Notes

Most studies of science end with the suffixes -logy , -nomy and -metry , as defined in the answer to the question Meaning of '-onomy', '-ology' and '-ography' , including examples like 'geology', 'astronomy' and 'photometry' (which I specialise in). However, there are exceptions, in particular, the science of chemistry . There is another discussion about the term, chemist , in the question The word “chemist” and its origins? , and further from OED : Of English formation: in 17th c. chymistrie , f. chymist (chemist) + -ry, ‘the art or practice of the chemist’; at first probably contemptuous, cf. palmistry, sophistry, casuistry , etc. This question is about the actual term for the science itself – chemistry – what is its origin? Additionally, does the fact the word ends in -istry and not one of the more standard suffixes have a connection to terms such as palmistry (as in the quote above)?

I am from Bangalore and people here tend use the word only to emphasise something in a sentence. For example: We are getting that only printed. What is the proper way to put it? Answer I am an America living in India and have observed the Indian English use of "only" for purposes of emphasis. I've collected a few examples of this usage. The ones below require context because they could also mean "only" in the sense of exclusion, as an American or an Englishman would use the term. However they were all used to emphasize. "It's a new movie only" "It's on that branch only" "They are Panjabi only" "There was a tree only over there" "That's his term only" The following examples also use "only" for emphasis, and contextually they can't be taken any other way. "It's an iPhone only." "I have no lighter only." "I'm going to eat now only." "Immediately...

I like the word fiddle , and I quite like the musical instrument too. If you're fiddling with a device, it means you're trying to repair it. It might be tricky because of all the tiny bits and pieces involved, and it will probably require time, patience and a little luck before the object is in perfect working order. Mothers who see their children making nervous, time-wasting movements will tell them to “ stop fiddling ” with their hair, pens, or nowadays, mobiles. Then there's fiddlesticks , a minced oath if ever there was one, perfect for when you find yourself in polite or unfamiliar company. A fiddlestick on the other hand, is only another name for a violin bow. 1. But when did “fiddling taxes/expenses” mean to cheat or swindle? From India Today but the fact remains that given the peculiar structure of the tax system it is virtually impossible to keep one's head above water, let alone swim, without a considerable amount of fiddling on the side . From the British G...

Is it fixed that words will always take a specific preposition after them? I am reading a book "High school English grammar". It says for example The following nouns take preposition for after them. :- ambition, blame, aptitude candidate, match, ... and The following nouns take preposition of after them. :- assurance, charge, distrust, doubt, failure, ... and same for other prepositions Is that so? I am not a native English speaker but I doubt what is written in the book, I think prepositions are used according to meaning of sentence and are not fixed. Answer For the most part, your book is correct, but you are right to be suspicious. The appropriate word can change depending on the intended meaning of the sentence in some cases. Here are a few examples: I have had a change of heart It is a change for the better What we have here is a failure to communicate This is a failure of epic proportions I have the ambition to succeed I have an ambition for greatness Note: it...

Oxford Dictionaries classify ' Japanese ' in ' the Japanese ,' meaning people from Japan collectively, as a noun although some people I consulted insist it is an adjective. They base it on the examples ' the French ' and ' the Dutch .' Who is right? Or, are they both right? It took them three hours to get to the Longhua Airport, used as an air force base for the Japanese . Apart from the American Indians, the Japanese make some use of lily bulbs in traditional dishes. (source: Oxford Dictionaries )

For a non-native English speaker like me, it's always been hard to sound æ and ɛ differently. For example, "salary" and "celery" are two words that I tend to pronounce identically. Is it OK to go on like this or should I practice to get it right? Answer Here is a typical English vowel chart: As you can see, /æ/ and /ɛ/ are quite close to each other, and so have quite a similar sound. The difference is in the degree of openness: /æ/ is “near-open” and /ɛ/ is “open-mid”. If you want to make a clear distinction between the two, you need to practice, practice, practice. When I was learning phonetics, I found the best practice was to try to make long continuous vowels that go along the axes, like /iiiiiiiieeeeeeeeɛɛɛɛɛɛɛɛææææææææaaaaaaaa/. Once I was able to master making the entire continuum, it became easier to find individual points along the continuum.

