Blog

According to some grammars[1][2] and CMS... "Interjections and vocative should be separated from the rest of the sentence by commas". The vocative case [1] is used to indicate direct address (i.e., to show when you are talking to somebody or something directly). Nouns in the vocative case are set off using commas. CMS 6.38 As direct address (i.e. vocative case), the parenthetical element should be set off using commas (CMS 6.30). An absolute phrase is always treated as a parenthetical element, as is an interjection. So, Hello, world! That is a very classical way to hello the world. But, languages change. I am not sure, but today, I feel that it is very uncommon helloing someone with an interjection, providing a small pause and clarifying who is helloed. I have an impression that usually people use hello as a ("kind of") verb, not an interjection. Question: Is that just a personal (bad) impression or some linguistic has already studied that phenomenon? [1] - Nelson,

Remarkably low condensation temperature or Remarkably-low condensation temperature? The focus of remarkable is that it is such a low temperature. We are having an office disagreement and any help is much appreciated. Answer The wikipedia entry backs up what the style guide I use says: In the 19th century, it was common to hyphenate adverb–adjective modifiers with the adverb ending in -ly. However, this has become rare. For example, wholly owned subsidiary and quickly moving vehicle are unambiguous, because the adverbs clearly modify the adjectives: "quickly" cannot modify "vehicle". However, if an adverb can also function as an adjective, then a hyphen may be or should be used for clarity, depending on the style guide.

Which is the correct form? I'd like to try CoolStuff 2.0 on a project or I'd like to try CoolStuff 2.0 in a project Answer I think that it's a difference of emphasis - albeit subtle. When you use something on a project, the thing that you're using isn't really part of the project. It's used to help effect the project. On the other hand, if you use something in a project, it's integral to the project - part of the project itself. For example, a tool would be used on a project whereas a building material would be used in a project. So, I think that it's a matter of what you're trying to indicate exactly. It's a subtle difference though. And to try in this case would effectively be the same as to use as far as usage goes. So, if CoolStuff 2.0 is a tool, then you'd say "I'd like to try CoolStuff 2.0 on a project." Whereas if CoolStuff 2.0 is something that actually makes up the project, then you'd say "I'd lik

Hypochondria is defined as an excessive preoccupation with and worry about one's health Is there a word to describe the opposite reaction, as in a word to mean 'a nonchalant attitude towards one's health'? I thought about hyperchondriac but I don't think that word exists. Is there such a word in English? Answer Perhaps Anosognosia : Anosognosia is viewed as a deficit of self-awareness, a condition in which a person who suffers a certain disability seems unaware of the existence of his or her disability. Or Anosodiaphoria : Anosodiaphoria is a condition in which a person who suffers disability due to brain injury seems indifferent to the existence of their handicap. Anosophoria is specifically used in association with indifference to paralysis. ... Joseph Babinski first used the term anosodiaphoria in 1914 to describe a disorder of the body schema in which patients verbally acknowledge a clinical problem (such as hemiparesis) but fail to be concerned about it. Ano

My question regards situations when the mid-sentence quotation, such as This is a mid-sentence quotation which stands out by its formatting , stands out by its formatting. I understand that this can be rephrased in such a way that the quotation goes to the end. But even in that case there remains the question of writing the final full stop on the following line. What are the punctuation and capitalization rules for these situations? Answer It depends on who you are quoting, and for what purpose. In normal writing, it is fair to assume that your source wrote in coherent sentences, which include a capital letter at the beginning and a full stop at the end. So long as this goes within the inverted commas, the sentence does not need re-punctuating. A partial sentence does not (necessarily) require either, but does require an ellipsis [...] to show it is partial. (So if you quote 'everything except the full stop', you end up with 3 dots rather than 1.) On SE the rules are a little

I am confused why I cannot use 'ORIENTEE' as a word in Scrabble. It should mean 'someone who is attending orientation, as in a new employee (and the word is formed analogously: 'someone being oriented'. Google says 'orientee' is not an acceptable word in the English dictionary. I have encountered this word quite a lot in the hospital for so many years. So, is it a word or not, in real life or in Scrabble?

