Blog

It always bugged me that I do not know how to differentiate "spatial" from "special". I would just say "space" to be clear when "spatial" is the grammatically correct choice. Are the standard pronunciations different? If not, is there a way to indicate that I am saying either of the two? Answer The long 'a' in 'spatial' is a diphthong made by combining a short 'e', like the start of 'elephant', and a long 'e', like the start of 'eel'. Like other diphthongs, these two sounds should meld together quickly and smoothly so that they appear as a single sound. The short 'e' in 'special', is not a diphthong and sounds like the short 'e' at the beginning of 'elephant'. You could make a further distinction between the two words by pronouncing the 't' in 'spatial' as an 's' sound, producing 'SPAY-seal'. It will be understood by most people and ma

Ellipsis that results in one word serving as both subject and object I am “adjective” and I am “present continuous” in one sentence I was using some exercise equipment the other day and saw the sign: Stop if you feel faint or pain It immediately struck me as wrong, because faint and pain seem to force feel to serve two different verb functions. Is that true? I think correct alternates would be: Stop if you feel faint or pained Stop if you feel faintness or pain Here's a contrived example that exposes the wrongness I detected from it. Imagine you're reaching into a box to feel the objects inside, and you're told: Stop if you feel happy or noodles If that doesn't make you smile, you don't live in my world! :) Answer "Stop if you feel faint or pain" is an example of syllepsis : A figure of speech in which one word simultaneously modifies two or more other words such that the modification must be understood differently with respect to each modified word; o

I have always pronounced lorry as "lur-ee" (as if to rhyme with worry ), for as long as I can remember. Everyone else I know pronounces it as "lor-ee" (as if to rhyme with sorry ). Which one is correct, and why would the pronunciation of the vowel differ between sorry and worry when their spellings differ only in a consonant? Answer I don't do "correct", but I've never heard anybody pronounce "lorry" to rhyme with "worry". I believe that the difference is because of the lip-rounding of the /w/. Many words starting with "w", "wh", "sw", "qu" or "squ" have different vowel sounds from similar words with a different consonant. Eg watch , what vs patch , thatch , pat , that war , warm , swarm vs far , farm worth , worm vs forth , form (There are exceptions to this rule).

In doing research for the question Is it “close-minded” or “closed-minded”? , which was in turn prompted by the discussion under this answer to another question, I realized that some of the confusion around the word close had to do with its versatility (it can be an adverb, adjective, noun or verb). We have two primary pronunciations of close (klōz and klōs) that help us distinguish how the word is being used. I thought at first that this was fairly straightforward. When the 'z' sound is used, it is usually a verb: I close the door. The 'z' ending is also used in the following noun form: I'll bring my argument to a close . When the 's' ending is used, it is usually either an adjective in these ways, The hotel is close to the sea. My brother and I are very close . or an adverb in these ways: Please sit close to me. I'll keep your secret close . But as I read through the lengthy entries on close in my New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary , things s

I'm wondering why I always hear "some" in questions, although according to English grammar there should always be "any". At least the one I'm looking at uses "some". For example: Why are some organizations using X? Are there any organizations using X? Is it due to the different nature of these questions? Open-ended vs. closed-ended? Answer It is true that in general in English, 'some' is replaced by 'any' in negative and interrogative contexts. But it is not as simple as that: 'Some' can be used in interrogative contexts, and is then 'marked' as linguists say: choosing it rather than the default conveys some meaning. I would disagree with kajaco about just what nuance is conveyed: to me the choice of 'some' rather than 'any' is meant to exclude 'all'. So Why are any organisations using X may be appropriate even if all organisation are doing so (though the question is perhaps a little unlike

I'm looking for a word that means "to exist in the same place as something else." For example: two functions have the same points when plotted on a graph, so they __ . (overlap? coincide? ... ?) I used Google to translate (my native language is Dutch), and it came up with 'coincide'. But doesn't that mean to happen at the same time as something else?

