I think it comes down to A) how religious the other person is, B) how religious you are, and C) how much you want to avoid potentially insulting the person.

If they are very religious and you are not, and you want to avoid any hint of insult to their religion or any potential conflict, better just say something religious or at least agreeing back: "

Thanks, same to you".

If you can't stand to say something that even acknowledges their beliefs, I think it at least doesn't hurt to acknowledge their sentiment, so you could just say "Thanks, bye.

" That's probably what I'd do.

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

I had a friend in college who liked to respond to "God bless" with "Goddess protect".

As I recall he did so just to be different from us other geeks who would sometimes respond with "Live long and prosper".

Seriously, though, I think that a polite "Thank you" should be sufficient.

I'll often reply, "Take care."

Sounds a little warmer than "bye," and not particularly religious.

You could respond with a Jewish farewell, illustrating that not everyone sees the world the same way, but also probably alienating your friend Shalom!

Or you could be polite and simply say you too!

"Be well," said with a smile.

english.stackexchange.com/users/928/In the Booley House

The origin of "goodbye" (hence "bye") is "God be with you", so it is about on the same level.

I think "goodbye" (or perhaps "goodbye to you, too") could be appropriate, just "bye" perhaps not so much.

Question: What should the correct response be (from someone not overtly religious) if someone says "God bless" when parting company?  "Bye now" or "Bye" doesn't seem an adequate response.

Response to "God Bless" when parting company

When parting company, there are many ways to respond to "god bless" and all will depend on how relgious you and the other person are. However, in most circumstances you could respond with "Take care" or "Thank you" or even simply "Goodbye".

It depends on the context - if you want to avoid potentially insulting the person, a neutral option might be to say "Thanks, bye"

It comes down to A) how religious the other person is, B) how religious you are, and C) how much you want to avoid potentially insulting the person.  If they are very religious and you are not, and you want to avoid any hint of insult to their religion or any potential conflict, better just say something religious or at least agreeing back. If you can't stand to say something that even acknowledges their beliefs, I think it at least doesn't hurt to acknowledge their sentiment, so you could just say "Thanks, bye". The origin of "goodbye" (hence "bye") is "God be with you", so it is about on the same level, so "goodbye" (or perhaps "goodbye to you, too") could be appropriate, just "bye" perhaps not so much.

"Take care"; "goodbye"; or perhaps "goodbye to you, too" could be appropriate.

The answer to this question will depend on how religious you are, how religious the other person is and how likely you are to offend them. However, there are a range of options to respond to "God bless", such as "Take care", "Thank you" or "Goodbye".

It comes down to A) how religious the other person is, B) how religious you are, and C) how much you want to avoid potentially insulting the person. A neutral option might be to say "Thanks, bye"

You could try a jokey response like "Goddess protect"

Another option is "take care" - warmer than "bye" and not too religious.

You could use a Jewish farewell like Shalom or just say "you too"

The origin of "goodbye" (hence "bye") is "God be with you", so it is about on the same level.

There are a range of options to respond to "God bless", such as "Take care", "Thank you" or "Goodbye".


Prescriptively, you're correct, this should be were since this is being expressed with the subjunctive mood.

Descriptively, I think you'll find both in the wild.

In informal speech, most people I know would prefer was in this case (and those that don't are sticklers for the subjunctive).

I do think that you are much more likely to see were written though, especially in formal writing.

Either form is correct, and the subjunctive forms are far from dead.

A more interesting question, I think, is whether or not the subjunctive mood is still being used and if the two forms have simply collapsed together.

Is this a meaningful distinction?

How could this be tested?

"WERE" because it is the past subjunctive of "to be".

It's an oversight by the copy-editor.

It's not the biggest deal in the world since the verb "to be" is the only verb in Modern English wherein the difference is obvious, although, if one WANT to speak very formal, correct English, stick with the subjunctive.

Not a native speaker, but indeed it is a conditional and therefore "were" should be used.

However, I hear the incorrect form more often than the correct one, so I guess that "was" is a colloquial, albeit grammatically incorrect form.

I think we need only look at the copy-editor of this book's.

Who the hell allowed "was" to be put there instead of "were"?

I noticed it right away.

"What if there were a stack overflow on..." because it is not true.

It's a condition that is contrary-to-fact.

If it were talking about something true that had occurred in the past, then "was" would be appropriate, but the "what if" automatically triggers a condition

so it's in definite need of the subjunctive.

Probably the biggest problem with the "were" past subjunctive form is the fact that its present form is "be", but most people don't say it that way.

"What if there be a stack overflow on..." is the stiffly formal way of stating something that is possible but unknown.

Most people in modern English would replace it with "is" nowadays, but we still say "if truth be told", "whether it be", "if need be" and so on.

Since that's proposing a hypothetical situation, yes it should be were .

"Was" is the indicative, "were" is a subjunctive.

Since it's a hypothetical, it should properly be "were".

But the subjunctive is effectively deprecated in English, so I expect that "was" is perfectly acceptable.

Question: Possible Duplicate: “If I was” or “If I were”. Which is more common, and which is correct?  Is this correct grammar? What if there was a Stack Overflow on… Shouldn't it be "what if there were a Stack Overflow on…"?

Which is correct: "what if there was" or "what if there were"?

It is generally agreed that the correct form in this example would be "were" and not "was", and you are probably more likely to see "were" in formal writing. However, "was" is much more common in informal speech.

You are right but both forms exist in real life and "was" is probably more common in everyday usage.

This is a conditional and therefore "were" should be used. "Was" is colloquial, albeit grammatically incorrect.

As this is a hypothetical situation, yes it should be "were" as this requires the subjunctive. However, I hear the incorrect form more often than the correct one, so I guess that "was" is a colloquial, albeit grammatically incorrect form.  Either form is correct, and the subjunctive forms are far from dead.

It is likely that both forms are found in common usage. However, "were" would be the correct choice in this context since the phrase takes the subjunctive mood. "Was" is used colloquially and is perfectly acceptable.

You are right but both forms exist in real life.

It's incorrect but actually more widely used nowadays.

Since it's a hypothetical, it should properly be "were".

It is generally agreed that "were" should be used in this example because it takes the subjunctive mood.

"Was" is used colloquially in this context and is likely to be acceptable.

It is probable that both forms are found in common usage.


Both are right.

This is how the Oxford dictionary entry explains the usage: The spellings adviser and advisor are both correct.

Adviser is more common, but advisor is also widely used, especially in North America.

Adviser may be seen as less formal, while advisor often suggests an official position

I just happened to come across this issue writing a final exam for a course in international financial derivatives regulation.

(For those of you who don't know what that is, it's what you do in purgatory.)

Both spellings are correct.

In general,"adviser" is the preferred spelling, especially in the UK.

"Advisor" carries a connotation of someone whose professional capacity is to give advice.

On that basis, and since my course had a strong focus on American regulation, I changed "adviser" to "advisor" regarding "very-high-net-worth individuals ... who tend to employ the service of sophisticated advisors to assess and manage their risk.

" If you want to know my sources, just google "adviser or advisor" like I did and you'll get them all.

Can't resist taking a swipe at the obiter on "amount" vs. "number" in the media.

My two fields are English Literature and Law.

Like Law, English grammar is based on rules which must be faithfully applied in order to preserve a unified fabric, but like Law, English is (forsooth) a living language.

It lives and is preserved our media of communication.

When the editors of the OED want to know what the "correct" usage of a certain term was in the 19th century, they turn to ... the media!

I'm the first to be a stickler for good usage, but don't overdo it.

Advisor should be the preferred spelling, consistent with other official titles: actorconvenorcoordinatoreditorregulator

I am a professional general and scientific editor with over 40-years experience.

The tragedy is that the media often perpetuates mis-spellings and mis-use, witness the current use of 'amount' for every quantitative description, e.g. amount [sic] of people, rather than number of people.

The nearest reference book to my computer, the "Oxford Writers' Dictionary" , says advis/er not -or; ory

I am an academic advisor.

I have seen the term used both way, and after thinking about it, I think that the distinction between one who is a professional advisor and once who gives advice on an informal basis should be maintained.

I had previously called myself an "adviser.

" Now I am an "advisor."

I should point out, however, that there is no difference in pronunciation.

I would not want to assert some distinction that does not exist, as in those ridiculous advertisements that over-articulate the last syllable in "realtor.

Regardless of spelling, the ultimate vowel is still a schwa.

In Australian Financial Services, the legislation uses the spelling Advis e r

so that is the source of truth in Industry.

In regular Australian vernacular both spellings are used.

While in general adviser and advisor mean the same thing, it appears in at least one context that is not true.

In Canadian banks financial advisers are subject to regulation, but financial advisors are not .

Question: I work for a financial services provider and we deal with "Financial Advisors" all the time. Increasingly, I'm seeing people send emails and so forth with the term "Financial Adviser" and the terms adivsor and adviser seem to be increasingly interchangeable. Which then raises the question: what is the difference between adviser and advisor ?

What's the difference between "adviser" and "advisor" -- are both interchangeable?

The words "adviser" and "advisor" are both considered to be correct and have the same pronunciation. However, there is disagreement about which should be the preferred spelling. That said, "adviser" may be perceived as less formal whilst "advisor" may suggest an official position.

Both are right but adviser may be seen as less formal, while advisor often suggests an official position

Both are right. In general,"adviser" is the preferred spelling, especially in the UK, but advisor is also widely used,  especially in North America. the  "Oxford Writers' Dictionary" , says    advis/er   not  -or;  ory   The distinction may be between one who is a professional advisor and once who gives advice on an informal basis.

Both spellings are correct.   In general,"adviser" is the preferred spelling, especially in the UK.  "Advisor" carries a connotation of someone whose professional capacity is to give advice.

Both spellings are considered to be correct, although there may be subtle differences in their usage. "Adviser" may be seen as less formal or professional as "advisor". Furthermore, there seem to be regional differences, with "advisor" being more common in North America. However, in Canada, "financial advisers" are subject to regulation whereas "financial advisors" are not.

