Blog

Which of these two is more correct and why? The sun shines on my little tree. The sun shines upon my little tree. From what I've read in dictionaries both are acceptable, however I would like to know if there are subtleties that might arise due to, for example, the context. Answer The Macmillan Dictionary has this usage note regarding upon : Upon is much more formal than on , but it can be used with the same meanings as the preposition on in the following cases: on/onto an object or surface: It fell upon the ground. supported by a part of your body: She fell down upon her knees. looking at something: She fixed her gaze upon me. happening immediately after: Report to the reception desk immediately upon arrival. affecting someone or something: attacks upon our homes Upon can also be used instead of on after particular verbs: He congratulated me on/upon my success. They insisted on/upon seeing you. Also note that Macmillan tags the primary entry for upon as literary .

Patriotism is the word that describes a love or devotion to a person's own country. I'm looking for a similar word except one that describes this same feeling when it is not your own country you’re feeling this towards but rather another country that is not your own.

I'm going to use Karpman's drama triangle as an example for my question because I can't seem to find any consistency around its capitalisation (although I'll admit I don't own the book). Say you have a book, in this example, 'The Drama Triangle', and you also refer to the drama triangle within the text because it's the key concept. Is it correct to capitalise it because it's the title of the book, or incorrect because it's not a proper noun? Or does it become a proper noun in this case? And if it should be capitalised, should 'the' be capitalised as well? For example, 'breaking The Drama Triangle', 'when using The Triangle', and so on. I barely know what to look up to research this. The closest I can find seems to be this question, which suggests the title including 'the' would be capitalised as it's part of the name. I really am confused so any help would be appreciated, thank you. Answer Here are a few guid

This is a typical image of the structure in question : There are also some variations, shown in this Google image search . But I'm after the often not very wide, some 20-30 feet long wood construction a family builds (or hires someone to build...) for their summerhouse. For the kids to get out a bit so they can dive in the water or do some fishing, and to tie their small rowing-boat or motorboat to (not yacht). It's rarely the big, square deck with chairs to sit and look over the lake; usually no more than 5-6 feet wide; just for walking out to the boat or the front of it to jump in the water. What I've come up with so far is landing-stage, but a Google Images search for this brings up big entertainment piers and some other things, so I'm unsure. Purpose/context: This is for a translation into British English of a text concerning construction of decks, front steps, "landing-stages", gates and other objects using the same product: pressure-impregnated lumber.

When are "and" and commas used in a list of adjectives? For example, Poor little rich girl , or Poor, little and rich girl (or Poor, little, and rich girl )? Answer As was stated in a comment, this is a poor example for punctuation usage. The familiar term "poor little rich girl" is oxymoronic, in that "poor" and "rich" have opposite meanings. Perhaps she's poor in spirit, because her wealth has made her lonely. It's a tongue-in-cheek expression. The Poor Little Rich Girl was a play that was written in 1913; it has been adapted for film at least three times, once as a Shirley Temple film in 1936. If you really want to address comma usage, we should change the example. A general comma rule is, "Use commas to separate three or more words, phrases, or clauses written in a series." So, we might say: Helga is intelligent, charming, and witty. Linda is a lonely, diminutive, wealthy girl. Poor, hungry, young Jessica was given a dish

Occasionally when I am writing a sentence, I end up in a situation where I do not know whether to use the singular or plural form of a noun because I used both just prior to it in a conjunction. For example: The worst, and one of the most common, problems is […] One of the most common, and generally worst, problem is […] Should problem be singular or plural in those sentences? Is there a rule for situations like this? (It certainly doesn’t help that for one of the most common problems is has is instead of are right next to a plural noun.) Update Here is another example which (along with its non-contraction versions) does not fit the currently accepted answer. JavaScript / Bookmarklets don’t work […] Bookmarklets / JavaScript doesn’t work […] In fact, the sentence before the above example with the parenthesized segment is itself confusing as to whether the next word should be does or do .

