Saturday, September 18, 2021

Recent Questions - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange

Recent Questions - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange

What does "illuminatrix" mean?

Posted: 18 Sep 2021 09:37 AM PDT

Just like the title. I noticed this word when I was reading a game's art book, in which the sentence goes:

Feeling down? Bring the sunshine inside with Henderson's new Illuminatrix. (Source, at the bottom of page 1)

I googled it yet there seems to have nothing that matches the sentence. Is it a misspelled one (it looks so similar to "illumination") or it does exist?

Can a clause beginning "I assume" be made into a question by inflection? [duplicate]

Posted: 18 Sep 2021 09:09 AM PDT

I recently answered a question on ELL. It included a sentence similar to this:

If it's neither A nor B, I assume that it's C?

I answered the question, and noted that I think that a clause beginning "I assume..." should not end with a question mark. The OP disagreed with me, and said that it was to indicate that he would use inflection to make the clause a question- to get confirmation that his assumption was correct.

My opinion is that this particular clause can't be made into a sensible question using inflection. Is this opinion reasonable?

If so, I have some theories about why this might be.

  1. You can't use inflection to make a subordinate clause of an if into a question

  2. You can only use inflection to make follow-on questions, and this sentence doesn't seem to be a follow-on question.

  3. You can only use inflection to change the main clause into a question. This ​clause contains two sub-clauses: "I assume" and "that it's C". While it's reasonable to question the that-subclause, it's not reasonable to question the "I assume" subclause. It's a fact that you are assuming something: the only doubt is over whether the assumption is correct.

It seems to me that, when you use inflection for a question, it affects the main clause only, so using inflection with this sentence asks a pointless question. The only way to ask the correct question (is my assumption correct) is by adding an auxiliary verb:

Should I assume that it's C?

How to say that you can wear a garment "by itself?"

Posted: 18 Sep 2021 08:35 AM PDT

I can't seem to realize if this sentence is okay: (I'm writing about some kind of a top)

"It is a versatile piece that can be worn by itself or as an overshirt."

Q1. Is versatile the right word here?

Q2. Can you call a garment a piece? Or is "piece of clothing" more appropriate?

Q3. Is it okay to say you can wear a thing by itself?

What I want to get across is that you can wear this garment as a shirt, OR, you can wear it as an overshirt. Is "by itself" the correct way of saying this?

Thank you

When to pronounce 'beloved' in 2 syllables vs 3 syllables [duplicate]

Posted: 18 Sep 2021 09:31 AM PDT

I've heard this pronounced as two syllables: be-loved. And as three syllables: be-lov-ed.

Is only one correct? If not, what cases require each use?

"let alone" in affirmative contexts

Posted: 18 Sep 2021 06:13 AM PDT

What words/phrases do exist in English to convey the meaning of "let alone" in an affirmative context?

For example, consider the sentence "I want you to buy a gift for me, (the requested phrase) an expensive one!". If the sentence were "I don't want you ...", "let alone" would be a perfect choice; however what is the suitable option in an affirmative context?

Note that by using "let alnoe" the speaker/writer makes a comparison, so "in particular" and "especially" which do not make comparisons are not what I am looking for.

Why is it not subjunctive? [migrated]

Posted: 18 Sep 2021 04:23 AM PDT

In this page of grammar under the link : There are two different forms; one subjunctive, the other indicative.
1- It is important that he _remember to reply to the letter at once.
6- It is important to remember that he thinks_ things very differently to you.

So why is it not subjunctive in 6? Can you tell me why?
I thought of it and perhaps got understood of it, but I want what to see others may say or suggest...!

Link : Learn English: Subjunctive

Is it wrong to use a pronoun object \ comparison [duplicate]

Posted: 18 Sep 2021 04:04 AM PDT

The author said, "it is wrong grammar using the objective pronoun. On the other hand, I see people everywhere use it as well as many other authors ? So, with whom or which we go ?

I am not a native speaker, and I may ask:

Is not there any standard rules in English ?

What does the "which" refer to in this sentence? [migrated]

Posted: 18 Sep 2021 02:05 AM PDT

I'm an English learner struggling to decipher the following sentence:

To a medical student the final examinations are something like death: an unpleasant inevitability to be faced sooner or later, one's state after which is determined by care spent in preparing for the event.

My question is, what does the which in one's state after which refer to?

What does "a continuation from the feminine to the masculine line" mean in the context below? [closed]

Posted: 18 Sep 2021 01:24 AM PDT

I am currently reading, The Interpretation of Dreams by Sigmund Freud, I didn't understand the phrase below. What does it mean?

