This is custom text slide 1
This is custom text slide 1
This is custom text slide 4
This is custom text slide 5
This is custom text slide 5
jR3DCarousel - jQuery 3D Responsive Carousel
jR3DCarousel - with default options
The U.S. Postal Service has a system of hiring entry level positions called
City Carrier Associates, which is a non-guarantee of 8-hour workday, but after a short period usually about 6 to 12 months, advance to a guarantee and permanent employee status in which you receive full benefits and guaranteed working hours.
So when you search for job listing, make sure you look for an entry level position called
City Carrier Associates and you start from there.
There is also an entry level position for rural mail carriers called
Rural Carrier Associates and you start from there if you live in the rural areas and want to work in the rural areas.
For an entry level position as window clerks is called
Sales, Services Associates for those of you who want to work as window clerks.
For an entry level position as mail processing clerk job is called
PSE Mail Processing Clerk Associates for those of you who want to work in plant facilities processing incoming/outgoing mail.
PSE Mail Processing Clerks (Associates) process incoming and outgoing mail in both plant and Post Office facilities using automated mail processing equipment or manual methods of sortation and distribution. [PSE stands for Postal Support Employee]
To apply for jobs at the United States Postal Service, please click
here!
Comments
Comment threat is disabled!!!
Where did the dollar get its name?
It originates from a silver coin called the Joachimsthaler minted in 1518 in the Thal (meaning valley) of St. Joachim in the ancient city of Bohemia, which today is located in northern center of the Czech Republic.
The Joachimsthaler Silver mine--one of the world's oldest silver mine dated as far back as to the 5th century, located in the city of Bohemia--is still producing high quality silver today and has a rich history of supplying high quality silvers to the Pharaohs of Egypt and the Romans of Italy.
So the silver coin, Joachimsthaler, was shortened to a variety of variations throughout Europe.
In Holland, it became daalder; in Scandinavia, it became the daler; and in England, it became the dollar. In 1792, the United States also adopted the name dollar as its currency after it gained independence from England.
Did you know this also?
Why do we abbreviate the unit of measurement pound as lb or lbs for plural?
First of all, lb is the abbreviation of the Latin word libra, meaning balance or scale. The primary meaning of libra was balance or scale (as in the astrological sign), but it also stood for the ancient Roman unit of measurement libra pondo, meaning "a pound by weight."
Secondly, we got the word "pound" in English from the pondo part of the libra pondo but our abbreviation "lb" comes from the word libra. So the word libra was derived to a variety of variations mainly for the use as a unit of money. For example, Italian Lira symbol L with two horizontal lines crossing the letter and the British Pound symbol L with one horizontal line crossing the letter. The country of Turkey also derived its currency from the word libra by calling its currency as "Liras".
Here are the Perplexing Irregular Plurals
The English language doesn't always abide by its own rules.
For examples, what is the plural for item or student or employee or object?
If you answered 'items' or 'students' or 'employees' or 'objects', you're correct. O.K., nothing weird about that!
How about this: what is the plural for total? If you answered 'totals', you're correct as well. Nothing amiss about that either.
How about this: what is the plural for child? If you answered 'children', you're correct again. Nothing puzzled about that either.
Why couldn't it be childs? What rule base or reason that plural to be children and not childs? Answer: No one knows why children and not childs.
How about this: what is the plural for man or woman? If you answered 'men' or 'women', you're correct again. Nothing weird about that either.
How about this: what is the plural for foot or tooth? If you answered 'feet' or 'teeth', you're correct.
How about this: what is the plural for mouse? If you answered 'mice', you're correct. Nothing amiss about that.
Why couldn't it be mouses? Again, no one knows why.
O.K., now we're just warming up to why the English language is jumping all over the places; how about this: what is the singular for lice? Yes, lice is plural.
You just wait until you see the answer for the first time: it'll be hiarious!--if this is the first time you see it.[I found it to be very hilarious the first I saw it].
Or, how about this: what is the plural for person? Is it persons? Very tricky, isn't it?
How about this: what is the plural for fish? Is it fishes? [Compare your answers with the correct answers at the end of the post.]
