Not to challenge the answer as it's the established western version, but fighting in WW2 really started in the early 1930s with Japan's invasion of the continent. Sort of like how the Vietnam War started in 1858.
I don't really know about the Vietnam part, but I sorta agree with the WWII part. Japan was a major combatant in that war and that's when they actually began their part of the war even though it didn't start in Europe for a few more years. They were in a unbroken pattern of war in which Pearl Harbor (and yes I know that Europe was already a war by then) was just another step for them. As time went on more and more countries from all continents were pulled into it in Europe and the Pacific - fighting for different things, but all happening at the same time making it a world war. If that makes any sense...
Try telling an Austrian or a Czech that WW2 started in 1939! However the question is not 'when did WW2 start' but 'what started on 1 September 1939'. Thus WW2 is an acceptable answer as it is the date that most of the world recognises but 'invasion of Poland" should also be accepted which it isn't.
Considering that Austria and Czechoslovakia didn't go to war against Germany I would say that most Austrians and Czechs wouldn't have an issue with saying the war started in 1939.
I think an appropriate start date for the war would be July 7th, 1937, which is when Japan began its full-on invasion of China. That being said, I won't contest the fact that September 1st, 1939 is the widely accepted date for the start of World War 2.
1858's a serious stretch. In English "the Vietnam War" refers specifically to the U.S.-Vietnam war. Other struggles against France, Britain, China, the Khmer Rouge or Japan are labelled as such in English, in which coincidentally, we are communicating.
Uh huh. There's a tiny municipality called Alexandria where my grandparents had a farm. If a quiz asks "What type of building is Alexandria famous for", I want to write my grandparents' log house. I really do. But that'd be stupid and I'd write Pharos.
I think 'Segue' as a word in the English language is pushing the boat out a bit. A French musical term such as this will not be in the normal vocabulary, and will never be heard of again.
I hear and use the term all the time in business. Often during meetings someone will ask if they can segue into a related topic. And the response that's invariably given is "Segue away."
I hear this one often as well. After thinking about it, I think I hear it most when someone is pointing out how awkward the transition from one topic to another was. As in, "Wow, that was a weird segue."
segue is used literally all of the time. You hear radio hosts talking and someone will segue into another topic and they say "nice segue." The problem is that most people think that the word they are saying is spelled "segway" and are surprised when shown the actual spelling.
The growing crescendo of comments here might indicate that this is an appropriate opportunity to segue into suggesting that you check your dictionary before making such pronouncements
Am I the only one confused by the way Americans use the word 'namesake'? To me it means 'Having the same name as' not 'being named after' - there is a subtle difference.
I wonder if that's why the question has a relatively low percentage of correct answers? Not nit-picking, I've been thrown by this in other quizzes.
As a Brit, I’d find the other way confusing. “Namesake” is very much about being named *specifically for* someone or something else. Otherwise any pair of people with the same forename would be each other’s namesakes!
I thought the same as you, for something to be a namesake it has to have the same name as what is was named after.
And actually according to wiktionary they don't even need to be named after someone or something, as long as they have the same name.
So yes, two people with the same are namesakes.
Wether or not colombia is a namesake of columbus....? even if it is named after it...? Instictively not to me..since they are not the same, but english is not my first language. I have however always come across it as being used for 2 things with the same name, not a derivation of a name of some vague resemblance.
I grew up about a half hour from a town called Marathon in NY. So maybe write "one country" or "a country" and accept more than one answer? I got it right, but yeah, just so you know, Marathon exists outside of Greece. There's also a Greece, NY (USA), for those interested. :-)
As a former tobacco chewer myself, I would suggest that spitter should also be an acceptable answer. I know its slang but 100% of dippers refer to their spit receptacles as spitters.
september
If you're "al fresco" (lit. "in the cool") you're in jail!
I wonder if that's why the question has a relatively low percentage of correct answers? Not nit-picking, I've been thrown by this in other quizzes.
And actually according to wiktionary they don't even need to be named after someone or something, as long as they have the same name.
So yes, two people with the same are namesakes.
Wether or not colombia is a namesake of columbus....? even if it is named after it...? Instictively not to me..since they are not the same, but english is not my first language. I have however always come across it as being used for 2 things with the same name, not a derivation of a name of some vague resemblance.