texts:
I know I'm splitting hairs over here but can someone confirm with me the difference between "Observe" and "Observate".

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/observate

I feel there is a very fine difference between the two words. The first one "Observe" feels more general, looking at a whole scene with many elements, whereas "Observate" has a slight scientific tone and focus on looking at only one particular element (i.e. ignoring irrelevant stuff in the scene background).

I ran a google search before posting this and saw many sources using the word “observate” including an entry in the online Oxford dictionary. I also vaguely remember this word from chemistry class at school. Hence my confusion.


texts: Does ‘around’ in "mess/ play/ fool (around) with" alter the meaning in any way?

texts:
They mean various things and are used in manifold contexts – from fiddling with one's food, or a rubber band because nervousness, or a switch – to using without permission and messing up one's camera, toying with the idea of doing something, or tinkering with,experimenting with, arranging, trying something various ways to see what works best or better figure out how it works, - and having an affair with or making out with someone in a car etc and so on.

In many cases I had the idea that only, for instance, play/ mess with or play/mess around with works, but I've been going through various dictionaries - Webster,Oxford, Cambridge, the Freedictionary, Longman, Collins etc – and there seems to be no difference, with them being used interchangeably and around not changing anything.

Specific examples:

Macmillan lists "fool around" as "fool around or fool about [British] or fool with" [one under the other];

Webster lists "fool around with" and "fool with" with common definitions and examples in some cases:

fool with something: to handle or play with (something) in a careless way : Don't fool with that gun.
fool around with something: to handle or play with (something) in a careless or foolish way:  Don't fool around with that gun.

Cambridge lists fool around with as "fool (around) with" - around being in parentheses, which would suggest it's optional, for all intents and purposes.

To give you a few examples [every two sentences have virtually the same meaning, though one uses "around" and the other doesn't) :

I can play around with the pictures to make them more eye-catching.
Play with the design onscreen, moving text and pictures until you get a pleasing arrangement.
The supervisor played around with our work schedules this week.
We're playing with a few different solutions to the problem.
I spent the evening playing around on the piano/computer/Internet.
Play around with the ingredients if you like.
He played with many different hairstyles before choosing one he liked.
I'm not really a painter; I just like to play around with paints.
I've been playing with designs for my company logo— which one do you like best?
Hey, don't mess with the thermostat—it needs to stay at 65 degrees.
Hey, don't mess around with the thermostat—it needs to stay at 65 degrees. [ACTUALLY the very same sentence!]
Don't mess with the camera.
Who’s been messing around with my camera?
We played around with the idea for a while but eventually realized that it just wouldn't work.
After university, I played with the idea of teaching English in China.
I was just playing with you when I said I was angry.
You’re playing around with me. Leave me alone.
Don't mess around with the ashtray. You'll break it
Stop playing with the light switch!
I wish you wouldn't play around with that - you'll break it.
Please don't play with that crystal vase.
Did she really ask you about me, or are you fucking around with me?
Come on, don't fuck with me. Did Tina really ask about me?

My question is does "around" change the meaning of the construction in any way that I should keep in mind? Since dictionaries aren't always completely accurate and reflective of common usage, do you make a distinction between fool/mess/play with and fool/mess/ play around with in you daily speech?


texts: What's the word which means something that can be used in many different situations?

texts: I've been trying to think of this word for hours and it's really annoying me!


texts: Is it "arrange things in drawer" or "organize my drawer"?

texts:
I recently used the phrase "start arranging things" (in my recently built drawer) while the native American English speaker replied with "you mean organize?"

What is the correct usage or are they both equivalent and are in fact correct spoken English?


texts:
For these two sentences, why do we need to use "he was" and "it is"? What two things are being compared in these sentences?

  Henry was almost as famous a philosopher as he was a poet.

  It is as important to purchase fresh herbs as it is to use techniques
  recommended in the cookbook.

Also, I wonder if we can delete "he was" and "it is" and the grammar is still correct?


texts: Proper adjective, or noun with Indefinite or zero article, when defining national identity?

texts:
Why is it mostly a preferred option to use an adjective as a subject complement when it comes round to national identity whereas "American" can be both a noun and an adjective?

I am American

Why not: "I am an American".
Even more complicated is with a pattern like:

I'm Southern UK

why not: "I'm a Southern UK"?, "Southern" is an adjective and UK seems a noun but only at first glance.
It all gets clear when there are only adjectives for naming the aforesaid:

I'm French (Belgian).

And as for the Poles there are different parts of speech that can be used:

I am a Pole (and it can't be changed to "I'm Pole)

and

I am Polish (and it can't be changed to "I'm a Polish).


texts: Is it proper to use capital letters in (e.g.) document names

texts:
If I am referring to a definite document, the name of which I have previously stated, is it proper to use a capital letter, and omit the document name?

For example, I mention some international standard called "ISO 1923801: The Proper Use of Capital Letters". If later in the text I am referring to it it omitting the full name, should I say "in the standard...", or "in the Standard", since the reader will know for sure which one I am talking about?


texts: Word or phrase to use "when you told a story/situation and it happend you later"

texts:
English is NOT  my primary language . In my language we have a phrase to use in this kind of situation .

You were telling a story or a situation to your friends and later it happens you .

For eg : you were telling a story of a theft or accident  or failures to somebody  and at last the same thing happened  to you .

Is there any single word or phrase to describe this kind of situation ?


texts:
It is time now

or

  It is now time

Which of these expressions is grammatically correct?


texts:
Could you please tell me which one of these sentences is correct, or are they both grammatically correct?

This will only happen if you go with me.
This will happen only if you go with me.


texts: Is there a word to describe a person who always buys what's new?

texts: I mean, is there a word that describes a person who follows the latest stuff? For example, someone who waits desperately for iPhone 6 to come out so he can be the first person who has it among his friends. So he can show off and feel like he is the coolest person in the world.


texts: I don't want to use an 'I', would someone be able to help me think of an alternative.


texts: Word for statement that adds no value to a conversation

texts: This shouldn't be "trite". I'm wanting a word one could say when an empty statement is made especially when it's annoying..... For example, you're driving and see a sign advertising for a massive lottery and someone says, "yah you know after taxes...." or if you're watching a news channel and a protest rally is being covered and someone (also watching) says "they just want attention".


texts: Better way to say: "Coronavirus is a case for an emergency fund"

texts:
I have this word in my mind that I believe is used for occasions like the current pandemic and saving or building up an emergency fund. You could say something like:

  The coronavirus crisis is [X] for an emergency fund.

But I just can't put my finger on the word that is usually used. I believe it's somewhere along the lines of "a case" but I don't think it's that exactly.


texts:
I was recently reading this very interesting post here:

When is a gerund supposed to be preceded by a possessive adjective/determiner?

In this thread, it is argued persuasively that we could use either his or him interchangeably in front of a gerund. However, this does not seem to me to be true. For instance, consider the following example:

His continuous meddling was starting to bother me.

It appears that only a possessive will do here and an accusative is completely ungrammatical (in the true meaning of the word):

*Him continuous meddling was starting to bother me.

An accusative also seems to give rather dubious results in the following examples too. Compare:

The senate characterized their sinking of the flagship as rash and excessive.

... with the completely ungrammatical:

*The senate characterized them sinking of the flagship as rash and excessive.

So, it seems that we cannot just freely exchange the accusative and possessive pronouns that occur before gerunds.

My questions therefore are:

When must a gerund be preceded by a possessive pronoun as opposed to an accusative one?
Are these gerunds, and if not why not?


texts: When and by whom was the rule for using 'compare to' versus 'compare with' first recorded?

texts:
A longstanding question on English Language & Usage asks "Compared with" vs "Compared to"—which is used when? and has drawn several useful answers. But the question doesn’t invite answers to questions about the origin of the rule itself.
Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1989) dedicates more than two full pages to a discussion of compare to versus compare with. In the course of its discussion, WDEU cites a letter written by Theodore Bernstein to the editor of Word Study in 1947, asserting that the rule about when to use compare with and when to use compare to  first appeared in Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language (1847). Here is the 1847 Webster's dictionary's entry for compare as a verb:

COMPARE, v. t.  ...
1. To set or bring things together in fact or in contemplation, and to examine the relations they bear to each other, with a view to ascertain their agreement or disagreement ; as, to compare two pieces of cloth, two tables, or coins ; to compare reasons and arguments ; to compare pleasure with pain.
In comparing movable things, it is customary to bring them together, for examination. In comparing things immovable or remote, and abstract ideas, we bring them together in the mind, as far as we are able, and consider them in connection. Comparison therefore is really collation, or it includes it.
2. To liken ; to represent as similar, for the purpose of illustration.

Solon compared the people to the sea, and orators and counsellors to the winds ; for that the sea would be calm and quiet, if the winds did not trouble it. Bacon.

In this sense compare is followed by to.
3. To examine the relations of things to each other, with a view to discover their relative proportions, quantities, or qualities ; as, to compare two kingdoms, or two mountains, with each other ; to compare the number ten with fifteen ; to compare ice with crystal ; to compare a clown with a dancing-master or a dandy.
In this sense compare is followed by with.

WDEU focuses its attention on twentieth-century usage, so it doesn’t reach any conclusion about whether the rule spelled out by Webster's 1847 dictionary reflected actual practice or only the preferences of Noah Webster. It concludes that current (in 1989) practice in English is (on the one hand) to use compare to "more often than not" when the sense of the active verb is "liken" but (on the other) to use compared to and compared with "about equally after the past participle" when the sense of the verb is "examined so as to discover the resemblances and differences."
Without getting too caught up in the side issue of whether common usage ever definitively supported the rule that appears in Webster’s 1847 dictionary, I would like to know two things:

When was the rule about when to use compared to and when to use compared with first set down in a published work?

