Blog

Why are "answer me" and "answer the question" acceptable but not "answer me the question"? Is it similar to "explain me (something)"?

In the back of my mind, I'm almost certain there are at least several individual English word that means to punish one's self. It doesn't have to be physical, necessarily, but it must be some kind of self-punishment. Are there such words? Clinical words are also accepted (i.e. psychological terminology). Answer Asceticism is a form of self-denial, or voluntary suffering, especially as a way of life. It isn't always associated with guilt though.

While today we use for example the word "you" for second person singular and plural in objective and subjective manner, there were actually words to differentiate this usages like "thou" and "thee", along with many other pronouns and irregular verbs (that can be looked up in this table for example). How come this parts of the language, especially specifying forms basically does not exist in today's language? Answer I remember when I was very young, my grandpa used to use the words thou and thee and wert and wast , as well as other people in Yorkshire. When I was at school, these words were used to express a closeness to people, and as I was growing up, they were removing all these words from the old school books, and thou wast became you were. However, there were children who came from close agricultural family backgrounds, whose parents spoke in the old way, and they said things like you wast instead of you were . Eventually, this seems to have

When should I use one or the other? Answer A photo is a picture taken with a camera. A picture is any visual representation of a subject.

A posting in my Facebook timeline today began "I've been sorting boxes of Pure D-Crap." The poster was writing from Alameda, California (near San Francisco). It struck me that I hadn't heard "pure D" used as an intensifier in at least 25 years—and perhaps not since I left Texas in 1980. A Google Books search finds a couple of instances of the term from the early 1990s. From Lee K. Abbott, " Where Is Garland Steeples Now? " in Jeanne Schinto, The Literary Dog: Great Contemporary Dog Stories (1990): After he was gone for about four months, you heard this story often and with considerable conviction, it now having entered the popular imagination. It was told by a KINT DJ and appeared in the CB cross-talk on I-10 or up around Odessa. Darrell Royal, then coaching the Longhorns and in Houston for a cookout, told a high-school running back named Scooter that it, the story, was pure-D invention —wish and whine from those of mashed spirit. You heard it in

I hear the word architect used as a verb in the technical field and now more often in other industries and groups, for example: We need to architect a better solution to the problem. I am interested if this is considered acceptable usage, as I see this word being used more in published technical documents (not necessarily books, but corporate publications). I can see how a conductor can conduct, a typist can type, but can a scientist "science"? A scientist might research, analyze, and so forth, as an architect might design, create, build, etc. Merriam-Webster defines architect as a noun , however, I have been told that other dictionaries exist that define architect as both a noun and a verb — is there a credible reference or source that authoritatively answers this question? Answer Traditionally "architect" is a noun only, but it is increasingly common to hear it used as a verb, though usually in business or technical situations where jargon is very common. Sin

The Online Etymology Dictionary reads: flounder (v.) 1590s, perhaps an alteration of founder (q.v.), influenced by Dutch flodderen "to flop about," or native verbs in fl- expressing clumsy motion. Thus, the origin of flounder is not certain. However, after reading that dictionary entry, I wonder if flounder can be simply an embellishment of founder , where the sound unit fl might be used in order to carry a subliminal meaning of heavy movement, according to J. R. Firth's theory . Can this origin be realistically considered? Answer In the following extract The word Word Detective explains why the two term fonder and flounder are often confused and comments on their possible origin. It appears that the noun "flounder" (a fish) and the verb flondev are not etymologically related , but the verb "flounder" is most likely an alteration of to fonder, derived from the assonance with other verbs like "blunder": The matter of “founder” versus “flo

What's a word meaning "I want something very similar to what you have, but I don't feel resentment for your possession of it, nor do I wish for you to lose it"? Greed doesn't seem targeted Envy means wanting to take what someone else has, and feeling satisfaction upon seeing them lose it Jealousy is a defensive fear of loss Lust seems targeted at the person themselves Answer How about desire? Desire noun a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen.

