Blog

I'm reading Jon Gertner's The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation . In describing the history of the telephone, Gertner describes Thomas Edison (whose inventions helped improve transmitting voices) with: Edison usually worked eighteen hours a day or longer, pushing for weeks on end, ignoring family obligations, taking meals at his desk, refusing to pause for sleep or showers. This perseverance reminded me of a personality in David Kushner's history of software company id in Masters of Doom . It cites game engine designer John Carmack as saying: If you want to set off and go develop some grand new thing, you don't need millions of dollars of capitalization. You need enough pizza and Diet Coke to stick in your refrigerator, a cheap PC to work on, and the dedication to go through with it. We slept on floors. We waded across rivers. I recall the book also having an anecdote where Carmack's co-workers test his resolve. They play a movie at

[Singular] Is/Are [Plural]? In this sentence: The only exception are questions that are narrow enough that they can be reasonably answered definitively with one or two possible solutions. Should it be "The only exception is" because "exception" is singular, or "The only exception are" because "questions" is plural? Answer The default is that the verb agrees in number with its subject, so The only exception is . . . If that sounds awkward, you can write The only exceptions are . . . , which is probably preferable anyway, given that questions is plural.

I know the word uxorious that is used to describe a husband who dotes on his wife excessively. What is the corresponding word for a wife who loves her husband dearly? I cannot pull anything out of my memory... and I feel it is very harsh on men if such a word weren't there! Example: He was an uxorious man who assiduously took care of all of his wife's needs. She was a __ woman who assiduously took care of all of her husband's needs. Answer The OED has "maritorious", but it is marked as "nonce-wd.", so it's pretty rare. 1978 P. Howard Weasel Words xliv. 166 ‘My husband and I’, is felt to be‥charmingly whatever adjective is the wifely feminine of uxorious. The adjective you are looking for is the extremely rare word ‘maritorious’.

I've already looked at Is there a word for "a point in time"? , but there doesn't seem to be any answers other than "timestamp". While I agree that it is the most technically accurate description, is there a term that lends itself more to a business environment? For example, I have a spreadsheet with a list of customer feedback. The date and time that each issue was reported is listed in a single column. What would be a good business-y name to call that column? I'm looking for something that means "timestamp" without using a term that could be…misconstrued…as overly technical. EDIT: To be more specific and concise, I'm looking for a term that means "timestamp", is used more popularly in a business environment than "timestamp", and is generic enough to always mean "timestamp" with almost any data. Answer Just have it as Time . If you want to be specific then say Time Log , or Logged Time assuming that the wor

Sam developed an annual sweepstakes promotion entitled “The Free Gas Punt Return Game”. Do I need a comma after entitled or not?

If I had to phrase "Load logic", where "loading" has to happen for multiple instances of "logic", how would I do it? For context, I am a programmer, and writing a method called "loadLogic". That method loads multiple units of logical statements and takes an action on them. Answer In its entry for logic as used in computing and electronics, the Oxford English Dictionary has this citation from 1968: He separated the ternary circuits into two sets of binary circuits, one based on a positive logic and the other on a negative one. Then he used translating circuits between the two logics and achieved a true ternary output with the aid of a combining circuit. If you think your readers will be familiar with this use of the plural, there seems to be no reason not to use it.

Should I capitalize the word "the" when speaking of God as "the/The Lord"? I praise the Lord. or... I praise The Lord. Answer No. Articles and prepositions are usually not capitalized. In fact, they are usually deliberately not capitalized. e.g. "Revenge of the Nerds". Regardless of religious disposition. Even in Christianity or Judaism, the convention is followed such that the article "the" is but a pedestal/footstool in distinctifying "Lord" or "LORD".

I found the following sentence in today's New York Times. Apparently, secretive jaunt of New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg sounds to carry some speculations. And for a foreign English learner like me, jaunt seems to be a 'less well-worn' word (Is this expression right?). What is the difference of meaning among jaunt , excursion , outing , trip , and journey ? Mayoral Sign-Out Sheet? Secretive Jaunts Spur a Thought: Angered by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's refusal to say where he was during the December blizzard, lawmakers may consider requiring mayors to acknowledge absences. Answer A jaunt is A short trip or excursion, usually for pleasure; an outing. The meaning is that Bloomberg was off having fun somewhere while the city endured a miserable blizzard. Oh, and among the rest of the synonyms: trip is the common term that defines some kind of "going out" excursion is simply a trip of some kind outing is a trip that is (usually) taken for pleasure jour

