Blog

The other day, when my wife was unwell, I happened to mention to a relative in Norfolk that she wasn't 'feeling too clever'. He instantly knew what I meant. But it made me wonder how far this idiom extends. I'm sure I have heard it used in other parts of Britain, but is it universal throughout the Anglosphere? Answer It's certainly still used here near Manchester (but less than was once the case). Oxford Dictionaries give the sense, labelling it as an informal British usage: clever 2 [PREDICATIVE, WITH NEGATIVE] British informal Healthy or well: I was up and about by this time though still not too clever.

According to my grammar book, here are some usages of was able to and could could can be used to refer in general that someone has a skill. e.g. At that time I could still read without spectacles. In that sentence, could could be replaced by was able to ? Would there be any difference in meaning ? When could is used with words such as hear, see, understand, etc., it means that someone can do something specific . e.g. I could hear the phone ringing. In that sentence, could could be replaced by was able to ? Would there be any difference in meaning ? When could is not used with *hear, see, understand, *etc., it can't indicate that someone has the ability to do something specific. e.g.: After treatment he could return to work. ( wrong ) After treatment he was able to return to work. ( correct ) Why is the first sentence wrong? What if it comes to someone gets approval to do something? Which form is better in that case? Can was/were able to refer both to having the s

Is it wrong to say "to cook a cake"? Answer It's better to say " make a cake " or " bake a cake ". Though you can find a lot of web pages using "cook a cake". Examples: He knows how to bake a cake better than anyone else. Making a basic sponge cake is very easy.

The term wanker is derived from the verb wank in the sense of to masturbate. However, neither the OED nor Etymonline can trace it further back than that: both claim it is of “obscure origin”, which just means they don’t know. As with my question on snogging , this term seems to have come into vogue around the mid-20 th century, but nobody knows where or how it started. So where does the verb to wank come from? Answer I would say it has onomatopeic roots. Firstly, this isn't the only word for masturbation to have echoic roots: fap is echoic of the noise of masturbation. Looking at the entry in the OED, some of the uses spell the word whank , and in fact one example mentions that it might be echoic: 1951 E. Partridge Dict. Slang (ed. 4) 1220/1 Whank, (male) self-abuse: low: from ca. 1870. Perhaps echoic. Looking through Google books, it shows that whank is used as echoic of bird calls: For example "Whank, whank, whank!" the little bird calls. Also in the wank form :

There are some adjectives that are logical binaries, e.g. empty  — either the noun is empty or it isn't. Can we apply a superlative degree to such adjectives? E.g. This is the emptiest these roads will ever be / have ever been.

I've been searching the internet, but have not quite found a satisfactory explanation between an act and a deed. Both seem to have kind of a meaning of something done, though through my google and etymology searching the only apparent difference I can find is that "act" slightly hints at something more in the process of being done. (although not necessarily) Surely there should be more of a difference between the two words. If they mean the same thing surely there would be no need anymore for two words and I also know act and deed can not always be interchanged in sentences, but what is the difference exactly then? I'm left utterly confused, hope someone can help me and explain the difference...

If you passed a subject without learning anything valuable about it, did that subject really help you?

What I do is watch TV. What I did was watch TV. What I had done was watch TV. ... But, What I am doing is watching TV. The only possible form of watch in the last sentence is the gerund-participle, which cannot occur in the previous ones: *What I am doing is watch TV. *What I did was watching TV. ? What I have done is watching TV. Do you agree? Why does sentence #4 refuse the general pattern? (There might or might not be other ways to rephrase these sentences (e.g. to watch in 1, is I'm watching in 4, etc), which I'm not concerned about right now.)

I usually call this device a pallet , but I have heard it referred to as a skid : Is there a difference between the two words (such as one is the name of the actual wooden device, the other is the combined name for the wooden "slab" and the contents stacked on top), or are they entirely synonymous?

What's the difference between "and" and "and/or"? How do we decide whether to use one or the other? Note: Also it would be great if someone could explain how do we actually pronounce "and/or" verbally in a sentence... Answer Breaking this down: and/or is as official as English gets in the sense that you can use it in extremely formal contexts. There is typically a better way to say whatever is being said but it does convey a specific meaning. You should use and/or when both options are applicable in its place. "I would like cake and/or pie" means "I would like one or both of the following: cake; pie." The main reason for using and/or is to remove the ambiguity of whether and means "only both" and whether or means "only one." And/or explicitly means "it could be one of these or both of these." The confusion is drastically exacerbated by mathematicians, logicians and/or computer scientists who are

Rather than defend myself , I took a deep breath and tried to see his point of view. In the above sentence, than is a preposition. So I thought the verb defend should have a form of -ing like than defending myself . Why is the verb defend in the plain form?