I know that the construction "It is not so much funny as interesting" is valid if I want to talk about something that is both funny and interesting, but with an element of comparison. Is it still correct if I add "it is", as in, "It is not so much funny as it is interesting"? Is it possible to rephrase this sentence using "less"? For example, "It is less funny than [it is?] interesting"? If the bullet point above is correct, then would I need to use "more funny" or "funnier" if I were to turn the sentence around? I know that the correct comparative is "funnier", but it sounds unnatural to me in this sentence. But this point is irrelevant if the entire construction is wrong. Example for the last point: "It is more funny/funnier than [it is?] interesting" Answer I know that the construction "It is not so much funny as interesting" is valid if I want to talk about something that is both

What is the difference between down the shore and at the beach ? Does the latter imply you are physically on the beach? Answer This is a Jersey espression and refers to heading down south to any of the beach towns on the New Jersey shoreline.

The word enormity is widely used to mean excess of size , but if somebody talks about the enormity of his achievements he would look foolish. Why is that so? Does it depend on the tone used, or are there deep linguistic reasons? Answer The original meaning of enormity is something which departs from normal standards, in other words something that is ABnormal . Its current, and rather specialised, use is to describe something that is some kind of gross transgression, often in a legal context. However, perhaps because of its similarity to enormous , it started to be used over 200 years ago to mean something very large but, in the words of the Oxford English Dictionary, ‘the use is now regarded as incorrect’. That meaning can perhaps be defended etymologically, but, as you suggest, few people would use it in any kind of figurative sense.

Using -ed vs. -ing in the “needs washed” construction "The car needs washed." I can understand what the speaker means to say, but this is strange to me. My question: If this sentence claims there is no ellipsis, and that it is perfectly acceptable, how to understand the grammar? Or is it some kind of usage? Answer This is a dialectal construction common in many places in the U.S. There's quite a bit of linguistic literature on it, summarized in this Language Log post . Since need is a semi-modal in Negative Polarity environments, and therefore quite irregular, like all NPIs and all modal auxiliaries , it's predictable that it will participate in idioms and variant constructions like this, and that there will be a lot of idiolectal and dialectal variations on its use. The phrase This car needs washed itself is a self-verifying joke, commonly scrawled with a finger in the dust on a car's back window, if there's enough dust on it to do so.

What is the correct terminology for a person or group to 'accelerate the success' for an entire organization?

Would anyone happen to know of a systematic account of the English pronunciation of legal and parliamentary terms and phrases of Anglo-Norman French origin, or more generally, of Law French ? When it comes to loans from Latin, even Wikipedia has a very detailed account of their traditional pronunciation and its development, but I've been unable to find anything analogous for terminology originating from Law French. My question is intimately related to this earlier one on the archaic nature of Legal English, though unless I've missed something, nothing in that thread seemed to really touch on Law French in any detail at all. EDIT: At the very least, is there anything more to the story than "just" taking these archaic French words and phrases and applying, according to their spelling, an ad hoc mixture of general English pronunciation and the odd bit of modern French pronunciation? Answer Bryan A. Garner’s Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage has an entertaining article

What is the difference between group and band when applied to assemblages of musicians who play music together? According to Wikipedia , A musical ensemble, also known as a music group or musical group, is a group of people who perform instrumental and/or vocal music , with the ensemble typically known by a distinct name. For example, ABBA is described as being a pop group by the Daily Telegraph but as a pop band elsewhere on the Internet. Answer There's no absolute difference. Band originally had closer associations with larger assemblages of musicians ( Brass Band , Big Band , etc.). When smaller ensembles became more practical because of new music technology (amplifiers, electric guitars, etc.) mainstream parlance tended to use the term group rather than band . Group has always remained a bit more 'mainstream'; it tends to get used more by people outside the music industry, and those who aren't so interested in the music itself. For example, a TV news item

We're very excited for the forthcoming launch of Technology Entrepreneurship. We're sorry not to have gotten in touch lately - we've been busy generating lots of content, and the system is working really well. Unfortunately, there are still a few administrative i's to dot and t's to cross . We're still hopeful that we'll go live very soon - we hope not more than a few weeks late. What do "i's" and "t's" mean in that sentence respectively? Answer To "dot the i's and cross the t's" is an idiom meaning to be very thorough and meticulous in details, to take care of everything that needs to be taken care of. The "i's and t's" are just examples of small things that need to be done to make them complete: an "i" without a dot or a "t" without a cross stroke wouldn't be much of a letter. The Wiktionary entry on this particular idiom can be found here.

Is there another idiom for using too strong a tool for the job: not "bring a gun to a knife fight" or "use a sledgehammer to crack a nut"? Or turn it around - one about using a simpler, more direct tool? It may be "kill a fly with..." But nothing I end it with sounds like what I a, looking for. Bazooka, maybe.

