I noticed while searching the etymology of the word nightingale that it did not have the second N. The sources I checked only say intrusive N but don't explain it. :  From Middle English nyghtyngale, nightingale, niȝtingale, alteration (with intrusive n) of nyghtgale, nightegale, from Old English nihtegala, nihtegale    Middle English nighte-gale, from Old English næctigalæ, in late Old English nihtegale, a compound formed in Proto-Germanic (compare Dutch nachtegaal, German Nachtigall) from *nakht- &quot;night&quot; (see night) + *galon &quot;to sing,&quot; related to Old English giellan &quot;to yell&quot; (from PIE root *ghel- (1) &quot;to call&quot;).  As you can see, in Old English and Middle English, it did not have the second N so the present day N is not original. Etymology Dictionary also says &quot;With parasitic -n- that began to appear mid-13c.&quot; but doesn't explain the reason English people put it in &quot;Nightegale&quot;. Can anyone explain the reason?
121996
Just wondering how we got from message to messenger instead of message to *messager?  When and why did this happen with this word? I'm not really interested in the rule so this isn't a duplicate, more interested in this word specifically.
13454
Does "non-" prefixed to a two word phrase permit another hyphen before the second word?  If I want to refer to an entity which is defined as the negation of another entity by attaching "non-" it seems strange to attach the "non-" only to the first word when the second one is really the word naming the entity. For example,     non-control freak   looks like a person obsessed with not being in control rather than one who is simply not obsessed with control.     non-control-freak   actually looks better because the "freak" is attached to the "non-" as much as it is to "control-", without the space implying the presence of a phrase break.    and its answers make it sound like totally detaching the "non" could be an option, but if I were following the convention of hyphenating "non-" could I add a hyphen after the next word to resolve this problem?
117114
I have always run into word twins like tube vs. tubing.   More pairs: fence vs. fencing, pipe vs. piping, cable vs. cabling, rail vs. railing, etc.  This is an interesting phemonenon. Most of these nouns cannot function as verbs, but adding the ing-form generates a new word with a similar meaning.   Can you please explain the morphology behind this? Does the ing-form bring with it a different connotation? Any nuances between these twins?
39992
I've always been fascinated by these two words, as they seem to have the exact opposite meaning as expected. Is it because of the etymology? Or perhaps the meanings were switched at some point in time?
2261
say by has the meaning of      6. indicating the period in which something happens: ‘this animal always hunts by night’   Then do we need to say, ‘Why does the sky glitter by night?’ And can’t we say, ‘Why does the sky glitter at night?’?   If we can use both, what’s the difference between the two?
21577
Why do we say "ain't I" or "aren't I" instead of "amn't I"? What's the history of this usage? Are there any other similar patterns in English?  I'm guessing it has something to do with the dispreference of two consecutive nasal consonants, but a more authoritative answer would be great.
37880
I have seen them both in my reference book, which is written by a native speaker. I wonder why there are two different phrases to describe the same meaning and am looking forward to some reasonable details to explain why this is so.
122691
The Germans have doch and the French have si as a word that means "yes" in response to a negative question, such as:     Don't you want some ice-cream?   Yes [I do]!   In English, we only have yes (as far as I know) and further clarification is required in order to be unambiguous.  Did we ever have such a word in English and, if so, what happened to it? If not, given the French and Germanic influences on English, any idea why not?
16548
I have frequently encountered both $\langle a,b \rangle$ and $[a,b]$ as notation for closed . I have mostly encountered $(a,b)$ for open intervals, but I have also seen $]a,b[$. I recall someone calling the notation with $[a,b]$ and $]a,b[$ as French notation.   What are the origins of the two notations?  Is the name French notation correct? Are they used frequently in France? Or were they perhaps prevalent in French mathematical community at some point? (In this  Bourbaki is mentioned in connection with the notation $]a,b[$.)      Since several answerers have already mentioned that they have never seen $\langle a,b \rangle$ to be used for closed intervals, I have tried to look for some occurrences for this. The best I can come up with is the article on , where these notations are called Czech notation and French notation. Using $(a,b)$ and $[a,b]$ is called English notation in that article. (I am from Central Europe, too, so it is perhaps not that surprising that I have seen this notation in lectures.) I also tried to google for  or . Surprisingly, this lead me to a  where this notation is used for open interval.
