Blog

While reading the free Kindle edition of She by H. Rider Haggard (originally published in 1887), I noticed sentences like this one: But now, to my intense horror, I knew that I could never put away the vision of those glorious eyes; and alas! the very diablerie of the woman, whilst it horrified and repelled, attracted in even a greater degree. Notice the “alas!” in the middle of a sentence. I have never seen exclamation point in the middle of a sentence used like this before. Was this a common practice at the time this book was published? What is the history of this practice? Answer Answering per OP's request: This is an antiquated style of punctuation, seen primarily in pulp fiction of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It is a kind of parenthetical intensifier. Or you could call it an inline aside. Nowadays, such a thing would probably be rendered in parentheses complete — "... and (alas!) the very diablerie of the woman" — or with just the exclamation mark i

I find A Counterblaste to Tobacco by James I very interesting. Many people are under the impression that anti-tobacco sentiment began in the last century, and this document pretty thoroughly refutes that. I've read a modern "translation" of the translators' preface to the King James Bible. To professional students of English, such a thing is not necessary. But to many members of the public, it is. So does anyone know where I could find a modern rendering of James' Counterblaste ? Answer Here is the main body of the King’s pamphlet counterblasting tobacco lightly touched up to reflect current spelling, along with some of the harder vocabulary and phrasing. See the preface first and the appendix following. King James I of England So that the manifold abuses of this vile custom of partaking of tobacco may be better espied, it is fit that you should consider both its original use and likewise the reasons for its first entry into this country. For certainly as such

Consider the following sentence: The labour-intensive and time-intensive part starts tomorrow. I want to write this without rewriting the word "intensive." Is this the correct way to do it? The labour- and time-intensive part starts tomorrow. Note the hyphen hanging after the word labour. Or should there be no hyphen after labour? Can anyone point me to a reference that talks about this? Answer Fowler recommends that you leave out the hyphen after labour there, because it is not strictly needed for comprehension. I don't have a reference on hand, but it is no doubt in his Dictionary of Modern English Usage , a highly respected style book.

I am always confused by the difference between the use of for and of in cases like these: Principal component analysis of microarray data. Principal component analysis for microarray data. Which of these is correct? Is it OK to use both? If yes, when should I use 1. and 2., respectively? Answer Both examples are correct usage, but the meanings are different and very much dependent on the context. If the microarray data is being analyzed, then "of" is used to indicate relation. To better understand the results, we must perform a principal component analysis of the microarray data. If the microarray data is the outcome of the analysis, then "for" is used to indicate attempting to obtain, gain, or acquire. We suspected the flux capacitor might contain microarray data, so we decided to perform a principal component analysis (of the flux capacitor to search) for it. Where "it" is the microarray data. Another pair of simpler examples: If we seek the magu

We have the nick meaning prison, as in "he served time in the nick", then we have the verb to nick , meaning to steal; but if the police catch you red-handed, then "you've been nicked". And if you led a very bad life you could end up meeting with Old Nick , which as we all know is the Devil's nickname or nick 1 . And before I forget, Nick is also short for Nicholas. If, however, something is in good nick 2 it's usually in admirable condition, but if we spot a few nicks on a porcelain ornament we consider it damaged and we might choose not to buy it. Be careful handling it though, the edges might be sharp and nick your skin. I can see how the different meanings of nick 3 are related to one another in the examples above, but what escapes me is how did nick come to mean the last critical moment of time. She was saved in the nick of time Was her death stolen away? Does the nick here mean a small chip, a notch or a very small but significantly sha

I'd like to know whether the phrase "where I be" is grammatically incorrect or whether it is correct if in the subjunctive mood. If it is in the subjunctive mood, what exactly would it mean? The entire example sentence is: I look for a place where I be free.

I am looking for a word that means someone makes choices. The choice doesn't have to be good or bad just that they are decisive. I am looking for the word to be in the form of a noun. As an example - "That woman makes many decisions; she is a (insert here) ". The only thing I can think of is chooser or decider but I'm not even sure those are words. Thanks for any help in advance.

