While those might mean the same for the laymen, from a medical point of view, there is a difference between illness and sickness.

Medical sociology has long made the distinction between illness and sickness.

Illness is the objective diagnosis that an external impartial observer is able to make based on the constellation of symptoms which the patient presents.

Sickness is the social role that the patient adopts as the patient and other concerned stakeholders, in relationship with the patient, interpret the meaning of the illness.

From what I get of it, someone might see themselves as sick (with the social/role aspect of it) but not actually be ill (in a medical sense).

Also, this paper might provide some useful reading.

From a British perspective, I'm ill is more common and general term for when you're unwell.

Being sick can refer to actually throwing up or vomiting, but it can also be used for being generally unwell.

The formal range of meanings for each word is more or less the same, but they carry different connotations and usage.

It may vary from region to region, but in the USA, it is fairly common to use ill for longer or more serious issues, like cancer, and sick for more immediate things, like the nausea involved in cancer treatment.

Additionally, sick is used in some idiomatic expressions where ill would not fit native sensibility.

“I am sick and tired of X,” is used to mean that somebody's patience is worn out.

No native speaker would ever say ill and tired in this case.

Likewise, if someone were to drink too much and vomit, one would say, “He got sick.”

To get sick is so strongly connected with vomiting that you can even say, “He got sick on his shoes,” or “She got sick last night,” for instance and there will be no ambiguity among native speakers in the USA.

Likewise, to fall ill is never worded to fall sick .

To us, that would be just odd.

Either word might be used to describe someone’s mental illness, such as “He is sick in the head,” or “He is mentally ill,” though the phrase “mental illness” sounds right to us, and you will probably not often hear an American, at least, use the exact phrase “mental sickness.”

Illness refers to a medical condition.

Sickness refers to the way one feels.

Illness often makes one feel sick, so the terms are often used interchangeably in colloquial speech.

But, one can be ill without being (feeling) sick.

Likewise, one might feel sick after, say, seeing blood, without being ill.

A related Australianism.

Having a day off work - for the stated reason of being too ill to attend - is known as chucking a sickie .

You would never call it 'chucking an illie'.

To the question: the biggest difference is for definitions involving nausea in which case sick is used exclusively.

Hence sicking up .

Additionally, the colloquial meanings (ie not strictly related to being unwell) tend to use sick .

For example, sick and tired (see Ryan's ans.); fully sick (meaning really good ); sick to death (worse than sick and tired); you make me sick (you are disgusting, obnoxious or offensive to my sensibilities).

In Indian context both can be used interchangeably.

But there is a subtle difference between the two.

Sick could be used if someone is annoyed by one's act or behavior.

He'd be rather sick than feeling illness by the deeds of that person.

Likewise if someone has done something wrong to me, then I'd be feeling sick.

Whereas ill means that a person has been acquired by the disease.

So it might be possible that, the person might be feeling sick(feeling frustration due to suffering).

So this is the difference between the two.

But I've seen that generally people conversing in colloquial language uses the both the terms interchangeably.

A native speaker would interpret them as having the same meaning.

You could say "I'm ill," or you could say "I'm sick".

"I'm ill" could be classed as more formal language.

Being ill refers to both long-term and short-term diseases or ailments.

It's more formal.

Being sick refers to short-term or temporary ailments, such as vomiting etc.

Besides, 'sick' is an attributive adjective , i.e., you can use 'sick' before a noun; but you cannot use 'ill' before a noun in the sense of ailment .

"The boy felt sick and went home after the third period.

"I've been ill with the flu for the past few days.

"The mother took care of her sick child.

ILL has some other meanings :

(1) evil/wicked : Ill men conspire against him.

(2) morally reprehensible : It's ill to keep a lady waiting.

(3) harsh/cruel : I dislike his ill manners.

SICK has the following meanings : (1) in bad taste : That is a sick joke.

(2) tired of / annoyed with :

I am sick of that song.

(3) in poor condition : My job prospects are pretty sick.

Question: I can say  I'm ill  or  I'm sick . But what is the difference between the usage of these terms?  I've heard that one can use  sick  for longer-term and  ill  for shorter-term, but is that really correct? How are these terms different for native speakers?

Is there any difference between being ill and sick?

It is fairly common to use  ill  for longer or more serious issues, like cancer, and  sick  for more immediate things, such as nausea.  Illness is the objective diagnosis that an external impartial observer is able to make based on the constellation of symptoms which the patient presents. Being  sick  can refer to actually throwing up or vomiting, but it can also be used for being generally unwell.

There is a distinction medically. Sickness often means being generally unwell and illness is an objective diagnosis.

There is a distinction medically. Illness is an objective diagnosis.

Sickness is a state of being, often refers to being generally unwell.


The sentence 'Time flies like an arrow', with or without context, is very unambiguous to the native speaker.

Time' is the subject, it metaphorically 'flies' as fast and without stopping 'like an arrow.

But the phrase is often accompanied, either before or after, by Fruit flies like a banana.

which is word-for-word parallel, but not exactly by part of speech.

The parallelism is both strange and funny on its own (it makes banana seem to fly, as a fruit, in the manner of the arrow), but also reflects on the pair 'time flies' (which are presumably a strange kind of fly).

Time flies like an arrow Time (Subject) flies (verb) like an arrow (prepositional phrase modifying 'flies')

Fruit flies like a banana Fruit flies (subject) like (verb) a banana (object).

But with respect to the other sentence one could say Fruit (subject) flies (verb) like a banana (prepositional phrase).

It is this sentence that is the most ambiguous.

not the 'time flies' sentence.

The latter parsing is not at all expected and so would not be understood naturally by a native speaker.

Time flies like an arrow. is an old idiom that means time passes quickly, subjectively.

Hurry up with your life because it will end before you notice.

Now the pun and the problem: Time flies like an arrow.

Fruit flies like a banana.

No, there are no insects named "time flies".

But there are very common insects called Fruit flies.

The tiny insects appear almost magically on any less-than-fresh fruit, and definitely speed up the process of rotting.

Bananas, which go bad exceptionally quickly are one of their favorite foods.

(One interesting note:

They are also a favorite target of study of genetics, with a 4-day life cycle and a set of very distinct features.)

The confusion in language processing comes because software might not catch the dual meaning of like in the full sentence ( Time flies like an arrow.

Fruit flies like a banana. ).

I am not a native speaker, but I assume most people would understand it unambiguously: something abstract, such as time, or a non-rational entity, like a fruit, can not "like" something.

There are many possible - some rather contrived - interpretations of the full sentence, but most speakers would not have difficulties understanding it.

Is it really so ambiguous?

There are many possible interpretations of the sentence Time flies like an arrow.

Here are some of the more obvious ones:

Time passes quickly, as an arrow flies quickly through the air

You should time the speed of flies in the same manner as you would time the speed of an arrow You should time the speed of flies in the same manner as an arrow would time the speed of flies.

You should quickly time the speed of flies, as an arrow flies quickly through the air

How would it be understood by a native speaker?

Time flies like an arrow would be understood by native speakers to mean "time passes quickly, as an arrow flying through the air goes quickly".

This particular meaning is due (in my opinion) to these reasons: "Time flies" is a common idiom meaning "time passes quickly".

Similes are a common part of speech, so "like an arrow" is a reasonable way to understand the second part of the sentence, especially given that arrows do indeed "fly" through the air.

Further, to say that something "flew like an arrow" is not an uncommon way of saying that something flew straight and true towards a target.

At the heart of English grammar is the relationship of subject + verb (or SV).

I suspect that native English speakers are primed to recognise and process that relationship until something else occurs which forces another understanding.

In 'Time flies like an arrow', 'Time' can easily be S and 'flies' can easily be

V. In 'Fruit flies like a banana', 'Fruit' starts off being S and 'flies' V, but then things go awry, forcing a re-evaluation: '

Fruit' becomes a noun modifier, 'Fruit flies' a subject NP and 'like' the verb.

Now, 'Fruit flies' is just as much a subject as 'Time' is, but it takes (very, very slightly) more processing time to recognise it as such, so native speakers first prefer 'Fruit' as the subject, and not 'Fruit flies'.

Question: “Time flies like an arrow” is often cited to illustrate problems with computer aided language processing. It is also an example of how ambiguous English can be.  But is it really so ambiguous? How would it be understood by a native speaker?

How would a native speaker understand "Time flies like an arrow"?

Time flies like an arrow  would be understood by native speakers to mean that time passes quickly, as an arrow flying through the air goes quickly.  "Time flies" is a common idiom meaning "time passes quickly".

Time flies like an arrow and you should time the speed of flies, like arrows in the air.

Flies are fast like arrows when you time them.


As with most things in English, no, there isn't a general rule.

Some words in -er have feminine counterparts in -ress . 1

And most words that end with -man can be feminized by changing it to -woman .

But for any given word, the only way to tell whether such a feminized version exists is to look it up in the dictionary.

In other words, you can't really go about creating feminine equivalents of random occupational words; you can merely use feminine equivalents, if they exist.

Note also that there is a tendency towards using one word for all genders.

Sometimes, this involves using a genderless equivalent: police officer instead of policeman/policewoman , or flight attendant instead of stewardess , for example.

Other times, it involves using the traditionally-male word for all genders: for example, actor for both male and female, instead of actor for male and actress for female. 1

Some -er occupations (used to) become -ster, e.g. baxter = female baker, and brewster = female brewer (of ale).

These terms went obsolete so long ago that most people these days don't even know that baker once had a feminine version.

Words with distinctly feminine forms are usually old.

Words that signify an occupation that formerly was exclusively male, or didn't exist in earlier times, seldom have feminine forms, and indeed, the use of feminine forms (even if they do exist) is dying out.

