Amateur linguists Jeremy Smith, Richard Lederer, and Anu Garg have also referenced Nicoll's quote.
I think she was congratulating you.:unsure: I was. I really was. I didn't intend any snark, honest. It's just that the thread was titled "Dear Expert" so I figured that whomever answered got to be the expert.
Now I feel bad.
And after that, send me $30, because you can't be sure there are any diminishing returns on this method.QuoteNow I feel bad.
Send me $20. Charity will make you feel better.
Thanks Rivka. It was definitely worth reviving a five year old, two-post thread so that you could snatch the title of Expert from Jonathon.I'm Neutros the Radioactive Dragon and I endorse this snarky message.
It was a long time in coming, but certainly well-deserved.
If you don't intend passive-aggressive snark, you might want to avoid words like "snatch".I try not to use that word in mixed company.
If you don't intend passive-aggressive snark, you might want to avoid words like "snatch".I'll remember that, Rivka. Please believe me that I only meant it as praise. "Seize" the title? Would that be better? "Achieve" maybe?
It's still really hard for me to see how you could possibly NOT have meant that as snark.Because it was over-the-top for the funny?
Seriously, why was anything past "thanks" necessary?
I can't help but :lol: at the exchange.I'm not at all amused by it. I find the whole thing upsetting. I wish there was some way I could re-do it or undo it. Instead, everyone is watching and commenting on Rivka's hurt feelings and my embarrassment.
It reminds me so much of my own forum experiences.
Oh dear, Scott. Are you ill? Feverish, I gather?No,no-- I'm Fine.
Yeah, I think some people are just hypersensitive to perceived misuse of the word "irony".Which is just a tad . . .
Which is just a tad . . .. . . like rain on your wedding day? Why, yes. Yes it is.
Is there anything fugu doesn't know?Nope. He's our Expert du Jour.
In mod.Eng. the comparatives in -er are almost restricted to adjs. of one or two syllables; longer adjs., and also disyllables containing any suffix other than -y or -ly, having the periphrastic comparison by means of the adv. more.
I'm guessing periphrastic was one, but what was the other?Perhaps disyllable? I looked that one up (although I thought I knew what it might be), and the other.
Ding, ding, ding!QuoteI'm guessing periphrastic was one, but what was the other?Perhaps disyllable? I looked that one up (although I thought I knew what it might be), and the other.
2. Chiefly U.S.
a. Technical details or methods collectively; the formal or practical aspect of an art, science, or subject; (also) practical skill in the application of this. Now rare.
Largely superseded by technique.
b. A technical method; a scientific procedure.
Largely superseded by technique.
Really? I liked the hands. They seemed charming to me.Agreed. But speaking with one's hands is a common Jewish (and bi-coastal) trait; not so much among American Midwesterners. Which is why it looks normal to us, and not to Scott.
Emergency question!It's shorter than Whether he be.
If anyone can answer this by 11:00 my time (9:00pm in US Mountain time) it will be of fantastic help.
The students just took a test where the correct answer is an inverted form of the subjunctive (I don't even know if I'm identifying that correctly) and I need to explain why that answer was correct.
The sentence was "The business can help anyone - ________ the manager of a small company or a dentist working in a private practice." The choices include "he is," "if he," and something else, and the correct answer, "be he."
How on earth do I explain why we use that? I understand why we'd use the subjunctive there, but what's the rationale behind inversion like that? I've only really ever heard it used often in "be that as it may," as well as similar constructions as the question, "be he," "be it," etc.
speaking with one's hands is a common Jewish (and bi-coastal) trait; not so much among American Midwesterners. Which is why it looks normal to us, and not to Scott.
What kind of Southern are you?
The Southerners I know don't seem to speak much with their hands either.
I like this expert's answer to how to pluralize octopus (http://holykaw.alltop.com/octopuses-or-octopi-how-to-pluralize-octopus). It gives me hope for the dear-to-my-heart syllabuses.I hate that they make you watch the video to get the the answer.
Is this a word?
Merriam-Webster didn't think it was a word.
Our artwork has been showcased in many international magazines and newspapers including the Ensign, USA Today, the New York Times and the Stained Glass Association of America.
I'd go with Chicago but not necessarily the LDS church since we don't believe in heaven and hell, per se. I've never seen a translation of the Bible where they were capitalized, but again, LDS.
Did the Romans speak in italics or Times New Roman? Did the Egyptians speak in Papyrus?
I have a feeling that once Jesse realizes he could have been playing with fonts all this time, he's going to take to it with a vengeance, to catch up.
I'm not going to dignify that with an answer. :pI believe you just did.
Traditionally, initial articles in the names of periodicals are neither capitalized nor italicized (though articles in book titles get both—don't ask me why). So it's the New York Times but The Chicago Manual of Style.
I think if there's not a nuanced difference in meaning between two words that are the same word except for choice of morpheme, we don't need two of them.Sure, you don't need them.
But there goes the prescriptivist devil on my shoulder again.
