Blog

In order to succeed in this position, you should be able to engage both the rich, the educated and the pious, as well as the poor, the ignorant and the immoral. Answer In that syntax, you would use "both," not because it refers to more than two things but because it refers to exactly two things: one , the rich, the uneducated, and the pious and, two , the poor, the ignorant, and the immoral. "Both" refers to those two lists. The fact that they are each lists of three is immaterial because "both" isn't referring to their internal itemization but simply to their aggregation into two items, for example: John, Bob, and Mary; Susan, Hank, and Gretchen; and Steven, Alice, and Tom make up the first, second, and third place teams, respectively. Therefore, you can say: Both John, Bob, and Mary and Susan, Hank, and Gretchen earned medals, coming in first and second place, respectively. Where it gets confusing, albeit still grammatical, is when we say something

How many syllables are there in "child," "wild," and field"? If we look at the dictionary, it will tell us that these are monosyllabic words. There appear, however, to be diphthongs in each of these that lengthen the vowels to make them sound as though there are two. What do our experts say?

Should I put an apostrophe in "for all its worth"? The meaning comes to about the same thing either way, as far as I can make out, and it seems like "it's" is more popular. But is there an accepted version? Or any reason for preferring one over the other, other than staying conventional? Answer Apparently, the writer's intention was always to mean "it is," not "its." (A hasty conclusion and a sweeping statement, yes.) Comparing "for all it's worth" and "for all its worth" with "for all it is worth," and considering that apostrophe use for the genitive was in fact an after thought. nGram : The arrival of the apostrophe as possessive indicator confused both the writer and the reader, so that today more often than not, authors do not know which is the "original idiom" and the reader is not sure what the author had meant to say. The safest approach for writers would be to avoid the apostrophe altog

Can I contract "will" as "ll" when preceded by a proper name? For example: John will visit you tomorrow John'll visit you tomorrow I am inclined to think this is not acceptable in standard English. It's also not pretty when spoken. In which case, is this construction valid in any dialect? Why am I asking this? (some people seem to care): I'm translating a game I originally wrote in Japanese, into English. I have a native English speaker taking care of the dialogue, and a construction similar to the one I wrote above appeared on the text he sent me to check. I'm not a native English speaker, so even though I have probably heard that contraction a handful of times in my life, I would like to know if it is correct English. It also happens that my native English speaker is from Texas, so it occurred to me that this is probably common in the Texan dialect of English. I have never been to Texas, so I have no idea if this is right. Answer Short answer: yes

I'm a little bit confused over the difference between the following sentences. I went home. I went to home. Could someone please explain the difference.

“User's guide” vs. “users' guide” If referring to a Users Group (meaning a group made up of multiple individual users who have some control of the group itself), would you use: A: User’s B: Users’ C: Users I have read the post on the User’s guide but in this case, plural is appropriate since the group does not belong to one individual. Wikipedia suggests Users’ (or Users ) and in my domain, a leading stats software company has a Users Group , though they then use user’s group as part of the description. What do you think — A, B, or C?

I would like a generative BNF-style complete description for English grammar. Some of the more subtle stuff leads to awkward questions of grammaticality (a complete answer to this question, and all related questions, is a publication with a complete description of a comprehensible and comprehensive formal grammar which generates exactly the set of grammatical English sentences): Here is question 1: is grammaticality of verbs ever dependent on external context from other sentences? If so, then those constructions obviously require some semantics. The two sentences below are the context John smiled at Lisa at Kinko's. John asked Lisa for advice at Kinko's. After either 1 or 2, you say: I did what John did at Kinkos at James I did what John did at Kinkos of my friend I believe the second form is certainly not grammatical in case 1. How about case 2? I am not sure if the first sentence is grammatical even in case 1. Should they be I did what John did to Lisa at Kinkos to James? In

If I was to label something The Poets and Painters' Distillery do I only apply the possessive apostrophe after 'Painters' as in the text written above, or do I also need to apply one to 'Poets' so that it becomes The Poets' and Painters' Distillery ? I'm thinking the former is correct, but cannot be too sure.

I always pronounce words like "accelerate" and "eccentric" as "asselerate" or "eesentric". I don't know why but the "ks" that I hear in common pronunciation irks me. Is it correct to pronounce the c's as "ss" instead? I have heard once or twice the aforementioned pronunciation of "eccentric", but never of "accelerate".