Some sources say that "at the weekend" is wrong, while other ones say it's correct. Which form is acceptable in American English? On Saturdays her sister Ann usually comes to stay with Mary on/at/for/over the weekend/s. What are you going to do at/on/for/over the weekend/s? We are going to Paris on/at/for/over the weekend/s. Are you going to stay here for/at/on/over the weekend/s? Which preposition do American English speakers use — at , on , for , over ? Answer I have to admit I haven't consulted any sources, but here is what I'd say is "correct": On Saturdays, her sister Ann usually comes to stay with Mary for the weekend. and What are you going to do for the weekend? What are you going to do over the weekend? and We are going to Paris for the weekend. We are going to Paris over the weekend. "Weekend" would not normally be pluralized when preceeded by the word "the". For example: Are you going to stay here on weekends? And finally,

What one phrase or idiom describes situations (see examples below), in which people funnel their efforts in the wrong direction? A boy wants to have a cup of coffee, so he buys a notebook in a stationery store and starts writing 100 times on each page "A cup of coffee", hoping that he is going to get a cup of coffee in this way. However, he never bothers to go to the kitchen and see if he can simply prepare coffee for himself in the kitchen... A band is going to have a concert tomorrow, but they are not ready yet – they still need to rehearse more. So, instead of rehearsing they simply try to re-arrange the chairs on which they are sitting, hoping that the proper arrangement of chairs will ensure their perfect performance on the next day. A girl wants to learn how to swim. So she reads tons of books about swimming – how to build swimming pools, biographies of famous swimmers – yet she never even tries swimming by herself... Answer An option is trying to carry water in a siev

During my formative years, I had access to many older publications and learned, or thought I did, that its' is the proper way to indicate possession. Thus: "Speaking of this boat, its' hull needs patching up." I am reading, mostly in current grammar blogs, that this form is absolutely incorrect. I am perplexed. For many years I have thought it was the opposite. I do not mind being wrong, so I thought I would ask. Answer It's is a contraction. The full form is it is . Its is ONE WORD, a possessive form of it. Its hull needs patching up. No apostrophe. You can't say "It is hull needs patching up," can you.

Examples: It is important to me. It will be good for you. This sounds stupid to me. I'll make it comfortable for you. I'll make it available to you. Any rules here, dear native speakers, or do we, non-native speakers, just have to memorize all individual cases?

what are the meanings of "treated observation" and "non-treated observation" in this context ? Further, propensity score matching is a more robust method of matching that quantitative accounting researchers frequently use (Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983). With this technique, the researcher first estimates a logit or probit regression with the treatment effect as the dependent variable (i.e., S&P 500 membership, continuing with our earlier example) and independent variables that are known determinants of the treatment (possibly economic performance, firm size, age, industry, etc. in our example). From this first-stage regression, the researcher obtains propensity scores. 6 The researcher then matches each treated observation to a non-treated observation based on the distance between their propensity scores (i.e., those observations with the closest propensity scores are matched). 7 Hoi et al. (2013) utilize propensity score matching in their study that links irresp

AS Hornby says in one of his books that we should always use the before mosque, and temple unlike church . When we go to a church for prayer, we say I am going to church while we say I am going to the church when we go to a church to whitewash it. I thought, until I read Hornby that the same rule applied to mosque and temple . But Hornby says that we should say I am going to the mosque whether we are going there for prayer or not. To make it clear one should add a phrase with the sentence like for prayer or for whitewashing it . Another British grammarian named Hewings says in his Advanced English Grammar that the same rule as that of church applies to mosque . In his opinion one should say I am going to mosque when he is going there for prayer and I am going to the mosque when he is going there for some other thing than prayer. Both are British grammarians of English. Who is to be followed, Hornby or Hewings?

Forgive me if this is already answered. As a little background, I use English as a second language and am a bit interested in etymology. Recently I came up with an observation that many English words which are associated with tools end with '-dle'. For instance, we have words like 'bindle, cradle, huddle, griddle, saddle, paddle' to name a few. Maybe it is a hasty generalization, but I begin to suspect that this suffix is associated with certain meaning which is not known to me. Unfortunately a quick googling showed nothing to me, so I would appreciate any clarification on this subject. Answer The suffix you are looking for is -le , not -dle According to dictionary.com: 1. a suffix of verbs having a frequentative force: dazzle; twinkle. 2. a suffix of adjectives formed originally on verbal stems and having the sense of “apt to”: brittle. 3. a noun suffix having originally a diminutive meaning: bramble. 4. a noun suffix indicating agent or instrument: beadle; bridle

I'm looking for a word with a positive undertone to describe a teenager who does her own thing and doesn't cave in to peer pressure. Any suggestions? Thanks. Question edited 1/30/16. Someone marked this question as a duplicate, but I think the other question is quite different from the one already posted. The other question is asking about a single word to describe someone who doesn't follow the crowd for the single purpose of being contrary. A contrary state of mind has nothing to do with what I'm looking for. I'm writing a recommendation for a teenager who is polite, independent, confident, and doesn't follow the crowd... NOT out of a sense of being different for the sake of being different, and not because she's ornery and contrary, but because she's her own person, and not swayed by what the other teens are doing. Can we re-open this discussion? Answer In one word "independent", in two "independent minded".