For as long as I can remember, I've only used the word 'delete' in a technological context. I'm fairly certain, most kids--or the generation before them--know exactly what the word means. Did this word get much use in other literary works?

I wasn't forcing myself to say anything, or/nor trying to be funny. "Or" sounds more grammatically correct to me. But "nor" has more Google results. So I'm confused. Answer Garner in his Modern American Usage (p571) would recommend or in Op's sentence. As Garner states: When the negative of a clause or phrase has appeared at the outset of an enumeration, and a disjunctive conjunction is needed, or is generally better than nor . The initial negative carries through to all the enumerated elements-e.g: "There have been no bombings nor [read or ] armed attacks by one side against the other." William D. Montalbano, " Links to IRA Seen in Rash of Violence in Northern Ireland, " L.A. Times 12 Jan 1996. Peters, in the Cambridge Guide to English Usage (p378) has a more nuanced discussion: The use of nor is probably declining, even in its core domain of coordinating two negative phrases. Compare: The gallery will not be open on Sundays o

I'm trying to define a character for a short story I'm writing, but I'm having a hard time defining him. He has the ability to find everything. What you do call someone who can find anything/everything? Answer There's this film, a classic, starring Steve McQueen and Richard Attenborough, set during the second World War at an Air Force Prisoner of War camp in Germany. The film, if you haven't guessed by now, is called The Great Escape , based on real-life events that happened in Stalag Luft III , Sagan, once a German town, 100 miles south-east of Berlin. In the film there is a Flight Lieutenant pilot called Robert Hendley, an American in the RAF, whose nickname is " the scrounger " who finds what the others need, from a camera to clothes and identity cards Interestingly, the actor who portrayed this role, the gorgeous-looking James Garner, had been a soldier in the Korean war and he too had been a scrounger during that time. Unfortunately, today the term h

Disclaimer: There are a lot of questions packed in but their answers are interdependent. Different textures of snow can be described as "wet" and "dry". Considering that water is the quintessence of wetness and snow is water, is it accurate to describe snow as being dry? Is there a fallacy in the above syllogism because water in its frozen form is not water but ice and therefore even though snow is made of water it is not the case that it is water? If so, is wetness a property that can only exist in non-freezing conditions? Are all of the above questions predicated on the false assumption that the adjective "dry", when applied to snow is intended to be literal when in fact it is figurative? Answer Dry means (NOAD here, but others would give similar definition) “free from moisture or liquid”. Snow is a mixture of ice crystals (a solid form of water), liquid water, and some water vapour (usually in negligible amount due to the temperature). So, snow is dr

It would make sense if both of these sentences were grammatically correct; but is anything different between them meaning-wise? He acted very strange when I told him about the missing amulet. He acted strangely about the whole deal. What difference is there between using an adverb here and using an adjective? Answer Acted is a verb which can take an adjective in what looks like a modifying position. Some verbs are like that; they are called copular (or copulative or copula ) verbs. Let's consider the verb look, where using an adjective and an adverb produce different meanings. For some meanings, you have to use nice : John looked very nice in his new clothes. *John looked very nicely in his new clothes. For others, you have to use nicely. John looked at me very nicely. *John looked at me very nice. In the first example, very nice is in some sense modifying John , while in the second, very nicely is modifying looked. For the verb act, you can use either an adjective or an ad

What is the difference between I play and I do play ? For example: If someone were to ask to me, do you play soccer?

