Blog

I am confused with the use of an indefinite article in front of British or Chinese . To my understanding, we can place an indefinite article in front of any “countable noun”. So, we can say a cup and an orange . But when it comes to nationalities, it is very confusing. For example, we can say an American or a German . But we cannot say a British or a Chinese . I looked them up in a dictionary as at first I thought British and Chinese are adjectives in the above statement and that is why we cannot place an article in front of it. However, the dictionary mentions that they are nouns. Does that mean they are uncountable nouns?

I'm a native speaker of Inland Northern American English. My intuition tells me that the word "abroad" is unremarkable, especially in collocations like "study abroad". However, I've been correcting English entries on Lang-8 lately, and I noticed that a Canadian English speaker made a correction I wouldn't have. She changed the following clause: she told me that she was going study abroad next month to this: she told me that she was going to study overseas next month Her explanation was the following: Hardly anyone ever says “abroad” in real life, it’s a bit of an awkward word. We say overseas, in another country, outside the country, etc. This is quite a different impression than I get when I see the word "abroad". That said, I know I can't always trust my intuition on matters of usage. Is she correct? Answer I'd be interested if your correspondent in Canada would say that a period of study in the United States was overseas or abroad

I am reading this lesson about present continuous. As the writer states USE 3 Near Future Sometimes, speakers use the Present Continuous to indicate that something will or will not happen in the near future. Examples: I am meeting some friends after work. I am not going to the party tonight. Is he visiting his parents next weekend? Isn't he coming with us tonight? " The lesson says: Sometimes , speakers use the Present Continuous... My question is when are these "sometimes"?

I know that non-married lovers address each other by saying “This is my girlfriend/boyfriend.” I know that married couples address each other by calling “my wife/husband”. I also know that gay lovers who are not married (yet?) address each other by saying " my boyfriend " (for gays ) and " my girlfriend " (for lesbians ). But if they are married, how do they address each other ? And how do we describe them ? I mean if they are gays, are they “husband and husband” or “husband and wife” (one of them acts like the wife)? And if they are lesbians, are they “wife and wife” or “husband and wife” (one of them acts as the husband)? I know they can be referred to as a gay couple or gay lovers from here , but I couldn't find the answer to address each of the two. Answer The word wife means "woman". In the context of a marriage, then whether same-sex or different-sex* it means the woman one is married to, and always has done. The word husband meant the man w

I asked about the meaning and usage of meta a few days ago, quoting Maureen Dowd’s review of the movie, “J. Edgar” in New York Times. I received six answers. But I still don’t get a clear idea of what “It’s meta” means because I don't understand (or have a total inability to comprehend) the concept of “self-referential.” An answerer answered : “Meta in this fairly recent, casual context is supposed to mean self-referential, or recursive in some way. This is the sense in which my teenagers would use this term.” So let me resubmit the question on “meta” in simpler format. When your teenager boy says “It’s (or this is) meta,” what does it mean? In what situation and of what sort of object they use this phrase? I’m sorry for many users who lent me kind answers to my previous question. But I would like to get it fully on the meaning and usage of “it’s meta,” as a colloquial expression, not the meaning of meta as a prefix. Answer Something is meta (and self referential) if it is about

What is the difference between 'roof' and 'canopy'? And would you describe the sky as the roof of the earth or the canopy of the earth? ( Sky meaning everything up to the ozone layer.) Answer Typically, a canopy is used to provide shade while a roof offers more solid protection; canopies filter and roofs protect. You often hear 'canopy' used to describe the sky-ward protection you experience in a forest or jungle--basically only shade and maybe a little protection from rain. A cave would offer roof-like protection--shade, protection from rain, and protection from big, hard, nasty things that fall from the sky. These pseudo definitions could be applied to earth's atmosphere in a similar way. Ask, "Does the atmosphere provide a shade-like protection against things from outer space, or does it offer more solid protection?" I think for most of the big, hard, nasty things that fall from outer space that our atmosphere is only a canopy, but if you ar

