Blog

I've run into this situation several times, being a native Spanish speaker. There are some words you just can't translate into another language. Is there a particular word to describe this? I'm not refering to idioms. Also, if its a noun, people tend to use them by surrounding them in quotes. Is this appropiate? Example: I arrived at around 5 pm and had some quesadillas . Edit: I also meant to cover words that exist in English, but cannot be translated into another language. Example: There isn't a word for "drive-thru" in your language. Answer The word you are looking for is: Realia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realia_(translation) Entering in the field of translation studies, a radical terminological change must be enforced: «realia», in fact, does not mean objects, but signs, words and, more precisely, those words signifying objects of the material culture, especially pertaining to a local culture. It is, therefore, necessary to distinguish realia-objects

I know that dare is a semi-modal verb. I just don't know when to use it like a modal auxiliary verb and when to use it like a normal verb. Given the following examples: How dare you ... How do you dare ... Is it only up to the speaker as to which one to use? Or does it depend on the circumstances? Answer If you are issuing this statement as a warning or confrontation then the only acceptable formulation is How dare you For example: "How dare you go behind my back and talk to my boss without telling me." How do you dare is asking a question- essentially How is it possible that you dare to ... For example: "How do you dare do that? Aren't you afraid you'll burn your hand?"

Frequently, I have situations where I am in need of the ability to quote an individual who has written something verbatim that has some type of grammatical error. Although I would like to write it down verbatim, I do not want the spirit of the comment lost to the reader on the basis of an obvious grammatical error or short form. Here's an example: "lking forward to seeing more gbl etfs" Now, I know that this individual is saying "I'm looking forward to seeing more global exchange traded funds". However, this may not be clear to my reader without changing the text to reflect it. I've seen in newspapers, where they use some nomenclature "(...)","[x]" or rules for showing where they have changed a quotation in order to fit or clarify the quotation (most of the time, in context). My question is, where can I find these rules? What are they called? Clarifying my Question: I'm looking for rules for making the changes. I guess you would c

I've often heard the phrase " Cleanliness is next to godliness " used but as far as I know, while there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the notion, in spite of mentioning God the phrase doesn't have a Biblical basis. Where did the phrase come from and does it have its roots in Christianity or somewhere else? Answer John Wesley in one of his sermons indicated that the proverb was already well known in the form we use today. Wrote Wesley: 'Slovenliness is no part of religion.'Cleanliness is indeed next to Godliness. (from PhraseFinder , which has a useful entry too long to quote)

English (other than American English) has a clear differentiation between the two words. Both are about translocating something. In "bring" the something of somebody is moved to where the speaker is currently situated. "Take" is used to translocate something or somebody to a place that the speaker is not currently at. You cannot “bring” your books to school if you are currently at home. You can only take them to school. Most of the time one can get the meaning from the context of the sentence but it can get very confusing when the other party is on the telephone and you do not know their location. Why does American English not differentiate and when did it lose the differentiation? Answer Take and bring in the sense of translocation do not have an exact, complementary usage bound by the location of the speaker as proposed by the question. Oxford Dictionaries defines this sense of bring simply as “ Take or go with (someone or something) to a place ”. Merriam-Web

I have always followed the former rule, i.e, "Tell me why I should marry you" (without a question mark). But my cousin insists the latter is correct. He seems equally confident that he is correct. So can you please answer which is correct? Or are both correct? Or the following example would illustrate my question better: Give me reasons why I should marry you. Give me reasons why should I marry you? Which of the above is correct?

The following link includes a guide _ ____ how to use it. How should I fill in the blank? on , for , about ? Answer Generally speaking, I personally prefer "guide to" over "guide on"; "guide about" sounds rather strange to me (though not ungrammatical). By the way, mohang's Google results are very different from what I'm seeing: (If I add an article in front of "guide" to make sure that I only get results where it is a noun, the picture is the same: 119,000,000 vs 4,730,000 vs 252,000 for "a", and 15,500,000 vs 2,380,000 vs 156,000 for "the".) I checked the British National Corpus (BNC) and the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) , and they both seem to agree: BNC COCA guide.[n] to 1419 4553 guide.[n] on 37 194 guide.[n] about 4 15 guide to how 41 27 guide on how 6 16 guide about how 1 1 That being said, as Rocquie points out

