Blog

When you are the one steering the motorbike/motorcycle, are you driving the motorcycle, or riding the motorcycle? I am asking because someone tried to correct my status update. Here's my status and the comment: Today, after 6 years, I drove a motorcycle on a long route. Great Feeling. Loved it! Comment: you don't drive a bicycle or motocycle... You ride a motorcycle... You drive a car... Is that right? Answer If you are driving the motorcycle you are riding it. If you are on the back while someone else is driving it, you are riding on it.

Sometimes, I find it easier to learn so many English vocabulary and expressions and usage by watching movies. If you're a non-native English speaker, you probably noticed some of them that help you learn. What are good movies you watched that are great for learning English? (Expressions, usage, etc.) For example, in the movie The Social Network , I think some of the dialogue is quite intense. Great for English listening skill training if you watch it without subtitles. Update: Someone already asked " Films/Series that are extremely good to understand (and that are not…) ". But I'm looking for those who are not just easy to understand, but also rich with more advanced English vocabulary, expressions and usage. This question exists because it has historical significance, but it is not considered a good, on-topic question for this site, so please do not use it as evidence that you can ask similar questions here. Answer Indeed, there are many options. My advice would be

The following first sentence comes from Wikipedia, which 'the' is not used before 'traffic', while the second one comes from BBC, which has 'the' before 'traffic'. I wonder if both usages are correct or not? If yes, is there a difference between these two sentences with and without 'the'? If no, which one is correct ? For cycling in particular, collisions at intersections (defined broadly as "not only the junction of two roadways, but also points where driveways, sidewalks, or paths meet a roadway, or where sidewalks or paths meet a driveway") while traveling in the wrong direction against traffic has been determined to be over three times more likely for wrong-way cyclists. The van was then spotted joining the M4 at junction 15 (Swindon east), driving against the traffic towards London on the westbound carriageway.

I can't quite figure out which of the following expressions is more correct: He is the devil's advocate. He is a devil's advocate. He is playing devil's advocate. The combination of an article with the possessive is what confuses me. Exactly which word(s) does the article apply to? The first form seems to suggest either that he is an advocate of The Devil -- namely, Satan himself -- or even worse, that he is The Advocate of The Devil. (Kill him with fire!) The second form seems to suggest that he is an advocate of a devil (but not necessarily of The Devil, nor the only advocate out there.) This seems to fit better with the way this idiom is commonly used, but I haven't seen this idiom used very often with the indefinite article. It's usually used with the definite article. The third form suggests that he is playing a role named "devil's advocate", with no article attached to it. Similar examples: The King's speech, the Indian's prayer, the

A multiplier is a number by which another number is multiplied. What do you call a number by which another number is added or subtracted? Answer There is the multiplier (that which multiplies) and the multiplicand (that which is to be multiplied). For subtraction there is the subtrahend (that which is to be subtracted) and the minuend (that which is to be diminished). For division there is the divisor (that which divides) and the dividend (that which is to be divided). These words with -and or -end are Latin future participles.

I know there is a related question asked here . But its slightly different than it and seeking more information. I live in India, I have been to America couple of times. In my first trip it was surprising to see people asking for "check" instead of "bill". I have been told by my friend that here (in America) they call it "check". I assumed may be it arosed from "check-out". After some days another friend told me that it's "cheque", not "check" and he elaborated that just like how a banker pays money in return of cheque. After reading few answers/question and links given in the relative question , I really made a conclusion that which one is correct to use because I doubt only one has to be correct and remaining evolved by misinterpretation because "check" and "cheque" sound the same? Answer Cheque is the British spelling for the banking thing. It is not used in Britain or Australia for restaurants. Th

What is the word that describes a word that has changed in spelling but not meaning, such as how the word "to-day" was once spelt "today"? Answer The single word for this is variant . More completely variant spelling. variant spelling noun A different spelling for a single word. Typically a US vs. UK or US vs. Commonwealth distinction. For example, color and colour are the same word spelt in the American and British styles respectively. You'd think there'd be a word for this that fits into this system: homograph Use the noun homograph to talk about two words that are spelled the same but have different meanings and are pronounced differently — like "sow," meaning female pig, and "sow," to plant seeds. Continue reading... homonym A homonym is a word that is said or spelled the same way as another word but has a different meaning. "Write” and “right” is a good example of a pair of homonyms. Continue reading... homophone A homophone

