Your question includes a solution too, and that is the wrong solution.

Using the phone's light as a reading light is definitely an unfortunate idea in the long run, because it will enforce faster discharge of the battery, followed by other charges.

That is exactly what kills phone batteries.

It is a lot more recommended to buy some cheap appliance, designed to do exactly that task.

These appliances can be head (your own :)) mounted, wall mounted, free standing on a table, even attachable with a (big) clip to the book.

They might provide both battery-stored energy, as well as connection to the wall socket (possibly through an adapter).

Just throw a search on your preferred search engine, and choose from the large variety something that suits your needs best.

You can get a clip-on gooseneck mount for a cell phone or tablet that could be used to hold your phone in an appropriate position.

I picked up one of these cheap one Black Friday and was very impressed with how well it holds my tablet.

There are other models that have larger clamps, cup-holder mounts, etc.

That said, if you're talking about using the camera flash LED as a light

then I'd definitely discourage that -- it'll kill your battery, and those things get mighty hot.

If you're just talking about using your phone's screen then it's better, but I'd still just buy a small lamp.

For the love of god, buy a lamp!

A little table lamp or perhaps a standard lamp, depending on where you're reading.

Or else if there's some special need for darkness, look into buying a torch, many are rechargable.

You can even get, quite inexpensively, the sort of lamp cave explorers use.

Straps to your forehead.

The better ones are rechargable, the cheaper ones aren't.

Although you could get rechargable batteries and a charger to counter that, since this is something you're going to use a lot you don't want to shell out for endless batteries.

A phone is not designed to make a good lamp Using it's camera flash LED gets hot and eats battery massively.

They're useful in emergencies

cos

you've always got your phone on you, but it's not an everyday sort of thing.

Pictures 1 and 3 already display a solution for this: the glass or cup can double as a standard for your phone.

Presumably you don't need the light while you're drinking.

Since those objects are round, balancing your phone might be a bit of a problem.

Otherwise, you might be better off with basically any rectangular paperweight.

Maybe other books which are still on your 'to read' list?

(I tend to keep those on a bookcase shelf separate from the ones I already read, but this might be another way to set them apart.)

You can purchase Head Mount for the phone, e.g. this one looks nice .

This way just attach the phone over your forehead, turn the light on, and you can read freely, anywhere, with both hands free.

Happy reading! :-)

lifehacks.stackexchange.com/users/1399/Shadow Wizard is Ear For You

Question: Can my Android phone be anchored or positioned to function as a reading light? I like to sit on my couch and read, with the book on a side table. Pictures 1-2  herefrom , 3  herefrom .     It's obviously too unproductive and wearisome to hold the phone over the book in one hand for hours, as I read and flip pages with the other hand.

How can I use my cell phone's light as a reading light?

If you want to use your cell phone as a reading light, you could consider buying a goose-neck cell phone mount or try supporting it using other objects, books or a paperweight. Alternatively, you could purchase a head mount for your cell phone.

The options are to save the phone battery and get a proper reading light, get a clip-on gooseneck for the phone, use a cup as a stand or use a Head Mount for the phone.

A phone is not designed to make a good lamp using the camera flash LED as it gets hot and eats battery. It is more advisable to buy a cheap appliance just for this purpose. But if you must use the phone you can get a clip-on gooseneck mount or a head mount for a cell phone or tablet that could be used to hold your phone in an appropriate position.

Clip-on gooseneck mounts are available for a cell phone or tablet that could be used to hold your phone in an appropriate position.

You could get a support for your phone so that you can angle the light as you wish.

Do not use phone torch - get a proper reading light.

Get a clip-on gooseneck for the phone and use the screen rather than the torch.

You can purchase Head Mount for the phone.


Keep it in the box in the same housing where it was supplied, along with the mini-manual you get, and the receipt.

If you didn't keep the box, put in a small plastic bag (like a coin bag) inside a larger envelope that is not so easy to lose.

Or use masking tape to fix it to piece of card, and put that in an envelope.

Write on the envelope what it contains.

Or – hack – use an opened paper clip instead, if you need to remove the SIM.

In both cases, insert the tool carefully at right-angles – not at a slope – so you don't damage any internal component.

Edit : in reply to those who say a paper clip does not work, the first paper clip I tried is exactly the diameter of the supplied tool, and successfully ejects the SIM cradle.

YMMV.

If it has a small hole on its rear end, put it on your keyring.

Some designs don't have this, some do.

If you are using case for your phone - consider dropping it inside when you put the case on.

I keep it in my wallet, with the coins.

Not only it doesn't get lost, it's also always available when I suddenly unexpectedly need it.

This may even be a lifehack, because it wasn't meant to be kept in a wallet.

Disassemble an old speaker if you can find one, and take the magnet off the tweeter or woofer.

Find a nice metal place to stick it to on your desk, then have the magnet keep a hold of the sim ejector.

Don't worry about losing it; plenty of every day objects can be used as a sim ejector: a safety or sewing pin staple (opened) paperclip drawing pin an earring (pin, not clip on type)

a fine drill bit If you're really desperate, filing a hair clip down with a nail file etc..

I've had to resort to stripping the wire out of a freezer bag tie and tripling it up/

twisting it really tightly before now.

It should also be noted that your chosen object will need to fit in the hole and be slightly loose especially if the hole is in the moving part of the door because as you push the tool in, the door will want to slide in the opposite direction; a tight fit will inhibit this and could result in breaking the tool Most sim ejector tools I've come across are approximately shaped like a sports racket; the hoop section could thus attach to something you typically bring along, like your keys or headphones wire (form a loop in the wire, push it through the racket then back over itself around the outside of the racket, perhaps even the zip pull of your jacket.

If you have a shock proof case for your phone it should also easily sit between the case and the phone

What I've done is keep SIM ejector tool in small plastic container I already have.

And keep it in another one where I keep my USB flash drives .

Personally, I keep it in my wallet - either in the coin purse, or in the cards section.

This allows me access to it when I am on the go as well.

Keep it taped to the back of your ID (or another card that you always have with you that doesn't have to be tapped/swiped).

This way it will always be in your wallet/purse.

Bonus tip: If you have two sim cards (because maybe you do business in multiple countries), keep your other sim taped like this as well.

You'll always have them when you need them.

Question: A SIM ejector tool is very tiny, and it is difficult to keep it safe from losing it or missing it anywhere. How can I keep it safe?

How can I avoid losing or missing a SIM ejector tool?

There are many different ways to avoid losing a SIM ejector tool, such as keeping it in a smaller container or an envelope. You could also tape it to the back of your ID or keep it in your wallet. If you use a phone case, you could also keep it in there.

The options are to keep it in the housing it came in, put it on your keyring, keep it in your phone case, in your wallet, on a large magnet, in your phone case, in a plastic container or taped to an ID card or other card.

Keep it in the box in the same housing where it was supplied. If you didn't keep the box, put in a small plastic bag or plastic continer or use masking tape to fix it to a piece of card.  If it has a small hole on its rear end, put it on your keyring. If you are using a case for your phone you can put it inside when you put the case on or you can keep it in your wallet, with the coins or keep it taped to the back of your ID.

The SIM ejector tool can be kept in the original box, in an envelope, or in a plastic container. Some people keep it in their wallet, in the phone case, taped to their ID card or on a keyring.

The simplest way to keep this tool safe is to store it in a larger container, such as the box your phone came in, an envelope or even your wallet. Alternatively, you could fit it to something you always carry around with you, like your ID or your phone case. If the tool has a hole, consider putting it on your keyring.

Keep it in the housing it was supplied in.

Keep it on the magnet of an old speaker.

Keep it in a shock proof case between the phone case and the phone.

Tape it to the back of your ID card or another card.

S0: Keep it in the box in the same housing where it was supplied. S1: If you didn't keep the box, put in a small plastic bag or plastic continer or use masking tape to fix it to a piece of card.

If you are using a case for your phone you can put it inside when you put the case on.

You can keep it in your wallet, with the coins.

The simplest way to keep it safe is to put it inside a larger marked container, like an envelope or the original box that the phone came in.

You could keep it in the coin section of your wallet.

You could take it to the back of your ID or another item that you always carry around with you.

If you keep your phone in a case, consider storing the SIM removal key in that case.

If the tool has a hole in it, you might want to keep it on your keyring.


Keep just one water bottle in the door, and move it all the way to the left (nearest the door hinges).

This reduces the speed at which the bottle moves when you open the door: excessive speed causes the bottles to fall over.

Put the rest of the bottles in the bottle rack.

Another option: The reason the bottles fall over, is that they have room to wobble.

The tray is much wider than the bottle diameter.

If you fill the space between the bottle and the front wall of the tray, the bottle will have no room to wobble and fall over.

I've called this a "bottle holder" in the image below.

You could build this from cardboard, wood or whatever you have lying around.

Bottles also work, as long as they fill all of the available space and leave no room for a bottle to wobble.

From your image, 4 bottles isn't quite enough, you need another one (perhaps smaller in diameter) to fill the remaining space.

The shelf appears to be too wide.

HACK:

Make the shelf narrower.

Make and use a divider from an elastic bungee cord or a large elastic band.

Stretch and place a loop around the whole door shelf to form a "front" and "back" row.

While the elastic separator will "give" enough to tuck a bottle either in front or behind it, it will (or should be) strong enough to keep an unstable bottle upright.

The ones I would suggest are about 2 cm wide and stretch up to a metre.

I don't know for what use they were originally intended—I have a few I use for holding parts for glueing.

It will (or should) also stretch enough to keep its "friends" (milk and juice) close-by on either side well-heeled.

Good luck.

As Hobbes pointed out, the bottles fall over because they have room to wobble.

So pack the empty space in the door shelf with other things from your fridge (like bottles of condiments).

When you get a new large bottle of water / milk / juice, take out the smaller bottles to make room for it, and put those smaller bottles back on the stationary fridge shelves where you usually keep them.

There are so many things being shipped, various kinds of packing materials have become common.

Fold a sheet of bubble-wrap in half with the bubbles facing inward.

Use the resulting chubby, light, flat shelf-space-filler to put behind the heavy water bottle(s) so it/they don't wobble around.

You might want to stick a couple of "pillow paks" between bottles to make a snug fit.

