Blog

Please consider the following: My wide range of abilities have helped my team succeed. My wide range of abilities has helped my team succeed. Microsoft Word identifies the first as a subject-verb agreement error. However, from my perspective, the "wide range" is not the subject, but rather a descriptor of the abilities. Are either of these sentences wrong, and is one preferred? Answer In such cases, ‘. . . when there are agreement options, the singular verb seems to invoke the set, whereas the plural verb makes us aware of the individual items in it’ (The Cambridge Guide to English Usage’). That leaves the choice of both available to the writer, depending on the aspect to be emphasised.

When speaking about The Netherlands as a country , should it be considered as a plural or singular word? Examples: The Netherlands is a country. The Netherlands are famous for cheese and windmills. Is there a general rule for this? Do instances such as "The United States of America" and "The United Arab Emirates" follow the same rule?

Where did this come from? It sounds nasty to me (I am not a native speaker). But it seems correct. Can somebody explain this? Answer If you're talking about you and your spouse, it's not possible to be "married with " anyone; you can only be "married to " someone. Hence there is no ambiguity in saying "married with three kids", as the "with" cannot be associated with "married".

I have a German friend who keeps saying things like, "would you eventually like to do X" and "X is eventually not a big problem." I eventually (hehe) started correcting her, saying we don't use the word "eventually" in this way, but there is something nagging in my mind that there is maybe a similar word in English that we do use. In the sense above, "eventuell" means "perhaps", "possible", "possibly". Is there word with similar etymology to "eventually" that is used in this way, or can "eventually" actually be used to refer to possibility, rather than chronology? Answer Eventual(lly) and actual(ly) are the two most common 'false friends' between English and several European languages: French, Spanish and Polish, for example, as well as German. In all these languages, 'eventual' means 'possible', and 'actual' means 'current'. This meaning is not however

There was an ad on telly I saw, saying Relax, knowing your home is safe Is this a complete sentence that is grammatically correct? Could this go in an essay? What is the technical word for "knowing"? I know it's a verb. Would you call a present continuous verb and that's it? What about this sentence Become part of this website, exploring new worlds and games Is this an okay sentence?

I recently posted a post on Reddit about my app for people with autism, cerebral palsy and other diseases . Someone pointed out usage of "mental handicap" as offensive, but the comment has disappeared before I read it. Are these considered offensive? Mental handicap Mental disorder Mental disease Mentally disabled Person with special needs Mentally challenged Could you please help me? I don't want to offend anybody. What are the best/"safest" terms to use? Answer Mental handicap - offensive. (period) Mental disorder - not true of Cerebral Palsy (it affects physical movement only in a majority of cases) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy . Not universally accepted as true of all autism. https://www.mencap.org.uk/learning-disability-explained/conditions/autism-and-aspergers-syndrome Mental disease - Not true of Cerebral Palsy (see above). Not universally accepted as true of all autism. Mentally disabled - Not true of Cerebral Palsy (see above). Not

In this sentence, is it necessary to include a period with et al? This is an interesting paper, written by G. Andrews et al. Here, et al means Dr. X, Dr. Y, and Dr.Z. Does the second et al need a period? Like et al.? Answer Yes, it should always be accompanied by a period. Since et al. is the abbreviation of and others , where et al. could be an abbreviation for et alii , et aliae or et alia when referring to masculine, feminine or gender neutral groups respectively.

With Neil Armstrong's death today, many news sites are posting articles that quote Neil Armstrong as "That's one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind.". My question is, does the quote make sense without the 'a'? and what is the history of the 'a' or not 'a'?

I see three different ways of hyphenating the phrase "six month old". Six-month old: A six-month old poses with a machine gun owned by supporters of the Free Syrian Army. Six-month-old: Fraud alert closes account of six-month-old baby girl Six month old: Rebecca Judd, a model, TV personality and a new mother to Oscar (her six month old son with AFL star Chris Judd) is a self-confessed happy snapper. Is there a significance to these differences? Answer There is a convention in English that if multiple words work together as a single adjective -- usually an adjective/noun pair -- they are hyphenated for clarity. For exmample, if you have a plan that covers 5 years, you refer to it as a "five-year plan". This avoids any confusion that you might mean that you have five year-plans as opposed to one five-year plan. Similarly an "open-door policy" is a policy about open doors; an "open door policy" is an open policy about doors. An "old-dog lea

How do you use "have had", "had had", or "has had" grammatically correct?

I am confused by the use of the word being to refer to a static thing. How can this word that appears to clearly be a verb gerund get turned around to be used as a thing?

Sorry if the title is poor. I am having a hard time thinking of a good title. If I wanted to say something like: "We will have 5 two-hour sessions". Is there a proper way of listing this? "Five 2-hour sessions"? "5 2-hour sessions"? "5 two-hour sessions"? "Five two-hour sessions"? Answer Many style guides (some? My papers must conform to Turabian's Manual ) say to either use numerals or spell out the numbers—don't mix and match formats. That said, I find five 2-hour sessions to be more readable than five two-hour sessions .

