Blog

I have the following sentence which I thought was implying that a metaphor is like a moustache Today I learnt how to wax a metaphor Having checked through wiktionary the only literal (i.e. transitive verb) meaning of "wax" that may be applied is: 5 (transitive, archaic, usually of a musical or oral performance) To record But the term is archaic, and I can't quite place the idea of learning to record a metaphor (rather than recording its expression). Is the above bulleted statement a metaphor? Is that because it cannot be read literally? Answer Yes, the statement Today I learnt how to wax a metaphor is itself a metaphor. Without more context, it's not possible to say for sure what the intended meaning of 'to wax' is in that metaphor, but the most likely meaning is To increase [the metaphor] gradually in size, ..., strength, or intensity.... [wax. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved December 30 2015

Am looking for a word that loosely means inability to think in certain ways . For example, for lyricists (or writers) lyrics come so naturally, but for non-lyricists it's very difficult to think how lyricists write lyrics— it's a mindset or thinking pattern difference. The same can be for screenplay writers or artists. The same can be for lock-pickers and non lock-pickers. It's loosely the ability or inability to think along particular lines. Is there a word that correctly captures what I am trying to say?

What do you call those household items whose selling features are purportedly practical, functional and ‘innocent’ but instead are often bought for completely different, and sometimes ‘naughty’ reasons? In time the makers hear of this secondary use and exploit this “extra” feature, or modify the design in order to meet public demand, without confessing the real reason behind it. I'm thinking in particular of those massage instruments sold for “back pain” such as the one below. Nowadays, we'd simply call it a vibrator, but until the mid-fifties these gizmos were called massagers Today on supermarket shelves there are certain roll on deodorants (for both sexes) whose size and friendly ergonomic shapes are unequivocally sexual. I suppose there aren't that many taboos left but the fact that one can openly display a deodorant stick in one bathroom's cabinet without embarrassment is very convenient… On a much more serious note, there are certain cough medicines that are sol

I think friend of mine can be translated to my friend. In that case, doesn't friend of me make more sense? If we translate friend of mine to one of my friends then I guess friend of mine makes sense for my friends being mine. Is there a difference? When do you say ... of mine instead of my ... ? Is there a specific situation when you use one or the other?

Lately I have noticed that a lot of people use "wanting" in sentences, or in books, but I don't get it because my English teachers have always said to me that with verbs like "love", "like", "want" etc. we can't write the verb ending "-ing". But how it is possible that it's in book then? Some examples: She reached her hand out, wanting to touch him... Not wanting to talk about it, Clary turned... Actually, I’ve been wanting to ask you how... I really want to know where I can use it and where I can't. It really drives me crazy that I don't know it.

When listing items and ending the list with "etc", should there be a comma before "etc."? E.g. red, green, blue, etc. or red, green, blue etc. Related question, though this one involves the word "and", so I am no sure if the answer applies to this question or not: Should I put a comma before the last item in a list? Answer If there's no conjunction at the end of the list ( and / or for example), then a comma is required. Thus, the correct version is: red, green, blue, etc. (Note that etc. should include the full stop, as it is an abbreviation.) Regarding commas before and (or any conjunction) at the end of the list, that is a matter of huge debate. The subject is well-discussed on the Wikipedia page for the serial comma . Although it's probably fair to say that usage of the serial comma is non-standard in general, many notable institutions and publications such as Oxford and Harvard Universities strongly recommend its usage. There are certainl

In the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language ; Huddleston and Pullum 2002, they make the following qualifying comment: ... reported speech covers the reporting of spoken and written text but also that of unpoken thought. (p. 1023 - bold H&P's) We can immediately see from this excerpt that reported speech is being used as a technical term to represent a particular linguistic phenomenon, not as a literal interpretation of the two words 'reported' and 'speech'. This is demonstrated by the fact that reported speech is given by these authors to include not only written text, but also unspoken thoughts. it is proposed by various commentators that to be reported speech, there must first be some speech or thought to be reported. Reported speech, it is claimed, is a report 'of what someone else said ' (italics original). However in their section on indirect reported speech (p.1024), two of the first examples of indirect reported speech given by CaGEL are:

What is the proper use of the apostrophe in this phrase: The party is at the Johnsons's Assuming, the regular form of the last name is "Johnson" and there are at least two people in the Johnson family. I assume it should be possessive because it is implied that it is referring to their house. What would the correct form be for a last name ending in an S in its singular form? Answer At the Johnsons' would be my suggestion. There is an implicit "house" at the end I have also seen At the Joneses' for a house belonging to the Jones family

Sinister is the Latin word for left-handed . What evolution of meaning turned left-handed into evil and threatening ? Answer In the past, to be left-handed was considered touched by the Devil . As Wikipedia notes: Historically, the left side, and subsequently left-handedness, was considered negative in many cultures. The Latin word sinistra originally meant "left" but took on meanings of "evil" or "unlucky" by the Classical Latin era, and this double meaning survives in European derivatives of Latin, and in the English word "sinister". Meanings gradually developed from use of these terms in the ancient languages. In many modern European languages, including English, the word for the direction "right" also means "correct" or "proper", and also stands for authority and justice. In most Slavic languages the root prav is used in words carrying meanings of correctness or justice. So, if you were left-handed or sinist

Why is the order of the words in "so do I" or "nor do I" different from the normal order? Answer With respect to information structure, this word order pattern seems to be equal to fronted adverbials, as in: Into the room walked a man The new information / focus follows the finite verb. Similarly, in "So do I", "so" refers to the proposition in the previous utterance, "do" is a dummy verb, and "I", the new information, comes last.

I am curious if it is correct to say "one out of a possible four". This is what I found in a publication: Discrete level (one out of a possible four), corresponding to a range of safety integrity values, where safety integrity level 4 has the highest level of safety integrity and safety integrity level 1 has the lowest. Answer Saying x out of a possible y , where y is a number that normally doesn't take an article, is quite common. It is idiomatic and correct. It is not informal or slang. It happens with any adjective, not just with possible . It is correct to say one out of four , but not * one out of possible four. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say the reason is probably that possible is an adjective, which can normally only be used to modify a noun ( a possible cause ), while four is not a noun but a cardinal number, which modifies a noun itself ( four camels, one woman ) and is not preceded by an article. But some cardinal numbers are also nouns, like a

Suppose I have two words, let's take "true" and "false". "False", is the direct opposite of "truth", and is an antonym of "truth". However, the word I am looking for is not "antonym". If I was to ask what was the "direct opposite" of "black", the answer would have been "white". What word could have replaced "direct opposite" in this case? Other examples include "dark" and "light", or "big" to "small". It is true these are antonyms, but these are special antonyms, they are the only ones that are the "equivalent opposites". "big" has other antonyms like "tiny", but "tiny" is the equivalent of "huge". "big"'s equivalent in opposite is "small". EDIT, The word I am looking for has the meaning of "opposite match " Answer try antithesis Direct contrast; opposition. Th

There are several Japanese books teaching Japanese students how to write in English. I found this example in 『英作文参考書の誤りを正す』 ( Correcting Errors in English Composition Manuals ) by Michio Kawakami and J.D. Monkman. The authors of this book claim that this sentence is incorrect: This box of matches is empty. They note that a “box of matches” is a box containing matches (and not a box made for keeping matches), hence the sentence should instead be: This matchbox is empty. Likewise, an “empty bottle of beer” should instead be an “empty beer bottle.” Is this actually an error that I should avoid in writing English? If so, is it a grammatical error or something else?

The Punjab is a rich state. Is it correct to use the before Punjab?