Good luck.

Rubber bands.

Preferably those of larger sizes that's not too elastic.

Just wrap one around a bottle that doesn't have the rounded bottom and the water bottle.

(or two rubber bands knotted together, if needed)

The likelihood of someone forcing the fridge door open hard enough to knock over two bottles, should be minimal.

I've never tried this in a fridge, but often did this on camping trips and such.

My bottles survived the journey on country roads in an upright position.

Question: When opening or closing my refrigerator's door, the water bottle(s) stored there often fall sideways:   This is irritating, and as you can see, I did try to place a heavier bottle besides it, which helps a bit but still not enough.  Is there a way to keep the bottles always erect and preventing them from falling as in the above image?

How to keep the water bottles erect in the refrigerator door?

lifehacks.stackexchange.com/users/1399/Shadow Wizard is Ear For You

The bottles likely fall over because they have room to wobble. Therefore, to stop them falling, you could create a divider using cardboard, an elastic bungee cord or some rubber bands. You could also pack the empty space in the door shelf with other things from your fridge. Alternatively, if there is just one bottle in the fridge, you could move it as close the hinge as possible.

The options are to move the bottle all the way to the left, fill the space so there's no room to fall, make the shelf narrower, cover the bottle in bubble wrap or attach it to another bottle with an elastic band.

You could keep just one water bottle in the door, and move it all the way to the left nearest the door hinges. But the reason the bottles fall over, is that they have room to wobble. If you fill the space between the bottle and the front wall of the tray, the bottle will have no room to wobble and fall over. You can pack the empty space in the door shelf with other things from your fridge like bottles of condiments or fold a sheet of  bubble-wrap.

If there is one water bottle in the door, move it all the way towards the hinges. Alternatively, if you fill the space between the bottle and the front wall of the tray, making the shelf narrower, the bottle will have no room to wobble and fall over. You may also pack the empty space in the door shelf with other things from your fridge.

There are a few different tricks that you could use. Firstly, you could consider filling any available space between the bottles with other items or materials so that they cannot wobble and fall over. Another option would be to place just a single bottle near the door hinges and store the rest of the bottles elsewhere in the fridge. A third option would be to try and make the shelf in the fridge door narrower.

Move the bottle all the way to the left.

Fill the space so the bottle has nowhere to fall.

Pack the empty space with other things from the fridge.

Attach it to another bottle with a rubber band.

Keep just one bottle in the door and place it near the hinges.

Fill any available space between bottles with other items or material so that they can't wobble and fall over.

Try to make the shelf narrower in your fridge door.


There are a number of products that plug into the USB port to cast light on the keyboard.

But that is not a life hack solution, it is product recomendation.

The life hack solution is to tip the screen forward

so the light from the screen lights the keyboard .

Go to another room / area where you can turn on the light: kitchen, bathroom(?), balcony, porch...

This has a double advantage:

it helps you use your laptop;

the light from the laptop's screen will not bother your room-mates.

A higher tech alternative is to use a forehead lamp.

Some of them even have the ability to adjust the light intensity.

However, every time you will look around, you will "blind" your room-mates.

I'm not sure if you're already able to, but an alternative solution is to learn touch typing .

This has the advantage of being faster as well.

(This answer has been typed without directly looking at the keyboard, but admittedly not in complete darkness.)

Not exactly a hack.

Search online for "luminous keyboard stickers".

Make sure however they use Light Charged Paints as described in this article that warns against old-fashioned radioactive paint.

https://www.vintagewatchstraps.com/luminous.php#:~:text=Radium%20based%20luminous%20paint%20was%20banned%20in%20the,health%20grounds%2C%20is%20plain%20wrong%20and%20highly%20irresponsible .

I claim no scientific or medical knowledge on this subject

so I suggest doing your own research before buying.

lifehacks.stackexchange.com/users/9368/chasly - reinstate Monica

There are a multitude of devices intended for illuminating a book or kindle, that are a battery and switch with a built in clamp, a flexible neck and a white LED.

One of these should fit your laptop lid

That's if you don't fancy buying, or making, an "led on one end of a flexible metal arm, and a USB plug on the other" In terms of stuff you already have, perhaps use some string to make a necklace, tuck it behind your phone in its protective case (or even just tie it like a gift wrap

so it holds your phone)

then sling your phone round your neck with the torch activated.

You could keep it plugged in to remain charged.

If you have a desk stand you could put your phone in that.

If you don't have a desk stand, you could make one (shape one out of modeling clay, cut a slot into a potato etc then wrap it in sarin wrap so it doesn't contaminate the phone) or repurpose a phone holder intended for a car (one that clips your phone to the AC vents)

so it holds your phone at the top of the screen, looking down onto the keys

Question: After my friends go to sleep they turn off the light at night. So I can't see my keyboard of my old laptop that has no LED under those key. It slows down my coding practices and other works significantly.  Is there any good suggestion for this? TIA.  .  Edit: As @James Jenkins and some others suggested, there are several types of  USB Light  that might be very useful I think. Like this one:   Google it...

Can't see my laptop keyboard at night

There are a few ways that you could better see your keyboard at night, but the most obvious solution is probably to go to another room or an area where you can turn on the light. Failing this as an option, you could purchase a USB light for your laptop or buy some luminous keyboard sitckers.

The options are to get a light that plugs into the USB port, go to another room, learn to touch type or get a luminous sticker.

You could use a forehead lamp or lamps designed for illuminating a book or kindle which clamp on. There are also luminous keyboard stickers available. Another solution is to merely tip your screen forward so it shines on the keyboard. Or you could learn touch typing.

A number of products are available that plug into the USB port to cast light on the keyboard.  Some people tip the screen forward to light the keyboard. Learning to touch type might be an option, or you could move to another room where you can turn on the light.

There are a few different solutions for this. The simplest would be to go into another room where you can turn on the light. However, if this is not possible, you could tilt the screen or buy a USB-powered lamp to cast light on the keyboard. Another potential solution would be to learn to touch type so that you don't need to see the keyboard.

Get a light that plugs into the USB port.

You could cast light on the keyboard either by tilting the computer screen or buying a USB powered lamp.

If you learn to touch type, you won't need to see the keyboard.

You could also relocate to another room where you can turn on the light.


Islam is a very forgiving religion.

One of the main issues that addresses your question is the principle that you are only a sinner if you sin intentionally and knowingly.

That is, you sin if: You do something sinful (like eating pork) With full knowledge that it is a sinful act, and Still intentionally do it

There are caveats.

For example, if you are dying of starvation in the wilderness, and you find some pork meat, you would be allowed to consume enough of it to keep yourself alive, even though pork is prohibited otherwise.

I see you updated your question.

As Muslims, we must perform due diligence about the foods we eat.

Many foods today contain traces of animals in them (rennet, mono and diglycerides, gelatin, etc.)

Generally, our options are: Avoid the food (easier) Inquire with the manufacturer if the ingredient is from plant or animal sources

Find a similar product without that ingredient (eg.

certain brands of yogurt).

To answer the question succinctly, the Prophet (sal Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said: "

Certainly, Allah has pardoned for me my ummah:

their mistakes, their forgetfulness, and that which they have been forced to do under duress" [ibn Majah, Bayhaqi] "Mistakes" in this case means you ate the pork mistakenly (not knowing what it was).

It won't be a sin with the condition that there was no way to find out or you did your best to find out.

Asalamu wa alaikum,

As ashes999 said above you are a sinner only if you sin intentionly.

Allah says: قُل لَّآ أَجِدُ فِى مَآ أُوحِىَ إِلَىَّ مُحَرَّمًا عَلَىٰ طَاعِمٍ۬

يَطۡعَمُهُ ۥۤ إِلَّآ أَن يَكُونَ مَيۡتَةً أَوۡ

دَمً۬ا مَّسۡفُوحًا

أَوۡ

لَحۡمَ

خِنزِيرٍ۬ فَإِنَّهُ ۥ رِجۡسٌ أَوۡ

فِسۡقًا أُهِلَّ لِغَيۡرِ

ٱللَّهِ بِهِۦ‌ۚ

فَمَنِ

ٱضۡطُرَّ غَيۡرَ بَاغٍ۬ وَلَا عَادٍ۬ فَإِنَّ رَبَّكَ غَفُورٌ۬ رَّحِيمٌ۬ (١٤٥)

Say (O Muhammad SAW):

"I find not in that which has been revealed to me anything forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be Maitah (a dead animal) or blood poured forth (by slaughtering or the like), or the flesh of swine (pork) for that surely is impure, or impious (unlawful) meat (of an animal) which is slaughtered as a sacrifice for others than Allâh (or has been slaughtered for idols or on which Allâh's Name has not been mentioned while slaughtering).

But whosoever is forced by necessity without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits, (for him) certainly, your Lord is Oft¬Forgiving, Most Merciful."

(145) I find it very good to read the ingredients before eating, so if you find pork after reading the ingrediants and you still eat it then you have sinned.

But if you do not continue eating then you haven'd sinned.

But your question was what should be done when you find out,

well you should repent from it ( Tawbah ) and do not go back to it, remember you only sinned if you had knowledge of the pork in the product.

Take the following verses from the Holy Qur'an: "O you who have believed, eat from the good things which We have provided for you and be grateful to Allah if it is [indeed] Him that you worship.

He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah .

But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him.

Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

Qur'an 2:172-173

Let us study the ayaths as follows: But

whoever is forced [by necessity],

neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him.

: flesh of swine is indeed pork.

You are forbidden from pork unless it is absolutely necessary, and you hate it and eat just to a limit and to save yourself from hunger and not to fill your stomach.

Allah is Forgiving and Merciful:

Allah forgives what you do in ignorance and unknowingly.

Say, "O

My servants who have transgressed against themselves [by sinning], do not despair of the mercy of Allah .

Indeed, Allah forgives all sins.

Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful." Qur'an 39:53.

So, If you did eat it unknowingly, you just have to repent before Allah and promise him that you will try maximum not to commit it again, even accidentally, and also seek His guidance and help.

And verily, Allah knows best... Jazaakallah...

If you do an evil in ignorance and return as soon as you learned Allah will forgive.

