Blog

What is the difference between metaphorical , allegorical , and figurative ? Answer Metaphor comes from the Greek μετά + φέρω ("I carry with") and is a rhetorical figure used to "carry" the meaning of a word into another. For instance: Main Square is the heart of the town In this case the square is not actually a heart, but can be considered as the "pulsating center" of the town. George is a fox Meaning he is sly, not that he is actually a fox. Note that if you say George is as sly as a fox that is not a metaphor, but a simile as you are comparing George to a fox, you are not saying he is one. Allegory comes from the Greek ἄλλος + ἀγορεύω (to speak something different) is in a certain way similar to metaphor, as it expresses a concept using a different word. Contrary to metaphor, however, the shift of the meaning is often deep and hidden (that is probably why in common talk you will be likely to use a metaphor but not an allegory). My English literatur

I just went to post a question on another Stack Exchange site and my spell checker is telling me that asker is incorrect but answerer is correct. Is asker wrong? What should I use instead? Answer Asker is listed in Merriam-Webster, as is answerer .

I was wondering if there are differences between the cases of using di- and the cases of using bi-? For example, why carbon dioxide instead of carbon bioxide? Why binoculars instead of dinoculars? Why bisexual instead of disexual? Why bilateral instead of dilateral? Answer Bi- comes from Latin, Di- from Greek. Which prefix is used would usually depend on the origin of the root of the word.

I' would like to know whether or not the following sentences are correct and why: I have been sick since last week. I have been sick since the last week. I have been sick for the last week.

In my area of work the word author as a verb has become quite common. However, it seems to have a subtly different meaning than plain vanilla write . For example, one does not write software unit tests; one authors them. Can anyone offer a clear distinction between the two words? Has author as a verb become a common usage outside of the field of computer software? Answer I would understood this subtle difference connotational-wise where authoring includes a higher level of creativity or other mental use. I would also say that all authoring is writing, but that not all writing is authoring.

I am looking for the correct/common way to call the single spaces which are generally clearly visibile in parking lots as you can see from the picture: I would probably call them "parking slots," but I am not sure if that is correct and I could not find any reference apart from this one , which clearly refers to a different context. According to the Collins Dictionary a parking bay is: a space in a car park designed to be large enough to park a vehicle in Any reference to American English or British English would be appreciated. Answer In American English, we generally call them parking spots. Occasionally we refer to them as parking spaces, but parking spot is what I hear most commonly.

Over 10 years ago saying "ain't" was discouraged but it was gaining momentum. What happened? Seems like it's still discouraged. Maybe in another 10 years? Answer After centuries of being denigrated by schoolmarms the word “ain’t” has taken up a unusual position in the English language. It is a word that almost embodies the essence of informality in language. Using it means that you consider the discourse context to be one of extreme informality, or when using it in a context which is already quite formal, it serves to lighten the mood or to inject a degree of folksiness.

What's that type of phone called that you don't need a cable for and you can use everywhere in the world (provided there's coverage ;-))? And what differences are there between the regions? USA/UK/AUS etc... and even within, say, the US (or even UK). I've even read rumors that in parts of the east of the US, people use the term "handy" (which is a really crazy German "Americanism"). EDIT: Clarification: The colloquial usage is more interesting (to me) than the "correct" official terminology (though that's of interest, too). Answer In the UK, we use mobile and/or phone , and perhaps even mobi/moby (though I've never seen it written that way outside text messages. In the US, I've heard of cellular phone/cell phone/cell , and in Germany they call them handies (which still makes me chuckle for no good reason).

When I'm talking to a person in opposite time zone and the person greets with "Good morning" or Good evening/afternoon as per his time, is it ok to reply "Good afternoon" (as per my time-zone) when he said "Good Morning", and similarly replying as per my time zone, at other times? Answer The person saying the greeting is wishing something good for the other. So if it's morning where you are, I should wish you a "good morning", regardless of my local timezone. Likewise, if it's afternoon where I am, you should wish me a "good afternoon", regardless of your local timezone. However, if they're already greeted you but used the wrong part of day, it doesn't really matter, the intention is the same. I would still reply with the appropriate greeting for their local timezone.

If I remember correctly from English class, then one should put a comma after "i.e.", i.e., the Latin abbreviation for id est. But lately I've seen the comma after "i.e." dropped in books. So what is the rule or consensus here if any? Answer Some books & journals use American English, while some use British English. In the American style of writing, a comma is inserted before and after i.e. However, in the British style of writing, a comma is inserted before but not after i.e.