When reading to an audience, or speaking in conversation, when is it appropriate to use the original pronunciation of a foreign word versus the English pronunciation (assuming you know the appropriate pronunciation for it)? Is it considered rude, or condescending? Or is it considered a mark of being knowledgeable? One of the things to consider are place names. When referring to Paris, France, should it be pronounced with the silent 'S' as the French would say it, or with the 'S'? Should Hiroshima be pronounced as a Japanese speaker would pronounce it slightly more emphasis on RO, rather than the SHI? Should Mount Pinatubo be pronounced as a Filipino speaker would pronounce it with shorter stronger vowels, or the longer vowels? (e.g. Pi as is 'pick' rather than 'pea'.) Should Wichita be pronounces as the original "shi" rather than the modern "chi"? Pronounce pesos or sombrero as a Spanish speaker 'eh' or the English 'ay'

Which form is correct (or more correct): reimplement or re-implement? And to extend the question a little bit, are there any rules concerning both, e.g. re-scan or rescan, re-evaluation or reevaluation? Edit: The primary question is if both versions are correct (or which one is more correct from the English grammar's point of view). I know that both are in use, it's easy to do Google search for example to find out that "reimplement" is even more widely used than "re-implement". But in that case, why LibreOffice marks "reimplement" as incorrect? Is the construction informal? Incorrect? Because clearly is quite popular. The second part of the question is somehow answered by the other question pointed to in the comment, e.g. I may use the hyphen if that makes the meaning more clear (which doesn't apply to this case IMHO). Answer Thanks for all the answers, but I found what I was looking for in the Hyphens with the Prefix re article: Rule: Use t

I want a word that can sum up one's experiences in a battlefield but I am unable to find the proper terminology for this purpose. Military badges are normally placed on the left shoulder as well as the upper left chest of military personnels. What is the proper name for these areas which badges would be placed on? Answer Well for the US military that have this practice (many do, I know): Shoulder sleeve insignia or SSI as an abbreviation. Interesting to note that when it is on the right shoulder, it indicates former service, not current. The article linked to above notes that they are not continuing with this custom on newer uniforms, opting for a Combat Service Identification Badge (CSIB) instead. :-/

Suffixing by -rama, -orama or -arama — how did this begin? I mean words like futurama, foodarama , etc. Answer Etymonline to the rescue: -rama noun suffix meaning "spectacular display or instance of," 1824, abstracted from panorama , ultimately from Greek horama [ ὅραμα ] "sight."

In this context: trying to become a staple amongst the community Answer Something that has become both common and expected in the same sense that bread and milk are staple foods: a necessary commodity for which demand is constant

I've changed my mind a number of times about which of these variants works best: the second most northerly coffee shop in Seattle the second-most-northerly coffee shop in Seattle the second-most northerly coffee shop in Seattle the second most-northerly coffee shop in Seattle I've tried to do a little research, but I'm not even sure what to call something like this, so I haven't had much luck. Any guidance on what is considered most clear/correct would be much appreciated!

One who creates is a creator. What is one who updates? An updater? An updator? The last one seems more logical, but also wrong. Answer According to Dr. Goodword's Language Blog , Generally, -or is a Latin suffix and -er is the Germanic equivalent meaning, roughly, “one who Vs”, where V represents any verb. Words borrowed directly from Latin, then, tend to end with -or: governor, calculator, arbitrator, legislator, alternator. Words of Germanic origin (English is a Germanic language) generally take -er: runner, thinker, worker, joker. However, two factors muddy the water. English borrowed many words from French in the Middle Ages and the French equivalent of -or and -er, is -eur. English generally reduced that suffix to -er, keeping it only in a few words borrowed late: amateur, restaurateur, raconteur [...] [...] you need to know the etymologies of many of the verbs that -er and -or are added to, in order to know how to distribute them. You can be sure that verbs ending with -ize

While browsing a set of lecture slides, I encountered this line: Catch up/overtake rate in which overtake rate looks odd to me. As far as I know, a verb may act as an adjective in a couple different ways, e.g., in its gerund (present participle) or past participle forms. But this line takes the imperative form of the verb (so its ”bare” or to -less infinitive) and uses it as an adjective (or noun?) to modify the noun rate . So, I'm just wondering whether the lecturer had meant to write overtak ing rate here and this was just a mistake, or whether overtake rate is indeed a legit piece of composition in English. Background In space dynamics, when two objects are in non-co-orbital circular orbits, the one which is rotating in the lower orbit overtakes the one in the higher orbit because the former’s velocity is higher than that of the latter. The lecturer tries to call this phenomenon its overtake rate . So the question is, can overtake , which is listed in the dictionary only as

What's the difference between: I will be eating cakes tomorrow. I will eat cakes tomorrow. And, when should I use the first form? Answer Both of these refer to the future, and both are correct and can be used in any situation. However, there is a slight difference between "will be" and "will". The simple form is as it suggests referring simply to what happens next but the continuous indicates or suggests a picture of activity in the future. For example,: I will walk home. and I will be walking home. Both refer to walking home in the future, but the first statement is used when referring to the next thing you are going to do i.e. during after school, while the second statement can be used anytime from the day before to just before going to school. Also, there are instances when one or the other can not be used. For example, I will be good. but not *I will good. The second example is incorrect Because "will" is only a modal verb, it needs another verb,

Which sentence sounds better? Why? His camera accompanied him everywhere he went in the world. His camera accompanied him wherever he went in the world.