How about this: what is the plural for index? Is it indexes or indices? which is correct?
How about this: what is the plural for goose? If you answered 'geese', you're correct.
Why couldn't it be gooses?
How about this: what is the plural for moose? Is it meese? Or mooses? Ahh!..... that is very tricky! [Check your answers with the correct answers at the end of the post.]
Some of the Most Confusing Rules in the Grammar World
Here are the perplexing and confusing grammar rules that we use almost on a daily basis:
"Me" vs. "I"
This is one rule you probably heard starting back in elementary school. If you uttered, "Me and Mike went to the store," you probably heard someone admonish, "Mike and I!"
The problem with that, though, is that many people end up over-correcting.
Though "Mike and I went to the store" is right, in some sentences, it is correct to use "me"--it depends on whether the first-person pronoun is a subject or an object.
Here's an easy way to know:
Take out the other person, and see if "me" or "I" makes sense.
"Me went to the store" is incorrect, but "My mom met me at the store" is perfectly fine. So it's grammatically correct to say "My mom met me and my dad at the store," not "my dad and I" as in "My mom met my dad and I at the store."
That is incorrect!
It has to be "me and my ..." and not "my ... and I."
Just refer to yourself as the first subject first and then refer to others, such as your mom, dad, brother, sister, etc., as the second subject.
Do not refer to yourself as the second subject! It has to be the first subject!
"It's" vs. "its"
Use the wrong form of "its," "there," or "your," and you're (a contraction of "you are") sure to have the grammar police wag their (the possessive form of "they") fingers at you. But we do have to admit, when it comes to "it's" vs. "its," the confusion is easy to understand.
In virtually every other situation, an apostrophe indicates possession. Bob's car. Lisa's house. Newspaper's headline. One's belonging. But when it comes to "its," the possessive form is the form without the apostrophe.
"The rabbit crawled into its burrow" is the correct use. In the case of "it's," the apostrophe means the word is a contraction of "it is." It serves the same function as the apostrophe in "won't" or "shouldn't."
Who vs. whom
Boiled down, this rule is simple. "Who" refers to the subject of a sentence or clause, while "whom" refers to the object. But when you actually get down to using the two words in a sentence, that's when things get dicey.
You would ask, "Who went shopping with you?" since "Who" is the subject. But you could also ask, "With whom did you go shopping?" since "You" is the subject. Grammarly recommends a tip that should help you figure it out, if you're truly determined to.
Substitute the "who/whom" pronoun with "he/him" or "she/her," rearranging the sentence if necessary. "She went shopping with you" ("who"), but "You went shopping with her" ("whom"). Got it?
Wacky plurals
From "goose/geese" to "mouse/mice" to "foot/feet," English is full of plural forms that leave even native speakers scratching their heads. And for some words, the plural form of the word is exactly the same as the singular form.
Consider "deer," "sheep," and even "aircraft."
And yes, the plural form for "deer" is "deer," "sheep" is "sheep," and "aircraft" is surprisingly "aircraft." Weird?
I can understand that "deer" and "sheep" should be the same as their singular form but "aircraft"? Come on?! Why not "aircrafts"?
In the case of "aircraft," it may be because the word "craft," as in a vessel, originated as an "elliptical expression." This means that it used to be a longer phrase and the scythes of time removed some words.
The Oxford English Dictionary suggests that the old expression may have been something like "vessels of small craft." "Deer," though confusing, is pretty tame compared to these hilarious irregular plurals (outlined earlier) you won't believe are real. For example, a singular for lice is louse and a plural for fish is fish.
How to pluralize words ending in S
For the majority of words ending in S, you just add an -es to the end.
"Walrus" becomes "walruses," "bus" becomes "buses," "class" becomes "classes." Not too bad.
But there are some words that, instead of just getting an additional -es, get a different ending altogether.
For many words ending in -is, you don't add -es but change the -is to an -es, as is the case with thesis ---> theses,
parenthesis ---> parentheses, and analysis ---> analyses.
