Blog

Just me, a schizophrenic and a petty arsonist. How many people are there in the above sentence? Is it ambiguous? Answer I could imagine anywhere from 1 to 3 people: One: Just me (further describing myself as a schizophrenic and arsonist) Two: Just me (describing myself as a schizophrenic), and another person who is an arsonist Just me, and another person who is both a schizophrenic and arsonist Three: Me, a schizophrenic, and an arsonist

There are several different verbs that deal with handwriting. Write, Handwrite, sketch, draw... then there is Type, key-in... etc. Is there a verb that means to write in calligraphy? I have thought of the verb 'to pen' something, but many times that means to just write longhand. (or use a pen, or take a note...) The sentence I found a need for the word was that a friend said he would write a note on a box in fancy handwriting. I expressed a thought that you could write underneath the word art, in parentheses '(you better like this, it took me 15 minutes to ________ the lettering) A word that came to mind (not a real word) was something like calligriphate, or calligrafy. Answer calligraph (verb) : Write in calligraphic style (Source: ODO ) 'the invitations were meticulously calligraphed in black ink' To write beautifully or ornamentally (Source: OED ) Thanks to Ermanen for supplying the OED definition

I've seen a pattern in a couple of titles. Asimov has a book called "Through a Glass, Clearly". Philip Dick wrote "A Scanner Darkly". Star Trek has the episode "In a Mirror, Darkly" Agatha Christy wrote the story "In a Glass, Darkly" Curiously, 3 of the 4 are sci-fi. Any reason for the commonality of phrasing? Does it have some sort of meaning? Anyone know how it originated? Is it used in spoken English? Answer It originates from 1 Corinthians 13:12 : For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Is there a feminine equivalent for "Casanova" without negative connotations? Answer I don't think you can find a term that is entirely symmetrical, because the cultural concepts of romantic and sexual pursuit aren't symmetrical. Identical behavior in a man and a woman will usually be interpreted differently in most cultures I know. The reason it's hard for you to find a non-perjorative female counterpart to casanova , and the reason so many of the suggestions given here are either negative in connotations (maneater, siren) or full of other connotations (Mata Hari, Cleopatra) isn't in the words and names, they just reflect a cultural bias inherent in our society.

I know it's wrong, but I do it all the time or else my sentences would go on forever. Answer What makes you think this is an error? All the greatest writers of English have started sentences with and . Mark Liberman, linguistics professor at the University of Pennsylvania wrote about this mythical “rule” in Language Log in 2005: There is nothing in the grammar of the English language to support a prescription against starting a sentence with and or but —nothing in the norms of speaking and nothing in the usage of the best writers over the entire history of the literary language. Like all languages, English is full of mechanisms to promote coherence by linking a sentence with its discourse context, and on any sensible evaluation, this is a Good Thing. Whoever invented the rule against sentence-intitial and and but , with its a preposterous justification in terms of an alleged defect in sentential “completeness”, must have had a tin ear and a dull mind. So, my answer to OP’s orig...

Another word of mysterious origins of jism , in the sense of spunk. The OED mentions it is sometimes spelled jizz , and may even be the precursor word to jazz . But neither the OED nor Etymonline gives any etymology for this word. The oldest citation is from 1847, and there are many citations from the 20 th century. So where do we get the word jism from? Answer (Not within earshot of OED: If the truth were known about the origin of the word ' Jazz ' it would never be mentioned in polite society. ["Étude," Sept. 1924] ) Entirely possible that it is drawn from the Hindi जिस्म ( jism ): देह। बदन। शरीर। 2. २. स्त्री या पुरुष का गुप्त अंग। भग या लिंग Body. 2. Female or male genitals. Vulva or penis ?Whence, "seminal fluid, cum," 1899; earlier "energy, strength" (1842) ( etymonline ) also jissom /ˈdʒɪsəm/ vulgar slang semen. ( ODO ) commentary: The Hindi word is pronounced /ˈdʒɪsm/ in formal speech and /ˈdʒɪsəm/ in regular/ vulgar use, as is the E...

I found the following phrase in a NYTimes article and I was pretty surprised that it wasn't corrected or edited out: " But when it comes to privacy and freedom, cash can't be beat. ". I am under the impression that this is incorrect grammar and the sentence should actually be " [...] cash can't be beaten. " or " [...] you can't beat cash " but definitely not the one used in the article. Am I wrong here? This sort of grammar is mostly only used in slang in England and I always thought that it was wrong but after a bit of googling, I'm not sure anymore. Is it just another difference between American and British English? I know it's really petty but I'm still interested in the answer! Article link: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/04/04/bringing-dollars-and-cents-into-this-century/a-shift-toward-digital-currency Answer The form can't be beat isn't "ungrammatical". In X can't be Y[ed] , Y is a past ...