Looking at the dictionary, I read that should has origin as past tense of shall . In the modern English, is should ever used as past tense of shall ? ORIGIN Old English sceolde : past of shall . Answer should is the preterite form of the modal verb whose present form is shall . As such, should can be (and is still) used in the past tense, in places where shall would be used in the present tense. Two examples: “It is time, we shall proceed” can be reported as “he said it was time, we should proceed” . “I think it shall be okay” and “I thought it should be okay” Other modal verbs that follow the same pattern are will/would , may/might and can/could .

Obviously there are a lot of subjective words in the question. There are dialects of British English that don't sound distinguished at all (Cockney). Also, what sounds distinguished is somewhat (though not entirely) subjective. However, I don't know how else to ask this. Sometimes I have heard an American speak and thought, "wow, he sounds just as distinguished as a British speaker". But I don't know where that dialect would come from. More often than not, though, I hear an American speak and think, "wow, why don't we sound as distinguished as our British counterparts?" For what it's worth, I think what makes a dialect sound distinguished is that it sounds "educated, upper class, articulate". At least that's my guess. Ignoring the subjectivity of the words composing the question, where would you find American dialects that sounded distinguished? Answer You may be thinking of a Mid-Atlantic accent; it's a blend between an Ameri

The above mentioned regulations do not apply to the conditions defined here. Is it possible to use the phrase above mentioned as a noun with the definite article "the" in English? The above mentioned does not apply to the conditions defined here. Is it possible to use the verb in the plural after the above mentioned ?

I know someone who uses the term "East Indian" to refer to people from India, or whose ancestors are from India, lest they be misunderstood to mean Native American. This struck me as unusual and confusing, and I am curious if others use the term this way. If I referred to someone as "East Indian," would you assume that the person was from India, from the eastern part of India, from somewhere like Indonesia -- or would you just be confused (like me) and ask for clarification? Is there another, better way of saying "Indian from India"? Answer I would be equally puzzled by "East Indian", guessing it was the eastern portion of India. Perhaps it's a regional thing, but in my experience there is no longer a need to specify the usage. Indian in the Native American sense isn't going to be found outside of an obvious historical context. Unless you're reading a Louis Lamour novel, the presumption is you're speaking of a person from India.

Is it correct to say "What was your name?"? The reason I am asking this is, generally the name of the person will not change. One should say "What is your name?" http://variationsonnormal.com/2010/05/26/sorry-what-was-your-name-again/ Answer The question is in the past tense because the person forgot the other person's name. Notice that he actually wrote " Sorry , what was your name again ?". It means "You've already told me your name, but I can't remember what it is. Can you repeat?" and not that the name may have changed. If the person used the present tense (i.e. "What is your name?"), it would not have been clear that he knew that he had already asked that before.

XSLT (Extensible Stylesheet Language: Transformations) is a language that, according to the very first sentence in the specification (found at http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/ ), is primarily designed for transforming one XML document into another. Answer Here, the word "very" is used to put additional emphasis on the word it modifies: "first". It's a shorthand for saying XSLT is a language that, according to the specification — in fact, not just any place in the specification, but the first sentence of it —, is primarily designed for transforming one XML document into another. Or: XSLT is a language that is primarily designed for transforming one XML document into another — that's what the specification at http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/ says right in its first sentence.

I'm looking for a phrase to describe fixing the relatively minor problems of something with addressing a larger underlying problem. One example would be if a house had a bug infestation and someone simply covered any holes the bugs were coming through instead of dealing with the infestation itself. Or similarly, patching up a hole each time it appeared in worn-out clothing. I thought the term was spot-fixing, but looking online, this seems to be associated with illegal sport fixing. edit: To clarify, I'm looking for a phrase to describe each of the individual fixes made. in other words, something that would fit in the blank here: "He made another __ by duct-taping the crack in the wall". Or similarly "patching the hole was another ___ but the shirt needed to be replaced".

