Blog

I can say "An American" or "A Frenchman", however, can I say "A Chinese" like that? Does it sound weird? Answer Yes, you can say "a Chinese" but yes, it sounds at least a little weird to many people most of the time. This is discussed in Why can we say 'an American' but not 'a British'? I'd recommend using the adjective "Chinese" instead it in situations where it is easy to do so, but the noun "Chinese" can be used when necessary. You can see this use listed in a number of dictionaries, such as Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary which have as one definition of Chinese " a native or inhabitant of China". Here is an example I found from the book Sweet Bamboo: A Memoir of a Chinese American Family by Louise Leung Larson (accessed via Google Books): Being a reporter had not occurred to me; I did not think a Chinese, and especially a woman (women reporters were rare in those d

In English, coda nasals assimilate to the following consonant, so 'n' in "in mail" and "own goal" is pronounced with [m] and [ŋ] respectively, right? If so, then why do most dictionaries transcribe sounds represented by 'n' in orthography with /ŋ/ before velar consonants (e.g. think , tinker , language , English ), yet with /n/ before bilabial consonants (e.g. input , inpatient , inbox , inbred )? I checked Oxford, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Random House, Collins, Cambridge, Macmillian, and Longman, and this is more or less the case in all these dictionaries. It seems to be the case that assimilation beyond syllable boundaries (or maybe morphological boundaries) is usually not realized in dictionaries' transcription, hence include /ɪnˈkluːd/ and Vancouver /vænˈkuːvər/. This is evident in the case of increase , where the noun is /ˈɪŋkriːs/ and the verb is /ɪnˈkriːs/. But this still doesn't explain /ˈɪnpeɪʃənt/ or /ˈɪnpʊt/. Increase

Which is the correct usage when I tell someone that I am back? I am back to [some city] Or I am back in [some city] Answer FumbleFingers comment on EdGuiness answer is, I think, the real answer. When you are describing a destination, using a verb such as "go", you use the preposition "to". When you are describing a "state of being", using a verb such as "to be", you use the preposition "in". I go to Detroit. I am in Detroit. I travelled to Detroit. I live in Detroit. Note that if you do use a non-proper noun like "city" or "town", you need to include an article. I live in a city. I went to the town. Side note: "Town" without an article has a varity of special meanings. "I live in town" means that I live within the city limits, as in: Bob: I live in the suburbs. Alice: Oh, I live in town. "I am/was/will be in town" means that I am in the city under discussion as opposed to travelling som

I have a question about the usage of the future perfect thingy: I know that it is used to talk about a completed action before a time in future, but is it wrong to use just plain future simple in this same case? For example, can we use I will finish all my money by the end of the week. instead of I will have finished all my money by the end of the week? Do native speakers follow this rule in their speaking?

The Spanish suffix '-ista' denotes someone associated with something. This has been adopted into English in one example I can think of, namely a 'fashionista'. One would have expected many more but I can't immediately think of any that are regulary used. Can anyone else help, please? Answer The Spanish -ista suffix has in the last few generations become a reasonably common and at least semi-productive suffix in English. It’s nothing compared to our native -ist , but we do have a surprising number of imports with -ista . In Spanish, where there is not an -ist suffix but only -ista , the suffix is used for nouns and adjectives alike. But unlike in Spanish, in English it is almost always used for nouns, not exclusively for adjectives. The sole “only an adjective” example I could find in English is modernista . That because we have the highly productive -ist suffix in English to do the adjectival work. So you usually see -ista only in words borrowed from southern

I'm interested to know why we use had better for recommendation. Technically we're speaking of an action that hasn't yet occurred. Like he had better leave a tip means he hasn't yet left a tip, but I suggest he do. Why do we use the past tense had if it has nothing to do with the past? Why do we not use the subjunctive here? ( He have better leave a tip. ) Answer The NOAD reports that the meaning of had better do something is would find it wiser to do something ( you had better be careful ) ought to do something It reports also this note about the usage: In the verb phrase had better do something , the word had acts like an auxiliary verb; in informal spoken contexts, it is often dropped, as in you better not come tonight . In writing, the had may be contracted to ’d ( you’d better call ), but it should not be dropped altogether (not you better call ).