In an Australian TV program the disease "encephalitis" was pronounced "enKephalitis." Is there a rule about the pronunciation of the letter "c" in Australian English?

"Acoustic" and "acoustical" are both used as adjectives, and both are used often in combinations such as "acoustical engineering", "acoustic energy", "acoustic model", etcetera. Some of these combinations sound better than others, e.g. "acoustical energy" sounds wrong to me, but that may be purely subjective. Is there any difference in meaning between the words? Or might it just be a UK/US English difference? Answer The Acousical Society of America pondered this question for years before including definitions and usage rules in a 1955 update to their glossary of acoustical terms. A report of the discussion is here. http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/27/5/10.1121/1.1908102 Their work was not 100 percent satisfactory, but it has remained generally in effect in America. They admit they cribbed their definitions from the electric/electrical definitions in American Standard Definitions of Electrical Terms (1941). Th

Google finds 52,000,000 matches for ain't but non-natives simply can't look up this word. Wiktionary isn't helpful. Is it some kind of 'wildcard' for "am/is/are not"? Answer The common bit of schoolyard wisdom that “ ain’t ain’t in the dictionary, so ain’t ain’t a word” turns out to be untrue. Every online dictionary that I’ve ever looked in contained an entry for ain’t . Merriam-Webster Online : Main Entry: ain't Pronunciation: \ˈānt\ Etymology: contraction of are not Date: 1749 1: am not : are not : is not 2: have not : has not 3: do not : does not : did not —used in some varieties of Black English usage Although widely disapproved as nonstandard and more common in the habitual speech of the less educated, ain't in senses 1 and 2 is flourishing in American English. It is used in both speech and writing to catch attention and to gain emphasis ain't funny anymore — Richard Schickel> ain't going to be any blackmail — R. M

Some men are really good at fixing things, especially the household appliances while they're not specialists or technician. Is there any words to explain these people? Answer Handy , which is something I'm not. (Just ask my wife...) MW says: clever in using the hands especially in a variety of convenient ways [a man who is handy around the house]

I'm looking for a synonym (single-word or short phrase) for the word lifehack . I read Wikipedia article , and checked few online dictionaries. I could not find any synonym. The word is informal and it means: A strategy or technique adopted in order to manage one’s time and daily activities in a more efficient way I understand that the word origin is by extension from the computing sense of hack, meaning to manipulate a computer program in a skilful and often creative manner . The word was coined in 2004. If there is no other current synonym, how native speakers used to refer to the meaning above, before 2004? Answer time-savers timesaving hints or tips Also, I support the already-suggested hints , because I remember there was an author popular in the sixties, Heloise , who wrote a series of books of hints, handy hints, household hints, etc. I think they were big because more women were joining the work force.

“Advise” vs “advice” I've seen twice in in 30 minutes how someone had said that they wanted advise on [...] subject, or how they needed advise on [...]. Is this correct?

Physical in the bodily sense appears to have developed independently from its root original term physic . So, for instance, you can say you do physical exercise to keep your body, not your physic, in good shape. Physical meaning "having to do with the body, corporeal" is attested from 1780. Meaning "characterized by bodily attributes or activities" is attested from 1970. (Etymonline) Note that you have physique in French and fisico in Italian and Spanish as nouns meaning body . Given that, apparently, the adjective physical didn’t developed the bodily connotation in English from the noun physic , where does it come from?

If I have 2 pens and I want to say all of them are green, I can say "Both of them are green" but if I have 3 pens should I use "Triple of them are green" or "All of them are green"? Answer You could go with any of the following: All 3 of my pens are green, All (of) my 3 pens are green, My 3 pens are all green, The word triple as an adjective means: Three times bigger in size or amount Having three parts or including three people or things, for example: a triple murder a triple heart bypass When used as a verb, it means: To cause (something) to become three times as great or as many To become three times as great or as many In mathematics: to triple the number 4 is equivalent to multiplying 4 by 3 , written numerically as: (4 + 4 + 4) or (4 x 3) = 12 Source: M-W Hope that helps.