Well, I usually say "twenny" instead of "twenty" (not "twendy" even). I recently noticed that I never heard the same from any native english speakers during any talks I ever had with them. Recently I had a brief search on the 'net and it seems that it is somehow okay to say "twenny", but it might look the least correct pronunciation for most of the people, or they might think you have strange accent, etc. So, my question is, is there any good reference which clearly proves saying "twenny" instead of "twenty" is totally correct or wrong? P.S. You're most welcome to write your very personal opinion if you don't know any good references. Update I've already looked at the major dictionaries and didn't find any of them lists "twenny" in their pronunciation's section, however I'm sure that I didn't made that up, but I heard that while ago. Maybe in a movie, maybe from someone, and that's

I know my sentence is dreadful but everyone now uses these words in this way, including my eight children aged 19—26. Yes, they are from Manchester but my husband uses he was took and he’s from Leicester. This was never used when I was younger. Is there an easy way to explain why it is wrong, or do I have to accept it?

In this sentence He stayed another five years. the word another isn't a determiner (because five is a determiner), and isn't a pronoun. So what part of speech is it? Wiktionary says that another can only be a determiner and a pronoun.

Is there a single word for: something that has no beginning or without a beginning Answer beginningless Collins having no beginning

As is commonly known, one of the most delicate question is how to refer to people of mixed race, which can be a matter of condemnation. Some words may have fueled the problem and I never would have thought that the word miscegenation were one of these. In fact, as Merriam-Webster reads, miscegenation especially refers to a "marriage, cohabitation, or sexual intercourse between a white person and a member of another race." However, racial issues aside, I'm wondering whether there is a "parallel" word which is especially used to to refer to a "marriage, cohabitation, or sexual intercourse between a black person and a member of another race;" a word which is not perceived as offensive from a black person. Can anyone explain? Answer Miscegenation was coined in the US precisely to condemn such relations. Its historical context was in arguments in defense of slavery: The possibility of mixed-race marriages or sexual relations being projected as an ou

I need help settling a disagreement. I have read many posts about the word "that" — probably too many, since I have gotten myself confused! In this first example, there are two subordinate clauses, and I believe the first sentence (below) is correct. Which of these is preferable, and why? Marine biologists at the University of Utah examined the louse genes and determined that their hosts split into three species 5–6 million years ago, and that these species were all equally abundant before whaling began in the 11th century. vs: Marine biologists at the University of Utah examined the louse genes and determined their hosts split into three species 5–6 million years ago, and these species were all equally abundant before whaling began in the 11th century. Here's a different example in which I'm again of the opinion that the word "that" is necessary, but once again, I know not why: During the winter months (July–October), southern right whales come so clos

What is the correct form when referring to the expertise of a user (e.g. in programming, writing)? user's expertise user expertise Answer If you mean the expertise of a particular user, then it would be the user's expertise, but if you mean the general concept of expertise developed by users, then user expertise would be clearer. For the general concept, you could, however, also say users' expertise, or perhaps users' collective expertise.

In many languages, including English, the most important verbs are irregular. Examples include: to be to do to get to go to have to make The same applies (roughly) to many other languages I know about (Dutch, German, French, Spanish, Swedish) and presumably to many other languages too. Is there any reason why these everyday verbs tend to be irregular? Answer These everyday verbs have another feature: they have been in the English language for a long time. The oldest verbs were ones that were borrowed from other languages, or have come into English from Old English, before the patterns of regular conjugation were formed. Consider to go and its past tense went . The following is from http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=go . Old English gan "to go, advance, depart; happen; conquer; observe," from West Germanic *gai-/*gæ- (cf. Old Saxon, Old Frisian gan, Middle Dutch gaen, Dutch gaan, Old High German gan, German gehen), from PIE *ghe- "to release, let go" (cf. Sa

