Blog

What is Yoda's speech called? Is there a particular name for it (such as "dangling...")?

I need an expression to be a simile to gripping the wheel of a car tightly.

On the one side, the USA is just one country. Logic says it should be, then, singular, just like the United Kingdom is. Example: The USA owns this domain. On the other side, if I however expand "the USA" to "the United States of America", I'd tend towards using plural — the noun the verb agrees with, "States," is definitely plural. Example: The United States of America own this domain. → The USA own this domain. What form should I prefer? Answer Short answer: in contemporary English, both USA and the long form United States of America are treated as singular nouns. Long answer: Language Log has documented this in great detail . In the 18th and much of the 19th centuries United States was treated as plural, but in the latter half of the 19th century the singular usage became more common. Today, the singular usage is the only accepted usage, except for the case of a few fixed phrases. In fact, "in 1902 article in the Washington Post reported tha

What's the proper term to use if you want to talk about trying to move up in the lineup or switch up? Answer As badroit notes, queue is more common in British Engish whereas line is more common in American English in non-technical settings. A queue-jumper cuts in line, in which cut may be interpreted as the sense of trimming or dividing depending on whom you ask; Merriam-Webster lists this sense as a separate meaning: cut : intransitive verb 5. to advance by skipping or bypassing another. cut to the front of the line To butt in is to intrude . In queueing cultures, cutting in line would be rather rude, and could be described as butting in into line, especially if one is literally physically butting , i.e. thrusting or pushing headfirst. Bud in is probably an eggcorn for butt in .

Does the word 'God' with a capital G have a plural form?

I found it in an old dictionary and I'm not sure what it means. It looks like the number "3", but the top of the three has been flattened(and slightly curved). I've only seen this in three or four words. (Link to dictionary on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Archaic-Provincial-Obsolete-Fourteenth/dp/B008PDTE3I/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1419634988&sr=8-2&keywords=dictionary+of+archaic+provincial+Vol.+2+of+2 ) Thanks! Shyy, Answer I can't follow that link to anything useful, but pending the addition of a picture to the question I'll provisionally suggest that what you describe sounds like it is could just about be the letter yogh (capital Ȝ, lowercase ȝ), but more likely the letter ezh (capital Ʒ, lowercase ʒ). ʒ was invented for a system of English phonetics, and survives in the IPA. There was also an old scribal abbreviation for the unit dram / drachm that was so close to ʒ in appearance that the symbols are essentially merged at least as f

Which sentence is correct? Every apple, every orange, and every pear is good for you. Every apple, every orange, and every pear are good for you.

I came across this phrase on a news website: "It is shocking but not surprising," said the parliamentarian to.. and I wondered to myself if that is indeed a valid phrase in English. A google search for Shocking but not surprising reveals many articles and pages. The dictionary says shocking means intense surprise : adjective 1. causing intense surprise, disgust, horror, etc. Although I can "guess" the meaning of the phrase, it does seem a bit odd. How can one be intensely surprised but not surprised at the same time?. It does seem in popular use, but is it a valid English phrase? If it is, can some one please provide a good example of the actual meaning with context? Thanks in advance. Answer Let's say a politician who swears a lot in private suddenly uses profanity in public, for example, on a live TV interview. A viewer might say, "It is shocking(,) but not surprising." It could mean he is shocked to see a politician use profanity in public becaus

Imagine a situation in which the whole place is on fire, a bomb is about to explode, everyone is running for their lives and someone is checking his looks on the mirror... pretty inappropriate for the situation, don't you think? I'm looking for an idiom or colloquial/slang/informal expression to describe such an indifferent stance. Answer Copying from my comment to @Mitch's answer I think that rearranging the deck chairs is applicable in a scenario when someone tries to correct a doomed situation, cosmetically. In the scenario mentioned, I feel that “fiddling while Rome burns” might be a slightly more apt phrase.

According to Etymology Online, politically correct means ...the political movement and phenomenon, which began in the USA, with the aim to enforce a set of ideologies and views on gender, race and other minorities. Political correctness refers to language and ideas that may cause offence to some identity groups like women and aims at giving preferential treatment to members of those social groups... However, when I looked up political , I found Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state; relating to, involving, or characteristic of politics or politicians Furthermore, I found this use of politically correct , which seems to refer to government as well. This phrase goes back further than one might believe, to 1793, in fact. It was first used by the American judge Justice James Wilson in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia, and was meant to distinguish between the phrases United States and people of the United States - he believed the lat

I read in an American Accent book that there is no break between sibilants adjoining each other between words. For example, this phrase: I was starting to worry. The words was + starting sound like [wə zs tɑrt̬ɪŋ] with no break. Am I right? I marked the sibilant sounds with bold. I used the schwa sound in was because it's a function word and we usually give stress to content words and reduce the function words. I also used the tapped T in the word started.