As stated in the Qur'an ( an-Nisa:17 ): إِنَّمَا التَّوْبَةُ عَلَى

اللَّهِ لِلَّذِينَ

يَعْمَلُونَ السُّوءَ بِجَهَالَةٍ ثُمَّ يَتُوبُونَ مِن قَرِيبٍ فَأُولَٰئِكَ

يَتُوبُ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِمْ ۗ وَكَانَ

اللَّهُ

عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا (نساء/17) God shall turn only towards those who do evil in ignorance,

then shortly repent; God will return towards those; God is All-knowing, All-wise.

The holy Quran says that God is forgives those who have done a sin without knowledge.

In another place it says that God will forgive (if want!)

all of sins except Shirk !!

Do you think God is unfair?

He Said in Quran that He is All-Just and declared Himself that He has forbidden for Himself too injustice, and He will never wrong anyone.

If He knows that you are by mistake, He has the doors of repentance open for everyone and He’s ready to forgive any sin that you commit intentionally or unintentionally till the Day Sun Rise from West, that’s the Day when He’l close that doors of repentance.

So, if you really regret, then if God wishes, He’ll forgive you, just seek His forgiveness.

Remember!

He is the Most Merciful and Most Kind and He also loves to forgive.

Question: In modern times, many of the ingredients of processed food may be derived from pork. Is it a sin if a muslim consumes one of these ingredients without prior knowledge? What should be done when finding out?

Is it a sin to consume pork without knowing?

The answer to this question will be somewhat subjective. However, it is generally agreed that you are only a sinner if you do so intentionally and knowingly. Therefore, if you eat pork unintentionally, you will simply have to repent before Allah and promise that you will try not to commit this sin again.

As long as you don't know it is pork there is no sin - but you must ask forgiveness after finding out later.

One of the main issues is that you are only a sinner if you sin intentionally and knowingly.  If you knew it was pork after reading the ingredients and you still ate it then you have sinned.  If you ate it unknowingly, you just have to repent before Allah and promise him that you will try not to do it again, even accidentally, and also seek His guidance and help.   The holy Quran says that God forgives those who have committed a sin without knowledge.

It is not a sin provided that you do your best to find out that there is no pork in a product. You should repent (Tawbah) and do not go back to it. Remember that you are only a sinner if you sin intentionally and knowingly - in this case if you had knowledge of the pork in the product.

A sin is only sin if it is committed knowingly. As a result, the only required action after finding out that you ate pork meat is to repent.

If you have to eat it because you are starving it's OK.

If done in ignorance you will be forgiven.

It is generally considered that a sin is only a sin if it is committed knowingly, therefore, this example is not a sin.

If you find out that you unintentionally ate port, then you should repent, but nothing more.


Tajweed is a set of rules for proper pronunciation and recital of the Quran.

It is meant to replicate the way the prophet Mohammad (saws) recited the Quran.

Learning tajweed means learning how to pronounce the letters in the words correctly, which covers matters like when a consonant is silent or not and how long a vowel is kept.

It is only meant for reciting the Quran however, and does not apply to enunciating (classical) Arabic.

Applying tajweed when reciting Quran is considered to be fard ain ; a must for all those who recite Quran.

See the following ayah .

Or add to it, and recite the Qur'an with measured recitation."

(Muzzamil 73:4)

Asalamu wa alaikum, Tajweed is only necessary for reading the Qur'an, Tajweed, as is explained in all tajweed books, is the art of keeping your tongue from making a mistake in the recitation of Allah's word/ The Quran.

Tajweed adds a beautiful voice, but that is not all, it helps you keep from making recitation mistakes.

Allah says in Surat 73 Ayah four وَرَتِّلِ ٱلۡقُرۡءَانَ

تَرۡتِيلاً (٤) recite the Qur'an in slow, measured rhythmic tones.

(4) From this Ayah it would be Recommended to learn Tajweed, but not learn it but learn and apply it.

As our bothers already explained.

I just want to add this: The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said, "The one who is proficient in the recitation of the Qur'an will be with the honourable and obedient scribes (angels) and he who recites the Qur'an and finds it difficult to recite, doing his best to recite it in the best way possible, will have a double reward."

[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

وعن

عائشة رضي الله عنها قالت:

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم :

"الذي يقرأ القرآن وهو ماهر به مع السفرة الكرام البررة، والذي يقرأ القرآن ويتتعتع فيه وهو عليه

شاق

له أجران"

((متفق عليه)). Source here

If you find it hard to read the Holy Qur'an, you will have a double reward.

That's because: You read it.

You are doing your best even when it is hard for you.

When asked whether it is mandatory to recite the Qur'an with tajwid , Shaykh Muhammad Salih al-Munajid quoted the following fatwa from Hanbali scholar Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Uthaymin (from the collection Liqa'at al-Bab al-Maftuh ):

The correct view is that reading Qur’aan with the rules of tajweed is not obligatory; tajweed is only a means of making one’s recitation more beautiful.

If a person reads and pronounces the letters clearly with the vowels as marked, then this is sufficient.

With regard to the verse in which Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): and recite the Quran (aloud) in a slow, (pleasant tone and) style [

al-Muzzammil 73:4 ], That does not refer to tajweed ; rather what is meant is to read it at a measured pace.

Tajweed is an art of reading Quran with a melody, and is a set of rules for non-Arabic readers to reading Quran correctly by using vowelized Arabic text.

The people who claim that Tajweed is required bring the following ayat as their proof: وَقَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لَوْلَا نُزِّلَ عَلَيْهِ الْقُرْآنُ جُمْلَةً وَاحِدَةً كَذَلِكَ

لِنُثَبِّتَ

بِهِ فُؤَادَكَ وَرَتَّلْنَاهُ تَرْتِيلًا And those who disbelieve say, "Why was the Qur'an not revealed to him all at once?

Thus [it is] that We may strengthen thereby your heart.

And We have spaced it distinctly.

Furkan 32

This translation is not good, so I need to make some points clear myself.

There are three types of "reading" in Quran; "telavat", "qurae" and "tarteel".

Telavat is reading a text normally.

Qurae is reading it giving your mind completely and trying to understand it.

Tarteel is reading a text word-by-word, thinking on each word for a long time, maybe for several minutes.

In this ayat, tarteel is used.

The bold part of the ayat is translated as "...

And tarteel it with a tarteel."

As you see, this ayat has no order of reading Quran in an artistic way with melody.

In my opinion, some people love to hear molody, and they want to read Quran with melody too.

They think it would be good if they read Quran with melody.

But there is no order in Quran to read it with melody.

First of all, our main example must be the Rasul Muhammad (pbuh); he never read or made people read Quran with melody in his entire life.

Reading Quran in an artistic way is just a bidat that is brought to Islam with some melody-loving people (I'm not saying that loving melody is bad.

It is a different subject.).

Allah wants us to read Quran, understand it, and live according to it.

Allah and his Rasul does not order us to use Quran as an art tool.

There is another detail about this discussion.

The people who claim that Allah orders us to read Quran with Tajweed also claim that Tajweed is needed for reading Quran correctly.

Their famous example is the similarity between reading of the words "helek (to lose life, to be wasted)", "halak (to shave)", "khalak (to create)".

They say that, if non-Arabic readers don't read Quran according to Tajweed rules, they misread words like these, and they misread the entire Quran at all.

Misreading of non-Arabic readers?

They are already not understanding a word they read.

What is the importance of correctly reading a text that you don't understand?

The readers that know Arabic are already know how to read and they are correctly reading Quran.

Question: There are some sources about tajweed rules and learning them is recommended. But what is tajweed?  Is it a set of rules for only reading Quran or general for Arabic?  I learned the Arabic alphabets and can read Quran. What does tajweed add to just knowing the alphabet? Is learning tajweed just a recommendation or a necessity?

What is tajweed? Is it necessary to learn or is it just recommended?

Tajweed is a set of rules for proper pronunciation of the Quran and is meant to replicate the way the prophet Mohammad recited the Quran. It also adds a beautiful voice and helps prevent recitation mistakes. There is disagreement about whether this is obligatory or not for people who recite the Quran.

You must try and apply Tajweed, but do not worry if it is hard, just keep trying.

Tajweed is a set of rules for proper pronunciation and recital of the Qur'an. It is meant to replicate the way the prophet Mohammad (saws) recited the Quran. It is away of reading the Qur'an with a melody, and uses vowelized Arabic text.  Applying tajweed when reciting the Qur'an is considered to be 'fard' for all who recite the Qur'an.

Tajweed is a set of rules for proper pronunciation and recital of the Quran. Some people consider that this must be done, while others claim that it simply makes the recital more beautiful. It is meant to replicate the way the prophet Mohammad recited the Quran. However, it is only meant for reciting the Quran and does not apply to classical Arabic.

Tajweed is a set of rules for correctly pronouncing the Quran in order to produce a more beautiful recital. There is some discrepancy as to whether it is obligatory or not, but it is only intended for the Quran and not for Arabic in general.

Tajweed is a set of rules for correct pronunciation when reciting the Quran.

Tajweed is not intended for speaking Arabic in general.

Some claim that Tajweed is a must when reciting the Quran whilst others claim that it is not obligatory.

Tajweed adds melody to your recitations.


According to Holy Prophet (PBUH) : Try to find "Laiiltulqadar" in odd nights of last ashra of Ramadan.

But it is not necessary that 27th of Ramadan is "Laiiltulqadar" it may be 21st 23rd 25th 27th or 29th.

On 27th of Ramadan Nazool e Quran was completed so importance of this night is more so Reward on praying this night is equal to 80 years of "ibadah"thanks.

Laylatul Qadr has many opinions on when it is like the night of the 27th of Ramadan which has a Hadith from Abu Dawud and it is from this Hadith that most scholars probably orient towards the 27th: Narrated

Mu'awiyah b. Abi Sufyan : The Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) as saying:

Lailat al-qadr is the twenty-seventh night (of Ramadan) حَدَّثَنَا

عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ

بْنُ مُعَاذٍ

، حَدَّثَنَا

أَبِي

، أَخْبَرَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ

، أَنَّهُ

سَمِعَ مُطَرِّفًا

عَنْ مُعَاوِيَةَ

بْنِ أَبِي سُفْيَانَ

عَنِ

النَّبِيِّ

صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي

لَيْلَةِ الْقَدْرِ قَالَ  "

لَيْلَةُ الْقَدْرِ لَيْلَةُ سَبْعٍ

وَعِشْرِينَ "

And in Sahih Bukari , The Prophet tells us to seek it in the odd numbered last days of Ramadan, 21st, 23ed, 25th,27th, 29th: 'Aishah (May Allah be pleased with her) reported: The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) used to observe I'tikaf in the last ten days of Ramadan and say, "Seek Lailat-ul-Qadr (Night of Decree) in the odd nights out of the last ten nights of Ramadan."

