Blog

Which pronoun is correct in the following sentence? No one but her/she ever made a perfect score on the test The answer according to the book is "her" , but it is getting on my nerves. I tried solving it by making a different statement as follows: She made a perfect score on the test Why does using "No one but" change it to accusative case? Answer But is here a preposition and when a pronoun follows a preposition it is in the accusative case. If you substitute except for but , which more or less has the same meaning, you will see that it has to be her .

The Presidential candidate seems to have resurrected the adverb bigly , the most recent example of which that the OED is able to quote being from 1927. I am, though just wondering in which sense he was using it. The OED has two senses: 1) With great force; firmly, violently; (also) stoutly, strongly , the most recent example from 1913. 2) Loudly, boastfully; proudly, haughtily, pompously. , the most recent example from 1927. The Seattle Times quotes Susan Lin, an assistant professor in linguistics at the University of California-Berkeley [as saying] that people who study sounds used in speech have determined Trump is actually saying “big league”: note the velar pinch and the stop closure/burst. What does Mr Trump mean by bigly or big league ? I think we should be told.

Is there a difference between the meaning of selfish and self-centered ? I have seen some using them identically. If there is a difference who would you like to hang out with: a selfish person or a self-centered person? Answer These two words have different meanings, not merely different connotations. Part of the question was about whom it would be preferable to spend time with, a selfish person or a self-centered person ? One could be self-centered yet not morally bereft of compassion and generosity. Similarly, a self-centered person might want to further his or her objectives, whether or not that meant behaving selfishly in any given situation. @Adel's comment is similar to my perception. Specifically, that a selfish person has a strong bias toward not giving anything-- time, money, effort, energy, or other support to anyone other than him or herself. And that seems much more unpleasant than the alternative. A self-centered person would be inclined toward selfish behavior...

I need to know this for an essay I'm doing. I thinks media might work but I'm not really sure. Do you have any suggestions?

I have learnt these words so far, please correct me if I'm wrong: Dawn, maybe 4am–6am? Morning, maybe 6am–9am? The food for the morning is called breakfast . People greet each other Good morning! Noon, maybe 11am–1pm? The food is called lunch . Afternoon, maybe 2pm–4pm? People greet each other Good afternoon! Evening, maybe 6pm–9pm? The food for the evening is called supper . People greet each other Good evening! Night, maybe 9pm–11pm? However, Good night means "have a good sleep". Mid-night, maybe 11pm–1am? You see, I've missed some parts of a day, I may be not correct on the time boundaries of each part, though. I would like to complete the list, especially the part after the morning but before the afternoon. My teacher never told us to use the word noon , and good noon seems never used by anyone. I would like to know each part of a day, its corresponding food term (like lunch , supper , etc.), and its corresponding greeting words, thanks. Summary I'll update ...

Which is correct 1 Get out the house. Or 2 Get out of the house? I've heard that the American English standard is the first one and the British English standard is the second one. Is that true? The Oxford dictionary says in a side note that out as a preposition is standard in American English while the prepositional phrase out of is standard in British English while saying out is not standard.

I always use google with double quotes to get the answer for similar questions by looking at results number (assuming that the majority are correct), well, it is not the case here. In these days, we intensively use the statement Wish you happy New Year and Wish you Merry Christmas, Well, I have noticed, even here, that some use (a) before happy and merry and some don't. Which one is correct ? Wish you Merry Christmas / Wish you a Merry Christmas for everybody here. Answer Using the article 'a' is correct. Wishing you a happy New Year! The Google Ngram Viewer is the correct tool for this job. Have a look .

For example, if I took the Russian word "Toska" and transposed into an English word "tosk (pronounced as "təʊsk") and created such words and phrases as "toskful", "tosk-stricken", "toskfulness", "to tosk", "tosk-inducing", "toskfully", "toskless", "tosklessly", "to make someone toskful", "in a state of tosk" etc., how would I go about getting it into dictionaries so that people could look it up? Are there any procedures/rules that specify how to borrow words from other languages that either don't exist/are obsolete or not productive in the target language. P.S. Here are a few examples of usage: Marry has been staying in bed, in an obvious state of tosk, if you ask me, for a few days now. I think, you should stop by her place sometime soon. I reckon, it might really cheer her up... a bit. Little Garry was a truly toskless child. There was not a day that he wou...