In school, we were taught to end each list item with a semicolon. But I have never actually seen this. Can somebody please confirm this? Should we end each list item with anything at all? I've seen people use periods after each list item, colons, and even commas. But I've never seen a semicolon at the end of each item — and even if I have, it would be that rare that I've forgotten. Example: item; item; item; item

guess some of you know the song "Grenade" from Bruno Mars, one of the lines is: Should've known you was trouble from the first kiss English isn't my mother tongue, but "was trouble" just sounds wrong in my ears. Is that some kind of slang? Answer In general, you can't expect pop music to contain the kind of language that an English teacher would consider correct. There is a whole spectrum of language styles, ranging from dialect that outsiders can barely understand, through to the received English that is appropriate in most fiction, non-fiction, newspaper articles, essays and so on. (That this has to be explained leads me to wonder how it can be any different in the cultures of other languages) "You was" instead of "you were" is not "received" English. Yet talk to real people, and you will hear it all the time. And, indeed, the other way around. "You was talking to me." "She were here last night." You

I was watching an rerun episode of the Big Bang Theory the other night. And, a character who is from India (Rajesh) is losing an argument with the following dialog : Raj: Okay, well, let me just tell you, if we were having this argument in my native language, I’d be kicking your butt. Sheldon: English is your native language. Raj: Okay, you got me there. I was wondering about the truth of this statement. Is English really a native language in India? Do many/most Indian English speakers consider it to be their primary language? Or is it a heavily spoken second language because of its official status and commonality compared to the linguistic diversity within the sub-continent? Are people in India largely true bi-linguals in the sense of having two native languages which occupy separate compartments within their consciousness. (Not to begin another topic of conversation, but people of this sort often make bad translators due to this compartmentalization.) This question was brought to my

Consider the following example: It is you who has taken the garbage out. It is you who have taken the garbage out. Does one use "has" or "have" in this sentence construction? Which of the two best fits? Which is grammatically correct?

I've always believed the past tense of sync ("I sync my phone with my computer") to be synced ("I synced my phone with my computer yesterday"). This question would seem to suggest either synced or synched . I have a friend who insists the past tense is sunk . I'd appreciate if you could make this clear for me. Answer The past tense is "synced". "Sunk" is the past tense of "sink" which sounds the same but is a completely different word. "Synced" appears to have made its way into dictionaries: Edit: As others have pointed out, "synch" and "synched" are acceptable variants.

I need to write a letter to a specific person, who I only know by title. I do not know their name or gender. I can think of a couple ways to greet this individual in a letter, however I can not decide which greeting is most preferable. Should I start my letter with: Dear Sir or Madam, ...or Dear Manager of Standards, ...or some other greeting. Answer I would put the title as the first line of the address. But if I don't know their name I would always start a letter with the standard Dear Sir or Madam . (If you know their name, use Dear Mr. Smith.)

Which is correct? ...others are compensated thus. ...others are compensated thusly. This page says 'thusly' is incorrect: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thusly However without the 'ly' is sounds wrong. This page on adverbs didn't mention adverbs at the end of a sentence as being wrong. http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/adverbs.htm It provides some examples: A viewpoint adverb generally comes after a noun and is related to an adjective that precedes that noun: A successful athletic team is often a good team scholastically . I just think '...a good team scholastical' would be wrong. Why is 'thus' different? This related question also says 'thus' over 'thusly', but the word was not at the end of a sentence. "Thus" vs. "Thusly" Answer The suffix -ly is used to form adverbs out of words that aren't already adverbs. "Thus" is already an adverb. There is no word "thusly." "Thusly"

Should we use choosing or choice in the sentence below? You may find that engaging the required range of participants requires traveling to participants' home or workplace, at times of their choosing/choice .

Suppose that someone has done something valuable, but in doing that he has made some kind of cheating. I want to say that if we ignore the cheating, the work is valuable itself. What is an appropriate sentence for that in a very formal language? Thanks

I believe that Earth means planet and earth means soil. But I've seen earth used in published works to mean the planet earth. But no one writes jupiter. Similarly, Moon should mean the name of Earth's moon and lower case moon means the general category. This one is more complicated because I've read that the name of Earth's moon is Luna. Except no one calls it that. We don't say "Neil Armstrong was the first man on Luna." Am I correct or is this a matter of convention?

