Notes

I'm doing some verb to derived word conversions and I'm struggling with keeping the T or converting it to a C in some verbs ended with T: Exhibit -> Exhibition Perfect -> Perfection Benefit -> Beneficial I have done a bit of research on beneficial and that's what I've found , no common patterns at all. Is there any rule to make this conversion? Answer -tial/-cial I found a site that offers a rule of thumb for spelling words ending in -tial/-cial which doesn't even require you to know the spelling of the related verb. It is Use -cial after a vowel, like after the vowel ‘o’ in s o cial, ‘e’ in sp e cial, ‘i’ in benef i cial Use -tial after a consonant, especially, after ‘n’ in substa n tial, esse n tial, ‘r’ in pa r tial [...] Memorise/memorize these seven exceptions: financial, commercial, provincial, initial, spatial, palatial, controversial (from www.howtospell.co.uk , by Joanne Rudling) This list of exceptions is probably sufficient for common words...

Ok, I'm writing a story where the character visits a museum. Does she visit: the mammal exhibit the mammals exhibit the mammals' exhibit

Which word goes in the blank ( their or its )? The stones are small, but _ __ value is great. I think it is their but my child's paper says it is its . Which is correct and why?

I was always taught to capitalize the first letter of the first word in a sentence, and also the first letter of proper nouns. In the last few years it's been common for certain firms to name their brands something that is always spelled with a small first letter and a capital second letter. It is almost as if they demand the rules of usage are changed. What do you do about this? Where is the inquisition when you need it? Should you start a sentence with "IPhone"? Should you use "iphone" in the middle of a sentence? Answer You should never change a brand name . 'iPhone' should always be spelled as 'iPhone,' no matter where in the sentence it is. 'IPhone,' 'iphone,' 'I-phone,' 'i-phone' or 'I phone' are always wrong. 'iPhone' is the only good one: Good iPhones are the best selling smartphones. Wrong IPhones are the best selling smartphones. Terrible Iphones are the best selling smartphones. This is...

Are there words that have no plural counterpart, because they are, in fact plural? Words like rice or scissors come to mind.

How do you correctly abbreviate that something is in "three dimensions" in formal writing? As per the title, would you write either "3D", "3d", or "3-d"? I want to write something like: The figure contains a 2D widget (left) and a 3D gadget (right). Additionally, if I use the full phrase in a sentence, I gather that I write The three-dimensional gadget is composed of independent two-dimensional widgets. i.e. using a hyphen and the word "three". Would it also be allowed to write "3-dimensional"? Especially in a context where I want to contrast it with something else "2-dimensional" in the same (or adjacent) sentence, as the numerals stick out more? Answer I am searching for an answer to the same question. I wouldn't use 3d, 3-d, or 3-dimensional because I have never seen them. Longman dictionary says three-D or 3-D ( Longman ), but Oxford also says 3D ( Oxford ). So I think 3D or 3-D are accepted.

Found a similar question here , but with some minor differences. Is it archaic to use have you in sentences such as this: John : I think we can see it with a specially crafted telescope. Mary : Have you such a telescope? instead of Mary : Do you have such a telescope? Is it still used in official and casual conversations? Answer In American English, you almost never hear the more archaic form, " Have you such a telescope?" It's not improper, just dated. I don't think anyone would be confused by it, but possibly taken aback by the anachronistic usage.

I have listened to a song 'since you been gone'. The singer pronounces 'since you been gone' as 'sinchu been gone'. At least I have heard that. Am I correct? Here that part https://youtu.be/R7UrFYvl5TE?t=18s . If I am then can you please tell why it sounds that way? How can the sound 'ch' be appeared there? Answer It's not wrong, although it might be considered a bit informal. The pronunciation of "since" in isolation is generally transcribed as /sɪns/. However, this pronunciation may be affected by the phonetic process of epenthesis. This causes /ns/ to change to [nts], or /nʃ/ to change to [ntʃ] (or more generally, this process may cause any nasal consonant to extrude a plosive after it when it is followed by a voiceless fricative in the same syllable). So many people pronounce "since" the same as a hypothetical word "sints"; that is, [sɪnts]. This occurs due to the articulatory difficulty of producing a nasal conson...

