Notes

Consider the sentence: While this assumption, on its own, is relatively innocuous, if implausible, in practice, it is supplemented by assumptions... The 'if' here really means something more like 'but perhaps also'. Another sentence: He appeared very happy, if not exuberant, at her arrival. 'if not' here means something like 'and perhaps even', as if the latter statement should be a more extreme version of the former. But it also feels like an exclusive disjunction. That is, it is one or maybe the other, but not both. On the other hand, 'if' by itself feels like both statements could be true. I can conjure up many examples where both 'if' and 'if not' violate my above descriptions and many more which just seem malformed and awkward but fit them, e.g., ' He seems happy, if not a little confused' . or 'The proof appeared correct, if sloppily constructed,'.. . Adding further confusion, if I make a small change to the ...

I thought the word irritance was a word — but it isn’t one according to Google and my dictionary. It sounds correct; what is the word I should use? By irritance I mean something that’s being irritating, like a person kicking the back of your plane seat is an irritance. After researching more, I’ve found the word I was looking for was nuisance . Answer Although irritancy certainly exists as a noun, something that is irritating is normally referred to as an irritant or an irritation — or less commonly and usually with a human agent only, an irritator . (lifted out of ephemeral comments) I haven’t found any dictionaries that yet contain irritance , although there do exist published books that happen to use it. This usually means that a word is too new or too rare to bother mentioning, since even catachrestic uses are documented by full dictionaries. So although anyone would instantly understand what you meant by the word irritance , your computerized spellchecker might not like it ...

Obviously something can be sub-optimal or poor, minimal, bad or terrible... But is there a word that means the exact opposite , the antonym, of optimal? Answer Taking the classical approach, optimal derives from optimus , the Latin superlative to bonus , meaning good . Looking at the Latin for bad , that is malus . bonus -> melior -> optimus malus -> peior -> pessimus So analogous to optimus becoming optimal , pessimus would become pessimal . All that said, I have never heard that word used . We do use plenty of the forms of Latin good and bad , as in ameliorate , pejorative , optimal , optimist and pessimist . However, pessimal never seems to have made it far in the popularity contests - it did get into the dictionaries though!

Is there a word (or a phrase at least) that means to love in a hating way (hatefully, execrably) ? There is "Love–hate relationship" but it is more like a psychological term. I'm looking for a "noun" or "verb" mainly. Answer I like "brawling love", because I like quoting Shakespeare. He was neither the first nor the last to discuss relationships combining love and hate (nor was that his only time), so there are in fact thousands of different phrases describing it. So many in fact that I'd avoid set phrases that have been used before; see if this tired old trope can be made fresh again!

I have been studying Longman's English grammar book, and something is really confusing me: We can put it and them after the verb: Give it to me. Buy them for me. Do it for me. With e.g. give and buy, we can say: Give me it . Buy me them . (But not *Do me it . ) We say: Give it to John. Buy them for John. (Not * Give John it - * Buy John them . ) Why can't I say Buy John it or Give John them ? There is another post related to it that talks about the same topic: Direct and Indirect Objects with the verbs: Give, Buy, and Bring . However, the most voted answer was, indeed, useful for me, but didn't get everything clear. What's the main rule for inverting the position and dropping the preposition? As far as I managed to understand, if the direct object is it or them and the indirect object is a pronoun, the normal construction's placement is necessary, i.e.: Subject + Verb + Direct object + To/For + Indirect object Is this right?

Initially, my question was: is "focussed" or "focused" the correct past tense of "focus", but since this applies to a lot of words, I would like to generalize and ask: is there supposed to be a rule when to double the consonant? Answer The rules are much more complicated, and I don't think it's a good idea to post them all here. Re: doubling of the final consonant in an unstressed syllable. Pam Peters (in "The Cambridge Guide to English Usage") argues that when the final syllable is identical with a monosyllabic word, the final consonant is also doubled in British English: eavesdropped, kidnapped, formatted, worshipped, zigzagged etc. Michael Swan argues that doubling in such cases is caused by a full vowel, which hasn't been reduced to a schwa. Burchfield, the editor of the most current Fowler's, also mentions such words, as benefitted , targetted etc., without any explanation. (BrE) It's interesting that Fowler's reco...

What is the difference between the following sentences: You may be prevented from crossing the border, although you are in possession of a valid visa. You may be prevented from crossing the border, even if you are in possession of a valid visa. If they have the same meaning, in which circumstances would it be better to use each one?