texts: How to distinguish and use the present perfect for the recent past?

texts:
I'm having trouble understanding and using the so-called “perfect of recent past” aspect on the present tense. I have three related questions about this which are in bullets, two here and one at the end of my post.

Is recency the only reason to use the “perfect of recent past”, or should we use it strictly when giving a new or “hot” information?
What exactly makes us choose to use the present tense with the perfect aspect added to it instead of using the past tense without any perfect aspect?  I see that the present perfect is widely used for the recent past, especially in British English.

You can find some details about the classification of the sorts of uses to which the perfect aspect is applied to the present tense in English in these two articles:

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:404674/FULLTEXT01.pdf
https://chelseadeekirk.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/have-you-mastered-the-present-perfect1.pdf

Should these six sentences following be classifed as a resultative present tense with perfect aspect or as a present tense whose perfect aspect is used for the recent past?

  I've found your passport. Here it is on the desk!
  I've attached the file (Sentence is used in the content of an e-mail)
  I'm looking for my pen. Have you seen it?
  Oh, I've dropped my coin!
  I've thought of something amazing! (Thought came to mind a short time ago)
  Your passsword has been changed.

I’m leaning more towards the so-called “resultative present perfect” with regard to the six numbered examples I've just enumerated above.

Could it be that there isn't even any clear-cut distinction when it comes to some contexts?

Editor’s note

To stave off potential quibbles, we should note that for convenience’ sake, instructional materials for English Language Learners regularly use the term “present perfect tense” as shorthand for the combined tense–aspect–mood construction of the verb’s present tense (where “tense” means a time-based morphological inflection of a single word, never a multiword phrase) plus the perfective aspect (which is not properly speaking a “tense” per se).

Although this is different from how the word “tense” is used in (most) materials more oriented towards linguistics studies, this shorthand does little lasting harm and avoids complicating learners’ lives while they’re focusing on learning.


texts: Can I say "What you are saying is ‘pants on fire,’" when I don’t trust what my elderly friend says?

texts:
There was the following sentence in the article titled, “Romney says inaccurate attack ad is fair” on IowaPolitics.com (November 23), which was studded with several expressions I’ve not gotten used to:

"What's sauce for the goose, is now sauce for the gander," Romney said. "(Obama) spoke about the economy being a huge burden for John McCain. This ad points out that, it's now your turn ... This economy is going to be your albatross."

  The ad was rated “pants on fire” by Politifact, a Pulitzer-Prize winning project of St. Petersburg Times that checks the truthfulness of political statements. This rating indicates that Obama’s words were distorted.”

I can roughly guess what the phrase, “What’s sauce for the goose, is now sauce for the gander. This economy is going to be your albatross," mean. We have a similar (I think)  Japanese saying: When you curse someone, you dig two holes to bury at the same time, one for him and one for yourself.

However, I’m puzzled about the use of "pants on fire" to serious issue like political and authoritatative research subjects, because my understanding of "pants on fire" is the phrase from children’s game or taunting – “Liar, liar, pants on fire.” Can I say "What you are saying is pants on fire" when I don’t trust what my elderly friend says?


texts:
I just read this sentence:  "Note that 'public' have also other usages:"  Since in this use of "public," we're talking about the word itself & not the group it's referring to, shouldn't the verb be "has"?

(Is "the general public" redundant?)


texts: Is there a single-word equivalent for "to approach for help"?

texts: For stylistic reasons, I am looking for a transitive verb, which could be used as a substitute for "approached... for help", as in "In difficult legal circumstances, he [VERB] a solicitor".


texts: A word which means the opposite of "something that works in parallel"

texts:
If I want to describe two things happening at the same time, I can use the words parallel or concurrently. In some cases, simultaneously would also work. More suggestions are available in the opposite question, already answered.

In technical writing, most of the time, it is sufficient to identify a process or thread that is parallel; a lack of parallelism is assumed in absence of specificity. But in some cases, the ordinary expectation for something is parallel, so the reverse requires denotation.

The word sequentially implies some of the same things as concurrently. But I'd really like a word that denotes the opposite and can be used in the same way as concurrently.

Here's a few examples:

"That procedure runs concurrently, so the system doesn't wait for it to finish before moving on."
"That procedure runs ???, so the system waits for it to finish before moving on."
"The math library does all of its processing concurrently, so matrix multiplication is faster on a multi-core machine."
"The math library does all of its processing ???, so it doesn't matter how many cores you have."
"The backup runs concurrently with the import, so the system doesn't experience any downtime."
"The backup runs ??? with the import, so the system will be down until it completes."

The audience can assumed to be reasonably technical, though not necessarily domain experts in multithreaded programming. (Bonus points if the word is also useful as a part of function names while programming.) This question is very well straddling the line between here and StackOverflow, but its more about English than programming, I think.

So, does the word I want exist?


texts: What is the female equivalent for "uxorious"?

texts:
I know the word uxorious that is used to describe a husband who dotes on his wife excessively. What is the corresponding word for a wife who loves her husband dearly? I cannot pull anything out of my memory... and I feel it is very harsh on men if such a word weren't there!

Example:

He was an uxorious man who assiduously took care of all of his wife's needs.
She was a __ woman who assiduously took care of all of her husband's needs.


texts:
One might want to use a generic pronoun, that doesn't specify the gender of the person. Although "he" can be used in such case, they decide that "he" still reflect the history time when male was dominant. After searching in the internet, they find the singular they.

The problem is, what they learnt in school is they only use for a group of people. Someone may not know the existence of the singular "they", so it can lead to misunderstanding. Especially when after the singular they, the verb doesn't change to reflect the singular form:

  When I tell someone a joke they laughts laugh.

So they want to know how popular the singular they get known in modern English. Is it safe to use it without any note?

Ok, I am them


texts: A single word for multiple things that supersede others

texts:
I am building a system for my company for our product versioning. Assume there are multiple versions and sub-versions of a product:

V1

V1.1
V1.2
V1.3

V2

V2.1
V2.2
V2.3

etc.

I need to filter on the latest sub-version of each 'full' version - V1.3 and V2.3 in the above example. It needs to be the same word so that we can get both to show in a filter. We have already agreed that in the above example, all old sub-versions (Versions 1.1-1.2 & 2.1-2.2) will be defined as 'Superseded'.

For the others, we have drafted some basic ideas:

Latest
Current
New

...but none of these really work as they don't apply to V1.3 - this is no longer the 'current' or 'new' version overall so would be confusing from a user point of view.

What is the best word to use in this scenario?


texts:
Is calling someone a dandy considered offensive or has a negative meaning nowadays?

English is not my native language, so I wanted to clarify this for me. I understand the meaning of the word, but I was surprised, when I was told that calling someone a dandy is considered quite offensive in South America. It's interpreted as "rich kid" and has a negative meaning. So I was wondering if it's the same for English speaking countries.


texts: "integer multiple" vs. "integral multiple"

texts:
Nine is an integer multiple of three.
  Nine is an integral multiple of three.

Which is more common?

If both are accepted, what's the subtle difference between them?


texts: Is "willfully disingenuous" a tautologism?

texts:
It seems to me that definitions of disingenuous such as the following might imply willfulness:

  adjective

  lacking in frankness, candour, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; >insincere:
  "Her excuse was rather disingenuous."

Is the adjective necessary?


texts:
"Debris are called toxins."

In this sentence, should I use "is" or "are"? I understand "debris" is an uncountable noun, so normally I would use "is". But I am referring to different kinds of debris. Toxins are referring to a collection of debris. So is "are" the correct way?

Or should I reformat this sentence?


texts:
I've searched a lot and found out that down with as a slang phrase means "being in an agreement with something". On the other hand, I know that it also means "death upon something".

So in a sentence like

  Down with war!

how am I supposed to know which one of these meanings is applied?

Has this term changed its meaning with time?


texts: "Cannot help but think" vs. "cannot but think" vs. "cannot help thinking"

texts:
Which of the following are grammatical?

  I cannot help but think.
  I cannot but think.
  I cannot help thinking.

I was taught (1) is not correct. Is it true? Or are they all correct? Is there any other way(s) to express what the speaker is trying to say using the words "help" and "think" apart from the three ways I mentioned?


texts: If I'm waiting for something happen and I know that it will happen in 3 months. Can I say "When 3 months run out I'll do it". Is that grammatically correct?


texts: Subject–verb agreement: "are" versus "is"

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  Singular or plural following a list
  My apples and orange are wrong

What is correct?

  Her ripples, her current, her momentum is the fountainhead of science.
  Her ripples, her current, her momentum are the fountainhead of science.


texts:
I am not sure about using this phrase "society economy" or "society's economy" to imply that the society provides the economy activities; the economy has been done by society.

Biofuel energy is a new challenge with great values for agricultural commodity in increasing society’s economy/society economy, particularly in rural areas.


texts:
The Past Real Conditional describes what you used to do in
particular real-life situations. It suggests that your habits have
changed and you do not usually do these things today.

E.g.:

If I went out with my friends, I usually spent the whole night out. I can’t do that anymore.

When I had time off, I always travelled. Now I’m too busy.

When he was younger, he walked everywhere. Now he uses his car.

I had more time for my hobbies when I was younger.

Check this sentence If I went out with my friends, I usually spent the whole night out. I can’t do that anymore.
What does it mean by saying "I can’t do that anymore." (what does "that" refer to?)
Does it mean:
A: Currently, I don't go out with my friends. ("do that" ="go out with my friends")
or
B: Currently, I do go out with my friends, but don't spend the whole night out. ("do that" ="spend the whole night out")

What about this sentence: "When I had time off, I always travelled. Now I’m too busy."?
This sentence is clear in that now I don't have time and thus I don't travel It does not mean: Now I have time but I don't travel even I have the free time.
Here is my thinking, but I am not sure I am right. They said: "This habit did exist in the past but does not exist now", then there is a good chance that the action in the conditional sentence (not the action in the main clause) did exist in the past but does not exist now. So ...