I need the correct English word for the German expression (zeitlicher) Abstand . Abstand means "distance", and zeitlich means "in time". The "distance" between building maintenance dates is about ten days. Would "lag/spacing" be correct, as Langenscheidt translates it? I doubt it. My guess would be "interval", but it sounds a bit too mathematical to me. Answer When referring to 'distance in time', the best word is: Interval There is also: Period Spell

I am looking for a single adjective to refer to a classic 1940s-1960s news voice. Specifically, the kind that sounds almost like yelling (to me at least). Here is a sample: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Gt6hPuMaw Example Sentence: I begin listening to the newscaster talk in his well-known ___ voice. I am writing a story that takes place during World War II, and I want to provide a detailed scene to modern readers who may have heard news presented in this way. What is a single word I can use to accomplish this? Answer The short news films that were shown in cinemas before the main films, in the pre-TV days, were called newsreels - so a "newsreel voice" could be what you're after. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsreel There was one famous company that made them that had a very distinctive style. Their "ident" was a clucking cockerel, I'm trying to remember the name but can't at the moment. It was something French-sounding. I'm sure someone will

Is there any specific term to describe a phobia about future of relationship between humans and (intelligent) machines? One may think it could be Cyberphobia or Mechanophobia , however these options are far different from what a top scientist such as Stephen Hawking warns about: " the development of full artificial intelligence [AI] could spell the end of the human race. " No matter how much such a prediction is true and possible, how should refer to that?

Could you please confirm if the following sentence is correct or not? ...he comes over quite often, he and I got on quite well when we see each other so not much issue there. Or should it be: ...he comes over quite often, he and I get on quite well when we see each other so not much issue there. Which one is correct, or are both, depending on context?

How do you greet multiple recipients in an e-mail? Assuming they're both male, I just use "Sirs", but it seems a bit informal. Answer If you don't know the recipients' names, I refer you to the other answers. However, if you do know their names, then I will add that I would actually just write: Dear John, Dear Jack, I have been using this formula for more than a decade. So far, nobody has complained. For me, this approach has quite a few advantages. First of all, it is more personal than simply "Greetings" or "Hi all". Secondly, if one of those people is the main recipient and the other is CC, or if one of them has a higher rank (say, he is the boss of the other), I can reflect that in my address by mentioning him first. Lastly, this formula can be easily adapted to many situations. If some (or all) of the recipients are female I simply write: Dear John, Dear Jane, If I need to make it more formal, I simply write: Dear Mr. Smith, Dear Ms. Bla

Most often heard in radio and television interviews. On hearing someone stubbed their toe on a bathroom door, interviewer asks "Really, that must have been terrible, how did you cope with that?" - not sarcasm though.

What is the word for referring to the patient's standard measurements (like heartbeat, blood pressure, etc)? Answer These base statistics about a living organism are collectively referred to as Vital Signs. Or "Vitals" for short. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vital_signs Each of the examples you list is itself a "primary vital sign".

When I agree with doing something annoying or what I originally didn't want to do is there a difference between starting the reply with: "all right", "ok", "very well" or others? Does "very well" sound posh or archaic? I hear it all the time when watching old episodes of Doctor Who (60's) but I don't recall hearing it in the wild in England. Answer I think of the three, "Very well" has the strongest connotation of giving in to a decision you disagree with. But I also never hear it spoken "in the wild," as you say; I would say that it is certainly formal, and I wouldn't expect to hear a young person say it. In that way, it seems archaic. It's much like "As you wish." "OK" we use so often that it might not carry the meaning you intend. "All right" might convey that disagreement better, but I would also suggest using "Fine." Of course, everything depends on context. If

If a woman dies, and was married at the time of death and the husband is still alive, how would one refer to her husband? I dont think he would now be called her ex-husband? And obviously not her late husband either. Is he still just "her husband"? For example, in these phrases: her husband was worried about her health her husband is distraught Edit: addressed issues raised Answer You're asking for Widower : Widower: a man whose wife is dead especially one who has not remarried

Do noun and name carry a different meaning? If there are any differences, are those differences specific to a context? Answer I think noun is a more general concept. All the names are nouns! On the contrary, not all the nouns are names! Also, we usually talk about nouns in grammatical context. According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English Noun: a word or group of words that represent a person (such as ‘Michael’, ‘teacher’, or ‘police officer’), a place (such as ‘France’ or ‘school’), a thing or activity (such as ‘coffee’ or ‘football’), or a quality or idea (such as ‘danger’ or ‘happiness’). Nouns can be used as the subject or object of a verb (as in ‘The teacher arrived’ or ‘We like the teacher’) or as the object of a preposition (as in ‘good at football’). Name: What someone or something is called such as 'Mandy'. Proper noun: a noun such as ‘James’, ‘New York’, or ‘China’ that is the name of one particular thing and is written with a capital letter . It

Perhaps people will think that I'll physically visit them? Answer Any time I've ever said see you this weekend , I've meant that I would physically see that person. However, it is usually used when there are already plans in place. I would never write see you this weekend unless the recipient and I had made plans.

