Both are correct, but "in" sounds more natural.

Incidentally, if you were in the UK, you would say, "Put it in the fridge". :-)

I agree with Steve Melnikoff that put something in sounds more natural.

Put something into puts the emphasis on the motion, put something in on the target.

Examples for use of put something into that portray that fact are: put something into motion (formerly motionless) put into play put into effect

There is a verb put in something , meaning to apply, plant, spend (time/money), introduce, (nautically) enter a harbor or port.

For me, "into" implies motion (or perhaps motion in a metaphorical domain).

If you are using a verb which already has motion (such as "go" or "put")

it is not necessary, and I think is slightly more formal, than "in".

There is rarely a difference in meaning, but where the "in" could be paraphrased as "from" or "out of", then "into" is definitely wrong.

So "I got the toy in the box" and "I got the toy into the box" are both fine, but "I found the toy into the box" doesn't make sense, and "I read the story into the book

" is definitely wrong (unless you mean somehow the technical computer sense of read, where you can "read" something into somewhere, as well as out of somewhere).

I think that we use into when we want to emphasize the fact that an object or a person changes their place.

For example, we would say He got into the train instead of He got in the train but He is in the train instead of

He is into the train

But again, this is something I'm trying to remember properly, and I'm not absolutely sure.

Both usages are fine as per Wikitionary, based on the implied meaning: in: into Less water gets in your boots this way.

into: going inside (of)

Mary danced into the house.

Question: Possible Duplicate:  When should “into” be used rather than “in to,” and vice versa?     I am sorry if the question is silly, but I think I heard both options spoken by native speaker. So, which one is correct?

"Put it into the refrigerator" or "Put it in the refrigerator"?

There is rarely a difference in meaning, but there are some circumstances where "into" is definitely incorrect. However, in this context, some people would claim that "in" sounds more natural. "Into" potentially puts more emphasis on the motion of the object in question.

There is a difference of opinion on whether to use "in" or "into".  "Into" for some seems to put extra emphasis on the motion, particularly using a verb like "go" or "put". Wicktionary uses into regarding movement towards.

Both are correct, but "in" sounds more natural.  Put something into  puts the emphasis on the motion,  put something in  on the target.

Both are correct, but "in" sounds more natural.  To put something into  puts the emphasis on the motion. To  put something in  emphasizes the target.

Both are correct but "in" sounds more natural.

The use of "into" adds extra emphasis, suggeting motion towards.

Some people would claim that, in this context, "in" sounds more natural.

There is rarely a difference in meaning but there are circumstances where "into" is definitely incorrect.


If you're talking about you and your spouse, it's not possible to be "married with " anyone; you can only be "married to " someone.

Hence there is no ambiguity in saying "married with three kids", as the "with" cannot be associated with "married".

Did you hear it or read it?

If you heard it, you may not have correctly heard the comma, which de-nastys to: I am married, with three kids

It means the speaker is married, and has three children (generally living with them as dependents).

Perhaps it isn't the best grammar.

It certainly isn't the clearest way of putting it.

However, it references the IRS (USA tax) code, in particular someone who is filing a joint return with a spouse and has other minor dependents.

Several examples of this construction can be seen here .

As such, any person who fills out a USA tax form is liable to know immediately what it means.

This terminology also was used in the name of a hit TV series .

I am married with three kids.

can safely be resolved to I am married, with three kids.

at which point the context & the meaning become completely clear.

I don't think the sentence sounds nasty, as nobody would ever want to imply what you are referring to.

Great!As a non-native English speaker from another place of the world, sometimes you just don't figure out some of the rules for translation-that should obey the side of the foreigner language and not your own.

This case is a good example.

In Spanish you say: "Estoy casado con Tania".

The wrong translation is: "I'm married with Tania".

The OK translation is: "I'm married to Tania".

In the question there's obviously a mistake which has its origin in a wrong translation.

Clearly, the punctuation helps to give a satisfying connotation, but the problem isn't there.

"I'm married to three children" is what "Estoy casado con 3 niños" means in Spanish and is totally wrong, mainly because the word con means with most of the time.

In this case, the translation should become not word by word but understanding the meaning of the phrase.

Much of the time the Spanish speaking people fall into this kind of mistakes out of the logic that Spanish language has implicitly, but to learn English as well as other idioms, you most open your mind to break those language barriers.

"I'm married with three children" is "Estoy casado con 3 niños", nothing wrong, but "I'm married to three children" is the nasty meaning you were seeing.

In case of a translation, the fix for it would be to add the comma.

Simple.

Anyway, this has to do with a wrong conception of the verbal form and how it is used.

My two cents, I'm new here and love idioms.

I'm always learning something new and this is an excellent place for doing that.

Without seeing/hearing it in context, this statement appears to be a completely neutral statement of fact - no implications, nasty or otherwise.

It's possible that we're missing some important detail.

You may need to provide more information about the context in which this phrase was used if we are to spot any hidden malice.

Question: Where did this come from? It sounds nasty to me (I am not a native speaker). But it seems correct. Can somebody explain this?

What does "I am married with three kids" mean?

This phrase means that the speaker is married and has three children.

You cannot be "married with" someone - only "married to someone".  The phrase is probably not presented as clear as it could be, although reference to joint tax returns make the context clearer.The punctuation, however, does provide clarity.The error is related to the wrong use of the verbal form, additional context would improve understanding of the sentence.

If you heard it, you may not have correctly heard the comma:   I am married, with three kids. This statement appears to be a completely neutral statement of fact - no implications, nasty or otherwise.

It means the speaker is married, and has three children.


To add more nuance (and confirm what's already been said) to the difference, I find (in AmE): you can say 'a forest' (in general), or 'the forest' (a particular one), and 'the woods' (the one that you're walking through), but it would seem strange to refer to an collection of trees as 'a woods' (because of number agreement) or 'a wood' (because that would refer to a particular piece of lumber. 'forests' are bigger than 'woods'.

But a small collection of trees is not necessarily 'the woods'.

Something smaller (without specifying actual size) would be called ' a stand of trees '.

(i.e. if you can go into the collection and not see the end of the trees, then you're not in a stand of trees) 'forest' has a slightly more official, formal feel to it than 'woods'.

It normally comes down to scale.

I wouldn't consider the half-acre of trees behind my house a forest, but I frequently describe it as "the woods out back".

On the flip side, while I would typically describe, let's say a national park as a forest, I might also say that someone lost there is "lost in the woods"

These are almost completely synonymous, but I'd say a forest is a more defined (and probably larger) set of trees than woods .

As in, if it has a name, it's almost certainly a forest.

If it's just a clump of trees that may or may not end after ten feet, it's woods ; if, however, you know that it stretches for five miles in each direction, then it's a forest .

Originally, 'forest' meant a royal hunting ground, which is why they are usually larger than 'woods'; woods can be just a few trees, whereas a forest is usually much larger and denser, both in trees and vegetation.

Also in some places such as the UK, woods can be plural because each 'wood' may be in some way separated or distinct.

Forestry is coniferous trees planted as a crop to be harvested.

It doesn't matter how small or large the stand of trees is, it's still forestry.

I suspect that has influenced my usage, so that to me, a forest may be coniferous or deciduous, but my initial image would be coniferous.

By contrast, a woodland is always deciduous, established, broadleaf trees, widely spaced but with little undergrowth, easy to walk through.

I wouldn't usually say a wood .

I do go for a walk in the woods .

These too are always deciduous in my usage, but I wouldn't be confused by another person using these words for coniferous trees.

Perhaps all this is influenced by the fact that there are very few natural stands of conifers in Ireland.

When I was in Colorado, the pine forests hugging the hills felt quite dark and oppressive, and the lack of any broadleaf other than scrub oak began to get to me.

Question: Is there any difference here at all?

When would you say "woods", and when would you say "forest"?

The two terms are almost synonymous, however, the difference mainly comes down to scale, with a "forest" generally being considered a more defined and larger set of trees than "woods".

A small collection of trees does not designate a wood. A "wood" is usually related to scale, again a "forest" would be something larger.Historically, a "forest" was a royal hunting ground, bigger than wood. "Forestry" can relate to the type of trees planted, regardless of size.

It normally comes down to scale, with  a  forest being a more defined (and probably larger) set of trees than  woods . Originally, 'forest' meant a royal hunting ground, which is why they are usually larger than 'woods'; woods can be just a few trees, whereas a forest is usually much larger and denser, both in trees and vegetation.  Also in some places such as the UK, woods can be plural because each 'wood' may be in some way separated or distinct.

These terms are largely synonymous, and the usage often is a matter of scale. Forest is usually larger and woods are smaller.

The two terms are almost synonymous, however, the difference mainly comes down to scale, with a "forest" generally being considered larger than a "woods".

Historically, a "forest" was a royal hunting ground, bigger than woods.

The difference between a "forest" and "the woods" comes down to scale, with a "forest" being the bigger of the two.


Usage of /i:/ ("EE-thur") and /ai/ ("EYE-thur") in Great Britain and in Canada seems to be mixed.

In the United States, the predominant usage has always been /i:/.

However, there's also a long history of /ai/ occurring among a few Americans, including Benjamin Franklin and James Fenimore Cooper in earlier times, and Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and Barrack Obama more recently.

For many years, /ai/ was associated in the United States with British usage and, by extension, with certain elites who tried to imitate British usage.

It seems to have become more widespread in recent decades, however.

While some Americans have adopted /ai/, perhaps because they feel that it sounds sophisticated, other Americans regard it as pretentious.

Spelling, by the way, has nothing to do with the difference.

In English, the spelling ei usually represents the "long a" pronunciation (IPA /ei/), as in eight, feign , or rein .

In such words, it is derived from the Middle English /ai/ diphthong, which normally developed into the "long a" sound.