The pirate song “Fifteen Men on a Dead Man’s Chest” from Treasure Island contains the expression yo-ho-ho . Fifteen men on the dead man’s chest— Yo-ho-ho , and a bottle of rum! Drink and the devil had done for the rest— Yo-ho-ho , and a bottle of rum! Does this signify laughter, a piratical variation of ho-ho-ho ? It doesn’t seem like an amusing little ditty but then pirates probably would have a dark sense of humour. Or is it simply a more piratey song filler than na-na-na ? Answer Accordin’ to yon pirate page , yo-ho-ho indeed be pirate laughter. But there be also another source claimin’ that ’tis merely a scallywag’s variant of yo-heave-ho , the chant that all good sea-farin’ folk use to keep their rhythm when haulin’ cannon to the scuppers. Seems ’tis likely yo-ho-ho be used to maintain the rhythm in yer fine sea chantey as well. When ye shipmates sing out yo , yer all be givin’ yon rope a hearty pull.

Do "My vote goes for…" and "My vote goes to…" have different meanings? Can they be used interchangeably? Answer I would think the first usage could be correct in sentences such as "my vote goes for nothing", meaning "my vote counts for nothing" (or possibly my vote is for sale for very little). "My vote goes to" would, I think, be more normal if you were planning to vote for somebody.

What is the function of "the" in these kinds of phrases? It cannot be the definite article. Can someone analyze this? It's common and definitely standard but seems to elude any grammatical explanation.

What do you call a person who doesn't/can't usually keep his/her word ? Answer A liar if you want a simple term. If it is someone who regularly makes promises and doesn't live up to them they are a renegger . You may also see a moderately offensive (to some) term Indian Giver which is a reference to Native Americans. This term was very popular before the PC movement. And if it is someone who doesn't pay their bets they are a welcher .

According to Merriam-Webster, the pronunciation of alcohol is "ˈal-kə-ˌhȯl" while the pronunciation of hollow is "ˈhä-(ˌ)lō." Why are they pronounced with different vowels? I think I've figured out the reason (my explanation is further below) but I haven't been able to find any source to confirm my guess. Background explanation of the two sounds /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ in American English In case you're wondering how they could possibly be pronounced differently, or what Merriam-Webster's pronunciation symbols mean, here is some background information. For many American English speakers, the words "cot" and "caught" don't rhyme because they have different vowels. (For many others, they do: speakers like this have merged the vowels .) In this question, I'll use the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) and follow the usual convention of representing the North American vowel in words like "cot" and "lot" as /ɑ/ an...

I'm looking for a word that has the opposite implication to "depends on" or "has this prerequisite". Something which describes the relationship of B to A if A is a prerequisite of B. Something that could mean "dependor" or "requirer", for example? Answer If B requires A, then B is dependent on A. So B is a dependent of A. Dependent: (adj) determined or conditioned by another : contingent (e.g., plans that are dependent on the weather) Merriam-Webster The corresponding noun has the same spelling.

Popping a cap Green's Dictionary of Slang defines "pop a cap" as: to fire a weapon; to shoot someone. In recent uses, the slang meaning is clear, and often extended to "pop a cap (in somebody's ass)." For example in this citation from 2000 : F.X. Toole Rope Burns 165: If some fool of whatever color was coming to kill him, he’d pop a cap in his ass in a heartbeat. The two earliest attested dates provided in GDoS are 1865 and 1953 . The 1953 citation clearly carries the same meaning, "to shoot someone." ‘Death Row’ in D. Wepman et al. Life 118: I popped four caps through his chest with my piece. The 1865 citation, at first glance, seems to carry the same meaning: in B.L. Ridley Battles and Sketches of the Army of Tennessee 454: My men halloo out: ‘Lie down, Mr. Govan, Mr. Bate is now gwine to pop a cap’ . Strange early uses Looking through early uses of "pop a cap," I found some strange instances that made me wonder if they actual...

