A prerequisite perhaps?

For example, I have the problem of adding a new transport protocol to a device.

A prerequisite of that is to make the segmentation threshold at the client end adjustable, and a prerequisite of that is to install the tools that will let me build the client.

One term I’ve heard used for this sort of thing is dependencies .

This comes from a common geekspeak etymological process:

imagine you were a computer program; then, what technical programming term would apply to this situation?

I’d imagine that most programmers would grok this pretty quickly, while most people without programming experience would need an explanation.

So whether it is appropriate would depend a lot on whom you’re trying to communicate with.

I think I would simply call it a sub-problem .

(If the problem is mathematical, there is a specific term for it; lemma .)

I like "roadblock" or "stumbling block" for that sort of thing.

My preferred term is a "threshold issue.

" You can't go through until you cross the threshold (resolve the issue).

I consistently use “ bottleneck issue” (or “bottleneck result”) to describe this: you have no way around it to reach your goal.

In particular, in technical reports and research planning, I commonly read references to “technological bottlenecks”, i.e. key technologies (or components thereof) that need to be worked out for a full solution to be implemented.

Besides the "prerequisite" I use "blocking step" and precondition

english.stackexchange.com/users/3085/Gennady Vanin Геннадий Ванин

I use the term secondary problem.

Secondary work is often used to describe tasks in the way you are mentioning problems.

i.e. I want to wrap a package, but first I have to find the scissors.

Whether you are describing the thing as a problem to be solved, or a task to do, I find secondary, tertiary, etc.

useful to convey that Im working on something, but one level removed from my ultimate goal.

Another term I use is 'blocking' or 'masking'.

In dealing with computer programming issues, you often find yourself revealing layers of issues.

As you resolve issue, a second issue might arise because you a) got further into the program or b)there was some sort of ripple effect.

You could say issue1 was a blocking issue.

Issue2 was not found until Issue1 was resolved.

Taken to an extreme you get " yac shaving ", but that does not apply only one or two levels in, and may not be understood by non-hacker audiences without some explanation.

In more general managerial contexts you might use the phrase "critical-path issue", but it is a bit of a mouthful and sounds like it is wearing a suit.

This also carries some implication about timing requirements: not only is it required, but it needs addressing before any other absolute requirements.

english.stackexchange.com/users/2851/dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten

Speaking metaphorically, your “problemettes” might be: hurdles to be crossed hoops to be jumped through obstacles to be cleared on your way to the finishing line.

There is a huge variety of "stuff that needs to be done in order to do other stuff".

Some of those very specific things (which are not at all synonymous with each other): trailblazing surveying researching planning documenting groundwork legwork prep work capital acquisition parts acquisition building a jig, building a stencil, building a template, building a skeleton sub-assembly training barn-raising sowing the seed watering the seed pruning setup "laying a foundation" (

Whether we pour cement to make a house foundation, or drive piles to make a foundation for a bridge across a stream, we use this phrase -- I can't recall ever hearing "pouring a foundation" or "driving a foundation").

scaffolding dry run spike solution splitting (before burning a tree in a fireplace, it must be split into small pieces) "sharpening the saw" While most of these words and phrases describe some specific literal task in the early stages of farming, roadwork, and building construction, many of them are also used as a metaphor for analogous tasks in other fields, or a synecdoche for all the preparatory work in general.

I call them dominoes , as in there is always some other domino / problem to knock over / solve before you get to the main one.

The term I hear most often is showstopper .

EDIT

OK, after reading some responses and thinking of this question I'm going to coin a portmanteau.

These problems are prequirements .

Not a single word, but this is at least related to a "Critical Event chain."

In [software] engineering, such a problem is called a Blocker

If I have to solve other problems before getting to the one I want to/have to focus on, I generally just call them steps: "

step 1," "step 2," etc..

In French they sometimes talk about "le ticket d'entrée" - but that's more to do with the up-front cost of learning a new technology (before benefiting from any - hypothetical - productivity gains).

Down-payment ?

Pinched from another domain, but it might fly.

Though it implies money more than work.

Meta-problem ?

(Meta as in 'before').

I think there is probably a difference to be made between 'drudge/donkey work' (setting up IDE, etc.) and a 'real' up-front problem (something that requires the same level of problem-solving as the actual problem to be solved).

Maybe that though will inspire some more answers...

See sine qua non , defined by Cambridge dictionary as a necessary condition without which something is not possible.

Question: I work in the computer trade and frequently find that when I'm assigned a problem to solve, it invariably happens that other problems need solving before I can work on the real issue. Is there a word for these on-the-way problems?

Is there a word meaning a problem that has to be solved in order to work on another problem?

There does not appear to be an agreed term for these types of problems, but some appropriate terms might include "prerequisite", "dependency" "sub-problem" or "stumbling block".

There are  a huge variety of terms that can be used and some have metaphorical value; like "roadblock, sub-problem, threshold issue, bottleneck issue etc." It is a matter of personal choice.

Various terms can be used, including "prerequirements; blocking steps; dependencies; threshold issues; bottlenecks; sub-problems or secondary problems; or dominoes.  "Sine qua non" is a more formal expression of a necessary condition without which something is not possible.

This could be referred to as a sub-problem; a prerequisite; a dependency; a stumbling block; a threshold issue; a bottleneck issue; a secondary problem; a blocking or masking issue; a critical path issue; a domino; a showstopper; or a blocker. In addition, the term "sine qua non" is defined by the  Cambridge dictionary  as  a necessary condition without which something is not possible.

There appears to be no agreed term for this concept, but potential terms for such problems include "prerequisite", "stumbling block", "showstopper" or "blocker".

Taken to an extreme you get " yac shaving ", but that does not apply only one or two levels in, and may not be understood by non-hacker audiences without some explanation.

I like "roadblock" or "stumbling block" for that sort of thing.

S0: There is a huge variety of "stuff that needs to be done in order to do other stuff".

S1: Some of those very specific things (which are not at all synonymous with each other):   trailblazing  surveying  researching  planning  documenting  groundwork  legwork  prep work  capital acquisition  parts acquisition  building a jig, building a stencil, building a template, building a skeleton  sub-assembly  training  barn-raising  sowing the seed  watering the seed  pruning  setup  "laying a foundation" (

S2: Whether we pour cement to make a house foundation, or drive piles to make a foundation for a bridge across a stream, we use this phrase -- I can't recall ever hearing "pouring a foundation" or "driving a foundation").

S3: scaffolding  dry run  spike solution  splitting (before burning a tree in a fireplace, it must be split into small pieces)  "sharpening the saw"   While most of these words and phrases describe some specific literal task in the early stages of farming, roadwork, and building construction, many of them are also used as a metaphor for analogous tasks in other fields, or a synecdoche for all the preparatory work in general.

S0: I call them  dominoes , as in there is always some other domino / problem to knock over / solve before you get to the main one.

S0: The term I hear most often is  showstopper .

S2: OK, after reading some responses and thinking of this question I'm going to coin a portmanteau.

In Software engineering, they use blocker


You hear that usage every time you watch the Olympics.

"Medalled" is very much a verb in that community, and the announcers have picked it up wholesale.

An important means of creating new words in English is zero-derivation (aka conversion).

This is the process of converting a word from one part of speech to another without any overt morphological process.

The use of the noun 'medal' as a verb is an example of this.

There are many other examples—new forms are often created in this way, some coined once and never used again, others becoming familiar parts of the language.

It's worth noting that 'medal' as a verb is not a new coining as it was used by Thackeray ('Nil Nisi Bonum', 1860) and Byron (in a letter in 1822); however, both of these uses were transitive whereas the current usage is as an intransitive verb, making it a zero-dervation of a zero-derivation!

It seems to come to the public's attention every Olympics and raises the same complaints from people who have only just noticed it (this is the ' recency illusion ').

The process of zero-derivation dates back to Old English so this sort of thing has been going on a long time.

Yes, it is grammatically correct.

It is also the most natural and concise way to state, simply, that you have been awarded a medal for an accomplishment.

I medaled at the qualifying event.

I medalled at the qualifying event.

Over twenty years ago, I asked the then head of the English Department at the secondary school where we both taught about the acceptability of various noun-to-verb conversions or claimed conversions.

He said that a visiting professor at a lecture he had recently attended had declared, "Oh yes - you can verb any noun nowadays.

'She silvered in the 200' and 'She podiumed at the Nationals' were two examples claimed to have been used in an Australian newspaper a few years back.

I'm waiting for 'He jugged in the Open.'

Yes, it's grammatically correct, though perhaps not very natural.

The verb medal is a relatively new introduction to the English language though, and is certainly not commonly used where I live (Britain).

See this analysis at Dictionary.com , which gives two accepted uses of medal as a verb: –verb (used with object) 3.

to decorate or honor with a medal.

–verb (used without object) 4.

to receive a medal, esp.

in a sporting event: He medaled in three of four races.

Question: Is “I medalled in volleyball” a grammatically correct sentence? According to OED,  medal  is a verb and a noun.I haven't seen any usage of the word as a verb, but I am assuming the above sentence is correct.

Is verbing in "I medalled in volleyball" etc correct?

"Medalled is a very common verb in the Olympic community and is grammatically correct. It is the most natural and concise way to state that you have been awarded a medal for an accomplishment.

A grammatically correct verb often used in sports events and meaning to be rewarded a medal.

"To medal" is widely used among the sporting community and it is gramatically correct.

This is grammatically correct, although some may think it is not very natural.

Yes, this is a grammatically correct sentence.

I'm waiting for 'He jugged in the Open.'

Grammatically correct. It means you have been awarded a medal for an accomplishment.


I think there is a slight difference in what you're emphasizing.

They both refer to female breasts, but tits emphasizes the nipples (pointy bits) whereas boobs evokes an image of the round parts.