Is there some rule against ending a sentence with the contraction “it’s”? Earlier today while writing a very informal email, I expressed: If you don't do it, I will. Upon looking at it, I realized that "I will" could be contracted to "I'll", however, this is completely unheard of and feels quite awkward. I am now quite curious, is there a reason why ending a sentence with "I'll" feels (or is) so inappropriate? I understand that the use of contractions is generally an informal use of language so rules of usage can be a bit loose. Therefore, this is a case that to me doesn't make logical sense and I'm a bit confused. Why does it feel wrong when an "I'll" is placed at at that end of a sentence, even though such an expression is informal and not, technically, an incorrect usage of the contraction "I'll?" Answer Contractions can only be used in English when the thing they're contracting does not have any sent

Which of the following sentences is correct in a formal context? Both? If possible, please also explain why each of these sentences is correct/incorrect. I do not know where the best place to ask this question is. I do not know where is the best place to ask this question. Answer The first one is correct in formal and informal contexts. The second sentence would not be used by a native speaker. The reason is that there is a difference in the way that English handles wh-words , when they are in the main clause vs. when they are in the embedded clause. The structure also depends on whether the wh-word is the subject or the object in its clause. In the main clause, we use the basic order: wh-word verb ______. Where is the best place to ask this question? This is true when the wh-word is the subject or the object, although you'll notice we use do-support when the wh-word is the object (when the main verb is not is ): Who told you that? ( who is the subject, no do-support) Who did

I love the songs Lost! and Lost? (well, it's the same song but in different versions) by Coldplay. In these songs, we can hear: I just got lost Every river that I tried to cross Every door I ever tried was locked O-oh and I'm just waiting 'til the shine wears off What does until the shine wears off mean?

I am curious about the grammar behind the word "climbing" in the phrase "climbing wall" (or the word "running" in the phrase "running shoes," etc). I first thought it was an adjective describing the noun wall. However, I am wondering if these cases are the closest the English language gets to a gerundive? Both "climbing" and "running" are forms of a verb, and moreover, the phrase could be said as "the wall about to be climbed." In Latin, the "about to be climbed" would be the future passive participle, also known as the gerundive. Furthermore, in Latin, there also are gerundives of purpose, which would translate these phrases into "the shoes for the purpose of running" or "the wall for the purpose of climbing." Is there an official name for these types of grammatical constructions? Answer "A climbing wall" and "running shoes" – Of course, climbing and running are g

The question "Not worth the paper it's printed on" - wrong meaning? got me thinking about what part of speech, or lexical class, the word 'worth' takes? A comment in Which is correct: "is it worth it?" or "does it worth it?" advises to treat 'worth' as an adjective, but I'm not sure that's right. 'Worthy' is an adjective, but that's not the same as 'worth'. In the title question you could replace 'worth' with the phrase 'of comparable value to'; what part of speech would that phrase be considered? Are the word and the phrase in the same lexical class? Edit: Just to throw another option out, after a stimulating discourse under the answer provided by @Henry: Wiktionary mentions that used in the context of this question, 'worth' is considered an adjective, but it also notes that The modern adjectival senses of worth compare two noun phrases, prompting some sources to classify the word

I do not know how else to put the question. On my third attempt, what is the origin of the word "pink" in the English language?

For some languages, there are academies that decide topics such as grammar and spelling of things, for example, for the Spanish language, there are 22 academies in 22 different countries, all making decisions on spanish grammar in their country. I would like to know if there is something that serves the same purpose for the English language.

In the following passage from chapter 8 of the book The Adventures of Tom Sawyer : "He sat long with his elbows on his knees and his chin in his hands, meditating. It seemed to him that life was but a trouble, at best, and he more than half envied Jimmy Hodges, so lately released ; it must be very peaceful, he thought, to lie and slumber and dream forever and ever, with the wind whispering through the trees and caressing the grass and the flowers over the grave, and nothing to bother and grieve about, ever any more." It is mentioned that Jimmy Hodges has been " lately released ." Does this mean that Jim Hodges has recently deceased ? Please explain how " released " means " deceased ."

I've always thought that the words parishioner and congregant meant the same thing and could be used interchangeably within the context of someone who attends a place of worship. Are there any differences in meaning between these two words or appropriate usage for each? Answer Parishioner and congregant refer to members of a particular local faith community. The requirements for membership, of course, vary considerably, but for the most part, simply attending services at a church does not make one a parishioner or congregant of that church any more than visiting a country makes one a citizen of it. Sectarian considerations govern which is the more appropriate term. Parishioner is older by a good measure. A parish is an ecclesiastical territory, a section of an episcopal see (e.g. a diocese or archdiocese). Traditionally, any inhabitant of that territory would have been expected to attend services at the local parish church, and all would have been parishioners. The Catholic,

I cannot see any difference between these two sentences. I assume both express the same but what is the difference? I thought that "used to" is used to describe an action that was happening in the past...but should "live" be considered as an action? I used to live in Prague 5 years ago. I lived in Prague 5 years ago. Answer There is no difference between the two. Both mean the same.