"If I went out with my friends, I usually spent the whole night out."
means now I don't go out with my friends any more.

"When I had time off, I always travelled."
means now, I don't have time off any more

I DO NOT think

"If I went out with my friends, I usually spent the whole night out."
means now, I still go out with my friends but I don't spend the whole night out any more.

"When I had time off, I always travelled."
means now, I still have time off but I don't travel any more

Because if that is the case, then they would become unreal and we would say

"If I went out with my friends, I would spend the whole night out."

and

"If I had time off, I would travel."

A man in this post said:
For the sentence "when I went to his house, I used to take a bottle of wine.", we could understand it as "Perhaps he moved away, you quit being friends, or he died. Your original sounded more like you quit taking wine on visits. But, either meaning could be used with either form. Context would determine what had changed."
He also said:

If I went to a friend's house for dinner, I used to take a bottle of wine or some flowers.
It's likely you still go to friends' houses for dinner, but you no
longer take wine or flowers. (Perhaps you are now in financially
strained circumstances and can no longer afford the gifts.)
If I went to a friend's house for dinner, I took a bottle of wine or some flowers.
It's likely you have stopped or reduced going to friends houses.
(Perhaps you have moved to a new location and know few people
here/your social life is less active.)
Again, these are connotations, not denotations: it is what
I-the-reader feels when reading the stand-alone sentence without
anything else to tell me what is happening. In a conversation, the
context, the background, the other sentences before and after could
make either sentence work in either situation.


texts:
This is one of the questions in an exam. According to the official answer key, correct answer is (B). But I found that the most correct answer could be (A). Can any one please point out the right answer with justification?

  DIRECTIONS: The following sentences are given in Direct speech.
  Change these sentences into correct reported speech:

  Q. He said to him, “ Is not your name Ram”.

    (A)  He asked him if his
    name was Ram.

    (B)  He inquired whether his name was not Ram.

    (C)  He said to him if his name was not Ram.

    (D)  He narrated him if name was
    not Ram


texts: What's a parallel for 'mitigate', for worsening a good situation?

texts:
I recently read an article claiming that employing some tactic was OK but could mitigate many of the good effects of the main action.

What word should the author have used, as mitigate means to improve or to lessen a negative, not to render a positive thing less good?

There may be no single word, but one keeps hovering around the edges of my memory...

EDIT:

Some have pointed out that this usage is correct because there is an authority for it. However, a survey of responses here seems to indicate that most people do not recognize this usage, and that view is what I'm basing this question on.

So to rephrase: what other word(s) could the author have used, to avoid confusion with the popular understanding of mitigate?


texts:
Please, help to understand the meanings of two sentences.

1) I found the rule about the usage of this pattern.

The only rule I found at all was about this pattern ?
About this pattern I found only one rule ?

2) I found a rule about the usage of this pattern.

One of the rules I found was about this pattern ?
About this pattern I found at least one rule ?

Thanks in advance.


texts: News lacks plural but what about TIDINGS?

texts:
News is used only in the singular (being one of the uncountable nouns).
There is an old-fashioned word meaning pretty much the same - tidings,
so my question is:

Is this expression used only in its plural form?

Its singular form exists, yes. But I have never seen expressions with

  I have a tiding for you
  or
  The good tiding

even though the singular form, as  Dan Bron noted, exists in dictionaries.


texts: How to name information that has to be provided to someone vs by someone?

texts:
In web app user interface I have a screen for a "task".
On this screen, a user can see a form with fields.
For each field user can indicate one of two options:

This field contains information that is required in order for the user to complete the task. E.g., a field named "Salary" may be required to complete the task "Prepare job offer email". And this field should be filled in by the other user, as part of working on another task "Provide compensation details for job offer".
This field is required to be filled in by the user to mark the task as completed. That is for data that would be needed by someone else on next steps.

I am trying to find a short way of naming these two options.
Option (2) is very common and is usually named as "required field" or "mandatory field". How can I name option (1)?


texts: What is the correct way to reference time zones in relation to an event?

texts: When referring to the time of a particular event, should I refer to the local time or the time zone most relevant to the audience or always include reference to the time zone? It can be further complicated when having to specify Standard or Daylight Saving times.  It seems that you would have to reference all times as Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) to avoid having to list multiple times.


texts: What is the difference between "brush aside" and "brush off"?

texts:
He brushed her ideas / accusations aside
He brushed her ideas / accusations off
She brushed him off / aside after breaking up

What's the difference between brush off and brush aside?

I looked the meanings of these verbs up but they're kind of the same.

  Brush off - refuse to listen to someone, or refuse to consider something.

  Brush aside - to refuse to listen to someone or their ideas.


texts: What is the correct romanization of the Russian name "Андрей" — "Andrey" or "Andrei"?

texts: What is the most preferable: "Andrey" or "Andrei" for the Russian name "Андрей"? Wikipedia gives both variants.


texts: What are some alternative words for "people"?

texts:
In the context of "people who learn a foreign language".

For example:

Most of the time, people learn a foreign language for professional reasons.

Which words can replace the word "people" here?


texts: Position of 'for' preposition in sentence

texts:
Which one is correct and why?

Reports are important for her to know for which categories money are
spent and how to optimise it.

Reports are important for her to know what categories money are
spent for and how to optimise it.


texts: So I would really like to know what this quote means by William Howard Taft

texts: "The intoxication of power rapidly sobers off in the knowledge of its restrictions and under the prompt reminder of an ever-present and not always considerate press, as well as the kindly suggestions that not infrequently come from Congress."


texts: I'm currently updating my CV. I'm not sure whether to say "assisted the staff" or "assisted staff". Could anyone explain me the difference between the first and the second expression, please? Thanks


texts: What's the difference in use between a strikethrough and an epanorthosis?

texts:
This question is inspired by comments from this post.

From what I understand, a strikethrough can act as an epanorthosis, but not the other way around. A brief explanation of my perspective is:

An epanorthosis is completely dependent upon the preceding statement, acting as to modify/correct what was just stated. And, it could be that the formerly stated expression was intentionally misspoken (Ex.2).

Ex.1

  Yeah, that's fine - no, great!

Ex2.

  Yeah, I know of Sigmund Fraud - I mean, Freud.

Conversely, I believe a strikethrough (can) exist completely independent from that of its associated word/phrase. The content of the strikethrough could be directly related to its associated phrase, or, not at all. Also, since the strikethrough comes before its association, the reader is forced to create a second train of thought (in a way, temporarily put that strikethrough in the back of their mind, since they see it's stricken) when going into the upcoming statement(s). And, as the OP of the other post states, people on the Internet use this all the time to introduce comedy, wit, etc.

Ex.1

  Earlier today I went to the grocery store and I just realized I forgot pickles saw my best friend from high school.

In that example, although the strikethrough is related to some other element within the sentence, by no means does it make any attempt to modify or correct.

Given all of this, what's the difference (if any) between the usage of a strikethrough and of an epanorthosis? Is my current distinction between the two accurate? Any kind of insight is appreciated.


texts:
very often we see the description like this:

Many people realize that they didn't do any wrongdoings, so they cannot understand why they have to be punished. or ...., so they cannot understand why do they have to be punished.

or we ask "why do you fight?" can we omit the "do",  say "why you fight?"

Thanks!!


texts: What is the meaning of "pole of time" here?

texts:
In the translation of a story by Daniil Kharms, I see the following sentence:

  Thirty-five poles of time elapsed and mine host brought Ivan Ivanovich his entrecote on a round wooden platter.

Two phrases are not clear to me in this context.

The first one is "poles of time". Does that mean "units of time"? If so, the sentence starts with "Thirty-five units of time elapsed..." which is not an unusual expression for a Kharms story (but, I suppose, an unusual one in general).

The second phrase is "mine host". Here, "host" is the host of a hostelry. Is this an old saying/ phrase that's used when telling stories?

The full text of the story can be found at http://chneukirchen.org/tmp/www.geocities.com/Athens/8926/Kharms/Incidences.html towards the end of the page.


texts:
Does an official set of production rules (formal grammar) for English exist? Something along the lines of:

Sentence -> Clause EndPunctuation
Clause -> Subject Predicate
Subject -> NounPhrase
NounPhrase -> Determiner Noun
            | Adjective Noun
EndPunctuation -> EndPunctuation EndPunctuation
                | .
                | !
                | ?

If so, where can it be found?


texts: Does the term "post-watershed" make sense?

texts:
If we were to regard a watershed period as a period between two distinctly defined epochs, would the adjectives
pre-watershed
and
post-watershed
be instantly recognized (by readers and/or listeners) as pertaining to, respectively, the former and the latter?
As in:

This is a post-watershed novel.
That's a pre-watershed painting.
I don't remember ever using pre-watershed technology.

To clarify:

Before the invention and commercial production of the paint tube,
outdoor painting (known as en plein air) was rare. Paints were
mostly made in the studio, either by the artist himself or his
workshop, and difficult to transport safely.
A brief watershed period followed the introduction of the paint tube
during which many artists found themselves adjusting to the new
possibilities, after which landscapes were suddenly all the rage.
New
techniques appeared and took root despite the numerous objections of
some conservative critics. Today, some post-watershed paintings
are valued as much as those of the Old Masters (including the entire French
Impressionism movement).

Or is there a better term?


texts:
In causative constructions, for example:

I'll have him do it for me.
I'll get him to do it for me.

What is the difference in meaning between them?  Obviously, there's a difference in register, with "have" being more formal than get, but I think there's a shade of difference in the actual meaning too.  I'm just finding it hard to pin down.
I have some vague ideas, but I think it would be more productive to leave the conversation open rather than prime it with my own thoughts and end up narrowing the topic.
Feel free to use any example sentences comparing the two verbs, not necessarily the above.


texts: What is English equivalent to 座右の銘 – a motto you always keep by the side?

texts:
I was interested in a word, “Refrigerator magnet maxim,” which I recently found in an article of some newspaper (I forgot what it was), and then quotes in google.