In some English dialects "-ing" is replaced by "-in" (e.g., "taking" to "talkin'"). "ng" ([ŋ]), the velar nasal consonant , is done at the back of the mouth, but "n" ([n]), the alveolar nasal consonant , is done at the front of the mouth. Why would whatever linguistic shift that happened move the sound from the back of the mouth to the front, rather than keeping the new sound also at the back of the mouth? Answer Sorry, this is going to be a bit rambling. TL;DR: As far as I can tell, nobody really knows. As Peter Shor mentions, the present participle suffix in English originally did not include velar [ŋg], but a coronal [nd] (it was something like -ind ). A suffix -ing with a velar consonant did exist, but it was used for forming verbal nouns. (Actually, -ing was itself a merger of an older suffix -ing that appeared on some grammatically masculine nouns, and a suffix -ung that created grammatically feminine verbal nou

I know what it means to download something from a website or upload a video to YouTube. But do the terms "download" and "upload" only apply when referring to one device transferring data to another remote device over the Internet (or LAN even)? Say I was transferring a file to my USB flash drive or copying a file from one HDD to another HDD. Would this technically be considered downloading/uploading? Answer Yes, technically if could be considered downloading/uploading, but if you use it that way it may get confusing. Downloading/uploading is generally used when you connect the computer to a distant source, for example a server on internet. If you use it for small devices, it's not as obvious which direction is up or down. If you for example have a network storage unit in your network, it's not at all clear if it should be considered as a server or a storage device, and uploading would have completely different meaning depending on what definition you choose

English isn't my native language. I don't trust my pronunciation too much. I don't know how to pronounce the domain name jsfiddle.net . There isn't any video about jsfiddle , so I can't learn the pronunciation. Answer Pronounce it as the single letters "j" and "s" and the word "fiddle": JAY - ES - FID - uhl .

A couple of days ago, I sat for an English exam. There was a question there that asked for the appropriate question tag for the sentence "He's too weak to walk." I answered "isn't he?" but my teacher claimed that the correct answer should be "is he?" since the sentence expresses a negative meaning. Frankly his explanation made no sense to me. Is he right? Am I missing something? What should be the appropriate question tag for the sentence He's too weak to walk. ? When we're asked to add question tags in tests, we are expected to add tags that agree with the assertion, for example, It's a great day, isn't it? Question tags that genuinely express doubt whether the sentence is true or not aren't expected.

I am writing a scientific paper. In this context, it is usual to cite other works with the last name of the first author followed by "et al." when there are many. If I want to use a possessive form, how should I use the Saxon genitive? For example, is "Smith's et al." correct? Answer First of all, et al. should be in italics . That said, the common way to refer to a publication like that would be: Smith and coworkers'... or Smith and colleagues' Et al. means and others , it is an abbreviation of the latin et alii . If you really really wanted to use it in the possessive, you would write Smith et al 's but don't do that, it is ugly and unclear. Paraphrase, use and coworkers or similar constructs.

to build, to manufacture, to produce something Are these synonyms, and what is the appropriate context for each of them? What would be appropriate in context of a complex product built in small series? Answer These are basically synonyms. Produce is the most general of these terms. Production could be willful and intentional as when producing boats, or passive as when producing an odor. It could refer to the inception of a new thing as in movie production, or showing something that already existed, as in "He produced a credit card from his wallet." That last usage is perhaps takes a little artistic license, but it is fairly common. Build is more specific. It refers to making something new. You can build structures, relationships, organizations, machines, or any number of other things, but generally, it is an intentional act which involves some effort. In this similar context, manufacture is an even more specific word which refers to a more streamlined and perhaps automated t

Which is more correct? I am going to classify these faults into 4 categories. I am going to classify these faults in 4 categories. I am going to classify these faults as 4 categories. The last one makes the least sense to me. However, the first two are being used by a lot of people. Are both okay? Answer Into is the most common, and it makes the most sense, as you are (metaphorically) putting faults into boxes. I am going to classify these faults into 4 categories.