What is the rule for comma placement before a quotation mark? When should the comma go before and when should it go after the quotation mark? Answer In American literature and university courses, the method for introducing a quotation is the same as the British English style: the comma is placed after the last word that introduces the quotation. Martin said, “Who brought that dog?” As for the closing quotation mark, American English prefers the comma to be placed before the ending quotation mark. In her notebook, Sheila wrote that the sun was “beet-red,” but after the game she had seen it “disappear over the bleachers.”

Suppose there is a Department of English (note: the name is not English Department ) at Abc University. I want to know the correct use of capital letters in these sentences: The Department of English at Abc University is really old. The English Department of Abc University is really old. The English department of Abc University is really old. I know 1. is correct, but I am not sure about 2 and 3. I am also confused about the appropriateness of the usage of of in 2 and 3. Any help is appreciated. Answer Names should be capitalized, so if you refer to the department by its “official” name, The Department of English , you should capitalize the first word and all subsequent “non-connecting” words (so not and , or , of , in , etc). However, if you’re just describing the department, in your case, The English department , you should capitalize only the names, so English , Abc , etc. To answer you question, I believe (1) and (3) are good.

Consider a company called: The Association of Examples Ltd. When you refer to this company, should you have to capitalize "the" when it's mid-sentence and would have been used even if it wasn't in the name? It looks odd to me: In other news, The Association of Examples announced that... Sarah is the founder of The Association of Examples and has... But I imagine it's the correct way. For the grammar-conscious, why or why not? To give you context, I am asking also when branding ones own company like that. The Economist did it (as did Fitzgerald for The Great Gatsby ) and Wikipedia authors adhere , but I can imagine it can cause confusion.

As an adjective, key can mean "Of crucial importance" ( Oxford ). For example: the key facts are the most important facts, or a key worker is an employee whose role is especially vital. In British English, key in this sense is every bit as common and well-understood as crucial would be. There are some stock phrases where it's especially familiar, but it's not limited to those; you could put it in front of any noun (say, key elephant ) and, with the right context, it would make perfect sense ("the matriarch is the key elephant to protect from poachers"). Many years ago, when I was a rookie, someone much more experienced told me that I shouldn't use key as an adjective because "Americans don't understand it". I've been carrying that "fact" with me ever since then – and was just about to impart it to someone else the other day, when I paused to wonder whether it's actually true. I can obviously see that the meaning is l

Personally, I pronounce the past tense of "beat" (to win at a game) as /biːt/, to sound identical to the infinitive. However, I have heard a few people under the age of 30 and from either the west or outer south of Melbourne pronounce it as /bet/. Does this phenomenon happen in other places? In Melbourne it seems to be socio-economic as the west and outer south are the currently developing regions. Is there any documented information about this? Has it happened recently paralleling "to read" /ɹiːd/ "have read" /ɹed/ or is it a long-standing alternate pronunciation? Answer The pronunciation /bet/ for the past-tense form of beat seems to be fairly old—it goes back at least two centuries. It seems it was associated with Irish English at one point. Walker's Critical Pronouncing Dictionary (1791) says the following in the entry for the verb "to beat": The past tense of this verb is by the English uniformly pronounced like the present. Nay, exce

what is the difference between: maybe she did see and maybe she saw is it a grammatical usage of maybe? Answer No, it's a pragmatic difference. Auxiliary "do/does/did" in a declarative sentence (i.e. not a question and not negative) is emphatic, often contrastive. So "Maybe she saw" is neutral; "Maybe she did see" is emphatic, or contrastive. The precise connotation depends on the context, but probably somebody had suggested, or the speaker has been thinking, that she did not see, and is now considering, as a new idea, the possibility that she did.