The audio clips at ODO do not vocalise any sound resembling a 't', and the IPA contains no 't': BrE /ˈkrɪsn/ ;   NAmE /ˈkrɪsn/ The 't' in 'christen' and 'hasten' (mooted by this comment in a deleted question), was it ever pronounced? What formal linguistic concepts or terms describe this phenomenon? I read this ( Why is the 't' in 'nextdoor neighbour' usually silent?... ) and this ( Why does English spelling use silent letters? ). Answer It's associated with the `Great Vowel Shift' . I found this on Hartford Courant , citing a letter from James McCawley (professor of linguistics at the University of Chicago at the time, I think currently acknowledged as the expert in his field) in a letter to language columnist William Safire (also highly regarded, but not really in the same league)... As for the silent "t" in Christmas, McCawley explained that the "t" was once pronounced in words such as "Chri

An "h" may be used to prevent the "g" from being soft, as in spaghetti , but there is no need for an "h" in the mentioned proper names. Answer In Lamborghini, there is actually a need for the h because it would otherwise be pronounced with a soft g. As for the other two, I think that gh represents a sound that doesn't exist in English (similar to German or French r sound). So it's sort of a transliteration of the native name into English. Just like in the name Khrushchev , for example, where kh represents the Russian х (sounds like the German ch ).

Is there a word or phrase that describes the act of saying something for the sake of it? Answer To bloviate , or "speak or discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner" is not exactly what you want, but it is a practice of those who "speak for the sake of saying something". Bloviate and bloviation have the right sound and connotations for speaking done for its own sake. Example: "His lexiphanic speech was a marvel of bloviation and bombast." Previous answers have mentioned many words, but seem to have left out babble ("idle talk; senseless prattle; gabble; twaddle") and logorrhea ("an excessive and often uncontrollable flow of words" or "excessive talkativeness"). In an alternative interpretation to that required by the question, a speaker might speak because of liking how he or she sounds; this suggest the adjective euphonious ("pleasant-sounding; agreeable to the ear; possessing or demonstrating euphony&quo

Under what condition should we use "that" as the required and ONLY relative pronoun? Please give some examples. Thanks!

I'm looking for a word to describe using someone's own tactics against them. A formal word is preferable but a colloquialism will work as well.

The term regular expression is often shortened to regex . What is the correct pronunciation of the g in regex ? Is it like the g 1 in gallium , or is it like the g 2 in giraffe ? I’ve heard it said both ways. 1.   IPA /g/ 2.  IPA /dʒ/ Answer On page 27 of Mastering Regular Expressions , Jeffrey Friedl states: Instead, I normally use "regex." It just rolls right off the tongue ("it rhymes with "FedEx," with a hard g sound like "regular" and not a soft one like in "Regina") and it is amenable to a variety of uses like "when you regex ...," "budding regexers," and even "regexification." So, if you are looking for an authoritative answer, the above is it. In a footnote, Friedl also adds: You might also come across the decidedly unsightly "regexp." I'm not sure how one would pronounce that, but those with a lisp might find it a bit easier. FWIW, I pronounce it with the soft g simply because i

I recently came across an article printed in our school magazine, which read, "I studied that a year ago". But, doesn't "I studied that a year back" sound better? What's your say? Answer I would think that "a year ago" is the phrase normally used. Looking at the data reported by the Corpus of Contemporary American , I can create the following chart . "Year ago" and "years ago" are the most used phrases, at least in American English. Looking at what reported by the British National Corpus , I obtain the following data . "Year ago" and "years ago" are still the most used phrases, compared to "year back" and "years back". Differently from what reported from the Corpus of Contemporary American , "year back" and "years back" are not used in academic contexts.

For example, which one of the following sentences can I use? Consumer of Product X needs to fill out a rebate form […]. Consumers of Product X need to […]. A consumer of Product X needs to […]. This is for a general-purpose announcement. Answer Countable nouns need an article or similar, if singular: A consumer will fill out a rebate form. Each consumer will fill out a rebate form. The consumer will fill out a rebate form. My dog ate my homework. Generics/uncountable nouns need to be used without: Blood is running through the veins. Water will be refilled at the next Oasis.

What would you call an image in a newspaper article that appears in the flow of the article with text wrapped around it? For example an article with two columns — on the right column there's an image with wrapping around it. What would you call it? In-line image? Article in-line image? Paragraph image? Answer Illustration is the only word that fits in normal English. If you want more technical editing terms, you could try box , figure or image . There is, so far as I know, no one word for an image inserted into an article rather than next to it.

I'm not sure if the title correctly describes what I'm looking for. For example, there is a debate about the existence of something, and one party focuses on the small unexplained details in their opponents' argument and do not address the gaping holes in theirs. Answer For a single word, I suggest myopic : Myopic is an adjective meaning shortsighted in every sense. Whether you need glasses or a new attitude, if you can't see the forest for the trees, you're myopic . Vocabulary.com However, for the example you provided, I would describe the person as a lawyer .