Here’s an example from RealClearPolitics : But the optics bode well for a party whose chances of winning the White House depend on attracting many more Hispanic voters than it did four years ago. ¹ [ emphasis added ] Answer It means appearances , or “how a political situation appears to the public”. Macmillan Dictionary has been following the development of this new metaphor. Their gloss of the word’s history claims that the first political use was during the US presidency of Jimmy Carter, but that it became popular more recently in the context of the Libyan conflict. ¹

I heard the following comment of Mr. Marco Rubio about Mr. Donald Trump on CBS’s “Face the Nation” in a clip in February 29th AP Radio News: “There is never gonna be a time where the Republican Party rallies around and says you have to get out or anyone has to get out for purposes of rallying around Donald Trump. Donald Trump is not Republican Conservative. Donald Trump is trying to pull off the biggest scam in American political history.” I thought I misheard “There is never gonna be a time where –“ for “There is never gonna be a time when –“ at first, because I was in understanding that time should be trailed by “when” as a relative noun or adverb. An English Japanese dictionary at hand (Readers English Japanese Dictionary published by Kenkyusha) provides “where” singly as a relative to refer the ‘place.’ However, my lookup of the following two sources endorsed that I heard it right: Here is what is never going to happen in this race. There's never going to be a time where the

For example, usually up and down refer to opposite directions. However, in American English, we could say we are "down" to do something or we are "up" to do it and mean the same thing -- that we want to do it. Similarly, hot and cool are opposite temperatures, but can also both be used to mean fashionably attractive/impressive. Totally open to the possibility that the fact that I can only think of very colloquial examples of this phenomenon means I'm overthinking this, but if there's already a term for this out there I'd love to hear it. (Also, please let me know if there are other more appropriate tags for this question -- on review, these seemed to be the best) Edit: From thinking about this more, a more precise statement might be: There is a set of four words which are two pairs of homographs. One word in each pair is the antonym of one in the other pair, while the other in each pair is a synonym for the other word in the pair. For example, call hot1

According to Wikipedia : The em dash, m dash, m-rule, or "mutton" (—) often demarcates a break of thought or some similar interpolation stronger than the interpolation demarcated by parentheses Okay, but what constitutes "stronger"? Does the length of the parenthetical phrase come into play? The distance of the diversion from the main thrust of the sentence? Some kind of qualitative gut feel? All of the above? Answer I once read a memorable column (by Willam Safire) that talked about this. I ran across it in his book You Could Look It Up , which is a collection of his newspaper columns about language. This one was first printed over 30 years ago, in 1984 – wow! time flies! – but I think it still rings pretty true. I managed to find a scan of the original column:

I'm seeing the use of "random" instead of "arbitrary", etc., with increasing frequency. To me, "random" has a specific meaning and is not synonymous with these other words. Is it correct to use it in this way? Answer The definition of arbitrary does include a link with random: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will. It is reflected by the usage "at random" (by chance), which is valid. The problem is, random is with other interpretations of the word "random" : Less widely accepted are a couple of slangy uses of the word, mostly by young people. In the first, “random” means “unknown,” “unidentified” as in “some random guy told me at the party that I reminded him of his old girlfriend.” The other is to use random to mean “weird,” “strange,” as in “The party at Jessica’s was so random, not what I was expecting at all!” Evidently in this expression randomness is being n

There is a kind of situation that seems to occur somewhat commonly, that goes something like: Figure out some way to handle a particular situation do it regularly, and make a habit of it, as it seems to work OK … … and only much later actually realize that it very much isn’t OK, that it’s been doing harm all the time, and that it’s too late to fix anything. Does there exist any good words or phrases for this kind of situation?

Original Source. Google Source: p 169, The Portable John Adams , by John Adams AA to JA [Braintree, 12-23 November 1778] In vain do I strive to through of [throw off] in the company of my Friends some of the anxiety of my Heart, it increases in proportion to my endeavours to conceal it; the only alleiviation I know of would be a frequent intercourse by Letters unrestrained by the apprehension of their becomeing food for our Enemies. The affection I feel for my Friend is of the tenderest kind, matured by years, [sanctified?| by choise and approved by Heaven . Angles [Angels—ED.] can witness to its purity, what care I then for the Ridicule of Britains should this testimony of it fall into their Hands , nor can I endure that so much caution and circumspection on your Part should deprive me of the only consolor of your absence—a consolation that our Enemies enjoy in a much higher degree than I do, Many of them having received 3 or 4 Letters from their Friends in England to one that I h

In almost every dictionary, candidly and honestly are explained as having the same meaning. Still, I'm pretty sure there must be some difference, whether big or tiny. Any reasonable tip would be much appreciated! Answer Candid and honest do not mean the same thing--they don't even have similar word roots. Let's start with "candid." This word means "openness" and "not scripted or rehearsed." During the 70s, there was a popular American TV show called "Candid Camera" hosted by Alan Funt. We did not call it "Honest Camera." The show featured raw film footage of people in candid situations. It was not scripted and showed sincere and genuine reactions of ordinary people. We use the word "candid" to talk about politicians' answers and interviews with actors. We say "candid interview" not "honest interview." In a candid interview, a person might not have access to the questions beforehand, or ha

"To give someone the 411" is short for information but is this phrase common in the US and/or in Britain and is it still up to date or outdated? Answer The urban dictionary has a definition for it, which is probably a good barometer for its utility in AmE slang. I'm from the western USA, and it doesn't strike me as outdated. It is, however, becoming more and more trite after movies like Clueless ("Here's the 411 on Mr. Hall") made it synonymous with the Valley Girl dialectic of Angelinos.