Are there any English onomatopoeias for disgust / loathe? What exclamations are commonly used to express repulsion? Something that could be used like: (___) dog shit. I loathe it! (some sound here) … to increase the expressiveness of the sentence? Answer The conventional exclamation for disgust is yuck (alternatively, yech ); the Macmillan entry says it is used for saying that you think someone or something is dirty, ugly, or unpleasant Oh, yuck! It’s slimy! The earliest OED entry is from 1966, noting an earlier verb sense of yuck meaning to vomit, but it may have existed earlier in dialectic English. Chris Sunami's suggestion of ew is also a good one. Somewhat milder is ick , a reaction to something icky . Somewhat stronger is blecch ( blech , bleech , etc.), which has not made it into any of the major dictionaries, but is easily found online, and even featured in the title of an episode of The Simpsons. Stronger still is bleah , also imitative of retching or gagging, thoug...

This is the case I have in mind. I wish to express that impact acted in a way that was severely adverse . It impacted her severely adversely. The proposed text above doesn't feel right at all, though.

There is a man who projects an attitude of "the things you like are so boring." He isn't really mean about it. He just doesn't care about things that are important to me. What words could I use to describe him? Answer Cavalier comes to mind, especially if he seems to consider himself better than you. Showing a lack of proper concern; offhand: Etymology: cavalier (adj.) " disdainful ," 1650s, from cavalier (n.). Earlier it meant " gallant " (1640s). cavalier (n.) 1580s, from Italian cavalliere " mounted soldier, knight; gentleman serving as a lady's escort ," from Late Latin caballarius "horseman," f rom Vulgar Latin caballus , the common Vulgar Latin word for " horse " (and source of Italian cavallo , French cheval , Spanish caballo , Irish capall , Welsh ceffyl ), displacing Latin equus (see equine). Sense advanced in 17c. to " knight ," then " courtly gentleman " (but also, pejoratively...

classy sassy and a bit smart assy Can someone please explain the meaning of this? Answer "classy" = stylish "sassy" = spirited, cheeky 'smart assy" = an adjective, facetiously derived from "smart ass," slang for someone who's an irritating know-it-all

In some of the non-Latin-based languages that I know there is a special word for your brother's wife. Is there such a word in English? Usage would be something like: She is my __ (My brother's wife) Answer That would be sister-in-law : sister of one's spouse, the wife of one's brother, or sometimes the wife of one's spouse's brother. Edit: as ShreevatsaR points out in the comments, if you're looking for a single word that means only "wife of one's brother" and nothing else, then you're out of luck.

What's the subject, grammatically speaking, of these sentences? There is my biscuit! My biscuit is there! There is one biscuit left. I don't really know how to analyze these. The following observations seem to be relevant, though: The verb to be doesn't take an object. In the first two sentences, there is a demonstrative pronoun. It is therefore potentially a subject, I think. I don't know what part of speech is taken by there in the third sentence. In favour of reading my biscuit and one biscuit as the subjects is that if there were more than one biscuit then, in each case, the verb would become plural ( There are my biscuits! etc.) In favour of reading one biscuit as the subject of the third sentence is that if we recast it as (the slightly unidiomatic) There remains one biscuit , it seems that one biscuit would have to be the subject. All of this leads me tentatively towards thinking that my biscuit and one biscuit are the subjects here, but I'm not to...

In The Martian movie, Matt Damon (Watney), when left stranded on Mars with very limited resources to survive, says: Mark Watney: In the face of overwhelming odds, I'm left with only one option, I'm gonna have to science the shit out of this. Apparently, Celebrity scientist, Neil Degrasse Tyson loved this quote . And so did I. A Quora post says Watney's a scientist. He's going to use scientific method to solve his problems. It's more obvious in the book - he does a lot of calculations. eg. He drives the rover around in circles logging how much energy it uses to test his hypothesis for carrying hab solar panels on a trailer, keeping within walking distance of the hab. He doesn't just do something and hope it works first time, like MacGyver ('80s TV show). So you probably get the idea what it means to science the shit out of something . That is, to practically experiment a lot (and a lot more), in this case, for survival; instead of simply hoping to survive...