What do you call someone who gets along with children/babies? A simple example: He is such a ________, he makes all children smile. A single word noun would be ideal but a phrase is acceptable also. There might be a colloquial word or phrase too. For example, there is a phrase good mixer which means someone who can get along with everyone [ See : second meaning of mixer]. So, what we are looking for is almost like a subtype of this characteristic. There are words like likeable or easygoing but they are too general. The closest word I could find is avuncular but it does not sound that suitable for this usage. I have never used this word in this way. Kind and friendly towards a younger or less experienced person: he was avuncular, reassuring, and trustworthy [oxforddictionaries] Also, I'm not sure if we can use avuncular as a gender neutral word for this sense. [Because it is a masculine word for its anthropological sense]. It seems like there isn't a common word as a feminin

I've seen it written in both ways. I'm tempted to use the proper case, because I was under the impression that it is also a form/name of religion. What do you think?

I know what this word really means but I cannot help to think that ignorant also means he ignores his surrounding or the consequences of his actions. "He was ignorant, unwilling to warn the police about what has been happening next door for years” for example. Can anyone tell me the word I am looking for? Or is it too broad to find a suitable adjective? Answer I don't know about a single word, but what you're describing sounds like willful ignorance or willful blindness , described by Wiktionary as A decision in bad faith to avoid becoming informed about something so as to avoid having to make undesirable decisions that such information might prompt

I mostly have exposure to American English online. I am currently writing out a resume and need some help. In Australia, in general, we write programme to mean a schedule or community programme. However with computer studies I'm inclined to write program to mean a computer program rather than the proverbial programme. What is the correct spelling? Answer We reference the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary . In British English, we write television programme and computer program . In American English, we write television program and computer program .

1) One-third of the population of sub-Saharan Africa is undernourished. 2) Nearly 70 percent of the population still live in the countryside. 3) One-third of the residents live below the poverty level. Why is a singular verb "is" used after "One-third of the population" while a plural verb "live" is used after "70 percent of the population"? Why is a singular verb "is" used after "One-third of the population" while a plural verb "live" is used after "One-third of the residents"?

I have frequently heard this phrase and used it myself when I've gone in a wrong direction either physically or at work metaphorically. However, I wonder why the phrase is double back , since once you realize the mistake that you have made, you only go back the way you came once, not twice or double the distance. Answer It is figurative. If you take a rope, and fold it in half so the loose ends are together and your load/friend is hanging from the other, you have doubled the rope. Walking out to some point and then walking back along the same route is like walking along a doubled rope, and it draws a contrast with a round trip which may have different routes for the outward leg and the return.

I am trying to explain the morphology of some irregular weak verbs. I could explain "leave-left" as the result of assimilation with v being originally intervocalic f , but I can't see the reason for the verbs as mentioned in the title. The only thing I notice is that they all have their stems ending in a liquid or a nasal. Any suggestions for this?

I am developing a business application in which the user can select from one of these options, namely "Daily", "Weekly", "Monthly" or "Yearly", for scheduling appointments. I need to create a field in the database to hold this value, but am at a loss for what to name the field. What would be the collective term? In Outlook, the combination of the option plus the option-specific sub-options is headed "Recurrence pattern", but that obviously applies to the complete selection. I am only interested in the collective term for "Daily", "Weekly", "Monthly" and "Yearly". Perhaps just "recurrence"? Answer Periodicity : The quality or state of being periodic; recurrence at regular intervals. (AHD)

I'm a nonnative speaker of English and I've always been unsure about the pronunciation of "i" inside words like direct , organization , etc. I was thinking that it's a matter of choice between American and British usage to pronounce that "i" as ɪ or aɪ , or even ə , but looking at some dictionaries made the situation more complex for me. For instance, MacMillan dictionary gives the American English pronunciation of "indirect" as /ˌɪndɪˈrekt/ /ˌɪndaɪˈrekt/ whereas the British English pronunciation is given as /ˌɪndəˈrekt/ /ˌɪndaɪˈrekt/ So both of them include two versions and ɪndaɪrekt in common. I thought that only British English had ɪndaɪrekt . The same dictionary given the pronunciation of "organization" as /ˌɔrɡənɪˈzeɪʃ(ə)n/ for American English and /ˌɔː(r)ɡənaɪˈzeɪʃ(ə)n/ for British English . Is there a prevailing rule in international English for this kind of pronunciation? What do native speakers think and suggest? Answe

This may not be an English language question, but I've always wondered. In Sweden, it is very unusual to have surnames that can also be used straight up as first names. In fact, I can think of no such examples. But in English speaking countries, it seems to be rather common. List of examples: Barry Lyndon – Lyndon Johnson Dylan Thomas – Thomas John Adams – Adam Thomas Jefferson – Jefferson Davis William Henry Harrison – Harrison Ford John Tyler – Tyler Chester A Arthur – Arthur (Yes, I used a list of US presidents as reference). With the exception of James Madison, whose surname is sometimes used as a female name, I cannot think of many other such surnames which are used as female first names. Is this the case? Is the tradition to use only male names as surnames, or reuse surnames as male first names? Of course, nowadays, people improvise a lot more, but speaking from a historical perspective. As a side note, in Sweden we used to have the -- rather curious -- tradition of giving su

In the same way that verbally means with spoken words , I'm looking for a term that means with written words . Is there such a word? Answer You can use textual or textually to convey this idea.

