I think that there is a very obvious answer to this question.

The opposite of "better" is "worse."

The opposite of "more" is "less."

So, which of these sentences sounds correct: I like dogs worse than cats

I like dogs less than cats?

The answer is clearly " I like dogs less than cats.

The sentence " I like dogs worse than cats " would be flagged by any native speaker as being incorrect.

No one would ever say that.

The answer, in my honest opinion, lies in semantics, not grammar.

Think about it deeply; it simply doesn't make sense to say that you like something better.

The word "better" tells you something about the worth of something.

Whereas the word "Less" tells you something about a quantity (less butter) or about the perceived strength of something (less light).

To increase or decrease the force of your 'liking," only two appropriate words are available to you: you like something more, or less.

You can't like something better or worse, because these are words that comment on the value of liking, not its intensity.

To say "I like cats better than I like dogs" means, semantically, that your liking for dogs is somehow better than your liking for cats .

And it's obvious that that is not what most people intend to say when they use "better" in this context.

What they mean is that their liking for dogs is GREATER than their liking for cats, not that their liking for dogs is in some odd way BETTER than their liking of cats.

Dogs may be better than cats, but our liking of dogs can't be better than our liking of cats.

Of course someone might think that it is better to like dogs than it is to like cats.

But there are no "better" ways of liking something.

More is, to me, the better of the two.

Perhaps you could avoid all ambiguity and instead of: I like Dogs more.

I like Cats better.

you can try:

I prefer Dogs.

You can use either, both are short versions of comparisons.

I like cats better than dogs, but dogs more than pigs.

There may be a US/UK distinction.

I like cats better than dogs ...

sounds like to an Americanism to my British ears.

I'd be more likely to say: I like cats more than dogs.

However, I'd agree that both are acceptable.

Historically, like well and like better were the norm.

(You'll find it in Shakespeare.)

British English has dropped this usage, and opted for the more consistent like more , but still retains like well in expressions like well-liked or best loved .

American English has retained like well .

Mike can't like Edie better than me.

It's from a native speaker that seems to be right.

Be Careful!

Don't use any preposition except to in sentences like these.

Don't say, for example 'I prefer art than sports'.

Prefer is rather formal.

In ordinary conversation, you often use expressions such as like...better and would ratherÉ instead.

For example, instead of saying 'I prefer football to tennis', you can say 'I like football better than tennis'.

Instead of saying 'I'd prefer an apple', you can say 'I'd rather have an apple'.

Question: When people like something  more  than something else, it's common for me to hear them say they like it  better  than something else. Is this proper English? I've always thought the word  more  fits better, but I'm not sure whether or not use of the word  better  is wrong.

"Like something more" or "like something better"

The answer to this question may be related to semantics rather than grammar and there may be a US/UK distinction. Some people will claim that "more" and "better" are both correct, whereas others will claim that "more" should be the preferred option. It may be that both are acceptable.

The answer is obvious, the opposite of "better" is "worse" and the opposite of "more" is "less". The answer relates to semantics and not grammar.

You can use either, both are short versions of comparisons.  There may be a US/UK distinction.  Historically,  like well  and  like better  were the norm.  British English dropped this usage, and opted for the more consistent  like more , but still retains  like well  in expressions like  well-liked  or  best loved, whereas American English has retained  like well .

Both expressions are acceptable and it is a matter of semantics. However, some prefer "more" rather than "better".

The answer to this question may be related to semantics rather than grammar and may depend on the regional variant of English. Some people will claim that "more" and "better" are both correct, whereas others will claim that "more" should be the preferred option.

More  seems to be the better of the two.

But you can use either, both are short versions of comparisons.

Some people believe that "more" is correct and "better" is incorrect in this context.

The answer to this question may depend on the regional variation of English.

Some people believe that both are acceptable.

The answer to this question may rely on semantics rather than grammar.


This is a topic that leads to huge debates (and often flamewars)

online whenever it is brought up.

Logically, it makes perfect sense to use "America" and "Americans" for this country.

The name of the country is "United States of America".

Why would it be strange to shorten this?

It is common to shorten the official name of a country — most people don't even know the official names for the various countries.

For example, the official name of Mexico is "los Estados Unidos Mexicanos", which means "the Mexican United States"; nobody is surprised that it is referred to as "Mexico".

People would be surprised if you called them the "EUM".

(Also, this example shows that even "United States" is not a unique term to one country.)

Australia is officially known as "the Commonwealth of Australia", but we are happy to simply call them "Australians", even though it is also the name of a continent.

Depending on how you do your geography, the Australian continent also contains other countries aside from the "COA".

Lastly, I just want to point out that there is no single continent called "America".

There is one called "North America" and another called "South America", which are sometimes collectively referred to as "the Americas".

I think the strange thing is not that people from the USA call themselves "Americans", it is actually more strange that the full official name or an acronym is used so often.

I thought Australia was part of Oceania; when did this change and Australia became a continent itself?

By the way, America is the whole continent; the subdivisions are only for the sake of geographic or geological study, but the continental plate is America.

Every time we, people who live in any place besides the United States of America, feel embarrassed when we hear about "being American is", "the spirit of America is", and such utterances.

Because we're not "US citizens" nor will we ever be considered in that way, but we indeed live in “America”, so we could be proudly called Americans, but the patronimious (how do you say it in English?) has become synonymous of US citizens, politics, mind, behavior.

Sometimes we don't agree in no way with any of those points, and we feel excluded with a word that should unite us.

That said, I dare to say that using Americans for the citizenship of the United States is wrong for the rest of the continent, but as it has been used constantly by the United States all over the globe, that use have given another meaning to the word, succeeding in segregating people who feels America is also its land.

When I traveled to Europe, every time I was asked if I was from America, I corrected them to the name of my own country and emphasized that we're not in America (strange to say indeed).

By the way, in general Europeans understand the concept pretty well, but US citizens don't, and in general they don't even understand what they have done with the word.

It’s like they are humans so the citizens of United States are called humans.

Imagine the rest of the world should feel not so good about being called humans when they live in

let's say, Russia?

Nothing against the United States anyway.

Just to clear things up.

It's actually just the result of using half of the country's full name to save time.

The country is officially called "the United States of America".

In fact, if you think about it, something like "the United States" doesn't quality as an unambiguous country name.

There were many city-states in Europe, a lot of which united under the rules of different kings.

These were united states, as well.

Japan has several prefectures which are essentially states in their own right.

These are united under the Japanese government.

We could use united states (or united prefectures) to refer to these.

The Western world was named after Amerigo Vespucci, which led to the continents being named "North America" and "South America".

At first America was a collection of several colonies, each with their own currency and government.

When several states within North America all united to form a single government, they called themselves the "United States of America".

Some people abbreviate this as "United States", others as "America", others as "USA".

Wikipedia has a good section on how U.S. citizens came to be known as Americans.

It's interesting to note that in other languages, U.S. citizens are not so easily confused with other inhabitants of North and South America.

For example, some Spanish-speaking people use the term norteamericanos .

The main British colonies in the new world/Americas were the thirteen colonies ( Wikipedia ).

It was thus perhaps natural that the British (and English-speakers in general) came to refer to these thirteen colonies simply as "America".

These colonies later became the USA.

In contrast the Spanish were all over the Americas ( Wikipedia ).

It was thus perhaps natural that the Spanish (and Spanish-speakers in general) came to refer to the new world/Americas as a whole as "America".

The analogy is perhaps to the use of the word "Asian" in the UK as compared to in the USA.

In the UK, where most immigrants from the continent of Asia were/are from South Asia, when you say "Asian", you mean South Asian.

In contrast, in the US, where most immigrants from Asia were/are from East Asia, when you say "Asian", you mean East Asian.

And just like how Spanish-speakers/Latin America (often) get annoyed when people refer to the USA simply as "America"

, in the US people are (sometimes) annoyed when you refer to a South Asian as an Asian.

And mutatis mutandis for the UK.

Question: People often refer to the country US as America and to the people from the US as Americans.  As far as I know, that's the only case in the world where a continent's name is used for a country's name (let me know if I'm wrong). Why does that happen?

Why are the United States often referred to as America?

The logic is simply that it is a shortening of the country's name to save time.

It is logical to use "America" and "Americans" for the USA. The same format is used for the state of Mexico and for Australia.It may be incorrect to use Americans for citizens of other countries living on the continent of America.It may be incorrect to use Americans for citizens of other countries living on the continent of America.You cannot use the form "United States" as a country name. Historically, the continents were named after the explorer Amerigo Vespucci.Wickpedia outlines how US citizens became to be known as Americans.Historically, there were 13 colonies, and it was natural they all came to be known as "America".  The whole new world became known as "America".  In the UK, immigrants from the continent of  Asia are called Asians.

America is the whole continent; the subdivisions are only for the sake of geographic or geological study, but the continental plate is America.  Using the word Americans for the citizenship of the United States is wrong for the rest of the continent, but as it has been used constantly by the United States all over the globe, resulting in segregating people who also feel that America is also their land.  But it is probably just the result of using half of the country's full name to save time.

As a way to save time, logically, it is seen to make sense to use "America" and "Americans" in this context.

Wickipedia outlines how US citizens became to be known as Americans.