A book suggests that we should not interchange "so" and "so that". "So" means "therefore", and "so that" means "in order that". However, it seems to me that in many cases they don't actually have a difference. For example: Alice got up at 5:00 A.M., so that she could drive her son to school. If I substitute "so that" with "so", this sentence presents the exact same causal relation to me: Alice got up at 5:00 A.M., so she could drive her son to school. I must have missed something here, since English is my second language. Could somebody explain the difference? Answer If you are wondering about the difference between the two sentences, the first states Alice's reason for waking up early, while the second implies that she was successful in her intention. This is not a distinction always observed by native speakers. It is confusing, because "so" (when used as a conjunction) can mean "

What is the joke in the following sentence from the Simpsons,season 17 episode 15. You can call me Charlie. But do not call me late when there are scones about. by Ricky Gervais, English comedian who produced and starred in The Office UK.

A colleague asked me this question, and I couldn't come up with an answer that satisfied him, so I'm wondering if anyone can help: Why does a man with a short temper become a short-tempered man ? In other words, why do you need the -ed at the end? Are there any special rules for this? Answer This must not be taken as a definitive answer. Only hints too long to fit in a comment. A - In order to form a compound adjective of the type adj+noun-ed, I'd say: 1- the noun should be able to transform into a reasonably comprehensible ed-adjective temper → tempered (s.o. or sth with a temper, seems OK) chair (n) → *chaired (doesn't seem to make sense) 2- the adjective in the first part of the compound word must fit with the noun-ed adjective. a blue-eyed boy seems OK a blue-tempered boy doesn't seem to make sense B - I've just gone back to an academic paper I'd read a while ago exploring compound adjectives and in particular "the noun + -ed structure".

I have seen both usages. Stay tuned on our Facebook page to know more Stay tuned to our Facebook page to know more But don’t know which one is more appropriate. Please help me figure it out. Thanks

The radio program is here: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio/playtime/playtime_20150512-0900a.mp3 Don't understand the following fragments: 00:40 – There are lots of brightly … … 01:30 hairy … 02:20 your coconut …. at? 04:10 – gently lowered to … the duck, 05:00 listen to the … band? 06:40 … your arms round each other 10:08 said lady …. Sticker?? 10:15 Grumbly ?– 11:20 wanted to win a prize …. Jane, Could someone please write it down for me? Thank You Answer BBC Schools programme 00:40 brightly-coloured stalls selling toys, cakes... 01:30 hard and very hairy shells. 02:20 Keep your eyes on your coconut you're aiming at 04:10 lower it towards the duck 05:00 listen to the brass band 06:40 circle your arms round each other 10:08 "Would you like a sticker?" 10:15 "No thank you," said Hugh, rather grumbly (?grumpily) 11:20 ...wanted to win a prize," moaned Jane,

SOURCES 1) Words correctly coded /iː/ sound for "i" a) routine /ruːˈtiːn/ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/routine b) machine /məˈʃiːn/ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/machine 2) Words correctly coded /ɪ/ for "i" a) big /bɪɡ/ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/big b) pin /pɪn/ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pin 3) This is especially confusing ( http://dialectblog.com/2011/11/10/the-western-us-and-velars/ ) "The word “English” is the one that causes the most confusion for me in IPA. I regularly see it written in IPA as /ˈɪŋɡlɪʃ/, and although that is much like RP, back in the San Joaquin Valley it’s definitely and clearly /ˈiŋɡlɪʃ/. At the very least, the first “E” and the middle “i” aren’t possibly the same vowel. I also would not call the second vowel /ɨ/, but it’s possible that I have trouble identifying /ɨ/ in my speech anyway (but the Rosa’s/roses difference helps)." 4) Evidence number 4 , A dictionary that writes it /iːŋk/ /i/ sound before "ng" and

Does anyone know of a connection, or some sort of established historical/etymological explanation why in a few languages, "the opposite of left" and "truthful claim to" are the same or seemingly related words? Do they all have a common root? Did they develop independently? Examples: English: right - right French: droit - droit German: rechts - Recht Polish: prawo - prawo Russian: право - право Portuguese: direita - direito Maybe some people can enhance this list by adding more examples? My question also on linguistics.stackexchange . Answer A wiki article covers this topic by mentioning: The Modern English word right derives from Old English riht or reht, in turn from Proto-Germanic *riχtaz meaning "right" or "direct", and ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *reg-to- meaning "having moved in a straight line", in turn from *(o)reg'(a)- meaning "to straighten or direct". In several different Indo-European languages, a sing

Ok, there are two different ways to make the American r sound. They both think they are right and that the other is wrong. Make the r sound by retroflexing the tongue: Make the r sound by retracting the tongue: Note : Both methods agree that the tongue should not touch anything in the mouth. I think the retroflexed r is more natural. I have no way to make the retracted tongue because it is very uncomfortable for me. So which one is correct?