[Al- Bukhari].

وعنها، رضي الله عنها، أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال:  "

تحروا ليلة القدر في الوتر من العشر الأواخر

من رمضان" ((رواه

البخاري)).

It is also said that the Prophet used to stay up and do Ibadah when the ten last days of Ramadan came.

When is Laylatul Qadr?

Narrated by Aishah (رضي الله عنها)

Mohammed (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) says, Search for the Night of Qadr in the odd nights of the last ten days of Ramadaan.

So it could be: 21 23 25 27 29

There is not fixed that laylatul qadr in 27 ramadan.

Source: Laylatul Qadr

I believe that a lot of scholars say that Laylatul Qadr is on the 27 night of Ramadan because the Quran was revealed on that night.

Basically the most narrations on the topic of laylatul Qar that seem to give hints on which night this special night may correspond say it is among the last ten nights of Ramadan or even restrict it on the odd nights among these last ten nights.

Note that a sahih narration of ibn 'Abbas (see here in Sahih al-Bukhari) even seem to disagree with the odd nights as it also suggests preparing for it on the 24th night.

How ever there are two statements that actually totally disagree with or exclude the 27th night being this special night,

one of them is that of ibn 'Abbas, Abu Sa'id al-Khudri and 'Ubadah ibn as-Saamit who gave the hint to seek it on the 21st, 23rd and 25th night of Ramadan (all these narrations appear in at least one of the two Sahih books) and another is that of 'Abduallah ibn Unais which concentrates on the 23rd night and this was compiled in Sahih Muslim.

Actually only the most soundest narration saying it is the 27th night of Ramadan is that of Ubay ibn Ka'ab which appears in Sahih Muslim : By Allah, I know about Lailat-ul Qadr

and I know it fully well that it is the twenty-seventh night (during Ramadan) on which the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) commanded us to observe prayer.

(Shu'ba was in doubt about these words:" the night on which the Messenger of Allah [may peace be upon him] commanded us to observe the prayer.

" This has been transmitted to me by a friend of mine.)

Another sahih narration saying so is this: Salim reported on the authority of his father that a person saw Lailat-ul- Qadr on the 27th (of Ramadan).

Thereupon Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) said: I see that your dreams agree regarding the last ten (nights of Ramadan).

So seek it on an odd number (of these ten nights).

( Sahih Muslim )

Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani commented the hadith of Mu'awiya which appears in Sunan abi Daowd in his Bulugh al-Maram : Mu'awiyah bin Abi Sufian (RAA) narrated, ’The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said regarding the night of al-Qadr, "It is the 27th night (of Ramadan).’’

Related by Abu Dawud.

But it is most probably the saying of Mu’awiyah and not the Prophet (ﷺ) .

Then he referred the reader to his book Fath al-Bary where he listed 46 opinions on the special nights and added the most likely among all of these (according to him)

is that it is among the odd nights among the ten last nights of Ramadan and that this night changes from year to year and the most likely view of the majority is that it is the 27th night of Ramadan.

وأرجحها كلها أنها في وتر من العشر الأخير، وأنها تنتقل، وأرجاها عند الجمهور ليلة سبع وعشرين For further references and details

please refer to How many times or when do we need to make the 'laylatul qadr dua'?

where I've listed many of those narrations.

Question: From most of the scholars I've heard that Laylatul Qadr could be on any of 21st, 23rd, 25th, 27th and 29th of Ramadan. But why do they orient it toward 27th?

Why is Laylatul Qadr commonly thought to be the 27th night of Ramadan?

It is not perfectly clear why Laylatul Qadr is thought to be the 27th night of Ramadan, but one possible explanation is that it was the night that the Quran was revealed or completed.

In  Sahih Bukari , The Prophet tells us to seek it in the odd nights out of the last ten nights of Ramadan. There is also a Hadith  from Abu Dawud that encourages most scholars to probably orient towards the 27th. In addition, a lot of scholars say that Laylatul Qadr is on the 27 night of Ramadan because the Qur'an was revealed on that night.

Many scholars say that Laylatul Qadr is on the 27 night of Ramadan because the Quran was revealed on that night.

Laylatul Qadr may commonly be thought to be the 27th night of Ramadan because scholars believed that is supposedly the night that the Quran was revealed.

A lot of scholars say that Laylatul Qadr is on the 27 night of Ramadan because the Qur'an was revealed on that night.

Also, in  Sahih Bukari , The Prophet tells us to seek it in the odd nights out of the last ten nights of Ramadan.

Basically most narrations on the topic of laylatul Qadr seem to hint at the last ten nights of Ramadan or even restrict it on the odd nights among these last ten nights.


White sugar is not made out of, nor does it contain, bones.

Sugar (most sugar) is cane sugar, which comes from sugar canes.

It is then refined, and one of two things happens: The molasses is removed (and you get white sugar)

The molasses is not removed (and you get brown sugar)

Further refinement is what gives it that white colour and shine.

This is done through the use of a number of chemicals, and it may include filtering it through bone meal, although that appears to be something used historically and not currently.

If it doesn't contain bone meal, there's no problem.

What if, hypothetically, it did contain bone meal?

According to scholars, for the purity to change, one of these needs to change: The colour

The smell

The taste Since the white colour isn't from adding bone meal, but from the filtration process

, it doesn't affect the purity; not unless there's a significant amount that enters the sugar, even if the bone was from an animal that was haram to eat .

Here's a link to an article that talks about the sugar manufacturing process .

It mentions: [...]

the clarified syrup is decolorized by filtration through a bed of activated carbon; bone char was traditionally used in this role, but its use is no longer common.

(Emphasis mine.)

The original source is Wikipedia, which is referenced from the article itself.

Based on all of this, and Allah knows best, it's nothing to worry about.

If you're really concerned, you can always switch over to brown sugar, honey (which is popular in the sunnah for numerous health benefits), or other substitutes.

Bone char (charcoal made from animal bones) is used to filter sugar and decolorize it.

It is not an ingredient in refined sugar and thus is not consumed.

So the question on whether it is halal to consume or not does not enter in the picture.

I am a Mechanical engineer, and have worked in all the sugar beet factories in England.

Animal bones were historically used to filter impurities as previously mentioned.

That method has been replaced with carbonataion, sulphatation and fine mesh filters.

There certainly will be no trace of animal bone in the final product (I am 100% sure of that !) 2) for some strange reason I remember an Imam visited the factory one day to bless the silos, therefore it is blessed (even though it doesn't need to be !)

glad to help.

If it doesn't explicitly state that it contains animal bones then it's halal.

Otherwise if the sugar is from a country where the Muslims are in majority or the provider of the sugar is a Muslim as long as there is a likelihood that the shopkeeper has ascertained that it was slaughtered according to the shari‘a laws .

Else it's haram.

Each and every company has some of the items as its ingredients.

And it has it publicly shown on the package of its.

Until you buy it from a shop that allows you to buy it in KGs.

Otherwise, each package has its ingredients written on it clearly, and you can read it.

Sometimes there is a big label of HALAL on it too.

Bone itself isn't haram, it is haram only if the animal died and then after sometime, you used it for some purpose.

If the animal isn't slaughtered in Islam way, even then the bone isn't halaal.

You need to slaughter the animal in a way that's according to Shariyat, actually in Shariyat you slaughter an animal in a way, in which it would feel the minimum amount of pain, and its soul would leave its body as soon as possible.

Letting him feel the pain for just an instance of time.

That's why Islamic way of Slaughter is necessary.

Otherwise the animal is Haraam.

Its flesh, bone everything is haram for us then A Sugar made out of that, is in turn haram too.

But otherwise you can use it just keep a note on this.

Question: White sugar contains animal bone which is responsible for the white color. That bone may not be a halal (if the animal may be killed as per the Islamic law). So is sugar haram or halal?

Is white sugar haram due to containing animal bone?

It is generally agreed that, whilst animal bone may have been historically used in the production of sugar, sugar does not currently contain any. As a result, sugar is not considered to be haram.

There is no problem as sugar contains no bone material at all.

White sugar is not made out of, nor does it contain, bones.  Most sugar is cane sugar, which comes from sugar canes. Also, if it doesn't explicitly state that it contains animal bones then it's halal.  If you are concerned, you can always switch over to brown sugar or honey or other substitutes.

There is no trace of animal bone in white sugar. Also, some sugar producers may even have the sugar silos blessed! If something does not explicitly state that it contains animal bones then it's halal.

White sugar does not contain animal bones, so the problem itself does not exist. However, it can be safely assumed that any product is halal if it does not contain any information about animal produce on the packaging. This is likely to be true in a Muslim-majority country.

White sugar does not contain bones so no problem.

Bone char is used to filter sugar but its not an ingredient so halal issue irrelevant.

Bones were used in the past to filter sugar but not any more so 100% sure it is ok.

White sugar does not contain any animal bones, so this problem does not exist.

If the packaging does not explicitly state that it contains animal bones, then you can assume it is halal.

If the sugar is from a Muslim-majority country, you can safely assume that it is halal.


Since your name seems Indian, I'll also mention a common Indian-English idiosyncrasy that may clear up matters for you.

There is a tendency in Indian speech to use "could" for "can", and "

would" for "will".

This is wrong (or, to avoid being prescriptive, certainly at variance with other varieties of English, and non-standard even in India).

Properly, "could" (subjunctive) is used to express possibility , things that may or may not happen, may or may not be done, etc.

(to ask polite questions, for instance) — or in the past tense.

If you're using it in the same sense as "can" (for a straightforward expression of ability), you're probably using it incorrectly.