Possibly two questions in here: Are these sentence constructions logical, and if they are, why are they different? I swam across the Ocmulgee River. I swam across the Pacific Ocean. I swam across the Red Sea. I swam across Lake Winnipeg. I can't think of a way of phrasing the lake example while using an article with a proper noun. I thought at first it was because Lake Winnipeg is different; it's generic portion (the "Lake") comes first and the name of that body comes second, but I swam across Falls Lake is the same. Yet the sentence I swam across the lake sounds right to me. ...Why? Answer I'd say you are correct about the placement of the generic word being the reason for using (or not using) 'the' , and all your examples are phrased correctly. Notice that 'Falls' is different also in that it is a plural. Edit: I have found the answer: From Wikipedia : In English, nouns must in most cases be preceded by an article that specifies the presence o

The following is an excerpt from a newspaper article. What do "the best of both worlds" and "young minds" mean in this context? Not only do these standing desks improve focus but they can also have positive health benefits as well, which really brings the best of both worlds when it comes to young minds.

What are all the words that make up a complete list of linking verbs in English? My English teacher from what I can remember listed them as follows, am I missing any? is • am • are • was • were • be • been • being have • has • had do • does • did may • might must can • could will • would shall • should seem • become • appear • look • smell • taste • sound • feel (Thank You Mr. Weber of Era, Texas for being the best English teacher in the world.)

As an American in Europe I often get questions about the British "have got" which is hard for me to answer since I have little feeling for what is correct. E.g. someone today asked me: If someone asks me, "Have you got a pencil" and I say, "Yes, I've got." Is this incorrect? I told him, "Yes, that is incorrect, you should either say, 'Yes, I have' or 'Yes, I've got a pencil." I know, as an American speaker, I would answer, "Yes, I do" but in a British context, is my answer above correct?

I think English is unique in having a set of "bad words" each which has its "more refined" equivalent, e.g.: spit -> expectorate piss -> urinate shit -> defecate f*ck -> fornicate/copulate and even: kiss -> osculate What is the origin and etymology of this? Answer The "more posh" words are usually Latin (occasionally Greek) in origin. The more common sounding words are from original Anglo-Saxon (I'm sure a real linguist knows more). The more educated classes tended to be more likely to use Latin and other foreign terms, while the less educated classes used the vernacular (i.e. the vulgar, common language) of the day.

This is a sentence I read: The engines that had stopped half an hour ago were in action again. In my opinion, ago in the above sentence is used incorrectly. It should be replaced by before or earlier: The engines that had stopped half an hour before were in action again. The engines that had stopped half an hour earlier were in action again. I think ago can only used in the past tense rather than past perfect tense. Here is a correct sentence, making the correct use of ago as follows: The engines that stopped half an hour ago are in action again. Is this thinking correct?

In received pronunciation, the word "father" ends in /ə/. I haven't found an IPA transcription of the plural form, and am wondering: RP being non-rhotic, is the "r" here excluded? Is the S voiced (/z/) or unvoiced (/s/)?

I notice that there is a tradition in English of shortening names by omitting given names, which has been formalized in contexts like academia (the theorem of Gauss, the textbook by Young and Geller, citation rules) and law (the firm Baker & McKenzie, the case Roe v. Wade). Should we really be adopting this practice in contexts where surnames show less varied? For instance, I found that the most common surname is the US (Smith) takes 0.7% of the surnames, while the most common in China (王, Wáng) takes 7.3%.

When we lie down, the "back part of the body" is in contact with the bed. It includes the heels, the calves, the backside, the back, and the back of the neck, and the back of the head etc. How do we refer to the entire "back part" of the body? Answer In biology and medicine, the words that describe the sides of a body are posterior , anterior , dorsal and ventral [image source] :                                 So, technically, the back side of a human would be called the dorsal side . However, in humans, because posterior also means "back", you can also refer to the posterior side to mean back side :                                     As explained in wikipedia : In human anatomical usage, anterior refers to the "front" of the individual, and is synonymous with ventral, other than in the head. Similarly, posterior, refers to the "back" of the subject, and is synonymous with dorsal, other than in the head (see Table 3). When referr

I am looking for a word (which may not exist!). It means something like "relating to the order in which things are written down or expressed"; not, however, the the order in a dictionary (that would be "lexicographical") but rather the order in normal writing. So, if the word was "freddographical" I could talk about English and French being freddographically different because in English one says "blue car" but in French it is "auto bleu". Equally, in the UK we write a date 30/04/2011 but in the US they write 04/30/2011; I would call that a freddographical difference.

