Blog

Where on the scale from We are talking about the same thing to We are in agreement / We see it the same way is the phrase We are on the same page? Answer I believe the order is, in order of increasing agreement: We are in the same league We are in the same ballpark We are on the same page We are singing from the same song sheet We agree You're preaching to the choir. BTW, here in the US the most common idiom I hear is "preaching to the choir." However, when I was growing up in the UK, one "sung to the choir," and "preached to the converted." But perhaps my memory is faulty. Any UK people remember it the same way as me?

You don't have to call me again to confirm about our meeting - just this one e-mail from you and my reply to it is well enough. Should it be "is" or "are" in this case? Answer I think the simple rules for numbering still apply here, so " x and y are enough" is correct. "Will suffice" would also work in a more formal situation.

When a sentence starts with e.g. , should the e be capitalized? Neverminding that it might be better to start with "For example," ... Thinking of SE posts and comments, should the starting e be capitalized? Answer Yes. Sentences start with capital letters; abbreviations are no exception. A possible * exception is when a proper name starts with a lower case letter. E.g., if I changed my name to matthew then "matthew is awesome." would be correct. This is because the word is intended to be lower case. E.g. , on the other hand, has no such association with it. * Don't make an exception. This is just playing devil's advocate. See comments.

Is the act of possessing an example of personification if attributed to inanimate objects? Here, "possession" means the possession of physical things as well as the possession of virtues or qualities by any inanimate object. For example, is the sentence "The book's cover is pretty old." an example of personification? (I am unsure whether the apostrophe usage in case of inanimate objects is grammatically correct.) Possession, according to me, is as much a human quality as it is a natural phenomenon (natural as in applicable to all objects). This should mean that inanimate objects can possess things and qualities without being personified. A related question is, if we ascribe the 'action' of possessing to a synecdochic reference to a human, will that be an instance of personification, now that the object to which the possession is attributed is not technically speaking, inanimate? For example, "His stomach's capacity is exhausted." or "

Hello once again special team stack exchange and a usage. I search many hours dictionary for a man goes into woods for hunt dangerous mountain cat or similar enemy despite no protection or prophylactic caution. Maybe he take only small catpalt for kill crow or moose. So when cat comes he catch him with no pants. Sorry my friends. I need to clear that man think his tool is bigger than reality it is. So the word is not reckless for this man.

The app obtains a list of devices " on the network" or " in the network". I imagine a network as a 3D structure, so it seems that " in the network" might be more appropriate here. However, I cannot be sure as I am not a native English speaker. Please help me. Answer The use of the word 'network' to describe a number of computerized devices connected together is a relatively recent sense. And there are fine distinctions in the use of the word between professionals (electrical engineers, computer scientists, etc.) and the general public. In everyday use, it's common to use "on" when describing the end-user devices (printers, computers, smart phones) or resources available to end-users (file shares, servers) Is that printer on the network? Are you on WiFi right now? We're installing cabling today so you can get on the network from the conference room. We have a big shared disk on the network where we keep all the training videos.

Is the use of 'as' in place of 'because' considered to be poor grammar/style? For example I cannot come with you as I am too busy instead of I cannot come with you because I am too busy Answer In some sentences as can be ambiguous, since it may be unclear whether it expresses time or cause. There is no such risk in your example, however, and you may use either as or because . As background, causative as seems to be rarer than temporal as , and American speakers and writers seem less inclined to use causative as than British speakers and writers ('The Cambridge Guide to English Usage').

So, I've noticed over time that I see both "afterward" and "afterwards" at different times. Having a pet peeve (though I'm not certain it's actually a well-founded prejudice, lexicographically speaking) against hearing "anyways", I've started to wonder recently about "afterwards". With a quick bit of web searching, I turned up this analysis , which I find to be somewhat helpful, I'm just wondering if there's more that people could say to help me get an intuitive understanding of when to use which, or otherwise why to use one versus the other. I suppose (as mentioned in the linked article) this question could also apply to forward, backward, toward, etc. Which shall I use? When? Why? Does the 's' indicate some sort of plural meaning, or something else?

Is there a difference between unlikeable and dislikeable ? It feels like there is, but I'm uncertain how to explain it. Answer Assume there are three states of fondness for something. Like Neither like nor dislike Dislike Disliking something is not the same as not liking something. If I don't like peas, I will eat them with no pleasure. If I dislike peas, I will actually find them nasty. So, dislikeable is something that's easy to dislike. Unlikeable is something that's difficult to like.