Examples, some are ridiculous: Someone refuses to buy a lab grown diamond because 'all diamonds are blood diamonds'. We cannot buy a sports car because 'the trunks of sports cars are too small', even though this sports car has a larger than average trunk. Someone refuses to drink wine because 'wine comes from France', even though this particular wine is from Chile.

Measuring the frequency of words in almost every English book or document (which is long enough) ends up ranking the word 'the' as the most used word. Is there any solid function the word 'the' plays in context of a sentence other than making the sentence "sound right"? For example, let me strip-out the word 'the' from this question's title and the above paragraph: Is word 'the' unnecessary in English language? Measuring frequency of words in almost every English book or document (which is long enough) ends up ranking word 'the' as most used word. Is there any solid function word 'the' plays in context of a sentence other than making sentence "sound right"? I believe, greater the frequency of a word used across all the books and documents in a language, lesser will be its requirement in determining the context of the subject being spoken. There is no specific example I could point out, in which the word 'the

In the Central Pennsylvania dialect of English (and possibly elsewhere), the following construction is possible: This car needs washed. (=needs to be washed) The room needs cleaned. (=needs to be cleaned) It appears that, if a verb like needs is followed by a passive construction in the infinitive, the "to be" portion is left out. This construction sounds so unnatural to my ear that I have no intuition as to the extent to which it can be extended to other words and contexts. If anyone here is a native speaker of this dialect of English, perhaps they can help to explain the limits on its use. My basic question is: how productive is this particular construction among those who use it? To be more specific, can this construction be used with any verb (if that verb can be immediately followed by a passive construction, of course)? That is, would (any of) the following be acceptable, for example? At this restaurant, we always wait seated. (=wait to be seated) My kid hates picked

Is there a difference between loving someone and being in love with them? I sort of think that being in love with someone might imply that there are reciprocal feelings, but I'm not sure. If someone loved someone from afar without them knowing, would this still count as being in love with them? Answer There is often a distinction made in prose between "loving" and "in love with". It doesn't always imply reciprocity, but it almost always implies a difference between platonic and romantic love. A person can "love" their sibling, parent, or platonic friend, simply by being closely emotionally attached. The same is true for those with whom you have a romantic relationship. Being "in love with" a person is to be in a state of romantic infatuation with and connection to that person, which would be inappropriate for said siblings, parents, and platonic friends, but just fine for a significant other or spouse. When differentiating, such as "

Is it correct to write voted in in the following sentences? Members may vote in a new leader. Board members will be nominated and voted in by the team.

What is the difference between "anglicized plural" and "zero plural"? I found those terms used in http://www.onlinegrammar.com.au/plural-of-status/ which says, What is the correct plural of status? an anglicized plural statuses the (zero) plural status . The second results from its being a Latin fourth declension noun … but also correlates with English use of the word as a mass noun, as in considering their relative status etc. Answer In Latin, certain nouns that ended in -us in nominative singular had the same form in nominative plural (so-called "4th declension" nouns). The term "zero plural" refers to the lack of change in the English word, or lack of an overt plural morpheme, going from singular status to plural status . "Anglicized plural" refers to borrowing the word into the English language, and treating it as an English word, where the regular plural is formed by the morpheme -s / -es . According to this view, the singular

I want to use something like this in a cartoon, animated banner advertisement: Where my employers at? or Where my entrepreneurs at? Are there connotations of the phrase I should consider, for example is it too slangy or is its use too closely linked with hip hop culture to be acceptable in the business sector? Answer Normally, we do not put a preposition at the end of the question when we use the interrogative pronoun " where ." For example, Where are you going? -- not Where are you going to ? Where did you stay? -- not Where did you stay in ? Compare this with when you change the interrogative pronoun to " what " or " which ": Which restaurant are you going to ? What hotel did you stay in ? *Note: There are of course exceptions to this like when we ask " Where are you from ?" Adding the preposition " at " in the question "*Where are __ at?*" is unnecessary and informal usage. It strongly implies casualness and may thus be

What preposition should we use to start a sentence where we first explain a purpose and then a method to achieve it? Example 1 Purpose = pass the exams Method = study a lot In order to pass the exams, you have to study a lot. To pass the exams, you have to study a lot. *For passing the exams, you have to study a lot. (incorrect - see accepted answer) Example 2 Purpose = find an object in the database Method = run a SQL query In order to find the object in the database, users have to run a SQL query. To find the object in the database, users have to run a SQL query. *For finding the object in the database, users have to run a SQL query. (incorrect - see accepted answer) Answer "For passing" and "for finding" are not correct. "In order to" and "To" are correct, but I favour "To" because it is more concise: To pass the exams, you have to study a lot. To find the object in the database, users have to run a SQL query. A more natural way of

