Blog

If I'd like to let someone know they can reach me via this@emailadress.com, as well as via Twitter and Facebook, what's the most correct way of writing? Feel free to hit me up via this@emailaddress.com, as well as via Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to hit me up at this@emailadress.com, as well as at Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to hit me up on this@emailadress.com, as well as on Twitter and Facebook Or simply none/a combination of the above? Thank you very much.

Do the following terms have positive, neutral or negative meaning? memorable impressive remarkable What are other similar terms that are used for positive, neutral and negative intention? Answer All the terms mentioned so far (memorable, impressive, remarkable, unforgettable, etc.) tend to have positive connotations in the absence of any negative modifier. Memorable is the most neutral of the bunch. For equivalents to memorable that have a negative connotation, you may have to go a little further afield. Traumatic , notorious and infamous can all mean "memorable in a bad way."

I am confused about this sentence because it ends in a preposition, something that I thought was not really grammatically correct: Can we get this over with? In addition, I haven't found a restatement that would solve this issue. Things like the following don't seem to make sense: This can we get over Over with get this With get this over So my questions are: 1. Is there a problem with the sentence? 2. What part of speech is "with"? Answer There is no problem with this phrase - it is idiomatic English. With is part of the compound adjective over with . To be over with means to be finished . As far as I know, it's only ever used with the verb be . It's fine as it is. You could say "Can we get this finished?".

When you uncontract doesn't in "Why doesn't it work?" the not moves to "Why does it not work?" This confuses me even more when I use a longer phrase instead of the pronoun it like below: Why doesn't this simple code example work? Why does the word order change when we use a contraction?

In English, we have 7 days → a week 14/15 days → a fortnight 30/31 days → a month 365 days → a year Is there any word for six months? Not half a year , or biannually (which is linked to a main event). I need a specific term that can be used without a ‘crutch’ word. The closest I've found is the word semester . But that's not right either. Like a concrete fact or a universal truth, e.g. the sun rises in the east . The expression half a year ago could refer to any time, in respect to the specified event. What I would like is a term that fills this gap. Every year has two _____ Half a year (in a sentence, e.g. either make a random sentence with half a year that is a present perfect, or consider any similar ones, such as biannually ) is not a single-word and it is ambiguous. Also, if that word doesn't exist in the English vocabulary, I would like to know if any other language has such a word.

Which option is grammatical? There will be readings from Nikki Giovanni’s and Alice Walker’s writings. There will be readings from Nikki Giovanni and Alice Walker's writings. Saying it out loud the latter sounds right, but looking at it the former looks better. Answer Wikipedia has this: Joint or separate possession For two nouns (or noun phrases) joined by and, there are several ways of expressing possession, including: marking of the last noun (e.g. "Jack and Jill's children") marking of both nouns (e.g. "Jack's and Jill's children"). Some grammars make no distinction in meaning between the two forms. Some publishers' style guides, however, make a distinction, assigning the "segregatory" (or "distributive") meaning to the form "John's and Mary's" and the "combinatorial" (or "joint") meaning to the form "John and Mary's". A third alternative is a construction of the form ...

The term subcategories refers to lower level categories. Which term should I use to refer to higher level categories? Does supercategories sound right? Answer Supercategories is technically correct. There are also subscript and superscript to back this example.

I'm looking for an idiom to describe something that has a negligible effect. The only similar question I found here was: An idiom meaning someone's doing something useless and has no result at the end , but I'm looking for something else. I remember it being something to do with water or fire. Something along the lines of throwing a very small amount of water on a large fire? Does anyone know what I'm thinking of? Answer We will need a little more context to clearly understand what you have in mind. For now, a drop in the ocean or a drop in the bucket comes to mind. a drop in the ocean (British, American & Australian) also a drop in the bucket (American) a very small amount in comparison to the amount that is needed A hundred thousand may seem a lot but it's a drop in the ocean compared to the millions that need to be spent.

Apples are "in the tree" or "on the tree"?