I was interested in the following sentence which appeared in a brief Tom Daschle's biography in The Washington Post, Politics, (WHO RUNS GOV). She, along with Mark Childress, were set to be Daschle's deputies at the White House before he stepped down. Can someone clarify if the fragment "She, along with Mark Childress, were set to" is ungrammatical, as I think it is? I would reword were with was because I think that the subject of the sentence - obviously, in grammatical terms - is "She", not "She" and "Mark Childress", but I'm not sure on this correction. More precisely, I'm not so sure that "She, along with Mark Childress" is equivalent to She and Mark Childress with regard to the effects on the grammatical numbers.

If you’re anything like me, you may hear a little voice in your head when you read (e.g., this post) or think to yourself. THAT VOICE MAY GET LOUDER ON CUE , or it may get softer on cue . At any rate, is there a word for this? I ask, because I am writing an essay on how the language of set theory has facilitated mathematics in probability theory. One of my sections is on the vocabulary that the former has contributed to the latter, and I would like to point out that having specific words to describe concepts not only provides us with an efficient medium for discussion, but it can also concrete our thought processes. As @HotLicks said in the comments, I am asking (more or less) if there exists an auditory analogue of visualize . I just remembered from my psychology class that a scientist might call this an auditory memory being rehearsed in the working section of one’s short-term memory. Answer It's called subvocalization : Subvocalization (also known as auditory reassurance) is

I'm analyzing this sentence and scanning it for prepositional, appositive and verbal phrases. In the sentence so far as I can tell there is only one prepositional and no appositive and no verbals (infinitive, gerund, participial). However, a few things do confuse me. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. From what I can tell, the 'among creatures' is a prepositional phrase with 'among' being the preposition. No appositives, but I feel like a sentence like this with such an interesting structure should have more than just a single prepositional phrase. Am I missing something here? What other phrases exist here?

I was interested in the following sentence which appeared in an article titled “ In Rossellini’s War Movies, the Naturalism Survives " by Dave Kehr in The New York Times (January 22, 2010). It’s almost impossible to underestimate the importance of these movies, both for the impact that their startling realism had on the audiences and filmmakers of the time and for the influence they continue to exert on directors. Can someone clarify if the fragment "almost impossible to underestimate" makes the sentence illogical? I would reword "underestimate" with "overestimate", but I'm not quite sure on this correction because I'm not able to precisely identify the meaning of "underestimate" in this context, and the word "almost" that precede "impossible" makes the problem entirely incomprehensible (to me). (Apologize in advanced if the question is not good for this site or if it is a dupe of another question. If so, please

As the title says, I'm wondering if "non-linear" is an acceptable spelling of the word "nonlinear." A bit of research on this site turns up Is the use of a hyphen between "non" and an adjective strictly necessary? , in which Monica Cellio commented that some of these "non"-prefixed words have entered the language in unhyphenated form. This is the way I'm used to seeing "nonlinear." But other people I work with spell it with the hyphen, "non-linear." Is that valid, or should I point it out as a correction? (This is in a scientific paper going to publication; I wouldn't care in a less formal context) More generally, what reference(s) would I look at to answer questions like this in the future, about whether a particular compound can/should be spelled with or without a hyphen? Answer According to Hyphenated Words: A Guide You would not use a hyphen with the prefix non unless it is before a proper noun. Do not hyphena

I checked the difference between anywhere and everywhere in the Longman dictionary. I have understood that when the place is not important we have to use anywhere for example: You can find a man anywhere but not a businessman everywhere. But I do not know how to use this general rule in all times. For example, what is the appropriate word for the gap: I lost my glasses. I looked ________ , but I couldn't find them. Is it true that generally the usage of anywhere is in negative and question sentences? Answer You lose a pair of glasses. You start off by saying: " My glasses could be anywhere ." = I don't know where my glasses are. They could be here, there, up, down. In that room, or in another room. I don't know. The glasses are in one of those many different places. after a few minutes of searching you might say: " I've looked everywhere for my glasses ." = I've looked here, there, up, down, in one room, in another but with no luck. Concl

We are creating a product which is online hosted CMS solution (something like WordPress), and we want to call it Site Pack . However, there are places where we need to join these words together (like the logo for example). How we should case the joined word? There are many options available: SitePack Sitepack sitepack Which casing is correct? Who decides the casing of newly coined words? Do we have autonomy in determining the casing of the name of our product, or should we consult somewhere for that?

