This isn’t a full answer, but some more pieces of the puzzle.

Briefly: the OED supports the argument that the usage “twelfth night” =

“Jan 6th” comes not from subtleties of ecclesiastical reckoning, but from a recent shift in meaning.

According to the OED, the twelve days originally referred to the twelve days after Christmas, i.e. starting from the first day after it; the somewhat misleading phrasing the twelve days of Christmas to refer to these days only comes later.

Hence the twelve days have always properly been Dec 26–Jan 6, the first ‘day of Christmas’ is not the same as Christmas day, and twelfth-day is a synonym for Epiphany.

(These are well-attested in quotations back to the 10th century; most explicitly, for instance, “The feastful day of the Epiphanye commonly called Twelf-day.”

, T. Becon Relikes of Rome , 1553.)

However (continuing with the OED), this doesn’t answer the question: twelfth-night did indeed properly refer to the eve of twelfth-day , i.e. to the night between the 5th and 6th of January.

(This is also attested back to the 10th century.)

So presumably at some point in comparatively modern times, the phrase twelfth-night lost its footing and slipped a day.

It’s easy to speculate on ways that could happen: maybe in eg the 19th century the actual twelfth-night festivities fell out of fashion and the bigger celebration was on twelfth-day, but for various reasons (eg the Shakespeare title) people were still familiar with the phrase twelfth-night , and so assumed that it referred to the festival they knew?

I suspect that some digging around in 18th/19th-century literature on Google Books might well be fruitful in narrowing down this sort of speculation, pinning down something of when and how the shift actually happened.

No method.

The twelfth day is January 5th: 25-Dec 26-Dec 27-Dec

28-Dec 29-Dec 30-Dec

31-Dec 01-Jan

04-Jan 05-Jan January 6th is the day after the twelfth day of Christmas.

I am not an expert on this subject, but this is from the Wikipedia page on Epiphany : Christian feast celebrating the appearance of Jesus Christ to the Magi (representing the world.

, traditionally celebrated on January 6, the day after the twelfth day of Christmas .

Linked on from the Wikipedia page , The Telegraph says,

But many people believe Twelfth Night falls on Jan 6, at the end of the 12th day after Christmas...

The difference in opinion is said to be down to the fact that in centuries past, Christmas was deemed to start at sunset on Dec 24 and

so the 12th night following it was Jan 5.

Nowadays, people count from Dec 25 and

so assume Twelfth Night falls on the 6th.

As it says - the method that counts the 12th night following Christmas i.e. which starts counting from Dec 26th, ends with the Twelfth night on Jan 6th

Is the 25th of December the 'first day' of Christmas, or the 'zeroth' day?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_days_of_Christmas Boxing Day, or the 26th, is considered the 'first full day' -

so that would place the twelfth night on the 5th of January, but the twelfth day would be the 6th.

I wonder if this is at all related to the idea of the new day starting at sundown (for example, the Jewish Shabbat runs from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday).

I would imagine the confusion comes from having people who assume day precedes night tacking an extra, incorrect, night to the end.

The Twelfth Night is January 5th, the last day of the Christmas Season before Epiphany (January 6th).

In some church traditions, January 5th is considered the eleventh Day of Christmas, while the evening of January 5th is still counted as the Twelfth Night, the beginning of the Twelfth day of Christmas the following day.

http://www.crivoice.org/cy12days.html Case in point

the argument in this article only makes any sort of logical sense if you assume "The first day" is the evening of the twenty-fifth, which would make "the twelfth night" fall on the 6th.

(Night coming after day, even though they defined the day as something which started at night.)

Question: I know English has (or at least had) some strange usages of  eve  and  night , but I still can’t figure out how December 25 th  and 12 can be combined to come up with January 6 th .  (This stems from my annual rant about the twelve days of Christmas, namely that despite what modern commerce would have you believe, they come  after  the 25 th , not before.)

What method of counting puts Twelfth Night on January 6th?

Twelfth Night falls on January the 6th because the first day of Christmas actually falls on Boxing Day, the 26th December. However, "Twelfth Night" originally referred to the eve before the Twelfth Day, and it appears that at some point, Twelfth Night slipped to the following evening.