Who was the author of that first statement of the rule?


texts: Encompass a wrist or is there an alternative?

texts: Can encompass be used to describe someone "holding" someone's wrist gently, and not actually putting any force/ pressure but just holding or gripping it in a very gentle way?


texts: Difference between declarative sentence and proposition statement?

texts:
Oxford dictionary defines declarative sentence as :
"A statement in the form of a declaration."

and Proposition as:
"A statement or assertion that expresses a judgement or opinion".
What is the difference between declaring something or passing a judgement or an opinion?

Because when you declare something to be 'true' or 'false' it is like passing a judgement or an opinion. So, does that mean: All declarative sentences are propositions and Vice Versa?

If so, then why we have separate words declarative and proposition.
My question is closely related to "logic", but I think, if I understand the basic difference between the words declarative and proposition, then I will have some good idea about technical grammar related to logic.


texts:
What does Middle English “cheping” mean?

Wycliffe's Bible (page 26)

Mt.11:16

Studylight:

"But to whom schal Y gesse this generacioun lijk? It is lijk to children sittynge in chepyng, that crien to her peeris"

King James Bible:

"...But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows…"


texts: Is there a difference between "lo" and "behold"?

texts:
I noticed, while going through the King James Bible, that the translators will translate a particular greek word as both "lo" and "behold." It seems like it is interchangeable to them. However, I don't know if there is more meaning to the difference, and if anybody could share insight into why they would do so?

The common phrase, "lo and behold" seems to indicate they are not of the same meaning.

Here are two examples:

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." (Matthew 10:16)

"Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee." (Luke 18:28)

If there is no difference, why did the phrase "lo and behold" come about? There is another question about that phrase, but it doesn't really address this, I think.

If there is a difference, it would be interesting to me.

Thanks!


texts: What happened around 1700 that transformed / changed the English language?

texts: When looking at examples listed in OED it is very noticeable that English differs greatly before 1700s and after (roughly) and it becomes recognizable and very similar to modern starting roughly from 1700s. What is behind this transformation? What happened in society which transformed language?


texts: What do the parents of married children call each other? As in, the mother of the bride to the mother of the groom?

texts: I am looking for an expression or term that would describe the relationship between the two mothers of their married children.


texts:
I would like one or more synonyms for anal retentive.

I was chatting last night in an mmorpg, and any message with the word anal was banned. I ended up talking about my canal retentive minus c guild-mate instead.


texts: Word for 'fear and suspicion of other countries' in the context of war?

texts:
I'm not looking for xenophobia, which is a rather general phobia of foreigners.
Rather, something to describe inflated fear and suspicions of another country's behaviour in times of war.
For example, "Amidst the fear and ..., suspicions grew that the captured soldiers were being 'brainwashed'– a novel concept for the time"
This isn't the sentence I want to use exactly, but gets at the meaning. During war time, conspiracies abound about the other country, the doings of its government and army, often proposing things that seem really inhumane – the worst tortures etc. It seems to be partly driven by a sense of alienation from the other country's people, feeling that their moral and ethical values would be so vastly different from and more primitive than our own – things that we consciously convince ourselves our own governments would never do, but the other country would (like brainwashing, invention of the worst tortures etc).


texts: Is "in about" grammatical in "I'll reach there in about 5 minutes"?

texts: Is it correct to say "I'll reach there in about 5 minutes?"  Is "in about" correct in this sentence?


texts:
There's something I just don't get of English usage in contemporary literature. Take the following excerpt:

  I have only to break into the tightness of a strawberry, and I see
  summer-its dust and lowering skies.

What does that even mean? Is that sentence even grammatically correct? I would have to assume so, since it's from one of the most famous writings of Toni Morrison.

How do I even begin interpreting such paragraph?


texts: Is there an english word that means opposite yet complementary and orthogonal without a positive/negative connotation?

texts:
I am looking for a word to use to describe technical traits of a programming language that are the opposite of each other yet complementary.
There is no positive or negative connotation to either trait. Similar to the concept of yin and yang.
For example “deserialization” is the opposite of “serialization” in that they are reciprocal behaviors to each other but also orthogonal as well, as in the computer science jargon that there is a fixed minimal set of instructions to do either thing.
I am looking for a word to describe the concept of this relationship and that this is the only way to do the thing that is being described.


texts: correct usage of the single quotation mark?

texts: So I was reading a book one day and I saw this. He gave her the 'Shut up look'  is that correct? And, if so why? btw it was not in bold in the book.


texts: Cultural connotation of American English — some examples?

texts:
I am from India and we speak English there as well, albeit not as culturally refined as I see in the US. In India, and perhaps in the UK, English is spoken in a straight and 'as it is' manner. For example, I found in the US, people would say "You might want to do this..." when they actually mean "You should/have to do this." For once, this kind of sentence with its tacit meaning in American culture has got me into a problem.

Can you give more examples here which would help me to understand more of these cultural connotations in American English?


texts:
In the Penguin guide to punctuation Larry Trasks claims that a joining comma must be followed by and, or, but, yet or while.

However, I was under the impression that a joining comma should be followed by one of the FANBOYS (for, and, not, but,  or, yet and so).

Why the discrepancy?


texts: Do I have to repeat a verb before and after "and"?

texts:
I am writing an essay and I am stuck with this sentence

  The citizens cast their votes choosing Mark as president and choosing me as vice-president.

is this correct or should it be

  The citizens cast their votes choosing Mark as president and me as vice-president.


texts: Are the noun and verb forms of "badger" related etymologically?

texts:
Are the noun "badger", naming an animal, and the verb "to badger", describing the behavior of a person, related etymologically? Does the meaning of one come directly from the other?

What about the word "badge"?


texts: Is "he registered in my mind" a common idiom?

texts:
Example sentence:

  He registered in my mind. He was John Anderson.

(Meaning that I knew who the person was.)

Is this a common idiom? If not, what's the closest alternative?


texts: Is this the correct usage of commas in Alice in Wonderland?

texts:
Reading Alice in Wonderland, I noticed a strange use of commas:

The only things in the kitchen that did not sneeze, were the cook, and a large cat which was sitting on the hearth and grinning from ear to ear.

I would have expected no commas:

The only things in the kitchen that did not sneeze were the cook and a large cat which was sitting on the hearth and grinning from ear to ear.

Why is this, and is it correct?


texts: How can I structure this sentence correctly?

texts:
A friend of mine announced her pregnancy via email. I wanted to tell her how pleased I was to hear she was going to have a baby, as this was something she'd wanted for a long time.

I was about to say "I've never been happier to hear someone's pregnant", but then realised that of course I had been even happier when my own wife found she was pregnant. I wanted to imply that that was the only time I had been happier to hear such an announcement.

I wrestled with putting it succinctly for a few moments before writing "you're the person I've been second happiest to hear is pregnant ever".

I shuddered as I sent it, as I could see it was poor English. However, I was in a rush and knew she would understand what I meant.

I hope you can see what I was aiming for: I didn't want to mention my wife explicitly, and I wanted to use "second-most" in some way.

Even with hindsight, I struggle to put this into a single brief sentence. What should I have written?


texts: Term for one's hands on knees, torso and head bent over as if ones exhausted?


texts: Implicit would allows for eliding "s" of third person conjugation?

texts:
I'm on a pinch here:

  Then when a request comes, the server can compare the version number
  present in the digest with the current version of the site, and only
  push assets that have changed between the two versions.

I think that I should write "push" instead of "pushes", because of the can auxiliar that I used before. Am I right? What is the precise rule in this case?


texts: Is "past master" a gender neutral phrase?

texts:
PAST MASTER - noun: a person who has done something many times before and has become very skilled at doing it "He's a past master at finding ways to get out of trouble."
  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/past%20master

  noun: A person who is particularly skilled at a specified activity or art.A person who has held the position of master in an organization
  ‘he’s a past master at keeping his whereabouts secret’
  http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/past-master

I always thought "past master" was a gender neutral phrase applied to both men and women, and "past mistress" would refer to a past lover.  I've heard "past mistress" in reference to women, though, and it had no love connotation. Has "past master" lost its "gender neutral" property? Or am I  wrong and it never had any?


texts: What is the meaning of "hypos" here in this passage from Moby Dick?

texts:
Yesterday, I asked a question over at the Gaming StackExchange, and eventually received an answer whose primary thrust was this wonderfully written passage from Moby Dick:

My questions are:  What does hypos mean in this context?  What was the historical usage of this word — has it died out?  How does its meaning here relate to what I presume is its Greek root ὑπό (hypo-)?


texts: What is the difference of nuance between the statements: “Why had they not already killed their hostage? and “Why didn’t they kill their hostage”?

texts:
There was the following statement in (April 24) Time magazine’s article titled, “Thanks for dumb terrorists” reporting the capture of Boston bomb attack suspects: http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/21/give-thanks-for-dumb-terrorists/#ixzz2REueMOq5

  “Why had they not already killed him? If the allegations against the
  Tsarnaevs are true, they were obviously quite capable of killing in
  cold blood. Assuming they had his ATM pin number, the owner of the
  Mercedes no longer served any obvious use to them. What’s more, he
  knew exactly who they were: The Tsarnaevs had reportedly identified
  themselves as the marathon bombers.”

What difference would come up by saying “Why had they not already killed him?” instead of a simpler version, “Why didn’t they kill him (then)”? Is there a very big difference?

As we don’t have ‘the past perfect tense – have /had +p.p.’ mode in our language, it’s pretty difficult for me to discern the exact difference of the nuance of messages in two different tenses.


texts: Is it correct? I "am trying fixing this"?

texts:
Actually, I'd like to know if is correct to say: "I am trying fixing this", or should use the more obvious "I am trying to fix this"?

If the first one is correct, is there a name for this kind of syntax/conjugation?


texts: What is the word to express the exclusivity and privileges of a key currency issuer?

texts:
Stimulated with a series of press articles dealing with effects of S&P’s recent move for downgrading US rating from AAA to AAA negative and that of Japan from to AA – to AA－negative (If I’m correct) and subsequent argument of trustworthiness of rating firms, and also being a citizen of the country gasping under the mounting public debt surpassing 200% of GDP, I’m interested in reading articles on country debt and sovereign risk issues these days.

