there a single adjective that means "this person has lots of children"? Context: I'm not actually talking about a person. I'm talking about a data structure in a computer program, where objects are organized in a hierarchical tree and each object can have few or many "child" objects. So "fertile", and similar words, are inappropriate. The object doesn't produce children on its own; the programmer must assign children to the object.

In Vladimir Nabokov's novel Lolita , right at the end of the 10th chapter, there is the following line that managed to perplex me: [T]he vacuum of my soul managed to suck in every detail of her bright beauty, and these I checked against the features of my dead bride. A little later, of course, she, this nouvelle, this Lolita, my Lolita, was to eclipse completely her prototype. All I want to stress is that my discovery of her was a fatal consequence of that ''princedom by the sea'' in my tortured past. Everything between the two events was but a series of gropings and blunders, and false rudiments of joy. Everything they shared made one of them. Now, it's the last sentence in this fragment that bewilders me. What did Nabokov (or Humbert, for that matter) want to say with this construction? That everything the two events (the encountering of a young girl in a princedom by the sea in his youth, and the stumbling upon Lolita now) shared brought them together and mer

Which sentence is correct? They won't tell me where is the office. They won't tell me where the office is.

I'm looking for the best word to convey a panther's forward crouching/slinking motion when it is sneaking up on it's victim. By "best", I mean moving stealthily forward while crouching low and silent, ready to spring at any moment, tension held back, foreboding, graceful, poetic, beautiful, yet terrible. I'm working on a poem in which this word is key. I once knew the word but it now escapes me. No synonyms in any thesaurus suggest the word I knew/forgot. These are the words I've already considered and rejected: avoid, bypass, conceal oneself, crawl, creep, crouch, dodge, elude, evade, glide, go furtively, go stealthily, hide, lie in wait, lurk, pad, pass quietly, prowl, pussyfoot, shirk, sidle, sidestep, skulk, slack, slide, slink, slip, slither, sly, snake, sneak, snoop, steal, and tiptoe. There are more but I tired of writing them all. I know that I should be asking something that lends itself to being answered and not something that elicits discussion.

I'm not a native English speaker but I've recently moved to the US. I've been noticing that when people say "I'm going to" (or I'm gonna), a lot of people here always pronounce it like "I muh-nuh", so apparently this is a normal thing to say where I live, but I had never heard it before. How common is it? Is that how you're actually supposed to pronounce it, and as a non-native speaker, do you think it's a good idea to learn to use it and talk that way, or I shouldn't imitate this at all? Thank you in advance.

I thought of programmatic but that doesn't seem right because it puts too much stress on the automation side and not on the actual development and logical side of it. A place to collect your mathematical and [programming] thoughts. Answer To fill in the blank in the specific phrase "[programming] thoughts," the most natural option to me is simply programming . (Examples of this type of phrasing being used: " Programming Thoughts " (Youtube Video), " Coding thoughts ") It's true that parallelism seems to call for an adjective in the construction "mathematical and [programming] thoughts," but there simply is no commonly used adjective with this meaning. Programmatic usually means connected with, suggesting or following a plan programmatic reforms (Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary) and programmatical is very rarely used . I'd advise rephrasing to something like "thoughts on mathematics and programming" or "th

How did this begin? Did it really start with Bugs Bunny?

What is the difference between: The company would rather each employee be provided with ID card. The company would rather each employee were provided with ID card. Answer Here is my understanding of the way they are supposed to be used: The difference is between the present subjunctive (also called the mandative subjunctive ) and the past subjective (also called the irrealis ). The company would rather (that) each employee be provided with an ID card. This is the mandative subjunctive , generally used for orders and suggestions. To me, this sounds like the company is trying to decide between two (or more) possible policies, and they prefer this one. It still might not happen, if other considerations prevent it (i.e., maybe it's too expensive). The company would rather (that) each employee were provided with an ID card. This is the irrealis mood. It is used for hypothetical situations. Here, it is not the case that each employee has been provided with an ID card, and the compa

