where is the stress on the syllables of the word "worthwhile"?
953254
Second syllable.  Here it here --> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/worthwhile
881310
Please explain what you mean by 'stress', do you mean emphasis?  And prefixes of what kinds of words?  Please give an example.
614912
W M I\n\nReason:\n\n(H)ow (D)o (A)ny (A)nswerers (B)egin (C)ontemplating (T)he (A)nswer (W)ithout (M)ore (I)nformation?
867187
very good\n\n:> peace\n.
934005
If it is autogrqphed then it is worth:\n\n .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 cents.
525012
The closest would probably be B, however I have never heard this word said; I have read it in books published in the 1800s...I always assumed it meant "Hooray!" as in cheering.  Not a word anyone needs to know to exists in today's world!
833243
Dear Father Damian:\nGood question.  When it comes to the English language who knows.  It's such an amalgamation of rules anyway.  I suppose it was because to say that something was lov-ed sounded awful.\nAsk the English Gods why.  They spared us the extra syllable to save us time, I guess, and for that deserve our praise and reverance.  Although I doubt they'll answer you if you ask them.  Remaining silent is how they retain their mystery and power over you, the common man in the street.
505401
"comf'terbul" has a perfectly logical explanation and is an acceptable pronunciation (as is "comf'tebul")\n\nAnd why don't pronounce it "the way it's written"?  Because language simply doesn't always work that way.  And so I don't say "I-run" for "iron"; and the "t" that I pronounce in "soft" I do NOT pronounce in the form "soften" (even though it is written that way and even COMES from "soft").\n\n--------------------\n\nThis sort of re-ordering of the sounds of a word --called "METATHESIS"--  is very common in language.  It may come about by confusion, but often it happens simply because the expected form is more difficult to pronounce.    In some cases the change is considered ignorant or at least non-standard, in other instances it is the (or a) ACCEPTED pronounciation.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metathesis_(linguistics)\n\n\nExamples in English:\n1) incorrect/nonstandard:\n  "nuclear" -- pronounced as "nucular" (by educated people as well... including THREE Presidents in recent times --not just GW but Carter & Eisenhower)\n  "ax" for "ask"  (though actually BOTH forms are found in the Middle English of Chaucer)\n\n2) correct:\n  "iron" -- pronounced "i-urn"  In fact, does ANYONE say "i-ron"?  On the other hand, we DO keep the sounds in their written order in the suffixed form "ironic".  (We do the same with "irony", though it's acceptable, or at least permitted, to say "i-urnee" --as we do with "ironing".   Thus, the most important factor seems to be where the word is ACCENTED.)\n\n3) debated but probably correct\nThe example of "iron" vs. "ironic" --that is, changing the pronounciation based on where the accent falls (often related to whether there is a suffix or not)--  helps explain why we SAY "comfort"  but "comfturble".    There are two conflicting "laws" at work here. In our spelling, we do not change the base when we add the suffix "able".   But the change in the PHONOLOGY (sound pattern) pushes us to SAY the word in a way that is much easier to pronounce.  \n\nHere's how it happens.  Note that the syllable in question --"fort"--  has a slight accent in "comfort" but almost NO accent when we add the "able" suffix.  In English, adding suffixes frequently shifts or reduces accent of certain syllables.  When a syllable loses accent, the vowel typically is shortened; in an UN-accented syllable it may end up as the 'swallowed', unaccented "schwa" sound, or even completely disappear.  But this leaves us with the unaccented combination "frt" which is more difficult or at least less natural to pronounce.    The natural solution is to simplify the pronounciation, either by skipping the "r" sound (which leads some to say "comf'-tubly") or to reverse sounds ("metathesis") and say "comf'turbly".\n\n------------------\n\n(Frankly, I suspect the pronunciation "com-four-tab-ly" is  a hypercorrection.   Some people say it that way BECAUSE of the spelling, whereas the SPOKEN language long ago changed the pronounciation.  But spelling is NOT always a sure guide to the spoken language.  Based on SPELLING, some people improperly pronounce the t in "often", not recognizing that the "t" is from the short form "oft" and is LOST when -en is added . . . as in soft > soften, compare list > listen; haste > hasten, etc.)\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercorrection\n\n-----------------------------------------------\n\nIncidentally, this process or metathesis explains the origins of some modern English words.   Old English had "brid", now it is "bird";  Old English &quo
664606
Looks like some folks are plugging the word into rather poor "Rhyming dictionaries" that don't pay attention to some of the fundamentals of rhyme (or perhaps the users aren't paying attention).\n\nharmonica and Hanukkah are not very good rhymes for America, for one good reason:  good rhymes need to 'echo' beginning with the word's main ACCENT, specifically with the vowel of the accented syllable.   In this case, that means with (M)ER-  which is why "Erika" is, in fact, a perfect rhyme.   (But ER does not rhyme with ON/AN!)\n\nThere are actually rhyming dictionaries that match more than just the last syllable (as you need in this case), and I'll link to some below.  (For this word you need to rhyme the last THREE syllables.)\n\nBut even these may not solve your problem. Because it's very ujlikely you are going to find a PERFECT fhyme (with exact correspondence of all sounds) that will suit your needs.  So you'll have to look for CLOSE or NEAR rhymes, where most of the sounds are echoed and the ones that don't (especially if they're vowels) are reasonably close or don't 'draw much attention' to themselves.  (Just matching the vowels is often called simply "assonance", though that may be enough in some situations.)\n\nA couple of notes on the word's sounds.