The phrase "Indian giver" means someone who gives a person a gift and then wants it back later. It's occasionally a useful concept, but the dictionary says it's offensive and I also think so. Is there a non-racist way to say this? Answer In law, the standard verbs for undoing a gift, contract, or other undertaking previously entered into are rescind , revoke , abrogate , and annul . Their relevant definitions, per Merriam-Webster's Eleventh Collegiate Dictionary , are as follows (in alphabetical order): abrogate vt 1 : to abolish by authoritative action : ANNUL 2 : to treat as nonexistent { abrogating their responsibilities} [no noun form listed for "one who abrogates"] annul vt 3 : to declare or make legally invalid or void {wants the marriage annulled } [no noun form listed for "one who annuls"] rescind vt 2 a : TAKE BACK, CANCEL {refused to rescind the order} b : to abrogate (a contract) and restore the parties to the positions

Is building site the British English equivalent of construction site in American English, and is it used in American English?

1.Rama married Sita 2.Sita was married by Rama " The Teacher's Travelogue " prepared by the Regional Institute of India, Banglore discussed the use of active and passive voice. It goes on to say that the passive voice( sentence 2) is grammatically correct but different in meaning from the active voice ( sentence 1) According to the book the sentence 2 means Sita was married not to Rama but to somebody else. It explains that Rama became a priest and performed the marriage rituals of Sita. The example is shown with illustrations too. I have taken the example because most of the students and some teachers passivize the active voice in the similar manner unknowingly. I know that the correct passive voice is "Sita was married to Rama". Do native speakers understand the sentence in the similar way and agree that the change of preposition makes all the difference ? Answer "Rama married Sita" can have two meanings, either that Rama and Sita got married to eac

What do you call somebody who asks a question and somebody who answers a question? What do I call a person who is participating in a survey? What's a proper but simple one-word description of a person to whom a question is being asked?

This week, I've heard "lookit" twice on TV. I heard Jerry Seinfeld say it on Seinfeld , and I heard Joe Gilgun say it on Preacher . And in closed captioning, it was written that way both times, as all one word: "lookit." The first time struck me because I guess I quit saying "lookit" when I was a kid. It just seems like something kids say, not adults. But the second time I heard it, it really struck me because Joe Gilgun is not just an adult but also Irish and plays an Irish character. For whatever reason, I think I thought that "lookit" was an Americanism. Anyway, I looked on www.dictionary.com and it doesn't even define "lookit," but to me, it sounds like a verb, like you're telling someone to look. So here's my question: Is "lookit" a defective verb? Example: "Lookit!" squealed John, laughing and pointing out the window to direct Hannah's gaze. "That girl by the mailbox just smacked that

I am trying to create a system for teaching ESL students phrasal verbs based on the concepts contributed by the element. (For example, "up" frequently contributes the idea of finality or completion). I was wondering if there are any phrasal verb theories that suggest there are elements that do something non-conceptual, or, to say it another way, something other than contributing a meaning. Some phrasal verbs have obviously developed from others rather than being built on strictly conceptual bases. "Coffee up" is word play on idioms like "drink up", for example. But others like "hold up" I don't know. I started speculating that, in common usage, "hold up" is used more often in the passive voice, like Our train is being held up by an accident. rather than An accident is holding up our train. However, the verb "to hold" is transitive, so that our ear wants a direct object after it. "Up" is not a direct object, but p

Recently I posted an answer about the etymology of goodbye , in that answer I included a reference that cited Gid be with you , which was dated 1400-1499. The phrase was mentioned in Diachronic Pragmatics: Seven case studies in English illocutionary development , and written by Dr. Leslie K. Arnovick Below I include a cropped screenshot showing the citation in table 6.1, on page 99. Sceptical, and fascinated, I wanted to find out more. But try as I did, I could not find any online references that confirmed Gid (meaning God) was Middle English . Etymonline says Old English god "supreme being, deity; the Christian God; image of a god; godlike person," from Proto-Germanic *guthan (source also of Old Saxon, Old Frisian, Dutch god , Old High German got , German Gott , Old Norse guð , Gothic guþ ), from PIE *ghut- "that which is invoked" (source also of Old Church Slavonic zovo "to call," Sanskrit huta - "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root

