I believe that the more common one is "fæk".

According to Wikipedia:

Since the acronym FAQ originated in textual media, its pronunciation varies; "fack," "fax," "facts," and "F.A.Q." are commonly heard.

Wikipedia's sources are the Jargon file and FAQs about FAQs .

I have only ever heard it pronounced 'Eff Ay Que'.

However it does seem to be one of those phrases that will never have a 'proper' pronunciation.

In a general sense, initialisms and acronyms are most properly pronounced as the letters, e.g. "Eye Arr Ess" or "Arr Pee Jee" rather than "Erse" or "R'pug."

Pronouncing the letters individually rather than coming up with a pronunciation for something that is not an actual word avoids misunderstandings.

That being said, especially in contexts where the given acronym or initialism will be used often (FAQ in a web context; various military acronyms)

there will often be an accepted pronunciation that the community recognizes for use within the community.

The only reasonably objective way I can think of to gauge the relative popularity of the pronunciations "fack" and "f-a-q" is by consulting a Google Ngram Viewer chart for "a FAQ" versus "an FAQ.

" Here's the chart I got matching "a FAQ" (red line) against "an FAQ" (blue line) for the years 1980 through 2008 in English-language publications of all sorts: Though historically "a FAQ" has been more common, the results for the two options are so close for the last few years included in the chart that their relative popularity in 2014 is anyone's guess.

The results for American English publications are much the same as the overall results: But the results for British English publications are somewhat friendlier to "an FAQ" and yet at the same time seemingly more volatile: On the strength of these charts, both pronunciations of FAQ appear to be thoroughly mainstream.

As a precautionary measure, you might ask around to see whether a consensus exists in your workplace favoring one pronunciation or the other, since such a local consensus might amount to a house style on pronunciation.

But if no such consensus exists, I think that you should feel free to use whichever pronunciation you prefer.

In order to avoid misunderstandings I think FAQ should be pronounced as an initialism (where you keep each letter separated: Eff-Ay-Kyu) rather than as an acronym (where the letters are pronounced as a word: fack).

Definitely articulate each letter individually...

Don't say "fack" or when I was younger, in my mind FAQ = "

f

*** u" which made me really confused.

Never heard anyone say anything besides F A Q anyways.

Question: I hear FAQ(s) pronounced like a word in "FACK(s)", while I go letter by letter. In usage, what is more common?  (Similar to SQL vs Sequel)

What is the commonly accepted pronunciation of FAQ?

Since the acronym 'FAQ' originated in textual media, it is likely to have a range of ways of pronouncing it. However, the most popular way is probably to articulate each letter individually.

Since the acronym FAQ originated in textual media, its pronunciation  varies; "fack," "fax," "facts," and "F.A.Q." are commonly heard.   The majority of people probably pronounce it as 'Eff Ay Que'.      V

It is generally thought to be pronouced as 'Eff Ay Que'. However,  "fack," "fax," "facts," and "F.A.Q." are commonly heard.

Since FAQ primarily appears in print media, it is likely to have a range of ways of pronouncing it. However, the most popular was is probably to spell out the individual letters.

It appears that the most common pronunciation is to spell out the letters individually.

Since FAQ primarily appears in print media, it is likely to have a range of different ways of pronouncing it.


Self-fulfilling prophecy .

(I am not aware of a single-word equivalent in English.)

I remember my cousin, who is a psychologist, mentioned about the term "Pygmalion effect".

Here is a definition from Wikipedia: The Pygmalion effect , or Rosenthal effect , refers to the phenomenon in which the greater the expectation placed upon people, often children or students and employees, the better they perform.

The effect is named after Pygmalion, a Cypriot sculptor in a narrative by Ovid in Greek mythology, who fell in love with a female statue he had carved out of ivory.

The Pygmalion effect is a form of self-fulfilling prophecy, and, in this respect, people with poor expectations internalize their negative label, and those with positive labels succeed accordingly.

Within sociology, the effect is often cited with regards to education and social class.

The Yankee's nascent loss...

Depending on exact context, you might get away with "conjure".

Even "will" might do.

If someone says "...

", and everyone starts believing it, ...

and it actually happens —

what is the word for that?

( verb ) predict early 17th century: from Latin praedict- ‘made known beforehand, declared,’ from the verb praedicere, from prae- ‘beforehand’ + dicere ‘say.’

He predicted the Yankees were going to lose (and everyone believed it), and they did lose.

Synonym: foretell

(past tense, foretold )

However, logically there is no way to prove that any prediction or foretelling has anything at all to do with any outcome.

You might argue that predictions have psychological effects which may influence an outcome, but that's very difficult if not impossible to prove.

But to answer the question more specifically, the noun forms for them would be: prediction forecast

Besides the already mentioned self-fulfilling prophecy , the closest things that come to my mind are: lack of confidence diminished self-esteem which are rather the cause to make happen what you described.

In the Bible, the verb to call means "to speak something into existence", but it only refers to God.

Question: If someone says "the Yankees are going to lose", and everyone starts believing it, including the players, and it actually happens — what is the word for that?

What word means "to speak something into existence"?

It is possible that there is no single-word equivalent in English. However, some options include "conjure" or "self-fulfilling prophecy". Additionally, the verb "to call" means "to speak something into existence" but it only refers to God.

Self-fulfilling prophecy is the phrase for this, although not a single word. The  Pygmalion effect refers to the phenomenon in which the greater the  expectation placed upon people, often  children or students and employees,  the better they perform. "Conjure" or "forecast" could possibly be used.  In the Bible, the verb ' to call'  means "to speak something into existence", but it only refers to God.

"Self-fulfilling prophecy" is an expression used in this context. However "to conjure" or 2to call" may be used depending on the context.

It is possible that there is no single-word term to describe this concept. However, some options include "conjure" or "self-fulfilling prophecy". Additionally, the verb "to call" means "to speak something into existence" but is reserved solely for God.

I am not aware of a single-word equivalent in English.

"Speaking something into existence" might be called a "self-fulfilling prophecy" or "conjuring".

In the Bible, "to call" means to "speak something into existence" but only refers to God.


I would always use "on".

At least if you are talking about the contents you can find on it.

If you're talking about its hardware structure for instance, then, "in" can maybe fit in some cases, I guess.

I suppose the large number of "in" prepositions in the phrase can be explained like this: in many languages, including Russian we use the preposition which can be translated into English as "in".

So what people often do when they don't know what the correct way is - they "copy" exactly as it's told in their native language.

I guess the number of native speakers who use the Internet is much smaller.

'On the internet' would refer to data/items/websites that one can find there.

as Pierre said, the 'Internet' can also be seen as a web of hardware elements like routers and switches.

that switch is 'in the internet'

If you're talking about information retrieved from the Internet, people routinely say "it is stored ON the Internet", "I found it ON the Internet", "information ON the Internet is ..." etc.

The only example I can think of where you would use "in" would be a phrase like, "I am interested in the Internet".

As noted in response to AmiroucheDouda's post, you might use "in" when "Internet" is used as an adjective to modify some other word.

Like, "We live in the Internet age", "In an Internet-based system, access is ...", "Thinking in Internet terms ...", etc.

As in this other thread I would use "in the internet" in the context of Application Programming Interfaces, or APIs.

While an Average Joe user reads content off the "front" of an internet website (its Graphical User Interface, or GUI), a function call to an API actually sends a programming thread into the content of the website to retrieve the answer.

That retrieval lends a sense of depth, of looking something up in a website, that reading content that's already displayed on the front just doesn't.

Question: When should I use "in the Internet" and when "on the Internet"?

"In the Internet" vs. "on the Internet"

Generally, most people would use the preposition "on" when referring to the internet. However, if you're discussing its hardware structure, "in" can maybe be acceptable. "In" can also be used when "internet" is a modifying adjective.

On the internet refers to data/items and websites that can be found online.The use of "in the internet" would be in phrases like "interested in the internet" or related to Application Programming Interfaces.The use of "in the internet" would be in phrases like "interested in the internet" or related to Application Programming Interfaces.

On the internet' would refer to data/items/websites that one can find there. If you're talking about information retrieved from the Internet, people routinely say "it is stored ON the Internet". The only example I can think of where you would use "in" would be a phrase like, "I am interested in the Internet".

"On the Internet" is widely used. However, "in" may be used when "Internet" is used to modify another word, or when talking about hardware structures.

Generally, most people would use the preposition "on" when referring to the internet. However, it might be acceptable to use the preposition "in" when discussing the hardware of the internet or when "internet" is a modifying adjective in the sentence.

"On the internet" refers to data/items and websites that can be found online.

On the internet' would refer to data/items/websites that one can find there. If you're talking about information retrieved from the Internet, people routinely say "it is stored ON the Internet", "I found it ON the Internet", "information ON the Internet is ..." etc.

You might use the preposition "in" in relation to the internet when discussing hardware or if "internet" is a modifying adjective in the sentence.


Wiktionary says : Abbreviation of wollnot or woll + not , negations of archaic form of will .

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology agrees: XVII.

contr.

of wonnot , assim.

of wol

not As to other forms, Etymonline only mentions wynnot :

first recorded mid-15c.

as wynnot , later wonnot (1580s) before the modern form [ won't ] emerged 1660s.

Won’t actually has a pretty interesting and complex history.

Ultimately it does come from a contraction of will and not , but it all happened in a rather roundabout way.

It all started off with the Old English verb willan/wyllan , meaning to will , wish , or want .

Even in Old English it was used occasionally to denote a future intent.

“Ic wille gan” could mean “I want to go” or

“I will go”, depending on context.

Now, the thing about negatives in Old English is that they were often reduced: na(w)ðer = nahwæðer = ne +

hwæðer

neither = not +

whether næfre = ne +

æfre never = not + ever nabbað =

ne + habbað haven’t = have + not We nabbað naðor ne hlaf ne wæter.