S0: Advisor should be the preferred spelling, consistent with other official titles.

In Canadian banks financial advisers are subject to regulation, but financial advisors are not .

Advisor should be the preferred spelling, consistent with other official titles:  actorconvenorcoordinatoreditorregulator

The distinctionmay be between one who is a professional advisor and once who gives advice on an informal basis should be maintained.

Both spellings are considered to be correct.

Adviser is more commonly used outside of North America.

"Adviser" may be perceived as less formal or professional than "advisor".

In Canada, "financial advisers" are subject to regulation whereas "financial advisors" are not.


According to The American Heritage Book of English Usage , Using Ms. obviates the need for the guesswork involved in figuring out whether to address someone as Mrs. or Miss: you can’t go wrong with Ms. Whether the woman you are addressing is married or unmarried, has changed her name or not, Ms. is always correct.

And the beauty of Ms. is that this information becomes irrelevant, as it should be — and as it has always been for men.

RegDwight has given a correct modern answer.

The traditional approach would be different.

Adopting this approach will sound like you're living in the 1950s or earlier, so you shouldn't actually do this, but I thought it would be useful to document what the modern system is reacting against.

You should always know whether a woman is married or unmarried; a woman will sign a letter as either Rachel Jones [unmarried] or Rachel Smith (Mrs.) [married].

Other than in correspondence, you would have been introduced, or there would be a calling card.

If you write to a married or widowed women ( divorced women are excluded from polite company)

then you address her in writing as Mrs. Stephen Smith, using her husband's first name, not her own.

For this reason you can write to "Mr. and Mrs. S. Smith".

Mrs. and Miss are titles of respect; you only use them in relation to ladies; the lower classes are addressed by their first names, or by a bare surname.

This was the usual approach before 1960 or so (after the separation of Mrs. and Miss from the original Mistress in the seventeenth century).

The use of Ms. (at all) was controversial from its proposal by Sheila Michaels in 1961 until some point in the 1980s - William Safire's use of it for Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 is often seen as the pivotal moment for acceptance by its former opponents, in that someone as traditionalist as Safire realised that he couldn't use anything else.

I believe that the announcement of the engagement of "Prince Henry of Wales and Ms. Meghan Markle" on 27 November 2017 is the definitive proof that the title is appropriate in the highest of society.

If you're writing historical fiction, or you want a character to sound very old-fashioned, then using the traditional forms would be appropriate; even if not, it's useful to know what they were.

(This question has been referenced from another marked as a duplicate, so I'm adding an answer here even though this question is old.)

The catch is that this is all politically/socially charged.

The title "Ms" was invented in the 70s (or at least that's when it became widely known) by feminists who objected to being "identified based purely on their relationship with men", to use a phrase that was commonly repeated at the time.

Their intent was that Miss and Mrs should be abolished and replaced with this new "non-sexist" term.

But because the term was advanced as part of a specific philosophy or social agenda, women who did not support that agenda objected to having the term applied to them.

So what we really ended up with was that feminist women identified themselves as "Ms", unmarried non-feminist women identified themselves as "Miss", and married non-feminist women identified themselves as "Mrs".

What could under other circumstances have simplified titles, reducing 2 to 1, resulted instead in complicating them, increasing 2 to 3.

I don't think there's as much heat attached to it today as there was back then.

But you can't just say, "Oh, it's easier to use Ms for all women because then I don't have to know whether or not they're married."

Many non-feminist women don't like the title and object to having it applied to them, just as many feminist women object to the titles Miss and Mrs.

The only "easy answer" is to call a woman by the title she prefers.

If she refers to herself as "Mrs Mary Smith", then that's what you should call her.

If you don't have anything from her giving a title, ask her.

Well, I suppose if you want to make a social point, for or against feminism, you could use the title you prefer whether she likes it or not.

Personally, I just avoid using any title at all when I can.

I just refer to her as "Mary Smith" without any Miss, Mrs, or Ms.

Assuming that I do not know if the individual addressed is married, when should I use Miss Brown, and when should I use Ms. Brown?

You might use "Miss" to address a female child under the age of thirteen.

Otherwise, if you don't know if they are married, then Ms. is a convenient get-out.

A rather strange point was raised in the accepted answer to this question.

Personally, I wish this information were relevant for both men and women, but the fact is, it is a feature of our language that men are always styled 'Mr' unless they have some other title or style, and women have the privilege of being styled 'Miss' or 'Mrs'.

Some women will be seriously offended if you don't address them by their preferred title.

In business correspondence, 'Ms' is almost always appropriate, but in social correspondence, one would do well to try to find out what the lady in question prefers.

Question: There has been some disagreement in my other online searches, and in my own education.  Assuming that I do  not  know if the individual addressed is married, when should I use  Miss Brown , and when should I use  Ms. Brown ?

When is it appropriate to use the title "Miss" as opposed to "Ms."?

There is no agreement about what the most appropriate titles are for addressing a woman whose marital status is unknown. Ms. is often recommended as a good option, especially in business correspondence, although this may cause offence to people who prefer to be referred to as Miss or Mrs. In general, it is probably best to avoid the title altogether and simply use her full name. Alternatively, you could try to find out which title she prefers.

Ms. applies to both married and unmarried women so you will never wrongly address a married woman as Miss or vice versa but some women dislike Ms so you should use whatever form of address they prefer or none.

The title "Ms" started to be used in the 1970s by feminists who objected to being "identified based purely on their relationship with men". If you're writing historical fiction, or you want a character to sound very old-fashioned, then using the traditional forms would be appropriate; even if not, it's useful to know what they were. You might use "Miss" to address a female child under the age of thirteen.  Otherwise, if you don't know if they are married, then Ms. is a convenient get-out.

According to  The American Heritage Book of English Usage, using Ms. obviates the need for the guesswork involved in figuring out whether to address someone as Mrs. or Miss. Whether the woman you are addressing is married or unmarried, has changed her name or not, Ms. is always correct. In business correspondence, 'Ms' is almost always appropriate, but in social correspondence, one would do well to try to find out what the lady in question prefers.

It is generally agreed that "Ms." is always appropriate unless the person in question specifies to the contrary.

Many non-feminist women don't like the title and object to having it applied to them, just as many feminist women object to the titles Miss and Mrs.

According to The American Heritage Book of English Usage , Using Ms. obviates the need for the guesswork involved in figuring out whether to address someone as Mrs. or Miss: you can’t go wrong with Ms. Whether the woman you are addressing is married or unmarried, has changed her name or not, Ms. is always correct.

And the beauty of Ms. is that this information becomes irrelevant, as it should be — and as it has always been for men.

The catch is that this is all politically/socially charged.

The title "Ms" was invented in the 70s (or at least that's when it became widely known) by feminists who objected to being "identified based purely on their relationship with men", to use a phrase that was commonly repeated at the time.

Their intent was that Miss and Mrs should be abolished and replaced with this new "non-sexist" term.

But because the term was advanced as part of a specific philosophy or social agenda, women who did not support that agenda objected to having the term applied to them.

So what we really ended up with was that feminist women identified themselves as "Ms", unmarried non-feminist women identified themselves as "Miss", and married non-feminist women identified themselves as "Mrs".

What could under other circumstances have simplified titles, reducing 2 to 1, resulted instead in complicating them, increasing 2 to 3.

I don't think there's as much heat attached to it today as there was back then.

But you can't just say, "Oh, it's easier to use Ms for all women because then I don't have to know whether or not they're married."

The only "easy answer" is to call a woman by the title she prefers.

If she refers to herself as "Mrs Mary Smith", then that's what you should call her.

If you don't have anything from her giving a title, ask her.

Well, I suppose if you want to make a social point, for or against feminism, you could use the title you prefer whether she likes it or not.

Personally, I just avoid using any title at all when I can.

I just refer to her as "Mary Smith" without any Miss, Mrs, or Ms.

Assuming that I do not know if the individual addressed is married, when should I use Miss Brown, and when should I use Ms. Brown?

Personally, I wish this information were relevant for both men and women, but the fact is, it is a feature of our language that men are always styled 'Mr' unless they have some other title or style, and women have the privilege of being styled 'Miss' or 'Mrs'.

Some women will be seriously offended if you don't address them by their preferred title.

Ms. applies to both married and unmarried women so you will never wrongly address a married woman as Miss or vice versa.

However, Ms. is politically charged to some extent because it has become connected with the feminist movement and some women do not wish to be associated with that movement - so call a woman by the title she prefers or use no title.

Ms. Is convenient when you do not know how to address a women.

Some women will be seriously offended if you don't address them by their preferred title, but in business correspondence Ms is almost always appropriate.


Well, with certain words it's simply impossible to start a grammatical sentence: one such word that comes to mind is "ago".

It always comes after other words (e.g. "one hour ago"), never at the beginning of a sentence or clause.

[Before someone points it out: note the use-mention distinction .

A sentence like

'Ago' is a word you cannot start a sentence with.

starts with the word "'ago'" and not with the word "ago".]

But if your question "Is there any valid rule discouraging the use of a certain word to start a sentence?"

(emphasis mine) implicitly restricts attention to words that can grammatically start sentences, then it's not clear what it would take for a rule that discourages something grammatical to be "valid".

Certainly there exist people who disapprove of certain words starting sentences for their own idiosyncratic reasons, such as the "but" I started the previous sentence with.

Are these "rules" valid?

I wouldn't consider them valid, but I don't know what valid means to you. :-)

In school we were taught to "never begin a sentence with 'and', 'but', or 'so'".

But I do anyway.

And so do a lot of other people.

The past tense of many verbs make no sense as the first word in a sentence: 'went', 'tried', etc., unless it's in a context where sentence fragments are OK: 'Where you been?', 'Went to the shops'. '

Ago' is a particularly nice example because it wouldn't even work in an informal sentence fragment.

Is there any valid rule discouraging the use of a certain word to start a sentence?