Are there idioms (or single words) in English for people who behave like they have come from another world where everything is perfect and know nothing about the reality? They usually come up with ideas that can never work, but look attractive if you don't analyze them properly. They know nothing about science, and it seems they don't know that people lie, cheat and get violent. PS in Russian we usually use the word "эльфы" (elves) for such people, and they are supposedly visiting our world from the "world of elves". It's usually considered pejorative. Answer space cadet : someone with little grasp of reality. Also spacey or spaced-out . E.T. or Extraterrestrial -- commonly used to refer to those from outer space. Commonly used to refer to actual residents of other worlds, but also applied to those that act like they are from another planet. Eggheads : intellectuals that have little in the way of social skills or awareness. Also absent minded though

There are some options when you use the word way and some verb together: (1) a. There are some way of writing.       b. There are some way to write. Is there any difference between (1a) and (1b)? However, it seems that you cannot use way plus the possessives and "to Verb" together: (2) a. I'm used to their way of doing business.       b. ? I'm used to their way to do business. Do you agree with this judgement? If so, why is it impossible to use way plus the possessives and "to verb" at the same time?

Can someone explain the difference between legacy and inheritance ? Answer In my mind, "inheritance" is almost exclusively used to deal with physical or monetary goods, features, or character traits; you can inherit your father's estate, you can inherit your mother's good looks, you can inherit your grandfather's business sense. "Legacy" can be used in that same sense, but it can also have a much broader sense to refer to a situation that is set up for for the benefit of the descendents: "My father's legacy was the freewheeling, open, friendly town that bears his name: Fatherville." Or, "Our parents' legacy was not simply that they bequeathed us ten million dollars each, but that with that money in trust, we felt free to explore, experiment, and take risks that we would not have been able to, had we not had that safety net available." (Also, as pointed out in some comments, "inheritance" is generally from the viewp

What is a word that means to say in a positive sense? For instance, when writers say that a person was sexually assaulted instead of saying raped . Or people use let go instead of fired . What is that called? Answer Such a usage is called a Euphemism . "A figure of rhetoric by which an unpleasant or offensive thing is described or referred to by a milder term" (Chambers)

Which one of these adjectives is correct? I can see that both of them are being used, I'm just not sure which one is grammatically correct. Are there any general rules to follow as to the use of one against the use of the other? Answer The basic rules of forming comparatives: One-syllable words take "er": clear -> clearer sweet -> sweeter Multisyllable words take "more": incredible -> more incredible (not "incredibler") horrible -> more horrible (not "horribler") Two-syllable words ending in consonant + "y" take "ier": happy -> happier pretty -> prettier Both "more clear" and "clearer" are acceptable: Your answer is more clear than mine. Your answer is clearer than mine. Frequency of use: clearer than is twice as common as more clear than , although both are common.

Every so often I'll hear a phrase that forms part of a song or phrase that I know. Suddenly I can hear the song playing in my head or my mind finishes off the phrase. What is the correct phrase/word for this sort of unconscious surfacing of memories that then intermingle with what I'm currently hearing? For instance I might hear someone say: Treacle Pudding The words are unrelated, but the intonation reminds me of the Goldfinger theme tune, so my head tries to finish of the song with the words Tracle Pudding in place of Goldfinger Another example is I'll hear the words, with the wrong intonation, but my brain still picks up the phrase of song lyrics and it plays out in my head. This has nothing to do with smells, sight or any other input.

OED says: doobie : a marijuana cigarette Origin unknown. A relationship with dobby has been suggested. dobby/dobbie : A silly old man, a dotard, a booby. Dialectal. First citations: 1967 J. B. Williams Narcotics & Hallucinogenics. Dubbe , Negro slang for a marijuana roach. 1982 A. Maupin Further Tales of City 95, I smoke a doobie at lunch. But I just chanced upon What does the "dooby" in "scooby dooby doo" mean? in Yahoo Answers (don't laugh! :) where someone posted: "It's obvious that Shaggy's a stoner , I'm sure he's been feeding Scoob a bit of his hash and whatnot." Scoob = Scooby Doo , cartoon "pet" dog of constantly-hungry hippie/village idiot Shaggy (from 1969) I'm not entirely convinced that 1967 dubbe was necessarily a significant factor in the appearance of a doobie = a joint since around 1970 (the hippie era, some might say). So I'd like to know whether it's credible to claim the usage arose (pr

The English Oxford Dictionaries’ definition of the word 'until' lists the following as its etymology: Middle English: from Old Norse und 'as far as' + till (the sense thus duplicated ) Etymonline similarly states : c.1200, from O.N. und "as far as, up to " (related to O.E. end; see end) + till "until, up to ". Looking at the two entries, it seems that until is made up of two roots which mean the same thing, rendering the word something of a tautology (' up to up to '). Or does it? Etymonline also states that it is related to the word end which would effectively make the etymology of until mean, ' up to the end '. This makes some sort of sense. The OED (online), however, does not list until as being related to end . Moreover, Etymonline does not mention und in its entry for end either, which makes things a little confusing. So, is until something of a tautology? If so, is it unique in this aspect?