I've been reading William Manchester's book "American Caesar", which is about Douglas MacArthur, and I found that he uses a strange convention for pluralizing the family name. When talking about the MacArthurs as a whole, he writes MacArthur' with an apostrophe, as in "After the war, the MacArthur' lived in Tokyo while the general was proconsul" (yes, he uses that term to describe him). I have never seen or heard of a rule that would prescribe this. Manchester is a bit old-timey in his style: for example, he also writes "in behalf of" instead of "on behalf of", which is the only one I have ever seen. So perhaps this is similar. Where does he get this apostrophe from? Edit: There seems to be some difficulty finding examples, which is odd. Here is a direct link to a page from Google Books that shows the apostrophe.

Similarly to the previous version of this product, this version contains the same feature and .... (a long description of the product) Is the usage of "similarly to" in the sentence beginning correct? Or is there any better alternative? How would English people say this sentence in formal language? Answer This is a typical awkward wording I see in Japanese-English translation. If you want to use an adverbial phrase, you need something like the following: As with the previous version of the product, this version also contains feature XXX I suggest something like: As with As in As was (is) the case with A related awkward structure is the following: Similar to John, Bob lives in Tokyo. Literally, this says only that Bob is similar to John and that Bob lives in Tokyo, but nothing about where John lives. If both live in Tokyo, then: Bob lives in Tokyo, as does John. Or something along those lines

It seems there is a relatively recent trend of using expression "〈verb〉 off of": https://www.google.com/search?q=%22*+off+of%22 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=off+of&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3 Is this really a new trend or my illusion (English is my second language)? Is there some explanation of the two peaks in the Google n-gram popularity plot? UPDATE: Typo in the first URL corrected.

English is not my native-tongue, so I always find it hard to grasp the concept of "question tags" and more importantly the way to answer to them. Let me explain with the help of this situation - I am supposed to complete my homework and I haven't. My mom suspects that I haven't and asks me the below question. I want to confess that I haven't. What should I answer? Mom : You didn't finish your homework, did you? Me : Yes, I haven't [OR] No, I haven't? I've always thought that it is "Yes, I haven't" because the questioner has already found out that I haven't and I should just assert it by saying 'Yes'. But a friend of mine says that it is "No, I haven't" because I am effectively answering the question "did you?". Which of us is correct? Answer When someone asks a question by stating a negative fact, it would seem logical to answer affirmatively because the fact is true. However, it is more common to

On the freelancing website Upwork, there is a US Punctuation and Mechanics test one can take to boost credibility on one's profile for potential clients. These tests are administered by third-party companies that often hire non-native English speakers, so they're known to have some inaccuracies. Unfortunately, because you're allowed to retake the exams after a certain period passes, the correct answers are never revealed. One of the questions on this exam is the following: Richard’s wife(A) Abigail(B) is an incredibly talented cook(C) and gardener. Comma at (A) Comma at (B) Comma at (C) Comma at (A) and (B) No commas needed I answered "No commas needed", but I suspected afterwards that the answer key was looking for the answer choice above it, "Comma at (A) and (B)". After searching this question online, I found a website with answers for the various questions on the test, and the site claims that "Comma at (A) and (B)" is in fact the correct a

Here is the question: I want to know what is the ordinal place of someone in her family. For example, I'd say: I'm the second child of my parents. and afterwards, I'd like to ask something along these lines: What nth child are you? (So that I'm expecting something like first, second, third, etc. child as answer). Just wondering how the question should be asked.

Please see Title. I'm not specifically referring to which language they came from... but if they come from something else. In other words, do they come from words with other meanings. For example, do words for children come from a word that means "being that comes from one's loins" or something. Answer I extracted the following from the online Webster Dictionary. It's interesting to see how all these words were transformed from Latin/Greek/Old High German/Middle English to the current English words. Note: I know that this does not exactly answer your question, since you actually want to know if the words derived from words with other meanings. But I think that having the full list of originating languages here may be useful as other answers to your question may refer to it. DAUGHTER Middle English, doughter , from Old English dohtor ; akin to Old High German tohter daughter, Greek thygatēr First Known Use: before 12th century SON Middle English sone , from Old