There's a rule (can't say if it is valid or not)

that numbers, no matter how long, at the start of a sentence should be written out in words, Seven thousand,

four hundred and seventy-six trombones led the big parade so some people avoid putting numbers there.

Also, it's a bit odd to capitalize terms which are computer commands which won't work if they are capitalized:

Ls is how you get a listing of your files

so some people might avoid putting those terms at the start of sentences.

Use of greek letters or numerals is discouraged.

See also Is it okay to start a sentence with a Greek letter (variable)?

Question: Is there any rule you think is valid that discourages the use of a certain word to start a sentence? Because I suspect the answer is no. But it would be good to have a blanket answer to this kind of question.

Is there any valid rule discouraging the use of a certain word to start a sentence?

Whilst there may not be a valid rule discouraging the use of a certain word to start a sentence, there are certain words with which it is impossible to start a sentence, such as "ago". Certain words have been discouraged in this sense in school, such as "and" or "but", but many people do not follow this rule. The use of Greek letters or numerals is also discouraged.

There are no rules but it is impossible to start a grammatical sentence with certain words, such as "ago", which can only come after other words.

he past tense of many verbs make no sense as the first word in a sentence: 'went', 'tried', etc., unless it's in a context where sentence fragments are OK: 'Where you been?', 'Went to the shops'. 'Ago' is anothere example. Schools used to teach "never begin a sentence with 'and', 'but', or 'so'". Use of  greek letters  or  numerals  is discouraged.

With certain words it's simply impossible to start a grammatical sentence: one such word 'ago'. However, it is also frowned upon by some to start a sentence with 'and', 'but', or 'so'.

There are certain words with which it is impossible to start a grammatically correct sentence. Also, traditionally, people have been discouraged from using words like "and", "but", "so", greek letters or numerals to start sentences.

It's impossible to start a grammatical sentence with certain words, such as "ago", which can only come after other words.

We are often taught to "never begin a sentence with 'and', 'but', or 'so'" but in reality many people ignore this.

It is impossible to start a sentence with the past tense of many verbs e.g. "went" except in sentence fragments.

Use of greek letters or numerals at the start of a sentence is discouraged.

With certain words, it is impossible to start a grammatically correct sentence.

At school, some students were taught never to begin a sentence with words like "and", "but", or "so".

The use of greek letters or numerals at the beginning of sentences is discouraged.


I would say that the word gay means ‘homosexual’ only, with two caveats: A lot of people, especially young people, use gay as a generic adjective meaning ‘bad’ or ‘lame’.

This is, of course, considered inappropriate and rude by polite society, but use of gay in this way is pervasive in situations where there are a lot of young people, such as video gaming communities (like XBox Live).

People are definitely aware that gay used to mean ‘happy’, ‘merry’, or ‘lively’.

The theme song to

The Flintstones talks about a gay old time , and many people know that this usage at one time was predominant.

There is a similar situation with the word queer .

Some people might use gay to mean ‘merry’, but only in a tongue-in-cheek or double-entendre kind of way.

The Corpus of Contemporary American English , for example, has two examples of “gay old time”, one from 1993, and one from 1994.

There is one more example that is from the big screen adaptation of The Flintstones , also released in 1994.

In contemporary English, I would say that yes, gay means homosexual only.

Its original meaning was, as you mention, merry or lively , and you will certainly see it used this way if you look at written English from a few decades ago.

However, it's very unlikely you'd see it used that way today.

In commonly used English today, "gay" has become interchangeable with "homosexual" and most readers will understand it in that way, either as an adjective or as a noun.

Though I'm not a fan of the plural form "gays".

As always, though, context is the most important thing because the English language is fabulously ambiguous towards the meaning of gay.

There are certain phrases, which admittedly are not in common usage, but where the reader would understand that the word gay would not mean "homosexual" unless there was a clear double meaning, e.g. "gay hue" or "gay abandon".

Also, applying gay to transient things, such as a mood, would probably alert the reader to the fact you did indeed mean "happy".

In addition, "gaily" and "gaiety" would not be generally understood as pertaining to homosexuality though they are usually only used in archaic contexts.

Unless perhaps the writer meant "gaiety" in terms of stereotypical homosexual behaviour, e.g. "there was much gaiety" could mean "everyone was acting in a very camp manner", or perhaps something like

"there were many men who were proud to be gay".

Personally, because I am caught between favouring clear and concise language and loving the use of flowery, overblown and overwrought, archaic language, I try to reserve the word gay for when I mean "merry".

I also enjoy the possibilities of secondary meanings.

Gay is also a last name.

My high school music teacher was Mrs. Gay.

I disagree with every answer that says Gay only means homosexual, especially when the question already points out that there is a place named Fort Gay.

That's the kind of thinking that got Microsoft in hot water in the first place.

Maybe we should reclaim the word "gay" to mean "merry" and "care free", by using it in this sense all the time.

This would make the word less effective as a derogatory word.

The word were originally used by the gay (in this case homosexual) community because it were a positive term.

I feel quite gay right now. ;)

A number of words kept their old meanings (in America) through the 1960s, but changed their meanings decisively as a result of the "sexual revolution" that took place in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

"Gay" and "queer" are two words that have predominantly one connotation after 1970.

The (original) Flintstones came out before this time.

In UK English, the word gay has changed its meaning more than any other any word in recent times IMO.

In late 19th century English, a “gay girl” was a prostitute.

The word also meant lively and happy; hence the daft old dance

the Gay Gordons, which involved everyone jumping around and shouting “Hoots Mon”.

Gay was also quite a common girls’ name.

In the 1970s there was something called “The Gay Liberation Front”, the first well known and well publicized organization fighting for the rights of homosexual males.

This is where the meaning of gay for homosexual comes from.

I would guess that before then, this meaning of gay was only used in “homosexual slang” — that is, between themselves.

More recently gay as an adjective meaning a lame person or thing, has come into use among very young people, mostly of school age.

This usage has been frowned upon by many older people.

In the 1970s there was a very popular gay and very camp comedian who would play on the ambiguities of meaning, and say things like “I’m feeling very gay today.”

Question: Dictionary.com lists eight meaningsof gay , with “merry, lively” asthe first entry. Microsoft banned anXbox user for listing FortGay (a real place) as hishometown: Xbox Live considered the term gay absolutely inappropriate in any context. As a non-native English speaker, my question is whether in contemporary English, does gay always mean homosexual ? Are British and American English the same in this respect?

Does “gay” still include the meaning “merry”?

It is generally acknowledge that "gay" can have other meanings since it is also used as a generic, though inappropriate, adjective meaning "lame". Additionally, people are certainly aware that gay used to mean "happy" or "merry" and "Gay" is also a common surname. However, some people will assert that in contemporary English, the word "gay" only means "homosexual".

The word gay only means ‘homosexual’, with two caveats: a lot of people, especially young people, use gay as a generic adjective meaning ‘bad’ or ‘lame’ and the earlier meaning still survives in set phrases such as "gay abandon".

In  contemporary  English, the word  gay  means ‘homosexual’ only, with two caveats:   A lot of people, especially young people, use  gay  as a generic adjective meaning ‘bad’ or ‘lame’. People are definitely aware that  gay  used to mean ‘happy’, ‘merry’, or ‘lively’. Some people might till use  gay  to mean ‘merry’, but only in a tongue-in-cheek or double-entendre kind of way. There are certain phrases, which admittedly are not in common usage, but where the reader would understand that the word  gay  would not mean "homosexual" unless there was a clear double meaning, e.g. "gay hue" or "gay abandon".

I would say that the word  gay  means ‘homosexual’ only, with two caveats:   A lot of people, especially young people, use  gay  as a generic adjective meaning ‘bad’ or ‘lame’.

Whilst some people would consider that "gay" only means "homosexual" in contemporary English, it is also true that "gay" has more recently come to mean "bad" or "lame". "Gay" is also a surname in English.

The word gay only means ‘homosexual’, with two caveats: a lot of people, especially young people, use gay as a generic adjective meaning ‘bad’ or ‘lame’.

The word "gay" has become interchangeable with "homosexual" but there are exeptions such as set phrases like "gay abandon" or using the word to describe something transient such as "gay mood"

Gay is also a surname and occurs in place names.

"Gay" and "queer" are two words that have taken on a new meaning since about 1970.

The word "gay" has gone through various meanings but the predominant one now is "homosexual".

Recently, the word "gay" has also come to mean "bad" or "lame".

Some people would consider that "gay" only means "homosexual".


I've worked with IETF people and developers who spend a lot of time on Apache, who tend to use: AuthN - Authentication AuthZ - Authorization

You'll find these abbreviations in a lot of IETF technical documents.

Yes, I know British spelling prefers s over z (authorisation).

You could think of replacing the word 'authentication' with 'identification', since in this context, I think they are probably equivalent.

You could then substitute 'authorization' with 'permission'.

Then, abbreviate as 'ident' and 'perm'.

I suppose you could take the approach taken when abbreviating 'internationalization' as 'i18n' (and 'localization' as 'l10n': 'authentication' =

> 'a12n' 'authorization' =

The idea is to keep the first and last letters of the word, and replace all of the interior letters with a number representing the count of the letters removed.

Of course, looking at 'a12n' and 'a11n', you may not know the meaning right away, so this is probably not the best solution.

authent. and authoris. ?

I would say that your current versions are fairly difficult to read, and also not particularly easy to tell apart from one another at a glance.

I would chose a synonym authenticate synonyms: attest, authenticate, avouch, testify (to), vouch (for), witness authorization synonyms: allowance, authorization, clearance, concurrence, consent, granting, green light, leave, license (or licence), sanction, sufferance, warrant (As a non-native speaker)

I would chose attest and grant . .