My aunt is friolenta . She gets cold easily. But is there a better way to say this, that stays closer to the original construction, by being a simple adjective? Idle curiosity would make me interested to know if there's a universally understood britishism but for me to use on a regular basis I would prefer something understandable in the U.S. (In French it's frileuse . Per Mari-LouA in Italian it's freddolosa .) Answer runs cold run ( www.dictionary.com ) to be or continue to be of a certain or average size, number, etc.: Potatoes are running large this year. So, for the example sentence: My aunt runs cold. My son runs hot. See, for example, https://www.mamapedia.com/article/does-your-child-run-hot-or-cold . It's similar to This shoe runs small. You might want to try a half size larger.

Just writing my own definition for some words in my spare time. I have come across definitions such as: fatso (Discriminating) Somebody fat I just put an extremely simple definition there. But what I am worrying about is the casing. Which of the following would be correct? (Discriminating) Somebody fat (discriminating) Somebody fat (Discriminating) somebody fat (discriminating) somebody fat Which one would be correct punctuation usage?

I'm not a native speaker, but somehow I assumed my English level to be decent enough for me to offer my help with an English text written by a Japanese colleague. I've fixed the most glaring errors, the few that I could find anyway, and at this point I'm pretty satisfied, but there is still this one sentence that lingers. So, please tell me exactly how weird does this following sentence sound in your beautiful native ears: My motivations, the things that always encourage me, are not only that I love my own hometown, but also that I want my children to love their own hometown too. What I'm mostly concerned about is the use of "my own hometown." and "their own hometown". At first it sounded strange to me. But after some research it now sounds completely normal to my ears. (As in, I have no clue at all anymore.) Isn't the "own" there to add emphasis on whose hometown it is? So "my own hometown" makes it completely redundant? Bu

Is it "bear" or "bare" with me? Answer “Bear with me,” the standard expression, is a request for forbearance or patience. “Bare with me” would be an invitation to undress. ( Common Errors in English Usage , by Paul Brians)

Every now and then, I hear others say "xxxx it is then", e.g. "10:30am it is then", "$200 it is then", I myself sometimes say this too, as a means to confirm some arrangement I suspect I did not hear correctly. Is confirmation actually the supposed use of such expressions? Answer It is a summation that confirms an agreed-upon time, amount, or other article of negotiation. In the following it is pizza: A : What should we get for dinner? B : How about pizza? A : Pizza it is, then! ( A is probably going to pick up the phone and place an order at this point.)

I have no house. I don't have a house. What's the difference between the phrases like the ones above? Answer The two formations are essentially identical in literal meaning, but the phrasing may be chosen for dramatic emphasis. Probably the most famous example of this construction is the cliched father who's disowned his child: I have no son! It literally means the same thing as I don't have a son , but it's much more emphatic. Edit: The have no form, since it's technically correct but not used as often, is sometimes used for humorous effect to imply that English is not the speaker's first language. The most famous example is probably the 1922 novelty song Yes! We have no bananas . Re-edit - updated YouTube link, as previous video had been taken down.

Some say the following two phrases are equivalent because of Raising (linguistics) ! Example 1 He doesn't believe that bigfoot exists He believes that bigfoot doesn't exist Are those two phrases really equivalent? In case they are, are the phrases from the examples below also equivalent? If so, why? Example 2 He doesn't love that bigfoot exists He loves that bigfoot doesn't exist Example 3 He doesn't hate that bigfoot exists He hates that bigfoot doesn't exist Example 4 He doesn't know that bigfoot exists He knows that bigfoot doesn't exist To me none of the examples contains two equivalent phrases. The example that seems more likely to have equivalent phrases, to me, is example 1, but, if the guy i'm talking about in example 1 doesn't know what bigfoot is, how can he hold a belief of any sort about the existence or nonexistence of bigfoot (phrase 2)? I mean, phrase 1 doesn't state that he believes something about bigfoot, so phrase 1, in thi

Sometimes I need to wish luck upon someone, and a simple "Good luck" may not suffice. For such a situation what is the correct usage? "Best Luck" or "Best of Luck"?. Why? Answer The idomatic and correct usage is best of luck . It really is short for I wish you the best of luck. Thus, you see why the of has to be there. The best of is a standard construction, e.g. make the best of it . Certainly, there are situations apart from the one you describe where best luck would be correct, e.g Among my competitors, I had the best luck in finding the missing balls.