I'm working on a browser-based tool that allows users to interact with other users they are matched with. Relationships between users progress in a linear fashion along a series of states, initiated when a user requests to be connected with another user. In the interface of the tool, a user can view all of the users they're matched with, regardless of the state of their relationship. I'd like to allow users to navigate to a filtered version of this view that shows only users they have not yet requested a connection with, but I'm having trouble with what to call it. "Unconnected Matches" isn't quite right. "Unconnected" carries unwanted connotations of having once been connected in the past. Ideally the phrase would follow the pattern: adjective + "matches". This phrase would only live in a tab in the interface and not in a sentence anywhere, but if it helps with context, here's another way to think about it: This is a list of your ...

I've been trying to work out which of the following make best grammatical sense but have been looking at them for so long now that my mind has turned to mush and they both seem wrong. Which is better form: A total of 0.0605 moles (3 s.f.) of NaOH was originally added to the aspirin Or: A total of 0.0605 moles (3 s.f.) of NaOH were originally added to the aspirin I know that moles is plural but personally I think was is the better of the two. I would appreciate some opinions on which reads better to people. Answer When referring to amounts of objects as opposed to the objects themselves, you normally use singular agreement. This has nothing to do with fractional amounts, and nothing to do with the use of 'a total of', but is a property of amounts in general. 40 litres of water was/*were poured into the tank. (A total of) 0.0605 moles (3 s.f.) of NaOH was/*were originally added to the aspirin. We can see this when use anaphora to refer to the amount. 40 litres of water w...

Is the word "Modificator" valid - I've never see it before and it's not one I'm familiar with. Answer I would say that it is not a valid word. Collins English Dictionary says: Sorry, no results for “Modificator” in the Collins English Dictionary. Oxford English Dictionary says: No results found for “Modificator”. The suffix "-ator" is -ator used to form agent nouns , usually from verbs that have the ending -ate And "Modifate" is not a word. The correct word for what you are looking for is a "Modifier"

What is the most appropriate answer (American way)? Yes, John speaking. Yes, it is him. Yes, it is he. Yes. Yes, speaking. I need to answer calls when interviewers/hiring managers call. Answer I would avoid “it is him” and “it is he” if you are trying to stick to idiomatic American English. They are not grammatically wrong, but you would not normally hear someone speak of themselves this way on the telephone. Your other choices are good ones. Another is: “This is John” (or, “Yes, this is John”).

Recently, I've come across the catchphrase, " Good thinking, [name/noun]!" three times on ELU. The first was in a question referring to Terry Pratchett's catchphrase " Good thinking, that man! " 1 The second was FumbleFinger's answer where he affirms that the former is a homage to the popular American catchphrase, Good thinking, Batman! Made famous in the American TV cult series, Batman . The third, I happily stumbled upon myself and posted in “Definite ninety-nine” - UK English meaning . The catchphrase is taken from an American spy sitcom, called Get Smart about two secret agents; Maxwell Smart, Agent 86, and his beautiful and intelligent female partner, Agent 99. The series, devised by Mel Brooks and Buck Henry, was responsible for coining a multitude of catchphrases, one of which was: Good thinking, 99! Data Get Smart was broadcast between 1965–1970 but despite my cursory attempts, I couldn't pinpoint the year the catchphrase was actually la...

Why do we say “I am a teacher” instead of “I is a teacher” considering that I is a singular pronoun not a plural pronoun? Don’t singulars always take -s forms? Why does be work differently?

How can we distinguish, for example, these two sentences just by listening to the pronunciation? They first kill the trees. They first killed the trees. When pronouncing kill the trees , we have one [d] that is for the . When pronouncing killed the trees , we have two [d] that is for killed and the . Native speakers pronounce both sentences so that we just hear one [d], so we don't know the tense by pronunciation in these cases. Am I right? Is there any special stress or extension of a sound that signals the difference between them?

I was looking at a short summary of Augustine's Confessions, and came across a statement by the translator that though the word "confession" can mean acknowledgement of sin, it can also be a statement of praise. Elsewhere, in religious writings, I also see it apparently meaning giving thanks, making a vow, etc. Yet the dictionaries I looked at, don't have these meanings for confession. They only mention confessing to one's sins or crimes or something that one finds shameful or embarrassing. Confession's etymology apparently goes to "confiteri" which simply means to acknowledge. Appreciate any help. LATER EDIT: I'll quote it from the book: "The very title itself can be read two ways: Of confession as praise, as well as confession as acknowledgement of faults." That's from the introduction, nothing more is said of that.