I was wondering about why we call TV and computer displays "screens", and couldn't find any clear etymology for the term's use for displays. A screen is used to prevent things like bugs and leaves from going through a window, and goes across the window frame. A screen is used in a printing method, and is typically stretched across a rectangular frame. A screen is a shield or protective barrier. My guess has to do with the hardware used in early displays. Perhaps the fields of tiny red, green, and blue cells looked like the screens used on windows and such, and the term stuck even as the hardware changed? Answer I think it comes from the earlier usage referred to projected images but mainly from its later usage with movies: Screen : Meaning "flat vertical surface for reception of projected images" is from 1810, originally in reference to magic lantern shows; later of movies. Transferred sense of "cinema world collectively" is attested from 1914.

I'm taking a semester in London. Here's a sample of something I keep hearing: John: My mum will be here later? Susan: Is she staying for supper, your mum ? If Susan wishes to say, "your mum," why can't she just ask: Is your mum staying for dinner? Or, if Susan wants to clarify who that she in her sentence is (for which, in my opinion, there is absolutely no need), why doesn't she just say: "Is she, your mum, staying for dinner?" Is there anything in grammar that allows for putting an appositive not immediately next to what it's describing? If so, how is it justified?

I know that both the conditional sentences below are acceptable: If I were an animal, I would be a horse. If I was an animal, I would be a horse: But what about this? It would be unwise for a person who were only a junior in the company to criticise the boss. You could say Were a person only or Were a junior to criticise at the start of a sentence for a reversed hypothetical, but using were after the relative pronoun who sounds strange to me.

What's the meaning of "a non-normative document"? Does "non-normative" mean "casual"? What's the significant difference between a normative document and a non-normative one? Answer I typically see this in reference to standards and technical documents. A normative definition or statement is one that should be taken as authoritative or imperative (i.e., a should or a must ), while a non-normative one is one that bears no such restriction. Synonyms for normative would include prescriptive , so synonyms of non-normative could range from descriptive to declarative to informal or casual , depending on context.

I'm unable to remember a word which relates to a fine and nice state. The word is like ?-shape . Also, where and how can I use this word. Can I use it for both living and inanimate things. Answer " Ship-shape " - ([hyphen may be optional] Borrowed from nautical terminology) Because of the nature of travel on a moving surface (water) it is essential that equipment/cargo/personnel are well-maintained and in the right place at the right time. " Ship-shape " refers to the optimum state of affairs in this regard. We also borrow the expressions: " Squared-away " -'Putting things in their proper place' - literally or figuratively.(Setting the masts and yardarms at right-angles (squared) to the keel of the ship.) " Batten down the hatches " - 'Prepare for a storm' - literally or figuratively. (Securing and covering points of egress in the hold to prevent water from entering.) "Stowed-away/Stowaway/'Stow it'" - Gear,

For context, this is based on a discussion here ( https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/1439/is-the-construction-whose-each-correct ) The original question was whether the following was grammatical: "The set of elements whose each pair is ...". The majority opinion on that question was then that this was ungrammatical (or at least unusual), however there seems to be some disagreement as to why. So my question is this: Under what circumstances is the construction "whose each" valid within a sentence, and what are the governing grammatical rules for such a construction? Answer Under exactly the conditions that you have in the question. Whose is used as a relative pronoun, to introduce a clause that describes something belonging to the noun phrase it follows. Now, there are some people do object to the adjective senses of whose being used of inanimate antecedents, based on the mistaken belief that it comes solely from who , when it comes from whos which comes fr

I have to send a mail to a group which has my team members along with other co-workers. I want to write "Our team is drafting a report" since my team members are also present in the group. I think the correct format is "My team is drafting a report". But using "My" instead of "Our" feels possessive since I'm the junior most member of the team. What should I do? Go with "Our team" or "My team"? Answer In your specific case, I would use 'our'. As you stated, it does sound more collegial and inclusive. (And you're copying your teammates on the message.) Our is appropriate for situations when you are communicating with someone else on the same team/in the same organization, when you want to be inclusive, and when you want to exhibit participatory leadership or don't have an official leadership role. My is appropriate for situations when you do have an official leadership role, when you're communicating w