First published in Songs of Experience in 1794, the first stanza of the poem “The Tyger” by William Blake is: Tyger! Tyger! burning bright In the forests of the night, What immortal hand or eye Could frame thy fearful symmetry? It is easy to guess that in those years that was the way tiger used to be written. On the other hand, symmetry is not a rhyme for bright , night , eye by today’s usual pronunciation. Was it ever a rhyme? Answer In Shakespeare's time, because of the Great Vowel Shift , symmetry was a much closer rhyme with eye than it is today (if it wasn't exact), and Shakespeare and his contemporaries used rhymes like this all the time. Shakespeare: Sonnet 1: From fairest creatures we desire increase, That thereby beauty's rose might never die, But as the riper should by time decease, His tender heir might bear his memory: Shakespeare: Sonnet 33: Full many a glorious morning have I seen Flatter the mountain-tops with sovereign eye, Kissing with golden face th

I'd like to warn somebody of one of their harmful managers, or even a so-called fake friend, so I say it like this: Don't trust him! He is nothing but a cunning person who is trying to harm you/put you down, with his special ability , so gradually, *smoothly, softly , wisely, and, secretly* via a pre-planned plot that you won't even notice or suspect his intentions. What idiom, phrase, term, ... could be used for describing this wise person/ fake friend/whatever you name it, -or his ability-*while focusing on using his wisdom for doing his hidden harmful actions smoothly ! P.S 1: I have found "back-stabber"; "two-faced"; "a snake in the grass"; "a wolf in sheep's clothing"; but none of them cover all those attributes as a whole. -(there is an idiom in my country which says" Don't trust him! He cuts off the throats/ heads with cotton!) -( these people are potentially good politicians!, so you can use this idiom even fo

Americans write color and favorite , when others say colour and favourite . How/why did this happen? Answer The pronunciation is the same, so you can't really say that some "say" this while others "say" that. It's strictly a spelling difference. These are among the reforms introduced by Noah Webster in his dictionary, with a view towards (a) simplifying the spelling, and (b) creating a distinct American English. (The root forms of many of these words indeed lack the u - for example, Latin color , Italian favorito - so that may have been another motivation of his as well.) So these forms prevailed in the United States, while in the rest of the English-speaking world they kept the original spellings.

"Bright" is listed in the OED as an adjective. However, in front of a color being used as an adjective, it performs as an adverb since adverbs(not adjectives) modify adjectives. Ex. "The bright red car..." In this situation, what part of speech is "bright"?

I'm thinking in the context of school, like flipping through your old notebooks and just having all the knowledge flood back to you. It's sort of like nostalgia, but more in the camp of knowledge than experiences. I've found memory boner , but that's not quite what I'm after. Is anyone familiar with a word or a description for what I've described? Thanks in advance. Answer Involuntary memory , as defined by Wikipedia, Involuntary Memory The most famous literary example is from Marcel Proust, Remembrance of Things Past . [Proust] describes an incident where he was eating tea soaked cake, and a childhood memory of eating tea soaked cake with his aunt was "revealed" to him. From this memory, he then proceeded to be reminded of the childhood home he was in, and even the town itself. This is the incident of the madeleine . A technical definition of involuntary memory , from the first source, above, is: Involuntary memory, also known as involuntary explicit

Every household has a drawer, box or case full of little assorted items — buttons, plastic bendy things, screws, small metal pipes, etc. — that are usually very inexpensive and generally considered to be junk. What would you call these things? Trifle is the closest word that I can think of but even that isn’t “junk” enough. Answer I like detritus Accumulated material; debris: "Poems, engravings, press releases - he eagerly scrutinizes the detritus of fame" (Carlin Romano). and miscellaneous remnants : odds and ends sifting through the detritus of his childhood — Michael Tomasky

When a proper noun like "Skype" is used as a verb ("Skyping"), should it be capitalized? My thinking is that it should be capitalized because the root is a proper noun. Does anyone know of a rule about this question?

–verb (used without object) Digital Technology. 15. to send a text message: Texting while driving is an accident asking to happen. Can I use: I text to her but she didn't text me back. I will text on your facebook later. What about the simple past and past participle forms? Is it text, text, text ? Answer As a new coinage it would take regular verb inflections: text, texts, texted, etc. And as I hear it used, the "to" is unnecessary. I texted her but she didn't text me back. It feels like the verb form is going to parallel "call" in that respect: You wouldn't say "I called to her" if you meant you called on the phone.