Though I thought there is a special (technical) term to express the right, privilege and exclusivity of key currency issuing country i.e. United State in one or two words, I cannot recall it.
Can somebody teach me that economics jargon, if you know?


texts: Natural expression for "I hope I'll be of help"?

texts:
Let's say

There are some pressing matters at hand

and

I want to say I want to/will participate in dealing with those. (together with other people)

From what I've been searching, expressions like "I hope I'll be of help" or such seem to be so ESL I guess? What would a native speaker say in this situation?


texts: What is this type of hat with small pom-poms at the sides called?

texts:
I have seen these types of hats many times:

They are small hats with ear covers, usually with two pom-poms at the sides and a big one on top (not shown here).

What is the name for these type of hats?


texts: Passive voice using the preposition "with" instead of "by"

texts:
wiktionary.org offers

  Verb smite: 6. (figuratively, now only in passive) To strike with love
  or infatuation.

  Bob was smitten with Laura from the first time he saw
   her.

I wonder whether this smitten is rather an adjective at least syntactically


texts: Are "traitor" and "trader" pronounced the same?

texts: Are "traitor" and "trader" distinguishable when spoken with any English accent?  My English-speaking friends seem to pronounce them exactly the same way.


texts:
I know that AD comes before the year mentioned and BC after—

  126 BC, AD 33

If I mentioned the full date UK style for BC, it's easy as well—

  25 December 126 BC (follows the rule of example 1, looks clean too)

But if I had to mention full date with AD, where will the AD go?

  25 December AD 33 (follows the rule of example 1, but awkward)

or

  25 December 33 AD? (doesn't follow the rule of example 1, looks cleaner)


texts:
Mike Birbiglia said about George W.Bush:

"He is the first president we've elected on the curve".

("What I should've said was nothing" show)

Google wasn't helpful, couldn't find 'on the curve' in online dictionaries.

Now, I'm wondering if I misheard it, but I'm 99% sure he said on the curve.


texts:
We provide tests for candidates. Each test consists of several tasks. Each task may consist of several subtasks / sub-tasks / sub tasks?

So far we've used all these terms both internally and in communication with customers. At least we should be consistent and choose one over the other. But which one?


texts: What's the right way of saying, "a few fallings out"  or "a few falling outs"?


texts: Can the relative pronoun "whose" be used for animals, things and countries?

texts: When I was a student of English as a foreign language, more years ago than I care to count, I was taught that the relative pronoun “whose” could only be used for human beings, i.e., when someone possesses something.   My teachers were native speakers from England, then.   Since that time, I’ve seen “whose”, as a relative pronoun, used in several contexts where no human beings are mentioned, e.g. with animals, objects, countries, abstract nouns, etc, in American newspapers and magazines. Unfortunately, I can’t remember any of the sentences and cannot give examples.  What is acceptable in written and spoken English, and what isn’t, concerning the use of “whose” ?


texts: Word/phrase that represents "unknowingly Arguing against something/explaining something based on false statement X given"

texts:
I'm looking for a word or phrase that encapsulates the action of defending statement X of opponent, despite X having no validity, or unknowingly arguing/explaining based on a false statement X.  For example:

*Adam, a cat person, says that all dog people must manually lick dogs
mouths clean, and this is why dogs are a disgusting pet.
*Jill, who
hates cats, but doesn't own dogs, argues against Adam, saying "at
least the dogs mouths are clean for it, and dogs allowing people to
get that close to them just shows how much they love them. Cats lick
all over themselves and are disgusting, no one would lick their
mouths. Plus they are selfish".

Notice here, Adam makes a statement that is loaded/begs the question, but Jill doesn't know enough or simply assumes what Adam says is true, and tries to come up with reasons on the spot why X is justified, despite never seeing/experiencing it herself, in the pursuit of showing that cats are worse than dogs.
I'd expect a phrase that follows this to be something like "Falling for the X" and used like so in the following context:

Ruth, a dog lover, overhears the conversation between Adam and Jill, and turns to say: "Adam, No dog owner is forced to lick the mouth clean of their dogs. Jill, I appreciate the sentiment, but you just [Fell for the X]."

In real life I've seen this play out across both science questions and political discussions.
In the recent US presidential election, 538 claimed 20,000~ votes all for Biden in Philadelphia county in Pennsylvania. One person said "Look at what happened in Pennsylvania! Not one non Biden vote? Clearly this shows voter fraud".  Other people said "Well people are more likely to vote for biden in mail, so definitely not suspicious!".
In this case, it was basically statistically impossible for this to happen.  It also turned out the votes were legitimate, they were just batched by candidate accidentally in the unofficial tally, the next batch had 2x times Trumps normal margins.  The people responding assumed an actual batch of only Biden votes really happened, but in order to support there was no voter fraud, they went on to support the faulty assumption that a group of 20,000+ mail in votes was entirely Biden. People were trying to defend the claim that 20,000 votes came in from a normal mail in sampling distribution entirely for Biden, despite the claim those ballot counts were sampled from normal mail in order was completely false.
In a similar manner, this question on physics stack exchange https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/593122/why-are-red-and-blue-light-refracted-differently-if-they-travel-at-the-same-spee has many answers from people who take Op's assumption (two wavelengths of light will always travel at the same speed no matter the medium), and try to explain why refraction is different only with the equation tautology, implicitly affirming Op's misconception.
Another example, a reddit thread in askscience somebody wanted to know how scientists knew electrons were the same in the result of quantum tunneling. Someone added that it is because of properties like spin. In reality scientists only experimentally verified/discovered this at the macro level when testing the implications of Shrodingers equation. No scientist actually looked at a single electron to discover quantum tunneling.
The closest thing I can think of is pulling "Pulling something out of your ass" to explain something, but that doesn't seem to quite fit the actual core message that needs to be conveyed, it isn't about a lie, its about the assumption in the first place being wrong, and you just tried to argue/explain something assuming it is true.


texts:
He missed one episode of The O.C. and then played catch-up the rest of the season.
I have but one dream in life, to own a Harley-Davidson.
She swims twice a day, before school and right before dinner.
I passed up the offer although, come to think of it, I shouldn’t have.

Hi, I'm just kind of confused on some things.

If the first sentence doesn't need a comma before "and" because "then played catch-up the rest of the season" cannot stand on its own then why are there commas in the second and third sentence? Why isn't there a comma between "offer" and "although"? I thought a comma was needed before a conjunction.


texts:
The complete sentence is as follows:

  All across the route I took, wheeled conveyances could be brought, supplies and water could be got, and carriage for large numbers by arrangement.

carriage and by arrangement are especially problematic.


texts: Meaning and origin of "hustle, score, use"

texts:
In a movie about drug addiction they used this combination of words:

  hustle, score, use

They said it was always the same pattern - but what does it mean and where does it come from?


texts:
In my experience, a colorful accusation to raise against someone who is keeping a collection of toys, refusing to share with their siblings is "hoarding".

  Stop hoarding the Legos!

Can the same be used for a single item? It doesn't sound right.

  Stop hoarding the light saber!

Or,

  Stop hoarding the remote!

What's the right word here?


texts: In Rudyard Kipling's poem, "if", what do "unforgiving minute" and "worth of distance run" mean?

texts:
The full-length poem is here.

I love this poem and know it by heart, but I don't fully understand the following verse:

  If you can fill the unforgiving minute
  With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,

I've looked up unforgiving in the dictionary, but I still don't understand how the word relates to "minute."

And what does "worth of distance run" mean?


texts: Take it for granted that enumerations have secondly, …; thirdly, …; finally, … Is there any reason, except tradition, to prefer the traditional first to firstly?


texts: What's the connection between "Holy Grail" and "Killer Rabbit"?

texts:
This article says:

  If there's a Holy Grail, there's a Killer Rabbit.

I can understand that to be "even if there's a good solution, there's a catch to it", but what does Killer Rabbit have to do with the Holy Grail?


texts:
Consider the following sentence:

  One of the items that needed a further development was a research on child nodes of a story representing its sub categories being updated the moment the list of sub categories is changed through edit page for stories.

The part from the beginning of the sentence to the word "research" is more or less clear. And then I would like to clarify what the research was about.
Other facts that you might need:

The research is complete.
Child nodes represents sub categories of a story.
The research was investigating a possibility of establishing the update mechanism.
The mechanism is designated to update child nodes.
The update must take place every time when the list of sub categories is changed.

Now to the questions themselves:

Is my usage of passive voice (being updated) to describe what this research was about correct?
What other options (all you can think of) are possible? How do they change the meaning?

If you are going to suggest to split this sentence into several, see the question How to rephrase a sentence?


texts: “Matt was phoning while we were having dinner”

texts:
I'm self-studying now and I've found an exercise.

  Matt ... while we were having dinner.

The correct answer is phoned. But I couldn't figure out why was phoning is not a right choice. There is some logic in this answer because Matt is doing a continuous action. Maybe there is something in usage of while I don't know yet?


texts: Passive use of "mete" without the accompanying "out"

texts:
Given the sentence:

It is no surprise that his loyal lapdog will be meted a similar fate.

Can the above be considered correct use of the word "mete", and is the overall grammar of the sentence valid?


texts: Shorter way of saying "...had been the same as the ones now"?

texts:
Example:

  I had a dream. In it, my surroundings had been the same as the ones
  now.

Is there a shorter/simple way to write the bolded part?


texts: Is there need of a comma after however in this sentence? And how can I improve the structure of this sentence?

texts: According to Klaudia, birds disperse as an immediate response to flood, however they assemble back on the wetland, as the flooded areas elsewhere decline in extent.


texts: A word to describe a person who, finding themself in a bad situation, always manages to scrape by?

texts:
I'm having a difficult time googling this in anyway that gives me an answer, so maybe I'm not doing a very good job at explain myself. I basically want a word that describes every down on his luck, underdog protagonist ever. You know the type. Typically through no fault of their own they find themselves in a dangerous situation, and while whoever it is they have managed to enrage appears to have every advantage in the world somehow this character makes it to the end alive and (mostly) well. Sure, they didn't win, but they survived if only by the seat of their pants, but considering the odds against them that isn't half bad.

