Blog

I've been doing some ELA homework and I noticed that ' there ' is not always the same POS. It seems to be an adverb, a noun, a pronoun, and several other POS in various contexts. How would one know what part of speech the word ' there ' is in a given case?

In the course of answering this question (which is now deleted and may be viewed only by 10K+ community members), we have evoked some dispute over whether the phrase Am I needing to read this book? is grammatical. I think it is correct, although not common, but others think differently. Is this a correct grammatical structure, albeit perhaps a bit odd? EDIT : I think I should clarify further. I don’t disagree that this phrasing is unusual; in fact, that’s what I said in the other answer. What I am interested in is whether it is correct or not. I think it is because of its uncommonness that I am not certain. It might be more straightforward to ask it this way: Is the sentence “I am needing to read this book” grammatical? If not, why not? Answer I am needing to read this book is incorrect in Standard American English in all registers (formal, informal, regional etc.). If you say this to an SAmE speaker, it will sound very strange/foreign/disfluent to them. They will interpret to mean

I am looking for an adjective/noun for someone who is able to speak/ makes speeches very well and uses words effectively to influence/impress people.

What is a word to describe "people who can very quickly think what to say". I mean like funny people who have great timing. Is there one exact word for that ability. Not "smart", "canny", "savvy" or "shrewd". Thank you. Answer quippy Joky; inclined to or characterised by quipping. quip A clever, witty remark often prompted by the occasion. A clever, often sarcastic remark; a gibe. It can be used endearingly, as well as pejoratively, but also in both ways simultaneously (as determined by the context): A couple so quippy and witty that I almost want to see them as supporting roles in every rom-com I can. So funny. So quippy. So utterly watchable. I think that's where Spidey works very well because he is so quippy and so funny. were all people in the 1940s so quippy or is it just his Captain America? Waid writes a comic called Ruse that I love, it ... the detective’s assistant, Emma Bishop, is such a great character. She comes off as

Background: Nowadays, I see this usage a lot. I don't know if it was this common in the past. For example: "one of them people " When I did a research about it, some people say it comes from a dialect of British English . And some says it is a " non-standard " usage. I see this usage in Canadian English also and seems like some people use in a sarcastic way. Moreover, I saw in a song title as "one of them days". And I saw in the book called "A Broken Promise" as "Now my mother become one of them people." And finally, Wikipedia says that it is a usage in Appalachian English (a common name for the Southern Midland dialect of American English): Pronouns and demonstratives "Them" is sometimes used in place of "those" as a demonstrative in both nominative and oblique constructions. Examples are "Them are the pants I want" and "Give me some of them crackers." Question(s): What would you say about

I was reading a newspaper published in Indonesia and while quoting sexual harassment , the term 'eve-teasing" was repeatedly used. E.g. The Bontang police arrested two residents for eve-teasing, beating and threatening a minor girl at... I looked in the Oxford dictionary which provides the following: Definition of eve-teasing in English:noun [mass noun] Indian The making of unwanted sexual remarks or advances by a man to a woman in a public place. My question(s): Is it that such words are only used in the country of origin or neighboring countries Do such words (read-Indian) find a place in AmE and BrE writings too What is the equivalent to eve-teasing in AmE and BrE Any anti-women connotations?

I know that if a word ends with an s then it should be made plural or possessive by use of an apostrophe with no extra s (e.g. "Thomas Harris' book was a riveting read." as opposed to "Gary Barlow's voice is so distracting.") What about if the word ends with a z . For example, would it be Gomez' album or Gomez's album? Answer There are various views regarding proper nouns ending in s. The Times Style and Usage Guide (2011): apostrophes with proper names/nouns ending in s that are singular, [...] where the final 's' is soft, use the 's' apostrophe, eg, Rabelais' writings, Delors' presidency The Guardian Style Guide (2007): The possessive in words and names ending in S normally takes an apostrophe followed by a second S (Jones's, James's), but be guided by pronunciation and use the plural apostrophe where it helps: Mephistopheles', Waters', Hedges' rather than Mephistopheles's, Waters's, Hedges

‘Every’ is considered singular, or so I have been told. Every boy is happy. However, what is correct when ‘every’ is used in both components of a compound subject? Every boy and every girl is happy. Every boy and every girl are happy. People on my end give unconvincing arguments for both . I find neither particularly appealing. Still, one of them must be correct. Which one, and why? Answer Normally a combination of singulars equates to a plural, as you know. John is happy. John and Sue are happy. BUT when the singles are grouped by a singular adjective, they maintain their single count. This is because singular grouping adjectives like "every" stay singular even if referring to more than one person. Despite the room being full of people, everybody is happy . Every Tom, Dick and Harry is here . But any boy or girl who misbehaves will be punished. Therefore the correct statement is: Every boy and every girl is happy.