Can the word " facing " be used both ways? To write major water problems facing the world or challenges and opportunities facing low- and middle-income countries and their citizens seems to me to switch the roles. Is it OK to use facing in this way, or would the only correct usage be faced by in these two examples?

Which one should I use for page title? Apple — Tasty Fruit Apple — A Tasty Fruit Apple — The Tasty Fruit The article is only about tasty apple.

I'm aware that (at least today's) English allows the use of a plural pronoun to avoid mentioning a gender of the subject. Example: _"Everybody can do what they want to" instead of "Everybody can do what he wants to." A typical use seems to be whenever the speaker does not know the sex of the actors and thus does not want to state it wrong or to let the phrase apply to both sexes alike. As this example clearly shows, the numerus of the predicate then matches the numerus of the subject: "he wants" vs. "they want". This leads me to a dilemma if there are several predicates, associated to both the "everybody" and the neutral pronoun: "Everybody pays for what they get." The first verb feels better to be in singular case ("pays"), the latter obviously must be in plural case ("get"), yet both refer to the same entity which can hardly be singular and plural. To use plural case for both verbs ("Everybo

Where should the apostrophe go in the word “beginners” in “beginners guide”? I’m currently developing a site which has a membership scheme which you pay to sign up for. To encourage people to do this, there is a page that highlights the benefits of becoming a member. They want this page to be called Member’s Benefits . Should the apostrophe come before the s , or after? Answer If the benfits apply to all members, then there there isn't much of a case against Members' Benefits . However, the apostrophe seems to be disappearing in cases like this and Members Benefits is defensible on the grounds that Members functions as an attributive adjective (as would Member in Member Benefits ).

What is the single word that describes a person who always gossips? (For example, telling things about others which are not true.)

The American convention in quotations is (typically) to place punctuation inside quoted text. But I always run into situations where the punctuation of the quote interferes with the punctuation of the sentence. How would you punctuate this (American, non technical)? When my friends ask, "What do you want for your birthday?", I never know how to respond. It seems odd to place the last comma outside the quote simply because of the question mark. Is that the preferred (i.e. most often accepted) standard? Answer The British put them outside the quotes, which seems much more logical. The American style is to put the punctuation inside the quotes. The American version is often known as "Typesetter's Quotes". As you can see, I go with the British version, at least in informal writing. Interesting fact: They are called typesetter's quotes because when typesetters were laying out the typesetting blocks putting the small blocks for punctuation inside the quotes mad

What are the differences between going to "the movies", "the cinema", and "the theater/theatre" (ignoring the fact that theaters are also for plays and not just movies)? Personally, "movies" sounds more American to me, and "cinema" sounds more British, but I really have no idea, it's just a guess, I have no idea. Answer Movies is slang for a motion picture. Film is the medium on which motion pictures are fixed. Cinema is from the French cinématographe which comes in part from the greek kinema, meaning movement. So cinema is really just another word meaning moving picture. It also has come to mean more generally the process of film-making and also the building where films are shown. Theater is similar to cinema, in that it can mean the building, or more generally the industry of live performance (i.e. plays, musicals, etc). Film, movies, and pictures are used interchangeably: I saw a film. I saw a movie. I saw a picture. In context,

"I gave him two dollars." This tacitly means "to him". Are there exceptions to the rule that an indirect object in English always means "to" or "for"? In English, "I stole him two dollars" does not mean "I stole two dollars from him", and one does not say "I withheld him that information" (either of those usages would be valid in German).

I googled it but I couldn't find the answer... maybe I didn't seek it in the proper way. My question is if "to" must be repeated in sentences such as the following ones: In the past, women used to do the housework and to take care of children. The aim of this meeting is to control their progress and to discuss the new working plan. If I had to bet, I would omit the second to ... But I am not sure about it.

There is a single word to describe people with a lack of honesty: liar . Is there an equivalent single word to describe an honest person? The word must be a noun and not an adjective. The are obviously many adjectives that describe people who tell the truth. I am looking for something somewhat like the Spanish word, verdadero . Answer In a word, the answer is "no". In the same way there is no direct antonym for murderer, thief, car-jacker, etc. Saying that, there did used to be a word: Soothsayer . (In the mid-14th century it meant, "one who speaks truth".)

