Friday, November 19, 2021

Recent Questions - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange

Recent Questions - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange

word for a person who tries to gimmick/gamify the system/process

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 12:01 PM PST

word for someone who just tries to gamify/gimmick the system, who is not focused on searching for the firm/fundmental rules and the big picture, playing the little games, juggler.

like a salesman who interested in finding trickery for a short-sight quick rewards.

in my mind, it would be "gamifier" but it is not a legit English word

Simple but unique blog name suggestion [closed]

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 11:59 AM PST

I am a non-native English speaker and want to create a blog, that reflects my thoughts and opinions on a wide variety of topics e.g., from mathematics, economics to travel, photography, puzzle, book reviews, etc. But, I am facing some difficulty to find a proper blog name, that will meet the following criteria:

  • It must be unique and uncommon (else, it will be difficult to get desired domain)
  • It must be a small (max 10 characters) and pref. single word (no one loves to type long URLs)
  • It must be easy to remember/spell

Based on my limited vocabulary, I have drafted a couple of names, but all of them are violating one or more aforementioned criteria -

  • A Philomath's Diary (Unique but Long)
  • Repertoire of Knowledge (Too long)
  • Petrichor (short and unique, but has already taken )

Can anyone please suggest any name? Is there a single word substitution of the first two aforementioned names?

Thanks in advance.

P.S: This is my first post on this forum, do pardon me if this is off topic.

Thanks again :)

There aren't many vs. there aren't a lot of [migrated]

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 10:07 AM PST

I have field practice in a school now, and I had an argument with a teacher of English there. She says 'there aren't a lot of [...]' is incorrect, and 'there aren't many' should be used instead. I haven't heard of any such rule in the 16 years I'm studying English, so I'm doubting that.

Could you tell me which variant is more preferable?

Choose the correct choice He was a hero ( for - to - through- at ) all his friends , they all look up to him

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 10:00 AM PST

What is the correct method to say that someone is a hero, he was a hero to his friends or for his friends,at and through are wrong , so you have to choose from for and to , I searched it but I can't find an answer

A word for the opposite of foreboding [closed]

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 10:52 AM PST

I'm looking for a word for the feeling someone feels after a disaster has happened. Post-boding in a way. Like looking out at a battlefield the next morning, with thousands of lifeless bodies deserted on the ground, but a cool peaceful wind is blowing through.

-ed suffix in compounds

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 09:33 AM PST

I read somewhere in a book on morphology that -ed suffix in compounds conveys the notion of having something, therefore "a one-armed man" means " a man having one arm", so i was wandering whether the same can be applied for "a good-beginninged story" to mean "a story having a good beginning".

Why do we say "doctor's appointment"?

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 09:21 AM PST

Doctors seem to be unique among professions in that we use the possessive when referring to their appointments. "Doctor's appointment" is about many times more common than "doctor appointment" according to ngrams. However, for every kind of specialty it seems to be the reverse:

What makes "doctor" different? Is this actually specific to that word, or are there other cases I haven't considered where we would use a possessive form?

Can I use "instead" without "of"?

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 09:20 AM PST

Grammarly says no, but I don't trust Grammarly. I was trying to use it in a paragraph for Fahrenheit 451, saying

Nothing makes you think for yourself, instead coaxing you into forgetting about the real issue.

Wouldn't this work when you consider the definition of 'stead', since I'm trying to say that 'nothing' is making you forget instead of making you think? I suppose it's just backwards, but it seems correct.

Why are English words so hard to spell? [closed]

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 08:35 AM PST

This question is frequently asked in other places but not here.

Can I Use Both; Infinitive or Gerund? [closed]

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 08:17 AM PST

Continue stirring in this manner until the sauce thickens.

or

Continue to stir in this manner until the sauce thickens.

Are both sentences correct? If so, which one is better?

Are there different meanings for "make"?

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 08:01 AM PST

I was playing L.A. Noire and a guy says in it that when the suspect was leaving "He made his license plate".

I cant understand what does made mean here, because he clearly didn't actually make the license plate.

Word for feeling that an event has been happening for a long time, but has actually happened recently

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 08:04 AM PST

Context for this is in a new relationship when you spend a lot of time with your partner, but have only dated for a few weeks. It feels like you've known them a long time, but at the same time your life was much different a month ago.