I was wondering about the meaning of "pseudo-", "quasi-" "semi-" and possibly other related prefixes, in general cases. Particularly, in engineering and science, there are quite a few terms named with these prefixes. For example, "quasi-integrable", "pseudo-Newton method", "semigroup". But I never get to understand their differences in usage. Answer Pseudo- comes from the Greek for false/lie and refers particularly to something not genuine. Quasi- comes from the Latin for almost and refers to something that is almost something else. Semi- is the Latin for half and refers to something that is half-something else In late usage, however, all three have been used to mean sort-of-

Sometimes, when engaged in conversation, English-speakers will say the first half of a well-known saying or idiom, trailing off at the end or punctuating it with a shrug. For instance, they might say "Birds of a feather..." or "When in Rome..." and leaving the "flock together" and "do as the Romans do" completely unsaid, when arguably that unspoken portion was the whole point of their statement in the first place. Is there a name for such abbreviated usage? Answer The technical term, anapodoton is an appropriate, and perhaps more accurate alternative to ellipsis An anapodoton (from the Greek anapodosis : "without a main clause") is a rhetorical device related to the anacoluthon . It is a figure of speech or discourse that is an incomplete sentence , consisting of a subject or complement without the requisite object. The stand-alone subordinate clause suggests or implies a subject (a main clause), but this is not actually provided. As

I'm trying to find a word that describes both the unit and value of something. The unit types and values are arbitrary. For instance "10 meters" and "52 inches" are examples of (the word). "10 liters" and "40 watts" are examples of (the word), etc. Is there such a word? I can't think of it. Answer I would think the word quantity might suffice, but the dictionary strongly supports the word measurement . From Macmillan : the exact size, degree, strength etc of something, usually expressed in numbers of standard units So, "10 liters" is a measurement. So are "40 watts," "12 acres," and "7.5 light years."

I've always understood that you can order the words not and every (or similar words) in the following two ways to convey distinct logical meanings. Every human is not a man. There is no human being who is a man. Not every human is a man. There are human beings who are not men. Being a non-native speaker, I learn most of my English by reading things on the internet. The thing is that I almost never see people doing it this way and this made me question my understanding. For example, a comment on another Stack Exchange website reads : Everything on DOS is not plain-text! To my understanding, this sentence means that there is nothing on DOS that is plain-text, but it is clear to me that the author of the message intended a different meaning. I would correct this sentence to: Not everything on DOS is plain-text! Am I correct and is this mistake very commonly made or do I have a fundamental misunderstanding of this sentence structure? Answer You are correct; Karan of the superuser qu

Is the following sentence acceptable? Matches are played three v. three. In the first hundred matches, teams are randomly paired. Can "paired" be used in this case, since it is 3 teams that are being put together? EDIT: There seems to be a little confusion on what I'm trying to describe here. The game is a robotics competition (FIRST Robotics Competition). Teams of up to 50 people each build a robot and bring it to a competition. The matches are played 3 robots vs. 3 robots. In the first hundred matches, the 3 robots on each alliance are randomly paired.

OED's entry about "egregious" indicates it can mean remarkable in both good and bad ways. Vocabulary.com's entry, in contrast, emphasizes to not use it for meaning positively outstanding. How do you usually interpret and use "egregious"? Answer egregious has a negative connotation, and is usually used to connote severe examples of evil or wrongdoing. A look at it's synonyms should give you a flavor of the word. egre·gious adjective: very bad and easily noticed ( archaic : distinguished); conspicuous; especially: conspicuously bad, flagrant: egregious padding of the evidence — Christopher Hitchens> ...the public perception is that too many corporate executives have committed egregious breaches of trust by cooking the books, shading the truth, and enriching themselves with huge stock-option profits while shareholders suffered breathtaking losses. —John A. Byrne et al., Business Week, 6 May 2002 Synonyms: blatant, conspicuous, flagrant, glaring, gros

I am confused between these words. Dictionaries say they are similar, but I vaguely remember my schoolteacher apprising me of a difference between them. I would love if someone could elucidate. Answer Comical - Humorous, lighted-hearted situation or behavior inspiring amusement. Comic - In contrast to tragic. From the point of view of the ancient Greek dramatists, tragedy had to involve the fate of a great personage, e.g. a king. Comedy on the other hand, dealt with the common people, the masses. To this day, this formula remains intact in that comedy as a form of entertainment is largely intended to appeal to the masses. The behavior of such lessor figures was felt to be amusing from the point of view of tragic figures. Hence, comical is an attribute often assigned to comic. "The behavior of the masses is truly comical."