In a smaller set of words, such as receive , ei represents the "long e" sound /i:/.

It's rare for ei to represent the "long i" sound /ai/ in words that have been in English more than two or three hundred years; most words spelled with ei and pronounced with "long

i" are recent borrowings, such as Poltergeist (from German), or other words that only recently developed a standard spelling, such as heist (originally a variant of hoist ).

I think the variation in British usage is almost all between users, not between examples of use.

It's mostly a regional and class distinction: I grew up saying /ˈaɪðə/, and we looked down on people who said /ˈiːðə/.

If you listen to Ira Gershwin's lyrics, you realize that this argument has been going on for quite some time in America as well.

You say "either"

and I say "either" You say "

neither

" I say "

neither" "Either" "either", "neither" "neither" Let's call the whole thing off

The song points up for comic effect the differences between two lovers, who come from different social strata.

Although few Americans would say "potahto" or "tomahto" these days, there still remains a divide in the pronunciation of either , sometimes within the same speaker.

Many Americans, even ones who use what you call the British pronunciation most of the time, will say "eether" in constructions like "an 'either/or' proposition".

I find myself using the "ee" pronunciation most of the time, but switching to the other for emphasis: "Either you help me with this project right now

or I won't have time to help you with yours."

There are other words which are similarly split with regard to pronunciation to the extent that there is no "correct" way to say them.

Envelope comes to mind.

Many Americans pronounce the first syllable of that word to rhyme with on .

I don't think you can make any hard and fast rules; it just depends on who you are and what you grew up with.

According to The Complete Atlas Of The British Isles , "eether" is more common in the north of England and "eye-ther" in the south of England, with the Midlands and London using both.

The atlas also mentioned a THIRD way of pronouncing the word, "ay-ther", in parts of the north of England, which I suppose is now extinct.

I'm British and I use either pronunciation.

I can't think of any particular rule that I use either.

I would consider either equally valid.

I wouldn't say "me either"

though -

that is certainly an American term.

I'm in Canada.

Typically I pronounce it "ee-ther.

" I do notice a lot of American television dialogue uses "eye-ther," and American English has influenced Canadian English pronunciations since the radio and television age.

I say "me neither" (as in 'neether').

I never say "me either", although it doesn't really make less sense than "me neither", when properly it should be "nor I."

Question: There are two common pronunciations of "either": British /ˈaɪðər/ and American /ˈiːðər/. If Americans are more or less consistent in this regard, then the Brits seem to be freely using both. In fact, from what I can tell, "either this or that" is more often in the first form, whereas "me either" is in the second. But I may be wrong. Is there any kind of an informal rule in the modern British English with regard to this?

Is there a rule in British English about how to pronounce "either"?

It appears that both pronunciations are used in British English and the difference may come down to geography or social class. Indeed, the variation in British usage may be almost all between users and not between examples of use. There may even be some people who mix both pronunciations depending on context.

There is a difference between UK an North American use. Americans sometimes adopt the UK usage, but this can be seen as pretentious, but equally British people use both forms.Spelling has no bearing on the difference. The "ei" does not usually represent the long/ai/sound in words that have been in the language for a long time.In the UK, both variants are used. This could be a class phenomenon.Historically, this has been a discussion point with English language speakers. There are other similar words that are debated as to their pronounciation.

Usage of /i:/ ("EE-thur") and /ai/ ("EYE-thur") in Great Britain and in Canada seems to be mixed.  The variation in British usage is almost all between users, not between examples of use. It's mostly a regional and class distinction.

"Eether" and "eye-ther" can both be used. This may be down to personal choice, region or class - and some people may even use both.

It appears that both pronunciations are used in British English and the difference may come down to geography or social class. There may even be some people who mix both pronunciations depending on context.

It appears that the pronunciation is largely mixed throughout British English speakers.

It is possible that this is question of social class and may vary from speaker to speaker.

It is possible that this is a regional variation.

Some people may use both pronunciations depending on the context.


Probably chances of happening are high (or at least not minuscule) Possibly chances of happening are not zero

These terms actually have fairly precise definitions, although they're sometimes used with a bit of liberty.

Let P = probability of event occurring Probably => 0.5 < P < 1

Possibly => 0.0 < P << 1

It is evident that in some cases, there is overlap between the two terms.

To say that something is probably the case is to say that that case is probable .

To say that something is possibly the case is to say that it is possible .

The two are quite distinct.

If something is probable, then it is likely to happen.

The chances are not only more than zero; they're better than 50/50 (or at least, the chances are higher that it'll happen than that it won't — since in comparing probabilities, you could have multiple items which have chances better than 50/50 but have one of them which is more probable than the others).

Probably indicates that the laws of probability say that it's more likely to happen than not to happen.

On the other hand, if something is possible, then it can happen.

Whether it will or not is irrelevant.

The chances are better than zero.

It doesn't say anything about how probable it is.

It could be that the chances are .000000001

% or that they're 100%.

By saying that something is possible, you're not really saying anything about probability.

You're just saying that it could — at least theoretically — happen.

So, if you say possibly , then you're saying that something could be the case, whereas if you're saying probably , you're saying that not only can

it be the case but that the chances are higher that it will happen than that it won't.

Probably implies that the probability of an event is higher than that of the alternatives.

In the most common case with 2 alternatives, probably means something is more likely to happen than not.

With 5 alternatives, probability of the event is >20%.

Possibly implies a non-zero probability, usually a low one.

Conversational usage may not fit neatly into these definitions, as the intent is often mild exaggeration or irony.

Usage of Probably:

Probably, you should be able to do it. =

Mostly, you should be able to do it.

Usage of Possibly: Possibly, you should be able to do it.

[= If there is a chance (some factor implied), you should be able to do it.]

Possibly, you should be able to do it.

[= If it is possible, you should be able to do it.]

I think the difference between probably and possibly is somewhat related to may and can .

E.g. Probably enough to make you laugh = may or may not be enough, not very sure about it, neither does it matter very much Possibly enough to make you sick = can be enough; warns of the ability (e.g. of a virus) to make you sick, and it's important to know

Wow... after reading the mumbo jumbo...

hahaha

I can't remember where I got those words.

Again, spanish helped me.

Probably =

Based on prudent reason - That can be proved - Said when there's good reasons to believe it will happen or will be verifiable.

Possible =

That can be or happen - that can be executed - available media to do something Possible

implies that exist the possibility, let's say 1%.

Probably implies that based on probability the chances to happen are good, let´s say above 50%.

Remember that Probable, probability, are math terms in statistics.

Possibility is not used because it works even against all odds.

Just having the minimal chance, something is possible.

But is probably not going to work, because the chances are too low.

Question: Recently I saw the movie "Pursuit of Happyness", which is actually quite good, and I noticed the actor (Will Smith) asking the difference between  probably  and  possibly  to his son. So I would like to have people's opinion on this question as I am still yet to find an answer myself.

What is the difference between "probably" and "possibly"?

"Probably" implies that the probability of the chances to happen are good, maybe above 50%. "Possibly", on the other hand, is used in situations where the probabilty of something happening are not zero.

The terms have precise definitions although there is flexibility. In some cases, both terms overlap in meaning.Probable means "likely to happen" . "Possible" means it can happen. Probable means "likely to happen" . "Possible" means it can happen.Probably implies a higher likelihood of an even happening. Possibly means a lesser likelihood.The difference between them can be related to "may" and "can".

Probably  means the chances of happening are high. If something is probable, then it is likely to happen.  On the other hand, if something is possible, then it  can  happen and it  implies a non-zero probability, usually a low one.

"Probably"  indicates that something is more likely to happen than not to happen. By saying that something is "possible", the probability is often low. "Possibly" merely suggests that something is possible.

The key difference between these two terms is that "probably" is used when the chances of something happening are higher than those of it not happening whereas "possibly" is used in situations where the probabilty of something happening is simply greater than zero.

It you use the term "probably", you are saying that something is more likely to happen than not.

If you use the term "possibly", you are saying that the likelihood of something happening is not zero.


The best way to deal with the vanity punctuation is as The Register do.

Note "Related stories."

Edit (as requested) a sample of headlines from online newspaper The Register: Yahoo! wonks!

brace!

for!

lay-offs!

Yahoo! buys!

TV-sharing!

startup!

IntoNow!

Yahoo!

Buzz!

Given!

Mercy!

Bullet! Yahoo!

to!

offload!

Delicious!

as!

early!

as!

next!

week!

Yahoo! revenues!

dip!

per! cent!

You get the idea.

Yahooexclamationmark's PR boss may feel a bit ambivalent.

It seems optional, considering that even business article talk about Yahoo, while introducing some facts at the end about "Yahoo!".

If your article is about the public corporation, you should use consistently one convention, preferably the one using the exact name of the company: "Yahoo!".

But "Yahoo" is also natural since: you won't find any punctuation in the host names: www.yahoo.com , not www.yahoo!.com at least, it won't wreak havoc in your word processor spell checker ;)

See Ignoring Punctuation in Names if you still have to use the ' ! '.

Some sites, will use Yahoo! while talking about the company, but others do not.

For example, check this CNN Money page that refers to the company as Yahoo!

Inc.

From a legal standpoint, you want to use the the official trademark name that the company uses in naming itself.

Check court documents to see what Yahoo prefers and use that.

Certainly you should use the name as the company prefers it, but there's nothing to stop you mocking it gently.

If I am writing to somebody at one of those 'cool' companies that disdain capital letters and spaces, I make a point of addressing the envelope to 'johnrsmith, coolconsultancy': similar use of exclamation marks seems only fair to Yahoo!

Incidentally, there is a village in Devon called Westward Ho!; the punctuation is undoubtedly part of the name there.

