Blog

I frequently encounter this in technical documents and I am wondering which one is correct. In the figure below or In the below figure Answer The first example is correct, not the second. Below is generally used as an adverb or preposition, not as an adjective. See, e.g., Cambridge . As such, it does not modify figure . In the first example, it could be construed as either, based on what is implied. As a preposition In the figure below [this spot] . . . Or as an adverb In the figure [shown] below . . .

Is there a rule about double negations that aren't meant as double negations (e.g. “We don't need no education”)? “I give nothing to no-one” or “I do not give anything to anyone” (a)  "I ain’t gonna give nobody none of my jelly roll." Is (a), the title of one of the odder songs in the Armstrong discography, equivalent to (b) below? (b)  "I am not going to give anybody any of my jelly roll." Answer Multiple negation has been a feature of English for centuries. Modern Standard English does not allow it, but it is found in other dialects, as your example shows. In dialects where multiple negation occurs, the strength of the negation increases with the number of negatives.

I found an example: I haven’t even started making dinner. What about I even haven't started making dinner ? Would it be also correct?

I considered 'self-proclaimed' but that, I believe, suggests an element of self- promotion (the proclamation aspect) whereas soi-disant, at least as I think of it, is more about self-presentation and in some contexts self-deceit. Answer I think "self-styled" would be the closest match.

In Polish you can use sic to indicate not only erroneous spelling (uncorrected for editorial reasons), but also to note that the sentence should be as it is when it comes to its meaning (e.g. "The lecturer brought an axolotl (sic!) to the lecture.", "The flight was cancelled because the pilot forgot his lucky dime (sic!)."). Can you do that in English?

Like the group "Anonymous," they are not REALLY anonymous since they are all over media outlets. Is there a word for that? Edit: Autoantonym almost sounds right but that seems to imply it has two meanings like left the airport vs going left. This one doesn't mean well known, it is the complete opposite of the actual word. Answer Ironic seems to fit your situation Ironic Using words to express the opposite of their literal meaning. Irony is similar to sarcasm, but the goal of sarcasm is to mock, while irony is usually used to make subtler points.

In Microsoft Word, the following sentence is flagged. It tells me to use "was" instead of "were" There were half a dozen books strewn about the floor. I would think that you would use "were" since it's a quantity more than one. You wouldn't say, "There was twelve books strewn about the floor." Does the use of the "half" modify it somehow? Answer Formally speaking, the Word grammar checker is right. The subject of there were is the word half , which is singular. So under formal grammar the sentence should be: There was half a dozen books on the floor. However, many people find this sentence to be odd in practice, since English speakers often prefer "semantic number agreement", in which the effective plurality of a phrase is determined by its meaning and not the grammatical number of its head. Therefore, for many registers people prefer your original example: There were half a dozen books on the floor. If you're w

What is the correct syntax: "Which browsers do support this?" "Which browsers support this?" Answer The do form contrasts with a previous statement: "You could use canvas , but not all browsers support it". "Which browsers do support it?" It's not restricted to the interrogative. It's one case of do-support .

I'm looking for a word that describes a person who strictly follows a set of rules without exception. Something close to obeyer or fanatic , but with an emphasis on 'Strictly following the rules'. Usage example: The website was taken over by [users who obey the rules strictly] . Answer Someone who always follows a defined procedure, such as a set of rules is a Stickler . A " stickler for the rules" will always insist that the rules are followed.

I would like to know what terms can be used in English to refer to people that rejoice in other people's suffering (as opposed to empathizing with such people). What are some of the motivations that would cause people to feel this way? Is it an inborn trait? Is it that people suffer so upon seeing other people suffer they can finally feel equal to others as opposed to feeling less than others? Answer schadenfreude: pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune I experience it often myself. I don't like the feeling, but it seems innate. It is related to envy and jealousy. Maybe it makes us more competitive.