What is the difference between set phrase and catch phrase ? Do the expressions describe something without relation with each other? Answer set phrase an unvarying phrase having a specific meaning, such as “raining cats and dogs,” or being the only context in which a word appears, e.g., “aback” in “take aback.” and catch phrase A phrase in wide or popular use, especially one serving as a slogan for a group or movement. The first is widely used and a synonym for cliché . The second is usually more specifically applied. "It's morning in America" was the catch phrase used to get Ronald Reagan elected president of the U.S. But it had no wider currency than that.

[credit for to this question goes to Ben Hocking , who posted it as an example that seemed to be disagreed upon in Is "certainly possible" an oxymoron? ] Some web-references (e.g. this one ) give the phrase "pretty ugly" as an example of an oxymoron. The meaning of 'pretty' and 'ugly' within the context of the phrase is not contradictory, but a different meaning of those two words is semantically contradictory, which seems to be enough to qualify under this definition for oxymoron: A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist. (TFD) Is the phrase "pretty ugly" an oxymoron? Answer I'm late to the party so not sure if anyone will see this, but the existing answers are rather incomplete. "Oxymoron" is not a philosophical or logical term of art;¹ it's a rhetorical one. Thus saith the OED : 1. Rhetoric . A pair of opposed or markedly contra...

I need to find a solution to/for this problem. Can to and for be used interchangeably here? Is one of them just plain wrong? Answer I need to find a solution to this problem I need to find a solution for this problem I need to find a remedy for this problem All three sentences are correct, although the second is less common. Usually, one will find that to is the preposition of choice for the word solution . However, for is preferred in certain cases, and I give two examples to illustrate this: A bunch of students are working on a physics problem set in the common room. C and J are done with questions 1 through 4 and are currently working on 5. A just finished solving question 4 and wants to check her work with C and J : "Hey guys, could you show me your solution for number four? I'm not sure I did it correctly." Joe had just bought a fridge for a dollar from an old lady down the road. Still unable to believe his luck, he wasted no time in setting it up in the...

The prefix arch-, archi- “chief, principal; extreme, ultra; early, primitive,” derives from Latinized Greek arkh-, arkhi-, the combining form of arkhos “chief.” Usually, arch- is pronounced like “arch” (ɑrtʃ), and archi- sounds like “ark” (ɑrkɪ), although archangel (ɑrkeɪndʒəl) is a notable exception. Is there an etymological or other reason for pronouncing the two prefixes differently? Did they perhaps enter English at different times? Likewise, is there any pattern to which nouns use arch- (e.g., archenemy, archfiend ) versus archi- ( archiepiscopal, architect )? Why is archangel an exception to the pronunciation rule? Answer An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language (1888) by Walter W. Skeat answers all your questions at once. ARCH- , chief; almost solely used as a prefix. (L.--Gk.) Shak. has 'my worthy arch and patron,' Lear, ii. I.61; but the word is harshly used, and better kept as a mere prefix. In arch-bishop , we have a word in very early use; A.S. ...

Why is the definite article used in expressions like the more and the less ? For example, The more you study, the more you know. The less you study, the less you know. Answer It's not really the definite article, it just looks like the definite article. It's derived from the instrumental case form of the pronoun that in Anglo-Saxon (meaning "by that amount"), which has come to be pronounced exactly the same as the definite article over the centuries.