Question: Certain brands, such as  Yahoo! , insist that the exclamation is part of their name. In writing about such a brand or company, is the inclusion of the vanity punctuation right, wrong, or optional?  I would like my writing to be correct; however, of more concern with the average reader, I wouldn't want my writing to seem to be pandering.

How to handle a name that includes an exclamation point (or other punctuation)?

The answer to this question will be subjective and use of punctuation in brand names may be optional. However, some people would recommend finding out what the company prefers and using that.

Use "The Register" to check the official format. How the Company is represented by third parties on websites can vary; some using the exclamation mark, some not. Legally, it would be preferable to use the Company's trademark as it is registered or use the forma the Company uses itself.

It seems optional as some sites, will use  Yahoo!  while talking about the company, but others do not. Also you won't find any punctuation in the host names:  www.yahoo.com , not  www.yahoo!.com  at least. But from a legal standpoint, you want to use the the official trademark name that the company uses in naming itself.

The exclamation point in "Yahoo!" may be seen to be optional. However, if your article is about the public corporation, you should use  consistently  one convention, preferably the one using the exact name of the company: "Yahoo!".  From a legal standpoint, the legal trademark version should be used.

Use "The Register" to check punctuation.

Some websites add the exclamation mark to Yahoo, but some don't. It can vary.

Legally, it would be better to use the Company's registered trademark.

The name the Company prefers itself, should be used.

The answer to this question will be subjective, however, the use of punctuation may be optional.

Some people would recommend identifying what the company itself prefers and using that.


First, I think a little more context may be needed to appropriately answer your question since it seems whoever you've been talking to has what I would consider to be a non-standard usage of it.

That being said, here's my best cut.

In standard usage, the phrase "not uncommon" typically means something to the effect of "more frequent than uncommon".

That is, it occurs too frequently to be considered "uncommon", but not necessarily so frequently as to be labeled "common".

However, in certain contexts where things are partitioned using discrete, well defined terms "uncommon", "rare", etc. it would be conceivable that they would mean "anything other than uncommon".

The one example that jumps out at me is RPG games like World of Warcraft where item quality is labeled using terms like "rare", "uncommon", "common", etc.

In a case like this, saying that something is "not uncommon" would potentially allow for something labeled as "rare" as well as something labeled as "common"

"not uncommon" is not necessarily the same as common.

Compare the following examples: 1-0 is a common final score in soccer (it happens all the time) 8-7 is an uncommon final score in soccer (it rarely happens) 5-0 is not an uncommon final score in soccer (it doesn't happen all the time, but it's not rare either).

To my mind, it is a shaded meaning, not quite common, but not rare. "

Not unkind" I would see as much colder than kind, but not actively unkind.

Not really.

It means just what it says it is.

It's an attempt at understatement.

To baldly say something is common seems to some people too forthright.

And, to be fair, there may be a wide gap between what is uncommon and what is common.

If the subject is sunny days in Seattle, you may say they are uncommon.

But Seattle averages about one day in six with sunshine.

So you could say, with some legitimacy, that they are not uncommon since they are experienced with some regularity.

Still, you wouldn't really say they were common.

Nevertheless, such constructions are anathema to some champions of clear writing.

I remember Eric Blair (George Orwell) mocking them in one of his essays on the English language, positing a sentence like (I'm paraphrasing here) "The not unbrown dog trotted not unslowly along the not unrough road, finally making a not unsmall leap over the not unhigh fence."

Or something like that.

I was an undergrad at the time, so memory dims.

I wish I could remember the name of the essay.

Describing something by negating its opposite is a way of countering expectations.

As in: "You might expect this never happens, but it is not uncommon."

Or: " Not bad... for a girl. "

This is an example of a common (and ancient) figure of speech called litotes .

Sometimes it conveys no extra meaning (and gets ridiculed as an affectation) but in many cases it does have a distinct meaning.

Question: When somebody uses the phrase "not uncommon", do they mean "common" because of the double negative?  I was recently informed that "not uncommon" could imply that something was anything but uncommon (e.g. rare), whereas I thought that  rare  would be a subset of  uncommon  and that saying it was not uncommon must mean it is common.

Does "not uncommon" mean "common"?

The answer to this question will require a little more information about the context. However, this construction is known as a litote and is a form of understatement. "Not uncommon" is not necessarily the same as "common" and in fact means that something is not common but not rare either.

There is insufficient context to answer the question. However, "not uncommon" can mean "more frequent than uncommon". Others feeling the meaning is clear that something is not a common occurrence. Some think that it can be ambiguous, others feel that using the word can be too "forthright".

This is an example of a common (and ancient) figure of speech called  litotes . "Not uncommon" is not necessarily the same as common. It is a shaded meaning, not quite common, but not rare. Describing something by negating its opposite is a way of countering expectations.

"Not uncommon" is not necessarily the same as common, and it typically means "more frequent than uncommon", often used as an attempt at understatement.

The answer to this question will require a little more information about the context. However, this construction is known as a litote and is a form of understatement. "Not uncommon" does not mean the same as "common" and in fact means that something is not common but not rare either.

"Not uncommon" usually means "more frequent than uncommon"

It seems ambiguous, meaning not very common, but not rare/

There is also the meaning of "common" which can appear to forthright.

The answer to this question will require a little more informaton about the context.

"Not uncommon" is a way of saying that something is not rare but not common.

"Not uncommon" does not mean the same as "common".


Grammatically, Yiddish is almost entirely Germanic - very close to an older form of High German.

In vocabulary, it is mostly Germanic, but with a large admixture of Hebrew words and (depending on the dialect) also significant borrowings from other languages, such as Polish and Russian.

As such, it is not what most scholars describe as a creole:

that is a language whose grammar has arisen spontaneously, generally when a cohort of children grow up among people who communicate in a pidgin (a contact language with little or no consistent grammar).

It appears that given such an environment, small children will mould it into a language with its own grammar, generally bearing little resemblance to that of the language(s) from which the words come.

(This is somewhat controversial, as is the claim that creoles round the world tend to have rather similar grammars).

So with that definition, Yiddish is not a creole

: it is a distinct Germanic language, quite close to German, but which has a large admixture of Hebrew and other words.

A creole language is not necessarily a combination of two languages.

It's just a pidgin language that has native speakers.

A pidgin language is usually a limited, easy-to-learn language used for communications between two different language groups.

Normally it has much simpler vocabulary and grammar.

The hallmark of a pidgin language is that nobody speaks it as their primary language...

it serves as a lingua

franca (shared language) between two linguistic communities.

Pidgins are not necessarily anyone's primary language.

These days people often use basic English as a pidgin even when neither of them is really an English speaker (for example, a Tagalog-speaking sailor might use basic/pidgin English to communicate with an Arabic-speaking merchant when in port, or a Russian tourist in Japan might use basic English to communicate with her hosts).

Sometimes pidgins are used so much that they become primary languages, and kids grow up speaking only the pidgin language.

At that point the language is considered a creole language.

The classic example of this is Haitian Creole, which started out as a simplified version of French used by African language speakers in Haiti, and soon became the primary language kids learned.

Another major example is Tok Pisin in Papua New Guinea.

Yiddish is none of the above, really.

It is mostly an in-group dialect that became a full fledged language when it got its first army ( Joke! )

It was not intended to be used as a lingua franca, although sometimes it served this purpose when Jews from different linguistic communities (e.g. Germany and Poland) used it as a common language.

Yiddish is typically referred to as a Creoloid, much like Afrikaans, Michif, and even African American Vernacular English.

That is, they share a lot of common traits with Creoles and Creole Genesis.

Labeling something a Creole or not is debatable

even amongst scholars as many have conflicting views on what makes something a creole.

Try reading either of these for some info on it and judge for yourself.

Jacobs, Neil G. (2005).

Yiddish: A Linguistic Introduction.

Cambridge University Press.

(Scott: PJ 5116.J33 2004); Prince, Ellen (2001).

Yiddish as a contact language.

In Norval Smith and Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Creolization and contact

Yiddish is called a FUSION language by linguists,(as is English) derived from old High German, beginning around the year 1000in the Rhine Valley.

It contains about 85% German vocabulary, about 10% Hebrew and Aramaic words and about 5% Romance or Slavic words, depending where it was spoken.

Scholars contend that there were/are 4 major dialects - but with overlaps.

What many don't know is that a "stage Yiddish" was created by Abraham Goldfadn (father of the Yiddish Theatre) that blended the various dialects, so that there would be linguistic consistency in performances.

Those whose exposure to Yiddish was mostly through Yiddish theatre and recorded song, have naturally but erroneously came to believe that this "stage Yiddish" was "true" Yiddish, but it was a construct, blending all the various dialects.

I found an interesting information about this language (I also have a personal interest in the language as both my grandparents still speak it) here: http://www.sefarad.org/hosted/english/eblul/yiddish.html .

Yiddish, which is written in Hebrew characters, is a composite language stemming from Judeo-German, that is to say the languages used by the Jews who settled in the Rhine Valley in the Middle Ages.

Their vernacular language, based on the local Germanic dialect, has been enriched by numerous contributions from Hebrew and from the Romance languages.

I always perceived it as a mixture of German and Hebrew.

However it's not a creole language in a conceptual sense b/c it was conceived as the language in its own right, in process employing elements of Hebrew and German, as opposed composed from two.

Was English itself a creole language in the century or so after the Norman Conquest?

In the first century after the Norman Conquest, people would have spoken either Anglo-Saxon (Old English) or Old Norman.

The latter was used as the language of state.

From what little I understand, these languages were kept separate and Old English, as the language of a subjugated underclass, was in danger of dying out.

From these two languages came Anglo Norman and eventually Middle English.

So far as I know it wouldn't be accurate to say that English was a creole language in the sense of being a subset language used for communications between speakers of Old English and Old Norman.