To be precise, I know that allow means to permit , and allow for is more like to make something possible, to enable, to make a provision for , but I'm still in doubt when I have to decide whether to use the preposition for or not. For example, in the sentence taken from Google Dictionary entry used to explain usage of allow : They agreed to a ceasefire to allow talks with the government. I'm not sure what I would use in this example — maybe even allow for . Answer I agree with Robusto, I think. There is a semantic difference between "allow" and "allow for". "B did X, allowing Y" implies that by doing X, B directly caused Y to happen. However, "B did X, allowing for Y" implies that doing X may or may not, in fact, actually cause Y; Y may happen with or without X, or Y may require something else to happen besides or in addition to X. Short non-sequitur, but consider a sentence in the context of carpentry. "He spaced the boards a qu...

I have an example of Modification of Nouns in English from a realy valid book.It says there are two types of modifiers:adj. modifiers, and noun modifiers but it gives an example on both sides which is pretty puzzling: Adjective Modifiers(modifiers are bolded): He won a gold* medal in the 1000 -meter race in the seventeenth winter Olympics. Noun Modifiers(modifiers are bolded): He won a gold* medal in the 1000- meter race in the seventeenth winter Olympics. Then it says,"The word gold can be considered a noun or an adjective, depending on wether it refers to the material or the color." But after that it indicates that adj. modifiers have 11 types which are colors,material and 9 more.So can anyone tell me why the word gold could be a noun there?

I do not and have never used "meth" or any of its variants. It is horrible stuff. Imo, drugs should only be prescribed by a doctor to resolve a health-related need. One of my very nerdly friends used to say of me when a technical problem grabs me and I can't let go that I was "gacking" [1 ]. He meant it well, and it is the only term that I know. He meant it about the taking about the VCR to clean it, (and I put them back together and they work) and not the drug use. He would say things like: EngrStudent you are gacking again. (to me) EngrStudent was gacking, and we came up with this. (and we present awesome thing) Another example is this ( link ) in Numb3rs with Charlie Eppes. Can you describe a word that is okay in very high tech professional use that is a rough synonym of the behavior that is not (remotely) related to drug use? The deep obsession that it grabs me and doesn't let go. It is okay, but not necessarily desirable, if it is a high-function Asperg...

In Britain (or perhaps just Scotland) the names "Sara" and "Sarah" are pronounced different. Sara: Sah-rah ("a" as in "bat") Sarah: Se-rah ("a" as in "air") In the US and Canada, Sarah and Sara are both pronounced like "Sarah". In addition, there are other examples which are pronounced the same in North America (NA). Marry is pronounced like Mary and Merry ("a" as in "air") Harry like Hairy Barry like Berry Carry like Jim Carrey Question: Is there truly no distinction between the two pronunciations of Sarah/Sara in NA? How did English lose its open "a" sound when tied with an "r"? Answer I think this question is a little bit confused. First of all, there is a phenomenon in some varieties of American English called the Mary-marry–merry merger , where all or some of the words Mary , marry , and merry are pronounced the same; that is, the vowels /e/, /æ/, and /ɛ/ are all merge...

We have a highly regarded answer by nohat to a question about gender-neutral pronouns, in which he points to the "singular they" and its long history of use in English. (Note that he also advises against using it.) Example: If someone wants to watch TV tonight, they'll have to do the dishes. This avoids having to say "he or she" in mixed-gender situations. Okay, fine. I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch if people want to talk this way. But it occurrs to me that "singular they"—infelicitous at the best of times—really falls apart when extended into the realm of reflexive pronouns: If someone wants to watch TV tonight, they'll have to do the dishes all by themselves . [?] That feels very wrong. The only alternative, if one paints oneself into that corner, is to flip it back to singular: If someone wants to watch TV tonight, they'll have to do the dishes all by themself . [???] That feels worse. If I'm to state this as a question, ...

I want a word that means the opposite of personification . What is the correct word for describing people with the characteristics of an object/as if they are objects? I found the word chremamorphism on some forums, but it doesn't seem to be included in the two online dictionaries I searched. Answer Objectification seems apt to me.

Is it allowed to use the word "one's" in academic writing? For example: It can help improve one's vocabulary.