Integrous http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/integrous http://www.allwords.com/word-integrous.html

It doesn't pass a spell-checker, but there are over 500,000 hits for it on Google, most of which are using it precisely as you defined.

Virtuous : Having or showing virtue, especially moral excellence

: led a virtuous life.

Note that integrity is the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles .

Be virtuous!

integrious Variations of usage found in literature include integrous and integritous , also with similar meaning.

Wiktionary:

integrious ( comparative more integrious , superlative most integrious ) ( rare ) Marked by integrity.

Howard is an integrious man because his values are congruent with and evident in his words, actions, personality and life.

Most importantly, Wiktionary cites the reference of The Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Edition Volume VII.

Considering the marking " rare " along with the OED citation, it appears that it is (or was) an authentic word.

Found something on the

Why We Need the word Integrious movement!

I don't know of an adjective form of integrity , so I can't solve your issue directly.

However, depending on if your use case allows it, you might consider the phrase Have integrity .

Obviously if you're trying to offer a set of parallel Be X statements, this won't work, but if you're looking for a concise two-word imperative sentence, I think it carries the meaning you're looking for.

If you don't like what you have so far (Yahoo Answers' "there is no noun [sic!]

with the same root, use 'upright'", or the many suggestions in that WordReference thread — "a good sort", "decent bloke", "a man of integrity", "a man of good character", "principled", "reasonable" and whatnot), then you can use this: Be a mensch.

Merriam-Webster defines mensch thusly : a person of integrity and honor Wiktionary even has a few cites : 1960 ,

The Apartment: Doctor Dreyfuss

[to C. C. Baxter]

: Be a mensch! 2005 , Alan Hollinghurst, The Line of Beauty , Bloomsbury Publishing, page 428: Lionel Kessler, relaxing perhaps on a Louis Quinze day bed, garlanded all round with lines of beauty, seeing welcome proof that his clever maligned young friend was a mensch.

2008 December 28, George Solomon, “My Little Red Book”,

The Washington Post , page D01:

Olie Kolzig: Goalie for the Washington Capitals who spent most of 16 seasons between the pipes for the team until being released in 2008.

Had the longest career of any Capital.

Now plays for Tampa Bay.

The ultimate mensch, in my book.

Edit two years later in reply to comments.

No, this word does not have to be spoken to someone with a certain cultural baggage.

Here is what Steve Martin tweeted earlier today: I could not be more stunned by the loss of Robin Williams, mensch, great talent, acting partner, genuine soul.

This went out to 5.2 million followers, not a homogenous bunch by any measure, then got retweeted 50000 times, then picked up by traditional media outlets all over the world.

Mr. Martin does not exactly have a track record of not knowing when to use which word, and we cannot with a straight face claim that everyone who read his message shares the same cultural baggage.

Even more to the point, even if every single recipient did have to look up any word in that message because it was somehow obscure — now it no longer is.

Why limit the word to a form of "integrity" which from what I've seen is a bit sterile, when there are so many other words that convey the meaning so beautifully: Be noble Be upstanding Be moral Be without reproach

To directly answer your question, there is really no adjective for integrity .

However, there are several that could capture the essence of the word, although not in its entirety.

Thus, a few examples are: Be honest Be true to yourself Be upright

Be blameless

Be above reproach

Few, if any, however, are colloquial.

My suggestion would be to select the word(s) (and there are many)

that represent the aspect of integrity you deem most important for the occasion.

Be Ethical Ethical - of or relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.

Integrity - the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles.

Depending on whom I was writing to or for, I might be brave enough to try 'intact'. '

John was a thoroughly intact individual, so I decided to trust the job to him'.

The Latin 'intacta' means 'unimpaired'.

The second meaning of 'integrity' in the ODE (not OED) is 'the state of being whole and undivided'.

So my contention is that an honest person is an 'intact' person.

But then it would be just as quick to say 'As John was a man of integrity, I decided to trust the job to him'.

Describing a person, I would favour 'virtuous'.

In the context of data integrity, though, I have heard industry people use 'integral' to describe data.

Looking in some dictionaries, it seems there is no such word.

There is integer in German, though, and íntegro in Spanish, both of which have the intended meaning.

English translations that come up are upright and honourable , but nothing like integer or integral or anything like that.

While the use of the word "integrous" or "integrious" (variations of an adjective form of "integrity") is commonly used in spoken American English, especially in educational and professional forums, it is not commonly used in written American English - hence the lack of inclusion in dictionaries.

I use "integrity" with information a good deal.

If information has integrity, it is "reliable" and/or "valid."

For a person, I'd probably refer to them as "reliable" if they display integrity.

Integrated.

Not really the correct connotation when describing a person,

but yeah.

That's the adjective form of the noun "integrity."

I would go with trustworthy, meaning "able to be relied upon as a person of integrity ".

english.stackexchange.com/users/54466/Chris Sunami supports Monica

Question: I'm looking for the  adjective  form of " integrity ."    Instead of "Be a person of integrity," I'd like to say something like "Be [one word I'm looking for]"   I did a  Google search  for this, but I also wanted to know what stackexchange folks would like to say.

What is the adjective form for the word "integrity?"

It seems that there is probably no corresponding adjective for the word "integrity". However, possible adjectives that might be acceptable include "integrous", "virtuous" or "trustworthy".

"virtuous" means having or showing virtue or leading a virtuous life. "Integrity" has a different meaning.There are numerous alternatives. You could use the alternative format of "have integrity". Yahoo suggests that there is no noun for "integrity". The second meaning of integrity from the ODE is "the state of being whole and undivided".There is also the use of "integral" to describe data.

There is really no adjective for  integrity. Describing a person, I would favour 'virtuous'. Variations of usage found in literature include integrous  and  integritous , also with similar meaning.   You could also use "reliable" or "trustworthy" or other phrases such as "be noble".

It has been claimed that there is no direct adjective for integrity. However, suggestions include integrous, virtuous, integrated, integral and trustworthy.

There is really no adjective for  integrity .

It appears that there is probably no corresponding adjective in dictionaries for the word "integrity".

Some potential corresponding adjectives could be "integrous", "virtuous" or "trustworthy".


In this case, definitely write it as separate words, because the "in" is actually part of the idiom "checked in".

I think that's probably as close as you're gonna get to a rule of thumb: write into as one word, unless it's actually functioning as two different words - for example, if the "in" is part of an expression such as "checked in".

No, "into" does not require that the destination be a physical place.

One can be brought into poverty, a relationship, a realisation ...

So I would definitely check code into Subversion.

There's actually evidence for treating a case such as "check in/to SVN" as a kind of elliptical form of "check in into", when you consider the possible combinations when you turn the sentence round.

Compare the possibility of the following: Which repository did you check it into?

Which repository did you check it in into?

Into which repository did you check it in? with the impossibility of the following: *Into which repository did you check it?

To which repository did you check it in?

From this point of view, it seems a bit more logical to write "check (in) into", whether or not you include the second "in".

I think both are definitely allowable.

You can treat the verb 'check in' separately from 'toSVN because there is a direct object possible, for example 'my code':

I checked in my code to SVN.

This shows that the 'in' and 'to' are separable.

You can use the preposition 'into' with 'check'.

SVN, and other abstract repositories, still have a semantic connotation of being a receptacle or having an interior.

Using the separability check: I checked my code into SVN.

This shows that SVN acts like it has an interior.

The verb 'to log in' acts similarly.

Which is preferred?

I find 'checked in to SVN' better than 'checked into SVN', because I tend to use 'checkin' more often.

Compare contrast with 'check out': I like 'check out my code' but 'check out of svn' (and despite appearances, 'out of' corresponds to 'into').

In the sense that your source can be said to reside inside of the repository, I would argue that "into" is the correct usage here.

Compare with the example at your linked site (the URL needs to be fixed, btw) with either turning something "in to " a person (but it's not going into the person), or putting something "into" something else.

I would treat "check in" as a compound term, and so, check some code in to a repository, rather than checking code into a repository.

Question: Possible Duplicate:  When should “into” be used rather than “in to,” and vice versa?     I was recently submitting ("checking in") some data to a database and composed an email to my team informing them of the submission. What's the proper grammar to use here:   The changes are checked into the database   or    The changes are checked in to the database   What's the rule of thumb for proper usage between the two? Is there even a difference?

"Checked into the database" versus "checked in to the database"

It is possible that both are acceptable or, at least, there is no agreement on the correct usage. However, some would argue that "in" is actually part of the idiom "checked in".

The words "in" and "to" need to be written separately in this case. "Into" does not require to be a destination or place to be a physical place. It could be considered an elliptical form of "check in into". Treat "check in" as a compound term.

I think both are definitely allowable, but in this case, definitely write it as separate words, because the "in" is actually part of the idiom "checked in".

Both usages are allowed in this example. Some say to write it as separate words, because the "in" is actually part of the idiom "checked in".  However, in the sense that your source can be said to reside inside of the repository, some would argue that "into" is the correct usage here.

In this case, definitely write it as separate words, because the "in" is actually part of the idiom "checked in".

It seems a bit more logical to write "check (in) into", whether or not you include the second "in".


Yes, "my bad" is a proper English phrase.

It is an apology; when you say "my bad", you're basically saying, "I admit a mistake" or "my fault, sorry for that".