I need the antonyms for "append" (that is, I need a word that means "to remove at the end", since "append" means "to add at the end") and "prepend" (that is, I need a word that means "to remove at the beginning", since "prepend" means "to add at the beginning"). Do those words exist? Would it be possible to use "behead" in a general context or is it limited to killing somebody? Answer You could top and tail something. to cut off the hard parts at each end of a fruit or vegetable when you prepare it for cooking: Top and tail the beans. One can do this with gooseberries and runner beans and so forth, so I can't see why you shouldn't do it to something else.

Did you hear the song? Is this the correct expression, or should I say the following: Did you listen to the song?

For instance, would you rather say "It became increasingly hard" or "It became increasingly harder"? From my understanding, both are possible, but their meaning is slightly different. The first simply means that it became "harder". The second literally refers to an increasing rate of getting harder. Though in practice, I believe the second is still used to express the exact same as the first, while sounding somewhat awkward.

Before the term "computer" referred to electronic analog or digital computers, it was said to be used to describe people who did computing. Was "Computer" actually a formal job title? How long did the usage as a description of a person last into the era of electronic computers? (Was there ever a period of confusion?) Answer Before modern computers, the term computer was used to describe people who computed, and this term was indeed sometimes used as a job title or description. For instance, in an 1884 report of the U.S. Naval Observatory, a list of acknowledgements of assistance included these: ...Mr. Theo I. King throughout the year, in the grade of computer until April 20, 1897, and subsequently in the grade of assistant astronomer; Computer Frank B. Littell... Computer E. A. Boeger throughout the year; Computer G. K. Lawton ... In fact the U.S. Civil Service had competitive examinations for the position of Computer. The 1890 test had sections on spelling, penm

There was the following statement in Time magazine’s article (June 14) titled, “The geeks who leak” “Both Edward J. Snowden and Bradley Manning (who leaked massive volume of military and diplomatic secrets in 2010) had come of age online, in chat rooms and virtual communities where this new antiauthority, free-data ideology was hardening. They identified as libertarians , with Manning using the word to describe himself and Snowden sending checks to Ron Paul's presidential campaign.”- http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2145506,00.html#ixzz2W7z2Hqkd : In trying to find the exact definition of ‘libertarians’ they claim, I came across the following statement in an article titled “Are you liberal, a liberal, or a liberalist?” in uproothealthcare.com” - http://www.uproothealthcare.com/politics/are-you-liberal-a-liberal-or-a-liberalist : “Some political scholars assert that the terms "libertarian" and "libertarianism" are synonymous with anarchism, and so

I recall a Japanese proverb, “犬も歩けば棒に当たる,” of which literal translation is “When a dog rambles around outside, he get a hit with a neighbor’s stick,” meaning, “Don’t come on the surface, don’t try to do anything new, don't say anything, otherwise you’ll be criticized, blamed, or get hurt.” We have the similar expression, 物言えば唇寒し秋の風　in 和歌 – Japanese classic poem, which can be translated as “In autumn, you feel cold on your lips anytime you utter a word, “ which admonishes you not venture to speak up in public, just be reticent. It’s understandable that we have a lot of such proverbs and maxims teaching the merit of keeping silent after going through the ages of a tight feudalistic social regime and being severely educated on Confucius doctrines which values silence, and action more than speech, but I wonder if there is the similar saying to “dog and autumn wind” analogies in Anglo-American world where the freedom of speech and the power of eloquence have been highly valued. I know y

Inspired by the question How long is a 'wink'? , I did some work on the origin of the phrase forty winks . Though the OP at the wink question mentions the phrase, it does not ask about its origin. So I thought I'd ask the question here and post what I've found. I was able to find an antedating not mentioned by any of the usual phrase-dictionary suspects. The most accurate information I found elsewhere was from a post by Ken G in a discussion of the phrase at Wordwizard. Any other insights welcome. Answer William Kitchiner M.D. (1775–1827) was an optician, inventor of telescopes, amateur musician and exceptional cook. His name was a household word during the 19th century, and his Cook’s Oracle was a bestseller in England and America. Wikipedia The phrase forty winks , meaning a short nap, can be traced back to Dr. Kitchiner's 1821 self-help guide, The Art of Invigorating and Prolonging Life . The phrase is mentioned in a November 1821 issue of the British Literar