We have the word, 座右の銘 - zayu-no-mei, of which literal translation is a motto that you always keep by the side and ruminate over once a day. I understand Chinese have the similar word, 座右銘-zuoyoumin. For instance, 塞翁が馬 - Life is like Old Sai’s horse” is my motto that I keep by the side, and I use to tell myself whenever things don’t go as I wish.

I think 座右の銘 / 座右銘 have more serious tone and provide a practical suggestion to serve as a guideline in your daily life than a simple motto or maxim that comes into your mind from time to time, or “refrigerator magnet maxim” you casually glance at.

I’m looking for English equivalent to 座右の銘. What are they?


texts: What's the difference between "from the ground up" and "from scratch"? can they be used interchangeably?

texts: What's the difference between "From the ground up" & "From scratch"? both seem to have the meaning of "from the very beginning". Can they be used interchangeably?


texts: Why is Nebraska listed after other states?

texts:
I have noticed something that I do not understand: Why is Nebraska listed after other states that start with an N in their name? One example is on page 2 of the Don't Waste Your Money article J.C. Penny Postpones Store Closings by Sarah Kuta. It lists Nebraska after North Carolina and North Dakota!  In case the link goes stale, here is a snippet:

I have also seen this elsewhere when you have a drop-down list to select a state.


texts:
I found this sentence in a book:

A large percentage of the population smokes too much.

The author treated the phrase 'a large percentage of' as singular. I am so confused with the use of verbs after 'a large percentage of' as some folks on the Internet consider 'a large percentage of' plural.
Do we have any rules for the phrase? Thanks!


texts: Is there a term for a word inside another word?

texts:
Is there a term for a word that occurs unbroken within another word? For example, the word "fun" in "funeral", or "drag" in "hydragog".

The closest thing I could find from my search was the term "kangaroo word", which refers to a word that contains the letters of its synonym, in the correct order (though not necessarily consecutively).

I am currently using "substring" as a substitute in my essay. Unfortunately, "substring" applies to any selection of consecutive characters from the containing word, and doesn't convey the fact that the subset is a complete English word.

I have tagged this phrase-requests, but I would appreciate single words as well. I will have to use the term quite often, so the less awkward it is, the better.


texts: Origin of slang "doing a bid" for prison time?

texts: Going to prison is called "doing a bid".  What's the history behind that?  Is it based on "doing bird" (based on being locked up like a bird)?


texts:
I saw this quote:

  What kind of education does your professors have?

but this sounds incorrect, and I have confusion as to whether the correct usage is:

  What kind of education do your college professors have?

Which one is correct? Thanks.


texts: Meaning of the full title of Darwin's "On the origin of species"

texts:
The full title of Darwin's work "On the origin of species" is:

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

My question is:
Regarding the second part of the title (i.e. the subtitle), "the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", is it parallel to "the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection", or, is it parallel to "Means of Natural Selection"?
To put in another way, should we understand the title as

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or on the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

or

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or by Means of Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"?

EDIT:
I forgot a third way of interpretation:

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life)"

In this last case, "Natural Selection" = "the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".  It is somewhat similar to the second one.
Note that my question is not about the scientific meaning of the title, and I am not sure which way of interpretation is more scientifically sound.


texts: Is there another way to say 'working on'?

texts: Is there another way to say "We are working on to update our resort."? I do not want to use working on.


texts: what is the intent / meaning of the word unetymological

texts:
I understand that nonetymological / unetymological mean "not etymological" - i.e. something which doesn't have any roots in formation. But I am unable to grasp its significance - does it mean "absolute" words which can't be broken down, and hence have no etymology? Or words that don't have any roots (how can something not have any roots?)
I couldn't understand the intent of using this word in this sentence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphon

A siphon (from Ancient Greek: σίφων, "pipe, tube", also spelled nonetymologically syphon)...


texts: they are being removed or they are removed?

texts:
which one is correct

they are being removed from the black list?

or

they are removed from the black list?

i want to use a passive sentence to express the removal of something from the black list.


texts: intransitive verbs which become transitive if their "goal/purpose" is accomplished

texts:
I've realized many verbs follow an interesting transitive pattern, which I illustrate with an example:

Webster's defines wrangle as either intransitive dispute, argue or transitive to obtain by persistent arguing.

Is there a grammar term for this behavior?


texts: using "dear " for men addressing each other

texts:
I think for women addressing each other as "dear" is acceptable..but man-man is that  awkard?

And also for men to women or vice versa ?

Edit

I mean speaking and when you call a member of the opposite gender "dear" is it similar to the word "darling" but slightly less serious?


texts:
Anyone who's watched CW's Arrow would recognize this line immediately:

  They've got guns. You've got a bow and arrow.

They never say a bow and arrows. They never say a bow and an arrow. They say a bow and arrow, which still sounds idiomatic. I'm trying to make sense of it. These are the explanations I came up with.

arrow here is an uncountable noun.

However, OD doesn't list any specific uncountable senses of the word. And phrases like a quantity of arrow sound wrong. The Oxford Dictionaries entry lists the bow and arrow phrase as an example, though.

a bow and arrow is an idiom meaning a bow and a set of arrows (and maybe a quiver).

Again, I can't find this idiom under arrow or bow. So I'm not sure if this is right.

They're talking about just one arrow (which is on the bow at the time).

If that's the case, why drop the article?

Also, I can't think of any analogical phrases. Is a gun and bullet a thing? I think one would say "I've got a gun and bullets".

Please help me explain the singular arrow here.

EDIT: Just so it's clear, I'm specifically interested in the usage of a before the set phrase bow and arrow. And the reason for the singular form of arrow in the phrase.

Similar set phrases have been pointed out to me in the comments:

‘a knife and fork’: one fork (presumably)
‘a fish and chips’: many chips (presumably)

But: ‘a bow and arrow’: many arrows (presumably)

I'm still curious.


texts: Word or phrase to refer to self-employed professionals working from home in the UK?

texts: Other than homeworkers (which is vague), freelancers (which is, to my knowledge, US-specific, and non-exclusive to this), what other words do self-employed people working from home describe themselves, that are uniquely highlighting these features of their working condition?


texts: What is the proper proposition for "to reconfigure"?

texts:
Oxford dictionary has seemingly mentioned nothing, as I checked.

Could you please clear which sentence is sound:

1- The system must be reconfigured to another mode.

2- The system must be reconfigured into another mode.

3- The system must be reconfigured onto another mode.


texts: Adjective meaning reading "strictly for educational purposes"

texts:
I want to say:

  "I began reading this book with a ________ attitude."

Fill in the blank with a word that means strictly for educational purposes and not expecting to be empathetic. I feel it is just a matter of reading from point a to point b.


texts: Why is "that would be me" more certain than "that is me"?

texts:
I have been reading these two posts on would: Why "that would be me"? (part 1) & Why "that would be me"? (part 2)

If you want a domestic SUV, then the best choice would be the Ford Escape Hybrid.
If you want functional air filters, the best choice would have to be K&N Air Filter.
If you really want to use WMA, the best choice would be 2-pass encoding.
If you really need a fighter bay, the best choice by far would be a manta bay.

Very similar examples exist with present-tense forms of to be:

If you want real wood, the best choice is engineered flooring.
If you want to stay in colonial Quito, the best choice is the Hotel Real Audiencia.
If you want HD programming, Dish Network is the best choice.

The post and its comments say that with respect to perceived speaker (un)certainty, perhaps the preterite makes the speaker seem more rather than less certain, by emphasizing that the logic of the hypothetical situation is being carefully evaluated.
But I don't fully understand what on earth the logic here is. The auther mentioned this usage of would is quite fashionable. If so, it will account for the majority of would usages. Is it true?


texts: Is there a word for people who are afraid of change?

texts: We would like to know if there is a single word to describe fear of change.


texts: Word meaning "not normal, but relatively normal in context"

texts:
Here's a passage from a story I vaguely remember:

  The ritual involves gruesome acts like self-mutilation or
  sacrifice, but also some __ steps like standing on a skyscraper and
  humming for three hours.

I'm looking for a single word that I can fill in the blank. I've been suggested phrases like "relatively normal", but I am pretty sure that this was a single word.


texts: When was "in the which" correct English grammatical usage?

texts:
In the King James Version of the Old Testament, the phrase "in the which" is used in Genesis 1:29, 42:38, 19:29, 45:6 and Numbers 6:5. It is also used in the New Testament: Luke 19:30, 23:29, John 4:53, 5:28, Acts 17:31, 26:16, Colossians 3:7, and Peter 3:10.
The phrase "in the which" appears to be an archaic use of English that is no longer acceptable grammar. During what time period would this usage have been acceptable grammar?


texts:
I'm working through a book in which I'm to define words using their prefixes, suffixes, and roots, and I ran across "exigent."

  adjective \ˈek-sə-jənt\
  : requiring immediate attention : needing to be dealt with immediately

In the books glossary, the parts are defined:

  ex - out of, from
  ig - to do, move, urge on, put into motion, drive
  ent - that which, one who

So I put it together as "out of that which urges," but it still seems off to me.

I'm curious if anyone could help me make sense of how better to translate the parts into a definition.


texts: What is the origin of the phrase "sent packing," which is used when someone gets the boot?  I have seen it used a lot but would like to know where it originally came from.


texts: A word for something which occurs between the micro and macro scales

texts:
In a scientific domain, I am discussing a series of three concepts, each of which subsume the others, forming three levels. To make this clear to the reader I'm saying that the highest-level concept describes the 'macro scale' behaviour of the system, that the lowest-level concept describes the 'micro scale' behaviour of the system, and that the concept in the middle… is in the middle.

What I have already works, but it'd be more elegant if I could come up with something that sits naturally between 'macro' and 'micro'. Is there such a word or concept? Is there a handy metaphor I could borrow? In my writing I'm specifically talking about the differences between analyses of each of the three levels (ie: analysing the highest level gives you a wider understanding, while analysing the lowest level gives you fine-grained information at the cost of the big picture).

