The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary give these senses: literally 2 : in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins> with the following usage note: Since some people take sense 2 to be the opposite of sense 1, it has been frequently criticized as a misuse.

Instead, the use is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary. and for decimate , they have the following senses, with no usage note: decimate 3 a : to reduce drastically especially in number <cholera decimated the population> b : to cause great destruction or harm to <firebombs decimated the city> <an industry decimated by recession>

The New Oxford American Dictionary reports the following note in the usage section: In recent years, an extended use of literally (and also literal ) has become very common,

where literally (or literal ) is used deliberately in nonliteral contexts, for added effect: they bought the car and literally ran it into the ground .

This use can lead to unintentional humorous effects ( we were literally killing ourselves laughing ) and is not acceptable in formal English.

In formal sentences, literally should be used as in

I told him I never wanted to see him again, but I didn't expect him to take it literally.

With regards to decimation , the original meaning is derived from a practice in the military of Ancient Rome.

Quoted from this page : A unit selected for punishment by decimation was divided into groups of ten; each group drew lots (Sortition), and the soldier on whom the lot fell was executed by his nine comrades, often by stoning or clubbing.

The remaining soldiers were given rations of barley instead of wheat and forced to sleep outside of the Roman encampment.

Because the punishment fell by lot, all soldiers in the group were eligible for execution, regardless of the individual degree of fault, or rank and distinction.

Indeed, this word has been so greatly abused over time (perhaps through ignorance) that its more general meaning of "to destroy" or "to severely harm" is now virtually accepted.

They are becoming increasingly common, and it annoys me too.

Since persistent misusers always get their way in the end, I expect literally and decimate to go the way of ultimate and panacea.

The misuse of literally is not intentional or ironic.

It is used by people who have heard it used properly and thought the speaker meant seriously or absolutely .

If literally can mean either its true meaning or its exact opposite, what word can we use when we actually do want to say someone literally wet themselves laughing?

People often use the word "literally" when they really mean "virtually."

As in, "Many people in America have smart phones, netbooks, or laptops virtually attached to their hips.

" Obviously people don't actually have laptops attached to their hips via some leather case with a belt loop, thus you cannot say that they literally have them attached to their hips.

Question: Recently I've heard American TV commentators say "[a person] was literally decimated" and "[a Senator] was literally thrown under the bus". In the first case I think the person was not actually 10% killed, but in the second, I believe they meant that 57 members of the US Senate carried #58 onto Constitution Avenue and threw him under a (hopefully moving) bus. Are usages like these normal or acceptable now? I find them grating, myself.

"Literally" and "Decimate" misuse

It appears that this usage of these words is becoming increasingly common and the intended is use if pure hyperbole to gain emphasis. The term "decimated" in this sense is now virtually accepted.

These usages are not correct but they do indeed seem to be increasingly common.

The  New Oxford American Dictionary  reports the following note in the usage section:   In recent years, an extended use of  literally has become very common. With regards to  decimation , the original meaning is derived from a practice in the military of Ancient Rome and this word has been so greatly abused over time that its more general meaning of "to destroy" or "to severely harm" is now virtually accepted. It is used by people who have heard it used properly and thought the speaker meant  seriously  or  absolutely .  People often use the word "literally" when they really mean "virtually."

The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary literally can also mean virtually, with the following usage note:   Since some people take one sense to be the opposite of the other, it has been frequently criticized as a misuse, with some complaining that people often use the word "literally" when they really mean "virtually."

Yes, the usage of "literally" in this way is indeed common and is also accepted by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

The common usage is just hyperbole and ignores the dictionary meaning.

"Decimation" originally meant a punishment in the Roman army but the meaning has been lost.

The misuse is increasingly common and former meanings may be lost.

The misuse results from misunderstanding.

The  New Oxford American Dictionary  reports the following note in the usage section:   In recent years, an extended use of  literally has become very common,

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary does accept the use of "literally" in the figurative sense.

The use of the word "literally" to mean "virtually" is common, although its misusage may not be intentional.


It's a play on titles from self help programs which utilize ellipsis.

For example I lost 20 pounds in 4 days, and so can you.

This is a kind of strange ellipsis, because just tacking on "[lose 20 pounds in 4 days]" doesn't really create a grammatical sentence, but it's something like that.

The ellipsis would be clearer if the sentences were I lost 20 pounds in 4 days, and you can [lose 20 pounds in 4 days] too.

I am America, and you can [be America] too.

And the ellipsis is not so great with "to be", either.

Here's some discussion from Language Log: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004522.html

It follows the form

I <verb

> <rest of predicate>, and so can you!

For example, in I use computers, and so can you!

the "...

so can you" means "you can use computers, too."

The part where it becomes confusing, and funny, is that the verb is not an action verb, but "am."

So "...

so can you" means "You can be America too" in this case.

It's a satirical joke.

The title is deliberately confusing, that's the whole point.

I always took "I Am America" to be hubris inflated for comic effect, and

the "(And So Can You!)

" part to be a backhanded slash at Americans who can't even speak their own language good.

It's a joke on mistakes made with the English language by foreign countries.

If you look at the book there are many more jokes about the book being printed in some Asian country and it seems to make fun of engrish type mistakes.

Question: As a non-native speaker, I found Stephen Colbert’s book title I Am America (And So Can You!) a little hard to dissect. Why so can you? Why isn’t it So Are You ? What’s the full phrase that And So Can You implies?

Please explain "I Am America (And So Can You!)"

The title "I Am America (And So Can You!)" appears to be a play on titles from self-help programmes and functions as a satirical joke. The title is deliberately confusing and is a reference to mistakes made with the English language by foreign countries.

It's a joke based on the language used in self help program titles.

The title is deliberately confusing, that's the whole point. It's a satirical joke. It's a play on titles from self help programs which utilize ellipsis.

The title is deliberately confusing. It's a joke on mistakes made with the English language by foreign countries.

The title is deliberately confusing as a joke about the use of English in foreign countries.

It's a joke based on the language of self help program titles.

IT's a satirical joke with a title that is deliberately confusing.

It's a joke based on mistakes made with the English language by foreign countries.


You are correct that "yeah" and "yep" are informal variants of "yes."

In conversation among friends, any form is appropriate, but "yep" has a slightly dismissive tone.

"Did you find your wallet?"

Yeah, I left it in the other room.

As opposed to "Did you get directions to the theater?"

"Yep.

In the second example, you're implying that you've already got directions

and you don't need to spend time hearing them again.

I use yeah or yep

/yup when speaking casually.

I tend to use yep/

yup when it is being spoken by itself.

I also would correspondingly use nope in the same way.

Did you do it?

Yeah, I did it Yep.

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

Yes is not a formal word; you can use it in both formal and informal contexts.

Looking at the definitions given for

yeah , yeh , yep , or yup , all those words are defined as exclamation & noun nonstandard spelling of yes, representing informal pronunciation.

Looking at the examples provided from the Werriam-Webster Online , it seems that yeah , and yep are used in two different cases.

Yep is used when it's the only word in the answer; yeah is used in the other cases.

That's really what she said?

Yep.

That looks good.

Yeah, I think so too.

Yeah can also be used in a partial negation [yeah, but] meaning that you are affirming only a portion of the question.

Friend: Did you get movie tickets for me with the money I gave you?

You:

Yeah, but they cost ten dollars more than you gave me for them.

Would you be willing to pay for the popcorn?

Friend:

Yep.

You:

OK.

See you there.

In spoken (and informal written)

English, I generally use yeah or yup .

I mostly use yes when additional emphasis is needed, possibly with additional words as confirmation, e.g. if someone said I hadn't completed a task, I might reply

Yes, I did.

In formal written English, Yes should be used.

You might see this, for example, on application forms which have Yes/No tick boxes or similar.

Usually people write yes, unless it is informal writing, then

yeah

and yep can be used.

In spoken English yes is always appropriate, but with friends and relations

yeah

and yep are frequently used.

Sometimes the words can carry more meaning by their tone and repetition.

Mother: "Did you you do your homework yet?"Child:

"yeah,

yeah,

yeah.

" (The homework not done, but the child is tired of being told about it.)

When agreeing with someone I prefer "yeh" whereas with an exclamation such as "yeah, he scored the winning goal"

the "yeah" is cognitively quicker to come off the mind than discerning first whether you want to spell it "yeh" or

"yeah" knowing that the latter has more than one meaning.

Question: As a learner of English I know that yes is a standard variant and the other two are informal, spoken words. I know nothing more about it, and always try using the yes variant, just to not sound inappropriate. But I'd like to be able to not sound too formal in a casual conversation. Could you help me understand the differences between these words and the contexts in which it is okay to use them?

When is it appropriate to use "Yeah" and "Yep" as variants of the word "Yes"?

"Yeah" and "Yep" are informal variants of "Yes", although "Yep" has a slightly dismissive tone. In a conversation among friends, any form is appropriate. "Yeah" can be used in a partial negation where you are affirming only a portion of the question.

In conversation among friends, any form is appropriate, but "yep" has a slightly dismissive tone. Other variations between the terms will depend on context.

"Yeah" and "yep" are informal variants of "yes." Yes  also gives more emphasis. In formal written English,  Yes  should be used.

"Yeah" and "yep" are indeed informal variants of "yes." In conversation among friends, any form is appropriate, but "yep" has a slightly dismissive tone.

In general, in informal situations, "Yes", "Yeah", and "Yep" are all perfectly acceptable. "Yeah" may imply that there is more information to follow, whilst "Yep" is used more in one-word answers and can be perceived as a little dismissive.

Yes is not a formal word; you can use it in both formal and informal contexts.

Yeah can also be used in a partial negation [yeah, but] meaning that you are affirming only a portion of the question.