I always have a tough time with this. Suppose the following: The software will be installed when the computer is ready. versus The software will be installed when the computer will be ready. Technically, both events are in the expected future (the computer being ready as a premise for the software being installed), but which one is right, or if they are both right, what nuance do they convey? Answer The first one is correct. The second is wrong. The reason is that you cannot use the Simple Future tense in Time Clauses, so those ones that start with when, while, before, after, by the time, as soon as, etc. In your case, the Present tense is adopted; so, the correct sentence is: The software will be installed when the computer is ready.

Which is correct? I am writing to apply for the position of ____ in your company. I am writinng to apply for the position of ____ at your company. I am writinng to apply for the position of ____ for your company.

In Maureen Dowd’s article titled “ Cain not Able ” appearing in the New York Times November 1st issue, there was the following line: “He [Herman Cain] has contradicted himself even more risibly on his memory of the harassment charges than he has on his abortion position. At first, he said he wasn’t aware of the five-figure settlement to one woman; then, suddenly, he was aware. Instead of the meaning of “is,” Cain tried to parse the meaning of “settlement” versus “agreement .” He still claims he doesn’t remember the other five-figure settlement to another woman.” I don’t get meaning of “Cain tried to parse the meaning of “settlement” versus “agreement.” Of course I understand “settlement” is different from “agreement,” because they’re different words. But what does this line mean exactly in this particular context. What is the technical difference and difference of implications between “(five-figure) settlement on payment” and “agreement on payment” to a woman for his alleged sexual ha

I'm familiar with -se -ses -sation etc endings being British and the American equivalent being with z rather than s. However, I stumbled on the word "improvisation", which apparently can't be spelled with a z. How can you know which words are spelled using 's' in American English?

What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in s? When did it become correct to add an 's' to a singular possessive already ending in 's'? I always had this difficulty understanding how to depict possessive nature for words ending with s. For example: Is it correct to say, "James's heart is made of gold"? Or is there any other way to use apostrophes with words ending with S? Answer This is up to the writer's style, there are two options: 1) James's heart is made of gold. 2) James' heart is made of gold. @jsegal the link you posted actually confirms this: NOTE: Although names ending in s or an s sound are not required to have the second s added in possessive form, it is preferred.

Viz: Is 'peaceful demonstration' an oxymoron? The OP suggests that Jumbo Shrimp is an oxymoron because Shrimp can be used to denote a small person. My take on this is that Jumbo means large in one definition and Shrimp is a crustacean in another definition so Jumbo Shrimp is just a large version of a crustacean and does not always mean Large Small thing I cannot think of another good example where a qualifier to one definition of a word is an oxymoron and to another is not. Answer Nowadays, the term oxymoron is used less often in its literal sense and more often as the punchline to a joke. It is used to draw the humorous (and often not actually legitimate) distinction between two things. For example military intelligence is one well-worn example people use to make fun of the military. Is it a legitimate oxymoron? Of course not. The military makes stupid decisions, to be sure, but they often make very smart ones. Even legitimate oxymorons rely on different senses of a word to

Is there a non-gendered word for fishermen, that doesn't feel as self-conscious as fisherpersons or as folksy as fisherfolk ? Answer I would suggest the following solution Both fishermen and -women ...bla...bla... From the first Google results page I found this interesting and long article, posted on CBC news , August 24, 2000. I'll highlight the most relevant observations IMO ( emphasis mine). FISSURE OVER FISHER In the fall of 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a ruling on native fishing rights (The Queen v. Donald Marshall, Jr.). As word spread across the country, debate over a word raged inside the CBC. To avoid the sexist noun fishermen, should we call people with boats and nets fishers? […] A few employees shared first-hand accounts of outraged fishermen skewering them as spineless meddlers. One producer said her newsroom had banned ‘fisher’ because women in the industry "are proud to be called fishermen, a la chairmen." […] According to many Canadian

● Source: p 249, Zizek's Ontology ... , by Adrian Johnston ●● Source: p 65, L'Odyssé d'Homère: tr. en français, Volume 2 , translated by Dugas Montbel ● Bruce Fink helpfully compares the French ne explétif [hereafter abbreviated as NE] to certain employments of the English word but (as in, for example, "I can 't help but think that... " or "I cannot deny but that . .. ") Fink contends that the French ne and the English but are each means of expressing an attitude of ambivalence toward the meaningful content of the sentence uttered (an attitude coloring the position of the subject of enunciation) without, for all that, disrupting or repudiating ♦ the literal meaning of the sentence per se as the sense established in the form of an utterance. 29 Philippe Van Haute claims that the occurrence of the NE makes for the difference between, in its absence, the "impersonal" phenomenon of a simple assertive sentence in which the subject of enu

