Blog

I often hear news reports of rapidly increasing problems use the word "exponentially" for emphasis. For example, tonight's BBC America World News included a segment on the growing Syrian refugee problem, saying the number of refugees was "increasing exponentially". Now clearly this usage is not consistent with mathematically accurate usage and though I'm sure most understand the intent, it still bothers me. For reference, the number of registered Syrian refugees increased from 471,808 on 2012-12-31 to 2,241,100 on 2013-12-13. Neither "five-fold increase" nor "quintupling" seem to have the same impact. Can anyone suggest an alternative word that is not so mathematical in nature to describe such an increase? Of course, I'm looking for a word to describe future growth, not past. Answer There is no single word that is close to exponential . You are correct, of course, that the growth is not exponential. But exponential connotes a rapid ...

In the dictionary reserved means - not revealing emotions and formal means - prim or stiff. I saw they were synonym in the Google dictionary. What makes these two words similar, I wonder?

Which form of a verb should I normally use after "what you have done is"? Should it be present participle (option A), past participle (option B) or a base form (option C) : A. I wanted you to clean the whole bathroom, but what you have done is simply washing the sink. B. I wanted you to clean the whole bathroom, but what you have done is simply washed the sink. C. I wanted you to clean the whole bathroom, but what you have done is simply wash the sink. Answer Any of them can be used, though they come about in different ways. C . is the canonic Pseudo-Cleft (aka Wh -Cleft) construction, with an infinitive VP wash the sink as the complement of the Active pro-verb do required by pseudo-clefting. Note that one can optionally insert (or delete, if one goes to a different syntactic church) the infinitive complementizer to in front of wash . B . is a variant pseudo-cleft, a reduction of what you have done is ( you have ) washed the sink , with the past participle washed bei...

What is the difference between raise and rise ? When and how should I use each one? Answer "Raise" when used as a verb is transitive: it requires that you have a direct object, a noun of some kind that you are applying the verb to. For example, "I must raise an objection "—"an objection" is the object that the subject (I) is using the verb to act upon. "Rise" on the other hand, is an intransitive verb: it does not require a direct object; your sentence can be complete without one. "Please rise" is entirely correct and complete.

What is the correct order for combinations of suffixes -less and -ness ? Are they combined in any order, or is there any rule governing a proper usage? hope lessness help lessness But: weak nessless A side point; not sure if it is related to above. Although the suffixes -less makes an adjective while -ness makes a noun, it seems that people treat -nessless words as nouns: What am I missing? Answer All existing English words having both -less and -ness endings are of the XXXlessness sort; there are none of the * XXXnessless variety. For example: affectlessness, agelessness, aimlessness, airlessness, artlessness, awelessness, baselessness, beardlessness, blamelessness, bonelessness, bootlessness, breathlessness, carelessness, causelessness, cheerlessness, childlessness, classlessness, colourlessness, comfortlessness, curelessness, dreamlessness, effortlessness, emotionlessness, endlessness, expressness, factlessness, faithlessness, faultlessness, fearlessness, gracelessness, gro...

Both these phrases are correct, Give me it Buy me them so why are these sentences wrong? Give John it Buy John them In these sentences, "me/John" are both indirect objects, and the sentence format is same. So, why are former sentences correct and latter ones wrong? Also, Do it for me is correct but Do me it is wrong. What is the reason for this?

Conditional sentences not starting with “if” What is the meaning of this sentence - "Were it not for the bodies there on the ground, it would have appeared to be a normal day at the oasis."? Does it mean something like this - If the bodies were not there on the ground, it would have appeared to be a normal day at the oasis. Can anyone also explain the structure of this sentence and example of some similar sentences? Answer There are two fairly uncommon uses at work in “Were it not for the bodies”. Were here is the irrealis or subjunctive form elicited by a condition-contrary-to-fact: as you say, “If the bodies were not there*, this being contradicted by the (implied) fact that the bodies were there. As the links which tchrist has supplied will tell you, with this use the verb may be placed at the head of the clause, where it carries the sense of if : “Were it not” = “If it were not”. For here is used in a sense, little seen now, approximately equivalent to “because of”...