Much of (what/which) scientists know about dinosaurs has been recently discovered. The phenomenon of (what/which) are known as corporate networks has also attracted attention. And yes, the answer is what . But why? Answer Both of the clauses beginning with what are noun clauses. You can tell they're noun clauses because they're both the object of the preposition of . much of [what scientists know about dinosaurs] the phenomenon of [what are known as corporate networks] Noun or complement clauses can function like nouns -- as subject, direct object, or prepositional object. There are four types of complement clauses in English, and this is the type called an embedded question (or headless relative -- they're not that different) complement. (the others are Infinitive, Gerund, and tensed That-clause.) Embedded questions are just regular Wh -questions, but they have three peculiarities that mark them as subordinate clauses: Embedded Yes/No questions use whether ( whether

Is fair enough completely equivalent to OK? If not, under what circumstances should I say fair enough in my response? Any good examples will be most welcomed. Answer No, 'fair enough' is not completely equivalent to 'OK'. 'OK' means many things and is very frequent. It can mean 'I agree' or 'I accept what you say' or 'Yes' or similar affirmatory things. 'fair enough' means a (non-confrontational) argument-disagreement is being conducted, and you are conceding a point (which is affirmatory). "How are you feeling?" "OK." "I'm not broke." "You did overdraw your account" "Fair enough" Switching the two would not work in either case.

Whilst I was sat on the bus yesterday, I overheard a group of teenagers discussing various things. As per the usual social requirement at that age, every 5th word was an expletive. Not exactly the best ambiance for my journey home, but it got me thinking. What specifically about the words "fuck", "shit", "cunt", etc. makes them so vulgar? Clearly they represent negative things in society, but what makes those particular words so important? Also, what makes words with similar pronunciation characteristics (e.g. "crap" and "damn") so much milder? I'm aware that there will be some complex etymology of each, but what I'm really interested in is the structure and formation of the word itself. Why aren't "dotard" or "popinjay" considered to be curses, when "fuck" is? At certain times they held similar sentiments. Is there something specific about how we pronounce them that makes them superior in situ

What is the difference in meaning between prevalent and prevailing ? I'm not sure I get the nuance, if there is one. Answer The copy of the NOAD ( New Oxford American Dictionary ) I had installed on my Mac Mini when I wrote this answer had the following example about the usage of prevalent and prevailing : Wildflowers might be prevalent in the mountains during the spring months, but a particular type of wildflower might be the prevailing one. Prevalent , in other words, implies widespread occurrence or acceptance in a particular place or time ( a prevalent belief during the nineteenth century ), while prevailing suggests that something exists in such quantity that it surpasses or leads all others in acceptance, usage, or belief ( the prevailing theory about the evolution of man ).

Consider the following use of a hyphen: There are many bear-like animals. Now, how does the hyphenation change if "bear" is replaced by "grizzly bear"? Which of the following would be appropriate: There are many grizzly bear-like animals. There are many grizzly bear -like animals. The intended meaning is not "There are many grizzly (gray-haired) animals that resemble bears," but rather "there are many animals that resemble grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos )". Answer There is no convention that uses a gap followed by a hyphen in a compound. The construction 'grizzly bear-like animals' would be read as using two premodifiers, 'grizzly' and 'bear-like', as you fear. One is left with the construction using a single compound premodifier needing two hyphens: There are many grizzly-bear-like animals. Mark Nichol explains about the need to tack together the cohesive parts of some premodifiers; though he doesn't give an exactly

Let’s say I have this title: How to Install a PHP Extension: Quick and Easy Should I say quick and easy or quickly and easily ? Why? Answer The terms Quick and Easy modify Install . Technically, since install is a verb, they should be adverbs - Quickly and Easily . However titles have a life of their own, and they often exist on a different planet than we prescriptivist grammarians. You get a lot of latitude. Additionally, the adjectival forms have an implied noun to modify: installation . You are suggesting the installation will be quick and easy . To be a purist, make them adverbs. Or you can leave it punchy.