For instance: We could go (if we like /

but we won't / etc.)

but We can go

We are capable of going /

It is possible for us to go)

They could see us from the tower (if they were not blind / yesterday), but They can see us from the tower (=they are capable of seeing us, now)

Wrong: The speaker would be coming tomorrow.

Correct: The speaker will be coming tomorrow.

(The progressive is fairly common in IE, but even more natural to just say "The speaker will come tomorrow.")

To keep it simple, I answer you without complex grammatical terminology.

There are five possible situations of using can .

Ability

In the first situation, we use can with a meaning of ability.

For example, "I think I can lift the box" means that the speaker thinks that she/he is able to lift the box.

The past tense form of the sentence is "I thought I could lift the box".

Permission

In the second, we use can with the meaning of permission.

Undoubtedly, all permissions are questions.

Example: "

Hey Jim, can I use your PC for awhile?".

Use could for more polite forms.

Example: "

Could you please allow me speak?".

Request

In the third case, we use it as a form of request.

Example: "

Can you please write it for me?".

Use could for more polite form.

Example: "

Could you lend me $100?".

Possibility

Sometimes, can is also used to mark a possibility.

Example: "Using mobile phones while driving can cause accidents.".

Use could if the possibility is uncertain.

Example: "He could arrive later."

Offer When offering help to someone, use can .

Example: "

Can I open the bottle for you?".

Could is unusual, formal, and archaic here.

Could is used in two more ways where can isn't normal.

To make suggestions Example: "We could go out for awhile, if you like." 2.

To express, forcefully, what someone must do Example: "You could speak up!"

I hope that this answer could help you a lot! :)

"Could" is the subjunctive form of "can."

That means you use it to express possibilities and the like.

"I could go to the movies, but I might just stay home.

When "could" is used as the past-tense of "can," you're talking about something you used to be able to do, but can't anymore, so whatever action you're speaking of is hypothetical.

"I could have gone to the movies, but I decided to stay home," or "I could mow the lawn before my back injury."

(Really that second sentence should say "I could have mown...," but a lot of people don't bother.)

The subjunctive is also used when talking about emotions, wishes, judgments, and such like.

Honestly, Wikipedia is probably better at explaining the subjunctive than I. Good luck!

The difference is one of mood and tense.

kitukwfyer hits all the right notes here.

The subjunctive also helps differentiate the forms in questions.

Compare: Could you run (please)?

Can you run?

Could lends politeness to a question in a request of someone.

I’d

more likely say, “could you help me”, than “can you help me?”.

Addition to kitukwfyer's answer.

Could is consider more polite than Can, for example, when you talk to your friends you can say, "Can you give me that pen?

", however when you talk to your teacher you should say "Could you give me that pen?"

Question: When should I use  can ? When should I use  could ? What is right under what context?

When do I use "can" or "could"?

When used to express similar things, "could" and "can" often express a different level of politeness, with "could" expressing more politeness than "can". However, "can" is often used to express ability, whereas "could" is often used to express possibilities.

Opinions vary but there are basically five ways in which 'can' can be used - in the sense of 'ability', 'permission', 'request', 'possibility' or 'instruction'.

The difference is one of mood and tense. "Could" is the subjunctive form of "can." S28: Use  could  if the possibility is uncertain.  "Could" (subjunctive) is used to express  possibility , things that may or may not happen, may or may not be done, etc. When "could" is used as the past-tense of  "can," you're talking about something you used to be able to do, but can't anymore, so whatever action you're speaking of is hypothetical. Sometimes,  can  is also used to mark a possibility. Could is consider more polite than can.

"Could" (subjunctive) is used to express  possibility , things that may or may not happen, may or may not be done, etc. When "could" is used as the past tense of "can," this refers to something you used to be able to do, but can't anymore, so whatever action you are speaking of is hypothetical.

"Could" is the subjunctive form of "can" and is used to express possibility or doubt about possibility.

Five options for 'can' - in the sense of 'ability', 'permission', 'request', 'possibility' or 'instruction'.

Use 'could' to express possibliities - and check for details on wiki.

The difference is one of mood and tense - 'can' is more foreceful whereas 'could' is more polite..


"Essence" in this context is a synonym for "element", and "essential" for "elemental".

In pre-atomic theory, there were four "known" elements or essences — Earth, Air, Fire and Water — and a putative fifth element (quinta essentia).

The fifth element was believed to be superior to the others, and so, "quintessential" has come to mean something that is superior.

Somewhat missed in the answers thus far: the "fifth essence" is in fact identical to the "æther" of yore; said to be the stuff the stars and other heavenly bodies are made of.

Thus, anything composed of the "fifth essence" had to be exceptional.

It's the fifth element after earth, air, fire, and water, so it is presumably superior to those or completing those.

"quint" means fifth.

The "quintessence" is the fifth essence.

The fifth element was the one supposed to come after air, fire, earth, and water in the Medieval Age.

The origin of the word quint is the late 17th century; it derives from French, which took the word from Latin quintus (fifth) from quinque (five).

In Italian, quinto means fifth , and has the same origin.

Quintessential derives from quintessence (from Latin quinta essentia ), which was considered thought to fill the Universe beyond Earth.

In modern physics, quintessence is a hypothetical form of dark energy.

The NOAD reports that the origin of quintessence is late Middle English (as a term in philosophy), via French from medieval Latin quinta essentia ("fifth essence").

Sorry, I don't agree with the previous answers.

In alchemy, "essence" was the result of the distillation in an alambic (still used for perfumes) ; the process leads to a fairly purified product, but it can't be perfect ; you still have some impurities.

Thus, you repeat it again and again.

On the fifth time, it was considered that you could not do any better.

"Essence" means "element".

It was believed in the Medieval Age to be the fifth element behind Earth, Air, Fire, and Water.

Question: Doesn't "quint" mean "five"?  What does that have to do with the meaning of "quintessential"?

Where does the "quint" in "quintessential" come from?

"Essence" in this context is a synonym for "element", and therefore, "quintessential", means "the fifth element". In pre-atomic theory, there were four "known" elements, and therefore, the fifth element was believed to be superior than the others. Therefore, anything composed of the "fifth essence" had to be exceptional.

Quint'  means 'fifth' and it refers either to the 'fifth element' or to the fifth stage in the purification process used in achemy.

Quintessential  derives from  quintessence, which was considered thought to fill the Universe beyond Earth. "Essence" in this context is a synonym for "element", and "essential" for "elemental". S1: The "quintessence" is the fifth essence.  The fifth element was the one supposed to come after air, fire, earth, and water in the Medieval Age. The fifth element was believed to be superior to the others, and so, "quintessential" has come to mean something that is superior.

The fifth element after earth, air, fire and water was believed to be superior to the others, and so, "quintessential" has come to mean something that is superior. Quintessential  derives from  quintessence  (from Latin  quinta essentia ), which was thought to fill the Universe beyond Earth.

The word "quintessential" is derived from the word "quintessence", being the fifth element, which was believed the fill the universe.

quit' means 'five' as the word refers to the mysterious 'fifth' element, sometimes referred to as 'aether'.

'quint' does refer to 'five' but it is actually the fifth refinement stage in the purification process used in alchemy.


I read once that "whilst" is preferred if you think that starting your sentence with "while" could change the meaning.

Consider this sentence:

While I walk

I don't often whistle.

That could mean, "I walk, but I don't often whistle", or it could mean "I don't often whistle while I walk".

Changing it to:

Whilst

I walk

I don't often whistle.

Removes that ambiguity.

I admit that the sentence itself is poorly constructed, but it does show one reason you'd use "whilst" over "while".

Always taking a bit of a chance using the Internet to answer an Internet question, but Daily Writing Tips says that not only are while and whilst interchangeable, but that in fact while is the original version.

The very authoritative Michael Quinion backs this up on World Wide Words (and that is a site well worth visiting for anyone interested in the English language).

So I think your question proceeds from a false premise: they haven't come to be used to mean the same thing, they do mean the same thing, and there is nothing wrong with using while in all cases.

(And to answer the question that wasn't asked, since it is shorter than whilst and clearly understood by US as well as British English-speakers, I'd say stick with while every time.)

While and whilst annoy me.

Same goes for among and amongst.

As far as I'm concerned, the number one rule should always be don't opt for the -st equivalent simply because it sounds more distinguished.

Generally, I find 'whilst' more befitting when preceding a present participle.

With that said, the following take on your example seems a tad more agreeable: Whilst walking down the street, the sun was shining.

It seems they are interchangeable, but whilst is primarily used by the British.

"whilst" is "while" plus the suffix "-s" (with "-t" added by analogy with "amongst", "amidst").

The earliest citation in the OED for "whilst" as a conjunction meaning "while" is 1375.

So maybe that's the answer to your question.

I have served as an editor for a scientific journal for many years.

In my observation, authors who use British English spellings also use "whilst" and "amongst".

The journal is published in North American English.

We consider these British spellings and always change them to "while" and "among".

I know this is a dead thread, but it still appears in current searches, so I add this comment in the hope it comes back to life!

Although ‘while’ and ‘whilst’ can share a meaning when used as a conjunction, only ‘while’ can be used as a verb (‘while away the hours’) and a noun (‘this could take a while’).

Also, ‘whilst’ conveys the meaning of ‘alternatively’, or ‘but’, or ‘whereas’, however ‘while’ means ‘at the same time’.

So ‘whilst’ follows a comma, and ‘while’ does not.

Example...

“I told jokes while she ate lunch”.

We could both be eating lunch together.

“I told jokes, whilst she ate lunch”.

It is now clear that I am not eating lunch, and she is not telling jokes.

Another example where only ‘whilst’ works to convey a comparison...

“I watch action movies, whilst you watch dramas”.

This means that generally I don’t watch dramas and you don’t watch action movies.

“I watch action movies while you watch dramas” means I go and watch action movies whenever you are watching dramas.

I may love dramas...

I just don’t like watching them with you.

If there was ever a distinction in meaning -- that "whilst" meant "whereas; although" while "while" meant "at the same time as" -- it seems to have been lost by the early 19th century, as can be seen by the usage of "whilst" in the works of great writers, in contexts where the meaning of "whereas" would not fit.