I'm under the impression that the correct verb to use is "are," but my colleagues believe it to be "is." And what about just: "over half our board [are/is] people of color" ? Another case: "over half the stadium [are/is] people of color" We're tripping over these examples, any help appreciated! Answer [Edit. I originally answered the wrong question, which in my head was about whether ( half + plural noun) takes a singular or plural verb. While that does bear upon the current question, it's only half the problem. Here's my new answer - if it helps!] Over half our board and staff is people of color. Over half our board and staff are people of color. The first question which need to be addressed, is whether plural Noun Phrases with the determiner half cause singular or plural verb agreement. We can investigate here using the Noun Phrase half the people . If as some comments here have suggested, half causes singular verb agreemen

I am looking for idioms or informal/slang/colloquial expression for some people that make you think that they are able of building a skyscraper, constructing a spaceship, playing the piano better than Mozart or something very fancy that requires remarkable skills, but when it comes to practice they prove to be completely inadequate. Answer There are tons of them. There's a whole sub-genre based roughly off the phrase "all talk (and no substance)". These generally have the form "all X , no Y ". Others culled from synonyms on the wictionary link below include: All bark and no bite. All booster, no payload. All bubbles, no bath. All crown, no filling. All foam, no beer. All ham, no let. (For you fans of The Bard) All hammer, no nail. All icing, no cake. All lime and salt, no tequila. All mouth and no trousers. (A corruption of All mouth and trousers ) All shot, no powder. All show, no go. All sizzle and no steak. All talk, no walk. All wax and no wick. (Alternati

I have the following sentence in the beginning of a chapter: This chapter lays down the fundamentals of distributed processing. It provides the basics for data processing... I would like to ask why I need to have "the" before "fundamentals" and "basics". Answer You probably know that the is used before a noun in situations where both writer and reader, or speaker and listener, know what is being referred to. That is often the case when the noun has already been mentioned. The use of the in your example is probably best explained in the words of the ‘Cambridge Grammar of English’ by Carter and McCarthy: The is most commonly used to refer to things which are part of the speakers’ shared world. It is a way of saying ‘You know which x I am referring to.’ The fundamentals and the basics refer to a category of things that everyone knows about, even though they may not previously have occurred in the text. Other such words are the essentials, the rudiments

This seems to be one the long-standing arguments between people on the internet. When is something "irony" and when is it "sarcasm"? And can a quip be both at the same time? Dictionary definitions don't seem to help much: irony — the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect sarcasm — the use of irony to mock or convey contempt In most of the arguments I hear about the words, neither of these definitions seem to match the definitions proposed by anyone. Per Rhodri's request, I typically see definitions such as these offered instead of the ones I found in my dictionary: sarcasm — using a sentence to convey its exact opposite meaning irony — a circumstance that involves one's intent or actions backfiring and bringing about the opposite of what was intended, usually through humorous or coincidental means Note that this just my construction. People have offered all sorts

I've seen a thread that generally asks about Creating words with “-able” suffix But I don't think it answers my point, though they are admittedly dangerously close topics. When do you drop the 'e' when forming words suffixed with - able . My Spell checker likes Unforgivable but dislikes Forgivable . Dropping the ' e ' in the first case, and adding it in the second makes my spell checker happy. How do you determine when one is ok? Note that this is different from the linked question , where neither with or without the ' e ' is accepted. (Having checked the OED it seems there is one accepted spelling of Forgivable but two of Unforgiv(e)able ) Answer The only situation that comes to mind where an -e- is absolutely required before -able is when it modifies the pronunciation of a consonant, typically g or c : Manageable ( g as in giant ) versus **managable* ( g as in gut ) Traceable ( c as in once ) versus **tracable* ( c as in cut ) Of course

Certain speakers of English have a tendency to “drop” L’s that occur after a vowel but before another consonant, as in balm, calm, golf, gulf, palm, wolf , and many more. Often these aren’t completely dropped, but instead change the preceding vowel a little bit. So instead of wolf , they have woof ; instead of palm they have pom or pawm ; instead of golf , they have gawf . People who drop their R’s in a similar position are said to have a non-rhotic pronunciation there, or to speak a non-rhotic dialect. What then is the corresponding term for someone who routinely drops their L’s, so “a non- ????? speaker” ? Lambdacism and lallation seem like dead ends. This isn’t a new thing either, considering the historical L’s no longer heard in words like could and stalk . Whether it’s growing, I’m not sure, but perhaps so. Answer It would appear that the word you’re looking for is L-vocalization , which, to quote the wikipedia page on the topic, “is a process by which an [l] sound is re