What are the correct possibilities for word order in the following sentence? Is there any general rule for imperative sentences? (Like SVOMPT?) Please, check regularly the updated information about the meetings on the EBC website. Please, regularly check the updated information about the meetings on the EBC website. Please, check the updated information about the meetings on the EBC website regularly. Something is telling me 1 isn't entirely correct, 2 maybe. I think 3 is correct, however I don't like the word regularly to be so far from the words check and information . EDIT: attempt to summarize the answers: #1 sounds awkward to most people except for Barrie #2 seems to have least opponents the comma should be omitted new solution raised (from Hellion & Barrie England): 4) Please check regularly for updated information about the meetings on the EBC website. Do you all think #4 is the best?

I believe there is a two-word phrase for something that is always just out of reach for you and which you cannot ever seem to get. (It is not Tantalus or anything having to do with Tantalus, please). It’s like a girl you like and want to date, and it almost happens a bunch of times but never materializes. You’d say, “She’s my __ __ .” I keep thinking dark horse , but that’s not it. Any help?

My question is prompted by a question on the programmers.stackexchange : This may be a duplicate of another question here on english.stackechange , but the answers given to that question did not provide a definitive legal definition of ' should ' vs. ' must '. It has long been my impression that 'shall', 'will', and 'must' have about the same imperative weight; that is, the phrase that follows these words is a command that is not to be questioned. However, in my mind, 'should' falls in a category of lighter imperativeness, almost to the same level as 'may'; that is, the phrase that follows 'should' is a command that does not need to be completed. Does 'should' imply an unquestionable command, as is the claim in the chosen answer on programmers.stackexchange and the second definition on wiktionary , or is it closer in meaning to 'may'? Answer Since it appears that you're referring to requirements analys

In formal writing (like a technical paper), is there a generally accepted way to punctuate the break between an introductory phrase and a question in a sentence like this? Let's ask ourselves (--insert punctuation here--) what would a world without computers look like? I know that you could reword it to avoid the direct question, but that's not what I'm asking about. A few possibilities occurred to me: Let's ask ourselves: what would a world without computers look like? Let's ask ourselves - what would a world without computers look like? Let's ask ourselves... what would a world without computers look like? Let's ask ourselves, what would a world without computers look like? Let's ask ourselves, "What would a world without computers look like?" Which would be the best to use and why? Answer I believe that 1) is the best choice. According to this source , a colon is used "before a list or an explanation that is preceded by a clause that c

I read today that Churchill's "We shall fight on the beaches" speech mainly used words from Old English. Wikipedia's article states that Melvyn Bragg claimed in "The Adventure of English" that only seven words in his speech weren't from Old English. A similar claim is made by Robert Lacey in "The Year 1000: What Life Was Like at the Turn of the First Millennium": “When Winston Churchill wanted to rally the nation in 1940, it was to Anglo-Saxon that he turned: "We shall fight on the beaches; we shall fight on the landing grounds; we shall fight in the fields and the streets; we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." All these stirring words came from Old English as spoken in the year 1000, with the exception of the last one, surrender, a French import that came with the Normans in 1066 I've got two questions: 1) Is this claim true? I'm a little cautious about the claim, because it sounds like something that'

primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary, quinary, senary, septenary, octonary, nonary, denary, duodenary, etc. are ordinal numbers as answered in this question . However, I'm looking for a word/phrase that refers to these terms in general, as in the following sentence: Are there any secondary or word_or_phrase equity offering from this company? Currently I'm considering replacing word_or_phrase with higher-order , higher-tier or n-ary , with the intended meaning of "from tertiary onwards". Any help will be much appreciated. Answer When employing ordinal numbers you are explaining a relationship between items in a set. The term you use to describe those numbers will largely depend upon the items in the set. For example: Primary care vs. Tertiary care. You would describe these levels as tiers. Hence, if there were quaternary care, etc. you would describe this as higher-tier. If you are speaking of classes: First class, second class, etc. You would call these highe

I've always simply written it "Happy birthday!" but my wife recently said that "Birthday" should be capitalized as well. What's grammatically correct? Answer ... my wife recently said that "Birthday" should be capitalized as well. In your case, the correct answer is, "Whatever your wife says." For the rest of us, it seems to be the convention that we capitalize the name of the event in standard phrases of felicitation. E.g. Happy Birthday Happy Anniversary Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year This is an exception to the normal rules of capitalization.