The current high school debate resolution is “Resolved: In the United States criminal justice system, jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice.” Although the resolution doesn’t seem to have a generic bare plural, is it correct to only talk about one kind of injustice? For example, if a debater decided to only focus on racial injustice, would this be a semantically correct interpretation of the topic? Is the word injustice an example of a mass noun?

Perhaps this is a question for Law.SE if one exists, but I am asking here as there are other nice questions on English history. There is some historical development account presented in Wikipedia , but I find it grossly inadequate to answer the question. English has always been a language that borrows and enriches itself, but retains its original flavour all the same. Why has a similar linguistic edification not happened with legal English? The question, in its elementary form: Why has legal English simply not moved on? Answer Because every attempt to change it makes the law more complex and more expensive. The archaic terms, like 'plaintiff' and 'writ' had clear definitions, partly because they had been hammered out over generations. A well-intentioned attempt to make it easier for the layman to understand (which every new Government tries to bring in) replacing them with 'claimant' and 'claim form' ends up causing confusion at the margins: if one part

I know coaching is all about the client potential and not being directive or giving solutions, but how does it different than mentoring?

I understand the phrase "settle your hash" means to subdue someone through the use of threats or violence. For example, a heated argument between two individuals where insults were being lobbed to and fro might lead one to exclaim: If you keep disparaging my mother like that I am going to settle your hash. What is the origin of this idiom? Answer an early occurrence is from Olympic Games by Isaac Cruikshank : In settle (someone’s) hash, to subdue, silence, defeat; kill: s. >, in C.20, coll. An early occurrence is in Isaac Cruikshank, Olympic Games, 16 June 1803 (thanks to Mrs M.D.George). it's also in Americanisms: The English of the New World (1872) by M. (Maximilian) Schele de Vere - here's an image : from hash : 1657, "to hack, chop," from Fr. hacher, from O.Fr. hache "axe." The noun "stew" is first recorded 1662, from the verb. My educated guess is that it's related to the the origins of the phrase "bury the hatchet"

This post is partly inspired by previous posts, such as this one , on non-existence of grammatical gender in English. My question is mainly about what "natural gender" and "grammatical gender" are to an English noun. There are nouns, such as 'mare', or (debatably) 'ship' whose natural gender is perceived to be feminine by significant number of speakers. Most nouns, however, either are of a neutral natural gender or have got no natural gender. (I wonder whether there is a consensus on which of the two is the case.) Wikipedia also seems to suggest that gender pertains to referents rather than to nouns. In the linked question, the OP derives "grammatical gender" from "natural gender" for those nouns that have got the latter. This is relevant, because a natural gender seems to be the sole reason to even think about a grammatical gender, or traces thereof, for a word. But then it seems to entail something like a partial grammatical

I think it’s punctual because an attempt in my view is a specific action and not a process, but I’d appreciate your thoughts on it.

Examples: The bathysphere was a pioneer in [deep-sea exploration] . I prepared to embark on a [deep-sea dive] . A technical noun/gerund term is preferred. If one does not exist, clearly marked suggestions for newly coined terms (probably beginning with "bathy-") are fine. Answer I'll like to suggest " demersal-dive ". The word demersal is bit too technical in terms of Oceanography (demersal zone) and Marine biology (demersal). Definition of demersal in Merriam-Webster is given as follows: living near, deposited on , or sinking to the bottom of the sea. Definition of demersal in Oxford is given as follows: (chiefly of fish) living close to the floor of the sea or a lake. Origin: Late 19th century: from Latin demersus (past participle of demergere ‘submerge, sink’, from de- ‘down’ + mergere ‘plunge’) + -al. The Demersal zone in the sea/ocean. The demersal zone is the part of the sea or ocean (or deep lake) consisting of the part of the water column near to

Is this word onomatopoeic, just an interjection, both, something else?

What is a word that describes a person who hurts people without meaning to (as in not intentionally)?

Which is correct, re capitalization of the word "mayor"? San Francisco Mayor John Doe ... San Francisco mayor John Doe ...