We have neither bread nor water.

Not comes from naht via noht .

Related to nawiht meaning naught , it originally meant in no way , but came to be used as an emphatic form of ne .

Subsequently it became unstressed and supplanted ne altogether.

This is an example of Jespersen’s Cycle .

All these things combined led to a new negative form of willan , wynnot .

The past forms of willan began with wold- , which is where we get would .

Under the influence of these forms and the related verb wol , wynnot became wonnot by the late 1500s.

Finally, the modern form won’t emerged by the 1660s as a result of reducing the final vowel in wonnot .

It appears to be the first word so contracted; most of the other -n’t contractions we use today ( can’t , couldn’t , shouldn’t , &c.) arose in the 1700s, modelled after won’t .

In modern English, cannot is the only uncontracted -not compound that survives.

As for the other contractions such as -’ll and -’ve , their history is just as long, though perhaps slightly less convoluted.

But that’s a story for a different question.

;) Also, remember that spelling in Old English was less standardised than in modern English.

There were often several equally valid ways to spell the same word, especially when you took different accents and dialects into account.

So sometimes it’s difficult to get a good historical account of pronunciation and usage changes.

Still, as far as I can tell, this is basically how it went down.

Source:

The Online Etymology Dictionary .

It's a contraction of woll not .

A friend found this explanation of the etymology of "will" via Google Books.

I found it interesting.

Will is from the Gothic wilgan, Saxon willan, Dutch willen, German wollen.

Among the various writers cited, I find it written wil, wyl, wyll, wrill, wol, woll.

In Scotland it is often, to this day, pronounced wull, and in some parts of England as if it were written wool!

The past tense was variously written when used as an auxiliary, wold, wolde, wouldin, wulde, would.

The German has present will, imperfect wolte.

Now, as wol and will seem originally to have been the same in meaning, if not in every thing but spelling, and that difference perhaps merely arising from ignorance or conforming to a vicious pronunciation, it does not seem amiss to consider would as derived from will; it certainly is derived from wol, and is as certainly the past tense of will, the auxiliary, to which wol is equivalent, and with which it was interchangeably used.

It was fairly common to form the negative of a word by swapping the first letter (if a consonant) with an "n", or simply adding an "n" if the word started with a vowel.

Chaucer used the word nas to mean "ne was", or "was not".

Nill was the contraction of "ne will", whence willy nilly meaning "willing or unwilling" (or "like it or not").

Nill was driven out by won't .

There are many other examples that have survived — e.g., naught meaning "nothing" is the negative of aught meaning "anything of value".

Neither is the negative of either .

The same thing happened in other European languages.

Willy nilly in Latin is volens nolens .

One and none are ullus and nullus .

In Afrikaans iemand is "somebody", and niemand is "nobody", erens means "somewhere", and nerens means "nowhere".

Willn't is an archaic version that remains in some dictionaries.

I have no idea if it is in current use.

Once I found it as a teenager, I very, very occasionally used it as a bit of a joke.

Question: "Don't", "wouldn't", "couldn't" and "isn't" are all contractions of "do not", "would not", "could not" and "is not"... So what's "won't" a contraction of?  It appears to be "will not", but if so, why isn't it " willn't "? (And if there's no good reason, has it  ever  been "willn't" at any point in history?)

What is "won't" a contraction of?

Won't is a contraction of "Woll" and "not", with "woll" being an archaic form of "will". However, "willn't" is an archaic form that still exists in some dictionaries.

According to Wicktionary the abbreviation of "wollnot" or "woll+not" are negative forms of the archaic form of "will". It originates from the verbs "willan/wyallan" meaning to "will", "wish" or "want". In Old English this could also denote future intent. Finally, the modern form  "won’t"  emerged by the 1660s as a result of reducing the final vowel in  wonnot .Old English spelling was also less standardised, so there were several ways of spelling a word, so it is not always clear historically of its pronunciation and usage.Willn't is an archaic version still in some dictionaries.The source is from the Gothic, Saxon, Dutch and German words.Pronunciation, particularly in Scotland, means "will" is often pronounced like "wool"

It's a contraction of  woll not, negations of archaic form of  will .   In modern English,  cannot  is the only uncontracted  -not  compound that survives.   In Scotland it is often, to this day,  pronounced wull, and in some parts of England as if it were written  wool!

"Won't" is an abbreviation of  willn't, wollnot  or  woll  +  not, which are negations of an archaic form of  will.

"Won't" is a contraction of "Woll" and "not", with "woll" being an archaic form of "will".

"Willn't" is an archaic form that still exists in some dictionaries.


Generally speaking, in English, accusative (also known as “objective”) pronouns (like me ) are the “default” form.

That is, unless there is a specific syntactic rule requiring use of a different case, such as nominative ( I ), genitive ( my/mine ), or reflexive/intensive ( myself ), in English you use the accusative case.

In the syntactic context where a pronoun is not serving a role relative to an explicit verb, such as when it is the simple answer to a question, or if one is labeling something, such as a photo, accusative pronouns are standard.

“Who wants to come?”

“Me.”

Nominative pronouns are impossible here—you cannot answer the question “Who wants to come?”

with “I”, nor would anyone label a photo “I”.

This holds even if negated: “Who wants ice cream?”

“Not me.”

If you want to use the highest register, most formal English, however, you should avoid the question of what case to use with pronouns standing alone, and use a complete sentence: “I do not want ice cream.”

"I" is used when the speaker is the subject of the sentence: "I kissed Eve.

" "Me" is used when the speaker is the object of the sentence.

Eve kissed me."

Strict grammatical logic says that the same is true when answering questions.

"Who kissed Eve?

" "I did.

" or just "I."

However in common usage, going back centuries, people frequently use "Me" as a single word answer where "I" would seem logical.

It's so common that it can't be considered wrong: "Me.

" .. "Who did Eve kiss?" "Me.

By way of illustration; the classic nursery rhyme: "Who killed Cock Robin?" "I," said the Sparrow, with my bow and arrow

" Adding "not" changes nothing.

"Who kissed Eve?

"Not I" - agrees with the formal, and still acceptable grammar "Not me" - agrees with common usage Both are fine.

Not I" is perhaps a bit ostentatiously literate "

Who did Eve kiss?

" "Not me."

-- never "Not I" Just as with that old chestnut less versus fewer , it's a one way street.

People rarely say fewer when less is "correct" (except sometimes deliberately, to annoy).

People rarely say "

Not I" when "Not me" is "correct".

Bottom line: if you always say "Not me", you'll never be wrong.

But you miss out on the chance to be extra rigorous in your grammar.

I would say either “I don’t” or “not me.”

I do not know whether “not me” is grammatically correct or not.

If “not me” is acceptable, I guess that “not I” should be the grammatically correct form because “who” in the question is the subject.

But even if so, “not I” sounds like a phrase for the sake of grammatical correctness.

In traditional English folk songs you will often find lines like: ...Fair lady, could you fancy I?

and there's also:

I care for nobody,

no not I , if nobody cares for me (The Miller of Dee)

I'm also reminded of Edmund Blackadder being irritated by an old witch's turn of phrase, and reprimanding her:

"It's

Yes it is not That it be !"

For anyone who doesn't know, this is a BBC comedy programme and the line is obviously done for comic effect, but it stems from the fact that 'it be' was commonly used at one time, and might still be used in certain English dialects.

It's clear that that many kinds of 'incorrect' or non-standard usage have been around for a long time

and I don't think it's up to us (we) in the 21st century to tell them they were wrong.

The point of language is communication.

As long as there's no chance of confusion when using Not I/Not me, it's a matter for personal choice.

Let it be!

"Not I" is the grammatically correct way to say it (it's a way of rephrasing "I do not.")

However, in common parlance (as opposed to formal), you will probably hear "not me" more often, though it's grammatically incorrect (it might be rephrased as "me do not.")

As for why it became so common, I couldn't tell you.

And yes, in casual conversation, it can sometimes sound awkward and perhaps a bit snooty.

But it's not the only case where the grammatically correct way of saying something sounds that way.

TL; DR version: "Not me" probably won't get you funny looks in casual conversation.

If you're writing an essay or giving a speech, use the grammatically correct form, "Not I."

Question: With the enthusiastic question of "Who wants ice-cream?", what is the more correct response?     (Not) I.  (Not) me.    Neither response is a sentence. The first response of "(not) I" sounds stuffy, like it should be followed with an indignant sniff. The second sounds like American idiom and acceptable for casual speech.    What do you say?

"Who wants ice-cream?" — Should I say "(not) I" or "(not) me"?

It is not clear whether "not me" is grammatically correct, but most people would agree that it is acceptable and more common. "Not I" may in fact be the more grammatically correct option and you might want to use it if writing an essay or giving a speech.

In English, the "accusative" form, or object pronoun in this case, is usually "me", unless a specific syntax dictates otherwise.If you are using the most formal English, try using full sentences as in "I do not want ice cream". "I" is used when the speaker is the  subject  of the sentence as in. "I kissed Eve. Historic uses tended to use object pronoun as the subject as in "Fair lady, could you fancy I?".

Generally speaking, in English, accusative (also known as “objective”) pronouns (like  me ) are the “default” form. "I" is used when the speaker is the  subject  of the sentence and "me" is used when the speaker is the  object  of the sentence.    Strict grammatical logic says that the same is true when answering questions.   However  in common usage, going back centuries, people frequently use "Me" as a single word answer where "I" would seem logical.

"Not me" is the widely accepted version. However, "Not I" could be used in more formal, grammatically correct circumstances. Otherwise, you might say "I don't".

It is not clear whether "not me" is grammatically correct, but most people would agree that it is acceptable and more common. "Not I" may in fact be the more grammatically correct option and you might want to use it in formal writing.