I've got this message from my friend: "I'll be pretty busy basically up until the 8th November." In this case, which is correct, he will be pretty busy including 8th or he will not be pretty busy from 8th anymore? Answer Your friend's remark is poorly worded, as clearly, you are left confused as to his availability. If he had said, "...busy up through the 8th of November," that would indicate that he's unavailable until November 9th. Relative to the way your friend worded his remark, it indicates he won't be available until the 9th; As used by your friend, "until" is a preposition; it refers to a fixed state of being, in time. For example, "I won't pay you, until November 9th." Again, for clarity, he should have stated, "...busy through Nov. 8th," or, "I should be available on Nov. 9th." "Until" is also a subordinate conjunction; this happens when "until" is followed by both a subje

In a bus service notice, it is written that "Buses will observe the bus stops on the diversion at Crown Street" What does "observe" mean here? I can't find any meaning in dictionaries which suit such a use. Please.

After years of never knowing which is which, I finally looked it up and it seems number one is firmly taking a pee, while number two is taking a poo. This seems quite arbitrary so I am wondering the rationale for it? (I spoke French as a child to my parents, rather than English, so I don't have an early familiarity to fall back on - crude English slang is what I used with other kids). Is it that we normally tend to pee way more often than we take a crap so that ends up as number 1? But you could equally say that defecating is way more complicated and problematic if you aren't near proper facilities. Especially for men who find it easy to pee messily in emergencies. So that would make it a candidate for #1. Or is it just a convention without basis? Also, are non-North Americans English speakers (UK, Ireland, Australia, NZ...) also familiar with it?

I'm trying to quote this in my paper: despite the universal desire to return to "normal," things changed How would I quote this in MLA? Would I substitute the double quotations for single, or use double quotes for everything? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Answer According to MLA guidelines : "Use single quotation marks to enclose quotes within another quotation." Thus: "despite the universal desire to return to 'normal,' things changed"

I realize there are questions on the correct usage of "but" and "however". In this case, I am concerned with correctness in a formal context. I have heard it said that however should be used in formal mail communications instead of but because the word "but" has a negative connotation. Which should I use in, say, an email to a client? Examples: We understand the issue you have pointed out, but we cannot consider it as a defect in the application since the current behavior was requested by your team. We understand the issue you have pointed out. However , we cannot consider it as a defect in the application since the current behavior was requested by your team. Answer Both can be used in a formal context, but the question is not so much whether you use but or however , but whether you use one sentence or two. That to some extent depends on the style of the rest of the text, but it also depends on the extent to which you want to link failing to conside

Use of hyphens when writing repeated compound words that has common parts In German we can use a hyphen as indication that there is a continuation of the current word somewhere else in the sentence, such as in "hard- and software". Other examples: "de- and reconstruction", "boy- or girlfriends", … I haven't seen this use of a hyphen in English. But is the use of a hyphen allowed? Answer Yes, you can use that construction. It's known as a "suspended hyphen." Here is the paragraph on "Suspended hyphens" from the Wikipedia entry on Hyphens A suspended hyphen (also referred to as a "hanging hyphen" or "dangling hyphen") may be used when a single base word is used with separate, consecutive, hyphenated words which are connected by "and", "or", or "to". For example, nineteenth-century and twentieth-century may be written as nineteenth- and twentieth-century. This usage is now common i

Does the placement of an adverb affect its meaning or application? Does each paired sentence here mean the same as the other? 1.1 Mobile technology progress has largely been consumer-driven rather than enterprise-driven. 1.2 Mobile technology progress has been largely consumer-driven rather than enterprise-driven. 2.1 Mobile technology progress has largely been shaped by consumers. 2.2 Mobile technology progress has been largely shaped by consumers.

Thank you very much to the 4 people who quickly responded a few days ago as to how to spell vis-á-vis out loud for an upcoming spelling bee. I apologize that the moderator did not think it was on-point and closed my question (he probably will close this one, too!) I had done a lot of on-line research and still could not find the answer. My son actually won the all-school spelling bee yesterday, so your help was quite meaningful. Thanks again.