I am wondering if I can use a list within a list. I know that the following sentence may seem as though it would be better if reworded, but I am using euphemisms and simplifications for what I am actually writing. I am trying to boil it down, so what you see below is just a microcosm of the sentence I am actually writing. I went there because I was sad, lonely, foolish, and in need of shelter, love, and contentment.

I read the origins of this saying are quite old: "...traceable to the early 1300's as in THE ROMANCES OF SIR GUY OF WARWICK," According to this: https://www.englishforums.com/English/EtymologyThroughTeeth/jhphl/post.htm Did this apparently obscure reference serve as the source of the saying, or was it defined earlier and then used in this text? Bonus question: Does lying through the teeth imply with a smile? Answer According to The Phrase Finder the expression might be a variant of a similar expression which dates back to the 14th century and adds: " the OED mentions lying "in his teeth," but without any further information ": Lie in one's teeth : "To accuse a person of lying in his teeth is the strongest of accusations, implying that the person is such a double-dyed liar as to be unfamiliar with truth. It is very old traceable to the early 1300s, as in 'The romances of Sir Guy of Warwick,' 'Thou liest amidward and therefore hav

One of our senior technical architects uses this phrase: it will come out in the wash We generally take that to mean "let's do the detailed/mundane stuff later — and concentrate on the key stuff now". Is this right? What's the actual meaning and correct usage of this phrase? Answer It means that problems or difficulties will be resolved in due course. AFAIK, it was first used by Cervantes in Don Quixote: "At least," said Sancho, "your grace was able to put your lance into its proper perspective, aiming at my head but landing on my shoulder, thanks to God and my ability at leaping aside - but never mind, it will all come out in the wash" [The quote varies based on the translation] edit @1006a was kind enough to furnish the original Spanish in a comment: Pero vaya, que todo saldrá en la colada [But go on, it will all work out in the wash]

Hoarder, who has a condition as described by wikipedia: Compulsive hoarding, also known as hoarding disorder, is a pattern of behavior that is characterized by excessive acquisition and an inability or unwillingness to discard large quantities of objects that cover the living areas of the home and cause significant distress or impairment. What would you call the opposite of a hoarder, a person who tries to have as few possessions as possible, sometimes taking it too far? To fit sentences similar to this: Michael's behavior as a _____ often causes difficulties. An example: he divests of common use tools when done with a project--then when a similar project occurs in the future, he has to spend time and money to reacquire tools that he should have kept in the first place. Best I've come up with is minimalist . But many readers will have a positive connotation of that. Answer One article describes it as a mental illness: obsessive-compulsive spartanism . That's fairly negati

I'm looking for a synonym for observee, i.e. something that is observed. The word observee doesn't seem be used much, so I would like to have a more common word if it exists. I need to use it in a very abstract sense, so my example sentence doesn't get more concrete than this: "The observer watched the observee very closely." Answer You may be able to reuse some terminology from software world here. There is a standard software design pattern called Observer and its terminology may help. Quoting wikipedia : The observer pattern is a software design pattern in which an object, called the subject , maintains a list of its dependents, called observers, and notifies them automatically of any state changes, usually by calling one of their methods. Also there is a Observable interface which may be implemented by observable objects. Quoting its description: An observable object can have one or more observers. [I know subject was a previous answer but I think this wa

This isn't a pure English question, but it is about writing style: Sometimes entities that aren't words end up being in sentences. I know that when mathematical expressions are inline as follows: We used the equation x + y = z . This is the next sentence. they are treated as any other word, and the sentence needs to end with a period. But suppose I have text in a paper such as: We used the equation x + y = z This is the next sentence. Notice that the equation isn't inline. Should there still be a period after the equation (right after z ) to indicate the end of the sentence? Answer I don't know if LaTeX is considered a definitive source for mathematics writing style (although it was developed for typesetting math equations), but this link and this one seem to indicate that, yes, a period would be inserted after the equation in the example We used the equation x + y = z . This is the next sentence. The Wikipedia Manual of Style (Mathematics) , which cites several

I'm fairly sure there is a word or phrase to describe arguing emotively from an extreme, or biased, point of view as if your view is fact, but I can't remember what it may be. (I am wanting to use this word or phrase in a reply, I promise it is not a crossword clue.) Any hints? Answer I hope most are agreed that "hyperbole" is not a good answer for the original question. I'm thinking the sentiment expressed in the question is close to a definition of "dogmatic," though "dogmatic" does not connote anything about being extreme, more about simply stating opinions as if they were facts. The question pertains as much to the arguing from a particular point of view as it does to the expression of that point of view. "Dogmatic" seems to have this overtone, since the employment of dogma is almost exclusively in the context of persuasion, and not infrequently, argumentation. Anyway, it follows that "to argue dogmatically" would be v