Consider the following sentences: If I had my own place, I could do whatever I want. If I had my own place, I could do whatever I wanted. She said I could do whatever I want. She said I could do whatever I wanted. Which ones are correct and why? Is the answer different in a conditional, or does that not matter? Answer Any of these may be correct; which is correct will depend on what you mean. Had in the conditional sentences and could in all the sentences are inherently ambiguous. They are ‘past’ in form, but the form is employed in the first instance to express some degree of uncertainty or contingency. Consequently it cannot be known without further context whether they are also being used to express tense—temporal location in the past. Let’s supply a context, to see the difference: I wish I had my own place. I want to throw a party next week. If I had my own place, I could do whatever I want—I could throw a party. I think I am going to get my own place and throw a party next

In Arthur Conan Doyle's The adventure of Black Peter , Watson casually refers to a previous exploit of Holmes:- In the memorable year '95 a curious and incongruous succession of cases had engaged his attention, ranging from this famous investigation of the sudden death of Cardinal Tosca...down to his arrest of Wilson, the notorious canary trainer , which removed a plague-spot from the East End of London. According to Green's Dictionary of Slang a canary might be a mistress a prostitute a thief's female accomplice a female singer among other less-likely definitions. So it seems possible that a canary trainer was a brothel-keeper. Online I turned up The Canary Trainer , a Sherlock Holmes pastiche, revolving around Opera singers, which doesn't seem to fit in with the previous definitions. I realise that actress and harlot were pretty nearly synonymous in Victorian times, but don't think the same stigma attached to opera singers, in which case training of singer

Can I omit there in the following question: How much juice is there in the bottle? When is it possible to omit there in a sentence? Any references to grammar sources are welcome and expected.

According to the accepted answer here, Why is the word "pants" plural? , it's because trousers were originally made in two parts and fastened together when worn. This sounds like a folk etymology to me and examples of very old trousers show that they were made as a single piece and not separable. Is there any evidence to back this up this etymology, such as an ancient pair of trousers in a museum that was made to be worn as two separate pieces? If not, what is the true etymology of a pair of trousers ? The two examples I've found so far both predate Old English and other languages treat trousers , jeans and related words as a grammatically singular word, such as pantalon and jean in French. Germanic trousers of the 4th century found in the Thorsberg moor, Germany The oldest known trousers, including this roughly 3,000-year-old pair with woven leg decorations, belonged to nomadic horsemen in Central Asia.

According to Wikipedia , this is a hyperbaton: "Whom god wishes to destroy, he first makes mad" — Euripides Is that right, and if so, why? My native language is Swedish, but I speak English fluently. Anyway, why isn't the following considered hyperbaton too? It's not that hard, I suppose. It's very common in Swedish, which may be the reason why it sounds so natural to me, but still, it's rather common in English too. Answer The more traditional phrasing would be: God first makes mad whom he wishes to destroy. Flipping the order of "[he/God] first makes mad" and "whom [he/God] wishes to destroy" results in a hyperbaton. Hyperbaton /haɪˈpɜrbətɒn/ is a figure of speech in which words are transposed. I personally wouldn't consider "It's not that hard, I suppose." a hyperbaton because it is just conversational English. I don't know the appropriate term for the pattern but it is standard phrasing: I just don't want to g

Here is the original text from Lord Macaulay’s History of England: They are the men of double entry, magnifying routine. In business they have added mechanical device to mechanical device, they have put wind, water, steam, and electricity into subjection; they have done most of the reckoning in England, and their brains are hieroglyphed with l. s. d. Source: Macaulay, Thomas Babington. The History of England from the Accession of James the Second . Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1901. xviii. Print. Answer Given the location and the period, I think it's likely to be a commonly-used variant of " £sd " for "pounds, shillings, and pence" - that is, money. The abbreviation comes from the Latin librae, solidi, denarii .

I have come across some American media ( The Alternate History Hub youtube channel comes to mind) in which the perfect participle and the simple-past form have been merged. For example, we would have: "We've driven there before" -> "We've drove there before" "I would've sunk " -> "I would've sank " "I've swum that distance before" -> "I've swam that distance before" As far as I can tell, the replacement of the perfect with the simple past is consistent in this dialect, rather than just applying to some verbs ( Edit in response to commment: with perhaps the exception of "to be" - "I have was ill" sounds odd enough that it would have really stood out ). Is this a feature of some American dialects? If so then in which? How common is this feature? Related question (@sumelic): Is the past participle becoming obsolete? (I have went) Answer This is common in parts of Mis

Is there a way to indicate that somebody is your girlfriend without using the possessive term my ? I think saying She/He is my partner/other half is OK for married people, but it doesn't feel right for girlfriends and boyfriends. Answer There is nothing wrong with using my . Saying my medical appointment does not mean the medical appointment belongs to me, but just that it is connected to me in some way. Stick to my for there is no alternative which expresses the idea succinctly.