Assume that I give my work information in my CV with the date (year) intervals. My last position started this year and is continued at the moment. Example Co. ABC Manager 2012 - cont. How should I abbreviate continued here? Is cont. correct? Answer There is no right or wrong with abbreviations, but you would do well to avoid them if possible. Here are three distinct pieces of advice: Just write “(continued)” (including parens), and you’ll be fine. If you have some sort of mania for them, or horizontal-space consideration, then sure, write “(cont.)” . It’s a good idea to set it in italic, no matter what you do. In your case, though, you should probably write one of: 2012 – present 2012 – As those both look better than “2012 – (continuing)” .

I have always thought that colons were used to clarify, expand, provide evidence for the preceding sentence, or show an example. I have heard that this is not true. (Truly, it is a shame if it is so: colons are my favorite punctuation.) Which of the following sentences uses the colon correctly: There are three children in my class: two boys and one girl. There are three children in my class: Jack, Larry, and Susan. He is undoubtedly a true man: his beard is long and his hands are strong. It was a big fireplace: not one of those ornamental dainties you find in the houses of snobs, but a real fireplace that had a utility surpassed only by the greatest furnaces. She was a promiscuous fiend: she had seduced every guest who had dared to pass her threshold with her fiery eyes and her wealth. This is the problem with your stubbornness: if you happen to be wrong, it will be all the more embarassing. Never in my life have I been homesick: perhaps I am emotionally stronger than others, or perhap

In translating W. H. Hodgson's The Regeneration of Captain Bully Keller , I came across this sentence, which I suppose must be some kind of pun or joke, but I cannot understand at all. He knew [...] that he had administered a knock-out blow, of a foot-energy (if I may so express it, without appearing Irish) of several hundred pounds. I'm quite puzzled by this one, and although I suppose the joke will get lost in translation, I'd like to know whether it's my ignorance of physics or my ignorance of jokes on Irishmen to blame. Answer This isn’t really a joke as such, but it is a pun, centered around a not-often-seen meaning of the word Irish . The OED article on Irish has this in sense A.5.c ( adj. ): colloq. (somewhat offensive ). Of a statement or action: paradoxical; illogical or apparently so. The speaker is presumably talking about boxing and thus a fist blow, but he measures its force in foot -energy. Therefore he adds “if I may say it like that without coming o

I don't know if the title is completely appropriate/applicable, but I guess it'll have to do until there's an edit. So a if one dies of starvation, one dies from "suffering or death caused by hunger (New Oxford American Dictionary)". Is there a given term for "suffering or death caused by lack of water/thirst"? When one says "He starved to death", the meaning is "He died from hunger", but there's no term (at least to the best of my knowledge) for something like "He (word for died from thirst) to death)". Answer Dehydration might be the word you're looking for: He died from dehydration.

Most people say I wish I could , I wish you would . Can we use I wish I can , I wish you will ? I'd like to know what the main differences between the usage of can/will and could/would are when wishing. Is it related to the subjunctive? Because one says “I wish I were”, not “I wish I am”, so are would and could the subjunctive forms of can and will ? Or is it something else entirely?

Over on another network site, a helpful user corrected the grammar of a post of mine . The answer now says I believe it's valid. where I originally wrote I believe it valid. Is the original sentence gramamatically (or at least idiomatically) correct or do I absolutely need a form of 'to be' here? (What's more, is 'to be' a copula or an auxiliary verb if used like this?) I am quite certain that I have seen sentences like the original one in the past, but I am uncertain where. Given that I am frequently exposed to the somewhat made-up English of authors in the fields of sci-fi and fantasy, I might have fallen into a trap here. Edit : I don't doubt that the correction is valid and enhances readability. Answer Believe is a verb that can take three different types of Object Complement . It can take a tensed Embedded Question complement: He believes [ what you tell him]. It can take a tensed That - clause complement: He believes [ that [the moon is made of

What is a good adjective for something that is ready for use, in the sense that it was prepared in advance (besides "ready" or "prepared")? Example usage: "This (adjective) document is immediately available for your use" or "This file is already ready because it's (adjective)".