I want to know about the position of always in different sentences. For example: Always she is tidy and on time. Is it correct or not? Answer Always is an adverb of frequency, like never , often , frequently , and usually . In simple tenses, it usually goes after the verb "to be": She is always on time. She was always on time. With other verbs, it usually comes just before the verb: She always runs before breakfast. In compound tenses, it goes between the auxiliary verb and the main verb: He will always be my friend. He was always rehearsing.

What is the most common or correct spelling of "blah blah blah"? blah blah blah blah blah bla bla bla bla bla My question stems from when I first wrote it as "bla bla bla" in an English text, but a friend told me it should have been written as "blah blah" so I decided to ask here. Before that I had checked it out on some online English dictionary and Google search but I wasn't able to clear it out.

some more examples: "And she gave me that aren't-I-just-gorgeous smile." "The I-did-it-my-way approach." "A from-this-day-forward-I-have-no-son scene." Answer It's more than a hyphenated compound modifier ( a to-do list ). It's a stacked hyphenated compound modifier. Bonnie Mills, at Grammar Girl has a relevant article, starting: Today’s episode concerns a what-you-may-have-been-wondering-about topic. That sure was a mouthful, and it illustrates the problem of stacked modifiers, which occurs when you string together too many words to describe a noun at the end of the mouthful. Though the examples given here are quirky, punchy and easy to understand, and fine in informal registers, caution has to be exercised to avoid confusion or silliness. And I'd say that trying to analyse these nonce coinings as other than compound adjectives is a futile exercise (though their origins are transparent).

From a descriptive standpoint (and the problem that English has at least two words in an infinitive), I understand why the split infinitive is becoming more acceptable, but is there any other excuse for this phrasing used by phone CSRs? "I'd be happy to direct you to the bank to further assist you." "I'd like to transfer you to the sales department to further assist you." "I have Diana on the line, and she'll be happy to further assist you." Is it simply the case that Star Trek syntax triumphs again, or does it somehow sound funny to say "to assist you further?" (I would not consider "further to assist you" an acceptable solution.) To clarify, is there a fixed syntagm of a VP "to further assist" versus an issue of split infinitive? Is "further" bound in the domain of "to assist?" Answer English does not always have at least two words in an infinitive . This is a common misconception, possibly

Suppose there are two vice presidents vying for influence/supremacy within an organization. One vice president is admittedly weaker than the other, so he forms an alliance with a powerful underling who can tip the balance and make him (his team) the stronger. Is there a word for this third person, the underling on Team B, whose involvement would tip the balance? I'm thinking of a politically-charged word like "power-broker", but in a more subservient role. (Power brokers pull the marionette strings, whereas this fellow is talent.) Note: I would create the tag "mot-juste" but I presently lack the required rep. Answer Kingmaker , which wikipedia currently defines as "a person or group that has great influence in a royal or political succession, without being a viable candidate."

Yesterday, I read about the English subjunctive mood. I tried to, but couldn't, discern a concise conception of it. What do you regard as a useful and concise conception of the subjunctive mood? Answer Regardless if a language supports it, the subjunctive exists. The ambiguous, vague and imprecise view of phrase-structure linguistics (vs the more precise dependency structure linguistics) calls the subjunctive a "mood". Unfortunately, prevalent English grammatical analysis is still driven by the obsolete phrase-structure grammar. Therefore, we would find the subjunctive concept ill-defined under this outmoded grammatical analysis framework. In Mathematics, we have a concept known as imaginary numbers. Imaginary numbers are just as concrete in existence and equally useful as "real" numbers. Where, square root of "−1" is the base factor of imaginary numbers. The subjunctive exists in imaginary time. Using computer science lingo, the subjunctive is an enc

My friend is trying so hard to fit into polite society, and is raising her child to say loo rather than toilet . I know it should be lavatory (and I would not say lav ) but we are in the 21st century now. What would be deemed appropriate?