In Czech there is a term used for curvy women: krev a mlíko "Krev a mlíko" means "blood and milk". In this term, "blood" is a reference to red cheeks on a girl (which was considered a sign of health) and "milk" was probably a reference to the fact that milk was considered a healthy part of the diet. It may have also been a euphemism for breasts. Anyway, is there an equivalent term for a curvy woman in English? Is "Milk and honey" a way to describe curvy women or does it mean something different? By curvy , I mean the classical hourglass shape — i.e. the right waist-to-hip ratio. Something like this:

I got into a debate with a colleague when I said "Look at this level of stupidness" and he said "It's not stupidness, it's stupidity". Here I am, trying to win a debate. Answer Stupidity dates back to the 16th century and has always been the more common term. Stupidness appears to be a later variant which actually has always been used rarely. Stupidity vs stupidness: As nouns the difference between stupidness and stupidity is that stupidness is rare but both refer to the quality or state of being stupid. Ngram : stupidity vs stupidness . According to the Oxford Dictionary Online stupidness is mainly a West Indian usage: (Mass noun) chiefly West Indian - Foolish or nonsensical talk or behaviour: girl, what stupidness are you talking? and the Dictionary of Caribbean English Usage offers a few examples of its usage such as: Nonsense; stupid thinking; an absurdity, a. We asked Mr James to attend a Conference, just a feu: months ago that teas. He said he w

Duplicate of: What is the correct way to use infinitive after the verb “help”: with or without “to”? “Could help avoid” vs. “could help to avoid” “Helping you do something” or “Helping you to do something”? Infinitive without “to”? Is it correct to say “John helps you talk with people”? My sentence fragment possibilities are ... can help rule out false alarms ... can help to rule out false alarms I feel like both are technically correct, and that the latter sounds somewhat more formal while the former may be a little more clear. I often come upon the general issue of when to use "to [verb]" or just "[verb]" — is there a general rule? Is only one of them actually correct? (Even if someone can explain how to describe the difference between these cases would be appreciated, i.e. "infinitive vs. ____" ) Answer Either an unmarked infinitive (an infinitive without a to complementizer), or a marked infinitive with to will work. Here. Since the matrix verb i

I am confused as to some of the vocabulary that can be used to compare numbers and quantities, and would very much appreciate some clarification. I suppose it is safe to say that 1 is smaller than 2. Can I also say that 1 is less than 2, and if so, which form is preferable? It seems that saying that 1 is lesser than 2 is uncommon - but is it incorrect? Finally, -2 is clearly less than -1, but is it true that -2 is smaller than -1? (If I have 2$ of debt, then I would say that I have less money than if I had 1$ of debt, but I would also say that my debt was larger , not smaller).

Which one is correct: "A popular approach is the so-called immersed interface methods." "A popular approach are the so-called immersed interface methods." In Portuguese, the second one would be correct, because the verb "to be" sometimes agrees with the object instead of the subject. I was wondering if in English such exception also exists, of if the verb "to be" always agrees with the subject no matter what. Answer It depends on the meaning of "immersed interface methods." If it is to be considered a a whole, a single thing, then singular is correct, if it represents many different methods consider individually, then the subject should be plural. Let me give you an example that might help clarify. I live in the USA. I might say: a popular country is the United States. "States" is technically plural, so this doesn't seem to fit, but "United States" is considered idiomatically a single entity. To give another exa

I've had this conversation several times in my life, where I use a second-person pronoun when actually using the third-person: "If you were dressed up as a clown at night holding black balloons, I would be suspicious too!" "I would never dress like a clown." Or exempting the 'if' from the sentence: "You choose to join the organization, then you're responsible for that organization's beliefs and policies." "I am not a member of that organization" It's actually hard to come up with examples for this off the top of my head. The point is that I use 'you' as a third person pronoun because it's hypothetical, but it's taken literally, and I want to be able to tell the person I'm talking to what the name of the grammatical construct is so that he or she doesn't misunderstand me. Answer I believe it's called " generic you ." From Wikipedia: In English grammar and in particular in casual Englis