Duplicate of: “User accounts” or “users account” “Employee list” or “employees list” Should a list of tokens be called a “token list” or a “tokens list” “BookList” or “booksList?” Is it correct to say “lesson count” or “lessons count”? "Thing count" or "things count" And others Which of the following are correct? Countries List Country List It is the title of a web page where users can view the list of countries and select one.

When you talk about "shrimp" in the plural, there's no "s." However, how can you explain it grammatically? Answer Some words may be either singular, plural, or uncountable, depending on how they are used in a particular context. That's just the way it is. There's really no grammatical explanation to it, although for some words, there may be historical explanations behind how their plurals are formed. I should note, however, that "shrimp" is actually one of those words where the plural form may be "shrimp" or "shrimps", depending on the speaker's dialect. shrimp ( countable and uncountable , plural shrimp or shrimps ) —source: Wiktionary

While typing a post on SO, I noticed that the word "ok" (when used in the sentence "I'm still learning so it is ok") was marked as misspelled (got to love spellcheck!) The first suggestion, however, confused me. The suggestion was "OK" (as opposed to "ok"). Then I thought, what about "okay"? So, why is "OK" correctly spelled (vs "ok") and what is their relationship to the word "okay"? They all have the same meaning; could "OK" be a form of slang or abbreviation? Answer "Okay" is listed as a variant spelling of "OK" in my local dictionary. This previous answer has a good description on the origin of "OK": According to the OED, it's an initialism of oll (or orl) korrect, first seen in 1839. I suspect that "ok" is not listed as an acceptable spelling because the origin of the word was "OK" due to its being an initialism. The variant of "

First off the word dream in most contexts does have positive connotations. When talking about dreams that people experience during sleep though the meaning becomes fairly neutral, at least as far as I'm aware. The word nightmare means bad dream, of course. What, though, is the word for a good dream? Answer I don't think there is a specific word for a 'good dream'. You need an appropriate adjective to qualify the dreams as good, pleasant, nice or lovely. Probably the most common adjective which is closely related to 'good' is the one used in the very common expression: Sweet dreams!! , used to wish a good night with pleasant dreams. See also : Sweet dreams.

Is criterions a valid plural for criterion ? Dictionary.com says it is, but Oxford does not confirm or reject it. Answer If you use a word like criterion anywhere you are on the safe side by using the Greek plural, criteria . People who understand the former will get the latter, and vice versa. Moreover, criterions is really not common according to google n-grams.

Well, years ago I was an English teacher in an English Teaching Institute. In the country I live, students call their teachers by saying "Mr. Teacher" or "Teacher" (literally translated) in schools. In places other than schools and universities, students also can call their teacher by saying "Mr. X", and in universities they call their professor by saying "Dr." and "Master". It was always question for me that in an English class what should I be called by my students because I didn't know what American students call their teacher in class. To sum up my question, what do students call their teacher in class in a typical school in the U.S.? Is it different for the students of primary school and secondary school? I would be glad to hear the same question about England and Australia. Answer In the U.S. the variety of forms of address used is quite broad. I think that at the college level, the honorific Professor is most common, after

May I use a question mark in the middle of a sentence? Examples: Would you like the drapes to be white? or perhaps something off-white? Would you like the logo to be centered? at the bottom? left off entirely? Answer I've mainly seen these in older literature, usually used in dialogue, but sometimes in rhetorical essays. It is rare in common and modern writing. I'd advise against it. You should either capitalize or rephrase/repunctuate: Would you like the drapes to be white? Or perhaps something off-white? Would you like the logo to be centered? At the bottom? Left off entirely? Or: Would you like the drapes to be white; or perhaps something off-white? Would you like the logo to be centered or at the bottom? Should it be left off entirely? The former change (capitalizing) is more informal than the latter suggestion; also, the latter can be legitimately tweaked in several places based on context.