Yes, Yeah and Yep are all acceptable in informal situations but only Yes is acceptable in formal situations.

"Yep" is generally used for one-word answers and can be perceived as somewhat dismissive.

Use of "Yeah" may imply that there is more information to follow.


Wiktionary says : Antonyms xenomania xenophilia xenophily allophilia (more general)

This is, however, not exactly what you are looking for, since being attracted to foreigners does not imply hating your compatriots.

Allophilia won't fly at all, because it's an antonym for all kinds of prejudice.

I think your best bet is just to be specific: anti-Americanism, anti-Canadianism, anti-Ukrainian sentiment, anti-Irish sentiment, sinophobia, lusophobia and so forth: Americans are increasingly displaying anti-Americanism.

Sinophobia is on the rise in China.

Russian teenagers are showing signs of anti-Russian sentiment.

This will be understood by far more people than any generic term for "irrational fear or hatred of one's own countrymen

" we can come up with.

Not a word, but phrases frequently (mis-)used: self-loathing , self-hating .

For instance, Wikipedia has an article called self-hating Jew

(whatever the validity of the term).

Would it not be simpler to say that person is prejudiced against foreigners and that person is prejudiced against his own country rather than to try to misappropriate yet another medical term?

A phobia once meant a medical condition.

Unfortunately xenophobia's medical use as fear of foreigners has been corrupted by use as a kind of fancy synonym for racism.

Similarly for silly words like homophobia , which means "prejudice against homosexuals" rather than " fear of homosexuals".

Medical words are often subjected to this kind of mistreatment.

Take "nutritional value", which, to a nutritionist, means "the number of calories in a food".

This word has been corrupted in common usage to the extent that people say things like "McDonald's food has no nutritional value" as a way of claiming that McDonald's food is not healthy.

The speaker wants to add credibility to her claim about healthiness by using a fancy "medical" word which she actually doesn't understand, in effect saying that a type of food high in calories contains no calories at all.

I came across this possibility today: oikophobia , which sounds like what I was looking for.

Oikophobia means fearing your ambience.

There is no specific term for fearing one's own community people or local people.

It is generally sociophobia .

Question: Xenophobia refers to the irrational fear or hatred of foreigners. But recently I've seen people displaying (in newspaper articles and other places) an irrational fear or hatred of their own countrymen. Is there a word for that?

Word meaning the reverse of 'Xenophobia'

Whilst there is no term to describe such a concept, it's possible that the best equivalent of "xenophobia" when referring to one's own countrymen is to be specific and say, for example "anti-Americanism" or "anti-Canadianism". The term "self-loathing" or "self-hating" may also work in this context.

There is no specific term so best use a term using anti- plus the relevant nationality, e.g. anti-American or a term such as "prejudiced against".

Wiktionary  offers the antonyms:   xenomania, xenophilia, xenophily and allophilia, but these are not exactly what you are looking for, since being attracted to foreigners does not imply hating your compatriots.  Your best bet is just to be specific: anti-Americanism, anti-Canadianism, anti-Ukrainian sentiment, anti-Irish sentiment, sinophobia, lusophobia and so forth:    Americans are increasingly displaying anti-Americanism.  Oikophobia  means fearing your ambience and could be suitable.

There is no specific term for fearing one's own community people or local people.

There does not appear to be a single term to describe a fear of one's own community. However, one potential term could be "Sociophobia". Otherwise, it might be more effective to use a more specific term such as "anti-american" or "anti-russian".

There is no specific term so use anti- plus the relevant nationality, e.g. anti-American

Another possible term is "self-loathing" or "self-hating" as in "self-hating Jew".

The term "phobia" should be restricted to medical uses - it is better to use a term like "prejudiced against".

The best option to describe such a sentiment is probably to be more specific using terms such as "Anti-American" or "Anti-Russian".

Sociophobia may be an appropriate word to use in this context.

There is no specific term for fearing one's own community.


common verb =

> official translation google =>

“search the internet (using the Google brand search engine)” photoshop =>

“edit digital images (using the Adobe Photoshop brand image editing software)” facebook =>

“communicate (using the Facebook brand social networking website)” EDIT: to note that the parenthesized items can in some cases be replaced with something more generic, i.e. “using any search engine”, “using any image editing software”, “using any social networking website”.

This is the usage that the owners of the trademarks fear (and object to) because substantial usage of that type constitutes a generic use of their trademarks, which could be grounds for being forced to forfeit the trademark.

Merriam-Webster has a whole list of suggestions: to book engagements via facebook to put something up on facebook to look up someone's personal information using Facebook to look someone up on a social website, to find one's information on a social website To upload a photograph to Facebook so that it may be viewed by others.

To create an event entry on facebook To get on a facebook website.

1.to search for another person through the online directory know as facebook 2.

to send a message through the online directory know as facebook To add someone to your list of friends on the "facebook.com" website. ...

Judging by the list, you can't predict which verb "to facebook" might or might not end up replacing.

Right now, it's just a shorthand for many different things to different people.

I have never heard "Facebook" used as a verb ("to facebook").

Photoshop means "edit a photograph", and Google means "search the web".

Facebook provides too many diverse functions to be easily verbed.

Would the verb be transitive or intransitive (e.g. "I facebooked all day" vs "I'll facebook you")?

In the former case, does it mean "update my profile", "look at friends pictures" or "search for new friends"...?

In the latter case, does it mean "add as friend", "send a message", "write on the wall", "ping"...?

It is unclear.

There is no single defining activity that Facebook is used for or a clear result it produces.

Similarly, spreadsheet or database program names ("1-2-3", "Excel", "Oracle", "MySql") are rarely used as verbs.

These programs, like Facebook can be used for diverse tasks.

It doesn't really replace any other verb.

Think of it like "skiing," which means the act of using skis.

I would say that (for the present day, at least) all of these terms still pertain to the act of using the specific item to which they refer.

Some people do say "Google that with Bing," but this is just to satirize the usage of "Google" as a verb.

I've heard my students say, "I'll facebook you" many times.

Of course, what they mean is, "I'll send you a message on Facebook."

Using trademarks as verbs is almost always discouraged by the trademark holder, as it risks genericizing the trademark.

This is why, for example, Microsoft never describes a PowerPoint presentation as "a PowerPoint", but uses the generic term "slideshow".

Question: I understand that any term, grammatical or not, becomes valid if there is common usage. I'm not concerned about that. Google and Photoshop are both commonly used as verbs. Given that the terms map fairly well to verbs (web searching and image editing), I can follow the logic of their use. Does this work for Facebook, though? What verb is it replacing?

Is "facebook" as a verb different from "google" or "photoshop"?

There is no agreement as to what "Facebook" as a verb would definitively refer to, although some option include "booking engagements via facebook", "looking up someone's personal information using Facebook" or "uploading a photograph to Facebook". Some people may also use "facebook" to describe sending a message to someone on Facebook.

The term can apply to any of the services available on Facebook but generally when people say "I'll facebook you" what they mean is, "I'll send you a message on Facebook."

Facebook provides too many diverse functions to be easily verbed. e.g to create an event entry on facebook or to get on a facebook website.  Or does it mean "update my profile", "look at friends pictures" or "search for new friends"? Usually what people mean is, "I'll send you a message on Facebook." Using trademarks as verbs is almost always discouraged by the trademark holder, as it risks genericizing the trademark.

People often say "I'll Facebook you".  It doesn't really  replace  any other verb, but it is shorthand and may mean different things to different people.

There are number of ways that "facebook" is being used as a verb and they are so varied that it is difficult to say which verb or action the word "Facebook" might be specifically replacing. Some examples include posting a publication on Facebook or upload a photograph to Facebook.

The term has a variety of meanings linked to the different functionalities offered by Facebook, e.g. to upload a facebook so others can view it.

It's just a general term for using Facebook.

When people say "I'll facebook you" what they mean is, "I'll send you a message on Facebook."

There are many different actions that could be represented by the verb "to facebook", including posting something on Facebook or sharing a photograph on Facebook.

Since it could mean many different things to many different people, it's hard to say which verb "to facebook" might be replacing in any given case.


He would be more careful in future.

They plan on getting married in the near future.

In the first sentence, "in future" means "from now on"; the NOAD says its use is chiefly British.

In the second sentence, "in the future" means "the time or a period of time following the moment of speaking or writing."

In future is how they say it in the UK and India.

It is common and considered normal.

In future, we will avoid water beds.

In American English,

In future sounds strange; in the future is preferred or at least will get you fewer strange looks.

You may see "in future" when "future" is modifying a noun for which "in" is an appropriate preposition.

Fore example:

in future ______ shows plays events and etc.

In future is much more common in the UK and Ireland, as in

In future, be more careful.

In the US, we would tend to say

In the future, be more careful.

They mean exactly the same thing.

In future is commonly used in British English and is perfectly correct but has a different meaning than in the future .

In the future refers to an unspecified point in time, while in future means from now on.

It'a shame

I missed you when I popped round to see you yesterday.

I'll ring up beforehand in future .

In the future people will look back at the mobile phones we use today and laugh at their simplicity.

Both forms are possible.

"In future" is often used in reprimands: In future please sign and date your letters

It is very general, talking about all times from now onwards.

You can find many examples on Google (search for "in future please take care").

In the future" is more neutral and more specific:

In the future I would like to go to Australia, but now I don't have enough money.

The difference is only in whether future is a noun or an adjective.

In the future, please be more careful and Please be more careful in the future both use future as a noun.

In future activities, please be more careful uses future to modify the noun activities.

To my knowledge is it not correct to say in future in the place of in the future.

As far as grammar goes the difference between in future and in the future is contextual.