What is the difference in usage between ability and capability ? Answer Capability implies unrealised potential, as in "John is capable of winning", which implies John has the ability to win but it's not definite. It means more or less "John has the talent that's needed to win." Ability, on the other hand, implies possibility. "John is able to win" means John is in the running to win but not necessarily that he has the skills or ability to win. It means more or less "It's possible that John will win". But here's where it gets more confusing: "John is able to read" means John can read without doubt, whereas "John is capable of reading" means John has all the necessary brain power and whatnot to be able to read but the question of whether or not he can read at the moment is left unsaid (although the fact that someone does say "John is capable of reading" probably means John can't read right now).

Which makes more sense in American English? The non-restrictive relative clause: The bed has a thickness, which may be adjustable. versus the restrictive relative clause: The bed has a thickness that may be adjustable. The use of the word may suggests to me that it is non-restrictive, however, I feel like it is more correctly written as a restrictive clause. Are both acceptable, and if so, how do their meanings differ? The meaning I desire, is a bed with a thickness, that may or may not be adjustable (i.e., the bed's adjustability is not determined). These sentences don't make much sense, that is because I took a much longer sentence and both genericized it and stripped it down to the the portion that applied to my question. I think the key point is if the relative clause contains words like may or could that make the clause optional, does it make sense to ever use the restrictive clause? Answer The second one (restrictive) more correctly communicates your meaning. All matt...

What's the difference between "vapour" and "mist"? I ask because I was reading the Wikipedia article for Electronic Cigarettes and there is a lengthy and acrimonious discussion. I don't want to get involved! But I do want to know if there is a difference, and what it is.

I don't know if Stack Exchange is the right place to ask this question but I am very keen to find out: Which accent has Brad Pitt adopted in the movie Inglourious Basterds for the role of Lieutenant Aldo Raine?

First let me state the obvious—based on my own experience—that hordes of people are confused about certain basic grammar principles. For example, I so often see mistakes in choosing the pronoun to use with direct objects, especially when introduced by and with another person, as in "Joe talked about the book with Anna and [I/me]." Another one is the near 100% usage of "lay" instead of "lie" (and "laid" instead of "lay") nowadays, even in published sci-fi books that most certainly had professional editors proofread them. Do you see these kinds of changes as predictors of the future? Will they become correct after enough people have used them long enough? Both of these problems drive me bonkers, and I fight my own little battle against them when possible. I know that dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive. They're technically history books. But grammar and style books seem less so, to me. Those seem as though they ough...

I wanted to put in my presentation a word or phrase (either one will do) that describes a person that easily gives up but is easily fired up. Please help me. Answer Perhaps you can describe such as person with these: easily motivated and demotivated

In the US we have a number of slang terms that are commonly used to refer to the police: cops pigs five-O fuzz buzzkill (referring to their presence messing up the enjoyment of drugs) I am curious as to what they are called in other countries (or more terms used in the US). Etymology greatly appreciated Answer Here is a pretty comprehensive list of just what you're looking for. It includes etymology on a lot of them, and sources for most. -EDIT- FOR Kosmonaut Here is a list of British only slang words for police. :) Here are a few common, or just awesome, ones from that second link. Some of them contain some etymology. Bear: Short for "Smokey the Bear" in reference to the hats worn by some U.S. state police being similar to that of "Smokey the Bear". "Bear bait" is a reference to speeders, who may draw the attention of the police and allow slightly slower traffic to exceed the speed limit in their wake. "Bear in the Air" is a reference to ...

SimCity, for example, casts youth in the role of mayor. I'm not sure if I understand the usage of zero article correctly. There is no article before 'mayor' as this is the instance where we refer to something that is already unique. Is that so? (for anyone who's interested, the context is in the middle of page 6 here ) Answer Here, "the role of" indicates a type of or metaphorical position, not a specific job or rank. If we had "the mayor," my natural question would be: "mayor of what?" Since we are not referring to a particular office or title, "the" may be dropped. For example, She was treasurer of the committee. indicates that she served in a capacity that may be commonly called "treasurer." This role may or may not be formally recognized, however. The sentence doesn't indicate whether her service as treasurer is an office, or if she has a title. On the other hand, She was the treasurer of the committee. suggests...

