Blog

“If I was” or “If I were”. Which is more common, and which is correct? Which one is the correct form: "Wish I was here" or "wish I were here"? I've heard both of them many times but I don't know which one is correct.

I've just heard your sister is waiting on you with the meaning of wait for (as in wait for the bus ). Up to now I had only encountered wait on with the meaning of attend to / serve . Is this use of wait on instead of wait for widely spread in the English speaking world or more specific to certain geographical areas? In the sentence I'm quoting above, and without further context, could there be any ambiguity as to the meaning? Answer It's regional in U.S. English. Much of the U.S. says "waiting for you", but I believe that much of the South says "waiting on you". I don't know exactly what regions use "wait on" (not the Northeast), and a couple of minutes of Googling didn't find any answers, so I can't be more specific.

I'm checking a technical paper submission and came across the phrase We propose spherical Gaussian based approximations to calculate this analytically. and wondering if this needs a hyphen or not. I'm inclined towards spherical Gaussian-based but could it also be spherical-Gaussian-based which is what some of the other questions on hyphenation here are based on. Answer In most U.S. English style guides, the decision about whether to double- or single-hyphenate a phrase such as "spherical Gaussian based approximations" rests on whether the first word in the string attaches primarily to the noun or primarily to the modifier closer to the noun. In other words, if you are talking about Gaussian-based approximations that are spherical, you would normally use a single hyphen: We propose spherical Gaussian-based approximations to calculate this analytically. But if you are talking about the kind of Gaussian basis (namely, spherical) that underlies the approximations, you wo...

"Information on something", "information of something", "information about something" — these three usages all sound having the same meaning for me. Are there any differences? Answer "On" has the meaning of 'covering' here, as in : Dealing with the subject of, about, or concerning something. "Information on something" would be information that is really in-depth, and quite into details. i.e. A study on history, or A book on biomedicine. "information about something" has the implication that it is information that is a kind of summary about a subject i.e. A brochure will contain "information about something", but you can't really say "A brochure on mechanics." You would use "A brochure about mechanics." "information of something" used in this way basically means the same as "information about something", but I would using "information of something" for the...

What part of speech does here have in the following sentence? I am here. I say that in that sentence, here must be an adverb because: It modifies the verb am by describing where I am. Am is a “being” verb in this instance, not a “linking” verb. My friend contends that here is a noun because the word here is, in this instance, defined as this place , which in Merriam-Webster is the definition for the noun here .

Incorrect: a baby lamb Correct?: 'a baby sheep ', or just 'a lamb' Is there even one word used to describe this duplication? Or would you just identify the mistake as "a redundant word"?

To my surprise, there's a missing question about this particularly interesting verb, dare. All I know about it is the fact it can be in two forms, as an auxiliary (without to : "I dare not mention their names") and main (with to : "Did anyone dare to admit it?") verb and the difference has something to do with agreeing with subject. Can somebody explain in a greater detail? Answer Dare is a semi-modal verb. The speaker can choose whether to use the auxiliary "to" when forming negative and interrogative sentences. For example, "I don't dare (to) go" and "I dare not go" are both correct. Similarly "Dare you go?" and "Do you dare (to) go?" are both correct. Taken from the Wiktionary . Note that when dare means challenge , it requires to , as in: I challenge you to ask her out. I dare you to ask her out.

Which spelling is correct — reseller or re-seller ? I was writing a question on another Stack Exchange site, and I wrote reseller , but the editor underlined that as an incorrect spelling. Microsoft Word accepts it however, but Microsoft Encarta Dictionary has no entry for reseller , resell , or reselling .

Is the bottom-most floor (on ground level not the basement) "ground floor" or "first floor" in America? Answer It is ground floor in GB and first floor in the US . The first three levels top to bottom are: US: Third Floor Second Floor First Floor GB: Second Floor First Floor Ground Floor

In colloquial British English today you hear "Cheers" (to mean "thank you") more often than "Thanks." Is the choice of one or the other determined by regional, class, or education differences, or is there some vague distinction in meaning or implication, or is this just one of those random things? Answer 'Cheers' has two main uses: For expressing appreciation. For toasting. I have generated a small graph that plots my understanding of its usage here in the UK. I lumped class and education level together as, in this case, they probably roughly correlate. This will upset posh people as they know that class has nothing to do with where you went to uni, and will upset some educated people as posh people are all inbred thickies who only went to school for the rugger and the fagging . Things to note about the graph: The propensity to use cheers as 'thanks' is level at the start and drops off a cliff at the end. This is because blue collar/wor...