Question: A "creole" language is formed by the merging of two parent languages, usually through an earlier rudimentary mixture of the two. Does this make Yiddish a creole language? Was English itself a creole language in the century or so after the Norman Conquest?   My question is really about what constitutes a creole language: what are its hallmarks and most distinguishing features, and do creole languages ever evolve to become "proper" languages (whatever that may mean) in their own right?

Is Yiddish a creole language? And if not, what is it?

Yiddish is generally not considered to be a creole language and was conceived as a language in its own right, although there is little agreement as to what it is. Some terms used to describe Yiddish include Pidgin, Creoloid, Fusion Language and Composite Language. As for English, it would not be accurate to describe English as a creole language.

Yiddish is a quasi a Germanic language, and includes a large number of Hebrew words. It is known as a Creoloid language. Yiddish is a fusion language with elements of German, Hebrew and Armaic. It was learn through song and theatre. It is not a creole language as such, as it was conceived in its own right, much like English is not a creole language, as it was a subset of a language used to communicate between speakers of Old English.Creole does not mean a combination of languages. It is simply a "pidgin" language that native speakers use. It uses a simple vocabularly.An example of Creole is Haitain Creole. It was not originally intended to be used as a lingua franca.

Grammatically, Yiddish is almost entirely Germanic - very close to an older form of High German, with significant borrowings from other languages, such as Polish and Russian.   As such, it is not what most scholars describe as a creole, but it is typically referred to as a Creoloid, much like Afrikaans, Michif, and even African American Vernacular English. Yiddish is called a FUSION language by linguists, (as is English) derived from old High German, beginning around the year 1000in the Rhine Valley.

Although not a creole language, Yiddish is a language in its own right, which is written in Hebrew characters, is a composite  language stemming from Judeo-German - the languages used by  the Jews who settled in the Rhine  Valley in the Middle Ages.

Yiddish is generally not considered to be a creole language, although there is little agreement as to what it is. Some terms used to describe Yiddish include Pidgin, Creoloid, Fusion Language and Composite Language. As for English, it would not be accurate to describe English as a creole language.

There is no agreement as to how to classify the Yiddish language, with people using the term Creoloid, Pidgin, Fusion Language or a Composite Language.

English would probably not be accurately described as a creole language.

Yiddish is probably not a creole language.


Eureka!

Ok, so it's not a single word, but it's what I was trying to think of: Semantic Satiation : Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

I also found a languagehat discussion on this topic.

Based on this NGram... ...I'm tempted to suggest semantic satiation is a 'failed coinage'.

Personally I think it's misleading to imply the phenomenon is restricted to the issue of semantics in the first place.

In my experience it's not so much that the word 'loses its meaning'.

It's more a matter of saying that almost any word tends to become 'unusual' if you concentrate on it too long, even while you remain perfectly well aware of what the word actually means .

So given that Leon Jakobovits James's 1962 coinage doesn't exactly seem to have taken off (many of the later usages being simply references to his anyway), I think it would be better to call it lexical fatigue (or saturation , as used in olfactory/auditory/visual contexts).

This at least has the benefit of making it clear that it's caused by form of the word itself, not the meaning (which may not even be particularly involved).

The article on semantic satiation led me to the French term jamais vu , which I think I like better for a couple reasons.

It seems to apply better to the written form as described in the original question, and also I find it more fun to say.

Based on Martha's accepted answer, I offer: Orthographic Incredulity

This is a fantastic question.

I have often experienced that feeling.

I doubt that there is a succinct word or phrase to describe it.

I suggest you coin your own word and use it all over the place until it finds its way into a dictionary.

In general, when you say or look at a word too many times /too long the word loses the affiliation it has with its meaning.

It starts to be nothing more than a group of noises coming out of your voice-box or a collection of alphabets arranged on a page.

I had someone once describe the feeling to me as word-dissolution because to him the word simply dissolved.

The brain has already understood and processed the word.

Now it knows everything there is to know about the word, and has moved on.

This is probably a self-induced form of aphasia or dysphasia.

"Orthographic cognitive dissonance" might work.

The conflicting ideas held simultaneously being that the word you're looking at is spelled correctly and that it's spelled incorrectly.

I looked at the Wikipedia link that was in @Martha's post and it happened to list many names for this phenomenon besides the most popular one, "semantic satiation": "cortical inhibition" "reactive inhibition" "verbal transformation" "refractory phase and mental fatigue" The link also describes essays and dissertations in which these terms are used.

What do you think of "lexical overexposure"?

I'm pretty sure that no such word already exists in English.

You'll probably have to coin a phrase. "

Lexical [something]" to be sure. :)

Note: <Semantic Satiation> is a different concept from what you're saying.

It's saying that you use a word simply because you are used to using it, without any other purpose and without any reference to its meaning—words like <timestamp> (thinking of "stamp"'s meaning when saying it?

likely no),

<general>, <convention>, <convene>, <registry>, <register>, <working example>, <due>, <duly>.

But what you're saying is that there are words that are written in a way that simply looks out-of-place, at least to the parsing system of the beholder.

This might be words like: <thorough> (<through> may look proper) <trial>

(<trail> may look proper) <corporeality> (<corporality> may look proper) <weird> (<wired>

may look proper) <ministerial> <heist> <naive>

(<naïve may look proper) <reincarnate> (<reïncarnate> may look proper) <adjourned> <diaeresis> <Nietzsche> <doceng> [ § ] <Lloyd> You can refer to such words as <weiosr> (which itself looks out-of-place to the untrained eye).

Re: Is there a shorthand way to describe this feeling so that people will know what I mean without the long explanation? .By

a phrase, <have a weiosr situation>: Just then, I had a weiosr situation with the word <weiosr>.

Question: Sometimes after looking at a word for a while, I become convinced that it can't possibly be spelled correctly.  Even after looking it up, sounding it out, and realizing that there's simply no other way to spell the word, it still looks wrong.     Is there a shorthand way to describe this feeling so that people will know what I mean without the long explanation?

Is there a word or phrase for the feeling you get after looking at a word for too long?

It is doubtful that there is a succinct word or phrase to describe this. However, some terms that might be applicable include "semantic satiation", "aphasia" or "orthographic cognitive dissonance".

A number of people sugges terms for this phenomenon,  including "Failed coinage" is a suggestion, means more that the word has become "unusual" if one focusses to much on it. "Orthographic incrdedulity" is another suggestion or  "Orthographic cognitive dissonance" might be an option."Lexical overexposure" is another option, but the concept is not "semantic satiation".  The words seem to look out of place. The cause is suggested to be due to medical conditions of asphasia or dysphasia. Others believe there is no succint word or phrase to describe it. The option is to coin one's own term.

Not a single word comes to mind but possibly: Semantic Satiation.   There is also a French term ' jamais vu'. Several other options include: Orthographic incredulity, aphasia  or dysphasia, "orthographic cognitive dissonance" or "lexical overexposure".

Although there may not be a succinct word or phrase for this phenomenon, this can be described as "Semantic satiation", whereby repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener. "Orthographic cognitive dissonance" or "self-induced dysphasia" are alternative suggestions.

It is doubtful that there is a shorthand way to describe this sensation. However, some terms that might be applicable include "semantic satiation", "aphasia" or "orthographic cognitive dissonance".

Failed coinage is a suggestion, but it means more that the word has become "unusual" if one focusses to much on it.

There is no succint word or phrase to describe it. The option is to coin your own term.

It could be caused by aphasia or dysphasia.

"Lexical overexposure" is an option, but the concept is not "semantic satiation".  The words seem to look out of place

Potential terms that might describe this sensation include "Semantic Satiation", "Aphasia" or "Orthographic cognitive dissonance".


In the literal sense, this refers to something becoming untied, unwrapped, unfastened, etc.

For example: Be careful with that gift.

If it comes undone, they'll be able to see what is inside.

In the figurative sense, it means that something has either not gone as planned, or has failed in some way.

E.g.

a plan can come undone meaning it hasn't worked as expected.

A person can come undone meaning that they have lost their composure or self-control.

Andy came undone when Ann left him for Steve.

In modern English, it is the counterpart of "do up", meaning to fasten (by whatever method - tie, glue, knot, zip, velcro).

It is nearly always used literally, but when it is used of a person, it normally means that their clothing has become unfastened.

In older English, it could be used in a more abstract sense, so

"I am undone" could mean something like "my life (or my wealth, or my reputation) is ruined".

Modern readers often find the phrase amusing, because its modern meaning is so closely related to clothing.

If a strap or a knot or some other kind of binding comes undone, it opens by accident and no longer binds anything.

If a plan or a scheme or a plot comes undone, it does the same thing.

This is a figurative sense that parallels the literal sense.

Reinforcing what Colin said, "undone" means ruined.

Two cites: And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.

Then said I, Woe is me!

for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.

-- Isaiah (KJV) 6:4-5 and She's come undone

She didn't know what she was headed for

And when I found what she was headed for It was too late --

The Guess

Who, "Undun", 1969

It's hard to explain in clear words, but the concept is clear, undo someone/thing, fall apart someone/thing.

To come undone is like saying something is finally fading away.

I think the concept would be something like "to unbecome", but fall apart is very clear.

Question: I've heard this phrase several times but was given several contradictory interpretations. Please provide an exact meaning of the phase.

What does "to come undone" actually mean?

There are many different ways to use the phrase "to come undone". In the literal sense, the phrase "to come undone" refers to when something becomes untied, unwrapped or unfastened. In a more figurative sense, it means that something has either not gone as planned or has failed in some way. It can also mean that someone has lost their composure or self-control.

In modern English, it is the counterpart of "do up", meaning to fasten. Also when referring to a person, it normally means that their clothing has become unfastened.   To come undone is like saying something is finally fading away. For exaple, wealth, or reputation is ruined.