I am quoting this text from Anna Karenina : I saw it in your eyes. Yes, yes! What can it all lead to? You were drinking at the club, drinking and gambling, and then you went ... to her of all people! The ... in this passage are part of the original text. How do I make this clear when I quote it? Answer It depends what style guide you're using. Just so you know, the three dots in your quote are called "suspension points" (and are different than an ellipsis, as far as style guides are concerned). The Chicago Manual of Style has a great explanation: Especially in languages that make liberal use of suspension points, it is a common practice to bracket ellipses. In an English context where both ellipses and suspension points are needed, the latter may be explained at each instance in a note (e.g., “suspension points in original”); for more than a few such instances, authors may choose instead to bracket ellipses, but only after explaining such a decision in a note, a prefac

Using old as a starting word, Urban Dictionary suggested: Obsolete Outdated Archaic Ancient Retro Passe And I have to say that none of them really fit. The first two can describe software, but you don't update your old memes, they just get old and you rarely re-see them in a fit of nostalgia, deep inside your archives. #3 and #4 can be used in phrase describing how old is this post (e.g. ancient as mammoth's $#!@ ). But hey, that's a phrase, not a single word! #5 is about the style, not the freshness. #6 is completely about fashion (e.g. MySpace is so passe ). A friend of mine suggested retoast , but I'm unsure because I haven't really seen the usage. Your suggestions? Update: Very sorry to break the rules, adding an example usage now. Oh no, grandpa saw a pack of my business cards, and added me to his hilarious e-mailing list, consisting of ????? from 2007. Also, if any of you guys surf russian internets, you may be familiar with баян . I need precisely that t

At any point in history was "Why cannot...?" used as frequently as "Why can't...?" Is it even grammatically correct to say "Why cannot you do this?" I know it can be rearranged to be "Why can you not do this?," but I always presumed the contraction and the contracted phrase could be used equivalently, without changing the sentence structure. I think this pattern holds true with the other question words (e.g. how, when, etc.); however, I also know it is common to say "Who cannot do this?" In general, are there rules pertaining to the uses of contractions in questions? Answer The transition point was about a century ago Note that if we substitute a pronoun (I, he, they) for "why", the transition point comes much later (1980 for "I") – or hasn't even happened yet (all other pronouns). I can't explain why that is, except by pointing out that this very sentence is an increasingly typical usage. Maybe we all

I am very uncertain about when to use "most of whom," "most of who," or "most of which." Please give concrete examples instead of only rules like, "this is the subject, so you should..." Answer "Who" is a subjective pronoun. It is used in the place of a subject in a sentence or phrase. For example "Who is coming to dinner?" ("Who" is the subject.) "Whom" is an objective pronoun. It is used in the place of an object in a sentence or phrase. For example, "With whom are you coming to dinner?" ("Whom" is the object of the preposition, while "you" is the subject.) Since "most of _____" is a prepositional phrase, the correct usage would be "most of whom." The phrase "most of who" should probably never be used. Another way to think about the difference between the subjective/objective pronouns is to revise the sentence to include a personal pronoun and s

This question regards Vancouver referencing, though I suppose the issue could really arise regardless of what is contained in the in-text citation. Consider the sentence: As dogs are mammals they give birth to live young. Clearly this is better separated: As dogs are mammals, they give birth to live young. But what if we feel the need to justify the statement that dogs are mammals? As dogs are mammals [1], they give birth to live young. Or: As dogs are mammals, [1] they give birth to live young. The former makes more sense to me - I intuitively would like the citation to be contained on the same side of the comma as the clause to which it relates. But I have a feeling the latter is perhaps 'correct', and the comma should not surround the citation, just as it should not surround a parenthetical? (Which I do unashamedly anyway) Answer According to page 2 of this Vancouver Style Guide , the citation in brackets should be placed after any commas and periods.