What does whoopty-skippy-do mean? Because if that's your plan then whoopty-skippy-do, sign me up!" Tito appeared, leaning over the hood. “My ears are burning. I hope you're not talking about me,"... Source: Turbo Junior Novelization, Simon & Schuster

When I think of double negatives I think of phrases that grate on the ears, like: I'm not going to do no homework. I'm never going to not go visit Graceland. There are some phrases that appear to technically be considered a double negative, but seem more common and are, in my opinion, actually pleasing to the ear. And I've seen such uses in newspaper articles, magazine articles, and other edited content. I'm referring to phrases like: It's not uncommon for two people to meet serendipitously. Baseball is not unlike golf - both are boring to watch without a beer in hand. It's not unusual to be loved by anyone. Are the above examples of double negatives? Should their use be avoided? Answer To answer your first explicit question, I would say they are double negatives : A double negative occurs when two forms of negation are used in the same clause. To answer the second question, I would say the use of litotes is perfectly acceptable. Litotes is a form of understat...

I'm writing up some documentation, and I'm unsure which phrase to use: Option X: Find all strings ending with foo . or Option X: Find all strings ending in foo . Are both correct? (Google spits out both, strongly favoring with .) Which should I prefer? Answer "Ends in" is acceptable in the sense that words can end in a vowel; end in an "a"; etc. This is often shortened to: "Word" ends in "d" "Ends with" seems to fulfill the same use: "Word" ends with "d" But I typically think of "ends with" using larger things than letters: "This phrase" ends with "phrase" "This is a sentence" that ends with "sentence" Really, though, both "in" and "with" are doable: "Hungry" and "angry" both end in "gry." "Hungry" and "angry" both end with "gry." The only difference I can find is their usage outs...

I've been hearing the phrase "whose job it is to" quite often lately. Consider these two sentences: We have a guy whose job is to clean windows. We have a guy whose job it is to clean windows. I would prefer the first one because of the less redundancy, though both sentences seem to be grammatically correct (are they?). What do you think about the grammar of these sentences? Is there any (subtle) difference in meaning (accentuation)?

I know I have asked a similar question before but this time I have examples taken from COCA and they do puzzle me. I would love to hear explanations from native speakers. The following (incomplete) sentences taken from COCA show three different ways of article usage before "reduction of something ". (1) $1.5 billion could be used for things like restoration of fish and wildlife, the reduction of mercury pollution and greenhouse gas reduction. (2) Fasting imposes a reduction of calorie intake, which is particularly significant if the hours of darkness are few (3) A key goal of the optimization phase is reduction of communication over-head via a range of techniques, including execution of communication in parallel Can you say "a reduction of mercury pollution" instead of "the reduction of mercury pollution" in (1)? Likewise, can you say "the reduction of calorie intake" instead of "a reduction of calorie intake" in (2)? If you can, what d...

How do you say it correctly? Adult and children stories Adults and children stories Adults' and children's stories other? Answer I'm not sure what you mean: if you said "adult stories" that would probably mean "porn". "Children's stories" would usually mean "stories by children" rather than "stories for children". The best fit for what you seem to mean is Stories for adults and children or Stories for all ages

We were taught in high school that to say 'my mother she' or 'the dog he' or 'the men they' is incorrect. But I hear this all the time with local news anchors. Is this grammatical? For the life of me I can't recall what that's called. Please help. Thanks.

I'm looking for a single word for "lazy student". In my own language there is such a word that a teacher would use for a student who doesn't engage and doesn't care. In English, the word "slacker" is the best I could think of. Answer Slacker — Dictionary.com a person who evades his or her duty or work Good-for-nothing — TFD A person of little worth or usefulness. Couch potato — TFD an idler who spends much time on a couch (usually watching television) Couldn't find any word specifically tailored for students. Aren't most students like this anyway?

Dudley was sniffling in the back seat; his father had hit him round the head for holding them up while he tried to pack his television, VCR, and computer in his sports bag. (Harry Potter 1, Scholastic Paperbacks p41) My guess about the meaning of this sentence was his father hit his son’s head with his palm once. However, the more I think about it, the more ideas I get from it. I’d like to know if the following guesses of mine are correct or not. 1. hitting times Dudley's father hit Dudley only one time because the writer uses the verb “hit” instead of “beat, etc.” and because “round” doesn’t add some information, like times, to the verb, since it’s not an adverb but a preposition. 2. Why does the writer use “round” instead of other prepositions? -- because 1). the head is cylindrical (or spherical), not flat. In other words, the shape of the target goes well with “round.” 2). the father hit his son’s head not with his fist, but with his palm which is along the head for a sho...