Depending on the context, to come undone can mean to become unfastened, it can refer to a plan that has not worked as expected or that has failed, or tosomething that is fading away. It can also be used for someone who has lost their composure.

There are many different ways to use the phrase "to come undone". In the literal sense, the phrase "to come undone" refers to when something is no longer tied or fastened. In a more figurative sense, the phrase can be used to refer to the disappearance of something, the failure of plans or a person's loss of composure.

In the literal sense, "to come undone" is used to refer to when something has become unfastened or no longer tied up.

The phrase "to come undone" can be used to describe when something ceases to exist.

The phrase "to come undone" can be used to describe a situation where a plan has not worked as expected or planned.

The phrase "to come undone" can be used to refer to a person who has lost their composure.


They all can mean women who sleep with men for money.

Prostitute is the most technical term.

Hooker seems most commonly used in the United States, while in Britain this term is reserved for a position in rugby.

Whore sounds much more violent to me.

If one were seeking a woman to pay to sleep with him, he probably wouldn't say "I'm looking for a whore tonight," but use hooker or prostitute .

Calling someone a whore can be used to insult them, implying they sleep with many people (though for men the term would be man-whore ).

E.g., "She is such a whore."

Going back to a previous example, "I'm looking for a whore tonight" implies more to me that he is looking for someone who is easy to sleep with, not for a prostitute.

Not to say you can't use the others in an insult.

From "Baby Got Back," by Sir Mix-A-Lot, we also have the opening dialogue:

They only talk to her, because, she looks like a total prostitute , 'kay?

But in this case the lady quoted is just saying that she looks like a prostitute, not that she is one, necessarily.

If she said "She is such a prostitute ," that would mean that is her profession, not that she sleeps with a lot of men for free.

Claudiu pretty much covered it, but there's one thing more to discuss.

"Whore" has an unsavory meaning, to be sure, but it's lately been used in a milder sense, to describe someone who will do just about anything to get something he or she wants.

In this case it is coupled with another noun.

Examples: attention whore : Someone who will do anything to get attention

loot whore : in MMORPG games, someone who will do anything to get gear rep whore : on StackExchange sites, someone who will do anything to gain reputation

This is still a derogatory term, but it can also be used among friends in a somewhat affectionate sense.

But the meaning can vary depending on how it is said: "Jill is such an attention whore"

can mean you think she's obnoxious or funny,

depending on how much you like Jill.

If you're after the politically correct term, it's "Sex worker".

The reason "hooker" is in common use in America (and not elsewhere), is because it is named after a U.S. Civil War general, Joseph Hooker (who let such women follow his troops around, contributing to lax discipline that led to defeat in battle).

Interesting discussion with excellent answers.

There is at least one more dimension: the "Latinization" of English.

Online Etymological Dictionary (emphasis modified) whore (n.) 1530s

spelling alteration (see wh-) of Middle English hore, from Old English hore "prostitute, harlot," from Proto-Germanic *horaz (fem.

*horon-)

"one who desires" (cognates: Old Norse hora "adulteress," Danish hore, Swedish hora, Dutch hoer, Old High German huora

"whore;" in Gothic only in the masc.

hors "adulterer, fornicator," also as a verb, horinon "commit adultery"), from PIE *ka- "to like, desire," a base that has produced words in other languages for "lover" ( cognates:

Latin carus "dear;" Old Irish cara "friend;" Old Persian kama "desire;" Sanskrit Kama, name of the Hindu god of love, kamah "love, desire," the first element in Kama Sutra).

Compare with prostitute (v.) 1520s, "to offer to indiscriminate sexual intercourse (usually in exchange for money)," from Latin prostitutus, past participle of prostituere "to expose to prostitution, expose publicly," from pro- "before" (see pro-) +

statuere "cause to stand, establish," from PIE root *

sta- "to stand."

The development of the two words are unusually dissimilar considering the similarities of their modern English meanings.

English is technically a Germanic language , but modern English contains many more words from Latin and Romance languages than from Germanic or Anglo-Saxon sources.

One pie chart on Wikipedia claims that 58% of the English lexicon is Latin or Romance and only 26% is Germanic.

Many things have contributed to Latin's strong influence in modern English.

Some of the best analysis of Latin's influence comes from writers who are fiercely opposed to the Latinization.

When looking at the modern usage of "whore" and "prostitute", the general rule that most people feel that Latin words are more formal, proper, or acceptable in "polite society.

The other answers support this idea: whore is much more insulting than prostitute.

The full etymological entries are packed with interesting facts about both words, so if you find this interesting, I recommend clicking the above links.

Conclusion: both words exist in English because of the Latinization of English and people's need for a word that is not so crude that it is unacceptable in some situations.

Prostitute : The long technical term a person who has sex for money.

Hooker :

A slang term for a prostitute.

Whore :

A Derogative term for a prostitute or loose woman.

Question: "Hooker", "whore", and "prostitute" all mean  whore ; what are the differences between them?

"Hooker", "whore", "prostitute", when to use which?

All of these terms refer to a woman who sleeps with men in exchange for money, though "Prostitute" is the most technical term. "Hooker" is more prevalent in the USA than the UK and the term "Whore" is considered unsavoury or insulting.

They all mean women who sleep with men for monetary gain. A "prostitute" is the more technical term, with "hooker" a preferred term in the USA. "whore" is a more violent term, and the word is also used as an insult.

They all can mean women who sleep with men for money.  None of them are actually the current politically correct term, which is "Sex worker". Prostitute  is the most technical term.  Hooker  seems most commonly used in the United States, while in Britain this term is reserved for a position in rugby.   "Whore" has an unsavory meaning, to be sure, but it's lately been used in a milder sense, to describe someone who will do just about anything to get something he or she wants, but calling someone a  whore  can be used to insult them, implying they sleep with many people. Whore is much more insulting than prostitute.

They all can mean women who sleep with men for money.  "Prostitute" is the most technical term for a person who has sex for money.  "Whore" is a more violent, insulting term. However, it has become more  used in a milder sense, to describe someone who will do just about anything to get something he or she wants. "Hooker" seems most commonly used in the United States, while in Britain this term refers to a position in rugby.

The other answers support this idea: whore is much more insulting than prostitute.

All of these terms refer to "a woman who sleeps with men in exchange for money".

Prostitute is considered to be the most technical term.

Whore is considered to be more insulting and unsavoury.

Hooker is more prevalent in the USA than the UK.


I disagree with other answers that this is simply regional variation, with no difference in meaning.

While I'm sure there are regional variations, and certainly the core meaning is the same, to me (native southern UK)

the meanings are definitely slightly different: The phrase "making a decision" is the more common phrase.

It can refer to the actual moment where a course of action is chosen (and just that moment), but also sometimes to the whole process leading up to it (where one might undertake research, have discussions, think and so on, in order to prepare oneself for the decision itself): "

The committee took several months to make a decision."

The phrase "taking a decision", by contrast, only refers to the decisive moment itself, and not to the process leading up to it.

It has more formal connotation, and an implication that the decision will have serious consequences, and that the person deciding will be responsible for them; it has a sense of finality about it.

Some examples may help clarify: I haven't made a decision about where to go on holiday.

(Informal, consequences not serious, nobody's going to hold me to account.)

The president took the decision to invade Elbonia.

Bob was fired because he took the decision to outsource the call centre to Mars.

The decision-making process took a number of weeks: the engineers did the research and made recommendations, but it was the manager who took the final decision.

In support of this position it is worth using Google to search for "take a decision" and "make a decision" on the BBC News website.

The former are (at time of writing) all about formal decisions (by governments, official bodies, international committees etc); the latter - once quotes from US politicians are filtered out - mostly about personal or informal decisions, and about the decision process rather than any decision being taken: "The Arab leaders should take a decision to stop negotiating..." "

But, as a public consultation into UK future energy needs begins, he said it was time to take a decision on nuclear.

"I usually sleep on it, relax and then make a decision which is usually the correct decision.

"It's not to say that if you've got to make a decision you should make it in a fraction of a second - that is daft.

"When we make a decision, we are supposed to consciously analyse the alternatives and carefully weigh the pros and cons."

Make decision is the common form used in English.

I want to think about it a bit longer before I make a decision.

But take decision is used in British English.

It means "making an important or formal decision".

I fully accept the decision taken by the committee.

Per se, there appears to be no difference in meaning.

Even so, "taking a decision" is common in British parlance, whereas "making a decision" is more common in the US.

Refer BetterWritingSkills for more information.

Actually, I think the difference between the two is the final action.

Making a decision implies something you have decided in your mind.

The action to implement that decision may or may not have happened.

Taking a decision implies that the action to implement the decision has happened.

That's my two cents worth.

For US English only: Make a decision.

Take a position.

A decision is something that is formed through a process.

It is put together, or made.

A position is something that is finished.

The world "position" itself suggests a specific, stable place to which one has moved, or taken.

One makes a decision to take a position.

Question: What is the difference between  make decision  and  take decision ? When to use the one and when the other?

What is the difference between 'make decision' and 'take decision'?

There is no agreement as to whether there is a difference or not between these two phrases, though it apears that "take a decision" may be more common in the UK than the US. One possible distinction could be that "make a decision" implies that the decision has been made whilst "take a decision" implies that the consequential actions of the decision have taken place.

This is simply a regional variation with no difference in meaning. The core meaning is the same.There is a slight difference, as "making a decision" is more common. Using Google search will show the difference."Taking a decision" is more common in UK English, whereas "making a decision" is more US English.There is a difference; making a decision means you have decided on the course of action, whereas "taking a decision" means the action you have chosen to implement the decision has happened.

Per se, there appears to be no difference in meaning. Take a decision is used in British English and "taking a decision" only refers to the decisive moment itself, and not to the process leading up to it. Making a decision implies something you have decided in your mind. Make a decision is perhaps the most common form used.