Twice in the past few hours, I've seen the idiom "don't give it the time of day". Now, I immediately knew and understood what the people using the phrase meant, but then I realized that I didn't know why that phrase means what it means. I Googled the phrase "time of day idiom" because I was particularly interested in the origin/etymology of the "time of day" part. I readily found the meaning (which I already knew), but was stymied as to its origin (which is what I wanted). Thus, I ask: what is the origin/etymology of the idiom? Answer An answer at answers.com quotes American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms to the effect that to not give someone the time of day means Ignore someone, refuse to pay the slightest attention to someone, as in He's tried to be friendly but she won't give him the time of day. This expression, first recorded in 1864, alludes to refusing even to answer the question, "What time is it?" By contrast, an an

http://www.onestopenglish.com/community/your-english/word-grammar/your-english-word-grammar-even/156431.article gives some examples of correct use of "even" as an adverb to indicate that something is surprising or unexpected:- "She even forgot my birthday" "He can’t even spell his own name!" However, using "even" with "to be" results in some odd-sounding sentences:- " Will you even be there? " " Who even is she? " And, (famously?) " What even is that thing? " Adverbs usually come after auxiliary verbs, but in this case it doesn't seem like moving the adverb makes a more pleasing sentence:- "What is even that thing?" "What is that thing even?" Is there a correct way those sentences could even be formed, or should "even" not even be used with "to be"? As an additional point, these formations seem very common - especially colloquially or in writing on the internet.

I wonder if there is any difference between usage of these three: deliberately intentionally on purpose Are they completely interchangeable? Are they at the same level of formality? I found some explanation (forums) Googling the three words, but I don’t find them reliable since people simply stated their own opinion. In the dictionary, they are mentioned as synonymous: deliberately means intentionally , and on purpose means deliberately . Answer The levels of formality are, in descending order: intentionally , deliberately , and on purpose . If you look at published books and journals that have blank pages, you'll find some with printed statements "This page intentionally left blank". That's because it's the most formal and the most neutral. Yes, deliberately is a synonym that means intentionally , but it more often has a negative connotation than intentionally does (especially among high school students, at least that was true when I was in high school), al

In the word often , the labiodental non-sibilant fricative f precedes the alveolar stop t , which is then followed by the vowel e . The Oxford Dictionaries Online offers two accepted pronunciations : /ˈɒf(ə)n/ /ˈɒft(ə)n/ I would like to describe the phonetic interaction between the f and the t in the pronunciation /ˈɒf(ə)n/. The sole pronunciation of the archaic oft , leads me to consider that the vowel plays a significant role in silencing the t . Though I doubt it is the standard terminology, I would tend to describe it in laymen's terms with the word picture underlying fricative : the fricative rubs out the stop in concert with the vowel If that seems like an acceptable description, I would be content with it, but I would like to know if there is a more precise professional description of that phonetic effect. Answer I think the term you are looking for is assimilation : Assimilation has a very precise meaning when it’s related to studies of languages. Is a common phonolog

I am writing an essay about German history, and I'm unsure whether German words should be italicized or not. The essay is in English, but I use words like Reichstag (German Parliament Building), Führer (Hitler's title, means "leader"), and Reich (kingdom). I'm seeing conflicting sources online that say: italicize first use of the word italicize every time don't italicize italicize if they would be unknown by the reader Basically, should I italicize German words, proper nouns, or names (and to what extent)? Answer If you are writing to a style guide, then follow it above anything I say below (though note that it may give some leeway). Because your theme is German history, the reader is going to expect a certain number of German words to be used, and that context reduces the "foreign-ness", so to speak compared to if e.g. I used a Latin phrase somewhere in this answer, where it's not necessarily to be expected. For that reason, I would not recomme

I know the vast majority of people say "Don't take yourself too seriously", as found correct by basically every native speaker I've asked about this (often accompanied by incredulous looks). What confuses me is whether it makes sense for serious to be an adverb here because that would make it, well, modify the verb. It would be an appeal for me to less seriously take something instead of how I'm currently behaving, which is seriously taking — what? — myself! Isn't the true appeal behind the sentence for me to reduce my grade of seriousness and (don't take) (myself serious), in a similar way one would wish me not to take sick? Answer I believe that there is an idiosyncrasy in the form of these expressions involving seriously . Saying that only verbs that take object complements can take adjectives as separate complements to modify their objects and that This is merely a matter of syntax (form), not of semantics (meaning) is tantamount to saying we us

Interpolation typically means modeling the values of some curve inside the given data, and extrapolation  — outside the given data. For example, if I know the temperature on Monday and Wednesday, and ask for what it was on Tuesday — this is interpolation. If I ask for what it was on Sunday before or Thursday after, it is extrapolation. I am looking for a word that would encompass both. I thought of modeling , but is there perhaps something better? Answer "data fitting" or "curve fitting" - depending on the context.