Failing an actual identifier, any sort of descriptive word meaning about the same would work. The most important thing is that it denotes "only just managing to survive/escape/get through the situation".


texts: How do I maintain the comparison between two things in this sentence without it sounding redundant?

texts: Consider this sentence: "Like drinking water, bleeding blood is normal." The phrase "bleeding blood" is clearly redundant, but were I to exclude "blood," I would ruin the gerund+noun structure I established in the first part of the sentence ("drinking water.") Is it better to keep the redundancy for the sake of consistency throughout the sentence, or should I sacrifice that consistency to avoid that redundancy? OR is there simply a better way to write the sentence?


texts: Which of the following sentences are correct when using the verb "cheer", and why? Thank you!

texts:
Looking forward to cheering on, you and your team.
Looking forward to cheering on you and your team.
Looking forward to cheer on, you and your team.
Looking forward to cheer on you and your team.
Looking forward to cheering for you and your team.
Looking forward to cheer for you and your team.


texts: In the sentence " The Hospitality of the Villagers is to be learnt by all" Why "is" used as verb. why not "are" ? is subject used in this sentence is plural or singular?


texts: Hi, I am not sure if the sentence below makes sense. Could someone check it please?

texts:
"I have decided it is better to cancel the planned the Marc with Friends Playday previously planned  to take place in Spain this year."

"I have decided it is better to cancel the planned Marc with Friends Playday previously planned  to take place in Spain this year."

What I am not sure about is the "the" before Marc. Does it makes sense with the "the" in front?

Thank you in advance!


texts: Critical ("crucial"): attributive adjective

texts:
The decision was a critical one for the country

Can't the adjective critical meaning "crucial" be used predicatively?
Otherwise, what reasons make it preferable to choose such a convoluted structure (instead of, say , The decision was critical for the country)?


texts: which is more correct or more frequently used? Nonionic or non-ionic (polymers)? It´s for an academic presentation.


texts: Can 'him or her' be replaced with 'them'?

texts:
One of my friends asked me to solve the following question.  The problem is, if you start with the following sentence:

  He or she wants you to leave him or her alone.

Is it OK to replace him or her with them?  As in:

  He or she wants you to leave them alone.


texts:
Hi I'd like to ask if this text is correct. I believe that "the" is missing from the sentence and it shoul be: "...each of the five level categories:". Am I correct? If it is correct as it is, why?

"Ten winners will be announced in each of five level categories: 450-499, 500-599, 600-799, 800-999, 1000+.


texts: "Shakespearean English" - What English or American writers have adjectives coined after their names?

texts:
Shake·spear·ean - adjective \shāk-ˈspir-ē-ən: of or relating to William Shakespeare or his writings.

Almost every English speaking person has heard or read something about Shakespearean English. That adjective is perhaps the most frequently used of its kind.  I once came across an adjective related to Shaw's writing, but I can't remember or find it. Are there other adjectives in current usage related to writers other than William Shakespeare?


texts: derivation of the expression "I am just going out to turn my bike round

texts:
I believe the phrase was used in london upto the 1960's as a cryptic way of saying to go (outside) to the toilet. Upto the 1960's most pubs and many houses had outside lavatories. The speaker may not of course have arrived by bike.
Is this definition correct.


texts: If apostrophe-S is possessive, should "it's" be used when referring to an object's possessions or not?

texts:
For example, which is correct:

  The robot can then compute it's coordinates.

or

  The robot can then compute its coordinates.

What's the rule here? It seems a little inconsistent.


texts: is this sentence correct with cut through?

texts:
I try make a sentence because i am not a native speaker. So I wonder is it right. I am very appreciate any suggestions.

"When I drive to my driveway. Suddenly, a cat cuts through a head of my car. I try to avoid him and my car was broken down"


texts:
For example, take a look at the following sentence:

  There’s nothing to see — no one can handle you, dear.

What are the general guidelines?


texts: Difference between etymologies of 'allocable' and 'allocatable'

texts:
Which one is more proper to use: 'allocable' or 'allocatable'? Sources say the former is derived from the original Latin word 'allocare', while the latter is a part-of-speech-variant of the English word 'allocate'.
Also, is there a standard rule in English to form able-ending adjective of words terminating in 'ate'?

Thank you.


texts: Word for 'that which requires something'?

texts:
If A requires B, then B is the requirement. In this relationship what is A?
In this context, I'm describing academic courses where B is a course that fulfills the requirements for course A.


texts: What's the English equivalent for the Italian slang expression "magna magna"

texts:
"Magna magna" is a typical Italian slang expression commonly used by people to give vent to their frustrations and disappointment with politicians when cases of corruption and personal interest in public affairs are brought to light.
Literally the meaning is "eat eat", where the verb "eat" in this case is synonymous with "steal". The common saying is "e' tutto un magna magna" that is "it is all just a magna magna".
I can't find a reference on this subject.
What are the equivalent BrE and AmE (possibly slang) expressions?


texts: I have the following question. There is an idiom 'if need be'. The meaning is clear, but I can't comprehend it from a grammatical point of view. How should I parse it? 'if [smth] needs to be'? Why not 'needs' then? The question probably is silly...


texts:
In the morning, most sales are coffees and pastries.

Coffee can be used as a countable or an uncountable noun. So what should I choose in this sentence?


texts: What is the equivalent of "I am risking my head to say" when expressing a different opinion?

texts:
When you are in a minority, say most of the people prefer A to B, if you want to assert your support for B, you can have different moods, e.g.,

(1) brave and combative: "I love B so much more than A, come sue me!!"

(2) cautious I: "Am I the only one supporting B?"

(3) cautious II: In my native language, it is common to say "I am risking my head to say I am for B, not A".

So my question is what's the English equivalent or alternative to "I am risking my head to say" in 3) cautious II above? Thanks.


texts: Is the expression, “I was the admissions mistake” grammatically right?

texts:
I was drawn to the phrase “I was the admission mistake” in the following passage in the article of the Washington Post (May 2) titled, “As Ben Carson bashes Obama, many blacks see a hero’s legacy fade”.

After the speech (at Yale University), H. Wesley Phillips, 27, followed (Ben) Carson’s path and began to study neurosurgery.
“I had come from a public school in Tulsa and came from a single-parent household and thought I was the admissions mistake,” said Phillips. “But he gave me the comfort to know that if I did struggle — and I thought I would — that I wouldn’t have been the first, and there are ways to handle it. The message he gave was this backup artillery when times were hard.”

From the Washington Post.
I don’t have a problem with “I’m a dropout,” but I’m somewhat uncomfortable with the expression, “I was the admissions mistake.” A person makes a mistake, but can a person be the (admissions) mistake? Is it grammatically right?
By the way, does “the” (not "an") mean “of Yale” here? If the admissions represents for the Yale's department responsible for admission, why is it "the admissions mistake" with admission in plural form? Isn't it "the admission's mistake"?


texts: Is there a word for someone who treats their opinion as fact?

texts: Thought that's what dogmatic meant but apparently it's not. Is there a word that describes this?


texts:
What's the difference between "define" and "predefine"? Is there really a value in using the latter over the former?

In a piece I'm editing, the writer says, "First, predefine the rules for what is a duplicate record…" Isn't the "pre" unneeded? Wouldn't it be better to say, "First, define the rules…"?

Is there way that "predefine" can be used that makes sense and is preferable to "define"?


texts:
I'm familiar with the word pooch as a cute synonym of doggy, but here is pooch used as a verb:

  It was just a poorly done deal and it just so happens to be the biggest deal ever for Nasdaq and they pooched it, that's the bottom line here," said Joe Saluzzi, the co-manager of trading at Themis Trading in Chatham, New Jersey.

Is this a common usage of the word in US English?  Or is it just an example of a Wall Street trader abusing our language?

Full article here.


texts: Interpreting the meaning of 'but' as an implication for exclusion/inclusion

texts:
I often find it difficult to interpret the meaning of but in some of the sentences where it is used to imply exclusion/inclusion. For example: Drink everything you want but alcohol.

Also, sometimes but is used to imply inclusion, however I don't remember any example on top of my mind right now.

Could you explain with examples how to interpret the meaning of but in these types of sentences?


texts: Why are there these instances of zero articles with countable nouns? ("of a" construction)

texts:
I don't understand the grammaticality of these sentences.I know we always use a determiner before countable nouns but what about these? Is there any rule associated here?

1a) What type of a person is he ?  ( A type of person but with determiner)
1b) What type of  person is he?  ( A type of person but no determiner)--- Most common form
1c)  What type of people is he?  ( A type from much larger group)---Least common form but   considered incorrect?

Similarly...

2a) What breed of a dog is that? ( A breed of dog but with determiner)
2b) What breed of dog is that?  ( A breed of dog with no determiner)---Most common form
2c) What breed of dogs is that?  ( A breed of dog from much larger group)---Least common form but why is this incorrect?


texts: What's the meaning when we say "per se"?

texts:
Sometimes I read a sentence like the following one:

  Objective-C does not provide a standard library, per se, but in most places..

I wonder how to interpret "per se." I'm non-native English speaker and in Swedish we have the expression "per se," but I don't understand it and maybe you can say that it means something like "in itself" (the strange Swedish expression is i och för sig) like Latin for de se as distinct from latin de facto, de re, de dicto, de jure, etc.

Do these expressions have a connection: "per se" and de se? Is it Latin and therefore I have difficulty to understand?

What is the difference between these sentences?

Breaking a traffic rule does not, per se, make you a burglar.
Breaking a traffic rule does not, per definition, make you a burglar.
Breaking a traffic rule does not, in itself, make you a burglar.


texts: What do you call that foot/leg movement when you put on flip flops/sandals?

texts:
I'm thinking of the word to describe the movement of your foot and leg when you put on your flip-flops.
Is it correct to use slide?
Feel free to change the sentence structure.