I was wondering if there was an obscure word out there that has been used to describe this feeling.

discuss both view about learning with teacher and lear by internet [closed]

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 07:42 AM PST

Today society, a number of people think that teacher are crucial for education. Many people say that student can be learn more things than learning with teacher. I partially agree with these both views because they all make sense. On the one hand, I think that traditional way of learning which have an interaction between students and teachers are really effective. By this way of learing, students can ask teacher something that they can solve by themselve. The more older teacher the more experiences that student can learn from them. When someone have a good tutor in their way of learning, they can use the knowlegde that they learn from their teacher confidently because the teacher have a lot of experience can make sure that their knowledge are true. However, it is undeniable that learning from internet and television also productively. A lot of knowledge in the internet that it even never exist in the school or a lecture of teacher. it probably betwice as effect as learning with teacher. But this way of learning just have well-qualified for good awareness person. A lot of students just use internet for entertainment purposes such as playing game, listen to music or stuff like that. In conclusion, demands of learning is really essential for students nowaday and they can choose the way of learning by their own. Both way of learning are good for a lot of kind of students and it's all help students can be get knowledge esier.

Is this a good way to format a fairly complicated sentence including a list and a quote/dialogue?

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 07:50 AM PST

I am trying to improve my grammar (British or UK English) and struggling with the following:

It didn't matter what the job was: paint a fence, load a lorry or dig a hole - the price he would quote was always the same, 'Give us a quid'.

The above seems ok, but I wonder if it is correct.

My considerations are:

  1. It's kind of a list so a colon seems appropriate
  2. The second independent clause needs to be 'linked' but to use a semicolon would complicate things because I have already used a colon, a comma may seem confusing, so I have used an em dash.
  3. Would it be better as two separate sentences, as in:

It didn't matter what the job was: paint a fence, load a lorry or dig a hole. The price he would quote was always the same, 'Give us a quid'.

This last option seems correct but destroys the flow.

Lastly, should it be at the end - 'Give us a quid' ? I ask because usually the period would be inside the quotes - 'Give us a quid.' but it is at the end of a sentence.

Who are "bully boys" in sea shanties?

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 09:22 AM PST

In various sea shanties the term "bully boys" comes up now and again. Here for example in The Wellerman, first verse:

There once was a ship that put to sea
The name of the ship was the Billy of Tea
The winds blew up, her bow dipped down
Oh blow, my bully boys, blow (huh)

Or in the title and text of Blow, my bully boys, blow, for which I have trouble finding the lyrics currently, but there is a record of it in the Library of Congress from 1908.

Then there is Bully Boys, here in a version by Alan Doyle. I'm not actually sure if this is an older shanty or a newer creation, but if the latter it seems to be at lest created in the style of shanties from the nineteenth century.

And it's Row Me Bully Boys
We're in a hurry boys
We got a long way to go
We'll sing and we'll dance and bid Farewell to France
And it's Row me Bully Boys Row

Now, I assume that the meaning of the word in the time where those sea shanties were created (e.g. ca. 1860 for the Wellerman) was different to what it is today (i.e. the ruffian/thug/violence meaning).

Is the meaning the same as mentioned in the answers to this question Meaning of "bully" in the 1800s - i.e. Capital, first-rate, 'crack'? Or is there another meaning, e.g. from the nautical/navy context as to what exactly is meant by "bully boys"?

What's a word that describes the type of person that unintentionally answers a question with related info without answering the question specifically?

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 06:56 AM PST

Imagine you are talking to an older person and you ask, "What is the sun made of?" To which they reply, "It was a cold day today, but I was sitting on the park bench earlier and felt pretty warm in the sunlight."

They were able to talk about something that was related to the question, but obviously did not answer it. What is a word that describes this state of being? I'm fairly certain that there is a more specific term for this, but the only words coming to mind are "spacious" and "gaseous" (as a state of being, not as a description of composition).

I was listening to a podcast in which the host was interviewing someone that seemed to be elderly. The host would ask questions of the interviewee but would not get exact answers in return. The answers would either be related to the question (like above), or they wouldn't be related at all. Some people might say that the person being asked the questions "isn't all there" mentally, but that's more of an observation of the state of being and not a description of the state of being itself.

I'm having difficulty with figuring out how to accurately ask this question, so there's some serious irony in here somewhere.

Based upon / "based off" or "based off of" [closed]

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 05:07 AM PST

As I do not yet have enough "reputation points" to add my thinking to one of the more developed threads on the matter (see, e.g., "Based on" instead of "based off of"), I add them here.