Which is more natural and why: 'knocking on the door' or 'knocking at the door' ? And which is grammatically correct?

This Ngram shows that people were happily saying "dog eat dog world" until the 1980s, when "doggy dog world" abruptly came into use. What might have accounted for this? (It was well before Snoop Dogg's single "Doggy Dogg World"). Did this phrase come into recorded being as genuine wordplay, or as an " eggcorn "?

A 16-year-old girl. She is 16 years old. I've read somewhere that the reason the year in the first example is singular is that it functions as an adjective, and adjectives can't be plural. Looking at the second example, doesn't the years also function as an adjective? If so, why is it in plural form? Answer A 16-year-old girl: 1) "16" and "year" are linked by the hyphen to create a single term ("16-year") that modifies "old." 2) "16-year" and "old" are linked by the hyphen to create a single term ("16-year-old") that modifies "girl." She is 16 years old: 1) "old" is a predicate adjective for "girl." (as in "She is old.") As a single-word adjective for "she," it is not joined with a hyphen to the previous adjective, "years." 2) "years" modifies "old," and "16" modifies "year. "16" and "years...

This is what I have gathered from the dictionary and a few other websites: entry : the act of entering, in a more formal way entrance : the act of entering; a gate/door, etc admittance : permission to enter a place,institution, etc admission : the act of accepting sb into an institution, organisation,etc; the fee paid for entrance But I'm still confused by a few sentences involving 'admission' and 'admittance'. According to the definitions above, are the two words inter-changeable in the following contexts? You cannot just go into the club as admission is restricted to members only. To go into a foreign country, one usually needs to have an admission visa. Admittance to school depends on places available. Similarly, for the following uses of 'entry' and 'entrance', I feel most of them are inter-changeable, too: The burglars force an entry into the rich man's house. He refused me entrance to his house. The headmaster's sudden entrance fr...

African American Vernacular English is shortened to a less precise phrase "Black English". Also, Black English is used in a broader sense: Black English is a term used for both dialects of English and English-based pidgins and creoles, and whose meaning depends considerably upon the context, and particularly the part of the world. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_English Also mentioned is AAVE is not regional anymore: Although no longer region-specific, African American Vernacular English, which remains prevalent among African Americans, has a close relationship to Southern varieties of AmE and has greatly influenced everyday speech of many Americans. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_English I see the usage of "White English" in some technical sources but I couldn't be sure what is actually meant by that. For example, there is the this explanation from Prof. John R. Rickford from Stanford University: History of AAVE, exploring earlier exa...

examples: Gift (German) = poison poisson (French) = fish embarazada (Spanish) = pregnant sauce (Spanish) = willow triviale (Italian) = vulgar parentes (Portuguese) = relatives slim (Dutch) = smart Answer False friends is the common word for that :) As Wikipedia says: False friends are pairs of words or phrases in two languages or dialects (or letters in two alphabets) that look or sound similar, but differ significantly in meaning . The article goes on to mention one of your actual examples) False cognates , is something different. If we look again at wikipedia: False cognates are pairs of words in the same or different languages that are similar in form and meaning but have different roots. That is, they appear to be, or are sometimes considered, cognates, when in fact they are unrelated. This is different from a false friend, which two words may have similar roots but have diverged in meaning.

Firstly, is the following sentence correct? My brother is being unusually nervous lately. If correct, how is being nervous behavior? We usually use the progressive of be to describe a behavior or an action, not states of the mind. Secondly, I have read in both Longman and the Oxford dictionary that you use only present perfect with lately . Answer I agree with Possibility. It seems to me that the adjectives that describe some character can denote behavior in this structure (being + adjective), not those which describe states.