The twelve days of Christmas referred to the twelve days  after  Christmas, i.e. starting from the first day  after  it; the somewhat misleading phrasing  the twelve days of Christmas  to refer to these days, historically, only comes later. Hence the twelve days have always been Dec 26–Jan 6, the first ‘day of Christmas’ is not the same as Christmas day, and  twelfth-day  is a synonym for Epiphany.Twelfth-night  did indeed properly refer to the eve of the  twelfth-day , i.e. to the night between the 5th and 6th of January.  This changed over time and research would be needed to find out why.

Boxing Day (26th December) is considered to be the first full day.

There is no method of counting which puts Twelfth Night on the 6th of January.

I would imagine the confusion comes from having people any people believe Twelfth Night falls on Jan 6, at the end of the 12th day after Christmas..

According to the OED, the twelve days originally referred to the twelve days after Christmas, i.e. starting from the first day after it; the somewhat misleading phrasing the twelve days of Christmas to refer to these days only comes later.

Hence the twelve days have always properly been Dec 26–Jan 6, the first ‘day of Christmas’ is not the same as Christmas day, and twelfth-day is a synonym for Epiphany.

(These are well-attested in quotations back to the 10th century; most explicitly, for instance, “The feastful day of the Epiphanye commonly called Twelf-day.”

However (continuing with the OED), this doesn’t answer the question: twelfth-night did indeed properly refer to the eve of twelfth-day , i.e. to the night between the 5th and 6th of January.

So presumably at some point in comparatively modern times, the phrase twelfth-night lost its footing and slipped a day.

It’s easy to speculate on ways that could happen: maybe in eg the 19th century the actual twelfth-night festivities fell out of fashion and the bigger celebration was on twelfth-day, but for various reasons (eg the Shakespeare title) people were still familiar with the phrase twelfth-night , and so assumed that it referred to the festival they knew?

I suspect that some digging around in 18th/19th-century literature on Google Books might well be fruitful in narrowing down this sort of speculation, pinning down something of when and how the shift actually happened.

But many people believe Twelfth Night falls on Jan 6, at the end of the 12th day after Christmas...

Is the 25th of December the 'first day' of Christmas, or the 'zeroth' day?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_days_of_Christmas Boxing Day, or the 26th, is considered the 'first full day' -

The Twelfth Night is January 5th, the last day of the Christmas Season before Epiphany (January 6th).

In some church traditions, January 5th is considered the eleventh Day of Christmas, while the evening of January 5th is still counted as the Twelfth Night, the beginning of the Twelfth day of Christmas the following day.

The twelve days of Christmas referred to the twelve days  after  Christmas, i.e. starting from the first day  after  it; the somewhat misleading phrasing  the twelve days of Christmas  to refer to these days only comes later.

Twelfth-night  did indeed properly refer to the eve of  twelfth-day , i.e. to the night between the 5th and 6th of January.

Many people believe Twelfth Night  falls on Jan 6, at the end of the 12th  day after Christmas..

The first full day of Christmas is the 26th December.

The confusion could ariserom having people any people believe Twelfth Night  falls on Jan 6, at the end of the 12th  day after Christmas.


The first word that comes to my mind is "Edit".

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

Taken as a group, these are all examples of "Text Modification".

If I'm reading your comment to morganpdx correctly, you could make a title like "Text Modification Options" where you then give further information about "Appending to your text", "Prepending to your text" (or "Inserting before your text"), and "Replacing your text".

You already have the answer.

Prepend, append and replace are all verbs.

See below, with related nouns:

Append:

You append text after some other text.

I appended some text.

He will append some text.

Prepend:

You prepend text before some other text.

I prepended some text.

He will prepend some text.

In either case, both of them could be called a supplement, or supplemental text.

You can call it conjugation too.

[My bad, I didn't notice the word "replace.

" You probably need to call it a "modification" already.]

Just another suggestion.

In my experience, designers of systems often want to be systematic, which is to be expected, and want to catch similar things under a single heading.

But why not describe a thing by two terms?

Some Loeb translations of Plato translate many a complicated Greek word into two English words, which works rather well.

You could say "Replace or add to text" , or "Replace/Add" if you want it shorter.

Question: Let's assume I have a text in the notepad: "Some Text".  If I enter more words after the text it will be an append ("Some Text Another Text"), otherwise it will be a prepend ("Another Text Some Text"), if I don't replace the text with a new text completely ("Another Text").  So I am trying to come up with a term for these actions. How do you call it?

I am trying to come up with a term for actions Replace/Prepend/Append

There are many different terms that you might use to replace the actions "Replace", "Prepend" and "Append", but some potential solutions include "Edit" or "Text Modification".