I mean, why isn't it pronounced "blue-d" rather than "blud". And this applies to "flood" too, but not "glood" or "clood" I imagine. Answer For the same reason that "flood" is pronounced the way it is! More helpfully, I found this somewhere on the internet: It might be worth bearing in mind that English spelling often records the pronunciation 600 years ago. And at that time, blood, flood, food and book would have all been pronounced with the same vowel. However, pronunciations have changed since then, so the spellings are a little unhelpful for learners of English today! By Shakespeare's time, all of these words had the 'oo' vowel as in food (the traditional vowel with the lips rounded, not the fewd pronunciation mentioned by Fish). What happened was that the vowels of blood and flood shortened in the 16th century and had the vowel sound of put. Accents in southern England changed this sound to the one in put

Is there any accent that makes a distinction when pronuncing “here” and “hear”? From Wiktionary: Here (UK) /hɪə(ɹ)/ (US) /hɪɹ/ Hear (UK) /hɪə(ɹ)/ (US) IPA: /hiːɹ/ So, according to that, US accent pronounce in a different way “hear” and “here”. According to Dictionary.com, hear and here are pronunced /hɪər/, and according to updn.com , both are /hɪr/ /hɪr/. Having in consideration that Wiktionary can be edited by anyone, is there any place in the world that makes a difference when pronuncing these words? Answer Some parts of the South, including the part of Kentucky I grew up in, "here" gets pronounced in the UK manner with the schwa and without the 'r' (and as two syllables), while "hear" gets pronounced in the US manner without the schwa but with the 'r'.

What are other ways one can say that have the same meaning as, "I'm rooting for you?" Answer Some other ways: I'm supporting you I'll cheer for you I'll barrack for you(Australian)

According to Wikipedia, the Latin influence on English builds more than half of its vocabulary . The same source furnishes a percentage of 26% for words of Germanic origin. Although I can easily understand that borrowing from Latin must have been very strong, especially through French, I was surprised to read this number. So, before the borrowing, were there Germanic words that have gradually been replaced? Or did they not exist at all? Answer First of all, those statistics from Wikipedia may be a bit misleading, depending on your point of view. What they seem to have done is count every word in a 80,000-word dictionary once, regardless of whether the word is very rare or very frequent. Consider the preceding sentences: -First -of -all, -those +statistics -from -Wikipedia -may -be -a -bit -misleading, +depending -on -your +point -of +view. -What -they -seem -to -have -done -is +count -every -word -in -a -80,000-word +dictionary -once, +regardless -of -whether -the -word -is +very +rar

President Obama made the following statement regarding his decision not to show dead body of Osama bin Laden to the public: "I think that Americans and people around the world are glad that he is gone. But we don’t need to spike the football. And I think that given the graphic nature of these photos, it would create some national security risk." By following the definition of the word, “spike the ball” by SportsDefinitions.com – "The quarterback throws the ball straight to the ground instantly after a snap" - I can vaguely guess what the president meant by the line, “We don’t need to spike the football.” But I would like to know exact meaning of this phrase. Can somebody put it in more forthright expression? Answer I think what he's referring to here is the act of a football player who achieves a touchdown, and thereupon having scored a goal, slams the ball into the ground as an ostentatious display of victory. That's a "spike" and can draw a pen

How would you punctuate list of two items that has the word AND in the title? For example: ... two documents with titles of Power of Attorney and Living Will and Appointment of Health Care Agent.

A security guard wishes to address multiple people respectfully at once. Does he say: Sorry, sir, but this ID is invalid. or Sorry, sirs, but your IDs are invalid. or something like Sorry, gentlemen, but your IDs are invalid. Answer Sirs is the technically correct plural of "sir." That said, it is rarely used today. Gentlemen is normally substituted. Messrs. (pronounced MEZ-erz) is, curiously enough, the technically correct plural of "Mr." (pronounced MIST-er) and also hardly ever used, except in writing.

I've been reading a chapter about the vocabulary of the Yorkshire dialect in the UK. Among other interesting curiosities ("child" plural "childer", "lad and lass" for "son an daughter") I've come across the frequent use of "love" as a form of address. "It's time to go, love." My question is: Do they use it when talking to strangers? For instance, if I enter a shop or take a cab, is the shop-assistant or the cab-driver likely to address me as "love"? Answer Yes, "Love" is used in regions of Britain as an address to strangers. It's pretty regionally restricted, and rather out-of-date; it was more common twenty, forty or sixty years ago. But there is a good chance that if you go to the right place for long enough some stranger (probably an older one) will address you as 'love'. In my experience the term is more likely to be used by women (to either men or women), although men to women

I usually see 'satisfy the criteria' and 'meet the requirements', but is it acceptable to use 'meet the criteria', or 'satisfy the requirements'? Answer The Oxford Collocations Dictionary says the following: VERB+criterion: fit, fulfill, meet, satisfy. The Macmillan Collocations Dictionary gives one more verb, "match". VERB+requirement: comply with, fit, fulfill, match, meet, satisfy, suit. The Macmillan Collocations Dictionary gives three more verbs, "achieve", "adhere to", "conform to".