For example: Whilst wandering on in this slow manner, they were again surprised ... by the sight of Mr. Darcy approaching them, and at no great distance.

-- Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice, ch.43 Whilst he was watching the patient thus, the younger lady glided softly past, and seating herself in a chair by the bedside, gathered Oliver's hair from his face. -- Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, ch.30 A cab had driven up whilst the American had been talking.

-- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventure of the Dancing Men

Question: I think most folk happily use either "while" or "whilst". I've a vague recollection that at one time "while" indicated the passing of time and "whilst" was essentially the same as "whereas" or "although".  So using while for time passing...   While I was walking down the street the sun was shining.   ... and whilst for whereas/although...   Whilst I was walking down the street I often prefer to hop.   Any views?

When did "while" and "whilst" become interchangeable?

There is no clear agreement as to when "while" and "whilst" became interchangeable, but it is possible that "while" was the original term. If they did ever have different meanings, they probably lost them before the 19th century, and it is also possible that they have always meant the same thing, and it seems that "whilst" is primarily used by the British.

They are more or less interchangeable, except that the -st version is more UK spelling and also only 'while' can be used as a verb.

The earliest citation in the OED for "whilst" as a conjunction meaning "while" is 1375 and some argue that 'while' is the original version.  It seems they are interchangeable, but  whilst  is primarily used by in British English. Although ‘while’ and ‘whilst’ can share a meaning when used as a conjunction, only ‘while’ can be used as a verb and a noun. Also, ‘whilst’ conveys the meaning of ‘alternatively’, or ‘but’, or ‘whereas’, however ‘while’ means ‘at the same time’. Therefore, ‘whilst’ follows a comma, and ‘while’ does not.

While and whilst do mean the same thing and are entirely interchangeable.

There is some disagreement as to whether or not the two terms have always been interchangeable. However, the earliest evidence of them being used interchangeably dates from 1375 and any difference in usage seems to have disappeared at the latest by the 19th century.

They are interchangeble but 'while' is the older version.

Don't use the 'st' version just because it sounds fancier.

They are interchangeable, but  whilst  is primarily used by the British.

They are the same - "whilst" is "while" plus the suffix "-s" (with "-t" added by analogy with "amongst", "amidst").

The difference is that 'while' can be used as a verb but 'whilst' cannot.

If there was ever a distinction in meaning it seems to have been lost by the early 19th century.

A tip is that "whilst" is preferred if you think that starting your sentence with "while" could change the meaning.

There is some discrepancy as to whether they have always been interchangeable or if there was once a difference in use.

The earliest evidence that they might have been interchangeable dates from 1375.

If there was a difference in meaning, it seems to have been lost by the 19th century.


To an American ear, it sounds awkward, but in British English, this is not uncommon.

Ironically, a Brit will probably tell you that the correct form is "I have

got a small dog".

This is definitely an American English/British English thing, as you can't do it in American English but you can in British English.

In American English, you can't contract "have" if you are using it as a plain (not a "helping" or "auxiliary") verb.

"I've a dog" and "They've a great time" are not grammatical in American English.

There are a number of other restrictions on contractions of "have" besides the one you cite.

For example, you can't use contracted "have" followed by "not": "I've not been there" is not grammatical in American English even though "I've been there" is—if you want to contract, you have to say "I haven't been there".

I discussed this in a question about I’ven’t .

I think what you feel uncomfortable with is contraction of "have" as a main verb.

When it's an auxiliary verb in, say, a perfect, contraction feels fine:

I've had a car before.

But contraction of main verb "have" meaning to own or possess feels weirder. ?

And I've a car right now.

However, I have a feeling that people will contract main verb have in British English, but take that with a grain of salt.

Americans faced with some kind of strange usage are far too willing to blame it on British English.

I think "I've a car" is fine, but unusual on its own: as part of a longer sentence it's unexceptionable: "I've a car in the garage".

I suspect this is for prosodic reasons: "I've a car

" has no word you can stress, other than "car", so people tend to change it to either "I have a car" or "I've got a car".

The other case is different: I can't think of any examples where I would expect to find "he's a pen", though I would rate it as perfectly grammatical.

"I've" seems fairly normal to me as British (or at least Scottish) English, and is completely unambiguous.

I don't think this

"he's" would ever be understood as "he has" rather than "he is".

They are both strictly correct but both slightly inelegant.

The third especially could be confused with "He is a pen" Some people like to avoid contractions like that in formal writing, but most people probably won't mind (or even notice).

It's probably wise to favour the contraction if you want to emphasise another part of the sentence: "I've never been so insulted!"

It is rarely appropriate to use contractions in a formal writing environment.

I've heard the first construction in speech, mainly British English, but not the second.

Technically, there's nothing wrong with it, although Uncle Mikey is correct that it's rarely appropriate to use contractions in formal writing.

The only reason the second one seems strange is because most people would say "They're having a great time," I suppose because they're in the middle of having it.

I have said, though, "I'd a great time...

" I just happen to speak too quickly.

I also say "I've got..." rather than "I have.

" When I'm not speaking incorrectly, I generally just say "I've."

So, it's not just a British thing.

(I've) is a fine contraction, just in American English you can only use it to replace (I have)

when 'have' is used as an auxiliary verb (eg: In conjunction with a past participle).

I've been there.

(Correct)I've a dog.

(Incorrect)

When the verb 'have' isn't auxiliary, It can't be contracted with pronouns.

Question: I feel uncomfortable saying sentences like the following:    " I've  a car" instead of " I have  a car"  " They've  a great time" instead of " They have  a great time"  " He's  a pen" instead of " He has  a pen"  etc   I ask this because I read this sort of thing in a book.  Are they correct? And what is the rule? Can you use such forms in a formal setting?

Is it appropriate to use short form of "have" ('ve) when it means possession?

How acceptable the short form of have is may possibly be down to region, with this sound being potentially more acceptable in British English than American English. However, regardless of this possibility, it is rarely acceptable to use contractions in formal writing.

Views vary but is appears that the contraction indicating possession is used only in UK English and only in informal contexts.

To an American ear, it sounds awkward, but in British English, this is not uncommon.  It is not technically wrong to use contractions, but is rarely appropriate to use contractions in a formal writing environment.

Although not strictly ungrammatical, this can sound awkward and inelegant. However, this may be heard at times. In addition, it is rarely appropriate to use contractions in a formal writing environment.

It appears that this use of the contraction is limited to British English but in any case is still slightly inelegant. The example of "he's" for "he has" is incorrect however, and in any case, contractions are never appropriate for formal writing. You may want to use a contraction in informal speech to emphasise a different word in the sentence.

Not in US English but's it's ok in UK English.

"I've" is a normal form in British English.

They are both current forms but avoid using either in formal writing.

I think "I've a car" is fine, but unusual on its own: as part of a longer sentence it's unexceptionable: "I've a car in the garage".

It seems to be the case that this usage of the contracted 've is acceptable in British English but not in American English.

Contractions are rarely appropriate in formal writing.

You may want to use a contraction to emphasise another word in the sentence.

The example contraction of "he's" instead of "he has" is not considered correct.

This use of the contraction is considered correct but not particularly elegant.


"Betwixt" is archaic and highly marked for American English, but not technically wrong.

"Learnt" is non-standard, but intelligible and probably not a problem.

I've never heard or seen the word "trebble", and would mark it as an error in any piece of formal writing.

"Treble" (in British English at least) can mean the same as "triple", as well as high in (musical) pitch, as in the opposite of "bass" (see also the Wiktionary entry ).

"Learnt" (again, British English) is an alternative past form of "learned" ( Wiktionary again ).

"Betwixt" is a great word, but is somewhat archaic ( Wiktionary, one more time ).

Despite that, either "twixt" or "betwixt" was used in the film Serenity .

My $.02 USD:

Betwixt: not commonly used nationwide

; I've heard it (and used it) in New England.

Trebble: We don't double up the b.

It's spelled 'treble' and it is still in use.

In American English, we don't substitute the -ed ending on verbs with a t. Learnt

= learnedSpelt = spelled and so on. Without wanting to speak ill of Texas...

it's Texas.

They have their own dialect of English down there.

As a bit of anecdotal evidence, my nickname is "Lin" (short for Linda).

My Texas friends manage to take the letters Lin and somehow stretch two syllables out of them. "

Le-in" it becomes.

Why?

I have NO idea.

Treble might be more acceptable if the US played darts more often.

In BE, the 3x multiplier ring of a dart board is called the treble ring of which the highest scoring segment is the treble twenty. http://www.pdc.tv/staticFiles/b6/b3/0,,10180~177078,00.pdf

I've never heard an American use betwixt, trebble (or aught, naught, or nought), or learnt, although: "betwixt and between" as a figure of speech would be "acceptable".

"larnt" is an Appalachian dialect word that would cost you points in a school paper.

I'm American, and the only place I've ever seen treble used was on computer speakers and car stereos (as in bass and treble ).

Question: I grew up speaking British English. The words I learnt were occasionally marked off in papers, despite their being English words. Are words like  betwixt ,  trebble ,  learnt  acceptable in papers for English classes for professors in America, specifically Texas?

Are "betwixt", "trebble", etc., acceptable in American English?

It is generally considered that "betwixt" is an archaic word but not technically wrong. "Learnt", however, is non-standard in American English. "Trebble" does not exist, unless the intended word is "treble".

Some of these terms may be technically correct but they are still unusual so best avoided in formal documents.

"Betwixt" is archaic and not commonly used in American English, but not technically wrong.   "Learnt" is non-standard, but intelligible and probably not a problem.  "Treble" in British English at least can mean the same as "triple", as well as used in music. In American English it is rarely used, except for speakers.

"Betwixt" is archaic and not common in American English, but not technically wrong. Similarly, "Learnt" is non-standard, but intelligible.  However, "trebble" would be marked as an error in formal writing, in favor of the current "treble".

Whilst "betwixt" and "learnt" are considered either non-standard or archaic, they are generally not considered a problem in an American academic setting. There is less agreement about the word "trebble"/"treble".

Betwixt' is used in the US but only in certain areas like New England, and 'trebble' is used widely with one 'b'.

None of these are used in US English commonly except for the phrase 'betwixt and between'.

Treble' is only used for computer speakers and car stereos.