There's a commonplace form in AmE, "as per your asking"... (Note this question by a rightly confused non-native speaker.) It occurred to me that "asking" makes a beautiful noun. (Particularly if you pulp YA for a living ... consider say crap like "The Giver" .. that would be a perfect sequel title ... "The Asking" . Sounds great, right? I mean, it cries italics. You don't even have to add italics: you just look at it, and your deepest linguistic processes lean it to the right. It's sort of a linguistic optical typographical illusion.) {Come to think of it, it's essentially the perfect title for any YA series book. Vampire Academy: The Asking. Surviving the fog: The Asking. Etc.} So ... it's time for the asking. (Political context.) Tonight comes the asking. (Marriage upcoming.) We're going to have the asking later. (Child raising.) My question, it has a ye-olde feel. In fact, was "asking" used, perhaps .. in t

In the following two examples, is there any difference as to how amino acid should be hyphenated? There are twenty amino acids . The amino acid content is 80%. My intuition would be to hyphenate in the second example (where amino acid is a modifier) and not in the first, but I couldn't back it up. Is there a general rule that would apply? Answer Your intuition is correct. According to the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry's Guide to Nomenclature and Symbolism for Amino Acids and Peptides : When the phrase 'amino acid' is a qualified noun it contains no hyphen; a hyphen is inserted when it becomes an adjective so as to join its components in qualifying another noun, e.g. amino-acid sequence

There are blonde , brunette and redhead . What's the name for people with black hair? Answer Although there is some debate over this, the Oxford Dictionary definition of brunette is: noun : a woman or girl with dark brown hair. This source also mentions that in the US, an alternate form of the word brunette is brunet . The Merriam-Webster definition of brunet is: a person having brown or black hair and often a relatively dark complexion —spelled brunet when used of a boy or man and usually brunette when used of a girl or woman Thus, brunette includes the range of hair colors from brown to black. There is no specific and separate term for someone with black hair. However, people have suggested the term noirette . Note, also, that although the term brunette includes those with black hair, not everyone may agree. Therefore, this is the official term for people with black hair but not necessarily the one used in everyday life.

16-bit unsigned short integers that range from 0 through 0xFFFF 16-bit unsigned short integers that range from 0 to 0xFFFF Which expression is better above? Answer In British English, through means 'up to' (Monday≤Open to means 'up to and including' (Monday≤Open≤Friday). In Australian English, it's the other way around. In US English, they're interchangeable. People seem to go the way of the Ausies naturally when they hear through in California, at least. Therefore, the writer has precedence and may assign the intended meaning if he or she feels it is necessary. Here are some alternatives: from x up to and including y; starting from x ending in/with y; from x, not exceeding y; from x through to y, inclusive. If you consider through as short-form for " through to the beginning of " ("through non-inclusive" would make sense), it becomes apparent why British English seldom included y in 2011. However, if you look at through independently

For example, can declarative be pronounced similar to declaration for the accent (stressed sound)? I thought before that sometimes the position of the "accent", or the stressed sound of a word, depends on how many syllables there are in the word. But it seems that the words declaration and declarative have the same number of syllables, but declaration is stressed at the first syllable, while declarative is stressed at the second syllable. Is there a rule for this? Does the placement of the stress depend on the variety of English? (I suppose the word declarative is not pronounced with the first syllable stressed no matter it is British or US pronunciation?)

In the following sentence, should I say spelled or spelt: You spelt/spelled "Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" wrong. Answer From Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary: spell (FORM WORDS) /spel/ verb [I or T] spelled or UK AND AUSTRALIAN ENGLISH ALSO spelt, spelled or UK AND AUSTRALIAN ENGLISH ALSO spelt This means that you should say "spelled" in US English and you can use both "spelt" and "spelled" in UK/Australian English.