This question regards the sentence in the New Yorker’s (June 14) article “Lunch at Gitlitze” I quoted in my previous question, " “Battled-hardened,” Is this one of New Yorker's renowned idiosyncrasies? ” “When we walked into the restaurant, we immediately saw her – my father’s battled-hardened nemesis; a waitress named Irene. She was standing in back by the kitchen, a cigarette dangling from her mouth, one hand on her hip.. She and my father locked eyes like two gunslingers stepping on to a dusty street. “ There she blows ” my father muttered. “Try not to excite yourself,” my mother said.” I’m not clear with what “blow” in “There she blows” mean. It looks like a slang usage of the verb, blow. I consulted with OALED at hand to try to find out a pertinent definition to this phrase and the situation of the story – “She was standing in back by the kitchen, a cigarette dangling from her mouth,” and found out the following definition at the top out of more than a dozen of usages. to

I want to write in the announcement a description of an eventual apartment, which I am searching as a rental. I am interested in apartments with 2, 3, or 4 rooms. How should I write the compound adjective with numbers? With dashes or not — to indicate the range of rooms. If with dashes, should it be em or en dashes? E.g. a 2-to-4-room apartment? a 2-4-room apartment? Answer The convention says to use an en dash to indicate the range and a hyphen to complete the phrase if you want to use numerals: a 2–4-room apartment That assumes that you have some control over the actual printing/display. Using all hyphens and the word to will probably be more clearly understood by your readers: a 2-to-4-room apartment It isn't typographically correct (you would need to spell out the numbers to make the hyphens "correct") but it gets the message across clearly -- and clarity is the most important part of any communication.

Several times, I have had conversations, all over instant messenger, finish with "word" or "Word up G". As it ends a conversation, I am guessing it is like "goodbye". My question is what is the meaning of "word" and "word up g"? Also, what is the origin? I am more interested in the meaning as that will help with understanding its usage. Answer Both are generally used to mean "I agree." The terms are from late 1980s hip-hop slang. As Ed Guiness notes, popular usage probably originated with the single Word Up! by Cameo.

Is there an expression to refer to an argument / word fight between lovers (or any two people who are an item, whether married or single)? I'm thinking about those arguments that arise from small things and seem to raise hell for a few hours, or a few days, and end up vanishing into thin air because they were really about something silly or insignificant (or, more likely, because of some insecurity blowing insignificant matters into ungodly proportions). Something in the sense of: They couldn't live apart for five seconds, constantly declaring their undying love, and yet every other week there they were in the throes of yet another 'lover's argument'. Answer How about lover's squabble ? From Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster: squabble : a petty quarrel squabble : a noisy altercation or quarrel usually over petty matters NOTE on @k1eran's answer: Interestingly, Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster define tiff as follows: tiff : a slight or petty quarrel tif

Here's part of a poem from Tolkien : 'For a couple o' pins,' says Troll, and grins, 'I'll eat thee too, and gnaw thy shins. A bit o' fresh meat will go down sweet! I'll try my teeth on thee now. When you check up the meaning of "pin" in a dictionary, here is the usual definition (all the following definitions are from Google): a thin piece of metal with a sharp........ The usage in the poem definitely has nothing to do with the previous definition. I suspect it has to be either this: a person's legs. Or this: a half-firkin cask for beer. (British) It could easily be neither of those as well. So folks, do you have anything to offer ? What does "a couple o' pins" mean in this context ? Answer I think this may be a variation on the BrE expression "for two pins", which means: At the slightest provocation; for the smallest reason. Farlex Dictionary of Idioms (via TFD ) I assume that "pins" here refers to the t

In university I learned that we say to do a degree in X but I saw many other sources where it says to take a degree in X . Which is correct? Is there a regional difference?

Where does the phrase "to get on like a house on fire" come from? (Meaning "to immediately get on very well with someone", particularly a new acquaintance.) It's quite common here in the UK, but even as a native speaker it strikes me as bizarre.

Which phrase is more formal — "so long as" or "as long as"? Example: So long as Google Voice allows free long distance in North America, I will use it. As long as Google Voice allows free long distance in North America, I will use it. I'm leaning toward 'as long as' but I have no justification. Answer I don't know that the distinction between these two is formality. I think that "so long as" indicates a logical predication, and "as long as" indicates a specific time interval. Take your two examples. So long as Google Voice allows free long distance in North America, I will use it. I think this could be paraphrased as My use of Google Voice is conditional upon free long distance calls in North America. Your second example was As long as Google Voice allows free long distance in North America, I will use it. This could be paraphrased as For the duration of time that Google Voice allows free long distance in North America, I will be