I have been listening to a podcast where the host pronounces the word solder as "sodder" or "sod-der", even "saw-der". Same thing happened when the lecturer of one of my EE classes pronounced the word solder . As for me I pronounce the word solder as "sole-der" with a distinct L and a longish O.

Though the answer might not be, my question is simple: When and how did the custom of capitalizing names begin? (I'm not entirely sure whether to ask this question here or in History.SE since it doesn't strictly concern itself with English specifically , but since it is true for English as well as for other languages, I felt it was better to ask here.)

Simple question, which I'd like a simple (simple enough to explain to an ESL student) answer to.* Is there a conference room? Is there a non-smoking room? Okay, so I have no problems with these. But then: Is there Internet access? Is there room service? Why don't we use the indefinite article with these words ( access and service )? I've boiled it down to "they're both kinda nebulous things you can't count", but that doesn't help me much. Is it just that they are uncountable? Because I have a feeling I'm going to have a conversation like this: Student: Why is "room service" not countable? Teacher: Well, there are many services offered - food, laundry, cleaning. The word "service" covers many individual services. Student: So why not call it "room services"? Teacher: Ah, well, you see, that's because of - Goodness me, look out the window! Is that a tree?! Similarly, why do we say: Is there air conditioning? I ...

One often hears primarily people from the UK using the phrase can have in certain past tenses. What exactly is the difference between using could have and can have ? I used to believe that can turns to could in past tense, but from what I understand there is actually a case where can have is correct usage and has a slightly different meaning from could have .

I generally know how to use a hyphen, but when should I use an en-dash (–) instead of an em-dash, or when should I use a hyphen (-) instead of an em-dash (—)? Answer An em-dash is typically used as a stand-in for a comma or parenthesis to separate out phrases—or even just a word—in a sentence for various reasons (e.g. a parenthetical; an ersatz-ellipsis). Examples where an em-dash should be used: School is based on the three R’s—reading, writing, and ’rithmetic. Against all odds, Pete—the unluckiest man alive—won the lottery. I sense something; a presence I've not felt since— An en-dash is used to connect values in a range or that are related. A good rule is to use it when you're expressing a "to" relationship. Examples where an en-dash should be used: in years 1939–1945 pages 31–32 may be relevant New York beat Los Angeles 98–95 When American English would use an em-dash – following British and Canadian conventions . A hyphen is used to join words in a compound c...

The dictionaries I've looked in don't distinguish between these two words, backward and backwards (at least when used as adverbs). Is there some real historical, grammatical or regional difference between them? Answer Paul Brians offers this : As an adverb, either word will do: “put the shirt on backward” or “put the shirt on backwards.” However, as an adjective, only “backward” will do: “a backward glance.” When in doubt, use “backward.” This appears to be from a book "Common Errors in English Usage". I know that "toward" is considered US and "towards" is considered UK, so this may be the same. (Incidentally I looked in four reference books and didn't find anything about "backward" and "backwards".)

I'm trying to speak about the nature of music; I want to say that the very nature of the medium of sound, a kind of universal language , makes it impossible not to interpret what is presented to us. (The laws of physics make music from different cultures ultimately very similar.) How might I express this with some interesting parallelism? I tried using the read-understand pair, but I'm not sure if this makes my meaning obvious enough. I feel like there's some word that I can't think of that would make this analogy (or another) work. It is possible to read and not understand, but impossible to listen and not hear.

I have some doubts about the construction of this sentence: I want to make you able to play. In my language this is a common construction. Is it a valid sentence in English too? This is the form: subject + to make + pronoun + able to verb . Answer I want to make you able to play is grammatical. If it confuses you, just compare with the shorter sentence I want to make you happy . Happy is an adjective and able to play is an adjectival phrase.