Recently, I was told that the word "programming" in the phrase "programming thoughts" is a verb in the gerund-participle form and that the term "gerund" by itself is obsolete in modern grammar. I was confused by this, because to me the construction seems exactly the same as in, say, " Shower Thoughts ": a noun being modified by an attributive noun. I understand that it's the same form as the present participle. But it seems to act exactly as a noun phrase: for example, it can be modified by adjectives like "good" or "bad." I know that some -ing words can be analyzed as deverbal nouns; this is described here: what is the difference between a “deverbal noun” and a “verbal noun”? However, the tests given seem to mainly apply to count nouns; normally we can't pluralize mass nouns, and they can't take the indefinite article a/an. The definite article can be used with programming ; for example, in the phrase " t

What exactly does it mean? And what is the origin of the phrase "hedge your bets"? Answer To "hedge your bets" means to reduce or mitigate your risk. According to Etymology Online , this usage of hedge has been around since the 1600s. From this page , the origin of the phrase comes from an actual hedge or plantings that act as a fence to enclose a piece of land. A hedge delimits an area, so the idea of a limited risk arose from that concept. An older expression, "to hedge in a debt," supports this origin.

I would like to know why the idiom "running like clockwork" is not written as "running like a clockwork"? Is there some common rule that explains this? I am asking this question since I am not sure that this word is a mass noun, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork Answer 'Clockwork' is a mass noun, like 'water'. A clock does not have 'a clockwork' is just has 'clockwork' (like a river has 'water' not 'a water').

"Momentarily" used to mean "for a moment" only, and not "in a moment". Thus, newscasters could be divided into two clear groups: those who would say "we'll be back momentarily," and those who would not. This restriction made sense to me, because having both definitions would promote ambiguity if a unique interpretation could not always be derived from the context. But in recent years it seems "momentarily" is regularly, maybe even more often, used to mean "in a moment" by newscasters of every caliber, and in fact this is even shown to be the definition when looked up in most dictionaries. When did this word's meaning change? How did it come about?

I want to describe my business and want to refer to it in a sentence. I am trying to say: "In 2015 we established a business (that is) named X". Intuitively, the "that is" part is redundant, and makes the sentence more cumbersome. But I cannot think of a reason why we should be able to drop the verb. Is the version without the "that is" part grammatically correct? How can it be explained?

A tributary is river or stream that flows into a larger river. A distributary a stream branching off a river. Is there a word that combines both structures, the idea of a river that splits in two and later rejoins to become one river again? /---------------\ --------- -------------------- \---------------/ My focus here is on the waterway, not the land. I’m looking for a word describing the behavior of the river splitting and later rejoining, without regard for the geography, and without regard for the cause or effect between land and water.

In the beginning of a letter (or mail) , which is the correct method to address a person/friend..say for example which would be more perfect "Hi XYZ" or "hi XYZ" ? __Kanu

I know that all variants of English ( American English , British English , etc.) can be generally understood by everybody who knows any of the English variants. However, there are some regionalisms that can lead to ambiguity. What are the things I must be aware of when the target audience (of my writing: book, blog, etc.) is the world? Answer If your target audience is the world, then you target not only people with a knowledge of American English, British English, and so on, but also people like myself, to whom English is not a mother tongue but a foreign language. If reaching these people is important to you, then you might want to write in a relatively simple English, avoiding not only regionalisms, but also: Idioms that are hard to understand; e.g., some sayings are not trivial or use unusual vocabulary. As an example, I'd say that “a bitter pill to swallow” is rather straightforward to decipher, even if you have never encountered it before. “An axe to grind”, on the other han

I often come across the phrase bite me in many TV shows. What does it mean and is there a specific context in which this phrase can be used? Answer Here is according to Wikipedia : Bite me is typically used as a US idiomatic expression of discontent or annoyance with another party According to the Online Slang Dictionary : a command, similar to "Go to hell!" (i.e. "Leave me alone!" "Go away!" etc.) Note: not considered especially vulgar, but usually considered inappropriate in more formal settings. Cambridge Online Dictionary tells us how to use it: used to say to someone that they have made you feel angry or embarrassed It can also be used as a statement of contempt, or defiance.