Of many dreams it can be ascertained by a careful interpretation that they are even to be taken bisexually, inasmuch as they result in an irrefutable secondary interpretation in which they realize homosexual feelings — that is, feelings that are common to the normal sexual activity of the dreaming person. But that all dreams are to be interpreted bisexually, seems to me to be a generalization as indemonstrable as it is improbable, which I should not like to support. Above all I should not know how to dispose of the apparent fact that there are many dreams satisfying other than — in the widest sense — erotic needs, as dreams of hunger, thirst, convenience, &c. Likewise the similar assertions "that behind every dream one finds the death sentence" (Stekel), and that every dream shows "a continuation from the feminine to the masculine line" (Adler), seem to me to proceed far beyond what is admissible in the interpretation of dreams.

Can two different pronouns (that, who) be used to refer to the same antecedent (a statue representing a person)?

Posted: 18 Sep 2021 07:33 AM PDT

"He is being crowned by a female figure that accompanies him and who represents Victory."

The figure itself is, of course, not a human, but its representation is (or at least is anthropomorphic). I would accept either/or, but having both "that" and "who" referring to "figure" gives me a headache.

What is the technique to make something normal appear abnormal?

Posted: 18 Sep 2021 01:32 AM PDT

I was wondering about the name of the literary/poetic technique where, through examination of tiny details, ordinary actions become abnormal and strange.

For example describing eating as 'the placement of tiny particles along a pronged instrument into a gaping maw.'

How to say the share of count/amount? "Number share"?

Posted: 18 Sep 2021 08:20 AM PDT

I am writing an academic paper in economics. I wonder what words I should use in following situation.

If for example we have many firms in the market. We can say the share of employment of, say manufacturing firms, as "the employment share of manufacturing firms". And the same goes for all other specific shares like "output share", "profit share".

But what should I say when I simply want to count the number of manufacturing firms and the share of this number? If there is no other specific shares in the context, I think I may simply say "the share of manufacturing firms" and everyone would understand it's by count? But when there is a lot of other shares also in the context, what should I use? I am thinking of using "the number share of manufacturing firms", but I search it in google search and find it seems not used at all.

An example of the sentence I want to write is like "While the number share of manufacturing firms declines in 1980s, its employment share increases significantly, which indicates a large rise in the average workers employed by a typical manufacturing firm in that period."

Looking for a term or phrase to describe a discussion where there is no one right answer

Posted: 17 Sep 2021 09:42 PM PDT

I am looking for a term or phrase to describe a discussion where there is no one right answer (eg: tabs vs spaces) Both sides could be equally right and the arguments are made mostly from their own perspective, rather than be factual.

Difference between the meaning of 'shine' and its synonyms [closed]

Posted: 17 Sep 2021 09:40 PM PDT

What is the difference between shine, gleam, glow, glint, glimmer, glisten, sparkle, glitter, beam, glaze, luster, and shimmer?

To-Infinitive as noun phrase or nominal clause in transformational generative grammar [closed]

Posted: 17 Sep 2021 08:57 PM PDT

Ain't to-infinitives with subjects classified as noun phrase or nominal clauses in the transformational generative grammar without exception ?

Martha has two sons, who are still at school, and two, who are at university

Posted: 17 Sep 2021 08:29 PM PDT

Here's a quote from A Student's Introduction to English Grammar:

[11]   i  Martha has [two sons who are still at school] and [two who are at university].  

In [i] the relative clauses certainly are semantically restrictive: they distinguish two sets of sons (evidently Martha has at least four in all).

Is it possible to add commas like this?

Martha has two sons, who are still at school, and two, who are at university.

If so, does this mean that she has only four sons, not that she has at least four?

What does "Hamlet stool" mean?

Posted: 18 Sep 2021 08:56 AM PDT

I have read this in Maugham's "Theatre":

She wrote her letters at a satinwood desk, seated on a gilt Hamlet stool.

   [Source (PDF)]

What does it mean?

I have googled it and found tens of images and no formal definition. As there are so many various images, with 3 legs and 4 legs, with and without back, high and low, I really cannot understand what exactly does it mean, what kind of chair it is and why it is called so, what is its relation to Hamlet.

"nor" + pronoun + pronoun

Posted: 17 Sep 2021 10:55 PM PDT

I've never seen the following phrase structure before and I couldn't find any resources on Google:

"nor" + pronoun + pronoun

Context:

...and she just couldn't find me, nor I her.

