Blog

Sometimes we read books rather quickly and don't give them much (or any) thought, so the action 'reading' does not necessarily imply that we have given enough thoughts to any book we read. Is there a word that describes reading a book with great care; usually but necessarily slowly over a long period of time. Answer The closest you're likely to get in a single word is peruse .

Jeff Atwood writes : Vote For This Question or The Kitten Gets It ... every time you forget to vote a great question up, or a bad question down — a kitten gets it! The kitten looks awfully sad, but why would it be sad for getting a question? Answer Andy F is right - I think you misunderstand what to get it refers to here. This is not entirely your fault, since it is deictic and the actual referent here is not explicitly mentioned (as is usual for this particular use of the phrase). In this case, get it is being used in this way: (v) get it (receive punishment) "You are going to get it!" - Source It here refers to some unnamed but presumably terrible punishment to be meted out to the party in question. ...Put in context, he was joking, really.

I was wondering how one might conjugate verbs in early modern English in various tenses. I am aware of the fact that for second person and third person singular specifically, the verb endings are -est and -eth respectively, but once you move away from simple present tense, it seems to get a bit trickier. I recall reading somewhere that if you want to make a verb past simple, you add did between the noun and the verb. For example, He ? dideth walk to the store. As opposed to the modern English, He walked to the store. And as opposed to how I might say it: He ? walkedeth to the store. Unfortunately, I haven’t learned quite as much of English as others may, but I know enough to suspect that “He dideth walk to the store” might be a different tense entirely from “He walkedeth to the store”, at least in modern English. I am an aspiring and amateur writer, and there is a character that speaks entirely in Early Modern English, and so the answer to this would be quite helpful.

Does the low in Speak in a low voice! He said in a low voice. refer to the volume / loudness or to the pitch ? Does it mean quiet , or low-frequency ? EDIT: After understanding from your answers that the meaning is ambiguous (it may apparently mean either the first or the second or both), and after reading some answers to Please "Mute your voice"! suggesting " lower your voice" as a request to speak more quietly , I am adding a related question: Is the meaning of Lower your voice! also ambiguous, or does this particular phrase refer unambiguously to loudness? Answer low (Of a sound or voice) not loud or high: keep the volume very low his low, husky voice It has, therefore, both the meanings. The same dictionary defines husky thus: 1 (Of a voice or utterance) sounding low-pitched and slightly hoarse: his voice became a husky, erotic whisper A low voice can be loud! (click 'More example sentences' in the low entry to open) His voice was low and l

In this morning’s (November 2nd) live-video report of New York Times, the caster asked a guest commentator if the tropical storm Sandy can be classified as a hurricane because there are many others who say it’s not hurricane, but a strong storm. The commentator answered "It’s definitely Hurricane, not a storm ." Actually the same NY-Times carries an article captioned “Toll rises amid Storm recovery” next to the video report, while showing pictures under the caption, “Hurricane Sandy Aftermath” in other corner, and, its co-ed columnist Paul Krugman wrote “Polls show overwhelming approval for Mr. Obama’s handling of the storm , and a significant rise in his overall favorability ratings,” in his article, “Sandy Versus Katrina” appearing in NY-Times on November 4th. AP News on Nov. 5 says “There are a plenty of demands and some desperation for gasoline in New York and New Jersey and surrounding areas where people try to recover from the recent storm, ” and the same day’s NY-Tim

As far as I know there are two different meanings of the word "reset": to restore an object/value to a previous/initial state - that's the most widely use of the word;  to set the value/state a second time. But, is it common to use "reset" with the second meaning? For me it makes more sense to distinguish the two meanings by using "re-set" on the second one. But, does "re-set" even exist? For example, what would be most acceptable in the following examples? The thermostat is now set to 20 ºC. You can make it colder or warmer by resetting/re-setting it [to a different value]. "Production stop" works simply by resetting/re-setting the end time [to a different value but not to the default one].

What is common to all these types of services is that the process of their delivery is subject to our internal control of quality. I am not sure about the sentence structure indicated above. I wonder whether this structure is unusual for native speakers of English? Google does not clear up this question. Here I am speaking about the common feature of the services. Answer It reads like corporate-speak [all it really means is 'we don't screw up'] but grammatically it's absolutely fine.