I was drawn to the usage of the word, “proxy” in the following sentence of the article introducing the life and work of Vivian Maier (1926 -2009), a street photographer who took more than 150,000 photographs in her lifetime, while working as a nanny approximately 40 years in Chicago. Some tellings of Maier’s story suggest that perhaps we should feel a proxy regret , that we should feel sorry about her solitude, her rages, her dark edges, her impecunious existence. Shall we make her a martyr or can we allow that she may have had the life she wanted? How did she see herself? We know that she was looking at that, too—the copious self-portraits prove it. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2014/05/vivian-maier-and-the-problem-of-difficult-women.html#slide_ss_0=1 CED defines ‘proxy’ as: noun.c.u. Authority given to a person to act for someone else, such as by voting for them in an election, or the person who this authority is given to. OED also defines it only as a noun meaning; T...

Obviously there are two different animals — a tortoise and a turtle. But I have been told by a colleague that in the US the word turtle is used to describe both. I find this odd as for example the Galapagos tortoise was fairly well known (old & big) and it would surely be a mistake to refer to it as a turtle. Answer It all depends on how technical you want to be. (I am writing as the spouse of a nationally recognized expert on wild turtles, tortoises and terrapins in the US.) In the US there are 50 species of "chelonians" excluding sea turtles. Among experts they are identified by strict Latin taxonimic names when precise species identification is required. There is also a looser English taxonomy, but there is enough regional variation that experts fall back on Latin when confusion arises. But, even experts in "casual" conversation use the word "turtle" to include "turtles, tortoises and terrapins"; e.g. "I study turtles." Some no...

In cartoons and comics it's not uncommon to see a series of Z's to indicate that a person is in deep slumber, such as in the following political cartoon. How and when did the letter Z come to be associated with sleeping? Answer "How and when did the letter Z become to be associated with sleeping?" First of all, zzzz (or z-z-z-z) is sound of snoring, from at least 1918. (Sometimes "a tiny saw cutting through a log" [1948] would be used, and both the snore and saw would make the same z-z-z-z sound.) Over time, this became associated with sleep in general, but most comic reference books (e.g. 2006's KA-BOOM! A Dictionary of Comic Book Words, Symbols & Onomatopoeia , 2008's Comic books: how the industry works ) still mainly associate it with snoring. See also Why Does ZZZ mean sleep? for another theory: The reason zzz came into being is that the comic strip artists just couldn’t represent sleeping with much. ... As the sounds made while sleeping ar...

Is the always used before the name of a school, college, or university?

So there was just a thunderstorm, and my sister came with a question I couldn't answer: Why is it "thunder and lightning", because the lightning comes before the thunder? Shouldn't it be "lightning and thunder"? And now I wonder, where did the phrase "thunder and lightning" come from, and why isn't it "lightning and thunder"? Answer In the Latin bible, it is written in Exodus 19:16-25: iam advenerat tertius dies et mane inclaruerat et ecce coeperunt audiri tonitrua ac micare fulgura et nubes densissima operire montem clangorque bucinae vehementius perstrepebat timuit populus qui erat in castris. A widespread translation in the English Bible is: On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled The literal translation of " audiri tonitrua ac micare fulgura " is " hear thunder and see lightning " in th...

If the context is crystal clear and, as such, allows no risk of misunderstanding or ambiguity whatsoever, unlike "Paul jumps into the lake (= Paul jumps into the lake from a certain point)" vs. "Paul jumps in the lake (= Paul is in the lake and jumps out)", is it grammatically acceptable in AmE to substitute "in" and "on" for "into" and "onto" to indicate movement or the idea of movement, for all but the most formal prose? E.g. Should we go in the pool first, or should we shower first? source Let's get on the bus before the good seats are taken. source Let me translate this in the language of non-BS... source Answer In and into are not, strictly speaking, grammatically interchangeable in formal writing. On and onto have a little more leeway, but are also not always interchangeable. But, colloquially we often use in for into. It is perfectly acceptable to say go in the pool, jump in the pool, etc. But, as you correctly sta...

How to use “to + V-ing”? “To hear” or “to hearing”? Samson had been a strong man prior to having his hair cut. From a grammatical point of view, when to appears before a verb, it indicates that the infinitive (simple) form of the verb is to be used. But I have seen to used with conjugated forms of verb as well. What is the explanation for such uses? For instance, why is this not correct? Samson had been a strong man prior to his hair are being cut?