What is the etymological origin of quid in its sense of a sovereign or guinea? While preparing the question Origin of “not for quids” phrase I noticed that etymonline's quid entry merely says "one pound sterling," 1680s, British slang, possibly from quid "that which is" (c.1600, see quiddity), as used in quid pro quo (q.v.) Of this usage OED1 says, in part, [Of obscure origin] 1, A sovereign; a guinea. (Pl. usually without -s , as two quid, a few quid , etc.). 1688 SHADWELL Sqr. Alsatia III. i, Let me equip thee with a Quid. In previous questions where quid is prominent ( 1 ) or peripheral ( 2 , 3 ) I've seen nothing about the origin of the term. In a comment to my previous question , MετάEd asserts that “Quid" (money) is widely believed to derive from "quid pro quo" anyway.” But what evidence is available about the origin of quid in its sense of a sovereign or guinea? Answer The OED is less confident than some other sources: Origin unc...

After doing many research and find more than one result, I would like to know how exactly the R sound is pronounced in American English. On this video, the woman describes two ways. Firstly, the incorrect one, done by many of her students, in which they curl their tongue backwards: http://youtu.be/Jq_yIbrD01c?t=35s Then (at 0:57) she describes the correct way, in which the tongue has to raise in the middle, and stays lower at the tip. But then in this link it says that both ways are right: http://pronuncian.com/Lessons/Default.aspx?Lesson=16 I would like to know if americans really only use the one described as "correct" by the woman or if they sometimes mix, or if some americans use the suposedly incorrect version... I even watched another video teaching the "incorrect way" as the right way! (can't post because it limits 2 links... its called "Q&A: How do you pronounce the "R" sound--the American R") Off: I'm so confused. That woma...

When should one use usage instead of use ? Examples? Answer I tend to agree with Peter Shor: The word prevarication is not in common use. But: The word prevarication is not common usage. (A sentence that presumably refers to some previous use of prevarication in a non-standard way.) Note how dropping the preposition changes the context of the phrase. A question that can be asked is whether usage has any really useful use, other than for pedants.

I was just discussing oddities of English with a friend, and I realized something that neither of us could explain. A podiatrist is a foot doctor. A podium is something you stand behind when giving a speech A pedometer is a device which counts your steps. A pedophile is someone with a sexual interest in children. So what the heck? Apparently pod and ped are Latin and Greek respectively roots for "foot", so that I get. But then apparently pedo is Greek and is "a combining form meaning “child,” used in the formation of compound words" . So uh, huh?? I mean, why isn't a pedometer a device for measuring children and a pedophile someone with a foot fetish...?

What's the difference in the usage of these two adverbs continuously and continually ? Here are some examples: a) She was told off for continually being late. b) It rained continuously for three hours this morning. c) The firemen worked continuously through the night. d) I'm afraid you continually make the same mistakes.

Many times when writing a letter asking to a department of my university, I'm hesitating for the appropriate title. Say I want to email "Student Insurance Office" to ask about insurance coverage. Here are some example I can come up with, "To whom it may concern". Not appropriate, because to me it shows the writer's indifference about the person reading it. "Dear Student Insurance Officer/Manager". Can I start with "dear" to an stranger?(I could replace it by "Hello" or "Hi" though) and can I generally call people officer? Usually it means police officer. "Dear Student Insurance Office". It seems that I'm writing a letter to the whole office. "Dear Sir/Madam". But actually I don't know the name of that person. I would know of course if he/she responds my email. Do you guys have any suggestions to the generally acceptable title for an unknown person/department/organization? Answer Dear Sir or...

I was searching today on this topic. i found some posts on web according to them 1) I got to go now. 2) I have to go now. these two sentences are same but i wanna confirm that are they same ??? Answer The first sentence listed, "I got to go now." Is a generally acceptable slang variant of the second sentence listed, "I have to go now." They both mean the same thing, which is, "I need to go now." have to and need to are more correct, but got to is common enough that no one will misunderstand you, and only the most pedantic among us will correct it.

I recently read a line of chat conversation, where somebody said: … get jipped by some guy … A different user construed this as "casual racism", even though the whole conversation was completely unconnected to racial issues. It seems that the problem is the word "jipped" which Wiktionary says is Probably from the term gypsy (“Roma”), due to a stereotype of the Roma as swindlers. (emphasis mine). So I wonder, is this really a politically incorrect word to use? Do speakers and listeners generally connect the word with actual Roma stereotypes? Or is it a rarity to think about its origins, and people generally just use it without thinking of the possible historical etymology, just like people use malaria without ever thinking of bad air? I heard/read the word for the first time, and did not make a connection to "Gypsy" at all, even though I am European and I am generally aware that "gypsy" is a pejorative racial term. Answer It's not really pos...