I _____ my foot into my flip-flops.
I ____ my foot out of my flip-flops.


texts: Variety of English used by the Romantic poets| -eth/-s for the third person singular in particular

texts: I have recently been reading poetry by John Keats and Rabindranath Tagore. Both these poets, being active in the 19th century, by which time I think English was quite as it is today, wrote still in what I guess was Early Modern English, Keats especially, being an admirer of Shakespeare. However, there appear to me, in their poems, mixtures of the two- Early Modern and Modern, in particular as with the endings for third person singular present forms of verbs- for instance, sits or sitteth. Were these choices purely made to accord with the ongoing rhymes? Or is there another reason? In Shakespeare himself, I found on the internet the following: "With her, that hateth thee and hates us all". How come hateth and hates is being used simultaneously?


texts:
I really want to use the phrase 'under the aegis' in a small paragraph but want to be grammatically correct. I am planning to write "thankful to xxxx for taking me under their aegis" or "under the aegis of whom I grew....".
Are any or both of these phrases correct? I can't find usage of the word "aegis" in this way elsewhere.
Thank you so much!


texts: Is there a single word for the faith a user of magic has in the efficacy of a magical object or act?

texts:
I'm writing about art's function of rescuing, redeeming or validating the artist's experience and suffering. Some of my sources have compared this to the functions of magical talismans and power objects, and I'd like to use magical language now and then throughout my paper as a nod to this similarity.
The problem is that I have no idea of magical jargon. When I refer to the artist's confidence that their act of creation can and will perform this redemptive role, I want to spiritualize that word choice a bit--I guess "faith" is better than "confidence," but that's definitely more religious than magical. So I was wondering--is there a particular word, used in some form of magical practice, that expresses one's degree of confidence in a magical object or action?
If there was a "Magick" stackexchange, I'd have posted this there. Sorry to ask a rather bizarre question.


texts: How do you describe something that has "just enough" details?

texts:
I want to describe something that is neither too broad and general, nor too detailed. It may be fit to just describe it as "a detailed analysis of so-and-so..", but I want to emphasize the fact that it is not too detailed because I want to point out that it's an advantage that the level of detail lies around the middle of the spectrum.

Is there such a word or phrase that would accomplish that?

EDIT:
It may help if I try to express what I want to describe. I have a software model that simulates the behavior of a real-life mechanism. I want to emphasize the fact that it is detailed enough that the simulation is accurate, but it's not so detailed that it freezes your computer (or takes a long time to run)


texts: How do I refer to two things together that have different adjectives?

texts:
I want to express these two facts: there is a front view; and there is a side view.

Which of the following are valid ways of referring to the two views together?

  a front and side view;
  a front and side views;
  a front and a side view;
  a front and a side views;
  front and side views;

For the valid ones, which of "there is" and "there are" would I use with it?


texts: There is a word used specifically for lying relaxed in a bed or someplace comfortable, stretched out and not wanting to move from that position. Problem is, I can't remember what the word is called, just knows it starts with the letter "p".  Help a brotha out (:


texts:
Would you say:

  The earliest stage of network design is the burial of optical fibers.

To say that the first stage, when you design an optical network, is to put the fibers under the ground ?


texts: "Such" as a part of speech, and similar words

texts:
The word "such" seems to fit under a few different categories. It could be arguably classified as:

A noun - "The movie would only be of interest to such as enjoy mindless explosions every 45 seconds"
An adjective - "After years of enduring the complaints of entitled customers, he was sick of dealing with such idiots"
A pronoun - "If you retained a receipt, please enclose a copy of such"
An adverb - "She wears such stylish clothes"

But it doesn't seem to be a "typical" noun/verb/adjective/adverb. For instance, in the sentence, "How could I be such an idiot?", it seems to be an adjective (modifying "an idiot") but can neither be placed directly in front of the noun it modifies ("How could I be a such idiot?"--compare the adjectives in "I'm a big fat idiot") nor intensified/modified directly with adverbs ("How could I be super such an idiot?" vs, again, "I'm a super big fat idiot"). I've heard of it being described as a "determiner," but that seems to be a completely different category that cuts across/includes words from all the "parts of speech" before mentioned (as well as some other ones, like articles), rather than a separate "part of speech" in its own right.
Is there a canonical classification of "such" as a part of speech? And, are there other common English words that also don't fit neatly into the basic Schoolhouse Rock categories of "adverb/adjective/noun/verb/conjunction/interjection/pronoun/preposition/article"?


texts: Is the expression "as an affirmation of its efficiency, we show that" correct and adequate for a scientific text? Or should it be "as a confirmation of its efficiency, we show that"?


texts: "...In not only..." vs. "...not only in..."?

texts:
I'm confused about placing the preposition in with the words not only in a sentence. My sentence is:

  The paper helps us in not only selection of the methodology but also other important factors....

Should the in be before or after not only?


texts: Is it a good practice to refer to countries, ships etc using the feminine form?

texts:
While talking about ships and countries, is it a good practice to use the feminine form?  For example:

"Her economy" - while referring to a country's economy
"Her flag (or deck etc)" - while referring to a ship

Is this practice common? Is it used today?


texts:
I'm interested in the more intricate meanings of the term "ignorance". In my experience, it is being used primarily to express someone's state of not knowing. Somebody can be ignorant and innocent of it at the same time.

In German, the same word exists ("Ignoranz"), but with a different approach: It describes someone's conscious decision to ignore the facts - usually that's a facet of arrogance (or, less often, stupidity). It's more a description of attitude than state. Not knowing is only the result of it. In any case, you cannot be innocent of "Ignoranz".

Does the same subtext exist in English? If not, what would be a better match for the German word?


texts: Brothers everywhere, raise... or Brothers, everywhere raise...?

texts:
In the song "Warriors of the World United," how should one punctuate the following sentence?

  Brothers everywhere, raise your hands into the air!

or

  Brothers, everywhere raise your hands into the air!

or some other punctuation.

Another example of this type:

  People everywhere unite (in or for whatever they are being asked to do)!

So what is the correct punctuation in such cases?


texts: What do you call a person who asks a question but leaves you in the dark as to what its about?

texts:
I have a friend who is forever asking questions but always seems to give out vague information about the question until he's pressed for it. I would like to know if there is a title that you can give to him for being this way?

For instance he asked me, "205 or 418?" Who knows what this could mean and after pressing for more information I found he was going to purchase something online.


texts: Honorifics: Is there a proper differentiation between salutation, address and title?

texts:
I'm currently working on technical system which needs to differentiate parts of an honorific. Reading articles and explanations on this subject is a little frustrating as title, address and salutation seem to be used interchangeably for parts with different semantic and are also used to explain each other. Currently I use the following terms:
╔════════════╦═════════════╦═════════════╗
║ Salutation ║   Address   ║    Title    ║
╠════════════╬═════════════╬═════════════╣
║ Dear       ║ Mr / Ms     ║             ║
║            ║ Sir / Madam ║             ║
║            ║             ║ Dr / Doctor ║
╚════════════╩═════════════╩═════════════╝

Sadly this sometimes leads to confusion between the honorific address and the street address in forms.
Is there a formal definition?


texts:
Physical quantities often have units, and some units are formed by multiplying or dividing other units. For example, the unit for momentum is kg m s-1 and the unit for impulse is N s.

The question is, how do we pluralize them (during conversation)? For example, which of the following is correct?

  1: Its momentum is:
    a. 15 kilogram meter per second
    b. 15 kilograms meter per second
    c. 15 kilogram meters per second
    d. 15 kilogram meter per seconds

  2: It receives an impulse of:
    a. 10 newton second
    b. 10 newtons second
    c. 10 newton seconds

  3: The gravitational constant is:
    a. 6.67 × 10-11 newton meter squared per kilogram squared
    b. 6.67 × 10-11 newtons meter squared per kilogram squared
    c. 6.67 × 10-11 newton meters squared per kilogram squared
    d.  6.67 × 10-11 newton meter squared per kilograms squared

  4: The permeability of free space is:
    a. 4π × 10-7 volt second per ampere per meter
    b. 4π × 10-7 volts second per ampere per meter
    c. 4π × 10-7 volt seconds per ampere per meter
    d. 4π × 10-7 volt second per amperes per meter
    e. 4π × 10-7 volt second per ampere per meters


texts:
How should I understand the following sentence?

  Missing until recently were fossils clearly intermediate, or transitional, between land mammals and cetaceans.

This from the excerpt of an article:

  It should be obvious that cetaceans---whales, porpoises, and dolphins---are mammals. They breathe through lungs, not through gills, and give birth to live young. Their streamlined bodies, the absence of hind legs, and the presence of a fluke and blowhole cannot disguise their affinities with land-dwelling mammals. However, unlike the cases of sea otters and pinnipeds (seals, sea lions, and walruses, whose limbs are functional both on land and at sea), it is not easy to envision what the first whales looked like. Extinct but already fully marine cetaceans are known from the fossil record. How was the gap between a walking mammal and a swimming whale bridged? Missing until recently were fossils clearly intermediate, or transitional, between land mammals and cetaceans.

Added:

Is "clearly intermediate, or transitional, between land mammals and cetaceans" a clause? It seems that something is omitted here.


texts: Is to be "very weak at/ on something" insulting?

texts:
In this example here,

  He is very weak at speaking English

Do the words "very weak" sound rather insulting or are they objective?

I am asking this because my friend found it very insulting in a sentence in this statement,

  Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.

(I am not asking to judge Trump. I just want to know how this sentence sounds like to the average American.)

Does this sentence sounds more critical than the previous one because Ms. Yates is a professional and the White House is degrading her ability?


texts: 19th century English texts occasionally use Germanic-style number words, such as "four-and-twenty". When did this fall out of use?

texts:
19th century English texts occasionally use Germanic-style number words, such as "four-and-twenty", but the same text would also have the modern "twenty-four" in places (see e.g. Conan-Doyle for several examples).