For some polysyllabic words that end in -us, you remove the -us and replace it with an I. The plural of "cactus" is "cacti," and "nucleus" becomes "nuclei." But for others, you don't, i.e., "walrus" becomes "walruses." Confusing?
"Also, you'll hear people call more than one octopus "octopi," following the -us rule, but because of "octopus"'s Greek roots, its plural is actually "octopuses"! Very confusing?
To be fair, though, this rule isn't super strict. Dictionary.com does list "cactuses" and "nucleuses" as valid secondary plural options for their respective singular words. And, finally, some words that end in S don't change at all--the plural of "species" is "species."
How to pluralize names ending in S
In fact, pluralizing names can be complicated and tricky. But when it really comes down to it, it actually isn't that complicated. The same rule applies that you use for most words ending in S:
Add -es to the end. Don't overthink it!
So "Jones" becomes "Joneses," "Lucas" becomes "Lucases," etc.
And because your name is just that, a proper name, you don't need to make the spelling alterations that would apply for regular words. For example, if your last name is Harris or Marcus, calling your family "The Harres" or "The Marci" just sounds pretty silly.
But whatever you do, don't add an apostrophe. Apostrophes don't make regular words plural, and it's no different for names. Using apostrophes to make words plural is one of the apostrophe mistakes you might make all the time. When you do use apostrophes, though, is to make words possessive. Which leads us to...
When it's possessive
What if you want to talk about the tusks on those walruses? (Or just one walrus?) Or how you have a dog-sitting gig for a pooch belonging to the Jameses?
In this case, it's actually the plurals that are simpler. Just throw an apostrophe on the end of the -es:
"The walruses' tusks." "The Jameses' dog." (Or on the end of the irregular plural: "The cacti's thorns.") You don't need to add any letters.
When it's singular, though, it can be a little puzzling. Do you add just an apostrophe or an apostrophe S?
Looking at "the walrus' tusks," it just kind of feels like you should add the extra S, especially because just an S-apostrophe is already the format that you use when you're pluralizing a word that doesn't end in S:
"The cats' bowls were empty." To solve this problem, Oxford Living Dictionaries suggests adding an apostrophe-S when, if you were saying the word out loud, you would pronounce the extra S.
And, to be fair, this is usually the case. So you would write "The walrus's tusks were huge" and "The bus's wheels went round and round." But sometimes you don't say the S; for instance, you could write "Wegmans' parking lot was full" since you probably wouldn't say "Wegmanses" out loud.
But if you're unsure, you're probably best off just adding the extra S. Just make sure you have the rules straight for when you should (and shouldn't) use an apostrophe, because those are pretty hard and fast!
British vs. American spellings
Even within the single language of English, we're not guaranteed standardized spelling. Or, rather, "standardised," as people on the other side of the pond usually spell it!
The fact that there are British and American spellings of different words is a bane of linguists and study-abroaders in English-speaking countries. For the different spellings, we can thank those pesky American revolutionaries.
In 1789, Noah Webster of Webster's Dictionary fame spearheaded the push toward "American" variations on some words. [Talk about wanting to be different!!! (Sarcasm)]
For the most part, the alterations of the words involved removing "superfluous" (or unnecessary) letters like the U in "colour", "behaviour," or removing "ue" from "catalogue" or removing the ending with "-ise" and replacing it with "-ize" as in "organize", "recorgnize", "realize", "modernize", "characterize", "finalize," and removing the final "-me" in "programme."
One particular un-superfluous or un-necessary word that Noah Webster seemed to get irritated by is the word "grey," the British English word.
Gray verses Grey
Gray is the more popular spelling in the US, while grey reigns supreme in the UK as well as Ireland, Australia, and other places that use British English.
Was there a need to be different in gray verses grey?
Appearantly there was! -- according to Noah Webster -- as to go along with his alteration of the superfluous colour verses color.
Ending sentences with prepositions
This is one rule that grammar sticklers love to argue about.
Because the word "preposition" derives from a Latin word meaning "to place before," some insist that prepositions should always go before their prepositional objects. However, while that's true in Latin grammar, dictionary.com claims that "English grammar is different from Latin grammar, and the rule does not fit English."