Of course whatever follows would seem to be precisely the thing that isn't to be mentioned. EDIT: I'm assuming that the phrase must have evolved from something more complete/cumbersome, like "and of course I don't need to tell you ...", or "and of course we know ...". Answer The rhetorical , as opposed to etymological, origin is the device known as paralpsis, paraleipsis, paralepsis , (also praeteritio ) meaning pretended omission for rhetorical effect, because in saying we won't mention X, of course we just did. Edit (by FumbleFingers): A later question on the same topic gives the relevant word as apophasis . It's a little hard to see from this graph , but what it shows is that until recently, the combined total written instances for various spellings paralpsis, paraleipsis, paralepsis dwarfed those of apophasis . But the graph from 1970 on shows apophasis is now overwhelmingly more common. I don't think this means the correct term for

Today I saw this quote from Michael Jordan, and the usage of Present Perfect in all of his past failed experiences got my attention: I’ve missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I’ve lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I’ve been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I’ve failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed. I cannot see why is it being used here; any help regarding its use? Answer The usage of the Present Perfect is perfectly good here. Had it been the alternative Past Simple that some people might prefer: "I missed... I lost... I was trusted and missed... I failed..." Then all the past experiences being mentioned would be totally detached from where MJ was at the time of speaking. In short, all his past experiences would hold little relevance to where he's gotten. On the other hand, as it appears in the quote: "I've missed... I've lost... I've been trusted and missed... I've failed..." Everythin

As always, while reading through I found a sentence whose structure confused me. What I want to know is whether the first sentence is the inversion form of the second sentence. 1. If the reason was to avoid bad publicity should his error be discovered, then . . . 2. If the reason was his error be discovered to avoid bad publicity, then . . . If not, how should I interpret the first sentence? Thanks. Answer The sentences are not equivalent in meaning. That is, the first makes sense, the second doesn't. Probably your confusion lies in the word should . Here it means if . I would expand it like this: If the reason was to avoid bad publicity [ if ] his error [ were to ] be discovered, then . . .

If you delete a single word (or even two or three words) from the start of a quote, should you still use an ellipsis (…) or can you put the first non-deleted word in square brackets ([Word])? For example, if I want to delete the word "to" from s.10(c) of the Canadian Charter, which goes as follows: (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful. would I write: '…have the validity, etc.' or: '[have] the validity, etc.' I'm fairly sure that multiple deleted words within a quotation are replaced with an ellipsis offset by a space on each side, or part of the quotation placed within square brackets if only a few words are removed or re-ordered (if someone could confirm this, please). So at the moment I'm concluding logically that a deleted word at the start of a quotation is replaced by an ellipsis also.

I have encountered such a term, and I have no idea what it is. Could it be 'of'? Answer Norman genitive , or French genitive , is another term for analytic genitive . The following phrases use the Norman genitive . the future of mankind the roof of your house the leaves of those trees The following phrases use the Saxon genitive , or synthetic genitive . Michael's sister Joanna's boyfriend the cat's leg

What is the difference between Have a look and Take a look (meaning/connotations)? For example: Have a look at the question . Take a look at the question . For some reason I only found first version, but Google Translate suggests second one. Answer The difference between "have a look" and "take a look" is geographical rather than semantic. The former phrase is usually used in the UK, whereas the latter is usually used in the USA. (I am an American who has lived in the UK for 24 years.)

Is the conditional a mood or a tense? I've heard it described in both ways. It seems more like a mood as it is often lumped with hypothetical constructions and the subjunctive mood. I could see it too as being a kind of nuance of the future though, as the conditional often implies something that will happen when other conditions are met. For example, "If I were a bird, I would fly away." People have made a tag that says conditional-mood , but it has only been used three times, so I'm not convinced. Answer Traditionally, it is considered neither, though it is sometimes called a mood for lack of a better word. The word function would seem the best term. I am assuming that you are talking about the word would in your example. The adjective "conditional" just means "related to a condition"; when used as a noun, it usually refers to a function of the past subjunctive tense of modal verbs ( would, could, might, and should ). There are three traditio

As a non-native speaker but a teacher of the English language I've come across the following question reading a pupil's report: Should she use the simple past or past perfect in her sentence? Last week we came back from a class trip to New York. We planned (OR) had planned that trip half a year ago. (meaning: half a year before NOW) Although we teach that ago is a signal word for simple past, I would go for past perfect here, since the action of the second sentence clearly takes place before the first one and before the rest of what the report is about (the class trip itself). How would a native speaker put it? Answer In general I agree that using ago implies that the simple past would work better. In this case, however, the simple past doesn't provide the obvious and relevant connection/link between the two sentences that had planned offers. If it were me, I would use had planned (for its link to the previous sentence) but replace ago with prior to avoid any subtle

What term can be used for an adult, especially a man, who is in his forties and still behaves like a teenager, shunning responsibilities typical of mature people, preferring to enjoy himself? Answer I would just call such a person immature , defined by The American Heritage Dictionary as: adj. Marked by or suggesting a lack of normal maturity: silly, immature behavior.