I am looking for the verb or expression to use to describe when for instance you type quickly and nervously on your computer keyboard, perhaps to find something (on a search engine for instance). Answer So it has to describe typing on a keyboard nervously and quickly that you are trying to find something These are such unrelated concepts (especially the third one in connection to the other two!) that the chances of a language having come up with an expression to coincidentally exactly describe those three concepts applying all together are very slim at best. The only time that happens is if and when the need for such an expression arises because people encounter the need to express the combined concepts quite often. Which I doubt is the case for this example. However, apart from set phrases, you could introduce the concepts contextually: He was frantically googling. Would indicate his use of a well-know search engine. Which in turn tells us is is trying to find something. Since we kno

I recently came across a description of a GitHub project that had a sentence similar to the following at the end: Project collaborated by James Smith and Olivia Jones. Does "collaborated by" make sense in the above sentence? Does "collaborated on by" make more sense? What word can be added or replaced to improve this sentence, while still sounding sophisticated? Answer It isn't idiomatic. Whether or not it makes sense depends on what you mean by sense. I suspect most people can probably make sense of it, but likely won't have heard it before. collaborate work jointly on an activity, especially to produce or create something (NOAD) to work jointly with others or together especially in an intellectual endeavor (MW) Collaborate is an intransitive verb that describes how people work together, not any process performed on an object. It then doesn't make sense, according to how collaborate is generally used, to say a project was collaborated: collaborate do

Why does "edited" have one "t" and and "emitted" has two? "Edit" and "emit" are so similar in spelling and pronunciation. I keep wanting to type "editted" for some reason. Answer It depends on where the stress is. If the stress is on the final syllable, the consonant will usually be doubled.

Consider, for instance, the word "university": American Heritage: u·ni·ver·si·ty Collins Cobuild: uni|ver|sity Merriam Webster: uni·ver·si·ty As you see, syllabic boundaries differ. I read somewhere that this is codified by orthographic conventions . So, does this mean that there's no standard, even in purely American (or British) dictionaries? Answer Syllables (which are a unit of spoken language and nothing per se to do with punctuation or hyphenation) are generally considered to be governed by something called the Maximum Onset Principle, meaning that a syllable consists of a vowel at its centre or nucleus and at its two edges (the onset and coda ) zero or more consonants, with the coda first filled with as many consonants as the language in question allows. These are the principles of syllabification and you'll find a few corner cases. In English, for example, in a word such as "strengths", it might be argued that the final -s actually functions

I'm confused about the following examples, and I'm pretty sure I've seen both of them in books and white papers. What I have to do is find her. What I have to do is to find her. What I would like to do is to buy it. What I would like to do is buy it Can anyone please tell me which one is correct? Many thanks

What is the difference between this two sentences - 1. An friend of my father 2. A friend of my father's

Most dictionaries seem to indicate that highlighted is the past tense for highlight , rather than highlit . However, we use lit as the past tense for light without reservation, with lighted appearing much less frequently. Why the difference? Why isn't the derivation of the past-tense verb consistent for these two related words?

Each morning, a colleague of mine greets me with the phrase: Top of the morning to you! I've tried to figure out what the meaning of this really is and how to properly respond, however there seems to be dozens of interpretations as to what this phrase actually means. Does anyone know what the origin and original meaning of this phrase is? Answer The phrase is Irish in origin but now very rarely used in Ireland (except as a sterotypical " Irishism "). It simply means "the best of the morning to you" - perhaps from the idea of unhomogenised milk, where the cream rises to the top. An appropriate response might be a simple "thank you" although the traditional response would be "And the rest of the day to yourself." Terrible attempts at Irish accents, dancing a jig and leprechaun costumes are entirely optional while saying this.

When a noun is used as a verb, linguistically, this process is termed as morphological conversion: Fish (n): This is a fish. Fish (v): I'm fishing in the river. Why shouldn't we call it syntactic conversion? The word itself didn't change only the grammatical role has been affected? And if an adjective, for example, is converted into a verb by adding a derivational suffix, then it should be called morphological conversion. Am I right?