Following this video , this is how we correctly make the r sound: Let the throat vibrate since it is voiced. Round the lip a little. Raise the tip of the tongue towards the hard bump behind the upper front teeth, but do not let the tip of tongue touch the bump. This also makes the center of the tongue go down. The back part of the tongue is raised because you pull it into a tight ball Fold and raise the sides of the tongue so they touch the upper side-teeth. If we follow the above requirement, our tongue should have an s shape when we pronounce the r sound as depicted in the following sketch: Is it possible to raise the tip while raising the back and lowering the center of the tongue when making an r sound? How do native speakers make an r ? P.S. My tongue is very short anyway!

I'm wondering how I should start and end a letter requesting information from a Consulate. Dear Department / Dear Service / Dear Sir/Madam and Yours faithfully?

Schadenfreude is the joy or pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others. What is the word for joy or pleasure derived from the happiness of others? Answer Seeing just the title of your question ("What's the antonym for Schadenfreude?"), my answer would have been "Mitgefühl" (to keep it in German) or "compassion" (English), since I'd say that Schadenfreude is the absence of compassion. Having now seen your description as wanting a word to express "joy or pleasure derived from the happiness of others", I'd say "Mitfreude" would be it in German, and "sympathetic joy" would be the closest I can think of in English (couldn't find a single word, though a bit of googling did turn up "Mudita" as per cornbread ninja's response, so +1 from me). Edit : Mitgefühl means "sadness derived from the sadness of others". Schadenfreude means "joy derived from the misfortune of others". Mudit

Does the verb "provide" always have to be used with "with"? For example, Can you provide me with some good examples? Can you provide me some good examples? Can you provide some good examples? I suppose it's a transitive verb, isn't it? Moreover, is the following type of usage correct? You should provide food for your dog before you go on vacation. If you could give me some good examples regarding "provide" with different types of usage, I'd appreciate that. Answer There is a British/American difference here. The verb provide takes two objects, and they can go in either order. The second one usually takes a preposition, and the first one never does. The preposition depends on the order. Can you provide some good examples for me. Can you provide me with some good examples. You should provide food for your dog before you go on vacation. You should provide your dog with food before you go on vacation. Americans do sometimes use two objects w

This is a thinly veiled rant, I realize, but if anybody can rationalize "emails" for me in such a way that I can stop grabbing people who say it, and asking them if they've ever gone to their mailsbox to retrieve the mails left for them by the mailsman... I would very much appreciate it. I realize it's probably pure laziness, but maybe someone can rationalize this in such a way that I can stop cringing every time I see it used in a professional setting.

Is there a word or phrase for the feeling you get after looking at a word for too long? If you say a certain word enough times, it starts to sound/feel different. I had this today with the word patio , and in the end I felt like I barely know the word anymore. I am not sure how else to describe this, but that’s pretty much the reason I’m asking – what is this phenomenon called?

People often make these mistakes in speech on purpose, just for amusement. Sometimes, however, they are unintentional and prove even funnier. In this case, is there a specific term for them? e.g. "belly jeans" for "jelly beans" "a can of boot reer" for "a can of root beer" "a wottle of bine" for "a bottle of wine" "holed and sealed" for "soled and healed" "cling spreaning" for "spring cleaning" Answer I think you are referring to spoonerism : (from Wikipedia) is an error in speech or deliberate play on words in which corresponding consonants, vowels, or morphemes are switched between two words in a phrase. A similar error is metathesis : the re-arranging of sounds or syllables in a word, or of words in a sentence. Most commonly it refers to the switching of two or more contiguous sounds, known as adjacent metathesis or local metathesis: foliage > foilage cavalry > calvary