Citizen: 1. A legally recognized subject ornational of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized. 2. An inhabitant of a particular town or city. Denizen: 1. An inhabitant or occupant of a particular place. Same thing? Answer I would say the answer depends on how technical we're being. A citizen of the United States is a legal resident who has been processed by the government as being a member of the United States. A denizen of the United States is simply someone that lives there. Technically speaking, one could never be, for example, a citizen of the Earth -- but we're all denizens of the Earth.

If you have a place name such as “The Sierra Nevada Mountains”, does Sierra Nevada act as an adjective? My guess is yes, since they qualify the noun mountains , e.g.: “Which mountains? The Sierra Nevada mountains.” (analogous to “Which dress? The red dress.”) Likewise for places derived from that such as “The Sierra Nevada Lodge” — does Sierra Nevada act as an adjective there as well? Answer Nouns Modifying Other Nouns Your question is unclear. If you are asking whether the noun is modifying another noun, then the answer is yes — but you knew that already or you would not have used the word “qualifying”. Modifying and qualifying are equivalent here. If the question is whether a noun that modifies another noun thereby becomes an adjective, the answer is no, that does not make it an adjective. A noun that modifies another noun remains a noun. Nouns can be modified by various sorts of things, and they are not all of them adjectives. Adjectives, however, can only be modified by adverb...

I am thinking "value" is close, but I also want to use the word "value" for the whole thing. A value of 5 inches... in which case the "value" should be broken into the "___" and the "unit". An example sentence: In my software, to represent the different distances unambiguously, I store the unit along with the ___.

I want to get across the point that I was no longer enthusiastic about something: When I walked in the room I was disenthused by what I saw. AFAIK , disenthused isn't a word. Edit: Chasly was right about my question being more vague than I intended. Lots of great answers which can only be discriminated by criteria I failed to include in the original post. I will not repeat the mistake for future postings. Thank you all for the help. I've marked the answer that best fits my situation as "accepted", but future Googlers should scroll through the list of answers for their needs. Answer You may use dispirit : Cause (someone) to lose enthusiasm or hope: (ODO) the army was dispirited by the uncomfortable winter conditions or disappoint : fail to satisfy the hope, desire, or expectation of. (AHD) I was dispirited / disappointed by what I saw.

I have a question about the usage of the word 'bog' in the following sentence: Bog standard scoops of ice cream etc I understand that the meaning is 'form'; nevertheless, this is the first time I have seen it. Of course, I'm not a native speaker, Italian being my mother tongue. Any help would be much appreciated. Smile.

When I make a phone call, I'm not sure how to say the snow-like symbol and "#" correctly on the keyboard of phone in English, or I have no idea what people are talking about when they say a word which may seem to referring to "#" or the snow-like symbol. Could you please tell me how to say them? Thank you.

Which is correct when referencing an operating system version "OS X 10.6.x and later" or "OS X 10.6.x and above"? Bonus points for providing the why. Answer At the computer magazines where I work, our house style is to use "OS X 10.6.1 or later" when referring to a situation where the content of the sentence suggests that we're talking about an individual machine (hypothetical or not) that will be running one particular operating system: To use this app, you must be running OS X 10.6.1 or later." Similarly, we use "OS X 10.6.1 and later" when we're talking about multiple versions of the OS: The bug affects multiple versions of the operating system—OS X 10.6.1 and later. We try not to use "or above," "and above," "or up," or "and up," mainly because we view version numbers as being essentially timeline markers rather than markers of quantity. The expressions "or newer" and "and n...

Please enlighten me about the difference in using "last" and "on" when writing dates. For example, which one would be correct: "I attended the meeting on December 14, 2014." Or, "I attended the meeting last December 14, 2014." I can't find any resource for answers. Thank you in advance.

For example the waiting time target in a hospital can be met if enough patients are killed off quickly so freeing up beds. However hitting the waiting time target in that way is rather missing the point of healthcare! Answer I think one word which describes this kind of thinking is shortsighted : lacking foresight or scope; a short view of the problem ; "shortsighted policies"; "shortsighted critics derided the plan"; "myopic thinking" In Calif. panel rejects new offshore oil drilling (2009), the situation is described in which the State Lands Commission rejected a proposal that could have led to the first new oil-drilling project off the California coast in 40 years. ...supporters...[said drilling] would benefit the region and help the cash-strapped state. Opponents, however, argued the plan was shortsighted . The vote came the day after the 40th anniversary of a massive oil spill off Santa Barbara that coated miles of beaches with oil and killed dolphi...