I'm working with a friend who's looking for a word/phrase to describe her clientele. She's good enough and well-respected enough that she commands top dollar in her field and usually only works with 2-3 clients a year. She's also very selective about who those clients are. She building her brand as a luxury, well worth the price, hard to get but very much in demand, exclusive, etc. She wants "I've worked with _ __ _ _ " to be a status symbol and source of envy among her prospective clientele. Imagine a high-end designer personally making three gowns a year. The three starlets who got to wear those to the Academy Awards have all eyes on them as they walk the red carpet. We're trying to talk about that kind of prestige. So far, we've brainstormed: "Serving an exclusive clientele since 19xx" & "Serving a select group of clientele since 19xx." I feel like we're missing the mark, but just can't seem to find a word that

I'm a native speaker and it's just occurred to me that this is a strange irregularity: "The work is in complete." < Fine "The work is un completed." < Less common but still sounds "correct" to my ear "The work is incompleted or uncomplete < Both of these sound wrong. Are there rules (presumably based on the etymological root of the word) governing when we use "un" vs "in" , and how does it apply to "complete" here? Why don't we say "incompleted" or "uncomplete"? Or is it just one of those arbitrary things that isn't supposed to make sense? If there's a difference in meaning between "incomplete" and "uncompleted" I can't think what it might be... Answer The etymological origin of the root of the word isn't actually as relevant as whether the ending of the adjective is from Latin or from English. The negative prefix in- is not very productiv

I am curious about using "used to" which is used for expressing some habitual actions in the past. But how to use it for passive voices? Example 1: I used to eat chocolate too much when I was a baby This example is OK. What about the second one? Example 2: a) This computer is used to calculate statistics. b) This computer is used for calculating statistics. Which one is more suitable? In other words, are both of them give the same meaning? I am avoiding making contextual mistakes. My problem is that I have read a sentence and I thought it should be corrected: Actual sentence: Bivariate linear regression is used to measure the degree of linear relationship between two variables. After correction (not sure if it is really required): Bivariate linear regression is used for measuring the degree of linear relationship between two variables. I think (b) should be. Answer Al of your sentences are correct. Note that in your (a) and (b) sentences, 'The computer is used' is t

I don't know if this is a good question. But as far as I know, and as I do it, American English also say "after" other than "past" in expressing times. For example, a quarter after six instead of, a quarter past six as in British English. The other difference I know, so far, is that the British use dots to separate "hour" and "minute" in digital times like "08.35" while Americans use a colon e.g; "08:35". So is what I know, so far, correct? Or are there any other differences that I don't know about? Answer American English most common speech usage examples using 6 o'clock: 6:00 we would normally just say "Six". If we really want to point out the exact time we might say "Six on the dot". 6:01-6:29 normally uses after. Past is fine here too but not used as much. Also if you knew the hour, then you would probably just say the time. Example - "It is 6:25" or if you know it is 6-somethin

Can you look at a word and see if a "u" should be pronounced as "ooo" or "yoo" by using some set of rules, or do you just have to know the correct pronunciation ahead of time? For example: cop[u]late "yoo" l[u]minate "ooo" r[u]minate "ooo" imm[u]ne "yoo" cons[u]me "ooo" comm[u]ne "yoo"

I'm looking for a precise word to describe someone who is hypocritical on moral issues, for example: a cult guru who claims to be holy while doing something evil. or a company which partakes in some kind of sordid business practice while pretending to be holier-than-thou.

Which style of Latin plurals should I use? Is “data” considered singular or plural? Where are the "data"? I only have one "datum". Listening to Radio 4's Today programme this morning I was struck by how the journalists, commentators, politicians and other obviously very well educated people are happy to use referendums as the plural of referendum . This grates on me - I was always told such Latin words, when pluralised, ended in 'a' and, being working-class, I tend to regard these kinds of people as models of good behaviour and speech (yes I know). Other usages that grate are referenda, data (plural of datum ) and, in our football-obsessed times, the ubiquitous stadia (plural of stadium ) and many, many more. Should I just accept the fact that the world is changing and embrace what to me are very ugly examples of modern English or are these people, in the strictest sense wrong ?