There are several words which have contradictory meanings. They may have one meaning now, and have had a different meaning in the past. For example, the current definition of peruse is: to look over or through in a casual or cursory manner However, the older definition (which is still included in the Merriam Webster entry) is: to examine or consider with attention and in detail Is there a name for these pairs of words which have contradictory meanings? One site names them antagonyms , but is this widely known and used? Or is there another term? Answer The only term I'd heard for these was contronym . This site lists both as neologisms for this type of word, but notes that no more established term exists.

When is it okay to use 'not' when posing a question? I believe that the person asking would include the 'not 'when he believes the implied to be true. For example: "Are you going to the store? "Are you not going to the store?" Then the question of how to properly answer it. "Yes, I am going to the store" "No, I am going to the store." and if they arent going... "No, I am not." "Yes, I am not." I wonder if this is a French rule and therefore confusing to English speakers; where 'Si' is used instead of 'Oui'. Anyways, your thoughts?

For example, if I wanted to write the equivalent of There are many automated teller machines in this city. Would it be There are many ATMs in this city. or There are many ATM's in this city. (could get confused with possessive form or contraction). or just There are many ATM in this city. (assuming the final s is included in Machines represented by M). Maybe something else? Answer The Chicago Manual of Style has an interesting way to address this: They omit the apostrophe, unless there are periods in the abbreviation. So this would give you ATMs , or alternately A.T.M.'s . ( A.T.M.s looks weird.) chicagomanualofstyle.org, "Plurals" This page indicates that acronyms ending in the letter "S" get an apostrophe, something I've seen before, but can't find in a general reference. So one would write ATMs and SOS's . This page on the North Carolina State University website references AP's rule as being to always use an apostrophe. The 2009 AP St

People use the phrase "x strikes a chord with me" to address enthusiasm or personal movement. I know there is another question that addresses what this idiomatic phrase means, but I'm very curious as to where this came from and when? I've searched a number of English dictionaries in hopes that a definition of the idiom or simply the word chord would be affixed with the origin; I started with the Cambridge English dictionary and proceeded from there. I also tried many fruitless Google queries. If someone could point me towards a reliable resource, I'd have no problem doing further research. I know music is a very emotional endeavor, so I could see the connection there--considering chords are a significant component of music--but this is purely a personal inference. Does anyone know this idiom's origin? Answer Literal use of 'strike a chord' In English, literal use of "strike a chord" goes back at least to the first half of the eighteenth cent

Why doesn't watch rhyme with catch, batch, latch, patch, and match ?

I search rather than Google and vacuum rather than Hoover . Technically I microblog rather than tweet , but it just doesn't sound as snappy. Is there a short (single syllable?), established, generic term I can use in case I switch to identi.ca? Answer Use microblog . Here are the various verbs out there that Twitter competitors and users are actually using and therefore would be meaningful. Identi.ca – microblog Jaiku (defunct) – "share updates" and "share short messages" Sprout – microblog Plurk – plurk Pownce (defunct) – "send stuff" Tumblr - microblog Yammer – microblog I conclude that microblog is the accepted term in circulation that means publish via a short message service . The only shorter, snappier terms are vendor specific.

I am composing an email to a work associate who I have never had any dealings with before. I'm struggling to think of a formal yet succinct way of introducing myself. In person, I would probably say: "Pleased to meet you" But this feels wrong because I am not actually meeting him- I'm just sending an email. Answer Something like this? Dear Mr Jones, I'm John Smith, a code monkey, and I work with Phillip in the IT pit. He suggested that you might be able to help me hack into Accounts and give myself a raise. It would really help me in my new project - P0232 - Theft for Fun and Profit . I'm free for the rest of the day because I'm pulling a sickie. Boomshanka, David

There's a verse in Bob Seger's song Mainstreet that has this wonderful little seemingly-nonsensical word pairing: There was this long, lovely dancer in a little club downtown; I loved to watch her do her stuff. Through the long, lonely nights she filled my sleep, her body softly swaying to that smoky beat . On face-value, the word "smoky" to describe a "beat" just doesn't make sense; smoky isn't really a quality that a [musical] beat can have. And yet, the the words do make sense together and evoke a clearer (err, smokier) image of the nightclub. Is there a term for this literary device? Are there other examples that come to mind? Answer This is a form of metonymy using adjectives as what are called transferred epithets . Nordquist, in Grammar.about.com gives a good overview, including the definition A figure of speech in which an epithet (or adjective) grammatically qualifies a noun other than the person or thing it is actually describing. Also

I've heard both of these before. All the good people All of the good people Are they both correct? Answer Both correct! They both have the same meaning. The "of" variant is a partitive genitive, like French bouteille de vin (bottle of wine). I'd say "all of" has a connotation of "all members of group x", whereas "all" without "of" is completely neutral, just the entirety of x. In most cases either connotation will result in the exact same meaning.