What is the appropriate usage of "symmetrical" and "symmetric" (using the geometrical adjectival definition of both terms)? Are they synonymous? Answer Merriam-Webster lists symmetric as being a variant of symmetrical , which is the 'official' dictionary entry: symmetrical , adj : 1 : having or involving symmetry : exhibiting symmetry : exhibiting correspondence in size and shape of parts : BALANCED, REGULAR {the human body is symmetrical } {crystals are often symmetrical } {a symmetrical garden} {a symmetrical grouping}

Something is divided in four pieces. One piece is called a fourth or a quarter. Something is divided in nine pieces. One is piece is called a ninth or a... What is the 'quarter' equivalent for something divided by nine? Answer OED has a definition for... ninth part n. each of the nine equal parts into which a thing may be divided; (also fig.) denoting a worthless or inadequate object or person, esp. in ninth part of a man. Other than that the only word I know is pretty specific - it only applies to each of a 9-baby birth... nonuplet (defn 2.) Each of nine siblings resulting from a single pregnancy. Usu. in pl. Apparently there's only one in the world (only two sets are known, and all the other babies died).

Sorry for the title, it is not very evident and intuitive but I really do not how to tell it better... Well, you know, several times, or better, many times, we use this form: If I want to say: "development of special weapons was the first point in Hitler's program..." I will say this (a better form): "special weapon development was..." OK... is it "special weapon development" or "special weapons development" (note the plural...) what's the grammar rule in order to understand how to use this very used form? Answer As a rule, the singular form is used for the first part of a compound noun. So, when in doubt, use the singular. There are three kinds of exceptions: If the singular would be ambiguous, as in "a singles bar": a single bar means just one bar. If the plural used to be a singular possessive, which sounds the same: I think "ladies man" (a man who likes flirting with women etc.) comes from the possessive "lad...

There are some people, who always need to do something. They can't just sit and relax. If they are on the job, they constantly try to change something (e. g. propose new approaches to existing tasks). If they go on vacation, they visit all possible places. These people are mentally healthy, even though sometimes you may suspect them having ADHD or being in a maniac phase of manic-depressive disorder. Note that most of the time their active nature is beneficial (stuff is get done, innovation happens), but can also have negative consequences (e. g. they may bully everyone to start a project at work, which doesn't make sense economically). Also, they are very active not because they have to, but because it seems to be part of their nature. What do you call such people? In Russian there is an idiom of people having an awl in the anus ( шило в попе ), which makes it hard for those guys and gals to sit still. I'm looking for something similar in English. Answer I guess the Engl...

How normal-sounding is the slogan "I'm lovin' it" to native ears? I know it sounded quite odd to me when I first heard it — and it still sometimes does —, but I can't even tell why. Sure, love is supposedly a stative verb, but it's being used in progressive aspect all the time without sounding weird at all (lots of songs come to mind, e.g. Loving Every Minute ). It's only this particular slogan that somehow doesn't quite work for me. I would expect that to be totally on purpose — it's advertising, after all —, but Wikipedia doesn't mention any objections from native speakers (as it does with " Think Different " and " Winston tastes good like a cigarette should "). So I'm asking the native speakers of this community: does "I'm lovin' it" sound completely natural to you? Just a bit off? Completely weird? Why? Answer It sounds fine to me. (But I'm not actually a native speaker, and Indian English ...

I let you believe that I am one of the nation's top geneticists, when actually I am a moderately successful scientist who is now coasting on past research, doing the odd bit of examining or consultancy. I haven't been at the coalface for years. From the novel, Apple Tree Yard . By Louise Doughty The Free Dictionary defines the British and Australian idiom at the coalface as: someone who is at the coalface is doing the work involved in a job, not talking about it, planning it, or controlling it. The Phrase Finder explains it is a way of saying that the person is 'in touch' and appreciates the actualities of the business rather than being a 'bean-counter' (accountant) a 'paper pusher' (administrator) or a 'fat-cat' (overpaid manager). obviously the original ' coal-face ' is a mining term to describe an underground worker that actually cuts the coal from the rock - but the sense of direct involvement with the core of the business is the i...