I've been thinking that the phrase " already know " is different from the phrase " have already known ". Already know : I know something clearly at this point of saying (present) Have already known : I've known something so far. (present perfect) I may be confused in the explanation. I don't know when we can use each of these phrases properly. Thanks and best regards,

I am writing a technical document and I need to refer to the current point of time. Should I say 'at the time of writing', 'at the time of this writing', or 'at the time of writing this'? Are all acceptable? Answer While all will be understood, the convention in this situation is to use "at the time of writing". Alternatively you could say "as of October 2014". "At the time of writing we had just declared war with IS." "As of October 2014 the tax rate is 20%."

I have been there first time. The reason why I think this might not be natural is that the expression "first time" seems to describe "past". You do not use the present perfect with an adverb indicating "past", in my understanding. However, I feel the phrase below is not that funny. This is the first time that I have been there. I am wondering about the relationship between "the first time" and "I have been there". "That" could behave like a relative adverb. If that is the case, the antecedent of "that"—"the first time"—is shared with the following clause: "I have been there". Then, is it OK to say "I have been there first time"? By the way, Google searches for " I have been there first time " and I have been there the first time " in the UK domain show just 33 hits for the first phrase and 10 hits for the second.

...or, to phrase it differently, like one of those silly SAT questions... please help me fill in this blank: 4 is to 5 as "quadrant" is to ???? (Does that make sense?) Answer Though a very rare word, that would be a quintant .

What noun or adjective would one give to a person that is intolerant of stupidity? A person that becomes annoyed, angry, or of very short temper when conversing or interacting with people of a lower intelligence? For example: The man is very xyzxyz ; his son can't do multiplication very well. or She is a(n) xyzxyz . She gets very frustrated when people forget things. I'm looking almost for a scientific/medical/psychological term. One that would fall into the same kind of group as words like haemophiliac, masochist, nihilist, etc.

Is it grammatically incorrect to use a verb with multiple meanings so that the meanings are used at once? I'm thinking of a line from the classic Flanders Swann song Madeira M’Dear : … he hastened to put out the cat, the wine, his cigar and the lamps. Is there a name for this kind of structure? Answer This is an example of syllepsis : syllepsis |səˈlepsis| noun ( pl. -ses |-sēz|) a figure of speech in which a word is applied to two others in different senses (e.g., caught the train and a bad cold ) or to two others of which it grammatically suits only one (e.g., neither they nor it is working ). [NOAD] It can be used to good effect or bad. Unless deftly handled, it can simply cause confusion or sound silly, as above. For more information, compare with zeugma .

honour killing is a word that carries sentiments. But its Google synonym don't. Like assassination - is a more of a war machine word. butchery - is not right either. Do we have a single word for honour killing?

I just learnt about the expression "to bite the bullet", meaning Accept the inevitable impending hardship and endure the resulting pain with fortitude (as seen in its article in phrases.org). I have read about its origin, but it looks a bit unclear or disputed, since different historical reasons appear in its Wikipedia article . Is there any authoritative or more relevant source to get to know its origin? Does it always mean "show courage" or it depends on the region? Answer From the book Anesthesia in Cosmetic Surgery , edited by Barry Friedberg (Publisher: Cambridge University Press): Prior to the late 1800s, one could get drunk or literally bite the bullet, neither of which had any effect on pain. An interesting article appeared about a .50 caliber bullet found at the site of the Battle of Ox Hill. The 21st Massachusetts Regiment had fought at a local cornfield with extreme and horrifying injuries. Yet, they had no medical care. The bullet has molar tooth cusp...