Is it acceptable to begin a declarative sentence with “Am”? Is it correct to start a sentence with did . Did my work. instead of I did my work. while answering my emails? Answer You can do this if being informal, especially in spoken English. Example: Janet: Hey, Mike, what did you do today? Mike: Ah well, you know, the usual. Did the dishes, fed the dog. Nothing extraordinary. But to be formally correct, you need to include the personal pronoun: The usual. I did the dishes, then I fed the dog. When answering an e-mail, I'd recommend sticking to the formal version, unless you're explicitly speaking douchebag. Even if you get an informal e-mail from your superior, I would still recommend being at least grammatical in your reply. You don't necessarily have to be formal as if addressing the king, but you should still at least show your intelligence level by not breaking the basic grammar rules.

I found the terms bracket and brace used interchangeably. Is there a difference, and what is it? Answer "Brackets" is used interchangeably for various symbols: angle brackets for <> round brackets for () curly brackets for {} square brackets for [] and more, some of which are only used in certain regions or cultures The more specific "braces" and "parentheses" are almost never used for other than {} and (), respectively. Mathematics has several more (subtle) variations in addition and is formalized more than other fields. I prefer "braces" for {}, "parens" (informally or in the context of programming) or "parentheses" for (), and plain "brackets" for [], though "square brackets" is sometimes required to be explicit about the latter. This gives you a one-word name for any of those common symbols. (And don't get me started on the problems of angle brackets for grouping... :P) To provide a non-tex

Which of the following sentences has correct comma usage? a) They themselves can state their feelings. b) They themselves, can state their feelings. c) They, themselves, can state their feelings. Answer The following option poses no confusion in my mind, and I wouldn't anticipate confusion in the mind of a native speaker: a) They themselves can state their feelings. The supporting data of the corpus suggests that the expression they themselves is not usually separated by a comma, and since it is the subject of the verbal phrase can state , it should not be separated from the predicate with a comma. Themselves is a reflexive pronoun , and in the phrase they themselves , it is an intensive form, which is always treated as a restrictive appositive that is not offset with a comma. Note that they all have reflexive and intensive forms which depends on where they are in the sentence. Jim bought himself a book (reflexive) Jim himself bought a book (intensive) Asjad brought himsel

I was wondering about the meaning of: I am down with something. Also, I was wondering whether people say: I am up with something. If so, what does it mean? Answer If you are down with something it means that you have knowledge of something or are in agreement with it. I'm down with science means "I am familiar with science" or "science is a good thing." To be down with something is a slang phrase, and not terribly common in formal speech or writing. You could also speak of having a disease, sometimes preceded by the verb to come if the sickness hasn't yet fully taken hold. eg. I am coming down with a cold. or She is down with the flu. To be up with something is only used in the imperitive, eg. up with the king! — meaning hey, that king is pretty great. Or: up with ice cream! (Yay! Ice Cream!) You would never say I am up with something. That wouldn't be proper english. Although you could say I am up to something , you sneaky little devil, you. (

In a New York Times article from July 29, 2013, introduced Pope Francis’s remark on gay priests which was made aboard the papal airplane on the way back from his first foreign trip, to Brazil. “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge ?” Francis told reporters, speaking in Italian but using the English word “gay.” Pope spoke this in Italian. Is ‘Who am I to judge?’ a right translation? Couldn't it be ‘Whom am I to judge?’, or "Who am I if I were to judge?" How can I spell out this phrase? P.S. Ross Douthat provided full text of Pope’s remark including “Who am I to judge.” in NYT Jul 30 issue: “A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will - well, who am I to judge him ? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says one must not marginalize these persons, they must be integrated into society. The problem isn’t this orientation — we must be like brothers and sisters. The problem is something else, t

I am having trouble thinking of a word that can describe this type of situation. Just as an example, over text, explaining something in detail to someone only to have them give a response such as, "Yeah... I see." It's not really "rude" but it almost feels as if they have more to say about it. What would be a better way to describe this? Is there a word for it?