A zealot is a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals . I have never seen this word used with positive connotation, but could it (without causing raised eyebrows)? For example, “Gandhi was a zealot and should be admired by all who believe in non-violence.” Also, do “zealous” and “zeal” carry the same connotation as “zealot”? Answer Zealot , in my experience, is usually used in a negative context, but doesn't have to be. One quote from the link FumbleFingers quoted in his comment above shows how it can be used in a positive fashion without any apparent controversy: Your goal should be to transform your satisfied customer into a true zealot for your firm. And, of course, from someone sharing the same views as the zealot, it can be a good thing indeed: A true zealot does not do only what is according to the law... he is entirely concerned with the one good thing which is solid, true and eternal. Zealous and zeal are more...

When one "scoffs," is one actually making a snort-like sound, or is one merely treating something or someone with a disdain? Look at this example from Oxford : ‘‘You, a scientist?’ he scoffed.’ In such a case, is the one scoffing showing contempt through derision, or is he making an actual sound much like a soft cough? Thanks.

Naomi Baron, in Words Onscreen: The Fate of Reading in a Digital World (1 edn 2015) . p. 16, quoted Daniel Defoe's The Compleat English Gentleman, composed in the early 1700s: I hate any thing that looks like a cheat upon the world. Whatever I am, I can't be a hypocrite. What should I do with books that never read half an hour in a year I tell you? Is there some linguistic term for the bolded words in the quote that I underlined in red in the image? I don't know the precise linguistic terms, thus here's my attempt to word the question using some that I know. Why could ‘read’ could be used transitively and without any auxiliary verb for an inanimate subject? Nowadays we must say ‘books that [WERE] never read’. How can I interpret this curio so that it feels natural and intuitive to a reader in 2019?

There have been questions on ELU about the pronunciation of can and can't in American English . This question is about the usage of the word, not simply its pronunciation. Here are a couple of examples found on google: If contraction 't (apostrophe-t) was simply missed occasionally, it could simply be excused as poor proof-reading. However, the omission seems to be more widespread in popular usage. The root word (e.g. can ) still retains its original, positive meaning, so a sentence such as "I can do that" is now at risk of being ambiguous - can is then its own antonym. My question: is there a semantic drift occurring with words such as can and could , turning them into contranyms ?

The boy's innate goodness will withstand the challenges because unless he himself wants to turn evil, [...]. My teacher thinks that commas should set off the word "himself", but I disagree. Who is right, and why? Answer I think a comma would be wrong there. (Deletes justification on the basis of it being a rearrangement of "he wants himself to turn evil", which is wrong because "he himself wants Fred to turn evil" is just as valid a sentence. At least I realised that before I posted.) "Himself" here is actually an intensifier rather than a reflexive pronoun (the World Atlas of Language Structures notes that they are often identical). As such it very much belongs with the noun phrase it is intensifying ("He"), and splitting them with a comma would weaken that relationship.

What is the name of the horizontal division line? Is there a name for it other than "division line? Answer Vinculum is a word used broadly to describe any horizontal line in mathematical symbols. The line between numerator and denominator, the line above the recurring decimal, etc are some examples of vincula. More commonly, the line is called a fraction or division bar. On a related note, the '/' sign denoting division in a/b is called a solidus and the ÷ sign in a÷b is called an obelus .

I would like an expression that emphasizes that you've done something lots of times, that it's just routine to you. I thought "I've done it so many times, I can do it in my sleep" might work, but I'm curious if there's any better alternatives. Answer A person who has completed successfully a task many times in their past would probably say: it's (like) second nature to me. A habit or mode of behavior so long practiced that it seems innate, as in: Driving in heavy traffic is second nature to Chris . This expression is a shortened form of an ancient proverb “Custom (or usage) is a second nature”, first recorded in 1390. It alludes to the fact that very frequently repeating something makes it seem completely natural or inborn. The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms

Is there a single word to describe an entity (for example a boat, ship or power station) that requires some crew, staff or manning in order to function? This is subtly different from using the words manned or crewed to describe an entity that is currently staffed, since this does not mean that it must be staffed to operate. Answer The straightforward 'does not require a crew' -> 'unmanned' leads me to think that it is appropriate to use: 'requires a crew' -> ' manned '