One usually comes across phrases like in future endeavours or in future meets where future serves as an adjective.

But if the reference is only to the times ahead, in the future would be correct and not in future .Thus,it would be correct to say:Be more careful in the future .or

There will come a time in the future when there will be no petroleum left on the planet.and incorrect to go with the other.

However,the spoken word in Britain and many former colonies where the influence of British English is enduring,it's not uncommon to come across simple notes that use in future .

Perhaps they find it more easy on their ears.

Nonetheless,grammatically wanting.

Question: Do in future and in the future imply different meanings? If so, using which one is grammatically correct?

Do "in future" and "in the future" imply different meanings?

Both "in future" and "in the future" are possible, although "in future" is chiefly British and means "from now on". This would strange in American English. "In the future", on the other hand, means "the time or period of time following the moment of speaking or writing".

"In the future" is more common in American English and "in future" in British English, but "in future" has the additional meaning of "from now on".

Both forms are possible. As far as grammar goes the difference between  in future  and  in the future  is contextual.  In the future  refers to an unspecified point in time, while  in future  means from now on.    In future  is much more common in the UK and Ireland, and India. "In future" is also often used in reprimands as in: In future please sign and date your letters

In the future  refers to an unspecified point in time, while  in future  means from now on. "In future" may often be used in reprimands - for example: "In future please sign and date your letters".   However, it not correct to say  in future  in the place of  in the future, and the difference between these phrases  is contextual.

The answer to this question is subjective and will depend on the function of the word "future" in the sentence, as well as the regional dialect of English being spoken. "In future" is more common in British English and other parts of the world, for example. Some people see them as being largely equivalent, whereas others would reject "in future" as being completely incorrect.

In future sounds strange; in the future is preferred or at least will get you fewer strange looks.

They plan on getting married in the near future.

In the first sentence, "in future" means "from now on"; the NOAD says its use is chiefly British.

In the second sentence, "in the future" means "the time or a period of time following the moment of speaking or writing."

In future is how they say it in the UK and India.

In future is commonly used in British English and is perfectly correct but has a different meaning than in the future .

Of the two phrase, "in the future" is more common in American English and "in future" in British English, but "in future" has the additional meaning of "from now on".

"In future" is often used in reprimands as in: In future please sign and date your letters

The difference between "in the future" and "in future" will be contextual and depend on the function of the word "future" in the sentence.

"In future" appears to be used more commonly in Britain and former British colonies.

Some people would argue that they mean exactly the same thing.

Some English speakers may reject the use of "in future" as incorrect.


Because more words = more official-sounding.

It's a bad phrase that has taken root in irrelevant situations.

Adding "rate" adds nothing in most contexts.

However, the word rate also means "value" or "number".

From Cambridge : rate (MEASUREMENT) noun a measurement of the speed at which something happens or changes, or the number of times it happens or changes, within a particular period

The very first sense for the noun rate in Merriam-Webster is “reckoned value : valuation”.

The word has more meanings than the one used in physics.

One could therefore make the argument that a rate of speed is a speed which is reckoned (i.e. by measuring or reasoned estimation) rather than guessed.

This is classic genteelism .

Speed is the rate of change of position.

Although "Rate of speed" is technically meaningless, it does, however, usually convey the intended meaning (for better or worse).

As a scientist, I would point out that saying "high rate of speed", when one simply means "high speed", is not merely redundant but outright wrong.

Speed is already a rate in itself (the rate at which distance changes).

According to my dictionary*, the relevant definition of rate is the speed with which something moves, happens or changes

* New Oxford American Dicitionary (2nd Edition)

In the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, S 128 , the term "Rate of Speed" is used throughout.

I suspect this term did not originate in Ontario, but the usage has become official due to its inclusion in legislation.

Question: Why do reporters (and sometimes police officers) say that somebody was going at a  high rate of speed  when they actually mean  high speed ?  In physics, speed is already the rate of distance over time, otherwise known as velocity. Rate of speed is velocity over time, otherwise known as acceleration. By saying  high rate of speed  they would be implying picking up more speed.  Is there a social reason for using  high rate of speed  rather than  high speed ?

"high rate of speed" or "high speed" to mean going fast

It is possible that terms like "high rate of speed" are not just redundant but also incorrect. Such an expression is likely to be used in order to use more words and therefore sound more official. However, correct or not, its meaning is generally understood and indeed it even features in print in the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.

The term is technically meaningless and is just used to make the text sound more impressive.

Saying "high rate of speed", when one simply means "high speed", is not merely redundant but outright wrong.  Although "Rate of speed" is technically meaningless, it does usually convey the intended meaning. Yet, interestingly, in the  Ontario Highway Traffic Act, S 128 , the term "Rate of Speed" is used throughout.

Although "Rate of speed" is technically meaningless, it does, however, usually convey the intended meaning (for better or worse).

This is an incorrect phrase, but it is still easily understood and commonly used. One reason may relate to people trying to sound more official in their speech by using more words. In fact, the term may even be used regularly in official contexts in certain regions, such as Canada, for example.

It is used sometimes in official documents.

In the  Ontario Highway Traffic Act, S 128 , the term "Rate of Speed" is used throughout.

It might have occurred because people use more words when trying to sound official.

This is an incorrect phrase but has become more common.

Although it is incorrect, this phrase is still easily understood.

This term may even be used in an official context in certain regions, such as Canada.


You should remove the spaces.

Unless, of course, you are quoting a poem, in which case the slash indicates a line break: We review a module theme per user.

Wikipedia has more info : There are usually no spaces either before or after a slash.

Exceptions are in representing the start of a new line when quoting verse, or a new paragraph when quoting prose.

The Chicago Manual of Style (at 6.112) also allows spaces when either of the separated items is a compound that itself includes a space: Our New Zealand / Western Australia trip .

(Compare use of an en dash used to separate such compounds.)

The Canadian Style:

A Guide to Writing and Editing prescribes "

No space before or after an oblique when used between individual words, letters or symbols; one space before and after the oblique when used between longer groups which contain internal spacing", giving the examples "n/a" and "Language and Society / Langue et société".

In print I would leave no space, but for online usage I bracket the "/" with spaces because it is a non-breaking character and results in huge, clunky amalgamations that take up a whole line, leaving the previous line with but a couple of words.

This is the kind of break I mean: If you wanted to use some long words, you could go the antidisestablishmentarianism/pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosisroute.

The two long words won't break at a line end because of the slash, but will if the slash is surrounded by spaces.

I believe the correct usage is word/word unless you're writing a line break in a poem: Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? /

Thou art more lovely and more temperate:

Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May, /

And summer's lease hath

all too short a date:

Punctuation surrounding a slash is a matter of style.

The Chicago Manual of Style, for example, allows for a space on either side of the slash when either of the separated items has a space itself.

For your example a space on either side of the slash would be appropriate according to that style convention.

Regarding line breaks, you probably want the front space padding the slash to be a non-breaking space, as starting a new line with a slash would be jolting for a reader.

As a technical writer I need to edit content written by engineers.

for some reason they have a tendency to use spaces before and after slashes, and I religiously remove them.

I have started rethinking my inflexibility in this matter as I believe there are times that spaces make the content more user friendly.

A case in point is either/or listings of terms that contain other symbols, for example "PMC_IO51 / XMC_IO_B-9".

The spacing makes it clear that the slash is not part of either term.

Normally, no spaces should be used; however, placing a slash with no spaces between two long, polysyllabic words (common in technical writing) makes the sentence harder to scan.

This could be one case where ignoring your style guide is justified.

Question: I usually put a space before and after / , when indicating alternatives. We review a module / theme per user. Is it correct, or should I rewrite the sentence to remove those spaces? We review a module/theme per user.

Should I write "module/theme" or "module / theme"?

It appears that punctuation surrounding the use of slashes is a matter of style, however, in this example, there should probably be no spaces either side of the slash unless you're writing a poem. Spaces may be more common when separating two long polysyllabic words, something which is common in technical writing.

Generally spaces should not be included unless you are quoting from a poem, but the exceptions are technical texts, where spaces can help to avoid confusion, and online texts, where they can help to avoid excessively long amalgamations that take up a whole line.

Wikipedia states :   There are usually no spaces either before or after a slash. The correct usage is word/word unless you're writing a line break in a poem:  Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? /

The spaces should be rmeoved. Normally, no spaces should be used. However, placing a slash with no spaces between two long, polysyllabic words (common in technical writing) makes the sentence harder to scan. Punctuation surrounding a slash is a matter of style.

The correct answer to this question will potentially be a question of style. However, it is generally agreed that obliques should have no spaces either side of them unless the two items being separated contain a space themselves.

Spaces should be removed unless you are quoting a poem.

Leave no spaces in print but online it is recommended to avoid long and clunky amalgamations.

Spaces can be helpful in technical writing to avoid ambiguities.

Spaces can be justified if they make the text easier to read.

It is generally considered that there should be no spaces either side of an oblique.

Spaces may be permitted either side of an oblique if the two items in question contain spaces.

Punctuation choices when using obliques are a matter of personal style.


Using the past tense is a way of offering flexibility in an invitation or request.

You don't need to feel compelled to accept because it is being phrased as a passing thought.

A whim.

The difference between I wonder if you'd like to come for dinner and

I was wondering if you'd like to come for dinner

is that the second sounds more hesitant.

It's used to make the invitation less direct and thus more polite.

"I wonder if you'd like to come for dinner" sounds like something your boss would say, it's almost like an order to come to dinner.

There's nothing wrong with the grammar in the second form; if you are wondering now then you must have been wondering for at least a small period of time beforehand.

I was wondering, and now I am asking.

"I was wondering" gives the other more freedom to accept or refuse because it has the feeling that I will not get embarrassed if you refuse my invitation because I was and not I am !