I won't reproduce my writing here, but here's a roughly equivalent example I've made up.

A nation's laws control its behaviour. The government makes the law. The politicians who make up the government propose specific laws (or groups of laws). The laws themselves set the boundaries of how the nation may behave. Thus the government represents the macro-scale behaviour of a nation, the laws the micro-scale behaviour, and the politicians the ______-scale.


texts: Is whooping ass and taking names a profession, pastime or a phrase indicating “that one has done well” in any type off generic undertaking?

texts: A commendation delivered to an individual who has done well can come in many forms. One of the fancy descriptions of excellence is included in the subject line of this question.  However, in the quest to use this phrase appropriately, how should it be applied?


texts:
Is anything wrong in this sentence?

  The enemy, beaten at every point, fled from the field.

According to my book it should instead be:

  The enemy, having been beaten at every point, fled from the field.

Why?

There is only one subject in this sentence, so there should only be one verb; that is, fled.

How can we use having been + the past participle?

What’s the difference between the two sentence structures?


texts: How to refer back to the final sentence of the last paragraph?

texts:
I'm wondering about the "distance" over which one may refer back to a point recently made. For instance, there are obviously no problems with the following construction:

"...therefore, Method A may lead to complications for Problem B. To address this, ..."

But when the two sentences are on either side of a section/chapter divider, one should update the reader about the subject at hand:

"...therefore, Method A may lead to complications for Problem B.

 Section C
To address the problem regarding the application of Method A to Problem B, ..."

Now, what about the intermediate situation when these sentences are merely split into two paragraphs? May I consider the concept of [the problem regarding the application of Method A to Problem B] to still be sufficiently "fresh in memory", so that I can refer to it as "this" in the next paragraph, or do I need to update the reader in a "self-sustaining" manner, as illustrated in the second example above?

In other words: I want to write this:

"...therefore, Method A may lead to complications for Problem B.

To address this, ..."

Can I?


texts:
The sentence is

  Most things I’ve built and am proud of, are a result of this philosophy

Do we insert a comma after "of"? I want the sentence to be coherent.


texts:
I am living in the UK, and I have recently started noticing quite a lot of people saying “bless [him/her]”, in contexts similar to:

— He has been doing poorly.
— Oh, bless him!

— She is so cute, bless her!

British dictionaries (Ox brigde) mention that this is informal language.
How informal is this expression, actually?
Out of curiosity: is it U or non-U? Would it be appropriate to say that at work (say, in an office/executive type of job), or is it too slang-ish? What does it show through (in terms of background) when one says it? Does it depend on the actual usage (e.g., OLD gives “Sarah, bless her, had made a cup of tea.” as another example)?


texts: What is the current status of the word "got"?

texts:
In my elementary education in 1960s Britain, I was sternly taught that use of the word "got" is strictly forbidden, on pain of punishment. We should never use "I've got a ball", it should always be "I have a ball".
Was that merely classism ("Only commoners use the word "got". It is wrong to sound like a commoner."), or are there deeper linguistic (and even philosophical) reasons behind this somewhat elitist-sounding rule?
For the record, my school was a village school in the middle of a deeply rural and thinly-populated area of the country, whose residents were mainly shepherds and farmers.
This question has been asked and answered before, but limited to the context of "have" against "have got". My question is wider, taking on the role of "get" as in "become".
"Oh no! The vampires are getting in!" (Wrong, said a teacher 50 years ago, you should write "The vampires are entering".)
Or "The water got in and ruined it" -- would you be expected to say "The water entered"?
"Get well soon!" and "I got better".
"Get real!"
What is the school of thought nowadays?


texts:
I'm a teacher at a small Swedish university, and I often communicate via email. In the beginning of a course, I tend to try to be somewhat formal, which isn't really my personal style, but soon I drop all the "Dear" for "Hi" instead. In class, I'm informal and quite personal.

My "problem" is the sign-offs. I've simply more or less had enough of "Regards" (although I use it anyway to be safe) but don't really feel too comfortable with BR/Best/Cheers either, at least not in the beginning of a course. (My students are all second-language learners of English.)

Any better ideas, anyone?

Stefan


texts: How can I say that someone's a perfect example of being able to perform a certain skill?

texts:
For example, Mao Asada is representative of triple axel.

Which is to say that she's a perfect example of someone who can perform a triple axel. Does it make sense to use: representative of (skill), being the epitome of (skill)? Byword perhaps? I know byword is used with a quality, for example "In Hollywood's golden era,"Betty" was a byword for glamour." how can I express the same talking about a skill?


texts: How would you describe the movement of a lever?

texts:
The story is that I was describing an action happens in the car park in class, and I got stuck, I said something like: "after putting a coin in the slot of the parking meter, then the lever would be elevated automatically." I still don't know which verb should I use; I've got a couple of candidates - raise, lift, elevate.
Which verb could be the best one? Or none of them is correct hh??


texts: The meaning of "undermine his image as..."

texts:
"But he did nothing publicly to undermine his image as Beelzebub or Mephistopheles..."

Does it mean that he never makes himself look like Beelzebub or Mephistopheles in the public?


texts:
I need a word that corresponds to the meaning of "probably wrong" (as said in the title). I can re-phrase my sentence, but I would appreciate it if someone knew of an adjective that fits the statement.

Here's an example of what I mean:
"In her utter confusion, she scrawled the [probably wrong] answers on the paper."


texts: Which article must be used here, a or an?

texts: Which one is correct: a r-uniform hypergraph or an r-uniform hypergrah?


texts: A noun for someone who is shamelessly uncouth?

texts:
I'm looking for a noun to describe the people who behave in certain tacky / uncouth ways. In particular, I'm not looking for a classist/racist slur, but rather something to more generally describe people who do culturally inappropriate things like take phone calls in movie theaters, play loud music late at night, or rev the engines of their expensive cars for attention. It should capture a certain brazen obnoxiousness and self-centeredness that would be considered embarrassing or shameful in polite society, no matter who does it.

Is there a word in American English that captures this sort of person? In Britian, I've heard there's "chav" which looks sort-of close. In Mexican Spanish, you might say "naco".


texts: What's a good adjective or phrase to describe your feeling when confronted with absurdity?

texts: Say, you're supposed to be very angry at something but the situation is SO ABSURD that it becomes funny and you end up laughing at it instead. It cannot be having  mixed or ambivalent feelings about it since you're definitely not happy about the situation but its absurdity makes it so bloody hilarious.  So how are you feeling?


texts: What's the grammatical object of "at" in "at 2-0 down"?

texts:
At 2-0 down with ten minutes left, you have to go for broke.

This is a structure at odds with what most learners know. Prepositions take nominals as objects, but here, what's the supposed object of the preposition?

I'm raising this question because I find this 'at' cannot fit with the rest of the sentence in a grammatical analysis. "Down" is like an adjective or adverb, and "2-4" is a measure of how 'down' a sports team is, like 'two years' in "He is two years old". But then 'at' does not fit!

I've seen such sentences as "Barcelona is 2-0 down with 10 men on the field" without "at", so I was wondering if "at" is necessary at all. If you think "at" is necessary in the original, would you also say it is necessary in "the bird is flying at 200 feet high"? This phrase parallels the first in that both involve a subject complement (high and down respectively) and a measure term of that attribute (200 feet and 2-0 respectively).

Here is another example:

  He is 6 feet tall.

No preposition is needed here, so why is 'at' needed in the original?


texts:
What is the meaning of 'gaze upon'?

Below is the full sentence.

But gaze upon things which although absent are securely present to the mind.


texts: “Non-rhotic” is to R-droppers as “non-?????” is to L-droppers

texts:
Certain speakers of English have a tendency to “drop” L’s that occur after a vowel but before another consonant, as in balm, calm, golf, gulf, palm, wolf, and many more.

Often these aren’t completely dropped, but instead change the preceding vowel a little bit. So instead of wolf, they have woof; instead of palm they have pom or pawm; instead of golf, they have gawf.

People who drop their R’s in a similar position are said to have a non-rhotic pronunciation there, or to speak a non-rhotic dialect.  What then is the corresponding term for someone who routinely drops their L’s, so “a non-????? speaker”?  Lambdacism and lallation seem like dead ends.

This isn’t a new thing either, considering the historical L’s no longer heard in words like could and stalk.  Whether it’s growing, I’m not sure, but perhaps so.


texts:
Why is this sentence using 'thee' (which is, afaik the oblique case) and not 'thou'?

The second person singular -in this case- should be the subject, i thought. The subject is the one doing the action, so i'd intuitively use the nominative case 'thou', but instead here the second person singular seems to be the object, in which case fare should be the verb which is acted on the object making it transitive.

Does that mean i can use the verb transitively? Like "i fare you!"?

Dictionaries say it's intransitive, which makes this sentence a riddle to me. Can anyone help me clear it up?


texts:
What is the word for someone who is in a condition of being stressed so that they are in a constant state of "the straw that broke the camel's back?"

I'm looking for a specific word, not a broad term. Informal is fine, so long as it doesn't sound silly, but I'd prefer formal. This is for an academic paper.

Examples:

"Ever since the CEO's business started failing, she's been in an irritable depression, because she yells at and blames her employees for every minor problem."

"My friend is irritably depressed from not getting a job. She just stays at home and yells at her mom for being unsupportive."

Examples of words to avoid:

worn-out
frayed
enervated

A "worn-out" person seems describe someone who is traditionally depressed. Someone who doesn't do much. Someone who internalizes their problems and blames themselves, instead of externalizing their problems and blaming others.

The words (to me) "irate" and "irritable" specify permanent traits about a person instead of a temporary, but long-lasting condition that are not tied into depression. Are they the words I'm looking for?


texts: Origin of 'a rising tide lifts all boats'

texts:
'A rising tide lifts all boats'  is a saying that has become more and more common in recent decades and is often used in economic and political contexts:

The aphorism "a rising tide lifts all boats" is associated with the idea that improvements in the general economy will benefit all participants in that economy. The phrase is commonly attributed to John F Kennedy who used it in a 1963 speech to combat criticisms that a dam project he was inaugurating was a pork barrel project.

actually:

according to Kennedy's speechwriter Ted Sorensen  the phrase was not one of his or the president’s own fashioning. It was in his first year working for Kennedy (during JFK’s tenure in the Senate), when Mr. Sorensen was trying to tackle economic problems in New England, that he happened upon the phrase.