In my academics I learned that we use infinitives ( to + verb 1st form). So I was surprised when someone told me this sentence is incorrect. I am not able to figure it out why this sentence is incorrect. When the shootout took place the police made everyone to leave the building immediately. According to him, to won’t appear in this sentence. But according to my understanding, infinitives always contain to . Please clarify my doubt. Answer EDIT : Added modals including quasi-modals; added examples and exceptions; note that these lists are only “complete” for the modals and quasi-modals. That’s because make does not take a to -infinitive. It takes a bare infinitive, without the to particle. Not all infinitives have a to attached to them. You really have to learn the sort of complement each particular verb takes. However, as a sort of general rule, the causative verbs don’t take a to particle, and neither do the sensory verbs . First the causatives: make someone do something have

Is it acceptable to nest parentheses (for example, if I (meaning myself) write like this)? Answer It is acceptable, but you should use it with care. Generally, you should avoid having long texts in parentheses, as the reader will eventually forget that he is inside a parentheses block. In serious papers and letters, you should avoid it completely, and rather find a way of re-phrase it. In conversational e-mails, blog posts, StackExchange posts etc. it might be more natural to use it, but the inner parenthesis should never be long (just a couple of words). The most important is to make sure that the reader don't get confused of where the parenthesis start and end. With nested parentheses This is a quick example on how to rephrase a potential problematic use of nested parenthesis. (It can be a less important section like this (which is quite long, even if it is not important), and when you continue, the reader might be lost in where in the parenthesized text he is, and might wonder

What is a term or name for someone who is very adept at solving puzzles or situations that require though processing and logic. I ran across this question , however this only deals with crossword puzzles. I'm looking for something that could be applied on a broader sense. Answer Enigmatologist is the word for the person you describe. The term was coined by Will Shortz, the former editor of Games magazine, which I read voraciously as a child. He's currently the editor of the New York Times crossword puzzle. Mr. Shortz is apparently the only person in the history of the world to have a degree in Enigmatology (the University of Indiana, 1974).

When I look at the definition given from the Mac OS X Dictionary (I have set American English as interface language, and the dictionary used is then the New Oxford American Dictionary ), I read: the /ði/ /ð(ə)/ /ði/ [called the definite article] adjective 1. denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge: what's the matter? | call the doctor | the phone rang . Compare with a . • used to refer to a person, place, or thing that is unique: the Queen | the Mona Lisa | the Nile . • informal denoting a disease or affliction: I've got the flu . • (with a unit of time) the present; the current: dish of the day | man of the moment . • informal used instead of a possessive to refer to someone with whom the speaker or person addressed is associated: I'm meeting the boss | how's the family? • used with a surname to refer to a family or married couple: the Johnsons were not wealthy . • used before the surname of the chief of a Scottis

While commuting to work, I encountered a bumper sticker that said "I had rather be on/Cape Point Fishing". I found this curious, since I always thought that the correct expression would be "I would rather be...", instead of "I had rather be". Is there a joke I'm not getting, or was this bumper sticker just incorrect? Answer The OED describes had rather as the past subjunctive, meaning ‘would have’, and used idiomatically with adjectives (or adverbs) in the comparative, ‘to express preference or comparative desirability’. Not all grammarians would now agree with the description ‘past subjunctive’ but the had rather construction is still found in British English. The British National Corpus yields 21 examples, but some are false positives. The Corpus of Contemporary American English has 23 records, but, as it is four and a half times bigger than the BNC, the incidence is relatively smaller. It is no doubt true that the difference is often fudged by th

Usually when discussing monetary amounts, people will say "That cost one hundred million dollars" or "one hundred million pounds". But I have also seen it written as "that cost one hundred millions sterling". Former UK PM Gordon Brown also used to say millions not million when giving his budget updates. Are there rules for this usage, or is it just a question of putting the plural in the right place? Answer The use of " n millions" as a plural noun is somewhat archaic, as evidenced by this Google Ngram comparison of "Two millions" vs. "Two million" . As the plot shows, "two millions" has long been the standard expression. However, starting around 1850, its usage declined while "two million" rose in popularity. Around 1920, "two million" became the new norm, and today "two millions" is rarely used, except by traditionalists like Gordon Brown. Here is an excerpt from The Gentleman's