From Word Net Search : Boob Noun S:

(n) dumbbell, dummy, dope, boob, booby, pinhead (an ignorant or foolish person)

S: (n) breast, bosom, knocker, boob, tit, titty (either of two soft fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs on the chest of a woman) Verb S: (

v) drop the ball, sin, blunder, boob, goof (commit a faux pas or a fault or make a serious mistake) "

I blundered during the job interview" (I was not aware of the verb form, but it follows from the first noun form) Boob could also be used to refer to a person who is acting like a clown, or it could be used to refer to something that induces cluelessness.

We have a nickname for television in the US (although it's going out of fashion) called the boob-tube .

I assure you it's not because it shows porn.

Noun S:

(n) breast, bosom, knocker, boob, tit, titty

(either of two soft fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs on the chest of a woman) S: (n) nipple, mammilla, mamilla, pap, teat, tit (the small projection of a mammary gland)

S: (n) titmouse, tit (small insectivorous birds) (I was aware of titmouse but not a small bird called tit)

Tits is generally the word for mammary glands, being a corruption from teat.

That's what @ghoppe was onto with his, where you emphasize the pointy bit of the end of the mammary gland.

It's more evident on a dog or pig, where there are a line of teats (or tits).

The fact that this usage has spread to also refer to women is likely from the fact that country/urban life has comingled more of late than of years past.

The usage to associate tits with boobs however, is purely sexist.

In polite society you should mention neither, referring instead to the bosom that @Robusto mentions, or breast, but only when you must.

Bosom indicates "that feeling of your grandmother wrapping her arms around you when you're scared" and breasts is generally seen as more clinical in nature.

Generally in polite society you would just avoid references to a woman's breasts, and let it go.

When breasts are being discussed (such as in the context of bra fitting), women will often use the word "boobs" amongst themselves.

With men and men alone, tits is fine.

NOTE: I edited in response to a comment and decided I would give a little more attribution.

As others have said, both refer to a woman's breasts, but the main difference is actually in the connotation.

While both are euphemisms, boobs is a slightly more socially acceptable term.

Women, in my presence at least, use the term boobs; tits is more a term that men use and generally in a more lurid fashion.

They're both terms for female breasts.

Women tend to refer to these as "boobs" and not "tits"; with men it can go either way, but a good part of the time they'll use "tits".

Other (somewhat vulgar and borderline spring-break moronic) terms are knockers , twins , hooters , hoo-hahs , etc.

Puritanical people sometimes call them bosoms , which is strange because bosom refers to the upper chest in general and few people have more than one of those.

By the way, to reference a woman's breasts by any term in her presence is coming on pretty strong, and in a business setting it can be tantamount to sexual harrassment.

Tit refers to either the breast or the nipple, is usually considered offensive, and refers to a stupid person in British English.

Boob can only refer to the breast, is not usually considered offensive, and refers to a stupid person in American English.

I'm sure it varies by region, but in most of the US, the words "tits" and its diminutive, "titties," are used when referring to smaller breasts (A or B cup) and "boobs" is used in reference to larger breasts (C and especially D cup or larger).

As with most diminutives, the term "boobies" generally refers to smaller breasts.

While all four terms are used to describe human female breasts, there are variations used to describe other things: "Man-boobs" is used to describe the fatty tissue that accumulates on the chests of older and, usually, overweight men.

"Bitch-tits" can refer literally to the 'teets' of a female dog, especially while they are nursing pups, but in common slang it describes pointy male breasts.

This often happens to body builders when they stop exercising or stop taking steroids.

I would just add that it is common, in the UK at least, for mothers to reply with "Mummy's boobs" or "Mummy's boobies" when asked the inevitable "What are those?

" question by their offspring.

I could not imagine a mother telling her child that they were "Mummy's tits"!

A small point, but one that perhaps illustrates the subtle social difference between the words.

I consider "tits" more offensive than "boobs".

Also, I am against the notion that tits emphasises the nipples.

That's misinformed IMO.

In the phrases "boob tube", "tit puller", "tit spanners", "get on someone's tits" and "tits on a billiard ball", the two words are not readily interchangeable.

Otherwise, I think they are more or less synonymous.

As a woman, I use the word "boob" when discussing bras, often more than the word "breast".

The word "tit" is almost never used in non-sexual contexts, with the notable exception of the phrase "itty bitty titty committee" which is used occasionally.

Question: What is the difference between “tits” and “boobs”?  P.S. I'm not sure if this question is appropriate but as English is not my native language I really would love to know the difference.

Differences between slang words for breasts

There is a slight difference in what is being emphasised by the words "tits" and "boobs". They both refer to breasts but "tits" emphasises the nipples more and "boobs" emphasises the round parts. Women will often use the words "boobs" amongst themselves whereas men will use the word "tits" among themselves. In general, "boobs" is considered to be a more socially acceptable term, and the word "tits" is almost never used in a non-sexual context.

Some people believe there is a small difference between "boobs" and "tits", with "boobs" referencing the rounder part of women's breast, and "tit", the nipples  from the word "teat" which are more evident on other animals to feed their young. "Bitch-tits" is a term used to refer to the "teets" of female dogs, but also can be used as a derogatory term for body builders. Some people disagree with this and believe "tits" refers to the whole breast also. "Boob" in US English can mean a stupid person too.  "tits" is considered a sexist and derogatory term, mainly used by men, some believe, whereas women use "boobs" to refer to their own breasts. The dimunitive form is "titties" or  "boobies".  "Bosom" on the other hand is a more outdated term. There are many other slang terms for female breasts in English. The words are also used in other colloquial forms such as "get on someone's tits" meaning to be annoying. Generally, "tits" is a slang  term.

Both terms refer to female breasts. Boobs seems to be more socially acceptable and more used by women. Tits may be more vulgar. However, some may say that "tits" may refer to smaller breasts and "boobs" may refer to larger breasts.

Both words refer to female breasts, but some say that  "tits"  emphasizes the nipples whereas  "boobs"  evokes an image of the round parts. Women tend to use "boobs" and not "tits". Men can go either way, but a good part of the time they'll use "tits". "Tits" may be considered more offensive than "boobs", which is more socially acceptable.

Both words refer to female breasts but differ in emphasis. "Tits" may be more offensive and is used more by men when talking with other men. Women are more likely to use the word "boobs", and it is considered less offensive.

Only a slight difference between "boobs" and "tits" referencing shape of female breasts..

Other uses of similar terms, referring to female breasts but also with other meanings

Both refer to female breasts but "tit" is also a small bird.

S9: (either of two soft fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs on the chest of a woman)  S: (n) nipple, mammilla, mamilla, pap, teat, tit (the small projection of a mammary gland)

S10: S: (n) titmouse, tit (small insectivorous birds)   (I was aware of titmouse but not a small bird called tit)

S11: Tits is generally the word for mammary glands, being a corruption from teat.

S12: That's what @ghoppe was onto with his, where you emphasize the pointy bit of the end of the mammary gland.

S13: It's more evident on a dog or pig, where there are a line of teats (or tits).

S14: The fact that this usage has spread to also refer to women is likely from the fact that country/urban life has comingled more of late than of years past.

S15: The usage to associate tits with boobs however, is purely sexist.

S16: In polite society you should mention neither, referring instead to the bosom that @Robusto mentions, or breast, but only when you must.

S17: Bosom indicates "that feeling of your grandmother wrapping her arms around you when you're scared" and breasts is generally seen as more clinical in nature.

S18: Generally in polite society you would just avoid references to a woman's breasts, and let it go.

S19: When breasts are being discussed (such as in the context of bra fitting), women will often use the word "boobs" amongst themselves.

Boobs is more acceptable term, "tits" is more vulgar. Some disagree that "tits" refer to nipple area.

S0: As others have said, both refer to a woman's breasts, but the main difference is actually in the connotation.

S1: While both are euphemisms, boobs is a slightly more socially acceptable term.

"tit " can refer to "breast" or "nipple" and is considered offensive in UK English, whereas "boob" also means a stupid person in US ENGLISH

Dimunitive forms are "titties" or "boobies"

Often referencing female animals, mainly dogs, but often a pejorative term for body builders "breasts."

Other uses of "boobs" and "tits" have different meanings and the words are not interchangeable

The word "tit" is mainly used in a sexual context, except fot in "itty, bitty, titty"

Some may say that "tits" may refer to smaller breasts and "boobs" may refer to larger breasts.

Both words refer to female breasts but have a different emphasis.

"Boobs" is more commonly used by women whereas "tits" is more commonly used by men when talking with other men.

"Tits" may be more offensive than "boobs".


2×4: Image courtesy of Wikipedia .

Edit:

Wikipedia has since corrected itself that this is indeed a 2×6, but you get the idea.

Oh, and the sentence as a whole means that the observation was a big surprise or a great shock; an aha experience or a eureka moment ; an eye-opener .

A two by four is a common format for a piece of wood : A length of sawn wood of cross section 2 inches by 4 inches, most often employed as structural framing lumber (dimension or dimensional lumber).

"It hit me like a two-by-four" means that you've been hit pretty hard.

In this context, the author uses it as a simile to convey his state of shock after reading the analysis he quoted.

He felt that it explained so well why Asians were often stereotyped as good in science and math that it stunned him.

He explains this further down the page:

I hadn't known about the 1965 Act, and its existence and the above analysis just instantly explained so much so well and without reference to Asians somehow being magically different

In other words, he was really surprised by the quality of the explanation.

From Word Reference forums : "Two-by-four" is a standard size ofwood used in the UK building trade.

So it means a piece of wood with sides of two inches and four inches.

This may have derived from the story about how to handle Mules.

"First" (clobbering mule with 2x4), "you have to get their attention."