I want to find out the differences in meaning among covered by, covered in, and covered with . For example, what is the difference between: covered with blood covered in blood or the differences in meaning among the mountain was covered with snow the mountain was covered in snow the mountain was covered by snow

I'm thinking that the singular verbs "is" and "has" are correct below because we're referring to a singular lump of precipitation. Although the subject "inches" is plural, I think the singular verbs are correct below. We wouldn't say, "Fifty dollars are a lot of money." I think this is basically the same concept. Good for the singular verbs below? One to 3 inches of snow "is" expected. (Not: ... are expected.) Ten inches of snow "has" fallen. (Not: ... have fallen.)

From an Information Technology perspective, what's the opposite of Proof of Concept (prototype)? I'm looking for a better word which means "full-fledged version". Answer The opposite of a prototype — or a blueprint, or a sketch, or a mock-up, or a model — is a finished product or production version .

I understand the definition of remit ; so I am not asking about it. I just want to delve in deeper. I also recognise the Etymological Fallacy and its various drawbacks. So how should I interpret or rationalize its etymology, in order to intuit or naturalise it, and to help me remember? 1. remit = [chiefly British] The task or area of activity officially assigned to an individual or organization 2. An item referred to someone for consideration Etymonline : late 14c., "to forgive, pardon," from Latin remittere "send back, slacken, let go back, abate," from re- "back" (see re- ) + mittere "to send" (see mission ). Meaning "allow to remain unpaid" is from mid-15c. Meaning "send money (to someone)" first recorded 1630s. Related: Remitted ; remitting . For instance, how does re- fit the 2 definitions above? Both refers someTHING NEW to someONE NEW. Yet back implies a reappraisal; so what's sent back ? Footnote: I encoun

I know that Sussex and Middlesex are in England. It looks to me as if there is a pattern in names. What does the suffix -sex mean? Where does it come from? Answer The -sex suffix is from Anglo-Saxon / Old English, with the actual meaning being "Saxon". Sussex is essentially "South Saxon". Middlesex is "Middle Saxon". Essex is "East Saxon". Wessex is "West Saxon".​​​​​​​ Most of the wiki pages for these places will have the toponymy definition.

What are the differences between "agree on", "agree with" and "agree to"? Answer The object is the difference. When you agree with someone/something, it means you accept the point of someone/something. I agree with you. Matt does not agree with my answer. You agree on some issue or point of debate. We agreed on this issue. You agree to demands/queries, or you agree to do something. He agreed to my demands. He agreed to join me for the movie.

The Wikipedia page for "Naomi (given name)" says once said "pronounced nay-oh-mee" which is how I pronounce my daughter's name, but quite often people pronounce it "nigh-oh-mee" (that is, with a long "i" instead of a long "a" in the first syllable). Is there a reason why so many people pronounce it in this way? I live near Boston, in case that's a factor. The Wiktionary page for Naomi gives three pronunciations: /neɪˈoʊmi/ /naɪˈoʊmi/ /ˈneɪəmi/ Answer I think this is a mild hyperforeignism that comes from an attempt to pronounce “Naomi” more like the original Hebrew: nah-oh-mee [na.o.mi]. The [ao] sequence is uncommon in English—and because there are two separately stressed syllables in this case, they cannot merge into ow [aʊ]. Thus an epenthetic /y/ [j] sound appears, giving nah-yo-mee [na.joʊ.mi]. This is just like someone saying “drawring” instead of “drawing”: the transition between a certain pair of vowels is uncom

The whole department: John, Jeff, Jean, and the accountant [?] were thrown into jail.

I've been wondering this for a long time and Google doesn't seem to want to give me the answer. In the United States, the term "miles per gallon" is most commonly used to express the fuel efficiency of an automobile. Given that "mile" and "gallon" are artifacts of the U.S. customary system of measurement, how would someone in a country that uses the Metric system go about expressing this rate? "Kilometers per liter"? "Meters per U.K. gallon"? "Furlongs per hogshead"? Answer The standard measure is in litres per hundred kilometres.

founder 2 (ODO) noun 1 A person who establishes an institution or settlement.     ‘he was the founder of modern Costa Rica’ An article on SO has the author's name followed by "Co-Founder ( Former )". I am not quite sure if someone could cease to be a "founder," for whatever reasons. (emphasis mine) meta: The earlier post " What's a title for a founder no longer with a company? asks for an alternative while stressing on the fact that "a founder is always a founder." I suspect most of the hits on Google search are either related to non-native speakers' writings or incidental proximity of the words rather than an intentional use of the phrase. One may dissociate oneself from something after having founded it. Can someone cease to be a "founder"?