Came across "create a great impact" today, and I have never seen "impact" used with "create" (as far as I can remember). Is there a difference in meaning and usage between: create an impact have an impact make an impact

Alfred Bester's short story The Demolished Man (the original version serialized in Galaxy magazine in 1952, not the novel published in 1963) may have been the first instance of SMS-speak, featuring characters named “T8” (for “Tate”) and “$$son” (for Jackson). Wait, how is “$$son” short for “Jackson”? Randall Garrett, who wrote a review in verse using similar shortcuts (such as “Mr. Hassop has gone in2 th@ mor* his hide” — pronounce * as “asterisk”), has this to say: Also, there’s a character in the original called “$$son.” Now, I could have sworn that was “Dollarson” and I wrote the verse accordingly. But when the book came out, it was spelled “Jackson.” “Obscure, Alfie,” says I. “That’s why I changed it,” says he. (from the introduction to said review in the collection Takeoff! , by Randall Garrett, Donning, 1979.) Unfortunately Garrett does not reveal the connection. What is it? (I realize the answer may or may not be on-topic, since it could be a reference to then-current event

I read the following phrase in a dating book. find out who they are and what made them tick? What does the phrase make the girls tick mean? Answer The phrase is " what makes one tick " what makes someone tick Fig. something that motivates someone; something that makes someone behave in a certain way. In your dating context it implies you should not just know the person superficially but also get to know what that person is interested in, what motivates them, what are their likes and dislikes - and that will help you have a better relationship. I imagine the origin of the idiom will be from knowing the internal machinery which makes a clock tick.

The past tense of to occur is occurred (not occured ), but the past tense of to listen is listened (not listenned ). Why? What is the general rule that is applied to make the past tense of a verb?

Is there a phrase or word for a problem that appears simple but is in fact full of complexities? A few situations come to mind: Painting a room Breaking up with a boyfriend or girlfriend Eating a pomegranate ... and a million more. What to call these?

Is there a difference in meaning and/or connotation between "can not" and "cannot"? I have read and seen both used interchangeably, but I know people who argue for a slight difference in meaning. That is, cannot indicates that there is an incapability whereas can not indicates the possibility of absence. Is this a real difference? Answer Both are acceptable, but cannot is now more common. OED has this much to say about cannot : (ˈkænət) the ordinary modern way of writing can not : see CAN v. Notwithstanding, in some situations ambiguity may arise if you write can not , and the difference might not be a minor one. Compare: I cannot make love to you. ( Something is stopping me from it, be it objective or subjective. Put differently: I am not able to make love to you .) I can not make love to you. (Same as above. But also: Reckon with the possibility of my refusing to make love to you. Put differently: I am able to not make love to you. )

According to A History of the English Language: Revised Edition by Elly van Gelderen, p.53, in Old English the numeral 7 was used as an abbreviation for the word and : Abbreviations are frequently used, e.g. 7 stands for and … The same book includes various Old English passages with examples of these 7's. The Peterborough version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is reproduced on pages 83-84 alongside a Modern English translation, which the author has helpfully uploaded to their website : An. M.LXVI. On þyssum geare man halgode þet mynster æt Westmynstre on Cyldamæsse dæg 7 se cyng Eadward forðferde on Twelfts mæsse æfen 7 hine mann bebyrgede on Twelftan mæssedæg innan þære niwa halgodre circean on Westmyntre 7 Harold eorl feng to Englalandes cynerice swa swa se cyng hit him geuðe 7 eac men hine þærto gecuron 7 wæs gebletsod to cynge on Twelftan mæssedæg 7 þa ylcan geare þe he cyng wæs he for ut mid sciphere togeanes Willelme ... The author includes an image of this text on p.8

What is a word whose definition is "words that have multiple meanings"?

Example: What this new plan was I had no idea. What was this new plan I had no idea. What's the difference between the two? Is one more common than the others? Answer What this new plan was, I had no idea. This is a statement, and a common way to say this. "What was this new plan I had no idea." This is a question ("What was this new plan?") fused to a statement ("I had no idea."). It will be understood by most - along with the assumption that it comes from a non-native speaker. (US)

I know that to describe which year you're in, with American English, people usually use words like: Freshmen - 1st year college/university student Sophomore - 2nd year Junior - 3rd year Senior - 4th year However, since the British universities usually have three years in total, are there any equivalent words to these American expressions? Or Does British people just say "I'm a third-year" instead of "I'm a junior"? Answer As you suggest, British English tends to just go by year number for University level students: Freshmen - 1st year student or 1st year undergrad Sophomore - 2nd year student or 2nd year undergrad And so on until the final year (3rd year for Bachelor's Degree students and 4th year for Master's Degree students), the students of which are referred to as final year students . Students who have completed their degree and are attempting to achieve a PhD typically do not use year numbering at all, and are merely referred to as post-

I'm looking for a technical term for using a noun as its own verb form where such usage is not extant. For example, using intellect as a verb (to intellect). Is there such a term? It doesn't seem to be a neologism or an example of metonymy. Answer The most specific term for what you describe is verbification or verbing . The general term for using a word with one part of speech as another part of speech (not necessarily noun → verb) is conversion or zero derivation in linguistics and anthimeria in rhetoric.