We know phenomena is a plural whose singular form is phenomenon . However, I have seen frequent of use of phenomena itself as singular, as in 'this is a phenomena ...', 'this phenomena is ...', etc. This Google Ngram shows such use may also have been present in literature, 'this phenomena' being more frequent. How do we explain this discrepancy and suggest that the usage is wrong? [Edit 1]: Will usage eventually redefine grammar in such cases as 'phenomena' and 'criteria' then? (inspired by @Barrie England 's comment.) Answer There is a tendency for the plurals of Latin words to be treated over time as singular in English and eventually to lose their singular forms, changing their meanings in doing so. Agenda , stamina and data are three examples. This doesn’t seem to happen as much with Greek words such as criterion/a . The reason is possibly that such words are more learnèd and less frequent and may be used by people who know and insi...

Most dictionaries suggest that inspite and despite are synonymous, but are there any specific instances when their usage is not interchangeable? Answer I would suggest that inspite — as written in your question — is not in fact a word. I think you must mean in spite of , which is directly interchangeable with despite . He went for a walk in spite of the rain. He went for a walk despite the rain. I am not aware of any real difference between the two options, though I tend to use despite purely for efficiency of words.

Why is it correct to say "email me", whereas with the word mail we say/write "mail to me"? Answer The only person I know who says "mail to me" is very much not a native speaker of English. "Write mail to me" is only marginally better. Mail me that package. Email me that report. Please [write|send] me a letter. Please [write|send] me an email. Write me! Email me! I got lots of mail. I got lots of letters. I got lots of emails. Nobody ever sends me any mail. Nobody ever sends me any email. Nobody ever writes [to] me. Nobody ever emails me. Please mail that card to me. Please email that picture to me. As you can see, there are some differences between how the word "mail" is used vs. how the word "email" is used, but that difference isn't that "mail" takes "to" while "email" doesn't. It's more that "email" is used as the electronic equivalent of not just "mail...

Is it wrong to use the phrase "The alive animal"? Is it alright to say, "The animal was alive."?

A highly respected person, with a very exemplary reputation, has just commented on EL : Comment 'a more stative, habitual sense as well as the more active or punctive one.' I had never seen the word 'punctive' so I looked it up; or I tried to look it up. Google forces me to accept 'punitive'. The Oxford Dictionary of English doesn't list it. If it is not a word, then it should be; I like the sound of it. But if it exists and is not just a typo for 'punitive' then how is punctive different from punctual ?

What is the difference between matter and substance ? For example, are ice and water "the same matter" or "the same substance"? Dictionaries seem vague about the difference. For example, the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary states that matter is "a physical substance in general" or "substance, material or things of a specified kind", while substance is a "particular type of matter". Answer NOAD says: matter ( n. ): physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, esp. as distinct from energy. substance ( n. ): 1 a particular kind of matter with uniform properties : a steel tube coated with a waxy substance . 2 the real physical matter of which a person or thing consists and which has a tangible, solid presence. It's easy to see why you'd have trouble with the two words. Their definitions are circularly defined, so there is some obviou...

I simply can't bring myself to use unreasonableness , but can think of no synonym or alternate form with comparable meaning. I'll restructure if necessary, but wonder if I'm missing a suitable alternative. Answer You could try contrariness, obduracy, or obstinacy.

Which of the following is correct: What a Weather! or What weather! This grammar app I have (for SATs) says that the right answer is the first one, but I've never heard it used in regular speech. It also feels extremely awkward to say.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines a hacker as: One who is proficient at using or programming a computer; a computer buff. One who uses programming skills to gain illegal access to a computer network or file. I was surprised to find a neutral/positive definition which, as the word history shows below, was the original connotation of the term. Word History: Computer programmers started using the word hacker in the 1960s as a positive term for a person of skillful programming ability . The usage probably derives from hack meaning "to chop," or from hacker, "an amateurish player, as at golf." As time went on, hacker became less positive, however. Already in the 1960s, engineering students at such universities as Cal Tech used the related noun hack to mean "an ingenious prank." Among the pranks that some computer programmers would engage in, of course, were break-ins into other computer systems. As such break-ins attracted national attention, the media ...