A word usage that always annoys me and feels like Euroenglish to me is "touristic". I don't believe I've ever seen it printed or heard it used by a native English speaker and I've travelled in most of the English speaking countries and work in tourism. But it's very very common to hear "touristic" from Europeans who speak very good English. Also at least on the web if not in printed media which I'm less aware of. To me as an Australian the word to use is "touristy". It does sound more colloquial when I compare the two but it is used by all levels of society. Interestingly my web browser is marking "touristic" as wrong and accepting "touristy". I have checked in dictionaries and both words are listed but they don't break down historic or demographic usage. So is "touristic" Euroenglish or plain old normal English? Is it more or less formal / more or less artificial than "touristy"? Could it eve...

"Epithet", "sobriquet", "moniker"... All three are related words, the relation being that each is a form of nickname. But all my efforts at figuring out what distinctions exist between them have been futile; several sources treat them as essentially synonyms, while others claim there are differences but clash with each other on what those differences are (and that's assuming that a given source actually has a concrete idea of what said differences ought to be). Take Merriam-Webster, for example: epithet: a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing. sobriquet: a descriptive name or epithet; nickname. moniker: name, nickname. Now let's look at Wiktionary: epithet: A term used to characterize a person or thing; a term used as a descriptive substitute for the name or title of a person. sobriquet: A familiar name for a person (typically a shortened version of a person’s given name). moniker: A pers...

I am in search of a noun or concise, descriptive phrase for the satisfaction and joy one gets from helping others. I do a lot of community service and very much enjoy it, and I get an almost cathartic satisfaction from helping others. It seems to be a combination of empathetic joy, pride, and some sort of satisfaction from improving the general human or world condition. I know this is quite a lot, but does anyone have a good way to express this emotion or some part of it? Thank you! Alaina

Is there a situation or question where the phrase will have been going to go is the best, most natural, or clearest response (or included in said response)? I'm asking this probably somewhat silly question just for fun. It comes from my past musings on English's complexity and my observation of how difficult it must be for some people to grasp the meaning of multiple helping verbs. I imagine this phrase is one that very few non-native English speakers would be able to understand very quickly (and for that matter, perhaps not very many native English speakers, either). Can this be a good way to express something and not just a contrived difficult English phrase? Answer The reason the phrase is never used is because "will have been going to go" invariably includes "am going to go". But in theory, if your travel insurance company asked when you took the decision about your holiday, you could reply "By the time this letter arrives, I will have been going...

The sentence in question is: Brookfield was but one of many feeding streams. What purpose does the word but serve here?

You know when you see something touching and moving and you feel like tears are about to come out of your eyes, yet you're able to barely control it; how do you describe this feeling or state? i.e. I was all [...] at the sight of his master curled up asleep in fetal position on the floor at the vet's beside his dog. Take a look at this and you'll know what I'm talking about: Answer I was all choked up . Fig. to cause someone to feel like starting to cry. I got all misty-eyed . Having the eyes blurred, as with tears.

Daniel M. Russell poses what he claims is a deceptively simple brain teaser in his blog : What short 4-word idiomatic phrase (in English) captures [the] idea of a problem that seems impossible, but actually has a simple and obvious solution? "Deceptively simple brain teaser" is the best I could come up with, but I don't think it's particularly idiomatic. UPDATE : So, the originating blogger has posted his intended answer . I would agree that there was no stand-out candidate amongst all the plausible suggestions, so kudos to all those who found a solution. Answer One of the comments on that blog suggests "An egg of Columbus". From the description here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_of_Columbus , it certainly seems to fit the bill.

In my mother tongue both for and to have the same meaning, therefore it is hard for (is it being correctly used here?) me to know when I should use one instead of the other. After some google's searches into the question I verified that the former must be used when we want to refer to a purpose or when something is to the benefit of somebody. The latter is used when something is moved or transferred between locations or in the direction of a location. For instance: We are going to open this plan for public discussion to individuals and organizations interested in maintaining and advancing Thunderbird in the future. In the above sentence I'm still unable to understand why we use those prepositions; can anyone help on the subject?