“The thing is, is that…” Why do some people say “the reason is is that,” with “is” twice in a row? For the past few years I've been noticing a curious phenomenon. People are quite commonly saying things like "... the problem is is that we don't have access to ...". It appears that the first "is" has been grafted onto the semantic unit of "the problem" and is no longer being perceived as being present, so the speaker has to add the second "is". I first thought that this might be related to situations where a repeated "is" is valid, such as ... the question is "Is this our only option?" ... but it seems to occur mostly in constructs of the form ... the [x] is that ... instead. I seem to be very sensitive to this and hear it several times a day, often on local or national news broadcasts. In fact, it's now jarring (in a good way) when I hear someone NOT repeating "is". Is there a name for this phenomenon? I

Is it possible to avoid using the article in the following sentence: I have got a Playstation. Answer In English you need an article before a noun except when the noun is already preceded by a number or certain other words that identify quantity, or when it is a proper noun, i.e. the name of a unique thing. So, "I have a dog." (article needed) "I have two dogs." (no article needed -- number) "I have several dogs." (no article -- "several" works like a number) "I have Rover." (no article needed, Rover is the proper name of a specific dog) The case you give is potentially confusing because "Playstation" may look like it's a proper name. But it isn't, because it doesn't identify a unique object. There are many Playstations out there. So the correct usage is, "I have a Playstation." If you gave names to each of your video game consoles and you like to call this one "Playstation Zebra" [subtle cine

What is a word to describe an individual who acts like an expert in a subject area, constantly stating facts and correcting people, but who actually has very little knowledge on the subject? Answer The cryptonescient are best described as morosophs and ultracrepidarians , as any philodox or sumpsimus drawn into this epeolatrous logomachy like a saturniïd to a pharol will deliciate in apprising you with all due impigrity. Those epithets you may freely employ safe from all risk of nettling even the most inveterate of doryphores, for even if this should fail to deliver the recumbentibus you’re looking for, it should at least jargogle your nemetic opsimath long enough for you to avolate undetected under the supervenient obnubilation.

Why is the usage of whose correct in the following sentence: In the foothills of that large mountain range are the sources of a river whose course was not fully mapped until this century. I was under the impression that you have to use which or that when referring to things. When is it okay to use who/whose to modify things? I thought the sentence would have to be something like "...are the sources of a river, the course of which was not fully mapped..."

As per the following grammar rule found in this GMAT article , the singular "make" should be used but it shows "makes" in the answer. This is a little bit confusing. Rule: When acting as subjects of a sentence, gerunds and infinitives are always singular and require singular verbs. Sentences: Entertaining multiple goals (makes / make) a person’s life stressful. To plan road trips to three different cities (involves / involve) the handling of many details. Answer: Entertaining multiple goals "makes" a person’s life stressful. “Entertaining multiple goals” is a gerund phrase which acts as the subject of the sentence ("singular"). To plan road trips to three different cities "involves" the handling of many details. “To plan roads trips” is an infinitive phrase which acts as the subject of the sentence ("singular"). Answer Hmm. All the answers are already in your question (plus you said Singular "make"), so I suppose t

Question : What is the lexical technique for expressing sudden interruptions in written, narrative speech? For example: I was walking down the street when— wait! Look at that! In the example above, I use an em dash, but the interruption does not contain the magnitude that I was going for. The mind almost never processes text in linearity, and this makes it difficult to create sudden events in written narrative speech. Speaking however, is a sequential process that allows employing speech devices such as intonation and inflection in order to achieve a desired magnitude. Is there a formal writing technique for expressing an interruption with a magnitude greater than that of in my example, in written narrative speech? Answer "Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound!" "Look! Up in the sky!" "It's a bird!" a woman cries. "It's a plane!" a man shouts. "It's SUPERMAN

Once again, here I am with a question raised by the highly unintelligable Hitchens... It can be equally useful and instructive to take a glimpse at the closing of religions, or religious movements. The Millerites, for example, are no more. And we shall not hear again, in any but the most vestigial and nostalgic way , of Pan or Osiris or any of the thousands of gods who once held people in utter thrall. god is not Great by Christopher Hitchens, p. 169 As a result of a long and tedious searh, I have -rightly, I hope- concluded that any but the most XXX means "all the other things except for the one which is the most XXX". Oddly enough, I can't figure out the exact meaning of vestigial in the phrase in bold in the above quote and can't come up with a meaningful explanation of the whole phrase either. Any help would be appreciated greatly. Answer Vestigial in this context means all but a very small remnant of something that was once much larger or more noticeable. ves