If someone wins a match, that person is called a winner . If someone loses a match, that person is called a loser or runner up . But if the match is a draw , that is, no one has won or lost, what do you call them then? Answer There are doubtless, contrary to many comments here, actually several potential answers to this question. However, I only know of one. People who are not winners or losers because they draw are very often called drawers . You may not find a definition of this word in everyday dictionaries because it is formed from a freely productive suffix -er added to the base, the verb draw . Dictionaries - apart from very large ones - cannot afford to include such definitions in their lists because the number of entries would explode. The football pools in the UK allow people to bet on matches where the punter thinks the teams may draw. Such teams are regularly referred to as DRAWERS . However, the term is much more widely used as can be seen from these quotes: He analyze

From Byron's Don Juan : One with her flush'd cheek laid on her white arm, And raven ringlets gather'd in dark crowd Above her brow, lay dreaming soft and warm; And smiling through her dream, as through a cloud The moon breaks, half unveil'd each further charm, As, slightly stirring in her snowy shroud, Her beauties seized the unconscious hour of night All bashfully to struggle into light. This is no bull , although it sounds so; for 'T was night, but there were lamps, as hath been said. A third's all pallid aspect offer'd more The traits of sleeping sorrow, and betray'd Through the heaved breast the dream of some far shore Belovéd and deplored; while slowly stray'd (As night-dew, on a cypress glittering, tinges The black bough) tear-drops through her eyes' dark fringes. I immediately thought that this meant bullshit , but then I consulted dictionaries and discovered that bullshit was coined in the 20th century. Yet it clearly means "false i

Are zero and null perfect synonyms? Answer 'null' is qualitative, representing the absence of quantity. Closer to the word 'void' than the number 'zero'. Example: he reduced it to nil. 'zero' is quantitative. Example: he got zero on his exam.

I've read that both are acceptable but "associated with " is superior. Is there ever a time that "to" is acceptable? Does it matter at all? I'm writing copy for a public website and want to make sure I get this right. Answer "Associated to" would occasionally be acceptable when speaking about certain IT concepts, but in general purpose usage, "Associated with" is preferable nearly every time.

Consider this: I like to eat here. vs I would eat here. It appears to me that "to" has nothing to do with the infinitive form of the verb that follows. It is, in this example, an integral part of like to , not of to eat . Is my thinking flawed? If you think it is, could you please explain which form of the verb "eat" is used in the second example, if not the infinitive? Answer It is probably a matter of definition, not of true inherent "belonging to". I believe the etymology of this kind of "to" is the usage of a preposition before the infinitive, in order to indicate a relation of direction or purpose between a finite verb and the infinitive: I went to school; I went to pick him up . This probably originated in predicates with verbs that have a direction. But that was long ago, when the infinitive still had a distinctive form in English or Proto-Germanic; I think it was something like * eatan (don't pin me down on this, I haven't loo

What is the origin of holy smoke ? To what is holy smoke referring? Answer After doing a little work on this, I'm quite certain holy smoke is not a minced oath nor an obscuration or euphemism for any more blasphemous exclamation. Its use as an exclamation also predates the Kipling quote by at least a decade. I found this example from a poem by Cormac O'Leary in an 1882 edition of The Reading Club , a collection of prose and poetry (date check on p. 102 ): I found several other references from the 1880s as well. @Master's comment is correct—and significant. Several of the early examples of its use read by the holy smoke . This is one reason I don't believe the exclamation is a euphemism for anything else. It was simply a shortening of this oath. And of the origin of this oath? I think @Chris Dwyer's answer nailed it. Google Books' listings of the phrase from the same time period are replete with religious references to "holy smoke." A closer look a

I'm sure I saw, recently, a word for this, but I can no longer remember, or find, it. Answer Possibly platitude : A trite or banal remark or statement, especially one expressed as if it were original or significant.