Most dictionaries don't say whether a noun is count vs. mass . Short of asking a fluent English speaker, where can you get this kind of information? I've tried asking various other ESL/EFL people I know this same question, and also tried googling it, but to no avail. Answer Most English dictionaries used and published in the United States don't include that information, just as they don't provide IPA-based phonemic transcription . However, dictionaries published in the UK and elsewhere sometimes do, especially dictionaries for English learners. One American online exception is Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary , which dutifully reports that pea and bean are both [count] , while rice and sand are both [noncount] .

How do we use myself as the only subject of a sentence? For example I once heard some people saying Myself am to be blamed. Is this grammatically correct? How is it different from I am to be blamed ?

Unrequited , according to the most influential dictionaries, is a term mostly used in reference to love. As the following source notes: Unrequited is used almost exclusively in the context of romantic love. If you love someone and they don't love you back––that, my friend, is a case of unrequited love. As noted here, the term is quite old and was originally used in reference to money: Unrequited love is so painful, most people feel they are the first person in history to experience it, but the word unrequited has in fact been around since the 1520s, when it was invented, like many good words, to talk about money . It derived from re- 'back' + the Middle English quite 'pay up.' (Vocabulary.com) Though it is true that unrequited is also collocated with other terms expressing feelings and emotions such as hatred , anger , lust etc., love is by far the term unrequited is most often associated with. Please see here . What's so idiomatic about the term "unr

On Sunday, April 3,2011, Google displayed a commemorative graphic for the 119th anniversary of the first documented case of the Ice Cream Sunday . (Image comes from: http://www.google.com/logos/2011/icecreamsundae11-hp.jpg ) The Wiktionary entry for 'Sundae' says only that it is a modification of 'Sunday' and contains a link to the Wikipedia page. The Wikipedia entry for 'Sundae' contains a bit of history of the ice cream sundae, including competing claims for the origin of the ice cream sundae, but does not detail how 'Sunday' was changed to 'Sundae'. One origin story claims that the sundae was created to comply with Blue Laws in that locality, and the name 'Sunday soda' was changed to 'sundae' after demand caused the owners of a soda shop to serve the treat on days other than Sunday. The first documented case of the sundae used the 'Sunday' spelling. How did the spelling officially change from 'Sunday' to '

I read the following sentence on YouTube and initially thought it was grammatically incorrect: Here are 10 minutes of the movie Black Hawk Down! I thought "are" should have been "is" but then I realized minutes is plural so the plural form, are , is used correctly. I also thought how most people would naturally say "Here is ten dollars in change" but is the use of the singular form, is , correct since dollars is plural? Am I misunderstanding a rule? Answer In most cases, if the subject and verb do not agree then we have a grammatical error, as in the following examples: My friend have a dog. I never eats cheese. However, there are cases where semantics overrides the usual agreement rules. This often occurs with collective nouns: The committee have decided to disband. The team are not playing very well. In such cases the speaker conceptualises the committee or team in terms of their members. The opposite occurs in examples such as: Three weeks seems a lo

Green about the gills is a common British English expression that is used when someone is feeling queasy, or about to vomit or be sick (there's that AmEng and BrEng divide once again). Cambridge Dictionary defines it as being old-fashioned ... gasp. to look ill and pale: I think I get the green part. I seem to remember reading somewhere that people's complexion change colour when they are either seasick or carsick. Obviously, they look paler, and maybe their skin adopts a sickly-yellow tinge, but green ? Now for the gills , those flaps which fish use to breathe in oxygen, I might be mistaken but I've only ever heard of gills being used for human beings in this idiom. Why was the term gills used for people? What part of the body are the gills supposed to represent? Do people, figuratively, become green around their nose, mouth or ears? Why is the colour green associated with gills and feeling sickly? Answer The expression green /white around the gills, meaning "