However, if a word does end in -ess, it almost certainly refers to a female occupation.

Some words ending in -ess, being generally associated with females, have no (or very rarely used) male counterparts, for example "seamstress".

I can't speak for other English speaking nations, but in 21st century America just making an effort to draw a distinction between genders is all too often considered offensive.

That having been said, I find a certain charm to gender specific terms.

Guess I'm just 'old fashioned'.

Unfortunately English, especially Americanized English, has a tendency to outright steal words from other languages so spelling in English isn't as easy as some more orderly languages.

Even so, here are a couple of pointers:

If it ends in "-tor" then drop the -tor in favor of a "-trix" So "aviator" becomes "aviatrix" and "administrator" becomes "administratrix" If the word ends in "-ter"then drop the -ter in favor of "-tress" So "hunter" becomes "huntress" and "enchanter" becomes "enchantress"

And if all else fails you can try just hanging a "-ess" off the end of the word:

So "lion" becomes "lioness" and "author" becomes "authoress"

But these are not rules you can count on because "protector" can become "protectress" and don't even bother looking for "actrix" in your spell check dictionary!

There are a few other suffixes that indicate female gender but the rules of spelling get even more obscure.

Such as "farmer" becomes "farmerette" and "wolf" becomes "she-wolf".

What can I say- besides "Good Luck!"

It isn't that important, and some words can't be feminised, such as the ones mentioned in the question.

People would normally attempt to use, if possible, a genderless word so as not to cause possible offence,

I read classical literature as a hobby.

Here's my understanding of the suffix ess.

Prince is to princess.

Duke is to duchess.

Master is to mistress.

Emperor is to empress.

Baron is to baroness.

Count is to countess.

These are titles of British aristocracy.

I, personally, would assume the suffix ess fits well with titles given to a person of nobility.

There are some exceptions that I've read.

Lioness is the female lion.

It probably comes down to what is pleasing to the listener.

The word actor is a gender neutral word that defines an occupation.

I, personally, wouldn't feminize any words that are gender neutral.

Make any sense?

Hope this helps.

Question: Is there a general rule how to create feminine words?   For example feminine from  waiter  is  waitress , from  actor  –  actress , etc.  So, generally the ending  -ess  means the feminine form. But I’ve never heard feminine forms for writer, programmer, designer etc. Is there a rule by which a native speaker would create feminine forms? Or is creating feminine forms simply not so important for native speakers?

Is there a general rule how to create feminine words?

If it ends in "-tor" then drop the -tor in favor of a "-trix"   So "aviator" becomes "aviatrix" and "administrator" becomes "administratrix"  If the word ends in "-ter" then drop the -ter in favor of "-tress"  So "hunter" becomes "huntress" and "enchanter" becomes "enchantress". However, some words can't be feminised, such as the ones mentioned in the question, and as there is no general rule, a dictionary is a good reference.

Words with feminine forms tend to be old and there is no general rule. Suffixes can give an indication, but you should consult a dictionary.

You should check the dictionary, but suffixes can provide an indication.

There is no general rule, words with feminine forms tend to be old.


From here , they have no difference in meaning; but nope is more informal, only used in a sense of opposite to yes (or yup ).

Also, nope is not used often in writing.

You wouldn't say "there were nope errors", for example.

The first and most important point to note it that it's very informal (

more so than using contractions such as my it's there, for example).

The main reason for using it at all stems from that "extreme informality".

It normally conveys a relaxed attitude on the part of the speaker.

Depending on context, it can be more or less emphatic than "No".

You only use nope to mean

[my answer is] "No" – it never replaces no in any other contexts.

And you wouldn't normally use it where you want to be very emphatic (shouting "No!"

at the top of your voice).

Which example illustrates a defining characteristic – "Nope" isn't often followed by an exclamation mark!

Finally, I'd echo John Lawler's words: "nope" occurs only as a one-word answer to Y/N questions .

That's to say, a written form such as: "

Nope

I don't want to" doesn't look right.

We expect a full stop (or at the very least a comma) after "Nope" because in real-world speech there always would be a pause there.

But that doesn't happen with: "

No I don't want to!" because it's perfectly possible to speak those words without pausing appreciably after "No" (without necessarily placing extra stress on "don't" , either; I just italicised it as one possible enunciation).

"Nope" is informal.

You wouldn't usually want to use it, for example, answering questions for a job interview, but it would be an appropriate answer to a friend's question "

Have you seen that movie yet?"

In my opinion Nope is a dismissive and slightly rude version of no.

Nope should never be used in a professional context e.g. it should never be used as an option for web site or search engine users to select as a response to a question, because it makes the company using it look un-professional and rude to their customers.

The use of the word nope by Google and others makes me cringe so much that I will never click on it in response to a question.

Nope is used informally, normally during chat where you want to give a quick, fluid answer to a question without halting it like 'No' would.

They both mean the same thing, and 'Nope' is very rarely written.

I agree with the person who says that nope is dismissive and slightly rude and I would add that a text nope feels rude to the recipient.

It feels like a "final" no.

I think the context has a lot to do with how the word Nope is perceived: Somebody asks you for something.

- Will you do something for me?

- Nope.

<< Rude Somebody asks for information.

- Is your name Sam?

- Nope.

<< Playful / informal Maybe the word Nope implies a casual, relaxed attitude, which in some cases may come off as dismissive.

Nope is an informal variant of one of the meanings No which is: 3 : not so —used to express negation, dissent, denial, or refusal (

e.g. no, I'm not going) Webster-Merriam

That is why, we can only use it for Yes/No questions .

I think there's another nuance in meaning beyond the informal vs formal.

For instance: You don't think I'm pretty.

If someone responds "no" it is because he is disagreeing with the statement - he actually does think the speaker is pretty.

If someone responds "nope" it is because he agrees with the implication - he really does not think the speaker is pretty.

It's a subtle difference, but one to note.

'Nope' is a variant of 'no' (exclamation).

First known use: 1888 ( M-W )

Phonologically, pronunciation can explain where the P came from.

Suppose someone asked you a question

and you said 'No'.

You'd usually pause after saying 'No' (exclamation) with your lips already positioned to articulate a P,

that's why most people articulate a P.

That's called excrescent P .

(Sometimes producing a little puff of air is for emphasising 'no' while leaving it unreleased indicates lazy and sloppy speech.)

I think there is a subtle difference between emphatic and dismissive or terminal.

And I think that nope is often used in the latter two ways.

Think of how the lips must close together and this gives nope its terminal feeling in a physical way.

Pursed lips.

Can't pry them open.

Not going to change.

Question: What is the difference caused by using “nope” instead of ”no”?  Is it used because “nope” sounds better and not straight like “no”? In some situations, it feels like  nope  is better to use than  no  even though it adds 2 more characters. What is the reason why many use it?

What is the difference between “nope” and “no”?

They both mean the same thing, and 'Nope' is very rarely written. "Nope" is informal and may be considered dismissive and final. It should not be used in a formal context.

Nope is informal, dismissive and slightly rude. It is very rarely written.

Nope is informal and very rarely written.


There's nothing in the language that requires you to characterize with a noun.

You can frame your discourse much less awkwardly with constructions like: My friend Sidney?

she'll be there, too ...

I have a friend, Sidney, her command of English

is amazing ...

There's this girl, Sidney, friend of mine from school ...

You know my friend Sidney, Ed's little sister ...

My friend Sidney's pregnant ... Talk about the person, not the role, and Great Mother English will take care of you.

My female friend is a perfectly acceptable and understandable way of putting it.

A slightly more awkward phrasing that I have also heard is

My friend, who is a girl... .

In written English, you could use girl friend rather than girlfriend .

According to Wiktionary, the former means a female friend, whereas the latter means a female partner.

If you are a male, the phrase "female friend" works.

If you are a female, the phrase "girlfriend" is actually acceptable, though somewhat uncommon depending on region.

But English speakers tend to be unspecific unless the conversation requires you to specify your friend's gender.

Probably the easiest and simplest way is to just call her your friend and refer to her with a female pronoun.

For example, "My friend Sidney is helping me move.

She'll be here in an hour.

" "Female friend" or "girl friend" is grammatically correct, but it calls a lot more attention to gender, which can be awkward.

(If you talk about your male friends as "friends" and your female friends as "female friends," it implies that they're somehow a different kind of friend because they're female.)

You might say "my friend <her name>", if her name is unambiguously female.

That avoids the problem without being specific about her gender.

It's not unusual in this situation to dispel ambiguity by further specifying the origin or current context of your friendship.

This can be done with a simple compound of the context and the word friend (alternatively, 'partner' or possibly 'buddy' -

although this is more commonly applied to men).

Examples: family-friend school-friend drinking-buddy bridge-partner

If you wish to make gender obvious, then it's best to use a pronoun to do this.

My platonic lady friend.

This states that you are just friends.

Platonic says your just friends and avoids lady/female friend being interpreted improperly.

As suggested by J.R. as well, you can say: She's a platonic friend.

Here gender is shown by the pronoun she.

If it's just some girl you know, try: A friend of mine, her name is Hildegart.... or:

Hildegart, a friend of mine... if it's your girl, use: My girlfriend Hildegart is giving the ...

ell.stackexchange.com/users/2109/ost as a guest

A friend who is a girl may be either "a girl friend" or "a girlfriend" .

Girlfriend - sex = girl friend.

Girl friend :-

It means there is an empty space for someone more special.

Girlfriend :

- It means there is no space for someone else to be more important.

The same explanation occurs with 'boy friend' and 'boyfriend' .

Question: When I'm talking about my friend, who is a girl, but not a girlfriend, what word or phrase should I use? If the gender was unimportant, it would not be a problem. But if I want to note that the friend is female, not male, how should I say that, to avoid ambiguity?

