Blog

Marking plural of code words In the language that I'm currently working in one of the keywords is try . I'm writing an error message: No implementation for global level try statements. It's too long in my source and so I would very much like to reduce it to No implementation for global level try's. Anybody using my code should understand it very easily as my code is entirely about dynamically determining what exception handling is in place and the try keyword is one of the cornerstones of exception handling in the given language. Could we pretend for the duration that I'm not being overly picky? Is this pluralization correct or at least acceptable? Both "tries" and "trys" look very wrong to me. Are there general rules pertaining to pluralizing keywords and other identifiers from programming languages. A quick google search and more extensive search of this site didn't quite do it. I did find this question . The selected answer assumes the

The distinction between the words blessèd (/ˈblɛsəd/) and blessed (/blɛst/) (see Grammarbook ) appears to be wearing thin in modern language, possibly due to reduced accent usage and its resultant lack of different pronunciation between the two terms. Wiktionary refers to the word as poetic, dated And most damningly of all as an Alternative form of blessed (verb) While I understand that little usage of terms such as blessèd and cursèd cause them to get blurred with their verb counterparts, some adjectives like naked , talented , sacred are still used, always written without the accent. In some legal and political circles †, learnèd is still used for specific traditional purposes but it is now starting to fade. What is the history behind the distinction in pronunciation? The reason why some of these words are pronounced with /əd/ is explained by the answers to this question: " Why pronunciation of “Crooked” is “Crook-ked”? " David G said: If the normal form of the word ( c

So I thought I'm sure about this and my instincts say that: "If anyone has seen them .." would be right but then again when I said it like: "If anyone have seen them .." I started thinking which one would be the right one. Can you please guide me through which is the right one and why? P.S. English is not my first language. Answer It's "if anyone has", because "anyone" functions as third person singular. It probably just seems right to use "have" because you would for any other number or person.

My initial attempt to settle the question with a google search didn't help as much as I'd hoped: A search for 'high schooler' revealed approximately 4% of results employing the hyphenated form. A search for 'middle schooler' revealed a significantly higher rate: 20% of entries employed the hyphenated form. (Including this recent article .) A search for 'elementary schooler' revealed no use of the hyphenated "elementary-schooler" within the first 100 entries. (I stopped looking after that.) So, effectively, less than 1% . Based on this search, it would seem that "middle-schooler" is somewhat acceptable and "elementary-schooler" is not acceptable. "High-schooler", however, is unclear. What I'm needing to decide right now regards the usage of "high-schooler" which I personally prefer to "high schooler". Even though google search trends suggest "high schooler" is used much more frequ

I've always thought "to coin a phrase" means to invent a phrase or be the first person to use it. Today I came across this usage by a reporter for the Lancashire Telegraph The Burnley board are damned if they do and damned if they don’t, to coin a Kilby phrase, ‘bet the ranch’. In this statement, very clearly the reporter is using Kilby's common phrase and not making up her own Some searching led me to the Cambridge dictionary to coin a phrase something you say before using an expression that has been very popular or used too much In this definition this becomes equivalent to cliched The same sentiment is explained at http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/coin-a-phrase.html So my question is whether this is universally the case or is it a British English thing ? Is it now incorrect to use "coin a phrase" with a meaning of "a new phrase" ? Answer I'm sure the reporter knew perfectly well the implications of using to coin a phrase , and it wasn

I think all of these are kinds of communication. But can't think the difference between the other terms

The term Generally Accepted Accounting Principles is abbreviated as GAAP . (Actually, I don't know if it is an initialism and each letter is spoken, or whether it is pronounced as gap , sorry.) Now, I just read the phrase, " GAAP rules dictate that ... ." and noticed that if you expand the acronym, you get "Generally accepted accounting principles rules dictate that ... ", which is redundant since rules is a near-synonym of principles . The word was likely added by the writer only to make GAAP function like an adjective rather than the plural noun that to me it properly seems to be. Would it be grammatically correct, then, to say "GAAP dictates that ..." and accept the mild discomfort with this construction that I feel as a native English speaker? Or is it better to ignore the behind-the-letters meaning and use it as the adjective it seems to "want" to be? The link in my first sentence above does use the plural, though: "GAAP are a c