Are there in English any cases of using religious words for swear words, most likely in predominantly Christian regions? I ask because in the Canadian province of Québec, which is primarily francophone , religious words get used for swearing quite a great deal when speaking French. (I suppose this might be explained by a will to express against religious abuse from time to time, or by a rejection of religious authority.) For example, French profanity like maudit tabarnack , mon enfant d’criss , and hosti d’faux prètre could be respectively translated into English as damn tabenacle, as my son of Christ , and as host of false priest . Most use cases conjoin the word damn with some religious object, but at other times they are turned into imperative verbs such as décolisse or décrisse (saying “de-chalice” and “de-Christ”), which could translate into go away or break or tarnish . The most common swear word one hears in Québec is Tabarnak! Is there anything in the anglophone world c

Is it proper grammar to have consecutive adverbs in a sentence? e.g. "It was not exactly accidentally... . My thought is that is probably is not proper, especially in this case. The above could have been rewritten, "It was not exactly accidental..." . Answer There are plenty of circumstances in which consecutive adverbs occur. Using the adverb combination of OP's example, one could form a sentence like Though Sarah's pregnancy came as a surprise to many, it was not exactly accidentally achieved. Other more common double-adverb constructions include phrases in which an adverb like very or rather precedes another adverb.

I was correcting an ESL learner who said "It is the way how we write." I realize "It is the way we write" is correct and "It is how we write" is correct, but "It is the way how we write" looks wrong to me, despite that when I say it out loud it sounds perfectly normal if I'm speaking fast. What I mean is, if an ESL learner said it, it would sound wrong. But when I say it as a native speaker, it seems okay though not felicitous. So I can't tell. Is it grammatically wrong?

I was reading this book that features a description of a shark: It had fins at its sides, a triangular fin that rose from its back, a raked, aerodynamic tail , and eyes that were small, black, and empty. (Emphasis mine.) Now, since "aero-" means "air", and this tail travels through water rather than air > 99% of the time, it strikes me that aerodynamic may not be the best way to describe it? Another example: The submarine was beautifully built, with a smooth, aerodynamic design. 1. Is using "aerodynamic" here wrong, acceptable or good? 2. Is there a better word (or possibly phrase) used to describe it? Answer Hydrodynamic is the right word. The notions of hydrodynamics and aerodynamics parallel each other: one is to air or gases as the other is to water or liquids. Here are the Merriam-Webster definitions: Aerodynamics (M-W): : a branch of dynamics that deals with the motion of air and other gaseous fluids and with the forces acting on bodies in m

With regard to bullet points stating objectives using verbs, is it better to repeat "to" at the beginning of each of them, or to introduce bare infinitives with a single shared "to"? In the Land of Mordor where the shadows lie, the objectives of the Ring are to: Rule them all; Find them; Bring them all; Bind them in the darkness. vs. In the Land of Mordor where the shadows lie, the objectives of the Ring are: To rule them all; To find them; To bring them all; To bind them in the darkness. Is one form more grammatically correct or common than the others? Someone here is suggesting that since the bullet points are objectives, the "to" structure should be repeated. Thanks! Answer This is more a matter of style than grammaticality, but the whole point of the bulleted list is to explicitly make use of a parallel structure to eliminate repetition, so it seems rather silly to include a repetitive element that you could have pulled out.

So why do human beings spend so much time playing? One reason is that we have time for leisure; animals have very little time to play as most of their life is spent sleeping and (2)________ food. Source: Cambridge English, FIRST 1 (2014): Test 1, Reading and Use of English paper The following options are given: A. searching ; B . looking; C . seeking; D . gaining The answer given in the book is C , which is fine by me, in fact in the EL&U archives I found this question: "Seek" vs."search" ; the accepted answer with twelve upvotes says: […] However, they are really quite different. One fundamental difference is that the object of seek is the item you are trying to locate, whereas the object of search is the place you are looking in. […] Also, seek implies that the seeker knows that the item they are looking for does exist. Search has no such implication. Which confirms the "correct" answer is seeking . The other reason for it being the only answ

Why's "what's up" used as greeting among young people? It sounds like asking "what is up there"? A: What's up? B: The sky. Answer Up has many, many uses and referring to something that is above is just one of them. What’s up is not an innovation by the young of today. As a statement or a question about what might be happening, it isn't particularly new. In a letter written in 1838, the novelist Elizabeth Gaskell wrote I did not mention a word to Lucy but she must have guessed something was ‘up’. Even in its reduced form of wassup , it’s over 100 years old.