I was a li'l nonplussed to find out that the word wifebeater can mean other things besides "a man who beats up his wife". Its definition reads: One who (usually as a repeated practice) beats one’s wife, or a husband prone to violence A kind of sleeveless shirt , often but not exclusively worn as an undershirt. (uncountable, UK, slang) Stella Artois , a brand of lager beer. ODO reckons that sense 2 is American and originates " apparently from the association of such a garment with men who commit domestic violence ". It does not register the UK slang. I'm guessing that Stellas also have an unfortunate association with domestic violence. Are these alternative senses popular in their respective countries or are they perhaps nonce words that have lingered on? Any idea how these disparaging associations came about? I expect that the brewers of Stella Artois are none too happy about it. Answer Slang sense 3, for Stella Artois, is well known in the UK. Originall

What is the meaning of 'call out' in the following sentence? [W]e must call out bad behavior, including that of the corrupt regime in Tehran. from an article 'It's Official: North Korea is behind Wannacry' in WSJ. Unfortunately, the dictionary I use, The New Oxford American Dictionary, does not give the usage of 'call (something) out' as in the above way though it has a section for 'call (someone) out'. To me, 'call out' seems an idiom.

I know that when we're talking about something that is possessed collectively by all children it is "children's". What about a scenario where one of the possessed nouns belongs to each individual child? Answer Well, childrens isn't a word, so it's still children's . Just one more ambiguity in the English language.

Is there a noun form of the word "archaic"? The closest word I can think of is "old-fashionedness" but it seems rather clumsy. Answer Maybe archaism a thing that is very old, or old-fashioned

The words "okay" and "emcee" seem to both be somewhat widely accepted (at least, I can find both in several dictionaries). But it seems to be agreed that these are simply sounded-out spellings of the initialisms "O.K." and "M.C." respectively. Are there any other words like this, and is there a general term for them? Answer There doesn't seem to be an official term for words made by spelling out the name sounds of an initialism's letters. Twelve years ago today, on 2000-01-06, Lee Daniel Quinn suggested calling this type of word a vocologue , but his attempted neologism doesn't seem to have caught on. I'd like to see a happier fate for wim 9's acronomatopoeia , suggested in the comments above. I like the cleverness of the portmanteau formation, and it can be reasonably-well understood to mean a word formed by the sounds of an initialism's letter names. I was able to find only the following 9 common examples of acronomatop

Can someone please give a clear definition and distinction of these terms, as when a public figure is asked a difficult question and says: "I'll take that on notice" or "I'll take that under advisement."

I grew up learning that the comma must be placed there, but it seems like an unnecessary interruption in a phrase that isn't ever spoken that way.

I really cannot understand why the sentence is correct and what type of conditional it is. If Julie went to the party last night, she definitely saw what happened. Other examples that confuse me: If you don't know the answer, you didn't do your homework. If the results didn't come out yesterday, they will come out today. Answer The conditionals taught in EFL lessons are taught as examples of how conditionals can be. They aren't meant to be models of every type of conditional. They are meant to be patterns to practice when you are starting to learn the language. They shouldn't be understood as an exhaustive description of every type of tense and modal verb possible in conditional sentences. There are really only two types of conditionals, those that use tense in the same way as other sentences and those that use backshifted verb forms ( examples of which would be those conditionals termed second or third conditionals in language teaching). In the Original Poster&#

I was told the word 'major' is used in NZ, AUS, US and Canada but not UK. Is this true? If so, what do Britons call it? 'Speciality'? Source: http://wikidiff.com/major/speciality

H. W. Fowler established a terminology (I do not know if it originates with him), where clauses that are related to another clause through a pronoun are called relative clauses ; he further drew a distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses to explain his famous rule about when to apply that vs. which. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language rejects this terminology in favour of another terminology: Instead of restrictive relative clause, the CGEL prefers integrated relative clause ; Instead of non-restrictive relative clause, the CGEL (always?, usually?) prefers supplementary relative clause . Why does the CGEL, reflecting the preference in Anglistics, follow this alternative terminology? Answer The authors themselves say of the traditional terms: They are misleading: the integrated relative is NOT always restrictive, in the sense of picking out a subset of the set denoted by the head noun. They go on to give supporting examples. However, if you’re

What is the exact word (not necessarily a single noun) to use for a person who seems to be introvert when in real-life, but is very much extroverted and free when they talk to you online? Answer Urban Dictionary suggests netrovert .

What is the difference between gender and sex ? Wiktionary says that gender is The mental analog of sex but that's too high English for me. Basically, I'm developing a web-application that stores people's profile along with a field for gender/sex. Which name would be more appropriate? __ [UPDATE] After getting these good answers, I can figure out that, Sex - Biological characteristics Gender - Social characteristics And, well, for my web-application, I went with the term sex , as it sounds more scientific and less political . P.S. Values for sex are clearly defined and can be easily validated (only two values AFAIK * + an optional blank value). * plus some anomalies. Answer According to APA style , "gender" refers to culture and should be used when referring to men and women as social groups, while "sex" refers to biology and should be used when biological distinctions are emphasized.