The sentence, "This is one rule about which grammar sticklers love to argue," just doesn't flow the way "...love to argue about" does. And yet, the debate rages on.
"Good" or "well"?
The big quandary with this one is that "good" is primarily an adjective (though it could be a noun), and "well" is an adverb.
When people say, "I'm doing good," they're using "good" as an adverb to modify the verb "doing." Technically, "I'm doing well" is the correct phrase, and "I'm doing good" actually means that you're doing good deeds like a superhero.
But, if you're not hung up on being correct, it's not worth it to stress about it--people will almost definitely know what you mean!
"Badly" or "bad"?
Less hotly debated than "good" vs. "well," but equally confusing, is its moral counterpart: bad.
Whether you "feel bad" about something as in feeling sorry or remorseful, or "feel bad" as in feeling sick or unpleasant, it should be "bad," not "badly." The confusing part about this, though, is that "badly" is also an adverb. But, simply because of the different usages of the verb "feel," the only time "I feel badly" would be completely correct is if you were using "feel" to mean physically discern something by touch. If your hand is numb because you slept on your arm weird, you might feel badly.
Apostrophes on words ending with S
Is "I went to Lucas' for dinner" or "I went to Lucas's for dinner" correct?
Grammarians are divided, but the Oxford Living Dictionaries suggest this rule:
Add an apostrophe and an S, as in the latter example, when you would actually pronounce the additional S while saying the sentence out loud. This extra S business gets even more confusing when the word ending with S is also plural.
In that case, add an "-es" to the end and throw the apostrophe at the very end: "The Joneses' car was blocking my driveway."
"Could care less"
"I couldn't care less" means exactly that. You care so little that you could not care any less. Not so confusing!
What is confusing about this one is the fact that people seem to think that "could care less" means the same thing, when it's really the exact opposite.
According to Grammar Girl, "The phrase `I couldn't care less` originated in Britain and made its way to the United States in the 1950s. The phrase 'I could care less' appeared in the U.S. about a decade later."
Harvard professor Stephen Pinker has suggested that people started saying "I could care less" sarcastically, meaning that they actually couldn't care less, and that this version of the expression-without the intentional sarcasm-stuck.
When to capitalize
You know to always capitalize proper nouns like names, but the lines get a little blurry with things like titles and locations.
When you're talking about the eastern United States, do you need to capitalize the E in "eastern"? You don't, because you're using "eastern" as an adjective. However, in the case of "the East Coast," you should capitalize the E because the word "east" is part of the noun phrase.
Yup, it's enough to smoke your head for sure! The rules are pretty nuanced when it comes to different types of words.
Abbreviations with seemingly random letters
The English language is rife with abbreviations that just don't seem to make sense.
Why does the abbreviation for "number" have an "O," for instance?
And where did wordsmiths get "lbs" from "pounds"? But in most cases, there is a linguistic explanation, usually having to do with an earlier spelling or meaning of the word.
For instance, in the case of "Mrs." and its seemingly random "R," that abbreviation used to be short for the word "mistress," as in the feminine equivalent of "master," not "missus."
Over time, the connotations of "mistress" changed, but the spelling of "Mrs." didn't. In addition to "Mrs." and its weird "R."
"E.g" vs. "i.e."
Speaking of abbreviations, what the heck are these two short for, and why are they so similar?
Well, wonder no more. "E.g." is short for the Latin expression exempli gratia, which means "for example." So "e.g." is the expression you should use before providing an example or examples: "I like all of the common Thanksgiving foods, e.g., stuffing, turkey, and cranberry sauce."
Many people use "i.e." in this context, though, while "i.e." means something completely different. "I.e." stands for id est, or "that is." Use "i.e." when you're trying to explain or clarify something you just said: "I'll get back to you soon, i.e., before the end of the week."
Oxford commas
Some style guides insist upon it; some don't. A teeny comma has caused more than its share of debates in the grammar world.
What exactly is an Oxford comma?
What it is, exactly, is the comma that goes before the last item in a sequence. Consider: "At the store, I bought apples, pears, bananas, and blueberries."