What’s a big-vocabulary word for someone with a big vocabulary? There are people who are blessed with a remarkable knowledge of vocabulary and diction – people who can come up with beautifully crafted sentences and expressions on most subjects at the drop of a hat. But some times, one tends to go overboard with a desire to show off the abundance of words one has at one's disposal and the result of that might create some confusion for a middling English speaker like me. Of course, what appears confusing to me may not do so to others. Besides, I believe there is no clear line or distinction between using and overusing one's rich vocabulary. So, this post is not about what you would think showing off one's vocabulary is , but rather what you would call it . To cut it short, I am looking for a word or phrase to describe 1) someone with an exceptional knowledge of vocabulary and diction 2) using of words and idiomatic expressions by someone in a way that appears to be more a sh

Consider the brief passage: "I love your work, but calling you 'the artist' {1} just doesn't seem to be cutting it anymore. What shall I call you?" "OK. Call me George." {2} So my instincts tell me to put {1} in single quotes as opposed to no punctuation (or perhaps even italics) but to do the opposite for {2}. Is this right? Why? Let me expand this one further iteration: "Wow, that's a great name, especially with this crowd. Maybe for your next book you should call yourself Ringo ."{3} Answer Clarity is the point of typography. Personally, I like the literal quoting scheme, where quoted sections are punctuated as normal, excepting only the double and singles toggled for nesting. It's rather common to collapse final punctuation when the outer sentence and quoted sentence agree. E.g. "I love your work, but calling you 'the artist' just doesn't seem to be cutting it anymore. What shall I call you?" "OK. Call me

I have to describe someone with a quality that he can read the story behind the numbers or data given to him. I didn't want to use Analyst. let me know if there is another word for it

I am curious to know when whatever , whenever , wherever and whoever first started being used as interrogative words. Merriam-Webster, etymonline and dictionary.com offer no hints. Wikipedia doesn't even mention them as interrogatives, completely ignoring the fact that there are countless books titled Whatever happened to X? . TheFreeDictionary.com points out that [c]ritics have occasionally objected to the one-word form, but many respected writers have used it and leaves it at that (well, thanks for nothing). Answer From the OED's online entry on the interrogative form of whatever , the earliest entry for the pronoun usage as a single word is from 13—: 13.. Seuyn Sag. (W.) 3514 Son, what may al this noys be,.. Whateuer sal it sygnyfy? Interestingly, their first listed example of the two-word version is from 14—. The first pronoun usage they have in the modern spelling: 1823 Spirit Publ. Jrnls. 409 Whatever possessed her, I know no more than the child unborn. For the adje

This post uses the expression: These days forcing everything in 3D is no particular advantage. Graphics card can whale on 2D problems just as efficiently as 3D ones. It's just a question of writing some different shader programs. What does it mean? And is it a phrasal verb ("to whale on [sth]" like "to keep on going"), or is the preposition simply connecting the verb normally ("to whale [on sth]" like "to stand on the floor")? Answer Wiktionary lists them as alternate forms of each other. Merriam Webster's third definition of " whale " as a verb is: 1: lash, thrash 2 : to strike or hit vigorously 3 : to defeat soundly While it offers no comparable definition of "wail". Etymonline suggests a connection between " whale ", meaning to beat or whip severely and the noun form of " wale ": a raised line. In turn, this may be related to the noun weal : a raised mark on skin. So, "to whale on",

I saw this in a quiz on Stuff : Who is Greek president? Surely the word "the" should be in there somewhere? But I get the feeling I've heard things like "US President Barack Obama" instead of "The US President Barack Obama", so I'm curious if this is actually a valid construct.