We have created a game where children can learn Vegetables and Fruits. When the child answers a question they receive a notification to tell them whether they got it wrong or right. My opinion is that the capitalization of the letters should not be in sentence case, so for example, Wrong Answer - Try Again is incorrect in my opinion. I think it should be Wrong answer - try again i.e. written as a normal sentence. Is there a particular way it should be? For reference purposes, here is the game just in case my question does not make sense. Click on a vegetable to see the message. http://freeteacher.co.uk/game.aspx?qf=game_vegetables

I have noticed that most of the time when I go to Starbucks and order a mocha , the cashier doesn't seem to understand unless I repeat it. I am trying to think why is that the case since it is a very easy word to pronounce. I pronounce it as ' moka ' but I am wondering if I should put a light w 'mowka' instead? If that's the case, does this really make such a huge difference between being understood or not? Answer According to the online Merriam-Webster, Mocha is a small town and seaport in southwest Yemen that as early as 1773 had already given its name to the style of coffee. The Arabic pronunciation of the name of the town can be heard here . However, nobody in the English-speaking world says the name that way, and I therefore doubt that your local Starbucks barista would understand what you meant if you used the Arabic pronunciation when ordering your coffee. What must be remembered is that as soon as the speakers of Language A adopt a word from Languag...

What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in s? "Please submit your and your parent(s)' federal tax returns." Is the possessive of "parent(s)'" correctly formatted in that sentence? I know the apostrophe comes before the "s" for just parent singular, and it would come after the "s" for parents plural, but what if I don't know if it is one or two parents, and therefore want to use the (s)?

Suppose I am driving 38 miles per hour in a 45 zone. This, of course, is seven miles per hour under the speed limit. Of course, I am driving this slowly because the road is wet, and safe driving habits suggest that when the road is wet, one should consider the safe speed limit to be five miles per hour less than the posted limit. For this situation, which is correct? "I am driving more than 5 mph under the posted speed limit" "I am driving less than 5 mph under the posted speed limit" To support the first case: my speed discrepancy from the posted limit is more than 5 mph. TO support the second case: my total speed was less than 45 less 5 (equals 40). Edit: As many pointed out, there are certainly ways to assemble a phrase to remove any ambiguity. But that's not really the point of why I asked. My reason for asking is two-fold: The scenario came to mind when I was driving after a recent snowfall. I was minding my speed, but thought about accident situations. I ...

It is not clear to me, when to use IN and when to use ON in sentences such as: "Keep it organized on your computer or in a notebook." What about if the gadget selected to write were a Laptop/Palm/Cell-phone/Tablet? Bye.

Assuming that these two words off-topic on-topic must be hyphenated, which of the punctuations in the following sentences is correct? (crucial part emphasized) Regardless of whether it is an off or on-topic example, it is a brilliant consideration in the definition of this proposal. Regardless of whether it is an off- or on-topic example, it is a brilliant consideration in the definition of this proposal. I know you can get around this with a verbose constuction like off-topic or on-topic , or by not hyphenating either and treating off and on and topic as separate words, but neither suggestion really does anything to answer my question. Answer The standard way to deal with this in English is your second example, "off- or on-topic". Another example of where the hyphen would be preserved for both forms of the hyphenated word might be pre- and post- , e.g. The pre- and post-match responses of the soccer fans were markedly different.

Where did the phrase "drop the hammer" come from? It's what you do when you start to go balls to the wall. I've only heard it rowing. Answer I've only ever seen it as described in definition-of.com : "Bringing a pending act to fruition. Usually connotes an act which will have serious consequences" and always as a one-time act which will bring all force to bear. Also, like loufedalis' answer given in Yahoo! Answers , I believe the origin to be military and related to the hammer of a cocked pistol or rifle. When you pull the trigger and drop the hammer that certainly fits the poetic description of someone waiting for the right moment to strike with all available force.

When is it appropriate to use an "expired" honorific to address or refer to a person? In the U.S., former state governors are occasionally referred to as "Governor So-and-so", although they have not held that office for several years. I see this happening most often when the former governor is actively campaigning for a new office (usually U.S. President), and my impression is that it's done only by someone with an interest in the campaign (for or against) rather than a (relatively) neutral party like a newspaper. Certainly this could be used as a jab: in a political campaign for high office, addressing one's opponent by a former title — lower than one's own — could imply that the opponent is not qualified for the new job. It could also be used the other way around, to remind listeners that a candidate one supports used to hold an important title. I'm curious whether there are formal rules for this in the U.S., or at least style or journalist guideli...