What is the grammatical name and function of "The variety of vitamins and nutrients in green beans" help prevent many health problems Answer In English grammar there are two main parts of a sentence: the subject and the predicate. The subject usually appears before the predicate to show what the sentence is about, or who or what performs the action. The subject of a sentence may be one word or several words. Commonly it is a noun, a pronoun, or a noun phrase. Sometimes it can be even an entire clause: What he had already forgotten about computer repair could fill whole volumes. In your example: The variety of vitamins and nutrients in green beans helps prevent many health problems. the part in bold is a noun phrase that functions as the subject of the sentence. Source: http://guidetogrammar.org/grammar/subjects.htm

I came across the word, “The wonk gap” used as the headline of the article written by Paul Krugman in New York Times’ September 8 issue. The word reappears in the following sentence: Senator Rand Paul --insisted, “the size of growth of government is enormous under President Obama” - which was completely untrue but was presumably what his sources had told him, knowing that it was what he wanted to hear. For that, surely, is what the wonk gap is all about. - Source None of CED, OED, and Merriam-Webster carries “wonk gap,” nor does GoogleNgram. However, there are dozens of descriptions incorporating “wonk gap” on Google Serach. For an example, the article written by Steve Benen in MSnbc Maddow blog ( June 3, 2013) comes under the headline, “Avik Roy and the wonk gap ,” and goes on: “Jon Krugman, and others have detailed reports explaining why Avik Roy's analysis simply doesn't make sense, and I hope folks will follow the links to understand the underlying policy dispute. It's

This is a phrase I've heard used on several occasions by different people. I'm interested about what it's origins are, and whether it should be considered rude. Essentially it means "That's tough luck!", but with an unapologetic undertone. e.g. Person A: Strawberry ice-cream? But I wanted chocolate. Person B: Tough titty. That's all they had. Answer Chambers Slang Dictionary dates it to the 1920s, and also records the variants hard titty, tough tiddy, tough tit, tough titties and tough tits . It is defined as ‘bad luck’ and shown to produce tough tits, toots , described, accurately enough, I would imagine, as ‘a phrase of dismissal’. A hardened nipple is, presumably, less likely to deliver the sustenance, or any other comfort, normally expected of it and so those, infants or others, who encounter such an anatomical feature might be thought unfortunate.

I've come across many sources claiming that the words firstly and first (as an adverb) can be used interchangeably. They, however, only seemed to be comparing their meanings with regard to enumerations - first(ly) I want to say ..., second(ly) ..., last(ly) ... What bothers me more is if the word firstly is also usable within the meaning of at first or initially like in the sentence: Muons (subatomic particles) were firstly observed in cosmic rays. The word first fits there very well, but is that the case for firstly too? I have not found a dictionary definition or example saying so. Answer Firstly (see what I did there?): No. Firstly can't be used in the same meaning as at first or initially . As @deadrat mentioned, "firstly" meaning first is restricted to enumerations, so the initial observation of muons would be the first time . Secondly, depending on the context of the text, the use of firstly in the excerpt you've given us may be correct after all

Is there a term that means "a person who enjoys learning"? This term might be used to describe someone who: Is a self-motivated learner. Is curious, wants to understand many things. I understand the term "philosopher" might be a good fit, in terms of its root words, however, the general population has an inconsistent understanding of this term, so I am looking for a more precise term.

Consider the following sentences: Try not to be alarmed if a rule doesn’t seem to work for a specific sentence. Try not to be alarmed if a rule seems not to work for a specific sentence. Is there a difference in meaning between "does not seem to work" and "seems not to work"? Answer No, there is no difference. Seem is a verb that governs infinitive complements and allows Negative-Raising . That means that negation in the infinitive complement of seem , or want , or other Neg-Raising verbs, as in The rule seems not to work .           [ = ... to not work ] He wants me not to go tomorrow. [ = ... to not go tomorrow. ] can also appear, instead, in the matrix clause with seem or want The rule doesn't seem to work . He doesn't want me to go tomorrow. without a change in meaning. This is not true of most predicates, which don't allow Neg-Raising. (Be) Easy , for instance, is a more normal predicate; the two sentences below do not mean the same thing