Is there any differences between following two sentences. I have seen both in various places and I can't really find a difference between them. It actually works. It actually does work. Does the latter more emphasis on the result ? Is it grammatically correct ? In my view however the latter should be incorrect. Answer They technically mean the same thing (and both are grammatically correct). There is a difference, but it is subtle. It's more clear in spoken English, or at least easier if you add an emphasis where necessary (which I have done below). It works. Plain and simple, the thing works; no implications here. It actually works. Think of it more as "You would think it wouldn't work, but it works." Perhaps other products in the same category don't work, and this dispels any disbelief in the product's ability to work. Alan: This application does not work! Bob: It actually does work, but you need the latest JVM installed. Even more emphasis on the

One of the meanings of the word "lifesaver" is swim ring. English is not my first language, so I'm trying to understand how closely related these two phrases are? For example, if I say "lifesaver" to a native English speaker, is this the first thing that comes to mind? Answer Going by the dictionary, it depends on how you interpret it. Depending on how you interpret it, the OED arguably lists it. informal A thing that saves one from serious difficulty. ‘a microwave could be a lifesaver this Christmas’ Australian/NZ A lifeguard working on a beach. The first definition is very vague, intended to describe figurative lifesavers, but I think you can argue that it doesn't necessarily exclude literal lifesavers (e.g. a "swim ring"). In my opinion, it's counterintuitive to allow the figurative usage but not the literal usage, especially when the figurative meaning expands on the literal meaning. If you can consider a microwave a lifesaver (for im

There's a particular colloquial usage of the present tense in recounting past events that has a shade of meaning that I've been unable to put my finger on. As an example, instead of: And then Bob said to her, "Sorry, I'm not going." saying: And then Bob says to her, "Sorry, I'm not going." It seems to me that this expresses an attitude of mild disapproval toward the action recounted, by using the present tense. Further along the same spectrum might be: And then Bob goes, "Sorry, I'm not going." or even: And then Bob is all like "Sorry, I'm not going." What's a more linguistically sound way to describe what exactly is being encoded by this usage of the present tense?

"The group are all here." The British seem more inclined to use a plural verb ("are") in sentences like this than Americans are. At some time in the past it struck me that there are some singular collective nouns with which Americans do normally use a plural verb, so maybe the list of verbs with which Americans do that is simply smaller than the corresponding British list. But I find I can't remember what examples I had in mind. Has anyone compiled those lists?

Two years after his reported Reichenbach Fall demise, Sherlock, who has been cleared of all fraud charges against him, returns with Mycroft's help to a London under threat of terrorist attack. I know, there are city names with articles (like The Hague ), but I've never heard someone say a London till now. Is a London under threat of terrorist attack used here as a description of some indefinite place in London? Answer This construction gives a sense of renewal of acquaintance or a rediscovery. Note that you can also employ the definite article. Example *I returned to Anthea's house after many years to find an Anthea who no longer laughed and sang. She was now a sad reflection of the Anthea I used to know.* You can think of it as meaning "a version of". *I returned to Anthea's house after many years to find a version of Anthea who no longer laughed and sang. She was now a sad reflection of the version of Anthea I used to know.* There is a sense that An

The two sentences here both indicate that, at some point in the past, I performed some work: I did work I worked What is the difference between these two sentences? Does constructing one with did and the other with a simple past change the meaning?

Sometimes you will hear people refer to four digit numbers in terms of hundreds. For example, sometimes people will say fifteen hundred when talking about the number 1500. Is this proper? What are the rules of usage? In my personal experience, the hundreds notation is common for values less than 2000, but rare for larger values. Can I refer to 7300 as seventy-three hundred? I know this has been discussed in another question , but that was in terms of years. I'm asking about numbers in general.