I'm current curious about this sentence's grammar: What led to you doing this thing? It sounds like "you doing this thing" is noun. What is this grammar? Answer What you effectively have is a clause that fills the slot in a sentence ordinarily filled by a noun phrase. Languages have various mechanisms for this. As in this example, a common structure in English is to have a clause with what is sometimes termed a gerundive form (effectively, an -ing form used in a syntactic structure that fills a 'noun phrase' slot but that internally is still ostensibly verbal-- e.g. can still have a subject and object, be passivised etc just like a normal verb). As you can see, a special feature of a gerundive clause in English is that the subject usually occurs in the oblique form, so e.g. "him" rather than "he" in the example below: [Him doing this] is important. [??*He doing this] is important. (You can also get "his", although that's arg

I have two books, of which one is borrowed. Is this correct? Is there such a phrase?

The sentence is not referring to any time past, present of future. It's just referring to an imaginary condition which has never existed and seemingly will never exist. Still, the sentence and other sentences of this type are said and spoken. So what can we say about their nature? Which tense are they, what type are they? Their clauses, etc.

I was trying to say: I had to shout so as to X the loudness of the music. And then I realise I didn't know any word whose meaning was "to speak louder than". Does such a word exist? At first, I thought about something like "overspeak" or "overvolume", but the first one means something else entirely and the second one does not seem to exist.

What is the grammar of the verb 'dare' in the following example? The pizza was nice but, dare I say it, the salad was awful.  Is it some type of imperative? Answer Dare (like need ) is a semi-modal verb, which means that in certain environments (see Negative Polarity ), of which Yes/No Questions are one, dare may be used as a modal auxiliary verb. If you substitute any other modal for dare in the sentence, you'll see what I mean: The pizza was nice but, may I say it, the salad was awful. The pizza was nice but, can I say it, the salad was awful. The pizza was nice but, might I say it, the salad was awful. These aren't all idioms like dare I say , and of course they don't mean the same, but they illustrate how modals work in questions. The only unusual thing is using dare as a modal verb here.

Me and a friend are arguing about this case and I'm trying to make the point that a sentence such as: Whose your daddy Is incorrect because the pronoun whose means of which and not who is . My friend, on the other hand, is trying to make the point that the usage of whose in the sentence shown above is correct. Which one of us is correct? Answer You are correct; "Whose your daddy" is not grammatical. Perhaps the confusion is due to the pronunciation similarity between the two phrases, which may have caused your friend to associate it with the incorrect transcription. This phenomenon is also seen when distinguishing "your" and "you're", as noted in "Your" vs. "you're": Why the confusion? . Edit to quote sources and provide explanation : "Whose your daddy" doesn't make sense because "whose" is a possessive adjective, or a pronoun , as in Whose book is this? (adjective) Whose is this? (as pronoun) An

Q: Why did you write that? A: I wrote it to see if if we explain our logic clearly we can come to an agreement ... I'm worried about the "if if" part of the sentence. It doesn't read right to me without the double if, but I have never seen it before. Is it grammatically correct (and why or why not)? Answer I wrote it to see whether, if we explain our logic clearly, we can come to an agreement .... The parenthetical phrase if we explain our logic clearly should be set off with a comma pair. Also, if you want to be pedantic (and I do), the if in the main clause would more properly be a whether . To quote Grammar Girl , Although in informal writing and speech the two words are often used interchangeably, in formal writing, such as in technical writing at work, it's a good idea to make a distinction between them because the meaning can sometimes be different depending on which word you use. The formal rule is to use if when you have a conditional sentence and whe

Is there a word for payments made to freelance workers such as designers? Obviously, it is not the same as a wage or a salary. I can think of "payment", but that seems too general. "Commission" is another word that comes into my mind, but I'm unsure if that is right. Is there one word that specifically refers to payments made, say, by a patron to an artist? Answer Although the terms payment (“A sum of money paid in exchange for goods or services”) and fee (in the sense “monetary payment charged for professional services”) don't refer specifically to payments made to freelance workers – ie, are more general than that – they are, nonetheless, correct terms for such payments. Commission (“A fee charged by an agent or broker for carrying out a transaction”), on the other hand, is overly specific and does not apply to most payments made to freelance workers. In addition, many salaried and non-freelance workers receive commissions based on percentages of sales

As it sounds: is "wrapable" correct, or is "wrappable" correct? Or are neither correct? Microsoft Word complains about both, but Google doesn't correct either one. Answer Wrappable. ( Google Ngrams data .) A more common example, closely analogous to wrappable , is slappable . Generally, when a short vowel (like the a of wrap ) occurs in the last syllable of a verb, the consonant following it gets doubled in conjugated forms: thus wrap -> wrapping , wrapped , and so on; similarly, fit -> fitting , fitted , … Conjugated forms with single consonants usually come from verbs ending with a long vowel and silent e . So rapping comes from rap , but raping comes from rape ; bidding comes from bid , but biding from bide .