I want to shorten this: I sent emails to four others. One person responded. Does the following sentence correctly use whom to achieve my goal? I sent emails to four others, one of whom responded. Can I use who instead of whom here?

I found the phrase, “ pull her out of the hat ” in the following sentence of the quote from Frank Bailey, the most relied-upon former aide of Ms.Sarah Palin, whose memoir, “Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin: A Memoir of Our Tumultuous Years” is due out on Tuesday this week. “I doubt if there's anything new in this book, just more detailed views of the gruesome story of her rise and fall. What would really be interesting is an account of who made the decisions in the GOP to pull her out of the hat . It certainly wasn't McCain.” I don’t find the idiom, “pull one out of the hat ” in any dictionaries at hand. Does it mean to “pick up” (Sarah Palinfor (vice) presidential candidate) or “remove her from (the candidate seat)? Can somebody teach me the meaning of this phrase? Answer To pull something (rare: somebody) out of a hat is a reference to magic. It is an idiom : Produce suddenly and surprisingly, as if by magic. For example, We can't just pull the answers out of a hat . Thi

I am searching for a word that can describe an object or process as having both bad and good elements. I realize this is a repeat of this previous question , but I do not believe the suggestions answer my question; Egregious , the proposed answer by the OP, is not a common enough word (anyone I have asked has had to look it up), nor does it mean precisely what I'm after, Sick is a word that can be used in both good and bad contexts. It does not actually mean "both good and bad". The context I am working is biological, specifically cognitive impairment (such as dementia). In a publication I am working on currently, I would like to describe the role of inflammation as having both good and bad roles (depending on the situation). I can think of possible sayings that might apply, for example "swings and roundabouts" or "bitter-sweet", but again these do not seem formal enough. Is there a word that fits the context? "Inflammation is a double-edged swor

I wonder why the phrase is "When you see it you will shit brix," and not "When you will see it you will shit brix." Is the version with two will incorrect? What grammar rule says that you should not use will see in the above phrase? Answer Adding to Elendil's answer, "When" refers to "the point in time at which an action occurs". And at that point of time, you are actually "seeing it", which is why the verb is in the present tense. When/If (somethings happens) then (something else will happen) if (something will happen) would be impossible to evaluate as a condition since the future is unknown.

Is "of" always supposed to be pronounced with the v sound (like "ov")? Or does it depend on the region (e.g. US, UK) or maybe on the word that follows the preposition? For example, how would you pronounce the title of this question? Answer In English (well, OK, UK, US, Australian and NZ English, at least, but I suspect all English), "of" is pronounced with the 'v' sound, as "ov". This helps to distinguish it from "off", a separate word (meaning "not on"), pronounced with the 'f' sound.

I am writing my bachelor dissertation and several times Microsoft Word has corrected me from "to have" to "having". One of the sentences, for instance, goes like this: The author recommends to have ‘(...)'. Bugeja further recommends having a student blog where prospective... Can anyone enlighten me?

What does "half kid" mean in this context? Stillbirth? Unborn child? A pet? The context is from a book called The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck by Mark Manson. Our culture today is obsessively focused on unrealistically positive expectations... Be happier. Be healthier. Be the best, better than the rest. Be smarter, faster, richer, sexier. Be perfect and amazing and crap out twelve-karat-gold nuggets before breakfast each morning while kissing your selfie-ready spouse and two and a half kids goodbye.

In researching the recent EL&U question Origins and meaning of "Put your money where your mouth is" , I repeatedly came across the seemingly related but older phrase “put up or shut up.” Where and when did this older phrase arise, and what did it originally mean? I will submit the information that I’ve uncovered so far as an answer below. Answer The phrase comes from boxing, when one fighter would challenge another and require him to put up a stake for a match, or stop his fighting words. 1858 The OED's earliest quotation is: 1858 Marysville (Ohio) Tribune (Electronic text) 21 July, Now, if he means business, let him put up, or shut up, for this is the last communication that will come from me in regard to this fellow. Here it is printed in another newspaper with more context: The Brutality of the Nineteenth Century—Somewhat after the manner of duelling correspondence, two pugilists, John Morrissey and John Heenan, the latter known as the "Benicia Hoy,"

What would you call a sentence that goes something like The foreman sent a worker to find me with a hammer. The sentence is ambiguous, and could mean either: The foreman sent a worker to find me holding a hammer; or The foreman sent a worker holding a hammer to find me. I am looking for a description other than "ambiguous" to explain why the prepositional phrase "with a hammer" is causing ambiguity.