I come up with the following three options to say thank you, but am not satisfied with any of them. Option 1: I would like to thank the members of my PhD committee, Prof. A, Prof. B, Prof. C, Prof. D and Dr. E for... Remark: Repetition of Prof. Option 2: I would like to thank the members of my PhD committee, Professors A, B, C, D and Dr. E for... Remark: Inconsistency between titles: Professor (non abbreviated) vs Dr. (abbreviated). Option 3: I would like to thank the members of my PhD committee, Professors A, B, C, D and Doctor E for... Remark: Doctor E seems unusual to me, as Dr. E is somebody who holds a PhD and not a medical doctor. Does anybody has better suggestions please? Thank you very much for your help! Answer As others have said, how you state these things is not set in stone. Grammar.CCC offers the following on http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/abbreviations.htm Titles before names: Mrs., Mr., Ms., Prof., Dr., Gen., Rep., Sen., St. (for Saint) Notice that Miss is...

There seems to be two (main) ways of pronouncing "Los Angeles": Los An-jel-eeze Los An-jel-ess It's clearly Spanish, and my limited Spanish skills suggest option 2, but I've heard many people use option 1 (including commercial aircraft pilots over the intercom). Which is "correct"? Update: In the classic 1938 movie Double Indemnity , at 1:18:00 into the movie, Edward G Robinson clearly pronounces Los Angeles to rhyme with cheese! Answer According to Oxford Dictionaries Online, the British pronunciation rhymes with cheese (as the comments say, it's closer to the last syllable of Hercules), while the American pronunciation does not; rather, it nearly rhymes with scandalous (or maybe evangelist ).

My colleague, a relatively young school teacher, prefers not to use e-mails. He is digitally absent. During a recent teacher's meeting, while I appreciated his efforts towards content development, I also called him "old school". (associating a sense of pride in being Old School) I can tell, the comment has made a difference, our relation has dived south. Is calling someone "old school"- offending/derogatory? Answer The safest answer is: Yes. There is a very strong derogatory flavour often associated with the noun-as-adjective. According to this article from The Age : To say something is "old school" has become a pejorative [usage]. It implies out-of-date thinking. This association is not guaranteed to be assumed by a listener or intended by a speaker, but the term should only be used with great caution, carefully thought out contextualisation. If one includes the views of the former Google Dictionary, the situation with connotations is seen to be bi...

In other words, does rhyming work reflexively? Do "potato" and "potato" rhyme? Is the following (admittedly cumbersome) limerick valid? An issue with rhymes confused me much So I used the internet as a crutch I went to a site The Stack Exchange site And used it as my crutch

I wrote the following: A creaking metallic sound awakened Erin. Raising her eyes, she looked to the front. It came from the door. Someone was opening the elevator. She waited expectantly while the struggle continued on the other side, her heart pounding with each bang. There was a screeching sound. Then, finally, the door clanked open. The bright light that (...) in blinded Erin. I could only think of come and stream . But I think they don't give the feeling of light coming in "abruptly." I though of rush . But I think it's not very common to use it to describe movement of light? What verb to use to describe light coming in rapidly?

It just occured to me that there are words in English that have two different meanings, two different pronunciations and are written exactly the same. For example "present" can be interpreted as the tense when pronounced /ˈprezənt/ or as a synonym of "demonstrate" when /priˈzent/ Other examples from the top of my head: "read", "live". I don't think I have seen that in any other language. In most languages you can't tell the spelling of a word by hearing it, but you call articulate it correcly when you're reading it. It seems that in English you can't do either of those. Did English ever have accent marks to distinguish between those? How did it end up like that? Answer Your premise is wrong. Homographs that are not homophones exist in a great many languages, and in a great variety of writing systems. Germanic, Slavic, Sinitic; Latin, Cyrillic, Hanzi; you name it. To distinguish lead from lead , 易 from 易, замок from замок , Hero...

The usual question and answer seem to be of the form What do you want to be when you grow up ? I want to be a singer when I grow up . Should it not be What do you want to be when you have grown up ? I want to be a singer when I have grown up . Here we have interpreted grow up as the process at whose end one becomes a singer. Should the first pair be considered correct simply because of its accepted usage, or is there an alternative explanation for this? Answer No, because a present tense is normal for an achievement in the future: When I am ready When I get tired When I reach London In all of these a perfect is possible ("When I have reached London" etc), but not required. "Grow up" can be a process, but in "When you grow up" it is, at least notionally, an achievement (i.e. end of a process).