Whilst non-standard or archaic, Betwixt and Learnt are not considered a problem in American English classes.

There is some disagreement as to whether the word "treble/trebble" is acceptable.


Punctuation inside quotes is a rule that was invented by American publishers and is not necessarily followed elsewhere.

The original reason had to do with typesetting mechanics and is obsolete.

Also, if you're preparing technical texts such as about computer programming, this can result in technically incorrect material.

In practice, you are at the mercy of whoever is editing or grading your material.

But to answer your question, it can certainly be "acceptable" in many parts.

Yes.

See the Economist style guide : If the quotation does not include any punctuation, the closing inverted commas should precede any punctuation marks that the sentence requires.

More at the Guardian style guide .

Actually, Wikipedia seems to give a good answer to this.

I think it can be summarized as "most people just make it up as they go."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_marks#Typographical_considerations If you're an American, periods or commas almost always go inside the quotation marks.

If you're British, periods and commas only go inside if they're part of the actual quote.

Unless you're a journalist, or publishing fiction.

Then you do it the American way!

I really don't consider one way more correct than another.

I guess it just depends on what your audience expects.

The only thing that goes inside quotation marks is the quotation.

If the quotation contains punctuation, the punctuation should be included inside the quotation marks.

If not, the punctuation is perfectly fine outside the quotation marks.

The answer I remember for British English is If the quoted material forms a complete sentence (even if it's broken out of), even if it is not a complete sentence in the original source, and there is a punctuation mark before the opening quote, then the full stop should go inside.

"I think", he said "that would be a good idea."

The full quote forms a complete sentence and starts with a capital letter, even though it's broken out of to interject

the he said .

I think there were even more subtleties in the article in The Right Word at the Right Time .

(It's a rather excellent Readers Digest book.)

I was taught that if the quote has more than one sentence, then you do it like this, with a period in and a period out: Statement:

I once heard a quote that said "Stop.

You can't go.

If you go, you can't stop.

If you stop, you can't go.".

Question: Is there a quote that says "Stop.

You can't go.

If you go, you can't stop.

If you stop, you can't go."?

That isn't a real quote, by the way.

If it only has a phrase, or if it only has one sentence, then you do it like this:

Statement:

John said "Get out of here".

Question:

Did John say "Get out of here"?

Question: Possible Duplicate:  Is it correct to use “punctuation outside of the quotations”, or “inside?”     I've heard that you should always place ending punctuation inside of quotes, no matter what.    Are there any cases where it is appropriate for a sentence to end with  ". ?

Is it ever acceptable for a period to come after a quote at the end of a sentence?

It is generally agreed that the answer to this question will depend on regional variations. Keeping the period inside quote is an American trend and not necessarily followed elsewhere. As a result, there are parts of the world where it is perfectly acceptable to put the period after a quote. It may also depend on what your audience expects.

There is no hard and fast rule for this - do whatever makes the meaning clearer.

Punctuation inside quotes is a rule that was invented by American publishers and is not necessarily followed elsewhere.  In British English, periods and commas only go inside if they're part of the actual quote. In British English is  If the quoted material forms a complete sentence then the full stop should go inside.

The  Economist style guide says:  If the quotation does not include any  punctuation, the closing inverted  commas should precede any punctuation  marks that the sentence requires. If you're British, periods and commas only go inside if they're part of the actual quote. Punctuation inside quotes is a rule invented by American publishers and is not necessarily followed elsewhere.

Yes, in certain parts of the world, apart from America, it is acceptable to put punctuation marks outside of quotation marks. The general rule appears to be that if the quote includes punctuation, the punctuation should stay inside the quotation marks, whereas if it doesn't, any necessary punctuation should remain outside of the quotation marks.

This is a rule invented by publishers and not followed everywhere.

Yes - if the quote itself contains no punctuation.

On the quotation should go inside the marks.

Put it in marks if the quotation is a complete sentence.


The Grammar Girl has a good article on this topic, basically: It is fine to use however at the beginning of a sentence; you just need to know when to use a comma.

If it means " to whatever extent ", don't use a comma:

However wrong it is, I will say it loud and clearly.

If it means " nevertheless ", use a comma:

However, I don't give a damn.

I think this advice comes from the (somewhat strange) idea that sentences should have one complete idea.

If your sentence begins with the conjunction "however", then it's an extension of the idea in the previous sentence and is therefore not a "complete idea".

The same reasoning is behind advice not to begin sentences with "or" and "and".

Of course this advice is silly because sentences and "complete ideas" don't always line up, and there's no reason that a conjunction can't join a sentence with the previous one.

There is no rational, linguistically valid reason for this rule.

It's just a convention promulgated by misguided English writing teachers.

Yes.

However, it should be done sparingly.

Here's a pretty good writeup: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/starting-a-sentence-with-however.aspx

However you parse the rule, this usage is correct.

However, this may not be.

I think both are fine, but they are different cases.

Yes, but you cannot start a story with it.

I also believe that there should be no more than one 'however' per three sentences.

It is acceptable to start a sentence with however .

However, according to Strunk & White’s Elements of Style , it may only be used at the beginning of a sentence when it means “in whatever way” or “to whatever extent”.

When the word is used to mean “nevertheless”, it may not come first in its sentence or clause.

Strunk & White’s Misused Expressions

No grounds whatsoever .

However, a teacher is a teacher , so if you want to get a higher grade, I would suggest "basking in your own glory" without telling your teacher they are in the wrong.

Question: I have heard that starting a sentence with  however  is wrong. What are the grounds for this view and is it still held by a majority of pedants?  They would suggest changing   However, some people are beginning to doubt this.   to   Some people, however, are …   or   Some people are, however, beginning …

Is it acceptable to start a sentence with “however”?

It is generally agreed that it is perfectly acceptable to use "however" at the beginning of a sentence. There are people who claim that there is no rational reason for such a rule preventing its use.

It is fine as long as you use a comma when it means 'nevertheless' and no comma when it means 'to whatever extent'.

It is acceptable to start a sentence with  however, but you cannot start a story with it.  According to Strunk & White’s  Elements of Style , it may only be used at the beginning of a sentence when it means “in whatever way” or “to whatever extent”.  When the word is used to mean “nevertheless”, it may not come first in its sentence or clause.

It is acceptable to use "however" at the  beginning of a sentence, but you need  to know when to use a comma.

There are no rational grounds for this rule and it is perfectly acceptable to start a sentence with the word "however".

The advice is based on the incorrect idea that a sentence should have one complete idea, and can therefore be ignored.

Yes, it is perfectly acceptable to start a sentence with the word "however".

There are no rational grounds for this rule.


I don't think I was ever taught a clear-cut rule, and as a non-native speaker, I am probably spoiled to some extent by the usage of dashes in other languages.

That being said, following nothing but my intuition I would use: a semicolon when the sentences express related, yet independent (especially grammatically independent) thoughts; they could well stand on their own, separated by a period.

a dash when the second sentence backs up the first one, nails it down to something, restates or amplifies it, provides reasons or examples, or when the second sentence could not stand on its own "as is" for grammatical reasons.

I will try to demonstrate my point by rewording the notorious examples from

The Oatmeal accordingly.

My aunt had hairy knuckles; she loved to wash and comb them.

My aunt had hairy knuckles — she suffered from hirsutism.

When dinosaurs agree on something, they'll often high-five one another; dinosaurs are all about high-fives.

When dinosaurs agree on something, they'll often high-five one another — they cannot talk and have to resort to gestures.

I gnaw on old car tires; it strengthens my jaw

so I'll be better conditioned for bear combat.

I gnaw on old car tires — to strengthen my jaw

so I'll be better conditioned for bear combat.

Again, this is just my two cents, and I'm only putting them in because the other answers so far seem to miss the point of your question by focusing on non-sentential relations and sometimes not even mentioning semicolons at all.

I don't know whether my answer comes close to being correct or not, but I hope it will at least serve as a turning point for getting the discussion back on topic.

Semicolon is used to join sentences that can stand alone, but are joined to emphasize their relationship.

En dashes are used to indicate periods of time or other numerical ranges.

Hyphens are used to combine open compounds.

Em dashes are used to disrupt the flow of a sentence and bring emphasis to the coming point.

It is a more informal and stronger version of the colon.

It can also act as a stronger version of the comma.

Typically, if I'm connecting two closely related sentences, I use a semicolon; I use dashes in instances where commas would also be acceptable—usually where commas would be confusing—or where parentheses would also be acceptable.

Firstly, you should be aware that there are two different kinds of dashes: the en dash and the em dash.

The em dash (—; historically, an em is precisely the width of the letter "M", but now defined by the height of the font) is generally used to add a passage into the middle or end of a sentence.

This is similar to using parenthesis, but should be read without adding a pause.

Moreover, the em dash in fact interrupts the sentence, so no pause should be used at all; an interruption should be emphasized.

This dash is also often used as a de facto interruption; for example in dialog when the speaker for some reason cannot continue.

In use, the em dash is not surrounded by spaces.

This is done—like this—because it otherwise uses excessive spacing.

Some publishers or style guidelines may instead prefer the narrower en dash (–; an en half the width of an em).

This character is usually – as in this example – surrounded by spaces.

Suggestions on the use of semicolons can be found as answers to this question .

In Comma Sense ( Richard Lederer and John Shore — ISBN 0-312-34255-1)

it's reported that the dash is used: to set off a though or explanatory remark with a sentence:

If I remember well — bear in mind I have been on New York City 5 years ago — Central Park is close to Fifth Avenue. to introduce an appositive: When I frequented the ITIS — the secondary school on Cantore Street — I was still a teenager.

to signify a sudden change in thought:

We are going to — what's that burning smell? before the citation of an author or source of a quotation.

In the other cases, a different punctation should be used.

Here is what I think: Semicolon is

a mood-switcher It switches your "learning mood" to "exciting mood" and vice versa.

When dinosaurs agree on something, they often high-five one another; dinosaurs are all about high-fives.

Godzilla is a misunderstood creature; beneath his raging desire to set people on fire & eat them lies a gentle giant who just wants to cuddle Dash is an explainer It further explains a concept before it.

When dinosaurs agree on something, they'll often high-five one another — they cannot talk and have to resort to gestures.