How did the usage of germanic-style numbers change historically? When did the Germanic forms fall out of use?

(I have asked this question previously on Sprachlog (German) and got a short answer by A.Stefanowitsch, but would appreciate any additional input.)


texts: Word for when a precursor shares a name with its product

texts:
Is there a word the describes the relationship between a precursor and its product when they share the same name, at least colloquially. For instance, the beverage coffee and the grounds that it is made from. We refer to both as "coffee" but context gives us the literal meaning. The same is true for "tea" as it is both the dried leaves and the drink made by steeping said leaves.

I can't find any other examples of this relationship, though I wouldn't be surprised if there were some. It feels a lot like a synecdoche but that perhaps doesn't encompass the entire concept.


texts: "pocketbook" for "wallet" in AmEng vernacular

texts:
Is pocketbook a common term for wallet in AmEng vernacular, or is it primarily recognized as another word for "purse/handbag"?
If indeed a relatively commonly used word for "wallet/billfold," how do these terms differ from each other?
pocketbook:

1. A purse; a handbag.

A pocket-sized folder or case used to hold money and papers; a billfold American Heritage® Dictionary

1: often pocket book :  a small especially paperback book that can be carried in the pocket
2:  a flat typically leather folding case for money or personal papers that can be carried in a pocket or handbag
3
a :  purse
b :  handbag 2 M-W
: (a) carnet; (b) NAm: (ii) portefeuille; (iii) sac à main; (c) NAm: livre de poche (Source: Harrap's New Shorter French and English Dictionary)
US A wallet, purse, or handbag: she dug a couple of aspirin out of her pocketbook ODO

British.

a notebook for carrying in one's pocket.
a wallet or billfold . Random House

wallet:

A flat pocket-sized folding case, usually made of leather, for holding paper money, cards, or photographs; a billfold.

billfold:

A folding pocket-sized case for carrying paper money, small personal documents, and sometimes change.


texts:
Is there a single word which means "not empty"? That is, a word which one might use to describe a field with one or more cows in it, as opposed to an "empty" field with none?

Full or even partially-full are not appropriate, because the number of animals is indeterminate, and the final count could be a single bull [which are best kept on their own] or fifty cows. Or three sheep. And the field is really only full when there is no more space available.

I'd prefer a single word, to go with the single word "Empty". Currently I'm using "has animals" which I feel is not particularly succinct.

[This is an edit of the original question reproduced below, in an effort to keep it on-topic]

I'm trying to figure out the names for different states of a set of items, empty or non-empty.
What I came up with so far:

EmptyAndFetching,
EmptyAndReady,
HasItemsAndFetching,
HasItemsAndReady,
Error

HasItems seems awkward, I would rather use one word than two.
How do you call a set that is not empty, i.e. has at least one item, in a common language?


texts: Word choice- Curtailed, reduced, cutback.. etc

texts:
Need a word that would fit in the place of the bold word.

Over the years, however, the program has considerably curtailed its commitment of safeguarding the unemployed.

Background: The program/policy has intentionally reduced benefits for workers, and it also has increased eligibility requirements over the years. Hence, workers find it increasingly difficult to access the program/benefits.

Saying that the program has performed poorly or has failed does not capture the right meaning. The program has not failed, it is efficient and works well. Just that it does not want to cover as many workers as before. When it was established, the program was very generous and its purpose was to cover all unemployed workers.

I am open to restructuring the sentence. But cannot use the words benefits/coverage/access/eligibility, I want it to be something related to safeguarding the unemployed.

Thanks!

Edit: Is renege the correct word?


texts:
I have a fairly good sense of what is and isn't correct in terms of grammar, but that's mostly through feeling, rather than hard knowledge of the rules. My formal knowledge of the English Language only goes as far as GCSE and that is already a long time ago.

Normally, I'm the person who sorts out typos and grammatical blunders in company documents, but "an innate ability" to know whether something is right seems to get on people's nerves.

So I'm hoping to learn some of the technicalities with regards to bad grammar, using this paragraph from a job description that I was checking.

  You’ll continuously improve the product and your skills via active involvement with the community. Small projects can act as a sandbox where appropriate to allow you to evaluate these techniques, from a new framework to a pre-processor language.

It's clear what it means, but it somehow feels wrong. If I was going to rewrite this, it would look something like:

  You will continuously improve both the product and your skills through active involvement within the community. Where appropriate, small projects can act as sandboxes for learning and evaluating new frameworks or pre-processor languages.

What exactly, is wrong with the original quote and what is a reasonable way to explain that to someone without coming across as pretentious?


texts: Is this right? : "Distinguish controllables from uncontrollables."

texts:
when you google 'controllables', you can find some examples which use it as 'things can be controlled.'

And I feel comfortable with it.

So, does this phrase make sense? : 'Distinguish controllables from uncontrollables.'

What I want to convey is : 'Distinguish things controllable from things uncontrollable'

Thanks!


texts: Why not an s on "speed" in "Ukraine speed to test new-look Germany defence"

texts:
This url links to an Australian article (sourced from Reuters) about a football team. The article has the following title:

  Ukraine speed to test new-look Germany defence

I understand that the word "speed" is a verb here. However, why not "speeds"? Since "Ukraine" is a singular noun, I expect it to be "Ukraine speeds".

UPD. Thanks to the detailed comments and answers below, it turns out the question is not about collective nouns, but rather about "speed" being a noun and not a verb.

UPD2. As noted in comments replying to my UPD above: Not necessarily! If the rest of the article were in American English, yes, it would clearly be a noun. But the rest of the article is clearly written in British English or similar and "Ukraine" as an identifier for the team is a plural noun in BrEng. (We know it's BrEng because it says "Ukraine... are certain to test...") So it really could be either, the only way to be sure would be to ask the author their intent.

Now I'd really like to find out from the author!


texts:
In reference to: Why is the past tense used in "I was wondering if you would like to come for dinner?" I'd like to ask why we usually use "I was wondering if..." not "I have been wondering if...".

Anyone?


texts: Meaning of "make your cash stretch far enough"

texts:
I encountered the following sentence when reading the book "Algebra for young mind":

For others, however, mathematics is a daunting subject, whether it takes the form of equations on a whiteboard or the fact that, however many times you try, you can never make your cash stretch far enough.

I do not quite understand the line in bold. I guess it should means that
"you can not understand the fact no matter how many times you try." Would anybody let me know if I understand correctly? Thank you!


texts: defining vs. non-defining relative elements

texts:
I know the internet fundamentals of subject but the following sentence has me confused.

  Additionally, guidelines are prepared that will guide the user
  through the phases of the automation project.

Is the bold part defining or non-defining? I assumed it is defining as, in order to understand the sentence as it is intended by the writer, the type of guidelines have to be specified. For me, non-defining so far really only contained information non-necessary for the reader, such as in the following sentence where the information I intend to convey is that I also read a book about music, with the additional information that did like it:

  I also read a book about music, which I happened to, at the same time, like.

I thought that when I want to convey the idea that I like the book in particular, then this would make the information and thus the relative clause defining.

However, I am now unsure, as a sentence with a defining relative clause like

  He held out the finger that was broken

really does not make any sense if the specific finger was not mentioned earlier in the text. Yet, the same could be said about the guidelines, at least somehow. Is the difference here that the finger uses a definite article? Or was I correct with my thinking in the first place.


texts: What's the difference between the "-ism" and the "-istry" suffixes?

texts:
So, the "-ist" suffix is used to denote a person who is related to the word or word root that the "-ist" suffix is attached to (e.g. practicing that profession, adhering to that philosophy, etc.)

However, when you want to convert it into a noun that describes the pursuit that the "-ist" suffix person is engaged in, sometimes you use the "-ism" suffix, and sometimes you use the "-istry" suffix - a dentist is a person who engages in dentistry, a sophist is someone who engages in sophistry, a terrorist is someone who engages in terrorism, and an antagonist is someone who engages in antagonism.

Why do some of these words use the "-ism" suffix, and some use the "-istry" suffix? Is it something to do with the etymology of the word roots, is it some subtle grammatical or meaning difference, or is it just one of those inconsistent things that the English language does sometimes? I just tried looking on Google, and I can't find anything useful.


texts:
Which one is correct from below

We do need to go to the work today.
We need to go to the work today.


texts: 'Satire' is to 'Satirically' as 'Parody is to ...?

texts:
As stated in the title; I'm having a difficult time thinking of the equivalent conjugation.
The word "Satire" is to "Satirically" as "Parody" is to ...?


texts: Difference between "the main reason" and "the chief reason"

texts: What's the difference between "the main reason" and "the chief reason"? I've heard both, but have no idea where exactly these two differ.


texts: What does the RSI abbreviation stand for?

texts:
I'm reading an article about innovative design tooling from the perspective of divergence and convergence. Everything had been pretty much straightforward until I stumbled upon this "RSI" abbreviation. The context is as follows:

  "The declarative example is neat, composable and super readable; the imperative one messy and full of manual array shuffling.
  This might seem tangential to the example of our poor junior designer copying & pasting artboards until RSI sets in, but it’s an important headspace to be in whilst considering our design tooling."

The only guesses I can come up with are the relative strength index and Research Science Institute. I will greatly appreciate if someone could shed the light on this.

Thanks!


texts: Phrase for a proponent of states' rights

texts:
What do you call someone who supports states' rights?

I often see some variation of "states' rightists" but I have a few uncertainties there.

Should there be an apostrophe? "States' rights" makes sense, because the rights belong to the several states. But a "rightist" doesn't belong to states; he or she just believes that states have rights. So would they be "states rightists"?
Is this an appropriate phrase for a formal text? My dictionary only defines "rightists" as the opposite of "leftists," and in no way indicates that a "rightist" is someone who supports a certain set of political rights. I see "animal rightist" in some dictionaries, but no "states rightist" or "states' rightest."