That was in the past!

Why isn't the present tense used?

I am wondering if you would like to come for dinner. =========================

The only word indicating tense in your example is 'am'.

But in this situation, it's really only a present tense FORM.

This FORM is used to be more direct, in this case, it could [note 'could' is a future] be taken as rather abrupt.

Past tense FORMS, "I was

wondering" are used in English to be more indirect and therefore more polite, softer, less challenging.

Compare " Do

you want something to eat?"

versus " Did you want something to eat?" Tense FORMs as opposed to the actual use of tense to mark time are simply different grammatical/pragmatic animals.

Question: Why isn't the present tense used? I am wondering if you would like to come for dinner.

Why is the past tense used in "I was wondering if you would like to come for dinner?"

Using the past tense "I was wondering" is a way of offering flexibility in an invitation or request. It makes the invitation less direct and more polite.

It's a polite way of asking which offers greater flexibility.

Using the past tense is a way of offering flexibility in an invitation or request. "I was wondering" gives the other more freedom to accept or refuse. It's used to make the invitation less direct and thus more polite. "I wonder if you'd like to come for dinner" sounds like something your boss would say, it's almost like an order to come to dinner.

Using the past tense is a way of offering flexibility in an invitation or request.  It's used to make the invitation less direct and thus more polite. However there's nothing wrong with the grammar in the second form.

Although there is nothing wrong with using the present tense in this case, the past tense is often used to be more polite.

It's a way of offering greater flexibility and avoiding a sense of obligation.

It leaves the recipient more freedom to refuse.

Using the past tense is used to make the sentence more polite.

There is nothing wrong with using the present tense in this example.


0.25 miles.

The rule I follow is that you use the singular only when talking of exactly one mile .

You'd also say half a mile , quarter of a mile , etc.

, but in these cases it's as though you're still talking of "a mile" first, and then taking half or quarter of it.

Let me say something further, with the caveat that it may be my own idiosyncratic usage: use the singular only when talking of the natural number 1, that is, when you're essentially "counting" miles and there's a single one of them.

Use the plural in all other cases, even for the real number 1.0: just like "0.9 miles" or "1.1 miles", also say "1.0 miles" (but "1 mile").

[Mathematically, natural numbers ("counting numbers") are a subset of real numbers, but more properly what we have is an inclusion map , so it does make sense to distinguish between 1 and 1.0, actually.

And the distinction between natural numbers and real numbers does have applications elsewhere in English: consider "fewer than" versus "less than".

You'd say "fewer than five items" but "less than 5.0 inches", since a length doesn't have to be an integer number of inches, you're not counting but assigning a real value.]

Another

aside: the SI standard for symbols is to use the same symbol for singular or plural, so you'd write "2 km" even if you were reading it as "2 kilometres".

Of course, since you're using miles, you probably don't care about this. :-)

Depends how you say it.

You'd say "nought point two five miles" (plural) but "a quarter of a mile" (singular)

I'd leave it singular unless talking about a range such as "0.25 - 2 miles".

In a table, for example, the heading would be the same regardless of the units.

You can always abbreviate as "mi" and avoid the issue.

Simon's answer is also good.

Also note that it's actually more awkward to say 0.25 mile than "point two five of a mile".

For reasons I'm not too sure about, we usually say "0.25 miles" rather than "0.25 mile".

If you Google for both terms, there are about 700,000 "0.25 miles" but less than 100,000 "0.25 mile", and the first few hits for "0.25 mile" give things like "0.25 mile swim" or "0.25 mile wireless setup", where the "mile" is forced to singular anyway.

If we followed the definition of "plural", the correct usage would be: 0.25 mile 0.5 mile 0.9 mile 1.0 mile 1.3 mile (or 1.3 miles, according to Wiktionary note below) 2.0 miles 2.2 miles..

As the definition is: Plural: of, relating to, or constituting a class of grammatical forms usually used to denote more than one or in some languages more than two http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plural

However, as Shinto pointed out in his answer here, people usually use the plural form for 0.25.

Here is an interesting note from the Wiktionary about the usage of plural for fractions (and decimals) in general: While the plural form generally refers to two or more persons or things, that is not always the case.

The plural form is often used for zero persons or things, for fractional things in a quantity greater than one , and for people or things when the quantity is unknown.

This does support the usage of plural for 0.25 though, since it is less than one.

But if that is how people use it, we definitely can't say that it is incorrect.

.25 miles or a quarter of a mile.

It's really not complicated or confusing if you think of it in terms of being a fraction.

Essentially, as soon as you go into decimal, you're changing units into partial units.

0.25 would actually be 25 units of "hundredth-miles"

Question: I have seen people say both 0.25 mile and 0.25 miles. Should we use plural or singular for a fraction of a mile?

Should we use plural or singular for a fraction of a mile?

The generally agreed rule is that you should use the singular only when talking of exactly one mile, although the real answer may depend on how you say it.

The most common usage is "0.25 miles" but a "quarter of a mile".

You use the singular only when talking of exactly  one mile . You'd say "nought point two five miles" (plural) but "a quarter of a mile" (singular). The plural  form is often used for zero persons or  things,  for fractional things in a  quantity greater than one , and for  people or things when the quantity is  unknown.

One might say "nought point two five miles" (plural) but "a quarter of a mile" (singular). We usually say "0.25 miles" rather than "0.25 mile".

The answer to this question is subjective, but it appears that the plural form is much more common than the singular. Some people may advocate only using the singular form for the number 1 and using the plural in all other cases.

Use the singular only when talking of exactly one mile .

It depends on how it is spoken - You'd say "nought point two five miles" (plural) but "a quarter of a mile" (singular).

Leave singular unless talking about a range of distances.

The use of "0.25 miles" appears to be much more common than "0.25 mile".

The answer to this question is subjective.

Some people may advocate only using the singular form when talking specifically about the natural number 1 and using the plural in all other cases.


The classic example (which is probably an urban myth) is a foreign learner saying "I ate a chicken last night" when he meant "I ate some chicken last night".

Mistaking chicken (the meat) for a countable noun makes it sound like he ate an entire bird.

I think you are correct in that if a noun is unambiguously mass or count then the qualifier doesn't matter, the meaning can be taken from the noun.

However compare

: I ate too much fish vs.

I ate too many fish.

If the noun is ambiguous in that way, then the meaning must be taken from the qualifier.

So if you mistook "fish" for a term that was always mass or common, then you could produce an ambiguous statement.

(Inspired by Shinto's example)

Some words have different meanings depending on count/ noncount usage.

If you turn in "a paper", it means you have given the teacher an assignment, while simply having "some paper" means you have plain paper with nothing on it.

I have two papers, means I have two assignments.

I have two pieces of paper means I have two pages.

I have

a chicken means I have a bird, and I have some chicken means I have some bird meat.

Most words only have one meaning and usage, so confusing the two just sounds awkward rather than truly confusing like the paper and chicken examples.

I was recently in a grocery store where the express lane was marked "10 Items or Fewer."

I made a mental note that that was a classy chain, so in a marketing sense, getting it right made a difference.

You can't enroll in Tattooing 101 because you have too many classes.

You can't enroll in Tattooing 101 because you have too much class.

You cannot make too many glasses if you don't have much glass.

You can make fewer glasses if you have less glass.

You can only make a little glass if you only have a little glass.

My uncle has too much wood in his cabinet shop; there's not enough space left for a new planer.

My uncle has too many woods in his cabinet shop; there's no need for him to stock zebra wood.

My sister doesn't like that radio station; she says it has too much blues.

My sister doesn't like that wallpaper; she says it has too much blue.

My sister doesn't like that wallpaper; she says it has too many blues.

Here's a real life example.

"Here's a box full of books, most of them are quite good.

Here's another box.

It has less good books in."

"Here's a box full of books, most of them are quite good.

Here's another box.

It has fewer good books in.

" (1) feels like it should be parsed as follows: "It has [less good] books in".

That is, the books in the box are of (uniformly?)

lower quality.

"less good" is behaving like a compound adjective.(2) on the other hand, seems to suggest "It has fewer [good books] in".

"Good books" is behaving like a compound noun.

The suggestion this time is that the books are possibly of similar quality, it's just that the box isn't as full: there are fewer books.

Question: Less/fewer, too much/too many, amount/number... When people get these things wrong, it bugs me. But I cannot think of a situation where mistaking a mass noun for a count noun (or vice versa) would ever introduce any kind of ambiguity.  Is there such a case?

Mass nouns and counts nouns. Does getting it wrong ever matter?

If the noun is unambiguously mass or count, the qualifier probably doesn't matter. Whilst there are situations where mistakenly using a countable noun instead of a mass noun would lead to confusion, in general, there are very few. For example, mistaking chicken (the meat) for a countable noun makes it sound like someone ate an entire bird.

One example (of many) would be "I ate a chicken last night" instead of "I ate some chicken last night" - the non-countable is treated as if it is countable thereby creating confusion of meaning.

Some words have different meanings depending on count/ noncount usage.  If you turn in "a paper", it means you have given the teacher an assignment, while simply having "some paper" means you have plain paper with nothing on it.  Most words only have one meaning and usage, so confusing the two just sounds awkward rather than truly confusing like the paper and chicken examples.

If a noun is unambiguously a mass or a count then the qualifier doesn't matter - the meaning can be taken from the noun.  Some words have different meanings depending on count/noncount usage.

Some words have a different meaning depending on whether they are treated as mass nouns or countable nouns. One example is the word "chicken".

Mistaking chicken (the meat) for a countable noun (A BIRD) makes it sound like an entire bird.

The potential for confusion arises when a noun is not unanbiguously mass or count, e.g. chicekn.