I am a university professor. Each term in recent years, no less than three to five student research papers come to me with the phrase "based off" or "based off of" when "based on" or "based upon" is the proper expression.

If a point has a foundation, it is based upon or based on something.

Likewise, if an idea is rudderless or ill-founded, it does not rest on a proper (or any) foundation -- it is, by definition, off-base, haphazard, ill-conceived, or just plain wrong.

"Based off" or "based off of" sound very much like being "off-base". Literally understood, the former could be read to convey an admission that one's thinking is flawed ("My central point is off-base.").

Put another way, one might write that "It is on this basis that I conclude X", but to write "It is off this basis that I conclude X" is contorted argle-bargle at best.

Last I checked -- quantum physics aside -- "off" and "on" still have opposing meanings. The light cannot be both off and on at once. Nor would it be advisable to build a house "off" a foundation.

For such reasons, to see "based off" or "based off of" in a work is like rubbing steel wool in my eyes, or consigning me to the incessant screech of fingernails across a chalkboard.

Likewise, I am disinclined to give this phrasing a pass as mere "informality". In my view, its use approaches hickish or ignorant.

As it is pure nonsense, "based off" or "based off of" should be banished to parts unknown upon the harshest possible terms.

WR Smith

"had a fall" vs "fell"

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 03:42 AM PST

I wrote, today, that I "had a fall".

A friend asked "at what age does falling over become 'had a fall'"

I have to admit that it does seem to be an age thing, but I would like to know if there is some concensus or definition around this?

What is the word for implying something by denying it? [duplicate]

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 03:47 AM PST

There is a word that describes the act of implying something via a denial of that same thing. I have forgotten the word and can no longer find it online using my search-fu. What is the word?

eg: "The papers say he is a rascal. I would never say that!"

“suggested I just ate/eat a banana”

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 04:27 AM PST

The following is an extract from a passage, the emboldened sentence being the phrase of interest:

Coming in a minimalistic white pouch, the meal-replacement powder blends things like rice, peas and flaxseed. Add water, shake it up, and there's your lunch, dinner or breakfast, or all three. I ordered a week's supply, telling friends about my exciting discovery. Comments ranged from outraged to encouraging ('this makes a lot of sense'). My mum suggested I just ate a banana.

Although it sounds harmonious, I'm interested in knowing why exactly the word "ate" was chosen to be used as opposed to its present-tense counterpart (eat). Which grammar rule has a hand in this and where can I read more about it?

EDIT: To clarify, this has been taken from a CAIE (Cambridge) examination question insert. The entire passage (text A) can be found on page 2 of this document (and the sentence on line 10).

Word for sentences that make sense when read backwards?

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 09:13 AM PST

Is there a word for sentences that make sense when read normally or backwards (not necessarily by reversing the words)? Example:

"Are you as bored as I am?"

Quotative for 'to voice concern'?

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 09:43 AM PST

Is there a quotative verb (or one I can abuse as a quotative) that means "to voice [a] concern"? (Other than "worried"?)

"Hey, uh... guys," I _____ed, "it looks like it's getting bigger..."

There are a bunch of verbs for complaining (grouse, gripe, whine), there's "warn" if I want to be more definite, but is there a word for 'concerned, but uncertain'? ("Flagged" would sort-of worked except that'd be a real stretch as a quotative. "Advised" is also 'close, but not quite'.)

I don't get the meaning of these lines in the movie

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 09:28 AM PST

I have a question. I'm watching a movie, The Fast and The Furious(2001).

And these are line from two people.

Guy A: This ain't working, brother.

Guy B: It's your fuel map. It's got a nasty hole. That's why you're unloading in third.

Guy A: Told you.

Guy B: I lengthen the injector pulse a millisecond. Just tune the NOS timer, you'll run nines.

Q1. In this conversation, what does 'unloading in third' mean? Q2. And what does you'll run nines mean?

I'm not a native speaker, so please help me to understand this movie better.

A phrase for when one is reduced to quibbling on unimportant details having had to give up significant ground

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 03:54 AM PST

Is there a popular phrase or idiom to capture the following very particular scenario? Person A and person B are arguing over something. Person A repeatedly gives ground to B until the argument becomes a matter of A trying to secure small details in favour of them, while having had to accept B's position.

The metaphor that I thought of for this was that someone threatens to kill you, but lets you choose at what time of day.