I wholly support a large, gnarly language. The larger the language, the better, IMO.
While it's certainly possible to use those words together correctly, such as, "I can't hardly stand getting free money"I am unconvinced this is correct.
Technically speaking if I "I can't hardly stand getting free money." Then I can hardly stand getting free money right?
Nope. You just equated a positive statement with a negative one. Under the rules of standard English, this can't hardly work.
Is there anyway we can forever separate the words "can't" and "hardly"?
Nope. You just equated a positive statement with a negative one. Under the rules of standard English, this can't hardly work.
FTFY. ;)
I believe his wife already took care of that for you.Blammo!
I believe his wife already took care of that for you.Blammo!
I'm saying that the Norse are part of the Germanic peoples. Norse mythology is part of Germanic mythology, which actually traces back to Proto-Indo-European mythology along with Greek and Roman and all those others.Didn't see this, thanks for clarifying.
As an aside sometimes when I write out titles in quotation marks I know there are certain words that you do not capitalize. I'm fairly confident "the" and "or" shouldn't be, but is there a universally accepted rule of thumb for this? Also, did you ever figured out where the phrase, "Losing money hand over fist originated?"
Just giving you something to do all day. ;)
What I want to know is, what does it hurt having two different words for the same thing (assuming, of course, that they are exactly the same)?
It makes Porter twitch.Um, no. I was agreeing that we don't need superfluous words, but was gently mocking the idea that they're bad.
Okay, maybe that's an exaggeration. But -ist is often used with extreme or negative connotations, I think.Sounds like you have a extremist POV towards -ist. What is it with all these leftist revisionists?
In linguistic and phonetic studies a definition is often enclosed in single quotation marks with no intervening punctuation; any following punctuation is placed after the closing quotation mark. (For a similar usage in horticultural writing, see 8.129.)
The gap is narrow between mead ‘a beverage’ and mead ‘a meadow’.
Stop me if I've already talked about this here. Do you capitalize hell? Like, in an actual conversation talking about what people believe about who goes there. The internet is giving me all sorts of conflicting advice from various idiots masquerading as experts.
The Chicago Manual of Style lowercases it because it's considered more of a concept than a physical place...
I've never gotten frustrated with Quentin Tarantino since the only work of his I've seen was his supporting role in Desperado.
I do the latter, but I don't think it really matters.Agreed.
In the case of Galactic, LLC v. Saxon, Inc., it was alleged …
In the case of Galactic, LLC v. Saxon, Inc., it was alleged …
I hope you don't mind my asking this stuff. . . .
Why would there need to be an established rule?I'm Jonathon, and I support this message.
And if somebody has tried to establish one, they can stick it in their ear!
that my name is spelt just as it is in the Bible.Which is fairly nonsensical, since you don't actually spell it in Hebrew 99% of the time.
Seems pretty sensical to me, since most of the people he'd be saying that to are not Jews and thus would not think of the Hebrew Bible. :pExcept he has used it me and Esther. Multiple times.
I think we can safely assume that communicating clearly was not his primary goal. ;)Indubitably.
A savory moment of confusion and awkwardness often ensues.Trolling IRL.
The sign [¨] marking such a division [of one syllable into two], or, more usually, placed over the second of two vowels which otherwise make a diphthong or single sound, to indicate that they are to be pronounced separately.
If we called it a diaeresis, we wouldn't be talking about the mark used for umlaut as well.Which was pretty much my point. There are no umlauts in English aside from the heavy-metal kind.
Even if that were true, how many did it take to write all the quotations they use as evidence?
While I'm here, should I have written onto?
For the record, I just assumed* that you didn't know the English term for the mark and were using the French term, because I've done that myself. I was trying to be helpful, and I'm sorry if it came across as pedantic.
*You know what happens when you assume.
cannot is sometimes also spelled can not. The one-word spelling is by far the more common
I personally prefer cain't.I'm partial to avoiding the whole debate in favor of [/i]not no-how[/i].
Authors known only by their given names (i.e., and not by any surname) are listed and alphabetized by those names. Such titles as “King” or “Saint” are omitted.
Augustine. On Christian Doctrine. Translated by D. W. Robertson Jr. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1958.
Elizabeth I. Collected Works. Edited by Leah S. Marcus, Janel Mueller, and Mary Beth Rose. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
How did we manage to get gender-specific names for every relation except for cousins?In Chinese they have 'em. In fact they differentiate between paternal and maternal cousins as well as whether that cousin is the offspring of an older or younger sibling as compared to your parents. It's very confusing.
My take on it is this: if the in (or on) is part of a phrasal verb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrasal_verb), I leave them separate. I'd say that you ((log in) (to Amazon)), not that you (log (into Amazon)), if that makes any sense.I see no reason it should not be the second. The logic seems circular to me.
I'm saying that in my opinion, the syntactic structure indicates that it's two. I see log in as being a unit and to Amazon as being another unit.I understand that. I'm just not seeing why breaking it as "log" and "into Amazon" isn't just as valid.