Does one say Plugging in that value into the previous equation... or Plugging that value in the previous equation... or something else? Answer A combination of your two examples would be correct: Plugging that value into the previous equation.. In this sentence you are dealing with the phrasal verb ' plug in ', which has then been split by the noun ('that value').

Consider the sentence: John used to work for the newspaper that you are reading." ( source ) Newspaper has several well-known senses. The two that occur here are the sense of the newspaper , as a company: John used to work for the newspaper and the newspaper as the physical object: the newspaper that you are reading. It should be readily apparent that John never worked for that ink-on-died-wood-pulp in front of you. It should also be clear that you are not reading a company. In the first sentence though, the word takes both senses at the same time. @Nigelj provided another example: I was going to dust but there wasn't any Here, dust is first used as a verb, then as a noun. So not only a different word sense, but even a different part of speech. I am looking for a name for this occurrence, so I can look it up in a reference book / textbook. It is of interest to me as it is a case that is often neglected by computational word sense disambiguation systems. Terms that I have al...

What is the name for a word that is shortened, but done somewhat incorrectly? As an example, the word distro is shortened from the word distribution , but with the trailing i changed to an o . Therefore, the word distro is a ________ of the word distribution . variant? corruption? Answer Assume that no letter has been changed, distr + o is distro . In what way is it incorrectly shortened? How is it different from any other similar derivation ending with an ' o '? Why would you think i is the trailing letter? As you have yourself noted, distro is a word . It is essentially a contraction, drawing distr from distribution and then modifying with a terminal o to form a new word. The second part can be thought of as somewhat similar to weirdo , from weird . Therefore, the word distro is derived from the word distribution .

What is a more decent/formal alternative for the word suck ? I want to use it in the context of being bad at something. To be precise, I want to translate "To suck less at a job every day" to formal English. Answer I think you just used it. Any alternative is going to depend on exactly where you are using the phrase. A CV will need a different expression from chatting to your mother. I'm bad at ... I'm not all that good at ... I find it difficult to ... I can't ... for toffee. If I tried to arrange flowers it would end up looking like a hedge. To suck less is to improve : Every day, I want to improve at ... I'd like to get better at ... I'm working at becoming more proficient in ...

Where can I obtain an English dictionary with structured data? Where can I find a digital English-language dictionary or word list containing pronunciation? I would prefer something under an open source or similar license.

Please ignore the factual accuracy of this sentence and focus on the tenses used. If the Mayans were wrong to end the calendar on Dec. 20, 2012, we'll use your donation to fund 2013 programming. I’d like to know: if it is correct, and what it would be called.

I heard a song this morning that had "We put the us in trust " in its lyrics. It reminded me of the maxim "There is no I in team ." I've heard other, gloomier examples like "harm in harmony" and "utility in futility." Is there a hypernym for "insight based on the presence (or absence) of substrings in another string"? Answer When a word is within a word, it is called a kangaroo word . Also known as: marsupial , or swallow word Wikipedia says: A kangaroo word is a word that contains letters of another word, in order, with the same meaning. For example: the word masculine contains the word male , which is a synonym of the first word; similarly, the word observe contains its synonym see . The etymology of the phrase kangaroo word is from the fact that kangaroos carry their young (known as joeys) in a body pouch. Likewise, kangaroo words carry their joey words within themselves. Twin kangaroos are kangaroo words containing tw...

The words "nineteen-hundreds" to me mean strictly 1900–1909. I've noticed several times that people, invariably North American, use these words to mean "the twentieth century", or 1900–1999, or something like that. Similarly for "the eighteen hundreds" used to mean "the nineteenth century" and so on. Is this an example of a misuse of words by people who have heard and then misunderstood them, or is this actually an established usage in America? Secondly, if it is not a misuse, how would said Americans refer to the period of 1900–1909?

Which is the correct form? Tommy and she went to the store. OR She and Tommy went to the store. I hear the second example much more frequently in conversation, but I believe the first one is actually grammatically correct.