I was writing a blog post for my website, about the etymology of the word fascist , and I wanted to write about how it's connected to the modern slang curse word for "homosexual" which used to mean "a bundle of sticks" ( f-gg-t ), but my ethics and, I feel, the integrity of the site would be compromised if I used such a hideous word. Thus, I used dashes as in the aforementioned example, but this brought up a good question. While researching this, I came across an article from The Guardian by David Marsh, which raised an excellent point that too much censorship can obfuscate meaning. I also learned about grawlixes from Quick and Dirty Tips .com and What the #$@&%*! is that called? , but when there is little to no context provided, I can't really use [bleep]s or censor an entire word. I'm looking more of a method where it is crystal clear what I'm saying, without actually saying it. Euphemisms obviously won't work here. I think the big dilemm

For context, I am an Assistant Language Teacher for ESL. Part of my job is offering a native speaker's perspective, the main teachers are not native speakers, and I was asked about this. To the other teachers, this structure is always acceptable, but I am not sure about this. I realized that in some situations, "____ is" sounds like a perfectly fine answer, but in other cases it doesn't. I want to be able to explain to the other teachers and my students why that is, or what the rule is. For example: -Who is going to the game tonight? -She is. This sounds fine to me. -What is the most popular sport in America? -Football is. This seems okay enough to me. -What is the name of this book? -Catcher in the Rye is. This, to me, sounds off. I'm assuming that other native speakers feel the same way, but I can't seem to figure out the rule. Also, is this actually grammatically correct, but it just feels off? I should add too that the previous native speakers in my positi

Reading different specifications and manuals I've noticed that more often and often pronouns she or her are being used when some unknown person's behavior is described. For example: "when user opens the first screen, let she be notified about something" or "let user input her address". Actually, I've seen more versatile examples but cannot remember anything nice now. Is it a last-years tendency? Or is it something only UK-specific? Are there any rules about it? Or, maybe, is it applicable only for written document/spoken language? I'm not an informant (as you've already guessed) and it's very important to me how should I write in official correspondence with British/US customers and not to hurt their feelings? Answer The pattern of using she for an unknown referent in formal writing is a contemporary attempt to balance out the perceived sexism of generic he . However, most English speakers find generic she to be at least somewhat marked or

There are many suffixes that are used to create adjectives from nouns ( -al , -ic , -ive , -y ). Are there any rules used to create adjectives from nouns? In example, why is the adjective excessive , and not ( ? ) excessal , or ( ? ) excessic ? Answer What you are asking about is morphological productivity of English suffixes. Productivity in this sense means using morphemes to coin new words. (It just so happens my thesis deals with morphological productivity!) There are a number of different aspects of the language system that influence productivity and the makeup of the lexicon. Synchronic change As a language evolves through time, different suffixes rise in productivity and later fall in productivity. For example (from Anshen & Aronoff 1999), the suffix -ment entered into the language around 1250 according to the OED, through whole-word borrowings from French (many, if not most, suffixes enter a language this way). It converts verbs to nouns. The number of new words coined wi

In French, if I want to quantify a very small amount of time (but not fixed: it can be 5 ms or 0.1 ms) I can use a pouième . Is there an equivalent in English? I'm not looking for an expression but for a standalone word. EDIT : In fact, I need to create a c++ class which will measure time and be equal to a 1/600s. In French, pouième is a cute word which can means a very small but undefined amount of time . The issue is that I must write english code and that's why I would like to find a standalone equivalent. Answer A blink of an eye and a split second come to mind. Edit: If you insist on a single word, you'll have to go with an instant , or get creative and change the sentence structure to accommodate a different part of speech, like momentar(il)y .