Source: https://www.removeddit.com/r/Deathloop/comments/pou7mp/ai_julianna_help/

I have a few questions:

1. Is there a proper name for this type of sentence reduction?    2. Can the above be used in formal writing?

I would've written "...nor could I find her."

Some examples from formal texts would be nice.

3. Following the structure given in the context, would these also be correct?

"...and I just couldn't find him, nor he me." (nor could he find me)

"She went to Germany, and I park." (and I went to the park)

"He was watching TV, and I hamster cage." (and I was watching the hamster cage)

What is the word that is synonym to "right", and sounds like "rido"? [migrated]

Posted: 18 Sep 2021 08:23 AM PDT

There's a word that sounds like rido and means right. I've heard it in a movie. What is it?

Widower: sexist nonusage?

Posted: 18 Sep 2021 07:18 AM PDT

Collins Cobuild Usage 2004 reads

Unlike widow, when a woman has died you do not refer to her husband as 'her widower'.

Which seems supported by Ngram data

How should I express such notion instead then?

A phrase to describe someone's bad financial record

Posted: 17 Sep 2021 08:49 PM PDT

Let's assume the context where a woman approaches a bank to secure a loan for her bold but lucrative business idea but she gets turned down because she doesn't have anything for collateral and her financial record (bank transactions, any previous smaller loans, the CIBIL Score for the requested loan amount and so on) is next to nothing.

Overall, the banks don't have anything to proceed with other than the business idea itself.

My question is that is there a phrase to describe her lack of financial record?

I understand that the question sounded particularly vague but the context would help you better understand it.

Edit: "Credit Score" or "CIBIL Score" does fit the context very much. But what I wish to have is a phrase or an idiom. So I have changed the tags now. Sorry for the discrepancy.

Dialectal variation in subtleties of usage of the word "sore"

Posted: 18 Sep 2021 06:03 AM PDT

I grew up in southern England, and now live in Scotland. There are many interesting and well-known quirks of usage that differ between Southern English English and the various Scottish dialects and Scots, but one that I've never heard discussed, and one that is so subtle that I can't quite put my finger on it, is usage of the adjective sore.

In Scotland, sore is pretty much synonymous, and interchangeable, with painful. The OED definition seems to agree, and I get the impression that American usage matches this.

But when I moved to Scotland, I found that some standard Scots usages of sore seemed slightly jarring to me. In my idiolect growing up, some things could be sore:

  • Grazes, cuts and burns are sore.

I'm sore all over from staying out too long in the sun. (This is an unlikely situation to occur in Scotland.)

  • Aching muscles are sore.

I'm still sore from yesterday's workout.

  • There are fixed expressions sore head, sore belly̧, sore loser which are always acceptable.

However, other usages, typical in Scotland, seem subtly off, or at least non-idiomatic, to me.

  • [on seeing someone being punched in the face, or falling over] That looks sore! where my idiolect would have had That looks painful
  • The bruise on my arm is sore where I'd have The bruise on my arm is tender

I can't quite put my finger on the rules for sore in my native idiolect. I thought maybe it was related to the location of the pain (on the skin rather than internal), but I wouldn't have described a bruise as sore. Maybe it's related to the origin or severity of the pain, but I'm really not sure.

I can't find any evidence online to support the restricted usage of sore in my native idiolect. Does anyone else recognise this or know anything about it?

About grammar of this sentence (I will be out of the office and not sure when I will come back)

Posted: 18 Sep 2021 08:04 AM PDT

  1. I will be out of the office and not sure when I will come back

Is this correct? OR should I write :

  1. I will be out of the office and will not be sure when I will come back?

Since out of the office is a noun phrase and sure is an adjective, I am not sure if the option 1 (and not sure) is the correct one...

Word for "someone with no responsibilities assigned to them"?

Posted: 18 Sep 2021 06:17 AM PDT

Concept

What is the word for someone who has no responsibility? I am meaning a situation where someone lacks anything to be responsible for.

Adjusting Google/Oxfords' meaning of "responsibility" to try and make the concept more clear: The state or fact of having no duty to deal with anything or of having no control over anyone.

Specifically, I am looking for an adjective that describes a person. Like responsibility, it should reflect one's duty or state, not one's desire. But unlike responsibility, it should not imply a moral obligation nor a lack thereof.