There's a common pattern in English spelling where "short" vowels are pronounced as "long" vowels with the addition of a silent "e" at the end of the word. E.g. bit → bite mat → mate pet → pete Is there a historical reason for this? Does it relate to The Great Vowel Shift ? Reference: Wikipedia — Vowel Length#Traditional Long and Short Vowels in English Orthography Answer It's not causal at all. Spelling does not cause pronunciation. The reverse can occasionally occur, but not often, and certainly not regularly. Some facts: English spelling has very little to do with Modern English pronunciation. Don't expect it to. Modern English doesn't have distinct long and short vowels. Middle English had distinct long and short vowels. The Great Vowel Shift occured between Middle and Modern English. The Great Vowel Shift applied only to Middle English long vowels. The Great Vowel Shift changed Middle English long vowels to other vowels in Modern Engl

In older print publications, I have come across telephone shortened to 'phone , with an apostrophe to mark where the beginning of the word had been omitted. Now, however, phone does not need an apostrophe and is viewed as its own word, spawning other compound words like phone call , phone line , and phone book. When did phone start to replace 'phone ? Is there a term for the phenomenon of an abbreviation becoming a word in its own right? I know something similar happened with facsimile and fax . Answer When did phone start to replace 'phone? Immediately, if not before. Let's just briefly answer the second question and then come back: Is there a term for the phenomenon of an abbreviation becoming a word in its own right? I know something similar happened with facsimile and fax. Clipping . Words get shortened and lose rough edges like pebbles in a stream. But, let's consider that we're in 1880. While there have been several devices called "telephones&quo

In this sentence I used it to refer to a variety mentioned a few words earlier, because I consider variety to be a collective noun which can be referred to in the singular. However, I'm not certain that the result actually reads that way: is it in my sentence actually referring unambiguously to the variety ? Shop vendors should include a variety of imported products because it solidifies the bond between countries and offers wide range of choice to customers.

Plenty of nouns change the second letter to become plural ( man -> men , goose -> geese ) but does anything change its first letter. I've hunted high and low over the internet, and spent ages browsing the questions at Oxford dictionaries but I can't find anything. Answer The only one I could find is cow/kine . However, kine is mentioned as an archaic plural of cow in most dictionaries including OED but Wikipedia and Wiktionary mentions as regional or dialectal also. Wordsmith does not count it as archaic and includes a contemporary usage: Kine is one of the very few words in English (other examples: I/we, me/us) that have no letters in common with its singular form, cow. It is pluralized using the -n marker, as in the words children, brethren, and oxen. "Cows stood belly deep in a ranch pond, doing their impersonation of the kine in John Constable's paintings." Verlyn Klinkenborg; Water and Grasses; The New York Times; Jul 5, 2010. Interestingly, kine

Should I say "All the things he have will be given to her" or "All the things he has will be given to her" ? Answer In modern English, "All the things he have" is not grammatical.

The question is from the transcript of a podcast: Mmmm, blueberries. It’s the height of the season , and I’ve been tossing a handful onto cereal, into pancakes or just straight into my mouth. I don't understand what does the sentence "It's the height of the season" mean. What does "it" refer to? Does it indicate "blueberries"? What does "the height of the season" mean? Answer The season is the yearly period in which a certain activity is best performed for whatever reason, usually something that depends on climate and natural seasons. Cf. the hunting season , the asparagus season . The blueberry season is when blueberries are ripe for the picking. The height of the season is the very best point within this period to pick blueberries, probably because there are the most, or they taste best. It is more or less a dummy subject; you could say it means "this time", just as in it is sunny in London .

I understand the meaning of the word sufficient like defined in Merriam-Webster : sufficient = enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end So mathematically said: not less than the needed minimum Is there an "upside-down counterpart"? not more than the needed maximum It should be of the same style as sufficient or enough , expressing the same concept (being within limits and not being under the maximum). Let's have an example of a chemical reaction. In order the reaction can start, you need at least 5% concentration of a given substance. So if the concentration is 6%, we say that the concentration is sufficient . (Also suggesting that no more concentration increasing is needed .) However, what if the requirement is that in order the reaction can start, the concentration of the given substance should be at most 95%. So if we have 94%, the concentration is ...? Sufficient here sounds funny... Analogically, it should also bear the notion of no more conc

Consider the sentence "Please gather information on who can serve as a proctor." The he/him, she/her test gives conflicting answers here: One would say "Please gather information on her", but "He can serve as a proctor," and the entire sentence can't be accurately replaced with such a pronoun. Which rule should be used? I know 'who' is acceptable regardless in colloquial English, but would it be valid to use 'whom' as well in this scenario?