Just as we have tail-questions (or question tags), affirmative additions to affirmative remarks ("so do I", "so did he") and negative additions to negative remarks ("neither do I", "neither would I", etc), is there a term for this kind of addition to a sentence? "Despite all the corruption, he was re-elected. He is a masterpiece, he is ." "She is a fly customer, she is ." "He is a genius, he is . Answer It's called right dislocation, and it's covered in CGEL Ch.16, §8.2 (pp. 1411-1412) where the dislocated constituent is said to be subject to two constraints: It must be discourse-old —the entity referred to must have been previously introduced into the discourse. It must be topical —the entity referred to must be the topic of the immediately preceding discourse.

According to this site the use of past simple and present perfect is quite strict in British English, while in American English you can normally use simple past instead of present perfect: In British English, the use of Simple Past and Present Perfect is quite strict . As soon as a time expression in the past is given, you have to use Simple Past. If there are no signal words, you must decide if we just talk about an action in the past or if its consequence in the present is important. Note that the following explanations and exercises refer to British English only. In American English, you can normally use Simple Past instead of Present Perfect. We cannot accept this in our exercises, however, as this would lead to confusions amongst those who have to learn the differences. In the case of the noun to choose, if I'm correct, the difference between "did choose" and "have chosen"; the second is more definitive than the last. Can somebody give me a clear example

After a bit of back-and-forth looking over nosisms and the use of "one", I wonder at what purpose is truly served in choosing one over another. For example: What one finds, in the end, is peace. As opposed to: What we find, in the end, is peace. Is it considered more aloof on the write's part to use one instead of a more inclusive "we"? This is assuming that one(we) is(are) not attempting to patronize the person(s) being spoken to. Is there anything akin to a definitive ruling on this, or is it simply style? Answer As Satanicpuppy notes, we is inclusive and one refers to a hypothetical individual. But the two words are usually used in the same way (as in your example); which one to use is most often strictly a style decision. One is generally used in more formal writing and we (or sometimes you ) in more conversational styles. One can come off sounding stilted to the modern ear, though. Even when I'm writing to a style guide that discourages use of we

I've watched two interviews. One with Grace Park, one with Eliza Dushku. What one can't miss is that Eliza uses an awful lot of garbage words (or what these are called) — um, so, like, you know, actually, I guess, I mean, kind of ... — whereas Grace doesn't use them much. YouTube links: My questions are: What is more common to hear in US "on the street" (not on TV)? Does it affect the way the speaker is being considered by audience? (Like, speaking fluently without garbage words → smarter?) Does this differ geographically? What are these words called? Answer The Garbage Words you talk of are a mixture of Discourse Markers and fillers . Discourse Markers , like 'well', 'you know', 'I mean' are words we use in speech to separate different pieces of information. They are not really necessary for understanding but they do provide the speaker with a moment to collect his/her thoughts and organise them. Fillers , like 'umm', 'err&#

I came across this word a few years ago, but can't find it now. I do not mean deodand , animism , pathetic fallacy , scapegoating , anthropomorphism , or personification ( Word for attaching blame to inanimate objects ). If I recall correctly, this particular word sounded like a religion but looked like a phobia; it may well have been coined by the creator of the content in which I encountered it. Any assistance is greatly appreciated. Answer Resistentialism Resistentialism is a jocular theory to describe "seemingly spiteful behavior manifested by inanimate objects", where objects that cause problems (like lost keys or a runaway bouncy ball) are said to exhibit a high degree of malice toward humans.

Can you shed light into this? The coach came to the defence of the player who has been sacked from the team following his differences with the captain. OR The coach came to the defence of the player, who has been sacked from the team following his differences with the captain. Isn't the subordinate clause that begins with 'who', non-restrictive?

Planting a tree will help the environment. And, as a [positive] side effect, you will have a nice decoration in your backyard. Is there a word I can use to describe a side effect that is also positive? I considered bonus , like: Planting a tree will help the environment. And, as a bonus, you will have a nice decoration in your backyard. Is there something else I can use? Answer You can use the words : Benefit, advantage, feature, plus point and more..

Is it correct to use Mr/Mrs with a first name?