He writes that he noticed that “the regional chamber of commerce, the New England Council, had a thoughtful slogan: ‘A rising tide lifts all the boats.’ ” From then on, JFK would borrow the slogan often. Sorensen highlights this as an example of quotes mistakenly attributed to President Kennedy.

Whether or not JFK learned it  from the New England Council, the saying appears to have an older origin , probably linked to the fishermen stories of that part of the East Coast.
Does anyone have more on this issue?


texts: Is it still an "ice cream cone" if it doesn't have ice cream?

texts:
I had a discussion with some friends yesterday about whether the term "ice cream cone" describes:

Simply the cone itself or
The cone plus the ice cream

Upon looking in several online dictionaries, I found out that both are acceptable definitions. Is there any sort of rule in English that describes this sort of behavior?

For example, a soup bowl may be described as a bowl intended for holding soup. If you take a soup bowl and instead put candy in it, which of the following is it?

Soup bowl with candy in it
Bowl with candy in it
Candy bowl

Surely there are other examples besides "ice cream cone" and "soup bowl". I'm just curious at what point the term leaves noun-adjunct + noun territory and becomes its own accepted noun?


texts: Is "not having...full time" partial negation or complete negation?

texts:
I got a bit confused by this sentence: "I’ve got used to not having a man around full time." I am not sure if it is partial negation or complete negation. Does this mean:

I've got used to occasionally having a man around, or;
I've got used to not having a man around at all?

Thanks. Here is the context:

  I’m a bit afraid of us being together all the time; he is full of vigour and I’m a tired middle-aged woman. And besides I’ve got used to not having a man around full time.


texts: What rule governs the usage of "by" versus "with"?

texts:
There are many instances where by and with mean something completely different, but which is the correct preposition usage in the following sentences?

A file by the same name as the original file.
A file with the same name as the original file.

Do the two sentences above mean something different, or can they be used interchangeably? What general rules (of thumb) govern the correct usage of the prepositions by and with?

If you rewrite the sentences to

A man by the same type of hat as the original hat.
A man with the same type of hat as the original hat.

then they obviously don't mean the same. In the former sentence, the man is next to the hat, in the latter, he is wearing or holding it. Is the distinction between a material and immaterial object of the sentence (in this case the hat, in the former case the name) what generally governs the correct usage of by and with?


texts: Why does the verb "succeed" change to "successor" as a noun?

texts:
Can someone explain the why the verb succeed changes to successor as a noun and not succeeder?

Why the double s?


texts: Meaning of the English proverb "Life is to death as pleasure is pain". I came across this phrase on a newspaper.


texts: Word to describe a person who tolerates other people's mistakes

texts:
A close friend of mine is a tech support and I'd like to give him card and compliment on his tolerance for (sometimes silly) mistakes.

I'm looking for a word to describes a person that tolerates others' mistakes. For example, this person might be a school teacher who wouldn't be angry because a kid made a mistake or a boss in a company who wouldn't get mad because his or her employees messed up.

I'm looking for something other than tolerant because I would like to be specific and narrow down the scope to be just tolerant towards mistakes.

On the other hand, I feel words like nice, patient, and the like all entail some level of tolerance towards others' mistakes. Moreover, this quality of tolerance for mistakes doesn't necessarily entail that this person is nice or friendly. It may be because it's his job and he's a competent employee. I may be wrong and this's way too specific, but I wonder if there's a word depicts exactly that.

Either noun or adjective will work! I just want it to be one word so it looks good on the cover of the card!


texts: How would you translate this Spanish saying "Sacar un clavo con otro clavo" to English?

texts:
Fellow English Speakers,
I've been trying to translate this common saying from Spanish to English:

Sacar un clavo con otro clavo.

However, I cannot find any translation that satisfies my curiosity, I read some of them from websites like this one:
https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/un-clavo-saca-otro-clavo.205744/
Some of the suggestions are:

One nail/poison/devil drives out another.
The best way to get over one man is to get under another.
The quickest way to get over one man is to get under another one.

Nevertheless, none of them is a good translation, in my opinion, you might ask why? In Spanish, the meaning of the saying is that is not a good idea to get rid of a problem with a new one. Let's take a real-life example of what I mean.
1st Example:

You're dating a pretty girl, but unfortunately, you broke up in a
very bad way and then you start dating a new one as soon as possible
in order to overcome your ex; nevertheless, you
didn't overcome the previous relationship and you're just damaging the other
girl because you took a fast and bad decision to start a new relationship when you still had feelings for your ex.

2nd Example:

You hate a job in the cooking field because you're not a good cook and
you resign from your current job, but instead of searching for a new
job in a new field, you get a new job as a cook, but as a Japanese one
and then as a Chinese cook and then as a German cook, in the end, you
are just trying to drive out a nail with another one, but the situation
is still the same one because you still hate cooking.

In the Spanish language, we use this saying in these kinds of cases. As you can see our meaning is that is a bad idea trying to overcome a problem with another one or get rid of one with a similar one, we don't use it to say you can overcome your current problem with a greater challenge that helps you "forget it". Thanks for your suggestions.


texts: How would someone summarize the phrase below if a departing employee receive this from boss: "Best wishes in your future pursuits"


texts: Historical connections between "carnival" and "cannibalism"?

texts:
This may be a somewhat disturbing question, but as a non-native speaker, the word carnival seems very similar to a totally different word called cannibalism.

I’m well aware of the difference between those two words, but I always wonder there are any underlying (historical) reasons that those two words happen to be similar at least in terms of the pronunciation.


texts:
I was wondering if the term has Indian origins? I recently came across it in the Animal Farm :

  "But is this simply part of the order of nature? Is it because this land of ours is so poor that it cannot offer a decent life to those who dwell on it? No, comrades, a thousand times no! The soil of England is fertile..."

This is a very common phrase in Hindi/Urdu - "nahi, hazaar martaba nahi !"

Note also that George Orwell was born in India.


texts: Is it correct to use IN with the Present Perfect Continuous?

texts:
Maybe the question is simple but I can't form a definite opinion about the issue in question. Some people say IN shouldn't be used with PPC others say it's OK.

1) He has been reading this book in the last two days. (I think it doesn't mean )

2) He has been reading this book for the last two days.

If 1 is OK would it be OK to add "three times"

3) He has been reading this book for three times in the last two days.


texts: What slang words are used in social networks with the meaning of "cool"?

texts: What English slang can be used in social networks to say that something is great and you like it?


texts: What does the expression “official mom” mean, that forced J&J to apologize and cancel their ad?

texts:
Related with my question about the currency of “sheconomy,” ”there was the following sentence in the Time magazine’s article – “Woman power: The rise of the sheconomy”:

  “Johnson & Johnson found out the painful way, with a 2008 Motrin
  campaign that followed the inner monologue of a mom toting her infant
  around in a baby carrier. It 'totally makes me look like an official
  mom,' she notes in a Web video before agonizing over the backaches it
  gives her. Some mothers felt belittled. Overnight they formed a group
  and gave J&J a Twitter headache as emotions escalated. The company
  apologized and canceled the ad.”
  http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2030913-3,00.html

What does “official mom” mean? Does it mean legally wedded mother of child? Why did the word infuriate a group of mothers?

Is there ‘unofficial mom’ as the legitimate word?

Is this expression current, apart from the issues of women’s rights or political correctness?


texts:
Below is an encrypt from John Lock's "An Essay on Human Understanding".

I am not able to understand the meaning of "without" in this context. The problem is that it's object is not mentioned. I viewed such an instance of "without" in Cambridge Dictionary, i.e,

"A long wool coat is a classic no wardrobe should be without."

But, here it is clear that it means "without it" i.e., "without a long wool coat". In other words, the object is removed here as it can be sensed from the context. But, I am not able to grasp what should be considered removed here?

  The mind being every day informed, by the senses, of the alteration of
  those simple ideas, it observes in things without; and taking notice
  how one comes to an end, and ceases to be, and another begins to exist
  which was not before; reflecting also on what passes within itself,
  and observing a constant change of its ideas, sometimes by the
  impression of outward objects on the senses, and sometimes by the
  determination of its own choice; and concluding from what it has so
  constantly observed to have been, that the like changes will for the
  future be made in the same things, by like agents, and by the like
  ways, considers in one thing the possibility of having any of its
  simple ideas changed, and in another the possibility of making that
  change; and so comes by that idea which we call power. (1690, Chapter
  XXI, Section 1, pp. 219–220)


texts:
What is the difference between not kidding and no kidding?

Is no kidding valid English?


texts: Is there a word for "doing the bare minimum out of the maximum that could have been done"?

texts:
Is there a word or idiom that would explain a situation where one has ended up doing the bare required minimum out of the maximum that could have been done.

Think of it as a person realizing the minimum (but still acceptable amount) of their potential.

For example "goldilocks" is a word explaining "the exact right amount", is there something similar for the above?


texts: What does the phrase 'for dear life' (for example as in, He ran for dear life) originate from? And when was it first used and became popular?


texts: A noun that really does not have a plural

texts:
I recently wrote an answer about the verb agreement when using the word "some", and I needed a noun that didn't have a plural. I had a discussion about this with David M, that has been moved to this chat room.

But we didn't really find a noun that absolutely does not have a plural. Do you know a noun that doesn't have a plural?


texts: Please find a word that it is not grammatically correct to begin a sentence or question?

texts:
Multiple questions herein ask "Is it grammatically correct to begin a sentence or question with X?"

So, I'm definitively asking, are there any words for which it is absolutely not grammatically correct to begin a sentence with?