Between last name and surname , which one is British and which one is American? If I talk with somebody from Great Britain, which one is preferable?

I know subordinate questions have no inversion. Should this sentence: "Do you know what are the good things to do around here?" be "Do you know what the good things are to do around here?" MS Word's grammar check gives me, "Do you know what the good things to do around here are?" But at least to my ear, the first seems the one most commonly said. Is the first one wrong? Which one is the best?

I have been in many scenarios where people try to obscure/reduce the intensity of a seemingly bad or immoral act using grammar. E.g. Assuming Thomas killed a dog, you could hear something like: There's essentially nothing wrong about palliating the miserable life of a despondent being. If there was any issue here, I'd say it's not consulting a veterinary doctor first but I've come to understand that some people are just straightforward. How does one react to the above mumbo jumbo? I think there are similar situations also found in law courts. What can this be referred to as? Grammatification, obscure tactics? Answer Doublespeak seems to fit this example well. From Wikipedia : Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs, "servicing the target" for bombing), in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more p...

What is a better preposition for the word " event "? Specifically I want to say: Lector at an event Lector on an event Which is the correct one? Answer 'Lector' is an unusual word in modern English. I assume you mean 'read' as one might read a lesson at a church service. Did you perhaps mean 'lecture'? If I say 'lecture at an event', that means to give a talk to a gathering of people at an event. If I say 'lecture on an event', that means to give a formal talk about what happened at a particular event, at some other time and place. Does that help?

How do I read the following sentences (especially in conversational speech)? The dog'll eat the bones. Tom'll go to school. Anna'll come tomorrow. I mean the sound of 'll .

Given the sentence: Teachers in this country have generally been trained either to approach mathematics like/as a creative activity or that they should force students to memorize rules and principles without truly understanding how to apply them. Should I use like or as ?

There is a recorded announcement I hear several times a day on the trains I catch to and from work. Here is part of the announcement: This train contains quiet carriages. Both the first and the last carriages are quiet carriages. To me, this always sounds wrong. It feels like it should be This train contains quiet carriages. Both the first and the last carriage are quiet carriages. This feels more apt, since each of the carriages being mentioned are singular. You would say for instance First and second place both get a medal rather than places . Once you go to three or more things, then it is pluralised The first three places get medals. Is this all correct? It's been bugging me for a while. Answer I believe that the announcement - while it could certainly be rephrased to be more pleasing - is grammatically correct. Try this: leave out "the first and the last", leaving "both carriages are quiet carriages". Adding "the first and the last" does not cha...

When a/an precedes a parenthetical aside (sometimes seen in informal/conversational writing), should the vowel rule depend on the first word in parentheses, or the next word in the "regular" flow of the sentence? I need a (memorable) idiom (preceding an m word; use a ) or I need an (memorable) idiom (preceding an i word; use an ) Answer The example given is not parenthetical: (i) I need a (memorable) idiom . A parenthesis is a remark which you insert into the middle of a sentence as if you are interrupting yourself. A parenthesis contributes to the meaning of the sentence but interrupts and stands outside its syntax. In writing, we typically use curved brackets, dashes, or commas to mark a parenthesis. The syntax of the example sentence is not interrupted by the word memorable . Instead, the word memorable functions as an adjective modifying idiom . Consequently, the pronunciation rule applies to the word memorable and the article to use is a . Compare this variation: ...

Can anybody tell me if there a single word which has the meaning 'to grow and flourish'? Answer I believe you're looking for thrive .

Are despite and in spite of interchangeable? I prefer despite but the alternative sometimes scans better.

What do I call someone who marries or has a sexual relationship with someone much younger than themselves? Their partner is someone who is at least 18 years old. The term paedophile is not the correct word, because it refers to minors. Answer cradle-snatcher someone who has a romantic or sexual relationship with a much younger partner (thefreedictionary.com) You could try forcing a "neologism" such as juvenophile , but any term with this general sense is likely to be derogatory and/or humorous. Noting @James's simultaneous post with an unfamiliar (to me) alternative version, I should just add that both forms apparently coexist in AmE , but cradle-robber is virtually unknown in BrE.