99916
I ran into this in the novel The Old Man and the Sea,     “I do not like for him to waken me. It is as though I were inferior.”   What has happened in the first sentence "I do not like for him to waken me"? The structure seems unfamiliar to me. Is it normal for instance to say, "I don't like for you to leave the country"? It seems unnatural. I normally would say, "I don't like you to leave the country" or "I don't like him to wake me up".  Links for my further studying would be appreciated.
86641
I remember hearing once about the etymology of disgruntled, probably based around a joke about how people can not be gruntled. The explanation given was that there was never a word gruntled, rather the dis‑  in disgruntled is actually a usage of the old prefix where it acts like an amplifier.   Firstly, is this true?  Secondly, are there any other words that use this prefix in this way?
26072
"Don't", "wouldn't", "couldn't" and "isn't" are all contractions of "do not", "would not", "could not" and "is not"... So what's "won't" a contraction of?  It appears to be "will not", but if so, why isn't it "willn't"? (And if there's no good reason, has it ever been "willn't" at any point in history?)
90710
In a comment on English Language &amp; Usage I read the following answer responding to a(n) asker's question: &quot;Neither sound natural.&quot; I have always had more than one doubt on the &quot;neither&quot; usage and I would like understand(ing) the &quot;secrets&quot; to use this word better or, at the best, correctly. So, let us consider the following examples:  1 Neither sound natural. 2 None sound natural. 3 No one sound natural. 4 Neither of them sound natural. 5 None of them sound natural. 6 No one of them sound natural. 7 Neither sounds natural. 8 None sounds natural. 9 No one sounds natural. 10 Neither of them sounds natural. 11 None of them sounds natural. 12 No one of them sounds natural.  Comparing the above sentences (one) with each other, can anybody explain which is grammatical and why?
5952
My coworker and I have been having this discussion for a day or two...  What is the most correct way to pronounce 'new' or 'news' ?  Does it rhyme with 'few' ? or 'snooze' ?  Does 'new crew' rhyme?  I know both 'noo' and 'nyoo' are correct, but what are the origins of the two different pronunciations?  Asking around the office, it seems that 'nyoo' might have a British English origin, but I would like to know if anyone is more knowledgeable on this topic.
122347
A little look through an etymology dictionary shows that the root is Latin gigas with adjective form gigant.  So in its derivation to English, why did the second "g" get retained in gigantic but was dropped from giant?  I have an inkling that the word giant may have travelled through French on its way to English, where it may have been pronounced "gee-yant" or "jee-yant" with a change to the second "g" that was then dropped when taken into English.  However, the "g" is retained as a hard "g" in gigantic.
40190
Yesterday, I've listened to a song called "Fear not this night". I find the syntax unusual (as a foreigner, I have never encountered it). Is it the same meaning as "Don't fear this night" ? What's the slight difference between these 2 ?  Thank you for your time.
16213
Well, I usually say "twenny" instead of "twenty" (not "twendy" even). I recently noticed that I never heard the same from any native english speakers during any talks I ever had with them.  Recently I had a brief search on the 'net and it seems that it is somehow okay to say "twenny", but it might look the least correct pronunciation for most of the people, or they might think you have strange accent, etc.  So, my question is, is there any good reference which clearly proves saying "twenny" instead of "twenty" is totally correct or wrong?  P.S. You're most welcome to write your very personal opinion if you don't know any good references.  Update  I've already looked at the major dictionaries and didn't find any of them lists "twenny" in their pronunciation's section, however I'm sure that I didn't made that up, but I heard that while ago. Maybe in a movie, maybe from someone, and that's why I'm looking for the answer.