How should I refer to a friend who is a girl but not a girlfriend?

If a distinction has to be made, you could say "female friend", " or simply "friend" followed by her name or a female pronoun. "My platonic lady friend" has also been suggested. Girl friend could also be used, but may be ambiguous in spoken English.

You can refer to them as your female friend and use female pronouns, or use 'girl friend', 'female friend' or 'lady friend'.

You can use 'girl friend', 'female friend' or 'lady friend'.

You can refer to them as your friend and use female pronouns.


Both are correct , though there are some specific usages as pointed in another answer; Google Ngrams suggests that indices is slightly more used than indexes .

For American English

we have (in both charts, indices is blue and indexes is red):

For British English

we have:

OED states : Forms : Pl. indexes (also 16 index's ) and indices /ˈɪndɪsiːz/ .

Etymology : < Latin inde , indic-em , plural indicēs , the forefinger, an informer, sign, inscription.

In current use the plural is indices in senses 8, 9, and usually in other senses except 5, in which indexes is usual.

And the respective senses are: (5):

index in the end of the book etc. ; (8): mathematical index, and (9): 9.

In various sciences, a number or formula expressing some property, form, ratio, etc.

of the thing in question.

Both indexes and indices are correct .

A question like this can be settled by checking a good dictionary.

I checked my answer by going to OneLook.com , a great starting point for many online English dictionaries.

Unfortunately, the problem goes far beyond this particular noun to pretty much all nouns of direct Latin descent.

As people study Latin less and less, the use of Latin plural forms is slowly eroding.

In general, the more a word has found its way into common usage, the more likely that the English plural has replaced the Latin.

For example, "status" is both the singular and plural form in Latin, but "statuses" is common even though it sounds awkward.

We all speak of "an agenda", when actually "some agenda" is correct in the Latin sense; one of a group of agenda is an "agendum".

Similarly, one item of data is a datum, but we rarely say "the data are on the way."

I don't see "fora" in place of "forums" except in forums that I would never join. :)

On the other hand, we generally say "appendices", I suspect primarily because "appendixes" sounds funny.

I see both "curricula" and "curriculums".

Further, though, I never see "genuses", always "genera", and likewise for "quantums" vs. "quanta".

Both are correct, though indexes is more commonly associated with the index reference of a book, while indices tends to be used with numerical symbols and ratios.

Question: I've heard both plural forms of  index ,  indices  and  indexes . I usually use  indices  when referring to the computer science term for  database index , but I'm not sure if it is correct in that context.   Are both  indices  and  indexes  correct? If  only one of them is correct, which one?

Is "indices" or "indexes" the plural of "index"?

Both  indexes  and  indices  are  correct  although  indexes  is more commonly associated with the index reference of a book, while  indices  tends to be used with numerical symbols and ratios. OED  states:   Forms:  Pl.  indexes  (also 16  index's ) and  indices  /ˈɪndɪsiːz/ .

Indexes is used more in referencing, indices in numerical symbols and rations. Both are correct.


I thought I'd add this as well, just for those who are inferring that "Here Be Dragons" is an inference on the illiteracy of the scholars during the middle ages.

I've separated it out from the other answer because it's not a direct answer to the question.

Anyway, "Here Be Dragons" is actually just an example of Old English (it is invalid modern English)- in particular

it's just an inversion of a sentence in the Old English sentence ordering.

In particular Here Be Dragons Is an inversion of [

if] here, there Dragons are In much the same way that in Jack and the Beanstalk the sentence Be he alive or be he dead, I'll grind his bones to make my bread is an inversion of the sentence [if he is] alive or dead, I'll grind his bones to make my bread Now "If here, there dragons are" is a word ordering that is no longer valid (although the word order should be familiar to German speakers which has the same sentence structure as Old English), and that is why the sentence "Here Be Dragons" is no longer valid.

Note that the subjunctive form in English is still there, so we can construct our own sentences to show that this is still valid English so long as we shuffle the word order around:

I must insist that you be here by 9 am tomorrow for a debrief.

I agree with the recommendation that komodo dragons be here in the public part of the zoo where visitors can see them.

So anyway, long story short is that "Here Be Dragons" used to be valid English, but no longer is.

Its use idiomatically is used to insinuate "oldness" rather than "illiteracy".

I haven't been able to discover exactly where the notion arose that Ancient Mariners inscribed their maps with “Here be dragons”, “Here be demons”, “Here be treasure” and the like legends (the earliest use I've found dates to 1892, and clearly speaks of this use as an established fact).

But I feel reasonably certain that Here be was not intended to represent illiterate speech but either period or regional dialect.

Be for all persons and numbers in the present indicative is supposed to be characteristic of West Country speech, and Devon in particular has strong traditional connections with sea-faring folk: “Drake, he was a Devon man”, and the stock “pirate speech” of Hollywood is the generic dialect which theatre people call “Mummerset”.

The same conjugation is found in 19th-century “historical” novels and mock-mediaevalism: ”This is a strange shaft,” said the lad, looking at the arrow in his hand.

”Aye, by my faith!”

cried Bennet.

“Black, and black-feathered.

Here is an ill-favoured shaft, by my sooth!

for black, they say, bodes burial.

And here be words written.

Wipe the blood away.

What read ye?”

—Stevenson, The Black Arrow , 1888

“I tell thee, Brother Nicodemus, thy offences are numberless as the weeds which grow by the way-side.

Here be many who have much to say of thee :

—speak, Brother Ulick!”

—William Clarke, Three Courses and a Dessert , 1830

In "Here be dragons", "be" is an archaic subjunctive plural form.

The subjunctive mood is a flexible grammatical instrument for expressing different gradients in thought when referring to events that are not stated as fact.

I.e.

"here be dragons" means "here are supposed to be dragons (as they say)", not just "here are dragons (a true fact)".

The grammar is perfectly legitimate for 500 years ago.

Deliberate misspelling is very common in literature.

Cacography is deliberate misspelling intended to convey humorous sense or just exaggerating someone's illiteracy.

See also Sensational spelling .

It has similar effect, but using literate, but rare or dialectal spelling of a word or phrase.

In this particular case, it is ridiculing about pirates who were usually illiterate when they made maps of their treasures.

"Here be dragons" is an idiom used to denote dangerous or unexplored territories, in imitation of the medieval practice of putting dragons, sea serpents and other mythological creatures in uncharted areas of maps.

It is only ever used in its grammatically incorrect form as an idiom meaning "this is uncharted territory", or somewhere that is unexplained and to be avoided, particularly in the context of a map or a place that is out-of-bounds or unexplored.

For example, this map is taken from XKCD (a online, English-language computer-related comic strip) which references the "here be dragons" idiom in the top right: Be careful when using this idiom.

It is very informal, and can lead to offence in some circumstances.

(e.g. "Don't talk to the people on the floor below -

there be dragons down there" may cause offence to people from the first floor who overhear).

If you intend to say literally "There are dragons at this location", you would use the grammatically correct forms There are dragons here.

Or the active form:

Dragons are here.

Question: Why is the phrase  here  be  dragons  not  here  are  dragons ? Is this a special grammatical form? If so, what is it?  I found a  related ELU question on the topic .

How does the grammar work in "here be dragons"?

Some people claim that in "Here be dragons", "be" is an archaic subjunctive plural form. Others say it is   an idiom used to denote dangerous or unexplored territories, in imitation of the medieval practice of putting dragons, sea serpents and other mythological creatures in uncharted areas of maps.  Ancient Mariners are said to have inscribed their maps with “Here be dragons”, “Here be demons”, or “Here be treasure” , for example. This may have been due to regional or period dialect, which is no longer correct.

This is an archaic subjunctive plural idiom. It is suggested that this could be deliberate misspelling or a representation of dialect.

This is an idiom in archaic subjunctive plural.


Or can be used to extend questions where there are other options not being mentioned that the respondent can fill in.

Generally speaking, it cannot turn a declarative statement into a question.

Examples of where it would be properly used are: Do you want to go to the movies, or ...?

[the mall] Would tuna for lunch be ok, or ...?

[no, I'll have salmon instead]

It is important to note that typically, or would only be used followed by a trailing ellipses.

More common are yes and no , which can be used to turn declarative statements into questions, such as: She found $20 at the beach, no?

["didn't she" is another acceptable alternative to "no" here]

He had lunch yesterday at McDonald's, yes?

Either way, whether you use yes or or or no , such usage is generally accepted in speech and in informal writing, but not in formal writing.

A very common equivalent in English is right .

For example: Aber das ist wahr, oder?

Is directly equivalent in English to:

But that’s correct, right?

This doesn't doesn't sound right to me, a native speaker, and a native speaker wouldn't do this.

A question can end in or , however that is used as a prompt to the answerer, asking if there could be another solution.

Other than that, this wouldn't be used this way.

In speech, especially if the or trails off expectantly, this would be a fairly natural usage.

It would imply that the questioner is open to some other answer as an alternative to the one implied in the question or context.

t would never be used in formal writing.

It's possible, but the more natural expression would be ... or something?...

or what?

as in Do you want to see a movie or something?

Is this correct, or what?

waiwai's answer is very good and detailed, but I have something else

I'd like to add.

Judging from the question and some other comments, I'm thinking that the closest English construction to the original German is "or not".

So she found the shell on the beach, or not?

As you said, the "or" in german is use to change a declarative into a question.

So she found the shell on the beach" is a perfectly acceptable declarative sentence; in English the "or not" is appended to the end to change it into a question.

To use your original example, "

But that's correct, or not?

" would be a perfectly acceptable English construction.