Is "flu" the only disease usually accompanied with "the"? From what I understand, you don't usually use "the" with diseases / illnesses / disorders ("have Alzheimer's / diarrhea / claustrophobia / dyslexia, etc." not "have the..."), but it's perfectly normal to say "have the flu". Is the flu the only exception? Edit (this is only a side part, and can be glossed over if you will, so it's not a duplicate imo): What's so significant about the flu that other conditions don't have, so that it's entitled to "the"? Answer TLDR: Using the definite article before names of ailments was more common historically than today. Even so, people still say the measles and the mumps about as often as they say the flu , and you sometimes come upon others like the gout , the cancer , and the rheumatism , especially in dialogue meant to represent older or more rustic speech. The OED records that this “ ᴛʜᴇ -

In "The Quiet American" by Graham Greene, Mr Fowler says: I watched her closely while she asked how I was and touched my splinted leg and gave me her shoulder to lean on, as though one could lean with safety on so young a plant . From what I learned in school, I would have written: "such a young plant", but apparently "so Adjective a Noun" is correct English. What is the name of the construction above (if there is one)? When is it used? Answer I don't know if it has a formal name, but it's used not infrequently in more formal writing. But his hand fell to his side as though he could not bear the exertion of even so small a gesture . This is not so grand a gesture on my part. It is mostly an admission of defeat. They said that it stood for “able,” so strong a woman was Hester Prynne. The Master, weary from his own shower of blows, and fearing nothing from so weak a man , dropped his hand for an instant, and at that instant... As such, their lifes

Is demonstratee a legitimate word? None of the usual sources think so, but it seems like -ee should be a productive suffix. If it isn't, is there another word that can be used in reference to the object of a demonstration? Answer Fundamentally, there's nothing that makes one word more legitimate than another, other than actually being able to use it and have your audience understand you, but I presume you want to know how widely accepted the word is. A quick Google Ngram search shows that it's rare, but occasionally used. Looking more closely , many of the places where it's used appear to be typos, for example: This is demonstratee by Figure 6, where twice dilution… But there are occasional valid uses: Nothing on the pacemaker or the defibrillator is connected to a patient [sic] or a demonstratee . It is indeed a valid word, and there's nothing preventing you from using it. It's rare though, so depending on your audience, if you really want to avoid confus

I am writing about a survey I wrote to evaluate the usability of a program. When describing the methodology of the survey, I refer to the person conducting the survey as the investigator. What should I call the other person? The investigator gave the [?] a tour of the functions of the application. Answer I suspect participant may be more common, particularly when pluralised, but that may simply be because it's a more common word applicable in many other contexts. For a single individual in this context, respondent seems more precise to me. It's less common, but I think interviewee is equally suitable in OP's context.

What do you call someone whom you make a gift for? It seems “recipient” is the most common word used, but I'm in a situation where the person in question has specifically not received the gift yet (and after all, it could fail to reach them, or the giver could change their mind at the last moment), so isn't “recipient” misleading in that case? I'm looking for a word like “addressee” for a gift (which isn't mailed so there's no address involved). Answer I think recipient is perfectly fine as-is, even if they haven't actually received it. "I'm going to put a bow on this gift so that the recipient will enjoy it even more when they see it under the Christmas tree" is perfectly clear. "The recipients stood in line eagerly awaiting their Purple Hearts from the President." Also is perfectly clear. It is not literally correct, but for sure the figure of speech would be perfectly plain to any reader. If you look in Wiktionary one of the definit

For my resume, I have a summary at the top that starts with "Dedicated individual with Master of Science in biomedical engineering." Should "biomedical engineering" be capitalized? Should "Master of Science" be capitalized? (This is for a project, I'm not actually a biomedical engineer.) Answer Assuming you are talking about a Master's degree, it should be capitalized as a proper noun. Similarly, if the name of the course (and the title on your degree certificate) was 'Biomedical Engineering*, then capitalise it to show the fact. Small letters in the latter case might mean "Well, the course title was 'Capillary Valving' but I specialised in biomedical engineering." And if you say "I am - a master of science!" you should probably add "Bwahahaha!"so that everyone knows that you are a mad scientist.

I threw some rubbish in a litter bin the other day, when it occurred to me that the receptacle couldn't be a litter bin, because litter is only unwanted things strewn across the road. Anything in a litter bin couldn't be litter, by reason of it's being in the litter bin. Am I right, wrong, or just absurdly pedantic? Answer A litter bin is a bin in which you can place what would otherwise become litter. As such, your objection that the stuff in it is not litter because it is in the bin is at best pedantic; I'd suggest it is at least mildly absurd to be that pedantic over it.