I heard that the plurals of letters, numbers and words could be punctuated - with single quote marks on both sides - in this manner (especially in Britain): 'X's 'd's '5's 'thank-you's 'maybe's 'his's 'as's I am sufficiently aware that we could italicize the letter, number or word and follow it with an unitalicized apostrophe 's'. We could also use just one apostrophe: x's, thank-you's, maybe's. This makes 'thank-you's and 'maybe's look possessive, not plural. In the two examples I just used in the previous sentence ('thank-you's and 'maybe's), the insertion of a single quote mark before and after each word (followed by an 's') definitively defines the plural of the word as a word. The same logic is applied to individual letters and numbers ('9's, 't's). Bottom line, is my usage (albeit probably somewhat antiquated) correct?

Both words seem to be used interchangeably. E.g., I'm feeling lonely tonight. I'm feeling lonesome tonight. I guess I always felt "lonesome" was somehow more severe and heart-wrenching, but is there any real basis for that interpretation? It looks from google n-grams that like both have coexisted for some time.

I have a sentence where I think I could use either of these two constructions. They seem very similar in meaning, so I'm not sure which I should prefer. There might be some subtle point of grammar hidden in here, or maybe not, I'm not sure. The two versions are: This is sometimes also used to mean such and such. This is also sometimes used to mean such and such. A Google search did not find anything that looks useful.

I read at several places that "don't mention it" is equal to "you're welcome". But for me, the word means something like "don't go around talking about this to anyone". So what is the real meaning of the phrase and how does it fit in as a response to "thank you"? Answer It doesn't at all mean "don't go around talking about this to anyone." It is in fact much closer to "you're welcome." When you are telling someone "don't mention it", what you are telling them not to mention is the 'thank you' itself -- you are saying "Your thanks isn't necessary. I was glad to do it, so you didn't need to mention your thanks." (Note: This is just an expression. It's definitely a good idea to express thanks when someone does something for you; "don't mention it" really just means "you're welcome; glad to do it.")

Is there a word that describes that something has been named "incorrectly" on purpose (a sort of intentional misnomer )? For example, calling someone who is very tall Shorty (or something to that effect). Answer How about malicious malapropism ? [While a malapropism is usually unintentional, the adjective suggests the deliberate twist.]

Does the word "naughty" always have a sexual connotation if it is used between adults? I'd like to use it in a notification-text of a smartphone app, e.g.: No naughty apps selected , where it's supposed to refer to things like Angry Birds that you shouldn't play during work/class/etc. It's meant to be playful rather than sexual. Is this usage possible? Answer Of course it's not always sexual. Here are a couple of dozen instances of " a bit naughty of me ", within which I can't see that many (if any) have sexual connotations. Context is everything.

I’ve heard, on rare occasion, a subtle differentiation between be as a state (to passively embody) and be as an action (to actively embody). The latter form often occurs in parallel with do to add emphasis to the active nature of the verb. What do you do with all your money? Be rich. I be rich. *I am rich. What does the Pope do ? Be Catholic. He bes Catholic. *He is Catholic. Does he always be idiotic like that? Yes, he always does ( be ). No, he doesn’t always ( be ). *No, he isn’t always (idiotic like that). Rhetorical questions demonstrate a similar, possibly related device: Why don’t you be sure first? If I take the time to be sure, I’ll be too late. It is not at all related to African-American Vernacular English and its use of be as a tense marker. It’s also not necessarily indicative of a habitual action (e.g., (will) be ). Is this standard? Moreover, is it predictable? Could it be a vestige of a distinction that used to be marked in English but has since been