I'm having trouble finding the origin of the terms "curse words" and "swear words" when used as a synonym what many call "bad words" (although I don't agree). I've found that "curses" when used as an explicative is from the late 19th century, but not much more than that. I'm assuming they have some origin in religion/mysticism/witchcraft due to the earliest meaning I can find of the word "curse," and how "swear" is believed to come from the invocation of the the "sacred" name (Exodus). Unfortunately, these explanations don't satisfy me. I ask, does anyone have a more detailed explanation with specifics as to the origin of these terms in order to satisfy my curiosity? Answer The general term is Profanity . Swearing and cursing are both activities in which profanity may occur, so that's where the common terms came from. Swearing means swearing by someone or something , i.e, taking an oath to

In English, there are three suppletive adjectives: good , bad and far . Their comparative and superlative forms derive from different stems, i.e., we have best instead of * goodest , worse instead of * badder and so on. Do linguists have an explanation for why suppletion occurred only for these three adjectives? And, more specifically, why good and bad ? It seems that there is something special about good and bad , because in other European languages, the corresponding adjectives are also suppletive. But, since the comparative and superlative forms are not cognate across the subfamilies, the process must have occurred independently in each one. Answer As far as I know, irregularity correlates to frequency of use : as a paradigm ( / set of related words) is more commonly used, it will be less regular on average. Suppletion is an (extreme) type of irregularity, and so it is more common with frequently used words. The most common adjectives and adverbs in all languages I know have

I am looking for a synonym for "media item" by which I mean a single photo, article, video, document, etc. I need one term as a handle for one of any of these types of items. I am honing my domain vocabulary for communicating with public affairs clients on software development projects. I find "media item" a little clunky, and I am wondering if there's a better handle out there. Unfortunately, "publication" can't do, as this leads to some confusion given the way I need to use the term "publish" for non-media items. Answer I refer to these in my professional life as "assets".

I can't get the meaning of the phrase "in my bones". Help me make a suitable sentence using it. Does it have a positive connotation?

I have read the following example online: The journey there took three hours. (correct) (A) The trip took three hours (wrong) All dictionaries defined a trip as a short distance travel while journey it takes a lot time to achieve, i.e. to travel for a distant area by a vehicle. This already is understood and no question to ask more but I had this example: (B) We went on a three-week trip to Scotland. Now my question is: Why do they limit the use of the term (trip) to be for a short-time travel as in A sentence, then it is for three-week tip to _______ as in B? Here apparently confusion will occur not only to a non-native speaker but to the native speaker as well. I wonder how this duality in English language! I fear and wary off! This is a mistake, the very error to deal with "A trip to Scotland lasts three weeks " is (correct) but to say: "The trip took three hours " (wrong)! Another question: Does the trip in the sentence We went in three-week trip to Scotland me

Possible Duplicates: Use of “that” in a sentence How do you handle “that that”? The double “that” problem What exactly is the recommendation, when I'm writing, to do with the word "that"? Often, while speaking, someone might say: I think it's going to rain. Whereas, technically, it should be: I think that it's going to rain. However, things can get complicated when using the word "that" to refer to an object such as "this or that": I guess that would be the right thing to do. versus: I guess that that would be the right thing to do. Is the latter even grammatically correct? What should I do in these cases? Should I add the word "that" in all cases, or only cases where it might be ambiguous otherwise? Should I always omit it? Should I repeat the word "that" twice when appropriate, or should I always list it once in these cases?

Is there a good english synonym database available in the Internet? I imagine that it should work like a translator: you enter a word and synonyms for this word are displayed. The reason for asking this: I'm not a native English speaker but I have to write a lot of text in English. I noticed that I tend to use always the same expressions and I think it would be a good thing to for example not always use “that's why” but sometimes “therefore”. Answer Google has many results for such a query, though quality sites may be buried under other sites that are better marketed (or more engaged in search engine optimisation). One main remark: what you are looking for (listings of synonyms and related words) is called a thesaurus (plural: thesauri or thesauruses ). Now, for the sites themselves, I myself am quite fond of: The Merriam-Webster thesaurus The French CNRS online synonym database , which is part of a larger semantic atlas worth exploring: If you own a Mac computer, the Dic

I thought calling to somebody "Lady" (ex. Lady, you dropped your key! or How are you doing, lady? ) sounds polite, but some dictionary says "used when talking directly to a woman you do not know, when you are angry with her" in American English. (from Longman Dictionary) Is this description in a dictionary always true, or does it just depend on situations?