Which one is correct? I don't need to know where you work at. I don't need to know where you work. Could you also please tell me about this rule is called in grammar so I can learn more about it? Answer The copyeditor in me observes that your at there adds nothing to the sentence: leave it out. It’s also something of a shibboleth whose use will mark you as “poorly educated”, because these things are expected to have been corrected in the course of proper schooling. The same is true with questions like “Where are you at?” Here again that at at the end adds nothing — or at least, nothing good — and should be omitted. Once upon a time, surely aeons ago now, there was something of a hipster phrase about “where it’s at”, referring to some location or event or even style that was supposed to be “really happening”. Unless you’re trying to faithfully recreate the special slang from that period in history, I would avoid it.

I am referring to phrases such as: "Do you like her, or do you like like her." Can someone provide an explanation of this? There are many more examples but none come to mind at the moment. Answer The doubling of the word implies that both the reader and writer (or speaker and listener) understand that there are two different meanings for the word in question. It's something that is far more often used in speech than writing as it's possible to put a much more subtle emphasis on each word. In the case you mention, of course, the first meaning of like is "do you like her as a person" and the second "do you find her attractive". Other examples that spring to mind (in addition to the hot (temperature) and hot (spicy) that Stuart mentioned) are funny (either amusing or strange), see (literally or in a romantic sense) and the verb "to take out" (to take on a date or to kill/execute). The latter was used to great comic effect in the film ...

I need to find a word which means "the town or city in which one lives". Words like "residence" or "domicile" appear to have this meaning, but because "residence" and "domicile" can also mean "the home in which one lives", my readers will be confused. Is there a word which only refers to the geographic location?

I used the phrase "open-and-shut" today, as in, "It's not an open-and-shut case", meaning that the item under discussion has not been decided and the outcome is not obvious. I don't think I've ever heard the positive, only the negative. "It's not an open-and-shut case" seems to be the idiomatic way to use the phrase. I'm curious: What's the origin of "open-and-shut"? What's the origin of the idiomatic usage, "not an open-and-shut case"?

Does someone happen to have an explanation or theory for why in phrases like "the best method possible" the word 'possible' comes after the noun?

As I understand it, 'for' is a coordinating conjunction. Learning German as a second language has taught me specifics about reforming sentences, but it is an awful lot less common in English. If I were to rearrange the sentence: "I ate lunch, for I was hungry," so that 'for' was the first word of the sentence, by my reckoning I should end up with "For that I was hungry, I ate lunch." Does this new sentence have any grammatical errors? I inserted the word 'that' after 'for', because without it the sentence didn't sound right. Should I have? Is there a rule for that? Thank you in advance, an aspiring author. Additional Information: I am not having problems with the sentence, this is a general question to increase my knowledge of the manipulations of coordinating conjuntions. Answer You are right that for is a coordinating conjunction , the first of the so-called FANBOYS . But you cannot move a coordinated clause (starting with a ...

I wanted to email a group of students to check how they are going with their assignment and it occurred to me that " how is everyone going with their assignment " does not seem grammatically correct. Matching a singular subject " everyone " with a plural word " their " seems a bit odd. However, "how is everyone going with his/her assignment" sounds more off. Thanks heaps! Any comment would be highly appreciated. Wen

I just read an interesting question here on Greenwich Mean Time. I'm interested to know when Greenwich received its peculiar pronunciation. Has it always been pronounced as "GREN-ich" (/ˈɡrɛnɪtʃ/), and is it just a simple contraction or something more? I'm from Northern England and would say that GREN-ich is used nationally and globally, but I agree with Wikipedia that I've heard it pronounced GRIN-ich in London.

If the words computation and calculation are not perfect synonyms what is the difference between them? Which one describes more accurately what is done by a person computing or calculating something on a piece of paper? Answer They're pretty close to synonyms, but "calculation" implies a strictly arithmetic process, whereas "computation" might involve applying rules in a systematic way. You would calculate your mortgage payment, and you might compute your actuarial health risk. All this, IMHO.

Is there a name for words like whatchamacallit, doohickey, thingamabob, doodad, thingamajig, whatsit, etc.? Somehow it seems like there should be a word to describe the general term for a word that you use for referring to something when you cannot remember what it is called . (Computing names like foo , bar , baz are examples of metasyntactic variables but those are a slightly different category.)