Why not just: - Autho - Authe

Question: As a programmer I use the word Authentication and the word Authorisation in my code. I'd like to find nice abbreviations or alternative words for each of them that are not ambiguous and has reasonably large 'psychological distance' between. i.e. they don't look too similar i.e 'Auth' is not OK because it is ambiguous. At the moment I have just removed some letters Authtictn Authristn Any suggestions? Update: Since this question is now under threat I have moved it's gist to: http://www.eatmybusiness.com/food/2014/02/08/short-alternatives-of-the-word-authentication-and-the-word-authorisation/272/

Short alternatives of the word Authentication and the word Authorisation

Potential abbreviations for the word "Authentication" and "Authorization" include "AuthN" and "AuthZ", which are common in a lot of IETF technical documents. You could also consider "authent." and "authoris." or "autho" and "authe".

The options are to use AuthN and AuthZ or authent. and authoris.or a synonym or Autho - Authe.

IETF people and developers who spend a lot of time on Apache, tend to use:   AuthN - Authentication   AuthZ - Authorization . You could use authent.  and  authoris. or S0: autho.  ad authe.

I've worked with IETF people and developers who spend a lot of time on Apache, who tend to use:   AuthN - Authentication   AuthZ - Authorization. You could use: - Autho - Authe

Potential solutions to this problem could be "Autho" or "AuthZ".

Use AuthN and AuthZ.
Use authent. and authoris.
Try a synonym.
Try Autho - Authe


Is this the right usage?

For "fixing to (do something)", that depends.

If I am writing an academic paper or a business-related email, then no.

If I am in Boston, or Chicago, or San Francisco

and I don't want to sound out of place,

then no.

But if I am living in the South of the US and I am having casual conversation, then "fixing to" might often be just the right word to use.

"Fixing dinner" is much more prevalent than "fixing to (do something)".

I say this because I don't think it would feel out of place in any of the (northern and eastern US) places I have lived (though I would imagine it would get the heaviest use in the South).

Still, I probably wouldn't personally use that phrase in formal, written English.

"Fixing to ..." is common usage in the southern US, meaning "about to" or "preparing to" do something, but rarely if ever at the beginning of a sentence.

Perhaps in answer to a question: "Whatcha doin', Pa?

" "Fixin' to hunt me some possum."

Even though I can be offended by incorrect grammar to the point where it might be obnoxious at times, I still embrace local colloquialisms.

Having been born and bred in the Deep South (US), I use "fixing to" regularly.

Yes, it means "about to".

However, since we don't pronounce hard g's at the end of these expressions, it would be pronounced "fixin’ to".

It's also appeared in song titles, most notably I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-To-Die I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-To-Die is the second album by the influential San Francisco psychedelic rock group Country Joe and the Fish, released in 1967.

The title track remains one of the most popular Vietnam protest songs from the 1960s and originally appeared in a 1965 7" EP titled Rag Baby: Songs of Opposition.

If I'm fixing (or fixin') to do something, fixing is an adverb, answering the question of "when" you're going to start doing something.

I'm from the South (Savannah, Georgia) and this is common usage in those parts.

This "fixing" is completely different from the verb "fixing" in this sentence:

"I'm fixing the broken gate" -

How about this one?

"I'm fixing to start fixing the broken gate".

The first fixing is an adverb, the second one a verb.

Miriam Oglesbee Ellison

Um.... That's colloquialism.

Southern people say "fixin to" while African American people tend to change the expression to "fittin to.

" They mean the same thing.

It essentially means to prepare to do something.

"We were fittin to go to the park, when, suddenly the weather changed, as did our plans."

Question: Use of  fixing to  at the beginning of a sentence is prevalent in the southern states of Amerca. Is this the right usage?  And is this only a southern US thing?  Examples:   Fixing to call her.  Fixing dinner.  Fixing to leave the house.

"Fixing to" at the beginning of a sentence

Whether or not "fixing to" can be used correctly at the beinning of a sentence will depend on the context. It is generally agreed that in a formal document, this usage is not acceptable. However, in colloquial speech in the Southern US, this is very common and means "about to".

This is a colloquial expression commonly used in the Deep South of the US, with many variants and examples in songs.

"Fixing to ..."  is  common usage in the southern US, meaning "about to" or "preparing to"  do something, but rarely if ever at the beginning of a sentence.  It essentially means to prepare to do something.

"Fixing to ..."  is  common usage in the southern US, meaning "about to" or "preparing to"  do something, but this is rarely if ever used at the beginning of a sentence.

This usage of the word "fixing" is common in the Southern USA and means "getting ready" to do something.


You can actually say "The program erred at line 44", but it's not very idiomatic. "

Err" also occurs in the saying "To err is human, to forgive is divine".

If you're looking for the correct idiom, you could say "the program encountered an error at line 44" or "the program hit an error at line 44", etc.

I'd say errored IS a valid word.

It's the past tense of the verb "to error".

I've seen (well, mostly heard)

this word used to mean to operate incorrectly, to display an error message, to encounter an unexpected error, to halt unexpectedly

This is a relatively recent usage of the word

(I can't find any authoritative samples of it)

it might be considered too informal or slangy.

Also, some people might not be sure what precisely you are trying to say.

Thus, you should describe more fully what the program is doing.

The program encountered an error at line 44.

Wiktionary Merriam-Webster (new words, slang)

The verb 'to error' has a different meaning than 'to err'.

An "error" in a computer program isn't necessarily a mistake, but can be an exceptional circumstance.

For example, if a program tried to open its configuration file, but you deleted it, the program might fail by displaying an error for this unexpected circumstance.

You could say "the program errored.

" You can't say "the program erred" because the program isn't making a mistake here.

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

I've seen it enough in computing contexts that I consider it acceptable there.

I wouldn't use it in other domains myself, though, except possibly in a geeky tongue-in-cheek way (e.g., "my DVD player errored out on that scratched disk.")

To use "errored" you would have to consider error a verb, but the dictionary doesn't.

"Error" is a noun, used to mean mistake.

You wouldn't say "The program mistaked at line 44."

Your usage "threw an error" is correct, because it uses error as a noun.

You may choose one of the following options: The program returned an error at line 44

The program generated an error at line 44

The program encountered an error at line 44

The program reached an error at line 44

The program gave an error at line 44

Within programming circles, I'd say that "errored" is a perfectly fine term to use.

It seems to be fairly widely understood as a verb form for "error".

Outside of computing, I'd probably avoid it.

You generally won't hear someone say "Todd errored on his test".

It's a field-specific bit of terminology.

That being said, while discussing things within the field of computing, I'd prefer "the program errored/failed/crashed" over "erred", as some others have suggested.

Any of those would be concise and make sense.

I would also prefer the options above over "The program threw an error" in informal settings, simply for the fact that it's less wordy, unless the focus of the statement was how exactly the program did the throwing.

In technical documents, "threw an error" might be preferable to "errored".

You can say the program threw an error though I'd be more inclined to use "caused", as "threw" sounds a little odd (though it is used in the context of exceptions in C++).

(You might also want to provide a more information than merely saying that an error has occurred!)

Question: If "errored" is not a valid word, then how should I say: The program errored at line 44 I guess I could say: The program threw an error at line 44 But why is "errored" wrong? Is there a better alternative?

Is "errored" correct usage?

It is possible that, in programming circles, the word "errored" is perfectly acceptable in this context. However, if you're looking for an alternative, other possible options include "The program encountered an error", "The program generated an error" or "The program erred".

The word "errored" is acceptable within a computing context but might sound out of place elsewhere. There are many other ways of making the same report using the noun "error".

Within programming circles, I'd say that "errored" is a perfectly fine term to use, but outside of computing, I'd probably avoid it. "Error" is a noun, used to mean mistake.  To use "errored" you would have to consider error a verb, but the dictionary doesn't.  You may choose one of the following options:  The program  returned  an error at line 44 ,  the program  generated  an error at line 44, the program  encountered  an error at line 44

To use "errored" you would have to consider error a verb, but the dictionary does not.  If you're looking for the correct idiom, you could say "the program encountered an error at line 44"; or "the program hit an error at line 44", etc.

In computing circles, the word "errored" might be acceptable. However, in order to use the word "errored", the word "error" would have to be a verb, and this is not supported by the dictionary. Instead, alternative choices could be "generated an error", "encountered an error" or "threw an error".

You could say the program "erred" or more idiomatically "encountered an error".

You cannot say the program "erred" because the computer has not made a mistake.

The term is accceptable in computing context but not recommended elsewhere.

To use "errored" you would have to consider error a verb, but the dictionary considers it only a noun.

There are a number of ways to report this using the word "error" as a noun.

"Errored" is a perfectly fine term to use within programming circles.

You could say the program threw an error or perhaps use "caused", as "threw" sounds a little odd (though it is used in the context of exceptions in C++).

This is a relatively recent usage of the word

To use the word "errored" you would have to consider "error" to be a verb, but the dictionary does not.

In computing circles, many people would find the word "errored" acceptable.

Other possible alternatives to "errored" include "generated an error", "encountered an error" or "threw an error".


'null' is qualitative, representing the absence of quantity.

Closer to the word 'void' than the number 'zero'.

Example: he reduced it to nil.

'zero' is quantitative.

Example: he got zero on his exam.

No, they are not the same.

In an everyday language context, 'null' can mean that something is meaningless, as in: The agreement became null when Sam failed to fulfill his side.

In a programming/data context (though I still think this is a language question, rather than a programming question),

'null' can mean the absence of information.

If you are wondering how many apples there are, 'null' means 'I don't know'.

'Zero' means that you know that there aren't any apples.

Zero always refers to a quantity.

Is there a difference between a cheque(check) with $0.00 and a NULL(VOID) check?

Yes.

A $0.00 cheque will put exactly $0.00 into your bank account.

A check with VOID written on it will not be processed.

The difference may be subtle, but there is a difference.

0 represents an integer in the set of all integers (called the set Z in mathematics)NULL is not an integer, and it could represent the absence of things that aren't even numbers.

A NULL and VOID Check for example.

A NULL Marriage.

A NULL Agreement

null and zero are used in many contexts where they have different meanings.