I'm saying that in my opinion, the syntactic structure indicates that it's two. I see log in as being a unit and to Amazon as being another unit.I understand that. I'm just not seeing why breaking it as "log" and "into Amazon" isn't just as valid.
I happen to prefer it as "in to", by the way. I just don't see this as much evidence for going that way.
And where are you logging in?My answer would be "Into Amazon".
I assume you're asking about the comma before "or"? I prefer it.
As do all right-thinking people.
You're already pausing at the "or," you don't also need the comma.
Silly wrong-thinking people.
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e64/DEATHSTRIKE-117/ancient-aliens-guy.png)
Lay turns into laid, pay turns into paid, say, turns into said. Why not layed, payed, sayed? And why do we pronounce said very differently than laid and paid?
I'm not sure there's really a pattern there. Or rather, I'm not sure that's the reason why they vary that way.I'm not sure it is either, but I don't have a better explanation.
Stay goes both ways, staid and stayed. So I guess it could be a participle thing.
Lay turns into laid, pay turns into paid, say, turns into saidThis was the original set, don't these all work as participial adjectives, even though they can also be used as perfect indicative verbs?
I'm not sure I understand the question. The k in unbeknownst is silent.See I've never heard it said that way. I must have been hearing it wrong all my life.
That blows my mind. I've always heard it with a silent k and cannot imagine hearing anyone pronounce it.Ditto.
That blows my mind. I've always heard it with a silent k and cannot imagine hearing anyone pronounce it.Ditto.
That blows my mind. I've always heard it with a silent k and cannot imagine hearing anyone pronounce it.It's more the -be- in unbeknownst was said beh not bee, and when said fluidly it sounds like there's a k hiding in there somewhere.
I'll have to ask you to say it next time I see you, because I don't get how a k could be hiding in a fluid pronunciation.I'm coming over right now, for science!
Here's a question: what's the deal with discrete and discreet? Are they etymologically related?
I want benignant.You can have that when you learn how to benign.
Why is there malign and malignant but not benign and benignant? I want benignant.
Can you do anything, as a language maven, to make it happen?
(http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/graemlins/hail.gif)
I keep hearing how "irregardless" is not a word. How can it not be a word? It looks like a word. What is it, if it is not a word?Over my dead body.
How do new words get made legitimate?
I keep hearing how "irregardless" is not a word. How can it not be a word? It looks like a word. What is it, if it is not a word?
How do new words get made legitimate?
Flammable became a word in much the same way.But . . . that was before I was born, so how could it happen over my body, dead or otherwise?
Flammable became a word in much the same way.But . . . that was before I was born, so how could it happen over my body, dead or otherwise?
I'd say it's a little more like "GUR-tuh," but without the R, as if you were British.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbYBlzOHxiE
I'd say it's a little more like "GUR-tuh," but without the R, as if you were British.Yes, that's how my mom (who is semi-fluent in German) taught me to say it.
How do you pronounce it?Descartes:
I'm not sure what you mean by "swallow," and I'm not seeing how that's that different from the correct pronunciation. But I'd probably have to hear you say it. I'd say it's just "day-CART."The r stays in my throat as opposed to coming up into my mouth. I meant more your average person looks at me like I'm crazy. I would expect somebody like you and Ruth to know these sorts of things.
I'm not sure what you mean by "swallow," and I'm not seeing how that's that different from the correct pronunciation. But I'd probably have to hear you say it. I'd say it's just "day-CART."The r stays in my throat as opposed to coming up into my mouth. I meant more your average person looks at me like I'm crazy. I would expect somebody like you and Ruth to know these sorts of things.
Quick question. Does the word kind come from the German "kinder" so in essence child like?
Well that's the second time I've been called an idiot today. These things usually come in threes, so I wonder when it's coming.
Sorry if I'm reacting a bit strongly, I was already wincing from a comment somebody else made just minutes ago.
I'd say it's just "day-CART."And thus all the jokes about "putting Descartes before the horse".
Heh. I'll survive, I understood what you were saying. While I do think I know what my own mouth is doing, I know that linguistics has a much more consistent and effective vocabulary set for describing exactly what is happening. I couldn't really do a better job describing it because I was practicing R sounds out loud and people were wondering what on earth I was up to.
I guess Descartes makes me look insane in more ways than one.
Eh, I didn't know about my alveolar ridge until I took linguistics.Uhg I can't believe I had to check the prior page and it was my own post.
I would continue on in the prospect of honoring my family whom I loved so dearly
Pants, jeans, trousers, britches, Levis, dungarees -- they're all plural. But why. It's not like anyone ever has one pant, jean, trouser, britch, Levi, or dungaree. And I understand that they have two legs, but shirts have two sleeves, and blouse, top, shirt, chemise, and sweater are all singular. As is jacket, coat, windbreaker, yadda yadda ya.