If you replace into with in , can a sentence change its meaning? For example, are the two sentences below equivalent in meaning? I placed the coin into her hand. I placed the coin in her hand. Answer If you choose the right sentence, the meaning can indeed change. I took the statue in the garden. I took the statue into the garden. In the first sentence, "in the garden" modifies statue, and specifies which statue you took. In the second, "into the garden" modifies "took", and specifies where you took the statue.

The metaphor designates something (A) as something (B), something in the quality of something not itself. Corngold, Kafka's Die Verwandlung: Metamorphosis of the Metaphor I would like to ask how you understand the above sentence (especially the emphasized part). Does it follow from it that in the case of a metaphor the quality of B has nothing to do with the qualities of A. If so I find this definition very confusing. I think that we use the metaphor when we want to express the qualities of A are similar to qualities of B.

I have a tiny table/bulletin board to display information for all members to remind them of their deadline task. They work for one large project, each is assigned to code for a specific thing. Which correct word should I use as the table's title? Project Deadline / Task Deadline / Assignment Deadline / Job Deadline? I don't know about how your company's team works on a project (member job dispatch). Because in my company it is done so, in case of one member who might keep pace with others or times when he can't code before deadline, it's problematic, right? How to solve this?

A friendly dog will wag its tail, especially when it's happy to see his owner. Cats can communicate their approval and appreciation too, but I don't remember ever hearing a cat wagging its tail for joy. So, what does a cat's tail do when it's happy? Answer It appears there are no specific terms for the ways a cat moves its tail , despite the many and different signals it may send. The tail says it all : Watching a cat's tail is an excellent way to determine how they are feeling. If you get bitten by a cat, mostly likely you missed the warning signs. Friendly and raised : Usually a cat with a raised tail (sometimes with a slightly bent tip), accompanied by their ears up high, is happy to see you and might approach you in a friendly greeting. You may also see cats approaching each other with raised tails with bent tips... these cats are being friendly! Wagging tail = bad: Unlike a dog, a wagging cat tail does not mean they are happy to see you! You can tell a lot

I know the question a bit vague but that's the only plausible inquiry I could come up with. I wanted to what word can be used if someone is disappointed and they are surprised as to the fact that to start with they never thought the subject matter or the person which disappointed them would have such an effect on them. Answer Shell-shocked and Gobsmacked might be applicable to your context. A person is said to be shell-shocked when they're confused, shocked or anxious because of a difficult or unexpected situation and hence can't act/think normally. Gobsmacked is very similar where you're so surprised by an event that you lose the tendency to think normally or think at all.

Kindly, what are your thoughts on the following sentences: The maximum number of wordbooks (%d) have been saved. The maximum number of wordbooks (%d) has been saved. My opinion is that (1) is more appropriate as "save" relates to wordbooks (a plural noun) and "The ... number" is some kind of determiner. The dissenting opinion is that "The number" is obviously singular, and the "wordbooks" are subsidiary. I agree that (2) is grammatically correct but I maintain it implies merely a single number was saved, not the wordbooks themselves. Answer As explained in ‘The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, when number of is preceded by the , it is the head (the most important word) of the phrase ‘the number of . . .’ It is singular, and so requires a singular verb. The case is different when number of is preceded by a . Then, it is a pre-modifying element, leaving the number of the verb to determined by the number of the following head word ( wordbooks i

It seems to have been common practice in the 17th and 18th centuries in Britain to capitalise the first letters of nouns in English, e.g. At which Time he prov'd himself the Noah's Dove, that finding himself no Rest anywhere, was receiv'd again into his own Ark, and brought a peaceable Olive-Leaf in his mouth. Most original sources I can find on the net have used modern rules for capitalisation, so what I'd like to know is: was the practice used for all nouns (note mouth in my quotation above isn't capitalised)? when did this practice begin? when did it end, and why? Answer Capitalisation to this extent wasn't around in Old English, and I didn't remember any in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, but it seemed exist in some Shakespeare folios and not others, so it certainly hasn't been around since the beginning of written English. I found this in an actual printed book, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (David Crystal), p67, where the int

I just don't get the reasoning behind which one is correct in which situation. Typically I use the wrong one, or I use them when I'm not supposed to. Answer If you mean both in the sense of anticipating something, both are equally valid. However 'I look forward' is more formal; it's the kind of thing you would write in an official letter. A typical example is the closing statement of a cover letter for a job application: I look forward to hearing from you soon. 'I am looking forward' is less formal. You would rarely say to a friend on the phone 'I look forward to visiting you next week.' You would say: I'm looking forward to visiting you next week. I'm not sure why others here have suggested this is wrong. You wouldn't say 'I run towards the train station!', you'd say 'I am running towards the train station!'