In the Wikipedia article for Freemasonry, it gave a picture regarding the emblem of the Freemasons: The caption below reads: The Masonic Square and Compasses . (Found with or without the letter G) Just wondering, is "Compasses" correct? Shouldn't it be compass? I looked this up on several dictionaries, and I don't seem to find "compasses" when referring to a tool for drawing circles, only "compass". However, "compasses" makes sense, as it looks something similar to "scissors". Should it be "compass" or "compasses"? Answer I think it is not a typo. I've looked up compasses in my Babylon English dictionary, and it says: compasses n. instrument for drawing circles and measuring, calipers. Additionally, Oxford Dictionaries Online states there is also compasses or a pair of compasses . compass 2) (also compasses or a pair of compasses) an instrument for drawing circles and arcs and measuring distances betw

I've heard the word patzer used to describe an incompetent or amateurish chess player. Is it ever used in a non-chess context? Answer Yes, patzer evidently is (or at least has been) sometimes used in a nonchess context, as we see in this excerpt from Victor Niederhoffer, The Education of a Speculator (1998): As I trust has become abundantly clear by now, I have followed all my father's advice as closely as the Greeks followed the Delphic oracle. While I was courting the future Mrs. Niederhoffer, who not only understood my profession but helped to create it as my assistant, I figured I should expose her to the board games as a litmus test. I took her to the game tables at Washington Square Park, where I had played many games with my father as a boy. I prevailed on Susan to wait while I tried to get a game. Traditionally, veteran checkers players at the park won't play with a stranger because they don't want to waste time on a " patzer ." I asked a number of

I'm looking for a word to fit the sentence: Was it ethical for Bernie, the manager, to quit without informing his ____? Here are some of the words I've tried and why I don't think they quite work. Subordinates/Underlings: sounds too negative. Team Members: The manager is part of another team, so I want to make more of a distinction between those on his team and those he manages. Employees/Workers: The manager is only really a step above the others, he's not the boss, so I don't consider them his employees or workers. Answer Staff a group of officers assisting an officer in command of an army formation or administration headquarters. ( OED ) Although the dictionary appears to restrict this particular usage to the military, it is often used in the exact context you describe.

I've read a great article about the usage of apostrophes . But there are still some points that are unclear. Why do we say... school project but not school's project ? car service but not car's service or even cars' service (plural form)? apostrophe usage but not apostrophe's usage or apostrophes' usage ? Answer Because all three are compound nouns , which have nothing to do with the Saxon genitive . "Car service" is a type of service. "Car's service" would be service owned by a car. Much like railway is a type of way, not a way belonging to a rail. Compounds don't have to be written as one word, though. That is all.

I tend to write, "say whatever they want", but I'm always tempted to write "say what ever they want". Is it acceptable to split the word in this context? Answer No it is not acceptable to split the word in your context: say whatever they want Here, whatever is a relative pronoun and it is always written as one word. The only instance where one will find what ever is in the interrogative. For example: What ever does he want? What ever does she do besides complain? In these cases, ever (an adverb) modifies the pronoun what and, as such, it cannot and should not be compounded with what . However, one could also have whatever as an interrogative pronoun: Whatever's wrong with you? And, finally, whatever , as an adjective, can be used in the following manner: Run whatever distance you can. I'll take whatever solution you've got.

What is the origin of the phrase "to go apeshit"? An example usage would be: And then he went apeshit over the prize he just won. Obviously there is a strong visual associated with an angry ape, but is there a known history to the phrase as it is used today? Answer Note that "-shit" is often used as a slangy intensifier: bullshit , chickenshit , batshit . The enduring popularity of bullshit (which in the sense of "falsehood"/"nonsense" is actually of much more recent vintage than the equivalent bull , despite what one may assume) probably inspired the others. Apeshit can therefore be traced to ape (in the "going ape" sense), just as batshit can be traced to batty or bats . All four basically mean the same thing.