Does that comma after "bananas" need to be there or not?
Sometimes it is necessary to preserve the meaning of the sentence, as in, "I love my friends, chocolate and rock music." Chances are, chocolate and rock music are not the friends you were referring to, so a comma after "chocolate" is a grammatical must.
But, in the fruit example, it doesn't change the meaning, so some grammarians argue that the "and" serves the same function as the Oxford comma, and the comma isn't needed. The Oxford comma is just one of many common spelling and grammar rules no one can agree on.
"Which" vs. "that"
"Which" and "that" are both relative pronouns, meaning that they begin an independent clause and connect it to a dependent clause.
Essentially, they serve the same grammatical purpose, so people use them interchangeably. But...should they?
According to the rules, "which" should only be used with a comma, while "that" should be reserved for comma-free clauses that are essential to the meaning of the sentence.
Consider: "I liked the cookies that Isabel made better than the store-bought ones," vs. "We ate the cookies, which Isabel made, in less than five minutes."
But, in truth, this is some deep-cut grammar pedantic-ness, and people don't really tend to strictly adhere to it.
How about this:
"She bought a house near a nursing home which has a hole in the roof."
Does a comma need to be there after the 'which'?
Well, if it does, then the meaning of the whole sentence changed from the intended purpose.
Okay, as it stands right now: whose house or home that has a hole in the roof?
Is it a nursing home or the women's house that has a hole in the roof?
Which house or home has a hole in the roof?
Yes, the rule that says:
' "which" should only be used with a comma '
is not always correct--as the above example shows--but most of the time, using a comma after "which" is a prudent thing to do.
See the correct answer at the end of the post.
Perplexing pronunciations
Seriously, English--why don't "though" and "through" rhyme?! Why is the O pronounced differently in "comb" and "bomb"? Or "plow" and "slow"?
The English alphabet only has 26 letters, but each of those letters may have up to seven different pronunciations. And don't get us started on the words that you're supposed to pronounce differently in different cases.
For instance, you're technically supposed to be pronouncing "the" like "thee" when the next word starts with a vowel sound. But if you don't take that into account every time you say "the"--which is, after all, the most common word in English--we certainly won't fault you for it!
Silent letters
Adding confusion to the matter of letters with multiple pronunciations is the fact that sometimes, letters are there, but you don't pronounce them at all!
For example, the word for a certain kind of plant is pronounced "erb" in American English and "herb" in British English. So the proper form in America is "an herb," and the proper form in Britain is "a herb."
Why does "island" have an S?
What is the purpose of the K in "know"?
And why is there a G in "phlegm"?
In many cases, the silent letters are present because the pronunciation of the words changed as the language evolved, while the spelling stayed the same. Other times, the disparity is because the words came from other languages, such as "tsunami" from Japanese and "rendezvous" from French.
"Lay" or "lie"?
When it comes to commonly confused words, there may not be a more understandably mixed-up pair than "lay" and "lie."
The words aren't interchangeable, though many people use them that way.
"Lay" needs an object, while "lie" doesn't take an object. Technically, saying "I need to lay down" is incorrect, because you have to lay something down. "Please lay that expensive book down on the table carefully" is the correct use of "lay."
But the real confusion comes from the fact that the past tense of "lie" is... "lay"!
"He wasn't feeling well, so he lay down" is correct. The past tense of "lay," meanwhile, is "laid."
It's enough to make your head hurt so much that you might need to lie down, as there are many other things in the English language you've probably been saying them wrong.
"Neither"--singular or plural?
When you say "neither," you're referring to more than one person or thing, so "neither" should take a plural verb form, right?
Well...no. Both "neither" and "either" are always singular if the two things you're talking about are singular: "Neither the dog [just one dog] nor the cat [just one cat] is responsible for the mess."
The same goes for "Neither of the pets is responsible"--even though "pets" is plural, "neither" still means "neither one."
The only time it works to pluralize the verb is if one or both of the subjects is plural: "Neither Lady Gaga nor the Backstreet Boys are performing tonight" is correct, since the closest subject to the verb, "the Backstreet Boys," is plural
"None"--singular or plural?