In literature, it's the reader . In music, it's the listener . In performing arts it's the audience , and in visual arts it's the viewer . What word combines these terms? To say audience would be close, except it has a connotation of being very public, and thus it's not singular. Very broadly, I would call the person an artist, but artist implies one who creates art. I might call the person the consumer , as in "the consumer of media." This connotes art as an industry, and implies passivity. For example, how do I complete the sentence: Kitsch is created by the insincere artist, but the [word] is responsible for finding value in it. I'm looking for 1) the analogous receiver, where "If sender is to receiver, artist is to ___" and 2) a word that references the active skill of consuming art (reading, listening, etc), rather than the active skill of making art, or the passive activity of receiving without engaging and interpreting.

What are the principles that make certain lists sound euphonious? Name for a type of idiom with two things joined (like “raining cats and dogs”, “bread and butter”) Is there a word to describe a preferred order in which we describe a list of items (usually two items)? The following examples illustrate my question better: "Mom and Dad" ("Dad and Mom" is equally correct but sounds wrong) "Big And Tall" (In AmE/Culture, this refers to a clothing retailer for larger people; It's never a "Tall And Big" store) "Food And Drink" "Black and Blue", "Black and White" (these may just be expressions versus being lists) There are certainly others but I can't think of them now.

I've recently come across a novel called A most wanted man , after which being curious I found a TV episode called A most unusual camera . Could someone shed some light on how to use "a most" and whether it has anything to do with "the most"?

My original question was "Is there a legitimate word for ' a balancer '?" but I think it's a little hard to understand... Let's just say there is a person, and most of the time, he is in the minority . It can be very simple, such as: he simply hates a song everybody likes (and vice versa), or he has a very long list of ' underrated movies '. I guess he has a different (if not eccentric) taste comparing to most people.. On the other hand, he often does things that most people would refuse to do, too (whether he wants to or not). For example, most people wouldn't buy damaged goods, but he would. You can say he is sacrificing himself. To his mind, "If everybody wants perfection than who will care for the damaged?" or "There are certain people who would only accept the best, so there must be people who accept the worse, coexisting with the former." This person does things that most people would never do, he stays in the minority so

Suppose I tell something to my companion and I want to make sure he understands me. I thought I may simply ask "Do you understand me?". But recently I heard that in such cases I should ask "Does that make sense?" instead. Is this true? Which option is appropriate to use in business communication? Answer "Do you understand me?" slightly carries the implication that it is your fault if you do not understand. "Does it make sense?" carries the implication that it is my fault if you do not understand. So politeness suggests that the latter is better.

In sentences such as the following, how is most best understood? 1) Most children do not like cauliflower. 2) Most of the balls in the bucket are red. I suppose there are three or more possible interpretations for most in these sentences. A) a plurality (at least one more than any other alternative) B) a majority (more than half, even if barely more) C) a comfortable majority (well more than half) For sentence 1, interpretations A and B would be equivalent since there are only two alternatives. Answer This topic has been covered at Language Log (see here and here ). In summary, people tend to use "most" to mean anything over 50%; some people feel it should only be used in sense C (a comfortable majority), but it is also used in sense A (a plurality). The context might make it clear which meaning is intended, or else it might simply be ambiguous. Example: The party with the most seats in the parliament gets to form the government Here "most" means "a plura

I’m looking for a more professional term or phrase to describe “day to day task” or a task that is very common for a particular role of work. Thanks in advance!

Is the 'which' in Proposition 25 suggests a better definition of m-reducibility than given in Definition 23, which is also the one typically given in texts ambiguous? It is a line from an article I've written, and the anonymous referee claims that the reader has to guess to which of the two definitions the "which" at the beginning of the line refers. It seems to me, however, that the which should refer to the definition immediately preceding it, since if I'd wanted it to refer to the other, I'd have written something like Proposition 25 suggests a better definition of m-reducibility, which is also the one typically given in texts, than given in Definition 23. As the title indicates, this is essentially a question about whether 'which' by default refers to the noun closest to it.