It seems to me that the only difference is that in German the "not" is implied, whereas in English it has to be stated outright.

So that answers your question, or not?

As others have suggested, "right" can also be used in these situations, as can "yes" or "no" (

depending on whether the statement was positive or negative).

But this seems to be the closest construction to what you mentioned in the question.

Question: I hear it all the time from my colleagues:  But that's correct, or?  However, my colleagues are all German, and in German, one can turn a statement into a question by adding  oder  (which means  or ). Does this sound natural to a native speakers ears?

Would a native speaker append "or" to a statement to turn it into a question?

A very common equivalent in English is "right", as in "But that’s correct, right?" .  An example of where it would be properly used is: "Do you want to go to the movies, or ...?", although the more natural expression would be  "... or something?". In this context, "or"  is being used to imply a question where there are other options that the respondent can fill in.

Or' cannot make a declarative into a question, it can extend questions to unmentioned options. 'Right' is more fitting for this purpose.

Right' makes more sense than 'or' for this purpose.


Language is always changing, and most often in the direction of simplification.

You can even see the evolution happening before your own eyes.

"All ready" became "already" ; "all right" is in the process, through usage and repetition, of becoming "alright" (if not in fact "a'ight").

It is already accepted as an informal alternative to "all right" and I predict that it will supplant the two-word version altogether (!) except in the most formal writing (e.g., academic papers) within the lifetimes of many of us.

I would say that yes, there are contexts where only "all right" is acceptable.

As an example: Are any of the answers wrong?

No, they are all right i.e., all of them are correct.

I have found that alright seems to be following the example of all ready vs. already and all together vs. altogether.

In both cases, as I did above, one could add the phrase "of them are" to each of the former terms and make it completely clear what is meant, whereas each of the latter terms have entirely different meanings.

Alright has come to mean acceptable, okay, and safe, as in "the kids are alright" - very much a comforting phrase if there has been some kind of accident or the like! "

The kids are all right" in that same context would have an extremely confusing connotation: the kids would not all be correct after an accident.

I would also like to point out that the way a word or phrase achieves acceptance and legitimacy is by usage, and "alright" certainly has this on its side!

It seems that historically, all right was the only accepted version.

Alright is more recent, and can either be seen as a shortened form of all right , or can have a slightly different meaning.

Something that is all right is in order, and we are at peace with it.

Something that is alright can be seen as simply satisfactory.

I checked four dictionaries and they all agreed that "alright" is an informal equivalent of "all right."

However, informal doesn't mean wrong; it merely means informal.

Thus, "alright" is perfectly acceptable in informal contexts.

Alright is technically incorrect, but common, and therefore, proper grammar.

It is used informally, as well as in situations where space isn't abundant, for instance, on signs and Twitter tweets.

It is also used in quotes within many stories due to its commonness of use.

On top of answers of others — there are contexts where only "all right" is accepted, and I don't mean formal/informal.

— Are there any left-threaded bolts in the bin? — No, they are all right.

Question: Is there any difference between " alright " and " all right "?  I can find both forms in different articles (especially on the Internet), although  all right  seems to be more common.  I was wondering if both forms are acceptable or whether it is some sort of difference between American and British English or just a common mistake?

Difference between "alright" and "all right"?

It seems that historically,  all right  was the only accepted version. Alright  is more recent, and can either be seen as a shortened form of  all right , or can have a slightly different meaning.   For example, something that is  all right  is in order, and we are at peace with it. Something that is  alright  can be seen as simply satisfactory or OK. Alright  is technically incorrect, but common, and therefore, proper grammar.  Four dictionaries all agree that "alright" is an informal equivalent of "all right."

All right can mean everything is is in order, whilst alright is simply satisfactory/safe. Alright is a more recent development and can mean the same as all right. All right can also be meant in the sense of right/left.


What you are talking about is called " Conversion " in linguistics (turning one form of a word into another) and more specifically "Verbification" in the case you are asking about (changing non-verbs into verbs).

So specifically answering your question —

Yes, you can Skype someone, but you won't likely hear "chat someone" in correct usage.

Even "Skype someone" is somewhat new and would likely only be considered acceptable usage in informal circles.

That is simply by convention simply because one came into common usage, while the other… hasn't.

Honestly, there are no rules that determine when a noun can become a verb.

It is simply a matter of when it becomes common enough usage to become acceptable.

You can "phone, fax, or text me

" but you can't "cell, smartphone, or iPhone me" —

Strange right?

Wait, it gets crazier — You can "bus someone" across town, but you wouldn't "plane someone" across the country.

You can "gun someone down" but you would not "pistol someone down.

" You can "hammer a nail" but you wouldn't "screwdriver a screw.

" You can "milk a cow" but you can't "egg a chicken.

Fortunately, you can search the web to determine if something has become common usage , but be sure to use canonical or at least well-vetted sources (newspapers, books, articles, etc), not chat, street talk, or forums… which are more prone to slang and unconventional language use.

No, you cannot say I have chat someone.

You could say I chatted with someone.

Using the term I've skyped someone is informal and I would only use it when communicating with friends, if even then.

One wonder of the English language is that any word can be verbed.

You can say: I [have] chatted [someone].

It's very colloquial, but will be understood.

More correct would be:

I chatted with [someone].

They have slightly different connotations.

I have chatted Bob.

This suggests that you sent a chat request to Bob; he may or may not have responded, and a conversation ensued.

I have chatted with Bob.

This suggests that you and Bob engaged in a mutual chat conversation.

Another use of the word chat would be:

I chatted up Bob.

This would mean you spent a long time chatting to Bob, likely for the purpose of obtaining favor.

Many people peruse bars to "chat up the girls."

In my understanding, when you say "I've skyped someone" you are referring to the act of "calling someone", which then is understood as speaking with someone.

Chatting would be the act of speaking itself, so both are not comparable.

Now, that being said, "I've skyped someone" is incorrect, but understood, as "I googled this or that" is.

"I chat someone" is both incorrect and senseless.

As others have mentioned, English does have a great tendency to change words into whatever part of speech is required, including verbification.

Thus, the brand names Skype and Google easily give rise to the verbs skyping and googling , respectively.

However, this tendency has limits.

Namely, the language tends to resist changing a word into something that already exists.

Successful coinages are successful because they fill a void; if there is no void, there's no point inventing a new word for it.

Chat is already a verb, and has been one since long before computers were invented.

Therefore, there is no need to invent an awkward transitive

"I chatted him" when there is already the well-established intransitive "I chatted with him".

That said, not having a point doesn't always prevent people from inventing words anyway.

In a sense, googling is a pointless coinage, because there was already the perfectly good verb searching .

There's no rules or even predictability about this: some coinages take off, others inexplicably don't.

(And in fact you will sometimes find people using "chat" with a direct object, sometimes even with a different shade of meaning than it would have without a direct object.

It's just that these usages have an extra "that sounds wrong" obstacle to overcome.)

All you can do, especially as a learner, is to follow established practice as much as possible: if you hear multiple native speakers use a particular expression, it's probably fine to imitate them, but it's generally best if you don't go around inventing usages of your own, at least not until you're very, very comfortable with the language.

Yes, you can say.

If you say, for example, "I have chatted to a few women on the Net," it means that you exchanged messages in real time over a computer network with one or more users.

Yes that is proper, but remember you must double the t at the end.

For instance: I chatted with my friend on AIM

and he said "hi".

However you must use " with ", to be proper, as skyped isn't actually proper, but slang, but very common in informal usage.

Question: I can say I've skyped someone. But when referring to chat, such as ICQ, is it correct to say that I've chat someone, with the meaning that I've sent someone a message on chat?

If I can skype someone, can I chat someone?

Although "skyped" is common in informal usage, you would not say "I chat someone" You would say "I chatted with someone".

I chat someone is incorrect, you can say I chat with. I've skyped someone is informal.

Skyping someone can be understood as calling them and is informal.


As mentioned, darn or dang are the closest approximations of damn , and crap also works, but other common alternatives include: shoot geez man!

what the heck!

(or hell , but that's closer to cursing)

What you're looking for is a minced oath version of "damn it".

You have many options.

If you want to stay as close as possible to "damn it", just without the objectionable "damn" in there, you can use almost any single-syllable word that starts with D.

The most common are: • dang

it •

darn

it • dern

it If you just want an interjection you can use when things go awry, the possibilities multiply.

• shoot (instead of shit ) • shucks (instead of shit ; though note that "oh shucks" has a different meaning than "oh shit") • heck (instead of hell ) •

gosh (instead of god )

• what the hey (instead of " what the hell ")

oh my lord (instead of " oh my god

fricking (instead of fucking )

oh fudge (instead of " oh fuck

There are also some expressions that aren't really a minced variant of anything more explicit, but are used in the same sorts of situations.

The one that comes to mind is " oh dear ", but the stereotypical southern grandma could probably list a lot more.

One could borrow expressions from fictional characters: "Oh, bother", from Winnie-the-Pooh "Rats", from Peanuts Spoken forcefully, they can express extreme exasperation, yet be fit for the ears of children.

"Drat" also works, though it is probably dated.

"Dang it" is the exact same meaning, except less intense.

As stated above you can say crap, but some might find that inappropriate (small children).

Furthurmore darn it is also useable.

Or for a similar meaning, you could also say "Oh, No!".

Darn it is the less intense version of damn it

.There's also crap , which is the less intense version of the s word.

'Bugger' is used a lot in this corner of the world (Australia/NZ).

It is probably about the same 'politeness level' as damn it (and was even the running gag word in a nationally shown Toyota commercial ) -

though I expect this would be less so if people looked up the definition.

As the link shows, it is definitely used in the type of situations you describe.