Expression comes from a very old joke: about a farmer with a stubbron mule who would not go forward or backward let alone respond to owners comand.

So the old man picks up a 2x4 and smacks the mule right between the eyes.

Then the mule responded to command.

Onlookers were outraged that the man punished the animal harshly.

The farmer explained that "first he had to get the mules attention".

I suspect over the years people have become more sensitive to this type of 'animal abus jokes' and it has died a just death, the source of this saying , lost.

Question: What does this sentence mean?   This observation hit me like a two-by-four   Source .

What does "hit me like a two-by-four" mean?

The sentence as a whole means that he was really surprised by the quality of the explanation. A two-by-four is a common format for a piece of wood and "It hit me like a two-by-four" means that you've been hit pretty hard.

The sentence means someone is shocked or surprised. The reference to a "two by four" is to a piece of wood to convey being hit by it. Some believe it is derived from a story about a man handling a mule which he punished harshly with a piece of wood and by analogy conveys the sense of shock.

It hit me like a two-by-four means that the observation was a big surprise or an "eye opener". I can mean that you have been hit very hard.

"It hit me like a two-by-four" means that you've been hit pretty hard.  It means that the observation was a big surprise or a great shock; a eureka moment ; an  eye-opener. It is used as a simile to convey a state of shock.

This phrase means that something was a great shock, in this case, an observation.

"First" (clobbering mule with 2x4), "you have to get their attention."

Expression comes from a very old joke: about a farmer with a stubbron mule who would not go forward or backward let alone respond to owners comand.

The "two by four" reference is to a piece of wood.

It may come from a story relating to handling a mule.

"It hit me like a two-by-four" means that the observation was a big surprise or a great shock; an  aha experience  or a  eureka moment ; an  eye-opener .

It hit me like a two-by-four means that you've been hit pretty hard.


They are not grammatical errors since the sentence structure is correct once you replace the erroneous word with the one the author obviously intended.

So I would categorise those mistakes as spelling mistakes influenced by homophone confusion.

I’m not sure whether there is a special name for this kind of spelling mistake, but I’d definitely call it a spelling or typing mistake.

The writer would no doubt have pronounced it right in speech.

In fact, I suspect that the most common spelling mistakes are those in which a writer subconsciously confuses two similar-sounding words or parts of words, even though he probably knows better, as in * negligable , * interchangible , * percieve ,

*retreive,

* their crazy , * they’re house , *

it

’s body , *

its mine , etc.

There's no special name for it beyond: typo.

'quiet' and 'quite' mean two very different things; one is an adverb meaning 'very', the other is an adjective mening 'silent'.

their pronunciations are different enough; in GenAmE, they are not homophones (I don't know about other varieties).

Transpositino of two characters, especially at teh end of a word, is a very common typing error.

surely the writers didn't intend the words as written, so they are neither grammatical error or spelling errors.

Quiet/Quite might be considered a homophone depending on your accent.

Other common homophone (heterograph, specifically) mistakes are: Their/They're/

There Your/You're to/too/two

Since it's the person's intention to use it in a certain context, it is a misspelling.

If they were convinced that that was the way it was spelled, however, and spelled it that way, it would be a lexical error.

Semantic error.

Meaning is not logical.

Question: Look at this sentence:   It wasn't  quiet  what I wanted   And this one:   The music was too  quite  for me   Obviously  quiet  and  quite  are mixed up. Is this considered a spelling mistake? In both cases the words are valid, but used in the wrong place.   Is there a special name for these mistakes? Or are they simply grammatical errors?

Mixing up "quiet" and "quite": spelling or grammar error?

These are not grammatical errors since the sentence structure is correct once you replace the erroneous word with the correct one. As a result, these are probably spelling mistakes influenced by homophone confusion. Aside from the word "typo", there is probably no special word for this. Some people would also call this a semantic error since the meaning is not logical.

This could be seen as a spelling mistake and this may be due to the similarity of pronunciation. It could also be considered to be a lexical error. However, it is not a grammatical error, but a semantic error, because the sentence structure is correct.

This may be referred to as a typo, a spelling mistake, a misspelling or a semantic error.

These are not considered grammatical errors and are instead viewed as spelling mistakes. It is unclear whether there is a special term for this type of mistake but possible terms include "typo" and "semantic error".

Not a grammatical error, but a semantic error, because the sentence structure is correct. This could be seen as a spelling mistake and this may be due to the similarity of pronunciation. It could also be considered to be a lexical error.

These are not grammatical errors since the sentences would be correct once the spelling mistake has been rectified.

It is unclear whether there is a special name for these types of mistakes but possible terms include "typo" and "semantic error".


In general, if you're turning a question into a noun, whether tends to be preferred in formal use.

So this includes your example plus, e.g.:

The discussion was about [ whether climate change was an important issue].

The issue is [ whether we need to act now].

In informal usage, if is also possible in these cases.

It's important to understand that 'whether' and 'if' are not always interchangeable.

The word whether only has the meaning of "if ... or not" (though you can still use the formula whether ... or not for emphasis), so for example you can't use whether in this case:

If/*whether you decide to come, give me a call.

Another key difference is that whether can introduce an infinitive, whereas if can't (they're different parts of speech): They couldn't decide whether /*if to come.

Whether is used to emphasis that one has two alternatives to pick from.

Merriam-Webster gives two definitions: 1.

archaic : which one of the two 2.

archaic : whichever one of the two

In the saddle example, there are three alternative results: too high, too low or just perfect.

It doesn't make much sense to check the saddle for being too high and not caring about too low.

Short answer is, yes, they are equivalent, simply because 'if' and 'whether' essentially mean the same thing in this regard.

Both are used to introduce indirect questions.

To expand further, whether is also used to state a certainty: 'I'm marrying Zooey Deschanel whether or not my girlfriend likes it!' for example.

Let's make it simple and clear:

Whether - use this word for indicating 2 options

If - use this word to establish a condition for an action.

Informally, "if" is sometimes used when "whether" is the better word, and in many cases this doesn't lead to confusion.

This means that, informally, "if" is used in more than one way.

However, "whether" only has one meaning, so using "whether" when indicating options is preferred.

THUS: 1:

How to determine whether my saddle is too high.

(as in whether the saddle is too high or not--two options) 2: We should check whether everything is okay now.

(as in whether everything is okay or not--two options) Note: In both examples, the 2nd part of the expression "whether...or not" is implied.

This is quite common and quite acceptable when doing so doesn't reduce clarity.

This leads us to the next point.

You can correctly say "Whether you decide to come or not, give me a call."

The shortened form, with the implied part 2, is "Whether you decide to come, give me a call."

(I wouldn't write this because it reduces clarity.

I would use the complete expression.)

One last comment:

"Whether" doesn't need to be followed by a stated or implied "or not.

" The 2nd option could be any thing, as in "I don't know whether to buy cake or pickles."

If is suggesting a condition , like "if it would be OK for you the RB to run with the ball behind the Tight End" "Whether" is for an alternative with only 2 exclusive options not 3."Whether the QB will throw or give the ball, you shall sack him down !"

The use of "if" would be stupid...

But we also have "whatever the QB does, you sack him : ie.

even before he moves or tries to pass...

" This has 3 options for the QB you target anyway.

We may also understand "Whether the Guard wants to stop you, goes backward or to the side, you rush & blow him".

Here : 3 options which are in fact 2 : The Guard runs toward you or not, you are instructed to get him, so we can use "whether" to charge you to deliver to the guy the kind of clear message we want.

"IF" you really have more than 2 options, try to do it without "whether".

"Whether the field will be dry, wet or snowy we shall play our game" sounds very bad.

So put it in an other way...

"If" could work, for a coach at least !

But we also have the mix

Whether/

If :"Whether/If I can jump over the Center, I'll run to the End zone".

"Whether

" because there are 2 scenari (yes or not)

"If" because there is a condition to run.

Am I clear ?

So let's go back on the line boys, we have the grammar to play :)

Question: Are  if  and  whether  equivalent in sentences like the ones below?   How to determine if my saddle is too high?   How to determine whether my saddle is too high?       We should check if everything is okay now.   We should check whether everything is okay now.

When are "if" and "whether" equivalent?

In general, it is agreed that "if" and "whether" are equivalent in this context. In general, "whether" is used to emphasis that one has two alternatives to pick from. However, "if" is sometimes used when "whether" is the better word without leading to much confusion.

Some suggest that "whether" is the preferred form, if you are turning a noun into a question. Some suggest because a choice is being offered "whether" is the correct form ; here the choice is between too low, too high or just perfect. Some believe in this sentence they are the same and both are being used to introduce an indirect question. However, "whether" in some contexts can be used to indicate certainty. "I'm marrying my girlfriend whether they like it or not". "If" can also be a call to action, but sometimes people use "if" when "whether" is better.

They are the same and both are used to introduce indirect questions. "Whether"  is used to emphasise that one has two alternatives to pick from and may be preferable in formal use.

"Whether" and "if" are equivalent, and essentially mean the same thing in this regard.

Yes, "if" and "whether" are equivalent in these cases.

"IF" you really have more than 2 options, try to do it without "whether".

The formal "whether" is the preferred form, if you a turning a noun into a questions.

Choice is being offered in the sentence.

The y are used to introduce an indirect question. "Whether" can be used to state  a certainty.

"If" is a call to action.  Sometimes "if" used when "whether" is better.

Whether  is used to emphasise that one has two alternatives to pick from.


"Fail" has existed as a noun and has been part of our lexicon for a long time , such as in the phrase "without fail."

However, it gained a new meaning in the recent years with the fail Internet meme, where it started as an interjection first, capable of standing on alone in a sentence.

In fact, the first entry for "fail" to arrive on Urban Dictionary described fail as "an interjection used when one disapproves of something, or a verb" and one of the two examples cited was: You actually bought that?