I often get confused when trying to use who vs that. Some examples that often confuse me: That The person that went to the store. The people that went shopping. The persons that went shopping. The group that went shopping. Who The person who went to the store. The people who go shopping. Please explain when to use either for plural subjects and singular subjects. Animate and inanimate objects as well. Answer It is usually said that who is used for people (and sometimes animals) while that is used to refer to objects. In actual usage, though, both who and that can be used to refer to persons, sometimes to animals, and sometimes to entities that consist of people. The dog who/that chewed the bone chased the cat. The person who/that stole my purse used all my credit cards. The group who/that went shopping was mugged. That , not who , is used to refer to objects. The house that Jack built is falling down. Here's what Oxford Dictionaries Online says: It is sometimes argued that, i

I get confused with the following. Any explanation would be greatly appreciated. I can't do it myself. I can't do it by myself.

Both the terms nigger and negro come from the Spanish and Portuguese Negro which denotes "black". But today they have widely different connotations, the former is considered a horrible racial slur, while the latter was the prefered way to refer to a person of black ancestry or appearance until the 1960s–70s, was used by MLK in his "I have a dream" speech and is still used in the full name of the UNCF . When did the terms go apart, and why does one of them have a strong racist connotation while the other doesn't? Answer Tone partly comes from origin, and partly from use. If someone coins a word based on things already held in low regard, or start applying such a word to a group, then that word is going to start out with negative connotations. It could perhaps lose them, but the inverse is also true. If someone coins a word that is not based on things held in low regard, it could still indicate a pointed distinction; that is, one bothers to point out that som

I was trying to find the origin for the word "beneath" to see when it should be used instead of "below" and I found that it originated from be - neothan and was directed to see the definition of "nether": –adjective lying or believed to lie beneath the earth's surface; infernal: the nether regions. lower or under: his nether lip. I concluded that to be beneath, is to be below. With this in mind, does that mean that the word underneath implies a greater level of depth than either beneath or below as it would literally mean "under low" instead of simply "being low"? Answer No, "underneath" does not imply a greater level of depth than either "beneath" or "below". underneath The under- indicates the subject of comparison is directly below the object or right "under its shadow". It also implies a total or partial concealment. beneath While the etymology of this word is slightly different ( bi/by

What is the correct word for "happening every minute"? How do you pronounce it? Answer The word "minutely" does exist, but in the meaning "every minute" it's archaic (see e.g. Merriam-Webster or The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language ). The modern meaning is twofold: "in great detail, in a minute manner, with attention to detail" or "into tiny pieces". What you are looking for is "minute by minute", "once a minute", "on a minute-by-minute basis" (thanks to Shinto Sherlock for setting the record straight on this one), or simply "every minute".

I never really gave a deep thought at this but recently a teacher of talked about language and there was an implicit question in it. something like there is a difference between "rather than" and "instead of" in usage. do you know it?? please help and explain with a few examples. Answer Let's try some minimal pairs: I walk rather than run I walk instead of running I eat apples rather than oranges I eat apples instead of oranges I walk quickly instead of quietly I walk quickly rather than quietly I don't really think there's much of a difference, except perhaps rather than implies preference whereas instead of implies substitution . But that might be nitpicking. And it doesn't seem to apply when using it to coordinate adverbs (last pair). Also, there's a slight difference in the verb forms in the first pair, but there's not really a difference in meaning there.

I know many politicians that avoid interview questions by talking a lot but not really communicating anything. You could say that what they were saying was full of banalities or canned answers or that they were waffling, but is there a better word for this behaviour? I'd like to say some thing like That response was a _____ or he\she is ___ing ? Answer You can use bloviate and its various forms: a style of empty, pompous political speech particularly associated with Ohio due to the term's popularization by United States President Warren G. Harding, who, himself a master of the technique, described it as "the art of speaking for as long as the occasion warrants, and saying nothing". The verb "to bloviate" is the act of creating bloviation. from wikipedia to speak or write verbosely and windily from m-w.com Thus, "that response was a bloviation" or "he/she is bloviating."