Even underwear that has no legs (just leg openings) get pluralized: boxers, jockeys, shorts, panties. How is a person supposed to put on a pair of panties when there is only one of them? What are the two halves of the pair here?
Levis is a brand name, and is just as plural when talking about a Levis jacket.
It's actually boo-sher.??? ??? ??? Definitely not.
Definitely not the correct pronunciation, or definitely not better sounding?It's actually boo-sher.??? ??? ??? Definitely not.
I say it like this. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/audio.php?file=butche01&word=butcher&text=\%3Cspan%20class%3D%22unicode%22%3E%CB%88%3C%2Fspan%3Eb%3Cspan%20class%3D%22unicode%22%3Eu%CC%87%3C%2Fspan%3E-ch%C9%99r\)
You're half right.How much do I have left then?
Fortunately, no one has much cause to say butcher anymore???
You could even use both an exclamation mark and a question mark if you want.Only in informal writing though, neh?
Semi-formal? ;)
Of course, at least in the States, there's only one e in judgment.Which has never made sense to me.
You could even use both an exclamation mark and a question mark if you want.Only in informal writing though, neh?
Semi-formal is much more formal than business casual.
Of course, at least in the States, there's only one e in judgment. So both are wrong. :p
Which has never made sense to me.
*shrug*
I don't know of any hard and fast rule against doing so. But I'm not sure what kind of formal writing would include the sentence "How dare you question my judgement!"
Bull, dear, you were scouted by the St. Louis Cardinals, not “the then” St. Louis Cardinals. Believe it or not, they were called “the St. Louis Cardinals” only during their years in St. Louis (1960 – 1987), so there’s no risk of confusion with any “before” or “after” St. Louis Cardinals. If you need to rule out the baseball team, just add “NFL” or “football.” But otherwise, please — it’s a language; people use it to communicate. Show some care with it.
As the flag covers the United States of America, so I strive to inform the people in order that every man, woman and child may know that the FFA is a national organization that reaches from the state of Alaska to Puerto Rico and from the state of Maine to Hawaii.
But how do you strive to inform in the same way in which the flag covers the nation?
Well the FFA has a lot of symbolism that it likes to incorporate into itself, so since the flag represents the United States, and the FFA is a national organization, the reporter (the chapter officer who says this little speech during the opening ceremonies of a meeting) represents the interests of the FFA through various media. Therefore, according to FFA logic, the reporter is equal to the flag symbolically.
It just didn't sound right to me when the person acting as reporter would say it.
She's VP elect ;D
Though she's struggling in English.
the zone designates a geographic area, and you're not really talking about the area but about the time associated with it.That would certainly be my reasoning. I think adding the word "zone" sounds dreadful.
I, on the other hand, want to save daylight all year round. I appreciate sundown moved back an hour to give me more time to make Shabbos.I'm with her.
Home sapiens.
Whether in lists or in running text, the Latin names of species of plants and animals are italicized. Each binomial contains a genus name (or generic name), which is capitalized, and a species name (also called specific name or specific epithet), which is lowercased (even if it is a proper adjective). Do not confuse these names with phyla, orders, and such, which are not italicized.
The Pleistocene saber-toothed cats all belonged to the genus Smilodon.
Or maybe it's a type form that was developed in Italy. :p
Does that make sense? More importantly, would that make sense to a six-year-old and a four-year-old? ;)
† I used the -or suffix over the -er suffix because quote is of Latin origin. I hope you're impressed.
I'll admit that spellcheck is sometimes useful, though I often feel that its annoyances (flagging properly spelled words that aren't in its dictionary and so on) outweigh the benefits. I guess it depends largely on how good you are at catching your own spelling errors.
On any computer I have used Word for a while (and thus have taught the checker most of the words it doesn't know), I find it more useful than not.
The first 6 months on a new computer or new install are a PITA, though.
In Icelandic, ð represents a voiced dental fricative like th in English "them", but it never appears as the first letter of a word. The name of the letter is pronounced [ɛθ], i.e., voiceless, unless followed by a vowel.
The most refreshing part of the whole project was finally understanding what on earth Aussies are actually saying when they pronounce "no." (It's /nəʉ/, if you were wondering.)
The present study seeks to thoroughly explicate the principles comprised in these Mastery Learning approaches and to trace them through their trial by research, their successes and failures according to meta-analytic reviews, and their persistence into modern instructional practice, whether or not they are presently recognized as formal implementations of Mastery Learning theory. Furthermore, we hope to project these principles into future possibilities and determine what their potential to improve teaching and learning might be.
Personally, I think it sounds fine.I agree.
And some things sound less awkward because they just are.
From a word I keep hearing in the news: why is "magazine", that thing you read in the waiting room, the same word as "magazine", that thing that holds the gun bullets?It's also sometimes used to describe a place where things are stored. Such as powder magazines during the Civil War and earlier. Which of course Jon Boy's link mentions.