A little look through an etymology dictionary shows that the root is Latin gigas with adjective form gigant . So in its derivation to English, why did the second "g" get retained in gigantic but was dropped from giant ? I have an inkling that the word giant may have travelled through French on its way to English, where it may have been pronounced "gee-yant" or "jee-yant" with a change to the second "g" that was then dropped when taken into English. However, the "g" is retained as a hard "g" in gigantic. Answer The word gigantic comes to English relatively recently. Giant , as you probably know if you've investigated the etymology, appears in Middle English by way of Old French geant [NOAD]. Gigantic , on the other hand, appears first in Modern English in the 16th or 17th century , three or four hundred years later. The reference at that time was probably to the original Latin (via Greek) gigas .

I'm not even sure if "numerifying" is a word (my computer's spell check program doesn't seem to think so). But I'm looking for a word that describes translating experiences into numbers for comparison. (I'm describing the QUALY, a tool used by utilitarians and welfare economists to compare benefits of various different courses of action that ordinarily would have been thought of as apples and oranges - for instance, curing blindness and curing AIDS.)

What is a word called that consists of a repetition of one word? I came across the word polypoly in one of the other question asked on the site, and it got me thinking whether there are other English words that are made up of a word or part of a word repeated in the same way that polypoly is made up of poly + poly. Can you please provide examples also?

Which one is correct: Good to hear you enjoyed the radio show. or: Glad to hear you enjoyed the radio show. Answer In terms of their conversational meaning, they are completely synonymous. Use whichever one you feel like. There is a very subtle difference in meaning, in that the first expands to It's good to hear that you enjoyed the radio show , while the second expands to something like I'm glad to hear that you enjoyed the radio show . Because of this, the second is slightly more personal, and the first slightly more general. This difference basically never matters in conversation.

In our workflow, we sometimes have someone do duplicate work for someone else, and we call the duplicate work the "shadow" job. This led to a need for a term for the original work in the database, so we started calling the original job the "original shadow", but this is rather awkward, and doesn't really make sense, since something that creates a shadow isn't a shadow, it's the real thing. Is there a word for something that casts a shadow, that pairs nicely with a shadow? For example, if someone sees a "parent" job in the system, they can guess that there will probably be a "child" job as well (unfortunately, we are already using the parent/child analogy for something else). "Caster" works, but it may put you in mind of spells or fishing instead of shadows. "Child" is to "parent" as "shadow" is to ________. If you see a _______ job in the system, look for the shadow job that goes with it. Then W...

From a recent article on CNN : Aboukhadijeh, who is from Sacramento, California, said he’s been blown away by how quickly his tool went viral and is grateful for all the supportive feedback. “I’m amazed and humbled by all the attention it’s received. So thank you,” he said. Using an entry derived from the American Heritage Dictionary for online reference, The Free Dictionary gives their definition of humbled as: humbled hum·ble (hŭm′bəl) adj. hum·bler , hum·blest Marked by meekness or modesty in behavior, attitude, or spirit; not arrogant or prideful. Showing deferential or submissive respect: a humble apology. Low in rank, quality, or station; unpretentious or lowly: a humble cottage . tr.v. hum·bled , hum·bling , hum·bles To cause to feel humble: “He was humbled by the lack of consolation in Kornblum’s expression” (Michael Chabon). To cause to have a lower condition or status; abase. [Middle English, from Old French, from Latin humilis , low, lowly, from humus , ground; see d...

For example, instead of saying 'you have to listen to the person you are talking with', I want to say: 'You have to listen to your ___________'

I am trying to begin a paper with a quote but the person is really only known to people within a certain background so I want to include more information than: person + where quote was spoken. Just taking a random guess I put together this: "yada yada yada" -- Some Guy - significance detail. Quote from: textbook-written-by-Some-Guy. Is this the correct format? This is really the only quote I'll have and I'd rather not tax the reader at the start of a paper by referring them immediately to the works cited page to find out the significance of said person. I feel the need to explain who said person is because I am applying to graduate school, and the person should be recognizable to those in my field, but I do not know if the graduate admissions person reviewing it will realize this significance and instead start my statement of intent with a sense of confusion. Answer I've seen a lot of introductions like this, but I've never seen it formatted the way you descr...