I live in the UK and generally a word that adds flavour or describes a verb , will have the adverb ending applied eg run quickly (not run quick) , eat healthily (not eat healthy) etc But when I watch the many US TV shows on in the UK, I almost never hear Americans using adverbs in this way. They just seem to use the adjectival form of the word. This seems to be so common as to be standard in the US. Is this viewed as correct speech in the US ?

I am changing a piece of text which current reads: Payment not deducted to also include the situation where payments are withheld. The suggested revision of text given to me is Payment not deducted or withheld Is this semantically correct? To me it reads: Payment not deducted and payment not withheld when what it should really read as is: Payment not deducted or payment withheld The ambiguity can be removed by rephrasing as: Payment withheld or not deducted but I’m curious to know the rules regarding the word not preceeding an or . Answer Unlike programming languages, in which the way that logical operations like ᴀɴᴅ, ᴏʀ, and ɴᴏᴛ occurring in the same sentence are ordered and applied is governed by strict laws of precedence and supplemented by overriding parentheses at need, human language in general and the English language in specific enjoys no such rigorous set of rules recognized by all speakers and writers, wherefore it is necessary to rewrite all such complex and potentially co

I am looking for a hypernym for all places that provide food, beverages, or both, of any quality or price — such as restaurant, cafe, fast-food and so on. Answer The name of the industry in the US is “food service” (or “foodservice”); according to Wikipedia the corresponding term in BE is “catering industry”. Within the industry, individual outlets are “food service operations”. In ordinary speech the most ‘generic’ term is “restaurant”, which embraces both ‘sit-down’ (table service) establishments and fast-food outlets, but tends to exclude institutional operations such as hospital or corporate cafeterias. “Eatery” is sometimes used, but it’s old-fashioned and implies a down-scale establishment; referring to a Michelin-starred restaurant as an “eatery” would be distinctly jocular. Travel guides, newspapers and the like will often use verbal headings: “Eating”, “Eating Out”, “Dining Out”, and so forth. EDIT: tchrist asks for a term embracing hot-dog stands and the like. Within the i

I am looking for an idiom or phrase that means "thinking hard by myself to solve a problem". I hope the idiom or phrase has the word "head" in it. Example: I have been ____ head ______ for the last 5 days to solve this math puzzle.

I have a colleague who, in his technical documentation, sometimes likes to put entire sentences, or sometimes entire paragraphs, in parentheses. This looks wrong to my eye, but I'm having difficulty articulating precisely why. Should I be more tolerant of this style, or is there a reason why comments in parentheses should generally be restricted to phrases within a sentence and not form larger units of text? In case this isn't clear, here's an example, adapted from some text I'm reviewing: By default, the template to be rendered will be $root/template. (Variable $root has a default value.) (Previous versions of this program loaded templates from webapp/WEB-INF, but in this release these files have been moved out of the web application.) I think the goal here is to de-emphasise the subsidiary information, but I think it would be clearer without the parentheses. Answer As you have indicated, the purpose of parentheses is to de-emphasize the enclosed material. There are a

An online retail store is asking its customers to construct a sentence beginning with them in order to win a voucher. I just can't believe there's any such sentence, at least I don't know of any! I've had enough laughs with friends coming up with Americanisms that fit, so that's not what I'm looking for. I'm just very curious, is such a sentence grammatically possible or is this store just being mischievous? Answer Fronting the object for focus, by converting an SVO sentence into an OSV one, is a common enough syntactic pattern in English: Submitting ungrammatical sentences is of no use here. Them we refuse to even consider.

There is a family of expressions called oxymorons which contain contradicting meanings. What about expressions that add little meaning like "fatally injured" or "the evening sunset"? What are these expressions called? Answer These are known as tautologies or tautologous expressions . Some examples from the Guardian Style Guide : Aum Shinrikyo means Supreme Truth sect, but note that the "aum" means sect, so to talk about the "Aum sect" or "Aum cult" is tautologous affidavit a written declaration made on oath, so "sworn affidavit" is tautologous. Eid al-Adha (Festival of Sacrifice) Muslim festival laid down in Islamic law, celebrates the end of the hajj. Note that eid means festival, so it is tautologous to describe it as the “Eid festival gambit an opening strategy that involves some sacrifice or concession; so to talk of an opening gambit is tautologous — an opening ploy might be better regalia plural, of royalty; “royal reg

What is the origin of the phrase “you've got another thing/think coming”? Which is correct: "another think coming" or "another thing coming"? I have seen/heard both. Is one correct or more common?

