|
- Why . . . ? vs. Why is it that . . . ? - English Language Usage Stack . . .
Why not: I don't know why, but it seems to me Bob would sound a bit strange if he said, "Why is it that you have to get going?" Eliminating 'that' before 'Bob' would seem to be more in context with the criticism of the way Bob sounds This beside the point that "Why do you have to get going?" is more direct
- Whats the history of the English letter Y as a sometimes vowel?
Wondering when and why historically the Anglo-Saxon letter "Y" became a (part-time) vowel substitute for the letter "I", leading to "gymnasium" instead of "gimnasium" or "cyanide" instead of "cianide" etc
- Is Why to. . . . . . grammatical? - English Language Usage Stack Exchange
Why (which has no counterpart in ·ever) appears freely in the interrogative construction, as in This is why I’m leaving, but is marginally possible in the pseudo-cleft: Why I’m leaving is that because there’s no opportunity to use any initiative It does not occur elsewhere in fused relatives
- How did the letter Z come to be associated with sleeping snoring?
See also Why Does ZZZ mean sleep? for another theory: The reason zzz came into being is that the comic strip artists just couldn’t represent sleeping with much As the sounds made while sleeping are quite difficult to represent with letters, the artists chose zzz, because it best represents the sound
- etymology - Philippines vs. Filipino - English Language Usage . . .
As to why, there's this answer: English never had a suitable equivalent for Filipino – a “Philippine,” “Philippian” or “Philippinian” probably just didn’t sound right, so English adopted the Spanish word Filipino, retaining the letter F and the suffix, “ino "
- Contextual difference between That is why vs Which is why?
You never know, which is why but You never know That is why And goes on to explain: There is a subtle but important difference between the use of that and which in a sentence, and it has to do primarily with relevance Grammarians often use the terms "restrictive" and "non-restrictive" when it comes to relative clauses
- Usage and etymology of a pair of . . .
So why was "a pair" still being used over 1000 years later Even Old English was not in use until the mid 5th century Maybe it was a carry over from the language's forerunners, but it has lasted nearly 2000 years beyond the change in the garment's construction and through all the changes in English
- Is there a good rule of thumb for plurals of words ending in o?
@Al: "Combo" has its own entry in my dictionary along with a rule for pluralizing it It being slang for "combination" is likely why it gets -s instead of -es which, presumably, would be part of the answer to this question But "combo" is a word and it is pluralized and it does end in "o"
|
|
|