How to Spell Exclamations of Laughter

How to Spell Exclamations of Laughter How to Spell Exclamations of Laughter How to Spell Exclamations of Laughter By Mark Nichol How does one spell the sound of an eruption of laughter? It depends on the species of mirth, and the list below offers suggestions based on such subtleties. Whether one seeks to indicate a character’s laughter in the manuscript of a novel or short story or to indicate actual or conjectural laughter in nonfiction, consider these guidelines. The basic expression of laughter is ha, though this onomatopoeic word can also express derision, especially when followed by an exclamation point, so writers should take care to provide context to clarify whether the word indicates amusement or ridicule. The former is more likely to be expressed with ha-ha (also styled â€Å"ha ha† or haha, though, as with many reduplicative terms, hyphenation is recommended). Greater dedication to expressing amusement is demonstrated by ha-ha-ha and so forth, though eventually, with enough reduplication, derangement is implied. Meanwhile, heh, or heh-heh, suggests pointedly mild amusement, or a suggestion of mischievous or smirking, sniggering, or lascivious amusement, so, again, context is helpful. He-he-he, or tee-hee (or tee-hee-hee) also imply mischief, though the implication is that the laughter is high pitched, and the humor is juvenile. Bwah-hah-hah, or mwah-hah-hah, is imitative of a comic book villain’s triumphant eruption of malicious laughter when overcoming the hero and is generally used facetiously to imply that one’s evil machinations have borne fruit. Ho-ho-ho, the form of expression employed by Santa Claus to express Christmas cheer in popular culture, suggests a full-bodied mirth, while hoo-hoo is indicative of obnoxious delight at, for example, being found to be right about something or having caught someone in a lie or transgression. Yuk-yuk-yuk (or, imitative of Curly of the Three Stooges, nyuk-nyuk-nyuk) suggests impish delight, though using the word yuks to refer to laughter suggests sarcasm or at best a comment on how something is not really that amusing. Derived from the Internet-speak acronym for â€Å"laugh out loud,† lol (or LOL) is rarely used as an expression in dialogue or within a quotation, though it may be uttered in conjunction with derisive eye-rolling. (The variations lolz and lulz may express scorn as well.) Many of these terms are ambiguous, so, as stated above, aid the reader with contextual clues to, for example, clarify whether the expression of humor is sincere or sarcastic. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Vocabulary category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:15 Terms for Those Who Tell the FutureEnglish Grammar 101: Verb Mood10 Humorous, Derisive, or Slang Synonyms for â€Å"Leader† or â€Å"Official†

Marbury v. Madison, 1803 (Judicial Review)

Marbury v. Madison, 1803 (Judicial Review) Marbury v Madison is considered by many to be not just a landmark case for the Supreme Court, but rather the landmark case.  The Courts decision was delivered in 1803 and continues to be invoked when cases involve the question of judicial review. It also marked the beginning of the Supreme Courts rise in power to a position equal to that of the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. In short, it was the first time the Supreme Court declared an act of Congress unconstitutional.   Fast Facts: Marbury v. Madison Case Argued: February 11, 1803Decision Issued:  February 24, 1803Petitioner:  William MarburyRespondent:  James Madison, Secretary of StateKey Questions: Was President Thomas Jefferson within his rights to direct his Secretary of State James Madison to withhold a judiciary commission from William Marbury whod been appointed by his predecessor, John Adams?Unanimous Decision: Justices Marshall, Paterson, Chase, and WashingtonRuling: Though Marbury was entitled to his commission, the Court was unable to grant it because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and was therefore null and void. Background of  Marbury v. Madison In the weeks after the Federalist president  John Adams lost his bid for reelection to Democratic-Republican candidate  Thomas Jefferson in 1800, the Federalist Congress increased the number of circuit courts. Adams placed Federalist judges in these new positions. However, several of these Midnight appointments were not delivered before Jefferson took office, and Jefferson promptly stopped their delivery as President. William Marbury was one of the justices who was expecting an appointment that had been withheld. Marbury filed a petition with the Supreme Court, asking it to issue a writ of mandamus that would require Secretary of State James Madison  to deliver the appointments. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice  John Marshall, denied the request, citing part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 as unconstitutional. Marshalls Decision On the surface, Marbury v. Madison was not a particularly important case, involving the appointment of one Federalist judge among many recently  commissioned. But Chief Justice Marshall (who had served as Secretary of State under Adams and was not necessarily a supporter of Jefferson) saw the case as an opportunity to assert the power of the judicial branch. If he could show that a congressional act was unconstitutional, he could position the Court as the supreme interpreter of the Constitution. And thats just what he did. The Courts decision actually declared that Marbury had a right to his appointment and that Jefferson had violated the law by ordering secretary Madison to withhold Marburys commission. But there was another question to answer: Whether or not the Court had the right to issue a writ of mandamus to secretary Madison. The Judiciary Act of 1789 presumably granted the Court the power to issue a writ, but Marshall argued that the Act, in this case, was unconstitutional. He declared that under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, the Court did not have original jurisdiction in this case, and therefore the Court did not have the power to issue a writ of mandamus.  Ã‚   Significance of Marbury v. Madison This historic court case established the concept of Judicial Review,  the ability of the Judiciary Branch to declare a law unconstitutional. This case brought the judicial branch of the government on a more even power basis with the legislative and executive branches. The Founding Fathers expected the branches of government to act as checks and balances on one another. The historic court case Marbury v. Madison accomplished this end, thereby setting the precedent for numerous historic decisions in the future.