Is it correct to write this: "... rely on emulating techniques"? I must write the emulate verb in gerund because it is preceded by an preposition, right? The whole sentence is: These systems usually rely on emulation techniques, such as interpretation and dynamic binary translation, to execute guest application code. Isn't it true that always that a verb appear after a preposition the verb must change to gerund form?

What other verbs can be used to say "refine analytical skills"? I found "polished" and "sharpen," but I am interested in something better if there are any. The verb shouldn't indicate weak skills, but good ones that can be better. Any suggestions? Thank you!

As a non-native speaker, when I read the books about grammar, I learn that usually the word "everything" is used in a positive sentence and that the word "anything"is used in a negative or interrogative sentence. But I often see sentences in some magazines and articles like: We'll do almost anything for our beloved animals. What's the difference between them, and is it changing the meaning in sentence? Answer We'll do almost anything for our beloved animals. The class of NPIs (Negatively-oriented Polarity-sensitive Items) includes the any class of items: any, anybody, any longer, any more (AmE anymore ), anyone, anything, anywhere. And you seem to already understand a bit on how NPIs work, in that NPIs are restricted to non-affirmative contexts (where an affirmative context is a declarative main clause in a positive environment). But some of the items also have a "free choice sense", and so, they can occur in an affirmative context (wher

My English teacher explained about themself and themselves . I don't really quite understand though.

What's the term for the name you were given when you were born as opposed to the one you changed to for some reason? Real name? Given name? Birth name?

I think it is a serious conversation which has become boring. Am I right? Answer There are multiple interpretations of this phrase depending on context. There is insufficient context in your question to say definitively one way or another. In particular, two common, but distinct meanings of "heavy" lead to different interpretations. First, "heavy" can mean weighty to indicate importance, significance, or great magnitude. In such a use, a "heavy conversation" is more likely to cause anxiety than boredom. (For example a heavy conversation between a lawyer and their client, or a doctor and their patient). Second, "heavy" can stand for heavy going (ground so sodden that a horse makes slow progress) which would strongly indicate boredom. In each case, "weighty conversation" or "the conversation was heavy going" would be clearer. As the construction is both unusual and ambiguous, if the listener can be certain that it was used af

Merriam-Webster says about another the following: being one more in addition to one or more of the same kind — http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/another However, I come across such sentences as: “I am giving another three books away”, “give me another 2 flowers”. I think it’s fine to say “give me another twenty minutes” as it is a period of time, but I wonder about “another two books/flowers”. Is it grammatically correct? Another thing which seems to be suspicious is that I can’t find such examples in dictionaries.

In the United States, we say that someone lives on a street, whereas I've noticed that British people say in . For instance: Bubba lives on Washington Street. Colin lives in Cavendish Avenue. I believe we both would use at when a number is given. For instance: Bubba lives at 16 Washington Street. Colin lives at 7 Cavendish Avenue. I don't think it matters if it's a road, avenue, street, circle, or lane — as far as I know, in America, we always live on a street. Does it vary in British English, or is it always in ? If it varies, what are the rules?

For instance, I would normally write the following sentence: Many were the dangers arrayed against me, but I had no fear. Is it grammatically incorrect to write instead: Many were the dangers arrayed against me, and I had no fear. I noticed this whilst speaking with a co-worker, and found he extremely rarely used the conjunction 'but', favoring 'and' instead. Though it sounds strange to me, I cannot find anything to say this is grammatically incorrect. Answer The conjunction but means the same thing as the conjunction and , in most cases. They both contrast with the disjunction or . There are plenty of idioms that use but , like but for that , nothing but the best , But why? , and the like, but in normal use the logic is the same . The difference between and and but in non-idiomatic usage is that but carries a presupposition that something else was expected. Bill washed the dishes and Mary dried them. (no presupposition) Bill washed the dishes but Mary dried them.