Question: I am looking for a short phrase that I can say when something bad happens. For example, when my mouse breaks or my computer is hanging.  I know the expression  damn it  but I need something more polite.

What can I say politely when something bad happens?

"Dang it" has the same meaning as "Damn it", but less intense. You could borrow expressions from fictional characters:   "Oh, bother", from  Winnie-the-Pooh, or   "Rats", from  Peanuts. You could also say "Oh, No!".  Other more polite substitutions include "What the hey", "shoot", "shucks", "heck", and "gosh".

Dang it and darn it are viable alternatives. There are numerous alternatives, though some are inappropriate for children. You can also use expressions from fictional characters.

You can use expressions from fictional characters.


The only difference between in spite of and despite is the ‘of’.

You don't use "Despite of the reason ".

You use "Despite the reason " Despite the pain in his leg he completed the marathon.

It seems to me "in spite of" is a slightly more elaborate form, to be used in more fancy, most formal writing. "

Despite" is not informal but not quite that elaborate.

edit: as mcalex mentions, "Despite of" (and even "In despite of") is not incorrect, it's just an almost dead archaic form .

"despite" and "in spite of" are synonyms.

As per this reference from Lawless English : "Despite" means "even though," "notwithstanding," or "regardless of.

" It's the opposite of "because of/due to," and can be used with a noun or gerund.

She had difficulty communicating in French despite all her years of study.

We lost the game, despite the fact that we practiced all week.

Despite not having an umbrella, I walked home in the rain.

In spite of" means exactly the same thing and is used exactly the same way as "despite."

She had difficulty communicating in French in spite of all her years of study.

We lost the game, in spite of the fact that we practiced all week.

In spite of not having an umbrella, I walked home in the rain.

So, they can safely be used interchangeably.

You may notice that in all the above examples, "despite" has not been used with "of" but it can definitely be used in certain contexts such as this: A large number of ladies, both from this City and abroad, who had come out, despite of the driving rain-storm, were in attendance, and occupied seats in the galleries.

And again here, it is absolutely interchangeable with "in spite of".

To me, while they, in many cases, can be used interchangeably, the choice of wording can imply a subtle shift in meaning.

In spite of has the connotation of doing something with a bit of rebellion or desire to irritate as a motivation.

spite : Ill will or hatred toward another, accompanied with the disposition to irritate, annoy, or thwart; a desire to vex or injure; petty malice; grudge; rancor.

So I would use in spite of in a case like: "

I went downtown to the party in spite of my parents' warning that it wasn't safe.

In other words, use in spite of when your attitude is: Warning be damned, I'm doing it anyway.

I thumb my nose at your so-called warning.

Despite doesn't seem to have that same desire to irritate or be contrary behind it, and can be used when an action is taken that may fly in the face of information which would argue against it.

So I would use despite in a case where I wanted to emphasize the decision rather than the motivation behind it.

If I said instead, "I went downtown despite my parents' warning that it wasn't safe.

" I would be saying that I considered my parents' advice but concluded that either the risk was worth it, or that the risk was overstated or that the three friends I was going with were big enough to protect me, etc.

This has been covered in an EL&U question , which pertains more specifically to the sytax of the two, rather than the difference.

Basically, they mean the same (both options have been suggested as being the more 'formal'), and general usage says you should only use 'in spite of', or 'despite' (but not 'despite of').

However, the 'despite of' usage is not illegal, though it is fairly rare, and as they suggest in the EL&U answer, something that you only bring up when you get caught out doing it accidentally.

I do agree that the two; 'despite' and 'in spite of', are "interchangeable'.

However, the "subtle distinction" mentioned earlier, in itself, makes it a matter of fact that they are not the same because not even the word 'interchangeable" means "the same". '

in spite of', suggests a connotation to a degree of contempt or rebellion.

Where as, 'Despite' is usually more of a neutral contradiction within a circumstance.

Examples of proper usage: "I'm going to marry him in spite of his extensive criminal record.

" "Due to his extensive criminal record, we will not employ him despite his impressive resume.

"or simply: "I will not marry her despite the children we have together."

"I will marry him in spite of the amount of times he cheated" 'in spite of' is a preposition to be used in front of a negative instancesand 'despite' is used when contradicting a positive instance.

These ought not be confused with the infinitive verb "to spite", which is meant as a direct rebellion: "I punched him in the face to spite him."

I think the two words can be used interchangeably depending on the messege the user intend to send; the 'verb' here connotes the "power" of any fo the two.

Spite could mean rebellion in real sense but could also connote courage or boldness depending on the usage

Question: What are the difference between these two prepositions: "despite of" and "in spite of"?  And what is the general usage of this two: choose in different situation, followed by etc.

Usage "in spite of" and "despite of"

"Despite" and "in spite of", are synonyms and are interchangeable.  However, some argue that "in spite of", suggests a degree of contempt or rebellion, whereas "despite" is more neutral.

The two are subtly different. 'In spite of' is more elaborate and implies rebellion whilst 'despite' is more neutral and circumstancial.

The two can be used interchangeably and are subtly different.

In spite of' is more elaborate and implies rebellion.

Despite' is more neutral and circumstancial.


Yes, "snows" can be used just like this in English.

A classic of English literature is Hemingway's story "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" .

'Snow' is what is called a 'mass noun'.

Like 'water' or 'traffic', it already describes a collection of things (a mass) and so there isn't likely a number of such items, just some of it.

The snow that fell overnight was deep' is correct. '

The snows that fell overnight were deep' is incorrect (or poetic)

You can however talk about multiple instances of water, 'the glasses of water' which can be said grammatically as 'the waters in those glasses' but that is a strange transformation, almost poetic, and surely to be avoided in speech and most writing.

The same goes for 'snow'. '

The snows that fell in each of the towns were deep.' works and occurs, but is a somewhat strange way to say it.

One would more likely reword it to avoid the strange plural.

The snow that fell in each of the towns was deep.' or to emphasize that a snowfall occurred in a number of towns, and though the depth was different in each one, the amounts were all deep.

The different amounts of snow in the towns were all deep.'

sounds much better.

So the answer is yes, 'snows' can be used as a plural noun but it is not common and is not natural sounding.

So if you are translating from a language with plural snow, you should reword to avoid the plural.

For a comparison here is the google nGram comparing 'the snow' and 'the snows' :

Yes, snows may be used as a noun.

However, when it is, it is not simply the plural of snow .

Snow is itself a "mass noun", meaning a singular form that refers to a large collection of small things.

The plural refers to episodes or events involving snow.

In other words, snows refers to several instances of "snow falls".

The heavy snows on the north side of the mountain frequently cause avalanches.

A similar case is a word like sand , where the singular noun for actually refers to a large collection of grains of sand, but you could refer to "the barren sands of Africa" and people will understand various different deserts full of sand rather than just one.

Yes, it is an English word.

It is occasionally used in the way that Mark Beadles described.

However it is usually used in sentences such as, " It usually snows between November and March. "

See Google Ngram Viewer: snows, it snows, the snows, of snows :

Most translations of François Villon’s poem, “Ballade des dames du temps jadis”, use snows in the refrain, where “Mais où sont les neiges d’antan” becomes “But where are the snows of yesteryear?”

"Snows" would be plural, and therefore a noun, when referring to INSTANCES of "snowing."

Such "instances" may take place on separate days, "the SNOWS of Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday," or in different places, the SNOWS of New York City, Boston, and Philadelphia."

Question: In Italian,  nevi  (the plural of  neve , "snow") is used in some expressions, such as  l'uomo delle nevi  (a.k.a. Yeti), and  le nevi dei Pirenei . (The last expression is referring to the Pyrenees, but I could use it when referring to any mountain belt.)  Is  snows  ever used as noun (even if in set phrases), or is it never used as noun?

Is "snows" ever used as noun?

"Snow" is itself a mass noun, meaning a singular form that refers to a large collection of small things. So yes, "snows" can be used as a plural noun. Snows  refers to several instances of "snow falls".

Snows' can refer to multiple instances of snow. 'Snow' itself is a mass noun and the plural is generally avoided.

Snow is a mass noun, you would usually reword to avoid the plural.


Robert Graves and Alan Hodge, in

The Reader Over Your Shoulder , offer this “scale of approximate counting”: one or two, two or three, a few, several, a dozen or so, a score or so, a dozen or two, a score or two, a few dozen, dozens, a hundred or so, a few score, scores, a hundred or two, a few hundred, hundreds, a thousand or so, etc.

So I’d think, abstractly, that a few might be three or four to six or seven.

Fewer than several .

But as Anderson Silva says, context is everything.

Here, xkcd explains words for small sets.

Source

IMHO, there is no rule, it really depends on the context and what you are talking about.

For example: A few people in a studium watching a show, there could be dozens, even hundreds of them, while a few things in a backpack could be just 3 or 4.

Another example: Quite a few students from our high school go on to college.

Would you say it is less than 10?

IE, if it's not many , then it's a few .

Hope it helps.

The way I always understood it was: For small amounts (e.g. less than 12) Where ONE was the number, then 'one' was the description.

Where TWO was the number, then 'a couple' (or even a 'brace') was the description.

Where THREE was the number, then 'a few' was the description.

When using this terminology, however, inexactitude was implied - therefore it could include FOUR or FIVE, but THREE would be the expected number.

I should note that where I am from (Ireland), the term 'a good few' would imply more again (even up to NINE or TEN) and indicate satisfaction with the number also.

This can be compared to the more generally used 'only a few', or 'few', which could indicate dis-satisfaction.

For larger amounts (e.g. stadia attendance) the rule of three could be adapted to fractions -

when only a third of the seats are filled, one could safely say the game was attended by 'few'.