Which one is correct? I'd like to schedule a meeting with you [in/for/no preposition] the next week. Answer It depends what you mean. "I'd like to schedule a meeting with you next week" could mean that sometime next week, you'd like to schedule a meeting. That meeting might actually be scheduled for next month, but next week you'll agree to the time. "I'd like to schedule a meeting with you for next week" means that the meeting should take place next week. Edit: "I'd like to schedule a meeting with you for next week" could also mean that you want to schedule a meeting to talk about something that will happen next week. The actual meeting will happen this week, and you want to talk about next week's event. That's just one literal interpretation, and the context of where and when you're saying it might make it more obvious that you mean something else. Edit: You've just changed your question, so I'll add this:

During a trip to the US I realised that many Americans have never heard the word cutlery before ... however some have. Where in the English speaking world (and in particular where in the US) is this is a common term for knives, forks and spoons?

What do you usually say, depending on the context and depending if it's US or UK English? wait in line or queue Answer In the UK, people say queue. See this: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/queue_1?q=queue That link also states "UK (US line )".

MY main interest is in the mathematical context, where one defines objects by a formula. I can imagine 2 cases : Direct case, "direct definition": The function f is defined by/as f=a+b+c Implicit definition: The number x is defined by/as a = g(x) I would tend to use as for the case 1 and by for the second one.

'We need to look closely at business growth , technological advancement , economic trends , and product development .' I would never say 'the business growth' or 'the technological advancement' etc. Answer The simple answer is that, if you're talking about a particular instance of business growth, you would use the definite article (e.g., the business growth we've been experiencing ).

I was interested in the following sentence which appeared in an article titled “ Hemingway's Prize-Winning Works Reflected Preoccupation With Life and Death " in The New York Times, ON THIS DAY, (July 3, 1961). Mr. Hemingway earned millions of dollars from his work; for one thing, a great many of his stories and novels were adapted to the screen and television. Is the fragment "a great many of his stories and novels were adapted to ..." ungrammatical, as I think it is? I would reword "were" with "was", but I'm not sure on this correction, because I'm not able to precisely identify the subject[s?] of the verb, and if I think that the subject is "a great many" the problem becomes entirely incomprehensible (to me), at all.

Is there a term for repeating something in an A, B, A fashion for emphasis or dramatic effect? Examples: Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts. Ain't it the truth, Joe... ain't it the truth. I've looked at epanalepsis, epistrophe, and anaphora, but none of them quite match the above sentence structures.

Merriam-Webster says "initiative" can be also an adjective, however, it is adjectival from "to initiate", meaning "introductory" or "preliminary". What is then the correct adjective of "initiative" as in "this guys shows great initiative"? This guy is...? Edit: I am afraid I did not phrase my question clearly: I am not interested in the meanings derived from "to initiate", actually I was quite surprised to find out this other meaning of the word. My question relates to -- what I believe is today's prime meaning of the word -- initiative as a positive quality in people who come up with their own solutions, need not to be told exactly what to do, etc. These people are ...? Answer Somewhat to my chagrin, I think I'd go with proactive . The adjective usage of initiative that you're finding documented would have to be spoken as "inish-ee-aytiv" (as opposed to the noun "inish-uh-tiv") in o

Is there any word for a person who is very , very much concerned about cleanliness and keeping things hygienic and even point out faults in clean things and explaining that they were dirty ?

This has been bugging me for some time; I tried to look for previous questions here but my language tools may not be sharp enough to phrase my query correctly so please forgive me if this has already been posted here. Speakers of English as a foreign language tend to incorrectly use the word "would" when using some particular subjunctive constructs. Here is one example (this time presumably by a native English speaker): If that would happen, you won’t be alone. (One correct version being "If that happens, you won't be alone".) I have detected this in speakers of a number of languages so I feel this is more likely to be a feature of the English language itself than a carry-over from their native language. I have a faint intuition that this is because the English subjunctive is not very distinctive , and it certainly doesn't help that a number of correct forms do have subunits like that , but I can neither make that precise nor even really phrase a concrete

Is there a difference between those expressions: "Die from cancer" or "Die of cancer"? Are they both correct?

From http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/swapspread.asp Swap spread is the difference between the negotiated and fixed rate of a swap. Should "rate" be plural "rates"?