Utterances like you pig! , you bastard! or you silly! are quite common but it is hard to find grammatical explanation about them as they are prevalent in the colloquialism. I would be glad if somebody helped me to better understand the use of the pronoun you before adjectives and in what environments it usually appears. For example, can it be replaced by another expression, what are the common adjectives used with it, can it be used to praise?

If you are working as an employee at an organization, when you tell about it to others which usage would be more appropriate? I work for company . I work at company . Or are both usages correct? Answer Both usages are correct, and they mean the same thing. The only minor wrinkle is that at can be used to refer to a physical location as well as a company itself: I work at Microsoft. I work at the Microsoft Redmond campus. Whereas for cannot be used this way: I work for Microsoft. *I work for the Microsoft Redmond campus. The last sentence would somehow indicate that you are employed by the campus itself, which probably isn't what you mean.

Have these two phrases evolved independently, and how much do their meanings overlap? Pork barrelling (as in "pork barrel politics") is pretty clear in its meaning, but how about gravy train? Where did it come from, and what is its exact/ original meaning?

I'm listening to some Harry Potter audio books, and there are so many words describing the work of the spell. One can be cursed , charmed , hexed or jinxed . What's the difference? Answer Here are the etymologies from most recent words to older (from etymonline.com). I recommend reading them as these words these days might have lost much of their delineation - today we label them under one category and often use them interchangeably. jinx (n.) 1911, Amer.Eng., from 17c. jyng "a charm, a spell," originally "wryneck," a bird used in witchcraft and divination, from L. iynx "wryneck," from Gk. iynx . The verb is 1917 in Amer.Eng., from the noun. Related: Jinxed; jinxing. hex (v.) 1830, Amer.Eng., from Pennsylvania German hexe "to practice witchcraft," from Ger. hexen "to hex," related to Hexe "witch," from M.H.G. hecse , hexse , from O.H.G. hagazussa (see hag). Noun meaning "magic spell" is first recorde...

I am reviewing a software manual, and I frequently come across sentences like (made-up example): The value is 1, but you can set it to e.g. 100 It seems to me that the use of "e.g." is wrong in this case and "for example" should be used instead. I have difficulty expressing why I feel this way, but if you take the meaning of "e.g." to be "for the sake of example" it seems to me that the general case is not explicitly specified (what is 100 an example of?). I think it should be either The value is 1, but you can set it to another value, e.g. 100. or The value is 1, but you can set it to for example 100. Does anyone know if my intuition is right (I'm not a native speaker), or whether or not there are any formal rules to this? Answer Your hunch is right. The given statement is wrong. The value is 1, but you can set it to another value, e.g. 100. is correct. The value is 1, but you can set it, for example, to 100. The preposition was a bit off, ...

What is the correct adjective form of the word hire ? I have seen references to both hireable and hirable . I checked using Google's Ngram viewer book search and it appears that both have been in use since the 1800s with hirable becoming a bit more popular in the past decade or so:

Which is correct/better to state: He was orally informed OR He was verbally informed. What determines when it is suitable to use either, i.e. verbally or orally. Answer Verbally comes from Latin verbum, “word.” Its adjective form verbal is often used in the sense of “spoken,” and contrasted with “written.” Orally comes from Late Latin oralis, which comes from Latin os, “mouth.” It means “by mouth.” Like verbally, orally is sometimes use in the sense of “spoken”. From Grammarist.com : English authorities have traditionally urged against using verbal in reference to spoken things—for example, verbal/oral communications, verbal/oral reports, and verbal/oral warnings—but verbal is increasingly used in these phrases, perhaps in part due to oral‘s prurient associations. But oral is still a good word, so one does not have to follow the trend toward favoring verbal. Still, using verbal in the newer way is not wrong, as it is sanctioned by common, widespread usage and is by no means new. I t...