As cited above what is the difference between later and latter ? Latter : occurring or situated nearer to the end of something than to the beginning, the meaning of latter is similar to later only. so please throw the real difference between both of the words. Answer Latter is at the end. Being the second of two persons or things mentioned; near or nearer to the end. It has more to do with placement , so to speak. Location, real or figurative. Between captain and major, the latter is the higher rank. My favorite is the latter part of the book. Later has more to do with time . She arrived an hour later than expected. Better plant your tomatoes later in the Spring than sooner; tomatoes don't do well in the cold. They are similar, but not interchangeable. You can't say "I'd prefer the later" if asked if you would prefer coffee or tea. You can't say, "Plant them latter in the season." You can say, in the latter part of Spring , as with the lat

How do we describe someone who has special athletic skills? For example, in Chinese we can say that “Bolt runs like an animal” to emphasize he runs so quick that even surpasses the normal level of human. Are there any phrases / expressions in English that have similar meanings? To clarify, I’m not looking for an adjective to describe someone who can run fast, I just want to know if there's an expression to show that someone possesses a skill that may look like an animal instead of a normal human being. :) Answer It's slang, so you may not find this meaning listed in the dictionary, but sometimes the word freak is used to describe amazing athletic talent and ability. Bleacher report , which is a U.S. sports news website, describes it like this: Other players .. rely on freakish, raw athleticism to make their mark on the game and outperform their competition. One sports columnist for CBS Sports claims he has used the term for at least a decade now, stating: I've been compi

I'm confused by why people use the following: It's up to yourself. Rather than: It's up to you. Another example of this would be: Please feel free to contact ourselves if you have any problems. Rather than: Please feel free to contact us if you have any problems. Are both of these correct? Is there any reason for using the former? Answer Using "yourself" and "ourselves" in these contexts is incorrect. "Yourself," "ourselves," and "myself" are reflexive pronouns, correctly used when the subject/actor of the sentence and the object/recipient are the same person or group. "I see myself" is correct because I am doing the seeing and am seeing myself. In your latter example, the subject is the implicit "you" and the object is (correctly) "us." Edit I searched for a clear reference for this. The clearest one I found was Wikipedia's reflexive pronoun article , whose Non-reflexive usage in English s

When we describe historical events, like events related to the Roman empires, Persian empires, etc., what is the best way to describe peoples' thought with a connection to the present? People might have thought the same back in those days, but you know it's not always correct. People had thought the same back in those days, but you know it's not always correct. People thought the same back in those days, but you know it's not always correct. Answer People had thought . . . would not be used in this context because that construction describes an event that occurred before some other event in the past. People thought . . . conveys certainty. People might have thought . . . suggests doubt.

If someone has the wrong end of the stick it means they've misunderstood something. If they've got the shitty end of the stick it means they've got a bad deal in some bargain or share-out. This doesn't seem particularly close to the wrong end meaning - so unless someone convinces me different, I'm not inclined to think these idioms share a common origin. Does anyone know where either or both of these expressions come from? Answer According to The Phrase Finder , the two share the same origin, not really diverging in meaning until 1850 or so.

Examples: Any time that you're ____ing, you should probably reconsider your actions. To the astute, the ____ing was disgusting behavior - to the average person, it just sounded sensible. I couldn't reveal the whole story, so I just ____ed, hoping that nobody would listen, those who listened would forget, and those who didn't forget would seem whiny and stuck in the past. Prophylactic double-speak[ing] doesn't get to the heart of the hypocrisy. Advocating for the Devil seems too well-intentioned. False im-moralizing just confusing. Temporary/transient normalization is too buzz-wordy.

Is there a specific reason for this? After all, it is "boys and girls", rather than "girls and boys". If the boy (male) comes first here, why doesn't it come first in "ladies and gentlemen"? Answer It probably has to do with the phonetic and metrical properties of "ladies and gentlemen" versus "gentlemen and ladies." Say them both out loud and see which one sounds better to you, intuitively. The metrical pattern of "ladies and gentlemen" consists of (arguably) two dactyls. A dactyl is a group of three syllables where the first is stressed and the second two are unstressed. When these occur in succession, they are pleasant to the ear. la dies and gent lemen DUM da da / DUM da da The metrical pattern of "gentlemen and ladies" falls into a much less regular pattern. It is less pleasant to the ear. It is something like a stressed syllable followed by three unstressed syllables followed by a stressed syllable foll

Is it just me, or is the letter "i" pronounced differently in the words die and dice ? In die , it sounds like the regular long I sound (ay), but in the word dice , it sounds closer to something like "əy" with a short schwa sound. Answer You’re right: one is [aɪ] but the other one, which is shorter and higher, is [ʌɪ]. This phenomenon is called, dubiously at best, Canadian raising . Most North Americans do this with that diphthong. Wikipedia writes: Raising of just /aɪ/ is found throughout the United States, and so may be considered an increasingly common General American characteristic, with the only major exception in the U.S. being in the South. It happens mostly before voiceless consonants, of which the /s/ at the end of dice is one. That makes dice come out as [dʌɪs] but die is just the unraised [daɪ]. Other pairs are tight/tide, writer/rider , and the two versions of high school .