This was at a moment when the magistrate, overcome with tiredness, had gone down into the garden of his house and , dark, bent beneath some implacable thought, like Tarquin cutting the heads off the tallest poppies with his cane, M. de Villefort was knocking down the long, dying stems of the hollyhocks that rose on either side of the path like ghosts of those flowers that had been so brilliant in the seasons that had passed away. Why is there no comma before the bolded and ? My understanding is that there is an independent clause on each side of the bolded and . By the way, the subject of the two independent clauses is the same. Answer You are assuming a rule that I believe is a pseudo-rule (perhaps you could quote this 'rule' from some grammar?) I'd personally have no trouble with Tom went to France and Dick went to Belgium. It's clear enough. The addition of a comma before and would not worry me either - I'd add a pause if reading that version. Here is an endor

I am aware of the concept of "personality clash", when two people can't get along because their natures are too different, but what is it called when two people can't get along because their personalities are too similar?

Why is the following statement valid, and how can I break it down so that it is easier to understand? Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. Answer To buffalo means to intimidate. Buffalo is a place as well as an animal (bison), so there are buffalo from Buffalo as well as buffalo from other places. And they can intimidate anything, including bison. If you really want the details, read it all here . It's semantically parseable, but you'd be lucky to find a context where you could meaningfully say it without sounding daft. If you don't have time for the whole story, try this one, which is the breakdown for 11 consecutive 'buffalos' (beats OP's somewhat weedy 6!). Bison from Buffalo [that other] bison from Buffalo intimidate [also] intimidate bison from Buffalo [that other] bison from Buffalo intimidate. LATER The constant repetition is obviously intended to be somewhat confusing, so this may make it easier to understand the sentence.

For instance, to refer to the place you were born you say "my hometown." How about when referring to the house where you were born? I thought of "my parents' house", but I think it'll sound strange if one of the parents no longer lives there? Answer Birthplace : was used to indicate the place where someone was born especially in the past. Nowadays is it more common to be born in the birth-centre of an hospital and birthplace usually refers to the village/town where someone is born. Birthplace: The place where someone is born. John Quincy Adams Birthplace : The John Quincy Adams Birthplace is a historic house at 141 Franklin Street in Quincy, Massachusetts. It is the saltbox home in which the sixth United States President, John Quincy Adams, was born in 1767 to Abigail Adams and John Adams. A common expression to indicate your home is the house where you grew up referring specifically to the first years or the first part of your life. Source: www.wikipedia

I've learned the meaning of "Go to hell" from the dictionary as used to express angry rejection of someone or something I have done my part of research by Googling "etymology for go to hell meaning" and I got a few sites like www.etymonline.com. However, they aren't very helpful. I am curious about its etymology. If anybody knows, please explain it to me. Answer The English language has been primarily spoken either by Christian people or by people who are familiar with Christian concepts since part-way through the Old English period (after the Angle-Saxon people were converted). For that reason, Christian concepts have had a strong influence upon the language in a variety of ways both subtle and blatant, including ironically in most of its stronger terms (to use the concept of damnation in such a manner is arguably blasphemy, and hence a sin). Mainstream Christian views of the afterlife offer the alternatives of Salvation in which one ends up in heaven, or

I've searched a lot and found out that down with as a slang phrase means "being in an agreement with something". On the other hand, I know that it also means "death upon something". So in a sentence like Down with war! how am I supposed to know which one of these meanings is applied? Has this term changed its meaning with time? Answer This is a simple application of the UP/DOWN Metaphor frame . As it says in the link above: What’s UP ? English speakers (like all humans) are oriented vertically with respect to a gravitational field, so the up/down dimension is significant, and English uses it in a variety of metaphor themes. All of them are coherent , i.e, we tend to think of them in the same ways (e.g, LESS, SAD, WEAK, PASSIVE, and WORSE are all negative evaluations, and vice versa.) a) UP is MORE (DOWN is LESS): - The prices are rising/falling. - The stockmarket’s moving up/crashing. - Turn the volume up/down. b) UP is HAPPY (DOWN is SAD): - He’s depresse

Statement i: I will refuse nothing to a soul that makes a request of me in virtue of my passion. In this hour you can obtain everything for yourself and for others for asking - statement (i) I tried to re-phrase the above statement as shown below. Statement ii: If someone makes a request to me, for the sake of my passion, I won't refuse their request. In this hour you will obtain everything that you are asking for - statement (ii) Are the statements (i) and (ii) equivalent? If you are curious about where the statement (i) is from, see The Hour of Great Mercy – The Divine Mercy Message from the Marians of the Immaculate Conception .