Another example is "glass" (not countable) versus" glasses" (countable) - so "You cannot make too many glasses if you don't have much glass".

The word "chicken" is one word where the meaning of a sentence will change depending on whether it is countable or not.

Some words have a different meaning depending on whether they are countable nouns or not.


Working part-time in customer support, I have to deal with the same situation very often, and I often have to google for "awkward" names, too.

What I usually end up with when nothing helps, is either of the following:

I just drop the "Mr/Ms" altogether. "

Dear Maria Cannavaro", "Dear Wei Li", etc.

If the person is located in the US, I assume that they do not object to being addressed by their first name. "

Dear Maria",

"Dear Alex".

Also, I might sometimes use a simple "Hi there" or "Hi", but usually only if the person has previously contacted me using a similar informal address.

Lastly, sometimes people do ask me for a license key in a formal, polite way, but sign as "B. Smith".

In that case, they either don't really care how I address them, or they don't want me to figure out their gender or full name for some reason, which I must respect.

Not one of these people has ever objected to my use of "hi".

Given our construction of gender, 'tis usually a far greater sin to falsely assign a gender than to avoid formal address.

For Wei Li , I would not break up the name and say Dear Wei or Dear Li , because some people use reverse order with surname first, and some people have compound names.

If you are lucky there may be a title you can choose.

"Dear Professor Doe" is safe for either gender.

Likewise of "Doctor" (either the academic or the medical/veterinary/dental variety), and for military, police or clerical ranks.

Failing that I go with "Dear Full Name" as others have suggested, as it contains nothing that might offend and still conveys a basic degree of formality and respect.

english.stackexchange.com/users/2851/dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten

In 2015, ODO added Mx (pronounced like "mix") as a gender-neutral pronoun.

See definition 2 for Mx on ODO Pronunciation:

/məks/ /mɪks/

NOUN

A title used before a person’s surname or full name by those who wish to avoid specifying their gender or by those who prefer not to identify themselves as male or female "To me, Mx Bond embodies the very best kind of girl a boy could ever grow up to become." Origin 1970s: apparently from M (as in Mr, Mrs, Ms, etc.)

+ X1 (probably denoting an unknown or variable factor or quantity). For further reading: Mx (title) on Wikipedia

The word was first proposed in the late 1970s.

The "x" is intended to stand as a wildcard character, and does not imply a "mixed" gender.

Ngram shows some data , but it's unclear what Mx means there.

When faced with this problem in an email (my most normal scenario), I look at the signature and use that to address the person.

Question: When communicating with foreign cultures, the gender of the addressed person is not always clear from the name. What would be a professional way to address someone in this situation. ( Dear Mr or Ms SomeForeignName looks awkward). A hack I generally use is to do a google image search for the name, but this isn't always accurate in all cultures. What's the solution here?

How should I address someone with a known name and unknown gender?

It is generally considered a greater sin to falsely assign a gender than to avoid formal address. If someone has previously contacted you in informal address, you could simply say "Hi there". If the person in question has a title, such as "Professor" or "Doctor", you could use this, but alternatively, you could simply address them by their full name or the name written in their e-mail signature.

It is important not to make a mistake with gender so in the absense of any other option go for a gender neutral salutation like "Hi there"

Go with  "Dear Full Name". Given our construction of gender, 'tis usually a far greater sin to falsely assign a gender than to avoid formal address.  Dear Professor or doctor is safe for either gender if applicable.

The first name may be used or Mr/Ms may be avoided altogether. In informal communication, "Hi" may be used, for example. There may be a hint in the signature.

When faced with such a situation, you may want to simply drop the formal address and use either a less formal address or their full name. Alternatively, you could use the name in their e-mail signature.

If unsure of the gender just begin with Hi or Hi there.

Gender is a sensitive issue so best to avoid getting it wrong.

Another option is to use the full name as in Dear Wei Lu.

If there is a title, use that, e.g. Dear Doctor.

There is the address form Mx but it's not in common usage.

You could check the signature and use that.

When faced with such a situation, the safect option is probably to drop the formal address and simply use their first name.

You might want to use a less formal greeting to avoid problems in this situation.

You might consider addressing the recipient using the name in their e-mail signature.


Context is not a mass noun, and takes the plural -s .

"Another context" not "other context"

I upvoted the top two answers, because they are both correct.

To clarify, it should be either ... in another context?" or ...

in other contexts?

Both are correct and acceptable, but never "in other context?"

Example: 'The word "seaboard" can be used in the context of a coastline; it may also be used in (many) other contexts.'

When there's one, it's context, when more than one (or possibly so)

it's plural - contexts.

Using "any other context" or "another context" sounds to me like you are pre-suposing there is only one other, although it would not be very clear.

Of the two options you supplied, ... in other contexts? is correct.

Another option, ... in another context? is also correct, but whether you use it will depend on whether there are multiple "contexts" or just one, to consider.

Of course, "context" is singular, indicating only one; while "contexts" is plural, indicating many.

Thus, to say ...

in other context? would be incorrect, as "other" implies multiple, while "another" implies one.

Question: I just asked about the phrase "Eastern Seaboard" in another question. I used the sentence: Is "seaboard" used in other contexts? I thought this didn't sound very good, so I changed it to: Is "seaboard" used in other context? Should context ever be pluralized? Or is it a mass noun?

Should I say "context" or "contexts"?

Since "context" is not a mass noun, it will take the plural -s. Alternatively, you could say "another context" instead of "other context".

Context is not a mass noun, and takes the plural -s, so it is fine to say "contexts".

Context  is not a mass noun, and takes the plural  -s .  Another option,   you could use is 'in another context' .

Context  is not a mass noun, and takes the plural  -s.  Of the two options given, "... in other contexts"   is correct.

The word contexts is a countable noun and should be pluralised. The term "contexts" is correct.

Using "any other context" or "another context" sounds to me like you are pre-suposing there is only one other, although it would not be very clear.

Of the two options, in other contexts? is correct.


Speaking as a programmer, no.

A list can even contain no items at all.

Edit: on a more serious note, let's say I take a piece of paper and a pen, and make my grocery list.

And then it just so happens that all I need is milk.

That piece of paper with a single word on it would still be my grocery list, and not my grocery word.

Sounds like you are getting hung up on semantics.

Sure, it may not technically be a "list" at that point, but unless you are referring to it as such in the narrative, why fight it?

I mean, it is just a formatting element at that point and technically not a grammar issue.

It may be grammatically correct, or correct in certain casual documents such as a grocery list (I am unaware of any grocery-list police), but is not a best or even good practice in more formal documents (anything involving an outline, for instance)—with one exception, discussed below.

Here's a correct example (I use numbers/letters only for ease of reference; a bulleted list follows the same logic): Foods1.

Vegetables a. carrots b. potatoes2.

Fruits a. strawberries b. oranges3.

Grains a. rice b. wheat

Here's an example of what not to do: U.S.

Pre-Revolution a.

Early

Revolution a.

No Taxation without Representation" b. Colonial Warfare3.

Constitutional Congress4.

Civil War

a. States' Rights b. Slavery

The problem with the second example (where the first item has only one sub-item) is that without a second sub-item, the two levels are essentially equal.

If the only thing I'm going to say about pre-Revolutionary times is to discuss the early settlers, then those terms are both referring to the same topic

and I'm being redundant in the outline.

Note item 3, which has no sub-items.

That is the correct way to handle the case of only one item: pick one term and put it at the appropriate level of the outline.

Of course, as Roger Pate says, in a rough draft there may be an overriding reason to make a one-item list (as a visual cue to think further about the list), but this would need to be corrected if you never add to the list.

This is the one exception mentioned above.

A list can have only one item, or even no items.

However, you're doing more than just typing in some text into your document: you're creating something that people need to read and understand.

For that purpose, it may very well be absurd to only have one item in your list; you have to judge based on the context of what you're writing and the expected audience.

Conversely, you could use a single-item list as emphasis.

For example, if this bullet-point ends up displayed at the bottom of the page and the preceding text is ambiguous about how many items there may be, then it would be natural to become confused when arriving on the next page and a new paragraph.

Particularly if this is a rough draft to which you expect to later add items, then you should keep the solitary bullet-point; polish in later revisions as the content becomes more concrete.

If you look "list" up in the dictionary, it says a "considerable number or long series," so no, one item is not a series or a list.

I think it is absurd to bullet one item.

What ever happened to writing in paragraphs, instead of having to bullet everything?

Inherent in its name, a "bullet" is supposed to be fast, so it's good for quick words or phrases, not whole sentences and paragraphs.

It seems as if people started bulleting EVERYTHING once we started using Microsoft PowerPoint and other software, which uses templates with preset bullets.

That doesn't mean you have to always write in bullets; you can turn the feature off.

If you truly have a list, then bullet it.

If you only have one item, or you are writing in long sentences and paragraphs, don't bullet them; that's not what bullets were designed for, just like a "list" was not designed for one item.

Then it's just a note.

Question: I have a document where someone is suggesting we have a bulleted list with only one item.  That sounds absurd to me.  Doesn't a "list" imply more than one item?

A list with only one item

Whilst the dictionary defines a list as a "considerable number of long series", there is disagreement about whether a list has to contain more than one item or not, and some people may even argue that a list doesn't even need one item. In a programming sense, it is true that a list can contain no items at all. On the other hand, there are circumstances where having only one item on a list may well be absurd.

There is no set rule so base it on the context and if only one item consider making it a note rather than a list.

This is more of a formatting element and technically not a grammar issue. You could use a single-item list as emphasis.  There is differing opinion as to whetheraA list can have only one item, or even no items or  if a list needs to contain a considerable number or long series of items.