FAIL.

If the "FAIL" above was a noun, that sentence would not be syntactically correct.

Nouns cannot be used in that manner.

It would be like saying: You positioned your lips to form an upward curve?

SMILE.

We understand what is meant

but it's not syntactically correct.

No one with a good command of English would ever say such a sentence.

A correct way to articulate the thought

while keeping "smile" as a noun would be to say: You positioned your lips to form an upward curve?

That's a smile.

Therefore, the fail in the Urban Dictionary example is an interjection.

It's only afterward, probably through misinterpretation of the meme, that it came to be used as a noun.

When you look at an image with only "FAIL" written on it, it's impossible to tell whether fail is being used as a noun or an interjection: From that point on, the meme evolved - as memes often do - and started to be used as a noun , as an adjective , and as a noun modified by as an adjective .

As for the origin of the meme itself, which I assume is your original question, the origin most often given (by

Know

Your Meme , Slate , and the New York Times ) is that it comes from a poor Japanese-to-English translation of the game Blazing Star.

Ben Zimmer of the New York Time says: This punchy stand-alone fail most likely originated as a shortened form of “You fail” or, more fully, “You fail it,” the taunting “game over” message in the late-’90s Japanese video game Blazing Star, notorious for its fractured English.

For reference, here's Blazing Star's game over message:

Online Etymology Dictionary says: Fail: The noun (e.g. without fail ) is from late 13c.

, from O.Fr. faile "deficiency," from falir .

The Anglo-French form of the verb, failer , came to be used as a noun, hence failure .

adding to Mr Mehper's answer, people use it in the stock and security market too.

to mean: Failure to deliver securities to a purchaser within a specified time.

Failure to receive the proceeds of a transaction, as in the sale of stock or securities, by a specified date.

The recent uprise in incidences of non-verb fail is due to its being an internet meme, possibly from a Japanese video game with poor translation to English.

Know your meme .

Although "fail" has been used sparingly in the past as a noun (e.g. "without fail"), there is evidence that the word is creeping toward ordinary usage as a noun to replace the word "failure."

I just read the following headline in Bloomberg Businessweek (6/6/11-6/12/11 issue):

"How Stephen Elop is trying to lead Nokia past its epic fail."

My first reaction was that perhaps the word is only used to draw attention in headlines, but that it would not breach the body of the article.

Well, the word did appear once inside the piece.

"Fail" (as an ordinary noun) is coming into our campsite, ladies & gents.

Hey, compared to "refudiate," it's a gem!

Some hypotheses are listed and briefly analyzed in this Slate article.

Fail has been used as a noun with a quite different meaning by Rev John Davidson,DD in his book 'Old Aberdeenshire Ministers and their people' 1895.He

describes a parish school built in a day with dry-stone walls topped with FAIL or divot and a roof of open rafters covered by thatch.

english.stackexchange.com/users/106492/Dr W Leslie Alexander

Question: Does anyone know when and how  fail  became a noun?  I'd love to see one of those charts that shows the date of origin and subsequent growth of this usage.

When and how did "fail" become a noun?

The word "fail" has existed as a noun for a long time, such as in the phrase "without fail" and in fact, according to Online Etymology Dictionary, the word "fail" as a noun dates from the late 13th century. However, there is evidence that the word is creeping towards usage as a noun to replace the word "failure".

"Fail" has been part of the English lexicon for some time. More recently it has gained traction as a noun through internet memes and a poor translation of  a Japanese video game into English. Its use as a noun is increading. However, when "fail" is used with an image sometimes it is not clear if the verb or noun is being used and it would seem that "fail" is gradually coming to replace the noun "failure".  Etymologically, "Failure" comes from the Anglo-French form of verb "failer" dating back to 13th century

"Fail" has been used as a noun for a long time, although it has become more popular in Internet memes as a standalone interjection or expression of disapproval.

Online Etymology Dictionary  says that the noun "fail" dates from late 13th Century.

The word "fail" appears to have been used as a noun since around the 13th century.

It has been in the lexicon for a while. It gained a new meaning recently due to internet "memes"

However, it is not clear if a noun or verb is being used.

It can be determined if it is a noun or interjection when used on an image.

Its origin is from a  game called "Blazing Star"

Etymologically goes back to 13th centry.


Adding someone on Facebook is generally accepted as a shorter way of saying "While on Facebook, I added someone to my friends list.

The statement is meant to express what site you were on (visiting) when you added the new friend to your friend's list.

Furthermore, when you "add someone on" a site, it's understood that you are adding the person "to your friend's list", which is why that part of the statement is not said explicitly.

Adding someone to Facebook implies you are creating a new account for her on the site.

The first sentence It was the first time a girl asked me to add her on Facebook is correct.

She asked you to add her as a friend on the Facebook website:

It was the first time a girl asked me to add her [as a friend] on [the] Facebook [website].

The second sentence

It was the first time a girl asked me to add her to Facebook is not absolutely wrong.

If you happened to be the sole administrator of the Facebook website and had the authority to add and remove people, then the sentence would be correct:

It was the first time a girl asked me to add her to [the] Facebook [website].

In reality, however, this is not the case.

You are both already on Facebook, you and the girl.

That's the preposition that Facebook usually takes (also off in some cases).

Thus, whether someone is sending a message, friending you/adding you as a friend, writing on your wall, etc.

, it's all on Facebook.

Examples:

I am being cyber-bullied on Facebook.

I practically live on Facebook.

I'm on Facebook every single day.

Can you believe she sent a message on Facebook?!

Can't you just get off Facebook for once?

I need to get that creep off my Facebook [wall]!

How many friends do you have on Facebook?

Add me on Facebook now!

If you mean Facebook from facebook.com , you'll add someone on Facebook, since it is a website (or social network site).

I prefer on , but think either one would work.

What we're really saying is, It was the first time a girl asked me to add her to my friends list on Facebook.

To and on are both part of the idea and we have two different approaches to making the friends list implicit.

The idiomatic sentence would be neither of the options, but rather "It was the first time a girl asked me to friend her on Facebook".

I believe that the verbing of friend is still restricted to contexts where Facebook is in the forefront.

Question: Which one is correct and why:   It was the first time a girl asked me to add her  on  Facebook   Or   It was the first time a girl asked me to add her  to  Facebook

To add someone "to" Facebook or "on" Facebook

The difference betweeen "to" and "on" Facebook is that "adding someone on Facebook" is generally accepted as a shorter way of saying that you added someone to your friends list on Facebook. "Adding someone to Facebook" implies that you are creating a new account for someone on the site. However, it is possible that either would work and be understood.

Generally "adding someone on Facebook" is the accepted form. However, some believe that both "on" or "to" are acceptable. "to" can be considered as adding "to" the list of friends. Some suggest "to" is more appropriate if you are a Facebook administrator,but this is not the case as you are both already "on" Facebook. Some suggest using neither but instead using the verb "to friend" but this they suggest is restricted to Facebook references.

Adding someone on Facebook is generally accepted way to say "While  on  Facebook, I added someone to my friends list".  Adding someone  to  Facebook implies you are creating a new account for her on the site.

The first sentence - "It was the first time a girl asked me to add her on Facebook" -   is correct. Adding someone to Facebook is not wrong, but it implies that you are creating a new account for her on the site.

It is possible that either sentence is correct, but it is likely that the first sentence is more accepted. The second sentence is not incorrect but implies that you would be creating a Facebook account for the girl in question.

You are both already on Facebook, you and the girl.

It was the first time a girl asked me to add her [as a friend] on [the] Facebook [website].

Adding someone "on" Facebook is generally accepted.

This is correct too if you are the administrator, but not if you are both already on Facebook.

Neither. Use the verb "to friend" although this is restricted to Facebook

Adding someone  on  Facebook is generally accepted way to say "While  on  Facebook, I added someone to my friends list.

The first sentence, using the preposition "on" is the correct answer.

The second sentence is not incorrect but implies that you were creating an account for the girl in question.

It is possible that either answer is correct.


The source of Stephen is the Greek name Stephanos.

This name was borrowed into English long enough ago that the intervocalic [f] sound was voiced to become [v].

This is a regular sound change that was also responsible for some other f~v alternations in English, such as loaf~loaves .

However, in the name Stephen

the spelling "ph" remained (or has been restored) due to the influence of the Greek original.

In other words, Stephen and Steven are exactly the same name, but the former merely has an anachronistic spelling.

I always found interesting that both "phial" and "vial" exist in English, having a common origin but different pronunciations.

OED lists "vial" as an alteration of "phial"; the "ph" is originally Greek.

Does this count?

Is there any other instance of "ph" being pronounced as "v" in either American or British English?

In British English, nephew can be pronounced nev -yoo .

Stephen is of Greek origin (Stephanos).

The ph is unusual in its v pronunciation.

The only possibility I can think of is that it arrived in English via Spanish, where it is spelt 'Esteban'.

The Spanish pronunciation of 'b' is somewhere between English 'V' and 'B'.

In Hungarian it is spelt 'Istvan', so there's another possible source.

Born in London, I have always pronounced nephew with a 'v' sound.

Locals in Essex (England) also pronounce the village name of Bulphan as 'Bulvan' rather than 'Bulfan', even though the second syllable is derived from the word fen.

"STEVEN" is the canon pronunciation because Old English make-shift gender phonetics are applied to the E-PH.

However in common rumor, a user of the name may be required to know the two pronunciations presented by text key models in probable instances rendering it differently pronounced than that of the "V" spelling.

Question: While I know how  my  name is pronounced, I've run into many non-native english speakers who have stumbled over this unique exception to English.  Even in the female name, "Stephanie", the  ph  is pronounced as  f .  What is the etymology of "Stephen" and is there any other instance of  ph  being pronounced as  v  in either American or British English?