I am talking about events taking place in the known future: Would it be okay if I'll confirm around 3 pm? or should it be Would it be okay if I'd confirm around 3 pm? What is the difference and which one is correct? Why? Answer Both Al and Mike are correct; you should use one of these forms: a Would it be OK if I confirmed around 3pm? b Will it be OK if I confirm around 3pm? Use (a) if you're in a situation where you're seeking the person's permission: that is, you need permission to either be able to confirm later, or permission to confirm later at the time you mention . With the (a) form, you're seeking the other person's input or approval, and their decision might completely alter your plans. Use (b) if it's already established that the plans are agreed , and now you're working out logistics. You're already agreed to do whatever it is, and you've agreed that you can cofirm later, but now you're seeking to find out what the best time

In colloquial English, I constantly run across sentences of the form: I rather my [noun] [verb] A quick Google search returns tons of examples: I rather my opponents don't find out. I rather my fans not read this. I rather my teeth froze than hurt. I rather my smile with the braces on. I rather my kids smoke pot than drink alcohol. Looks like "rather" is on its way to becoming a verb, a synonym of "to prefer". When did that start? Obviously there are several steps to this process, from "I'd rather do X" via "I'd rather X" to "I rather X". But none of the dictionaries I have checked, from Hornby to Merriam-Webster to Cambridge to Wiktionary, seem to have picked up this usage just yet. So how recent is this phenomenon? Edit five years later, just discovered this gem in an MMOG forum: I would rather the team not be hard at work to fix things. I would have rathered the team be given a realistic amount of time to put together as

What is the antonym of "to prefer" that does not sound too negative? Merriam-Webster lists several antonyms for "to prefer" , but all of them sound a bit too negative to me. In a situation with many choices, I want to convey a preference towards a specific choice without putting the other choice(s) in a bad light. A long-winded way of writing this down is: I strongly prefer X over Y (but if X is unavailable, then I am perfectly fine with Y). X is strongly preferred over Y (but if X is unavailable, then Y is also fine). "disprefer" closely matches what I'm looking for, but it seems not to be a "real" word, so I'm not sure whether "Y is dispreferred over X" can be used in a scientific article. Answer Preamble on the logical implication of an antonym You are trying to confuse people's understanding of the term antonym . Logically, speaking, the term you could have used is antithesis . However, since all the dictionaries defi

Could you explain to me which is correct? A younger generation of men follow . . . A younger generation of men follows . . . Could you also explain why? I was thinking that the bit that cannot be removed should be the one that determines whether the verb is singular or plural. The sentence would lose its sense without younger generation so does that mean that that is the bit to which follows must correspond?

One of my friends told me that "will be able to" is a wrong phrase. Able doesn't fit with will . Is this true? Answer He has it backwards. The modal verb can, which means the same thing as to be able to, cannot be put into the future. If you want to say that modern medicine has the ability to cure cancer, you could say: We can cure cancer. or We are able to cure cancer. If you want to say that modern medicine will have the ability to cure cancer in the future, even if it currently doesn't, you don't say *We will can cure cancer. but instead, you say We will be able to cure cancer.

I don't know how to say it but "at all" used in yes or no questions has a specific function. I would maybe call it "asking for a basic reality" but I don'T know if that makes sense to anyone. Do you drink milk at all? I feel like "at all" does not work with w-questions. Where is the bar at all? Are there examples where it does work? Answer Would it work at all? That is, would "it" function even partly, or was it completely broken (if "it" is a device) or completely hopeless (if "it" was an idea). In general, in most dialects, the "at all" can be replaced with "even a little", and assumes that the answer is either "no" or "just a little bit". It comes from using "at all" in statements to emphasise a lack: That wouldn't interest me at all. The "at all" here adds emphasis to the lack of interest, not only would the topic not interest the speaker, but they do

Is it offensive to use the term layman nowadays? Does it insinuate that the people to whom you are referring are uneducated? I am wanting to say This is just one of the ways that CERN's research affects the layman . Is that acceptable? Answer "Layman" is a perfectly acceptable term. No one is an expert in every field. It refers to a person who is not an expert in the field. Very educated and accomplished people are laymen in fields not related to their own. For instance a neurosurgeon may know nothing about economics or paleo-botany and may ask: "Could you please describe that in layman's terms." Say you're at an event and you hear something that you don't understand. "This GUID is not sufficient for our needs. We need to concatenate ..." No one would consider you, or a neurosurgeon, or a physicist incompetent for not knowing what a Globally Unique Identifier is. If, however, you're passing yourself over as a DBA (Database Administrat

The construction GO + V + ING is among one of the first things a learner is taught. Take for instance the verb swim , very often English expresses the activity in the present simple like this: I go swimming twice a week This construction is used with any ‘outdoorsy’ or sport activity that employs a verb, such as: He goes skiing whenever he can She goes dancing with her friends. We go walking every day They go surfing at/on weekends. The verb GO is inflected to express different tenses such as He didn't go swimming. She's going fishing in the morning. We went bowling last night. He'd gone hunting before. They've just gone rock climbing. Shopping and drinking seem to break the mould, they are neither sports nor games, but you can think of them as being “outdoor” or pastime activities. You can go drinking with your mates, and while many Italians believe lo shopping is only the activity that young girls do in boutiques; people also go shopping for food etc. And nowaday

Does “notified by [date]” include the end date? “I will do it by Monday”. Does it mean before the beginning or before the end of Monday? If something has to be finished " by spring 2013 ," how long do I have? Does this imply the beginning, or the end of spring?