Obviously context is vital here, as you are still talking about several hundred - even thousand - people.

You are not so much referring to how many were there, as demonstrating verbally how many were not . '

Few' in this instance is a negative term.

Another example of contextual usage would be in boxing or sparring, where someone would recieve or give 'a few' punches.

No actual number is implied here - in fact, only a very general impression is implied - but suggests how well or poorly a fighter did over the entirety of the match.

Therefore, to answer your question, the actual numerical range indicated is only done so when dealing with already small amounts, and would generally be accepted to contain at least three, but allow for four or five.

When using this term, inexactitude is a given and is indeed the primary implication when dealing with large numbers.

It's relative to the context.

That context can be finite or infinite.

It is intuitively more than 1 (a border-line certainty)It

is fewer or less than some or several, and definitely not many.

I would say,In a finite context, it is intuitively less than a tenth of a whole.

in an infinite context, it is less than a tenth of what ever upper limit expressed.

There is no exact quantification for the phrase "a few", since in general you are talking about a group, an amount of something

may it be big or small, the closest I think is, 50% of the average can cover "a few".

But then again this is not mathematically proven..

Question: When we use  a few , how many items are usually indicated? My intuition tells me it's something between 3 and 9, but what is the most common range for  a few ?

How many items are actually "a few items"?

It would generally be accepted to contain at least three, and a few may be three or four to six or seven.  There is no rule,  and it really depends on the context and what you are talking about.

It depends on context, though the range may be between three and seven.

The range may be between three and seven.


It's a sort of question, but not directed specifically at A; B is rhetorically playing out a question to himself.

Shall I go shopping?"

It might also invite input from A: "I was considering going shopping ... unless you have a better suggestion?"

It looks as if Person B is saying that he might go shopping, but that he is not certain.

It is common in very informal communication to append a question mark to indicate uncertainty.

In speech, this would usually be inflected as a question.

It's an open door, not a real question.

Person B is answering person A's question by a ‘suggestion’.

If person A has something to answer to that (“I can't stand shopping, why wouldn't we go …”, which is often what he has in the back of his mind when he asks for B's plans), then the question mark is welcoming him to express it.

If person A has nothing to answer, then it's not a question for him, just a sign that person B is unsure about these plans.

At least, that's the way I use that, and I do that very often.

B is putting forward a possibility in front of A which he himself is not sure of and sort of expects A to give him an answer which may or may not be a definite one.

Question mark in such a scenario would also indicate that B has a certain faith in A's judgement and that he expects that his answer will not be a futile one.

I interpret this as B's question to himself, not to A, meaning "maybe I should consider going shopping?"

And it's probably not even a real question,

although the vocal pattern is the same as for a question; when written, a question mark at the end is the only way to indicate that intonation.

It could mean B is not sure he would go shopping.

If the question were "What should we do today?"

or "What are we going to do today?

" I would take "Go shopping?" as a suggestion for going shopping.

I use a question mark all the time, to me it means all of the above comments and to emphasize the point I'm trying to make and/or

hopefully the other person will give it more thought.

Question: Imagine the following written conversation, as recently occurred via SMS between me and a friend (edited for brevity):   A:  What are you going to do today?  B:   I don't know.  Go shopping?   What is the meaning of the question mark in the reply?  Is person B asking a question of person A?  If so, why would person B expect person A to know the answer in this case? If not, why use the question mark?

Does the question mark mean this is a question?

This is an open door, or a suggestion, not a real question.  It might also invite input in the conversation: "I was considering going shopping ... unless you have a better suggestion?". It might also be that the person is wondering if they might go shopping, but this is not certain.


Wealthy and Rich are both synonymous in terms of money.

Both mean "having a great deal of money and assets".

So you can interchangebly use them to convey Bill Gates

is rich .

However, you can see rich has various usages other than abundance of money.

They can be found in the Oxford Dictionary hyperlink I have attached.

There's also implications of social class in "Wealthy" that aren't as common with "Rich".

In other words: If you say that Bill Gates is rich, you are saying he has lots of money.

If you say that Bill Gates is wealthy, you are saying that he is rich, & that he grew up with lots of money.

A thesaurus at YourDictionary.com explains the difference as: rich is the general word for one who has more money, possessions, or income-producing property than is necessary to satisfy normal needs; wealthy adds to this connotation of grand living, influence in the community, a tradition of richness, etc.

William Safire, in a 1990 column , puts it as, "a rich family has to wait until its money ages before it becomes a wealthy family."

In terms of money, rich is used to describe someone who has a certain amount of money/liquid capital (it's relative, however much money makes you 'rich' in my eyes, might not necessarily make you 'rich' in the eyes of Bill Gates).

Wealthy is also used in this way, however it is commonly used to describe someone who is beyond rich with just money alone (liquid cash, businesses, investments, etc) so to give an example, your favorite musician might be rich, but Bill Gates or Donald Trump would be considered wealthy.

There is a big difference.

When I was younger

I thought they were the same, until Magic Johnson gave a interview.

He stated that there is a big difference between the two.

Even though I do not remember what he said word-for-word, I will always remember the gist of what he said.

To paraphrase: Wealthy is being able to provide for your family generations after your death (sustained money) and being rich is short-lived.

I am 33 years old

I have never forgotten that.

Me, personally, I want to be wealthy.

Please GOD I have been praying and LORD

I beg you make me wealthy, no matter what.

Amen

There are some good answers here, but I'd like to point out yet another aspect.

Wealthy may suggest a person who has enough money for their needs.

At the same time, rich may connote someone who is demonstrating their money (sometimes, in an exaggerate way).

In this regard, I would say, Bill Gates, who's spending a lot of his earnings to charity, is wealthy , while the person from an image below is rich .

It is also worth noting that "wealthy" is a much politer way of saying that someone has a lot of money than "rich" is.

Often, this is a topic that should be talked about with some caution.

So for example: He is rich!

There is a slight air of disgust/jealousy perhaps; I am showing my opinion towards the fact that this person has a lot of money and it is slightly negative.

He is wealthy.

I am simply commenting on the fact that this person has a lot of money, without showing my opinion.

There is a difference between Switzerland without natural resources and Congo plenty of these resources (coper, titan..)

The first one is wealthy and the later is rich but poor

Question: Is there any difference between someone being  wealthy  and someone being  rich ?  For instance, is Bill Gates  rich  or  wealthy ? Or maybe he is both. I don't get the subtle difference if any.

Wealthy and Rich, what's the difference

Wealthy implies being able to provide for your family generations after your death (sustained money) and being rich is short-lived.   "Wealthy" seems more polite and also has implications of social class that aren't as common with "Rich".  Wealthy  and  Rich  are both synonymous in terms of money. However, rich  may describe who flashes  their money, sometimes, in an exaggerated way.

Wealthy has class implications and is more polite. Rich suggests that someone is demonstrating their money.

They can be synonymous in terms of money, rich suggests demonstrating that you have money.


Doubtful may be used in several ways : Something that is causing doubt; A person who is unsure or expresses doubt; So, you can use doubtful in both contexts.

If you wish to be most precise, finding a synonym is easy: His experiments are questionable ( ambiguous , problematic ); His experiments are not convincing ; I'm skeptical about his experiments;

I would say "I am doubtful of his experiments." which has the opposite meaning of "I am confident in his experiments."

It seems ok to me.

But I'd use I'm doubtful about his experiments.

And you could also use other words like questionable or unreliable :

His experiments are questionable / unreliable .

You might want to consider the word dubious for expressing your sentiments: His experiments are dubious .

According to Macmillan , the word means: dubious ( adj. )

not sure about the truth or quality of something:

I'm dubious about his ability to do the job. and Collins : dubious ( adj. ) marked by or causing doubt ⇒ a dubious reply of doubtful quality;

untrustworthy ⇒ a dubious reputation

Indeed, the word is sometimes used to describe experiments:

In a dubious experiment, Leary had given psilocybin to hardened inmates in a state prison 1

An incomplete or less than certain theory becomes a "model"; a dubious experiment becomes a "simulation", and so on.

Remember, "A dubious experiment can only beget a dubious result." (Glaucon) F O O T N O T E S 1 W.J. Rorabaugh, Kennedy and the Promise of the Sixties , 2002. 2 L. Magnani & N.J. Nersessian, Model-Based Reasoning: Science, Technology, Values , 2002.

Technically speaking, you could probably justify referring to doubtful experiments

where you mean you have doubts about any conclusions drawn from those experiments (for whatever reason).

But it doesn't sound very natural to me, and I think it's probably not a good idea.

Ordinarily, people are "doubtful" when they are "full of doubts".

By extension, we often say some specific statement of fact is "doubtful", meaning we doubt (don't believe) that it's true.

You might stretch that a little further and say that someone's argument is "doubtful", to mean the line of reasoning is flawed - but most people would simply assume you meant you doubted the conclusion was true, so it's not a very meaningful distinction.

When it comes to experiments , that distinction between the investigative process and the final conclusion suddenly becomes much more important.

I haven't looked into the matter too closely, but I note that on this Wikipedia page it says "Contemporary knowledge concerning the manner in which the human body reacts to freezing is based almost exclusively on ...

Nazi experiments" .

What those Nazi "doctors" did is an extreme instance of what people normally mean when they refer to doubtful or dubious experiments .

It's not that we question the truth of whatever the dubious experiment demonstrates - it's the morality of performing the experiment at all that we have "doubts" about.

I would advise OP to say he thinks the scientist's experiment is flawed, inconclusive, questionable, poorly designed, inadequately documented , or whatever other specific shortcoming he finds.

An experiment itself isn't something that can be true or untrue, but it can certainly be [of] doubtful [ morality ] , and that's what I think many if not most people would understand if you described it using the word.