Consider: You should do it. You have to do it. Does should show suggestion and have to show compulsion or motivation? Answer You are correct... "Should" is suggestive: It's most likely also optional (e.g., "you should use an umbrella when you walk in the rain, or you might get a little bit wet"), although if it were tied to a serious consequence then the "required" sentiment would be implied (sometimes a wife will give her husband a hint in this manner, but when he hears it he may recognize that it really isn't optional). "Have to" is a requirement: It's not optional, and any motivation may be tied to some consequence of not doing what one has to do (e.g., "you have to breath or you will not survive").

Since it's Friday and others are playing games, here's another one to take us into the weekend. Everyone knows about those Russian nesting dolls (called matryoshka dolls, I believe). A small doll nests inside a larger, which itself is inside a larger doll, and so on. This game does the same with words. You start with a three-letter word, add a letter to make another word, and so on. Longest word wins. The catch? Each additional letter has to form a legitimate word. Here's one to start you off: bur burr burro burrow burrows Good luck. Answer If you're willing to accept the surname "Barrett", the longest I can find (with a program) is 10 letters , "barretters": bar barr : to cry as an elephant, abbreviation of "barrister" barre : (ballet) A handrail fixed to a wall used for ballet exercises. barret : A kind of military cap Barrett: A surname (recall Elizabeth Barrett Browning) barrette : A clasp or clip for gathering and holding the hair. ba...

Usage of "%" I'm almost positive it's a prepositional phrase since it's really means "per cent" or "per 100". So in a sentence like: 90% of my street are doing lawn work. It would be "are" and not "is" because both "%" and "of my street" are prepositional phrases and therefore cannot contain the subject. Am I right? Answer Like a lot of , something like 90% of functions not so much as a preposition as it does a premodifier. And premodifiers work like adjectives. They do not change the head noun, which remains the grammatical subject and still must be agree with the verb in number. People are coming. Trouble is avoided. A lot of people are coming. A lot of trouble is avoided. Ninety percent of the people are coming. Ninety percent of the trouble is avoided. One percent of the people are coming. One percent of the trouble is avoided. As you see, you can remove the leading a lot of or the X% of , and noth...

What is the difference between consulting and consultancy, if I want to talk about the activity of consultant? Should I say consulting services or consultancy services ? Many thanks in advance. FF

Can programmers be called code authors or any other term similar in meaning to a book author? Answer As a programmer myself, I say "why the hell not?" — But I guess that's biased? However, Merriam-Webster does seem to agree with me as it defines 'author' as: "one that originates or creates" and cites software authors as an example. So in both my opinion and the accepted definition of the word author, yes, a programmer can be considered an author.

What would you call someone, with money, who attends an all inclusive fund-raiser, refuses to pay the attendance fee, and sends his girlfriend up to the bar all night to get him goblets of wine while he listens to the band? BTW, the GF paid up her end of things.

We might say that someone who is exceptionally chatty can "talk a blue streak." What is the origin and meaning of this phrase? Is it generally insulting, or a nice way of saying someone is a chatterbox? Answer According to The Word Detective in all likelihood, the term did arise by analogy to the speed and force of a bolt of lightning, especially in “talk a blue streak,” meaning to speak rapidly and excitedly. The “blue” in “curse a blue streak” probably also invokes “blue” in the sense of “obscene.” So it it is not really insulting when you say that somebody talks a blue streak, it is just an informal way of saying that he/she talks very fast and endlessly and very often aimlessly. To curse/swear a blue streak means to speak rapidly, too, but using swear/curse words. Cursing/swearing a blue streak is usually an outburst-- a retort or angry reaction, and short-lived. However, it can also mean using a lot of swear words repeatedly over a period of time: My teenager has been ...

Modern English seems to require this verb in several circumstances, where most other European languages don't seem to need it. (See? I just used it.) For example, in questions: "Do you have a dog?" Whereas, "Have you a dog?" would be normal in other languages or in the English of days gone by. Another example: "I do not know him." Again, "I know him not," could be used, but sounds stilted nowadays. So, where did this 'do' come from?

The game of Go is... or The game of go is... Apparently the International Go Federation capitalizes it. Its dictionary entry doesn't appear to be (from what I have seen). It seems to fit the definition of a proper noun as it isn't preceded by an article (such as "the" or "an"). So which is it? Also, where does that put checkers, chess, basketball, football, etc. They are never (or at least not regularly) capitalized, yet they seem to have the same characteristics. I predict the argument is going to be that Monopoly is capitalized because it is a brand and go should not be capitalized since it is not a brand and it is not referring to a specific instance of anything. Is that correct? Answer I'd say that Go is often capitalised simply because go is already a very common English word, so most sentences about the game would become significantly harder to parse if it weren't somehow differentiated typographically. Personally, I prefer italics to capita...