You find in dictionaries ( OED for example) that what the British call biscuit , is called cookie or cracker in America. But, British biscuits are like these: while American cookies are like these: and crackers are like these: They're totally different in form and character. I'm afraid the best choice would be British biscuit !. What is the “British” biscuit called in America? Answer The first two examples you show are cookies; the third are crackers. Cookies are made in all kinds of shapes and sizes and may be hard or chewy (I like the chewy ones, myself). Crackers are salty and never sweet. Most of the cookies in your first picture are called sandwich cookies or crème-filled/jelly-filled cookies. The most famous of this type is the Nabisco Oreo. Very brittle cookies are called wafers. Wafers are also the item used with wine during Communion. And in the US, a biscuit is a sourdough soft bread product served with a meal. It is common in Southern cooking, and is a usual acco

Thinking that every thing that you can like and dislike, you can also not care about and there may be a suffix for it. Answer As far as I know, no. We could make one up, here. "-phile" and "-phobe" are derived from the greek words "philia" (love) and "phobos" (fear), so we'd want to look for an greek word meaning "indifference", I think. " adiaphoria " looks like an early contender, being what Google translate comes back with for " indifference ". There is already a philosophical concept "adiaphora" (note no 'i' at the end) meaning "indifferent things", referring to (my summary) things which are neither moral nor immoral . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiaphora This isn't quite what we're after, and it's a bit long, anyway - it would be nice to be able to have a single-syllable suffix like "phile" or "phobe". " neutral " gives " oudétero

What term would communicate something similar to "brown noser", without the vulgar connotation? (Here's one citation of the term being used by WWII soldiers , but I'm guessing it was used before that. In any case, the term is used by people in American culture today. From the link to WWII Vocabulary: "Brown-noser: Ass-kisser. To curry favor, or “boot-lick.” Variation: Brownie" What term/phrase communicates 'speaking or acting to please those with authority or position to gain favor', without the crude connotation of the term 'brown-noser'? Example sentence: "Did you hear what Bob said about the company track record in our employee meeting yesterday? He's a ______"

I hear (mostly from people in the Humanities department) sentences that use pray instead of the word please: "Pray tell me, when will you be back?" Assuming that I haven't made any mistakes in the above, I find this formulation very beautiful, also respectful. However, I am unaware of when to use such a formulation. Am I correct to understand that pray can generally replace the word please in sentences similar to the one above? Why, or in which situations is such a formulation favoured, or disfavoured? Has such a formulation become archaic now? Many thanks. Answer It is somewhat archaic. Today, certain archaic words are often used satirically, when someone is deliberately being too formal or polite (e.g., "Pray tell me, what can I do for you?" when someone is being a nuisance). Words like alas and daresay are examples of the same thing--they're usually used when the speaker wants to be satirical or overly dramatic. Of course, they are sometimes used genui

According to this link , we are missing (in Modern English) at least three letters that used to be in common use in English. These are thorn, edh, and yogh. Are there others that were clearly in the English alphabet at some point and then not in it, or would the others simply be short forms and things that exist in some documents but which are not clearly known as “another letter of the English alphabet”? The link mentions that kids used to include ampersand in the recitation of their ABCs in English schools at some point, but let’s leave that aside for now, too. Answer Yes, quite a few, actually; how you count them I leave up to you. The Wikipedia article on Old English Latin alphabet mentioned five extras: In the year 1011, a writer named Byrhtferð ordered the Old English alphabet for numerological purposes. He listed the 24 letters of the Latin alphabet (including et ligature) first, then 5 additional English letters, starting with the Tironian note ond (⁊), resulting in a list

The word "saudades" was the the centerpiece of the closing ceremonies of the 2016 Rio Olympics. It describes a feeling of melancholy or nostalgia not easily translated to English. Its definition in the Houaiss Dictionary of the Portuguese Language ( Dicionário Houaiss da Língua Portuguesa , Lisbon, 2003) can be translated as: saudade A more or less melancholic feeling of incompleteness linked by memory to being deprived of the presence of someone or something, of being separated from a place or thing, or to the absence of certain experiences or pleasures one experienced and considered as desirable by the person in question (often plural) < s. for/of a friend who is now living far way > < s. for/of a dead relative > < saudades for/of the Algarve > < s. for/of eating papaya > < s. of/for the beach > < saudades for/of the homeland > < s. for/of the good times > One NBC commentator "wish(ed) there was some word in English" to

Referring to some attribute of an inanimate object — use “who's”? I noticed the use of "whose" in the following sentence I wrote does not refer to a person: A recent post on Less Wrong, Levels of Action, reminded me of a game I created whose dynamics I wanted to explore. I use "whose" in this way fairly often. I'm just wondering, is it correct Standard English? If not, what would be a more correct way of expressing the same thing? Answer It is in American English - according to Mr Webster himself! A philosophical and practical grammar of the English language By Noah Webster I suppose in BE the 'correct' form might be: "the dynamics of which I wanted to explore" - but that sounds like you you are trying to be German.