If "neither" is singular, "none" should be too, right?
Honestly, with this rule, even strict grammar nerds tend to throw up their hands and say, "Use your judgment."
Usually, if the subject of the sentence is an uncountable noun, a singular verb makes sense: "None of the beer is left."
But if the subject represents a concrete number of people or things, you can usually get away with using a plural verb--and it tends to just sound better, too, as in "None of my cousins are coming to dinner."
The popular rule for using "a" and "an" is wrong.
Most people learn that you should use "a" before words that start with a consonant (i.e., a man, a car), and "an" before words that start with a vowel (i.e., an apple, an education). That's actually not quite right. The real rule is to use "a" before words that start with a consonant, and "an" before words that start with a vowel sound. Make note: 'words that start with a vowel sound'. The 'sound' --- get it?
For example: I just need an hour to finish the job. Notice the word 'hour' starts with a consonant and yet we use 'an' and not 'a'. The same thing can be said for 'honor': We use 'an' because 'honor' has a vowel sound and the h is not pronounced.
However, a historic day - the 'h' is pronounced. Historic starts with an h sound.
Examples of 'an' before a consonant: an honor meeting you. It was an honest mistake. An NBA game. An NBC reporter. She has an MBA degree. An F, an H, an L, an M, an N, an R, an S, an X.
Examples of 'a' before a vowel: a asynchronous transfer, a unit, a uniform, a unique dress, a unicorn, a Utopian idea, a one track mind, a one-timer customer (or a one-wheel bike), a university, a universal idea, a useful idea, a European country, a usable product, a user or a username, a U.
Phew!..........
Does your head hurt?
[Courtesy: Reader's Digest]
If you've been investing for very long, you've no doubt heard about blue chip stocks; a special classification of stocks that represent the best of the best. For example stocks like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Exxon Mobil, IBM, 3M, and many others.
These stocks are the best of the best in term of a national reputation for quality, reliability, and the ability to operate profitably in good times and bad. And furthermore, you don't have to worry about any of these companies going out of business any time in the fore-seeable future either.
Origin of the Term Blue Chip Stock
The term blue chip stock comes from the fact that blue chips were the highest value chips in poker games. In a set of poker chips, white chip is worth $1, a red chip is usually worth $5, and a blue chip is worth $25, the highest of any of the chips in the set.
The term "blue chip" stock was coined by Oliver Gingold sometime in the 1920s when Gingold was standing by the stock ticker at the brokerage firm that later became Merrill Lynch. Noticing several trades at $200 or $250 a share or more, he said to Lucien Hooper of W.E. Hutton & Co. that he intended to return to the office to "write about these blue-chip stocks"--the highest priced stocks that have national reputation for quality, reliability, and the ability to operate profitably in good times and bad.
It has been in use ever since, originally in reference to high-priced stocks, more commonly used today to refer to high-quality stocks.
But it's not even clear if we say it correctly or even know how to spell it correctly. So the question is: Do you know what you're saying or know how to spell it correctly?
We all know the true meaning of the word but we don't really know how to pronounce it correctly and spell it correctly; we can abbreviate it correctly; for most of us anyway!
So we say, for example, believe, client, salient, expedient, patient, ingredient, lenient, convenient, etc.
The target word is the abbreviation "etc." Do you know what you're saying or know how to spell it correctly?
Is it the most common belief to be 'exetera'? or extra? or even xtra?
If you answer any of the three, you're wrong both in your spelling and your pronunciation even if you're a great pronunciation specialist and a spelling guru.
Here is the correct pronunciation and spelling:
First, the word 'etc' is derived from the French words and has its origin in the French language. No, exetera or extra or even xtra are not French words and they're not originated from the French language. They're all English words originated from Old English. However, 'etc' is a French word originated from the French language.