I am not looking for a list, and I'm not (effectively) looking for a class of words, though that may be evident if a specific word is presented, but only as a part of

  _____ is an example, and words like _____.

I am not looking for discussion, either. I would assume the answer is No, you may grammatically start a sentence with any word. but would like to be proven incorrect.

Than any other question, this one should actually have an answer.

Also, no quotation mark tricks or the like. The word should have grammatical context and retain its own definition in place. Filling in the example also does not count for the answer. (Use, not mention).

The word should itself be grammatically acceptable. If ain't is not grammatically acceptable, then it ain't allowed as a word in this context.


texts: What's the difference between "colloquium", "seminar", and possibly other such words?

texts:
I was wondering what the differences are between

colloquium
seminar
and some other possibly interchangeable words you might think off top of your head ...

I get such notifications regularly from a certain person, and get confused when and why he uses which.


texts:
What's your opinion on using "there + (modal) + passive"? Is it natural? There are a lot of such examples in scholar.google.com (for example "there should be used", "there can be distinguished" or "there is applied").

  businessdocbox.com:

  1. There should be used arguments and facts.

  upol.cz:

  2. There can be distinguished 3 types of layer – an input,
  hidden and output layer.

  justia.com:

  3. Between the nipples 84 and 85 there is applied a tube 86 connecting these two nipples.

Thanks!


texts:
Though somewhat less coherent than previous chapters and suffering from a minor rash of academic jargon,the final chapter of the book is nonetheless accessible to laypeople.

what role is played by nonetheless here?
If the sentence would have been ..the final chapter of the books is ___ to layperson, then would impenetrable, suffice here ?


texts: What is the next word in the sequence Baby Boomer, Generation X, Millennials, ...?


texts: "Take a break of unknown duration" in formal language

texts:
I would like to express the following idea in a more fashionable and eloquent manner:

  leave on a break of unknown duration / take a break... / leave on
  hiatus...

Use of the highest linguistic register, highest level of formality and even archaic style are blissfully accepted.

Please be at liberty to change any part of this sentence and note as well that the duration is unknown and may span great lengths.

This is not a break from school, but a discontinuation of a certain activity for some time, a sign or a message, for example, to note one's leave.


texts: What does it mean to describe a movie as "perennial favorite"?

texts:
I have seen the word used to describe the movie "Bringing Up Baby" in a review on IMDB.

  Howard Hawks, the director of "Bringing Up Baby", was not a name one associates with screwball comedy. Watching this perennial favorite the other night, one wishes Mr. Hawks would have made more comedies like this one because he shows a tremendous capacity for entertaining his audiences.

Now, I wouldn't have given it that much thinking if it wasn't used in an example sentence by Cambridge Dictionary.

The film "White Christmas" is a perennial favourite.

Does it mean my "all-time favorite" movie?


texts: What does the term "street address" mean, as opposed to just "address"?


texts: Using the preposition ON in phrase" She shall receive % annually on the sum"

texts:
In legal Document there is a following phrase: " She shall receive % annually on the sum"
11 lawyers who read this document divided how to read it. 6 lawyers read it as she have to get SUM + % annually, but admitted that the phrase is ambiguous. 5 lawyers said it is clear stated that she have to get interest only.
If you put this sentence into https://grammarly.com/ it will tell you that using the preposition ON is incorrect and recommend to use IN,OF,FROM or USING a BASE.
For me it is make a sense, because the thous prepositions clearly mean she shall receive % only. The preposition ON in above phrase never should be used in LEGAL DOCUMENT, in my opinion.What is yours? The price on it may be very expensive. If you are attorney, or English Language scholar,  i would appreciate if you indicate it.


texts: Surname plural, Wolf becomes The Wolves?

texts: The Simpson family becomes The Simpsons, does that mean I can call a family with surname Wolf, The Wolves or The Wolfs? I don't know if changing letters of someone's surname is appropriate or not.


texts: It Is Imperative That You Be Not Afraid?

texts:
A question closed recently as proofreading asked about the grammaticality of the following subjunctive statement: They suggested that the washing machine not be put in that place.

To my ear, that sounded about right. But a comment was even more interesting: To me, this sentence is ungrammatical—it should be “…that the washing machine be not put there”.

This intrigued me, as intuitively I would not think to reverse the OP's order of not and be.

With very limited google-fu, I found sites that listed the negative in the subjunctive before the verb, but without explanation.

  The boss insisted that Sam not be at the meeting.
  She insisted that he not be present.
  Fred advises that Sue not take this job.
  They advised that he not return to work until fully fit. (<- BBC Learning English)

And finally (heart sinking) even found it here on EL&U where it was addressed in comments, but the accepted answer had zero votes.

Be not on the other hand, sounds fine in the imperative:

  If this fall into thy hand, revolve. In my stars I am above thee; but be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. Shakespeare, Twelfth Night A. II, S. V.

In the Bible, it seems angels and others are always commanding us to be not afraid:

  And the angel of the Lord said unto Elijah, Go down with him: be not afraid of him. And he arose, and went down with him unto the king.

Is there any reason besides the beauty of Early Modern English that be not might be respectably used with the negative subjunctive?


texts: "The time and place" or "the time and the place"

texts:
A. He still hasn't told us the time and place of the meeting.
  B. He still hasn't told us the time and the place of the meeting.

Q1: Which of the above sentences is correct and why? More specifically, do we say "the time and place of..." or "the time and the place of..."?

Q2: Do they sound unnatural or uncommon in any way other than what I already asked in question 1? For example, is it more common to say "the meeting time and place" or "the time and place of the meeting"?


texts: Can you say "Are they three" talking about inaninate things?

texts:
Are they three?
Can it be in proper English, things, or is it more correct to use "Are there three?" or "Are there three of them?"

Is it hypercorrection or some are more natural than the other ones?


texts:
The other day, my mother used a Hebrew expression I hadn't heard before:

  אִם בְּאֲרָזִים נָפְלָה שַׁלְהֶבֶת מָה יַגִּידוּ אֲזוֹבֵי הַקִּיר

It apparently comes from the Talmud, and its literal meaning is roughly "If the cedars caught fire, what will the hyssops of the wall say?", but obviously its real meaning is figurative. milog.co.il explains it thus:

  When the strong and the precocious are hurt or fail, one can't expect the weak and the simple to have a better fate. [translation mine, improvements welcome]

I can't think of an English analogue for this. The closest I can think of is to combine two expressions and get something like:

  If even Homer nods, what hope do the rest of us have?

Is there anything closer? (Or even an English version of the same expression?)


texts: "Aged" vs. "Aging" to describe someone's age

texts:
I'm just wondering if we can also use the word aging when describing someone's age as in this example:

  The study included participants aging 20 to 50.


texts: What is the best way to refer to the idiom "Keeping up with the Joneses"? I'm referencing the idiom in a paper, but not sure if I should include it in quotes or not in quotes, but italics.


texts: Punctuation of compound prepositional verb phrases: nothing, commas, hyphens or dashes?

texts:
In my English dialect, one can construct compound verb phrases with "and" like: "I cut and boiled the carrots."

This can also be used with prepositional verbs:  "He worked for, and stole from, his uncle".

However, I'm unclear as to how one should punctuate this.

Some possibilities:

He worked for—and stole from—his uncle.
He worked for and stole from his uncle.
He worked for, and stole from, his uncle
He worked for (and stole from) his uncle.

Opinions?


texts:
I was recently reading a book from sometime in the first half of the 20th century and I noticed that the word ‘someone’ was spelled separately as ‘some one’.

Was there an official change at some point, or what’s the difference?
Am I missing something?

(some one, help!)


texts: Is it okay to say "Yes you're." instead of "Yes you are."?

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
Is there some rule against ending a sentence with the contraction “it's”?

I was having an SMS conversation with a friend and somehow "Yes you're" came into play in retaliation to a comment.
Example:

Person 1: "You are bad at English".
Person 2: "No I are not.".
Person 1: "Yes you're".

Is that acceptable?
I would assume that it is.
Think of "don't".
You can say:

"No, don't."

or

"I don't."

and it is a contraction like "you're".
So, is it okay?


texts: Does "this is it," mean "this is the end?" How is this possible?


texts: Do we hang up a telephone call, or just "hang up"?

texts:
I have to announce a message on a call  that is like this

  Alert!! There is an alarm from the system,to disarm the system, press 5, to ignore this call , hang up!!

Is this OK?  should I use hang up the call or is the hang up enough?


texts: Are the dual transportation and learning meanings of both "coach" and "train" just a coincidence?

texts:
In a learning context, you have one individual who "coaches" and another who "trains".

In a transportation context, "coaches" and "trains" are both methods of transport.

Is this just a coincidence or is there some root to both words which can explain a link between transportation and learning?


texts: A word or expression for "an enemy who acts more like a friend"?

texts:
Is there a word, an expression or an idiom for "an enemy who acts more like a friend"?

First thing that came to my mind was "frenemy", but this word is more like a "friend that acts more like your enemy".

Update: I meant "the enemy is genuinely being nice", so a sportsmanlike competitor is something pretty close. The only exception is that the so-called enemy and the other guy are considered enemies by their closest associates as well.

I've been thinking something about gang rivalry, but with much less tension between them.

Update 2: To clear things out. Firstly, two people participating in this relationship seem like sworn enemies to almost everyone surrounding them. But that is not quite how things are, because this two people tend to help each other out in the time of need. Secondly, by gang rivalry I meant the kind of rivalty that happens between members of different gangs.


texts:
This article uses a phrase that started me wondering, here's the relevant quote (emphasis mine):

  So you're right. SQL -- the kind you write every day -- is ugly and
  awkward. In fact, it looks like hell on legs. And it's often pretty
  slow.

Where exactly did the phrase "hell on legs" come from?


texts: What are the origins of the phrase "operate on register[s]"?

texts:
I am curious as to whether this phrase gained wide spread usage after the incorporation of registers in computer microprocessors.