If you look "list" up in the dictionary, it says a "considerable number or long series," so no, one item is not a series or a list.

The dictionary definition of "a list" says that is it a series of items. However, many agree that a list can have just one item or even none at all.

A list can contain just one item or even no items.

It does not matter what you call it so don't worry about calling it a list.

There are no set rules - you have to judge from the context.

Technically a list has to be made up of many items - if there is only one bullet point then why put it in a list? It is really a note.

A list can have only one item, or even no items.

It is generally agreed that a list can have one item or even none at all.

The dictionary definition of a "list" says that it is a series of items.


There are two different kinds of things called a "router", with two different pronunciations, originating from two different verbs "route" and "rout".

The confusing part of this is that the two pronunciations overlap the two different things.

A router as above (computer thing, from verb "route"), or anything else which routes something, is "rooter" or "rowter" depending on how you pronounce "route" (US English has both "root" and "rowt",

British English has only "root") A router (woodworking tool, from verb "rout", an electrical one is shown above)

is "rowter", never "rooter", in both the US and the UK and other countries.

The dictionary entry may be referring to the wood tool only.

Source: Oxford Online Dictionary & Cambridge Dictionary

The New Oxford American Dictionary (NOAD) reports that router has two different meanings.

router 1 /ˈraʊdər/ noun A power tool with a shaped cutter, used in carpentry for making grooves for joints, decorative moldings, etc.

router 2 /ˈraʊdər/ noun A device that forwards data packets to the appropriate parts of a computer network.

In both the cases, the pronunciation is the same.

As comparison, the pronunciation of route (as reported from the NOAD) is /rut/, /raʊt/; the pronunciation of rout is /raʊt/.

In British English, the word is pronounced /ˈraʊtə/ when it has the first meaning, and /ˈruːtə/

in the second case.

Where I live both things are called "rowter" even though we say "root" 66, so if they lived in the U.S. That would be standard.

If they said "rooter" it might sound like a thing used to clean drains.

A router (rooter) routes.

A router (rauter) routs.

To my ear, the American pronunciation is really grating.

I was born in the US.

I pronounce the computer apparatus "rooter" as in "hooter".

I just had a manager at work try to correct me today, but I stuck to my guns.

A rooter is used to clean pipes (specifically to remove roots, or other obstructions).

Because that pronunciation exists, router is pronounced as indicated in the other answers.

The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (CALD) does not include the word 'router'

However, the meaning of route has been described as the following:

route UK /rut/

US /rut/ , UK /raʊt/ noun

[ C ] a particular way or direction between places

The route we had planned took us right across Greece.

I live on a bus route so I can easily get to work.

a method of achieving something

A college education is often the best route to a good job.

US ( UK round )

a set of regular visits that you make to a number of places or people, especially in order to take products as part of your job route UK /rut/

US /rut/ , UK /raʊt/ verb [ T usually + adv/prep ] to send

Deliveries are routed via/by way of London.

Since the CALD did not specify from which sound the word 'router' is originated, so my conclusion is 'router' can be pronounced as 'ruter' or 'rauter' according to UK pronunciation!

However, if the company which produced the device pronounces it as a 'rauter' then it is 'rauter' otherwise it is 'ruter'.

Question: Merriam-Webster lists both  ˈrüt  and  ˈrau̇t  as possible pronunciations for  route  but only ˈrau̇-tər  for  router .   Is it really wrong to pronounce  router  as  'rüter  ?

What is the correct way to pronounce 'router'?

There are two different definitions for the word "router" and this may lead to different pronunciations, although the New Oxford American Dictionary provides the same pronunciation for both.

In British English it is always "rooter" but in US English the computer device is a "rowter" and the drain cleaning or carpentry tool is a "rooter".

There are two different kinds of things called a "router", with two different pronunciations.  A  router  (computer thing), or anything else which routes something, is "rooter" or "rowter" depending on how you pronounce "route" (US English has both "root" and "rowt",

There are two different kinds of things called a "router", with two different pronunciations, originating from two different verbs -  "route" and "rout". The computer apparatus  is pronounced as in "hooter".

The word "router" can refer to one of two different items and this may have a bearing on the pronunciation of the word. It is possible that both pronunciations are acceptable and the one you choose may be a matter of personal choice.

There are two different things called a "router" and the pronounciation varies in US English but not in British english.

a "router" can be a computer device that forwards data or a carpentry tool that makes grooves.

In the US both are called "rowter" and a "rooter" is a tool for cleaning drains.

The rowter pronounciation sounds wrong to English ears.

There are two different definitions for the word "router" which may have a bearing on its pronunciation.

The dictionary entry in question may be referring to only one definition of the word.

Some people pronounce "router" the same as "hooter".

It is possible that either pronunciation is acceptable.


This is Indian English.

See Vishy's Indian English Dictionary .

July 12, 2006

Vishy's Indian English Dictionary: doubt doubt.

/DOWT/.

A question asking for clarification.

In standard English and American, the noun doubt is uncountable and refers to a lack of complete trust in something.

Doubt may be expressed as simply as doubting someone's abilities or as profoundly as someone doubting their own religious faith.

Not so in India.

In India, doubt can be used as a countable noun.

When a school teacher goes over an intricate concept in class, she invariably leaves some students with doubts in their mind about their understanding of the material just covered.

Students ask her questions to get a better understanding of the concept and each such question is called a doubt.

It is entirely normal to hear a statement like "I have just one doubt, miss" or "If you have any doubts before the exam tomorrow, come see me in the staff room".

The doubts in the aforementioned sentences are not as much rooted in a lack of faith as in a lack of understanding.

Attentive readers would have encountered the Indian English sense of doubt a fair bit on online message boards in threads started by Indians.

Titles such as "Visual Basic .NET/Oracle doubt" are not uncommon for threads on programming-related message boards.

It is my understanding that this sense is mostly prevalent in southern India,

but I could be wrong on this count.

A native English speaker does not recognize "doubt" as a synonym for "question".

The examples given (like "Doubt about TinyMCE content css"), no matter how prevalent, are awkward.

Even if it can be justified by picking a fitting definition entry, it's not something we would ever say.

We understand it, but we also understand when a French person says "Let me explain you something".

Saying "question" instead of "doubt" is a better choice.

In most cases when this happens the person is really a non-native English speaker as you said.

In some languages that grew from Latin the word that is used for doubt can also be used for question.

Dúvida is the Portuguese for doubt, but it can also be used as question.

For example, when kids at school say to the teacher Eu tenho uma dúvida (which word-by-word would translate as "I have a doubt"), they mean that they want to ask a question to the teacher about what has been taught.

And if I go to a store in Brazil and say Eu tenho uma dúvida sobre esse produto ("I have a doubt about this product" in word-by-word translation), what I mean is that I want to make a question about the product.

The same happens with duda , which is the Spanish word for doubt.

It may also be the case in other languages, but I'm not sure.

Therefore, when you give a presentation and native Portuguese speakers say "I have doubts about what you said", don't think that they don't quite believe in what you said.

They may just have questions to ask you.

I'm not a language expert, but I've been dealing with a lot of those doubts… By opening with "I have a doubt"

, you don't simply state "

I have a question; …"

followed by question's content, but instead you claim that "I understand all this, but …" before bringing to discussion a particularly unclear aspect of the topic.

The construct as such is therefore not good or bad, nor is it in any way rooted in Latin as suggested above (my native language is of Latin origin and we don't/can't abuse the "doubt" either in original or in translations, while the Indians do it without having the Latin heritage).

It is all about the correct usage in a given context.

The expectation when using this construct is that what follows the "I have a doubt", either the question itself or the whole conversation about it, should show that indeed you have gone to the process of analysing the problem at hand on your own, and you are stuck in a detail for which you need clarification.

However, you will find that many of those asking have no idea about the big picture either and haven't tried to solve the problem on their own, and this is why you tend to answer them "No dude, you don't have a doubt, you simply have no clue about this subject".

It is in such context that the use of "doubt" stands out and annoys in the conversation.

Now whether this is a vocabulary issue (unlikely) or it can be explained in the Indian context by a tendency to 'fake' knowledge by using "doubt" to make the question asked appear as a minor clarification request, that I leave to others to sort out.

Looking at some of the questions listed in mmyers's suggested search on Google , I'd suggest that "doubt" is being as a synonym for "uncertainty", which is valid.

For example: Doubt about TinyMCE content css Doubt About NavigationBar Basic doubt about sensor usage

I often see Japanese people using "doubt" instead of "suspicion", and wouldn't be too surprised if they used it when they meant "question".

My suspicion is that the Japanese use the same word for both "doubt" and "suspicion", and therefore don't know when they ought to use "suspicion" in English.

I'm sure I remember reading something about doubt being used this way in parts of northern England in times past.

My memory, however, is vague.

Question: I often see questions on Stack Exchange sites which I presume are written by non-native English speakers who use the word "doubt" in place of the word "question". Is this a case of misunderstanding the correct meaning or are people being taught that this is correct usage?

Can "doubt" sometimes mean "question"?

english.stackexchange.com/users/189/Paused until further notice.

It is possible that use of the word "doubt" as a synonym for the word "question" may well be correct Indian English. However, a native English speaker would not recognise this definition.

This usage of "doubt" occurs in Indian English and is a question seeking clarification. For example, it is entirely normal to hear a statement like "I have just one doubt, miss"

This is Indian English. A native English speaker does not recognize "doubt" as a synonym for "question".  In standard English and  American, the noun doubt is  uncountable and refers to a lack of  complete trust in something. Doubt may  be expressed as simply as doubting  someone's abilities or as profoundly  as someone doubting their own  religious faith.

A native English speaker would not consider "doubt" as a synonym for "question". Saying "question" instead of "doubt" is a better choice.