If you're writing an essay or giving a speech, use the grammatically correct form, "Not I."

If “not me” is acceptable, I guess that “not I” should be the grammatically correct form because “who” in the question is the subject.

Bottom line: if you always say "Not me", you'll never be wrong.

I is used when the speaker is the  subject  of the sentence:   "I kissed Eve.

Both are possible. "Not I" is a much more formal use and "Not me" is more colloquial. The purpose of language is communication, once there is no confusion, it can be a matter of personal choice.

"Not me" may not be grammatical, if it is not than "Not I" is the correct form, although it sounds as if complying to grammatical forms more than anything.

"Not I" is the grammatically correct way to say it (it's a way of rephrasing "I do not.")  However, in common parlance (as opposed to formal), you will probably hear "not me" more often, though it's grammatically incorrect (it might be rephrased as "me do not.")

Most people would accept the form "Not me" as correct and acceptable.

Some people claim that "Not I" is the most grammatically correct choice in this instance.

It is not clear whether "not me" is grammatically correct or not.

You may wish to use "Not I" in formal writing.


If I'm not mistaken, another is a contraction of an other , but since an/a mean singular, saying many another would seem incorrect.

The Free Dictionary as well as Merriam-Webster say that "many a/another" expresses "each of a large indefinite number".

"many a man" "many another day will come" In German it would be translated as "so manch", "manch ein".

Compare 1M and 135M, I don't think "like many another" is a standard phrase.

I haven't seen it before until now in this question, and I don't think it's correct either.

"Many a" is an idiom, a fossilised remnant of a construction which is no longer productive in English.

I would say it has a rather archaic flavour itself, and would not be used in formal contexts.

"Many another" is an extension of this, and feels odd to me.

Undeniably the construction is less common than it was , but it's still perfectly standard English... ...which includes 8300

written instances in Google Books from the 21st century.

Note that it's the equivalent of "

Like many others " , not "Like many other" , unless followed by a plural noun (where "Like many other children" equates to "Like many another child " ).

The phrase 'like many another' is perfectly legitimate, though possibly slightly old fashioned (like me, but I've used the phrase on many another occasion, though not in EL&U answers as it happens).

The comparison is with a singular object, which can be stated explicitly or omitted (implied).

The word 'child' (or 'student') is optional in the following examples; the sentences are both grammatically correct.

Like many another in his class, John is thirteen years old.

Like many another child in his class, John is thirteen years old.

The phrase 'like many other' requires an object, which must be plural and explicit.

Omitting 'children' leaves a non-grammatical sentence.

Like many other children in his class, John is thirteen years old.

The phrase 'like many others' uses an implicit plural object (which must be omitted).

Although the comparison is with the other children, you cannot include 'children' in the comparison while you keep 'others'.

Like many others in his class, John is thirteen years old.

You could also write any of the following, each of which uses only one of 'many' or 'other': Like many in his class

, John is thirteen years old.

Like many children in his class, John is thirteen years old.

Like others in his class, John is thirteen years old.

Like other children in his class, John is thirteen years old.

Writing the following has a slightly different connotation; it implies that all the other children in the class are thirteen, which could happen, but is fairly improbable.

Like the other children in his class, John is thirteen years old.

To me it sounds like a contraction of: Like many before, here is another

Question: I've come across "like many another" in a GMAT question. Its use is similar to "Like many other" e.g. "Like many another in his class, John is thirteen years old."  It has 1M hits in google (compare to 135M for "like many other").I would like to know if it's a mistake or an uncommon but standard phrase.

Is the phrase "Like many another" correct in standard English?

There is no clear agreement as to whether "like many another" is correct English or not. However, it is referenced in the Meriam-Webster Dictionary to express "each of a large indefinite number". Regardless, it is likely to be very archaic and would not be used in formal contexts.

The Free Dictionary and Merriam-Webster state that "many a/another" mean "each of a large indefinite number"Another" is a contraction of "an other" but given "a/an" imply a singular form, using "many other" seems incorrect.Never seen before, but not considered correct."Many a" is an idiom, and is a remnant of a construction that no longer exists in English, so "many another" as an extension also sounds incorrect.

"Many a" is an idiom, a fossilised remnant of a construction which is no longer productive in English. The phrase 'like many another' is perfectly legitimate, though possibly slightly old fashioned.

Like many another' may well be legitimate, though possibly slightly old fashioned and unknown to many. "Like many other" is much more widely used.

There is no clear agreement as to whether "like many another" is correct English or not. However, it is referenced in the Meriam-Webster Dictionary. Regardless, it is likely to be very archaic and likely not suitable even in formal writing.

It appears that this expression is referenced in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

There is no clear agreement about whether this is a standard or correct phrase in English.

This phrase could be very archaic and not suitable even in formal contexts.


VonC's answer is more to the point, but I just can't resist the urge to post this Venn diagram: Image credit.

The most probable term would be "geek", as in "computer geek" (roughly "computer whiz").

(not the US geek from fifty years ago, as the lowest form of circus performer, who did horrible, demeaning things).

Even though a geek is not necessarily smart or into computers, but can be in general a "weird person", the only usage of geek I know in French culture is related to computer.

This thread mentions : "Nerd" has several meanings/usages.

One is that of a studious intellectual, meant to be negative but carrying a whiff of envy.

The other is "awkward pain in the neck".

One (non-official) difference between nerd and geek (in the computer field) could also be in term of general activity: "Nerd" = producer "Geek" = consumer Eg.

a nerd creates video games, a geek plays the video games.

But those two terms certainly cannot be limited to this simple interpretation.

That being said, I thought the remark from John Hodgman was quite accurate:

Comedian John Hodgman recently spoke at a Washington DC press dinner, following Barack Obama, touting Obama as the first Nerd President, since Obama had admitted to collecting comic books and being a fan of Star Trek.

Obama's Nerd intellectualism was contrasted to the "Jock" mentality that had defined the Bush years.

In the midst of this speech Hodgman suddenly referred to Obama as a geek, quickly adding this aside: "And to those who say, 'Wait, there's a difference between nerds and geeks,' I answer, 'Shut up, nerd!'" Nicely illustrated by phdcomics :

Obligatory xkcd reference :

Geek or Nerd = People who are passionate about something and laughed at by people who are NOT willing to take the time or effort find something to be passionate about and in fact trying their best to poke fun at people who care about something :-)

Merriam-Webster defines them thusly:

Geek - an enthusiast or expert especially in a technological field or activity Nerd - one

slavishly devoted to intellectual or academic pursuit

I'd say they're virtually synonyms.

I've certainly heard them used interchangeably.

My definition of a Geek is that its somebody that is very interested in something and knows a lot about that subject, but also knows a lot or just as much about many other subjects.

ie computers AND maths AND physics AND chemistry AND politics.

A Nerd however goes VERY deep on one subject and has a cursory interest in other subjects.

What this means is that geeks do some really interesting things in some fields, and manage to cross fields really easily.

But the focused advances in most fields come from the hardcore Nerds.

Thus a Nerd is a very hardcore focused Geek.

A theory of a hierarchy, based on level of social interaction capabilities, has been discussed over numerous, excellent bottles of beer.

"Geeks," "nerds," and "dorks" all have the same level of passion for their field of study.

As a result, it is impossible to distinguish among them based on their level of skill and degree of interest.

Instead, it was concluded, one night, that it was better to organize them by their social skills.

"Geeks" have a high level of social skills and are able to interact with people outside their area of expertise: they might be geeks in, say, Ruby on Rails programming, but they can chat up an art historian with alacrity.

Nerds, on the other hand, are less comfortable outside their circle of peers--a C# programming nerd can talk to an advertising sales rep,

if he/she must, but only if there is a substantial amount of alcohol involved.

For those unfortunate people who are so absorbed in their subject matter as to consider social interaction with anyone beyond their ken...

we tend to call them dorks.

It's an cruel classification, but it exists all the same.

A fourth class have been discussed, usually late into the drink, and it's the question of the "poser," or someone who thinks they are an expert in something and think they belong in the "geek" or "nerd" class.

Even "dorks" agree that the proper term for them is probably "dweeb."

Someone reasonably famous once said "Nerds are simply Geeks who earn lots of money

" I think it was in the context of Bill Gates.

Question: Which term correctly identifies those who enjoy and are involved with programming and technology,  geek  or  nerd ?

Which term correctly identifies those who enjoy programming/technology: "geek" or "nerd"?

Whilst it is possible that these terms are virtually synonyms and interchangeable, "Geek" is probably the more common in this context.

The most likely term is "geek" meaning "computer geek" and not the circus performer referred to fifty years ago.A "nerd" is someone who creates "video games"; a "geek" is someone who plays them. It can mean people passionate about something who are mocked by others. The difference is that a nerd has very deep interest in a subject, but a "geek" would have some skills in certain areas but have skills that can apply to many areas.There is no distinction.The joke about the difference is that one earns more than the other.

A geek  is an enthusiast or expert especially in a technological field or activity. But,"Geeks" still have a high level of social skills and are able to interact with people outside their area of expertise. A nerd is someone who is slavishly devoted to an intellectual or academic pursuit and nerds are less comfortable outside their circle of peers. Comedian John Hodgman recently spoke at a Washington DC press dinner, following Barack Obama, touting Obama as the first Nerd President, since Obama had admitted to collecting comic books and being a fan of Star Trek. You could say that a Nerd is a very hardcore focused Geek.

Geek and nerd are virtually synonyms and are used interchangeably.

Whilst it is possible that these terms are interchangeable, "Geek" is probably the more common in this context.

Someone reasonably famous once said "Nerds are simply Geeks who earn lots of money

"Geek" is possibly the more common term in this context.

It is possible that these terms are interchangeable.


To add to Martha's answer : The simple past ("Did you see this") refers about an event in the past

The present perfect ("Have you seen this") suggests a link with the present time.