Practising today for my forthcoming role as radgie gadgie, I was having a little rant about modern youth: "they don't know they're born!" This seems to me rather a strange phrase to describe someone who is, or appears to be, more fortunate than others feel is just or seemly; after all, everyone realises they were born at some point (one hopes). So does anyone know how this phrase came about? Searching the internets provides lots of examples of usage, but no hint of the origin, of this phrase. Answer As far as I can tell from Google Books, this is an exclusively British idiom. It is used of those (primarily the rich and the young) who enjoy freedom from want or responsibility and behave as if they are unconscious that they were merely born into this freedom and that others (the poor and adults) are not so fortunate. The earliest appearance of the phrase in the Google Books corpus is in the works of Eden Phillpotts, who uses it in five different novels published betwe

I corrected the student, saying that he should write "How much water do you use to take a bath?" because his sentence seemed unnatural to me. Do you consider it correct? Would you use it?

When something can have both favorable and unfavorable consequences, the term double-edged sword is often used to describe it. Why? Does a double-edged sword have unfavorable consequences? Are double-edged swords known to accidentally kill the person wielding the sword? Answer Some people believe that a two-edged sword is more dangerous to its user than a single-edged one, but my experience (in martial arts) does not concur. It's not likely that a skilled swordsman is going to hurt himself with the reverse edge. A two-edged sword is designed to be more dangerous to the target , not the wielder, by cutting on both the forward stroke and the back stroke. This idea is consistent with some of the earlier uses of the phrase: The burden of taxes, like a two-edged sword, reduced men to poverty, and exposed them to be seduced by bribery. ( 1809 ) In this sense, it is likened to the phrase: "cuts both ways" - referring again to the two sides of the sword stroke. I don't k

Before Sarah can board the bus, she needs to get some coins for the fare. Before she can board the bus, Sarah needs to get some coins for the fare. My questions are: Between the above two sentences, which is more correct? Can the pronoun come before the noun? Is there any rule defining this issue? Also, must the noun only be in the main clause?

Consider the following sentence: I ate the sandwich quickly. The word "quickly" modifies "ate the sandwich." Should the adverb be placed up front, as in I quickly ate the sandwich. would it still be modifying the "ate the sandwich" part?

I was recently reading this very interesting post here: When is a gerund supposed to be preceded by a possessive adjective/determiner? In this thread, it is argued persuasively that we could use either his or him interchangeably in front of a gerund. However, this does not seem to me to be true. For instance, consider the following example: His continuous meddling was starting to bother me. It appears that only a possessive will do here and an accusative is completely ungrammatical (in the true meaning of the word): *Him continuous meddling was starting to bother me. An accusative also seems to give rather dubious results in the following examples too. Compare: The senate characterized their sinking of the flagship as rash and excessive. ... with the completely ungrammatical: *The senate characterized them sinking of the flagship as rash and excessive. So, it seems that we cannot just freely exchange the accusative and possessive pronouns that occur before gerunds. My questions there

What is the correct form? Does context play a role? Are there noticeable trends towards the awkward "noone" or is it just a by-product of careless orthography on the Internet? Answer " no one " is the correct one. noone is the common misspelling of "no one". "Noone" is formed for consistency with "nobody", and also its opposites "anyone" and "everyone", but it is still considered nonstandard because of the doubled vowels creating a temptation to read and pronounce it as "noon" (/nuːn/). On the other hand, no-one is the alternative spelling of "no one". I don't think it's widely used.

Does “notified by [date]” include the end date? When someone says "I will do it by Monday", does it mean that they will get it done before the beginning of Monday or before the end of Monday? Answer Without further context, it generally means before the end of Monday. Now end can be defined as midnight, bedtime, end of work day, or any previously discussed time, depending on context.

What is better to write? that my results are not reproducible that my results are unreproducible How can it be re-written as positive affirmation (preserving the same meaning)? Edit: Do not I remember correctly that it is better to write negative sentence than positive but much more lengthy? This question is about technical copywriting. Update: When I was writing the question, I did not account for the fact that there are 4 "synonyms": non-reproducible, unreproducible, irreproducible, not reproducible Update: the post with this phrase that provoked this question

For example: The building is accurate to its schematics Is this invalid use of the word "accurate"? Answer You can definitely say "accurate to" in some cases: for instance, "The stopwatch is accurate to a thousandth of a second" would be entirely correct, and many dictionaries specifically list this use of the word accurate . The question, then, is whether something can be accurate not only to an amount or measure (be those seconds, meters, or grams) or to n significant digits or n decimal places, but also to a thing. Personally, I think your example sentence is correct. Other phrases I've found in the corpus include: "a painting that seems accurate to life" "in settings accurate to the period and locale" "the movie was accurate to the Bible or attempted to be" Other ways of saying your sentence would include: "The building was built according to the schematics" "The building adheres to/conforms to the sc