As a native speaker of English, the gerund version of this sentence sounds better: infinitive: When used together in chains, extension methods are an unprecedented tool to produce extremely concise code. gerund: When used together in chains, extension methods are an unprecedented tool for producing extremely concise code. But how can I explain to someone learning English how to decide in situations like these whether to use the infinitive or the gerund? Answer From EnglishPage.com's article Gerunds and Infinitives Part 1 , if you consider "to produce/for producing" as a complement in your phrase: Both gerunds and infinitives can be used as the subject or the complement of a sentence. However, as subjects or complements, gerunds usually sound more like normal, spoken English, whereas infinitives sound more abstract. In the following sentences, gerunds sound more natural and would be more common in everyday English. Infinitives emphasize the possibility or potential for

I understand the correct spelling is 'dilemma' but many people I've spoken with, including myself, were convinced the spelling was 'dilemna'. A quick search on google shows this is not isolated to just America. Many people claim they were taught the incorrect spelling in school. I don't remember where I learned to spell the word but I've always spelled it with 'mn' not 'mm'. Whats the cause of this? Is there some long forgotten etymology of dilemma that involves an 'n'? Answer As Barrie notes, dilemma is not only spelling truest to the etymology, it's the only one attested to in any major dictionary, and it is by far the most common. As to the cause, the aberrant dilemna is almost certainly hypercorrection; if common words like solemn , hymn , or autumn brand a silent n , then surely this Greek philosophical term would as well. Like pluralizing octopus as octopi , saying between you and I , or pronouncing habanero with an ñ

Definition of nugatory given by the Oxford Dictionary: Of no value or importance Short and simple. So it is basically the same as useless , right? If so, then why is there a need to use it? Why don't we just use useless directly? It seems that the existence of the word nugatory is ... nugatory. In my knowledge, there is no a single word that has an exactly meaning or nuance to another word. There must be a niche market of the word to exist. So what is the niche market for nugatory ? Answer Nugatory is a quite formal word used mainly in Law meaning 'not valid' or formal speech. Example: The clause excluding negroes and Chinese from the suffrage has never been repealed, although it has been rendered nugatory by the Fifteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. We may be forced to conclude that the interest of the whole affair, so far as authentic history is concerned, is really nugatory and that the romantic imagination has created a mystery in a fact of no importanc

This Grammar Tip of the Day : The rule: Place a comma before "or" when what follows it means the same as what precedes it. confirms what I understand about using a comma before the word or — when it explains the preceding word further or gives its synonym. However, Oxford Dictionaries’ definition 2 uses a comma before or in the first example: yoga is a series of postures, or asanas But it doesn’t use a comma in the next couple examples: Joshua was born weighing just 18 ounces – half a kilo or just over a pound. By early Tuesday he was dead – a victim of the most deadly of the world’s culinary delicacies, the blowfish or fugu. Am I missing something?

I recently read this sentence: It was a strategic move rather than a tactical one. I have trouble interpreting it. Can someone help? Answer Tactics address immediate needs; strategy addresses long-term ones. Somtimes it is worth taking a loss in the short term (what would seem like bad tactics) for long-term strategic advantage. The terms are used with regard to the military but are broader: business, games, financial planning, etc: A chess player makes the strategic decision to sacrifice a rook in order to consolidate control over the center of the board and maintain a strong pawn structure (this example suggested in comments). A business makes the tactical decision to hire temps for the current push or the strategic decision to hire and train permanent employees for the long term. An investor makes the strategic decision to accept risk of short-term loss for possible gains because he doesn't need the money for another decade anyway. And back to the military: a commander may sacr