I came across a fascinating paper once that explained how baby talk actually creates familiar terms for "mother" and "father". "Papa" and "dada" have no etymological connection to other words for "father"; babies makes them up, and we take them to be meaningful and then expect later generations of babies to use those terms.I remember that. You either linked to it or sent it to me, IIRC.
but in American practice periods and commas always go inside, whether or not they're part of the quotation.Except for those of us who have rebelled against such insanity. Join us!
but in American practice periods and commas always go inside, whether or not they're part of the quotation.Except for those of us who have rebelled against such insanity. Join us!
Plan can kinda go either way.
Plan, plot, ploy. These words all mean similar things, are they all descended from the same word? Plot and ploy seem to mean plans where you are not up front with people that you have them. Plan can kinda go either way.
Why wouldn't they both be correct? One's a question, and one's a command, but they both effectively mean the same thing. Adding "please" doesn't make a command into a question.So how about, "If it pleases you, I'd like to ask you something."?
It depends on what you mean by "implied", but I'd say no. It's a conditional and a regular declarative statement. I'm not sure what the notion of an implied question has to do with correctness, though.I just have this nagging feeling that 'please' used to always making a sentence a question, but it's not used that way anymore. But thanks for your answers. You too Tante.
I just have this nagging feeling that 'please' used to always making a sentence a question, but it's not used that way anymore.
Right, but the "If you please" part is essentially asking a yes or no question.I just have this nagging feeling that 'please' used to always making a sentence a question, but it's not used that way anymore.
Nope. It just comes from the verb please and was used in constructions like "if it pleases you" or the older "if (it) you please" before being shortened to just "please".
I suppose it's implied, though it's not grammatically a direct or an indirect question. But why would that make you worry about whether it's correct?Because when I write and use that word, I keep getting a nagging feeling I'm doing it wrong.
Not really.Right, but the "If you please" part is essentially asking a yes or no question.I just have this nagging feeling that 'please' used to always making a sentence a question, but it's not used that way anymore.
Nope. It just comes from the verb please and was used in constructions like "if it pleases you" or the older "if (it) you please" before being shortened to just "please".
"It pleases me not."
"It pleases me."
While the BBC isn't infallible, they usually wouldn't get something like that wrong, so I asked.
Also, there are a lot of rules that Americans have latched onto that Britons don't know or care about.One assumes the reverse is true as well, though.
The teaching of English as a foreign language (EFL) in East Asia is a widespread and complex effort, comprising a variety of motivations, goals and approaches.
Okay, I see different variations of this all the time, and I realized I don't know which is actually correct. Is it:
if worse comes to worst
if worst comes to worst
if worse comes to worse
?
My gut says the first one.
I guess I'm the only weirdo who was totally sure it was "worse comes to worse."
But are there circumstance where "and" does not have to be preceded by a comma? I feel like maybe you have already addressed this.
So I was in a class and we were putting together an email. The writer started double spacing after a period, and I pointed out that that was not necessary, as we no longer use typewriters, so single space is now standard. This other guy in class told me I was wrong, and in fact double spacing is proper.
Later, in the same email, the writer wrote a sentence with the word "and" in the middle, and I felt like a comma would be appropriate. The same other person responded that a comma was not necessary before "and", and then went on to say I really don't know anything about writing. We'll ignore the cheekiness, as well as the single space rule. But are there circumstance where "and" does not have to be preceded by a comma? I feel like maybe you have already addressed this.
Are Japan and Nippon different names for the same place, or are they just different transliterations of the same name?Japan is what the early Dutch traders called Japan based on what they heard other people in South East Asia calling it. Nippon is the Japanese word for Japan.
Another question: Curriculum Vitae or Curriculum Vita? Why do I see both? I feel like "vitae" is probably plural but in that case why is it used?
In a discussion with my son, when he was politely disagreeing with me, he kept saying "Be that as it may . . ."
Be. That. As. It. May.
Expert, how would you diagram that?
Interesting! I guess you'd also say, "The United States was founded in the 18th century."
So we all just naturally started doing it that way?
Is this true in other languages or just English?
Sorry I should have said something earlier . . .
Sorry I should have said something earlier, but I felt like my inability to think of a word other than 在 "at" in Chinese was indicative of my being too tired or just plain ignorance of Chinese, not a limitation in the language.
But Annie is right as far as I know.
Chinese uses no prepositions for dates and times.
Japanese uses the particle "ni" for specific points in time. (It's the same particle that means, "in," "at," and "to" in other contexts). You use it in phrases like "I'm leaving AT 8:00" or "I was born ON June 1st" or "He died IN 1980." But you wouldn't use any particle to say things like "tomorrow," "today," "this year," etc.
So there's your input from some non Indo-European languages.
Chinese uses no prepositions for dates and times.
Japanese uses the particle "ni" for specific points in time. (It's the same particle that means, "in," "at," and "to" in other contexts). You use it in phrases like "I'm leaving AT 8:00" or "I was born ON June 1st" or "He died IN 1980." But you wouldn't use any particle to say things like "tomorrow," "today," "this year," etc.