Popular in the 80s and early 90s in Black-American culture, but I doubt it made it into many books so we may be at a loss. The meaning, quite visual, is walking into someone's house and banging all the pots and pans and making such a huge racket that it startles and disturbs the homeowner to distraction. It's simply a more colorful way of saying getting into someone's head . Often used in sports. Like before a boxing match with trash-talk, or the stare-down. There are numerous ways for me to “get all up in your kitchen” if we are to do battle. But there are also countless ways to phrase it, so I find it hard to search for a specific idiom when it's more about a series of uses where kitchen=head/mind. But it's always about gamesmanship. I don't suppose there can still be some understanding of when this form was first used, or if there is some other idiom that sired it. For example, I always thought “gat” , as slang for gun, originated similarly in the 1980s, but

Have you heard of the Peter principle? In an organizational structure, assessing an employee's potential for a promotion is often based on their performance in their current job. This can eventually result in their being promoted beyond their highest level of competence and potentially then to a role in which they are not competent, referred to as their "level of incompetence" I want to know is there a word for the "act of occupying a position that you are incompetent in"?

Is there a word that describes the combination of feeling sad for an ending of something, but excited at new prospects. The closest I had was "bittersweet change" Examples: 1) At the end of a holiday, I'm excited to go back home, but sad that the holiday is coming to an end. 2) I'm coming to end of my placement year job and sad that it's coming to an end, but excited that I'm going back to university. I hope this satisfies the requirements of the QA here, if not, comment for me to correct. Answer ambivalent 1. Simultaneously experiencing or expressing opposing or contradictory feelings, beliefs, or motivations. You might also say you have mixed feelings about it.

I have looked at the answers to the question Can anyone tell me what the suffix “‑fu” stands for? , and I understand what it means. When, though, did it come into use? Does its spread coincide with the spread of martial arts in the English-speaking world? Are there other examples that appear around the same time, or is this borrowing unique at this time? I have read the Wikitionary article, and I could not find anything in Etymonline. Answer Google-fu The most well known is arguably Google-fu which is first in Usenet on 27th September 2002 in a comp.sys.mac.advocacy post by James Boswell: Have you ANY idea how much a Wildcat 6210 costs? ( http://www.3dlabs.com/product/wildcatIII_6210_index.htm ) * google fu * http://www.amazoninternational.com/html/hardware/pricing/graphics/pro...s_cards.asp £1900 + VAT (that's 17.5% here) Followed soon later on 29th October 2002 in rec.music.christian: hope that helps. and practice your google fu, young one. ;) And on 19th December 2002 in a

Using the definite article with acronyms and initialisms For example, which one of these is more appropriate: I am talking about what the UNICEF has done for India. or I am talking about what UNICEF has done for India. Answer It depends on how you pronounce the abbreviation (in this case, UNICEF) in whichever part of the world you are in. If you treat it as an acronym and pronounce it as one word (~younisef), then you won't need the article. However, if, you treat it as an initialism and spell out each letter when you pronounce it, then you will need the the . Illustrating with examples: I am talking about what UNICEF has done for India. I am talking about what the UN has done for India. I believe that this is more of a general rule of thumb than anything else.

In Chapter 4 of the book A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar , written by Rodney Huddleston of the University of Queensland and Geoffrey K. Pullum of the University of Edinburgh and published by Cambridge University Press in 2005, it was stated that A bare role NP [noun phrase] is a singular NP that is ‘bare’ in the sense of lacking the determiner which would elsewhere be required, and that denotes some kind of role, office, or position. A PC [predicative complement] can have the form of a bare role NP, but an O [object] can’t: i  a.   She became the treasurer .   b.   She knew the treasurer . ii  a.   She became treasurer .   b.  * She knew treasurer . [ungrammatical] On the contrary, there is a question ( Is this proper English: "I am student"? ) I found here on StackExchange on the similar topic, in which the OP was wildly discredited, and the question was closed for lack of research.  I have the same problem, and here I am posting my research, which is also the o