Why is the "ph" pronounced like a "v" in "Stephen"? Is this the only word like that?

The name Stephen comes from the Greek name Stephanos and was borrowed into English long enough ago that the f-sound became a v. In this sense, the ph is unusual in its pronunciation, although in London, "nephew" can be pronounced with a 'v' sound.

Because of its Greek origin and the intervocalic [f] sound was voiced as [v], Stephen is pronounced as with a "v". Some believe it may be due to Spanish origin of the name as "Esteban" which "b" in English is "v". There are other words of Greek origin that such as "phial" which is pronounced and spelt "vial" in English. Some suggest that Old English phonetics might have dictated the sound.

Stephen comes from the Greek name Stephanos, and the ph shifted from an [f] to a [v] sound in Old English. This shift can also be seen in loaf/loaves, or the British English variant pronunciation of nephew.

The source of  Stephen  is the Greek name Stephanos. "phial" and "vial"  both exist in English, have a common origin but different pronunciations. In Britian, nephew can be pronounced with a V sound. This is a regular sound change that was also responsible for some other f~v alternations in English, such as  loaf~loaves .

The name "Stephen" comes from the Greek name "Stephanos". Other instances of a "ph" becoming a "v" sound include "phial" and "vial" and the word "nephew".

I always found interesting that both "phial" and "vial" exist in English, having a common origin but different pronunciations.

OED lists "vial" as an alteration of "phial"; the "ph" is originally Greek.

However in common rumor, a user of the name may be required to know the two pronunciations presented by text key models in probable instances rendering it differently pronounced than that of the "V" spelling.

Born in London, I have always pronounced nephew with a 'v' sound.

In other words, Stephen and Steven are exactly the same name, but the former merely has an anachronistic spelling.

In Hungarian it is spelt 'Istvan', so there's another possible source.

Locals in Essex (England) also pronounce the village name of Bulphan as 'Bulvan' rather than 'Bulfan', even though the second syllable is derived from the word fen.

The only possibility I can think of is that it arrived in English via Spanish, where it is spelt 'Esteban'.

The Spanish pronunciation of 'b' is somewhere between English 'V' and 'B'.

There are other instances in English where "ph" is pronounced as "v"


In more formal writing, it's slightly proper to use the phrase "Republican Party".

However, in general discussion or news reporting, you'll find it used interchangeably.

GOP (Grand Old Party) is a nickname for the Republican Party that dates back over a century.

The use of the word 'old' is ironic in that the Democratic Party was founded before the Republican Party.

Also, some of the alternate meanings of the word ' grand ' cause members of opposing parties to use the term GOP sarcastically, or not at all.

It is favored in news headlines due to its shortness.

Wikipedia mentions :

The term "Grand Old Party" is a traditional nickname for the Republican Party, and the initialism "G.O.P." (or "GOP") is a commonly used designation , and refers to the OED: The first reference to the Republican Party as the "grand old party" is dated to 1876; the first use of the abbreviation "GOP" is dated 1884.

Both terms are fairly interchangeable, and while GOP is mainly used in headlines, it is interesting to know that, as detailed in the article " What Does 'GOP' Stand For? "

, in 2002 The Wall Street Journal actually had decided to stop(!)

using the acronym to refer to the 148-year-old political party.

In an internal memo issued to staffers last week, Journal higher-ups said the term GOP will be dropped because not all readers know what the letters mean, and some may not realize that they are a reference to the Republican Party.

Titles like " Democrats Aim to Curb GOP Donors " (on the online Wall Street Journal site) show that this resolution didn't stick.

When writing for an international audience, use Republican Party.

"GOP" stands for Grand Old Party ( dating from 1876 ), and is used as a somewhat informal synonym meaning the Republican Party.

Its usage is mainly in the press, as its size makes it ideal for headlines and news copy.

Example headline: GOP blasts

Dems on spending

If you were writing a formal paper on politics, you might prefer to say "the Republican Party" or "the Republicans" or just "Republicans" — but there is nothing preventing you from salting in references to "the GOP" as well.

About the only places you aren't likely to see it at all are on formal invitations or legal documents.

GOP is an acronym standing for Grand Old Party, a nickname for The Republican Party, and as far as I know is synonymous.

Disclaimer: I am not American.

Question: I've read lots of professional articles that use the two terms interchangeably, sometimes within the same paragraph. Are the two terms really semantically identical? In formal writing, are there any situations where it would be recommended to use one or the other?

When to use "GOP" versus "Republican Party"

In formal writing, it is slightly more proper to use the phrase "Republican Party", however, in general discussion, you'll find both terms used interchangeably. "GOP" is particularly favoured in news headlines due to its shortness.

Both terms can be used interchangeably. GOP stands for the Grand Old Party dating back to 1876, even though the Democratic Party is older. It is used as a nickname and for shortness in the media. However, in formal documents, the Republican Party is a better option.

GOP (Grand Old Party) is a nickname for the Republican Party that dates back to 1876, and is often used as an informal synonym. If writing formally or for an international audience, Republican Party would be preferred, but GOP could also be used as an alternative.

Both terms are fairly interchangeable. In more formal writing, or international audience, use the phrase "Republican Party".

The two terms can be used more or less interchangeably, but if you were writing a formal paper or writing for an international audience, the term "Republican Party" would probably be more appropriate.

Also, some of the alternate meanings of the word ' grand ' cause members of opposing parties to use the term GOP sarcastically, or not at all.

GOP is an acronym standing for Grand Old Party, a nickname for The Republican Party, and as far as I know is synonymous.

About the only places you aren't likely to see it at all are on formal invitations or legal documents.

Its usage is mainly in the press, as its size makes it ideal for headlines and news copy.

The use of the word 'old' is ironic in that the Democratic Party was founded before the Republican Party.

It is favored in news headlines due to its shortness.

Formally, Republican Party is preferred.

In discussions and in the press both terms are used.

GOP is a nickname that dates back a century.

Formal writing might prefer the "Republican Party" or variants of this.

The two terms can probably be used more or less interchangeably.

If writing a formal paper or writing for an international audience, "The Republican Party" might be more appropriate.


According to The Phrase Finder , the term is French and literally meant face-to-face .

When the English picked it up in the 18th century, they started using it to describe a type of horse-drawn carriage wherein there are two seats, allowing occupants to sit across from one another in a face-to-face fashion.

Usage eventually extended to include the alternate meaning of with regard to , and in modern-day discourse it is accepted to use with regard to and vis-à-vis interchangeably.

In fact, many people will get confused when you use it to convey its original meaning since the alternate meaning has overshadowed it.

As a complement to the other answers, as to the origins, here are the ways the phrase is used in French , which maybe helpful to gain a better insight of the various usages in English.

In French , 'vis-à-vis' can be used as a preposition, an adverb or a noun.

Preposition.

Facing, in the presence of:

She sat on the other side of the table, vis-à-vis John.

(archaic, regional Canada)

Compared to : He found it shameful to lose his temper vis-à-vis the old man.

Relative to, figuratively: Jack swore me to secrecy, even vis-à-

vis his daughter Adverb

To be facing: If the windows are vis-à-vis, the ventilation is improved Phrasal adverb, qualifier: Leaning against the door jamb vis-à-vis, dressed in a grass skirt, she... Noun Person facing someone else:

By chance, my eyes fell on Edwin, my vis-à-vis

The opposite facade:

The windows had curtains, so there was no vis-à-vis, only the blank wall To be facing:

She was vis-à-vis her husband, a pretty little thing she was too, ... To be facing,

reflexively: The café and the church were vis-à-vis Adverb To move into a facing position:

They sat down vis-à-vis, each in his corner, .. (rare) To be facing (in English this renders no differently to the above) :

They were seated on chairs, ( en ) vis-à-

vis the altar Carriage with two facing seats: I could see myself arriving at midnight, in my olive vis-à-vis, at the Opera gate.

Small sofa, where two people can talk conveniently:

The two women sat down on the vis-à-vis and nattered endlessly (adapted from cntrl.fr )

IMO, these days the expression vis-à-vis is often used in sentences where a comparison is being made.

Examples:

Let's say I am enumerating features of iPhone.

I could then say, The choice for applications is certainly much higher in the iPhone OS (125,000 vis-à-vis 20,000 for the Android) (example extracted from internet) Canadian dollar vis-à-vis selected currencies (when talking about exchange rates perhaps?)

(Example title of a research paper as extracted from the internet):Comparative Competitive Aspects of Japanese Use of Human Resources vis-à-vis United States and Canada ---- and so forth.

It is mostly used to paint a picture of something "pitted against" or "in the face of" or "as opposed to" something else.

Hope this helps.

When I hear/see people use it, I usually find they are using it to mean "as opposed to" .

I guess the face-to-face metaphor can mean the opposing opinion.

Whether or not that is correct usage is slightly arbitrary,

just my observation of how people seem to use it.

Accepted English usage in the military and in corporate meetings

I have personally been a part of are "in relation to" or "concerning".

They can be used to refer to a geographic location, opinions, or two or more items.

Question: I hear people use the term  vis-à-vis  all the time in place of what I believe should more correctly be  for example  or  that is .  What is the most generally accepted correct and appropriate use of  vis-à-vis , and what are its origins?

What is the correct usage of “vis-à-vis”?

In the past, the term "vis-à-vis" means "face to face" and, as such, used metaphorically it could mean the opposing opinion. It is often used in place of "with regard to" or "as opposed to" and is accepted in the military and coporate meetings.

It means facing or opposite something.  Its use began in English in the 18th century when people described carriages with opposite facing seats. It has now become to mean "with regard to" and is used in comparisons of two things or in the "face-to-face" notion of opposing ideas. It is often used in military contexts.