Examples: Savings Shavings Drippings Are these gerunds? I found some resources (below) that don't seem to provide definitive answers. Answer This is so confusing, that if I placed itmes in the wrong category, please correct it for me! Three types of English words ending with "ing": present participle gerund verbal noun Present participles can be used as adjectives. Running dogs don't die. Could you get your fucking feet off my couch? The painting professionals are painting the house. are present activities that can describe the state of perpetrator of the activity They are running The cows are coming home The gravy is dripping in the oven. She is fucking his feet on the couch. The painting professionals are painting the house. She was painting Mona Lisa. Gerunds They are a noun form. They are not used as adjectives. She is very good at fucking . They enjoy smoking . I enjoy swimming and painting . They can be transitive to a direct object. But they are non-p

Is there a difference between "way of doing something" and "way to do something"? It is on purpose that I did not write "a way of doing something" or "the way of doing something" and "a way to do something" or "the way to do something"… because I feel this is where the answer lies. Michael Swan's Practical English Usage (third edition, page 607) reads: After way (meaning 'method/manner') we can use an infinitive structure or of … ing . There is no important difference between the two structures. There is no way to prove / of proving that he was stealing . I, on the other hand, think there must be a difference, however slight… ! Answer My impression is that 'the way of doing' tends to be descriptive - i.e., a description of the current state or practice of doing something, whereas 'the way to do something' is prescriptive; there tends to be an insinuation that the listener had better do it that wa

In my writing I often like to make a comparison between two things. However, I'm not sure how I should start my sentence and if it's even a good idea to start it this way. Example: React has a special way of dealing with dynamic data. In contrast with / to more traditional frameworks that require a full reload everytime data changes, React does .... [etc.] Should I use with or to , and is this grammatically correct? Are there any other ways I can write a comparison in an interesting way? Answer The Ngram chart for "in contrast to" (blue line) versus "in contrast with" (red line) over the years 1750–2005 is quite striking: After an early period (roughly from 1800 to 1910) when "in contrast with" was a bit more common than "in contrast to," the latter took off and—at the height of its popularity around 1980—was more than four times as popular in published writing as the former. To judge from the trajectory of the two curves, it probably

On Aviation StackExchange, I've seen these: I don't think you will be violated. . He was subsequently violated... Pilot [...] may now be violated for it. ... pilots have been violated... It seems in all of these cases "violated" is being used where I would have used "found in violation of regulation". This doesn't match my understanding of the definition of the word "violate", which means to break a rule or law, or to abuse or harm or sexually victimize. Is there some idiomatic definition of this word that comes from FAA regulations or US Code or tradition or somewhere else? Is there a name for this... inversion (?) of subject/object?

What word means neither "believer" nor "atheist" but somewhere in between? The word starts with the letter 'A', I tried "agnostic" but according to my instructor there is another one. Answer I suspect the answer your teacher is thinking of is apatheist , which is a portmanteau word meaning "someone who really doesn't care if there's a god or not". To be precise, it's not true to say that agnosticism is halfway between theism and atheism: it's really on a different axis, as it's to do with taking a position on knowledge , rather than belief. An agnostic asserts that it's impossible to know whether or not there's a God, which is separate from believing whether or not there is. It is, therefore, possible (although unlikely) to be an agnostic theist : someone who says it's impossible to know that there's a God, but believes anyway.