The word "doubt" is not a synonym for "question" in English.

This is used in Indian English as a question seeking clarification. For example, it is entirely normal to hear a statement like "I have just one doubt, miss"

A native English speaker will not recognize "doubt" as a synonym for "question".

In British English "doubt" is more likely to be used as a synonym for "uncertainty".


I have been using the followingphrases

but I am still not confidentthat

they are grammatically correctand sound right: "in regards with something" "in regard to" is the right way here.

"with regards to something" This is OK.

Somehow I have the feeling that "with regard to" is more normal though.

Paul Brians seems to back this up . "regarding something" This is OK, e.g. film title "Regarding Henry", etc.

I have also heard/read people using anarbitrary combination of the above(e.g. "

in regards to").

Are thosecorrect?

If yes - are they equivalentor

the usage depends on context?

It's much easier to answer your question if you put in some examples you've seen.

Anyway I hope the above is enough.

Note that there is a completely different usage "regards to" as in "give my regards to old Broadway and tell them I will soon be there" etc.

The only correct terminologies are with regard to , in regard to , regarding , and as regards .

With regards to and in regards to are mere nonstandard variations.

"Regarding" is better than "in regard to".

"About" is absolutely fine and good old plain English - nothing wrong with it.

Plain English is good and eminently preferable every time.

All too often people try and be clever by using fancy and/or unnecessary words.

Just say it how it is.

Awful:

In regards to With regards to Fine: About

In relation to With regard to In relation to Concerning

You speak in regard to something or with regard to someone.

Examples:

In regard to work habits, John puts in too many hours.

With regard to Peter, he puts in none.

Even when using "with regard to", most people use it incorrectly.

Why not avoid this word altogether and say "concerning", "about" or "in the matter of", all perfectly sound and correct. "

With regards to" is colloquial and incorrect.

Collins paper back dictionary has 'with regards' as correct.

I tend to go with this.

Question: I have been using the following phrases but I am still not confident that they are grammatically correct and sound right: "in regards with something" "with regards to something" "regarding something" I have also heard/read people using an arbitrary combination of the above (e.g. "in regards to"). Are those correct? If yes - are they equivalent or the usage depends on context?

Which is correct: "with regards to," "in regards with," "regarding"?

The only correct versions are "with regard to", "in regard to", "regarding" and "as regards". Other versions are mere non-standard variation. "With regards to" is considered colloquial and incorrect.

The only correct terms are with regard to , in regard to , regarding , and as regards - with regards to and in regards to are mere nonstandard variations.

The only correct terminologies are  with regard to ,  in regard to ,  regarding , and  as regards .  You speak in regard to something or with regard to someone.  With regards to  and  in regards to  are mere  nonstandard  variations.  "Regarding" is better than "in regard to".

"With regard to" is more normal to some people.  Collins paperback dictionary also shows 'with regards' as correct. These are simply non-standard  variations.

There appears to be little agreement about which of these terms are correct or whether there is any meaningful different between them.

You could use "regarding" or "about" - keep it simple. With regards to" is colloquial and incorrect


I would say that it doesn't signify is that

okay?

so much as tell me more.

It also suggests empathy in addition to agreement.

To me, it seems roughly equivalent to

I totally agree with you, you know?

In addition to sharing the opinion, it also subtly connotes that both parties arrived at the same conclusion, possibly in the same way.

Slightly OT, but it reminds me of the similar (but not identical) Canadian English phrase:

That's cool, eh?

It's a sentence softener... and a way to get general acceptance from the person you are speaking with.

Anyway, best described with an example: girl 1: That's girl's outfit is SO ugly!

girl 2: OMG, how does she even live with herself?

girl 1:

I know, right?

She is SOooo uncool.

"I know" can be a strong statement, so adding the question "

right?

" is a way of getting general acceptance from the other person.

It seems to me that "right?

" is a way of creating a bond between the two people talking.

I usually hear it in the context of sharing some fact that you wouldn't tell someone to his/her face, e.g. "How does she even live with herself?"

from Atomix's example.

It's like saying, "Right?

We share this idea and therefore we are similar and should be friends."

Emphatic agreement in a youthful, maybe feminine register.

I visited because I'm using the phrase myself and have been doing so for about a year.

I moved to NYC about three years ago, and I'm wondering where this particular phrase came from in my vocabulary.

I really like it.

For me, it does indicate collusion ("I know") and a request that the collusion be validated ("right?").

However, I believe the expectation of validation is already implied because the rising action of "right?" is generally very subtle and casual on my part.

I'm expecting the person to already validate my attempt at collusion.

The phrase also seems chummy, a way of saying in shorthand, "I agree with you completely and therefore we are kindred spirits.

I usually say it almost as a bestowal of praise upon the other person, as if to say, "What a wonderful person I have found who validates my existence so completely with their similar thoughts on things that I had not expected people to think similarly about.

What a pleasant surprise!"

Anyway, those are just my thoughts.

It probably did become abundant because of television, but it definitely seeems like something that would arise in either the Midwest, Deep South, or California (all of which I have ties to) because of a need in those areas to validate community over individuality and that I would feel more compelled to use in the Northeast, where I might feel isolated and want to frequently make references to ways that I might bond or fit in with others in my community.

It is a friendly assertion that the speaker has already had the same idea–as in, "yeah, I know"

According to Urbandictionary its, An affirmation that you agree with or can relate to the precedingstatement.

It can be used whether the speaker actually knows or not,but in the latter case it usually means that the speaker can attributethe preceding statement to themselves as well.

Some examples include, Student: I couldn't pay attention to the lecture because of that ball of sweat hanging from the professor's nose.

Classmate: I know,

right?

Carrie: I can't belive

Alvin cut her hair like that!

Lisha: I know, right?

I know;

right?

I think we can break the slangy idiom “I know, right?”

down into two parts: I know (that) .

I get what you mean.

I've had the same thought.

I've been aware of it as well.

(Yeah, it is,)

right?

It is really so, right?

By the literal interpretation of the sentence, it could grammatically mean to ask whether the speaker, “ I ,” knows something or not ; albeit not making much sense in the context.

So it would be reasonable to consider it to be a combined contraction of the two sentences above showing the consentience between the speaker and the lister(s).

And “I know; right?” might be more preferable punctuation in this sense.

Question: Not only is my seventh grader using this phrase, but her teachers are as well.  I suppose it means  I totally agree with you and you totally agree with me  but it sounds like there is a subtle  Is that okay?  at the end with the right part.  What do you think?

What does "I know, right?" mean?

The phrase "I know, right" is a way to get general acceptance from the person you are speaking with or to express emphatic agreement. "I know" indicates collusion and "right?" is a request for that collusion to be validated.

It's a sentence softener, expressing emphatic agreement in a youthful, maybe feminine register and indicating both collusion ("I know") and a request that the collusion be validated ("right?")..

It suggests empathy in addition to agreement.  It's a sentence softener and a way to get general acceptance from the person you are speaking with.  It is a way of creating a bond between the two people talking.

It is a friendly assertion that the speaker has already had the same idea – as in, "yeah, I know. According to  Urbandictionary  it is an affirmation that you agree with or can relate to the preceding statement.

This construction appears to be a friendly way of indicating that you agree with the preceding statement.

It's a sentence softener... to get general acceptance from the person you are speaking with.

It expresses emphatic agreement in a youthful, maybe feminine register.

It indicates both collusion ("I know") and a request that the collusion be validated ("right?").

It is a friendly assertion that the speaker has already had the same idea–as in, "yeah, I know"

It's a way of showing consentience between the speaker and the lister(s).

By the literal interpretation of the sentence, it could grammatically mean to ask whether the speaker, “ I ,” knows something or not ; albeit not making much sense in the context. So it would be reasonable to consider it to be a combined contraction of the two sentences above showing the consentience between the speaker and the lister(s).


“What’s up?” is a greeting whose meaning is mostly irrelevant in that the asker doesn’t want an answer to the literal question which means something like “What is new?”

or “What’s happening (right now/in your life)?”.

The simplest response if you don’t have information you want to share immediately with the asker is probably just to say something like “not much”, “not too much”, or “hey (man/dude)”.

If you’re offered “what’s up” in response to a greeting of your own, you should read it as a request for you to proceed to the content part of what you want to talk about.

"Not much, how about you?"

Unless, of course, you are in the midst of something exceptional.

It's just a greeting meaning "What is happening?", and a reply that nothing's happening means you're fine.

Depends on the tone in which it's asked - with the right tone, it can be synonymous with "What's wrong?

", where, with a less concerned tone, it's more of a "How are you?".

I'd reply very similarly to either.

That is an expression that has about as much meaningfulness as "How are you?"

or "How's it going?"

All, including "What's up?" are used as greetings.

Now, each can be taken literally where someone may want to truly know "how you are", particularly if you've been sick, for instance, but all those terms are very commonly used along with the traditional greeting words, "Hi, "Hello", "Hey".

Responses?

What's up?

"Not much, how about with you?"

How are you?

- "Fine, and you?"

How's it going?

- "OK.

How's it going with you?"

If you want to be unconventional, you can reply "the sun" or "me, barely."

That usually gives people pause.

It used to be asked only when the person addressed seemed to be in some kind of trouble.

Some people, I believe, now use it as a simple greeting.

I've never been greeted in this way myself, so I can only speculate that the reply might be something like '

Yeh, I'm good.'

Options: Not much, what's up with you?

Oh, the usual.

Hey!

To directly reply to "What's up?"

(as a rhetorical question), "'sup" does the job.

(American)

"Stuff, y'know." (The same stuff keeps happening like it happens all the time.

You already know what kind of stuff.)