The term is French, and means 'face to face'. While it was often used to describe carriages where passengers faced each other, it has come to mean 'with regard to'. This term is usually used when comparing and contrasting two things, and could also mean 'as opposed to'.

The term “vis-à-vis” is French and literally means 'face-to-face'. It is often used in sentences where a comparison is being made.

The phrase "vis-à-vis" is of French origin and is used in English when making a comparison.

To be facing: If the windows are vis-à-vis, the ventilation is improved Phrasal adverb, qualifier: Leaning against the door jamb vis-à-vis, dressed in a grass skirt, she... Noun Person facing someone else:

She was vis-à-vis her husband, a pretty little thing she was too, ... To be facing,

I guess the face-to-face metaphor can mean the opposing opinion.

In fact, many people will get confused when you use it to convey its original meaning since the alternate meaning has overshadowed it.

It means to be facing something; opposite it.

the term is French and literally meant  face-to-face .

The phrase "vis-à-vis" is of French origin.

The phrase is used when making a comparison.


My personal rule of thumb would be that if the school name includes an "of", use "the": The University of Minnesota, The College of St. Catherine, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, etc.

(And when abbreviating one of these names, use "the" only if the "of" is present in the abbreviation: "I attend the University of California at San Diego" → "I attend UCSD"; but "I attend the University of Minnesota" → "I attend the U of M".)

But if the school name does not include an "of", and especially if its name consists of a proper noun prepended to a school type, do not use "the": Carleton College, South Dakota State University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, etc.

(Naturally, as pointed out by Shaun in his answer, there will be exceptions.)

Not necessarily.

I have come across several colleges/universities/schools (some starting with proper nouns and some not),not preceded by "The".

Some examples below: Singapore(Asia): National University of Singapore Singapore Management University SIM Nanyang Technological Universityand

many more UK: King's College London (KCL) University of Strathclyde, Glasgow UK Courtauld Institute of Art Goldsmiths, University of London (GUL)

Heythrop College (HEY) Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) Institute of Education (IoE) India(Asia): All India Institute of Medical Sciences New Delhi, India Indian Institute of Technology and many more.

There are perhaps more examples across the world as well.

Yes, when saying the school's full name.

However abbreviations exclude the "the."

He goes to

The University of Illinois He goes to U of I

He goes to Illinois

Short answer :

Yes.

Long answer :

I did a little research on this and the results actually surprised me.

Intuitively, I expected this to follow the same rule as most businesses: you would use the before the name of a university, such as The University of North Florida , except if the first word was the name of a person or geographic place.

However: The Johns Hopkins University is the accepted formal name for that university, even though it is named after a person.

The Florida State University , which I expected to be called Florida State University , is labeled with the definitive article before its name in the logo.

We used to get snotty memos saying that it was "The University of Cambridge" not "Cambridge University" whenever we published anything.

Don't think anybody ever cared - other than those employed in the snotty memo office.

The use of "The" in front of schools and universities makes about as much logical sense in English as "the" does in the rest of the language...pretty much none at all.

You just have to memorize it.

For instance, most state universities in the USA don't use "The" in the title, but a few do.

For example, we have Oregon State University, Oklahoma State Univeristy, and The Ohio State Univeristy.

You could try Hellion's rule, and put "The" in there if there's also an "of", but doubtless there's an exception to that waiting to bite you too.

The safest thing is to just call it what everyone else calls it.

If you're unsure, hit its website.

Question: Is  the  always used before the name of a school, college, or university?

Definite article before schools, colleges, and universities

A potential rule of thumb for the use of the definite article before schools, colleges and universities is to use it if the name of the university contains the word "of", such as "The University of Minnesota". However, if this "of" is not present, you would not use "the", as in "South Dakota State University". In most circumstances, the safest thing to do is call it what everyone else calls it.

Some suggest using the rule that where there is "of" in the University's name , use "the". However, there are many that don't use the article in their name for example Singapore National University. Many US Universities do not use it such as "Oregan State University". On the other hand, some suggest when mentioning the University's full name, the article should be used. Others feel its presence is totally illogical. The last suggestion is to call the University as others call it.

Many universities have the full name The University of ____, and use the definite article. However, these are often shortened to ____ University, without the article, especially in informal speech. In the US, most state universities do not use the definite article, but there are some exceptions like The Florida State University and The Johns Hopkins University.

Not necessarily, there are several colleges/universities/schools (some starting with proper nouns and some not), not preceded by "The".

It is generally agreed that schools, colleges and universities will have a "the" at the beginning of their name, but there will be exceptions to this rule.

(And when abbreviating one of these names, use "the" only if the "of" is present in the abbreviation: "I attend the University of California at San Diego" → "I attend UCSD"; but "I attend the University of Minnesota" → "I attend the U of M".)

For example, we have Oregon State University, Oklahoma State Univeristy, and The Ohio State Univeristy.

I have come across several colleges/universities/schools (some starting with proper nouns and some not),not preceded by "The".

The use of "The" in front of schools and universities makes about as much logical sense in English as "the" does in the rest of the language...pretty much none at all.

Some examples below: Singapore(Asia): National University of Singapore Singapore Management University SIM Nanyang Technological Universityand

The safest thing is to just call it what everyone else calls it.

My personal rule of thumb would be that if the school name includes an "of", use "the": The University of Minnesota, The College of St. Catherine, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, etc.

It is generally agreed that there should be a "the" before the name of a school, college or university.

Some institutions may not have a "the" at the beginning of their name.


The NOAD installed on my Mac Mini reported the following definition for pray .

adverb formal or archaic used as a preface to polite requests or instructions: pray continue .

• used as a way of adding ironic or sarcastic emphasis to a question: and what, pray, was the purpose of that?

In the first example, you can replace pray with please .

Similar definition is given by the Oxford Living Dictionaries .

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pray pray late 13c., "ask earnestly, beg," also "pray to a god or saint," from O.Fr.

preier (c.900), from L. precari "ask earnestly, beg," from *prex (plural preces, gen. precis) "prayer, request, entreaty," from PIE base *prek- "to ask, request, entreat" (cf.

Skt.

prasna-

, Avestan frashna- "question;"

O.C.S. prositi, Lith.

prasyti "to ask, beg;" O.H.G. frahen, Ger. fragen, O.E. fricgan "to ask" a question).

Parenthetical expression

I pray you, “

please, if you will,” attested from 1510s, contracted to pray 16c.

The word "pray" means to earnestly ask something of someone.

Therefore, the phrase "pray proceed" could be interpreted as "Please, I beg of you, proceed".

In modern English, we often think of the term "pray" in a spiritual context, but the meaning is the same: to ask something of someone.

See also the version I like enough to consider using in conversation to stage a come back: Prithee tell .

The etymology sheds some light on the sometimes sarcastic nature of pray tell .

adverbformal or archaic 1Used as a preface to polite requests or instructions: ladies and gentlemen, pray be seated 1.1Used as a way of adding ironic or sarcastic emphasis to a question: and what, pray, was the purpose of that?

From online Oxford English dictionary

Question: Is this an archaic form of "please proceed"? I have never heard in in speech but sometimes it appears in novels. My version of "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" is full of it, apparently in place of "please".

What does "pray" mean in phrases like "pray proceed"?

The word "pray" means to earnestly ask something of someone, and therefore, the phrase "pray proceed" means "please proceed".

The word "pray" means to earnestly ask something of someone. It is an archaic form of a polite request. In modern English, we often think of the term "pray" in a spiritual context, but the meaning is  to ask something of someone.Therefore, the phrase "pray proceed" could be interpreted as "Please, I beg of you, proceed".   It can also be used as a way of adding ironic or sarcastic emphasis to a question: and what, pray, was the purpose of that?

This is an archaic usage that could be considered synonymous with 'please', although in modern usage it is often intended to add ironic or sarcastic emphasis.

The word "pray" means to earnestly ask something of someone. It is used as a preface to polite requests or instructions:  pray continue .

The word "pray" in this context means "to politely ask something of someone".


You read this as E equals M C squared , with the three letters pronounced as you would when reading the alphabet.

The "=" sign is read as "equals" or "is equal to", depending on your culture.

(In the latter case, "is equal to" is such a common phrase all through school that it's typically read as one word:

"izziqualtu".)

The "c 2 " could rarely be "c [raised] to the power of 2", but is almost always "c squared" (or "c square").

Thus, "ee equals em see

square[d]"

or "e is equal to

em see square[d]".

Alternatively, one could say Energy is the mass times the square of the speed of light in a vacuum.

If you are so inclined.

If you listen to this audio clip of Albert Einstein speaking in 1947, you can hear him say it as

"E is equal M C square" (with letters as ee, em, see ).

But nowadays it's normally pronounced as Jasper Loy answered: E equals M C squared .

Very simple you just go on speaking each word and symbol as they are.

So that makes it :"E is equal to M C Square "

Question: How do we pronounce  E = mc² ? This is a physics equation.

How to pronounce "E = mc²"

Depending on your culture, the "=" will be read as "equals" or "is equal to". Otherwise, it is generally read out "E equals M C squared", saying each word and symbol as they are. Alternatively, you could say "Energy is the mass times the square of the speed of light in a vacuum".

The "=" sign is read as "equals" or "is equal to", depending on your culture.Alternatively, one could say  "Energy is the mass times the square of the speed of light in a vacuum".   But nowadays it's normally pronounced as Jasper Loy answered:  E equals M C squared .Very simple you just go on speaking each word and symbol as they are.

While Einstein prounounced it differently and there are some variations, nowadays it is mostly read as 'E equals M C squared'.

E = mc²  is prounced as E equals M C squared , with the three letters pronounced as you would when reading the alphabet.

Each letter and symbol is pronounced as it appears, "E equals M C squared", although "equals" may be replaced with "is equal to" depending on your culture.

Alternatively, one could say   Energy is the mass times the square of the speed of light in a vacuum.