I have seen many comments on different blogs and forums where English native speakers spelled you're as your . I'm not a native speaker, but I know and understand the difference between the two. Why is there a confusion? My initial guess is that your and you're have similar pronunciation and because I carry some accent from my native language (Romanian) I can identify the difference better. Edit (thanks Chris): The same can be asked for other homophones: there/their/they're , its/it's . Answer The answer is simple. You just need to think about how you learned your native language. By ear. Children learn how to speak their native tongue first, and only then learned the grammar and spelling. Thus, many will "sound" a word out to spell it. English language learners, on the other hand, usually learned how to spell a word first, and focused on pronunciation later.

While writing programs, I need to create a drop down for setting periods, like daily, weekly, monthly, etc. Using one year as a time frame. This question is driven by lack of a better word. I've had some trouble coming up with a one word adjective for 6 months. I do have the following: 1 day - Daily, 1 week - Weekly, 1 month - Monthly, 3 months - Quarterly, 6 months - ? 1 year - Yearly or Annually Answer Biannually Should do the trick, and fits with your running theme of -ly suffixes. It is spelt as one word.

Which thesaurus (online or paper) best describes the differences between several similar words? As a non-native English speaker, it is often difficult for me to distinguish the slightly different concepts in similar words. I'm looking for a good online dictionary or thesaurus that compares those synonyms word by word.

I found "A sledgehammer to crack a nut" as one example. What are some others? Answer Consider, a [sledge]hammer/cannon/shotgun to kill a fly Ngram a nuke to kill a fly Mathematics StackExchange a [cruise/nuclear/heat-seeking] missile to kill (or zap) a fly Google Books

I was just in the midst of writing a description for a story I am writing, and I'm trying to describe one of the characters, or more rather think of a word I could use to describe them. They are independent, they do everything by themselves, they enjoy solitude, and believe that friends or socialization is unnecessary and causes nothing but issues. They are quite egotistical and quite narcissistic because of this, but I'm looking for a word that explains their need to do everything alone. If this helps, my sentence is as follows, or something along those lines: Marina is a proud _____, she believes that buddies are for weak people, and she could very well cope on her own.

I am looking for a word which describes the mentality of a person who is inspired to learn something and starts studying, but then quickly moves on to another subject. Such a person shifts focus from one subject to another without making an in-depth study of any one subject. You should not have a _______ mentality, shifting from subject to subject. It would be like trying to find water by digging a well. If you dig ten feet deep and don’t find water, you move to another location, dig another twelve feet, don't find water, again move to another location, dig another fifteen feet, and so on. By this time, you have dug seventy-five feet deep maybe, spread across five or six locations, but you still haven't found water because you have not dug in one place. Maybe you would have gotten water if you had dug twenty-five feet deep, but you will never get to this depth because you move from place to place, site to site. What is this type of mentality called?

We use owned to denote something that we possess or that belongs to someone. What can we call things that do not belong to someone? [ Editor's note : I can't tell whether the asker wants a word for something that a specific person does not own, or a word for something that nobody owns.] Answer for something not owned by someone you say "not his." Example: The bicycle is not Joe's. For something that doesn't belong to anyone, I would use "ownerless." Example: The stray dog is ownerless

What accounts for the strong disapproval of anyone using the word 'cunt' in the US, when the sentiment doesn't exist to the same extent in the UK? To be clear, it's still a strong word to use in the UK, but it's much, much more common to hear it there than it is here in the US. Is it merely due to a discrepancy in popular morals, or are there specific historical occurrences at play in the US that have left their mark? Does the strong feminist movement in the US in the 60/70ies factor in e.g.? Does anyone know how 'acceptable' the term is in other countries with a large English speaking population (India e.g.)? I'm new here, and I ask this genuinely, as I've lived in both England and the States and have been fascinated by the visceral reaction the word tends to evoke by large numbers Americans. Per previous discussions on meta there's a consensus for not shying away from offensive words and a faction that doesn't even recommend censoring them

I am searching for a word to contrast with iconic I want to characterize views of the city as both iconic and under the radar , maybe "non-iconic." I was thinking about saying that a view of the city was undiscovered, but I think that maybe that overstates what I'm think-- I more mean under-appreciated. Are there any other words that come to mind? Answer How about best-kept secret ? The Free Dictionary: best-kept secret : A certain aspect, fact, location, or activity, usually touristic or commercial in nature, that is or purports to be not well known to the public but deserving of praise or attention. (1) The newspaper called the restaurant the city's best-kept secret. (2) While everyone wants to visit the Ring of Kerry, the Dingle Peninsula is really one of Ireland's best-kept secrets. One could also use well-kept secret . Thanks to @ktm5124 for the suggestion. I've heard both best-kept secret and well-kept secret . They both speak to your "under the r