I found the information below in a grammar book: The following verbs are not normally used in the present continuous : like, love, hate, want, need, prefer, know, realize, suppose, mean, understand, believe, remember, belong, fit, contain, consist, seem. Are there any other verbs which are not used in present continuous? If yes, why are the above verbs not used in present continuous?

I have a bit of an issue with negations. Are the following correct? I do not give anything to anyone //I guess this is correct I give nothing to no-one //can I say that? Generally, is it the same to use these two statements? e.g.: This humour does not hurt anyone. This humour hurts nobody. //is this acceptable? I do not know whether there is any difference or not. Answer The only existing answer is at best misleading. "I do not give anything to anyone" is standard English "I give nothing to no-one" is a double negative - not uncommon, but considered "non-standard". "This humour doesn't hurt anyone" is standard English. "This humour hurts nobody" is standard English. Note that the only "non-standard" variant above is easily recast to full acceptability: "I give nothing to anyone" is standard English. There's no difference in meaning whether the negation is applied to the verb ( give/do not give, hurts/d

I came across this sentence but can't understand the grammatical structure. Despite there being a blizzard in the area, business remained open as usual. In the phrase "Despite there being a blizzard," I can tell "there being" is an absolute phrase. Then why "despite" is used? Can an absolute phrase function as a noun phrase? Or is "there being" not an absolute phrase but a gerund? But if it is a gerund, that doesn't make sense in terms of grammatical structure. Why and how "despite" can be used with an absolute phrase?

ODO's definition for bottle includes the following: 2 [mass noun] British informal the courage or confidence needed to do something difficult or dangerous: I lost my bottle completely and ran bottle out British informal lose one’s nerve and decide not to do something: the Minister has bottled out of real reforms Where does this use of the word bottle come from? Both the examples in the ODO definition are negative in connotation; are there positive ones too? Can someone have the bottle to do something?

When copying someone in an email, should we say copied in or copied on? I was almost positive that in was the only correct usage until I hit google and was surprised to see on more prevalent. Could someone explain why on could be used in this context as we say something in an email not on an email? I copied him on this email. I copied him in this email. Answer Both are new expressions, and haven't gone through the full evolutionary process yet. Both are used, and both are useful. Also, they both make sense, which is not a requirement, but always helps. Usually in refers to a 3 -dimensional container, while on refers to a 2 -dimensional surface. The book is in the box or on the table . So the question is whether an email has 2 or 3 dimensions. Then the rule will be: Use in if it's 3 and on if it's 2. Unfortunately, however, the whole phenomenon of email happens metaphorically , so there's nothing with any real dimensions to hold on to. The only thing one act

Consider the following sentences: Cooking is my favourite activity. Cooking apples are essential for this recipe. Cooking functions in the first sentence as a gerund. How does it function in the second? A similar question could be asked of the term cleaning lady . However, while a cooking apple represents an apple which is ( itself ) cooked , a cleaning lady represents a lady who cleans ( something else ). Is there a difference? Other examples: Talking point vs. Watering can Reading material vs. Cutting board Answer Consider the following sentences (stressed words are boldfaced): Cooking apples is essential for this recipe. Cooking apples are essential for this recipe. In (1), cooking apples is an example of a gerund subject complement with a (deleted) indefinite subject. As usual in a transitive subjectless clause, the direct object gets stressed. And, of course, noun clauses are always singular, whence the predicate is essential . In (2), however, cooking apples is an

To nominalize a verb, you sometimes use the gerund. to happen --> a happening Sometimes it's a different word. to arrive --> an arrival so we don't write to arrive --> an *arriving Is there a rule for when to use each method? Currently I just use whichever sounds good, being a native speaker.