Some suggest using  "edit". Some suggest this is actually  "Text Modification" and the words being used are correct. It could be called a conjugation. One option is "Replace or add to text"

Simply "Edit". However, a more complete suggestion could be "Text Modification Options" followed by further information about "Appending to your text", "Prepending to your text" (or "Inserting before your text"), and "Replacing your text".

Suggestions include "Edit"; Text Modification"; or "Replace/Add to Text".

There is no agreement as to how these actions would be called collectively, but some suggestions might be "Edit", "Text Modification" or simply "Replace/Add".

Some suggest "edit"
This is "Text Modification"
The words you are using are correct.
It could be called a conjugation.
One option is "Replace or add to text"

Text Modification or Text Modification Options where you then give further information about "Appending to your text", "Prepending to your text" (or "Inserting before your text"), and "Replacing your text".


The latest edition of the Chicago Manual of Style recommends am and pm , with or without periods.

They used to be set in small caps, but that's falling out of favour.

You shouldn't use these abbreviations with the words morning, afternoon, evening, night, or o’clock.

There is no need to spell out times in an essay, although you might in creative writing or prose.

The important thing is to pick a convention, and be consistent.

According to an article on About.com : Dates, phone numbers, and time: Usenumbers for dates: My birthday is March 16.

He was born on Valentines Day, 1975.

And use numbers for phone numbers: The phonenumber for the school is 800-555-6262

And use numbers for time if using a.m. or p.m.:

The alarm will sound at 7 p.m. I make my bed at 7 a.m. eachmorning.

But spell out times whenusing "o'clock" or when the a.m. orp.m.

are omitted: The alarm will soundat seven o'clock.

I make my bed atseven each morning.

Several conventions exist to abbreviate ante meridiem and post meridiem - with or without periods and with capital or small letters.

11 am, 11 a.m., 11 AM, 11 A.M.

The choice is made based on regional or typographical factors.

"[...] departs at 10:48 P.M." is written in William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White's The Elements of Style .

The correct way to write a precise time when using the acronym of Ante or Post Meridiem is AM or PM in professional writing.

Sources: Common Errors in English Usage

The time stamp on your email, mobile phone, digital clock, Microsoft Windows, etc.

“A quarter of/to/till midnight” or “Eleven forty-five in the evening”

Question: When I am writing an essay, do I spell out times? How would I write AM or PM?  Example:     11:45 PM   How would I write that?

Do I spell out a time in an essay?

It is generally agreed that the correct way for writing Ante or Post Meridiem in professional writing is with "am" and "pm", with or without periods. This is recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style. However, there is no clear rule as to whether this should be written in capitals or lower case.

The latest edition of the  Chicago Manual of Style  recommends  am  and  pm , with or without periods.They used to be set in small caps, but that's falling out of favour. One shouldn't use these abbreviations with the words morning, afternoon, evening, night, or o’clock. There is no need to spell out times in an essay, although you might in creative writing or prose. Consistency is the key.  Ue numbers for time if using a.m. or p.m. as in " The alarm will sound at 7 p.m.  I make my bed at 7 a.m. each morning".  Some believe that there are several optional conventions and can be ased on regional or typographical factors.

The preferred abbreviation depends on the style guide.

Several conventions exist to abbreviate  ante meridiem  and  post meridiem  - with or without periods and with capital or small letters.  The latest edition of the  Chicago Manual of Style  recommends  am  and  pm , with or without periods. Others maintain that the correct way to write a precise time is AM or PM.   The choice may be made based on regional or typographical factors. However, some say that here is no need to spell out times in an essay, although you might in creative writing or prose.

The best way to write times may depend on regional or typographical factors and there may even be no need to spell them out at all. Similarly, there is no clear agreement regarding how to write ante meridiem or post meridiem, with suggestions including lower case, upper case and with or without periods. You might consider writing "11:45 PM" as "Eleven forty-five in the evening".

You shouldn't use these abbreviations with the words morning, afternoon, evening, night, or o’clock.

The important thing is to pick a convention, and be consistent.

And use numbers for time if using a.m. or p.m.:

The alarm will sound at 7 p.m. I make my bed at 7 a.m. eachmorning.

The choice is made based on regional or typographical factors.

S0: The latest edition of the  Chicago Manual of Style  recommends  am  and  pm , with or without periods.

S0: Several conventions exist to abbreviate  ante meridiem  and  post meridiem  - with or without periods and with capital or small letters.