Where did the practice of using apostrophes for possessive nouns but not pronouns originate? For example, possessive nouns (both proper and common) are written with a apostrophe before the final s : Bill’s , not Bills Sarah’s , not Sarahs the bear’s , not the bears the lizard’s , not the lizards On the other hand, several possessive pronouns do not have apostrophes before the s : his , not hi’s hers , not her’s its , not it’s theirs , not their’s ours , not our’s yours , not your’s When and where did this usage originate? Was there any technical advantage of this usage? Answer It has nothing to do with possesive nouns and pronouns, and the use of the apostrophe here is consistent. An apostrophe appears wherever one or more letters have been removed. Classically, we'd have written "Johnes things", instead of "John's things". So the apostrophe marks the absence of the letter E. This is why it does not appear in words like "hers" or "theirs...

I need a verb or an expression to convey the idea of being sold something unwanted or unneeded. Like when you go to a shop to buy , let's say, a shirt, and they somehow are able to sell you also a sweater (something you didn't ask for and you don't actually need). As in: - I needed to buy only a shirt but they ...... also a sweater. Is it appropriate, for instance, to say that they dumped the blouse on me. ? N.B. Please note that I am not a native speaker and though the expression may come natural to natives, it does not to me. In my research I could find only to dump something on someone but I am not sure if it may fit my context. Thanks Answer The words "upsell" and "cross-sell" are both defined below. While upsell is used more frequently, cross-sell may more accurately fit your sample sentence and be applied here. Upsell - verb to try to persuade a customer to buy a more expensive item or to buy a related additional product at a discount They...

“log in to” or “log into” or “login to” This following question, where and how to append "-ed", is not addressed in thу "possible duplicate" in any way. Which of the following expressions (are they expression, phrase or word?) are correct in technical English? logged-in log-ined login-ed log-in-ed logined logged in log ined Other? Which? in relation to a user reading this question? Which of the following is correct to use as verb? to login to log in to log-in

What rules are there for when you have three sets of quotation marks? “I saw that Julia was really annoyed when Mike answered, “‘Blade Runner,’”” John said. (‘Blade Runner’ in singles. Mike answered in doubles. John said in doubles.) “I saw that Julia was really annoyed when Mike answered, ‘“Blade Runner,”’” John said. (Mike answered in singles. “Blade Runner” in doubles. John said in doubles.) Rewriting might help a little. “When Mike answered, “‘Blade Runner,’” Julia looked really angry,” John said. (Mike answered in doubles. ‘Blade Runner’ in singles. John said in doubles.) Basically, I’m wondering whether you alternate, or start small and get bigger until you can’t get any bigger. The conventions may vary according to British or American usage, so please state which one you are refering to.

Which is the correct usage: "rack my brain" or "wrack my brain"? Google turned up pages with conflicting recommendations. One argument is that to "rack a brain" comes from the torture device known as a rack . Another is that wrack means damage or destruction or punishment and thus is correct. Since I'm a SE user I'm inclined to immediately discount the second opinion from Yahoo Answers, but the logic seems plausible enough that I wanted to be sure. On a related note, if rack is indeed correct, does the song Wrack My Brain by Ringo Starr simply have an ungrammatical title or is the error intentional? Answer The Oxford Dictionary Online says that the phrase could use either wrack or rack . They note that The relationship between the forms rack and wrack is complicated. The most common noun sense of rack, ‘a framework for holding and storing things’, is always spelled rack, never wrack. In the phrase rack something up the word is also always s...

I was inspired by What is the meaning of “one-half meter”? to ask this follow-on question. The article at the following link uses the phrase "up to" in a possibly ambiguous way. https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/inside-nasas-daring-8-billion-plan-to-finally-find-extraterrestrial-life/ And Clipper will provide an amazing set of eyes, flying to within 25km of the surface in long, looping orbits and returning images with a resolution of up to one-half meter per pixel. By comparison, even the best images of Pluto captured by New Horizons were about 70 meters per pixel. I believe that the intended meaning is that the resolution of the images will be at best 0.5 meter per pixel. Therefore, no images would have a resolution of 0.1 meter per pixel, but some images might be at 1 meter per pixel. However, a literal interpretation could be that "up to" refers to "one-half meter". Therefore, 1 meter per pixel could not happen but 0.1 meter per pixel could hap...