What exactly is the "schwa" sound? As a non-native speaker, I hear this sound as not being a pure and clean sound. I mean I know that every vowel sound may vary depending on whether the syllable is stressed, on the accent of the person that makes the sound, etc. But generally this sound is the same in the sense that it does not depend on the consonant sounds that come before or after, and might or might not be heard as being different by the non-native speaker ear. The schwa sound is a very difficult one for me because I cannot find a pattern to follow. When I was learning the other vowel sounds I could analyze a long list of words being pronounced (by the same person of course) and then abstract the sound so I can produce it perfectly. But this does not work for the schwa sound. So for example I hear one sound in words like a -bout, b- a -loon, decim- a -l, and a different sound in words like s- u -ppose and impet- u -s, t- o -day or t- o -night. Also in words like Ros- a -&

What is the rule for singular noun objects of plural subjects? For example I and google N-grams agree that They gave their word. is better than They gave their words. To my mind, this is because each has but a single word to give and cannot give more. However, google seems to disagree with me on They gave their life. vs They gave their lives. As you can see in the linked N-gram, the second is far more common than the first. What's going on here? People (cats excluded) only have one life and it seems passing strange that they would be able, let alone willing, to give more. If pressed, I would claim that the object should only be plural if each of the subjects has many. For example They called their friends If each of the "they" in question has only one of whatever object we are talking about I would call it ungrammatical to have that object in the plural form. Am I wrong? EDIT: This question was prompted by a comment on this post on S&F.SE defending the use of consc

I've seen different questions related to the same verb, but those questions implicate an imperative form (For example when you tell somebody to log in/on) which I think may vary the condition in which the verb is used. He uses another program to log in to the system. He uses another program to log into the system. He uses another program to log on to the system. He uses another program to log onto the system. I think number 2 is correct but I'll wait for your suggestions. Answer For my money, log on to a system or log in to a system are interchangeable, and depend on the metaphor you are using (see comment on your post). I suppose there is a small bit of connotation that "log on" implies use, and "log in" implies access or a specific user. Not to be confused with "login" - a noun describing a combination of username/password. I'd pick 1) because the program is accessing a system (in vs. on), and "log in" is the action, whereas &q

Few years back, one of our English teachers told that, In India, we [typically] pronounce "of" as "of" or "off". But the real pronunciation is "ov". When I try to listen the same in Google dictionary, it indeed sounds like "ov" :-). But I am not sure, if I am listening it correctly. Since my native language is not English, can someone suggest what is the right pronunciation? If it's really "ov" then it would be interesting to know, why is it so? It has also been mentioned that this word has different vowels according to its environment. Is this true? Answer British English The word of has a strong form, /ɒv/. This has the same vowel we hear in the word lot , /lɒt/. This form of the word ends with a 'v' sound. We use the strong form of of when it is stressed and also when it occurs with out a following complement. So in the phrase What are you thinking of? , there is no noun phrase following the word of , and we

Even though the second one seems right, is the first one totally wrong? It sounds ok to me. Correct me if I am wrong. Please explain if possible. Thanks. :) Context: Someone recollects a proverb that he/she read somewhere. I am intending to praise this person. So which usage would be apt for the situation? Answer Neither is wrong. They just mean different things. “What memory!” refers to "memory" as a general concept. If someone remembered things very well, you might say "What memory!" to mean "What (good) memory (you have)!" “What a memory!” refers to a specific memory. If someone told you a story, you might say "What a memory!" to mean "What a (good) memory (you have just talked about)!" Edit: As noted in the comments, you could say "What a memory!" to refer to the general concept of memory as well. The example would be similar to "What a (good) memory (you have)!"