(Federalist doesn't work, because in early American history the federalists were the party of centralists and anti-federalists were the party of states' rights.)


texts: What does it imply when someone is called “Lucifer in the flesh”?

texts:
Washington Post (April 28) carried an article under the headline “John Boehner just called Ted Cruz ‘Lucifer in the flesh.’ He does this sometimes,” and the Stanford Daily (April 28) detailed the episode as:

“Segueing into the topic, Kennedy asked Boehner to be frank given that the event was not being broadcasted, and the former Speaker responded in kind. When specifically asked his opinions on Ted Cruz, Boehner made a face, drawing laughter from the crowd.

"Lucifer in the flesh," the former Speaker said. “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch . in my life.”

Both Oxford and Cambridge English Dictionary defines “Lucifer” as another name for Satan.

What does “Lucifer in the flesh” used in this specific Boehner’s comment mean ? Does "flesh" here have any sexual connotation?


texts: Does “intellectual gymnastics” always have a negative connotation?

texts:
As far as I know, “intellectual gymnastics” is used in a negative sense. For example, the discipline of philosophy can be belittled as “intellectual gymnastics”.

However, a university in Japan seems to be advertising one of their new academic programs by using the term in a positive sense as follows:

  Advanced Education in the Liberal Arts -- Intellectual Gymnastics

Is this simply an incorrect use because of connotation? Or is there maybe some other connotation of the term that is positive?


texts:
Can you tell me please, which variant is better:

  What do you think is the most serious problem in the world?

or,

  What do you think the most serious problem in the world is?


texts:
The sentence is:

No one forget about the issue, please.

From what I've read on the internet, 'no one' always takes a singular verb, but somehow 'no one forgets' doesn't sound right to me. But I don't know why it doesn't sound right. Probably because this is an imperative sentence? No? Can someone please explain?


texts:
I'm updating the website for my student organization. Link. Officially, we are the Texas A&M University Student Branch of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

The banner at the top has the title of the national organization, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and a subtitle describing this organization:

A Professional Society for Aerospace Engineering (a)

Shouldn't the P and S be lowercase?

A professional society for Aerospace Engineering (b)

I vaguely remember reading in elementary school that the last word of a title should begin with a capital letter, so Engineering. If engineering is capitalized, then Aerospace should be capitalized as well, otherwise the title would look weird. However, I then feel that the resulting subtitle b looks funny. Is it funny or am I just used to capitalizing letters?

Also, which is the correct abbreviation of our title: AIAA-TAMU, TAMU-AIAA, or neither? I would like to learn the rules behind your logic.

--An engineering student who cares about grammar (except for any mistakes in this post. It's late and I'm tired)


texts: What's the original meaning of "Abraxis"?

texts:
Today I realized that I'd been running into the name 'Abraxis' in quite a few different places, and I didn't know what it meant. If it appeared once or twice as the name of a fictional character or a music group, I wouldn't think much of it. None of the occurrences are very prominent. But put together, they suggest a common referent. What are they named after?

A web search on 'Abraxis' turns up a variety of businesses and other organizations that don't have any obvious common thread. None of the web sites I visited offer a clue as to why the name Abraxis was chosen. I'm beginning to think that most of the founders don't know what it means either; it just sounds cool.

Most likely it refers to someone or someplace in history, but I've been unable to find anything online that looked old enough to be original -- a main referent after which other recent instances of Abraxis were named. I'm pretty sure the DC Comic character is not it.


texts: Is "not actual" in "potential, not actual harm" an adjective phrase or an adverbial phrase?

texts:
I think this affects comma placement, right?

If it's an adjective phrase modifying harm, then I think it would be:

  "potential, not actual harm"

If it's an adverb phrase modifying potential (by saying it another way, kind of like an appositive, but with an adjective instead of a noun), then I think it would be:

  "potential, not actual, harm"

Saying potential another way is really the reason to put not actual in there in the first place, so treating not actual as an adverbial phrase seems to make more sense purpose-wise. Another way of thinking about not actual as an adverbial phrase might be:

  "potential (and by that I mean not actual) harm"

However, I'm not really sure, especially since not actual certainly makes sense as an adjective modifying harm, which seems simpler. If a phrase could be seen as modifying an adjective or a noun, maybe for simplicity it should just be seen as modifying the noun?

I guess my possibly crazy-sounding hypothesis is that it's in the middle on some kind of spectrum between adjective and adverb and we should do some kind of primary purpose test to determine which one it is for comma placement? (I can picture English teachers everywhere cringing at that suggestion...) I think this is basically what I was thinking above when I suggested it might be an adverbial phrase. (The mental picture of cringing English teachers everywhere is why I think that suggestion might be wrong.)

Of course, this could be avoided altogether by just saying:

  "potential harm, not actual harm"

But that's no fun. :)

So what do you think? Adjective phrase or adverbial phrase?


texts: Why is "poignant" pronounced /ˈpɔɪɲənt/?

texts:
I felt a little bit strange when I heard poignant pronounced as /ˈpɔɪɲənt/.

It is also pronounced as /ˈpɔɪgnənt/, but the former seems to be more popular.

A word stagnant has similar spelling, but it is pronounced as /ˈstægnənt/.

Why is poignant pronounced like that?

I guess that the /ɲə/ sound is not so popular in English pronunciation.

Are there any other words which are pronounced like /ɲə/?


texts: A barrel of any (AND, OR, NOT) gate for logical completeness

texts:
The book is called "Introduction to Computing Systems: From Bits and Gates to C and Beyond". Section 3.3.5 Logical Completeness.
It says "We say that the set of gates {AND, OR, NOT} is logically complete because we can build a circuit to carry out the specification of any truth table we wish without using any other kind of gate. That is, the set of gates {AND, OR, and NOT} is logically complete because a barrel of AND gates, a barrel of OR gates, and a barrel of NOT gates are sufficient to build a logic circuit that carries out the specification of any desired truth table".
I just want to know the meaning of the word "barrel" in this context.


texts:
Is 'rootless weeds' an example of a figure of speech?If it is,what is it called?

It is from the poem'An Elementary School Classroom In A Slum ' (by Stephen Spender).

  'Far far from gusty waves these children's faces. Like rootless weeds, the hair torn around their pallor.


texts: Use of the term "consecutive" to describe a single item

texts:
There's an exercise on Hackerrank, a programming website, that asks me to find the number of consecutive 1s in a binary representation of a decimal number (e.g. 5 is 101 in binary). The author of the problem gave sample inputs and outputs along with his explanations:

  Sample Case 1:
  The binary representation of 5 is 101, so the maximum number of consecutive 1's is 1.

  Sample Case 2:
  The binary representation of 13 is 1101, so the maximum number of consecutive 1's is 2.

Why are there 1 consecutive 1s in the number 101? The term consecutive by its very definition implies sequential multiplicity. It makes sense to say that there are two consecutive 1s in the second example because there is a single "1" followed by yet another "1", but why does it make sense to say there are 1 consecutive 1s? I've never heard anyone use the term "consecutive" to describe a single item.


texts:
What is the meaning of "build off of"? I Googled it, but can't find any definition!

I encountered it in the sentence in a technical book. The sentence is:

  For the application we will build, the todos example is the closest
  fit, so we'll go ahead and build off of that example.

There is a link related to it I found by Google, But it didn't give the definition!

build off of vs build on


texts: there's this word eavesdropping or eavesdrop, which I looked over in oxford and several other places. the closest I got to understanding it was that it originated from an obsolete noun "eavesdrop", meaning the ground on to which water drips from the eaves. But how did come to it's current usage? I'm curious. anyone else?


texts: "Take the role" vs. "take over the role" vs. "take on the role"

texts:
Is there a significant difference between the three expressions, or can they be used interchangeably?

I'm trying to say that a colleague of mine succeeded to another after the latter had quit his job.

Did he "take the role" of his colleague or did he "take over the role" of his colleague? Also "take on the role" sounds like a viable option to me, because I'm trying more to convey the sense of him accepting a new challenge rather than simply taking possession of something that wasn't his.

It's so hard for me as a non-native speaker to say exactly what I mean, I hope you can help me.


texts:
The suffix ‑erior is used in many words that seem to indicate position:

superior
inferior
anterior
posterior

However, with my Google-fu, I can’t find a real definition or etymology.

What does ‑erior mean?  From what language does it come?


texts:
What is to "remove" like "prepend" is to "append"?

In technical domains (e.g. programming), "append" adds something to the end, whereas "prepend" adds something to the beginning.

What is the analogue of "prepend" for "remove"?


texts:
I need to send out an invite for a group to attend a training programme which will be held soon. I intend to know which is the right choice of word "specially" or "especially".

Is this sentence correct for the above request.

"Please ensure you attend this session as it is organized specially for you".


texts:
What would be the appropriate word opposite to "excess" in the following sentence?

  The excess number of particles in the box is negative.

I want to write about a depletion of particles rather than an excess. Something like:

  The depletion number of particles in the box is positive.

"Depletion number" does not sound right to me.

The context is an advanced physics text, where this "excess number" or "depletion number" is represented by a variable (an integer) that appears in mathematical formulas.


texts: Hyphenated and non-hyphenated words that are homophones?

texts:
We know of many cases where hyphens are necessary to distinguish a compound word (man-eating) from a pair of separate words (man and eating). But are there any cases where a hyphenated word has a different meaning than a like-sounding, non-hyphenated word? (Note that this excludes examples like coop and co-op, because they are not homophones.)

The only possibility I can think of would be in constructs such as pro-test (meaning "in favor of tests") versus the noun protest. Any other examples, contrived or otherwise?

EDIT: A colleague of mine came up with a better one: run-down (adj.) versus rundown (n.).


texts: Which ordinal indicator, if any, should be used on symbolic math variables?

texts:
Consider:

“the n-th root of x”
“the a-th derivative of b”

and even more troublesome:

“the ϑ-th something…” (thetath?)

Is there a rule for which ordinal indicator to use on a name, or symbolic variable?