Observation: It seems that it's common to turn a store name into a possessive, for example a store named "Palisade" gets transformed to possessive in speech like, "Hey how about going to Palisade's for breakfast?" Another example is Chutneys Grille in Seattle. Many (most?) store names do not get this treatment. It seems most common if the store name is: Abstract: "I saw a great concert at BOOT's last night." A person's name, or what looks like a person's name: "I got this at JC Penney's" Totally unknown word: "I get my hair cut at Foofum's" [UPDATE] Is it ungrammatical to do this? My assumption is that it's a short form of saying "BOOT's performance venue" (nonsensical though?), "JC Penney's shop", or "Foofum's salon". Questions: Is this common, or is it just my home town or something? Or my imagination? Why must we do this instead of simply calling the store by

A "zero-sum game" is a reasonably well understood phrase, though often incorrectly used as "zero sum gain." The opposite of this is a "non-zero–sum game," which I find rather unwieldy. Is there a better phase than "non-zero–sum game?" Answer In addition to zero sum games , there are also positive sum games and negative sum games . See this discussion . Positive-sum outcomes are those in which the sum of winnings and losses is greater than zero. Negative-sum situations [are those] where the pie is shrinking. In the end, the gains and losses will all add up to less than zero. Apparently, these are related, but different from win-win games . Though similar, these terms differ from the terms "win-win, win-lose, and lose-lose" which refer to wins or losses relative to expectations.

Could you recommend your reference English tools useful to improve your English every day? I constantly use: Wordreference for translations Google with double quotes to test if my sentences are kinda correct Howjsay for English pronunciation

My English teacher always asks “Did you it?” when she wants to know whether some student has done an exercise. I think her question sounds horrible, and I believe it is wrong. In my opinion, she should say “Did you do it?” instead. I would like to know whether “Did you it?” is in fact wrong. Answer A yes–no question that begins “Did you. . . ?” is invariably, or mandatorily, a do -auxiliary inversion. It cannot stand alone as an actual non-auxiliary. You have no verb afterwards, because to it is not English. You cannot say any of these: Spoke you it? Called you her? Ran you the race? Think you so? Called you? Gave you it? Proposed him to her? Have you it? Did you it? in Contemporary English. That is super-archaic. It might not even be understood. It is very hard, but not impossible, to make sentences with only pronouns but no verbs come off as grammatical. Here is one such example: “What about the Smiths? I gave her a letter.” “And I, him.” But just having a lone, inverted do -auxil

If not used when misgendering, making unasked for assumptions about gender or in a hostile context, can usage of the words female / male be insulting? More specifically: can a non-native speaker be accidentally insulting by using female / male describing human genders, for example in a internet discussion. Background: In my native language Swedish, the term used for animals' genders differs from the one most commonly used to describe human gender. If you would use the words for animal gender for a human it would either sound a bit weird/unusual/humorous or insulting/demeaning depending on context. I used Google Translate for: Swedish (the terms used for animals)-> English (got female/male )-> Swedish (got the terms used for humans). I could interpret this as English lacks the distinction but human-specific gender-words exist in English as well: woman / man . A quick websearch show me a lot of usage of female / male for humans so clearly it can be used without being odd/in

What is the grammar behind the construction "I think it strange/necessary that ...", and when can and cannot this apparent omission of the copula be used? Do we always need the "that" clause? Also, this seems to be only allowed when the object is a pronoun (it in the above example). That is, we don't say "I think this method strange", correct? Answer You might call it ellipsis, but I don't think this is the simplest analysis possible. I'd rather put to think in the category of verbs that can have an object complement, like find, consider, call , etc. The words it and strange are a red herring, non-essential. Did she think his manners uncouth? Do you find the house depressing? I consider him a fool. She called me silly. These are all verbs that mean something like "assign label X to thing Y", but there are different verbs in this category too: She painted the house black. He wanted me dead. They made me King. I hereby pronounce you

Eg. Saline water does not contain salt. So it is a __ statement. What is the word that should fill in the blank? This statement is clearly making itself wrong in its later part. What should it be called? Answer I like self-refuting . self-contradictory and self-refuting imply an logical contradiction oxymoron implies only a surface contradiction, like the living dead or jumbo shrimp paradoxical implies a genuine question about its truth value

If a person can speak and understand two languages, he is bilingual . How would you describe a person who can read and write in two languages with very different forms of writing, such as Chinese and English, or Sanskrit and Korean, or what have you? Answer Biliterate is defined as : (adj) able to read and write in two languages. (noun) a person who is biliterate. However, it appears that multiliteracy has morphed into a whole other meaning having to do with multimodal ways of communicating.