If "this" is something you could have seen but cannot anymore

(you should have been there seeing "this" at the time, but it wouldn't have the same impact if you see it again now), then "Did you see" is more appropriate.

It is about an event that happened once in the past.

If "this" is something you can check out whenever you want, "Have you seen" is more to the point, because it suggests that, if you haven't seen it in the past, you could consider seeing it now or in the near future.

It is about an event which can happen again or is still relevant in the present.

The difference is pretty subtle, but the "did you..." version implies more of an event, i.e. something that needs to be seen just once, perhaps because it's temporary.

So, Have you seen [insert movie title]?

but Did you see last night's [insert TV show name] episode?

Edit

: note that there's nothing wrong with "Have you seen last night's episode?", or with "Did you see the movie?", but there is a (slight) difference in meaning.

There is a difference between UK and US usage in this case (though I believe that the difference has been diminishing over the past few decades).

In my (UK) idiolect, "Did you see this?" is very unlikely, because "did you see" implies that the opportunity for seeing it has passed, which is inconsistent with "this".

Without "this" (eg "Did you see what he did?")

the implication is that he has stopped doing it. "

Did you see this yet?

" is impossible in my idiolect for the same reason.

"Have you seen this?" implies that you still could see it even if you haven't yet.

Thus Martha's "Have you seen last night's episode?" to me implies that the episode is still available in some way and you could still see it.

I would not say "Have you seen last night's performance of the play?"

As I say, I believe that this distinction is not there (or at least not as strong) in US English.

Ex: Have u seen my glasses?

Did you see my glasses?

"Have you seen" implies that the person saw your glasses sometime in the recent past right up to the present moment.

"Did you see" is asking if the person has ever seen your glasses, at any time in the past.

It makes a big difference if you're looking for a lost pair of glasses.

It wouldn't help much if the person had seen them four years ago.

You want to know where they are now! source

Did you see James?

No, I did not have any dates with him.

Have you seen James?

No, I have no idea where he is.

Question: What's the difference between these two phrases?

What is the difference between "Have you seen this?" and "Did you see this?"

Generally, the phrase "Have you seen this?" suggest a link with the present time and implies that you could still see the item or event in question even if you haven't yet. "Did you see this", on the other hand, refers to an event in the past. However, there may be a different between UK and US usage.

Did you see? is the simple past and refers to events in the past. Whereas "have you seen this" is the present perfect and suggests a link with the present.There is a difference between UK and US usage.

"Did you see this?" implies that the opportunity for seeing it has passed, which is inconsistent with "this". The present perfect ("Have you seen this") suggests a link with the present time.   "Did you see this?" implies that the opportunity for seeing it has passed, which is inconsistent with "this".

The present perfect ("Have you seen this") suggests a link with the present time. The simple past ("Did you see this?") refers to an event in the past. "Have you seen this?" implies that you still could see it even if you haven't yet.

Generally, the phrase "Have you seen this?" implies that you could still see the item or event in question even if you didn't see it earlier, whilst "Did you see this" refers to an event in the past. However, there may be regional differences in usage and "Did you see this?" is an unlikely expression in UK English.

"Did you see?" is the simple past and refers to events in the past. Whereas "have you seen this" is the present perfect and suggests a link with the present.

The phrase "have you seen" implies that you could still see it now even if you didn't see it earlier.

There may be a difference in usage depending on the region.

The phrase "Did you see this" is unlikely in UK English.


Perhaps you mean begging the question ?

According to BegTheQuestion.info, it means: "Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself.

When one begs the question, the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place.

A simple example would be "I think he is unattractive because he is ugly."

The adjective "ugly" does not explain why the subject is "unattractive" -- they virtually amount to the same subjective meaning, and the proof is merely a restatement of the premise.

The sentence has begged the question.

Interestingly, the term "begging the question" is commonly misused to mean, "to raise the question."

It's a Fallacious Argument , of which there are many varieties, find one here that fits your specific case... could well be Argument By Laziness (or Argument By Uninformed Opinion) http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

I think you're actually thinking of a logical fallacy, known as the appeal to misleading authority, or ipse dixit.

This occurs when someone incorrectly assumes an opinion to be fact.

In contrast, hyperbole is an exaggerated statement not intended to be taken as fact.

I would call this prejudice or prejudgement : making a judgement before heeding relevant facts or considering other viewpoints; presenting opinion as fact without sufficient evidence.

Pontification could be related.

The term you are looking for seems to be hyperbole .

The Wikipedia entry defines it pretty well: Hyperbole ... is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech.

It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

Merriam-Webster simply defines it as "extravagant exaggeration", which is perhaps the most generic meaning.

Most commonly the word is used in the context of a debate/argument.

It evidently refers more to the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device, but emotion/persuasion often goes hand in hand, so it's pretty appropriate for the case you're considering.

I hope most are agreed that "hyperbole" is not a good answer for the original question.

I'm thinking the sentiment expressed in the question is close to a definition of "dogmatic," though "dogmatic" does not connote anything about being extreme, more about simply stating opinions as if they were facts.

The question pertains as much to the arguing from a particular point of view as it does to the expression of that point of view.

"Dogmatic" seems to have this overtone, since the employment of dogma is almost exclusively in the context of persuasion, and not infrequently, argumentation.

Anyway, it follows that "to argue dogmatically" would be very close to the second part of "arguing emotively from an extreme, or biased, point of view as if your view is fact," but it does not capture the "extreme" aspect the poser wants, more the "arguing as if your view were already ascertained fact" aspect.

So, "dogmatic" is not a perfect fit--but maybe there isn't one.

Question: I'm fairly sure there is a word or phrase to describe arguing emotively from an extreme, or biased, point of view as if your view is fact, but I can't remember what it may be. (I am wanting to use this word or phrase in a reply, I promise it is not a crossword clue.)  Any hints?

Using or arguing a biased opinion as fact

There is no clear agreement as to what this particular concept is called, but potentially applicable terms could be "Begging the question", "logical fallacy" or "pontification".

The asker may be seeking for "beg the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. It is o ften incorrectly used as "to raise the question". It is a "fallacious argument". It's a logical fallacy.Prejudice or pre-judgement. Similarly, "pontification" could be another word.The term required is "hyperbole" as defined by Wikipedia.

This is a Fallacious Argument , of which there are many varieties. It could also be referred to as  prejudice  or  prejudgement or dogmatic.

Suggestions include "to beg the question"; "logical fallacy"; "prejudgement"; "pontification"; "hyperbole" or "dogmatic".

I think you're actually thinking of a logical fallacy, known as the appeal to misleading authority, or ipse dixit.

I would call this prejudice or prejudgement : making a judgement before heeding relevant facts or considering other viewpoints; presenting opinion as fact without sufficient evidence.

The term you are looking for seems to be hyperbole .

I'm thinking the sentiment expressed in the question is close to a definition of "dogmatic," though "dogmatic" does not connote anything about being extreme, more about simply stating opinions as if they were facts.

The asker may be seeking for the wording "beg the question" which is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. It is often incorrectly used as "to raise the question"

It could also be referred to as  prejudice  or  prejudgement.

This could also be referred to as "dogmatic".


I think that there is a very obvious answer to this question.

The opposite of "better" is "worse."

The opposite of "more" is "less."

So, which of these sentences sounds correct: I like dogs worse than cats

I like dogs less than cats?

The answer is clearly " I like dogs less than cats.

The sentence " I like dogs worse than cats " would be flagged by any native speaker as being incorrect.

No one would ever say that.

The answer, in my honest opinion, lies in semantics, not grammar.

Think about it deeply; it simply doesn't make sense to say that you like something better.

The word "better" tells you something about the worth of something.

Whereas the word "Less" tells you something about a quantity (less butter) or about the perceived strength of something (less light).

To increase or decrease the force of your 'liking," only two appropriate words are available to you: you like something more, or less.

You can't like something better or worse, because these are words that comment on the value of liking, not its intensity.

To say "I like cats better than I like dogs" means, semantically, that your liking for dogs is somehow better than your liking for cats .

And it's obvious that that is not what most people intend to say when they use "better" in this context.

What they mean is that their liking for dogs is GREATER than their liking for cats, not that their liking for dogs is in some odd way BETTER than their liking of cats.

Dogs may be better than cats, but our liking of dogs can't be better than our liking of cats.

Of course someone might think that it is better to like dogs than it is to like cats.

But there are no "better" ways of liking something.

More is, to me, the better of the two.

Perhaps you could avoid all ambiguity and instead of: I like Dogs more.

I like Cats better.

you can try:

I prefer Dogs.

You can use either, both are short versions of comparisons.

I like cats better than dogs, but dogs more than pigs.

There may be a US/UK distinction.

I like cats better than dogs ...

sounds like to an Americanism to my British ears.

I'd be more likely to say: I like cats more than dogs.

However, I'd agree that both are acceptable.

Historically, like well and like better were the norm.

(You'll find it in Shakespeare.)

British English has dropped this usage, and opted for the more consistent like more , but still retains like well in expressions like well-liked or best loved .

American English has retained like well .

Mike can't like Edie better than me.

It's from a native speaker that seems to be right.

Be Careful!

Don't use any preposition except to in sentences like these.

Don't say, for example 'I prefer art than sports'.

Prefer is rather formal.

In ordinary conversation, you often use expressions such as like...better and would ratherÉ instead.

For example, instead of saying 'I prefer football to tennis', you can say 'I like football better than tennis'.

Instead of saying 'I'd prefer an apple', you can say 'I'd rather have an apple'.

Question: When people like something  more  than something else, it's common for me to hear them say they like it  better  than something else. Is this proper English? I've always thought the word  more  fits better, but I'm not sure whether or not use of the word  better  is wrong.