Or in other words, I am asking: How do you "count" medicine? Is the word "medicine" like "gas" where a collection of gas is still called gas: The air was filled with nitrogen gas. Instead of: The air was filled with nitrogen gases. And only in terms of types of gases do you use the plural: There are many types of gases in the atmosphere. So, in the following example: He gave him some medicines. Does that mean he gave him different types of medicine, or different amounts ? Answer Your answer is different types of medicine. "I hate this medicine." <- The quantity of specific medicine is unknown, but is typically implied to be one medicine with an unknown amount of doses with only this much context. "These medicines can all lead to heart failure." <- Unknown quantity per type, but multiple types. edit: American English speaker, here. I don't know if it's a regional thing, but I typically would hear/read, "They gave hi

A participle is just a infinitive verb + ing right? A participle is also used as an adjective a lot of the time right? For ex: "She looks at the rising sun". The present participle here is an adjective here right? The participle can also be a noun right? For example: "Our greatest glory is not in never falling but in rising every time we fall". So "failing" and "rising" seems like verbs to me. How can you help me see these words as nouns? I don't get why they are nouns.

When I watched the "American Album" program, Susan and Henry talked about New York, and she used the word 'subway'. When I listened to BBC's '6 minutes English', I heard 'tube' used in the conversation. And as I know, there is another word, 'metro', also used sometimes. Could you please give me some more description about these words? Answer Each city’s metro system has a “common name” that developed historically. London - “The Tube”, from the tube-shaped deep level bored tunnels Paris - metro, full name “Métropolitain” New York City - subway, because the main lines have significant underground sections Chicago - “The L” - from el , because it is mostly elevated Boston - “The T” - from MB T A, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Washington, D.C. - metro San Francisco - BART, Bay Area Rapid Transit etc.

Is there a technical name for the play on words where someone would substitute a word for a similar one (or add a common word to the end of one) in order to express their opinion about the subject in question? For example: Not being a fan of Facebook's privacy rules, and calling the site Face crook instead Feeling that people are too lazy to search before posting here, so calling this site " Slack Exchange" Calling a Didgeridoo a "Didgeridont" because you can't stand the sound it makes The closest things I could find were a "sniglet" and a "protologism", but I'm not sure if they're it. Any thoughts?

The words next-door neighbour and postdoc are nearly always said without a 't'. The Oxford Dictionary online gives the transcription as /pəʊs(t)ˈdɒk/, and the audio clearly says the word without a /t/ sound. You can listen here . Where does this /t/ go to and why is it allowed to disappear? I looked at the top-rated answer answer to this question here: Why is "cupboard" pronounced with a silent "p"? That answer states that it is because the 't' and the 'd' in pos td oc and nex t-d oor neighbour are the same apart from that t is voiceless and d isn't. When two consonants are made in the same way in the same part of the mouth like this, then one of them can disappear. That's what it says. But, I double checked with some other English Language scholars and they say that this isn't true at all. They point out lots of examples where the 't' usually disappears but the next consonant isn't a /d/, isn't made in the s

The meaning is clear, but where did this phrase originate? Was it always such a gruesome reference? Answer I couldn't find any use of the phrase earlier than the 1840 Money Diggers reference, but I did find some background to which the saying might refer. Apparently the debate on cat-skinning boiled down to whether or not it was done while the cat was still alive. Here's a clip from the disturbing House of Commons' Minutes of Evidence Taken Before Committee on Bill for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals , 1832: And here's confirmation from The Leisure Hour , 1879, that cats were used for womens' furs, but with a denial they were ever skinned alive: So, to answer your second question, yes, it was always quite gruesome.

In indirect speech we generally backshift the tense. For ex - Direct speech : "I am the most powerful person." Indirect speech : "He said that he was the most powerful person." What if someone reports like - He denied the charges claiming that he is/was the most powerful person. So here which is correct- is or was ? Thanks in advance.