Several psycholinguists 1,2 have observed that English speakers do not use regular plurals in compounds, even when the noun refers to more than one instance ( dog-catcher , * dogs-catcher ), but do use irregular plurals in compounds where the noun refers to more than one instance ( teeth-marks , mice-infested ). I was stumped in writing the following sentence (in a discussion about a subject relating to professional women): ? One of the smartest woman mentors I've ever known told me.... I tried the obvious rewrite: ? One of the smartest women mentors I've ever known told me.... Neither feels right. The boggle definitely seems to be due to the irregular: One of the smartest firefighter mentors I've ever known told me.... * One of the smartest firefighters mentors I've ever known told me.... (Assume in this case that the mentor is a firefighter, but did not mentor me in firefighting , in which case it would equivocally be better written "one of the smartest fi...

Does one need to use the article in this case? Answer No. "To have dinner" is the idiom. While "to have a dinner" is not ungrammatical, I have been struggling to concoct a circumstance in which I might say that, and it's hard. The only one I have been able to come up with is with a different meaning of the word "dinner", viz a formal event at which one eats (i.e. a banquet). Then we might say "Our society has a dinner every year on the occasion of ... ". But I can't come up with a likely use with the ordinary meaning of "dinner".

For example, to love beauty is called "philocaly". Does this have an opposite?

presage bode augur betoken omen portend These are the words I learned today. Are they basically the same, or are they usually used in different contexts? I checked the Google Ngram Viewer and it turns out that "presage" and "omen" are used much more commonly than the others, is it because these two are somewhat more colloquial? Answer As Benny notes, "omen" is generally used as a noun, while the others are all verbs. (I see that the dictionary says that "omen" can be used as a verb, but I don't recall ever seeing it used that way.) Besides that, the words all mean pretty much the same thing in English. There may be some subtle differences in connotation in current usage. Word origins aside, "augur" and "portend" are usually used in a mystical or occult sense, while "bode" and "presage" are generally used in more mundance contexts. Like, someone is more likely to say, "The fulfillment of this anci...

I wrote the following comment in a programming forum: Objects in JavaScript behave similar to a regular associative array. This is how I would use the word "similar" in normal conversation. However, the dictionary says that "similar" is an adjective, and "similarly" should be used in this context instead: Objects in JavaScript behave similarly to a regular associative array. Both constructions look grammatically correct to me, but the second one sounds weird. Searching the internet, I see both "behaves similar to" and "behaves similarly to" are used. So are both considered grammatically correct? Answer In casual speech you can probably get away with similar , but you may sound uneducated to some. Similarly is the correct adverb form, and it does not sound weird. I would always write similarly in this case. The same is true for different and differently . As a side note, this sentence lacks subject-verb agreement: Objects in JavaScr...

I have seen 'Muslim' and 'Islamic' both used as adjectives to describe things relating to Islam. Is there a nuanced difference between the two words? I know that 'Muslim' can also be used as a noun, as in: Muslims as the people who practice Islam. But, are the following sentences both correct? Are they equivalent? The Quran is the Muslim holy book. The Quran is the Islamic holy book. Now that I have written this question, and tried to think of examples, perhaps Islamic is only an adverb? Would both of these sentences be correct? Islamic people practice Islam. Muslim people practice Islam. Answer Muslim or Moslem is always referring to a man , meaning "one who submits", with a female form Muslima , while Islamic denotes "belonging to Islam". Therefore, instead of saying Muslim people practice Islam. one can also say Muslims practice Islam. but not Islamics practice Islam. and it would be more correct to say The Quran is the Muslim's ho...

In American English, à la mode means: in fashion, up to date. with ice cream. (of beef) braised in wine, typically with vegetables. While the first meaning matches the French meaning, the other two meanings are different. Why does à la mode have also the last two meanings, in English? Answer 'À la mode' meaning 'in the fashionable way' The phrase à la mode has appeared in English in the sense of "according to current fashion" for hundreds of years. It occurs, for example, in "marriage à la mode" used by John Dryden as the title of a comedy (1673) and by William Hogarth as the title of a series of paintings (1743–1745); in both of these instances, the meaning of the phrase is "marriage in the up-to-date manner." Merriam-Webster's Eleventh Collegiate Dictionary (2003) gives a first occurrence date of 1646 for à la mode in English. The first match that a Google Books finds is from John Gaudin, Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ Suspiria: The Tears...