Consider the following sentence: The Bactrian camel is well adapted to the extreme climate of its native Mongolia, having thick fur and underwool that keep it warm in winter and also insulate against summer heat. My question is about the italicized part. My usage of English is grounded mostly in “what feels right” and not in solid grammar knowledge, so I am struggling with this one. I have been using such structure quite frivolously myself, but I never knew an ‘official’ name for it, nor when it is appropriate. Here is a generic example: Bob is a great guy, wanting to do great things no matter what the circumstances are. Is this correct? What is this -ing ‘thing’ called, if it has a name? Could you briefly list when it is or isn’t appropriate to use a verb+ing form, perhaps noting the most common misuses or mistakes? Answer It’s called a participial phrase , specifically one using the present not the past participle. If you want more than that, you’ll have to chase down all about VP

What do you call someone who is being mentored ? Is it mentoree or mentee ? Does the term student or pupil imply a context outside the business environment?

I've been racking my brain trying to think of a grammatically correct sentence that uses same without the earlier in the same (see!) phrase. It is the same It is the very same I have 10 things all the same I have 10 of the same things The same boy as last time did it again The boy did the same thing as last time I am discounting same-day dry cleaning and any similar phrases that might crop up because using a hyphen is acceptable which suggests it's an atomic phrase and it sounds awkward if inverted: They have a same-day dry cleaning service. Their dry cleaning service is same-day. - Sounds odd but might be acceptable in some situations Their dry cleaning service is done on the same day. - Sounds better So I don't think it's possible when same is used by itself. Can someone either explain why same must always have the before it or provide a grammatically correct counter-example? Answer The word same is usually used with the definite article. However, it can

I will like to know the various uses of seek and its past participle sought. for instance, is it right to say; It is advisable the secretary seeks clearance from her boss before issuing permit. OR It is advisable the secretary sought clearance from her boss before issuing permit.

Is there an English equivalent of komorebi (木漏れ日), which means the sunshine filtering through the leaves of a tree (or trees)? It is made up of three kanji and the hiragana particle れ. The first kanji 木 means ‘tree’ (or ‘trees‘), the second one 漏 refers to ‘escape’ and the last one 日 is ‘light‘ or ‘sun‘. Komorebi can also be seen as a light curtain which is more visible after the rain because of the reflecting light from the water vapor: Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Forest-sun_01.JPG It is also mentioned as the interplay between the light and the leaves which is observed especially on the ground. Additionally, there is a rare phenomenon when the light of the crescent sun during a partial solar eclipse is dappled on the ground in crescent shapes (which is circular normally): Source: http://www.pinterest.com/pin/125678645821705633/ Sunray and sunbeam come to mind but they are too general. Of course, the word is the result of Japanese culture and aesthetics influence

How could I distinguish the usage between the prefecture and county? In my opinion, I think "shire" is smaller than a county or prefecture. Is there any problem with my concept? Answer In the UK, county and shire mean the same thing - a primary division of a country - but we use them slightly differently. Shire is suffixed to (usually) the county town name, as in Yorkshire, tho it sometimes gets merged somewhat: Lancaster plus shire = Lancashire. County is used for some county-names (who knows why?) and in deference to French syntax comes before the town name, as in County Durham. But unless we want to sound cute, we no longer use shire generically: "all over the county", not "all over the shire."

Words can change meaning over time. A good example of this would be 'gay' which has changed from meaning 'merry' to 'homosexual'. Over the past decade, it has also taken on pejorative connotations. How often do words change meaning then revert back to their original meaning? Is this a one-way street?

I don't mean people with low self esteem. But there are people who feel happy at being able to make other people laugh at their own expense. I remember someone telling me there is a word for them, I can't find it. Let me explain: I sometimes, while sitting with a group of people, might just tell them a personal embarrassing story, which might be completely fabricated, to make other people laugh. And when they laugh, I feel happiness. I'm also self deprecating, but not in a way that I hate myself, rather, just my work (I'm a screenwriter) and knowing I can do better. I do not self deprecate myself in public (I don't praise myself either). Edit: Now that its mentioned, I think the word I'm talking about was used to describe a person's sense of humor. Or it could be a word used to describe a psychological trait/disorder. Edit: I just looked up humor styles on Wikipedia. And after reading it, I guess the word that closely matches what I'm looking for is '

I have named him/he who shall not be named. Which of these is correct? I think it should be "him" because "him" is a direct object in this context. In this context, "him/he who shall not be named" is not a proper noun.