It seems to me that the "d" is flapped in "I don't know" in American English. Am I right? If I am, I'm wondering if t/d is always flapped at the begining of the word when it is preceded by a vowel? For instance in "I did it"?

Which word(s) would you use in a situation such as the one below, to make the sentence sound logical, natural and complete? You told me we were going to a nice park. We've spent almost two hours to get here! And what do I see here? You call these three trees and two benches a park?! Are you kidding me? This is not a park, this is a _ __ _ of a park! Answer An epigone. IPA: ˈɛpɨɡəʊn Greek: ἐπίγονοι Epigone means a pathetic copy, a derivative, a completely un-memorable also-ran, created by the half-hearted effort of a talentless hack, who probably would never have had the idea to create the derivative work, if he had not admired the original. If "paragon" is the greatest exemplar of a particular platonic ideal, then the "epigone" is a shallow pale photocopy. The greek root of the word epigone means "born later". Synonyms: Also-Ran, Derivative. I first saw the word referring to the "epigones of Tolkien"; That mass of drivel that copies Tolkien

I forgot versus I had forgot . What is the difference between the two phrases? Answer "I forgot" is the simple past , expressing an action which took place once. "I had forgotten " is is the simple past perfect , used to express an action taking place before a certain time in the past. This tense emphasizes what happened, not the duration thereof. "I had forgot" is generally considered bad grammar, at least in my part of the US, because the correct past participle of "forgot" is " forgotten ". See http://www.ego4u.com/en/cram-up/grammar/tenses for examples of all English tenses.

I saw the word, “language fiend” in a newspaper article yesterday. I thought I saved the text for the purpose of posting this question, but I didn't, so I can’t remember what the source of it was. When I saw the word, “language fiend,” it prompted me a question – how a language (computer / music / chess /manga/ cosme, whatever) fiend is enthusiastic about the language (computer / music / chess /manga/ cosme, whatever) in comparison with language (computer / music / chess / manga / cosme) fan, enthusiast, maniac, fanatic,and geek. In Japanese, we have only two groups of xx-愛好者 (aikosha – lover, or fan) and xx-狂(kyo -maniac) to distinguish the level of interest, zeal, and engagiment in an object. In this regard, we are very simplistic. I think I’m English language enthusiast, but won't be a fiend. Which of them are considered to be the normal 'lover' level and abnormal 'maniac' level? Are there any other English suffixes to describe __ lover or __ maniac than the

At the beginning of the century. In the beginning of the century. How to clearly distinguish when to use at , or in ? Answer In general, "at" marks a spot and "in" marks a space. Obviously, there are idiomatic exceptions, but this really isn't one. The beginning of a period of time is a "spot", the period of time itself is rather "spacious".

I want to better understand why the construction something + [adjective] makes grammatical sense. Background: I was recently reading a Washington Post article and came across the following sentence. So if you fall in that category, [the movie] feels more like magic than repetitive. (Note: I've copied the relevant spoiler-free sentence above; following the link to the article will open you up to movie spoilers! Source ) The phrase more like magic than repetitive struck me as odd, presumably because it was non-parallel ( more like [noun] than [adjective] ). I would have expected "...more like magic than something repetitive." (Actually, that needs to be rewritten to flow better, but the point is that at least it appears to be grammatical.) Thus, one would have the noun phrase "something repetitive," of the form "[noun] [adjective]." This got me to thinking about the use of adjectives after nouns. There is a great Stack Exchange article here (When can a

At what point does next Tuesday mean the next Tuesday that will come to pass and no longer the Tuesday after the Tuesday that will come to pass? And, when does the meaning switch back? Answer To me, “next Tuesday” means the Tuesday that comes next week. For example, on Monday, October 11 and Wednesday, October 13, “next Tuesday” means October 19. Whereas on Monday, October 18, “next Tuesday” means October 26. “This Tuesday” refers to the Tuesday that comes this week, which on Wednesday would refer to yesterday, and on Monday refers to tomorrow. Similarly, “Last Tuesday” is the Tuesday that came last week. Without any descriptors, day names by themselves mean the next such day in the future unless used in the past tense. “He will do it on Tuesday” means the next time there is a Tuesday, which on Monday would mean “tomorrow” but on Wednesday would mean the following Tuesday. In the past tense, day names mean the last such day which occurred. “He did it on Tuesday” means the most recen

A person who is a jack of all trades; he has done almost everything, knows everything, has gone everywhere, and is quite experienced. Is there any single word for such a person?