Typically (as far as I can think), the interject is something vulgar. For example: Radio- bloody -active (from an episode of Family Guy) Ri- god-damn -diculuous Un- fucking -believable" What is the word for this construct? Answer Besides tmesis , mentioned by Jon Purdy above , another relevant term is infixation , and fucking here could be called an infix (analogously to prefix, suffix). This specific class of examples is known as expletive infixation . The exact demarcations of infixation and tmesis, whether they overlap, and whether expletive infixation is actually infixation, seem to be pretty debatable (see comments below). Tmesis is an older term; according to some definitions it includes split phrases as well as words (as in the marvellous West By God Virginia ), and may be required to respect morpheme boundaries (so ri-goddamn-diculous would not be an example). Infixation is a more recent term, and is sometimes restricted to cases where the infix is a grammatically sign

I'm taking an English academic writing course. My teacher recommended using today as it is more accepted compared to nowadays . I asked her if this is accepted in American English (she's from US) or in general. She said in general . Then I asked her why it was recommended. Her reasoning was: When you publish an article your audience will be the whole world and not everyone in this world is a native English speaker, so it is recommended to use simple English . Is replacing nowadays by today really recommended? I'm looking for a source that can prove or disprove the above statement. I am a non-native English speaker myself, trying to learn English from different sources. Answer Nowadays and today are both perfectly acceptable. You could also say these days , in recent times and at present or presently . If your teacher prefers that you don't use nowadays I would follow her instructions just because there are so many alternatives and she is the one grading your pa

I have a sentence which reads Many people require that every lightbulb within a house have/has a switch. Is it appropriate to use "have" here so as to utilize the subjunctive mode of the verb "require"? Or is it more appropriate to use "has" in order to get the (lack of) pluralization in "every lightbulb has..." correct?

There is Old English, and there is the English we speak now. When did exactly did the British (or Americans) change from speaking Old English to speaking the current form of English? Answer There are considered to be three major eras of English: Old English, Middle English, and Modern English. Old English is a very different language, complete with a different alphabet. Middle English emerged after the Norman conquest of England with influence from French and other continental languages. Modern English emerged a few hundred years later with the Great Vowel Shift. The first few hundred years of Modern English are referred to as Early Modern English, which is well represented in the works of Shakespeare. The current version of English started to coalesce around 1700. I could go on, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_language

They all mean to shine and they all start with g . But do they mean the same thing? Acording to "Google Dictionary" (the one that appears when you search on Google). glint: give out or reflect small flashes of light. glitter: shine with a bright, shimmering, reflected light. glisten: (of something wet or greasy) shine; glitter. gleamed : shine brightly, esp. with reflected light. glimmered : shine faintly with a wavering light. Example sentence: The city lights [...] at the distance like an ocean of stars. Do all the verbs above fit the sentence? Or it would mean a different thing depending on which one I choose? Answer Essentially, glint, glitter, and glimmer differ in the duration and pattern of the light. Glint would be a brief flash (eg the flash of a shiny stone as he light changes), glitter would be flashes coming from all across the object in a steady but random sequence (eg diamond or the shiny dressing on a Christmas tree), glimmer is a steady shine from all ove

When a writer uses parentheses to define a phrase or clarify a word in a sentence, is it appropriate also to use i.e. in the parentheses? That use seems redundant to me.

I came across this line in a site: Can u make sth effective for a sports betting related product? I can't understand what is meant by sth effective here. I tried to google it but was unable to understand. Can anybody explain to me what is meant by this word? Is it an English word or is it from another language? Answer Sth is a standard abbreviation for something . It is used in some reference books, such as dictionaries, in order to save space. Another common one is sb for somebody .