What is the part of speech of 'regarded' in the following? "a quality of beauty and intensity of emotion regarded as characteristic of poems" (NOAD) Why isn't it "... [which is] regarded ..."? And in another case: "a small lizard with wide feet, found especially in warm countries" (CALD) And also: " Words used to describe writing or speech style" (Macmillan) In all these examples, why shouldn't the verbs be in their passive form (e.g. which is found , words that are used )? I am a ESL learner and I am very confused by these usages!

Do I need to put “the” before “most” in this sentence? I've always thought you need the definite article 'the' before the superlative of an adjective, except when the comparison is made within the same subject: The swimming pool is deepest here. Some people say 2 is the more idiomatic. Is this true? The most tuna are caught in early November. Most tuna are caught in early November.

What is the difference between the following two expressions: My interview is scheduled on the 27th of June at 8:00 AM. My interview is scheduled for the 27th of June at 8:00 AM. Answer The version with on looks a little wrong to me. I would use on if I were describing the time at which the schedule was set, giving something like: My interview was scheduled on the 26th of June for the 27th of June at 8:00 AM. This sentence means that on the 26th, two people agreed, "let's have an interview tomorrow." The 27th is when the interview (presumably) actually took place. However, browsing google, it appears that on is sometimes (less frequently, but frequently enough) used for both senses. I suppose with enough context the meaning is clear, although I still prefer for in the original examples since it is not vague. Also, as J.R. pointed out in the comments, dropping scheduled makes on the only correct choice.

I've seen the captions described as a dialect, patois, "kitty pidgin" and language play which is well and good but doesn't get to the key visual aspect (silly/cute/adorable cats). Wikipedia offers image macro , a term with hazy etymology but looks like the best candidate at this point. I suppose one could just call it an internet meme but that lumps it in with a vast number of other things that are less well-known. Answer "Lolcat is an example of ______." Lolcat is an example of anthropomorphisation , internet meme and web humour . Image macro It is also known as a cat macro , or more generally, along with other forms such as the ORLY owl's owl macro , an image macro . The only image macro definition on Urban Dictionary is from way back in 2005 : A internet forum phrase originally coined in Something Awful forums (like nearly every other internet phrase, really), this is an image with a (hopefully) funny phrase relating to the situation in the thr

Like in this sentence: The influence of the Titnaeus among early philosophical thinkers was pervasive, if only because it was the sole dialogue available in Europe for almost 1,000 years. (Emphasis added.) Answer The most reasonable parsing of that particular sentence would be that "it was the sole dialogue available in Europe for almost 1,000 years" could plausibly be the only reason for "The influence of the Titnaeus among early philosophical thinkers" being "pervasive", without explicitly excluding any other reason.

How does negation affect the use and understanding of “or” and “and” If I want to negate a sentence such as I like beer and whiskey. [Most commonly understood as, I think, I like beer and I like whiskey .] I have to convert the and to an or : I don't like beer or whiskey. There's no sense of an or in the second sentence, so its inclusion seems a bit perverse. I realise that I could say I don't like beer and whiskey. but that would mean something different: I don't like (beer and whiskey). rather than the intended (I don't like beer) and (I don't like whiskey). So my question is: what's going on here? Why do we have to make this change?

I've noticed an interesting usage where "because [noun]." is used at the end of a sentence to mean "because [...everything that word implies. Nothing more needs to be said]". It often has a wry or sarcastic tone that implies the subject considers the word to be a blanket explanation for something. An example might be "She couldn't drag herself away from the computer because internet.", the implication being that the Internet is seductive. Another example is here where "because sex" is used to imply that a group of people have a simplistic attitude to how sex affects people's lives. The odd grammar causes a clang in my head when I read it, but of course that is the point; the author is showing how this word will stop the conversation dead in its tracks, so it is quite effective. Is this a new or emerging usage, or have I just started noticing it?

“Those who qualify will be awarded a certificate” or “those who qualify will be awarded certificates”? “On their back” or “on their backs”? Should the singular or plural of position should be used in the following sentences? Why Political Parties Change Their Positions: Environmental... Do the stars change their position through the course of the night? Why do stars appear to change their positions through the year? Why do shadows change their position during the day? The sentences are from the first page of the Google search for should not change their position .