S0: The correct way to write a precise time when using the acronym of Ante or Post Meridiem is AM or PM in professional writing.

The best way to write out times may well depend on regional or typographical factors.

There is no need to spell out times in an essay.

There are several ways of writing ante meridiem and post meridiem, though the Chicago Manual of Style recommend lower case without periods.

The correct way to write ante meridiem or post meridiem in professional writing is AM or PM.

You could write 11:45 PM as "Eleven forty-five in the evening".


The phrase " tableau vivant " which is French for "living picture "is defined in Wikipedia as The term describes a striking group of suitably costumed actors or artist's models, carefully posed and often theatrically lit.

Throughout the duration of the display, the people shown do not speak or move.

The approach thus marries the art forms of the stage with those of painting/photography, and as such it has been of interest to modern photographers.

The phrase is often shortened to "tableau".

Originally meant as a formation to be viewed from the front, perhaps "aerial tableau" would address your need.

The term you're looking for is crowd formation .

You will also find this term returns an acceptable range of pictures when searching .

This kind of photography was pioneered by Arthur Mole (a gallery of 24 of his pictures can be found here ).

The Wikipedia article refers to the pictures as performed group photography or "living photographs" (with quotes).

Indeed, a Google Image Search for "performed group photography" returns lots of relevant results, and a textual search returns more relevant results than one for "crowd formation".

Wouldn't it just be called a "formation" (like in [American] football)?

I don't know, but I would suggest a "busby", after the master of that particular art ("berkeley" probably has unwanted connotations).

See here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busby_Berkeley

Question: Is there a term for a group of people arranged in such a way as to appear from an aerial vantage as a specific shape, picture or word?  Examples:

Term for people in artistic formation

There are a few terms that might describe this phenomenon, including "tableau vivant" which is French for "living picture". However, since a tableau vivant is originally intended to be viewed from the front, a suitable term may also be "aerial tableau vivant". Another possible term could be "crowd formation".

The phrase " tableau vivant " which is French for "living picture "is defined in Wikipedia as   The term describes a striking group of suitably costumed actors or artist's models, carefully posed and often theatrically lit.hroughout the duration of the display, the people shown do not speak or move.The approach thus marries the art forms of the stage with those of painting/photography, and as such it has been of interest to modern photographers. Originally it was meant as a formation to be viewed from the front, so perhaps "aerial tableau" would address the requirement in the question.Another term may be "crowd formation" .

Suggestions include "Crowd formation" or  "Tableau vivant" which is French for "living picture".

Aerial tableau and crowd formation are suggested terms for people in an artistic formation.

It is not clear whether there is an officially accepted term, but potential names for this include "Aerial tableau" and "crowd formation".

Throughout the duration of the display, the people shown do not speak or move.

The phrase is often shortened to "tableau".

Originally meant as a formation to be viewed from the front, perhaps "aerial tableau" would address your need.

The term you're looking for is  crowd formation .


Targets implies a numerical goal.

Usually you hear this in sales meetings, as in "Our Q4 target for the sales team is $12M." Goal is a bit broader and more general.

Where target may imply a very specific goal, goal can be broader.

You can say "My goal is to lose weight this year," but using target there would sound odd because the general concept of losing weight isn't specific enough for that word.

You would more likely specify a quantity, as in "My weight-loss target is 15 lbs."

Nevertheless, you could use the two interchangeably.

There is nothing wrong with saying "Our Q4 goal for the sales team is $12M."

So, regardless of whether you use targets or goals, the verb should be are since they're plural.

In the usage you're describing, targets and goals are similar.

The biggest difference to me is that targets tend to be specific values while goals can be more generic.

For example if in 2011 I wanted to learn to ski, I would consider that a goal, but not really a target.

However, if I wanted to sell $10M worth of something for my company, I could call that a sales target.

It could also be referred to as a sales goal though, if you preferred.

If you're making a list that includes both types, I'd go with goals.

In addition to the other's answers, a helpful analogy for the differences between target and goal is found in sports.

A "target" will be an object focused on a specific point that the athlete is aiming to hit.

Success is measured in distance from that point.

A "goal" will be a larger object such as what is used in soccer/football or hockey.

Success for a goal will be anything that fits through the goal; it is either in or out.

The idea here is that a personal goal is something that is not necessarily focused on a particular, measurable point.

A target will be.

This distinction is mostly unofficial, however, and I am sure there are plenty of exceptions to what I am positing here -- even within the world of sports.