\n1) Most important are the syllable with the primary accent (ER) and the ending of the word (which has a secondary accent), especially the vowel.   The /i/ in between has no real accent, so the vowel is short and barely pronounced (and other short vowels might easily be substituted for it, as well as a long E, which corresponds to the short /i/).  Thus the sounds you especially want to pay attention to are those capitalized here:  a-mER-i-kA\n\n2) MER -- note that this E coming before an R is not very far from a "long A" sound (compare "AIR"), so either a long A or short e might be a good match.  As for the R (which may be a bit less important), it is closely related to L, so that might be a promising direction to look\n\n3) the final -A has the sound of "uh" -- though a word ending in an -ah sound might well be close enough to work. \n\n4) the k -not as important to match in a near rhyme, though it might help if you use a "related sound" -- like /g/ (which is the same as /k/ but with the voice added), or a /t/ or /d/ (which, like /k/ and /g/, is a "stop", made by completely stopping the flow of air with your tongue).  You might also be able to get away with dropping it completely. That's why "hysteria" is a pretty good near rhyme  (and why it is used in the Calvin & Hobbes parody of the Pledge of Allegiance:  "I pledge allegiance to Queen Frag, and her mighty state of hyseria. . . . ")\n\n5) You might be able to add a consonant to the end and still have it work, so long as it's not too 'strong' or emphasize a sound.  \n\n(Also, with ALL of these near rhymes, you may find that what sounds close enough in some instances, does not work in others.  This may have to do with how formal a work you're working on, but also where the rhyme falls in the overall rhythm of what you're writing.)\n\n------------\n\nUsing some of the sugestions above, some possible near rhymes (to varying degrees!!) might be:  \n\nAngelica, Celica, hysteria (as noted), area, malaria\nsilica, basilica, Seneca\nFarragut, chimerical, numerical\nempirical, spherical, miracle, lyrical\narial,  imperial, ethereal, terrible, repairable\ncommisariat, lariat,   (h)airy cut (?),  sherry cup(?),  belly up\nwary of,  care/rare/fair/share/spare enough,  theory of, imperative\nfairy dust, Harry does, bury us, various, gregarious, perilous \nnecesSARy/seconDARy cut  (that's a bit off --the primary accent here ordinarily falls on the first syllables [Ne/Se] but in some instances, mostly humorous verse [e.g., limerick] you can take some liberti
635688
I am not sure but I know that this made possible through the Necessary and Proper Clause or the ELastic Clause.  SO maybe it is something similar to the word elastic. Good Luck!
1157699
The key to this is: \na) "good" here is used with another sense of the word -- something like "valid" or "full(y), complete(ly)"\nb) the original expression appears to be "for good and all"\n\nAt any rate, note that "for good (and all") has NOTHING to do with "for the better"  (In fact, many BAD things can happen "for good and all".)\n\n------------------\n\nA good starting place for this sort of thing is always the Oxford English Dictionary.\nIt's entry for "good"  includes a listing of the phrase "for good (and all)" which it defines as: "As a valid conclusion; hence, as a final act, finally."\nIts examples of this use, which go back to the 16th century, include:\n15.. (Parl. Byrdes) Than desyred all the Byrdes great and smal to mewe the hauke for good and all.\n1687 (Congreve) Ay, you may take him for good-and-all if you will.\n\nhttp://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/10/messages/461.html\n\n\n\nIt is easier to understand how "for good and all" might have this meaning if you note the following:\n\nFirst,  the sense of "good" in this expression is related to other uses of the word.  See for example, the following from freedictionary.com\n\n"11.a. Reliable; sure: a good investment.\nb. Valid or true: a good reason.\nc. Genuine; real: a good dollar bill.\n12.a. In effect; operative, valid: a warranty good for two years; a driver's license that is still good.\n14.a. Ample; substantial: a good income.\nb. Bountiful: a good table.\n15. Full: It is a good mile from here.\n\nunder idioms:\n "good and"  -  "Very; thoroughly": I'll do it when I'm good and ready\n\nhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=good\n\nHow directly "for good and all" is related to "good and ready" I do not know, but BOTH use "good and" to intensify and speak of 'completion.'\n\nCompare also the following in Merriam Webster's:\n\nd (1) : of a noticeably large size or quantity : CONSIDERABLE <won by a good margin> <a good bit of the time> (2) : FULL <waited a good hour> (3) -- used as an intensive <a good many of us>\n\nidioms:\ngood and : VERY, ENTIRELY <was good and mad>\n\nhttp://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?good\n\n\n"for good and ALL"\n\n'and all' - probably. "all" here means "all TIME"  (hence the expression is an expansion & intensification of "for all time" just as "good and mad/" is an intensification of "mad"
852554
enjoy it, that means is working\n\n:> peace\n.
575980
Three syllables. Primary stress in the last syllable. Secondary stress in the first syllable.\n\nra - as in "rap"\ncon - as in "container"\nteurs - sounds like "ir" in "birds".
787112
For questions like this, I usually visit Merriam-Webster's site.  I've taken the liberty of linking to your particular word.\n\nClick the speaker icon next to it and you'll be able to hear how the word is pronounced.
1086581
SEE luh pwa-SSOH oo zhuh-dee ma-TAIN\n\nand keep the tain and dee short. not a long syllable. \nfor matin its not perfect but it's the closest i could come up with  in english
340224
You really need the phonetic alphabet to accurately answer this one, but here I go:\nupside down w,the vowel for short I and an N. Phonetically it would sound like win.
827379
can is pronounced  [kæn] (diagraph) when it's stressed (like in a short answer, yes I can), and [kən] (with schwa) when unstressed (as in "I can play tennis") and it works for both varieties of English\n\nThe negative is different for British and American English since in BE it's pronounced [ka:nt] (with a latin a) and in AE [kænt] (with a diagraph)