I am trying to describe the nature of pesticides. Although they are mostly harmful, we need them in order to produce the amount of food the world requires. Is there a word or phrase besides "necessary evil"?

There's a fly in my pants! Why is the zipper on pants called a fly? I searched etymonline for "fly" and found nothing related to pants. Is this a particularly American usage, or more global? Answer From etymonline : fly (v.1) Notion of "flapping as a wing does" led to noun sense of "tent flap" (1810), which yielded (1844) "covering for buttons that close up a garment." Wikipedia says: In the 1930s, a sales campaign began for children's clothing featuring zippers. The campaign praised zippers for promoting self-reliance in young children by making it possible for them to dress in self-help clothing. The zipper beat the button in 1937 in the "Battle of the Fly", after French fashion designers raved over zippers in men's trousers. Esquire declared the zipper the "Newest Tailoring Idea for Men" and among the zippered fly's many virtues was that it would exclude "The Possibility of Unintentional and Embarrass

Can you omit the second occurrence of the word "poems" in a sentence like the following? I like Lord Byron's poems, and also enjoy a number of Percy Shelley's [poems]. Answer Yes, you can. Also, extending @FumbleFingers' comment, you could even omit the first "poems": I like Lord Byron's (and also enjoy a number of Percy Shelley's) poems.

Is the word childs ever used instead of children for the plural of child ? And was it ever a part of standard English vocabulary but later neglected?

This question has been on my mind since I first read Hemingway's story, "A clean well-lighted place". I have never heard "well-lighted" in my life other than in this story. I have heard that a room can be "well-lit" however. Does anyone know why Hemingway chose to put it this way? Answer In most dictionaries, both "lighted" and "lit" are generally listed as acceptable past tense of the verb "light," so there is no difference between them. "Lit" appears to be more common in contemporary American English usage, though.

Some words end in th ( length , width ), and others end in ht ( height , fight , tonight , caught ). I sometimes have difficulties in spelling such words because I don't know which ending to choose. Is there any rule or pattern (even localized) in choosing one or the other? Answer The first thing to note is that the two sets of words that you mentioned end with different sounds. The ones ending in th all have the [θ] sound, which is formed by putting the tip of the tongue between the front teeth and blowing. The ones ending in ht all have the [t] sound (or some allophonic variant thereof). If you're not a native speaker of English, you might have difficulty producing the [θ] sound or distinguishing it from [t], but for native speakers of English the distinction is perfectly clear, and so this problem never arises. The secondary issue is that of spelling, as you find th and ht confusing. This is a matter of mis-parsing some common English digraphs. When attempting to rea

According to Biblehub and Bible Gateway , King James's Numbers 23:22 says: God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn. I don't have a hard copy to check. Is that simply a copied typo? Answer No, it's not a typo. Words starting with u started with a diphthong until the 18th century. This was part of the Great Vowel Shift . The vowel started changing from /yː/ (its original vowel in French 1 ) in Middle English, migrated through several diphthongs, and ended up at /juː/ sometime around the 18th century. See Ngram . 1 At least the upper classes, who were descended from French-speaking Normans, used the original French vowel /y/ for French words spelled with 'u' in Early Middle English. I don't know whether there's any evidence for how the lower classes pronounced this.

I worked and did not play. I worked and not played. ? For some reason, when the ellipsis is used after the simple past form of the verb with no "to be" used before it, it just sounds weird to me. Is there something wrong with it, or is it just that it is not idiomatical? Or am I the one who's wrong? I had to control myself and not cry in front of her. I always thought that second part has been used independently and not connected to the "had to" part, for I thought there should be additional "to" like this I had to control myself and had to not cry. Or at least this: I had to control myself and to not cry in front of her. (It doesn't sound very idiomatic... is it acceptable?) Is the "to" deleted? If it is, why is that? And also, when I was trying to find the answer for this question, it was clear that everybody was asserting only the parallel form should be allowed for the ellipsis after the coordinating conjunction. For example: Sarah is

Is there a noun for something that is "out of place" in space, like an anachronism is "out of place" in time? E.g., an old-timey barber shop in a chic neighborhood. Answer I looked up the Greek root for place and thought, "hey, maybe I'll coin my own: anatopism ." Except that it's already been done .