Wiktionary says : (colloquial) (idiomatic)

My fault; mea culpa.

Yes, I realize the humvee isn't supposed to be parked in the heirloom flowerbed.

My bad.

It also links to this Language Log entry , which provides further insight: The authoritative discussion of the phrase "my bad!"

at this Random House site says it originates in pick-up basketball as a phrase used by young urban players when admitting to an error.

It has spread to other domains and is now used widely to mean something like "I admit that I have made a mistake.

" It was nominated for "word of the year" (not that it's a word, it's clearly a phrase) in 1999, but in fact it was already at least twenty years old by then.

It's proper English slang .

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was proper English.

It will certainly be effective in irking English teachers, haters of textspeak, and other grammar purists!

To my ear "my bad" is very much an Americanism.

Handle with care.

Concrete Gannet is right.

my bad" is very much an Americanism.

I had not heard this until recently, and was baffled when I did.

I heard it on American television programmes and a computer game.

I have not heard any British people use it.

To me, it's like the Americanism "I could care less".

It does not actually, make sense.

It might be acceptable and even considered as proper English in the USA

but, it is not elsewhere.

At least not in the UK.

It does not make sense because, it is an unfinished sentence.

When I have heard it, my immediate thought was, "your bad what?".

Your bad behaviour?

Your bad language?

Or, just your bad English, which this sentence demonstrates?

I think it is a short way to apologize: many people are ashamed when they realise they have been wrong about something, so this may be a shorter and faster way to admit that they were wrong and/or to apologize.

Question: I have seen many people use the phrase "my bad" in Internet forums. What does it exactly imply and is it a proper English phrase?

Is "my bad" a correct English phrase?

Whilst this is considered English slang, there is disagreement as to whether this is considered proper English or not since it is an unfinished sentence. However, the phrase is used as a short way of apologising.

It is a correct English phrase to admit making a mistake. It is now widely used. It was nominated as phrase of the year in 1999. It is slang, and perhaps not proper English. It is an Americanism, so it needs to be used carefully. It doesn't make much sense, although considered acceptable in the USA.It is used as  a short form of apology

"My bad" is a proper English phrase, but it is slang. It is an apology; when you say "my bad", you're basically saying, "I admit a mistake" or "my fault, sorry for that". It is said to originate in pick-up basketball as a phrase used by young urban players when admitting to an error.

"My bad" is an apology, meaning "I admit a mistake" or "my fault, sorry for that". Although used as a slang phrase, may believe that it is not proper English, as it is an unfinished sentence.

There is disagreement as to whether this is considered proper English or not. However, the phrase is used as a short way of apologising or admitting a mistake.

For some people, this may be acceptable English or slang.

For some people, this may not be proper English.

This phrase is generally used as a way of apologising or admitting a mistake.


I would write “Log in to host.com.”

I think that “login” is a noun (as in “login screen”).

I would find the words “loginned” and “loginning” awkward.

As for “Log in to host.com” versus “Log into host.com,” I would use the former because I think that “log in” is a fixed phrase.

Martha’s answer to another question is also related.

Added :

The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) lists 65 occurrences of “log in to” and 58 occurrences of “log into,” both including inflected forms and excluding the Spoken section.

(The queries used are [log].[v*] in to and [log].[v*] into .)

Since “log in to” is also used in context like “log in to download it,” the actual number of occurrences of “log in to [host]” is slightly smaller than 65.

In any case, it suggests that the phrase “log into” is also used commonly, although I am not sure how good it is to use COCA to compare technical terms.

The verb is log in .

Log in to host.com From the Wikipedia page for Login :

Spelling confusion

The verbs are two words: log in and log out , whereas the nouns are login and logout (often used like adjectives in compound nouns).

Yes, I agree: Use " log in to " as a verb.

So use that for givinginstructions.

" log into " is not terrible, but it doesn't sound as good because itsounds like you're actually going inside something.

For example, "Iwalked into the store." " login " is the noun and adjective form.

So you would use that likethis: "I programmed the login procedure.

Or... "I don't like thisapp because the login process is very lengthy."

You can also think about each one with the way we stress the different syllables slightly when we're speaking: "log in to host.com" sounds like " log + in + to host.com"

(each word is pretty much evenly stressed) "log into host.com" sounds like " log + INto host.com"

(the stress is on "in") "login to host.com"

sounds like " LOGin + to host.com"

(the stress is on "log")

Ironic that the instruction at the bottom of this page is 'Sign up or login'.

I'm here because I'm torn between log in to and log into and looking for clarification.

At this point in time, I suspect the prevailing opinion is correct - that log in to is preferable for purposes of clarity.

However, I don't doubt that we will soon treat the process of logging in as a figurative point of entry, meaning that log into will make full conceptual sense (cf you don't physically delve into a problem or pile into an argument, yet both are correct grammatically because they are semantically [i.e. figuratively]).

Given that so much of the web environment isn't being written by writers who care, I'm increasingly seeing 'login' used as a verb.

And to be honest, once it's normalised it will be the correct form.

I'm a digital copywriter and have fought this battle on a few occasions.

But I've decided to throw in my hand. '

Login to this site'. '

Enter your login details'.

Fine, whatever.

Is it clear?

Absolutely.

Only people like us care.

Question: When writing an instruction about connecting to a computer using ssh, telnet, etc., I'm not sure what spacing to use in this familiar spoken phrase:   " Log in to  host.com"  " Log into  host.com"  " Login to  host.com"   Maybe this is entirely subjective or the realm of industry jargon, but I couldn't think of anywhere else to ask.  Any insight?

"log in to" or "log into" or "login to"

Of the three options, it appears that "log in to" is the preferred option, although, "log into" is not terrible.

Log in to host.com is the correct form. "Login" as a single verb seems awkward, it would imply past tens of "loginned" for example.The COCA has variant occurrences for "log in to" and "log into". Log into is not awful, but not as good because it sounds you are going inside something. It is likely that "log in" in the future will become a form of speech to indicate a figurative point of entry.

Login' is increasingly being used as a verb online, but the verb is  actually log in .  The verbs are two words:  log in  and   log out , whereas the nouns are  login   and  logout  (often used like adjectives  in compound nouns).

As the verb is "to log in", many people suggest "log in to", although "log into" is not considered to be terrible.

Of the three options, it appears that "log in to" is the preferred option, although, "log into" may be acceptable to some people.

"Log in to host.com" is the correct form. "Login" as a single verb seems awkward, it would imply past tens of "loginned" for example.

Login' is increasingly being used as a verb online.

Of the three options, there appears to be a preference for "log in to", with three separate words.

The phrase "log into" may be acceptable to some people.


The original form of the word was "file name", as in the name of a file.

These days (and probably for a good few years), the compound "filename" is widely accepted and perhaps most commonly used.

Either is of course perfectly acceptable.

Do not, however, capitalise letters in the middle of a word, under any circumstances.

(Unless you are writing variable names in code.)

Filename is in my experience the most common and in my opinion the best looking.

File name is also acceptable, but I would only use it rarely, perhaps in a parallel construction such as the file name and size .

I find word-medial capital letters distracting and unpleasant anywhere but program source code, so I would never even think of FileName .

Edit:

if that's the reason you're asking, in program source I would still use Filename for a class or filename for a variable, not FileName nor fileName , respectively.

The British National Corpus has 240 cites for filename and 72 cites for file name .

It's not possible to search case-sensitively, but several reloads of the random sample of specific entries gave me no matches for FileName .

The AHD has an entry for “filename”, so it is, at least, an established American English word.

Thus it is “correct” for some situations.

Update: the word “pathname” is also included in the American Heritage Dictionary: Fifth Edition .

So over time I will be changing my program variables from SettingFilePathName to SettingFilePathname.

None of them. "filename" is not a proper noun, and thus should not be capitalized.

If you begin a sentence with the word, then it should be "Filename".

Generally, I would say "filename", as that is what I have seen used in most software development textbooks.

That's not to say that this is the standard by which all words should be measured, but given that the word is generally used in relation to computers I would imagine that it is safe to use.

Any two words (such as 'file name') used together for long enough periods of time end up with a single meaning in our collective language.

When that happens, you can combine the two, though it's not advisable for formal usage.

Words such as, for example, 'himself' are older, and common examples from the computer age include 'username', 'email', and 'desktop'.

For formal usage, consider spacing the words or using a hyphen, where appropriate.

The OED has no entry for "filename."

However, being a technical writer of 25 years, I have adopted this spelling because programmers and engineers prefer it.

Still, it seems odd to me.

Question: Which is correct: "Filename", "File Name" or "FileName"?

Which is correct: "Filename", "File Name" or "FileName"?

Whilst the original form was "file name", "filename has generally become the most commonly used. However, "filename" does not appear in all dictionaries. It is possible that either is perfectly acceptable, however, you should probably not capitalise letters in the middle of words.

The original form of the word was "file name" as in the "name of the file". Recently, the compound form "filename" has become widely accepted and used. But it is not capitalised in the middle.File name as a two-word option is also acceptable.Filename with a first capital is acceptable. Historically, two words used long enough often end up becoming one in the collective language.Consider spacing the words.

Either is of course perfectly acceptable.  Nowadays, the compound "filename" has become widely accepted and perhaps most commonly used. But in fact, the OED has no entry for "filename.", but due to programmers and engineers preferring it, it has become widely used.