Example Usage

Example sentences using a phrase:

  • "The baby, previously lacking anything to be responsible for, finally set their heart on locomotion: the art of flailing limbs and sliding belly to move across the plush carpet.
  • "His body finally able to rest, the industrial man becomes the man that now lacks anything to be responsible for."

With a made up word "aresponsible":

  • "The once aresponsible baby finally set their heart on locomotion: the art of flailing limbs and sliding belly to move across the plush carpet."
  • "His body finally able to rest, the industrial man becomes the aresponsible man."

Antonyms Tried

While checking Cambridge's Thesaurus for antonyms "be responsible for" gave no results, "be responsible" only gave the word "innocent". Innocent seems to mean a lack of knowledge or a state of being wrongfully accused. Innocent does not convey my idea properly. A lack of responsibilities can be known or not known and has nothing to do with accusations.

Another common suggestion is "irresponsible", from wiktionary.org's antonym list for example, but it comes with the assumption that responsibility is being neglected or there is a lack of ability to handle responsibility. Someone without responsibility could very well be aware and capable of it, but not have any and may never be obligated, expected, or assigned any in the future. This does not mean they are an irresponsible person.

I will try to source to the best of my ability:

(Wikitionary 8/13/2021)

(Original Google/Oxfords' definition of responsibility, "The state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone." 8/13/2021)

Is there a single word for "Parts of Speech"?

Posted: 18 Sep 2021 02:00 AM PDT

Is there a word that refers to the different forms of a word, or a word's following four parts of speech—verb, adverb, noun, adjective?

For example:

confuse verb
confusedly adverb
confusion noun
confused, confusing, & confusable adjective

What word should be inserted if I wanted to say:
"I'm looking for all the [forms/parts of speech] of confuse."
or
"I want to use a [form/part of speech] of startle that is not in the dictionary; bestartlement, for example."

I think the answer to my question might be here Word form dictionary/system/tool, but I couldn't understand the descriptions of Inflection and Conjugation well enough to be certain that either is the word I am looking for.

EDIT:
After reading through the links on declensions and derivational morphology provided by Benjamin Harman and John Lawler respectively, I agree with Lawler that declensions are not what I am talking about. I think I want to refer to the set of any given content word's semantically associated parts of speech, i.e. all the various derivational morpheme altered forms of a given content word (and sometimes to just one of a content word's corresponding forms in a different lexical category).
All these terms are new to me, so I apologize if I used any of them incorrectly.

Should Sporadic usage of Definite Article be placed in the middle of cataphoric usage and zero article usage?

Posted: 18 Sep 2021 07:02 AM PDT

I read from A Comprehensive Grammar of English Language (Quirk, 1985) that sporadic usage of definite article "the" indicates about about location but not a specific one, but an institutionalized one. "We call this the sporadic use of the, because reference is made to an institution which may be observed recurrently at various places and times". When someone says "My sister goes to the theatre every month", with situational usage, we said that his/her sister goes to a particular theatre. But with this new sporadic usage, we can't ask which theatre his/her sister is going to because it will be inappropriate Quirk says in his book.

But now I read another part of the book, "We have already mentioned (cf. 5.33) the use of the in noun phrases with 'sporadic' definite reference, as in the radio, the theatre. In other cases, however, the sporadic use has become so institutionalized that the article is not used." This says that when the same word is used without article (zero article), it becomes quasi-locative (not indicating places, but something abstract). For example:

Be in prison = becoming a prisoner
Walk in the prison = casual visitor walking in the prison

About "Walk in the prison", the book says that the definite usage in this sentence uses cataphoric usage but "Be in prison" is in zero article usage because it is so institutionalized.

Now we got disconnected idea about sporadic usage. Sporadic usage is different from Cataphoric usage, but when it becomes so institutionalized, Zero article is incomparable to cataphoric usage, which now doesn't include the sporadic usage. So, should sporadic usage be placed in the middle of zero article usage and cataphoric usage, or in "very institutionalized" usage of zero, we can attach "the" to reduce its institutional meaning to become close to locative meaning?

How is "ought" used in this King James Bible verse?

Posted: 17 Sep 2021 09:16 PM PDT

There's a use of the word "ought" from the Bible I don't understand.

I've highlighted the relevant word:

Acts 4:32
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
King James Version

I've checked dictionaries and I can't find a meaning of "ought" that makes sense to me within this passage.

Appositives in the sentence

Posted: 18 Sep 2021 03:07 AM PDT

Where is the appositive in this sentence?

Each bottle had its own tight seal cork and wire.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)