There was a thread some years ago about the earliest use of the phrase "human being": When was the word 'being' first used to refer to a human being or sentient being? I found a citation that is earlier than any of those mentioned. Having no "reputation" here, I can't comment or answer on that thread, but apparently I can post my answer as a question. There is a use of the phrase in Richard Hooker's 1590 "Ecclesiastical Polity" vol. 5. It is quoted in Samuel Johnson's dictionary, to illustrate the word "unapprehended".

I know smileys are not part of written language (yet), and any questions about them are irrelevant to linguistics and are kind of not serious. So take my question with a smiley then. It bugs me every time I'm facing this situation: if an insertion in parentheses ends with a smiley, what should I do? A lot of insertions in parentheses (well, if it's not Lisp :) ) can be annoying. A lot of insertions in parentheses (well, if it's not Lisp :)) can be annoying. A lot of insertions in parentheses (well, if it's not Lisp :) can be annoying. I don't like any of the above. Any (clever) suggestions? Answer I couldn't resist but post this! But seriously, I generally avoid ending a bracketed expression with an emoticon. One solution could however be to use square brackets: A lot of insertions in parentheses [well, if it's not Lisp :)] can be annoying. Though it's rather non-standard, it at least looks better. I'm sure almost any reader would understand it too

Why do you say Bless you when people sneeze? Is there good reason or history? When someone sneeze, if I don't say Bless you , am I rude? Answer The following excerpt from howstuffworks.com gives some insight: The phrase "God bless you" is attributed to Pope Gregory the Great, who uttered it in the sixth century during a bubonic plague epidemic (sneezing is an obvious symptom of one form of the plague). The exchangeable term "gesundheit" comes from Germany, and it literally means "health." The idea is that a sneeze typically precedes illness. It entered the English language in the early part of the 20th century, brought to the United States by German-speaking immigrants. For the most part, the various sneeze responses originated from ancient superstitions. Some people believed that a sneeze causes the soul to escape the body through the nose. Saying "bless you" would stop the devil from claiming the person's freed soul. Others believed

What is the difference between supposedly and supposably ? Both are real words but seem to have confusingly similar definitions. Supposably : Capable of being supposed : conceivable Supposedly : According to what is generally assumed or believed

Is it acceptable to have the following sentences in formal writing? 2.5 years have already been completed. or n shows the number of something.

How can I know when should I use whether or if in a sentence? I can not see any difference between whether and if . When should I use each? For me, they are the same and I am not sure if there is a difference.

In this TimLymington's answer it is said: Interestingly, there is another vegetable with the same identity problem; what the British call courgettes and the Americans zucchini . What is the historical reason why there is this transatlantic difference?

Is there a word that starts with "F" that is related to intoxication? I have racked my brain all over the state of mindlessness for this, but have yet to come up with a good answer.

Sorry if it's a trivial question, but when someone uses what's up as a greeting I have no idea what they want to hear. What are the possible answers and what does this question mean exactly? Answer “What’s up?” is a greeting whose meaning is mostly irrelevant in that the asker doesn’t want an answer to the literal question which means something like “What is new?” or “What’s happening (right now/in your life)?”. The simplest response if you don’t have information you want to share immediately with the asker is probably just to say something like “not much”, “not too much”, or “hey (man/dude)”. If you’re offered “what’s up” in response to a greeting of your own, you should read it as a request for you to proceed to the content part of what you want to talk about.

First Q here. If this has been asked before sorry (Did search) Term for a choice that you like and you dislike? And you can/would probably only take the choice you like. For example: A justice department lawyer says to you "Either testify or go to prison for 25 to life". Or "Enter witness protection or Vito is going to put you in the ground". In the above statements, we have two choices. But only one choice is viable. "To testify", or "Enter witness protection". What is such a choice called? (It can not be called a dilemma). Answer How about the Hobson's choice ? Hobson's choice : a situation in which you are supposed to make a choice but do not have a real choice because there is only one thing you can have or do.