"Like something more" or "like something better"

The answer to this question may be related to semantics rather than grammar and there may be a US/UK distinction. Some people will claim that "more" and "better" are both correct, whereas others will claim that "more" should be the preferred option. It may be that both are acceptable.

The answer is obvious, the opposite of "better" is "worse" and the opposite of "more" is "less". The answer relates to semantics and not grammar.

You can use either, both are short versions of comparisons.  There may be a US/UK distinction.  Historically,  like well  and  like better  were the norm.  British English dropped this usage, and opted for the more consistent  like more , but still retains  like well  in expressions like  well-liked  or  best loved, whereas American English has retained  like well .

Both expressions are acceptable and it is a matter of semantics. However, some prefer "more" rather than "better".

The answer to this question may be related to semantics rather than grammar and may depend on the regional variant of English. Some people will claim that "more" and "better" are both correct, whereas others will claim that "more" should be the preferred option.

More  seems to be the better of the two.

But you can use either, both are short versions of comparisons.

Some people believe that "more" is correct and "better" is incorrect in this context.

The answer to this question may depend on the regional variation of English.

Some people believe that both are acceptable.

The answer to this question may rely on semantics rather than grammar.


This is a topic that leads to huge debates (and often flamewars)

online whenever it is brought up.

Logically, it makes perfect sense to use "America" and "Americans" for this country.

The name of the country is "United States of America".

Why would it be strange to shorten this?

It is common to shorten the official name of a country — most people don't even know the official names for the various countries.

For example, the official name of Mexico is "los Estados Unidos Mexicanos", which means "the Mexican United States"; nobody is surprised that it is referred to as "Mexico".

People would be surprised if you called them the "EUM".

(Also, this example shows that even "United States" is not a unique term to one country.)

Australia is officially known as "the Commonwealth of Australia", but we are happy to simply call them "Australians", even though it is also the name of a continent.

Depending on how you do your geography, the Australian continent also contains other countries aside from the "COA".

Lastly, I just want to point out that there is no single continent called "America".

There is one called "North America" and another called "South America", which are sometimes collectively referred to as "the Americas".

I think the strange thing is not that people from the USA call themselves "Americans", it is actually more strange that the full official name or an acronym is used so often.

I thought Australia was part of Oceania; when did this change and Australia became a continent itself?

By the way, America is the whole continent; the subdivisions are only for the sake of geographic or geological study, but the continental plate is America.

Every time we, people who live in any place besides the United States of America, feel embarrassed when we hear about "being American is", "the spirit of America is", and such utterances.

Because we're not "US citizens" nor will we ever be considered in that way, but we indeed live in “America”, so we could be proudly called Americans, but the patronimious (how do you say it in English?) has become synonymous of US citizens, politics, mind, behavior.

Sometimes we don't agree in no way with any of those points, and we feel excluded with a word that should unite us.

That said, I dare to say that using Americans for the citizenship of the United States is wrong for the rest of the continent, but as it has been used constantly by the United States all over the globe, that use have given another meaning to the word, succeeding in segregating people who feels America is also its land.

When I traveled to Europe, every time I was asked if I was from America, I corrected them to the name of my own country and emphasized that we're not in America (strange to say indeed).

By the way, in general Europeans understand the concept pretty well, but US citizens don't, and in general they don't even understand what they have done with the word.

It’s like they are humans so the citizens of United States are called humans.

Imagine the rest of the world should feel not so good about being called humans when they live in

let's say, Russia?

Nothing against the United States anyway.

Just to clear things up.

It's actually just the result of using half of the country's full name to save time.

The country is officially called "the United States of America".

In fact, if you think about it, something like "the United States" doesn't quality as an unambiguous country name.

There were many city-states in Europe, a lot of which united under the rules of different kings.

These were united states, as well.

Japan has several prefectures which are essentially states in their own right.

These are united under the Japanese government.

We could use united states (or united prefectures) to refer to these.

The Western world was named after Amerigo Vespucci, which led to the continents being named "North America" and "South America".

At first America was a collection of several colonies, each with their own currency and government.

When several states within North America all united to form a single government, they called themselves the "United States of America".

Some people abbreviate this as "United States", others as "America", others as "USA".

Wikipedia has a good section on how U.S. citizens came to be known as Americans.

It's interesting to note that in other languages, U.S. citizens are not so easily confused with other inhabitants of North and South America.

For example, some Spanish-speaking people use the term norteamericanos .

The main British colonies in the new world/Americas were the thirteen colonies ( Wikipedia ).

It was thus perhaps natural that the British (and English-speakers in general) came to refer to these thirteen colonies simply as "America".

These colonies later became the USA.

In contrast the Spanish were all over the Americas ( Wikipedia ).

It was thus perhaps natural that the Spanish (and Spanish-speakers in general) came to refer to the new world/Americas as a whole as "America".

The analogy is perhaps to the use of the word "Asian" in the UK as compared to in the USA.

In the UK, where most immigrants from the continent of Asia were/are from South Asia, when you say "Asian", you mean South Asian.

In contrast, in the US, where most immigrants from Asia were/are from East Asia, when you say "Asian", you mean East Asian.

And just like how Spanish-speakers/Latin America (often) get annoyed when people refer to the USA simply as "America"

, in the US people are (sometimes) annoyed when you refer to a South Asian as an Asian.

And mutatis mutandis for the UK.

Question: People often refer to the country US as America and to the people from the US as Americans.  As far as I know, that's the only case in the world where a continent's name is used for a country's name (let me know if I'm wrong). Why does that happen?

Why are the United States often referred to as America?

The logic is simply that it is a shortening of the country's name to save time.

It is logical to use "America" and "Americans" for the USA. The same format is used for the state of Mexico and for Australia.It may be incorrect to use Americans for citizens of other countries living on the continent of America.It may be incorrect to use Americans for citizens of other countries living on the continent of America.You cannot use the form "United States" as a country name. Historically, the continents were named after the explorer Amerigo Vespucci.Wickpedia outlines how US citizens became to be known as Americans.Historically, there were 13 colonies, and it was natural they all came to be known as "America".  The whole new world became known as "America".  In the UK, immigrants from the continent of  Asia are called Asians.

America is the whole continent; the subdivisions are only for the sake of geographic or geological study, but the continental plate is America.  Using the word Americans for the citizenship of the United States is wrong for the rest of the continent, but as it has been used constantly by the United States all over the globe, resulting in segregating people who also feel that America is also their land.  But it is probably just the result of using half of the country's full name to save time.

As a way to save time, logically, it is seen to make sense to use "America" and "Americans" in this context.

Wickipedia outlines how US citizens became to be known as Americans.


Integrous http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/integrous http://www.allwords.com/word-integrous.html

It doesn't pass a spell-checker, but there are over 500,000 hits for it on Google, most of which are using it precisely as you defined.

Virtuous : Having or showing virtue, especially moral excellence

: led a virtuous life.

Note that integrity is the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles .

Be virtuous!

integrious Variations of usage found in literature include integrous and integritous , also with similar meaning.

Wiktionary:

integrious ( comparative more integrious , superlative most integrious ) ( rare ) Marked by integrity.

Howard is an integrious man because his values are congruent with and evident in his words, actions, personality and life.

Most importantly, Wiktionary cites the reference of The Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Edition Volume VII.

Considering the marking " rare " along with the OED citation, it appears that it is (or was) an authentic word.

Found something on the

Why We Need the word Integrious movement!

I don't know of an adjective form of integrity , so I can't solve your issue directly.

However, depending on if your use case allows it, you might consider the phrase Have integrity .

Obviously if you're trying to offer a set of parallel Be X statements, this won't work, but if you're looking for a concise two-word imperative sentence, I think it carries the meaning you're looking for.

If you don't like what you have so far (Yahoo Answers' "there is no noun [sic!]

with the same root, use 'upright'", or the many suggestions in that WordReference thread — "a good sort", "decent bloke", "a man of integrity", "a man of good character", "principled", "reasonable" and whatnot), then you can use this: Be a mensch.

Merriam-Webster defines mensch thusly : a person of integrity and honor Wiktionary even has a few cites : 1960 ,

The Apartment: Doctor Dreyfuss

[to C. C. Baxter]

: Be a mensch! 2005 , Alan Hollinghurst, The Line of Beauty , Bloomsbury Publishing, page 428: Lionel Kessler, relaxing perhaps on a Louis Quinze day bed, garlanded all round with lines of beauty, seeing welcome proof that his clever maligned young friend was a mensch.

2008 December 28, George Solomon, “My Little Red Book”,

The Washington Post , page D01:

Olie Kolzig: Goalie for the Washington Capitals who spent most of 16 seasons between the pipes for the team until being released in 2008.

Had the longest career of any Capital.

Now plays for Tampa Bay.

The ultimate mensch, in my book.

Edit two years later in reply to comments.

No, this word does not have to be spoken to someone with a certain cultural baggage.

Here is what Steve Martin tweeted earlier today: I could not be more stunned by the loss of Robin Williams, mensch, great talent, acting partner, genuine soul.

This went out to 5.2 million followers, not a homogenous bunch by any measure, then got retweeted 50000 times, then picked up by traditional media outlets all over the world.

Mr. Martin does not exactly have a track record of not knowing when to use which word, and we cannot with a straight face claim that everyone who read his message shares the same cultural baggage.

Even more to the point, even if every single recipient did have to look up any word in that message because it was somehow obscure — now it no longer is.

Why limit the word to a form of "integrity" which from what I've seen is a bit sterile, when there are so many other words that convey the meaning so beautifully: Be noble Be upstanding Be moral Be without reproach

To directly answer your question, there is really no adjective for integrity .

However, there are several that could capture the essence of the word, although not in its entirety.

Thus, a few examples are: Be honest Be true to yourself Be upright

Be blameless

Be above reproach

Few, if any, however, are colloquial.

My suggestion would be to select the word(s) (and there are many)

that represent the aspect of integrity you deem most important for the occasion.