I am looking for a compound noun that has a meaning that is completely (or very) different from the words it is derived from. This because I want to give an example of how powerful the human brain is in understanding meaning from context. For example, we know that washing machine is a machine that washes. We know that a haircut is a specific way in which your hair is cut. These words are relatively easy to understand, because the meaning of the individual words is largely retained in the meaning of the compound. I would like to find a word "X" in which the two seperate words are relatively well-known and have individual meanings, but when combined the meaning is completely different. Answer Here's a few which I think fit: The list at http://www.teflgames.com/compound_nouns.html was helpful to come up with ideas.

I'm looking for a word that describes an event or situation that is problematic but unusual. The word should indicate that something is theoretically possible, but so unlikely that you could ignore it. Example: Physicists laugh at the [unlikely but bad] possibility that the large hadron collider creates a black hole that engulfs the planet. There are many words in the English language that relate to things that cause harm with varying shades of meaning: pernicious events are harmful but subtle, maleficent characters spread destruction using tools of magic, and an inimical situation both harms and frustrates. In technical fields, harmful but unlikely events tend to form the core areas of concern—the LHC is a perfect example. It seems rather likely that there is a word, perhaps drawn from technical jargon, that succinctly captures this idea. EDIT: Added additional background, specified technical nature of question, and asked for jargon. Answer One phrase that's gaining widesp

To hyphenate or not? What is the proper way to spell "side dish"? Is it: "side dish" or "side-dish"? Also, Is it "ham-fried" or "ham fried"? Basically, when do you use hyphens? Answer There's no single answer to this: various conventions exist depending on personal preference and/or the in-house (or "in house", or "inhouse") style guide for the particular publication you're writing for. That said, I think that in general, using hyphens between the elements of compound nouns is less common nowadays (so people would tend to write "side dish", "ticket office" etc, not "side-dish", "ticket-office"). I also get the impression (with no hard statistics to back it up) that US usage favours the hyphen still a bit more than UK usage. I think a common modern convention is to use hyphens mainly for cases of ambiguity or where a compound functions as an adjective (or perhaps more

I saw this on a billboard recently We have new and pre-owned cars and trucks Clearly the intention is to modify "cars and trucks" with the two adjectives "used and preowned" and although the construction does make sense intuitively (and colloquially), I was wondering if there are any specific rules about this kind of "dual-and" construction or any other situation where you have multiple adjectives modifying a string of objects simultaneously. Answer [Edited] The problem with this kind of double reference is that it might sometimes give rise to ambiguity. That is why the words "respective" and "respectively" are used when it is necessary to let readers know that the first verb refers only to the first noun, and the second only to the second. While this example is not really ambiguous, several interpretations are theoretically possible: We have used cars, and we have pre-owned trucks. In this case, you would use "respectively".

When should I say "She is gone", and when should I say "She has gone" (and why)? I think that when I mean "She went away and she's still there", it should be "She has gone". Are there exceptions where it should be "She is gone" ? Answer You should normally use be gone if no direction is specified, have gone with directions: Where is Cleopatra? She is gone. (= she is away, or dead) Where is Cleopatra? She has gone to the temple. This is idiom: it is irregular and only applies to very few verbs. And is gone can still be used with specific directions sometimes, though it is probably rare. The opposite has gone without direction doesn't sound wrong, but it is probably less frequent. I believe to be + past participle was used to form the present perfect for all intransitive verbs in older English, just as in other Germanic languages: not I have been but I am been , etc. So it was once he is gone always, even with specific di

But that Woodman and that Farmer, though they work unceasingly, work silently, and no one heard them as they went about with muffled tread: the rather, forasmuch as to entertain any suspicion that they were awake, was to be atheistical and traitorous. In the last sentence of the passage above, "...that they were awake", who were awake and awakened from what? In "...,was to be atheistical and traitorous", who was atheistical and traitorous? Thank you!

"We are all mad." "We all are mad." I think each of these conveys the same idea. Besides this, we can use "we are all" alone. I hear the first one more frequently. Does the second one sound worse to a native speaker? I wonder about this. Note: I'm not a native speaker. Answer Both are grammatical, but the first is more usual. We are all is much more frequent than we all are in both the Corpus of Contemporary American English and in the British National Corpus. There are, however, some contexts where we all are would be used. The answer to the question Who is responsible? might be We all are , and not We are all . That apart, as a non-native speaker, you would be wise to stick to We are all when something else follows.

The Official Tug of War Rules (link is PDF, here is Google quickview link) say: The rope must not be less than 10 centimetres (100 mm), or more than 12.5 centimetres (125 mm) in circumference... Since it's declaring a negation, shouldn't it be nor?