You can respond using this (pick one): Thank God, I am doing well (or:

Unfortunately, I'm not doing so well today, or: Everything is in order, or: Not much, et al.).

I think it is acceptable as well to reply back with the same greeting: How are you doing (today/tonight/this morning/

this afternoon/this evening)?

Question: Sorry if it's a trivial question, but when someone uses  what's up  as a greeting I have no idea what they want to hear. What are the possible answers and what does this question mean exactly?

What is an appropriate response to "what's up" greeting?

The simplest response to a "what's up?" greeting is simply "not too much" or "hey". If someone says "what's up" in response to your own greeting, this would be a request for you to proceed to what you want to talk about. Some people may simply respond "yeah, I'm good."

This is a greeting and the simplest response is probably just to say something like “not much”, “not too much”, or “hey”.

“What’s up?” is a greeting whose meaning is mostly irrelevant in that the asker doesn’t want an answer to the literal question which means something like “What is new?” That is an expression that has about as much meaningfulness as "How are you?" I think it is acceptable as well to reply back with the same greeting:   How are you doing (today/tonight/this morning/. The simplest response if you don’t have information you want to share immediately with the asker is probably just to say something like “not much”, “not too much”, or “hey (man/dude)”.

“What’s up?” is a greeting whose meaning is mostly irrelevant in that the asker doesn’t necessarily want an answer. If you’re offered “what’s up” in response to a greeting of your own, you should read it as a request for you to proceed to the content part of what you want to talk about.

"What's up?" is simply a greeting and shouldn't be taken literally. You can simply respond, "Not much, how about you?", although you might want to answer the question literally for comic effect. If, however, you receive this question as a response to your own greeting, you should take that as an indicator to keep talking.

The simplest response is probably just to say something like “not much”, “not too much”, or “hey”.

In the past it would be asked only when the person addressed seemed to be in some kind of trouble - now it's a simple greetings.

This is simply a greeting and should not be taken literally.

The most common response would be to say simply, "Not much, how about you?", although you can always answer literally if you want to be humorous.

If some says "What's up?" after your initial greeting, you should take it as an indicator to continue talking.


Everyone's assuming that this is "think differently" with the -ly dropped off, but note that there are also formations like think fruit or think pink , and "think different" could belong to that group.

In other words "What should I think about this product?"

"Think (that it is) different".

Anyway, "think differently" is a terrible slogan.

Merriam-Webster claim

that different as an adverb dates at least as far back as 1744.

Well, it's certainly not the first time an adjective is used as an adverb in American English.

I'd call it informal, but not necessarily ungrammatical.

One possibility we're forgetting here is the that the adjective may be a substantive adjective .

Substantive adjectives are adjectives which are used alone without the noun they are describing.

For example, good , bad , and ugly in this sentence, 'The good , the bad , and the ugly , which is really, 'The good people , the bad people , and the ugly people .'

In this case, Apple's slogan, 'Think different', would be read 'Think different things', and is thus a perfectly grammatical.

Apple did not mean "think differently".

That is, they are not suggesting that you think in a different way.

They really meant "think different", that is, rather than thinking about the things you usually think about, think about things that are different.

An analogous slogan might be, "Thinking about your opportunities as a high school graduate?

Think college."

"Think differently" would mean: Please think in a way that is different from the way that other people are thinking. "

Think different" means:

Think about things that are different, or how to do things that are different.

The slogan doesn't tell you how to think, but what to think.

If the message is taken to mean: Think "different".

Then it could be grammatically incorrect.

Just not sure I can say this is "punctuationally" correct, but from a logo/branding/marketing point of view the use of punctuation may take something away from the impact of the message even if making the intention of the message unclear.

Question: Not too long ago, Apple Computer used the phrase "Think Different" as an ad slogan. Is this a grammatical error (that is, it should be "Think Differently"), or are they trying to say something else (and what would it be)?

Is Apple's Old Slogan, "Think Different", grammatically incorrect?

Apple were not intending to say "Think differently" but instead encouraging people to think about "different things". Indeed, it's possible that the word "different" may be used as a substantive adjective. Therefore, there slogan doesn't tell you how to think but what to think.

The "different" is being used here as a substantive adjective, as in "Thinking about your opportunities as a high school graduate? Think college."

Apple did not mean "think differently".  They really meant "think different", that is, rather than thinking about the things you usually think about, think about things that are different.

Apple really did mean "think different". That is, rather than thinking about the things you usually think about, think about things that are different.

Apple's slogan might be informal but it is not considered to be grammatically incorrect. Furthermore, the slogan invites you to think about "different things" rather than to think "differently".

It means that you should think their products are different - and it sounds better as a slogan.

Adjectives are often used as an adverb in American English in an informal way.

The slogan doesn't tell you how to think, but what to think.

It might be informal, but it is not necessarily grammatically incorrect.

Apple's slogan invites you to think about "different things" not to think "differently".


'Had' is the past form as well as the past participle of 'have'.

The first sentence is in the simple past tense which typically has this form: Subject + past form of verb I had (past tense of have) a bad day.

I reached (past tense form of 'reach')

the office late.

The simple past is used normally to denote an action that is completed in the past.

The second sentence is in the past perfect tense which has this form: Subject + had + past participle of verb

If two non-consecutive events happened in the past, this tense is used to show the first event.

By the time we arrived, the party had begun. =

The party began.

Then we arrived.

By the time we arrived, they had eaten all the food! =

They ate all the food; then we arrived.

I had had a bad day already, and I arrived home to find that it had been robbed! =

I was having a bad day.

During the day my home was robbed.

Then I arrived home and found out about the robbery.

Refer to Kajaco's example as well.

Here, the past perfect is used to show which incident/action happened first.

Consider this sentence: I had eaten my breakfast.

This is the past perfect form with the verb eat .

This uses the past participle ( 3rd form) of the verb.

Now, just substitute the verb eat with have .

I had had my breakfast.

There's an idiomatic difference between "to have a bad day" and "to be having a bad day".

The first (mostly) refers to external events and the second (mostly) to your internal reaction to them (mood, headache, etc.)

- but there's no bright-line separation between them, just as there isn't in life.

Perhaps fully-enlightened Buddhists or Stoics can completely separate external events from their own reactions to them - but then, a fully-enlightened Buddhist or Stoic wouldn't refer to any particular day as being "bad", either.

It might be helpful to ring all the changes on this phrase and see how its meaning shifts: I have a bad day.

(Don't use this.

It doesn't work.)

Present:

I am having a bad day.

Today, bad things are happening and I am in a bad mood.

I have been having a bad day.

Much the same as "I am having a bad day", but with a hint of hope that things might be about to change.

I have had a bad day.

The effect of this one is very similar to "I am having a bad day" - bad things might or might not still be happening, but I am definitely still in a bad mood.

Past:

I had a bad day.

It's behind me; the bad part is over.

Even if I say "I had a bad day today ", the implication is that the day has ended

- I'm probably at home drinking a beer.

I was having a bad day.

I am talking about a particular time in the past (e.g., at 18:00 last Monday evening.)

At that particular moment, bad things were happening

and I was in a bad mood.

" Chuck shouldn't have crossed me - he knew I was having a bad day. "

I had been having a bad day.

Bad things had been happening; my mood was bad; things might (or might not!)

have been just about to change for the better.

" I had been having a bad day when suddenly I found a $100 bill blowing down the street. "

I had had a bad day.

On the day I am speaking of, bad things had happened (and might still have been happening at the moment I am referring to), and my mood was bad.

This particular phrase leaves some ambiguity - the bad day might still have been going on

, it might have been over

but I still had a headache, or I might already have been home unwinding with a beer.

This evening you will tell your wife, "I crashed the car because I had a bad day."

Later this month you will explain to the insurance adjuster, "I crashed my car because I had had a bad day." Just for fun: http://www.reocities.com/oosterwal/puzzle/had.htm

The first sentence uses the simple past of the verb "to have".

The second sentence uses the pluperfect (past perfect).

I'm not sure, but as the schoolboy put it...

"I had 'had', where I would have had 'had had',

if 'had had' had had the teacher's approval."

You are asking about the difference between these.

If you are asking about meanings , then the first is a simple statement of fact that stands alone.

The second implies another thought coming with it, such as I had had a bad day at work already, when I got home and discovered the basement was flooded.

Question: For example, what is the difference between the following two sentences:   I had a bad day  I had had a bad day

What does "had had" mean? How does this differ from "had"?

The construction "had had" is the past perfect tense and is used to show the first event when two non-consecutive events happening in the past. "Had" on the other hand, is the simply past and is used to denote a completed action in the past.

The second sentence is in the past perfect tense and where two non-consecutive events happened in the past, this tense is used to show the first event, as in "I had had my breakfast when…"

The first sentence uses the  simple past  of the verb "to have".  'Had' is the past form as well as the past participle of 'have'.  The second sentence uses the  pluperfect  (past perfect). The first sentence is in the simple past tense which typically has this form:  Subject + past form of verb   I  had  (past tense of have) a bad day.

The first sentence is in the simple past tense which typically has this form:  Subject + past form of verb. For example:   I  had  (past tense of have) a bad day.  The second sentence uses the  pluperfect  (past perfect). The second sentence is in the past perfect tense which has this form:  Subject + had + past participle of verb.

The difference between these two sentences is that the first sentence is the simple past of the verb "to have" and the second sentence is the past perfect form.

The 'had had' results from the fact that 'had' is the past form as well as the past participle of 'have'.

The second sentence is in the past perfect tense and if two non-consecutive events happened in the past, this tense is used to show the first event, as in "I had had my breakfast when…"

It's a question of simple past v pluperfect.

The first sentence is the simple past of the verb "to have".

The second sentence is the past perfect of the verb "to have".