The compound "filename" is widely accepted and perhaps most commonly used. However, "file name" is also both used and acceptable, but "FileName"  is not widely used, due to the distracting capitalization of letters in the middle of a word.

Whilst the original form was "file name", "filename has generally become the most popular form in use. However, "filename" does not appear in all dictionaries. It is possible that all three terms are equally acceptable, however, one should probably shy away from capitalising letters in the middle of words, as in "FileName".

"Filename" is probably the most common form.

The original term was "file name", as two separate words.

It is possible that either of these terms is acceptable.

Some dictionaries contain an entry for "filename" whilst others do not.

Since "filename" is not a proper noun, it shouldn't be capitalised.

Some people would be generally advise against capitalising letters in the middle of words.


For one thing, "two thousand" is shorter to say than "twenty hundred".

600: six hundred 601: six oh one (shorter than six hundred one) 1899: eighteen ninety-nine (shorter than one thousand eight hundred ninety-nine) 1900: nineteen hundred (shorter than one thousand nine hundred) 1901:

nineteen oh one (shorter than nineteen hundred one, shorter than one thousand nine hundred one) 1999: nineteen ninety nine (shorter than one thousand nine hundred ninety-nine) 2000: two thousand (or 2 "K"?)

(shorter than twenty hundred) 2009:

two thousand nine (shorter than twenty hundred nine) 2010: twenty ten (shorter than two thousand ten)

Basically when the number has three zeros it is shorter to say "thousand" than "hundred".

Once there are fewer than three zeros it is shorter to say "Y thousand X" for Y00X and "Y hundred X" for YYXX.

This usage isn't limited to years either.

Any numbers in the same range will have the same kinds of contractions.

There is a Simpsons episode where this is played for laughs, when they need eighty-five-hundred dollars to fix their roof, and they only have $500, and Homer whines that they still need eighty-hundred.

english.stackexchange.com/users/380/Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

There are no rules, only loose conventions, formed for brevity, convenience and ease of mental parsing.

The convention has been modified for the years 2000-2009 (two thousand and nine), just as it has for 1000-1009, probably for the reason Nav mentions - it just parses nicely that way to an English speaker.

You can expect every year from 2010 (twenty-ten) onwards to soon revert to the conventional form in common parlance, which has the advantage of being shorter and distinguishes centuries from one another very clearly.

Worth noting is the fact that the years 1-999 are usually suffixed with "AD" to make it clear that we are talking about a year rather than an arbitrary figure.

Post-1000 years do not require this verbal signposting as the use of this unusual convention makes it clear that these are years.

In England we say "two-thousand-and-one" not "two-thousand-one" etc.

Most people say twenty-eleven, twenty-twelve, but I'd say there was a 50/50 split between 'two-thousand-and-ten' and 'twenty-ten'.

The logic apparently lies in grouping the digits in a way that's easy to visualize (mentally) and/or pronounce.

Since there are always two zeroes in nineteen hundred, saying 'hundred' makes sense.

2000 has three zeroes, which is visually easier to recognize and split as two and 'thousand'.

Reg has given an example.

There don't seem to be any other logical reasons for this trend.

I think the main reason is a rhythm of pronunciation.

That's why we use "two thousand ..." instead of "twenty ...".

Also I have heard a two songs with "two thousand twelve".

So the change will occur in 2013.

Question: We pronounce 1923 as nineteen twenty-three; but 1900 as nineteen hundred. Why isn't year 2000 pronounced as twenty hundred instead of two thousand?  What are the rules for pronunciation of years in English? Does it change according to the first two digits of year? Could you give examples for special cases, if any?

What are the rules for pronunciation of years in English?

It appears that there are no fixed rules for how to pronounce years, although there are patterns which are generally justified based on what is easier for people to visualise or pronounce. For example, when a year has three zeros, it is shorter to say "X thousand". Similarly, when a year has two zeros at the end, it is easier to say "X hundred".

It is shorter to say "two thousand" than "twenty hundred". If the number has 3 zeros is it shorter to say "thousand" than "hundred". The usage isn't limited to years.There are no rules, only loose conventions for ease of parsing. In England a different form "two-thousand-and-one" is used. It is just the grouping of the digits that makes it easier to memorise.

Basically when the number has three zeros it is shorter to say "thousand" than "hundred". There are no rules, only loose conventions, formed for brevity, convenience and ease of mental parsing. The logic apparently lies in grouping the digits in a way that's easy to visualize (mentally) and/or pronounce with a rhythm..

The convention has been modified for the years 2000-2009 (two thousand and nine), as it just sounds better that way to an English speaker. When the number has three zeros it is shorter to say "thousand" than "hundred" and once there are fewer than three zeros it is shorter to say "Y thousand X" for Y00X and "Y hundred X" for YYXX. This is largely due to rhythms of speech.

It appears that there are no fixed rules for how to pronounce years, although there are patterns which are generally justified based on what is easier for people to visualise or say out loud. For example, when a year has three zeros, it is easier to say "X thousand". Similarly, when a year has two zeros at the end, it is easier to say "X hundred".

The justification for pronouncing years in one way or another is generally related to what is easier say and visualise.

There do not appear to be any fixed rules for this.

When a number has three zeros, it is easier to say "X thousand" and when there are two zeros it is easier to say "X hundred".


My compact version of The Oxford English Dictionary lists it as "An infantile word expressing thanks," and dates its first reference from 1772, unless my eyes deceive me (I am momentarily unable to locate the magnifying glass that came with the tome).

Edit:

Thank god for Eric Partridge.

He quotes the same OED reference, only in larger type.

Here is the entry: Ta! ; rarely taa!

Thanks!

coll., orig.

and mainly nursery: 1772, Mrs Delany, 'You would not say "ta" to me for my congratulation,' O.E.D. Ex a young child's difficulty with th and nks .

Online Etymology Dictionary says: ta : 1772, "natural infantile sound of gratitude" [Weekley].

Although possibly originating from the imitative of baby talk, this is in widespread use in the North of England and Wales as an informal "thanks" amongst adults.

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language says: ta :

Chiefly British Used to express thanks.

ETYMOLOGY:

Baby-talk alteration of "thank you".

When a term originates in northern English dialects as "ta" appears to, I often begin by looking at nordic languages as much of northern England was conquered by the Vikings and the parts of the language endure both in words and in the overall sound - if you listen the geordie accent has a definite scandinavian cadence to it.

Looking at modern Danish and Norwegian

we see that "Thanks" translates as "Tak" or "Takk" respectively, so it seems to me quite plausible that this provides an origin for "Ta".

I would have said it was just a shortening of "thanks".

It was in common use in the days of my youth in Northern England.

It's also used as an abbreviation for "thanks" in internet chat rooms.

As an Australian I can say 'ta' is used extensively in Australia.

I can't comment on other explanatios as I am not a language expert.

However I would like to suggest, as that many caucasian Australians are of Celtic ancestry, that the possible origin of this word is from the Irish galic word for 'yes' (tá).

If you think of 'yes' in a broader context; and as and an affirmative response (i.e. Yes) to an action, it kinda makes sense.

Just my thoughts, any comments on this welcome.

Question: Where does the expression "ta" come from?  Wikipedia has only  this  to say:   "ta!", slang, Exclam. Thank you! {Informal}, an expression of gratitude   but no additional information or links about its genesis.  I have only ever heard it from englishmen and -women. Is it used anywhere else in the world? How did it come about? What is its history?

Where does "ta!" come from?

"Ta" is just a shortening of the word "thanks", though it may also be a mimic of the infantile word expressing thanks. It was first referenced in print in 1772 and is also used extensively in Australia.

The OED denotes it as an infantile word used to express thanks.It is a short form of "thanks". It is used regionally to denote "thanks" in North England and in Australia for example .This may be due to inheriting the language from the Vikings.

It is  just a shortening of "thanks". The Oxford English Dictionary  lists it as "An infantile word expressing thanks," and dates its first reference from 1772. Although possibly originating from the imitative of baby talk, this is in widespread use in the North of England and Wales as an informal "thanks" amongst adults.

The Oxford English Dictionary  lists it as "An infantile word expressing thanks," and dates its first reference from 1772. It is seen to be a shortened version of "thanks" and is used extensively.

"Ta" is possible just a shortening of the word "thanks", though it may also be a mimic of the sound children make to express gratitude. It was first referenced in print in 1772 and is also used extensively in Australia.

It is claimed that "ta" is a mimic of an infantil sound of gratitude and was first referenced in 1772.

It is possibly just a shortening of the word "thanks".

"Ta" is also used extensively in Australia.


While the sentence is not technically a question, the use of a question mark indicates that the speaker is inviting a response from others.

In that respect, the question mark conveys the speaker's meaning in a way that could not otherwise be indicated in writing without the use of additional words.

So I'd say that this use of the question mark is correct when recording informal speech like this - but formally, it should really be reserved for actual questions.

I now have a bit more time to fix bugs etc

but I'm open to offers if anyone wants to help maintain this module with me?

This sentence/question is different than a statement and different than the " up-talking " that happens when people occasionally (or all the #$! time) raise the pitch of their sentences and phrases.