What is the correct term used to describe this tense in English — Present Progressive or Present Continuous? I see both terms used in grammar books.

I am not sure if the title is clear enough to you, so let me briefly explain what I'm looking for. We sometimes see children who look very much like their father or mother, or even behave typically like either of them. I don't know if there is a formal or literary phrase to express this occurrence. But I wish to know some colloquial phrases which are used to convey the idea that I am talking about. Please bear with me if this topic sounds too mundane to you, and help me learn. Edit: For example, is it correct to say 'he has gone on his father?' This phrase, which I think is an effect of language transfer from Hindi, can be often heard in some parts of India Answer As Bill Franke has said, inheriting applies to the acquisition of traits. However, I think the idiom that best fits your translation of 'he has gone on his father' would actually be: He takes after his father. Or in the case of a nose or other distinguishing feature: He has his father's nose.

Some of my students have a disagreement about transcribing the pronunciation of "trade" in American English. Some say it's (a) [t͡ʃeɪd] while others (and they point to dictionaries that support them) say it's (b) [treɪd]. I thought it was the former; the latter sounds a little like a fast "tirade". But now as I try to articulate it more, it seems like (c) [t͡ʃreɪd]. Any insights on this? Answer The answer to your question depends to a large extent on whether you are using IPA to represent a phonemic transcription of the word, or a phonetic transcription. In either case, your option (a) is absolutely not correct . IPA /t͡ʃeɪd/ (or /t͡ʃɛɪd/, depending on how you choose to transcribe diphthongs) would as regularly as possibly be represented orthographically as ‹chade›, even though this is not a word, as far as I know. A minimal pair can easily be found, though: ‹chuck› /t͡ʃʌk/ vs. ‹truck› /trʌk/ (phonemically). Phonemic transcription If you wish to transcrib...

Apparently the word "nightmare" has only been used in the sense of "bad dream" since c. 1829. Before then the term referred to the agent causing the dreams—a mare mera , mære 'goblin, incubus'. What word or phrase was used earlier? I'm interested, in particular, in the meaning "bad dream" as opposed to "creature causing bad dreams" or "medical condition; pavor nocturnus ". I'm interested in all time periods: Anglo-Saxon/Old English, Middle English, Early Modern English, and (modern) Modern English. Anglo-Saxon I found swefnes wóma 'sleep-noise' as a possibility. OEME defines this as "dream-tumult, vision", and I can find a few uses in the corpus. Alain Pannetier suggests wódan dreáme , though this seems to have the primary or exclusive sense of "fit of madness". Dreám/dreáme seems to mean 'song, music' rather than 'dream'. Middle English The MED has: dwelsinge drēming/drēm...

Is there a reason that Moose becomes Mooses instead of Meese (as in tooth/teeth and foot/feet)

Are there any guidelines for when you should capitalize titles/headings or not? Should you always do this in English? I am referring to A Capitalized Heading vs A capitalized heading

The following is an excerpt from an article in the New York Times: No poet of our day has such a well-earned reputation for difficulty as the Englishman Geoffrey Hill, and there are few whose moral vision is so imperiously unsparing . Of late, however, the almost belligerent demands of Hill's severe and densely forbidding poetry have taken an improbable turn: part of what's become daunting about his work is simply keeping up with it all. ''The Orchards of Syon'' is Hill's fourth book in six years -- an ample output even for poets of sunny disposition, but for one of Hill's penitential austerity over the previous 50 years, it is something closer to a mutinous outburst. I don't understand the sentence in bold. I've looked up the words one by one in the dictionary. But I still don't understand. Can anyone rephrase it with more accessible words? Answer The statement in bold simply means that the poet has a strict sense of what is "right...

SFX Magazine had declared the sentence below as follow: 1) STAR TURN, 2) BEST LINES. I wish Bernard Cribbins was my grandad. Perhaps he would be willing to adopt? Rattigan: “If only that was possible.” The Doctor: “If only that were possible. Conditional clause.” Is ' was ' after ' I wish ', ' if only ' and ' if ' (in conditional clauses) colloquial? Does it be used in formal speech and writing? Answer There's nothing wrong with the sentences you write. Some people (I believe teachers among them) consider the use of the form was after I wish , if only and if (in conditional clauses) colloquial and claim that it shouldn't be used in formal speech and writing. They claim that the "correct" form to use is were . The language, however, has its own dynamics and is used regardless of the rules imposed.