I roughly understand that certain sentences can be restructured like this: I believed that he was insane. -> I believed him insane. He thought that I was incapable of doing so. -> He thought me incapable of doing so. I wished that they were dead. -> I wished them dead. What is this pattern called, and how exactly does it work? I don't mean the removal of 'that' , but rather, removing the verb 'to be' and the "inner" subject (eg. 'they') into an object (eg. 'them'). Answer I believed him insane. He thought me incapable of doing so. I wished them dead. Many verbs take more than one complementation pattern. These verbs above are best thought of as verbs which can take different types of complements, because there are many verbs that take infinitival clauses as complements which cannot be "reduced" in this way. For example: I know him to be an idiot. *I know him an idiot. (ungrammatical) In sentences (1-3) insane, incapab

Based on this question , I wonder: as an alternative to USAian (which is very nonstandard) is it OK to use US-American to more clearly indicate "inhabitant of the USA"? According to Google Ngram , this phrase has grown in usage since the 1960's. The problem I'm trying to solve is that American can relate to either an inhabitant of the American continent(s), or an inhabitant of the United States of America. (In fact, the one Brazilian person I know does refer to himself as American, or at least would like to be able to do so.) I'm looking for a word that specifically means "inhabitant of the United States of America". I can see that in German, 'US-Amerikaner' is certainly not uncommon (see e.g. Wikipedia). Also, see also the Wikipedia article Names for United States citizens . Alternatively, if it turns out that "American" always means an inhabitant of the USA, what word can be used for inhabitants of the continent? Answer I did a s

What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in s? When did it become correct to add an 's' to a singular possessive already ending in 's'? I just bought The Elements of Style , an awesome little book. However, in the first section, the authors promote the use of 's , no matter what the last letter of a word is, to show possessiveness. Some examples they use: Charles's friend Burns's poems Are these grammatically correct? Answer It's down to personal preference -- but the modern convention, in my opinion, is to omit the final s . I'd always advocate omitting the final s because it's simply unnecessary: the apostrophe, by itself, clearly denotes possession. Whether or not American English adopts this is another matter... But with British usage, it can often be quite erratic and anachronistic. A typical example is when I get on the London underground every day (the Piccadilly line going eastwards). One stop is called Baron's Court and its

Which of these two options would be considered most elegant / correct? Personally I think Sinicization (or Sinicisation) has a more natural ring to it, but I have seen Sinification used also. Also, can anyone give an answer as to when either of these neologisms came into usage? Answer This seems to point directly to Google Ngrams on those words to see what the rest of the (English speaking) world actually does: I added in the British English spelling, too. Note that 'sinification' has the longer history, but recently 'sinici[z/s]ation' has become more popular. To extract a data of word creation from these graphs is a bit iffy; you'd really need to check all the occurrences in the links from that site. The veribifiers '-ize/-ise' and '-ify' are both productive. I can't seem to tell a pattern in the contexts where one is favored over the other, except that if you're starting with an adjective ending in '-ic', the '-ize/-ise' s

What happens if you have a written phrase like We were looking at the same poster(s). but with a noun that has an irregular plural? E.g. with baby/babies, would this be the correct form? We were looking at the same baby(ies). Or, as a more exotic case: We were looking at the same matrix(???). (plural is matrices) Is there a rule or guideline for this? Answer It's not pretty, but the most common way I've encountered is to list both words, without the parentheses, with either a slash or the word "or" between them: We were looking at the same baby/babies. We were looking at the same matrix or matrices. You can also try "baby (babies)", or reword in some way that avoids the question, or if the context permits, just use the plural.

I always thought that anti-social describes someone who keeps to themselves. But according to Wikipedia , anti-social is not the right word. What, then, is the correct word to describe someone who prefers to keep to themselves, avoids parties and get-togethers? I'm not looking for the absolutely precise medical term for a mental illness (because such behavior may not in fact be an illness), just an informal word. Example: - Where is John? Is he going out with us for dinner? - Nah, he's probably watching Netflix in his room. He tends to be [ ]. Addendum When most people say anti-social in an informal context, are just referring to someone keeping to themselves, or are they in fact suggesting their conscience is in question (which is a symptom of the Antisocial Personality Disorder)? Answer Loner Merriam Webster's definition of loner: loner, noun | lon·er | \ˈlō-nər\ : one that avoids others; especially : individualist Personally, I have found that anti-social , while sou

Both reigning and regnant are related to the same Latin noun, regnum . Why is the ‹gn› spelling pronounced [n] in the first word but [gn] in the second? Answer My (uneducated) guess would be it has to do with the long vowel sound before the [gn]. It seems to create difficulty to pronounce the [g] sound after a long vowel sound. Other examples are feign (long), indignity (short), benign (long).