Godzilla is a misunderstood creature — beneath his raging desire to set people on fire & eat them lies a gentle giant who just wants to cuddle

This answer is inspired by RegDwigнt's answer .

Question: When you want to connect two closely related sentences, you can use a semicolon or a dash. (You can also use a dash for other kinds of non-sentential relations). How would you choose whether to use a semicolon or dash?

Should I use a semicolon or a dash to connect two closely related sentences?

There does not appear to be a clear-cut rule, but it is generally suggested that semi-colons can be used to connect two related but independent thoughts whilst a dash can be used to interrupt a sentence or connect an idea which could not function as a sentence on its own. Dashes can also be used where commas may be confusing.

Use a semicolon to express related, yet independent thoughts, and dashes when inserting an extra element like in parentheses.

A semicolon is used to join sentences that can stand alone, but are joined to emphasise their relationship.  Hyphens are used to combine open compounds or to set off a though or explanatory remark with a sentence, or indicate periods of time.

A semicolon is used to join sentences that can stand alone, but are joined to emphasize their close relationship. Em dashes are used to disrupt the flow of a sentence (in a similar way to the use of commas or parentheses) and bring emphasis to the coming point.

It is generally considered that semicolons are use to join together two independent but related thoughts. On the other hand, dashes, are used to joint two sentences to provide additional information to the first one.

Use a semicolon when the sentences express related, yet independent (especially grammatically independent) thoughts, i.e. they could well stand on their own, separated by a period.

Semicolons are generally used to express related yet grammatically independent thoughts.

Dashes are used to provide additional information to another sentence or interrupt the flow of the sentence.


Capability implies unrealised potential, as in "John is capable of winning", which implies John has the ability to win

but it's not definite.

It means more or less "John has the talent that's needed to win."

Ability, on the other hand, implies possibility.

John is able to win" means John is in the running to win but not necessarily that he has the skills or ability to win.

It means more or less "It's possible that John will win".

But here's where it gets more confusing:

"John is able to read" means John can read without doubt, whereas "John is capable of reading" means John has all the necessary brain power and whatnot to be able to read but the question of whether or not he can read at the moment is left unsaid (although the fact that someone does say "John is capable of reading" probably means John can't read right now).

If we would like to describe the functionality of a specific product like a software, I think it is more common to use 'capabilities' (vs 'abilities'):

"MS Word has these capabilities: edit tables, copy and past, styles etc."

There's another shade of meaning not yet touched upon.

able can also be of things, "of a thing (esp.

a boat):

strong, substantial, well built; or a person who is intelligent, skillful, apt, talented, or clever (OED).

Compare, "It is an able ship/

It is a capable ship.

" They are both meaningful, but I would be more likely to use the first one.

Another example, "She is an able tour guide/

she is a capable tour guide".

The second sounds contrived to me, even a little damning.

It's also interesting to note that they entered English through different sources, and that able is the older of the two.

As far as I can tell, these are very nearly perfect synonyms.

I want to give only one condense sentence, so that you can easily to remember.

Capability often refers to extremes of ability .

I have the ability to write, but I don’t have the capability to write a novel.

Ability vs. capability vs. capacity on Grammarist

Question: What is the difference in usage between ability and capability ?

Difference between "ability" and "capability"

There is disagreement as to whether or not these two words are true synonyms. However, it is possible that capabilities are used more to express extremes of abilities. It is also the case that functionalities of a product, for example, are more likely to be referred to as capabilities instead of abilities.

"John is able to read" means John can read without doubt, whereas "John is capable of reading" means John has all theintelligence needed to be able to read but the question of whether or not he can read at the moment is left unsaid

Capability implies unrealised potential, as in "John is capable of winning". Ability, on the other hand, implies possibility. Capability  often refers to extremes of  ability as in the example "I have the ability to write, but I don’t have the capability to write a novel. "

These may be considered to be synonyms. However, capability  often refers to extremes of  ability. In terms of software functionality, for example, "capability" may be better.

There is disagreement about whether or not these two words are exact synonyms. Some people might say that 'capability' refers to extremes of ability. When talking about software functionality, however, 'capability' is the preferred term.

For the functionality of a specific product like a software,  it is more common to use 'capabilities' (vs 'abilities').

Capability often refers to extremes of ability .

There is disagreement about whether there is a signficant difference between these two words, although 'capability' may refer to extremes of ability.

Capability' is generally used when discussing the functionality of software.


It's a deliberate mistake, as is "Learn You".

I think this is based on a comedy routine by Baron Sacha Cohen called Borat.

I'm inclined to think it's a parody of "For great justice!"

from the badly-translated game, Zero Wing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us

Haskell is a very mathematical programming language.

It is typically learned by mathematically inclined people who have big brains.

That makes the subject matter frightening to many people.

It triggers their "math anxiety".

The title is deliberately silly so as not to make people feel anxious.

Haskell books are typically pedantic and formal.

The informal, grammatically incorrect, silly style of the title is kind of promise to the reader that the book won't be overly pedantic and formal.

I think also that the author, who is Slovenian, may be making fun of his own English skills.

(The English inside the book however is very good.)

In better English, the title might be something like, "Learn Haskell for great benefit".

I think it's a Haskell joke, playing on the functional programming style used in that language.

According to this post the phrasing originated in the title of the Haskell tutorial " Write Yourself a Scheme in 48 hours ", written in 2006, and was simply a (not that ungrammatical, but certainly awkward) "portmanteau of two different common memes at the time": the "Teach yourself X in 21 days books", and Peter Norvig's semi-parody "Teach yourself programming in 10 years".

I'd be more inclined to interpret "for Great Good" as a form of "for the Greater Good".

In that case it corresponds with "learning Haskell is good for whole world" per your suggestion.

Compare to "Making the world a better place, one person at a time".

Question: There is a site  learn you a haskell  with the title "Learn You a Haskell for Great Good!". Does "Great Good" mean "very very good"? Does the whole phrase mean "learning Haskell is good for you" or "learning Haskell is good for the whole world" or something else?

What does "great good" mean in the tutorial title "Learn You a Haskell for Great Good!"?

There are a number of possible meanings for the title "Learn You a Haskell for Great Good!". The title could be deliberately silly so as to put people at ease or the author, being Slovenian, may be poking fun at his own English skills. Furthermore, it may be a joke about the programming style used in the Haskell language. In any case, a better re-phrasing of the title would probably be "Learn Haskell for great benefit".

It's a joke based on a deliberate grammatical error.

"For Great Good"  could be interpreted as a form of "for the Greater Good".  On the other hand it could be said that the title is deliberately silly and with mistakes so as not to make people feel anxious. Haskell is a mathematical programming language and Haskell books are typically pedantic and formal. The informal, grammatically incorrect, silly style of the title is kind of promise to the reader that the book won't be overly pedantic and formal.

In better English, the title might be something like, "Learn Haskell for great benefit".  However, "for Great Good" may be interpreted as "for the Greater Good".

There is no agreement on what "great good" means in this statement, but it could mean "great justice", "great benefit" or "the greater good".

It's a joke based on a deliberate grammatical error with the aim of making Haskell look less threatening.

It's a joke based on the style of the Haskell language.

It's a joke based on the style of the teach yourself book.

The title is deliberately silly and with mistakes so as not to make people feel anxious.


Which specific accent are you looking to improve?

Like this website illustrates , there are many of them!

provide an overview of the variety of the sounds of the English language on various levels: in time , with our transcriptions of historical ancestor forms of English, from present-day back to Late Modern English, Early Modern, Middle and Old English, as far back even as Proto-Germanic; over geographical space; by sociolinguistic context.

That being said, you can try some online resources: howjsay.com fonetiks.org acapela-group :

its Text to Speech Demo allows you to listen to a small selection of different accents.

Livemocha is a platform to study foreign languages.

For its spoken language module you record yourself speaking and other users on the site provide feedback.

There is no such thing, in English, as a neutral accent.

Every accent gives some idea about the person speaking.

Even so called 'neutral accents' do so too.

Really all you should wish to do is either polish off some of the rougher edges of your own accent or choose a new accent that you like, one that you think is beautiful or reflects your character, and try to practice it.

In the past I have tried out some computerised speech tutors with my students.

In general I have been unimpressed by the methods or results.

There's a small, English city called Peterborough that's considered to have a neutral accent.

It became the UK's Call Centre Capital because businesses felt that people would prefer a neutral accent and that Peterborough had one.

I'm not sure how they decided what a neutral accent sounded like, or why they thought people would prefer it, but that was what happened.

Software - not sure about that but

you could tune your accent by ear.

Many American TV showns seems to use a homogomised accent, pick one and compare yourself against that.

Avoid "the Wire"

(I still need subtitles for that one) or anything with NYC gangsters.

You are looking for a program that would tell you if you are accent-free?

You cannot be accent free.

Everyone has an accent if we want it or not.

You can speak 'standard' language ( with correct textbook grammar ) but you will always not matter what have an accent.

Maybe precise what do you mean by 'accent-free'?

Free from the accent you live in?

Free from the accent you work within?

Even if you learn how to speak with a different accent perceived as normal, you would have an accent and won't be accent free according to people who have different accent.

It's a bit a of Sisyphean task to be honest.

Question: I have a query regarding enhancing my accent. I am searching for software in which I speak a paragraph and it compares my speech to find out whether it is accent-free or not.

Is there software that can determine whether I speak with a neutral accent?

It's debatable whether there is such as a thing as a "neutral accent". However, a platform that might help analyse your speech is "LiveMocha", which is a platform for studying foreign languages.

There are various ways to check you accent but remember there is no such thing as a neutral accent - everyone speaks with one kind of accent or another.

There is no such thing, in English, as a neutral accent. Maybe you could polish off some of the rougher edges of your own accent or choose a new accent that you like, one that you think is beautiful or reflects your character, and try to practice it.  You cannot be accent free. You can speak 'standard' English with correct grammar, but you will always have an accent.

There is no such thing, in English, as a neutral accent  - you cannot be accent-free.

It is generally agreed that there is no such thing as a "neutral accent" or "accent-free" and thus there is no software that will help you with this task.

There is no such thing as a neutral accent.

Pick an American TV show and compare youself to that.