I think they are not difference much in common use.

Target is used to talk about short term goal.

When you talk about target, you already imagine how it will done.

Goal is broader and maybe you still don't know how to do it, you just know that is your goal

and you will be happy if you get it done.

Along the lines of MrHen's comment, I think of a "target" as something you want to hit - dead-on.

On the other hand a "goal" is something to be met or exceeded.

Further to Robusto's answer, I think "target" is not only more specific but more serious in its intention as well.

Our Q4 goal for the sales team is $12M. Compared to... Our Q4 target for the sales team is

$12M. One might interpret the latter as a required target, whereas the former may be interpreted or used as a way of specifying what the sales team would like to achieve.

As such, use of one or the other could influence the effect of its interpretation significantly.

It may be viewed as: A goal describes what you want to accomplish.

A key performance indicator (KPI) monitors progress towards a specificobjective.

A target is the value of a KPI at a defined moment in time.

A goal is an objective; a target has a numerical value.

For example, that the government wants to decrease inflation is an example of a goal.

If the government wants to decrease inflation to 2% , then that's a target because it has a numerical value.

Question: What are the differences in usage and meaning?   For example, is it,   My targets for 2011 are...   or    My goals for 2011 are...   Which one is correct or more suitable here?

What's the difference in meaning and usage between "target" and "goal"?

There are many possible differences in use between "target" and "goal", although they are not so different in common use. Targets are often used to talk about numerical or short-term goals whereas goals can be more generic. It's generally believed that the two can be used more or less interchangeably. On the other hand, in sports, a target represents a specific point that someone would aim to hit whilst a goal is a much larger object.

Targets imply a goal in numbers. However, where  target  may imply a very specific goal,  goal  can be broader, as in "My goal is to lose weight this year," but using  target  there would sound odd because the general concept of losing weight isn't specific enough for that word.You would more likely specify a quantity, as in "My weight-loss target is 15 lbs."  Nevertheless, you could use the two interchangeably.There is nothing wrong with saying "Our Q4 goal for the sales team is $12M." Some believe that "rarget" and "goal" in the  sample sentence similar as terms.If the aim includes both types of achievement; a target and a goal, both can be used.A helpful analogy to show the differnece comes from  "sport" where a "target" could be an object or specific point that the athlete is aiming to hit. Some people believe there is not much difference between the terms and "target" can also mean something short term.

Target  may imply a very specific goal, and  goal  can be broader. Some say that target may refer to a numerical or short-term goal.

The two words are very similar in meaning. However, whereas  target  may imply a very specific goal,  goal  can be broader. Targets tend to be specific values and numerical, while goals can be more generic and refer to objectives.  Target may also be used to talk about a short term goal.

It is generally agreed that "goal" and "target" are similar and used similarly in common usage. However, a "target" tends to have a specific value, whereas a "goal" is more of an objective. The word "target" may be used to refer to a short-term goal.

Where  target  may imply a very specific goal,  goal  can be broader.

You can say "My goal is to lose weight this year," but using  target  there would sound odd because the general concept of losing weight isn't specific enough for that word.

Target can be a specific value, whereas goals can be more generic.

If the list includes both types of achievement, use both.

A "target" will be an object focused on a specific point that the athlete is aiming to hit.

Target represents a focus, whereas goal represents an achievement.

Target is used to talk about short term goal.

It is generally agreed that "target" and "goal" are similar and there is not much difference in their common usage.

The most significant difference between a goal and a target is that a target tends to have a specific value, whereas a goal is simply an objective.

A target may be used to talk about a short-term goal.


This usage is informal but not incorrect .

I wouldn't use it in official business documents, but it can be freely used in speech or less formal contexts.

While statements like "seventy-three hundred" are rarer than their equivalents for numbers below 2000, they're perfectly intelligible and frequently used.

I work in a building at '4400 North First Street'; I'd never say anything other than 'forty-four hundred' for the address.

It is perfectly grammatical, and often very sensible.

It is certainly proper grammar.

From my experience, referring to four-digit numbers in the hundreds is more common in the US than in any other English-speaking country.

As for 7300 , seventy-three hundred is perfectly correct to say.

It really all boils down to the speaker's choice.

I must add, though, that for those numbers with three zeroes, thousand is preferred to hundred .

Thus, 3000 is better called three thousand than thirty hundred !

In some places, city blocks are always referred to in terms of hundreds.