There are various ways of saying that something consists of something else: composed of comprised of contained in consist of Maybe there are more. Are there hard and fast rules when to use which or are they synonyms? Answer Here are some thoughts: "composed of" refers to the parts of a thing from the point of view of the subject "comprising" or "comprises" (not "comprised of" though ardent descriptivists will gnash their teeth at me) can refer to either. "contained in" refers to the container from the point of view of its constituent parts "consist of" or "consists of" refers to the elements of a thing, with the added implication that these elements are sine qua non — without them, the thing would not be what it is.

What is the difference? Or is there any? Which would be more British English? Answer The British National Corpus has 5445 cites for grey and 1092 cites for gray . The Corpus of Historical American English , on the other hand, paints the following picture: (X axis: year, Y axis: incidences per million words.) After seeing these stats, it should come as no surprise that Wiktionary marks grey as British, Canadian , and gray as US .

What are some sets of words used to describe rank in different professions (music, engineering, science)? I'm thinking about words similar to novice , amateur , and professional . In the European guild system there were apprentices , journeymen , and master craftsmen .

Someone recently posted a question about the pronunciation of Wednesday , which reminded me of a different question about pronouncing the days of the week I've had floating around in my head for a while. In Standard American English, the word seems to be pronounced "Wensday" [wɛnzdeɪ]. However, I occasionally hear people say something like "Wensdee" [wɛnzdi], and in general the days of the week are Mondee, Tuesdee, Wensdee, Thursdee, etc. What puzzles me about this is that I haven't been able to associate it with one particular dialect or region - I've hear people say it in (to give three examples) Arizona, Minnesota, and New York. My question is: What US dialects characteristically use this pronunciation - where does it come from? Also, I feel like I often hear older folks using it - could it have something to do with age? Answer The short answer can be found in these maps from Professor Bert Vaux's Dialect Survey : The speech accent archive , su

Please consider the two examples below. Which, technically, without rephrasing, is the correct choice? non-administrator-level-user privileges [Here the four-word compound adjective modifies "privileges".] non-administrator level-user privileges [Here "non-administrator-level" is the modifier of the hyphenated "user-privileges". Should "user-privileges" be hyphenated here, as a noun, when it follows the already-hyphenated "non-administrator-level"?] Of course, we could truncate the phrase by deleting "level" and be left with "non-administrator-user privileges", which is, in my opinion, correctly punctuated (yes or no?) and probably the best option, no doubt. Agreed? My question is whether or not 1 or 2 is the better punctuation choice. And why? Does each example have a different meaning because of the shift in hyphenation, or do they both have the same meaning?

I was recently chastised at work for using the word " cool " in an email chain--an act that I attribute to being overly-formal for no other reason than to uphold an unnecessarily perceived "law" of formality. Is there an English word that would better describe this? Answer The apt words are Prig a person who displays or demands of others pointlessly precise conformity, fussiness about trivialities, or exaggerated propriety, especially in a self-righteous or irritating manner. Prude a person who is excessively proper or modest in speech, conduct, dress, etc. Pedant a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense.

Looking for any ideas as to a word or phrase that can be used for subject title. Say we have a deadline at the end of the year with a target/objective that must be achieved at all costs. Is there anything that really emphasises the fact that this target must be achieved?

Usually, we do not use the definite article, the , before names of countries but we use the before "United States of America". Is there a specific reason for using the article before the country "United States of America"? Answer The is used in front of countries that have: plural names: the Netherlands a general geo-political noun of place, e.g. republic, emirate, kingdom, state: the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom. On a related note, see this post on the capitalization of articles in names : You only capitalize The when it is the first word in a title of book or a play. . . . In contrast, the word the is not normally capitalized in front of proper nouns that aren’t titles, like . . . the United States of America. . . .

Unlike mountain names, where "Mount" always precedes its name, e.g. Mount Everest , I've noticed that some rivers have "River" before its name, e.g. the River Nile but others have it after, e.g. the Colorado River . How does one decide where it should be and how did the difference come about? Answer There is no such rule, and for that matter, there is no rule about the position of Mount either; there's Rocky Mount in my part of the world, and many Appalachian peaks are known as Nnn Mountain . It is a matter of convention. The same goes for many other geologic or hydrologic features: the Leyte Gulf but the Gulf of Mexico , Loch Lomond but Alemoor Loch , the Isle of Wight but Portsea Island . That said, Nnn River is the far more prevalent form in the U.S.; it would be quite rare to hear of the River Missouri or the River Columbia in prose. This is also true of other American terms for streams , e.g. branch , brook , run , kills (though not so much for