The past tense of a number of verbs changes from -end to -ent : bend → bent lend → lent rend → rent send → sent spend → spent wend → went However, most do not, notably end . Granted, I say “I ent up” (facetiously?), but how did this sound change come to happen to some verbs but not others? Of the examples above, all but spend come to us from non-Latin origins; but end and blend and trend and many others are all non-Latin as well, and don’t exhibit this change. I gather that this happened some time in the transition from Old English, because (if I’m up on my Old English conjugation, which is questionable) these verbs all used to have regular past forms: bend : bendan → (ge)bended lend : lænan → (ge)læned (?) rend : rendon → (ge)rended send : sendan → (ge)sended -spend : forspendan → (ge)forspended (?) wend : wendan → (ge)wended Can anyone offer some insight? Is this related to learned/learnt , dreamed/dreamt , &c.? Answer The absence of any immediate answer to thi...

What does "sound engineering" mean in this context: "Establishment and use of sound engineering principles to obtain economically software that is reliable and works on real machines efficiently. (Fritz Bauer)"? The definition above is for software engineering. However, the word "sound" used here definitely is not engineering for audio. Answer The first definition of sound in most dictionaries has to do with something auditory, from the Middle English soun or Old French son . The second involves things that are free from defect or healthy, from the OE gesund . (Ref: The Free Dictionary ). The writer is referring to the latter, namely engineering practices that are free from defect, trustworthy, marked by good judgement, or compatible with an accepted point of view (definitions 1, 9, 10, and 11).

I want to express possibilities on a scale while providing 3 common examples. blue-----------------------orange---red If I say "Houses in this neighbourhood vary among blue, orange and red," this means it can be any of the three, but not values in between. If I say "Houses in this neighbourhood vary between blue, orange and red," this is incorrect because between should be used only for two items. Is there another word that can be used to represent variance across the entire scale while allowing me to provide three concrete examples, or must I say something like "Houses in this neigbourhood vary in colour; most are blue, orange or red?" update Of course, now that I've asked the question, this option occurs to me: "Houses in this neighbourhood vary from blue to orange to red." Is that clear?

I'm getting into English recently and I'm a little confused by the way people pronounce a word that starts in a vowel right after a word ending in -ing . For example: You have to bring it up now? I don't know if I should pronounce it as: bring /ŋit/ brin' /nit/ bring /git/ Another example would be "I'm coming out ". Likewise, what about the ending -ang ? For example: We can just hang out and have a good time. And to round it all up, what about a combination of the two? For example, He got sick of hanging around waiting for you and went home. I've been asking myself these questions for weeks. Answer Some English accents pronounce the g on the end of words like bring (even without a word following). The BrE Birmingham/Black Country accent can do this, for example, and I’m sure there are others. In this case, bring it would be pronounced /briŋgit/. “Standard” English pronunciation does not insert the final /g/ and would use /briŋit/. The same appli...

How do you describe the following kind of 'search' in one word? A blind man searching for a faucet in a room OR A normal man searching for a faucet in a dark room Is it fumbling, scouring, scouting, scrounging, or something else?

Is it correct to say: He knew the answer to the question because he studied really hard or should it be: He knew the answer to the question because he had studied really hard? Or maybe both are correct? Thank you in advance! Answer I have a very similar take on this to others but I think my answer comes from a slightly different angle. As a native speaker I understand the meanings instinctively without analysing the grammar. My automatic understanding was as follows: He knew the answer to the question because he had studied really hard. Technically this could be interpreted in different ways but my immediate thought was, "He knew the answer to the question because he had studied really hard for this test. " He knew the answer to the question because he studied really hard. The most obvious meaning for me is: "He knew the answer to the question because he customarily studied really hard."

Can anyone tell me why a V-ing is used after the infinitive 'to'? There are four stages on the road to becoming a scientist, and I remember them all. (to become?) There are now a number of routes to becoming a Member of the House of Lords. (to become?) They were supposed to be ordinary people who gave some of their time to keeping an eye on the government and representing the people. (to keep?) Your reply will be greatly appreciated! Daisy Lee