While reading about diphthongs in a different question today, I noticed that while the word "diphthong" doesn't seem to contain any actual diphthongs, it does contain 3 sets of consonant groupings. When I was younger, I used to think consonant groupings actually were called diphthongs. I know now that I was mistaken, but I do wonder - is there a single word that describes consonant groupings? After doing some searching on Google, Wikipedia and this site, I'm unable to find a definitive answer besides "consonant cluster" or "consecutive consonant". Those terms may be the only accurate ones available, but I would be mildly disappointed. Answer The directly analogous term is indeed consonant cluster , a combination of consonant sounds that appear together. It is possible that you are thinking of a digraph , which is two characters representing a single sound, rather than a blending of adjacent sounds as with a diphthong or consonant cluster. For exa

The song “Frozen” from Madonna’s Ray of Light (1998) contains the lyrics: Love is a bird, she needs to fly, Let all the hurt inside of you die. Does she refer to bird or love ? And why is it she there? As far as I know, love and bird both are gender-neutral. Answer Since the phrase is "Love is a bird", the author is equating the two. "She" would refer to both. As to why it's she as opposed to he or it , that's just a stylistic choice for the song. Using "it" would be common in everyday speech, but probably not as poetic. Using "he" would be an odd choice, since "he" is not normally used to refer to either abstract concepts or genderless objects. This question might offer some insight as to circumstances in which you might use "she" for an object.

I am doing a technical and scientific writing. I have been confused by this for a long time. Basically, there are two case. A well-known phrase with its abbreviation. e.g. Global Positioning System (GPS). Should I write "Global Positioning System (GPS)" or "global positioning system (GPS)"? A self-coined phrase with its abbreviation. e.g. Augmented Filter Subsystem (AFS). Should I write it as "Augmented Filter Subsystem (AFS)" or "augemented filter subsystem (AFS)"? Does it really matter? I am trying to do the best that I can. Which one is more conventional? Answer The US Department of Defense began operation of the Global Positioning System back in 1993, following development of the Navigation System with Timing and Ranging (NAVSTAR) in the early 1970's. Today, GPS, as we know it, is owned by the US Government, and managed by the US Air Force. All of these organisations refer to Global Positioning System. Furthermore, the GPS Standard Posit

I understand this is quite a complicated title, however I have failed to discover a word (or a few words) to adequately describe the creative language used when changing a saying (or well-known phrase) into something slightly different, with a different meaning but still echoing the original phrase used. As much as that was a horrible way of trying to explain the concept, I will provide an example that expressed want I want to sufficiently and coherently explain. A reasonably well-known phrase which was used on a recent Batman film by Christopher Nolan (although this won't have been the first use of the phrase) is: Some people just want to watch the world burn Recently, I came across this photo which was a very clever (in my opinion) use of that phrase, changing it slightly to give it a different meaning based upon the current situation: Some thugs just want to watch the world learn [see photo below] Which is very clever and I was wondering if there is a word that describes the cre

When do I use “I” instead of “me?” A friend of mine asked me for advice about an e-mail he was writing. There was a sentence like this: I and my partners we are interested in investing in your product. I figured it was wrong, so I suggested: I and my partners are interested in investing in your product. This looks grammatical to me but sounds strange. Also, I have seen a lot of people writing this: Me and my partners we are interested in investing in your product. which I believe is not grammatical. So, which one of the options above is correct? Also, what would be a better choice of words? Answer "I and someone are interested" is grammatically correct. It is the convention in English that when you list several people including yourself, you put yourself last, so you really should say "Someone and I are interested." "Someone and I" is the subject of the sentence, so you should use the subjective case "I" rather than the objective "me".

Why is “cannot” spelled as one word whereas other similar constructions such as “do not,” “will not,” “shall not,” “may not” and “must not” are spelled as two words (unless they are contracted as “don’t” and so on)? (I know that languages are not always logical, so I would not be too surprised if there is no known reason for this. But I am asking this in the hope that there is some explanation.)

I'm not sure if "sequential" is the right word, but what is the system for creating a sequence of numbers like this: primary (as in 1st in choice or importance) secondary (as in 2nd in choice or importance) tertiary (as in 3rd in choice or importance) ??? PROFIT What would be the following words after "tertiary" if there are any? Answer quaternary (adjective): fourth in order or rank; belonging to the fourth order. quinary (adjective): of or relating to the number five senary (adjective, rare): relating to or based on the number six septenary (adjective) octonary (adjective, rare) nonary (adjective, rare) denary (adjective) (source: New Oxford American Dictionary )

Jane Smith marries John Doe and keeps her name, and doesn't adopt her husband's. It seems a good conclusion of this question that it's simplest/best to refer to her as Ms. Smith. I'm curious if it's improper to refer to her as Mrs. Smith. My instinct is that "Mrs." implies something like "Smith's wife," but am unsure. Of course, it'd be ideal to simply find out from her her preferred term of address, but I have in mind the context of addressing a stranger who I happen to know is married and kept her family name.