Which is the correct form: "ten euro" or "ten euros"? Answer The situation is actually a mess. Here are only some of the relevant bits from Wikipedia : Official practice for English-language EU legislation (not necessarily in national legislation) is to use the words euro and cent as both singular and plural. [...] Because the s-less plurals had become "enshrined" in EU legislation, the Commission decided to retain those plurals in English in legislation even while allowing regular plurals in other languages. The Directorate-General for Translation now recommends that the regular plurals, euros and cents , be used. The European Commission Directorate-General for Translation's English Style Guide (a handbook for authors and translators in the European Commission) previously recommended the use of regular plurals for documents intended for the general public but now has no restriction on usage[.] Prior to 2006, the inter-institutional style guide r

So the technical term for right or left handedness is chirality. The technical term for evenness or oddness is parity. Is there a similar term for inside-out-ness vs right-side-out-ness? EDIT: I wish to speak of 2 objects. They have no interesting features except that each could be considered 'inside-out' relative to the other. Except there is no 'right' side. I suppose I could arbitrarily designate one side as Right and the other as In, but there are reasons to avoid doing so. "Object 1 and object 2 differ only in their _ ." I tried both chirality and parity but neither fit.

Why did jazz musicians start referring to an engagement as a "gig"? If any, could anyone provide a couple of quotations from eminent authors to show where a word was first used in this sense? gig | noun , a live performance by a musician or group playing popular or jazz music. | verb , perform a gig or gigs.

Say I'm attempting to write a sound, as in 'poof', 'thud', or 'clank'. What's the correct convention to write something like this? Is there one, or is it a grey area as long as it's clear to the reader? Answer You might consider looking in the dictionary first: poof 1 |po͞of, po͝of|(also pouf ) exclam . 1 used to convey the suddenness with which someone or something disappears: once you've used it, poof—it's gone. 2 used to express contemptuous dismissal: “Oh, poof!” said Will. “You say that every year.” thud |THəd| noun a dull, heavy sound, such as that made by an object falling to the ground: Jean heard the thud of the closing door. clank |klaNGk| noun a loud, sharp sound or series of sounds, typically made by pieces of metal meeting or being struck together: the groan and clank of a winch. If you don't find it, you can just make something up. But include some context, or you risk not being understood: She dropped into the chair wit

I find some opinions about the rules for ellipses are conflicting. Here are some conflicting issues: Q1: Are the spaces between the dots in a ellipsis necessary, i.e. dot-space-dot-space-dot ? (Yes.) Grammar Girl's article . . . for everyday purposes, it's fine to use regular spaces between the ellipsis points. Type period-space-period-space-period. Just make sure your dots don’t end up on two different lines. (No.) Robert Bringhurst's Elements of Typographic Style, on the wiki page Bringhurst writes that a full space between each dot is "another Victorian eccentricity. In most contexts, the Chicago ellipsis is much too wide"—he recommends using flush dots, or thin-spaced dots (up to one-fifth of an em), or the prefabricated ellipsis character. (No.) My personal habit. I think typing dot-dot-dot is more convenient; though I find it looks better to use the dot-space-dot-space-dot style on this page :) Q2: Normally an ellipsis should be spaced fore-and-aft to se

Is singular correct, or is plural of "credential" correct for a single username & password pair? Answer This isn't a question you can answer by thinking about the grammar - it's just a case of conventional usage. I've previously worked in the tech industry, and we would always say credentials , never credential . That would still be true even if the credentials were a single item like a certificate. [Edit to add: but Samuel has provided a counter-example to this in a comment on the OP.] In wider English, credential is valid - it's used for example in this Wikipedia article - but it's still more common to use the plural (see Oxford Dictionaries for confirmation). For example, I could say that I have presented my credentials to someone if I have shown them my passport, even though I've only shown them one physical item.

I am using the suffix -hood as both base and suffix to derive poetical meaning in an interplay of the words "...child and adult hood." Though this may offend the ear of the modern day reader, I believe its earlier usage was separate from its base, and I'm not so sure it would, on the surface, be much of a technical blunder anyway. What do you think?