In math you can have a set with no items in it (a null set) or you can have a set with a zero in it ({ 0 }) which are not the same.

In programming some languages make null the same as zero (C++) but some don't (Java).

In databases a record might have a null value in one field or it might have a zero and these are not the same.

Zero is can be used to indicate a counted quantity whereas null cannot.

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

It's not just null and zero too.

What about "nothing","naugt","none" etc.

Zero is usually a noun.

Zero is a number.

Zero can refer to the symbol "0".

Null is usually an adjective (Null set, Null argument, Null pointer, *a nullity).

Null is a not a number, usually has a different symbol each time.

Programmers are forced to make these distinctions all the time (although, 'null' is often modelled as the number 0).

Although it is important in programming, the distinction is more to do with logic and mathematics.

They do have quite different roles in language although I guess in a few cases they are the same. History of Zero

The words have very different meanings.

In math, I can do an equation, such as subtract two numbers, and get zero.

If I don't answer the question, it could be considered null.

If the question were an elementary test, zero could be the correct answer, worth points, whereas not answering the question does not result in a correct answer.

So, one can indicate that a computation has been done, the other that it has not been done.

"Zero" is a number, an integer between -1 and 1.

It is a physical quantity representing no countable number of an object.

"Null" is a concept of irrelevance or undefined state.

For example, an agreement might become "null and void" when it is no longer applicable or enforceable, or a computer data structure pointer with no instantiation associated with it might be considered "null".

The confusion comes in the representation of a computer NULL in execution.

Typically, the NULL is represented as a 0 in the memory or code.

But that is just a convention.

It's like saying "I am Spoxjox".

Well, no, I am not Spoxjox.

I am represented by the "name" or "tag" or "handle" of "Spoxjox", but I am a human being, not a sequence of letters on a discussion board.

Similarly, the concept of NULL might be represented by a zero (0), but it is not the same as the number zero.

No.

Zero is a number.

Zero is also a place where a mathematical function achieves an output value of zero.

Null has a wide variety of uses.

Here are a few: null set - a set devoid of elements null contract - unenforceable contract The Java computer language uses null as a "graveyard" object that holds no value

"Nula" is the word for "0" in Hungarian and other European languages.

"Null" means "void of legal force" ...

that's essentially "invalid".

It's an adjective, as has been mentioned.

I'm not a programmer, so

maybe that's why I don't equate the two at all.

Compare "Are you Rachel?"

with "Are you tired?"

Question: Are  zero  and  null  perfect synonyms?

Is there a real difference between "null" and "zero"?

No, these are not perfect synonyms. The difference may be subtle, but there is a difference. Zero always refers to a quantity whereas "null" is a concept of irrelevance or undefined state. Null is not a number and represents the absence of quantity.

Null  and  zero  are not the same and they are used in many contexts where they have different meanings.  Null' is qualitative, representing the absence of quantity. Null is also used as an adjective (Null set, Null argument, Null pointer, *a nullity). S2: "Null" is a concept of irrelevance or undefined state. Zero is a noun and always refers to a quantity and can be used to indicate a counted quantity whereas null cannot.

The words have different meanings.  In math you can have a set with no items in it (a null set) or you can have a set with a zero in it ({ 0 }) which are not the same.  In programming some languages make null the same as zero (C++) but some don't (Java).  In databases a record might have a null value in one field or it might have a zero and these are not the same. Zero can be used to indicate a counted quantity whereas null cannot.

It is generally agreed that these are not perfect synonyms. There are many instances in which "zero" is a value whereas "null" refers to the absence of a value.

It is generally agreed that these words are not perfect synonyms.

There are many examples in which zero is a value but null is the absence of a value.


Profiteering can be used here.

From Cambridge Dictionary : profiteer (noun): a person who takes advantage of a situation in which other people are suffering to make a profit, often by selling at a high price goods which are difficult to get.

profiteering (noun):

The pharmaceutical company has been charged with profiteering from the AIDS crisis.

From Oxford Dictionaries : profiteer (verb)

: make or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally: seven food merchants were charged with profiteering.

'Hoarding' is the word that comes to my mind.

That at least covers the storage of scarce resources, but I'm not sure if it is really the right word to include selling it at a higher price.

How about 'Price-fixing'?

That would be a collection of 'competitors', artificailly increasing the price by some means (possibly by limiting supply).

This is the very definition of " cornering the market ."

There is a general phrase that has made itself into a legal one: Price Gouging

In New York it reads as follows:

New York State’s Price Gouging Law (General Business Law § 396-r) prohibits merchants from taking unfair advantage of consumers by selling goods or services that are “vital to the health, safety or welfare of consumers” for an "unconscionably excessive price" during an abnormal disruption of the market place or state of emergency.

An abnormal disruption in the market place may be triggered by "weather events, power failures, strikes, civil disorder, war, military action, national or local emergency, or other causes.” https://ag.ny.gov/price-gouging

Cornering the Market is the best term if you're actually buying so much of the item that prices go up.

It rarely happens.

Stockpiling implies that you're stocking up on something, without necessarily implying that you plan to profit from that.

Profiteering is simply a value-laden term for increasing prices when demand goes up.

Hoarding implies keeping a disproportionate share of something for oneselve, not necessarily for profit.

As I stated in a comment earlier to moioci, "cornering the market" merely means having complete control of it, not necessarily by hoarding a commodity.

A few examples, quickly found: Dell set to corner the market for desktop virtualization hardware Apple trying to corner market on location-based advertising?

Is a Silver Market Corner Underway?

Romero's Undead Island Trying To Corner The Market On Water Zombies Will Microsoft Corner the Desktop Security Market?

And even: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/24

My "source" is obvious: widespread, common usage.

The definition given in Wikipedia is a narrow one applying to a specific domain.

The term has much much broader use.

Please, people!

Wikipedia is not the holy scriptures!

At least look a little bit further!

The proper answer would be a combination of all the terms Joel mentioned: "Hoarding and Stockpiling with an intention to Profiteer and Corner the Market".

I know of no single word in English for this, but "Cornering the market" is not it.

Perhaps you could assemble one in German?

Arbitrage is a related term for taking advantage of difference in prices, and may include storing something for later sale.

For instance, if the arbitrageur can secure storage for less than the difference in price between buying today and a contract for sale in the future.

This might occur when the market is expecting the price of the commodity to increase dramatically, and therefore prices for future contracts are still high.

However, it does not relate to trying to increase demand by lowering supply.

I believe the word you're looking for is "forestall".

According to Webster's dictionary : 1: to prevent the normal trading in by buying or diverting goods or by persuading persons to raise prices forestalling the wheat harvest and selling it at three times its cost — G. B. Shaw

Question: Like storing gasoline to create an artificial demand and sell it a higher price later.

Word for when people store scarce resources to increase demand and sell at higher price

There may not be any single word that describes such a concept. However, some words that might convey a similar meaning include "Profiteering", "Hoarding", or "Arbitrage" which is a related term for taking advantage of difference in prices.

Profiteering  is one suggestion as according to the Cambridge Dictionary, refers to  a person who takes  advantage of a situation in which  other people are suffering to make a  profit, often by selling at a high  price goods which are difficult to  get.  Others argue that profiteering  is simply a value-laden term for increasing prices when demand goes up.  Hoarding is another suggestion, but this  implies keeping a disproportionate share of something for oneselve, not necessarily for profit. S0: Cornering the Market  is another term if you're actually buying so much of the item that prices go up. But you could argue that "cornering the market" merely means having complete control of it, not necessarily by hoarding a commodity.  There is also a general phrase that has made itself into a legal one:  Price Gouging. And finally, arbitrage  is a related term for taking advantage of difference in prices, and may include storing something for later sale and according to  Webster's dictionary : 'forestall' means to prevent the normal trading in by buying or diverting goods or by persuading persons to raise prices.

Suggested expressions and terms include profiteering, hoarding, price gouging, arbitrage and forestalling.

There may not be any single word that describes such a concept. However, some words that might convey a similar meaning include "Profiteering", "Hoarding", or "Arbitrage".

Arbitrage  is a related term for taking advantage of difference in prices, and may include storing something for later sale.

According to  Webster's dictionary : 'forestall' means to prevent the normal trading in by buying or diverting goods or by persuading persons to raise prices

There are a range of terms that may be applicable to such a concept, such as "Profiteering", "Hoarding" or "Arbitrage".

There is no single word in English to describe such a phenomenon.


Thee , thou , and thine (or thy ) are Early Modern English second person singular pronouns.

Thou is the subject form (nominative), thee is the object form, and thy

/thine is the possessive form.

Before they all merged into the catch-all form you , English second person pronouns distinguished between nominative and objective, as well as between singular and plural (or formal): thou - singular informal, subject ( Thou art here.

You are here. )

thee - singular informal, object ( He gave it to thee. )

ye - plural or formal

, subject you - plural or formal, object Interestingly, when the first English translations of the Bible were being made, the informal thee and thou were used specifically in reference to God to indicate an approachable, familiar God, but as the language changed this paradoxically brought thee and thou to sound more formal to the modern English speaker.

‘Thou’ is historically perceived in Yorkshire (England) as being disrespectful, or over-familiar in a formal context, e.g. if used to address a teacher, or upon greeting a stranger…

However, ‘thee’ is perceived to be more respectful, as with the French usage of the words ‘vous’ and ‘tu’, of which ‘tu’ is regarded as offensive if used inappropriately (another conversation altogether).

Barnsley folk are especially well know for having the bad habit of using ‘thou’, including one instance I’ve heard of with a French teacher, who mistakenly believed it to be endearing, and quickly chastised her pupils once she was put in the picture.

A classic Yorkshire phrase, often attributed to Ossett: Don't thee thou me, thee thou thissen, and 'ow tha likes thee thouing.

(Don't you thou me, you thou yourself, and see how you like it!)

A paradigm would help here: I, me, my (mine) we, us, our(s) thou, thee, thy (thine) you, you, your(s)

he/she, him/her, his/her(s)

they, them, their(s) A table would be better still

but I don't know how to do that here.