There is a good feeling you get when your curiosity is satisfied, especially if is about a question you found interesting or important, or have spent a lot of time and energy trying to answer. Depending on how much I wanted to know, this feeling can be quite pleasing. Is there a word specifically for either the satisfaction of a curiosity, or the feeling that results?

We often say "PIN Number", this is part of everyday conversation. But why? PIN stands for Personal Identification Number, so what we're actually saying is Personal Identification Number Number. Is there a reason for this? Answer This is a special case of the etymological fallacy . "PIN", like almost all words in every language, has its own meaning which is divorced from its etymology (in this case, its origin as an acronym). In fact it has two related meanings, because it is still used as a stand-alone noun, closer to its origin ("I've forgotten my PIN"), as well as in its derived sense as a modifier ("PIN number"). One of the reasons for the prevalence of the derived sense is possibly the homophony of the ordinary word "pin". It's not that it's likely to be confused with the other meaning; it's that without context it may be unclear what you are talking about, so "PIN number" serves to narrow it down and

I instinctively said I would have had to have been over 180 lbs for that to have happened. I thought that seemed overly wordy. Too many "have"s and "had"s. So I tried: I would have had to be over 180 lbs for that to happen. That didn't feel right, though. My brother and I were talking of a past event. He suggested something that could have happened. (Something like, You could have hung from the chandelier to get it out ). I tried the first of the above statements. I want to speak about something that would need to occur for something else to occur in that past situation. What would be the proper way of saying what I was trying to say up there‽ Answer I would have had to have been and I would have had to be are alternatives, but have had already sets up the time reference, so the infinitive to be , rather than the perfect infinitive to have been is enough. Usage seems to confirm this. The British National Corpus has 15 records of would have had to have been

Sometimes it is unclear to me whether "or" or "and" should be used in a list. For example I have seen the following lease agreement: The dwelling may not be used for illegal activities: including drug manufacturing and distribution, prostitution or gang related activity. Assuming the intent is to disallow drug manufacturing, drug distribution, prostitution and gang related activities; is it correct to have the word "and" between "drug manufacturing" and "distribution"? What about in a grocery list intended for someone with soy allergies "do not buy soy products such as tofu, miso soup or pies containing soy beans like x and y". Assuming "x" and "y" are names of pies containing soy beans, would it be correct to have them separated by "and" instead of "or"?

I am thanking someone in type by saying : "John and Mary for being there even when you aren't near." Would it be better or worse to use 'here' : "John and Mary for being here even when you aren't near."

Is it appropriate to use the term "mileage" to refer to distance that is not measured in the literal units of miles? For example, would you say that a car "has a lot of mileage on it" in a country that measures distance in kilometers? Is there a more unit-neutral term that is better to use universally? Answer Mileage can certainly be used without having to be associated with literal miles. Freedictionary defines it as an informal noun, meaning usefulness, or how much service something has provided, or may provide. Cambridge dictionaries defines it as an advantage that can be obtained from a situation A person may get good mileage out of a situation, meaning that they made good use of, or made good benefit from a situation. My very old clothes dryer is over 15 years old, and although it now needs replacing, I would say I got excellent mileage from it. In Australia (where we use kilometres) the term mileage is also used to describe the fuel consumption of a vehic

I've heard a lot of Americans pronounce abbreviations like GUI as goo-ey . Is this the same with British English, or is it more common to spell out the word, like gee-you-eye ? Answer I think "gooey" is also more common in the UK. I don't recall hearing another programmer spell it out, though I suppose I wouldn't be terribly puzzled if somebody did.

How can we pronounce words ending with - sts ? lists costs tests I often heard people pronunce its like, lɪsts and kɒsts lɪsː kɔsː but which one is acceptable? Answer In rapid speech particularly, consonants in clusters such as /sts/ are frequently lost in a process known to phoneticians as ‘elision’. Similarly, ‘next’ will occur as /neks/ and ‘acts’ as /aks/. It’s not so much a matter of bad pronunciation as a recognized feature of speech which most of us will display at one time or another.

Which of the following is correct? I am leaving for London. I am leaving to London. I have always thought the first one is correct till I came across the name of this painting . Answer Both are correct, but the first is more common modern parlance. Leaving to is likely an ellipsis of leaving to go to .