I once ran across a term for the error of misunderstanding the meaning or sense of a word because one doesn't know exactly what the word is. For example, someone mistakenly thinks that the phrase is "tow the line" rather than "toe the line." Can anyone tell me what this type of misunderstanding is called?

I read the post Usage of "which" , and am trying to frame my own sentence that uses "which". Consider the sentences below. In the first, I want to say that variable shadowing is the reason that Class Sheltie does what it does. In the second, that the default constructor is also the body of the class. Is which correctly used? • Class Sheltie of Dog.scala illustrates variable shadowing, which also explains why this class does what it does. • This causes the default constructor to be invoked, which happens to be the body of the class itself. Answer • Class Sheltie of Dog.scala illustrates variable shadowing, which also explains why this class does what it does. The usage of which clouds the issue, in my opinion. To avoid confusion, you might rewrite this as: Class Sheltie of Dog.scala exists to illustrate variable shadowing. Regarding your second sentence: • This causes the default constructor to be invoked, which happens to be the body of the class itself. I believ...

At a family dinner, my 18-year-old niece asked my sister, "May you please pass the salt?" My sister said that she was impressed with her daughter's politeness, but that that particular wording was not correct. My niece said that she had been taught to say that (by whom she could not say, but probably by her father—the parents divorced years ago.) Despite our best attempts, we were unable to convince her of the illogical nature of the "May you please" construction. How would you explain it to her? Answer I think that there is possibly confusion here between may , can and would . It is possible that she once used to say expressions like: Can I have ... Can I get ... and was taught that it was more polite to use may rather than can in that context. Although strictly, can relates to the ability to do something, whereas may concerns permission to do something, can is often used instead of may in constructs such as the above. That works acceptably in the fir...

When starting a word with a vowel, the preceding "a" becomes an "an". I often find that when writing words that start with letter "N" or "M", I will pronounce them "EN", "EM", etc. (This is because in programming, letters are often pronounced in certain terms.) So, when writing a question on SO, do I write "an NSString" or, "a NSString"? Answer The choice of a vs. an is actually based on the phonetics of the start of a word, not the orthographic representation. This is why you say things like an honorable solider (the h is silent, so phonetically it begins with the vowel sound). Similarly, you would say a one-eyed pirate as one phonetically begins with the w sound. So in the case of your example, it would be an NSString since phonetically it's en-es-string .

Which of the following are correct and which are wrong? The 2000-year-old computer The 2000 year-old computer The 2000 year old computer The 2000-years-old computer The 2000 years-old computer The 2000 years old computer In a documentary, BBC4 used the title The 2000 year-old computer , which I believe to be wrong. Am I right? Answer According to the Chicago manual of style ... When you hyphenate, it would be with hyphens between 2000 and year and old. So, 2000-year-old, but never 2000 year-old or 2000-year old. Now, to Paraphrase the CMOS for this example... There is no need for hyphens in “2000 years old.” If you are using a phrase like that to modify another word or phrase, however, you need to bind it together with hyphens (a 2000-year-old grudge ). Likewise, use a hyphen if “years old” comes before the noun it modifies (a years-old phobia over wearing the wrong earrings), but leave it open if it follows the noun (the moldy accretion on her cell phone was years old). Finally, you ...

According to AP and other news sources, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase acknowledged that his bank slipped-up $2 billion losses incurred by their trading and that the matter is now under investigation by regulators. Dimon told in NBC’s “Meet the Press”: “Of course, regulators should look at something like this. It’s their job. We are totally open kimono with regulators. And they will come to their own conclusion and we intend to fix it, learn from it and be a better company when it’s done.” I am interested in the phrase, “We are totally open kimono with regulators” as I understand ‘Kimono’ is Japanese equivalent to dress. Is “ Open kimono with somebody ” a popular English (or American) idiom or phrase? Can I say “open dress with somebody” instead of using “Kimono”? If not, what are alternative idioms meaning “open up one’s mind”? Answer To open the kimono to someone is a bit of business argot. It is figurative, meaning to give away or be open about a few secrets to entice the buy...