For an example, I'll quote C.S. Lewis' The Voyage of the Dawn Treader : One day the cat got into the dairy and twenty of them were at work moving all the milk out; no one thought of moving the cat. Is there an idiom for this type of situation? Answer Depending on the specifics, one could use "taking the scenic route" to the solution. This wouldn't work for the cat in the dairy, but it does work in problem solving for example. An overly complicated device could be a Rube Goldberg machine . This could be used for a metaphorical machine as well, or one could use Rube Goldberg process .

I was drawn to the word aw-shucks appearing in the following paragraph of the latest article which I forgot to take note of the source: “You know, I’m new to this campaign. Honestly, I never thought I would be standing here. I thought I would be spending this evening with all my friends in the great state of Indiana,” Indiana Gov. Mike Pence said in his RNC debut tonight. His aw-shucks approach went over well with delegates outraged by Ted Cruz’s refusal to endorse GOP nominee Donald Trump earlier in the night. I was totally unfamiliar with the word “aw-shucks,” and found out the following definition in the free dictionary: awshucks adj. seeming to be modest, self-deprecating, or shy: [C20: from the US interjection aw shucks, an expression of modesty or diffidence] Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 Google Ngram shows that the word emerged in mid 1940, and its usage has been on a rapid increase to 0.00000136% level in 2000. I’m curious to know the

Is scampi the common name used for the kind of shrimp in the picture in American English? Or is there an alternative common name for it? I ask because some Americans don't really know the word when I mention it to them. Answer That species (the Norwegian lobster) is known as either scampi (always in the plural in English for some reason) or langoustine , if the method of preparation is French. In North American usage, scampi is also often used for prawn prepared according to Italian recipes (the term is also somewhat interchangeable in Italy). The word isn't unknown, but the little lobsters (they're not shrimp) are nearly so; shrimp, prawn, various larger species of lobster (American lobster served whole, or spiny lobster served as "lobster tails"), and crayfish (freshwater lobster) are much more common in North America -- we have substantial fisheries for all of them here. "Foodies" will know what scampi are, but most people will either not know th

In this picture there are "three breads", but they are not loaves because loaves can be cut into pieces, and they are not slices either because they weren't cut with a knife. So the only way to refer to them is three pieces of bread? Can the word servings be used? Answer In Britain, a loaf of bread would generally be anything big enough to be cut into multiple slices of bread , e.g. for making sandwiches. So this is a loaf , and at least the one on the left of this picture is a loaf . The items in the second picture that are small enough to be just 1 - 2 portions, would be rolls . Buns tend to be sweeter than rolls , although a soft roll containing raisins and currants is often called a currant bun . Normally, bread is an uncountable noun. Having said that, searching Google for "three breads" does give many hits. Specifically: "Three breads" may be used to mean "three types of bread", e.g.: Salmon and Scrambled Egg with three breads h

I think the pattern 'modal + have + past participle' refers to the present or the past. Can it refer to the future as well? Are all of the following sentences correct: He may have arrived yesterday. He may have arrived now. He may have arrived tomorrow.

Why do some Americans still call the indigenous people of the Americas "Indians" when they now know that they're not from India?

I have heard "marked" pronounced with 2 syllables, like "mar-ked": http://forvo.com/word/marked_(adj_-_distinctive_character) but online dictionaries show only the 1-syllable pronunciation. When should it be pronounced with 2, and is it a mistake to use swap their use? What about the word "aged"? Answer Marked only has two syllables in poetic or archaic usage. Aged has two syllables when used as a noun (some of the aged need motorised shopping trolleys) , or as a "standalone" adjective (an aged relative) . It's only one syllable when used as part of a compound adjective (middle-aged relative) , or as a verb (I've aged a year since then) . Some words occur in "set phrases" where the extra syllable is effectively part of an archaic contruction (blessed are the meek) . EDIT: Per John Lawler's answer , and comments to mine and his, the word "aged" seems particularly weird. Some people use the one-syllable version f