If the person said I now have a bit more time to fix bugs etc

but I'm open to offers if anyone wants to help maintain this module with me.

they are merely stating that they have time and are open to offers for help.

By raising the pitch at then end (spoken) or adding the question mark (written) they are implying a question: Would anyone like to offer to help me?

I hear this type of usage commonly.

We will proceed with the next item on the agenda, unless there are any questions?

no?

Ok, moving along...

english.stackexchange.com/users/380/Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

In written speech this is a questionable usage.

Nevertheless, when speaking, people frequently end declarative sentences with a rising intonation to invite the listener to consider the sentence as an invitation to agreement or action.

One hears this kind of thing especially in the southern United States.

Anyway, I had this Chrysler?

It had a four-barrel carburetor?"

Here the speaker is making declarations about a car, but making them sound like questions so that the listener will respond (probably nodding or saying "uh-huh") in a way that indicates interest in and understanding of the story being related.

If your example sentence were spoken this way, listeners would likely interpret it as a request for help, not merely a statement of a condition.

But if you write it, you should leave out the question mark.

Addendum

Since I wrote this, I've become aware that the practice of ending declarative sentences with a rising intonation actually has a name: uptalk

n a manner of speaking in which declarative sentences are uttered with rising intonation at the end, as if they were questions.

This is something you see very often in spoken language.

As we talk, we are making a syntactic structure.

It's common for syntactic structures to change, or be re-analyzed, as we go along.

So in this case, "if anyone wants to help maintain this module with me?" is reanalyzed, on the fly, as "Does anyone want to help maintain this module with me?"

In careful writing, since readers can go back and check what you said previously, this sort of on the fly reanalysis is discouraged.

Just for the sake of anyone reading, I found this thread when I googled about this issue because Microsoft Word grammar checker tried to tell me that I should put a question mark at the end of this sentence: 'If you can do them in advance of this deadline then so much the better.'

I completely disagree with such a usage in written English.

Steve Melnikoff's is the best analysis, but can be taken further.

I think with the 'quick text parsing' that is becoming a part of our language pragmatics given the 'texting'/'information overload' age, punctuation marks in written materials are changing their purpose.

As Melnikoff point out, in the example you use the question mark is inviting a response.

The reader can visually 'skim' right through e.g., an email, to get at what his interlocutor wants him to respond to.

The question mark is in effect basically an abbreviation with respect to what would have been written twenty years ago, when more verbiage would need to be required to have the request not come off in writing as rude.

English in the twenty-first century (in a particular context, at any rate).

Another example which I don't think quite fits any of the explanations above occurs in social media where the question mark is used at the end of declarative statements intended as accusations or harsh judgements.

The context shows the statement to be actually declarative, though it could be considered an interrogative in other contexts.

However, the poster doesn't want to come across as socially abrasive or intends to leave room for backing off of the judgement in case there is a backlash of disagreement or reverse judgement.

For example:

"She is a narcissist?""A guy that overweight shouldn't be going to McDonald's?""Those

so-called 'statues' are just toys for overgrown children?"

In this case it is a fundamentally disingenuous usage, because the poster clearly has a strong negative opinion about someone or some group, such that they want to express it, but don't feel either confident enough in themselves or the view to post it as a genuine declaration.

Another way to put it would be as an unconvincing attempt at avoiding social liability.

Question: For example, I found the following sentence written by a native English speaker (UK) so I'm going to assume that he knows how to put it the right way, although I wouldn't use this form.   I now have a bit more time to fix bugs  etc but I'm open to offers if anyone  wants to help maintain this module  with me?   Is it correct or is the question mark misused here?

Is the question mark misused in affirmative sentences?

This use of the question mark would be viewed by some as unacceptable or at the very least questionable. Other people would recommend limiting it to informal situations. In any case, the question mark here is inviting a response from others in a way that would require the use of additional words. As such, it may still be understood without much problem.

Some people do not agree with this usage in written English. It would be correct in informal speech, not for formally.Text parsing has caused us to change the use of punctuation marks.The statement is actually a declaration, though in another context could be considered an interrogative.

While the sentence is not technically a question, the use of a question mark indicates that the speaker is inviting a response from others.  When speaking, people frequently end declarative sentences with a rising intonation to invite the listener to consider the sentence as an invitation to agreement or action and this can be seen as the equivalent. Another example which I don't think quite fits any of the explanations above occurs in social media where the question mark is used at the end of declarative statements intended as accusations or harsh judgements.

Although this may be questionable in formal,  written usage, and not technically a question, the question mark conveys the speaker's meaning and indicates that a response is invited. This is a shorter way of writing that what would have ben used traditionally, but nowadays it is not considered rude.

This use of the question mark would be viewed by some as unacceptable or at the very least questionable. Other people would recommend limiting it to informal situations. In any case, the question mark here is performing a function that would otherwise require more words and is inviting a response from the reader. As such, it may still be understood without much problem.

Whilst the sentence is not technically a question, the question mark is performing a function that would otherwise require more words and is essentially inviting a response from the reader.

This use of the question mark is possible acceptable in informal speech but should be avoided in formal situations.

Some people would view this use of the question mark as either questionable or completely unacceptable.


Both are correct, but "in" sounds more natural.

Incidentally, if you were in the UK, you would say, "Put it in the fridge". :-)

I agree with Steve Melnikoff that put something in sounds more natural.

Put something into puts the emphasis on the motion, put something in on the target.

Examples for use of put something into that portray that fact are: put something into motion (formerly motionless) put into play put into effect

There is a verb put in something , meaning to apply, plant, spend (time/money), introduce, (nautically) enter a harbor or port.

For me, "into" implies motion (or perhaps motion in a metaphorical domain).

If you are using a verb which already has motion (such as "go" or "put")

it is not necessary, and I think is slightly more formal, than "in".

There is rarely a difference in meaning, but where the "in" could be paraphrased as "from" or "out of", then "into" is definitely wrong.

So "I got the toy in the box" and "I got the toy into the box" are both fine, but "I found the toy into the box" doesn't make sense, and "I read the story into the book

" is definitely wrong (unless you mean somehow the technical computer sense of read, where you can "read" something into somewhere, as well as out of somewhere).

I think that we use into when we want to emphasize the fact that an object or a person changes their place.

For example, we would say He got into the train instead of He got in the train but He is in the train instead of

He is into the train

But again, this is something I'm trying to remember properly, and I'm not absolutely sure.

Both usages are fine as per Wikitionary, based on the implied meaning: in: into Less water gets in your boots this way.

into: going inside (of)

Mary danced into the house.

Question: Possible Duplicate:  When should “into” be used rather than “in to,” and vice versa?     I am sorry if the question is silly, but I think I heard both options spoken by native speaker. So, which one is correct?

"Put it into the refrigerator" or "Put it in the refrigerator"?

There is rarely a difference in meaning, but there are some circumstances where "into" is definitely incorrect. However, in this context, some people would claim that "in" sounds more natural. "Into" potentially puts more emphasis on the motion of the object in question.

There is a difference of opinion on whether to use "in" or "into".  "Into" for some seems to put extra emphasis on the motion, particularly using a verb like "go" or "put". Wicktionary uses into regarding movement towards.

Both are correct, but "in" sounds more natural.  Put something into  puts the emphasis on the motion,  put something in  on the target.

Both are correct, but "in" sounds more natural.  To put something into  puts the emphasis on the motion. To  put something in  emphasizes the target.

Both are correct but "in" sounds more natural.

The use of "into" adds extra emphasis, suggeting motion towards.

Some people would claim that, in this context, "in" sounds more natural.

There is rarely a difference in meaning but there are circumstances where "into" is definitely incorrect.


If you're talking about you and your spouse, it's not possible to be "married with " anyone; you can only be "married to " someone.

Hence there is no ambiguity in saying "married with three kids", as the "with" cannot be associated with "married".

Did you hear it or read it?

If you heard it, you may not have correctly heard the comma, which de-nastys to: I am married, with three kids

It means the speaker is married, and has three children (generally living with them as dependents).

Perhaps it isn't the best grammar.

It certainly isn't the clearest way of putting it.

However, it references the IRS (USA tax) code, in particular someone who is filing a joint return with a spouse and has other minor dependents.

Several examples of this construction can be seen here .

As such, any person who fills out a USA tax form is liable to know immediately what it means.

This terminology also was used in the name of a hit TV series .

I am married with three kids.

can safely be resolved to I am married, with three kids.

at which point the context & the meaning become completely clear.

I don't think the sentence sounds nasty, as nobody would ever want to imply what you are referring to.

Great!As a non-native English speaker from another place of the world, sometimes you just don't figure out some of the rules for translation-that should obey the side of the foreigner language and not your own.

This case is a good example.

In Spanish you say: "Estoy casado con Tania".

The wrong translation is: "I'm married with Tania".

The OK translation is: "I'm married to Tania".

In the question there's obviously a mistake which has its origin in a wrong translation.

Clearly, the punctuation helps to give a satisfying connotation, but the problem isn't there.

"I'm married to three children" is what "Estoy casado con 3 niños" means in Spanish and is totally wrong, mainly because the word con means with most of the time.

In this case, the translation should become not word by word but understanding the meaning of the phrase.