Now all you've got to remember is that the left side of the second row is obsolete, so that both sides of that row are now the same.

If you're ever moved to try to sound archaic, as when using a rotary dial phone or having God over for tea, you can use the second row, choosing the appropriate form on the pattern of the corresponding forms in the first or third row.

There are still a lot of dialect forms heard in different places.

For instance in a pub in Edinburgh

I saw a sign above a urinal:

NOW WASH YOUR HANDS.

Under it one wag (or just a Scottish pedant)

had written

We Scots dinna pee on we'r hands .

Perfectly good Scots - and perfectly good sense too.

Great answer from keithjgrant.

Put otherwise, thou is closely equivalent to the French tu or the German du , and ye is like the French vous or the German Sie.

These answers are helpful.

To succinctly clarify one aspect:

Thou is a more familiar or informal way to say 'you.'

Thee is the more formal way to say 'you.'

Dustin Hoffman, as Ben Braddock, might say "Dost thee desire tea, Mrs. Robinson?"

but "Dost thou desire tea, Elaine?"

I was 'brung-up reet proper' around Preston, Colne, Lytham and so on.

This is now forty years ago and these forms existed then and were in common use.

Thou didn't exist except in approbation.

If thou don't come 'ere reet

now I'll give 'ee heck.

The most common usage was Thee/

Thou art.

You could never tell which it was because it was always spoken as Th'art.

As pointed out before thy is possessive, but it could used in place of thee/thou.

If thy (or maybe tha) wants some th'ard better get a move on.

I am not quite sure what verb and conjugation 'ard is.

And th'all

(they-all this time) knew a brogue was a shoe.

(cf.

y'all Central SE USA) Only just realised ...

them there

Lancashire lads also tended to pronounce words like knew with an American-ish vowel sound.

Question: What is the difference between  thee  and  thou  and how are they used?

What is the difference between "thee" and "thou"?

"Thee" and "Thou" are both Early Modern English second-person singular pronouns. "Thou" is considered disrespectful in Yorkshire, whereas "Thee" is considered more respectful.

They are Early Modern English forms of second person "you". Local variants can occur.

Thee ,  thou , and  thine  (or  thy ) are Early Modern English second person singular pronouns.  Thou  is the subject form (nominative),  thee  is the object form, and  thy. Put otherwise,  thou  is closely equivalent to the French  tu  or the German  du , and  ye  is like the French  vous  or the German  Sie.

Thee ,  thou , and  thine  (or  thy ) are Early Modern English second person singular pronouns. However, ‘thee’ is perceived to be more respectful. ‘Thou’ is historically perceived in Yorkshire (England) as being disrespectful, or over-familiar in a formal context.

Thee and Thou are Early Modern English second-person singular pronouns.

Thou is considered disrespectful in Yorkshire.


The a/an rule is based purely on sound.

Would you say the words inside the parentheses if you were reading the sentence out loud?

If yes, then you use the first word in the parentheses to decide whether or not to use an or a .

If not, then—wait, what do you mean you wouldn’t say the words in parentheses?!

The example given is not parenthetical: (i)

I need a (memorable) idiom.

A parenthesis is a remark which you insert into the middle of a sentence as if you are interrupting yourself.

A parenthesis contributes to the meaning of the sentence but interrupts and stands outside its syntax.

In writing, we typically use curved brackets, dashes, or commas to mark a parenthesis.

The syntax of the example sentence is not interrupted by the word memorable .

Instead, the word memorable functions as an adjective modifying idiom .

Consequently, the pronunciation rule applies to the word memorable and the article to use is a .

Compare this variation: (ii)

I need an (well, if I need anything at all) idiom .

Not an example of great writing, to be sure.

But it shows how a parenthesis interrupts and stands outside the syntax of a sentence.

The phrase “well, if I need anything at all” is not part of the noun phrase “an idiom”.

The pronunciation rule still applies, but it applies to the word idiom and the article to use is an .

This is true even though you would not normally pair an with well .

You would, for instance, say: (iii)

I need a well known idiom.

The difference is that well is parenthetical only in example (ii) above.

A bracket only means that the word or phrase inside is less important or in some cases less relevant.

But in any case that does not exclude bracketed words from the general sentence structure.

Therefore, in this case the preferred way is: I need a (memorable) idiom.

But you must understand that this is only the preferred way, not necessarily the right way.

English is a rapidly growing and changing language and has numerous styles and methods.

Sometimes more than one way can be called "right".

And in my opinion both examples may be correct grammatically.

You choose "an" vs. "a" based on the following word, be it in brackets or parentheses or anything else.

Having the word in (parentheses) doesn't change this any more than having a word in "quotes" or italics does.

As a practical matter, I try to match the a/an status of first word enclosed in parentheses and the first word on the other side of them.

Thus, in this instance, I might try: I need an (easy-to-remember) idiom.

or: I need an (unforgettable) idiom.

If no available alternative adequately expressed my intended meaning, I would simply drop the parentheses:

I need a memorable idiom. or rework the sentence to avoid the break after the indefinite article:

I need an idiom (memorable preferred).

I call my policy "practical" because I suspect that a mismatch—justifiable or not on appeal to logic or to outside authorities—would be distracting to a certain number of readers, and I would rather have them focus on what I'm trying to say than ponder whether I've used the right indefinite article.

Since the trick of enclosing a word or phrase in parentheses for effect isn't high on my list of essential literary tools, I don't mind using it after a/an only when the preceding indefinite article suits both the first word in parentheses and the first word beyond them.

Parentheses are meant to be optional; the sentence should make sense both with and without the "memorable".

So neither option will work.

Instead, try: I need a memorable idiom.

I need a (preferably memorable) idiom.

I need an idiom (which must be memorable).

I need a (memorable) way of putting things.

It all depends on how you would read it aloud.

In your example you want "an".

Reading this aloud you would not notice the bracket and instead want to hear "an easy".

If you had a parenthetical phrase rather than a tightly coupled adjective you might want to keep the article tied to its eventual partner.

For instance, "He provides a (actually he doesn't provide much of anything

and I hate his stupid guts) path to information.

" In this case, it sounds like you've broken off from the main idea of the sentence and your parenthetical expression is more of an apostrophe .

Since it's followed by memorable , not idiom , in your second example, a is the correct choice.

In real life, you'd say "I need a memorable idiom".

So write it that way too.

In this particular structure, I have no doubt the article would go with the parenthetical:

"an (easy) path," because we read the sentence with the parenthetical (that part with a pause and a 'lower tone' to signify parenthesis).

We don't skip it.

Question: When  a/an  precedes a parenthetical aside (sometimes seen in informal/conversational writing), should the vowel rule depend on the first word in parentheses, or the next word in the "regular" flow of the sentence?   I need a (memorable) idiom (preceding an  m  word; use  a )   or   I need an (memorable) idiom (preceding an  i  word; use  an )

"A/An" preceding a parenthetical statement

It is possible that both options are grammatically correct, although some people would say that it entirely depends on how the sentence would be read aloud.

The a/an rule is based on sound. The answer is "a (memorable idiom)". The syntax of the sentence is not affected by the parenthesis. Reading this sentence out loud, the bracket would have no effect. Consequently, the pronunciation rule applies to the word "memorable"  and the article before it is  " a".  The presence of the parenthesis does not interrupt the word "memorable" and so the pronunciation rule applies.The answer is "a" as the indefinite article. However, some people believe both answers are grammatically correct as there are different styles in English which they consider to be a growing language.

The  a/an  rule is based purely on sound. It all depends on how you would read it aloud. Therefore, in this case the preferred way is:   I need a (memorable) idiom.   You choose "an" vs. "a" based on the following word, be it in brackets or parentheses or anything else.

The pronunciation rule still applies, but it applies to the word  idiom  and the article to use is  an. It depends on how you would read it aloud. However, both examples may be grammatically correct.

The a/an rule is based on sound. The answer is a (memorable idiom). The syntax of the sentence is not affected by the parenthesis. Consequently, the pronunciation rule applies to the word memorable  and the article to use is " a".  The presence of the parenthesis does not interrupt the word "memorable" and so the pronunciation rule applies.The brackets or parentheses have no effect on the structure of the sentence, so normal grammar rules apply i.e "a" before "memorable" and "an" before "idiom"

The bracket has no effect on the structure of the sentence

If there is no alternative to the problem, try using an alternative.

The solution is to use either a/a depending on the word in brackets.

In this particular structure, I have no doubt the article would go with the parenthetical:

Some people would argue that the correct answer in this example is "an".

Some people would argue that the correct answer is "a".

Some people argue that the correct answer depends on how the sentence would be read aloud.

It's possible that both are grammatically correct.


There are three very different uses of that : Subordinating that : “I know that this is the answer.”

Demonstrative pronoun that : “ That is not the answer.”

Adjectival

that : “ That answer is not it.”

Double that occurs because the first that is the subordinating that , and the second that is a demonstrative pronoun or adjectival that .

That is, if you subordinate a clause that begins with pronominal or adjectival that with that , you get that that , as in “you know that that that that from the previous sentence was different from the one in this sentence.”

Of course it is acceptable grammar .

The rules of English grammar are the very reason why such "strange things" happen in the first place.

Now, whether or not you actually end up using a double "that" or rewording it, is a different question.

But it is a question of style .

Read: personal preference.

Personally, more often than not, I don't find a double "that" to be distracting or leading to confusion at all.

Quite the contrary: it is a) perfectly self-explanatory and b)

it certainly leads to less confusion than leaving one of those "that"s out.

I don't think that that is a problem.

Having said that, it would still make sense if one of the "that"s in the previous sentence were omitted.

EDIT:

In response to Reg's comment: If a "that" is omitted, it's the first one that is removed.

Replacing the second "that" with "it" may clarify things: I don't think that it is a problem.

I don't think

it is a problem.