It is easy for you to solve this problem. It is easy that you solve this problem. What is the difference between the above sentence in meaning? Please, Let me know the difference you feel.

I've always thought I should use "for ages" when, for example, I meet a person who I haven't seen for a long time, but recently I came across another expression, "in ages," as in "I haven't seen you in ages." Is it correct to say this?

The American Heritage ® Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition) reads: gigolo , n. A man who has a continuing sexual relationship with and receives financial support from a woman . Is there an English word [X] which fits the following definition? [X] , n. A woman who has a continuing sexual relationship with and receives financial support from a man . Answer There might have been a word to match the definition, once upon a time. The English took the word gigolo from the French in the 1920s. But the word was rather recent in the French language at the time. It had appeared in French, together with its feminine equivalent gigolette , in the middle of the 19 th century. What’s interesting is that there are two suspected origins to the words gigolo and gigolette in French. One of them is that both words derive from the Old English word giglet or giglot , which the OED defines as: † a.  Originally, a lewd, wanton woman ( obs .).    b.  A giddy, laughing, romping girl.

What is the idiom, proverb for "Little problems often become big problems if no one takes the initiative to correct them" Which means in an example that If the employees don’t bother to report a malfunctioning machine or a slip-and-fall hazard, serious injuries could occur – injuries that could have been preventable. Ignoring any hazard can be detrimental to one's business and the safety of their employees.

Let's say we know a boy called Jonny and he goes bowling twice a week. My daughter has asked me which of the following questions are correct. Does Jonny go bowling? Doesn't Jonny go bowling? We are wondering, why is it that the answer to both questions is "yes", although the second question starts with a negative word?

Wanting to be more Californian and trying to correct my accent, I'm looking at the sound for mother , in the North America column. What is the difference between IPA symbols for ɚ, ɹ, and ɝ. (ɝ is not on the page but the difference between ɚ and ɝ is what I was looking for in the first place.) I cannot really hear a difference between Standard Canadian and Standard American, for example.

Consider the noun "Jupiter", either the Roman god or the giant gaseous planet in our Solar System. The adjective is "jovian", entirely unrelated. Is this a distinct class of adjectives? I suspect there are many more examples. EDIT: Is it possible that "Jupiter" does not have an adjective? "Jupiterian"? In most studies for astrophysics I've seen, the go-to adjective is "Jovian".... Answer These are called collateral adjectives . You can read about them on Wikipedia and check out a list of them on Wiktionary .

If a sentence contains a complete question, but ends with a statement, should it be punctuated with a question mark? Example: Could she go to the store, he wondered

According to the Free Dictionary , dropping someone a line means sending them a short message. Is this correct? I always thought it meant phoning someone, the line referring to a telephone line. Answer It refers to a line of text in a letter, so it means sending a short message (maybe with just one single line of text). (If you drop the line during a phone call, that means you're hanging up)

The use of the definite article before titles is a confusing area - I always hear “Queen Elizabeth visited” and never “The Queen Elizabeth visited”. But I always hear “The Prince of Wales visited” and never “Prince of Wales visited”. Is there a rule for using — or not using — the definite article before people’s titles? Answer In certain cases and contexts these are virtual proper names of persons. It should be Her Majesty The Queen. This is why you get The Prince of Wales, The Archbishop of Canterbury, The President of the United States.. etc. So if you were referring to Prince Charles, it would be Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales, not The Prince Charles. If you referred to his title it would be The Prince of Wales. So The applies to the title, not necessarily the person but it depends on case and context.

I am using the next phrase in a letter of motivation for applying to a master program: I am convinced that joining the Master of Science in X at the X-University will deepen my knowledge and broaden my perspectives in ... I am not sure if "joining" is the correct word to use in this context, or if I should replace it by "enrolling in", "pursuing" or "undertaking". I would really appreciate your suggestions.