I realise that the phrase "winning the battle but losing the war" comes close to this, but I think there is a difference. There is the implication here that one's opponent is happy to allow one small victories having won the day. Obviously, a "hollow victory" is relevant here, but does not capture the particular cases I have in mind.

To give a common example:

When the UK political parties of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats formed a coalition, then the LDs were able to affect policy. But in doing so, they had to accept the fundamental outlook of the Conservatives. So they could haggle over the extent to which one or other benefit was cut, but in doing so they were conceding the very idea that there should be such cuts at all.

EDIT

I have found an idiom that comes pretty close: Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

This is not a perfect fit, since it means something more like "doing something that makes no difference because the major facts in the situation are already decided."

Perhaps the closest expression, rather than idiom, is something like "if you're arguing about detail x, then the other side has already won the argument".

Should LOL be LA? "Aloud" and "Out loud", a history

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 04:28 AM PST

Is out loud a corruption of aloud or did it develop independently?

(This question is not actually about LOL; it is simply about aloud and outloud.)

Out loud is a much newer formation than aloud and out sounds enough like a- that I could believe speakers mistakenly heard the one for the other. The preposition out, though, also makes sense (though maybe I only think so because I am used to it). That it makes sense, though, is not necessarily an argument against the corruption case.

Aloud first appeared in the 1300s according to the OED.[1] Out loud didn't appear until the mid-19th century.[2]

Google Ngrams gives a picture of how out loud has grown in popularity over the past hundred years, though never surpassing aloud.

enter image description here[ 3 ]

Side comment, not the question at hand: Interestingly the use of aloud declined in the 20th century faster than the use of out loud increased. Was another synonym more frequently used? Was there some reason speakers were less inclined to define whether a remark was silent or aloud?

enter image description here

Is there any online tool to read (pronounce) IPA and APA written words?

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 05:08 AM PST

I am looking for a tool to read a word written as phonetic transcription (IPA or APA).

I need it to provide users with a tool to verify if they've chosen correct IPA transcription (users will need to provide a word and its transcription, users are not experts in IPA and APA, so there should be an easy way for them to verify what they use).

Are there other acceptable juxtapositions of polysemes?

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 07:12 AM PST

An advert for BBC iPlayer read [I've dropped the comma]:

Making the unmissable unmissable.

The first 'unmissable' obviously has the sense '[that which is] too good to miss', and the second 'always accessible' - but they're polysemes, different senses of the same word (and the first instance is nominalised).

This is neither the reduplication for emphasis of say 'very, very small', nor that used for establishing the authenticity of a referent as in say 'coffee coffee'. And the use of different polysemes in close proximity is usually best avoided:

?It's odd that all the numbers are odd.

*It's a hurricane but not a hurricane. ['It's a hurricane but not a hurricane hurricane' works.]

'He wears short shorts' is a famous pairing, and here again, the polysemes are intercategorial ([adj] + [noun]).

Are there any other idiomatic usages of different polysemes?

A conversation between 2 persons in two different languages

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 06:04 AM PST

If you've seen the first Star Wars trilogy (meaning Episodes 4 - 6), in the original Star Wars movie, Han Solo is in the cantina talking with Greedo (and yes, darnit, Han shot first! no shame in that, Greedo posed a mortal danger to him). But each is speaking in his own language, Han in English (Empirish?) and Greedo in his native language. Yet the conversation proceeded normally -- for a little while, at least.

I have a personal experience with this phenomenon, having once been in the US Army in the Netherlands attending a NATO class on how to maintain a particular kind of microwave radio, and for the lab portion of the class I was paired with a German soldier. It happened that we were both bilingual in English and German, and so rather than both of us using one or the other language, I proposed that we speak our native languages, and see how that would work -- both of us understood each other's language better than we spoke it. So we did and it worked out really well. I imagine that it sounded darned funny to some of the other US soldiers in the room who overheard our conversation (the class was taught in English, so non-US and -Brit soldiers had to have English as an additional language to attend).

Designating one's native language as A, and a second language as B, is there a word for this kind of conversation where the two participants speak their own language A while understanding in their language B?

Should an embedded question be set in quotation marks?

Posted: 19 Nov 2021 08:04 AM PST

For example, given the following sentence, is it proper to set the enclosed question in quotation marks?

The first question to ask is, "should quotation marks be used?"

Any additional comments about the structure of the example sentence above would be appreciated.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)