Simple example:

  Morality operates on a number of registers: age, religion, personal experiences.


texts: A universal term for "educación básica y media"

texts: I'm writing my curriculum vitae in english, but attended school in Chile. In our education system we have "educación básica y media". Those are the first twelve years of formal education before the University. I'm struggling to find a good translation for this term. In particular I'm interested in finding a term that can be universally understandable, independent of the particular schooling system of different countries.


texts:
In this article on the changes in English grammar the author says:

  How untrammelled the English passive is, may be seen in the fact that, not content with a construction like “A book was given him,” the language has devised “He was given a book.”

Can one really interchange the direct and indirect objects to get "Someone gave a book him" instead of "Someone gave him a book"? Does it sound informally, humorously or incorrectly?


texts: Word meaning "to begin simple but to become complex"

texts:
I'm looking for the word(s) that describes my current dilemma:

I have begun a project that seemed, at its outset, quite simple - tedious, but simple. However, the further I get into the project, the more complex it becomes; the longer I work on it, the less likely it seems I will complete it.

Is there a word or idea that describes this? It's like running at a speed of 10 miles per hour after something that is moving at 11.


texts:
I saw this in an upvoted YouTube comment:

To foreigners, a Yankee is an American.
To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner.
To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander.
To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter.
And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast

Is there any truth to the last three assertions?


texts: I received a document where one collaborator italicized aka and another did not. Should aka be italicized?


texts: If I change the part containing "conceivably", does this sentence still have the same meaning?

texts:
I found a sentence in my programming book:

  Note that the delimiter does not have to be a bracket and could be conceivably any character.

If I extracted the part:

  could be conceivably any character.

and I changed it to:

  could be any conceivable character.

will these two still have the same meaning?


texts: The choice between “frame” and "construct"

texts:
Early in the twentith century, Qichao in his works such as On the New Citizen tried to frame an ethics for the new society.

"Frame" vs "construct": Which is better when the job is some doctrine and theory?


texts: First, Second, and Fourth Bracketed Letter of a Word

texts:
What do the first, second, and fourth bracketed letters in "retreating," "the," and "to" indicate below? I've frequently encountered similar examples like these in others' writing. What exactly is meant by the use of brackets around the second letters of words?

Image below from http://dianahacker.com/pdfs/hacker-bish-cms.pdf — one of Diana Hacker's handbooks [reproduced under fair use]:

  A Southern reporter traveling with Forrest makes clear that the discrimination was deliberate: “Our troops maddened by the excitement, shot down the ret[r]eating Yankees, and not until they had attained t[h]e water’s edge and turned to beg for mercy, did any prisoners fall in [t]o our hands . . . .

References given in the PDF are

  18 Foote, Civil War, 111.
  19 Cimprich and Mainfort, “Fort Pillow,” 304.
  20 Quoted in Wills, Battle from the Start, 189.


texts: Word/Phrase for when you don't want something

texts:
Like if you were to tell someone that they had inherited a title or something like that and they didn't want it at all. Like they hated the idea of it.

The closest I've found is reticent but that's more about concealing true feelings, whereas I'm wanting it to be like profusely denying the thing being given.


texts: What does “Blood money becomes bloodied money” mean?

texts:
There was the following sentence in New York Time’s (January 9) movie review of “Cold comes the night” that came under the title, “She’s hard as nails, he’s noir and nasty”:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/movies/cold-comes-the-night-starring-bryan-cranston-and-alice-eve.html

  “The opening image of a snow globe can’t help but suggest “Citizen
  Kane,” while some gore-slicked bills may bring to mind “The Grifters”
  or another literal-minded entertainment in which blood money becomes
  bloodied money.”

I understand blood money means money paid to a hired murderer(s), but I don’t know “bloodied money.”

How different is “bloodied money” from “blood money” and “bloody money”? Is “bloodied money" a synonym of the preceding "gore-slicked bills"?


texts: Word for "parents with children who have moved out"?

texts: What do you call someone, or someone's point in life when their children have moved out and they have more time, or are willing to make riskier career choices?


texts: Is it wrong to say a serial killer “assassinated” a victim?

texts:
Assassin: “1.) a murderer, especially one who kills a politically prominent person for fanatical or monetary reasons.”
(via - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assassin?s=t)

Emphasis mine ^.

“He assassinated his fourth victim on stage from afar with a rifle shot.”
“He assassinated his fourth victim on stage up close with a pistol.”
“He assassinated his fourth victim behind stage with a garrote.”

I realize “killed”, or “murdered” might be preferable by some, or completely re-written, but are the above sentences otherwise improper in regards to the use of assassination?


texts: Why is "cupboard" pronounced with a silent "p"?

texts:
According to Google at least, the word "cupboard" originated in late Middle English as denoting a board that held cups. Since then, the word has evolved to mean a kind of cabinet.

My question is, given its origin and spelling, why do we pronounce "cupboard" with a silent "p"? Has the pronunciation simply evolved because "cup-board" is too awkward to say, or is there a deeper pronunciation rule that I'm not aware of?


texts: Is there a term for co-opting one word into a secondary, derogatory meaning?

texts:
Is there a term for when a word is co-opted and converted into a derogatory variant of the original term?
For instance, "OCD" is defined as:

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is an anxiety disorder characterized by intrusive thoughts that produce uneasiness, apprehension, fear, or worry; by repetitive behaviors aimed at reducing the associated anxiety; or by a combination of such obsessions and compulsions. Symptoms of the disorder include excessive washing or cleaning; repeated checking; extreme hoarding; preoccupation with sexual, violent or religious thoughts; relationship-related obsessions; aversion to particular numbers; and nervous rituals, such as opening and closing a door a certain number of times before entering or leaving a room.

But if you actually hear the term OCD it is almost always in a context similar to:

Lol, I always organize my library alphabetically. I'm so OCD...
I organize things by color. OCD, I guess.

This cultural redirection has very little to do with actual OCD but it is an incredibly popular usage.
The term I am looking for would fit into the following sentence:

OCD originally referred to a serious anxiety disorder but was [word] into a description roughly meaning "appreciates order and organization."

The reason I mention it being "derogatory" is because most of the time I hear this alternative usage it is a self-derogatory manner or somehow poking fun at a self-consciousness around the (not actually OCD) behavior.
Other terms I have heard get used this way:

retarded — originally a description of someone's IQ but now a blanket description for any foolish or stupid thing
ADD/ADHD — originally a diagnosis around having severe concentration problems but became a blanket description for anyone that could become distracted
dyslexia — originally a learning disorder focused on learning to read but became a description of isolated instances of spelling errors

This is somewhat related to How do words become derogatory or politically incorrect? but I'm looking for a very different word.


texts:
not available is not not/available, and not applicable is not not/applicable.

Why is it n/a?


texts:
Let me give you some context first:

Germans. We may have similar words with different meanings and use words just because they have a similar spelling.
software company, writing software for hardware devices which are connected to the PC. Not the usual office equipment, but industrial devices.

In our internal but also external documentation I often find sentences like

  This feature is part of the corresponding software.
  To be able to use feature XYZ, you need the corresponding device.

In almost any case I found so far, corresponding could be replaced appropriate and I wondered why I am struggling with the term.

One thing that came into my mind is the meaning of to correspond. A corresponding person would be someone who writes letters, right? The only reason that this meaning does not apply here is the fact that neither software nor device write letters. Then I conclude that the meaning has to be something else, e.g. appropriate. IMHO, appropriate makes me think less.

Is this only my lack of knowing the English language which makes me feel unhappy with that word in that context or would you also recommend replacing the word? Why? What is the slight difference and perhaps advantage of appropriate over corresponding here?


texts: Using exclamation points as part of a brand name

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  How to handle a name that includes an exclamation point (or other punctuation)?

I am editing a text about a product whose name contains an exclamation point as the final glyph. I don't think that the exclamation point is being used to convey emphasis of any sort. It's my thinking that the inclusion of the glyph was purely visual gimmick--distinguishing it from the character of "exclamation point". What is the protocol for punctuating a sentence that ends with this product name? For example:

The greatest product ever is MyProduct!.

Since I believe the exclamation point to be a glyph and not a character, thus meaning it really isn't being used as punctuation, is ending with a period here appropriate?


texts: Was “tickle (someone's) fancy” originally a double entendre?

texts:
Recently, I asked users to provide modern-day equivalents of idioms and expressions that contained the words fancy and tickle. The question is titled Whatever tickles their fancy in the US?

I was pretty much convinced that the idiom was quintessentially British, and that few American speakers had heard of it, let alone used it in their everyday conversation. According to Google Books Ngram, I was very much mistaken,  since the 1970s the idiom has become increasingly popular in the US (blue line) whilst the opposite is true in the UK.

Now for the fun part. Looking into its origin, I discovered that the idiom  tickles your fancy (which basically means “what pleases you”) was originally (?) a  double entendre. The term fancy was a euphemism for fanny which in BrEng is a vulgar expression for female genitals but in AmEng is another name for butt or buttocks.

In A Dictionary of Sexual Language and Imagery in Shakespearean and Stuart Literature By Gordon Williams, under the entry of fancy, it says

  fancy It means vagina, with a pun on the sense of sexual desire (cf. the current ‘a little of what you fancy does you good’), in Thornley's Longus (1657) p.124, when Daphni's seductress ‘directed him to her Fancie, the place so long desired and sought’.

Under the entry of tickle, page 1389, it tells us

  Merry-Thought (1731) I.27 records an ephemeral couplet of 1714: ‘Dear Doll is a Prude, And I tumbled her down; And I tickled her Fancy For half a Crown’. This quibbling phrase turns up in Maids Complaint (1684-6; Pepys Ballads IV.50), the maid enviously hearing “my dame Nancy declare how her Master did tickle her fancy With his dill doul; and in Unconstant Quaker (c.1690; Pepys Ballads V.241), where the Quaker maid was ‘left in the Lurch, after he had Tickl'd her Fancy’.