I would like to know whether “fatal injury” means (1) an injury which causes a death, (2) an injury which almost causes a death but not necessarily does, or (3) both (1) and (2) depending on the context. I am confused because several Japanese-English dictionaries give “fatal injury” as a translation of both chimeishō (致命傷) and hinshi no jūshō (瀕死の重傷), while chimeishō means (1) and hinshi no jūshō means (2). I am aware of another question about the word “fatal” , but it does not answer my question. Edit: I changed the title of the question because the former title resulted in an ambiguity which I did not intend. Answer In any normal context, a fatal injury is one which either has already led to death, or appears certain to do so. There will be rare circumstances where that appearance of impending death turns out to be mistaken, but in retrospect this would constitute a misuse of the word fatal . The normal term for injuries which may well result in death is life-threatening injur

Is it correct to use a comma after as such ? For example:- and as such, it is not possible to verify the claim.

Recently, my English tutor pointed out that I misused the phrase "let alone" in the following sentence: Such high level of publicity of shame notions at different levels is very rare in other Asian countries, let alone in Western society. By "let alone in Western society", I mean that Western society has even a lower level of publicity of shame notions than other Asian countries. While I was reviewing my document and reading other posts about the usage of "let alone", I don't believe that I understand this phrase thoroughly. Could anyone help elaborate why "let alone" isn't correctly used in this sentence? Do you think "let alone" is an informal phrase that should not appear in academic writings? Clarification based on comments: I remember my teacher explained the usage of let alone in this sentence: He bought her a diamond ring which was huge and sparkly, let alone expensive. I didn't take detailed notes about this, which I

In Lucy Kellaway’s 2012 Golden flannel Award, the Preposition Award is given to a usage of to . But the winner is the innocuous word “to” as increasingly heard in presentations: “I’ve got some slides to talk to” – the unfortunate implication being that the speaker has to talk to the slides because no one else is listening. Am I right in thinking that the speaker originally intended to mean some images for projection on a screen? If so, what is the appropriate preposition in this sentence. “About” perhaps? Is this usage of to really often heard?

Why does the word colonel (as in military rank) have such a strange spelling compared to how it's pronounced (or vice versa, although I don't know how you would pronounce that)? Answer It comes from Italian military manuals, and the English spelling preserves the Italian form, colonnello . Two pronunciations coexisted; the r prevailed in English. Spanish took both the spelling and pronunciation: coronel . http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=colonel

I've seen and heard this usage of the pronoun "same" more than once, and it sounded strange to my ears: "Thank you for the book; I will return same shortly." "Wine production has increased, but is there great demand for the same?" Is it acceptable ? Where? Answer Don’t worry, Luis. It’s not just you. This sounds strange to everbody’s ears. :) It is possible to use the same as a substantive instead of as an adjective. However, it is in my opinion not necesssarily advisable outside of specialized fields like law and linguistics. Here are the two main substantive possibilities: Used absolutely (that is, without a noun following it, so a nominalized adjective) as in the same , it acts like a noun. It takes a definite determiner, but does not normally admit a plural inflection. (But see sense 5b below.) Used as a pronoun, it means it , and so being a pronoun takes no determiner there. It’s a very old way of speaking that today is found almost only in le

This question came to my mind after seeing this tweet from an online acquaintance: The use of learning as a noun makes me ill. Maybe someone gained their learnings about language from corporate Borat. Is the word learning used as a noun not correct English? If so, what are the words one should be using to express the same intended meaning? Answer That is ill-informed nonsense. Of course it’s a noun. Point the tweeter in the direction of Alexander Pope’s couplet, both for the usage and the sentiment: A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring. It is not entirely clear whether the tweeter had the plural form particularly in mind, but, if so, its use is not unprecedented. In Cymbeline, I. i. 43 the First Gentleman says: The king . . . Puts to him all the Learnings that his time Could make him the receiuer of. Francis Bacon uses it at least twice: Particular and positive learnings of lawes doe easily decline from a good temper of iustice. and He

Which is grammatically correct: “Let he who…” or “Let him who…” Should the pronoun be "him" because it's the object ( gave it to him ), or should it be "he" because it is subject of the subordinate clause "he who came closest." Also, what is "who came first" described as, grammatically? I should know, but I don't, and it bugs me.