In my country, people use the word "Yahoo" as an expression of enthusiasm, joy, jubiliation and victory. What is the origin and original meaning of the word yahoo? As for that matter, what is most commonly accepted meaning of the word today? Is it commonly used as an expressive word nowadays? Or, is it the case that it is just the popular website, and the word has otherwise become redundant? Answer The word yahoo can be used in English in the same way you mention, that is, as a cheer. In fact, some commercials for the company Yahoo! actually ends with someone yelling/singing "Yahooooo!". It can also refer to an uncultured or brutish person. This usage was coined by Jonathan Swift in Gulliver's Travels, where Yahoo was a race of brutes. Finally, as you hinted at, because of the success of the company Yahoo!, it's probably more common to hear it referring to the company rather than one of the other meanings. That being said, it has not at this point become so

Which of the following is/are correct? A. I only answered two questions. B. I answered only two questions. C. I answered two questions only.

I wish to state that my exposure to a certain area was a mere coincidence, and I am happy about the area. Moreover, I want to convey the idea that the incident was like a fairytale, something no one would easily believe, but because of it I ended up where I am. The same incident happening to someone else might go unnoticed but it rang the bells for me. Stating this idea as above is too long and boring, and such language seems childish or out-of-place in a statement of purpose. I want to make it succinct. Is there any word or phrase that conveys the same idea? Answer Your exposure to (whatever) was "serendipitous" which while by definition may be about "luck", if you were not prepared for it, opportunity could have easily passed you by. From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: Serendipitous : obtained or characterized by serendipity, ex.: serendipitous discoveries Definition of "serendipity" from Dictionary.com: ser·en·dip·i·ty [ser-uh n-dip-i-tee] noun an

When we can use "recent past"? How much past time qualifies for "recent past"? Answer It would depend on the subject at hand. In certain circles, anything in the Cenozoic Era might count as the 'recent past'. I've certainly used the term myself in ordinary conversation to mean 'since the last ice age'.

I want to make this question in passive "Who had followed me?" I have this answer "Who had this been followed?"

Many a time I've asked what the difference is between an analogy and a metaphor. I've asked it to my teacher, on internet sites, to my parents, so on and so forth. I got a different answer every time, and I never fully grasped what the difference is, so what is the difference? Answer Briefly, analogy is a perceived likeness between two entities; metaphor is one “figure of speech” which you might use to communicate that likeness. For example: you may recognize that many Greek and Shakespearean tragedies have a similar structure: a phase of increasing conflict between opposed sides or characters, a major confrontation between the opposed characters, and a phase in which the opposition is worked out and resolved in one character's victory and the other's defeat. It may then occur to you that this structure is very like the shape of a pyramid isosceles triangle, which rises from a baseline to a central point and then falls back to its baseline. You have then perceived an

I was interested in the line “...most Americans use the word 'gay' now instead of 'homosexual'” in Maureen Dowd’s article titled “ Happily Never After ?” in today’s (April 2) New York Times: I’m worried about how the justices can properly debate same-sex marriage when some don’t even seem to realize that most Americans use the word "gay" now instead of "homosexual"; when Chief Justice John Roberts thinks gays are merely concerned with marriage as a desirable "label," and when Justice Samuel Alito compares gay marriage to cellphones. When you say “instead of,” it gives me an impression that they are different things, for examples, “I use margarine instead of butter,” “They use acrylic panels instead of plate glass for windows” and "The new car uses aluminum instead of steel plate for the body." However, when I checked Oxford English Dictionary, it renders “gay” as: a.1 (of a person, especially a man) homosexual. relating to or use

What are the rules for putting a full stop after an abbreviation. For instance, I want to say the following on my business card. Tel: xxx-xxx-xxx Do I need to put a full stop after the Tel? Tel.: xxx-xxx-xxx Answer On a business card, Tel: should be abundantly clear without the need for a [BrE. full stop | AmE. period ]. The overriding concern is clarity. If an abbreviation could be mistaken for a word, include it; otherwise, you can probably remove it. The trend has been to simplify. As a matter of rule, measurement units are bare (except inches which is always in. so as not to be confused with the word in ). So too are Canadian and U.S. postal abbreviations. Most style books and corporate identity guides prefer the bare form for acronyms as well: it is NATO or Nato and no longer N.A.T.O. , IBM no longer I.B.M. And in Britain, Saint is commonly St now, although universally St. in the U.S.