I'm having difficulty determining if certain nouns are considered places or things. For example, I'm unsure if 'a park' is a place or a thing. More generally, with the standard definition of a noun as a person, place, thing, or idea, how does one determine the difference between a place, thing, idea, etc. Another example could be 'heaven', is this a place or an idea? I'd greatly appreciate any help. Thank you. Answer Ah, this stems from teachers telling students that nouns represent things, verbs represent actions and so on and so forth. Unfortunately, none of this is true. It's a seemingly handy generalisation for helping students intuitively identify nouns before you actually get down to discussing nouns with them properly. Otherwise it's pretty misleading. Nouns often represent actions, for example, baptism , or massacre . Verbs often represent states and not actions - for example the verb have . Nouns are words that typically represent things, b

I listen to a podcast that I like, but every episodes ends with Our listeners are what make [podcast name] possible. which makes me cringe a little each time I hear it. Is it just me, or is the sentence wrong? And if so, what is the correct form - should both verbs be singular? And is there a difference between UK and US usage? (The podcast is based in the USA). I found a similar question , but it does not apply exactly (and the one it links to only discusses cases where the sentence stars with a time interval). Thank you. Answer "Our listeners are what make our podcast possible" is grammatical. (But it took a little while for me to figure that out; thank you to everyone else who left comments and answers!) Like you, I felt uncomfortable with it after you brought it up, and I'll discuss the reasons for that below, but they are based on semantics rather than purely on the grammatical structure. As a subject, "our listeners" triggers plural agreement on the corr

As you will probably work out from my profile, I'm a software developer. This is sort of a software development question, but I think this is more suited to English language too. Feel free to migrate if you think the question does not belong here. Say I want to refer to the data size, or capacity of something: A floppy disk can hold 1.44 megabytes of data. My flash drive can hold 16 gigabytes of data. My internet connection can operate at a maximum of 50 gigabits per second I have just managed to compress a file from 1 megabyte to just 200 kilobytes . How do I collectively refer to these units of data size/capacity? Answer The capacity of a floppy disk is 1.44 megabytes. The capacity of my flash drive is 16 gigabytes. The throughput capacity of my internet connection is 50 gigabits per second. (I would not change your fourth sentence.)

While creating this proposal I was struggling to find the right words for olfactory impressions . Is there a neutral word for an olfactory impression? smell seems to have a negative connotation aroma sounds more like having to do with dishes or spices olfactory impression well, ... that's not a word, it's two. And two that rather focus on the perception of the smell, than on the smell itself. odour ? scent ? Answer The results in this Google Books Ngrams chart seem to imply that the terms, the scent and the smell are the most used. In order to ascertain how neutral these terms were I selected the following criteria. smell of * scent of * smell of the * scent of the * smells good smells bad The asterisk represents any word that follows the last term which Google Books has a record of. Link to Ngrams Chart Judging from the results, it appears that the verb smell is more often associated with the adjective good than with bad , at least in its written form. However, if

What is the origin of the different pronunciation of words like park , yard , cartoon , margarine in American and British English? In other words, why doesn’t British English generally pronounce the r in such words? Or vice-versa: why does American English generally pronounce the r in the same words? Answer Broadly, English accents are divided into two categories, rhotic and non-rhotic . All English accents were originally rhotic, and the R sound was typically articulated as an alveolar trill , in contrast with the alveolar approximant of most contemporary dialects. Non-rhotic accents began developing in the Middle English period, and were commonplace by the arrival of modern English, gaining popularity in southern England during the 18th century. Both the British Isles and the United States, as well as Australia and other areas where English is spoken, have regions of both rhotic and non-rhotic accents. As Alex mentions, notable non-rhotic United States accents include coastal Ne

The number of books is nine. The book count is nine. Which is more natural? What's the SUBTLE difference between them?

If I had learnt that, I would have been doing much better right now. Is that correct? If not, how do you say it correctly? Answer You suggest: If I had learnt that, I would have been doing much better right now However you have mixed tenses. I suggest: If I had learnt that, I would be doing much better right now. or alternatively and with a different meaning, If I had learnt that, I would have been doing much better by now .