I found the following example in my vocabulary: The town is situated on a plateau high up among the mountains of the north. Can I replace situated with located for the example above? What's the difference? Answer Yes, the replacement works fine. I can't think of a difference other than that located might be slightly more standard in the parts of the US that I've lived in. For what it's worth, you don't really need either of the two words here, The town is on a plateau high up among the mountains of the north. is not at all ambiguous.

Is it correct to say or write an student or an store ? Answer Always use an for words which sound like they start with a vowel, and always use a for words which sound like they start with a consonant. The rules for h are more complex, and it can be ok to use either. The usage of the indefinite article preceding h are discussed here . In particular, look at nohat's response. As for student and store , they should always be preceded with a and never with an , because they both start with the consonant /s/ when spoken. Correct: A student, a store Incorrect: An student, an store

I've always cooked my Thanksgiving stuffing without actually putting it inside the turkey. Does it have to be stuffed into the turkey to be called stuffing ? Answer The term 'stuffing' is used for the stuff that could go into a turkey, even if it never made it into a turkey. It might be more accurate to say dressing (but then, are the (sweet) potatoes or the cranberry sauce dressing too - and why one but not the other?), but most people would not bother with that fine a distinction. Maybe this belongs on the Cooking ? Or, maybe you'd get alternative answers there.

The definition of shitstorm in New Oxford American Dictionary: a situation marked by violent controversy. The definition in Wikipedia: a vulgar dysphemism for a chaotic and unpleasant situation. I want to know what exactly a shitstorm consists of. Does it include a wrestling scene, or more of a disputing situation?

I am analysing a speech and I'm unsure as to whether this sentence is an imperative sentence or not: "We must act and act now"

I am still very confused on when to use who and whom , I understand the idea these sentences are correct: He is the person who won the competition. That is the person whom I went on holiday with. But what would be correct in the following sentence: This image shows a patient who is... or whom is? Would it be who because the patient is the subject, or is it?

In Old English, vowel length was phonemic, but stress and certain kinds of consonant voicing were not. In Modern English, that situation is reversed: vowel length is no longer phonemic, but stress always, and consonant voicing in most cases now, is. My main question is . . . Is there any connection between losing one phonemic property but gaining another? Is there some sort of “conservation of phonemic axes” principle at work here that requires another axis of distinction to appear when one is lost? Did this cause other effects, such as for example stress or voicing or something else becoming phonemic? Old English represented 14 simple vowels using just 7 letters ( a, æ, e, i, y, o, u ) in paired short and long variants. This reminds me of how Latin had 10 simple vowels using 5 letters, again in paired short and long phonemically distinct variants. But in the transformation of Latin into Spanish, that 10-vowel system was lost, leaving only 5 vowels remaining. And yet, Latin’s predicta

There was an article contributed by Jena McGregor titled ‘Palin’s milk joke goes sour' in Feb 18th Washington Post, which dealt with Salah Palin’s speech mocking Michelle Obama’s recommendation of breastfeeding. In the following quote from her speech, I don’t understand what the subject of sentence - ‘may that not be the takeaway of this speech’ is, or what ‘takeaway’ means. Does it mean ‘essence’? Cambridge Dictionary online simply define ‘takeaway’ to be ‘a meal cooked and bought at a shops and restaurants but taken often home to be eaten.’ Can you teach me what it means and what the subject of this line is? When the conversation turned to the escalating price of gas and groceries, Palin reportedly said, "It's no wonder Michelle Obama is telling everybody you better breastfeed your baby--yeah, you better--because the price of milk is so high right now!" It may have just been an attempt to draw a laugh from the crowd over issues--childhood obesity and the medically

Were I rich, I would live on Long Island. If I were rich, I would live on Long Island. Is the first sentence still used, or is used in particular contexts (in example, to give emphasis to the sentence)? Answer It's rarely used nowadays (in the US at least). It will usually come off as sounding stilted in everyday speech, but possibly more educated/sophisticated in formal speaking and writing (but even then, should probably be used sparingly).