Much of the time the Spanish speaking people fall into this kind of mistakes out of the logic that Spanish language has implicitly, but to learn English as well as other idioms, you most open your mind to break those language barriers.

"I'm married with three children" is "Estoy casado con 3 niños", nothing wrong, but "I'm married to three children" is the nasty meaning you were seeing.

In case of a translation, the fix for it would be to add the comma.

Simple.

Anyway, this has to do with a wrong conception of the verbal form and how it is used.

My two cents, I'm new here and love idioms.

I'm always learning something new and this is an excellent place for doing that.

Without seeing/hearing it in context, this statement appears to be a completely neutral statement of fact - no implications, nasty or otherwise.

It's possible that we're missing some important detail.

You may need to provide more information about the context in which this phrase was used if we are to spot any hidden malice.

Question: Where did this come from? It sounds nasty to me (I am not a native speaker). But it seems correct. Can somebody explain this?

What does "I am married with three kids" mean?

This phrase means that the speaker is married and has three children.

You cannot be "married with" someone - only "married to someone".  The phrase is probably not presented as clear as it could be, although reference to joint tax returns make the context clearer.The punctuation, however, does provide clarity.The error is related to the wrong use of the verbal form, additional context would improve understanding of the sentence.

If you heard it, you may not have correctly heard the comma:   I am married, with three kids. This statement appears to be a completely neutral statement of fact - no implications, nasty or otherwise.

It means the speaker is married, and has three children.


To add more nuance (and confirm what's already been said) to the difference, I find (in AmE): you can say 'a forest' (in general), or 'the forest' (a particular one), and 'the woods' (the one that you're walking through), but it would seem strange to refer to an collection of trees as 'a woods' (because of number agreement) or 'a wood' (because that would refer to a particular piece of lumber. 'forests' are bigger than 'woods'.

But a small collection of trees is not necessarily 'the woods'.

Something smaller (without specifying actual size) would be called ' a stand of trees '.

(i.e. if you can go into the collection and not see the end of the trees, then you're not in a stand of trees) 'forest' has a slightly more official, formal feel to it than 'woods'.

It normally comes down to scale.

I wouldn't consider the half-acre of trees behind my house a forest, but I frequently describe it as "the woods out back".

On the flip side, while I would typically describe, let's say a national park as a forest, I might also say that someone lost there is "lost in the woods"

These are almost completely synonymous, but I'd say a forest is a more defined (and probably larger) set of trees than woods .

As in, if it has a name, it's almost certainly a forest.

If it's just a clump of trees that may or may not end after ten feet, it's woods ; if, however, you know that it stretches for five miles in each direction, then it's a forest .

Originally, 'forest' meant a royal hunting ground, which is why they are usually larger than 'woods'; woods can be just a few trees, whereas a forest is usually much larger and denser, both in trees and vegetation.

Also in some places such as the UK, woods can be plural because each 'wood' may be in some way separated or distinct.

Forestry is coniferous trees planted as a crop to be harvested.

It doesn't matter how small or large the stand of trees is, it's still forestry.

I suspect that has influenced my usage, so that to me, a forest may be coniferous or deciduous, but my initial image would be coniferous.

By contrast, a woodland is always deciduous, established, broadleaf trees, widely spaced but with little undergrowth, easy to walk through.

I wouldn't usually say a wood .

I do go for a walk in the woods .

These too are always deciduous in my usage, but I wouldn't be confused by another person using these words for coniferous trees.

Perhaps all this is influenced by the fact that there are very few natural stands of conifers in Ireland.

When I was in Colorado, the pine forests hugging the hills felt quite dark and oppressive, and the lack of any broadleaf other than scrub oak began to get to me.

Question: Is there any difference here at all?

When would you say "woods", and when would you say "forest"?

The two terms are almost synonymous, however, the difference mainly comes down to scale, with a "forest" generally being considered a more defined and larger set of trees than "woods".

A small collection of trees does not designate a wood. A "wood" is usually related to scale, again a "forest" would be something larger.Historically, a "forest" was a royal hunting ground, bigger than wood. "Forestry" can relate to the type of trees planted, regardless of size.

It normally comes down to scale, with  a  forest being a more defined (and probably larger) set of trees than  woods . Originally, 'forest' meant a royal hunting ground, which is why they are usually larger than 'woods'; woods can be just a few trees, whereas a forest is usually much larger and denser, both in trees and vegetation.  Also in some places such as the UK, woods can be plural because each 'wood' may be in some way separated or distinct.

These terms are largely synonymous, and the usage often is a matter of scale. Forest is usually larger and woods are smaller.

The two terms are almost synonymous, however, the difference mainly comes down to scale, with a "forest" generally being considered larger than a "woods".

Historically, a "forest" was a royal hunting ground, bigger than woods.

The difference between a "forest" and "the woods" comes down to scale, with a "forest" being the bigger of the two.


Usage of /i:/ ("EE-thur") and /ai/ ("EYE-thur") in Great Britain and in Canada seems to be mixed.

In the United States, the predominant usage has always been /i:/.

However, there's also a long history of /ai/ occurring among a few Americans, including Benjamin Franklin and James Fenimore Cooper in earlier times, and Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and Barrack Obama more recently.

For many years, /ai/ was associated in the United States with British usage and, by extension, with certain elites who tried to imitate British usage.

It seems to have become more widespread in recent decades, however.

While some Americans have adopted /ai/, perhaps because they feel that it sounds sophisticated, other Americans regard it as pretentious.

Spelling, by the way, has nothing to do with the difference.

In English, the spelling ei usually represents the "long a" pronunciation (IPA /ei/), as in eight, feign , or rein .

In such words, it is derived from the Middle English /ai/ diphthong, which normally developed into the "long a" sound.

In a smaller set of words, such as receive , ei represents the "long e" sound /i:/.

It's rare for ei to represent the "long i" sound /ai/ in words that have been in English more than two or three hundred years; most words spelled with ei and pronounced with "long

i" are recent borrowings, such as Poltergeist (from German), or other words that only recently developed a standard spelling, such as heist (originally a variant of hoist ).

I think the variation in British usage is almost all between users, not between examples of use.

It's mostly a regional and class distinction: I grew up saying /ˈaɪðə/, and we looked down on people who said /ˈiːðə/.

If you listen to Ira Gershwin's lyrics, you realize that this argument has been going on for quite some time in America as well.

You say "either"

and I say "either" You say "

neither

" I say "

neither" "Either" "either", "neither" "neither" Let's call the whole thing off

The song points up for comic effect the differences between two lovers, who come from different social strata.

Although few Americans would say "potahto" or "tomahto" these days, there still remains a divide in the pronunciation of either , sometimes within the same speaker.

Many Americans, even ones who use what you call the British pronunciation most of the time, will say "eether" in constructions like "an 'either/or' proposition".

I find myself using the "ee" pronunciation most of the time, but switching to the other for emphasis: "Either you help me with this project right now

or I won't have time to help you with yours."

There are other words which are similarly split with regard to pronunciation to the extent that there is no "correct" way to say them.

Envelope comes to mind.

Many Americans pronounce the first syllable of that word to rhyme with on .

I don't think you can make any hard and fast rules; it just depends on who you are and what you grew up with.

According to The Complete Atlas Of The British Isles , "eether" is more common in the north of England and "eye-ther" in the south of England, with the Midlands and London using both.

The atlas also mentioned a THIRD way of pronouncing the word, "ay-ther", in parts of the north of England, which I suppose is now extinct.

I'm British and I use either pronunciation.

I can't think of any particular rule that I use either.

I would consider either equally valid.

I wouldn't say "me either"

though -

that is certainly an American term.

I'm in Canada.

Typically I pronounce it "ee-ther.

" I do notice a lot of American television dialogue uses "eye-ther," and American English has influenced Canadian English pronunciations since the radio and television age.

I say "me neither" (as in 'neether').

I never say "me either", although it doesn't really make less sense than "me neither", when properly it should be "nor I."

Question: There are two common pronunciations of "either": British /ˈaɪðər/ and American /ˈiːðər/. If Americans are more or less consistent in this regard, then the Brits seem to be freely using both. In fact, from what I can tell, "either this or that" is more often in the first form, whereas "me either" is in the second. But I may be wrong. Is there any kind of an informal rule in the modern British English with regard to this?

Is there a rule in British English about how to pronounce "either"?

It appears that both pronunciations are used in British English and the difference may come down to geography or social class. Indeed, the variation in British usage may be almost all between users and not between examples of use. There may even be some people who mix both pronunciations depending on context.

There is a difference between UK an North American use. Americans sometimes adopt the UK usage, but this can be seen as pretentious, but equally British people use both forms.Spelling has no bearing on the difference. The "ei" does not usually represent the long/ai/sound in words that have been in the language for a long time.In the UK, both variants are used. This could be a class phenomenon.Historically, this has been a discussion point with English language speakers. There are other similar words that are debated as to their pronounciation.

Usage of /i:/ ("EE-thur") and /ai/ ("EYE-thur") in Great Britain and in Canada seems to be mixed.  The variation in British usage is almost all between users, not between examples of use. It's mostly a regional and class distinction.

"Eether" and "eye-ther" can both be used. This may be down to personal choice, region or class - and some people may even use both.

It appears that both pronunciations are used in British English and the difference may come down to geography or social class. There may even be some people who mix both pronunciations depending on context.