The snippet above is taken from The Gentleman's Magazine (London, England), Volume 53, dated, 1783. It's only when you say Quyer out loud, do you realize what the word is. It is one of the quirkiest spelled words in the English language today, choir , pronounced /ˈkwʌɪə/. Initially, quyer looks idiosyncratic and alien-looking, until you realize that the spelling is phonetic and what's more, it makes perfect sense. In addition, quyer looks English whereas the Modern English spelling of choir appears to be derived from the French choeur . There are other instances of quyer in Google Books, published in 1715 , 1726 , 1772 , and 1807 When did the present day spelling choir definitely replace that of quyer ? Why wasn't the original (?), more English-looking, and more phonological qu kept? EDIT Many thanks to @Kris who kindly pointed out my error in the comments below. When did the present day spelling choir supersede that of quyer ?" It did? No. nGram cited by

As a result of a /d/ → /ð/ shift, fæder became father , hider became hither and togædere became together , giving us our modern English forms. However, I know that murder and burden have archaic forms- murther and burthen . This means a shift from /ð/ → /d/ also happened, doesn't it? The High German Consonant Shift turned /ð/ →/d/, a change that affects modern German and Dutch. The English that and Icelandic það versus the German das highlight this change, but it also went the other way- German tot versus English dead . My questions: 1.) When did this consonant shift happen in English? Etymonline mentions 12c. 2.) What are some more examples of the /ð/ → /d/ in English words? 3.) How is the shift mirrored in other Germanic languages?

As a software guy I find myself using words like "idempotent" and "cache", which I'm very familiar with from technical writings, but have seldom heard being spoken. When I do hear someone using these words I'm frequently surprised by their pronunciation, and have no idea which of us is correct, if either. I'm not asking for guidance on how to pronounce these words, I just want to know if there is a word or phrase to describe them. (And if it's an uncommon word, how would it be pronounced?) Answer In Judith Wynn Halsted's book Some of My Best Friends Are Books , a guide for teaching gifted readers, she references this phenomenon and calls it calley-ope syndrome (playing on how someone who has seen but not heard the word "calliope" would assume it was pronounced). "Books that contain pronunciation guides are helpful for gifted readers (though they are rare, and a pleasant surprise when found), since so many avid readers know words

To say "the noise outside shook her from her reverie" implies she was lost in pleasant daydreams. What if she was lost in worry or unpleasant thoughts? Is there an equivalent term (single word or short phrase)? Answer In psychology, what you are describing would be called rumination . It is where a depressed person gets caught up in their depressed thoughts. To quote the Wikipedia article : Rumination is defined as the compulsively focused attention on the symptoms of one's distress, and on its possible causes and consequences, as opposed to its solutions. The part about it being "compulsive" refers to the part about getting stuck.

Is there an idiom available, that is exactly opposite to "Cake walk" or "Child's play"? I am looking for something exactly synonymous with "Very difficult" or "strenuous". Example Sentence: This task is really _______(difficult).

I know asleep and sleeping are interchangeable in many cases. But in these situations, I am not sure. I read stories to my son after he went to bed. After reading the stories, I stayed for some time and tucked the quilt for him. When I came out of his room and met my wife, she asked " Is he asleep ?" or " Has he fallen asleep ?", or " Is he sleeping ?" In the morning, I woke my son up before he went to school. But later I found he did not get up. His eyes were closed. I asked, " Are you still asleep ?" or " Are you still sleeping? " Which is better in each situation?

I am familiar with questions about when to double 'l' and differences between British and American spellings. However, I stumbled across this image. As you can see, several words end in the double 'l': spirituall , generall and speciall . From what I gather, much of English wasn't standardized until the 19th century. Q: Was there an equivalent to Noah Webster's dictionary and the (U.S.) Simplified Spelling Board for British English that would've affected these spellings (and others)? On a sidenote, the -all ending seems to occur with some consistency from the 16th to 18th centuries. Was there a particular rule for this usage or was it "just how things were done"? Answer I believe that the assumption behind this question is not quite right. You say, much of English wasn't standardized until the 19th century. but from my own research, it seems that the standardization of English spelling largely took place in the course of the 17th and 18th