I am bringing up a rather pedantic point here, but, one that has me completely stumped. This is going to require some serious grammar knowledge. I was in a line at a shop today and the teenager at the counter actually said "May I please help whomever is next." As a matter of conversational English, I dare say, this construction borders on pretentious. But, on deeper thought, it might be fine in formal English since the subject of the dependent clause should typically agree with the main clause. But, then I found the following post by Edwin Ashworth on this site regarding the issue: If one wants to be pedantic, the correct version uses whoever rather than whomever in this construction as, though the accusative is required to agree with the main clause (Can I help John? Can I help him? Can I help him who is next? NOT *Can I help he who is next? - see Fowler), the compound lexeme whoever fulfils a dual accusative (relating to the main clause)/nominative (relating to the relati

I’m referring to the similar definitions of these four nouns – something raised and rounded. Why do these four rhyming words have similar meanings? I have not found very specific sources for these words on the Online Etymology Dictionary and Wiktionary . Hump is “probably from Dutch homp.” Rump is “from a Scandinavian source,” “from Old Norse rumpr” ultimately from Proto-Germanic “rumpo.” Lump is “perhaps from a Scandinavian source” and finally, Bump is “perhaps from Scandinavian,” “probably of North Germanic origin.” Could these words come from the same root? Other than the fact that they all might come from northern Europe, the only hint I have in this direction is the following from Wiktionary , tracing the origin of Hump through Dutch, Middle Low German, Old Saxon and Proto-Germanic, to Proto-Indo-European * kumb- , * kumbʰ- (“curved”). Could this PIE root, which is not given in these online sources for any of the other three words, be a common root to all four words? I fin

What's the origin of the term microbe ? According to related definitions and topics, I think it may be micro + be . If it is, what does "be" stand for? Answer It comes from Greek, via French. microbe, etymology - late 19th century: from French, from Greek mikros ‘ small ’ + bios ‘ life .’ popular name for a bacterium, 1878, from French microbe, "badly coined ... by Sédillot" [Weekley] in 1878 from Greek mikros "small" (see mica) + bios "life" (see bio-). It is an incorrect use of bios; in Greek the word would mean literally "short-lived." Online Etymology Dictionary Therefore, literally it means "small life" and "microscopic life" scientifically speaking.

If there are several adjectives referring to different instances of the same noun, should the noun be plural? For example, which of the following is correct? The first, second, fifth and eighth runner ... The first, second, fifth and eighth runners ...

Is there a word out there describing an overly caring parent? E.g. a mother who is constantly calling her daughter, asking where she is, etc.

SO if someone tells you that they took cough syrup and they don't have a cough anymore so therefore cough medicine works. I have kept a virus scanner and malware scanner on my computer and never got a virus so it works. There is a word that I know describes these false correlations but its all about the fact that they cannot prove it. You can't go back in time and then not take medicine and see if the same thing happened. You cannot go back in time and do the exact same thing with your computer to see if you still don't get a virus. I am struggling to find the word that describes this and cannot remember what its called. Wondering if someone else can help. Answer There is an exact expression for the circumstance you describe. Post hoc ergo propter hoc No, I know: it is not a word. And, yes, it is Latin, not English. It means After this, therefore because of this. It is, even now, the expression for a logical fallacy. No standard English expression has replaced this precise

I was just wondering what the origins of " breaking news" or "we broke the story" are. Answer The word breaking in this context means to undergo a change or enter a new state, in particular ... of news or a scandal [NOAD] Etymonline has this interesting tidbit to offer about break : Meaning "to disclose" is from mid-13c. That meaning is the flip side of the way you used it, and it is a transitive verb: "He broke the news to me that .." I believe that got modified to "breaking news" by extension.

He spent a lot of money to buy a house. He spent a lot of money buying a house. In my head both of the sentences are correct. What's the difference between these sentences?

The current popular verb for someone who has died is to say they "passed." It sounds incorrect to me -- isn't the proper terminology "passed-away"? I've noticed that people on TV and people under 30 tend to favor this usage.

When did it become correct to add an ‘s’ to a singular possessive already ending in ‘s’? Which singular names ending in “s” form possessives with only a bare apostrophe? My name is Greg — this is Greg 's post. If my name ended with an 's', I am aware of the proper apostrophe usage (James → James'), but how should this be pronounced? Phonetically, am I Jameses best friend or James best friend? Answer James' [z] best friend sounds better. If this is the right form, then according to this thread , [z] would apply: In the suffix -(e)s , indicative of the plural of a noun, the possessive case of a noun, or the 3rd. person singular past tense of a verb, the -s is read: voiceless, [s] , when it comes after a voiceless consonant ... cats, tracks, boots, walks, etc. and voiced, [z] , when it comes after a voiced consonant or a vowel. dogs, cars, skies, keys, days, etc.

Which is grammatically correct? I can only do so much in this time. or I can do only so much in this time. Answer In the given example there's not much difference. But there can be a great deal of difference in other constructions involving the same idea. Consider: I only eat fish when I'm sick. I eat fish only when I'm sick. I eat only fish when I'm sick. I submit that the first sentence is a bit ambiguous, and could be clarified in the direction of the second or third. Two and three mean entirely different things. NOTE : In spoken English it is relatively easy to make the first sentence unambiguous by use of a vocal stress on the part you wish to indicate belongs with only . I only eat fish when I'm sick. (I eat only fish when I'm sick.) I only eat fish when I'm sick . (I eat fish only when I'm sick.) I only eat fish when I'm sick . (I eat fish only when I'm sick.) Certainly you can do the same thing in writing or typing via underlining or