Be Ethical Ethical - of or relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.

Integrity - the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles.

Depending on whom I was writing to or for, I might be brave enough to try 'intact'. '

John was a thoroughly intact individual, so I decided to trust the job to him'.

The Latin 'intacta' means 'unimpaired'.

The second meaning of 'integrity' in the ODE (not OED) is 'the state of being whole and undivided'.

So my contention is that an honest person is an 'intact' person.

But then it would be just as quick to say 'As John was a man of integrity, I decided to trust the job to him'.

Describing a person, I would favour 'virtuous'.

In the context of data integrity, though, I have heard industry people use 'integral' to describe data.

Looking in some dictionaries, it seems there is no such word.

There is integer in German, though, and íntegro in Spanish, both of which have the intended meaning.

English translations that come up are upright and honourable , but nothing like integer or integral or anything like that.

While the use of the word "integrous" or "integrious" (variations of an adjective form of "integrity") is commonly used in spoken American English, especially in educational and professional forums, it is not commonly used in written American English - hence the lack of inclusion in dictionaries.

I use "integrity" with information a good deal.

If information has integrity, it is "reliable" and/or "valid."

For a person, I'd probably refer to them as "reliable" if they display integrity.

Integrated.

Not really the correct connotation when describing a person,

but yeah.

That's the adjective form of the noun "integrity."

I would go with trustworthy, meaning "able to be relied upon as a person of integrity ".

english.stackexchange.com/users/54466/Chris Sunami supports Monica

Question: I'm looking for the  adjective  form of " integrity ."    Instead of "Be a person of integrity," I'd like to say something like "Be [one word I'm looking for]"   I did a  Google search  for this, but I also wanted to know what stackexchange folks would like to say.

What is the adjective form for the word "integrity?"

It seems that there is probably no corresponding adjective for the word "integrity". However, possible adjectives that might be acceptable include "integrous", "virtuous" or "trustworthy".

"virtuous" means having or showing virtue or leading a virtuous life. "Integrity" has a different meaning.There are numerous alternatives. You could use the alternative format of "have integrity". Yahoo suggests that there is no noun for "integrity". The second meaning of integrity from the ODE is "the state of being whole and undivided".There is also the use of "integral" to describe data.

There is really no adjective for  integrity. Describing a person, I would favour 'virtuous'. Variations of usage found in literature include integrous  and  integritous , also with similar meaning.   You could also use "reliable" or "trustworthy" or other phrases such as "be noble".

It has been claimed that there is no direct adjective for integrity. However, suggestions include integrous, virtuous, integrated, integral and trustworthy.

There is really no adjective for  integrity .

It appears that there is probably no corresponding adjective in dictionaries for the word "integrity".

Some potential corresponding adjectives could be "integrous", "virtuous" or "trustworthy".


In this case, definitely write it as separate words, because the "in" is actually part of the idiom "checked in".

I think that's probably as close as you're gonna get to a rule of thumb: write into as one word, unless it's actually functioning as two different words - for example, if the "in" is part of an expression such as "checked in".

No, "into" does not require that the destination be a physical place.

One can be brought into poverty, a relationship, a realisation ...

So I would definitely check code into Subversion.

There's actually evidence for treating a case such as "check in/to SVN" as a kind of elliptical form of "check in into", when you consider the possible combinations when you turn the sentence round.

Compare the possibility of the following: Which repository did you check it into?

Which repository did you check it in into?

Into which repository did you check it in? with the impossibility of the following: *Into which repository did you check it?

To which repository did you check it in?

From this point of view, it seems a bit more logical to write "check (in) into", whether or not you include the second "in".

I think both are definitely allowable.

You can treat the verb 'check in' separately from 'toSVN because there is a direct object possible, for example 'my code':

I checked in my code to SVN.

This shows that the 'in' and 'to' are separable.

You can use the preposition 'into' with 'check'.

SVN, and other abstract repositories, still have a semantic connotation of being a receptacle or having an interior.

Using the separability check: I checked my code into SVN.

This shows that SVN acts like it has an interior.

The verb 'to log in' acts similarly.

Which is preferred?

I find 'checked in to SVN' better than 'checked into SVN', because I tend to use 'checkin' more often.

Compare contrast with 'check out': I like 'check out my code' but 'check out of svn' (and despite appearances, 'out of' corresponds to 'into').

In the sense that your source can be said to reside inside of the repository, I would argue that "into" is the correct usage here.

Compare with the example at your linked site (the URL needs to be fixed, btw) with either turning something "in to " a person (but it's not going into the person), or putting something "into" something else.

I would treat "check in" as a compound term, and so, check some code in to a repository, rather than checking code into a repository.

Question: Possible Duplicate:  When should “into” be used rather than “in to,” and vice versa?     I was recently submitting ("checking in") some data to a database and composed an email to my team informing them of the submission. What's the proper grammar to use here:   The changes are checked into the database   or    The changes are checked in to the database   What's the rule of thumb for proper usage between the two? Is there even a difference?

"Checked into the database" versus "checked in to the database"

It is possible that both are acceptable or, at least, there is no agreement on the correct usage. However, some would argue that "in" is actually part of the idiom "checked in".

The words "in" and "to" need to be written separately in this case. "Into" does not require to be a destination or place to be a physical place. It could be considered an elliptical form of "check in into". Treat "check in" as a compound term.

I think both are definitely allowable, but in this case, definitely write it as separate words, because the "in" is actually part of the idiom "checked in".

Both usages are allowed in this example. Some say to write it as separate words, because the "in" is actually part of the idiom "checked in".  However, in the sense that your source can be said to reside inside of the repository, some would argue that "into" is the correct usage here.

In this case, definitely write it as separate words, because the "in" is actually part of the idiom "checked in".

It seems a bit more logical to write "check (in) into", whether or not you include the second "in".


Yes, "my bad" is a proper English phrase.

It is an apology; when you say "my bad", you're basically saying, "I admit a mistake" or "my fault, sorry for that".

Wiktionary says : (colloquial) (idiomatic)

My fault; mea culpa.

Yes, I realize the humvee isn't supposed to be parked in the heirloom flowerbed.

My bad.

It also links to this Language Log entry , which provides further insight: The authoritative discussion of the phrase "my bad!"

at this Random House site says it originates in pick-up basketball as a phrase used by young urban players when admitting to an error.

It has spread to other domains and is now used widely to mean something like "I admit that I have made a mistake.

" It was nominated for "word of the year" (not that it's a word, it's clearly a phrase) in 1999, but in fact it was already at least twenty years old by then.

It's proper English slang .

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was proper English.

It will certainly be effective in irking English teachers, haters of textspeak, and other grammar purists!

To my ear "my bad" is very much an Americanism.

Handle with care.

Concrete Gannet is right.

my bad" is very much an Americanism.

I had not heard this until recently, and was baffled when I did.

I heard it on American television programmes and a computer game.

I have not heard any British people use it.

To me, it's like the Americanism "I could care less".

It does not actually, make sense.

It might be acceptable and even considered as proper English in the USA

but, it is not elsewhere.

At least not in the UK.

It does not make sense because, it is an unfinished sentence.

When I have heard it, my immediate thought was, "your bad what?".

Your bad behaviour?

Your bad language?

Or, just your bad English, which this sentence demonstrates?

I think it is a short way to apologize: many people are ashamed when they realise they have been wrong about something, so this may be a shorter and faster way to admit that they were wrong and/or to apologize.

Question: I have seen many people use the phrase "my bad" in Internet forums. What does it exactly imply and is it a proper English phrase?

Is "my bad" a correct English phrase?

Whilst this is considered English slang, there is disagreement as to whether this is considered proper English or not since it is an unfinished sentence. However, the phrase is used as a short way of apologising.

It is a correct English phrase to admit making a mistake. It is now widely used. It was nominated as phrase of the year in 1999. It is slang, and perhaps not proper English. It is an Americanism, so it needs to be used carefully. It doesn't make much sense, although considered acceptable in the USA.It is used as  a short form of apology

"My bad" is a proper English phrase, but it is slang. It is an apology; when you say "my bad", you're basically saying, "I admit a mistake" or "my fault, sorry for that". It is said to originate in pick-up basketball as a phrase used by young urban players when admitting to an error.

"My bad" is an apology, meaning "I admit a mistake" or "my fault, sorry for that". Although used as a slang phrase, may believe that it is not proper English, as it is an unfinished sentence.

There is disagreement as to whether this is considered proper English or not. However, the phrase is used as a short way of apologising or admitting a mistake.

For some people, this may be acceptable English or slang.

For some people, this may not be proper English.

This phrase is generally used as a way of apologising or admitting a mistake.


I would write “Log in to host.com.”

I think that “login” is a noun (as in “login screen”).

I would find the words “loginned” and “loginning” awkward.

As for “Log in to host.com” versus “Log into host.com,” I would use the former because I think that “log in” is a fixed phrase.

Martha’s answer to another question is also related.

Added :

The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) lists 65 occurrences of “log in to” and 58 occurrences of “log into,” both including inflected forms and excluding the Spoken section.

(The queries used are [log].[v*] in to and [log].[v*] into .)

Since “log in to” is also used in context like “log in to download it,” the actual number of occurrences of “log in to [host]” is slightly smaller than 65.

In any case, it suggests that the phrase “log into” is also used commonly, although I am not sure how good it is to use COCA to compare technical terms.

The verb is log in .

Log in to host.com From the Wikipedia page for Login :

Spelling confusion

The verbs are two words: log in and log out , whereas the nouns are login and logout (often used like adjectives in compound nouns).

Yes, I agree: Use " log in to " as a verb.

So use that for givinginstructions.

" log into " is not terrible, but it doesn't sound as good because itsounds like you're actually going inside something.

For example, "Iwalked into the store." " login " is the noun and adjective form.