What is the difference between the verbs admix and shuffle ? I'm not a native speaker, and in the case shown in the image below, I'd rather use shuffle . Answer This is an odd use of admix and I agree that shuffle might have been more descriptive. Admix has the sense of mixing one thing with another, or adding an additional element. For example, the New York Times in 2006 reported that ‘They admixed idealism and realism in drafting the United Nations Charter.’

I have noticed in many writings people's use of quotation marks whenever they use the above-mentioned expressions for example: the self-styled "artists" or the so-called "poets". Isn't the use of the quotation marks redundant since the meaning of such expressions is the same expressed by the quotation marks. If so, why do many writers tend to use them anyway?

This is not a techie query. I am just unclear on how to pronounce the word "Azure" which is the brand name for Microsoft's cloud computing service. Answer Azure is also an ordinary English word, pronounced the same way (or rather, way s ) as the Microsoft program software offering. The two main pronunciations differ in how they say the 'z': in US English, it almost always becomes a zh /ʒ/, like the s in measure , while in the UK, it can be either a zh /ʒ/, same as in the US, or a straight z /z/. There's also disagreement about which syllable gets the stress: in the US, it goes on the first syllable: AZH-uhr /ˈæʒər/, while in the UK, it's more likely to go on the second syllable: az-YOOR /azˈj(ʊ)ə/.

I heard a word meaning enhance and improve that sounded like horn , e.g. 'horn technical skills'. What is the spelling of this word? I unsuccessfully tried to Google it.

A while back I was talking about it with friends. Another question indicates a few meanings of the "meta-" prefix. Considering that "meta" means, in simple words, "about itself" (like how metadata is data about data), what would be the appropriate prefix to mean the opposite relationship? It seemed to us that "meta" raised a concept to a new level, and we were wondering what prefix would, conversely, lower a concept to another level. Is there another prefix I could use to cancel out the "meta" in "metadata" to get back to "data"? Answer Meta- comes from Ancient Greek, and in this sense means beyond, with, about or after. An example is Aristotle's Metaphysics which his editors placed after his Physics , and started readers thinking it might mean more than location. That suggests to me that the Latin pre- or Greek pro- could be possible antonyms used in a similar way. But this would only help if people used i

There was the following sentence in Time magazine’s (May 28th) article titled “The Optimism Bias”: Overly positive assumptions can lead to disastrous miscalculations – make us less likely to get health checkups, apply sunscreen, and more likely to bet the farm on a bad investment. But the (optimistic) bias also protects and inspires us: it keeps us moving forward rather than to the nearest high-rise ledge . Without optimism, our ancestors might never have ventured far from their tribes and we might all be cave dwellers, huddling together and dreaming of light and heat. Does ‘high-rise ledge’ in the above sentence literally mean the ledge or balcony of today’s high-rise building, a steep cliff or rock facing ocean, or something else? Why is moving forward is better than approaching or facing to ‘the high-rise ledge’? Is there special or negative meaning with “high-rise ledge” used here? Answer Suicides often jump from tall buildings: the "high-rise ledge" is a window ledge in

Is there a semantic difference between learn to code and learn coding ? Can both forms be used interchangeably? Answer I believe there's a slight difference. I'm going to explain by comparing learn to program with learn programming . To learn to program means the student (or trainee) will learn how to write software. If the training is successful, the student will become a proficient programmer. To learn programming , on the other hand, means the student will learn about programming. This might include, for example, programming principles, theory, and best practices. If the training is successful, the student will have a better understanding of the various nuances of programming. There is a lot of overlap, no doubt, but they are not exactly the same thing (not in my mind, at least). A programmer must learn to code . A software project manager might benefit from learning programming . After all, even if a manager never programs, such knowledge might help managers better und

I always found it weird to hear people say things like "My friend asked me to come" (with no prior mention of said friend), as opposed to "A friend of mine asked me to come". To me it seems as though the former would imply that the speaker has just one friend. I think this usage is well widespread though, but is there any concern about its correctness? I don't see a similar pattern in use for words other than "friend" (perhaps for family members such as "brother" as well?). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think "You can read about that in my book" would be an unusual thing to say if I'm the author of several books on the same subject matter, unless the particular book I'm referring to is clear in context. Answer The question here is: is "my" a definite personal pronoun, or just a personal pronoun? I believe the answer is that in most dialects of English, "my" is a definite personal pronoun, so you s