According to Merriam-Webster, a half-truth is ' a statement that mingles truth and falsehood with deliberate intent to deceive ', yes, but a bit of searching shows that on-line dictionaries don't have an entry for half-falsehood , and so, in the lack of this definition, the first thing to come to my mind is that one could define it the same way a half-truth is defined ' a statement that mingles truth and falsehood with deliberate intent to deceive '. Maybe it is so, however a doubt arose as to whether in a half-falsehood there is a ' deliberate ' intent to deceive. I don't know why, but I'm under the impression that one utters a half-falsehood in order to save themselves rather then to deceive other persons, let alone to deliberately deceive them. Therefore, what's the difference between a half-truth and a half-falsehood?

In the expression a "winner-take-all society", I'm interested in the status of the verb: is it an infinitive or an imperative? As a related question, would it look odd to an anglophone if I wrote "a-winner-takes-all society" ? I would be quite grateful if, as a bonus, a user told me the origin of this metaphor: poker or some other game perhaps? Edit I now realize, following Kosmonaut's comment, that there are several similar constructions in English: a know-it-all, a ne'er-do-well. And interestingly also in French: "un vaurien" and in German "Ein Taugenichts". Answer As I see it, there are four questions here, and I certainly cannot answer them all. Which is the correct hyphenated adjectival phrase: winner-take-all society or winner-takes-all society ? If winner-take-all is correct, why doesn't the verb have to agree with the subject? What is the verb form called in this construction? What is the origin of this phrase? To my e

I read this sometime ago, Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabridge uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe. I'm guessing that the Cambridge research probably doesn't exist, but is it true that we can normally understand a sentence whose letters are scrambled in this way? Answer Sort of, but not exactly. In addition to the languagehat post, here are the actual facts "according to a researcher at a Cambridge University". (That page is itself a summary of actual research on related matters; my summary will be inadequate.) While it is true that (most) people don't read words letter-by-letter, and we can cope with some amount of jumbling, this happens through word shape and disrupting the order of letters can

E.g. “What’s he think?” Usually ’s is short for “is” so I don’t know. Answer The NOAD reports that 's is the informal contraction for: is : "it's snowing" has : "he's gone" us : "let's do it" does : "what's she do?"

"The worst student" is the student who is bad at things. In this case, "worst" simply describes the noun. Following this logic, your "worst enemy" would be the person who is very bad at being your enemy, thus is actually your best friend. Your "worst enemy" is actually the enemy who is very good at being your enemy. Thus, in this context, "worst" acts to amplify the inherent negative intent of the noun. "Worst disaster" would be another example of this. Is this just a matter of context or there some science behind the interprettation of a negative adjective applied to a negative noun? Answer Don't confuse English language with the mathematical theory . The adjective worst qualifies the noun enemy with even more bad values. So, a worst enemy is more dangerous than a normal enemy.

What is the origin of the idiom on the same page ? This is the definition of the idiom from Wiktionary: In broad agreement or sharing a common general understanding or knowledge (common in office environments). I want to make sure we're all on the same page with the game plan for the Acme account. Answer This is the first citation of the phrase in the OED: [1965 H. Rhodes Chosen Few 179 ‘He..finally told me what page he was on’. ‘Is it th' same page you thought it was?’] The next citation, which uses the phrase in its current form, is from 1979: 1979 N.Y. Times 18 Jan. b7/2 One of the things that happens when you makes as many rule changes as the National Football League has had a propensity to do in the last couple of years is that it takes a long time for everybody to get on the same page as far as the rules are concerned. It was doubtless used in speech even before, and the paucity of written references is, I think , due both to the fact that it originated so recently and

There are various expressions in English and other languages that use all , for example all right , or all dressed up and ready to go , however all the is not that common. The use of rage is even stranger, which of its many meanings is used here? Noun: a. Violent, explosive anger. See Synonyms at anger. b. A fit of anger. Furious intensity, as of a storm or disease. A burning desire; a passion. A current, eagerly adopted fashion; a fad or craze: when torn jeans were all the rage. Verb: To speak or act in violent anger: raged at the mindless bureaucracy. To move with great violence or intensity: A storm raged through the mountains. To spread or prevail forcefully: The plague raged for months. Perhaps that of burning desire or furious intensity ? The word's origin is from the Latin rabies which means madness. Is that the meaning it had when the idiom entered the language? So, my questions are: When did the idiom come into English? Which meaning of the word rage is used here? W

Please take a look at the following two images: In India, it's customary to refer to the thing in the first image as a "gas stove" and the second as a"cooking range" or "hob." Is it the same in American homes?