So there's your input from some non Indo-European languages.
So if a samurai tells you the time does that make him one of them (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTQfGd3G6dg)?
You know how right can mean both the relative direction and also something that you're entitled to? I had the mind-blowing realization while trying to get to sleep that this same pair exists in both French and Spanish, though it doesn't seem that the words are related at all to the English right. (They're droit/droit and derecho/derecho).
Why would the words mean both distinct things in all three languages if the words don't seem to be related? (Well, the French and Spanish seem like they could easily be related but the English seems really different)
Also weird is that both droit and derecho can also mean "straight, unturning," though in Spanish you distinguish when giving directions by saying al derecho for "straight" and a la derecha for "on the right."
How did this whole mess of words come about? (I could etymonline it but I thought Jonathon might have some more thorough info from the OED so I'm not going to spoil the surprise for myself)
And then there's the separate meaning of "morally correct." Is that related too?
Crazy!I know right?
Once we have all the missing forms, we will be able to
Only once we have all the missing forms, will we be able to
Only once we have all the missing forms, will we be able to,
P.S.: I'd also take out the comma after the fronted negative clause, but I'm having a hard time explaining why it would need it in your original but not in the revised sentence.On reflection, I agree. With both parts. ;)
So "ain't" is a contraction of "am not" but how? Other contractions like "don't" "isn't" and "can't" all make sense. But how do you get 'am' from 'ai'? Same question for won't how did we get 'wo' from 'will'?
Dear Expert,
When did Dad and Daddy surpass Pop and Papa? The latter seem more old fashioned to me. Was it after WWII? Is it a baby boomer thing? Why would it change?
Soccer is short for "Association Football." It was known as soccer for awhile in Great Britain, but like the imperial system and Fahrenheit, Great Britain decided to hand those things off to us, switch, and then act like we're a bunch of squares along with all their other cool kid metric loving European football buddies.
So "ain't" is a contraction of "am not" but how? Other contractions like "don't" "isn't" and "can't" all make sense. But how do you get 'am' from 'ai'? Same question for won't how did we get 'wo' from 'will'?
'Plumber' is a gender-neutral noun. Thus, any pronouns that refer back to it must be gender-neutral as well. Which is the reason for the use of 'him/her' or 's/he' or even 'one' in some sentences. And although it seems wrong, use of the singular 'they' is another common alternative.
A plumber should really be more delicate when clearing clogged drains, especially when her tools are so fragile.
But how do you get 'am' from 'ai'? Same question for won't how did we get 'wo' from 'will'?
New question, if that's ok.
This is from a long debate elsewhere (in which I am a bystander, not a participant), most of which has zero to do with this point. But someone claimed that (details have been changed, but hopefully in ways that don't matter):Quote'Plumber' is a gender-neutral noun. Thus, any pronouns that refer back to it must be gender-neutral as well. Which is the reason for the use of 'him/her' or 's/he' or even 'one' in some sentences. And although it seems wrong, use of the singular 'they' is another common alternative.
Is that true? Is there anything wrong with the following sentence?QuoteA plumber should really be more delicate when clearing clogged drains, especially when her tools are so fragile.
New question, if that's ok.
This is from a long debate elsewhere (in which I am a bystander, not a participant), most of which has zero to do with this point. But someone claimed that (details have been changed, but hopefully in ways that don't matter):Quote'Plumber' is a gender-neutral noun. Thus, any pronouns that refer back to it must be gender-neutral as well. Which is the reason for the use of 'him/her' or 's/he' or even 'one' in some sentences. And although it seems wrong, use of the singular 'they' is another common alternative.
Is that true? Is there anything wrong with the following sentence?QuoteA plumber should really be more delicate when clearing clogged drains, especially when her tools are so fragile.
Sue, you seem to have poured several bottle of Drano down this drain before even trying your plumber's snake. A plumber should really be more delicate when clearing clogged drains, especially when her tools are so fragile.
There are many other country names that are habitually referred to with "the", such as Congo, Gambia, Yemen, Lebanon, Sudan, Netherlands, Philippines and Bahamas.
There's still The Hague and The Bronx. (Not technically nations, although the latter could be so argued. ;) )
Jonas Bronck was a Swedish born emigrant from Komstad, Norra Ljunga parish in Småland, Sweden who arrived in New Netherland during the spring of 1639. He became the first recorded European settler in the area now known as the Bronx.
The research rather shows they are potent alkaloids with side effects [that/which] should be used with care.(To me, "that" points at side effects and "which" points at alkaloids. This is probably obvious to some. Just in the past when someone started talking about that/which, my brain would switch into "I wonder what's for lunch" mode. Kind of like when people start talking about lay/lie. Not quite as bad as "who/whom" which is one of those things that make me want to shoot myself. To elaborate, if someone thinks knowing the difference between who/whom makes a grammar expert, it's going to be a long plane ride.