Are you doubtful of his experiments, or just about results?

To be doubtful of the experiments suggests that you think his methods, or perhaps his presuppositions are faulty.

If you are doubtful only of the results, or the significance of the results, that's quite a separate matter.

For this reason, I would avoid saying "I am doubtful of his experiments" because it is ambiguous, and leaves the reader/listener wondering what you really doubt.

Be more explicit.

I am doubtful of his conclusions.

I am doubtful of the methods used in his experiments.

Question: I would like to express the fact that I don't have confidence in what a scientist has told me concerning an experiment he has led. Can I say that "his experiments are doubtful"?

Can I say that "his experiments are doubtful"?

To be doubtful of the experiments suggests that you think his methods, or perhaps his presuppositions are incorrect.  This means that the experiments are questionable, dubious or unreliable. Finding a synonym is easy. For example:   His experiments are  questionable  (ambiguous ,  problematic);   His experiments are  not convincing ;   I'm  skeptical  about his experiments.

This may refer to doubting methods or presuppositions, but does not sound natural. Alternative options include questionable, unreliable and dubious.

You could use words like questionable, unreliable, dubious instead.


No, not at all.

In fact, the word mate is quite often used in colloquial Australian and British English.

G'day Mate (Good day Mate) Being one of the phrases quite often associated with Australia.

Mate in this context means "friend" or "buddy", and is not gender specific (used by both men and women to refer to men and women)

Some other usages, that are fairly common: A mate of mine went to Sydney last week.

Are you alright, mate ?

What time are your mates arriving?

Think of mate as related to pair .

A pair is composed of two things that belong together, each thing in the pair is a mate.

So the short answer to your question is no.

To elaborate: One of my socks has gone missing, I'm looking for its mate.

When you find the missing sock, you complete the pair; the sock you couldn't find is the mate to the sock you already had.

The two lions faced each other on the savannah, fighting over their potential mate.

In this case the two male lions are fighting over a female lion, and whoever wins will be their mate --this is as you mentioned in your question, where a mate is the second half of a sexual pair.

(This can also be applied to humans and be grammatically correct, but it will sound odd.)

Penguins mate for life.

Animals again, and obviously there's a sexual element there, but this is about the pairing of the two as well.

They're going to stay together as partners for life.

John Smith was the pirate captain's first mate.

As StoneyB commented, mate can also be used to describe officers on ships.

The first mate is the captain's right-hand man.

Good day, mate!

As others have mentioned, mate is also Austrailian slang used to refer to a friend.

So as you can see, there are many different contexts in which mate has different meanings!

In my experience, mate as used to describe another human being essentially never refers to any kind of sexual activity or sexual partner.

Mate means different things, depending on the locale and dialect, for instance: G'day

Mate 'lright, mate?

Uses the word mate to mean singular you in many dialects of English, particularly Australian English and Cockney and Northern British English.

Now look here, mate Is an intensified aggressive form of the word "you" in some dialects of British English Me and my mates are going to go out later for drinks

What time are your mates going to get here?

Is an informal meaning of "friends", in many dialects of English, but particularly as spoken in Northern England.

Mate is also an older English title, meaning "member" or "partner" (in a non-sexual context), and this holds over in many seafaring and military contexts: Capitan Silver, this is First Mate Johnny Williams.

In this context, mate and first mate are naval titles.

You'll sometimes see this as well in the "Pirate Vernacular": Ahoy there, mateys!

In this case, "mateys" is an old fashioned (and no longer grammatical) plural of mate, and is an address to the crew.

It does not imply that the crew are either friends or sexual partners of the captain.

Finally, it is important to note that mate almost always does have a sexual context whenever the discussion is specifically about non-human animals.

In this case it can be either a verb or a noun.

We're flying in Kanga to Sydney zoo to mate with Zippy

the Kangaroo who lives there.

Penguins mate for life Liara, the lioness at London Zoo is the mate of Rory the Lion As we can see, the peacock spreads its tail features to attract a mate.

Do not use the word "mate" meaning a sexual partner in the context of another human being outside of the context of academic medical research.

Doing so is very insulting, because it suggests that the partner is almost in-human, and suggests a coldness or clinicalness to the activity that your listeners would likely find uncomfortable.

In British English, you could say "See you then, mate." without implying anything sexual; it is just an informal form of address between men, or boys.

It is also informally used to mean friend , as in "I was with a mate."

In plumber's mate , mate means assistant .

I agree with Deco, with the added caveat that in Australian English mate can sometimes be used to express anger or aggression.

"Listen here mate..." or "look mate..." are often used to begin making a forceful point, or to tell someone to back off.

Furthermore, calling a stranger mate can in certain circumstances get a negative response, as some people don't like strangers being casual with them.

Only a skilled speaker should attempt to use this word on a stranger.

Like most British sayings it is derived from its Naval history.

"Ship mates"Americans say 'buddy'or 'dude'

Spanish say '

amigo' Russians say 'droog' etc.

British/Australians/New Zealanders say 'mate'.

Nobody will take offence :)

Question: Mating  is the term used for sexual activity, mostly for animals. Is there anything wrong with  mate ?  My mate  could mean my sexual partner, but I've heard that in less obvious contexts, such as someone was talking about his roommate (a man), himself being declared heterosexual. I was a bit embarrassed by this word, but I haven't asked.   So, does  mate  always imply at least a bit of sexual context?

Has the word mate always at least some sexual context?

"Mate" is not used in reference to a sexual partnet outside of the context of academic medical research. it is just an informal form of address between men, or boys, and derived from naval history.

Mate is platonic and colloquial. It has roots in naval English. It can come across as aggressive or overfamiliar depending on context.


Here's a handy single word: flee .

You may flee a place or a person or a threat.

Since you are looking also for an 'expression', I would suggest: like a bat out of hell if you go somewhere like a bat out of hell

, you go very fast

He ran out of the building like a bat out of hell .

(Ref. Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, 2nd ed.

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006.)

It always sounds a bit "slangy" to me, but a nice word for OP's context is... skedaddle - to depart quickly or hurriedly; run away . ...

another one I like (esp.

US usage, also somewhat informal, as are most apart from flee ) is... high-tail it out of here deriving from the raised tails of fleeing animals (as deer or rabbits) .

Similar terms include scarper, leg it, beat it, clear off .

In Northern English (e.g. Manchester, Liverpool), this phrase is quite common When those guys showed up, we legged it .

In US informal English there's also "skedaddle": When those guys showed up, we skedaddled outta there!

Perhaps more commonly you can always use an intensifier to impress upon the listener that you got out of there quickly:

When those guys showed up, we got the hell outta there!

You could use the verb bolt .

NOAD defines it like this:

As a side note, in recent years, this option has been a very handy word for sports headlines .

(American) slang includes bail , scram , and vamoose .

Variations on get the hell outta there include get out of Dodge and get the hell out of Dodge .

Rats leaving a sinking ship is maybe not exactly what you are looking for.

"Skip out" can be used in the said contexts as in John was arrested July 22 after he skipped out on a $300 bill earlier at a local bar and ran away.

Macmillan dictionary defines it as a phrasal verb which means to leave a place quickly, usually because you do not want to be noticed or want to avoid paying money

Question: I am looking for a word or expression to mean   running out of somewhere very fast  because of being terrified of something, or to avoid meeting someone.

Expression for "running/getting out of somewhere really fast"

Skedaddle, bolt, bail, scram, vamoose, flee, get out of dodge, scarper, leg it, beat it and clear off all convey the intended meaning. Going somewhere "like a bat out of hell" also has the same message. One may also "skip out" on a bill.

Scarper, beat it, leg it, skip out and get out of dodge/like a bat out of hell can be used. You can also use skedaddle, bolt, bail, scram, vamoose and flee.

Skedaddle, bolt, bail, scram, vamoose and flee can work.


As Wendi and Matt have indicated, break is probably the most common word to use when describing an unkept promise.

If you wanted an alternative, though, you might consider renege : Macmillan defines this verb as: to decide not to do something that you promised to do American Heritage uses the definition: to fail to carry out a promise or commitment Here are a few examples of the word being used in contemporary news stories: The stakeholders, who were in a one-day stakeholders workshop, said if the government and district assembly do not take up construction of roads in the area particularly commercial roads as a priority, they would renege in fulfilling their task obligation to the state.

It’s all about investing in jobs — and by the way, if that company decided to renege on its promises, it would have to return a portion of the state money.

They paid it with the promise that the subsidies would help them recoup that money.

Now Pence wants to renege on that deal.

It isn’t fair, and it shouldn’t happen.

It's pronounced /rɪˈnɛɡ/ or

/rɪˈnɪɡ/

in American English, with a ‘short’ vowel in the stressed syllable; in British English it appears to be pronounced with a ‘long’ vowel, /rɪˈneɪg/ or /rɪˈniːɡ/.

(Pronunciation information courtesy of StoneyB).

I believe the expression you're looking for is "broke his word / broke his promise".

In keeping with your example sentence: First he promised me something but later on he refused; he broke his word.

or First he promised me something but later on he refused; he broke his promise to me.

When you say that one has "stood by their word", you've implied that they've fulfilled a specific obligation or promise they made by virtue of their character.

However, to say that one "stands by their word" it means that, in general, they can be relied upon to fulfill promises when they're made.

Others have addressed the negation of the first case, that is that one "breaks their word" or "breaks promises".

However, if one cannot be relied upon and makes promises that they may or may not fulfill, you can say that they "waffle" or "vacillate", or that they're "wafflers".

These words are commonly used to describe politicians who make hollow promises to win the favor of supporters.

A "waffler" may or may not fulfill promises they've made.