Both forms are used and they generally mean the same, although some believe that "taking a decision" is common in British parlance, whereas "making a decision" is more common in the US.  Some claim that making a decision implies something you have decided in your mind, and that taking a decision implies that the action to implement the decision has happened.

Make a decision is perhaps the mosst common form used.

Some people would claim that "make a decision" is the common form used in English.

There may be a regional variation, with "take a decision" being more prevalent in the UK.

Some people would argue that there is no difference in meaning.

Making a decision implies that you have decided.

Taking a decision may imply that the action required to implement your decision has taken place.


I would define "human brain capacity" differently than "human brain's capacity".

It's partly emphasis — the former emphasizes human , while the latter puts the stress on brain —; but it's also that brain capacity is a quantity, while brain's capacity is a capability.

Thus, it makes sense to talk about The human brain's capacity to do something , but not really about The human brain capacity to do something .

The human brain's capacity to do something is amazing.

The capacity belongs to the brain, so we use the possessive form, which is brain's .

Note that the two examples you give are sentence fragments, since they do not have a finite verb.

You can say this several ways.

The capacity of the human brain — in other words, human brain capacity — is something to behold.

A human's brain capacity is something to behold.

The human brain's capacity for knowledge and adaptation is seemingly limitless.

All are correct.

To enlarge on Martha's answer, I think the quality/quantity distinction is the key to the answer, when you realise that "capacity" as a quality always belongs to somebody or something - "my capacity to ...", "the government's capacity ... ", "the capacity of the average citizen to ... ".

The quantity does not need to belong to something grammatically, (even though it will actually be the capacity of something): "The capacity is 400ml" is fine, whereas "The capacity to eat" is odd (not impossible; but the possessor of the capacity must have been established first).

Hence "the human brain's capacity" is possessed, and therefore can mean the quality or the quantity, whereas "human brain capacity" is not explicitly possessed

- it is just a kind of capacity - and so can usually mean only the quantity.

The human brain's capacity is 600 billion neurons.

Question: What is the correct version please?    The human brain capacity to do something.  The human brain's capacity to do something.

"human brain capacity" or "human brain's capacity"

It is generally agreed that the correct term is "human brain's capacity". The capacity belongs to the brain, so we use the possessive form, which is brain's.

Some people think there is a difference in the wording and that the first definition emphasises the human where the later emphasises the brain. Some people think the sentence simply means the brain's great ability, that is why the possesive form is used.

Different meanings. 'Brain capacity' is quantity and 'brain's capacity' is capability

It makes sense to talk about  the human brain's capacity to do something, but not really about  the human brain capacity to do something . The capacity belongs to the brain, so we use the possessive form, which is  brain's .

In this context "human brain's capacity" makes more sense than "human brain capacity".

I would define "human brain capacity" differently than "human brain's capacity" stresses the ability of the brain.

There is difference between them. "Human brain capacity" emphasises the human, whereas "human's brain capacity"

It means the great ability of the brain to do things.

I would define "human brain capacity" differently than "human brain's capacity".

It's partly emphasis — the former emphasizes  human , while the latter puts the stress on  brain  —; but it's also that  brain capacity  is a quantity, while  brain's capacity  is a capability.

Thus, it makes sense to talk about  The human brain's capacity to do something , but not really about  The human brain capacity to do something .


Steroids have a negative connotation with respect to sportsmanship precisely because they make you stronger or faster.

X on steroids" comparisons are taking the sense of improvement into an arena where the sportsmanship aspect is irrelevant, so the negative connotation gets left behind.

"X on steroids" has no negative connotations, unless X is a negative to begin with.

("Leona was like the devil on steroids.")

The construction is an intensifier, and just means that something is so good it has an unfair advantage.

It is bigger, better, faster, stronger ... whatever qualities one would expect in X's domain, but with an additional multiplier.

Compare it to the use of "uber":

Ron is an uber-programmer at my company.

It's just one more way of hyping a thing.

First, steroids aren't "that" bad, in popular opinion.

Medically, steroids are used to treatment ailments like arthritis.

Chemically, steroids are very common, e.g. choloesterol (though that isn't an anabolic steroid).

Possession or sale of anabolic steroids without a presecription in the U.S. is illegal, but a lot of people don't really care.

Probably the most unpopular use of steroids is in sports.

The topic is a light enough one to be the subject of jokes.

Second, steroids are effective , or at least perceived so.

If I'm thinking about purchasing product X, but someone tells me, "Y is X on steroids", their telling me how effective it is.

Usually, legality/ethics doesn't really even relate to whatever the product is.

I don't know of any illegal/unethical lawnmowers.

So it's an apt analogy and not outside the bounds of good taste.

Steroids in a certain context do improve performance or theoretically make someone bigger/more masculine, so the use of "X on steroids" is meant to convey the positive meaning you indicate.

However, it seems to me to retain something of a negative connotation in that it's an over-exaggerated or artificial improvement.

So if something is described as "X on steroids" it may be improved a bit too much or made a bit too large.

As other answers point out, it's the 'beefing up' aspect of steroids that's being alluded to.

The negative connotations for competitive sport and long-term health are irrelevant to this usage, and it's perhaps a bit 'anal' to even think of them in what is after all just an idiomatic coinage.

Even if there are no meaningfully positive connotations, you can get this kind of coinage.

Mostly we think the expression Fuck

Off is entirely negative (well, mostly it is ).

But to those familiar with the usage, a fuck-off car is in fact highly desirable.

Question: As someone who follows tech, I have heard over and over that a product is "X on steroids." Now, outside of a few ailments and allergies that are treated with steroids, it is pretty well accepted that steroids have a negative connotation. Why the dichotomy?

Why is "X on steroids" good?

"X on steriods" is considered good because it means that something is so good it has an unfair advantage. It has a negative connotation in sport precisely because steroids make you stronger or faster.

Steroids have a negative connotation in relation to athletes and the sentence is using the sportsman analogy to convey that a product is better "as if it was on steroids". Some people believe that steroids in general are not considered negative, as they are used to treat many conditions. However, possession without a prescription is illegal.

Steroids are seen as making something stronger or faster and can imply a sense of improvement.

The construction is an intensifier, and just means that something is so good it has an unfair advantage. "On steroids" is made to convey a notion of bigger, stronger or faster.

This construction is an intensifier and it is used because steriods are known to improve performance. In reality, steroids don't actually have that bad of an image.

X on steroids" comparisons are taking the sense of improvement into an arena where the sportsmanship aspect is irrelevant, so the negative connotation gets left behind.

First, steroids aren't "that" bad, in F20:F27popular opinion.

Steroids have a negative connotation in relation to athletes.

The sentence is using the sportsman analogy

It is suggesting that something is really better and stronger.

Steroids are not "that" bad in popular opinion. They have postive medicinal uses.

They are used to treat many conditions.  Possessing them without a prescription is illegal.

Steroids are seen as making something stronger or faster.

"X" on steroids" refers to a sense of improvement.

Steriods don't actually have a negative image.

Steriods are known to improve sporting performance.


Gotcha actually has several meanings.

All of them can be derived from the phrase of which this is a phonetic spelling, namely "[I have] got you".

Literally, from the sense of got =

"caught, obtained", it means "I've caught you".

As in, you were falling, and I caught you, or you were running, and I grabbed you.

It's a short step from the benign type of caught to the red-handed type of caught .

Thus, gotcha is often used when you witness someone doing something naughty.

Again, it's a short step from I

-caught-you-doing-something-you-

oughtn't to Surprise!

I tricked you!

This sense of gotcha is used when someone falls for a practical joke, for example.

A somewhat-natural progression from the

"I tricked you" meaning is gotcha used as a noun: this is a feature of a system (e.g. a programming language) which trips you up or catches you off-guard.

And finally, from the figurative sense of got =

"understood", gotcha can be used to mean "Aha, I see now" or "I understand".

Following from Jasper Loy's statement.

It is short for

"Got you!" , itself having the subject implied

"I have got you." .

It regularly means, at least in the UK, "I understand [what you mean]" .

A:

You turn left, then right, gostraight on and it is on your left.

B: Gotcha! and A

: They'll never know who did it... <manic laughter>

B: Gotcha!

You little tyke!

It is short for got you .

We use it when we have caught somebody doing something or when we have tricked somebody.

In fact, there was a comedy show called Gotcha!

Gotcha 'Got you' like caught you doing something you should be doing.

In programming a variable of step not considered that causes an error.

It can also mean literally "I have got you.

" If I catch someone before they fall, I could say "Gotcha!"

Question: What does 'gotcha' mean? When would you use it?

What does 'gotcha' mean?

The word "Gotcha" has several meanings and all of them can be derived from the phonetic spelling of "Got you". In the UK, it is used to say "I understand". It also used when catching or tricking somebody.

Gotcha has several meanings and is a shortened form of "I have got you".otcha" has several meanings and is a shortened form of "I have got you".It can mean "tricked" someone or "found someone out". In programming it is  a variable of step not considered that causes an error.  If you catch someone before they fall, you can "Gotcha!". You caught them before the fall.

"Gotcha" means "Got you" or  "Caught you out".

"Gotcha" is short for "got you" or "I have got you". It can be used when you have caught somebody doing something, when you have tricked somebody, or if you catch someone before they fall.

"Gotcha" is short for "got you" and has several meanings. It is often used when catching someone physically, such as when they fall, or catching someone figuratively, when doing something that they should be.

"Gotcha" has several meanings and is a shortened form of "I have got you".

"Gotcha" means "Got you".
"Gotcha" can mean "Caught you out".

"Gotcha" is often used when catching somebody when they fall or catching somebody doing something that they shouldn't be.


They're pretty much equivalent.