I know that would can't be used to refer to a past state, while used to can. How about in this sentence? When he lived in Paris, he _____ walk on the banks of Seine River I find that both would and used to can be appropriate to fill the gap. What is the correct answer, because the question only allows 1 answer. Thank you

If I were to use the sentence "There are lots of John Smiths" in the world, would that be the correct use for saying that there are a lot of people named John Smith in the world? I don't think there should be an apostrophe as that would imply ownership of something. If my first example is correct, then what would you do if the name referenced already ended with an 's'? Answer In order to pluralize a name, this guide says: There are really just two rules to remember, whether you’re pluralizing a given (first) name or a surname (last name): If the name ends in s, sh, ch, x or z, add es . In every other case, add s . Similarly, there are two fundamental no-no’s: Never change a y to ies when pluralizing a name; and Never, ever use apostrophes! Examples : Incorrect : The Flaherty’s live here. The Flaherties live here. Correct : The Flahertys live here. Sandra’s two favorite boyfriends are Charleses. There are seven Joneses in Stuart’s little black book—three of them

I instinctively translate it "as best as you can", however this makes no sense. What is the real structure behind this phrase? I'll include an Ngram to illustrate the historical presence of this phrase: http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/ngrams/chart?content=as+best+you+can%2Cas+well+as+you+can&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3 Whatever the structure is, I'm guessing that it has something to do with 19th century grammar. Answer "As best you can" is an idiom with archaic syntax. A more modern version would be "as you can best", though that is still not particularly normal today. "As well as you can" is a different construction. As various people have said "as best as you can" is a blend of the two constructions (with the opacity of "as best you can" contributing to the confusion). [Made an answer on drmj65's request.]

I am calligraphing holiday ornaments. I have been given a list of names. Which is correct when a name ends in an es, "The Jones's, or The Joneses, or The Jones'?" Also, when it does not end in an es, is it "The Smith's, The Smithes, or The Smiths', or The Smiths ?"

In this answer I see explained the fact that Americans (and other English speakers who have accepted some American usage) use the noun "store" in many situations where other English speakers would use "shop". What etymological or historical reasons might explain why this usage does not seem to have extended to the verb? As the answer above notes, I can go to a shop or a store, but at either location I will be shopping, not storing. Why? Answer As noted, shop, as a verb evolved around the late 17th century when "to store" was already a well-established verb with a different connotation. Store meaning "place where goods are kept for sale" is first recorded 1721 in American English (British English prefers shop). To store mid-13c., "to supply or stock, " from Old French estorer "erect, construct, build; restore, repair; furnish, equip, provision," from Latin instaurare "to set up, establish;The meaning "to keep in sto

This will depend on whether he's suitable for the job. This will depend on whether he's suitable for the job or not. This will depend on whether or not he's suitable for the job. It is still not defined whether we're following that approach. It is still not defined whether we're following that approach or not . It is still not defined whether or not we're following that approach. "Or not" doesn't really seem to be needed to complement "whether". Why do people use it then? Is it redundancy and nothing more? Or is it for emphasis? Or are there cases when "or not" is required for the sentence to be grammatical? Answer The addition of the "or not" is neither logically nor grammatically required. I think it's often used conversationally for emphasis. I definitely wouldn't use it in writing myself.

At the same time, they are reluctant to accept the conclusions toward which such proof inescapably points if they do not "sense" the uniformity themselves. The position of the word if in this sentence seems odd to me. I was more expecting inescapably points to/out ... rather than inescapably points if ... here, so I tried to reword the sentence to make it more understandable: At the same time, they are reluctant to accept the conclusions toward which if such proof inescapably points to the fact that they do not "sense" the uniformity themselves. But I'm not so sure about it. Answer Here "they are reluctant to accept the conclusions." Which conclusions? The conclusions "toward which such proof inescapably points" or, rewording, the conclusions "which such proof inescapably points" toward. Notice that in the original sentence, the toward has been moved before the which. If you stick an extra to at the end as you have done in yo