All three are apparently in use, and none of them are marked as regional or nonstandard. Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lilac) gives \ˈlī-ˌläk, -ˌlak, -lək\ (lie-lock, lie-lack, and lie-luck).I guess we know what you do "whenever you walk by a lilac tree."
I say something like "LIE-lucks," with a schwa for the second syllable, very unstressed. But I have heard both of the ones you describe as well. It looks like your pronunciation is the most commonly used one (http://www.merriam-webster.com/audio.php?file=lilac002&word=lilac&text=%5C%CB%88l%C4%AB-%CB%8Cl%C3%A4k%2C%20-%CB%8Clak%2C%20-l%C9%99k%5C).Yeah, that's pretty much how I say it.
All three are apparently in use, and none of them are marked as regional or nonstandard. Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lilac) gives \ˈlī-ˌläk, -ˌlak, -lək\ (lie-lock, lie-lack, and lie-luck).Interesting.
I've known several people who refer to Cub Foods as "Cubs." Drives mes crazys.
Supermarket chain. Wikipedia says they are only in Minnesota and Illinois.
Flux.They are not the same word. The noun form of fluctuating is fluctuation. The verb form of flux is also flux.
"It's in a state of flux."
"It's fluctuating."
Why don't we spell it "fluxuating"?
I'm not aware of any regional dialect with that feature. The closest I can think of is the way some people with the Northern Cities Shift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Cities_Vowel_Shift#Raising_and_tensing_of_.2F.C3.A6.2F) raise and tense the vowel in cat.
Something I liked to think about is that there are different scopes of complexity in the different languages. English writes everything with permutations of 26 letters, while chinese can express most words with a pair of radicals, but there have to be a lot more radicals to accomplish this. Likewise they have less syllabic diversity but more tones. It's not a concept* proper linguists put much stock in (at least in my day), but might appease her need for there to be an explanation behind the "Just so" ness of it. There are different article usages between English speaking countries, notably "in the hospital" vs. "in hospital."
*the concept I mean is that every language has some area of unreasoning complexity, compensated by areas of simplicity. Where this claim really jumps the shark for proper linguists is in countenancing writing systems. But I think this kind of thinking about languages helps break down some of the prejudice that accompanies language learning.
A place for public entertainment; (originally) a theatre or playhouse; (later also) a cinema, concert hall, or other venue. Hence: the audience or attendance at this. Also: a (specified) performance, esp. one that closely follows another, as first house, second house, etc.
I was listening to something this morning on Morning Edition in which the person being interviewed was talking about the centrality of bread in human culture, and the way all sorts of words are entwined with bread. He gave the example of "companion" literally being someone you had bread with. He said in the piece that he had literally written the book on the subject, but I can't remember his name or the name of the book, and I'm not finding any references to the piece when I look on the Morning Edition website. Are you by any chance familiar with it?
I was listening to something this morning on Morning Edition in which the person being interviewed was talking about the centrality of bread in human culture, and the way all sorts of words are entwined with bread. He gave the example of "companion" literally being someone you had bread with. He said in the piece that he had literally written the book on the subject, but I can't remember his name or the name of the book, and I'm not finding any references to the piece when I look on the Morning Edition website. Are you by any chance familiar with it?I don't want to be that guy, but bread is definitely not a central component of Asian culture.
tech·nic noun \ˈtek-nik, for 1 also tek-ˈnēk\
Definition of TECHNIC
1 : technique 1
2 plural but sing or plural in constr : technology 1a
Yeah, I think I'd probably break it up for internal consistency, even if "hairnet" is usually one word.
Ugh. I would keep the first one. "Is" is just a linking verb, but "Out" changes the phrase's meaning entirely.
Yeah, I think I'd probably break it up for internal consistency, even if "hairnet" is usually one word.
Thanks!
Another question, just out of curiosity. I just got a piece back from editing and this is one of the changes they made: "Lesson 5: When pH is Out of Specification" changed to "Lesson 5: When pH Is out of Specification"
I can't remember having ever learned a reliable rule for capitalizing small words. The most I remember from high school is "small words are left lowercase," which isn't exactly precise. What's the reason that is should be capitalized while out isn't? Is it something to do with the word's function in the sentence?
Like shave and a haircut? Or that's the end of the tune? It would please me to fill in with Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obaaaaama.That's the last few notes of the tune, and when I fill it in in my head, that's exactly how I do it.
Yeah, even if it's a real word, "presider" is weird. I don't think I've ever seen it before either.
1520s, from empty (adj.); replacing Middle English empten, from Old English geæmtigian. Related: Emptied; emptying.
A Master Sanitation Cleaning Schedule (MSCS) that identifies areas of your operation, equipment, and utensils that require cleaning and sanitizing as well as the frequency at which this needs to occur.
A Master Sanitation Cleaning Schedule (MSCS) that identifies everything that needs to be cleaned and sanitized (including areas of your operation, equipment, and utensils) and how often this needs to be done.
A Master Sanitation Cleaning Schedule (MSCS) that identifies the areas of your operation, equipment, and utensils that need to be cleaned and sanitized and how often this needs to be done.