Could it be correct to have the word "however" in the middle of the sentence flanked by two commas instead of a semicolon and a comma? When I want to write something like this: His passive vocabulary has definitely increased , however, his ability to express himself in English still needs to be developed. The software application "Word" always automatically changes it into this: His passive vocabulary has definitely increased ; however, his ability to express himself in English still needs to be developed. Does that mean that two commas on each side of however is always wrong and will give a wrong meaning? Answer Yes the grammar checking is correct in this case. It could be correct to flank however with commas in some cases but not in the particular case you have in your example, because it is a compound sentence. When you are using a conjunctive adverb to combine two sentences, you should proceed the conjunctive adverb with a semicolon, as explained on grammar

What does "to-may-to, to-mah-to" mean? I've seen this expression a few times and it seems to indicate some sort of equality. But what does it really mean?

Wordweb describes Leviathan as: The largest or most massive thing of its kind Monstrous sea creature symbolizing evil in the Old Testament A recent Economist article (see The drug war hits Central America ) has this usage of Leviathan: Whatever the weaknesses of the Mexican state, it is a Leviathan compared with the likes of Guatemala or Honduras. Large areas of Guatemala—including some of its prisons—are out of the government’s control; and, despite the efforts of its president, the government is infiltrated by the mafia. It is clear from this text and the rest of the article that Guatemala and Honduras are worse off than Mexico. If that is so, why is the word Leviathan used to refer to Mexico? From the above meaning of Leviathan, should not Mexico be the worst amongst the three? What is the typical usage of this word Leviathan? Answer It is a reference to the philosopher Thomas Hobbes' magnum opus , Leviathan . In that work, Hobbes argues for a powerful, far-reaching state

I reviewed both: and I still cannot decide. According to the previous post my sentence should be: If the number of I/Os of my circuit design exceeds the threshold which is required for the fast operation, then ... This is because I could say "the fast operation of my circuit". But for me it sounds very odd without this extension. I can leave out the "the"? If there is only a slight difference in the meanings... does it matter? Answer If the number of I/Os of my circuit design exceeds the threshold which is required for the fast operation, then ... strongly suggests contrast with 'the other possibility' (the slow operation). If the number of I/Os of my circuit design exceeds the threshold which is required for the fast operation of my circuit, then ... doesn't carry this suggestion. (Leaving out even apparently unimportant bits of sentences increases the scope for misconstruing.) Since you're looking at a continuum here, I'd leave out the articl

I'd like to know if negative questions are used very often in English. For example, in Spanish, negative questions are used very often just to offer something, to ask about something you're not sure, to ask telling off somebody, etc. For example: Don't you want something to drink? (offer) Isn't she going to come? (doubt) Don't you have to go to school today? (ask and tell off) Are negative questions used a lot or do you prefer positive questions? When are negative questions used more than positive ones? Answer Negative questions are used when the person who asks expects a positive answer, no matter what else might be implied. There is no question of frequency of use; when the speaker wants to express an amount of certainty for the answer, a negative question will be used.

"This group’s main duties are to carry out information systems audits in Colombian banks and to make research and develop new regulations on information technologies and systems in the banking sector." Should I put a " to " behind " develop "? Or are any other commas needed? Answer It would better be: ... in Colombian banks, to undertake research and to develop new regulations ... Note that in your version, and is used twice. Unless you meant to say 'research and development' as a single task, you will have to use a comma as above. As for the to , yes, it is needed, again unless you meant to say 'research and development' as a single task. [Edit-1] On the other hand, if you had meant 'research and development' as a single task: in Colombian banks and to undertake research and development of new regulations ...

I've noticed that it is often "ostriches" or "ostrich" according to different sources. Does it vary by the dialect of English? Normally I'd use Google to determine something like this, but unfortunately the search for "ostrich" plural is overcounted because of references to the singular "ostrich". Dictionaries laying around were inconclusive. One listed plural as "ostrich" another listed "ostriches". In cases where the dictionaries disagree or where there are multiple possible solutions I tend to go with the more common answer. That is something that can be easily found by googling, but not in this case Answer Where the plural occurs in the citations in the OED, it is ostriches . However, those who make ostrich the plural can appeal to the precedent of the hunter’s plural in lion, tiger, elephant and so on.