Their making such a promise doesn't indicate any incremental degree of faith that they will follow up with action.

The most common expression in my experience is to "keep" (meaning to stand by one's word) or "break" a promise (meaning the opposite), like so: I like Dave.

Dave always keeps his promises

Joe promised to finish the document by 5pm, but he broke his promise

I never break my promises

In addition to some of the other answers, there are some idiomatic ways of saying this: If the speaker warned in advance that they would not be able to complete the deal, they are said to have withdrawn it or taken it back "

I know

I promised I'd help you move house on Sunday, but I'm going to have to take that back, sorry."

Today the government withdrew their promise to deliver a surplus.

However if there was no warning given, or if the person giving the promise had no reasonable excuse, you can say:

She promised me X, but then she went back on it

We made a deal

but then he welshed on it.

Note that the origin of this is unknown - it is not a known racial slur (against Welsh people) as "Indian giver" is against American First Nation people.

He fell through on his promise Fell through can also be applied the arrangements that have failed themselves, "the contract fell through".

Specifically with contractual or legal promises you can use default : Our buyer in the UK defaulted on our contract.

Mike defaulted on his credit card.

Question: I want a word or an expression which means  not standing by  or  sticking with one's promise , in the context of this expression:   First he promised me something but later he refused it; he should try to stand by his word.

What is the opposite of saying "Standing by one's word/promise"?

"Breaking your word" (or promise) is the most commonly used phrase. "Renege" is also used.

The most common way of expressing this is 'break'. 'Renege' and 'withdraw' are possible alternatives.

Break' is the most common way of expressing this.

Renege' and 'withdraw' are alternatives.


The difference between domestic animals and livestock , and whether any difference exists, depends on context.

In common usage, livestock refers to specific animals bred in an agricultural setting for food, extraction, or labor.

Some consider poultry to be included under livestock ; others would treat them as separate.

Among laymen in Europe and North America, livestock has a strong association with large mammals, chiefly cattle, horses, sheep, goats, hogs, and mules and donkeys.

Domestic animal , perhaps due to association with household-related terms like domestic appliance or domestic worker , now strongly implies a housepet, especially dogs and cats.

There is additionally the term domesticated animal , indicating animals which have been bred in human company for so long that they are dependent on humans for survival.

But not all domesticated animals are domestic (e.g. a dairy cow), and not all domestic animals are domesticated (e.g. a pet snake).

For official purposes, however, the two may be interchangeable: animals which are raised as agricultural or industrial assets.

According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, The terms "livestock" and "poultry" are used in a very broad sense, covering all domestic animals irrespective of their age and location or the purpose of their breeding.

Non-domestic animals are excluded from the terms unless they are kept or raised in captivity, in or outside agricultural holdings, including holdings without land.

Livestock or domestic (not necessarily domesticated) animals might include farmed fish, bees, silkworms, or alligators in different parts of the world.

Indeed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit noted in United States v. Park, 536 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008) that even dogs could qualify as livestock under U.S. law:

Ron and Mary Park own and operate a dog kennel, Wild River Kennels, on property along the Clearwater River in Idaho.

Their property is subject to a scenic easement that was granted to the United States, which prohibits commercial activity but permits livestock farming.

In this appeal, we are asked to determine the unusual question whether dogs are “livestock.”

Despite a gut inclination that the answer might be “no,” resolution of the issue is not so clear, thus precluding summary judgment at this stage of the proceeding.

As it turns out, the term “livestock” is ambiguous at best and much broader than the traditional categories of horses, cattle, sheep, and pigs.

No, not really.

Native English speakers would assume that a domestic animal means something closer to a pet, such as a dog or a cat, but that livestock refers more to animals reared on a farm, such as a cow, sheep or pigs.

Obviously there's some overlap in some circumstances, for example a pig farmer's daughter might have a baby pig as a pet, but in common parlance you should avoid mixing the two.

"Domestic animals" is a term that can have two meanings; one is very broad, the other is more narrow.

Sometimes, "domestic animals" is used as a term that roughly equates to "pets."

Other times, "domestic animals" has a broader definition, and refers to any animals that rely on humans for food and shelter, to include livestock and cattle.

Here is a definition from Dictionary.com that leans toward the first meaning: domestic animal ( n. ) any of various animals that have been tamed and made fit for a human environment Here is a statute from the United States (the state of Florida, specifically) that indicates a broader use of the word, referring specifically to horses, cows, goats, sheep, and pigs: "

Domestic animal shall include any equine or bovine animal, goat, sheep, swine, dog, cat, poultry, or other domesticated beast or bird."

A Canadian law website provides a definition that seems to refer to pets:

Domestic Animal A pet; dogs, cats or other tame animals or birds and which serve some purpose for its owner or others.

Yet Wikipedia's list seems much more inclusive.

As a technical term, "domestic animal" means the same thing as "domesticated animal".

Both terms refer to animals that have undergone domestication .

This includes livestock, but it's a broader category including non-livestock such as domestic cats.

Because it's a broader category, it's not appropriate to use the two as synonyms.

That said, the term has another meaning, as well.

People often use "domestic animal" in a more narrow sense, meaning "pets such as cats or dogs".

Why?

I have two theories, but I don't know if either is correct: If you want to refer to livestock, "livestock" is the most natural word.

If you say "domestic animal", it's natural to assume you don't intend to refer to livestock, because if you did, you'd have said "livestock" instead.

"Domestic" can mean "in or around the home".

Perhaps "domestic animal" has been reinterpreted to mean an animal that you'd have inside the home--in other words, a pet such as a cat or dog.

This narrower definition doesn't change the answer to your question, though.

"Livestock" isn't the same as the broad or the narrow definition.

The answer is still no .

Livestock is a different term.

As an aside, if you want to communicate the technical sense of "domestic animal", you can say "domesticated animal" instead.

Otherwise, I think people might assume you mean the narrower sense.

Not quite when looking from a more technical aspect, even though they might overlap in some contexts (e.g. a farm, or someone can have a pet cow/horse/whatever).

Livestock are animals raised specifically for the production of food (and other byproducts, such as manure used as a fertilizer) or for doing work (e.g. horses), while domestic animals are mostly raised for companion.

From Wikipedia : ‘Livestock’ are defined, in part, by their end purpose as the production of food, fiber and/or labor.

Question: Is it correct to use  domestic animal  instead of  livestock  (cattle)?   livestock   animals and birds that are kept on a farm, such as cows, sheep, or chickens   domestic animal   an animal that is not wild and is kept as a pet or  to produce food  Source:  Cambridge Dictionary   Could they really have the same meanings?

Can 'domestic animal' be used instead of 'livestock'?

The difference between  domestic animals  and  livestock , and whether any difference exists, depends on context. Livestock are animals raised specifically for the production of food (and other byproducts, such as manure used as a fertilizer) or for doing work (e.g. horses), while domestic animals are mostly raised for companion. A domestic animal means something closer to a pet, such as a dog or a cat, but livestock refers more to animals reared on a farm, such as a cow, sheep or pigs. Obviously there's some overlap in some circumstances, for example a pig farmer's daughter might have a baby pig as a pet, but in common parlance you should avoid mixing the two.

Livestock is ambiguous as a term. It can mean animals raised for food production. Domestic animals carries a broader meaning and can include pets.

Domestic animals are a broad category that includes pets.


The term "morning person" can be used to describe someone who is not lazy in the morning.

"Not a morning person" refers to the opposite: being lazy in the morning.

There's also the term lark and night owl , referring to people who get up early and go to bed late respectively.

Although perhaps not a direct answer to the question, I'd just like to throw in the following phrase that specifically relates to feeling sluggish with perhaps a slight lazy or melancholy connotation, specifically relating to Mondays: Don't talk to Jeff at the moment.

He's got a bad case of the Monday blues With regards to being not being alert and at your best in the mornings, as Pubby suggests

I'm not a morning person which is quite a common expression, meaning someone who isn't at their best in the Mornings - although as Barbara points out, that's not necessarily because of laziness, it might mean someone who just really doesn't enjoy mornings.

There's also a wonderful phrase to describe the opposite, i.e. someone who is always ready to go and enthusiastic in the mornings:

I love how our interns always arrive at work bright eyed and bushy

tailed meaning that the interns are always alert and enthusiastic when they arrive at work.

The term slugabed denotes “One who indulges in lying late in bed; a sluggard ”.

ell.stackexchange.com/users/146/James Waldby - jwpat7

There's also the phrase "rolling out of bed in the morning" which specifically means that it was difficult to wake up and get out of bed, but is commonly used to describe any type of morning laziness or slow start to a morning.

It's usually used in the past tense such as "I rolled out of the bed this morning" or "I was rolling out of the bed this morning", but can also be used in future tense for situations where someone knows it will be difficult to wake up or get going such as "I'm going to be rolling out of bed tomorrow morning because I need to wake up early to prepare for a presentation".

The term Sleep Inertia describes reduced abilities immediately after waking up.

However this is a somewhat technical term that may not be very widely known.

Question: As we all know, some people are lazy when they wake up in the morning.  Is there any term in English expressing  "laziness in mornings" , maybe like  "hangover without alcohol" ?

Is there any term about morning laziness?

"Not a morning person"  refers to someone who is lazy in the morning.  Lark  and  night owl , refer to people who get up early and go to bed late, respectively.  "Rolling out of bed in the morning" which specifically describes people who find it difficult to wake up and get out of bed, and the term "slugabed"  denotes  “One who indulges in lying late in bed; a  sluggard ”.

Slugabed, rolling out of bed and sleep inertia are different ways of understanding this. Also, larks and night owls/morning person and not a morning person can be used to distinguish people.

Larks and night owls/morning person and not a morning person can be used to distinguish people.