I'm new here & don't know all the etiquette & ins & outs, but I have a question about something posted in another thread. Modern grammar, however, recognises that prepositions can take many different types of complement, or may take none at all. In the following examples we see prepositions which are taking different types of complement. Let’s meet before the concert starts. Let’s meet after the concert. Take it out of the box. I’ve never seen this before. If you call "before" in "before the concert starts" is a preposition, what would you call "although" in "Although he didn't know the answer, he raised his hand"? I've been running "although" through my head, & I can't come up with an instance where it could precede a noun phrase. I'd call both "before" (as it's used here) & "although" subordinating conjunctions. If you don't call "before" a subordinating

I have a question about the following text: Last week Alex Knapp at Forbes published an article criticizing my Nikola Tesla comic. I don't normally respond to these kinds of thing, but since it's' Forbes I figured a proper response was in order. I would rather say "this kind of things" rather than the version in the text above. Answer Kind(s) of (like sort of , breed of , manner of , variety of , and so on) is slippery. It is usually interpreted as referring to the concept of something: uncountable, and taking a singular object. On the other hand, it can also refer to a set of them— or to a set of concepts— and the object would thus be plural. I would expect to see this kind of dog = one sub-type of the type of animal known as "dog" these kinds of dog = multiple sub-types of the type of animal known as "dog" these kinds of dogs = multiple sub-types of the multiple types of animal known as "dog" and not so much this kind of dogs bu

I have googled but didn't find. "A person who gets interested in anything very quickly and loses interest in it sooner." What is such a person called? Answer Not necessarily a butterfly mind , but just a butterfly . butterfly ( The Free Dictionary ): 2. a person who never settles with one group, interest, or occupation for long butterfly ( MW dictionary ): 2 : something that resembles or suggests a butterfly; especially : a person chiefly occupied with the pursuit of pleasure butterfly ( dictionary ) 2 a person who flits aimlessly from one interest or group to another: a social butterfly

English is not my first language; the little English I know is mostly from the USA. I know some of the differences between British English (or just English?) and American English, and the same with Australian. In general terms, could you explain to me, or list the most important differences (if any), between Canadian and American English? Answer Spelling Canadian English tends to combine aspects of American and British spelling. Here are some highlights: Some nouns take -ice/-ence while matching verbs take -ise/ense. eg. practise / practice and license / licence Canadians tend to use the British -our ending rather than -or in some words like colour , flavour , labour , neighbour . Generally, words with Greek roots end in -ize while those with Latin roots end in -ise . eg. realize, paralyze. American English tends to standardize on -ize . You draw money from the bank with a cheque not a check. French derived words like theatre and centre tend to retain the -re ending. Although

I have a friend who insists that "I didn't know you like her" is more correct than "I didn't know you liked her" if the liking is still taking place. But to my ear, only the latter sounds correct. Which of the above (if any) is correct and why? Answer I have a friend who insists that 1.) "I didn't know you like her" is more correct than 2.) "I didn't know you liked her" if the liking is still taking place. But to my ear, only the latter (#2) sounds correct. Which of the above (if any) is correct and why? * Trust your ear. :) Your ear knows. As in all things dealing with today's English, we native English speakers know what sounds right and what sounds wrong -- but it can be hard to explain the grammar of the why of it all. Generally, your version #2 is the preferred version, for it is the speaker's knowing that is foregrounded, while the info of your liking her is backgrounded. That is, previously the speaker didn

First sentence: I contribute to projects I love. Second sentence: I contribute to projects that I love. I used to use the first one, but I am not sure if it is right or wrong when omitting "that". Answer A relative pronoun standing at the front of a simple relative clause may be omitted unless it acts as the subject of the relative clause. ok I contribute to projects that I love. ok I contribute to projects that support children. ok I contribute to projects I love. but not, in formal use, ∗ I contribute to projects support children. NOTE: In conversational use you will occasionally hear a subject relative omitted: There are some projects support children I will not contribute to. I'll ask the man fixes my car about that. But this is not acceptable in formal use, and it is often not acceptable in conversation, either. Recognize it when it you hear it; but I advise you not to emulate it. When there is other matter before the relative pronoun, it may not be omitted: This i