When is the future perfect progressive used? I am trying to understand in which cases it should be used, but I cannot find any practice examples of sentences using that tense. I will have been loving. Answer First, just a little preface: "I will have been loving" is an awkward example because we don't generally use any of the progressives on stative verbs (except under special circumstances). Thus, we don't normally use the progressive for things like "love", "be" (in the sense of being, rather than behaving in a certain way), "think" (in the sense of having an opinion), "have" (in the sense of possession), and so on. Now, as for the future perfect progressive, it is used to compare two things happening in the future and how they relate to each other temporally. One event (in the future) is ongoing and another event occurs during the first one. Let's say that tomorrow you will walk your dog from 7 - 8 AM. Let's also say

In Hungarian, when there's a dot both inside and outside parentheses at the end of a sentence, we write it as follows: Sok állatom van (kutya, macska stb.). ( Meaning: I've got many animals [dogs, cats, etc.] ) I'm not sure though how do we write it in English. I've got many animals (dogs, cats, etc.). I've got many animals. (dogs, cats, etc.) I've got many animals (dogs, cats, etc.) I've got many animals (dogs, cats, etc). Answer The dot in etc. is the dot for the abbreviation; the solutions are: If the abbreviation is outside of parentheses, you use only one dot, because it serves for both the abbreviation and the sentence-period: I've got many animals, such as dogs, cats, etc. I've got many animals: dogs, cats, etc. If it's inside the parentheses, like in this case, then you should use two dots, since one is for the abbreviation, the other is for the sentence: I've got many animals (dogs, cats, etc.).

I often read in scientific papers a sentence of the form "X lies on the basis of Y." or "X lies at the basis of Y." to indicate that Y is caused by X in some fundamental way. Are both forms valid and common? (Maybe both are poor English?) Answer The phrase "X lies at the basis of Y", while arguably clumsy, is used reasonably often in English. On the other hand, I do not believe that "X lies on the basis of Y" is something a native English speaker would say. Consider the following Google Ngram :

I'm looking for an idiom or expression that could be used for criticizing someone who tries to hide a big fact in their life/ an important issue while the nature of that fact/ issue is so that it will be disclosed inevitably. For example: 1- A pregnant woman who tries to hide her pregnancy 2- A celebrity who has had a nose job or another cosmetic surgery but tries to keep it as a secret 3- A person who has fallen in love with somebody, engaged or married recently but tries to not disclose it 4- A country that sells military equipment and ammunition to another country secretly (but it is clear that after those equipment are applied or used, everybody would find out where they have been made in.) We Iranians use this proverb: " You cannot ride a camel furtively. " Like in: "Why are you trying to hide you're pregnancy?! You'll eventually start showing and people will know. As the proverb says " You cannot ride a camel furtively" . Is there any idiom, e

How am I supposed to write the sentences below in the negative form? Example A : A.1) Lila is certainly not going to be very happy about it or A.2) Lila isn't certainly going to be very happy about it or A.3) Lila certainly isn't going to be very happy about it. Example B : B.1) You are obviously not paying attention to the signs or B.2) You aren't obviously paying attention to the signs or B.3) You obviously aren't paying attention to the signs. What is required to be done in these cases as so the sentences are grammatically correct?

My understanding is the following: I anticipate everyone will come here by 10. = "I hope it's gonna happen, but I'm not so sure about the result". I expect everyone will come here by 10. = "I do believe it's gonna happen, because I've made sure with everyone ahead. Just like it's the time we will rally up here for sure." Is this distinction correct?

For males, it's gentleman ; and for females?

In my native language, we use an idiom to warn someone that they're doing something which has no result at the end: Trying to convince him is like squashing water ... Is there any idiom in English with the same meaning? Answer There are a few idioms like that. One is: You're just beating your head against the wall. another is Like trying to squeeze blood from a turnip. and another is: It's like trying to herd cats. They each are used is slightly different situations. To be most analogous to your expression it sounds like I'd use the first one: Trying to convince him is like beating your head against the wall

ᴛʟᴅʀ: Is it ever possible for a sentence to have a word in it that is simultaneously more than one single part of speech in that sentence under the same parse and meaning? (For example, a few possible pairings from lexical categories commonly ascribed to English include noun+verb, verb+adjective, adjective+preposition, preposition+conjunction, conjunction+noun, and so on and so forth.) My hunch is that the answer to my question is no, but I have heard the contrary proposition argued. So I would like to know definitively whether it can or that it cannot, preferably backed up with references and citations supporting whichever direction the answerer chooses to take on this one. If authorities differ, please explain the conflict. BONUS: I’m especially looking into whether an “ ‑ing word” can ever be more than one of a noun, a verb, an adjective, or an adverb at the same time in the same sentence under the same parse and meaning. I don’t know, but I suspect that in this case “There ca

Had you been there, you would have understood. or If you had been there, you would have understood. Which of the above sentences is a grammatically correct sentence or usually preferred over the other? Please throw some light on the correct usage of similar kinds of sentences.