Jim has lived there. Jim lived there. Jim had lived there. Are there any differences? When do I use one or the other? I'm trying to teach this to a foreign person and am having a hard time. Answer Jim has lived there is present perfect . This describes a past action or event with present consequences Jim lived there is simple past or preterite . This describes an action or event which took place in the past Jim had lived there is past perfect or pluperfect . This describes an action or event which took place before another past action or event. Jim was living there is past continuous or imperfect . This describes an action or event over a period of time, or coincident with or interrupted by another. Jim had been living there is past perfect continuous. This describes an action or event over a period of time which took place before another past action or event. So you might have something like the following (true) statements. Jim was living in South Africa when his fourth chil

Are the answers I chose correct. My choices are in bold. I have been pumping /I have pumped up three tyres. Would you like to do the forth? I have been greasing /I have greased my car. That's why my hands are dirty. She has been polishing/has polished this table all the morning and she is not satisfied with it yet. ( I chose both answers as correct, but accroding to the test my answer was wrong.) I only have been hearing/ have heard about him twice since he went away. He has been riding /has ridden, that's why he is wearing breeches. I have been pulling up/have pulled up dandelions all day. ( I chose both forms) I have been hearing/ have heard from her regularly. She is a very good correspondent.(I chose both forms) I have been making/have made sausage rolls for the party all the morning.(I chose both, but I am not sure 'have made' is correct.) How to explain why using other choices would be wrong? Answer The present perfect continuous is, in most cases , used to de

hysterical  :  affected by or deriving from wildly uncontrolled emotion, Janet became hysterical and began screaming . Why is the adjective hysterical usually applied to women and rarely to men? For what it's worth, Google Books shows 42,700 hits for hysterical woman and 2,820 hits for hysterical man , but the fact is I rarely hear hysterical used in reference to men.

Today, a fellow user was given a CAPTCHA that looks like this: He wasn't sure how to solve the CAPTCHA, so he asked me: Are hamburgers considered sandwiches? Well, I couldn't figure it out, so I'm asking here! I know that the hamburger has in the past been called a sandwich. Wikipedia even says: A hamburger (also called a beef burger, hamburger sandwich , burger or hamburg) is a sandwich consisting of one or more cooked patties of ground meat, usually beef, placed inside a sliced bun. It explicitly says that it's a sandwich. And I suppose someone must have called it a "hamburger sandwich" at one point, but it sounds very odd to me—like someone put a piece of beef between two hamburgers. Anyway, I don't think that term is in common use , and it's easy to find examples like the following in print: Also on offer are hamburgers, sandwiches, and salads. And this seems to imply that hamburgers and sandwiches are different things. So I'm not sure I ca

I'm looking for comparative/superlative versions of versatile - synonyms which should mean "more versatile" and "extremely versatile" Here's the background: Over on meta.so , I've proposed a new 3-tiered badge for users who have high rep across multiple SE sites. At bronze I'd call it Versatile . Can't think of titles for Silver and Gold. I only have "Multifaceted" and "All-rounder" right now. Any other suggestions? Answer polymath sage Da Vinci Renaissance Man (Person?) homo universalis swiss army knife protean

I am not sure about what is correct use of words in the following line: They lost their lives saving our lives. or They lost their life saving our lives.

My late grandfather had several word-choice peeves for which he would gently interrupt a speaker, especially a grandchild, in order to correct. The one I remember most was his dislike for the use of "hard" as a synonym for "difficult," as in the statement: This homework is really hard. I read and hear "hard" used this way all the time and often wonder if there is something incorrect about it. Is there, or has there ever been, any basis for this quibble? Answer There is nothing incorrect about hard being used that way. It's just more colloquial than difficult , but other than that, they are synonyms, and have been for a long time. The Oxford English Dictionary has citations going back all the way to 1340: a1340 HAMPOLE Psalter vi. 4 Ful hard it is to be turnyd enterly til þe bryghthed and þe pees of godis lyght. c1440 Promp. Parv. 227/1 Harde yn knowynge, or warkynge, difficilis. 1559 W. CUNINGHAM Cosmogr. Glasse 97 It is as harde, and laborus, to