I would actually suggest that in this particular case, he probably should have used information rather than data .

Data is typically used when you're referring to "raw information", e.g. metrics that have been collected, but without any sort of analysis.

Since in this case, he presumably means references or guides to HTML programming rather than, e.g., studies on the effect of HTML programming on the economy where data has been collected on the actual programming of HTML

, I'm not sure what sorts of things would qualify as 'data'.

Perhaps tables of information in reference form or some such could be considered data, but I'm not sure why he'd limit his quip to just that sort of information.

More likely to my mind is that as a CS professor, he frequently deals with actual data and the frequent usage biases his word choice in cases like this.

It depends on the context.

Typically-speaking, information would have been the correct term, as you are referring to general bodies of knowledge on a subject.

Data , on the other hand, typically refers to specific and isolated facts on a subject.

You'd find information on how to program in HTML, but data on how many people have jobs where they program using HTML.

Information could be considered more appropriate.

Data can refer to the results of scientific experiments, or, especially nowadays, information stored digitally.

For the latter reason, data could be considered fine for your example, because there is a lot data (i.e. information stored digitally, e.g. online) regarding HTML programming, itself a 'digital' subject.

If he was talking about, say, how to cook chicken, it would sound a bit wrong:

There is a lot of data out there about how to roast a chicken.

If the teacher had said "information", it would imply confidence in the usefulness and correctness of the material to be found.

By saying "data", there is the implication that much of the material may not be all that good, and possibly that it isn't easy to tell the difference.

Information = Data - Noise

Or perhaps I'm reading too much into what might be a casual remark by someone who uses the word "data" more often than many speakers.

Data in my mind is statistical in nature, information can be conversational.

"Information," in my opinion, is a term that lends itself to being more "digestible" than the term "data." In other words, I would say that the sentence should have been "There is a lot of information out there regarding HTML.

" Data can be considered more "raw."

Information is usually the set of things that can be known about a subject or concept (except when it is used in the precise technical sense in physics where it is associated with the amount of order there is in a system).

Data (plural of Datum) originally meant a set of measurements about something.

So the correct answer is "information" - although there has been some blurring of meaning over the years.

For instance - most "Data Sheet"s should probably be "Information Sheet"s :)

The name originally came from the documentation of the actual, measured performance of a component (thus data).

The statement doesn't present data or information about HTML programming, but is about that data or information, so a reasonable interpretation is possible for either concept.

I like “data are facts, information is data in a context”.

So the statement as is could mean there are lots of facts available, e.g. size of that job market, effectiveness of that programming language, etc.

If 'information' were used instead, I would interpret that to mean I should be able to achieve some purpose – most likely to learn how to write in HTML, but also perhaps to understand why it exists, how it differs from other languages and so on.

Being that the speaker was a computer studies specialist, it's also conceivable s/

he was being humorous (or nostalgic).

Long ago, computers were called data processors.

Question: The Computer Studies teacher quipped, "There is a lot of data out there regarding HTML programming".  What does this really mean? Will it make any difference if the teacher had used "information" in place of "data"?

What is more appropriate, "data" or "information" when referring to facts about something. What's the difference really?

One possible differentiation between "data" and "information" is to say that "data are facts; information is data in a context". In this particular case, the word "information" could be considered more appropriate. However, data can refer to results of scientific experiments or "raw information" and as such a reasonable interpretation is possible for either concept in this particular sentence.

Some suggest "information" would be the correct word in this context, as data can be the result of an experiment or relating to "raw data". "Information" here references a general body of knowledge and is a term easier to "digest. Data can refer to the results of scientific experiments, but also nowadays, information stored digitally.  It usually refers to "raw information" and is considered by some to represent something statistical. However, over time blurring of lines has occurred for example a "Data Sheet" could be also an "Information Sheet". Some believe here that the choice often relates to context.

Data has more of a connotation of raw information or statistics, while information is often more associated with processed data and knowledge.

"Information" would imply confidence in the usefulness and correctness of the material to be found. "Data", gives the  implication that much of the material may not be good. Some say that “data are facts, and information is data in a context”.

Which term is most appropriate will depend on the context, but in this case, the most appropriate term is probably "information". Information is considered to be the set of facts about the a subject and is considered to be useful, whereas data is considered to be simply a set of measurements. This could be best summed up as "data are facts, information is data in a context".

Data can refer to the results of scientific experiments, or, especially nowadays, information stored digitally.

In this case "information" should be used rather than "data"

Which term to use will depend on the context.

"Information" is probably the most appropriate choice in this particular example.

The word "information" has implications about its usefulness.

The word "data" has no guarantee that it will be useful.

"Data" normally refers to measurements only.

Information is the set of known things about a subject.

Data are facts, information is data in a context.


If you mean both in the sense of anticipating something, both are equally valid.

However 'I look forward' is more formal; it's the kind of thing you would write in an official letter.

A typical example is the closing statement of a cover letter for a job application:

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

'I am looking forward' is less formal.

You would rarely say to a friend on the phone 'I look forward to visiting you next week.'

You would say: I'm looking forward to visiting you next week.

I'm not sure why others here have suggested this is wrong.

You wouldn't say 'I run towards the train station!'

, you'd say 'I am running towards the train station!'

Hmm, okay, a totally non-grammatical (probably, and thus very likely totally wrong) answer by an avowed non-grammarian (who nevertheless described and describes himself as a grammar-nazi at times):

"I'm looking forward to" means I'm doing it right now, this very instance, like in Elendil's example of being on the phone with a friend

; I disagree that it's about formal vs non-formal

, it's due to being on the phone with that friend in that moment, so of course you'd be looking forward to meeting said friend at that very moment .

"I look forward" means looking forward in a general sense; like, you'd not think about meeting your friend every second of the day, but the anticipation would be in the back of your mind all the time.

That's my take, and I'm sticking to it. ;-)

Look forward to is a phrasal verb that means to await eagerly .

It can be used in any tense.

Examples:

I look forward to meeting you tonight.

He looks forward to graduating this year.

We dare not cancel the trip to Banff.

The kids have been looking forward to this for ages!

Both were looking forward to spending a wonderful evening together, but the weather cruelly disrupted their plans.

I can't believe they 're

actually looking forward to vacationing with us for three weeks.

This house is super boring!

Even though he knew it would be difficult and unpleasant, he still looked forward to having a heart-to-heart conversation with her.

The sentence

I'm looking forward cannot be interpreted to mean eagerly awaiting , as it would have to be followed by to_ .

Thus, it can only mean one thing: I am directing my gaze (or view)

forward where forward is an adverb.

This usage, however, is not common in regular conversation, except in very few circumstances.

Nevertheless, it is definitely acceptable to say: I'm looking forward to it! to indicate that one is eagerly awaiting an event.

I look forward to seeing you means

I await eagerly to see you .

I am looking forward

means

I am looking at the area in front of me .

Look forward to something or look forward to doing something means "to excited and pleased about something that is going to happen" I'm really looking forward to our vacation.

But "I Look forward"

can meaning with trivial differences according to the context.

For example it can mean I'm looking to the area in front of my eyes.

Assuming you mean "I look forward to ..." and "I'm looking forward to ..."

, they are essentially the same thing.

However, there is a slight difference.

the -ing on "looking" is a present participle.

So if we consider "look forward to" to mean "anxiously await", then we can rewrite the phrase as: "I anxiously await your visit", vs "I am Anxiously awaiting your visit".

So in this case, "look" and "await" are the verb, and "forward" and "anxiously" are the adverbs.

So it's sort of a active/passive thing.

"I am" versus "I".

You would not say "I looking forward to" or "I am look forward to".

It is effectively the same thing as "I look" vs "I am looking".

for example "I look good" and "I am looking good".

My take: 'I look forward to hearing from you' means you expect something to happen. '

I am looking forward to hearing from you' means you are now excited about a future event.

Both cases can be used when you expect a reply from a person you email.

Still, the connotation is different.

Another example: '

I see an accident happening'

means you expect an accident to happen. '

I am seeing an accident happening' means you now see an accident happening.

Source: http://theicingonyourenglish.com/i-look-forward-to-vs-im-looking-forward-to/

Question: I just don't get the reasoning behind which one is correct in which situation.  Typically I use the wrong one, or I use them when I'm not supposed to.

What's the difference between "I look forward to" and "I'm looking forward to"?

If used in the sense of anticipating something, both phrases are equally valid. That said, it's possible that "I am looking forward" could be considered less formal and that you would not say "I look forward to visitng you next week" to a friend on the phone. However, some people would dispute that formality is relevant.

Both forms mean anticipate or await eagerly and both forms are acceptable.It is a phrasal verb. Some suggest "I look forward" to as formal, whereas "looking forward to" is informal. Some disagree as to this interpretation. "Looking forward to" is something in thepresent tense, doing something right now.

Both are equally valid ways of expressing your anticipation. The main difference is that the present simple is more formal and generally used in a letter, while the continuous is more informal and often used in conversation.

"I look forward to" and "I'm looking forward to" are both equally valid in the sense of anticipating something or expecting a reply.

Both sentences are equally valid, in particular when writing an e-mail. However, it would be unusual to say "I look forward to" in an informal context.

Eager anticipation of an event
Formalit v informality
Present tense form

It would be unusual to use the form "I look forward to" in an informal context.

It would be fine to use either form when writing an e-mail.


Wiktionary marks : /ˈdeɪtə/

as UK, US /ˈdætə/

as US /ˈdɑːtə/

as Australia, UK formal Merriam-Webster lists all three pronunciations, and provides a sound file for /ˈdeɪtə/.

There's no such thing as "correct" pronunciation.