Second, 'etc' is composed of two French words: the word 'et' meaning 'and' and the word 'cetera' meaning 'extra' in English. So it becomes 'etcetera' which in English is abbreviated as 'etc.' Now that we know how to spell it correctly, we can basically pronounce it correctly as well. So 'et' pronounce 'eh' similar to what Canadians often say, "You have a bad day, eh!". Do not pronounce: 'ex~' as most people often do. If you know French you definitely know how to say 'et' in French and the word 'etcetera' pronounces the first part exactly that and adding the word 'cetera' to it. For 'cetera' pronounce: 'cet~ter~ra'. Now you know how to both spell and pronounce it correctly!
Here are the answers to the Puzzling Irregular Plurals:
A singular for "lice" is louse. A plural for person is people. You can't say three persons for plural. You have to use three "people".
However, you can use both fish or fishes for plural. Three fish or three fishes.
But the popular way of saying is fish and not fishes because it sounds better to say fish than fishes. So most people use fish for plural.
Using fishes sounds very foolish and makes you sound dumb even though it is grammatically correct.
So never use fishes!
As for indexes and indices are synonym--meaning both words mean the same thing and they're plural form. Their singular form is index and indice, respectively. So you can use both indexes or indices (and index or indice) interchangibly.
Indexes vs. indices
Indexes and indices are both accepted and widely used plurals of the noun index. Both appear throughout the English-speaking world, but indices prevails in varieties of English from outside North America, while indexes is more common in American and Canadian English.
Meanwhile, indices is generally preferred in mathematical, financial, and technical contexts, while indexes is relatively common in general usage.
Neither form is wrong. Both have been in English many centuries (and though indexes is now most common in American English, it predates the United States by centuries). It's true that indices is the plural of index in Latin, but index is an English word when English speakers use it--and it is a longstanding one at that--so we can pluralize it according to the conventions of English.
Finally, a plural for moose is moose (not meese nor mooses either).
The sentence:
'She bought a house near a nursing home which has a hole in the roof'
has the original intended meaning of the woman's house that has a hole in its roof--not the nursing home's roof that has a hole in it.
If you were to put a comma after the relative pronoun "which" (as the grammar rules suggest) then the meaning points to the nursing home's roof that has a hole in it.
But that is not the original intended meaning of the sentence.
So leaving out the comma after the relative pronoun "which" is the correct answer.
Another point to make is that, you should not use "which" vs. "that" inter-changeably (as the example shows--it's a bad idea).
If you were to replace the relative pronoun "which" with "that" in the sentence:
'She bought a house near a nursing home which has a hole in the roof.'
It would change the original intended meaning of the sentence.
It would points to the nursing home's roof that has a hole in it--and not the woman's house that has a hole in its roof.
So don't use the two relative pronouns interchangeably. Use them whenever appropriate in its individual case!
Here are the answers to the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT), also known as the world's shortest IQ test:
1. $0.05. If you guessed 10 cents, you're not alone. However, if that were the case, the bat would cost $1.20--not $1.10.
On the other hand, purchasing a 5 cent ball and a bat priced at $1.05 (which is $1 more expensive than 5 cents) would total $1.10, instead.
If you were smart enough to realize that the word "more" (in the bat costs $1 'more'), meaning there is some money (I call x) already before the '$1'. So you would add x money to the $1.
Now we need to find x, and if you were smart enough to realize that x is suppose to be divisible evenly between the ball and the bat, and since the amount over $1 is $.10, we divide $.10 by 2 and we get $.05. Simple enough?
The one thing that threw most people off course is the 'more than $1' amount, which is $.10, was supposed to be divided evenly between the ball and the bat, but most people failed to realize that. They failed to realize that the amount is supposed to be divided evenly by 2. That is called cognitive intuition or simply put: Intelligence.
2. 5 minutes. Although you might have answered 100 minutes, the actual time is a little less than that.
Since the question reveals that it would take 5 minutes for 1 widget machine to make 1 widget, you can determine that it would take 5 minutes for 100 widget machines to make 100 widgets.
3. Here is the answer from IFL Science: 47 days.
They didn't explain the reasons for the 47 days and I will try my best to explain it.
At first, your gut might tell you it would take 24 days. But remember: Since the area of the lake covered in lily pads doubles every day, a patch that covers half the lake would fully cover it in just one day. Say what? Huh....? Making any sense?