Think of the simple phrase "Bill's friend". If you were going to turn this around using the preposition 'of' would you say: A friend of Bill's or A friend of Bill It appears to me that, in the US anyway, people always say "A friend of Bill's". Even though I'm a native American English speaker, this just sounds weird to me. It seems to create a 'double possessive' (a term I just invented). I always want to respond: "A friend of Bill's what?" A friend of Bill's aunt? So what's at work here, and do British English speakers also do this? Answer As @FX_ points out, it’s called a double genitive or double possessive . In this example, it’s not compulsory: both a friend of Bill’s and a friend of Bill are correct, although the first is probably more common. (Usage data, anyone?) If Bill were replaced by a pronoun, however (poor Bill!), the double genitive would be required: a friend of mine is correct, but not a fri

There has been talk of how to answer a negative question without ambiguity, most often with a qualifying phrase needed for clarification. (For example, "yes, I do"/"no, I don't.) I've noticed that other languages have a single word to address a negative question on the contrary. In German, ja means yes and nein means no . Alternatively, doch is used to respond in the positive to a negative question, in essence meaning "No, I intend to do the opposite of what your question presumes." Take for example the question, "You don't want to go to the movie then?" German speakers could simply reply, "nein" if they don't want to go or they would say "doch" if they did want to go; an unambiguously positive response to a negatively phrased question. No need for, "no, I actually would like to go" or "yes, I'll come actually". In French, the respective equivalents of ja, nein, and doch are oui, non,

I’m not a native English speaker. I’ve noticed that in titles or headlines, many words often start with a capital letter while others are still lowercase. As an example, the title of my question would most likely be: Capital Letters in Headlines I already found a solution on how it’s done , but I still want to know why. Answer According to Wikipedia , this phenomenon is called title case , and: Among U.S. book publishers (but not newspaper publishers), it is a common typographic practice to capitalize "important" words in titles and headings. This is an old form of emphasis, similar to the more modern practice of using a larger or boldface font for titles. So, basically, it's done for emphasis.

I have seen some writing where people have a list or a figure in writing and they will write something like this: The information is provided in Image 3:- Is that correct? Is this a British style? Answer According to Nick Marten's The Secret History of Typography in the Oxford English Dictionary , a colon followed by a dash is a typographical mark that the OED refers to as the dog's bollocks : Citing usage from 1949, the OED calls this mark the dog’s bollocks , which it defines as, “typogr. a colon followed by a dash, regarded as forming a shape resembling the male sexual organs.” This is why I love scrounging around the linguistic scrap heap that is the OED. I always come across a little gold. And by “gold,” I mean, “vulgar, 60-year-old emoticons.” Marten does not further elaborate on its purported usage, but others do: In Britain the exclamation mark is sometimes referred to as a dog’s prick, and that, further, the combination of a colon and a dash (:—), out of fashion now

Tenses after “as if” What is the difference of the following sentences? I still remember it as if it was yesterday. I still remember it as if it were yesterday. I still remember it as if it had been yesterday. I still remember it as if it happened yesterday. I still remember it as if it had happened yesterday. Which one would you rather use when you look back at your life? (So you look back at events that might be years ago.)

Unlike this questioner , I'm not asking what my phrase means (in case anyone doesn't know and can't guess, it means to talk incessantly ). But I don't know anything at all significant about donkeys' hind legs (apart from the possibility of them being metaphorically talked off). I doubt we can find an actual origin for the phrase, but perhaps someone can come up with a plausible reason for how it came about, and/or why it continues to be used. Answer The phrase originates in Ireland. Donkeys (or "asses" or "jackasses" as they are called in other parts of the world) do not naturally sit down on their rear ends. In fact, it is an extraordinary achievement to get one to do it. "Talking the hind legs off a donkey" is a literal translation of the Gaelic, which actually means "making a donkey sit down on its rear end". Thus, when a person can talk the hind legs off a donkey, they can talk so much that they could even bore a donke

A big theme of the UK May 2014 MEP elections is immigration - there is a great deal of political rhetoric about it that I would describe as racist or xenophobic , but I don't think either term is entirely suitable given how they are used now in UK media. In addition these terms ( racist especially) are generally considered to be pejorative, so as soon as you use them people get defensive and miss the point. The debate becomes about the ethnic mix of their social circle or supporters, both of which are irrelevant. This rhetoric is characterised by the location of people's country of origin rather than their race. An example statement would be: "I'm not racist, but only British people should be able to apply for British jobs." or "26 million people in Europe are looking for work. And whose jobs are they after?" I don't think these statements are racist exactly, as a person could be any race and be British, or not be British and still be of an Anglo-