In the sentence: I suspect 99% of the world’s population has never even heard of the term ‘Deep Learning’. is the 'has' correct, or should it be 'have'? Answer I would say that "has" is correct, and doesn't need to be replaced with "have". That's not to say that "have" is necessarily incorrect. Some people might prefer "have" because it is somewhat awkward to apply the concept of "not having heard" of something to a group rather than to its individual members. I think that my answer to a deleted question about the sentence “I find it good that 50% of the American population (are or is) cool” is relevant, so I have re-posted it below:" Singular agreement seems to be more common with "X% of the population" The Google Ngram Viewer seems to indicate that both agreement patterns are in use, but that "...percent of the population is" is notably more common than "...percent of the popula

Are the following sentences valid: It didn't used to happen. It didn't used to have been there. And if so, what tenses are they? Answer "Didn't used to ..." is a colloquialism (i.e. informal) combining "didn't" and "used to" and both are past tense, like a double negative. And like a double negative, it's not wrong, just not formal. In fact both forms are common and informal. See http://thestar.com.my/english/story.asp?file=/2007/11/9/lifefocus/19384883&sec=lifefocus It is used quite often by many people, including journalists: http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/102182784.html http://www.stuhenderson.com/21RACFS.pdf By the way, although Google NGrams can be misused, I think a direct comparison here using that tool is informative here. It shows that both terms are used and that "didn't used to" has gained ascendancy over the latter half of the 20th century.

What's the name for a part of speech which is not quite rhetorical, but not expected to be answered directly, either? I know the word exists, it refers to greetings such as "How are you" and similar. There's a very specific term for those greetings and I cannot recall it. It's not perfunctory or pro forma; it very specifically refers to a common query that isn't really a question but a conversation opener. Might be from a specialized field like linguistics. Frustrating!

User’s Guide vs Users’ Guide should a list of tokens be called a “token list” or a “tokens list” I know we can use list of employees , but I'd like to know which is preferred or more correct: employee list or employees list ?

Consider the following sentences: The schema of the A and B buffer are called C and D, respectively. The schemas of the A and B buffer are called C and D, respectively. The schemas of the A and B buffers are called C and D, respectively. The question is whether schema and buffer should be singular or plural. My guess is that all three are correct. One can think of the first and second sentences as reductions of the following one: The schema of the A buffer and the schema B buffer are called C and D, respectively. From this perspective, the first and second sentences simply contains ellipses, enabling one to avoid unnecessary repetitions of words. I would be grateful if somebody could confirm the above reasoning. Thank you! Regards, Ivan Answer The first sentence is for certain ungrammatical. If we remove the prepositional phrase we are left with The schema are called C and D, respectively. This should be The schemas are called C and D, respectively. This leaves the question of

The dictionary ascribes the same purpose to both these suffixes: to denote 'to make, or become'. However, for some neologisms, -ize seems much more appropriate than -ify does, and vice-versa. There must be some reason for this. Is there a rule that governs, or describes, when to use one over the other? Answer Courtesy of @DanBron, here's what it says in Word Formation in English , with interpolated translations: -ify This suffix attaches to three kinds of base word: 1. monosyllabic words 2. words stressed on the final syllable 3. words stressed on the next-to-last syllable that end in unstressed /i/ Neologisms usually do not show stress shift, but some older forms do ( húmid ~ humídify, sólid, solídify ). Translation: there are restrictions on what kind of words -ify can go on. They have to sound right. Examples of each kind of word root with -ify : pacify, crucify, gentrify (two Latin words and a neologism, all from monosyllabic roots) solemnify, malignify, machinify

I often hear the term "you bet!". What does it mean?

Is there any specific word for a person who is always online on the Internet? I am just curious to know because staying online is like a profession nowadays. Answer I'd say the word is nethead - an enthusiastic/obsessive user of the Internet* . I do recognise the alternative netizen , but for me at least that implies much about a person's attitudes to, and active participation in, the emerging global society embodied in the Internet. My 84-year-old mother, for example, is online for many hours every day playing "solo" online games. She almost never uses the Net for interactive communication in any form (maybe 3 emails a year), so whilst I would call her a nethead , I would not call her a netizen .