So you would use that likethis: "I programmed the login procedure.

Or... "I don't like thisapp because the login process is very lengthy."

You can also think about each one with the way we stress the different syllables slightly when we're speaking: "log in to host.com" sounds like " log + in + to host.com"

(each word is pretty much evenly stressed) "log into host.com" sounds like " log + INto host.com"

(the stress is on "in") "login to host.com"

sounds like " LOGin + to host.com"

(the stress is on "log")

Ironic that the instruction at the bottom of this page is 'Sign up or login'.

I'm here because I'm torn between log in to and log into and looking for clarification.

At this point in time, I suspect the prevailing opinion is correct - that log in to is preferable for purposes of clarity.

However, I don't doubt that we will soon treat the process of logging in as a figurative point of entry, meaning that log into will make full conceptual sense (cf you don't physically delve into a problem or pile into an argument, yet both are correct grammatically because they are semantically [i.e. figuratively]).

Given that so much of the web environment isn't being written by writers who care, I'm increasingly seeing 'login' used as a verb.

And to be honest, once it's normalised it will be the correct form.

I'm a digital copywriter and have fought this battle on a few occasions.

But I've decided to throw in my hand. '

Login to this site'. '

Enter your login details'.

Fine, whatever.

Is it clear?

Absolutely.

Only people like us care.

Question: When writing an instruction about connecting to a computer using ssh, telnet, etc., I'm not sure what spacing to use in this familiar spoken phrase:   " Log in to  host.com"  " Log into  host.com"  " Login to  host.com"   Maybe this is entirely subjective or the realm of industry jargon, but I couldn't think of anywhere else to ask.  Any insight?

"log in to" or "log into" or "login to"

Of the three options, it appears that "log in to" is the preferred option, although, "log into" is not terrible.

Log in to host.com is the correct form. "Login" as a single verb seems awkward, it would imply past tens of "loginned" for example.The COCA has variant occurrences for "log in to" and "log into". Log into is not awful, but not as good because it sounds you are going inside something. It is likely that "log in" in the future will become a form of speech to indicate a figurative point of entry.

Login' is increasingly being used as a verb online, but the verb is  actually log in .  The verbs are two words:  log in  and   log out , whereas the nouns are  login   and  logout  (often used like adjectives  in compound nouns).

As the verb is "to log in", many people suggest "log in to", although "log into" is not considered to be terrible.

Of the three options, it appears that "log in to" is the preferred option, although, "log into" may be acceptable to some people.

"Log in to host.com" is the correct form. "Login" as a single verb seems awkward, it would imply past tens of "loginned" for example.

Login' is increasingly being used as a verb online.

Of the three options, there appears to be a preference for "log in to", with three separate words.

The phrase "log into" may be acceptable to some people.


The original form of the word was "file name", as in the name of a file.

These days (and probably for a good few years), the compound "filename" is widely accepted and perhaps most commonly used.

Either is of course perfectly acceptable.

Do not, however, capitalise letters in the middle of a word, under any circumstances.

(Unless you are writing variable names in code.)

Filename is in my experience the most common and in my opinion the best looking.

File name is also acceptable, but I would only use it rarely, perhaps in a parallel construction such as the file name and size .

I find word-medial capital letters distracting and unpleasant anywhere but program source code, so I would never even think of FileName .

Edit:

if that's the reason you're asking, in program source I would still use Filename for a class or filename for a variable, not FileName nor fileName , respectively.

The British National Corpus has 240 cites for filename and 72 cites for file name .

It's not possible to search case-sensitively, but several reloads of the random sample of specific entries gave me no matches for FileName .

The AHD has an entry for “filename”, so it is, at least, an established American English word.

Thus it is “correct” for some situations.

Update: the word “pathname” is also included in the American Heritage Dictionary: Fifth Edition .

So over time I will be changing my program variables from SettingFilePathName to SettingFilePathname.

None of them. "filename" is not a proper noun, and thus should not be capitalized.

If you begin a sentence with the word, then it should be "Filename".

Generally, I would say "filename", as that is what I have seen used in most software development textbooks.

That's not to say that this is the standard by which all words should be measured, but given that the word is generally used in relation to computers I would imagine that it is safe to use.

Any two words (such as 'file name') used together for long enough periods of time end up with a single meaning in our collective language.

When that happens, you can combine the two, though it's not advisable for formal usage.

Words such as, for example, 'himself' are older, and common examples from the computer age include 'username', 'email', and 'desktop'.

For formal usage, consider spacing the words or using a hyphen, where appropriate.

The OED has no entry for "filename."

However, being a technical writer of 25 years, I have adopted this spelling because programmers and engineers prefer it.

Still, it seems odd to me.

Question: Which is correct: "Filename", "File Name" or "FileName"?

Which is correct: "Filename", "File Name" or "FileName"?

Whilst the original form was "file name", "filename has generally become the most commonly used. However, "filename" does not appear in all dictionaries. It is possible that either is perfectly acceptable, however, you should probably not capitalise letters in the middle of words.

The original form of the word was "file name" as in the "name of the file". Recently, the compound form "filename" has become widely accepted and used. But it is not capitalised in the middle.File name as a two-word option is also acceptable.Filename with a first capital is acceptable. Historically, two words used long enough often end up becoming one in the collective language.Consider spacing the words.

Either is of course perfectly acceptable.  Nowadays, the compound "filename" has become widely accepted and perhaps most commonly used. But in fact, the OED has no entry for "filename.", but due to programmers and engineers preferring it, it has become widely used.

The compound "filename" is widely accepted and perhaps most commonly used. However, "file name" is also both used and acceptable, but "FileName"  is not widely used, due to the distracting capitalization of letters in the middle of a word.

Whilst the original form was "file name", "filename has generally become the most popular form in use. However, "filename" does not appear in all dictionaries. It is possible that all three terms are equally acceptable, however, one should probably shy away from capitalising letters in the middle of words, as in "FileName".

"Filename" is probably the most common form.

The original term was "file name", as two separate words.

It is possible that either of these terms is acceptable.

Some dictionaries contain an entry for "filename" whilst others do not.

Since "filename" is not a proper noun, it shouldn't be capitalised.

Some people would be generally advise against capitalising letters in the middle of words.


For one thing, "two thousand" is shorter to say than "twenty hundred".

600: six hundred 601: six oh one (shorter than six hundred one) 1899: eighteen ninety-nine (shorter than one thousand eight hundred ninety-nine) 1900: nineteen hundred (shorter than one thousand nine hundred) 1901:

nineteen oh one (shorter than nineteen hundred one, shorter than one thousand nine hundred one) 1999: nineteen ninety nine (shorter than one thousand nine hundred ninety-nine) 2000: two thousand (or 2 "K"?)

(shorter than twenty hundred) 2009:

two thousand nine (shorter than twenty hundred nine) 2010: twenty ten (shorter than two thousand ten)

Basically when the number has three zeros it is shorter to say "thousand" than "hundred".

Once there are fewer than three zeros it is shorter to say "Y thousand X" for Y00X and "Y hundred X" for YYXX.

This usage isn't limited to years either.

Any numbers in the same range will have the same kinds of contractions.

There is a Simpsons episode where this is played for laughs, when they need eighty-five-hundred dollars to fix their roof, and they only have $500, and Homer whines that they still need eighty-hundred.

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

There are no rules, only loose conventions, formed for brevity, convenience and ease of mental parsing.

The convention has been modified for the years 2000-2009 (two thousand and nine), just as it has for 1000-1009, probably for the reason Nav mentions - it just parses nicely that way to an English speaker.

You can expect every year from 2010 (twenty-ten) onwards to soon revert to the conventional form in common parlance, which has the advantage of being shorter and distinguishes centuries from one another very clearly.

Worth noting is the fact that the years 1-999 are usually suffixed with "AD" to make it clear that we are talking about a year rather than an arbitrary figure.

Post-1000 years do not require this verbal signposting as the use of this unusual convention makes it clear that these are years.

In England we say "two-thousand-and-one" not "two-thousand-one" etc.

Most people say twenty-eleven, twenty-twelve, but I'd say there was a 50/50 split between 'two-thousand-and-ten' and 'twenty-ten'.

The logic apparently lies in grouping the digits in a way that's easy to visualize (mentally) and/or pronounce.

Since there are always two zeroes in nineteen hundred, saying 'hundred' makes sense.

2000 has three zeroes, which is visually easier to recognize and split as two and 'thousand'.

Reg has given an example.

There don't seem to be any other logical reasons for this trend.

I think the main reason is a rhythm of pronunciation.

That's why we use "two thousand ..." instead of "twenty ...".

Also I have heard a two songs with "two thousand twelve".

So the change will occur in 2013.

Question: We pronounce 1923 as nineteen twenty-three; but 1900 as nineteen hundred. Why isn't year 2000 pronounced as twenty hundred instead of two thousand?  What are the rules for pronunciation of years in English? Does it change according to the first two digits of year? Could you give examples for special cases, if any?

What are the rules for pronunciation of years in English?

It appears that there are no fixed rules for how to pronounce years, although there are patterns which are generally justified based on what is easier for people to visualise or pronounce. For example, when a year has three zeros, it is shorter to say "X thousand". Similarly, when a year has two zeros at the end, it is easier to say "X hundred".

It is shorter to say "two thousand" than "twenty hundred". If the number has 3 zeros is it shorter to say "thousand" than "hundred". The usage isn't limited to years.There are no rules, only loose conventions for ease of parsing. In England a different form "two-thousand-and-one" is used. It is just the grouping of the digits that makes it easier to memorise.

Basically when the number has three zeros it is shorter to say "thousand" than "hundred". There are no rules, only loose conventions, formed for brevity, convenience and ease of mental parsing. The logic apparently lies in grouping the digits in a way that's easy to visualize (mentally) and/or pronounce with a rhythm..