Here are some examples with the putative should . What is the factor which indicates the time reference expressed by the putative should in the examples? Being a foreigner to English I find it hard to clearly see the time reference. 1 I'm surprised that he should say it to you. (Has he already said it or is it going to happen in the future?) 2 It's a pity that they should be so obstinate. (Have they already been obstinate or are they obstinate now?) 3 I don't know why he should go there tomorrow. (Correct in terms of grammar?) 4 I don't know why he should go there yesterday. (Correct in terms of grammar?) One more thing, do the following unequivocally express the future reference? 5 I'm surprised that he should be going to say it tomorrow. ( or I'm surprised that he should be saying it tomorrow.) To tell you the truth, it's quite easy for me to interpret the first one either as an even which is going to happen in the future or as an even taking place ...

How to describe something (in this case, a description) that is humorous in an intellectual way? Answer witty adjective ( wittier , wittiest ) showing or characterized by quick and inventive verbal humor: a witty remark | Marlowe was charming and witty. NOAD I think this is about as close as you can come. It has its origins in wit , obviously, which means "mental sharpness and inventiveness; keen intelligence."

I got into a discussion with another user in the comments section of this question . We disagreed over the following phrases: I refuse running. I decline running. To me, they are both clearly wrong. The correct forms of the above sentences would be: I refuse to run. I decline to run. It is late in my timezone and I am tired. I feel that this has something to do with "running" meaning the concept of running in general and "to run" being a particular instance but I cannot put my finger on exactly why the first sentences are wrong. So, am I right? Are they wrong? If so, please explain why. Or am I wrong and they are correct? If so, ditto. Answer You are right; but there is no general rule. Each verb has its own rule; the technical term is that each verb “licenses” complements of specific types. Refuse and decline , for instance, license either nouns or infinitives, but not gerunds: I refuse dinner. I refuse to run. but not ✲ I refuse dining. I decline the honor. I ...

The four majors in tennis are known as Grand Slams. The "Grand" part clearly defines the prestige/size of the event but where do we get the word "Slam" from in this context? Basic research shows that it originated perhaps in bridge/whist-type card games. Does it carry the same history as the Scandinavian slamra for the verb "to slam"? Answer Etymonline dates the single word "slam" to the 1600s, but not the term "grand slam" (although they're likely connected). The entry for "grand slam": Grand slam in bridge first recorded 1892; earlier in related card games from 1814; figurative sense of "complete success" is attested from 1920; in baseball sense from 1935. The OED has all the same years (apart from baseball in 1953: is etymonline's a typo?). I've antedated three of etymonline's four senses. Related card games I found an antedating for at least the "related card games" sense (OED: 1814)...

I'm translating a text from Sanskrit, which has a singular/plural (and, actually, dual) distinction in the second person. It has long been the custom in English translation to render the 2nd singular with 'thou', etc. and the 2nd plural with 'ye/you', etc., as in Early Modern English (EModE). This creates a suitably archaic and liturgical feel to the translation. But I've come unstuck with the phrase 'may you be covered'. If I want to replace 'you' with 'thou', should 'may' become 'mayest' or not? My feeling is that 'may' is functioning as an auxiliary here. In Modern English, we say 'he likes it', but 'may he like it'. We do not say 'mays he like it', the 'may' is not a finite verb. So I would expect the same to apply to EModE. However, we would also apply the same logic to 'should'. We would say 'Has he eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded him that he should not eat?...

Can the passive voice be used for sentences in the present perfect continuous? I understand the present perfect and its passive voice ( have/has built, has been built ). However, the passive voice of present perfect continuous is unclear: Active: They have been building this house for years. Passive: ??? I have seen suggestions of “This house has been being built for years,” but it sounds awkward and I don't recall anywhere else where two be verbs follow one another. Is this the right form to use?

I'm looking for a word (or expression) for "something writtenly so vaguely that it's nearly meaningless." The context is a professional IT document that tries to use technical-sounding words, often inappropriately, to convey authority, where in effect the author says nothing substantial. Example: "Product X is supported on Windows 10, however compatible [probably meant "companion"] products are not currently supported on this platform. A common compatible operating system must be used." Wikipedia calls this "Weasel words: words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis." Is there another, more formal term or expression? NOTE: Yes, I'm aware of the comma splice joining the two ind...