What is the correct pronunciation of the word processes ? I am confused because my mother tongue is not English, and in my company some say it as "process-eez" and some say it "process-ess". Answer Even in the dictionary, this word has several recognized pronunciations: In the singular, the first syllable can be pronounced with a long or short o . In the plural, the last syllable can be pronounced with a long or short e . All four of these pronunciations can be heard by clicking on the speaker icons at the Merriam-Webster website .

What is a correct way to say it: I hope you live for many years. or I hope you will live for many years ? I am really confused by it since I've seen quotes of famous writers that said live but an English teacher I know says it is not the correct way. Edit: a quote by F. Scott Fitzgerald: I hope you live a life you're proud of. If you find you're not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again. Answer Given the right context, the following versions all work: A: "I had a bit of health scare recently. Thankfully it turned out I didn't have lung cancer after all". B: "That's great news -- I hope you live for many years". "That's great news -- I hope you will live for many years". "That's great news -- I hope you live many years". "That's great news -- I hope you will live many years". As the examples given above show, when a statement expresses a wish that something will happen in the future, the

The problems are threefold. The problem is threefold. Which is the right way to use the -fold suffix? Note - This question was previously asked by a user whose account has been suspended , so the question was auto-deleted. I'm re-posting now it because I think this is a valid question.

Which of real time , real-time and realtime is correct when you are talking about seeing something as it happens?

What is the origin of the expression stop-gap ? stop-gap: A temporary way of dealing with a problem or satisfying a need Where and how did this expression originate?

Hungry for eating. Thirsty for drinking. Tired for sleeping. What can we use for the need or desire to breathe? I can think of saying "hungry for air," "thirsty for a breath," "gasping for a breath." Is there anything specific for breathe ? Answer I believe the word you're looking for is winded .

Looking for a word to describe a person who only makes friends to benefit themselves.

Is there a name for letters that follow a number, such as the "st" in 1st or "nd" in 2nd? Answer This article calls them "ordinal numbers", whereas the "cardinal numbers" are 1, 2, 3, etc. It goes on to say that they're expressed in English with "letter suffixes". The article on ordinal indicators simply calls them suffixes also. However, the article on English numerals calls them "ordinal units", though it also goes on to say that any number with the last digit of 2 will have the suffix "nd", such as twelvend, so I'm not sure if that lends credibility to that section. Good question. I love the chance to look something up and learn a bit myself. My takeaway is that I'd just call them suffixes.

I'm looking for the name of the cognitive bias that leads people to think that they are extraordinary in some aspect. This is similar to Illusory Superiority but generalized to encompass uniqueness in general, not just positive traits. It's the " Why is it always me? " bias. Added This is the belief that unusual things happen more often to you , and is typically caused by the fact that unusual things get more of your attention when they happen to you rather than when they happen to others. Clarification I'm not looking for a disorder, I'm looking for the name of the trait that is common in nearly everyone such that they think that things that they don't notice in other people is believed to only happen to them.

I'm curious about why the English word can cannot be used in future tense (e.g. will can ). An example unrelated to English is French term je pourrai , but that's exactly what I mean. Compare German ich werde können which translates exactly to I will be able , and literally to I will can , given that können and can have the same origin. I feel that this is confusing. Answer This is a good example of the problems caused by lying to students in saying that will is "The Future Tense". There is no future tense in English . There is likewise no perfect tense, no progressive tense, no pluperfect tense, no future perfect tense. There are also no moods or voices. No matter what you've been taught. Sorry about that. What English has is a present tense and a past tense, both managed by suffix or root change ( deletes/deleted, drives/drove ). That's it for tenses. There are various constructions like the Perfect construction, the Progressive construction, the Passi

What's the word for "no word for"? I've really been trying to find it, but I just can't seem to. Answer In linguistics terms, this is known as a lacuna or lexical gap . In particular, a word that might otherwise exist, but doesn't , is known as an accidental gap , which is distinguished from systematic gaps , which are prohibited by the fundamental rules of the language in question. From Wikipedia's article on this topic : In linguistics an accidental gap , also known as a gap , lexical gap , lacuna , or a hole in the pattern, is a word or other form that does not exist in some language but which would be permitted by the grammatical rules of the language. Accidental gaps differ from systematic gaps , those words or other forms which do not exist in a language due to the boundaries set by phonological, morphological, and other rules of that specific language. Now, as that passage notes, there are several types of accidental gaps (phonological, morphologi