I know that the game which is called football in Europe is called soccer in the U.S. But I wonder to what extent this differentiation is strict. What do people from England call their favorite game in conversations with Americans? Is there a misunderstanding in this case? Answer First is a point of order— it's also frequently called "soccer" in South Africa, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand , among other English-speaking places. The Wikipedia article on the topic is " Association football ", which is the full formal name of the sport—its governing body FIFA stands for "Fédération Internationale de Football Association", which in English is "International Federation of Association Football". If you want to be perfectly unambiguous, just call it "association football", and you can be sure that almost no one will know just what you mean. In my experience as an American, when English people are discussing soccer they call it "

On this post here , it says: Another word which comes to my mind is "Knack". It can be used to show how someone has a specific talent. Again as an example - Tim is good with musical instruments, and yet he doesn't have the knack to come up with original tunes like his brother has. I'm an American, so I use the Merriam-Webster dictionary. It's just convenient. 1 a : a clever trick or stratagem b : a clever way of doing something 2 : a special ready capacity that is hard to analyze or teach 3 archaic : an ingenious device; broadly : TOY, KNICKKNACK synonyms see GIFT I use the term myself with the for preposition or the of preposition, even though I think the for preposition may be more common. Little Lucy has a knack for getting into trouble, but she's so cute and friendly that most people never notice. I wish to know the distinctions among a knack for , a knack to , and a knack of . Answer This is really interesting! In British English, knack of appears

I want to send a letter to a company (specifically Microsoft). I've read some things that say one should write "To whom it may concern". I really don't like this; it sounds pretentious. Other sources suggest writing "Dear Sirs" or "Dear Sir or Madam". I don't care for either of these because in the former case a woman could be reading the letter, and in the latter case my letter could be read by multiple people. "Dear Sirs or Madams" sounds ridiculous. "Dear Microsoft" is obviously laughable (and I'm very apposed to corporate person-hood, hah!). I've never particularly cared for "Dear" as the beginning to a letter myself. I don't even know who I'm writing to. But what options do I have other than "Dear"? What should I do? Answer Here is how it works if the intended recipient is unknown. If the gender is unknown, use: Dear Sir/Madam, Dear Sir or Madam, Dear Madam or Sir; Dear Sirs If the r

I see people putting these in emails, are they correct? My gut feeling says that please would have sounded a lot better. Do let us know your thoughts. Do let me know. Do consider the proposal.

The question Precedence of “and” and “or” asks if there is any notion of precedence ordering in the English and it would seem not, based on the answers. Regardless of that, if you saw the following piece of text, how would interpret it and why? The prerequisite(s) of module AB1234 : GN3001 and GN3002 or BC3006 and BC3007. Answer I would intepret it as either "GN3001 and GN3002" or "BC3006 and BC3007" are required But I would also consider that it is badly formulated, and they should have made it crystal clear. One reason for interpreting this in this way is that the two pair would appear to go together - two GN units or two BC units makes sense ( without knowing what they are ). So there are subtle suggestions in the content that would point me one way or the other. However, when this is being defined as course pre-requisites, it should be made completely clear and unambiguous. I would feel a need to contact whoever to clarify this, which means that the communi

“Whereäs” as an alternative spelling of “whereas” I've always wondered which is the correct spelling: "naïve" or "naive"? Are both correct, and it is just a whichever-you-feel-comfortable-with?

In English, words with a 'g' followed by a front vowel (e, i, y) can be pronounced with a soft g or a hard g: Words with Germanic roots are usually pronounced with a hard g: gear, get, gift, give Words with Latin and Greek roots are usually pronounced with a soft g: gem, general, giraffe, giant But how should a purely English word (if such thing even exists) with a 'g' followed by a front vowel be pronounced? In other words, if an English speaker saw a new word of unknown origin (eg: a neologism) that starts with gi- or ge-, how would they pronounce it?

Should I use on or upon in the following sentence? I remembered the story years later when I investigated the incident it was based on.

I've heard that the words "walk" and "talk" do not have cognates in any other known language. That is, neither of these very common words in English have similar forms in other languages, Germanic, Romance, or Celtic (those that have large overlap in vocabulary etymology with English). So my question is of two kinds: what are some other (common?) words that -do not- share etymology with words in any other language? what are some ways to such a search automatically? (I feel like oed.com used to allow plain old test search of any entry so that one could have looked for 'unknown' or something similar). Also are there any online English word lists that have some etymological info? Answer Online Etymological Dictionary is a good starting point for looking up words but if you want detailed information I think you'd have to pay for it, or head to the local library. The entry for talk has a clue to its common roots with words like the German zählen (to

Should Ground Zero (site of old World Trade Center) be capitalised in all references?