That said, omitting the article has a slight feeling of playing with a group or orchestra, wherein the instrument is a synecdoche referring to the position the person occupied within the group.

I used to play the flute.

I used to play flute in the Civic Orchestra.

Omitting the article also can carry the feeling of playing an instrument in the general sense.

I play woodwinds.

In this case it would sound strange to use the article because you are speaking of a class of instruments.

I remember when I first moved from the UK to the US, I was quite taken aback by the “I play piano” usage, without the article.

So I’m pretty sure that this usage is very uncommon in the UK (at least among classical music circles).

In US usage, Robusto’s answer, that the article-less usage is more common in reference to playing with a particular group, fits my experience (classical groups, north-east US) pretty well.

Articles are creatures more of usage and discourse than of grammar.

The human speech communities involved (UK vs US; musicians, cooks, scientists, etc.) have certain patterns and expectations for use in the domains they control.

The surrounding text (conversation or writing) also guides usage.

As an American, I accept using or omitting the article before an instrument; they are nearly interchangeable for me.

I like the idea above that the article-less usage stresses playing with a group and the article usage stresses the position within the group.

As an ESL teacher, I have generally taught that omitting the article highlights the action or activity, almost as if practicing-violin were a single intransitive concept, like swimming.

Using the article gives a subtle shift in focus to the instrument.

The following is a sentence I would be likely to produce; I would accept any version of this (article-wise) that I might

hear:"When

he was little he played violin, but he switched to the cello when he got to middle school."

I heard somewhere that if the instrument is big and can hardly or even can't be carried (like cello, piano, drum set, harp, grand-piano, organ, etc.)

the definite article is needed.

I am not sure if that's correct, though.

I play piano??

This is I understand an American usage and is unacceptable in British or Australian English.

I play strings

I play drums

This is the usual option to omit the (indefinite) article - it means you play instruments in this category but doesn't mean you play all stringed instruments (or whatever), but that you play some (and the implication is a few).

The drums is a bit of a special case plural representing a singular set of drums or a number of different percussion instruments.

If you play a number of different percussion instruments in an orchestra you would normally play drums and other percussion instruments and refer to percussion.

The drum set in a band (which also includes non-drum percussion components - big hat, cymbals, etc.)

is actually a stand in for the whole percussion section in a full orchestra, so the "role" usage I suggest below prevails.

I play percussion

I play woodwind

I play brass

These are actually an adjective with an implicit "instruments" omitted, so it looks like a mass noun and doesn't have plural -s, but otherwise acts like the "strings" case above.

I'm intrigued by the @brilliant idea that it has to do with being portable.

I think the indefinite usage has more to do with playing a particular role in an ensemble or orchestra where there are multiple instruments playing the X part

(implicitly plural even if singular in form), rather than a unique role (so definite singular).

Thus it is appropriate to say I play X (meaning the role and the part as well as the instrument).

These is confirmed by it being easier to omit the article when the "in the orchestra" or similar is explicitly or implicitly present.

I can say

I play cello

I play trombone

I play guitar

I play banjo

I can't say I play piano??

I play mandolin??

I play harp??

The mandolin is portable.

But there are not often multiple of any of these in a typical modern band, ensemble or orchestra.

Piano and harp fit both theories.

english.stackexchange.com/users/39262/David M W Powers

I actually play the mandolin in a group and it is a small light instrument that can be very easily carried in a small case, more easily than a guitar so this argument is not good enough.

I agree that "I play mandolin" seems to be a modern way of saying "I play the part devoted to the mandolin in this group".

"I play the mandolin" is the best way to specify which instrument I play and the normal classical English usage.

"I shoulde'v learned to play the guitar, I shoulde'v learned to play them drums" - Dire Straits.

I would definitely go for " the piano ".

In fact the first sentence sounds strange.

Difficult to give basic rules.

One idiomatic use with the definite article is

I'm learning to play the piano.

Longman DCE.

Question: What is the rule for omitting/including the definite article in the following sentences:   I used to play piano.   I used to play  the  piano.   I would pick the first sentence, but I've heard people say the second sentence even when they are not referring to a specific piano.Which one is correct?

Omission of definite article with musical instruments

It is hard to give basic rules but it is generally agreed that the two forms are equivalent. Having said this, omitting the article may refer more to playing with a group or orchestra. It is also possible that there is a difference between UK and US English, with UK English preferring to use the article.

There is not much difference though the consensus is the removing the article suggests playing in a group, whilst the article creates a focus on the instrument  played. Nevertheless , choices may differ between English speakers as well as within groups of people working in a particular domain, such as musicians.It is surprising for US speakers not to hear "a".The grammatical overtones of the article might add focus to the instrument. Individuals within certain groups may have specific speech patterns they use related to their domain.

Although they are both used, some feel that the definite article is required.

Although widely interchangeable, some people perceive a slight difference between these phrases. Using the article gives a subtle shift in focus to the instrument. Omitting the article also can carry the feeling of playing an instrument in the general sense, or with am orchestra, for example.

These two constructions might be interchangeable and it is difficult to describe any basic rules. However, it is possible that omitting the article is more common when referring to playing as part of a group. Similarly, omitting the article may place more emphasis on the activity rather than the instrument.

There is not much different. Removing the article might suggest having played with an orchestra.

It simply means you play the instrument in this category or at least some of them. "Drums"as a plural presents a special case.

They mean the same thing.
The definite article is needed.

It is possible that omitting the article is used when referencing playing an instrument as part of a group.

Omitting the article could place more emphasis on the activity rather than the instrument.

These two constructions might be interchangeable.


Something like: dingbat, thingamabob or thingy .

From 1925 E. FRASER & J. GIBBONS Soldier & Sailor Words 215 Oojah (also Ooja-ka-pivi), a substitute expression for anything the name of which a speaker cannot momentarily think of , e.g. ‘Pass me that h-m, h-m, oojah-ka-pivi, will you?’

1931 J. VAN DRUTEN London Wall II.

ii.

There's a whole lot in the Oojah Capivvy now.

Sunday Times 4 Feb. 31/6

This was the catch-phrase in a music-hall song in use during the first world war...

I remember the line and the tune: ‘You cannot eat it, or see it, or hear it, you just ask for Ujah-ka-piv.’

‘L. LANE’ ABZ of Scouse 78

Whur's ther ojah-capiff?

, where is the hammer, spanner or whatever it might be?

Hobart Mercury

8 Aug., There are several of Ms Bosanky's turns of phrase that are pure Downunder.

For instance, ‘hoojah-kapippy’..or a ‘whatsitsname’ euphemism.

World Wide Words discusses this briefly

: they suggest that ooja , oojah capivvy and variants originated in British Army argot around the time of WWI: ‘Pass the oojah.’

says the one-armed man who is playing billiards.

What is the oojah?

The oojah is any object in Heaven or earth; it is the thing which has no name or the name of which you have temporarily forgotten. — Washington Post, Oct 1917 [ Edit: the OED confirms this quotation as their oldest citation for the usage, and suggests an etymology: “Perhaps [from] Urdu and Indo-Persian † ḥujjat kāfī fīhi , lit.

‘the argument is sufficient’, there’s no more to be said about it.”]

A form more familiar to some readers (it certainly was to me) may be oojah-cum-spiff , which is used rather differently: it’s an adjective meaning roughly “all right”, “in good order”, similar to e.g. tickety-boo .

This turns up several times in P.G. Wodehouse’s books (the Jeeves novels, and iirc the Blandings ones too):

“Yes, I think we may say everything’s more or less oojah-cum-spiff.

With one exception, Jeeves…” [ Edit: OED suggests that the spelling of this version is influenced by the then-popular use of the Latin pronoun cum .]

When I lived in Leeds Yorkshire UK, 'Oojah--kapivvy' was definitely part of our family vernacular and was particularly used by my Father.

Dad was a WW2 Vet, so he may or may not have picked up the expression during his years in the army.

It is synonymous with Thingamajig, Whatchamacallit etc.

Sometimes, though it was shortened to Oojah.

Here in New York no one has ever understood this wonderful expressive term.

To me it has such a lovely flow.

It would appear to be quite country wide rather than Local as both my wife , from London, England, and myself from Lancashire both remember our parents using oojacappivvy & oohjahmaflip.

they were all born about 1904-1916

so the grandparents probably adopted the saying in WW1.

But having been used by 3 generations I have never heard our children or grandchildren use either term.

I wonder if they just use an asterisk when texting & cant remember the name of something!

oojamaflip, OED Like thingamabob or whatchamacallit, oojamaflip (also spelled whojamaflip, hoojamaflip, etc.)

is a word used to refer to something a person doesn’t know the name of, or doesn’t wish to specify precisely.

The earliest evidence OED‘s researchers have found for the word so far is from 1969, in a pair of advertisements for a product whose precise nature is (appropriately) unclear Oxford Dictionaries , origin of oojah says: "Early 20th century, of unknown origin"

I'm from Sydney, Australia, and part of a many-generations-of-Aussies family.

My grandfather, also a proud Aussie, used to call a toffee apple a 'hoojah-kapivvy-on-a-stick'.

I never heard him use the term 'oojah' or 'hoojah' for anything else, but it seems the meaning was similar from the context - something like 'that thingamabob on a stick'.

The pronounced 'h' was clear when he said it.

I can't recall him writing it down

so my spelling is how I interpreted how he voiced the expression.

A previous answer said that a WW2 vet may have picked up the expression in the army; my grandfather was in the Australian forces in WW2 so may have picked up the expression there as well.

In any case, it may be more than local or countrywide in the British Isles; it definitely infiltrated some of the Commonwealth at least.

I'm in my forties now and can't find many Aussies familiar with the expression; those who are, are generally older than myself.