It appears that the pronunciation is largely mixed throughout British English speakers.

It is possible that this is question of social class and may vary from speaker to speaker.

It is possible that this is a regional variation.

Some people may use both pronunciations depending on the context.


Probably chances of happening are high (or at least not minuscule) Possibly chances of happening are not zero

These terms actually have fairly precise definitions, although they're sometimes used with a bit of liberty.

Let P = probability of event occurring Probably => 0.5 < P < 1

Possibly => 0.0 < P << 1

It is evident that in some cases, there is overlap between the two terms.

To say that something is probably the case is to say that that case is probable .

To say that something is possibly the case is to say that it is possible .

The two are quite distinct.

If something is probable, then it is likely to happen.

The chances are not only more than zero; they're better than 50/50 (or at least, the chances are higher that it'll happen than that it won't — since in comparing probabilities, you could have multiple items which have chances better than 50/50 but have one of them which is more probable than the others).

Probably indicates that the laws of probability say that it's more likely to happen than not to happen.

On the other hand, if something is possible, then it can happen.

Whether it will or not is irrelevant.

The chances are better than zero.

It doesn't say anything about how probable it is.

It could be that the chances are .000000001

% or that they're 100%.

By saying that something is possible, you're not really saying anything about probability.

You're just saying that it could — at least theoretically — happen.

So, if you say possibly , then you're saying that something could be the case, whereas if you're saying probably , you're saying that not only can

it be the case but that the chances are higher that it will happen than that it won't.

Probably implies that the probability of an event is higher than that of the alternatives.

In the most common case with 2 alternatives, probably means something is more likely to happen than not.

With 5 alternatives, probability of the event is >20%.

Possibly implies a non-zero probability, usually a low one.

Conversational usage may not fit neatly into these definitions, as the intent is often mild exaggeration or irony.

Usage of Probably:

Probably, you should be able to do it. =

Mostly, you should be able to do it.

Usage of Possibly: Possibly, you should be able to do it.

[= If there is a chance (some factor implied), you should be able to do it.]

Possibly, you should be able to do it.

[= If it is possible, you should be able to do it.]

I think the difference between probably and possibly is somewhat related to may and can .

E.g. Probably enough to make you laugh = may or may not be enough, not very sure about it, neither does it matter very much Possibly enough to make you sick = can be enough; warns of the ability (e.g. of a virus) to make you sick, and it's important to know

Wow... after reading the mumbo jumbo...

hahaha

I can't remember where I got those words.

Again, spanish helped me.

Probably =

Based on prudent reason - That can be proved - Said when there's good reasons to believe it will happen or will be verifiable.

Possible =

That can be or happen - that can be executed - available media to do something Possible

implies that exist the possibility, let's say 1%.

Probably implies that based on probability the chances to happen are good, let´s say above 50%.

Remember that Probable, probability, are math terms in statistics.

Possibility is not used because it works even against all odds.

Just having the minimal chance, something is possible.

But is probably not going to work, because the chances are too low.

Question: Recently I saw the movie "Pursuit of Happyness", which is actually quite good, and I noticed the actor (Will Smith) asking the difference between  probably  and  possibly  to his son. So I would like to have people's opinion on this question as I am still yet to find an answer myself.

What is the difference between "probably" and "possibly"?

"Probably" implies that the probability of the chances to happen are good, maybe above 50%. "Possibly", on the other hand, is used in situations where the probabilty of something happening are not zero.

The terms have precise definitions although there is flexibility. In some cases, both terms overlap in meaning.Probable means "likely to happen" . "Possible" means it can happen. Probable means "likely to happen" . "Possible" means it can happen.Probably implies a higher likelihood of an even happening. Possibly means a lesser likelihood.The difference between them can be related to "may" and "can".

Probably  means the chances of happening are high. If something is probable, then it is likely to happen.  On the other hand, if something is possible, then it  can  happen and it  implies a non-zero probability, usually a low one.

"Probably"  indicates that something is more likely to happen than not to happen. By saying that something is "possible", the probability is often low. "Possibly" merely suggests that something is possible.

The key difference between these two terms is that "probably" is used when the chances of something happening are higher than those of it not happening whereas "possibly" is used in situations where the probabilty of something happening is simply greater than zero.

It you use the term "probably", you are saying that something is more likely to happen than not.

If you use the term "possibly", you are saying that the likelihood of something happening is not zero.


The best way to deal with the vanity punctuation is as The Register do.

Note "Related stories."

Edit (as requested) a sample of headlines from online newspaper The Register: Yahoo! wonks!

brace!

for!

lay-offs!

Yahoo! buys!

TV-sharing!

startup!

IntoNow!

Yahoo!

Buzz!

Given!

Mercy!

Bullet! Yahoo!

to!

offload!

Delicious!

as!

early!

as!

next!

week!

Yahoo! revenues!

dip!

per! cent!

You get the idea.

Yahooexclamationmark's PR boss may feel a bit ambivalent.

It seems optional, considering that even business article talk about Yahoo, while introducing some facts at the end about "Yahoo!".

If your article is about the public corporation, you should use consistently one convention, preferably the one using the exact name of the company: "Yahoo!".

But "Yahoo" is also natural since: you won't find any punctuation in the host names: www.yahoo.com , not www.yahoo!.com at least, it won't wreak havoc in your word processor spell checker ;)

See Ignoring Punctuation in Names if you still have to use the ' ! '.

Some sites, will use Yahoo! while talking about the company, but others do not.

For example, check this CNN Money page that refers to the company as Yahoo!

Inc.

From a legal standpoint, you want to use the the official trademark name that the company uses in naming itself.

Check court documents to see what Yahoo prefers and use that.

Certainly you should use the name as the company prefers it, but there's nothing to stop you mocking it gently.

If I am writing to somebody at one of those 'cool' companies that disdain capital letters and spaces, I make a point of addressing the envelope to 'johnrsmith, coolconsultancy': similar use of exclamation marks seems only fair to Yahoo!

Incidentally, there is a village in Devon called Westward Ho!; the punctuation is undoubtedly part of the name there.

Question: Certain brands, such as  Yahoo! , insist that the exclamation is part of their name. In writing about such a brand or company, is the inclusion of the vanity punctuation right, wrong, or optional?  I would like my writing to be correct; however, of more concern with the average reader, I wouldn't want my writing to seem to be pandering.

How to handle a name that includes an exclamation point (or other punctuation)?

The answer to this question will be subjective and use of punctuation in brand names may be optional. However, some people would recommend finding out what the company prefers and using that.

Use "The Register" to check the official format. How the Company is represented by third parties on websites can vary; some using the exclamation mark, some not. Legally, it would be preferable to use the Company's trademark as it is registered or use the forma the Company uses itself.

It seems optional as some sites, will use  Yahoo!  while talking about the company, but others do not. Also you won't find any punctuation in the host names:  www.yahoo.com , not  www.yahoo!.com  at least. But from a legal standpoint, you want to use the the official trademark name that the company uses in naming itself.

The exclamation point in "Yahoo!" may be seen to be optional. However, if your article is about the public corporation, you should use  consistently  one convention, preferably the one using the exact name of the company: "Yahoo!".  From a legal standpoint, the legal trademark version should be used.

Use "The Register" to check punctuation.

Some websites add the exclamation mark to Yahoo, but some don't. It can vary.

Legally, it would be better to use the Company's registered trademark.

The name the Company prefers itself, should be used.

The answer to this question will be subjective, however, the use of punctuation may be optional.

Some people would recommend identifying what the company itself prefers and using that.


First, I think a little more context may be needed to appropriately answer your question since it seems whoever you've been talking to has what I would consider to be a non-standard usage of it.

That being said, here's my best cut.

In standard usage, the phrase "not uncommon" typically means something to the effect of "more frequent than uncommon".

That is, it occurs too frequently to be considered "uncommon", but not necessarily so frequently as to be labeled "common".

However, in certain contexts where things are partitioned using discrete, well defined terms "uncommon", "rare", etc. it would be conceivable that they would mean "anything other than uncommon".

The one example that jumps out at me is RPG games like World of Warcraft where item quality is labeled using terms like "rare", "uncommon", "common", etc.

In a case like this, saying that something is "not uncommon" would potentially allow for something labeled as "rare" as well as something labeled as "common"

"not uncommon" is not necessarily the same as common.

Compare the following examples: 1-0 is a common final score in soccer (it happens all the time) 8-7 is an uncommon final score in soccer (it rarely happens) 5-0 is not an uncommon final score in soccer (it doesn't happen all the time, but it's not rare either).

To my mind, it is a shaded meaning, not quite common, but not rare. "

Not unkind" I would see as much colder than kind, but not actively unkind.

Not really.

It means just what it says it is.

It's an attempt at understatement.

To baldly say something is common seems to some people too forthright.

And, to be fair, there may be a wide gap between what is uncommon and what is common.

If the subject is sunny days in Seattle, you may say they are uncommon.

But Seattle averages about one day in six with sunshine.

So you could say, with some legitimacy, that they are not uncommon since they are experienced with some regularity.

Still, you wouldn't really say they were common.

Nevertheless, such constructions are anathema to some champions of clear writing.