The convention has been modified for the years 2000-2009 (two thousand and nine), as it just sounds better that way to an English speaker. When the number has three zeros it is shorter to say "thousand" than "hundred" and once there are fewer than three zeros it is shorter to say "Y thousand X" for Y00X and "Y hundred X" for YYXX. This is largely due to rhythms of speech.

It appears that there are no fixed rules for how to pronounce years, although there are patterns which are generally justified based on what is easier for people to visualise or say out loud. For example, when a year has three zeros, it is easier to say "X thousand". Similarly, when a year has two zeros at the end, it is easier to say "X hundred".

The justification for pronouncing years in one way or another is generally related to what is easier say and visualise.

There do not appear to be any fixed rules for this.

When a number has three zeros, it is easier to say "X thousand" and when there are two zeros it is easier to say "X hundred".


My compact version of The Oxford English Dictionary lists it as "An infantile word expressing thanks," and dates its first reference from 1772, unless my eyes deceive me (I am momentarily unable to locate the magnifying glass that came with the tome).

Edit:

Thank god for Eric Partridge.

He quotes the same OED reference, only in larger type.

Here is the entry: Ta! ; rarely taa!

Thanks!

coll., orig.

and mainly nursery: 1772, Mrs Delany, 'You would not say "ta" to me for my congratulation,' O.E.D. Ex a young child's difficulty with th and nks .

Online Etymology Dictionary says: ta : 1772, "natural infantile sound of gratitude" [Weekley].

Although possibly originating from the imitative of baby talk, this is in widespread use in the North of England and Wales as an informal "thanks" amongst adults.

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language says: ta :

Chiefly British Used to express thanks.

ETYMOLOGY:

Baby-talk alteration of "thank you".

When a term originates in northern English dialects as "ta" appears to, I often begin by looking at nordic languages as much of northern England was conquered by the Vikings and the parts of the language endure both in words and in the overall sound - if you listen the geordie accent has a definite scandinavian cadence to it.

Looking at modern Danish and Norwegian

we see that "Thanks" translates as "Tak" or "Takk" respectively, so it seems to me quite plausible that this provides an origin for "Ta".

I would have said it was just a shortening of "thanks".

It was in common use in the days of my youth in Northern England.

It's also used as an abbreviation for "thanks" in internet chat rooms.

As an Australian I can say 'ta' is used extensively in Australia.

I can't comment on other explanatios as I am not a language expert.

However I would like to suggest, as that many caucasian Australians are of Celtic ancestry, that the possible origin of this word is from the Irish galic word for 'yes' (tá).

If you think of 'yes' in a broader context; and as and an affirmative response (i.e. Yes) to an action, it kinda makes sense.

Just my thoughts, any comments on this welcome.

Question: Where does the expression "ta" come from?  Wikipedia has only  this  to say:   "ta!", slang, Exclam. Thank you! {Informal}, an expression of gratitude   but no additional information or links about its genesis.  I have only ever heard it from englishmen and -women. Is it used anywhere else in the world? How did it come about? What is its history?

Where does "ta!" come from?

"Ta" is just a shortening of the word "thanks", though it may also be a mimic of the infantile word expressing thanks. It was first referenced in print in 1772 and is also used extensively in Australia.

The OED denotes it as an infantile word used to express thanks.It is a short form of "thanks". It is used regionally to denote "thanks" in North England and in Australia for example .This may be due to inheriting the language from the Vikings.

It is  just a shortening of "thanks". The Oxford English Dictionary  lists it as "An infantile word expressing thanks," and dates its first reference from 1772. Although possibly originating from the imitative of baby talk, this is in widespread use in the North of England and Wales as an informal "thanks" amongst adults.

The Oxford English Dictionary  lists it as "An infantile word expressing thanks," and dates its first reference from 1772. It is seen to be a shortened version of "thanks" and is used extensively.

"Ta" is possible just a shortening of the word "thanks", though it may also be a mimic of the sound children make to express gratitude. It was first referenced in print in 1772 and is also used extensively in Australia.

It is claimed that "ta" is a mimic of an infantil sound of gratitude and was first referenced in 1772.

It is possibly just a shortening of the word "thanks".

"Ta" is also used extensively in Australia.


While the sentence is not technically a question, the use of a question mark indicates that the speaker is inviting a response from others.

In that respect, the question mark conveys the speaker's meaning in a way that could not otherwise be indicated in writing without the use of additional words.

So I'd say that this use of the question mark is correct when recording informal speech like this - but formally, it should really be reserved for actual questions.

I now have a bit more time to fix bugs etc

but I'm open to offers if anyone wants to help maintain this module with me?

This sentence/question is different than a statement and different than the " up-talking " that happens when people occasionally (or all the #$! time) raise the pitch of their sentences and phrases.

If the person said I now have a bit more time to fix bugs etc

but I'm open to offers if anyone wants to help maintain this module with me.

they are merely stating that they have time and are open to offers for help.

By raising the pitch at then end (spoken) or adding the question mark (written) they are implying a question: Would anyone like to offer to help me?

I hear this type of usage commonly.

We will proceed with the next item on the agenda, unless there are any questions?

no?

Ok, moving along...

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

In written speech this is a questionable usage.

Nevertheless, when speaking, people frequently end declarative sentences with a rising intonation to invite the listener to consider the sentence as an invitation to agreement or action.

One hears this kind of thing especially in the southern United States.

Anyway, I had this Chrysler?

It had a four-barrel carburetor?"

Here the speaker is making declarations about a car, but making them sound like questions so that the listener will respond (probably nodding or saying "uh-huh") in a way that indicates interest in and understanding of the story being related.

If your example sentence were spoken this way, listeners would likely interpret it as a request for help, not merely a statement of a condition.

But if you write it, you should leave out the question mark.

Addendum

Since I wrote this, I've become aware that the practice of ending declarative sentences with a rising intonation actually has a name: uptalk

n a manner of speaking in which declarative sentences are uttered with rising intonation at the end, as if they were questions.

This is something you see very often in spoken language.

As we talk, we are making a syntactic structure.

It's common for syntactic structures to change, or be re-analyzed, as we go along.

So in this case, "if anyone wants to help maintain this module with me?" is reanalyzed, on the fly, as "Does anyone want to help maintain this module with me?"

In careful writing, since readers can go back and check what you said previously, this sort of on the fly reanalysis is discouraged.

Just for the sake of anyone reading, I found this thread when I googled about this issue because Microsoft Word grammar checker tried to tell me that I should put a question mark at the end of this sentence: 'If you can do them in advance of this deadline then so much the better.'

I completely disagree with such a usage in written English.

Steve Melnikoff's is the best analysis, but can be taken further.

I think with the 'quick text parsing' that is becoming a part of our language pragmatics given the 'texting'/'information overload' age, punctuation marks in written materials are changing their purpose.

As Melnikoff point out, in the example you use the question mark is inviting a response.

The reader can visually 'skim' right through e.g., an email, to get at what his interlocutor wants him to respond to.

The question mark is in effect basically an abbreviation with respect to what would have been written twenty years ago, when more verbiage would need to be required to have the request not come off in writing as rude.

English in the twenty-first century (in a particular context, at any rate).

Another example which I don't think quite fits any of the explanations above occurs in social media where the question mark is used at the end of declarative statements intended as accusations or harsh judgements.

The context shows the statement to be actually declarative, though it could be considered an interrogative in other contexts.

However, the poster doesn't want to come across as socially abrasive or intends to leave room for backing off of the judgement in case there is a backlash of disagreement or reverse judgement.

For example:

"She is a narcissist?""A guy that overweight shouldn't be going to McDonald's?""Those

so-called 'statues' are just toys for overgrown children?"

In this case it is a fundamentally disingenuous usage, because the poster clearly has a strong negative opinion about someone or some group, such that they want to express it, but don't feel either confident enough in themselves or the view to post it as a genuine declaration.

Another way to put it would be as an unconvincing attempt at avoiding social liability.

Question: For example, I found the following sentence written by a native English speaker (UK) so I'm going to assume that he knows how to put it the right way, although I wouldn't use this form.   I now have a bit more time to fix bugs  etc but I'm open to offers if anyone  wants to help maintain this module  with me?   Is it correct or is the question mark misused here?

Is the question mark misused in affirmative sentences?

This use of the question mark would be viewed by some as unacceptable or at the very least questionable. Other people would recommend limiting it to informal situations. In any case, the question mark here is inviting a response from others in a way that would require the use of additional words. As such, it may still be understood without much problem.

Some people do not agree with this usage in written English. It would be correct in informal speech, not for formally.Text parsing has caused us to change the use of punctuation marks.The statement is actually a declaration, though in another context could be considered an interrogative.

While the sentence is not technically a question, the use of a question mark indicates that the speaker is inviting a response from others.  When speaking, people frequently end declarative sentences with a rising intonation to invite the listener to consider the sentence as an invitation to agreement or action and this can be seen as the equivalent. Another example which I don't think quite fits any of the explanations above occurs in social media where the question mark is used at the end of declarative statements intended as accusations or harsh judgements.

Although this may be questionable in formal,  written usage, and not technically a question, the question mark conveys the speaker's meaning and indicates that a response is invited. This is a shorter way of writing that what would have ben used traditionally, but nowadays it is not considered rude.

This use of the question mark would be viewed by some as unacceptable or at the very least questionable. Other people would recommend limiting it to informal situations. In any case, the question mark here is performing a function that would otherwise require more words and is inviting a response from the reader. As such, it may still be understood without much problem.

Whilst the sentence is not technically a question, the question mark is performing a function that would otherwise require more words and is essentially inviting a response from the reader.

This use of the question mark is possible acceptable in informal speech but should be avoided in formal situations.

Some people would view this use of the question mark as either questionable or completely unacceptable.