I've been reviewing my grammar lately and I feel a bit stuck in adjectives. Yeah, I know it's not a big deal of a topic, but I think I need some help here because I'm in the language teacher role. I do understand how attributive and predicative adjectives work, yet I can't find an easier way for learners to differentiate between both types - especially if such differentiation doesn't exist in their mother tongues. And yeah, I know I can just explain the whole thing to them, but what if they come across other adjectives they don't know how to use? I just feel a good dictionary might do the trick, that is, with a tagging system that tells adjectives apart according to that syntactic feature: pointing out if they're attributive, predicative or both. The Oxford Learner's Dictionary online sometimes does this -click here and here for examples-, but it seems to me that a more specialised source might be the answer to this dilemma. Well, I'd like to know

If my boss asks me if I can help him to do something, I reply: I'll bend over backwards to do it. Does this reply literally have a meaning of flattery? Answer In my mind, it's a very extreme form of commitment reserved for out of the ordinary scenarios. Not something I would recommend telling a boss on a regular basis, as it robs the term of its degree of commitment. You might bend over backwards to win a key client from a competitor, but you wouldn't bend over backwards to get the weekly report in on time. Even then, to use the phrase is indicative that you really need something to happen and that the consequences for your job/reputation/well being might be extreme if you couldn't. One typically bends over backwards not just for someone in a higher position than oneself, but also when the person you're doing it for shows little regard for you, because they know they're in control due to their station. People who bend over backwards often assume a submissive ro

I'm translating English to Hindi, what's it called when the translations are with English characters? For example, "love" comes up as "Pyāra" and "प्यार". I need the "Pyāra" word in my dictionary. Answer I believe you are looking for From the romanization wikipedia, Romanization or Latinization (or romanisation, latinisation: see spelling differences), in linguistics, is the conversion of writing from a different writing system to the Roman (Latin) script, or a system for doing so. Methods of romanization include transliteration, for representing written text, and transcription, for representing the spoken word, and combinations of both.

Here is a quote from a book on C++ ("for", "while" and "do" are keywords in many languages, and in most languages they have to be in lower case. The C++ language is one of those.): Simply put, algorithm names suggest what they do. "for", "while", and "do" don't. One cannot write "For" instead of "for", because that would no longer refer to a well-known technical term, but to something else. Some attempts to fix this sentence would be: The "for", "while", and "do" don't. or: The keywords "for", "while", and "do" don't. or: Use of "for", "while", or "do" does not. Is this a good practice? Is this even an issue? What about other examples, such as starting sentence with a number, with a lower case letter in English or a foreign language, such as: "l" looks a bit like "i". as opposed to somet

Why do some nouns in English not take the plurality suffix in the plural form? Could you give me a list of plural nouns which don't take "-(e)s" suffix? For example, I know about "fish" and "sheep". Answer This question is actually quite broad. Irregular plural forms can arise for a variety of reasons. Wikipedia has a huge section on the subject, with six subsections: "Nouns with identical singular and plural", "Irregular -(e)n plurals", "Ablaut plurals", "Irregular plurals from Latin and Greek", "Irregular plurals from other languages", and "Words better known in the plural". Wiktionary has a list of English nouns with irregular plurals . Lastly, there are nouns that (depending on context) can be countable and uncountable, e.g. water , cheese , or email .

In looking at many of the answers to ESL learner's questions about countable and uncountable nouns it seems that answers usually take the form "Uncountables can be become countables. There's no rule so you just have to memorize it. It's English, you know, deal with it." (said with an exasperated sigh.) I think there is a rule. How else would we be able to generate sentences in situations that haven't been memorized? My question is this: "Is it possible the rules are: 1)'When we omit the counter based on context, a normally uncountable noun will become countable by adding s or using countable grammar forms. and 2) A word can become uncountable if it also has an uncountable definition." (Rule two seems obvious however someone asked about "organic matter" or "organic matters" being tested at the lab.) For example: Rule 1: 1) "I'll have two (glasses of) waters." (said in a restaurant.) 2) We sell many (loaves of / ty

What word means "someone who ignores their own emotion in the face of their pain"? (Does it start with C?) Answer The word stoic comes to mind: stoic |ˈstō-ik| noun 1 a person who can endure pain or hardship without showing their feelings or complaining. [From NOAD]

I seem to recall that there is an expression for when you are throwing something too big at a particular challenge: "To kill a fly with a..."? Or am I way off here? Edit: maybe it's not a fly after all? I found this article talking about 'Using a sledgehammer to crack a nut'. Answer ... tactical nuclear weapon? Google autocomplete suggests "sledgehammer", "bazooka", and "cannon". I think "sledgehammer" is the only one I've actually heard used, and I suspect it's what you're looking for.

In the following sentence below, I want to use the word reported as a noun, but it looks like I’m using the present perfect form has reported . How can one be clear when constructions like this arise? That both covers the whole 3-week period and has reported duty-cycles under it. (Note: That sentence was written in the context of technical writing, so don't pay too much attention to its actual meaning.) Answer The Perfect construction is far more common than the construction you want to use, so you're headed up the garden path for sure without changes. To inhibit interpretation as Perfect, just include something that can't appear between auxiliary have and a Perfect participle, but can appear between a main verb have in the 'possess' sense and its direct object. Like an article or quantifier to mark the beginning of a Noun Phrase: . . and has the reported duty cycles on it. . . and has all/some (of the) reported duty cycles on it. Alternatively, use contain