I remember Eric Blair (George Orwell) mocking them in one of his essays on the English language, positing a sentence like (I'm paraphrasing here) "The not unbrown dog trotted not unslowly along the not unrough road, finally making a not unsmall leap over the not unhigh fence."

Or something like that.

I was an undergrad at the time, so memory dims.

I wish I could remember the name of the essay.

Describing something by negating its opposite is a way of countering expectations.

As in: "You might expect this never happens, but it is not uncommon."

Or: " Not bad... for a girl. "

This is an example of a common (and ancient) figure of speech called litotes .

Sometimes it conveys no extra meaning (and gets ridiculed as an affectation) but in many cases it does have a distinct meaning.

Question: When somebody uses the phrase "not uncommon", do they mean "common" because of the double negative?  I was recently informed that "not uncommon" could imply that something was anything but uncommon (e.g. rare), whereas I thought that  rare  would be a subset of  uncommon  and that saying it was not uncommon must mean it is common.

Does "not uncommon" mean "common"?

The answer to this question will require a little more information about the context. However, this construction is known as a litote and is a form of understatement. "Not uncommon" is not necessarily the same as "common" and in fact means that something is not common but not rare either.

There is insufficient context to answer the question. However, "not uncommon" can mean "more frequent than uncommon". Others feeling the meaning is clear that something is not a common occurrence. Some think that it can be ambiguous, others feel that using the word can be too "forthright".

This is an example of a common (and ancient) figure of speech called  litotes . "Not uncommon" is not necessarily the same as common. It is a shaded meaning, not quite common, but not rare. Describing something by negating its opposite is a way of countering expectations.

"Not uncommon" is not necessarily the same as common, and it typically means "more frequent than uncommon", often used as an attempt at understatement.

The answer to this question will require a little more information about the context. However, this construction is known as a litote and is a form of understatement. "Not uncommon" does not mean the same as "common" and in fact means that something is not common but not rare either.

First, I think a little more context may be needed to appropriately answer your question since it seems whoever you've been talking to has what I would consider to be a non-standard usage of it.

To my mind, it is a shaded meaning, not quite common, but not rare. "

In standard usage, the phrase "not uncommon" typically means something to the effect of "more frequent than uncommon".

"not uncommon" is not necessarily the same as common.

"Not uncommon" usually means "more frequent than uncommon"

It seems ambiguous, meaning not very common, but not rare/

There is also the meaning of "common" which can appear to forthright.

The answer to this question will require a little more informaton about the context.

"Not uncommon" is a way of saying that something is not rare but not common.

"Not uncommon" does not mean the same as "common".


Grammatically, Yiddish is almost entirely Germanic - very close to an older form of High German.

In vocabulary, it is mostly Germanic, but with a large admixture of Hebrew words and (depending on the dialect) also significant borrowings from other languages, such as Polish and Russian.

As such, it is not what most scholars describe as a creole:

that is a language whose grammar has arisen spontaneously, generally when a cohort of children grow up among people who communicate in a pidgin (a contact language with little or no consistent grammar).

It appears that given such an environment, small children will mould it into a language with its own grammar, generally bearing little resemblance to that of the language(s) from which the words come.

(This is somewhat controversial, as is the claim that creoles round the world tend to have rather similar grammars).

So with that definition, Yiddish is not a creole

: it is a distinct Germanic language, quite close to German, but which has a large admixture of Hebrew and other words.

A creole language is not necessarily a combination of two languages.

It's just a pidgin language that has native speakers.

A pidgin language is usually a limited, easy-to-learn language used for communications between two different language groups.

Normally it has much simpler vocabulary and grammar.

The hallmark of a pidgin language is that nobody speaks it as their primary language...

it serves as a lingua

franca (shared language) between two linguistic communities.

Pidgins are not necessarily anyone's primary language.

These days people often use basic English as a pidgin even when neither of them is really an English speaker (for example, a Tagalog-speaking sailor might use basic/pidgin English to communicate with an Arabic-speaking merchant when in port, or a Russian tourist in Japan might use basic English to communicate with her hosts).

Sometimes pidgins are used so much that they become primary languages, and kids grow up speaking only the pidgin language.

At that point the language is considered a creole language.

The classic example of this is Haitian Creole, which started out as a simplified version of French used by African language speakers in Haiti, and soon became the primary language kids learned.

Another major example is Tok Pisin in Papua New Guinea.

Yiddish is none of the above, really.

It is mostly an in-group dialect that became a full fledged language when it got its first army ( Joke! )

It was not intended to be used as a lingua franca, although sometimes it served this purpose when Jews from different linguistic communities (e.g. Germany and Poland) used it as a common language.

Yiddish is typically referred to as a Creoloid, much like Afrikaans, Michif, and even African American Vernacular English.

That is, they share a lot of common traits with Creoles and Creole Genesis.

Labeling something a Creole or not is debatable

even amongst scholars as many have conflicting views on what makes something a creole.

Try reading either of these for some info on it and judge for yourself.

Jacobs, Neil G. (2005).

Yiddish: A Linguistic Introduction.

Cambridge University Press.

(Scott: PJ 5116.J33 2004); Prince, Ellen (2001).

Yiddish as a contact language.

In Norval Smith and Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Creolization and contact

Yiddish is called a FUSION language by linguists,(as is English) derived from old High German, beginning around the year 1000in the Rhine Valley.

It contains about 85% German vocabulary, about 10% Hebrew and Aramaic words and about 5% Romance or Slavic words, depending where it was spoken.

Scholars contend that there were/are 4 major dialects - but with overlaps.

What many don't know is that a "stage Yiddish" was created by Abraham Goldfadn (father of the Yiddish Theatre) that blended the various dialects, so that there would be linguistic consistency in performances.

Those whose exposure to Yiddish was mostly through Yiddish theatre and recorded song, have naturally but erroneously came to believe that this "stage Yiddish" was "true" Yiddish, but it was a construct, blending all the various dialects.

I found an interesting information about this language (I also have a personal interest in the language as both my grandparents still speak it) here: http://www.sefarad.org/hosted/english/eblul/yiddish.html .

Yiddish, which is written in Hebrew characters, is a composite language stemming from Judeo-German, that is to say the languages used by the Jews who settled in the Rhine Valley in the Middle Ages.

Their vernacular language, based on the local Germanic dialect, has been enriched by numerous contributions from Hebrew and from the Romance languages.

I always perceived it as a mixture of German and Hebrew.

However it's not a creole language in a conceptual sense b/c it was conceived as the language in its own right, in process employing elements of Hebrew and German, as opposed composed from two.

Was English itself a creole language in the century or so after the Norman Conquest?

In the first century after the Norman Conquest, people would have spoken either Anglo-Saxon (Old English) or Old Norman.

The latter was used as the language of state.

From what little I understand, these languages were kept separate and Old English, as the language of a subjugated underclass, was in danger of dying out.

From these two languages came Anglo Norman and eventually Middle English.

So far as I know it wouldn't be accurate to say that English was a creole language in the sense of being a subset language used for communications between speakers of Old English and Old Norman.

Question: A "creole" language is formed by the merging of two parent languages, usually through an earlier rudimentary mixture of the two. Does this make Yiddish a creole language? Was English itself a creole language in the century or so after the Norman Conquest?   My question is really about what constitutes a creole language: what are its hallmarks and most distinguishing features, and do creole languages ever evolve to become "proper" languages (whatever that may mean) in their own right?

Is Yiddish a creole language? And if not, what is it?

Yiddish is generally not considered to be a creole language and was conceived as a language in its own right, although there is little agreement as to what it is. Some terms used to describe Yiddish include Pidgin, Creoloid, Fusion Language and Composite Language. As for English, it would not be accurate to describe English as a creole language.

Yiddish is a quasi a Germanic language, and includes a large number of Hebrew words. It is known as a Creoloid language. Yiddish is a fusion language with elements of German, Hebrew and Armaic. It was learn through song and theatre. It is not a creole language as such, as it was conceived in its own right, much like English is not a creole language, as it was a subset of a language used to communicate between speakers of Old English.Creole does not mean a combination of languages. It is simply a "pidgin" language that native speakers use. It uses a simple vocabularly.An example of Creole is Haitain Creole. It was not originally intended to be used as a lingua franca.

Grammatically, Yiddish is almost entirely Germanic - very close to an older form of High German, with significant borrowings from other languages, such as Polish and Russian.   As such, it is not what most scholars describe as a creole, but it is typically referred to as a Creoloid, much like Afrikaans, Michif, and even African American Vernacular English. Yiddish is called a FUSION language by linguists, (as is English) derived from old High German, beginning around the year 1000in the Rhine Valley.

Although not a creole language, Yiddish is a language in its own right, which is written in Hebrew characters, is a composite  language stemming from Judeo-German - the languages used by  the Jews who settled in the Rhine  Valley in the Middle Ages.

Yiddish is generally not considered to be a creole language, although there is little agreement as to what it is. Some terms used to describe Yiddish include Pidgin, Creoloid, Fusion Language and Composite Language. As for English, it would not be accurate to describe English as a creole language.

There is no agreement as to how to classify the Yiddish language, with people using the term Creoloid, Pidgin, Fusion Language or a Composite Language.

English would probably not be accurately described as a creole language.

Yiddish is probably not a creole language.