I have a feeling it may have originated from a corruption of Indian words brought over by the troops when they returned to uk.

In the same way doolalay ( meaning daft) came over.

Or a cup of char for tea.

Question: A lot of people in my family use this word, not regularly, but enough for me to ask what it means.  I know it’s not a “real word”, but how come people from different sides of my family use it? It must mean something.  The way the word is used is for a word that doesn’t mean anything, like  gobbeldygook .

“Oojakapiv”: what does this word mean?

The word "Oojakapiv" means "dingbat", "thingamabob" or "thingy".

It's similar to other strange letter and combination letter words that don't have much sense like "thingamabob"or "oujah-cum-spiff" which is an adjective meaning "all in good order"There are some local expressions that are similar in North Yorshire for example, synonymous to "Whatchamacallit" and similar words. The earliest evidence OED‘s researchers have found for the word dates to 1969, in a pair of advertisements for a product whose precise  nature is (appropriately) unclear.  Oxford Dictionaries , origin of oojah says: "Early 20th century, of unknown origin".  I have a feeling it may have originated from a corruption of Indian words brought over by the troops when they returned to uk.

A substitute expression for anything the name of which a speaker cannot momentarily think of , e.g. ‘Pass me that... oojah-ka-pivi, will you?’

It is synonymous with Thingamajig, Whatchamacallit, Dingbat, Thingy, etc.  However, some maintain that it may have originated from a corruption of Indian words brought over by the troops when they returned to UK.

"Oojakapiv" is synonymous with words like "thingamajig" and "whatchamacallit". It might have originated from an Indian word that entered British vocabulary.

It's similar to combination letter words

There are some local expressions that are similar.

It has been used as a family term  in North Yorshire. It is synonymous to "Whatchamacallit" and similar words, but sometimes shoretened to Oojah

The earliest evidence OED‘s researchers have found for the word so far  is from 1969, in a pair of advertisements for a product whose precise  nature is (appropriately) unclear   Oxford Dictionaries , origin of oojah says: "Early 20th century, of unknown origin"

This word is synonymous with words like "thingamajig" or "whatchamacallit".

This word might be a possible corruption of an Indian word that has entered British vocabulary.


I am not quite sure as to the need for highlighting the fact that she has been looking for job for 6 months.

How about :- Macy's responded to her online job application inviting her for an interview.

However, if you do need to highlight the 6 month search, then one option i can think of might be :- Her 6 month job search has culminated in Macy's inviting her for an interview in response to her online application

I suggest you drop 'from a job application' as it is pretty much implied.

After six months of looking for a job, she finally got a reply from Macy's asking her to come for an interview.

You can start by using the correct article "an" when referring to "interview."

You would be better to use "through" than "from" here: After six months of looking for jobs, she got a reply through a job application

she posted online from Macy's asking her to come to a interview.

Better still: After six months of looking for jobs, she got a reply from Macy's (through an application she had posted online) asking her to come to a interview.

I'd try to simplify: An online job application finally got her an interview at Macy's after six long months of looking.

This places the fact of the application being online front and center.

If the time period is to be emphasized:

She looked for six long months before an online job application finally got her an interview at Macy's.

After six months of looking for jobs, she got a reply from Macy's regarding a job application she had posted online, asking her to come to a interview.

After six months of looking for jobs, she got a reply from Macy's to an online job application asking her to come in for an interview.

Question: After six months of looking for jobs,  she got a reply from a job application  she posted online from Macy's asking  her to come to a interview.   The sentence does not sound right to me, what would be the correct way to say this?

How would I say this sentence correctly?

There is no clear "correct" way of phrasing this sentence and the answer will be highly subjective. However, there are number of changes that might be worthwhile. Firstly, it is questionable as to whether the fact that she has been looking for a job for 6 months needs to be highlighted. It is also possible to drop "job application" since it is implied, and the word interview will need the correct article "an".

There are several possible options to rephrase the sentence. Some suggested highlighting certain elements, some suggested replacing words such as "from" with "through". A grammatical error was identified in " a interview". There are numerous ways to rephrase the sentence to make it clearer with suggestions provided such as " After six months of looking for jobs, she got a reply from Macy's regarding a job application she had posted online, asking her to come to a interview"

After six months of looking for jobs, she got a reply from Macy's to an online job application, asking her to come in for an interview.

Suggested alternatives include "After six months of looking for a job, she finally got a reply from Macy's asking her to come for an interview" and "Macy's responded to her online job application inviting her for an interview".

There are many different ways to re-write this sentence and the answer will be highly subjective. One suggestion could be "Macy's responded to her online job application inviting her for an interview".

This places the fact of the application being online front and center.

She looked for six long months before an online job application finally got her an interview at Macy's.

Make sure you use "an" before "interview"

Simplify the sentence. Focus on the application being online, emphasise the duration of months.

After six months of looking for jobs, she got a reply from Macy's regarding a job application she had posted online, asking her to come to a interview.

Macy's responded to her online job application inviting her for an interview.

However, if you do need to highlight the 6 month search, then one option i can think of might be :-   Her 6 month job search has culminated in Macy's inviting her for an interview in response to her online application

After six months of looking for a job, she finally got a reply from Macy's asking her to come for an interview.


A name is different than a label.

Name: a word by which a person or thing is known Label: an identifying or descriptive marker that is attached to an object

So a label might have your name on it, but often it has something else on it, such as a warning, or description, or classification.

A rule of thumb is that names are unique(ish) and labels are not.

In the example question, it looks like the word you want is "name".

Consider this website: the question's name is the question headline itself: "Is the usage of 'labeled' preferred to the usage of 'named'?".

The question's labels are its tags: "usage".

Edit: I just noticed your edit to this question.

The third and fourth sentences carry the same meaning as "named".

You are "called" by your name, usually.

I'd use "named" or go with the fourth option, which just names the method.

There are lots of synonyms for "name" but, importantly, "label" isn't really one of them.

Edit 2:

Google's built-in dictionary defines label as a classifying phrase or name applied to a person or thing, especially one that is inaccurate or restrictive.

This strengthens the notion that while labels are related to names, names are not a subset of labels (though labels might be said to be a subset of names).

english.stackexchange.com/users/380/Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

Named is preferred in your example, since you are formally giving a name to your method.

Labelling (beyond the literal) generally infers that someone else has suggested an alternative name for something.

Microsoft named their browser 'Internet Explorer', but it's often labelled as 'Internet Exploder'!

Edit :Labelling is something you do when you categorise something informally; that is, you are attaching a virtual label to it, some meta-data, if you will.

For example, Critics have labelled Project X a disaster from start to finish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labelling

Name is a better choice than label if you are giving a name to something new.

The latter is used when you want to describe or give information about something instead.

For example, we say name the baby but not label the baby , don't label me as stupid but not don't name me as stupid , and label the medication with this sticker but not name the medication with this sticker .

Pardon the brevity of this answer, but I would say "named" is preferred within the context of your example.

Thus: In this paper, we will describe our new method named "KICK".

Better still, you can omit "named" or "labeled" altogether for succinctness:

In this paper, we will describe our new method, "KICK".

The comma before "KICK" is sometimes treated as a matter of preference.

You should actually use neither.

The implication is obvious: Here we discuss our new method "Fantastic Method".

To draw a parallel: Here we discuss our child named Thomas.

Or: Here we discuss our child labeled Thomas.

Question: Considering the description of a method in a research paper, which is the most natural way to express how we refer to the method? Is there a rule about when to use named vs labeled?   In this paper, we will describe our new method  named  "KICK".  In this paper, we will describe our new method  labeled  "KICK".  In this paper, we will describe our new method  called  "KICK".  In this paper, we will describe our new method, "KICK".

Is the usage of "labeled" preferred to the usage of "named"?

A name is different to a label. A name is a word by which a person or thing is known, whilst a label is an identifying marker that is attached to an object. In the example question, the correct term would be "name".

The preference here is for name and not label. There is a distinction between what we name and label. Name identifies the person or object, whereas label is a descriptor. "Name" is also considered the best option here if you are giving a name to something. Google defines "label" as something more restrictive. "Labelling" can also be a form of categorisation. Some suggest using neither "name" nor "label" in this sentence as your intentions are clear.

Not the same. A name refers to a word by which something is known. A label identifies or decribes something.

In the example question, the word you want is "name", since you are formally giving a name to  your  method.  Name: a word by which a person or thing is known.  Label: an identifying or descriptive marker that is attached to an object.

In this example, "name" would be the preferred word to use. A name is the word that something is known by, whereas a label is a description attributed to something. Therefore, a label implies that there might be an alternative. In any case, it may be that you shouldn't use either word in this context.

The comma before "KICK" is sometimes treated as a matter of preference.

Edit :Labelling is something you do when you categorise something informally; that is, you are attaching a virtual label to it, some meta-data, if you will.

A name is different to a label. "Name" is used for people whereas "label" is for things. Names are unique, lables are not. The answer is name.

The third and fourth sentences have the meaning of "names"

There are  lots of synonyms for "name" but it is not "label"

Google defines "label" as classifying phrase or name applied to people or things. This determines that labels are related to names, but names are not a subset of labels.

"Name" is perferred here. You are giving your method a name.

Labelling can also be categorising something as in critics have "labelled Projext X a disaster"

Name is the preferred option, but an alternative would be to omit both.

Use neither, it is understood what you are discusing.

Name: a word by which a person or thing is known  Label: an identifying or descriptive marker that is attached to an object

So a label might have your name on it, but often it has something else on it, such as a warning, or description, or classification.

Google's built-in dictionary defines label as   a classifying phrase or name applied to a person or thing, especially one that is inaccurate or restrictive.

A name is a word by which something is known, where as a label is a description attributed to something.

It might be the case that you should use neither "name" nor "label".

Using "label" implies that there is an alternative name.