I am wondering where did A/C abbreviation originate, and especially the slash since aircraft is one word. For instance, I can understand why there is a slash while abbreviating air conditioning . Answer There are a couple of possible sources, and it may well be influenced by more than one: You get it most often with two-letter abbreviations, where it serves to make the pair of letters stand out as an abbreviation where they might instead look like a word, at least on first glance; the idea being that one will see A/C and immediately think something abbreviated with A and C rather than what does AC spell ? ( w/ is by analogy to w/o , and in some other such abbreviations the slash really does represent a slash in the full form, or separates components that are themselves abbreviations). Now, this form was popular around the beginning to the middle of the century. They were not as heavily abbreviated as we are in our era of TLAs, but they certainly did like to save paper and ink. The...

I know that there are similar questions, but I'd like to know what's the "preferred" meaning of "just" in a specific sentence in this context. I was watching a GTA V movie, called "Meltdown". In a given scene, the protagonist's tutor turns to be his enemy; he wants to "destroy honest capitalism" and he's using a laptop to perform the action. Then he presses a key and says, with an evil laugh: "I just pressed this button and now tense music is playing" (and tense music starts to play in the movie). Later, the protagonist and his friend pursue the guy to stop his evil plans. I tried to translate the movie for my mother, and when "I just pressed this button and now tense music is playing" showed up, I couldn't decide if it was something like "I pressed this button a few moments ago and now tense music is playing" or "I only pressed this button and look what happened, tense music is playing"...

There are two common pronunciations of "either": British /ˈaɪðər/ and American /ˈiːðər/. If Americans are more or less consistent in this regard, then the Brits seem to be freely using both. In fact, from what I can tell, "either this or that" is more often in the first form, whereas "me either" is in the second. But I may be wrong. Is there any kind of an informal rule in the modern British English with regard to this? Answer Usage of /i:/ ("EE-thur") and /ai/ ("EYE-thur") in Great Britain and in Canada seems to be mixed. In the United States, the predominant usage has always been /i:/. However, there's also a long history of /ai/ occurring among a few Americans, including Benjamin Franklin and James Fenimore Cooper in earlier times, and Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and Barrack Obama more recently. For many years, /ai/ was associated in the United States with British usage and, by extension, with certain elites who tried to i...

What is the difference between bucket and pail ? Is there a distinction between the shape of a bucket and the shape of a pail? Are buckets and pails made of different materials? Is there a difference between substances carried in buckets and pails? Is there dialectal variation in the use of these words? Is one of these words old-fashioned? In other words, When is a native English speaker more likely to use the word bucket ? (Please state the whereabouts of the speaker in question) When is a native English speaker more likely to use the word pail ? (Ditto) Answer I feel like the word pail almost always describes a metallic object, shaped in a near-cylindrical fashion. Sometimes a pail can be wooden, but rarely. Buckets can be made of any old material, especially plastic, and can be shaped more strangely than pails. In addition, bucket has some interesting and amusing uses in slang: In its plural form, it can be an expression of unalloyed happiness. It comes from the slang term from...

I heard myself saying something was "tickety-boo", meaning good, successful, or satisfactory. Does anyone know where this strange-sounding phrase originated? Answer ठीकहैंबाबू (tikai bābū) means "Yes, sir" in Hindi. [EDIT] The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang tickety-boo adjective fine, correct, in order, satisfactory. Originally military; a variation of 'ticket', as in just the ticket (correct), with Hindu [Hindi, —ed.] tikai babu (it's all right, sir) UK 1939. The proper Hindi phrase is ठीक हैं बाबू / theak hai, babu / (Okay, Sir) —ed. The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang By Eric Partridge, Tom Dalzell, Terry Victor, Tom Dalzell; Routledge. (c); see: GoogleBooks See also: on phrases.org Dalya Goldberger, ' Origins ' on writersblock.ca

What the extra time and money bought, besides headaches and heartaches for the project’s sponsors and the thousands of patrons who line up for discount theater tickets every day, is nothing less than a new way of seeing the Times Square “bowtie,” that dazzling intersection of Broadway and Seventh Avenue. That is because the TKTS booth proper is topped by a sweeping cascade of 27 ruby-red structural glass steps, rising to a height of 16 feet 1 inch above the 47th Street sidewalk, where hundreds of people (as many as 1,500 if they squeeze in tight) will be welcome to congregate every day until 1 a.m.