In my grade school days, I recall a teacher proclaiming to the class: You should never start a sentence with the word "Because". Of course, I've since seen lots of examples to the contrary, and done so my self that seem to be perfectly correct, grammatically. Did she shorten some other rule that allows for specific exceptions? Did she just make it up because writing sentences starting with because is a little tricky for young and inexperienced minds? Is there some other reason? Answer It is appropriate when you have simply flipped the clauses: I stayed inside because it was raining. Because it was raining, I stayed inside. What the teacher was trying to teach was that a a subordinate clause is not a complete sentence: I stayed inside. This is a complete sentence. Because it was raining. This is not; the conjunction because makes it subordinate and therefore, it requires an associated independent clause.

I was rooting about in the OED and one definition is "The fact, condition, or position of being near or close by in space; nearness." Then in the citations for that definition they had: 1872 H. I. Jenkinson Guide Eng. Lake Distr. (1879) 286 Owing to the close proximity to the sea. Answer "In close proximity" is redundant in one direction, but not in the other. Semantically, "close" adds something to "proximity," but "proximity" adds nothing to "close," but it does provide a convenient noun form to tack onto "close" when one's mouth is in gear before getting the words straight. (It also adds a dash of formality and a few extra syllables for city councilors and police chiefs at press conferences.) The cognates of "proximity" carry a sense of figurative nearness, as in Aristotle's "proximate genus" and "approximate." These do not involve spatial nearness, and "proximate" ...

If I have a template (say a generic letter) that is filled in with various pieces of data (say, the name of the addressee), what is a general term for those pieces of data? For example: Dear {firstname}, This is just a friendly reminder that the book {booktitle} will be due on {duedate}. Thank you. What would I refer to {firstname} , {booktitle} and {duedate} as? Answer You could refer to {firstname}, {booktitle} and {duedate} as placeholders or variables .

People usually use the word "Holy" before "Shit", "Crap" or any other bad words to express their feelings, like surprise, anger, etc. Is there any reason why the word "Holy" is used with these bad words? I think the words "shit", "crap", etc are considered as bad words while "Holy" is considered as spiritual or something related to God (usually used to mention something related with God), Right? So is it used with the bad words to neutralize the bad words? Here is the link to another question related with the same subject that came into my mind after reading all the answers and comments here. How the phrase 'Holy s***' is formed? Please help me find an answer for that question.

My Longman dictionary states that the comparative of 'shy' is 'shyer'. However, at least two online dictionaries also give the form 'shier' as being acceptable: The Free Dictionary and Merriam-Webster . On an English language forum I came across a reference to British (shyer) vs. American (shier) spelling. But an Ngram chart shows that even in American English 'shyer' is much more used. My problem is that I've been told that it is definitely wrong, but if it's in dictionaries then... has there been a change to what is wrong? P.S.: Google Ngram link Answer "shyer" or "shier" ? Both versions are acceptable in today's standard English. In the 2002 CGEL page 1581: Monosyllabic dry and shy are optionally exceptions to the y -replacement rule, allowing either y or i before the suffix: dry ~ dryer/drier ~ dryest/driest and shy ~ shyer/shier ~ shyest/shiest. Note that CGEL is the 2002 reference grammar by Huddleston and...

How does one know when to use a gerund or an infinitive? states a 90% rule, but I'm more interested in the remaining 10%. This British Council page states Sorry, there isn’t a rule. You have to learn which verbs go with which pattern. and then lists some verbs, after which the correct form applies. But what about these two examples (if I got it right)? My dream is to become a doctor. My hobby is listening to music. Why does one take a gerund, and the other an infinitive? What is the rule? Answer Unfortunately, the linked answer is very vague, and not correct. It does point out correctly that gerunds are more common as subjects than infinitives. But it certainly doesn't provide any rule that works. The British Council is right. It depends on the predicate in every case, and often both are OK. The examples given are both correct, and illustrate a difference between infinitives and gerunds: My dream is to become a doctor . ( to become a doctor describes a punctual result, wi...