Fu ck . Shi t . Bi tch . C un t . I remember reading somewhere -- a very long time ago -- that these "hard" sounds are virtually necessary in profanities. The explanation I roughly remember is that because these "hard sounds" are unmistakable, that is, because there is no half-hearting them in phonation , that lends to them to use in words that one wants to be unmistakable in intent, e.g, in profanities where one wants to intensify a phrase or rile someone up. I remember these being called fricatives . Unfortunately I'm not a linguist, not even a fair amateur one, and when I went to check Wikipedia for the definition of fricative , I really couldn't make heads or tails of the lingo. I have no idea what those weird letters or the adjective "voiceless" mean. Moreover, I think I'm just plain wrong about those sounds being fricatives -- the examples I found on that page don't seem correspond very well to the hard sounds I mentioned above. My m

I found the term ‘weapons of mass distraction’ in the article titled “ Social Networking in the 1600s ” in the Sunday Review section of June 22 New York Times, which begins with; “Social networks stand accused of being enemies of productivity. According to one popular infographic circulating online, the use of Facebook, Twitter and other such sites at work costs the American economy $650 billion each year. Our attention spans are atrophying, our test scores declining, all because of these “ weapons of mass distraction.” Though ‘weapons of mass distraction’ appears in quote in the above statement, this is obviously a play of word with ‘weapons of mass destruction.’ As I thought ‘weapons of mass distraction’ a smart and punchy word I’d like to use, I consulted both Cambridge and Oxford English dictionaries. They carry ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ but not ‘weapons of mass distraction.’ Whilst Google Ngram shows that ‘weapons of mass distraction’ emerged around 1970 and its usage has bee

I saw the following passage in a PSAT study guide. One of the questions is about the use of the term 'hot spot'. Can we say it's being used colloquially and technically at the same time? The question amounts to whether colloquial language is necessarily a part of laymen's terms. Geologists call these volcanic areas hot spots. Lying deep in the interior of a plate, hot spots or intra-plate volcanoes are sources of magma, the red-hot, molten material within the earth's crust.

Does the former have a typo or are they synonyms? Do they always have the same meaning? Please enlighten me as I am confused on this matter. Answer The word was originally minuscule , borrowed from French. The minuscule spelling has always been the preferred spelling. However, miniscule is not as simple as a typo. According to the OED, the first citation of the miniscule variant is from 1871, so this is a form that has been around quite a long time. The OED says the following about miniscule : Variant of MINUSCULE adj., probably arising partly from shift of stress from the second to the first syllable, and partly from association with MINIATURE adj., MINIMUM adj., etc. So, there are two reasons that miniscule persists as a variant. The first is the shift in stress. In English, unstressed vowels are often reduced to schwa, [ə], no matter what the fully stressed vowel would have been. Minuscule used to always be pronounced with stress on the second syllable (containing the "u&

I did a google search for 'come around to you' , 'come around to yours', 'come around to your place'. The results do not seem satisfactory. Do you say 'come around to you (me)'? Is this phrasing correct? The phrasing 'come around to your place' sounds somewhat unnarural or very formal. I can't imagine that someone could say something like that in infomal conversation. Some examples: I remember your invitation last week. I'll come around to yours for supper today. : Longman dictinaries come around:to come to someone's home or the place where they work in order to visit them

For had fallen in a when-clause, can the past perfect tense be replaced with the past tense? Easily the most boring class was History of Magic, which was the only one taught by a ghost. Professor Binns had been very old indeed when he had fallen asleep in front of the staffroom fire and got up next morning to teach, leaving his body behind him. Binns droned on and on while they scribbled down names and dates, and got Emetic the Evil and Uric the Oddball mixed up. Answer If you replace had fallen with fell in the sentence, it is certainly grammatical, and it means essentially the same thing. Rowling has put the whole sentence in into the past perfect to emphasize that this happened a long time before the class that Binns is currently teaching. It may look at first sight as if the last verb ( got ) is not in past perfect, but in fact it is. There is an elided had before the got (more specifically, the had before the fallen also modifies the got ).

An EL&U question from 2010 asks Which is the correct spelling: "grey" or "gray"? The answers very sensibly point out the split between the UK and former British commonwealth nations preference for grey and the U.S. preference for gray. But if you look up the phone listings for the surnames Gray and Grey in an arbitrarily selected UK city (I chose Sheffield, Yorkshire), you get many more for Gray than for Grey . For example, for Sheffield, I got 52 matches for Gray versus 6 for Grey at the BT The Phone Book site, as of September 1, 2014. A quick trip to Samuel Johnson’s 1756 Dictionary of the English Language reveals this entry for gray : GRAY, a. [ʒɲæʒ, Saxon; grau , Danish] 1. White with a mixture of black. Newton . 2. White or hoary with old age. Walton . 3. Dark like the opening or close of day. Camden . And this entry for grey : GREY, a. [ gris , French] See GRAY. Does it follow that most Gray surnames were adopted on the model of the Danish grau a

Which way is guys written in this sentence: "What are your guys favorite cars"? Should the word guys be written as guys, guy's, or guys' in this sentence?