The Germanic languages that I'm familiar with all use a prefix similar to ge- on past participles: German : Ich habe mir den Fuß gebrochen . Dutch : Ik heb mijn voet gebroken . But English doesn't do this at all: English : I've broken my foot. Where did this prefix come from? Did English ever have the ge- past participle prefix? If so, why was it lost? Answer In short: In Proto-Germanic, the prefix was * ga- ; In Old English, it was ġe- (pronounced /je/, /jə/); In Middle English, it was y- , i- , or ȝe- (pronounced /ɪ/); In Modern English, it survives in a handful of words as i- , a- , or y- (see below). The Wiktionary page for y- has these usage notes : This prefix represents a common Germanic perfective prefix which was used to form past participles. Already by the Old English period such participles could be used with or without it, and as it passed into Middle English forms y- , i- , and ȝe- , it became less productive. The prefix was later adopted as a conscio

I am trying to understand some of the idiosyncrasies of the English language. One is the use of double consonants. Why does the word bell have two letter L?

You write 4 + 2 = 6 and say "four plus two equals (or is equal to or is ) six." In the question “Is equal to” or “equals” , I read the following comment: Equals is equal being a verb, in the present tense. Is equal to is equal being a predicate adjective, with its auxiliary verb in the present tense. English is full of pairs like this, useful if one needs an extra syllable. [...] – John Lawler Jun 16 at 16:18 I am thoroughly confused about the bit " Is equal to is equal being a predicate adjective, with its auxiliary verb in the present tense". Is the verb in the present tense the word is ? and is to the predicate with the adjective being equal ? Also, does the word is represent a verb in the present tense in the phrase, "four plus two is six"? Finally, could you please provide another example that is useful if one needs an extra syllable. Yes, I understand that they all mean the same thing. What I'm looking for is a grammatical syntax analys

According to this link , if at least one of the nouns involved is plural then it should take the plural form of the verb. Otherwise, it should take the singular form of the verb. But in the last part it says not all grammars agree to those rules thus proximity rule applies. However, it doesn't explain when to apply the proximity rule and when not to use the former rules. Answer The “proximity rule” you are referring to is that when you have a compound but disjunctive subject, the verb agrees in number with the closer — or in the case of three or more, the closest — of the subjects. All these are correct, and : Either my brother or my sister is going to get it. Either my brothers or my sisters are going to get it. Either my brother or my sisters are going to get it. Either my brothers or my sister is going to get it. Either I or my brother is going to get it. Either my brother or I am going to get it. Either my brother or you are going to get it. Either you or my brother is

It seems trendy to use a reflexive-like construction with love or hate plus some , like this: You know I love me some cheese! I hate me some cold and the temperature is dropping. Where did this come from and why has it become popular? Answer To give it a name, the construction is called the " Personal Dative " and is loosely attributed to African American Vernacular English and some other Southern white dialects. The construction, as in your example, works with a typically non-reflexive verb (popular verbs in these dialects are simple: get, find, have, use, take, love, buy, shoot, and kill, which is kilt in the past tense) and a subject pronoun. PDs in 1st person singular are most common, and PDs in 2nd person are more common than 3rd person. 1st Person: I had me a man in summertime/He had summer-colored skin (Joni Mitchell, “Urge for Going”) 2nd Person: Get you a copper kettle, O get you a copper coil, Cover with new-made corn mash and never more you’ll toil. You just la

Here's my example. It is a sentence that begins in the middle of a paragraph and I'm using it as a transition. "Living in Costa Rica also gave me the opportunity to interact with the local population." Or can I re-write the sentence like this: "Additionally, living in Costa Rica also gave me the opportunity to interact with the local population."

There was the following paragraph in the article titled “Welcome to the post-truth presidency” in Washington Post (December 2). “As Politico’s Susan Glasser wrote in a sobering assessment of election coverage for the Brookings Institution, “Even fact-checking perhaps the most untruthful candidate of our lifetime didn’t work; the more news outlets did it, the less the facts resonated.” So there is no reason to think Trump is about to suddenly truth-up . Indeed, all signs are to the contrary — most glaringly Trump’s chockfull-of-lies tweet that “I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” Though Google Ngram indicates that the word, “truth up” is current even before or since the beginning of the 19th century with its peak of usage in mid-1800s, neither Oxford nor Cambridge online dictionaries carry this word. Does “truth up” mean to try to be more truthful and show integrity? What does “truth up” mean? Is it a popular word?