I’m new here, and am wondering what all you experts think about the use of the word “leverage” as a verb. It seems it’s being used more often recently. Personally I feel that “leverage” is a noun, as defined by Merriam-Webster’s as “the action of a lever or the mechanical advantage gained by it”. However it seems that mainly financial and managerial types seem to like using is as a verb - “Hey, let’s leverage the unfortunate circumstances of these people that can’t pay their bonds, and get their homes for free”. What does it mean? Although MW does give it as a verb as well, it’s interesting that investopedia.com gives it as “1 The use of various financial instruments or borrowed capital, such as margin, to increase the potential return of an investment.”, i.e. it lists the verb first. Other sources give different meanings, suggesting that the meaning of “leverage” as a verb is not very clear. I wonder what these people do when their roof leakages, or the engines of their cars failure? Just for interest, over the years I’ve bookmarked the following in my web browser (under info / language / English): Are You Stupid Enough to Use Leverage As a Verb? Leverage is NOT a Verb! (please excuse the language there where not appropriate :) Oh yes, and a quote from Seth Godin’s blog (although I’m not sure who he is quoting): “leveraging” , - comment: i asked everyone on my team not to use those words. the frequency of use of words like “leverage” is inversely proportionate to the amount of original thought. the more you say “leverage”, the less you’ve probably thought about what you’re saying. (Seth is an American marketer, motivational speaker and author)
The New York Yankees The Utah Jazz The Orlando Magic
Recently saw this headline in Time:- “Katy Perry Admits She’s Nervous to Perform at the Super Bowl”. To me “nervous to perform” sounds a bit strange. My feeling is that “nervous of performing” sounds better.
I had always believed that saying “thanks for that” without a following noun or phrase was intended as something of a put down. I’m not referring to its use in the form “Thanks for that information” or “Thanks for that wine you sent”, but to the situation(s) where someone had said something inane or pointless, or had told an uninteresting story or a somewhat obscure joke. One would then say “Thanks for that” followed by the person’s name. eg: Tim: “This one time, I broke a pen and then fixed it again.” Me: “Thanks for that, Tim.” But now the phrase seems to be in general use with no irony attached. Instead of just saying “Thank you” some people are now saying “Thanks for that” with no further qualification.
I read recently that there are those who feel that the word “rack” in the phrases “rack one’s brain” and “rack and ruin” should perhaps be spelled “wrack”, while others maintain that either spelling is acceptable.
I replied to a letter from a solicitor and in return got a letter beginning “Thank you for reverting to us so promptly”. I have never seen “revert” used in this way. Is it a legal usage (in any sense)?
Not content with using “roading” as a noun meaning “the provision and building of roads” the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has now introduced another example of why suits should not be allowed to write signs. A stretch of motorway on the north side of Auckland is being widened and there is a forest of signs proclaiming “3 laning project in progress”! GRRRR GNASH GNASH!! :)
In this question, I deliberately misspelled “mispelling.” Is (sp!) an appropriate abbreviation to stand for “deliberately misspelled?” Many people use (sp?) for (I don’t know how to spell that word) Julie Andrews sang Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious (sp?) with great gusto. (sic) or [sic] is not appropriate here. I understand that [sic] is used to indicate that the word was spelled that way in document that is being quoted or cited. The new commander consumed [sic] control of the military base. (illustration modified from an actual case of using the wrong word) So, it seems to me that we can use (sp!) for (I am deliberately mispelling (sp!) this word QUESTION: Is there a better abbreviation, or a well-known abbreviation for this usage?
I am a cab driver and pick up people from all over the country/world and take them where they want to go. Boring disclaimer aside; I hope to understand a word used by a southern man that unsurprisingly follows a strong Christian background through his adult life. As mysterious as the story may be if time were allotted to tell it, or was applicable in this forum, he constantly referred to me as “hand.” Not sure if this coincides with his Christian background, i.e. “The hand of God”, or it is a long lost southern slang with a more ambiguous meaning.