If someone wrote that they want "nuts and bolts", they would get a bunch of hardware they could attach things with. If this was software or math, they would only receive nothing, because things are (generally) nuts or bolts. If someone asked for "vanilla or chocolate", they might be given one or the other; "exclusive or" in the math. Why is there this mix-up of logical operators between normal language and math?

A police officer who pulls over a driver might ask to see his “license and registration, please.” Similarly, a border official might ask for a “passport, please.” However, in these situations, the asked party doesn’t have the option to refuse. Does the word “please” imply that the addressee has the option not to obey the request? Answer Please serves to distinguish a request from a command, but just because something is phrased as a request, that doesn't mean you can refuse it. A business owner who says "Ma'am, I'll have to ask you to leave" is being more polite than one who just says "Out!", but neither can be denied. In your specific examples, I think that politeness is a major factor, but another factor might be that an utterance like "Passport" is very open-ended — passport what ? — whereas "Passport, please" is more clearly a request. (It's still vague, in that it doesn't specify exactly what the passport-related reques

I've always been taught to put myself last when referring to myself in the same sentence as others but the usage of "me and..." seems to be everywhere these days. The misuse of the word "me" instead of "I" aside, is there some new rule I haven't heard of? Shouldn't we put ourselves last regardless of the "me"/"I" usage? Examples of "correct" usage: My friends and I went for some ice cream. Did you see my friends and me at the ice cream stand? Examples of "incorrect" usage: Me and my friends went for some ice cream. Did you see me and my friends at the ice cream stand? Note: I was also taught that the only person who could put themselves first was the queen. Answer The difference between "I and my friends" and "my friends and I" is purely a matter of courtesy - they are both grammatically correct. I would tend to stick to the latter though, as it a) is more commonplace, b) is consider

In in matters political , one can notice the inversion of the standard adjective-noun order. Here's an example in context: political obligation is only one consideration among many in a determination in how we ought to act in matters political I would have expected "in political matters." When can such construction be used? Is it fit to writing as well as speech, or would you rather say "in political matters" when in colloquial contexts? Answer While done much less often in English than some other languages, such inversions are used for emphasis. Here the 'matter' is more important and the fact that it is a 'political matter' is less important. Try removing the adjective and see if it significantly alters the meaning. In this case the second 'political' only adds a bit more clarity. We use these constructs sparingly, but in both conversation and writing. If it had been worded as you expected, it would've been understood the same, bec

I was reading The Tipping Point this morning, and the author spoke of how Winston's slogan in the 1950s that went "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should" was very memorable because of its ungrammaticality. Apparently, back then, this was noticeably incorrect, but when I first heard it, I didn't think anything was wrong with it. In fact, I hear "like" being using in this fashion quite often and "as" much less. In my own writing, I typically use "as" as opposed to "like," but I would personally phrase the slogan as "Winston tastes as good as a cigarette should." That has a slightly different meaning, but the correct version of the slogan sounds odd to me. As I am much more an advocate for descriptive linguistics than prescriptive grammar, I have to come to the conclusion that using "like" as a conjunction in that way isn't "incorrect" because broad stretches of the population now use it, b

This question asks about (teaching) the distinction between complex and compound sentences. I have managed to read really quite widely in linguistics for more than fifty years without ever as far as I can recall encountering this distinction. To me it appears completely pointless and nitpicking. Would somebody please enlighten me why it might be of any interest or value to make the distinction, never mind teach it? Answer I know a grammarian who maintains that it is senseless to analyse English as it is commonly spoken purely from a syntactic standpoint (while totally supporting syntactical analysis as an indispensable tool). Note however the confusion that can result from a semanto-syntactic approach: .3. I come bearing soup, for Kate is sick. .4. I come bearing soup, because Kate is sick. In my book, sentence . . . 3 [is] compound, . . . conjunctive adverbs, and here FANBOYS, are both ways of linking independent clauses , and, therefore, we call them compound sentences. Your last