I am looking for a word to describe a person who really suffers when it's cold. Let's say, cold is not their cup of tea. And (maybe) with a nuance that they are over-sensitive. John is so [the word I'm looking for]; It's just 5C and he's wrapped up in two sweaters and a winter coat! Answer Nesh . But you might find that few people understand this. Nesh is an English dialect adjective meaning unusually susceptible to cold weather and there is no synonym for this use. Usage has been recorded in Cheshire, Staffordshire, the East Midlands, Lancashire, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, Derbyshire and Shropshire. It includes over-sensitivity — my hardy friend calls me this when I moan about the cold.

Is there a term for nouns that have identical singular and plural forms? For example, sheep fish glasses aircraft/spacecraft etc. Answer According to Wikipedia, some of these are called defective nouns : Some nouns have no singular form. Such a noun is called a plurale tantum. For example, glasses , pants , and scissors are all defective nouns because they have no singular form. As these are plurale tantum , the opposite is singularia tantum --nouns with no plural form . However, examples like sheep and fish are simply irregular plurals .

Webster's Collegiate Dictionary , first edition (1908) has this entry for broncho : Broncho (brŏn´kō), n. {Sp. bronco rough, wild.} A native or a Mexican horse of small size. { Western U.S. } Four entries later, the same dictionary has this item: Bronco n. Same as BRONCHO. From this treatment it appears that the dictionary in 1908 regarded broncho as the primary English spelling and bronco as a variant. (Indeed, Webster's Academic Dictionary [1895] has the identical entry for broncho , but no mention of bronco at all.) A century later, Merriam-Webster's Eleventh Collegiate Dictionary (2003) has the following entry for bronco : bronco also broncho n, pl broncos also bronchos {MexSp, fr. Sp, lit., rough, wild} (1850) : BRONC and this entry for bronc : bronc n {short for bronco } (1893) : an unbroken or imperfectly broken range horse of western No. America; broadly : MUSTANG I have three questions: Is bronc now the primary term and spelling in English for ...

Gender neutral pronoun. In everyday use, I often use the pronoun "they" to refer to a unknown person if I do not know their sex. As in: Bob: Who was it that emailed you about the company cutting back? Sally: I don't know. They didn't say. I remember using "they" this way in a paper for my college English 101 class, and my teacher marked off for it, saying that it is incorrect. So is it? It's definitely much easier to say than "he/she"... Perhaps it's considered correct (or at least accepted) in speech but not in written form?

I often catch myself trying to write ? expla i nation , phonetically spelling the word in my head. To my chagrin I get part way through and have to stop myself. So I’m wondering why is the i dropped? I can’t think of other words ending ‑ain that take the ‑ation suffix for comparison. Answer Expanding on ΜετάEd’s answer, the alternation between long /e:/ and short /a/ (or reduced version thereof, schwa or a mid-high vowel) is now frequent in Modern English (and harks back to the Great Vowel Shift). So, alongside expl[e:]n ~ expl[ə]nation , you also have: ex'pl[e:]n ~ expl[æ]natory ins[e:]ne ~ ins[æ]nity (insane ~ insanity) in[e:]ne ~ in[æ]nity (inane ~ inanity) n[e:]tion ~ n[æ]tionality (nation ~ nationality) [e:]ble ~ [ə]bility (able ~ ability) As you hunched and ΜετάEd pointed out, there is an orthographic oddity to explain , in that its /e:/ sound alternates with a lax vowel, but it is, orthographically, ai . The nearest I can come to like examples is: retain ~ ret...

Firstly I am not very good in English, so pardon me, is my question sounds too silly. Why we use "thereof"? Answer It is a formal way of referring to something just mentioned . formal of the thing just mentioned; of that: the member state or a part thereof . I like this example: "This chair is suited to your life or lack thereof." Here thereof refers to the life you may or may not have, and the chair will suit you in either case.

Consider the two sentences below It is of crucial importance that we make more use of technology if we are to make progress. and It is crucially important that we make more use of technology if we are to make progress. What is the grammatical role of "of" in the the first sentence? What is difference between the two sentences in meaning and emphasizing? Answer Good question. Some contributors to this site would recommend you try Stack Exchange's English for Language Learners website, but I'm willing to attempt an answer to your question. First, the of is a preposition in a prepositional phrase, as in your example, "of crucial importance." Let me suggest also the phrases "of moderate interest," "of weird proportions," and "of primary concern," as in It [the statue] was of weird proportions, but it came together nicely." It [the project] was of moderate interest to me, but I participated anyway." It [the coat] was of b...