One hears this phrase more and more from sports commentators. A typical example would be a commentator at a sports event referring to an injured player or perhaps some celebrity as “watching on from the grandstand”. Makes one wonder if, and why, “looking on” has suddenly become passé; or is it just an affectation started by someone trying to be different for the sake of being different and which has then been adopted by those who are inclined to participate in fads? Shall on-lookers now be known as on-watchers? Somehow it just doesn’t sound right.
When an why did “exactly the same” become “the exact same” and more recently “the same exact”?
There exists a claim that the word “man” originally only referred to people of unimplied sex. To restate, “man” always refereed to both male and female people. The claims I found were made by sources known by some to be categorically highly unreliable, so I turn to you. There are claims that “wer” or “were” was used at least for adult males. The most reliable sources I’ve found to support that are http://www.etymonline.com/... http://www.collinsdictionary.com/... What evidence can you provide of the use of “were” or “wer” in english and the use of “man” and whether “man” changed over time with respect to gender or whether there was always ambiguity?
Why does the Western media have so many different spellings for some Arabic terms? eg: 1. hezbollah hesbollah hizbullah hizbollah hisbollah 2. ayatollah ayatullah
Which of the following are okay to you? a) While roses are red, violets are blue. b) Whilst roses are red, violets are blue. c) While some roses are red, many are not. d) Whilst some roses are red, some are not. e) Roses are red, whereas violets are blue. f) Roses are red, while violets are blue. g) Roses are red, whilst violets are blue. h) Some roses are red, whilst some are not. i) Whereas most roses are indeed red, some are not. j) While I loved my first wife very much, she did in fact become fat. k) While my first wife did in fact become fat, I still loved her very much. l) Whilst I loved my first wife very much, she did in fact become fat. And thus what, to your good mind, is the rule? And what a pain English is!
Nowadays one routinely reads such sentences as... “The situation transformed into something quite different.” “That translates as ‘Beware Greeks bearing gifts.’” It’s a curious phenomenon that the passive is so often ditched. What’s going on?
I have recently received a number of emails where the phrase “Thank you for reaching out to ___” is used instead of what I would expect to be the normal expression “Thank you for contacting ___”. These emails are from companies in the USA. Is “reaching out” now the in vogue expression for the simple act of contacting someone?
Now, I’ve been rolling this question over for few weeks now. I personally believe whom in the cases, but on we go. After writing most of this, I think  should be who now. The infinitive phrase/clause normally takes the objective case as its “subject”. “I wanted to meet him.” Thus, the corresponding interrogative: “Whom did he want to meet?” But what happens if you take this construction and use it with a copular verb?  “Who/whom am I to judge.” (?)  “I am who/whom to be.” (?) Which may correspond to the declarative sentences (U=unacceptable; A=acceptable): [1a] “I am he to judge.” [1b] “I am him to judge” [2a] “I am he to be.” [2b] “I am him to be.” [2c] “I am to be he.” (U) [2d] “I am to be him.”(A) It is possible to expand them into relative clauses: [1a'] “I am the person who can judge them.”(A) [1b'] “I am the person whom can judge.” (U) [2a'] “I am the person (who) you should be.” (U) [2b'] “I am the person (whom) you should be.” (A) The construction has two verb constructions (one copular and the other infinitive) vying for dominance. So thoughts? These conundrums are fascinating and, due to my obsessive-compulsiveness, frustrating. </p>
I just have the impression that the old proverbs that I heard as a child aren’t heard as much today. People just don’t seem to use them much anymore. Of course this is hard to prove: maybe I am not mixing in the right circles; maybe there are newer proverbs that have replaced the older (proverbs change with each generation); maybe the media and/or gurus have picked up some and ignored others; maybe few make into print outside the tabloids and popular magazines. As far as the printed word goes, of those I have looked at some seem to peak around the 1930′s and then trail off, only to recover somewhat over the last decade or two. “Actions speak louder than words” was the commonest one I found, 3:1 against “Beggars can not be choosers”. What is your impression? Is proverb use declining or just new ones becoming popular?
I’m trying hard to figure out the differences and proper usages of these three particular words (primarily putative vs. supposed). Can putative (-ly) be used in the same spots supposed (-ly) can? What’s the nuance between them?