Hence saying "I don't think that is a problem" is fine - as long as you're familiar with this particular usage of the word "that".

If not, then it could obviously cause confusion.

This is correct.

The two words are performing different functions.

The first that is used to introduce a clause.

The second that is used to refer to a specific thing.

I would argue that it might very well be correct, but if it makes you uncomfortable, it may also distract your readers.

You've likely seen the common example: The human brain often skips any extra words that appear in the the sentence they're reading The same behaviour might happen with the extra "that" appearing in your sentence.

So while it might be correct in theory, perhaps you could reword your sentence such that it becomes more readable for your audience.

It's perfectly fine to write "that that" or to simply write "that": your choice, your style, your need at the moment.

If the question is about how do I handle the problem personally, I always try to minimize my usage of the word "that" in order to avoid these instances altogether.

That bike that is blue" becomes " the bike which is blue" or simply, "the blue bike."

Therefore: "That that is blue" becomes "that which is blue" or even "what is blue" in some contexts.

"I know that it is true" becomes "I know it is true."

I simply omit the word "that" and it still works.

"That that is true" becomes "That which is true" or simply, "The truth."

I do this

not because it is grammatically incorrect, but because it is more aesthetically pleasing.

The overuse of the word "that" is a hallmark of lazy speech.

Indeed, if avoiding these instances causes you to think outside the box, your speech and writing will become more fresh and creative as a result.

To clarify, I don't go out of my way to avoid the word "that."

I simply reduce my daily usage of it in order to avoid confusion.

I use 'that that' quite often because it gives you an explicit reference to the exact subject referred to previously.

Simply replacing it with 'this' sometimes will not do as I sometimes wish to refer to 'that' specifically.

Question: Have you ever had a case where you felt compelled to include strange things like a double  that  in a sentence? If so, then what did you do to resolve this?  For me, I never knew whether it was acceptable grammar. However, what I did learn was that it was a  logic distractor , could lead to confusion, and therefore should be reworded to avoid this.

How do you handle "that that"? The double "that" problem

In is generally agreed that "that that" is not a problem in English grammar. However, you might want to re-word a sentence such that it becomes more readable for your audience.

It is correct because both words are performing different functions. The first "that" is introducing the subordinate clause and the second one is a demonstrative adjective.  However, for stylistically the word choice could be changed so as not to confuse the reader. It is not distracting, so it is perfectly fine to use both "thats" in this sentence. Indeed, the human brain has a tendency to skip words, so in this sentence, this could be of benefit here where the second "that" is ignored.

This is acceptable  grammar and is a question of  style . It would still make sense if one of the "that"s in the sentence were omitted.  Replacing the second "that" with "it" may clarify things:   I don't think that  it  is a problem.  But bear in mind that the two words are performing different functions.

A double "that" is not distracting and does not lead to confusion. However,  you may prefer to reword your sentence so that it becomes more readable for your audience.

In is generally agreed that "that that" is not a problem in English grammar. However, you might want to re-word a sentence to remove "that that" if you feel it will make a more comfortable read.

It is correct because the first "that" is introducing the subordinate clause and the second one is a demonstrative adjective.  Both words are performing different functions.

For clarification, the word choice could be changed.

It is generally agreed that this is not a grammar problem in writing.

You may want to re-word your sentence in order to remove instances of "that that" if you feel that it will make a more comfortable read.


As you said, it means "kind of".

It's very informal and you won't find it in dictionaries.

In formal contexts, you can use "rather" with the same meaning, e.g.: It was rather cold.

Note: "kind of" is in the Merriam-Webster dictionary (see below).

"Kinda" is not.

Definition: 1:

to a moderate degree 2:

in a way that approximates : moreor less Synonyms: enough,

kindly [chiefly Southern],fairly, like, moderately, more orless, pretty, quite, rather,relatively, something, somewhat, sortof

The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) has 1650 incidences of kinda : TOTAL SPOKEN FICTION MAGAZINE NEWSPAPER ACADEMIC1650 172 1023 244 169 42

It is used overwhelmingly in fiction, and the few examples in newspapers and academic texts are almost exclusively in quotations of spoken English.

So, as the other answers have said, kinda is a pretty informal word, not used in formal texts except in quotations.

I personally would only use the word in very informal situations.

Its 1650 incidences in COCA are comparable to other adverbs, such as besides (1720), tight (1642), and regardless (1607).

As to whether or not it is an “actual” word, I think this is pretty clear evidence that it is.

As for its acceptability, it is listed in some dictionaries, including Random House and Merriam-Webster .

Wiktionary contains such words.

The entry for kinda ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kinda ) includes: kinda (colloquial) kind of

I kinda hafta do this right now.

That's kinda funny.

The NOAD reports that kinda is an informal contraction of kind of ; it was first used in the early 20th century, and it was originally an American English alternation.

Kind of is an informal phrase for rather .

It is a word in spoken language and used in private letter-writing, but has not yet reached the level of recognition as standard language just as words like gonna, or "of" for have and others.

One more generation

and it is in dictionaries with a note about usage and in two generations it will be a normal variant.

Authorities at Oxford and Webster do not control or shape the English Language, they only define it.

In reality, the collective mind of every English speaker shapes the language.

And because some words have gained popularity in some groups and not others, the language has spread out into many dialects.

If you've ever read Mark Twain, you might have found his works difficult to understand as he wrote in the dialect of the Mississipi region.

Now imagine if all English speakers wrote in their own dialect.

We would all have to make a great effort to understand each other.

Authorities of the English language basically determine what words and grammatical structures

the majority of English speakers can understand, so that every English speaker can read books and other published works without trouble.

However, not everyone can understand their English.

My mother teaches in an inner city school and many of her students struggle in grammar because phrases like "Y'all goin' to the zoo

" sound perfectly fine to them as they are grammatically correct in their dialect.

So in short, "kinda" is a word, but not in the common dialect that English Authorities provide.

When writing, I would consider to what audience the work is intended for.

For example, if I were to write an article about the Packers and Bears rivalry, I would use it because people in the Midwestern United States commonly use it.

However I would replace it with a word like "rather" or find stronger diction if writing a formal and proper essay to an English Teacher.

Question: I've used "kinda" as a word basically meaning "kind of" just run together. I wouldn't use it formally, but I noticed that Microsoft Word's spellchecker says that it isn't a word. I searched some and it seems that I'm not the only one who uses it, but it doesn't seem to be too popular.   So is it an actual word? How accepted is it?

Is "kinda" a word?

"Kinda" is indeed a word but is very informal and you won't find it in dictionaries. Any examples in formal or academic texts will be almost exclusively in quotations of spoken English.

"Kinda" is the contraction "kind of" and is thus the colloquial form of "kind of".  It is the alternative to "rather". It can be found in a wide number of  publications as well as in dictionaries such as the Merriam-Webster. The preference for its use can be personal, but generally its use informally is preferred. It has not achieved the recognition of standard English and very much remains in the domain of informal language.

This means "kind of" and it is very informal and you won't find it in dictionaries. 'kinda'  is a pretty informal word, not used in formal texts except in quotations.

Although listed in some dictionaries, "kinda" is very informal and is used in spoken word and fiction. It is not used in formal texts.

"Kinda" is indeed a word but is generally only accepted in informal settings or fiction. It will be very rarely found in formal or academic work and it may not be found in every dictionary.

"kinda" means "kind of" and is a colloquial form. It is the alternative to "rather"

It is mainly used informally. There are a lot of uses in a wide range of publications. The choice of use is personal and can depend on target audidence.

It is also present in some dictionaries including the Merriam-Webster.

The alternative is "rather" or another word if writing a formal essay.

"Kinda" is a very informal word and won't be used in formal settings.

"Kinda is indeed a word, and is included in some dictionaries.

"Kinda" is used a lot in fiction but not much in academic writing.


"Subtract" is the word.

Though the obsolete word "substract" did exist, any occurrence you see these days is most likely just a common mistake, formed by analogy either with "abstract" or with other languages whose corresponding words do have two ‘s’s.

Many recent dictionaries do not list "substract".

Of "substract", the Century Dictionary (1891) said : An erroneous form of subtract , common in vulgar use.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary of 1913 called it "obsolete", while the even older version of 1828 said Note.--Substract was formerly used in analogy with abstract.

But in modern usage, it is written according to the Latin, subtract.

See this word and its derivatives.

Additionally, I know people who find "substract" very annoying. :-)

It seems that the usage of "substract" is linguistically incorrect.

However, I disagree about explaining this usage as a "showing-off".

It seems that other languages do contain the letter "s" as in "soustraction" in French.

People with a multi-lingual background are more likely to make mistakes, and it is nice if we just point that out to them without prejudice.

French people use "substract" mistakingly a lot because in french, the word is "soustraction", which contains the sound "s" inside.

If sub s tract is incorrect according to established English usage, this is only because English usage derives this verb from Latin subtraho ‘to subtract’, which excludes the ‑s‑ .

In many a Romance language — for example, in Spanish — it derives from the Latin prefix

sub‑ coupled with the Latin verb extraho ‘to extract’; hence Spanish sub s traer .

You say ‘sub-tract’ in English where in Spanish we say ‘sub-

ex tract’ ; hence the extra s .

Substract is incorrect in English, but it could equally have been correct if imported differently.

I've never heard of "substract" and, more to the point, neither has my edition of the Oxford English Dictionary.

Even if it is a word, assuming that it means the same as "subtract" I can't see any point in preferring it over the better known word, apart from showing off.

I found the word "substract" in a memoir written by an old Boston lady in the 1920s, describing how she as a child (during the 1850s) pilfered newspapers from her mother's cache and was able to trade them for candy.

I like this usage, as it conveys a kind of arch, sneaky tone better than either "extract" or "subtract"

But it's not mathematical at all.

By looking at the etymology, we can see that "substract" is erroneous.

"subtract" is derived from a the Latin compound verb "subtraho", whose supine is "subtractum".

There is no form "substraho" of this verb.