That's right the whole lake doubles everyday and if the whole lake doubles in one day, that makes the lake twice (larger) than the original size after one day. But we're looking for half the current lake's size, which takes us back to the original size: one day!
Still making any sense?
So subtract one day from 48 days, and what do you get? 47 days.
Still making any sense?
Don't ask me why! It doesn't really make any sense to me at all!
Even after seeing the answer and it still doesn't register in my head, either. My explanation might not even accurate as well since I don't understand it, either.
Based on my logic, that's how I think the reasons for the 47 days. Maybe you have a better explanation than I do.
[I got this question wrong and my head is still ringing.
Here is how you evaluate your score:
Question 1: weights 30% of 161. In other words, after one question your score is 48.3 if you got the correct answer. You would add the next two scores to your score in question 1, if you got both answers correct; add a 0 (zero) to your score, if you got any answer wrong.
Question 2: weights 20% of 161 (or a score of 32.2).
Question 3: weights 50% of 161 (or a score of 80.5).
Please note that this is not a universally accepted IQ test. It's one of many tests that aims to achieve a reasonable IQ intelligence. Note also that this test do not penalize your score if you got some questions wrong [as some other tests do to some degree]. The universally accepted iq test's maximum score is 161 for adults and 162 for test-takers below the age of 18. For a more accepted form of IQ test, please see below or by Google the term "Wechsler tests."
[Source: IFL Science]
What is IQ?
The Intelligence Quotient or IQ is a measure of someones intelligence.
There are several classifications of IQ scores. Wechsler classification labels you:
"Normal" if your score is 90-109.
"Great" if your score is 120-129;
"Gifted" if your score is 130+;
"Average" if your score is 80-89;
"Below Average" if your score is 70-69.
The highest IQ ever recorded is of William James Sidis with an IQ score between 250-300. At the age of 5, he could use a typewriter and had learnt to speak Latin, Greek, Russian, French, German and Hebrew.
He was denied admission to Harvard at the age of 6 because he was called too emotionally immature. Later, at age 11, they were forced to admit him, after which he gave his well-received first lecture on 4-dimensional physics!
List of people with the highest IQs ever recorded (in ascending order)
Stephen Hawking (IQ-160)
Albert Einstein (IQ- 160-190)
Judit Polgar (IQ-170)
Philip Emeagwali (IQ-190)
Garry Kasparov (IQ-194)
Christopher Michael Langan (IQ 190 210)
Edith Stern (IQ 200+)
Kim Ung-Yong (IQ 210)
Christopher Hirata (IQ 225)
Marilyn Vos Savant (IQ 228)
Terence Tao (IQ 225 230)
William James Sidis (IQ ~ 250-300 probably).
Profiles:
William James Sidis (April 1, 1898 - July 17, 1944)
William James Sidis was an American child prodigy with exceptional mathematical abilities and a claimed mastery of many languages.
Sidis could read The New York Times at 18 months. By age 8, he had reportedly taught himself 8 languages (Latin, Greek, French, Russian, German, Hebrew, Turkish, and Armenian) and invented another, which he called Vendergood.
Kim Ung-yong (Born: March 8, 1962)
Kim Ung-yong is a Korean civil engineer and former child prodigy. Kim was listed in the Guinness Book of World Records under "Highest IQ"; the book gave the boy's score of about 210.
Kim was exceptionally intelligent. He started talking when he was just 4 months old. Four months, no kidding! At the age of 3, he could solve Physics problems. He could read Korean, German, Japanese and English by the age of 4.
When he was just 8 years old, he was invited by NASA to work for them. He agreed and moved to the USA. And by 9 years old he also had a PhD from Colorado State University.
If you Google his name all kinds of pictures of a very young boy pop up solving sophisticated calculus differential equations.
Born: March 8, 1962, Hongje-dong, Gangneung, South Korea
Nationality: South Korean
Education: Colorado State University
Children: Kim Soon-ho, Kim Soon-hoo
Parents: Kim Soo-Sun, Yoo Myeong-hyeon.
<== Previous Page