Could you answer my question? 1) I haven't smoked for years. 2) I haven't been smoking for years. In Raymond Murphy's book English Grammar in Use with Answers. A Self-Study Reference and Practice Book for Intermediate Learners of English (ex:11.1(9) The answer is No. 1 Why is I haven't been smoking for years , not possible? Could you please explain? Can I use the present perfect continuous negative with period of time: for 2 weeks , for years etc? And not with the verb to smoke but also with other verbs.

What is the origin of the suffix -ing used to form gerunds and present participles? Why is the suffix the same in both cases? Answer The two -ing 's are actually not the same etymologically. One developed from Proto-Germanic * -ungō , which has survived in contemporary German ( packaging — Verpackung ). The other -ing developed from Old English -ende , from Proto-Germanic * -andz — again, compare contemporary German ( singing — singend ) — and goes back to the Proto-Indo-European * -nt- (cf. Greek -ον or Latin -ans ). For further details, see Etymonline or Wiktionary .

I recently corrected "ghettos, such as the ones found..." to "ghettos, such as those found..." Was I correct or are both versions right? Answer They're both grammatically and semantically correct. They differ in style and register. "..ghettos, such as the ones found..." is verbose: two words versus "..ghettos, such as those found..." one word. You'll find both styles in formal academic prose and in informal prose. I prefer the second style and would make the same change were I editing a sentence with the first string in it. I'm not sure which would occur more often in speech. I tend to speak the way I write (formal, generally grammatical correct, and, I've been told, in difficult vocabulary). Most people write like they speak, though. There's no rule that forbids anyone from using the ones when talking about people. E.g.: I generally like girls in their late teens and early twenties, but the ones who belong to Chi Omega

I'm wondering when to use or not to use the definite article, when using acronyms or initialisms in a sentence. Is there a rule for this, or does it depend on the context? For example, let's look at some example sentences DDR = detailed design review. NASA is planning to launch the final shuttle soon (no article) The FBI shut down this website (article) ESA is a full partner in the ISS (no article, article) The project was cancelled at the DDR. (article) What confuses me is that if NASA or ESA would be written in full, the article would be necessary. Answer Generally the article is not used with acronyms (initials that can be pronounced as a word), whereas it is with initialisms (initials where the letters themselves are pronounced). I would actually use the article with 'ESA' in the examples you gave, and so 'NASA' (acronym) doesn't get an article, but 'FBI', 'ESA', and 'DDR' (initialisms) do. That said, there are initialisms wher

I have recently been told by a Londoner that "second name" is the most common way of referring to one's surname. She explained that it arose from the fact that most people just use their first and last names, therefore "second name" and "last name" became synonyms. This has given me some food for thought and I've become curious on a couple of points: Is this practice in use elsewhere? Does it cause misunderstandings when a person happens to have a middle name and, therefore, second and last name aren't coincident? So, in this fictitious name, what could be called what? Mary (first name) Sue (middle name / ?second name? or ?second given name?) Smith (surname / family name / last name / ?second name?) On a slightly different note, when non-English names that have multiple surnames are involved, how would one refer to them? For example: Ana Maria Silva dos Santos Pereira, where "Ana Maria" correspond to 2 given names and "Silva dos

I'm trying to figure out if there is a specific rule behind the word "cancel" that would cause "cancellation" to have two L's, but "canceled" and "canceling" to have only one (in the US). I understand the rules are very loose when it comes to double L's in English, and I have read several posts on here talking about "canceled" and "canceling" (vs "cancelled" and "cancelling"), but my specific question is more about the spelling of "cancellation". US English Oxford Dictionary - they do NOT mention cancelation with one "L" Meriam Webster - they do seem to have cancelation listed with one "L" Microsoft Word marks "cancelation" as an invalid word Same with the spell checker in Firefox So my question is: is there a reason or rule why in US English, "cancellation" seems to have two L's (to most dictionaries), while "canceled" and "