Merriam-Webster's Eleventh Collegiate Dictionary (2003) gives the following definitions for drone in senses derived from the word for male honeybee: drone \drōn\ n {ME fr. OE drān ; akin to OHG treno drone, Gk thrēnos dirge} (bef. 12c) 1 : the male of a bee (as of a male honeybee) that has no sting and gathers no honey 2 : one that lives on the labors of others : PARASITE 3 : an unmanned aircraft or ship guided by remote control 4 a : DRUDGE 1 [one who is obliged to do menial work] b : DRUDGE 2 [one whose work is routine and boring] It seems quite clear that definition 1 gave rise to definition 2 on the theory that bee drones are freeloading layabouts in an otherwise busy busy hive. But how and when did the connection to menial (especially) or routine and boring work arise? I had thought that perhaps drone as "menial laborer" arose out of the noun drone in the sense of (according to MW) "a deep sustained or monotonous sound"—but the dictionary says

How to answer a negative question without ambiguity? Response to “Would you not do it?” When a negative question is asked, what is the grammatically correct way to answer? If someone asks you Didn't you come by car today? , what is the correct answer?

I don't understand the difference between these sentences. Is there a special usage for each? I used to have three cats and I had three cats

My wife and I want to name our baby Ruud. Would we need to use two dots over the u so that people know how to pronounce it or is it fine the way it is?

I'm wondering whether I should use the present tense for a descriptive statement but in a past context. For example: (1) I went to the zoo and saw a giraffe last week. (2) A giraffe is a mammal with long neck. (3) It is the first time I see that animal with my own eyes. Statement (2) is a description of a giraffe in general, not the specific one in the zoo, so is it correct to use is ? Statement (3) is an event that is still true now, so should I use is and see ? I'm not native speaker so forgive me if the question is very obvious to others. Answer You're giving a descriptive account of a past event, despite the facts still being true, it would be advisable to use the past tense of verbs. Your 2nd statement is fine, as you're presenting someone with the character of a Giraffe, in case they don't know about the animal but after that the account relates back to the past event i.e your experience at the zoo. You saw the animal with your own eyes and it was the f

Is it acceptable to lowercase 'google' in all verb forms? For example: He googled the information. He is googling the information. He googles the information. Please google the information. Is it now acceptable to lowercase the word 'internet'?

Is there any idiom for doing something intentionally despite knowing the outcome might be bad, or an expression for a person who does such a thing? For example, I know that if I ask someone a particular question, I might not bear the disturbing answer, but I still ask the question. Is there any idiom for this kind of act where you know the answer wouldn't make you happy but you're still asking the question? In Urdu/Hindi, there is something similar, the translation of which would be "having insect". To make a sentence out of it, it would sound something like: "He has insect that's why he went to cinema" It means that the person knew going to cinema would generate some negative outcome but he still did.

On-premises ... On-premise I see these terms frequently used to describe software systems hosted within a company's datacenter vs. software systems hosted externally by a third party (in the "cloud"). The term is also frequently abbreviated to "on-prem" or "OnPrem" or similar with the same meaning. The full spelling is the issue. I take "premises" means the environ of a company or organization, whereas I take "premise" means the basis for a logical argument. Is there any valid usage of "premise" sans "S" to mean a company, or is it simply slangy misspelling of "premises"? Related: As the plural of "premise" in the logical argument sense is "premises", does this cloud the issue a little? Answer Premises is a curious word. The etymology as far as I understand is something plucked out of a legal document. ¹ On the title deed of the document, the land or buildings are described at the

Do you say IN one of the computers or ON one of the computers? Which is right?

In a recent question about comparatives , a dispute arose in the comments about gradable antonyms like useful/useless where English speakers strongly prefer to use comparative forms only for half of the pair. I proposed that this is simply an example of marked word pairs , a kind of asymmetry where one word of a pair is the dominant or default form for general use. Marking explains why we normally ask, “How old are you?” instead of how young. I think it also explains why it sounds awkward to say, “This is more useless than that,” unless we add emphasis: “This is even more useless than that.” Edwin Ashworth disagrees, claming: “ Useful is not an absolute adjective, whereas useless is. The opposite of useless is possibly essential. ” I take this to mean that useless properly has a complementary antonym like on/off or day/night, where the two meanings don't lie on a spectrum and don't normally permit comparatives. But essential and useless still form a gradable spec