Is it okay to say "He had snaggle teeth"? Or there is a better way of describing that problem with teeth? Answer You say that he had a snaggle-tooth, or that he had snaggle-teeth, or that he was snaggle-toothed, or that he was a snaggle-tooth. See the examples below transcribed from the Oxford English Dictionary . I suppose you could say he was in need of dental orthodontic work if you didn’t want to spell out that his teeth were uneven and snaggly. snaggle snaggle /ˈsnæg(ə)l/, sb. Chiefly dial . and colloq . Etymology: app. f. snag sb.1: cf. snaggle-tooth . A snaggle-tooth; one who has snaggle-teeth. rare . 1823 M. Wilmot Let. 1 Oct. (1935) 197 ― Blanche [has] become alas a snaggle! Those dear little pearls of teeth are going. *1880 Courtney & Couch Gloss. Words Cornwall 52/2 ― What snaggles the cheeld has. A tangle; a knotted or projecting mass. 1904 Eng. Dial. Dict. V. 567/1 ― Snaggle,··a knotted, entangled condition. 1968 C. Helmericks Down Wild River North ii. xxi

Why can we use the following statement when we mean future events? What time do you get there? Or should we rather say: What time will you get there? Is there a difference? Answer The present tense can express the future when plans are being discussed, particularly in reference to timetables, routines and schedules. For that reason it is sometimes called the ‘diary future’.

Which of these sentences is correct? Why? You must hear to this song. You must listen to this song. Have you heard to this song? Have you listened to this song? Answer Either is correct, but they have a slightly different emphasis in their meaning. Hear is generally regarded as a passive activity, something that happens whether one wants it to or not. Listen , on the other hand, is regarded as an active activity requiring the participation of the user. I might say the following: You have got to hear this song. If the person heard the song, and was unimpressed, I might then reply: Well, you must not have listened very closely.

I have been told that with the conjunction "or" we must apply the following rule: a singular verb is used if the subject that comes after "or" is singular. Is it correct? I would naturally say the apple or the orange is good. But it seems that we should also say the apples or the orange is good but the orange or the apples are good. Is it correct? Otherwise, if I am thinking of "this or that or both", is it correct to use the plural? And say the apple or the orange are (both) good. Answer The best answer is the opposite of what you were starting to do. It's more common to use the plural and say "Apples or oranges are both good." With mixed plurals ("they or I" or "you or we"), style guides will say to use the closer noun but there's a substantial number of native speakers who have trouble with this . The whole issue with s/v agreement and or is vexed and what we usually do is simply phrase things so that we can a

Is there a word for a word whose form is contrary to its meaning? For example, "quotidian" is anything but quotidian. Answer My apologies to Professor Lawler, but I'm fairly sure that the word you want is heterological .

I was translating a sentence which contained the Arabic word "نفس (nefs)" in an answer to a question. نفس is physical entity of a living thing, that feels and experiences earthly desires and emotions like sleeping, hunger, frightening, and lust. It is the basic animal instincts and desires of a living being. I translated نفس as "physical body", but someone opposed it and said that the word "soul" was more fitting for it. However, I thought that there was a different word for "soul" in Arabic, which is "روح (rooh)". روح is consciousness, power to decide, ability to think and decide. It is the intelligence of a living being. So, which meaning is more fitting to "soul"? Nefs or rooh? What does "soul" actually mean in English? How do you define it?

I want to visit clubs with attractive women. This phrase can be interpreted in two ways: I want to visit clubs myself, but the clubs I visit should have attractive women. I want to take attractive women to clubs; the clubs themselves may or may not already have attractive women. Is there a name for this ambiguity? It seems fairly common. I want to say "dangling participle", but I'm pretty sure that's wrong. Is this the equivalent of Grouch Marx's "I shot an elephant in my pajamas... how he got into my pajamas, I'll never know"? Answer Your sentence contains an example of ambiguity resulting from a misrelated construction . The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar defines misrelated as follows: Not attached grammatically to the word or phrase intended by the meaning, either joined to the wrong word or phrase, or completely unattached. Although terms such as misrelated, dangling, hanging, unattached , etc. are most commonly applied to participles, v