I've been told that native-speakers don't ever use "will" after "if", and that saying it this way is a not-native style. So from the film (Harry Potter, pt5) I noticed a line that confused me. Look at this: "Well, if you won't tell her where it is, I will". See that? What was the necessity of using the future form? What does it add in the meaning? How does it sound to you? Why was namely this sentence used instead of "Well, if you don't tell her where it is, I will"?

USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The adjective "Soviet" is formed from the noun "Soviet" which in Russian means "Council". (That was roughly the idea behind the revolution and USSR formation that the workers and peasants should rule the state by means of "councils"). So why was some analogous word not created in English? Like "Councillous" or something. Is there some explanation or this "just happened"? Answer The custom of adopting the word 'Soviet' instead of calquing it predates the founding of the Soviet Union; it was popularized by the new Russian Soviet state and its first use in relation to communism was probably in 1905 . For example, communists in Ireland formed the Limerick Soviet ( Sóivéid in Irish Gaelic, pronounced the same) in 1919: "soviet" (meaning a self-governing committee) had become a popular term after 1917 from the soviets that had led to the Russian Soviet Feder

murder : crows :: _ : collective nouns Sorry, no multiple choice this time.

Why does Kool-Aid relate to being something's fanboy/fangirl ? Answer I think you are referring to the metaphor of drinking the koolaid : "Drinking the Kool-Aid" is a metaphor, used in the United States and Canada, that means to become an unquestioning believer in some ideology, or to accept an argument or philosophy wholeheartedly or blindly without critical examination. The phrase can sometimes have a negative connotation, or can be used ironically. Wikipedia says that the origins are: The basis of the term is a reference to the November 1978 Jonestown Massacre, where members of the Peoples Temple were said to have committed suicide by drinking a "Kool-Aid"-like drink laced with cyanide. Wikipedia is not the only source that links the origins of the phrase to the Jonestown Massacre. This article by the Center for European Reform, this page by the San Diego State University and this page by MSNBC all support the findings from Wikipedia. Also, on the alterna

Possible Duplicates: Is “I'd've” proper use of the English Language? Can a word be contracted twice (e.g. “I'ven't”)? I think the contraction "we'd've" for "we would have" is disallowed, but it doesn't seem technically incorrect. It seems to work well with common phrases like "we'd've gotten killed out there". Of course, it's common in spoken English, but single contractions are quite common in written English, so I can't really see any reason that doubles shouldn't be allowed. Is there a non-historical reason that it's invalid now, other than that it's not in any dictionary? Could it possibly become valid over the course of time?

North wind tells the arrival of spring season in Japan. And incidentally, we have an idiom, “馬耳東風,” of which literal translation is ‘the east wind to the ears of horse,’ meaning a person who doesn’t listen to, or respect other’s opinion, advice, and suggestion like a horse is insensitive to the meaning and tastefulness of east wind. For example, we say “His boss’s admonition was just an east wind to Taro. And he was fired.” I don’t know why it should be east wind, not west, south or north wind, but Chines have the same saying, “东风吹马耳.” The structure of “East wind to a horse” resembles “Pearls to a swine,” but is pretty different in meaning. Are there similar figurative expressions to describe a person who has deaf ears to others' advice and opinion, like an obstinate or insensitive horse? Answer We do have an expression, " in one ear and out the other " His boss's admonition went in one ear and out the other and he was fired. One could also say, "His boss's

Why the disparity? And why use 'No.'? Is it from the French? And the hash or pound sign seems a weird choice too, is there a history or any reason involved? Answer No. comes from the abbreviation of "numero", ablative case of the Latin "numerus" Also, # was used in America for an interesting reason: In the United States, the symbol is traditionally called the pound sign or the number sign. The pound name derives from a series of abbreviations for pound, the unit of weight. At first "lb." was used; however, printers later designed a font containing a special symbol of an "lb" with a line through the verticals so that the lowercase letter "l" would not be mistaken for the numeral/digit "1". Unicode character U+2114 (℔) is called the "L B bar symbol", and it is a cursive development of this symbol. Ultimately, the symbol was reduced for clarity as an overlay of two horizontal strokes "=" across t