Basically, when someone says something along the lines of "I know he's not the smartest person in the world, but he should at least pass first grade math." It's peculiar because they are using a form of hyperbole to say they are not the smartest person in the world, but what they are really implying is that they are not smart at all. Edit This post was flagged a possible duplicate, I just wanted to clarify that what I am asking is not the nuance or meaning of the phrase, but the term for the idiom itself. I do not believe this specific question has been asked. Thanks. Answer It's called litotes . From Wikipedia: In rhetoric, litotes is a figure of speech wherein understatement is used to emphasize a point by stating a negative to further affirm a positive , often incorporating double negatives for effect For example, "She's not bad looking" could be used to express that someone is gorgeous. Or it could convey that she's not particularly ugly,

What do you call the V-shaped figure one uses to check a checkbox? How about the X-shaped figure? Answer You might be looking for "check" or "tick", or "check mark" or "tick mark".

In German the verb fragen takes 2 direct objects. Is it the same in English? I ask you something. Or is the person being asked considered an indirect object? If so, can I reformulate it using to ? I ask a question to you. Also, are there examples for verbs that take two direct objects?

The reason why I asked was because I saw a movie and that question came up in my mind. Racist doesn't seem to be the right word, as country doesn't necessarily imply race. An example of how it might be used would be: This movie was about a group of ______ who victimised immigrants from the neighbouring country.

I was born in Amsterdam, Holland. I learnt Dutch from my parents and in school. Around the age of 5-6 I started learning English. I watched English television and had English conversations with my mother and we also had frequent English speaking guests in our home, with whom I spoke English. I spoke English well before I started learning it in school around the age of 11. When I was 13 I moved to Denmark and lived in an all-English speaking community for 9 years. I also continued my schooling in English as well as further studies. Now I speak English as my first language. I still speak Dutch, but it's not quite as fluent as English. These days people assume I'm American when they hear me speak. I work in English, I speak English at home, I read English fiction for leisure, etc. I also tend to find grammatical and typographical mistakes very quickly, and I speak better English than most people I know, including slang. So now I'm interested to know if English is really my fir

Most people seem to stumble over this. The problem can arise with any multi-word phrase that needs a possessive but ends in S, and so sounds awkward using the clitic apostrophe-S. I've heard this particular one variously rendered as: You guys' You guys's Your guys' / your guy's What's you guys...your...guises...what's your take on it? Answer Regardless of the various permutations being thrown around these days, the correct possessive of you guys is you guys’ , spoken or written, and I quote (emphasis mine): To form the possessive case of a plural noun ending in s , add only the apostrophe. EXAMPLES highways’ intersection the beetles’ legs John E. Warriner, Warriner's English Grammar and Composition (Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1986), 243 Since you guys is a plural noun, it is subject to the above rule, which has no exception, as far as I know. Indeed, you guys's is not an uncommon colloqiualism (I have even used it myself on occasi

Some questions on ELU already touch on this subject, and they pose that English does not have grammatical gender which means that most of its inanimate nouns are referred to with it rather than he or she . I wonder if this is true. When a language used to have a three-way gender system (neuter, masculine and feminine) and then slowly evolves into a system that only supports neuter grammatical gender, why does this mean that it has no grammatical gender ? What are the arguments against saying that English has evolved into a language which has neuter as default and masculine and feminine as exceptions to the rule - for certain animate cases? In other words, nice and simple, is English a language that has no grammatical gender or is it a language that has grammatical gender which in most cases is neuter by default? Answer “Grammatical gender” is just a term. You can define it in various ways, and it doesn’t really matter, as long as you make your definition clear. Even linguists don

Other expressions for “to be the devil's advocate”? Given the definition: "the adoption of an ostensibly defensible position, less because one actually believes in it than for the sake of ruffling feathers," what word springs handily to mind?