I've noticed that symbols (i.e. #, $, %, !, *, etc.) are commonly used to filter profanity/foul language. Just out of curiosity, is there a specific way to do this. I've noticed sometimes there isn't a specific number of symbols but normally the number of symbols correspond to the number of letters in the cuss word. E.g.: Wow dude, you are such an &#%-hole! So, with that all in mind: What symbols are acceptable for doing this? Are there patterns or specific methods for this? (Specific patterns for certain words) Other rules that may pertain to the situation. Answer Standard practice is to substitute asterisk when replacing just some letters (especially vowels, and not normally the first or last letter) in a swear-word (for example - "sh*t", or "c**t"). Any random combination of other "special" characters (including but not limited to &#%!@?) may be used to denote "some unspecified swear-word". I think OP's specific exampl...

I frequently see people write "all this", instead of "all of this". Is this a grammatically correct phrase? My intuition tells me that it's wrong (the spoken phrase "all this" is really a contraction of "all of this"); but I'm having a hard time finding any evidence to support the claim. Answer Yes, it is correct. This is an example of what linguists call ellipsis , or elliptical construction. Wikipedia defines it as "the omission from a clause of one or more words that would otherwise be required by the remaining elements." It's fine to omit words in this manner so long as your audience understands what you're saying.

Would you capitalize the job title in the following sentence? I am writing this letter in regard to Joe Brown who is applying for the director of teaching and learning position in the XYZ School District.

My boyfriend and I are arguing whether thousands of miles means 1000+ or 2000+ miles. The first argument is that 1000+ is over 1000 and therefore 'thousands of miles' by rounding up. The other argument is that thousands are a unit, and if you only have one unit plus a fraction of that unit it is not 'thousands of miles', it is a thousand miles plus the fraction: therefore only 2000+ is really 'thousands of miles'. Answer If your argument was that thousands means 2000+, then you could show your boyfriend the following dictionaries, which define thousands in your favour: Do not show him the following dictionaries, which define thousands in his favour: I'd say opinion is well and truly divided.

I usually see this phrase used interchangeably with the prepositions in and on . I know that their meaning isn’t the same, but I can’t think of situations where we should use one instead of another. Can anyone shed some light on any differences between these two: In the menu. On the menu. Just to clarify, I’m talking about menus of computer programs. Answer This comes up often, and here's the general answer. In this specific case, menu can be viewed either physically, printed on paper to read, i.e, 2-Dimensional , in which case on is used It's right there on the menu; you can't miss it. or informationally, like a list, or a report; this a Container metaphor , i.e, 3-Dimensional , in which case in is used. It's hard to resist the Armenian dishes in the menu. Quite often it makes no difference, because the information that's in the menu is also printed on the menu. This alternation is true of any physical noun that can be interpreted as information, like sto...

With a name that ends in -s , such as Travis or Lewis , where and when should you use -es , -'s , -s or just leave it alone to both pluralise, and to infer belonging to? E.g., if the ball belongs to Travis, which suffix would be used in The ball is Travis[es/'s/s/]. And, referring to a group of people all named Travis, which is correct: Here come the Travis[es/'s/s/].

I just can't figure it out; some writers use it others don't. For instance,in this para from an article: "On a domestic scale, people whispered about their neighbours, families split along north-south divides; standing back Britain felt embarrassed and isolated and scared of everything. Also it was the worst year for butterflies since records began." There is no comma after "also" even though the clause following it can stand on its own. Answer "Also" followed by a comma, indicating an intonation break, tends to be interpreted performatively, but without a comma is interpreted declaratively. A performative concerns the saying of something, while a declarative concerns what is said. "Also," at the beginning means, roughly, "in addition to what I have just told you, I am telling you what follows after the comma." But "also" not followed by a comma means that what follows is a factor in addition to those previously ment...

I’d like to use the phrase “in its own right” to mean “in itself” as in: This subject has no practical application, but is interesting in its own right. Is this a correct usage of the phrase? How is this understood by native speakers? Also, do you know of good alternatives? Answer Yes, “interesting in its own right” is a grammatically correct phrase, properly used, and likely to be understood by most native speakers. Reasonable alternatives include adverbs based on any of the following: • inherent , “naturally as part or consequence of something” • innate , “Inborn; native; natural; as, innate vigor; innate eloquence”, etc. • intrinsic , “Innate, inherent, inseparable from the thing itself, essential” For example: “This is an impractical but intrinsically interesting subject.”