Now, to answer your question, here's what LPD3 says on this (Wells 2008):

Preference polls BrE: ˈdeɪtə 92% ˈdɑːtə 6% ˈdætə 2% AmE: ˈdeɪțə 64% ˈdæțə 35% ˈdɑːțə 1% NB:

ț stands for the (voiced) alveolar tap (flap) here.

Wells uses a slightly different symbol, not the usual IPA one .

A historical perspective:

The eleventh edition of Everyman's Pronouncing Dictionary by Daniel Jones (the 1960 reprint) gives ˈdeitə as the primary variant for British English, whereas dɑːtə is given in brackets, which means, in Jones' notation, the less frequent form that is still in current use.

That depends on which country you live in and what your definition of "correct" is.

The US and Australia, for example, predominantly use "dayta" but New Zealanders say "dahta".

In short, either is correct but different countries' cultures have different norms.

In American English, either is acceptable.

"Dah-tuh" is more common than "day-tuh" in my personal experience, though it's hard to say which is more prominent overall.

(Regional speech differences can inflect the decision about pronunciation as well.)

I vaguely remember being told that day-ta was the correct pronunciation, and that was because there was a vowel (the second 'a')

following the consonant (the 't').

Now whether or not that actually applies, someone please comment because I'd love to know if I was given a load of hogwash there.

Personal experience, I find that I hear and use day-ta more than dah-ta.

It is similar to the different ways that 'SQL' is pronounced among us techies - some spell it out, and some pronounce it as "sequel".

Thinking about it, I find that when it is the word "data" all by itself, I use day-ta, but when it is part of another word ("database", for example)

I tend to use dah-ta instead.

Again, not sure if this is something that I just happened to have picked up over the years or if it is even correct.

Anyone else notice the different pronunciation in situations like this?

The NOAD reports the pronunciation as /ˈdædə/ /ˈdeɪdə/

, using the American English IPA; using the British English IPA, the pronunciation is /ˈdeɪtə/.

The difference between /ˈdeɪdə/

and /ˈdeɪtə/ is the same difference between /ˈɪdəli/

and /ˈɪtəli/

(the pronunciation for Italy ).

In the City of London: ˈdeɪtə.

Am I the only person who thinks that the first vowel in "dah-ta" would be pronounced the same as the first syllable in "follow" rather than the first syllable in "batter"?

I don't know how to write that out phonetically, but "dah-ta", to me, would be pronounced "dahh-tahh".

This question reminds me of the film Gravity .

Watch the first five minutes here .

On 1:55 you can hear "Houston" (Ed Harris) saying "day-ta" ; on 4:47 Dr. Stone (Sandra Bullock) says "Dah-ta" , only to be answered "we are not receiving any 'day-ta' ".

Now, Ed Harris was born in New Jersey and Sandra Bullock is from Virginia, but raised in Nuremberg.

It seems that the correct pronunciation of "data" is a matter of geography and not so much of grammar.

Well, I know this is not the most comprehensive study, but I wanted to share an interesting case of 'day-ta' vs. 'dah-ta'.

Question: I hear "dayta" more often, but what's the correct pronunciation?

Data pronunciation: "dayta" or "dahta"?

It is debatable that there is such as a thing as "correct pronunciation" and the correct pronunciation will probably be determined by geography. In the US and Australia, "dayta" is very common, but "dahta" is more common in New Zealand and the City of London. Both pronunciations are acceptable and the answer will ultimately depend on which country you live in.

There is no correct pronunciation. Geography will determine correct pronunciation; different in US, Australia compared to New Zealand. So both pronunciations "deɪtə" (day-ta) and dɑːtə (dah-ta) are acceptable. Sometimes it depends on personal preferences regardless of regional use.

/ˈdeɪtə/ is more common in British English, while /ˈdædə/or /ˈdætə/ (dahta) are significant alternative variants in American English.

Both are correct. The correct pronunciation of "data" is a matter of geography and not so much of grammar. The US and Australia, for example, predominantly use "dayta" but New Zealanders say "dahta"

The answer to this question will depend on where you are in the world, with "day-ta" being preferred in the UK and "dah-ta" being preferred in New Zealand, for example.


The sort of vocabulary that you would expect the simple folk of the Dark Ages to be using are mostly still of Germanic origin; they are the building blocks of the language, the basics of verb and noun forms, and words for basic abstract concepts.

In later years, the Catholic Church's supremacy meant that the language of inquiry, knowledge, and spirituality was Latin.

For many centuries, scientists would publish all their work in Latin.

It is no surprise that Latin has filled the gaps in English and provided adjectives such as lunar where English had none.

This is compounded by the imposition of Norman French in the Middle Ages.

Since the language of government changed from English, many of our words for government and justice derive from Latin via Norman French.

Our words for meats also come from Norman French, e.g. beef, veal, venison, mutton in place of English cow, calf, deer, sheep .

Later still, British scholars would turn to Latin and Greek to coin new words to describe new technologies and modern concepts, as we still do today.

There's an interesting discussion of the influence of Latin on English on wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_influence_in_English

Let's not forget that Latin was the language of science and philosophy and nearly all higher learning for hundreds of years.

For example, Copernicus wrote his seminal treatise about the heliocentric theory, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium , in Latin.

It's not surprising that many of the technical names for natural phenomena and educated words in general would be derived from Latin.

We see remnants of this today in medicine: the parts of the body are named from the Latin.

Your orthopedist will tell you you've torn your medial collateral ligament in your knee.

The English language is a hotchpotch of many languages, a melting pot from most European language roots, with a good deal of other elements thrown in for added spice.

As a result, we often have a vast array of words to choose from for any given topic of conversation.

The more elemental and eternal the concept, the longer we will have talked about it and thus the further back through our history words will have been borrowed in order to discuss the concepts.

Generally, you will find that the simple forms of words are likely to hark back to older influences; basic words are often from Old English, or Saxon influence.

Whilst more technical terms may not have been so common in the vernacular speech, so may retain scientific form, coming from Latin or Greek.

The essential rule to remember is that English etymology is a many splendored thing; variety is the spice of life, after all.

Some [simplistic] reasons: The Latin-based adjective is more elegant for contextual reasons, e.g. sideways vs. lateral

It is impossible to form an adjective otherwise, e.g. sun :: solar

And better a word than a phrase, e.g. lunar vs. of the moon

The non-Latin adjective may mean something else entirely, e.g. handy vs. manual

To emphasize Robusto's point (3).

Sir Issac Newton published his Philosophie Naturalis Principia Mathematica not in English but in Latin in 1687.

This was the last major work written in Latin published in England.

However,the level of Latin at Cambridge and Oxford was and remained quite high.

Perhaps no more than that of Gottingen or Tubingen in Germany.

But "OxBridge" exerted more influence on the Kingdom of England than Gottingen/Tubingen et al exerted on the many German States.

To the English writer back then (and even till the present)

Latin roots seem more fitting for abstract words.

All of these answers are Useful and True.

I want only to supplement them with two observations:

There's a strong 'native' tendency in English to use the bare noun attributively rather than to derive a frank adjective: from your examples, moon beam , side dish ,

hand axe Where we do have adjectives built with ordinary suffixes, they have often evolved specific senses which do not sort comfortably with a simple "of or pertaining to X":

again from your list, moony , sideways , handy

So there's a lot more what-you-might-call "lexical space" to put Latinate adjectives into, and often a specific lexical need for them.

Question: As a non-native English speaker, I always wondered why, for example, you say  moon , but then you say  lunar  (same goes for  side  and  lateral ,  hand  and  manual  and so forth): in some cases, the noun is not the base of the adjective, which derives from the Latin root instead.  What is the reason for this phenomenon?

Adjectives with Latin etymology when noun has non-Latin etymology

The reason for this phenomenon is probably that the sort of vocabulary that you would expect the simple folk of the Dark Ages to use was mostly still Germanic in origin. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church's later supremacy meant that the language of inquiry and knowledge was Latin. In fact, for centuries, scientists published all their work in Latin. Therefore, Latin will have filled the gaps in English to provide adjectives where English had none.

A lot of English vocabulary is of Germanic origin, later supplanted by Latin through Church  influence. Latin was language of scientific texts and fills the gaps in English, as well as English being influenced by Norman French. However, British scholars later returned to Latin and Greek for new concepts and technologies. So English is a hotchpotch of many languages and simple words may come from older sources. There is also a tendency to preference Latinate words also for its greater elegance "lateral" instead of "side"

The English language is a mixture of many different languages, and a major influence was the Germanic language of ordinary people in the Middle Ages contrasted with the French and Latin of the church and state. Latin was also used as the language of science and education, so those looking to coin new words would use Latin words or roots. For this reason, technical terms are still often derived from Latin rather than Germanic roots.

Latin was the language of science and philosophy and nearly all higher learning for hundreds of years. However, it should be considered that the English language is a hotchpotch of many languages, a melting pot from most European language roots along with many other elements. Depending on the context, a Latin-based adjective may more elegant for contextual reasons, e.g.  sideways  vs.  lateral; and a non-Latin adjective may mean something else entirely, e.g.  handy  vs.  manual.

Latin adjectives may be used in the way that they are primarily because Latin was the language of science and philosophy for hundreds of years and is often more elegant and easier to use in certain situations. Furthermore, the adjective relating to an English noun may already have a different meaning to the one that the writer wishes to express, in which case, the Latin term is more appropriate. As it happens, English is a mixture of a number of European languages.

Lot of vocab is of Germanic origin, later supplanted by Latin through Church  influence. Latin was language of scientific texts and fills the gaps in English, as well as English being influenced by Norman French. British scholars later returned to Latin and Greek for new concepts and technologies.

Science and philosophy was written and published in Latin for hundreds of years.

English has many influences from a range of European languages.

Latin language is often more elegant and easier to use in some situations.

The derived adjective from an English noun might already serve another purpose.