What is the difference between a gerund and a participle? Answer A gerund is a form of a verb used as a noun, whereas a participle is a form of verb used as an adjective or as a verb in conjunction with an auxiliary verb. In English, the present participle has the same form as the gerund, and the difference is in how they are used. When used with an auxiliary verb ("is walking"), it serves as a verb and is the present participle. When used as an adjective ("a walking contradiction") it is also a participle. However, when used as a noun ("walking is good for you"), it is a gerund. See the Wikipedia articles on gerund and participle for more details.

Anyone who's watched CW's Arrow would recognize this line immediately: They've got guns. You've got a bow and arrow . They never say a bow and arrows. They never say a bow and an arrow . They say a bow and arrow , which still sounds idiomatic. I'm trying to make sense of it. These are the explanations I came up with. arrow here is an uncountable noun. However, OD doesn't list any specific uncountable senses of the word. And phrases like a quantity of arrow sound wrong. The Oxford Dictionaries entry lists the bow and arrow phrase as an example, though. a bow and arrow is an idiom meaning a bow and a set of arrows (and maybe a quiver). Again, I can't find this idiom under arrow or bow . So I'm not sure if this is right. They're talking about just one arrow (which is on the bow at the time). If that's the case, why drop the article? Also, I can't think of any analogical phrases. Is a gun and bullet a thing? I think one would say "I...

Is the diphthong [ai] on a non-primary stressed syllable a hypercorrection? Some American people pronounce the prefix "anti" like an-tie. For example, here's a pronunciation of "anti-Christian" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/anti-Christian Another example: Most British people pronounce "finance" like fie-nance with the primary stress on the second syllable. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/finance Yet another example: "organization" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/organization These diphthongs are non-primary stressed. I wonder if they are originated from hypercorrections. Edit (Oct. 18, 2015) This question was closed because 5 users (tchrist, Janus Bahs Jacquet, Drew, Edwin Ashworth, Myst) didn't understand what I was asking. I think it's pretty clear what I was asking. Is the diphthong [ai] on a non-primary stressed syllable a hypercorrection? Maybe they didn...

What is the correct place to use the word tumbleweed ? Can we use it as a metaphor for a person who always irritates us? Answer Yes, tumbleweeds' traits can, and have been, applied to people: "I'm just a tumbling tumbleweed!" - lyrics to a song written by Bob Nolan , an actor, poet and western music songwriter in the 1930's. It attributes the plant's characteristic trait of breaking off and rolling along the plains with the wind to a cowboy's lifestyle. Edit: The question on whether an annoying person can be called a "tumbleweed" is more of a judgment call. It would depend on whether the person is annoying because they are shiftless and always on the move and at the whim of the "wind" or other external force, not because of their own motivation.

How should I punctuate around quotes? I've been writing a letter to an editor, and one line of my response reads: In your article "What Makes Free Will Free?" you mention... My question is: where should I place a comma to transition from the quoted article title to words you mention... after it? Should I place the comma in the quotes, or outside the quotes? Traditionally, I would place it in the quotes, but I wasn't too sure if I could place a comma right after a question mark like that. Answer The quotes here delimit the article title. Since the comma is not part of the title, it belongs outside of the quotes. If this were a book title, it would be either italicized or underlined, but the comma would not. The same logic should apply here.

I first noticed in this answer that there is something sneaky going on with the word photon : its ‹t› is the stressed allophone of /t/ , a fully aspirated [tʰ] . It does not reduce to [t] or [ɾ] the way it does in words like voting . Other words with the same issue include proton and lepton . The only way I can explain this would be if the second syllable in such words bears secondary stress, so [ˈfoʊˌtʰɑn] . Even so, the question remains: why does this happen? Is it because these are all “new” words? Or does Greek somehow enter into it? I notice other new scientific terms have the related issue of an unreduced vowel in the syllable without primary stress, such as in hadron, quasar, protein, baryon, genome . So the ‹t› in proton and photon works more like it does in Motown or cow town , but those are at morphemic boundaries. The only “old” word I could think of where it might work the same way (remain aspirated) might be in canton . But there the vowel in the unstressed syllab...