Q. What's AP style for lowercase names for people? We sometimes come across artists who prefer to use lowercase names or nontraditional capitalization for their names. AshlE? What's the rule on that? – from Aurora , Colo. on Tue, Oct 15, 2013
A. AP generally uses the preferred spelling of the artist, as in k.d. lang and e.e. cummings. Nontraditional capitalization is also observed for performers and others: rapper DMX.
Hey, look: even the official AP Twitter account gets it wrong (https://twitter.com/AP/status/708299196042969088).
I am hoping you can assist me in determining the correct title for a Doctor in Pedagogy - honorary degree in Latin. In my search I have come across two different terms: Paedagogatus Doctoris and Pedagogiae Doctoris. Is this term gender specific? if so, in this case the recipient is male..
The –o that turns weird into the noun weirdo is thought to come from the Middle English interjection "o," and over time become an diminutive suffix. It's the same process that turns kid into "kiddo."
also forms nouns, usually derogatory, for persons or things exemplifying or associated with that specified by the base noun or adjective ( cheapo; pinko; sicko; weirdo; wino).
I just realized that we had fake infix "languages" that we used when we were kids. I heard several versions - one was called "Oppish" and was created by inserting the syllable "-opp," such as in "OppI'm Soppo hoppappoppy toppoo soppee yoppou!" The others were just a variation on the syllable you inserted. I always thought it was interesting when I was young how it sounded so complicated at first but then once you got the hang of it it came as second nature, both speaking and listening. But now I'm realizing we were just teaching ourselves a grammatical feature that didn't exist in English, but once it was learned, like any other foreign grammatical feature, our brains dealt with it just fine.
There are just so many dumb questions and so many dumb responses, and I'm only one man.Yup, that's Reddit. Quora has plenty of dumb questions too, but not the sort of flood Reddit has.
Seems like an appropriate time for a classic: The Alot Is Better Than You At Everything (http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html)Darn! beaten to it!
I think some of those are misleading or wrong.Ok, so it's not just me. Thanks.
. . . and the two cleaves are actually completely unrelated but homophonous words.
Specifically, a contronym is a word with a homonym (another word with the same spelling but different meaning) that is also an antonym (a word with the opposite meaning).
Generally, contronyms became contronyms in one of two ways: (1) different words with different etymologies converged into one word,
Can the adjective "piping" modify anything besides "hot"?Wouldn't that be an adverb?
I've seen that usage in places where a word is shortened, but the shortened word is not considered a "real" word yet.That's probably what was going on, originally, when telephone was shortened to 'phone and omnibus to 'bus. At least, that's my uneducated guess. :D
How 'bout that?
Someone tells you it's gross and gives you some gross examples, and then you think, "Oh, yeah, that is gross."
I am 100% with you on this.
I have a sneaking suspicion they are making it up and seeing if we are gullible enough to fall for it. ;)
Someone posted elsewhere that he learned from reading a certain set of (British) novels that you need an apostrophe when you write phone - or 'phone, as he wrote in his post. The references I checked showed this is not currently accepted usage in modern British English, but I'm guessing it might have been at some point. I can even see why it might have been.
The references I saw also used "bus" (shortened from omnibus) as an example of a word that does not need an apostrophe. But I think I may have seen in written as 'bus in some older literature, actually.
Any information on the history of this usage?
What is the origin of the expression of being "in good odor"? I just used it and my son asked me about it. I told him it was synonymous with being "looked upon with favor", but involved a different part of the face.
I can't find an etymology, though.
Some of them seem to mean something like "reputation", "esteem", or "aura". Those figurative senses go all the way back to the 1300s, so I'm guessing they already existed in French and then came along with the word when it was borrowed into English.Ah!
Someone posted elsewhere that he learned from reading a certain set of (British) novels that you need an apostrophe when you write phone - or 'phone, as he wrote in his post. The references I checked showed this is not currently accepted usage in modern British English, but I'm guessing it might have been at some point. I can even see why it might have been.
The references I saw also used "bus" (shortened from omnibus) as an example of a word that does not need an apostrophe. But I think I may have seen in written as 'bus in some older literature, actually.
Any information on the history of this usage?
Were they the Peter Wimsey novels?
Not allowing breaks of two letters or less sounds like a good rule to me, though. The two letter break does look very odd.Yeah, it makes sense to me too. It's not one of the ones I can't remember though. Those had to do with which syllables were accented or something like that.
Supplemental is just the noun with the suffix -al tacked on the end, which turns it into an adjective. It looks like it was actually used to refer to angles and triangles starting around 1700, but it began to be displaced by supplementary around 1800.So apparently I just don't have any old enough math books for a counterexample. ;)
It seems like possible mispronunciations would be the main appeal to school children.Nah. It's just silly and fun, especially once you have a chain with lots of people. Like this! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl3UT7HcdQU)
m-w conjectures:Spoiler: hiding my shame in using the literal dictionary (click to show/hide)