I mean how far should we flow on with the current called "common usage"? Is there a fear that the real English is going do disappear someday? By the way, as for me, I like common English myself. :) Answer I personally feel that the idea of a "real" version of any active language is unrealistic. Language evolves in order to meet the needs of communication, and that landscape is always changing. In the days of Old English, we didn't have laptops, rockets, cars, and mp3 players. The language had to change to include words describing those things. Likewise, people are constantly finding new ways to describe more intangible things like emotions, colors, and even philosophical concepts. An inactive language like Latin can certainly have a solid definition, since it is no longer evolving. I would suggest that any language currently in use can not have a "real" version. It can only have a particular lexicon at a particular point in time. I would add that it

The New York Times article (March 4) introduces top 10 ramen destinations in New York under the title, “ Ramen’s Big Splash .” I was amazed to find that ramen acquired so much popularity among New Yorkers, in retrospect that I was unable to find a single ramen shop in Manhattan in mid-70s when I visited New York for the first time . After returning home, I recommended the owner of one of the largest Chinese restaurant chains in Tokyo to open rahmen shop in Manhattan. He scowled, and declared that there’s no way of ramen shop’s becoming a good business in U.S. Idle talk aside, I was drawn to the word, “off-label” in the following sentence of the article: “Another off-label use for ramen has been gathering strength in Japan and is a good bet to take off in New York: mazemen. Ramen without the slurp, mazemen has no broth, getting its flavor elsewhere. At Ivan Ramen, this can be from a mash of eggplant and chiles or, in my favorite example of the genre, caramelized garlic pulp.” http://ww

Using the definite article before a country/state name Hearing the Ukraine used to make me unsure whether Ukraine was really a country. Now though I have realized Ukraine to be a country on the same level as Austria, for instance, I still don't understand why it is often the Ukraine in English, but never the Austria or the Poland . Where did that odd phrase come from, and why is it in use? Answer It was referred to as the Ukraine when it was a part of the former Soviet Union. Since they were split apart and Ukraine became a country it should properly be called Ukraine without the definite article. Note: The name Ukraine, which first appeared in the historical chronicles in 1187, has been common in the English language for almost 350 years. In the earliest years it appeared without the definite article 'the' but in this century the definite article increasingly preceded the name Ukraine. ... many Ukrainian immigrant scholars, due to their imperfect knowledge of Englis

Several years ago, a previous boss told me to use a semicolon and comma with the word "however". I've always questioned this and would like to know if the following random sentences are using the correct method. Our plane was delayed overnight; however, the airlines reimbursed us for lodging. It looks as though he's upset; however, she told me he always has that look on his face. I want to find him a nice gift; however, I am a broke until payday. Normally I would use a less "wordy" sentence in casual writing, but hopefully the example will suffice. For example, on number 3 I would usually type: I want to get him a nice gift, but I'm broke until payday.

Which one is correct: Someone like me... or Someone like myself... Is "like myself" ever correct? Answer "Someone like me" is the correct one. There's a lot to say about the usage I guess, but to make a long story short: Me is a so-called objective pronoun, opposed to subjective pronouns ( I, you, she, he ). It's called like this because it's placed in the object field after verbs or prepositions: Wait for me ! She likes me . Myself instead, is used with reflexive verbs, meaning those verbs that indicate an action that "falls" on the subject: I wash myself . I told myself it couldn't be true. There are exceptions, you can find them here , but I'll paste the interesting part: Usage note: There is no disagreement over the use of myself and other -self forms when they are used intensively " I myself cannot agree " or reflexively "He introduced himself proudly ". Questions are raised, however, when the -self forms

I learned from my English book these are synonyms. However I am curious to know what the specific usage of each word is. How much interchangeable are they with each other? Consider the sentence below. Raghu has been reprimanded by the principal for his low scores in term exams. His face is _ . Which word is suitable to fill the blank, and why? I have difficulty in choosing the right word in this case. Dictionary meanings: Glum: looking or feeling dejected; morose; Morose: sullen and ill-tempered Sulky: morose, bad-tempered, and resentful; refusing to be cooperative or cheerful Grumpy: bad-tempered and sulky. Glower: have an angry or sullen look on one's face; scowl For me, all the words seem suitable to fill the blank.

When abbreviating the word "recommendations" as "reco's", is it proper to use the apostrophe to show that it's an abbreviation, or does it conflict with a possessive apostrophe? Answer The use of the apostrophe to denote an abbreviation (more accurately, to denote missing letters) is known as an "apologetic apostrophe". It is recommended by "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" that apologetic apostrophes be used only for "novel" abbreviations. They should not be used for abbreviations that have become common words in their own right (fridge, nuke, phone). The exceptional case is for those abbreviations more commonly known as "contractions"; "I've", "you'll", "don't", etc., where the use of the apostrophe became common along with the word. So, short answer, it depends on your audience; those who have never seen the term before would probably understand it better with the apostrophe, while

I am wondering if there is a word to describe a person who likes chaos. By this I mean a few specific things: The person is pleased to hear when chaos is created, or confusion emerges The person will take opportunities to create chaos or confusion The person enjoys taking part in chaotic or disorganized situations. I can't seem to think of a word to describe the type of person who would act in this way. I hope this question is clear. EDIT: Below gbutters sums up nicely: What I wonder is if there is a word for a generally good-natured person who just likes some good old-fashioned chaos. It seems like any person that thrives on chaos would have to have some extra baggage.