Another thread addresses the Englishness of the words. My question is different and a lot more convoluted: I hope I can make it plain and simple. I. There are straightforward nouns of action and agency with roots in English verbs: procrastinator, loafer, snoozer. And other nouns that arise from augmented (let's say) forms of the verb. 'Commentator' is one such word: there's no verb 'commentate.' 1 'Orientation' meaning 'guidance' or 'adjustment' ("student-orientation week") is another, though hugely more vexed because there actually is a verb 'orientate' meaning to face eastward (both transitively and intrans). But I convolute. II. Not long ago, we had a thread about meter and foot in prose: iambic, trochaic, and who knows what else that I've forgotten since college. Arguably, as speakers and writers, we seem unconsciously to choose the iambic (say) over boring spondaic. As listeners, we perhaps naturally find t

My question is exactly as the title says. Someone used "optimum" in an email to me and in my response I used "optimal," so I began wondering what the difference between them is. Answer I'd like to add the following lines as an addendum to other answers. In some areas of mathematics, an optimal value is essentially a local optimum ; i.e. it's an optimum value in its neighborhood. For example : In parallel, the same applies to maximal and minimal values. In other words, a maximal value is essentially a local maximum ; a minimal value is essentially a local minimum . For example :

Is "volumn" a correct word? or there is only "volume" only, and "volumn" is just a spelling mistake? Cannot find volumn on any online dictionary.

Someone please explain why singular to plural to singular is correct. In my opinion, this makes no sense. Edit for clarification of what I'm asking: My point is that double linking verbs are not OK as they lack an object in between (and cannot share a subject or object in such cases). One of my sources for this is here: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/when-are-double-words-ok?page=1 And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_copula , which is partially relevant. Except that we're taking it to a whole new level by changing plurality of a word! Also: https://www.quora.com/When-did-the-double-is-usage-as-in-the-thing-is-is-become-common-or-at-least-unremarkable Same idea goes for sentences like " All there is is a cat " (which, again, I find ungrammatical) or " A cat is is all there " (flipped around version, or the predicate adjective form of the predicate nominative using the same singular form instead of going from plural to singular

I could not sleep ____ very tired . Here, I tried: I could not sleep despite I was very tired . I could not sleep in spite of very tired Which one is correct? Answer There is a thread on this on the English Language Learners site, here . Also, neither of these works in your sentence. You need to say "in spite of the fact that I was very tried" or "despite the fact that I was very tired". You could also say "I could not sleep although I was very tired".

In the United Kingdom, I would study maths; but in the United States, I would study math. What gives? Answer There's a lot of debate about which is right (!), but not much about why there's a difference - good question. I found this: The word Mathematics was first used in English in 1581, coming from the Latin word Mathematica. Since the -a suffix in Latin denotes a plural, the word was automatically pluralised when translated to English, even though the word itself is always used as a singular. The abbreviation "Math" came first. The first recorded usage is in 1891. The British abbreviation "Maths" is not recorded until 1911. Based on this it seems reasonable to assume that either both countries developed the abbreviation separately or the British picked up the American abbreviation but then chose to pluralise it. Unfortunately this information is unattributed, but it's the only theory I can dig up. In full here: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/15988#

I've been told that when "the" is proceeded by a vowel sound, like "apple" or "hour", it's pronounced as "thee" and not as "thu". But after listening to a couple of songs, I noticed that sometimes this "rule" is not followed. Take for example the two Katy Perry's songs, "Roar" and "The one that got away". In the first she sings "I got thee eye of thu tiger", but in the second she sings " Thu one that got away". I don't know if it was sang this way to better suit the song melody (I understand nothing about those techniques), but I got confused. What's the correct pronunciation? Thanks in advance. Answer You are correct, English speakers generally pronounce the with a long E (ði) before vowels and with a schwa (ðə) before consonants, just as we say an before vowels and a before consonants. However, the rule follows pronunciation rather than spelling. While words