Is it chainsaw-equipped or chainsaw equipped? And with what kind of former words to use "-" properly? Answer Hyphens are used to connect words when it's unclear which words are modifying which other words. Connecting the two words that modify each other with a hyphen can make a big difference in the meaning of a sentence. Compare these different ways of using a hyphen with the same words: A "big-time traveller" is someone who travels a lot. A "big time-traveller" is a large person who can move through time. Very different meanings! Without the hyphen, "big time traveller" could have either meaning. A similar example is "a man-eating cow". With the hyphen the phrase describes a cow that eats people. Without the hyphen, it describes merely a man eating cow meat: "a man eating cow". (Note that "a man eating-cow" would not be correct, because hyphens and verbs work differently: "a man cow-eating" is techni

Some examples include: We fear the damned . He honored our fallen . This is a given . You are the chosen . The lost were among us. They obey the venerated . My beloved kissed me. ( TIL “beloved” is a verb thanks to RegDwight АΑA ) Is there a word to describe the past participle used as a noun? I’m hesitant to refer to it as a gerund, since it doesn’t end in -ing . Another possibility is adjectival noun, if you originally treat the word as a participle (e.g. “the damned man”) that has given up its modified noun. Also, why does English tend to preface such nouns with the ? Answer I believe this is called a substantive participle, most probably resulting from an omission of the qualified, thus the usual addition of the . For instance you could add “one(s)” to every one of your sentences: We fear the damned ones . He honored our fallen ones . This is a given one . (this one doesn't sound that good) You are the chosen one . The lost ones were among us. They obey the venerated one

In academia the words inter-discipline, multi-discipline, trans-discipline , or cross-discipline are used to describe a type of combination between different disciplines or the uniqueness of a field. Searching on OED.com for the terms inter, multi , cross and trans shows different uses. multi has some nouns and adjectives, with one option of "multi-, comb. form" cross has nouns, verbs, adjectives and prepositions, with "cross-, comb. form" inter has nouns, adjectives, verbs and prepositions, with "inter-, prefix" trans has nouns and adjectives, with "trans-, prefix" In academia, the difference between multi or inter is not well-defined. What is the difference between "comb.form" and "prefix"? Why are there no results for using multi or cross as a prefix, but there are for inter and trans ? How did the interchangeability of these come about, or is it improper to use them that way?

The word earth has several meanings; the most central one is ‘soil, dirt’, that thing we walk on when we’re outside. It’s also used as a name for the planet we live on. The Lexico definition for this sense has: (also Earth ) The planet on which we live; the world Note the word also : the entry is lowercase, and this sense, in which it functions as a proper noun, also appears capitalised. But proper nouns are as a rule always capitalised. Mars , Pluto , Venus , and all the other planet names in our solar system are always capitalised. The first two of the following examples of lowercase earth are from the King James Bible and show that this isn’t a new thing; it’s been like this for a long time: Job 26:5–13 , Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV) Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof. Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering. He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. He bindeth u

Is the structure of this sentence "Why may standing up for a long time cause hypotension?" correct? Answer It is grammatical but, in a medical scenario I would use "how" instead of "why", and "can" instead of "may". It's just that hardly anybody uses "may" in ordinary conversation (or in medical schools) in AmE. Standing up for a long time can cause hypotension. How can standing up for a long time cause hypotension? Some people are prone to hypotension when they keep in the standing position for a long time. Several factors can/may cause it.

I've realized I don't actually understand the difference between ɑ and ʌ completely. Background: I'm a Hebrew speaker. for me, the ʌ is pretty much the short Hebrew Kamatz sound (Bet with kamatz - בָ). To my impression, the ɑ sound is like the Long Kamatz sound but tainted with a little bit of Holam sound (Gimel with Holam - גֹ). So, to my impression, the differences are: ʌ is always short, while the ɑ is always long. ʌ is pure "uh sound" (Kamatz) while ɑ is tainted with a bit of "Oh sound" (Holam) Some guides online explain that the difference between ʌ and ɑ is the length only, they're both an "uh" sound. It's a bit awkward to me, as the American pronunciation of "not" is not exactly "nʌʌt", but the vowel is a bit tainted with an "o" sound (but again, I maybe hear what I want to hear). Hearing the both sounds in online dictionaries - well, for me , they're not the same. again, I might be hearing w

From Wikipedia : The Yorkshire dialect refers to the varieties of English used in the Northern England historic county of Yorkshire. Those varieties are often referred to as Broad Yorkshire or Tyke . Why is the Yorkshire dialect called 'Tyke'? Can the accent be referred to as tyke as well? ODO's definition of tyke includes a number of negative senses. Is this sense also derogatory?