In Android contexts, should the 'a' in 'app' be uppercase always or lowercase? Answer Lowercase, except at the beginning of a sentence. App is short for application. And, given that you wouldn't capitalize application, no need to capitalize app. In a formal paper, you should consider writing out application. At least for the first usage like this: application (app). Here is a search of the word app on Engadget . Note the consistent lowercase usage. (Click to enlarge:)

In the application I am developing, I'd like to refer to people who have had something shared with them (link, photo etc.) but I couldn't figure out what word or phrase to use. Answer Recipient : receiver: somebody or something that receives something.

The complete sentence goes: "This is not a perfunctory guideline. (...) This is something you need to pay close attention to while you code." Something in "to pay close attention to" is bugging me. Any suggestions on how I could improve it? Or does it sound ok as it is? Edit: there have been some suggestions to use "focus on" , which should work in most cases; however, in this particular case, I'm not saying that it should be the center of one's attention, rather something very important that needs to be checked constantly. Answer Be mindful of would probably work well in that case. Otherwise, it does sound ok to say pay close attention.

When is it a good time to call you? When is a good time to call you? Everybody tells me that both are correct. What is the exact grammatical difference?

When should I use "eldest" and when should I use "oldest"? Are the differences semantic or regional? (Or both?) (What got me wondering is the removeEldestEntry() method in Java's LinkedHashMap class.) Answer Indeed, both eldest and oldest refer to the greatest in age. The crucial difference, however, lies in the fact that eldest can only be used for related persons, while oldest can be used for any person, place or thing in a group of related or unrelated elements. Examples: He is the eldest/oldest of the three children. Mine is the eldest /oldest car on the block. John is the eldest ( less common )/oldest student in my class. She is the eldest ( less common )/oldest of my nieces. 'Is New York the eldest /oldest city in the US?' He's the eldest ( less common )/oldest in the brotherhood. And while eldest can be used for any group of related persons, in reality, it is mostly only used in reference to siblings. New Oxford American Dictionary (

I was somehow confused encountering this sentence: Didn't you USED TO work with Annie at Macy's?. Should we use USE TO here since we are using Did which needs the base form of the verb.

One asks “how does x taste,” implying that they’d like an adverb describing the way it tastes. But one answers with an adjective, “it tastes good” instead of “it tastes well,” which would imply that x is tasting something else. What’s the reason for this discrepancy?

Words like "misconstrue" or "disgruntled" are fairly common. But you much less commonly see the word "construe" or "gruntled" Is there a term for words like this?

Given the following expression: 5 (+-×÷%) 4 You would say "5 plus 4," "5 minus 4," "5 times 4," "5 divided by 4," and "5 mod(ulo) 4" respectively. As far as I know, "divided by" does not have any shorthand form in the same way the above examples do. Answer Perhaps alternatives suffice to the extent that no great pressure exists to shorten "divided by"? "5 over 4"? "five fourths"?

I just read something where a phrase was described as ironical . To me the word ironical jars terribly. It just doesn't sound right at all. I would have said ironic . Is ironical a feature of American English, or am I just missing something? Where would you use it over ironic ? Answer The Corpus of Contemporary American English shows 4253 occurrences of “ironic” and 134 occurrences of “ironical”, that is 32 to 1. The British National Corpus shows 703 and 88, respectively, that is 8 to 1. These results support the feeling that “ironical” is less common than “ironic,” but they do not suggest that the word “ironical” is a feature of American English. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) does not state any regional preference of the word “ ironic ” or “ ironical ” (the links require subscription). Interestingly, the definition of “ironic” in the OED is just: Pertaining to irony; uttering or given to irony; of the nature of or containing irony; = IRONICAL. and detailed definitions a

I need to know the word type of "before" in constructions like the following: Before going home, I had a beer. I do know the word types before can be in general, so no need for lengthy responses ;). Answer This really depends on the principles of your particular analysis. Two broad approaches: analyse it as being a preposition, just as in other cases (so in "before dinner", "before he had dinner", "before dining", "he'd never done it before", 'before' would be a preposition in all of these cases) analyse it as being of some other special category, e.g. "conjunction", to designate what is effectively a preposition used in this way (with a verbal/gerundive complement). Which is more appropriate depends to some extent on the purpose of your analysis. The first approach has the benefit of consistency. In this approach, we say that prepositions can take complements, just like other elements such as verbs. And we say th