Unfortunately pages 1387 to 1388 are not available for viewing, so I have no way of knowing if the variant ‘Whatever takes your fancy’ was ever used in 17th or 18th century England.

Questions

Was “tickle [one's] fancy” originally a double entendre expression?
Where and when was it first used?
Did Americans use this idiom as an innuendo? Are there any examples from 18th or mid-19th century American literature (i.e. 1700-1850) that support this? Instances of tickle [your] fancy will also count.
Is there a term for an expression that used to be a double entendre but is now regarded as being "normal"?


texts: Can the word 'proficient' only be applied to humans?

texts:
Is the term 'a proficient system' correct English? Or can the adjective proficient only be used to describe humans?

At least one dictionary (NOAD) defines the word in a way that makes it seem more appropriate for people than for systems:

proficient (adj.) competent or skilled in doing or using something : I was proficient at my job | she felt reasonably proficient in Italian.

I can find the expression "proficient system" on the Internet, yet it seems to be mostly used in a technical context, like in these examples:

Note: ELK-IP232 Serial to Ethernet Bridgemay be required to connect the Proficient System to network.
We incorporate all these essential diagrams to make trusted and highly efficient products while creating solid and proficient system architectures.
The DT RGC180 Capture Cradle is truly a proficient system that will protect your investment and enable you to expand the scope of your digitization program.
Concatenand molecules of lambda DNA were formed even in a recombination dificient system (Int-Red-Rec-) in the late stage of phage growth. No significant difference was observed in the formation of concatemers between recombination deficient and proficient systems.

Are these bad usages of the adjective proficient? Or can a system be proficient as easily as a human can?


texts: Is there a link between Fenestrated and Defenestrated?

texts:
Normally, when you place the "de" prefix on a word, it becomes the opposite.  This does not appear to be the case with "fenestrated" and "defenestrated".  Why do the two words, which appear so similar, have meanings that are so different?

Google defines "fenestrated" as:

  fenestrated ˈfɛnəˌstreɪtɪd,fɪˈnɛstreɪtɪd

  Provided with a window or windows. "the fenestrated heights of nearby buildings"
  Having perforations, apertures, or transparent areas. "the capillaries have a fenestrated epithelium"

Google defines "defenestrated as:

  defenestrate diːˈfɛnɪstreɪt

  Throw (someone) out of a window. "she had made up her mind that the woman had been defenestrated, although the official verdict had been suicide"
  Remove or dismiss (someone) from a position of power or authority. "the overwhelming view is that he should be defenestrated
  before the next election"


texts: Is the following usage of the word "suggest" correct/common?

texts:
Sharing the first hours of the day with someone suggests you want to
  spend the rest of your life with that person.

Is it correct/common to use the word like this? Does it sound weird? If so, what's a more appropriate alternative (aside of mean)?


texts:
In my area of work the word author as a verb has become quite common. However, it seems to have a subtly different meaning than plain vanilla write. For example, one does not write software unit tests; one authors them.

Can anyone offer a clear distinction between the two words? Has author as a verb become a common usage outside of the field of computer software?


texts: Why is "albeit" pronounced the way it is?

texts: I've previously (and am now embarrassed because of this) pronounced this word "ahl-bite" and now realize it is pronounced "ahl-bee-it." Why is it pronounced like this, and not the way I previously pronounced it?


texts: Using 'lifted index finger', as an expression for 'being lectured'

texts:
In a document I am using a phrase for lecturing people, but I am not sure if this expression is actually correct English, or just used in Dutch and I am literally translating it and in English it's hardly used.
I am saying: 'I have had it with the lifted index finger'.
As an expression for 'I have had it with the lecturing'.
Is that correct English?
Searching I cannot directly find many hits on it, it might be 'wagging finger', 'fingering' in English for what I have found so far. Could a native speaker help me on this? I am eventually looking for some alternative for 'I do not like being lectured', since I already used that word.


texts: The words infimum and supremum are technical terms in mathematics. Should their plurals be infima and suprema or infimums and supremums?


texts: Is there a term for an offset quote that is only quoting the body of the text?

texts:
A trend in many magazine-style articles is to take a quote from the body of the article and place it in its own blockquote or other special formatting, then place it somewhere irrelevant in the flow of the document.

  SOME NON-SEQUITUR NONSENSE

Is there a name for this practice? It can occasionally add some context as an image caption, but most of the time it simply breaks the flow of reading with some non-sequitur nonsense, as above.

In all honesty, the whole reason I want a name for this is so that I can complain about it more effectively. I work at a publishing company, and I've seen this practice sneak into a few of our books. In addition, it's quite common in professional blogs such as The Verge, witness the obnoxious orange text splattered throughout.


texts:
deduce = 1. arrive at (a fact or a conclusion) by reasoning; draw as a logical conclusion:
educe = 1.1. infer (something) from data:
induce = 4. Logic derive by inductive reasoning:

Would someone please explain how [each prefix + suffix -duce] induces or implies their modern meanings (assuming  no etymological fallacy)? Since their prefixes differ, I scruple to believe in the equivalence of these particular definitions.
For example, de = from. Does this comport with deduction as a top-down approach ?
Whence does from originate?
Moreover, based on this suffix, what general lessons or patterns or shared properties can be deduced about all these words?


texts: Is the word "selfie" formal enough to be used in official documents?

texts:
I was asked to edit a translation and I noticed that the original English sentence is:

  Selfie (only) - You will only need to upload a selfie photo.

The context is the process of uploading documents to verify an account on a trading web application. Let's call it high-level financial business.

Now, I am not a native English speaker but this really sounds "wrong" to me. Rather than wrong, not something to write in this kind of context. I don't know how to say, it doesn't sound "serious".

Am I wrong? Is it actually a perfectly fine and professional-sounding word? My guess is no. Moreover, I think that the word selfie is also too generic for what I believe is the purpose of the picture in question. A selfie could be anything (expression, posture, background, etc) as long as it's self-taken.

In case I'm right, what would be a better alternative? Self portrait? Headshot? Passport photo?

Thank you.


texts:
In Hebrew there is an idiom that translates to English like this: "To go without and to feel with". The usual meaning is that one doesn't have some object or ability but is nevertheless is able to act or to be perceived as if one did have the object or ability. An element of deception is usually not involved, at least not overtly.

EXAMPLES:
For instance, you can use it in engineering when you use an approximate method to get cheaply/quickly an otherwise expensive outcome.

Another usage example from a random search: I found an article with this idiom as its title. It refers to the USA going without but feeling with in the wake of the 2011 credit downrating. The idea is that although the USA no longer has stellar credit rating it is still able to borrow money as cheaply as before.


texts: Correlate is to Correlation as X is to Causation

texts:
When A is correlated with B, it means A shares 1 or more properties with B.¹

On the other hand, if A causes B, it means there's a causation between them.²

What I would like to know is the word that fills in the blank, as follows:

The storm clouds were correlated with the death of my loved one because she died within 5 minutes of them appearing. But the dagger in her back was __________ with the tragedy because it was found to cause fatal blood loss.

In other words, what is the verb form of causation? I know cause fits, but that doesn't always work. For instance, in a chain of events A, B, C, D... and so forth, unless I set two different definitions for the verb, cause, I won't necessarily be able to know whether I'm talking about what Element F did to Element G or about the number of direct causal relationships there are among some number of these elements.

I looked on the OED (click small insert to enlarge):

and saw that causate might be the case, but found it's not because I'm not looking for a word that means "to cause", merely "to have a causal relationship with".

Basically, I want to know the opposite of the phrase, is correlated with.

¹ For example, if a leaf is green and so is your car, they are correlated because they both share the same colour property. If you went to the store at the same time a storm happened, your trip to the store would correlate with the storm because their time value would be identical.

(Of course, as the trip to the store did not cause or imply the coming of the storm, nor had the leaf being green caused or implied your car to be green, this correlation does not imply a causation between them.)

² Strictly formulated, it would be that a change in 1 or more properties in A directly produces a change in 1 or more properties in B.


texts:
Being a non-native English speaker (and not good at English too), I am bit confused about the use of not with currently.

For Example: In my Visual Studio tool, I got a message -

  This key combination is bound to a command which is not currently
  available

I haven't seen many instances of this kind where the use of not before currently rather it is commonly written as

  This key combination is bound to a command which is currently not
  available

Now, If both of them are correct then why such two different usage?
Do they convey different meanings?

Thanks in advance for any help !


texts: What's the word for someone who pretends to buy something from a street-seller, in order to draw other people?

texts: So there's a guy on Oxford Street in London who's always shouting through a PA system from his shop that they're "closing down tomorrow" and all their crappy perfume is on sale. I walk past this place every day and I realised that just as he opens the shop, two people with sullen expressions turn up, say a few words to him, then stand in front of him with fake smiles pretending to offer him money for stuff. It's a typical East End wide boy scam. I know there's a word for people who do this - I'd read it somewhere but have since forgotten it. What is it?


texts:
I'd like to express the concept that someone prefers trusting facts in lieu of interpretations. I'm no native speaker, so I've checked several websites for the idiom but with no result. Is it possible to say

he favours/privileges facts over interpretations

What will be the best way to express the concept? Thank you.


texts: Can anyone explain the meaning of this statement?

texts:
The land described herein shall not be deemed to include any house trailer or mobile home standing on said
premises.


texts:
In the following sentence:

  I almost forgot she has/had a little sister.

The sister in question is alive.

In such context, should I use has (as in still has a living sister) or had (as in a follow-up of the past tense of the word forgot)?


texts: What meant Winston Churchill by 'consideration'?

texts:
I know that these olden valedictions are phatic expressions, but I still fancy knowing:

which definition of 'consideration' fits? Does "consider" here mean (1.1) "turn over in one's mind" or (1.2) "regard a certain way"? Or something else?
For what has the writer "high consideration"?

  [ Source : ] I have the honour to be, with high consideration,

              Sir,
              Your obedient servant,
              Winston S. Churchill[1]

More olden valedictions with 'consideration': 'with consideration', 'with high consideration'.