I seem to recall that an English teacher somewhere along the course of my education had indicated that when referencing distinct types of a word, e.g. a computer mouse and the mammal, it would be proper to refer to them as "two mouses" rather than mice. Is that actually the case? If so, where are the lines commonly drawn - consider for example observing a Canada Goose and a Greylag Goose as a more gray area or perhaps the tooth from a mouth versus a tooth from a saw blade as something quite distinct. Answer I don't know if there are hard and fast rules about this. With mouse it seems to be that the accepted plural is mice , but if you're talking about a computer mouse you can use mouses or mice , so you'd be safe if you always used mice Merriam Webster: plural also mous·es : a small mobile manual device that controls movement of the cursor and selection of functions on a computer display Oxford English 2 (plural mice or mouses)a small handheld device which is m

In the sentence: Many of us are even unable to remember our own phone number Assuming each person only has one phone number, which is grammatically correct: phone number or phone numbers ? Answer "Phone numbers." Let's take "own" out and make it more obvious. Many of us are unable to remember our phone number. This suggests that we collectively have one phone number that many of us can't remember. Many of us are unable to remember our phone numbers. This suggests that we have multiple phone numbers -- which is true, and is what you meant. Using singular for plural can be disorienting. "We all like to drive our car" -- we only have one car? "After all that noise, our head was in serious pain" -- how many people have that one head, anyway? Grammatically correct if there's only one car and one head -- but not in the case you meant!

Is it correct to say: even if only James Bond will benefit from... or even if only James Bond benefits from... Answer Even if is never followed by a future tense. The correct alternative is: Even if only James Bond benefits from...

While reading a book, I came across the word I'd've , as in: I'd've argued against it. While it was obvious what it meant, it left me puzzled. Is I'd've a proper word?

I just came across this documentary: The World's Biggest & Baddest Bugs by Animal Planet Is "baddest" a proper word? Shouldn't it be "worst"? What is going on here? Answer The OED shows baddeste and baddyst as Middle English forms and baddest as being in use from the sixteenth century onwards. It notes, however, that baddest is now non-standard and regional. For that reason it should be avoided in formal Standard English. Not all contexts, however, require formal Standard English and the package illustrated is clearly one that does not. It was no doubt chosen for alliterative effect.

OK, so I’m ashamed to admit that as a native speaker I think I’ve missed something somewhere. I was typing up some documentation and spellchecker kept bugging me. So I looked up some words and found this: The suffixes ‑ance and ‑ence mean “quality of” or “state of.” Words ending in these suffixes are usually nouns. There is no rule that governs whether a word ends with ‑ance or ‑ence . Even the dictionary on my Mac goes so far as to say: ORIGIN from French ‑ence , from Latin ‑entia, ‑antia (from present participial stems ‑ent‑, ‑ant‑ ). Since the 16th cent. many inconsistencies have occurred in the use of ‑ence and ‑ance . Is this for real? There really is no rule? Answer Yes, this is for real. No, there really is no rule. There used to be a rule in Latin, though. Etymonline explains in more detail: -ance suffix attached to verbs to form abstract nouns of process or fact ( convergence from converge ), or of state or quality ( absence from absent ); ultimately from L. -antia a

What is the term used for a phrase that could have more than one meaning such as "This battery is free of charge"?

I have been wondering recently if there are any Pronunciation "Easter Eggs" in the English language (not unlike how "Ghoti" is pronounced like "Fish"). Are there any others? Please provide phonetic proof if you claim so. Answer Ghoti would not be considered an "Easter egg" word. It was made up to make a point about English pronunciation. Regarding specifically "Easter eggs" within the language itself, none are widely documented, if they do exist. I've never heard/read of one, before. When looking for them, take into consideration the risk of confirmation bias in regards to apophenia.

This is actually a question that came up when I was studying Japanese. Unfortunately my grasp of the technical language of syntax is very limited, and I never fully comprehended the idea of a noun modifying clause . The phrase given in my Japanese study guide to demonstrate the difference is (without) I took a photograph. and with This is a photograph taken by me. Can someone break this example down for me, and perhaps provide a few other examples like this for simple and complex situations (if this even makes sense) to help me understand this construct? It is also possible that the guide has been poorly translated and there is a different name for this. If so, what is it? Revision It seems that the question is not entirely clear to some, so although I have my answer I want to add some more information to (hopefully) raise the quality of the question. None of the text above this was edited. The block quoted text is an example lifted exactly from a study guide, not from notes taken in

There is a common Internet marketing strategy called clickbait or clickbaiting which involves: Provocative or sensationalistic headline text that entices people to click on a link to an article, used as a publishing tactic to increase webpage views and associated ad revenue. Source This is commonly used in advertisements (such as the one seen below) to generate views, even though the product itself will likely not be purchased and may not even exist. It is also frequently seen on YouTube, either in titles or thumbnails, to generate views for the uploader. However, clickbait also exists in physical form, for example newspaper headlines, magazines and pamphlets. Obviously, the term clickbait originated on the Internet (hence the "click"), so is there a word or idiom referring to physical clickbait and what would it have been called before the advent of the computer ? Mandatory usage example: Ralph didn't take the newspaper headlines seriously; he knew they were just ____