According to my grammar book, but at variance to the answer to this question , the correct singular possessive if a word ends in ‑s is: James’s car The grammar book allows exceptions for historical nouns, so the examples in the answer to the above-linked question would pass muster. However, I’m sure that I learnt at school (which, admittedly, was a while ago) that for a singular (proper) noun ending in ‑s , the apostrophe went after the s and there was no additional s . I don’t wish to start a flame war on which is correct, though my question doesn't really make sense if my grammar book is wrong! What I’m curious about is when the change occurred. : So my question is when did James’s become the correct form and James’ the incorrect one? Answer Since, 1810, forms like James’s (which I will call type A) have generally been more commonly used than forms like James’ (type B), according to my research using the Corpus of Historical American English (COHA). I compared a number o

I stumbled across a question about synonyms for "hypocrite", and of course I then got even more distracted by this comment: @MichaelPaulukonis: +1, great comment. Interesting question at the end: Does the King of France say "We are hypocrites" or "We are a hypocrite"? – Nate Eldredge Dec 1 '11 at 5:30 Nate makes a very good point - which would the king/queen say? Personally, I think we are a hypocrite makes more sense in that only one person is really speaking, but I'm not sure. All I could find from an internet search was "we are not amused", which, of course, does not illustrate singular vs. plural agreement for objects with the "royal we". Answer It's certainly not standard to use phrases like "we are hypocrites" to mean "I (royalty) am a hypocrite". Quite simply, in English (as well as in French), the "honorific" type of "plural" pronouns do not automatically trigger plural refe

What is the etymology of the expression "so far, so good"? Why is the meaning of "so far" in that phrase different from the meaning it has in "it's so far"? Answer This is an older meaning of "so" that used to be very common in English but has fallen out of use, where "so" means "in this manner/condition". We still use it when we say things like "you do it like so", "just-so story", "it was so long (and you gesture with your hands to indicate out long)". Actually, the first three entries in dictionary.com seem to convey this meaning. So, the "so far" part means "up to now" and the "so good" part means "it is good in this manner/condition".

What do you call somebody that does something for someone else for money or other personal gain and not because they want to? For example, when someone votes for a candidate in an election because they get paid to do so, and not because that's the candidate they want. He only voted for the candidate because he was paid to do so. He's just a ________.

I was wondering what is the difference between I wasn't knowing and I didn't know ? If I say, I wasn't knowing , I am talking about something unknown in past, the act of not knowing is finished, it means that I know it now, but before it was unknown to me. Answer The main difference would be that any continuous tense of know will be frowned upon. "I am knowing", "I was knowing", "I will be knowing" all make little sense, as we don't perceive the act of knowing as a feasible thing. Knowing something is a state, not an action. I can say I am biking, I am painting, I am thinking. But when I describe a state, a static property which does not describe any action, a continuous tense is confusing. At any moment in time, I either know or I do not know . But in neither case am I actively performing an action of knowing . So the correct sentence would be: I didn't know.

In Plymouth, and other areas of Devon, it is common to suffix the question "where's that?" with to . e.g. Steve: I'm off to see Rita. Dave: Oh yeah? Where's Rita to? or Steve: I'm off to Roborough Dave: Where's that to? Is there an origins story for this construction? Answer The OED, s.v. "to", meaning A.4.a, says a. Expressing simple position: At, in (a place, also fig. a condition, etc.). Cf. German zu Berlin, zu hause. Now only dial. and U.S. colloq. Cf. home n.1 and adj. Phrases 1e. It gives examples from 925 to 1977, including this from 1899: In Somerset‥it is correct to say ‘I bought this to Taunton’.

In English, there are at least two ways to express negation, for example: — I don't have money — I have no money or — No objects were found — Objects were not found or — No restrictions are applied — Restrictions are not applied Questions: What is the difference between these two forms? Is it only the matter of style or there is more significant differences in the meaning of the sentences? When should we use the first one form and when the second? Do these two forms stress a difference between British and US English? Answer There are many differences between the couplets you mentioned, but it's hard to find a general rule that governs those differences. The root cause is, as Zibbobz mentions, that the negation is applied to different parts of the sentence, but the result is different in every case. For instance, in your third example, first sentence, there are no restrictions which are applied, as opposed to the second sentence, where it's implied that restrictions do ex

By 2013 the theoretical and practical courses are organized Is it already organized or is it about to get organized? I mean, is it past or future?