Question: I read an article recently where the author used "substract" instead of "subtract".  I'm more familiar with the latter word but after doing a bit of googling, it seems that both words are being used, although "subtract" seems more mainstream than the other. Which of the two is more appropriate? Is "substract" even acceptable?

Is "substract" (versus "subtract") a proper word?

"Substract" is linguistically incorrect and many recent dictionaries do not list it. It may have existed in the past, but any occurrence you see these is most likely a common mistake, and there is no obvious reason to prefer it over the better known word, "subtract".

The verb subtract derives from Latin "subtraho". "Substract" is incorrect in English and is not in the Oxford English Dictionary, although the word has been found to be used in literature in the 1920s. Etymologically, "substract" is incorrect as the Latin compound verb is "subtraho"

"Subtract" is the correct word. The obsolete word "substract"  did  exist at one time though, but the usage of "substract" is linguistically incorrect and it is not listed in current dictionaries.

Though the obsolete word "substract"  did  exist, any occurrence you see these days is most likely just a common mistake. Many recent dictionaries do not list "substract".

"Substract" is incorrect English and does not appear in the dictionary. It may have existed in the past, but it is certainly not used any longer and there is no obvious reason to opt for it over "subtract".

"Substract" has been used in writings to designate "remove"

The obsolete word "substract"  did  exist at one time though.

The usage of "substract" is linguistically incorrect and it is not listed in current dictionaries.

"Substract" does not exist in the dictionary and is incorrect English.

The word "substract" may have existed in the past, but it is no longer used.

There is no clear reason to use "substract" over "subtract".


If I am addressing a few people who are well known to me, I would generally use: Dear John, Bill, Jack, If I am addressing a lot of people, or people who are not familiar to me, I would go with:

Dear All,

If you don't know the recipients' names, I refer you to the other answers.

However, if you do know their names, then I will add that I would actually just write: Dear John, Dear Jack, I have been using this formula for more than a decade.

So far, nobody has complained.

For me, this approach has quite a few advantages.

First of all, it is more personal than simply "Greetings" or "Hi all".

Secondly, if one of those people is the main recipient and the other is CC, or if one of them has a higher rank (say, he is the boss of the other), I can reflect that in my address by mentioning him first.

Lastly, this formula can be easily adapted to many situations.

If some (or all) of the recipients are female I simply write:

Dear John, Dear Jane, If I need to make it more formal, I simply write:

Dear Mr. Smith, Dear Ms. Black,

And I can easily extend it to three or even four people: Dear Mr. Smith, Dear Ms. Black, Dear Mr. Blunt,

Now, when I am addressing more than four people, I often do use something like "Greetings", "Hi everybody", "Dear clients", "Dear colleagues".

However, even then I sometimes set the most important recipient apart by writing:

Dear Prof. Black, Dear colleagues, or Dear Mr. President, Dear Members of the Committee,

I rarely begin emails with a salutation.

If I do, it is usually just the name - I have never transferred the pointless 'Dear' to emails.

If I wanted to put one in a group email, I suppose I would start with a word like "friends", or "people", or "folks", depending on the context and formality.

It's kind of a carryover from my medievalist hobby, but I really like using Greetings, or even Greetings! for emails to a group of people.

It's also really handy for addressing a single person when you're unsure of that person's gender and/or title.

If you are working together on a project, then I rather like Dear team

This can be appropriate even if the recipients include people from both your company and the client.

It's a subtle reminder that you are all working towards a common goal.

More generally, I'd just use Dear all, or just All,

"Sirs" is just completely wrong.

If you are addressing more than one man, it would be "Gentlemen".

Email is still sufficiently young that formal conventions have not emerged.

I find it useful to imagine myself in the mind of the recipient and ask what information I need to give them in the greeting.

If the email is really to be sent with equal priority to a number of recipients and they regard themselves as part of a group (fellow developers for example), then I would use Dear All, If, actually, the email is a mailshot to a number of individuals who don't know each other, then its an individual email.

Dear Sir, or possibly Dear Sir (or Madam), Here, I prefer to use the convention that Sir is neuter.

And lastly, if an email is really to a single individual, but with a few more individuals copied in (such as a question to an individual developer, but where I want the email trail to be visible to the group), then I would use Dear Bob (Alice, Charlie, Dilbert)

The last one is not a convention I have seen elsewhere, but I find it works for me.

I have been using, "Hello to all".

It seems to work well for both male and female recipients and is formal enough to use in a business setting.

If it is a formal letter, then you can use 'Dear Sirs' but if it is informal, simply 'Hi' is fine. '

Hi' addresses either one person or many, the same as 'you' refers to one person or many.

I would not ever use 'Gentlemen', but I am from Australia where our English is more informal.

I usually just use the words

Hi All,

You can also use gents to refer to many recipients.

I agree with louiser89 and I will add that - even though many people or perhaps most people don't think that "Dear" is appropriate on emails - I will continue to use "Dear" or, in my language, "Caro (Cara)".

It is not only because we have always used it in letters and in commercial correspondence; it is not just traditions.

"Dear" is a nice word, it is gentle and polite.

It is not a word that could ever offend anybody.

And it is certainly not formal, unless you consider formal the people you love or that you consider your friends, or the people you like.

So why not use it also in emails?

How can something nice become formal or old fashioned or, worse, strongly disliked?

Of course we should never consider it obligatory, but why be against it?

Dear Friends, don't be too angry with me: English is not my language, but it is a very "dear" language to me for many reasons.

Question: How do you greet multiple recipients in an e-mail?  Assuming they're both male, I just use "Sirs", but it seems a bit informal.

How do you greet multiple recipients in an e-mail?

There are many different ways of addressing a group in an e-mail. Depending on how formal the message is, you could start with "Dear All", "Dear Sirs" or "Gentlemen". If you're working on a project together, you could simply write "Dear team". However, you may just want to write all of their names individually if you know them.

There are numerous and highly subjective suggestions as how to address people on email. There is the option of using "Dear" and variant uses of "Dear" depending on the familiarity with the recipient/s with the option of adding or not their first name. Some people disagree with using "Dear", but others think it is a gentle and polite word. Others use other generic forms of salutation such as "Greetings", whereas some do not use any salutation at all. It is suggested that as email is a recent form of communication, no standardised salutations have emerged. However, some consider"sirs" to be incorrect in this context whereas "Gentlemen" would be more appropriate, even though Australians feel "Gentlemen" is too informal and "gents" could be used. On the other hand, some believe "Dear Sirs" is correct in a formal setting. Others use "Hi" and "Hello to all" as other suggestions to greet a group of people.

Email is still sufficiently young that formal conventions have not emerged. If you  know their names, I would actually just write:   Dear John, Dear Jack. A more general greeing is to just use   Dear all,   or just   All or hello to all.  Some suggest not starting emails with a salutation.

Suggestions include Dear all; Gentlemen; Hello to all; Hi; and Dear team. Alternatively, you could greet the people individually, as in: Dear John, Dear Jack

Use of "Dear" and variant uses of "Dear"

Personal style greetings used for emails to a group, which would depend on context.

You could just write all their names individually.

Some possibilities for addressing a group are "Dear All", "Dear Sirs" or "Gentlemen", depending on who you're writing to and how formal you want to be.

If you are working together on a project, you could address them as "team".


The pronunciation/spelling-out of "1:1" is "one to one" or "one-to-one.

" I just wanted to add that you wouldn't say "ratio one-to-one.

" You would either say "a ratio of one-to-one" or "a one-to-one ratio."

In speech this is obviously always pronounced "ratio one to one."

In writing, it is a matter of style.

Anything of a technical nature should always be written in the 1:1 form, but when writing prose, fiction or something informal, you should certainly consider writing it as it would be spoken: "The mix was applied in a one-to-one ratio."

The use of hyphenation and words instead of numerals makes the sentence flowing and readable, and encourages the reader's eye to see this as a single, commonly-occurring term.

Note that for the purpose of clarity ratios should generally be stated in the same clause and the same order as the two sets being compared: "Boys and girls were present in a ratio of 3:2."

You would pronounce it "a ratio of 1 to 1", but it's worth noting that there are sometimes exceptions.

In films and photography , for example, ratios such as 16:9 and 4:3 are often described as "16 by 9" and "four by three", respectively.

Hmm, not sure how correct this is

but I read a:b as "a is to b".

And a:b::c:d as "a is to b as c is to d".

Probably British English (else it's Indian :))

I am Indian and I say 1:1 "one to one" and a:b::c:d "a is to b as c is to d".

In the United States, "one-to-one ratio" is preferred.

A pronunciation of "ratio" is given at the following.

In addition, The American Heritage Dictionary shows both a two-syllable and three-syllable pronunciation for ratio. https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=ratio

Question: How do I pronounce "ratio 1:1"?  Should I pronounce it "ratio 1 to 1"?

How do I pronounce "ratio 1:1"?

You would pronounce this either as "a ratio of one-to-one" or "a one-to-one ratio".

The pronunciation is "one to one", using the word order "Ratio one to one".In the USA, it is a three-syllable pronunciation according to US American Heritage Dictionary. In writing, the presentation of "ratios" is an issue of style. Colons must be used, but where words are used instead of numerals, this can make reading easier. Hhowever word order of sets must be respected to understand the concept as in "Boys and girls were present in a ratio of 3:2." It is to be remembered, that ratios are expressed differently in the photographic and cinema domains as in 16:9 is described as 16 by 9.

You would either say "a ratio  of  one-to-one" or "a one-to-one ratio." The use of hyphenation and words instead of numerals makes the sentence flowing and readable, and encourages the reader's eye to see this as a single, commonly-occurring term.

In the USA, it is a three-syllable pronunciation.

In writing, it is an issue of style. The colons must be used, but using words instead of numerals can make reading easier, however word order of sets must be respected to under the concept as in "Boys and girls were present in a ratio of 3:2."

Ratios are expressed differently in the photographic and cinema domains.

In the world of film and photography different descriptions are used for ratios.