For example, in Chicago it is normal to hear somebody talk about driving from the twelve hundred block to the seventy three hundred block of some street.

This means going from a block with addresses of 1200-1299 to a block with addresses 7300-7399.

It only works in cities with a regular grid layout where each street covers a range of exactly 100 addresses, but in that case the "hundred" is the basic unit, rather than the individual addresses themselves.

So, you can sort of think of twelve hundred being grammatically analogous to twelve kilograms or twelve apples.

In general, I never encounter it in formal written documents.

The only time I see it in writing is when somebody wants to explicitly capture a speaking style, such as an exact transcript, or dialog for a play.

However, when reading a document out loud which says "7300," it can sometimes be idiomatic to pronounce it as seventy three hundred instead of seven thousand three hundred. ("Our Chicago office is located on the seventy three hundred block of Wabash street.")

I can't exactly answer but I can add that Steve Jobs is often heard talking about numbers in that way during his public keynotes.

So I would say that it is proper business practice, at least orally.

I worked for a bank for 16 years.

We were taught that for writing checks, for an amount of $1200, the textual amount should be One thousand two hundred, not twelve hundred.

Not that Jeopardy! is the ultimate authority on such matters, but you can hear the "XX-hundred" format used four times in just over 30 seconds in this video clip – twice by the contestant, and twice by the host.

Clearly there's nothing wrong with this usage, and, in some contexts, it simply rings and flows more naturally than its "X-thousand, Y-hundred" counterpart.

Question: Sometimes you will hear people refer to four digit numbers in terms of hundreds. For example, sometimes people will say fifteen hundred when talking about the number 1500. Is this proper?   What are the rules of usage? In my personal experience, the hundreds notation is common for values less than 2000, but rare for larger values. Can I refer to 7300 as seventy-three hundred?  I know this has been discussed in  another question , but that was in terms of years. I'm asking about numbers in general.

Is it proper grammar to refer to four digit number in hundreds?

Referring to four-digit numbers using hundreds is informal but not incorrect. It may not be used in business documents, but usage will really depend on the speaker's preference. However, when a number has three zeros, such as 3000, it is much better to call it three thousand than thirty hundred. It's possible that this phenomenon is more common in the US than in other English-speaking countries.

The use in the sample sentence is an informal use, but it is correct and some people believe it can be used on official documents. While statements like "seventy-three hundred" are rarer than their equivalents for numbers below 2000, they're perfectly intelligible and frequently used.It can come down to a question of personal choice. Some people, however, have not seen it in formal written documents. Some people have only seen it in writing is when somebody wants to explicitly capture a speaking style, such as an exact transcript, or dialogue for a play.  It is sometimes used in grid layout cities. Somebody, for example, working in a building at '4400 North First Street'; might only say 'forty-four hundred' for the address.

This usage is  informal  but not  incorrect . It may flows more naturally than its "X-thousand, Y-hundred" counterpart. Although it might not be suitable in official business documents, it can be freely used in speech or less formal contexts.  However, this is largely down to the choice of the speaker and is also more commonly used in the US than in other English-speaking countries.

This form of speech is generally considered to be grammatically correct but informal and its use will be the choice of the speaker. However, this style would be unusual to find in written documents, but it is often used when referring to addresses. This form of speech may also be more common in the USA than other English-speaking countries. "Seventy-three hundred" is a perfectly acceptable way to say the number 7,300.

We were taught that for writing checks, for an amount of $1200, the textual amount should be One thousand two hundred, not twelve hundred.

It is perfectly grammatical, and often very sensible.

I wouldn't use it in official business documents, but it can be freely used in speech or less formal contexts.

I work in a building at '4400 North First Street'; I'd never say anything other than 'forty-four hundred' for the address.

From my experience, referring to four-digit numbers in the hundreds is more common in the US than in any other English-speaking country.

As for 7300 , seventy-three hundred is perfectly correct to say.

It really all boils down to the speaker's choice.

I must add, though, that for those numbers with three zeroes, thousand is preferred to hundred .

Thus, 3000 is better called three thousand than thirty hundred !

For example, in Chicago it is normal to hear somebody talk about driving from the twelve hundred block to the seventy three hundred block of some street.

This means going from a block with addresses of 1200-1299 to a block with addresses 7300-7399.

It only works in cities with a regular grid layout where each street covers a range of exactly 100 addresses, but in that case the "hundred" is the basic unit, rather than the individual addresses themselves.