Two very well established examples I can think of are: I guess I am meaning the process where two words are artificially combined into one, rather than when two words are combined to describe a new concept or item (e.g. Hatstand or lamppost). I suppose the distinction is blurry, but is there a word nonetheless? Answer In linguistics, a blend word is a word formed from parts of two or more other words. The process is called blending and the result is a blend word . A portmanteau word typically combines both sounds and meanings, as in smog , coined by blending smoke and fog . More generally, it may refer to any term or phrase that combines two or more meanings, for instance, the term "wurly" when describing hair that is both wavy and curly . The word "portmanteau" was first used in this context by Lewis Carroll in the book Through the Looking-Glass (1871). I'm not entirely sure if there is a technical distinction between portmanteaus and blends or if the l

Will anyone make a clear comparison between "recommend + subject + to infinitive" and "recommend + to + subject + to + infinitive"? As an example: We recommend you to buy a new car. We recommend to you to buy a new car. Are both sentences correct? Which one am I most likely to hear in a native atmosphere?

When someone asks "How come?", the person answering actually answers the question "why?". "Why?" and "How?" are very different questions. I was wondering how "how come?" came to be an alternative way of asking "why?". Perhaps "how come?" is short form for something else? I'm trying to understand the reason the word "how" came to be used in the phrase "how come". Why not use "what come", "who come", "when come" or "why come"? Answer There is a solid discussion of this question (why does "how come" mean "why") on Word Detective . First, the article says that your hunch that "how come" is short for something else is correct: The final piece of the puzzle of “how come” is the fact that it is actually an abbreviation of a longer phrase, which, although not known with certainty, was probably “how comes it” or “how does it come,”

Given the following sentences: I have even started using them in normal writing. People can understand your writing better. Are using and writing gerunds, verbs, or some other part of speech? Context: I am prefixing the words in some phrases with abbreviations. Some of the words are giving me trouble in classification. (The message is supposed to be an implicit proof of why adding prefixes to table names in a database is terrible. But I'd like to get it right.) Here's the full set of sentences for your amusement. However, please restrict your comments to the stated question, for the most part. com-Don't ver-Listen prep-To adj-Those adj-Other nou-People. pro-You aux-Should adv-Always ver-Use nou-Prefixes prep-With pro-Your adj-Table nou-Names. pro-I aux-Have adv-Even ver-Started ver-Using pro-Them prep-In adj-Normal nou-Writing. com-See adv-How adj-Effective pr-It ver-Is? nou-People aux-Can ver-Understand pro-Your nou-Writing adv-Better! (where com means command verb ) Th

There is the following sentence in the conversation between Florentyna Rosnovski, the heroine of Jeffrey Archer’s novel, The Prodigal Daughter , who was first elected as the Congressman of Illinois and her husband, Richard Kane, Chairman of a New York bank. She captured the Ninth District of Illinois with a plurality of over 27,000 votes. Richard was the first to congratulate her. "I’m proud of you, my darling." He smiled mischievously. "Mind you, I’m sure Mark Twain would have been as well." "Why Mark Twain?" asked Florentina, puzzled. "Because it was he who said: 'Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself' ." – The Prodigal Daughter , Page 302. I can’t get the idea of the last phrase, “But I repeat myself,” following the preceding subjunctives – Suppose you are idiot or a member of Congress. Is Richard simply saying “Whoever you are, I won’t change.”? What is the meaning of it as the punch

I'm writing a user tutorial but I'm unsure as to what perspective it should be written from e.g., first, second? The tutorial is a friendly guide showing how the user should do x. Example: Viewing your file there are some special instructions you should be familiar with. Viewing our file there are some special instructions we should be familiar with. ..and refers to the version we want to install. ...and refers to the version you want to install. Which is correct? Answer Having written several user manuals, I can offer the following from experience: Consistency is very important. It's really easy to accidentally slip into: "The user should click this button. You should see this result." So once the decision is made, stick with it. (As an aside, this is an especially troublesome issue when the user manual is large and written by multiple stakeholders.) There are three options: first person (usually plural), second person (usually singular), and third person (eithe