I'm sure many will know Rick's famous line from the film Casablanca: Here's looking at you, kid. While I can guess at it, I was never fully confident about the meaning of this phrase. I am not a native speaker. It's clear that it's a toast. Would someone please explain in detail? In more detail, Here's [to] because it's a toast Was this phrase a common American expression at the time? Why looking ? Is it simply part of a common phrase or does it refer to looking at her as looking at a woman? Can you give me examples of similar (or the same) phrase, in context? Is the meaning unambiguous to native speakers or is there room for interpretation? Answer The toast goes back more than half a century before the scriptwriters of Casablanca used it in 1942. From Anonymous, A Holiday Skip to the Far West (1884), we have this scene set in the Southern Hotel in St. Louis, Missouri: "Any friend of Mr. O'Sullivan welcome. Will you nominate your poisons, gentle...

Everywhere I look, I seem to be finding examples of colons being used after a single word. "Examples: The dog is brown. The cat is white." "Recommended: Take this twice a week. Not recommended: Take this twice a day." "Rule: Start at 5 Add 7 each time" My understanding is that a colon should be used only after a full sentence, and that following a colon you can have a sentence fragment. I'm not convinced that this could be justified as inverting the construction, but I'm happy to be told otherwise... What I'm really looking for is a reference that justifies this usage or shows it to be wrong so I have a concrete rule to follow before huge amounts of material get written wrongly. I've tried every grammar/punctuation book I can find in my office, as well as multiple google searches, and even on pages listing the uses of colons (e.g. this page ) this layout is used, but not covered as a rule! Is this just something that is so commonly used by ...

I heard it many times but I haven't really pondered on that. We can hear these following sentences in our daily lives: May God bless you. May God be pleased with you. May God accept your prayers. But why do we use "May" at the beginning of the sentence? Apparently, it doesn't make the sentence a question but more polite and respectful towards the God maybe? I cannot tell I heard this structure in any other sentence but religious ones. Which grammar rule does it belong to? And how do we use it in different forms? Answer See meaning 4 of may at dictionary.com (used to express wish or prayer): May you live to an old age. It follows the same grammatical pattern as let (and is almost a synonym). Let their children grow up happy! May their children grow up happy! The usage of may in this sense is not restricted to prayers, although one could say that it's formal, if not pompous, in modern usage.

Is it possible to verb anything other than a noun? Although slightly meta, I noticed that English SE has verbing as a tag, rather than verbing-nouns. Answer Yes, you can for example verb an adjective. Verbing weirds language.

I was reading the wiki page about paraprosdokians when I come across this sentence. One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas, how he got in my pajamas, I don't know. What is funny about it? Answer The default interpretation of the first part of the sentence, "I shot an elephant in my pajamas", is that "while I was wearing my pajamas, I shot an elephant." At least 99% of all listeners who hear the sentence will parse it that way. The humorous part comes from the disconnect generated by the second phrase, wherein the initial default interpretation is turned on its head; rather than "I shot an elephant [while I was] in my pajamas, the speaker forces you to reinterpret it as "I shot an elephant (who was) in my pajamas."

I believe there is a term for a person who uses 'expert sounding' terminology and exudes confidence, even when their actual abilities are significantly short of their 'presentation'. Using 'wine' a subject.... if a person described a taste as: Magnificent bouquet, the esters resonate with hints of mulberry and asparagus. This must be an oak-matured red from Bordeaux. Perhaps.... 2003 vintage, that was a year when unusual rainfall produced an outstanding crop that had the same rich tannins. A person describing the wine like that has apparent confidence, apparent technical expertise, and so on. Yet, if he was a fraud, and knew nothing about wines, and the "wine" was really vinegar.... what would you call that person? Additionally, this would not be a one-off thing. This would be a person who consistently "bamboozles" people, and only when you dig below the posturing, or put them in the company of a 'real' expert, do you see the reality....