Conditionals in English are usually formed by using if with normal word order; but for the three past (subjunctive) forms were , should , and had , it is also possible to express the conditional through subject–auxiliary inversion alone, with no if in the conditional clause. Does forming conditionals in this manner differ semantically from if -conditionals? Is some aspect of the conditional statement or the conditionality emphasised more in one version than in the other? Or are there differences in how and when they are used? Or are they simply completely interchangeable? For example: If I were you, I would try it again Were I you, I would try it again If I had seen it, I would have told you Had I seen it, I would have told you If you should drink, don’t get behind the wheel Should you drink, don’t get behind the wheel

In my office everyone uses "Please find enclosed the attachment" in emails. I can't digest the "the" between "enclosed" and "attachment". Is the sentence grammatical?

Is there a conventional metaphor or phrase that just hits this meaning:good-looking yet useless? Answer I would simply go with the word ornament . Decorative and serving no real purpose otherwise.

The crowd saw him clap his hand to his mouth. This is a sentence from Harry Potter I . I don't understand how "clap" is used right after "saw" . Shouldn't there be a "to" in between? i.e. "saw him to clap" seems appropriate. Answer There are two verb constructions of the type verb + object + infinitive. The normal construction is verb + object + to-infinitive as in I want you to help me. A small group of verbs use only bare infinitive: 1 All verbs of perception as eg to see, hear, feel etc. I heard the girls laugh ("laughing" is also possible). 2 Verbs of cause and allowance: to make s (someone) do sth, to have s do sth, older: to bid s do sth - to let s do sth You make me laugh. Let the children come to me. I searched the Internet for information about these two verb constructions. What I found is miserable.

In the following example: Eri stared at date on the screen, but all she saw were white pixels. Only when she recovered from her shock that she became aware of its meaning. Do it have to add " it was " before "...only when..."? Or it's not necessary? When to use only when and when to use it was only when ? Answer You have to say either It was only when she recovered from her shock that she became aware of its meaning. or Only when she recovered from her shock did she become aware of its meaning.

Is "not eating or drinking" equal to "not eating or not drinking"? Answer No. 'Not eating or drinking' is the same as saying 'not eating and not drinking'. Consider it this way: Not [eating or drinking] and [Not eating] or [not drinking] If a person is '[not eating] or [not drinking]', then he is either not eating or he is not drinking. EDIT: To clairfy, what we have here is a parallel construction . From The Cambridge Guide to English Usage : The use of nor is probably declining, even in its core domain of coordinating two negative phrases. Compare: The gallery will not be open on Sundays or public holidays. The gallery will not be open on Sundays nor public holidays. Both sentences are perfectly acceptable English, but the first shows that nor is not really needed to extend the negation over to 'public holidays.' Rather it may seem to overdo the expression of the negative for the purposes of a simple announcement. This use of nor f

Why is there a comma after "his" in the headline? Does this mean his AND his wife's experience? Is it correct english, or slang? "Man discusses his, wife's experience being injured during the Boston marathon bombings." Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/boston-marathon-explosion-video-attack-victim-hard-mad-18969745 Answer It's short for "Man discusses his and his wife's experience...." It does not mean "Man discusses his wife 's experience." News headlines are trying to achieve maximum impact with as few words as possible, so they often take liberties with omitting unnecessary words, while preserving the message of the story. This particular headline might be somewhat awkward English, but there's nothing technically incorrect about it.

It's very common to say: "Here he comes." "Here comes the man." But what about: "Here comes he." "Here the man comes." Is there a rule about the order of noun and verb in inversion? It will be too much if all the inversions are considered, so let us talk about adverb inversions only, such as: "Here comes the rainbow." "Off we go." "In the room is the man lying." Answer Information packaging constraints Here comes he. This sentence would usually be considered malformed, whereas Here comes Bob would be considered perfectly correct. Both are cases of what is known as Subject-dependent inversion . Subject-dependent inversion has to do with the linguistic concept of information packaging . In other words it is about how we arrange the order of words and phrases in a sentence. The vast majority of non-canonical phrase orderings in English are due to the status of particular words and concepts in terms of the current