I was vacantly reading the paper the other day when I came across a strange formation in the obituary: "he married his wife in 19XX". I was rather taken aback by this; surely he can't marry his own wife. He could attempt to marry someone else's wife, and that would be bigamy. But surely marrying one's own wife is a logical impossibility? Answer I think "he married his wife" is merely redundant, not illogical. (However, in terms of language, bear in mind that it need not be proven logical in order to be considered grammatical English and to be understood by everyone.) I think it is quite normal to have an attribution (e.g. relationship, title, name, etc.) be understood to be the person that fits that attribution at the time of the utterance or writing. Now, this isn't always done, but I think it is the default assumption, and it is also logically consistent. This is why, in news articles, we see things like, "Sean Penn and then-wife Madonna wer

The two men appeared out of nowhere, a few yards apart in the narrow, moonlit lane .            — Chapter 1 of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: The Dark Lord According to this web site , English native speakers use the definite article in front of a noun when they believe the hearer/reader knows exactly what they are referring to. But the sentence above is the very first sentence in Harry Potter and the Deathly hallows. We don't know anything about the two men and the narrow, moonlit lane. I looked up the use of the definite article on books and the Internet. But I couldn't find out why the definite article is used in front of that nouns. Could you explain why the definite article is used? Answer It is true that " English native speakers use the definite article in front of a noun when they believe the hearer/reader knows exactly what they are referring to ". For example: I went to a party last night. The party was boring, but I enjoyed the fireworks . In this

When someone asks, "How are you?" are you supposed to answer, "Good," or "Fine," and ask back? Answer Yes. Depending on where you are in the English-speaking world and on your relationship with the other person, you might reply with any of the following: I'm fine, thank you. I'm good. You? Doing great! And how are you? Good. Doing okay? Certainly, several other possible permutations. No response at all would be considered rude anywhere. Just saying, "Fine," in response without a "thank you" or a reciprocal question would also be considered brusque, standoffish or rude; or the asker may simply conclude you are in a bad mood. The first response is the norm in places or cases where the respondent does not deem it polite or appropriate to respond in kind with a "How are you?"

Are there any simple rules for article usage (“a” vs “the” vs none) When should I use “a” vs “an”? Can anyone explain to me when and where to use articles? I always get confused with the usage of a , an , the .

This phrase is all over the internet. They will say that something is free as in 'free beer' and free as in 'free speech'. I have never really understood this. Are these the examples of two different types of 'free'? Answer Wikipedia on Gratis versus Libre : Gratis versus libre is the distinction between two meanings of the English adjective "free"; namely, "for zero price" (gratis) and "with few or no restrictions" (libre). The ambiguity of "free" can cause issues where the distinction is important, as it often is in dealing with laws concerning the use of information, such as copyright and patents. And further : With the advent of the free software movement, license schemes were created to give developers more freedom in terms of code sharing, commonly called open source or free and open source software. As the English adjective free does not distinguish between "for zero price" and "liberty", the p

I know than an ellipsis can be used to show a broken sentence, the same way an em dash can be used. What I don't know is that if the two are interchangeable and it is writer preference or if different meaning is conveyed by their use. Are ellipses and em dashes commutable? Answer To my mind, there is a clear difference in pronunciation between the two: the em-dash is a clipped break, or a very abrupt shift, while the ellipsis is a distinct pause with a bit of elongation of the prior syllable. If you take a sample sentence of Wait... there may be something. vs. Wait—there may be something. then for the first one, the word "wait" has a downward intonation, and a slightly drawn-out "ayy" sound; and there is a clear pause, possibly a full inhalation, before starting to say "there". It tends to have more of a connotation of thoughtfulness. For the second one, "wait" is more emphasized, with no downward intonation, and is somewhat clipped; there i