All normal verbs can be conjugated in the future tense. e.g. I know, I will know. I do, I will do. But I have noticed that we cannot conjugate the modal verb can in the future tense. can, I will can ? Although we are able to conjugate the phrase be able (that has approximately the same meaning of can ) to will be able , we cannot conjugate can . Is there a way to express can in the future tense without using the expression to be able ? Additionally, need and dare are sometimes utilised as a modal verb. I need not. Need I not? I dare say. Dare he do it? Are we able to conjugate these verbs in the future tense as modal verbs? If need were used as a ‘normal’ verb, an example of it in the future tense would be I will need to do it . Can we write that sentence by making need a modal verb? Thank you. Answer In English, like in many other languages, we only have two tenses, a past tense and a present tense. Of course, we can still talk about the future. We use special present tense co

In doing some research on another question I bumped into the term " hedge ": A hedge is a mitigating device used to lessen the impact of an utterance. Typically, they are adjectives or adverbs, but can also consist of clauses. It could be regarded as a form of euphemism. I commonly see "lol" online but recently I have noticed it used as such: I completely forgot about our meeting... lol. I am completely embarrassed, lol. Oh wow I was a complete retard will you forgive me lol The final example could use some punctuation but these uses seem different than the original use of lol . It seems to signal an embarrassment or defensiveness in an attempt to (a) avoid conflict (b) claim no hard feelings (c) lighten the mood or (d) something else? In any case, while I am curious about this usage in general I am more specifically asking about its classification. Is this considered a hedge? Or am I not understanding this term correctly? Answer This link might just be an undergr

I was reading my apartment lease recently, and I came across this sentence in the rent section: "Lessee will pay a penalty of $16.00 for rent that is unpaid before the 6th of the month." The paragraph previously states that the due date is the 1st of the month. So with that information, it feels like there are two interpretations, based on what "before the 6th of the month" refers to - the rent, or the paying of the penalty: Between the 2nd and 5th (before the 6th), pay a $16 penalty. After that it increases by $1 per day as stated in the next sentence. Pay no penalty at all until the 6th. This is the correct meaning (they've told me.) Is there really any ambiguity? I think maybe if they meant the first meaning it would have said "that is paid before the 6th." Saying "unpaid before the 6th" may be a clear way of stating that you haven't paid until the 6th, at which point the penalty applies. So is the first interpretation reasonable, or

Is there a word for software less harmful than malware ? In particular, The software provides functionality you need, and actually it is you who download and install it. However, it steals your data and uploads it for its own use. Answer The current buzz word for things less harmful than malware is badware , or in the case you gave spyware would also be appropriate.

I came across people using all the in sentences instead of all . Select the type of user to view all the users of that type. All the users of the selected role are displayed. I usually strike out the after all . Is there any justification that I can give my team on why the seems out of place in the above example? Are there any rules of grammar for or against using the article after all ?

How should I punctuate around quotes? For example, if I want to show someone's response in the same sentence, what would I do? Would the comma from the end of the quote be enough? He said, "Get me a drink," but I didn't want to. Because this looks weird: He said, "Get me a drink,", but I didn't want to. What if the quote end with a question? He said, "Will you get me a drink?" but I didn't want to. I think that I would need a comma somewhere. He said, "Will you get me a drink?," but I didn't want to. He said, "Will you get me a drink?", but I didn't want to. The ?," looks better to me, but I don't know. How do you do it? Answer The "American rule" is that question marks and exclamations go inside the quote if they are part of the quote, otherwise outside. Periods and commas go inside the quote. The "British rule" is that all punctuation goes inside the quote if it is part of the quo

I am of the belief that Hell should be capitalized because real or not, it is the name of a place, and thus a proper noun. It should be capitalized correct? I have seen it written without capitalization plenty of times, but I suspect that most of those were just due to laziness or illiteracy (it tends to be written with a lower-case ‘h’ mostly on the Internet–sigh). Other uses, including expletives seem to use it as a place name as well: What [in] the Hell‽ Go to Hell! Google gives mixed results and checking the WikiPedia entry for Hell to get a proper definition does indicate that it is a location, but even on that same page, there are plenty of instances with a lower-case ‘h’. Is there a situation in which it would not be capitalized? What about uses as an adjective: that job was Hell ? Answer "Hell" is capitalized when it is used as a proper noun. That is, you capitalize it when you are referring to it as a specific place. However, it can be perfectly legitimate to leave