Edit The comments here are full of disbelievers! "I've never heard handbag pronounced that way. Which country are you from?" Oh ye of little faith! So - I've attached a couple of examples here from that video site place. Watch the first from 23 seconds in. There's about five or six 'hambags' in the next half a minute: Hambag . Here's a second one, an American English speaker this time. He also says it about 23 seconds in too: A bag for sweet hams . Lastly, here's an altogether different pronunciation which you may find rather interesting. It's by far the best: A handbag? The question It's all in the title really. The other day I was hanging out with some teachers. They were all talking about /hæmbægz / i.e. 'hambags'. Ever since then I've been hearing people do this all the time. What's with the bags for ham? What are the restrictions there on dropping one of the letters. I mean I can't say 'bangroll' /bæŋrəʊl*/ ...

For a long time, I understood [sic] to mean said in context , but I was told that that said in context is really a backronym. Fair enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic#Improper_abbreviation However, I'd like occasionally to be able to say something unusual/unexpected/perverse/incorrect but add some sort of note to indicated that is not my usual choice of word(s), but has been said in the context or the spirit of the preceding communication. Specifically, I'm wanting to say something fairly un-PC, using a deliberately anachronistic and inappropriate term, purely for effect. It will fit within the context of the discussion, but technically, [sic] won't excuse me or shield me from the accusation that the words are my usual choice. Usually [sic] is used when you are reproducing an error or mistake of someone else, but I'm not quoting anyone - I'm using a term that fits the spirit of the conversation, but nobody has actually uttered the phrase previously. Is ther...

I've got "running backward on a cornfield" as an answer on Reddit... there aren't enough usages of it online so I'm not quite sure what it actually means... are there any alternatives?

What am I doing when I search for something on the internet and the search provides for some other interesting stuff apart from what I was looking for and I end up opening an infinite number of browser tabs and browsing more and more it goes in an endless loop and the whole episode makes for after thought to ponder upon. PS: I lost the term I had found on Wikipedia and I cannot get it back. Answer Tab-surfing From wikipedia: Tab-surfing, also more accurately known as 'Branching' is a type of link-surfing in which, rather than click directly through to the next web page, the link is opened as a new window or new Tab. This method is used by people wishing to read as much information as possible on a variety of subjects which may or may not be related. The parent article is about Link-surfing: Link surfing is the process of starting on one article on a website and clicking on various hyperlinks to eventually finish on a different (pre-determined) article. There are all sorts of w...

My question is simple. Is the following sentence correct? They don't watch TV often. My English teacher has told me that the only correct option is: They don't often watch TV. Is she right? Answer I think she is wrong. "They don't often watch TV" certainly isn't the only correct option. As just one piece of evidence you could consider the Google result counts for these phrases (switched to "I" to get more representative data):

Since FYI stands for "for your information", I would tend to use it like this: FYI, I think the fish has gone bad. In other words, the acronym simply replaces the phrase . However, I've heard FYI used many times in the following way: As an FYI, you shouldn't mention his ex-wife. Here, it is being used as a thing . This doesn't quite sound right if you fill in what the acronym stands for. It's as if a for-your-information is taken to be an object in a similar fashion to a(n) FAQ . Anyone have some insight as to whether the second usage above is considered valid? Answer Using FYI as a noun is perfectly normal and common in business. "As an FYI, check out today's report on sales," is the sort of thing you hear all the time. "He sent me an FYI on that" is unobjectionable.

"As far as he was concerned it was the discovery of the millennium, and he was prepared to do whatever it took/takes to find investment." Any knowledgeable takes on the matter?

Can I use the noun hacker as an adjective? For example, can I write or say: It was a hacker trick. so that it means this: It was a trick of a hacker. And can I use It's hacker code. so that it means this: The code has been created by a hacker. Answer Both "hacker trick" and "hacker code" are acceptable. Technically, the word doesn't become an adjective. English nouns can act as modifiers (called attributive nouns or noun adjuncts ). For more information, check out this tutorial .