I have seen “n-th” used in various places, but I cannot say the same for other variable names (x, y, ϑ…)

Is “-th” the preferred indicator for unknown quantities? Is it even acceptable to use one, or should the sentence be rephrased into “the something of order ϑ” whenever possible?

NB. This question was never about the typesetting choice of “n-th” vs. “nth,” or even nth, but about the use of an ordinal indicator on symbolic variables: short names that are used to represent unknown quantities.


texts: Good alternatives to "some of the" (best)?

texts:
Are there any good alternatives to "some of the best"? E.g. Some of the best minds, some of the best teams, some of the best companies. I need to write two sentences using the meaning "some of the best" that are close to each other but I don't want to repeat that expression twice in so close proximity.

EDIT

I am not so much interested in replacing "best" with something else, but rather having an alternative expression to "some of the".

Example: I worked with some of the best teams in the country.

Task: Replace "some of the" with another expression that won't change the meaning of the sentence.


texts: The difference in meaning between go in and go into

texts:
Q: Is there a difference in meaning between those two sentences?

I went in knowing that no matter what happened...
I went into this knowing that no matter what happened...
(my understanding: I approached this [experience] knowing that...)

I feel like that those two mean a similar thing but I can't confirm that with any source online...


texts: What does "I have no shame when it comes to ignorance" mean?

texts:
Does it mean one chooses to be ignorant regardless of shame, or submit to shame while admitting ignorance?

Interviewer: Tell me about your first felony arrest?

Candidate: I have no shame when it comes to ignorance; what's a felony?


texts: Can "validity" be "improved" or "increased"?

texts: There are a number of webpages where one can read about "improving the validity" of a scientific process or measurement. Indeed, the entire Wikipedia page for Validity in statistics (which is the sense that I'm interested in) refers to validity as being a matter of degrees of correctness. However, it seems to me that validity, the noun meaning "the quality of being correctly deduced from a premis" as one definition has it, is an either-or thing - either your measurement is valid, or it is not. Is this second interpretation of validity too narrow for use in scientific contexts?


texts: Is there a difference in pronunciation between grandma and grammar?

texts:
?

Also is there a difference between morning and moaning?

Assuming British as spoken in London ("Jafaican") but also interested in other dialects


texts:
I would like to write something like:
This is a comprehensive book---in the dimension of depth, it covers the topic A, and in the dimension of breadth, it covers topic B.
（Topic A is a deep technical area, whereas topic B is a broad one)
What is the best way to say it?


texts: Difference beween requests “can”, “could” and “may”?

texts:
We can use can, could, and may for requests and permissions, but is there any difference between the meanings of the following three versions?

  May I go?
  Can I go?
  Could I go?


texts: "more than usual" vs. "more than usually"

texts:
Which sentence is correct?

"I had more customers than usual."
"I had more customers than usually."

"More than usual" sounds pretty common, but "more than usually" seems more correct when I think about it. There seem to be more adverb adjective conflicts like this, for example "drive safe" vs. "drive safely", which was explained here: Which is correct: "drive safe" or "drive safely"?. Is the rule the same in case of "more than usual"?


texts: Subject verb agreement when "one of" used

texts:
Are these two sentences correct?

One of the employees who is worker at KP is here.
One of the employees who are workers at KP is here.

What is the context of who in both the sentences?


texts: Any alternative phrase for "piece of cake"

texts: Are there other phrases to express easiness of the situation like the above mentioned phrase?


texts: Synonym of "High-Level" in "High-Level Ideas/Description/Method"

texts:
I'm writing a paper and we have the following quote.

see Section 1.3.4 for a high-level description of the method and Section 2.1 for the specific application.

Basically, we're using a general method which we outline in Section 1.3.4; in Section 2.1 we describe our application of this method. As a native English speaker, this sentence seems fine to me. However, someone who is French 1 suggested that we change it with the following comment.

for a high-level description of the method », maybe replace « high-level » by some other adjective, such as « precise ». (Feels more modest.)

We certainly are not intending to be arrogant! Rather we are describing the ideas at an abstract level.
So my question is two-fold.

(a) Do people agree that this may come off as arrogant (not modest)?
(b) What synonyms for "high level" are there? 2

1 : but at least fluent enough in English to be at a university in Austria in a department which uses English as its main language.
2 : other than perhaps "abstract" (but not sure it means exactly the same thing...) I am struggling to think of any; a well-known internet search engine has not been as helpful as one might expect


texts: What quality describes "degree of concentration of wealth"?

texts:
Suppose I wish to propose a challenge to quantify the "degree of concentration of wealth" as it pertains to "rep" on various Stack Exchange boards. The measure being used, the Gini index, is formally called a generalized inequality index, which is unfortunately too formal and too general.

Specifically, I'm looking at "rep" concentration as a measure of how acutely a large community is represented by a small number of individuals.

Is there a single word or expression that describes this quality? Something along the lines of "cabalistic-ness", or "activity concentrated-ness", if these were actual words?

One might invoke the same quality in other situations as well. For example, if a particular gaming website claims to have ten million users, but 10,000 particular users account for 98% of all gaming hours logged, one would say this is a _____ gaming site, or  a gaming site with acute _______.

In casual conversation, the only adjective I've heard that alludes to this meaning is inbred, but I'd like to avoid the negative connotations associated with that word if possible.


texts: I was wondering if this question is grammatically correct. " How different is people's belief about magic today from that of people in the past?"

texts:
I wanted to combine these two questions into one, and I came up with the question above.
1) What do people think of magic today?
2) What did people think of magic in the past?


texts: What is the best word when where usually coworkers/friends pool money together and then each gets a turn at the pot?

texts:
What is the correct word to use when a group where usually coworkers/friends pool money together and then each gets a turn at the pot.

For example, 5 participants each contribute $100 each for 5 months, so each gets a turn at getting the $500 for one of those months.


texts:
While I was reading a book, I chanced on a clause that I found very odd. It says,

  The sea, inches beneath me yet too far for my eyes, buffeted the raft.

At first I thought the italicised part was a nonessential clause, but I was reasonably confident that there would have to be a word which before the word inches to make it grammatically correct. So my second guess was that it should be a participle clause with “inches… my eyes” being a participle phrase; but then I thought there should be a participle like being before the word inches.

Which is correct?


texts: Looking for an answer in regards to POSSIBLY a present perfect in a first conditional sentence

texts:
My question is about this one sentence which has been driving me crazy. I found a discussion on here about present perfect in a first consditional sentences. "If I've...., I'll be able to, etc.." But my sentence starts with not an "If", but with "When" it goes: "When I've saved another 1000 Euros, I'll be able to buy a car."
I don't understand how exactly the two tenses here are connected and why can't we say "When (or once) I save another 1000 Euros, I'll be able to buy a car"?


texts:
Is the phrase 'only 4 japanese out of 8 people' grammatically correct?
Can 'only' be used like this?


texts: What's a single word for the context a word is used in (used to differentiate similar words)?

texts: I saw a question on this site asking about the difference between two similar words and one of the answers said it was the specific context each word was used in, except they used a single word that meant that.


texts:
Is is proper in English to use this structure:

"The following is an example of a case where this applies."

In a lot of technical writing, especially from authors where ESL applies, I find them using above and below as adjectives, as well as "following" as a noun. I had always thought this was incorrect, but I am wondering if I am mistaken.


texts:
I am confused by how "faculty" is used in terms of conference/congress organization.

For example, on this website you see the international and US faculty of an educational meeting. I understand that these people are the speakers, the key figures of the conference. But no dictionaries I have consulted provide a definition like that. Moreover, they never say that "faculty" is somehow related to conferences. Can you explain what exactly the word means in this context?

Also, I have come across the following sentence:

  We are happy to invite you as Guest Faculty. (which means the person is invited as a speaker of a conference)

Does the sentence make sense to you? Perhaps, they could invite someone as a member of Faculty, or just a speaker...


texts: Is a comma required here or would an "and" or "-" make more sense?

texts:
I'm writing on a reward text for a Kickstarter crowdfunding campaign.
Is it correct to set a comma in the sentence below or would an and or - make more sense in that context?

  You'll get your name listed on our website, if you like along with a link to your Twitter profile.


texts: Are these default questions about events correct grammatically?

texts:
As you can see below, I created some default questions which are supposed to ask about events that either have happened or will happen in future(the gaps will be filled by different events such as "New Year" or "First World War" etc. ).

Are any of the following questions poorly-formed, provided that the ellipsis represents an event?

  Is ... an event?

  Where is ... started?

  Where has ... taken place?

  Where is ... finished?

  Who has participated in ... ?

  Who has organized ... ?

  For whom was ... advantageous or disadvantageous ?

  When is ... started ?

  When is ... finished ?

  What happens in ... ?

  What major events happened at ... ?

  What reasons made ... happen ?

  What type of facilities have been used in ... ?

  Which group of people have participated ... ?

  Which is the best source to gain more information about ... ?

  Why has ... started ?

  Why do we have to know about ... ?

  How long is ... ?

  How someone could take part in ... ?

  How many people have been involved in ... ?


texts: "Initialising" is to "initialisation" as "enabling" is to what?

texts:
Is there a valid word for the act of enabling?

I want to say "enablement". It is listed in the dictionary, but is it in common use? I've never heard it before. Is there a more apt word?


texts:
Is it okay to use Present Perfect Tense right after "to see how"?

For example,

  It is both sad and funny to see how these guys have never really got
  to the core of the matter.


texts:
I see a lot of questions asking "what is the subject"? (This, for example.)

Why does it matter, practically, what the subject is? How does knowing the subject give more information than just knowing what the sentence means?

In the linked example,

  And up here in the corner is me.

My understanding is that this sentence is being said by a person and that person is saying that they are up in a corner.

What if the subject is "here in the corner"? What would that tell me?

What if the subject is "me"? What would that tell me?


texts: What word describes the relationship between words like "art" and "artist?"

texts:
An example sentence:

  The word "art," and its ______ "artist," are used too liberally in our culture.

I suppose "derivative" would work there but I'm wondering if there's a more specific one.

Thanks!