While looking at the part of speech of the noun "thanks" in an online dictionary I noticed that it was a plural noun and wondered if it could be used in singular form. Glancing at the origin it appears that the old English word "thanc" was once used as the singular form of this noun. I assume it would be appropriate at that time period to say "I have a thank!" if you felt thankful for a single thing instead of being limited to always say "I have thanks!" as we do in modern English. Nowadays, I believe we only use the plural form "thanks" as the noun in all cases. We can never have a single "thank". Instead we can only have "thanks"! I find this odd! It would make sense to have kept the singular form of the noun. Often we are grateful for a single action or event and it seems more accurate to have a single "thank" rather than many "thanks". Is there any known specific background history as to why t

I'm looking for a word that means the opposite of what one would expect. This word might be used to express the surprise that a teenager's grandmother uses text messaging much more than he does, or that a city seems brighter at night than it does during the day. I'm not seeking the word ironic or irony which refer to the use of something to describe its opposite experience or emotion.

I recently started learning French and am confused by its pronunciations. The main problem being that the words never seem to sound the way they're written - isn't what it seems to be! (I know English isn't any better, but criticisms of my observations are safely off-topic here!) I need a word which indicates this deceptiveness/inconsistency while not sounding too negative. Because I still am fascinated by French. For example, here's something I'd like to say: Oh french, you ____________ beauty! So it really cant be too negative, unless you think the following word "beauty" makes for an amusing/endearing oxymoron. Then if the overall sentence doesn't sound too negative, I'm willing to accept any word. Answer The Oxford Dictionaries site offers as a definition of " inconstant " the following: "Frequently changing; variable or irregular". Synonyms suggested include fickle, wayward, capricious, volatile, flighty, erratic, mutable,

What's the meaning of go down? Little did anyone know, the 47-year-old Silicon Valley executive was actually engaged in a giant scam...He was finally caught by Target security on May 8, and he was arraigned on Tuesday on four counts of burglary. sad pathetic way to go down . Answer (by request) This particular sense of go down means to "go down in flames", like a fighter plane shot down. It refers (metaphorically, of course) to being caught and prosecuted and convicted and going to prison. Being brought down to disgrace and shame is the same metaphor. UP is GOOD ~ DOWN is BAD It's one of our basic metaphors , because humans are oriented in a gravitational field, and most metaphors are ultimately projections of the human body .

There are a lot of words describing ancestral relationships between people, such as: parent grandparent great-grandparent any of the above can be described as an "ancestor". child grandchild great-grandchild any of the above can be described as a "descendant". I am wondering if there are single words (nouns) which describe any of the following concepts: A person and all of his/her ancestors A person or any of his/her ancestors A person and all of his/her descendants A person or any of his/her descendants Any ideas?

Thanks for pointing out the similar question. Great, but note that I'm trying to find ... • is there any SPECIFIC examples/evidence around of yword yusage TODAY? • other than jokey usage, is there any fresh and real usage? • nobody has explained, simply what period was it popular? (if at all - or was it just an artifact or something?) • and indeed, what ywere the Top Three Yword greatest hits? Cheers! I made an ybounden the other day, and it brought to mind the questions: These days, are there any words which use the y- prefix? What is the origin of this prefix? In what period was it popular? What were, at that time, other popular words with the y- prefix? Is it perhaps today still popular in other (European?) languages - which? Is the whole thing just a typo/artifact? What's the deal? But mostly ........ are there any ywords popular today? Answer For usage nowadays in all varieties of Modern English, no, none of 'y-', 'ge-', or their derivatives are used at al

What is the unisex form of a word like fisherman ? Do you have to use fisherman and fisherwoman separately, or is fisherperson acceptable? I couldn’t find a dictionary with the word … In general, what do you do when a word does not have a unisex form? Answer There really is no general rule. Language evolves, and the evolution is primarily influenced by the people using the word, and different communities have different ways of thinking, so the “unisex” solutions turn out to be different for different words. There is a critical distinction to be drawn here between at least three kinds of gender-neutral language. One is grammatical neutrality: this is easy in English but hard in many languages. For example, moon has no grammatical gender in English, but is feminine in French ( la lune ) and masculine in German ( der Mond ). Nevertheless, a few words in English sometimes take particular gender pronouns: earth , moon , and nature , for example, certain moral qualities (such as wisdo