So, you can sort of think of twelve hundred being grammatically analogous to twelve kilograms or twelve apples.

In general, I never encounter it in formal written documents.

The only time I see it in writing is when somebody wants to explicitly capture a speaking style, such as an exact transcript, or dialog for a play.

However, when reading a document out loud which says "7300," it can sometimes be idiomatic to pronounce it as seventy three hundred instead of seven thousand three hundred. ("Our Chicago office is located on the seventy three hundred block of Wabash street.")

This is an informal use, but it is correct.It can be used i official documents.

In banking circles, the pronunciation varies.

Informal but not incorrect.
It is grammatical.

This form of speech is generally considered to be correct grammar but informal.

You would be unlikely to find this style of language in written documents, but many city blocks are referred to in terms of "hundreds".

"Seventy-three hundred" would be considered a perfectly acceptable way to say 7,300.

This form of speech may be more common in the USA than other English-speaking countries.

Whether or not this speech is used will be subjective.


Generally, famous refers to recognition, and popular refers to reputation (of a person) or frequency (many people use a thing or visit a place).

Famous often, but not necessarily, has positive connotations.

Knowledge of the famous person, thing or event is widespread.

Popular usually has positive connotations, or when referring to a place, it means it is visited by many people.

The person, place or thing is largely well regarded among the people who know of it, but doesn't necessarily mean a lot of people know of it.

Perhaps it's easier understood with an example.

A famous restaurant: Is well known.

The name of the restaurant is recognized, perhaps because a well-known chef founded it, or it advertises a lot, or a well-known event occurred on the premises.

A popular restaurant:

It's usually busy.

The majority of people enjoy eating there.

Or maybe they don't, but they go there because the food is cheap, or it's the "place to be.

Outside of the people that eat there, it may or may not be well known.

A restaurant can be both famous and popular (everyone knows about the restaurant, and many of them go there), or popular but not famous (only the people that frequent the restaurant know of it), or famous but not popular (making it infamous ).

Famous means well known.

Popular means well-liked.

Something or someone that is well known, but not popular could be infamous, which isn't a lack of being known, but being known for a bad reputation.

Famous people are likely to be popular but it isn't necessary, e.g. George Bush.

Popularity does not necessarily imply fame either.

e.g. "You are quite popular in your class."

just means liked by many. '

Famous' cannot be used interchangably here.

A famous person is someone a lot of people know about.

A popular person is someone who is liked by people who know that person.

Famous means known by many people because of their achievements or works, while popular means liked by many people.

Suppose in a school there is a very beautiful girl who is always turning heads, and there is a very smart girl who is always topping the exams.

The former is likely to be popular while the latter is likely to be famous .

If a resturant is found to be contaminated by E Coli or have particularly bad food, it would become very famous, but not very popular.

Famous = "well-known".

Popular = "well-liked [main factor] and well-known".

An example: Rebecca Black is famous, but not popular.

Question: Is there any difference between  famous  and  popular ?

Is there any difference between "famous" and "popular"?

In general, the word "famous" refers to recognition whilst "popular" refers to reputation. Being "popular" usually has positive connotations whereas "famous" does not necessarily have to be positive.

Famous is well-known. Popular is well-liked.

Generally,  famous  refers to recognition or to someone that a lot of people know about, whereas  popular  refers to reputation or to someone who is liked by those who know him/her. In short, famous means well known, and popular means well-liked.

"Famous" generally refers to someone or something that is well-known, whereas "popular" generally refers to someone or something that is well-liked.

Outside of the people that eat there, it may or may not be well known.

Generally, famous refers to recognition, and popular refers to reputation (of a person) or frequency (many people use a thing or visit a place).

Famous often, but not necessarily, has positive connotations.

Popular usually has positive connotations, or when referring to a place, it means it is visited by many people.

The person, place or thing is largely well regarded among the people who know of it, but doesn't necessarily mean a lot of people know of it.

Perhaps it's easier understood with an example.

The name of the restaurant is recognized, perhaps because a well-known chef founded it, or it advertises a lot, or a well-known event occurred on the premises.

A restaurant can be both famous and popular (everyone knows about the restaurant, and many of them go there), or popular but not famous (only the people that frequent the restaurant know of it), or famous but not popular (making it infamous ).

Something or someone that is well known, but not popular could be infamous, which isn't a lack of being known, but being known for a bad reputation.

Famous people are likely to be popular but it isn't necessary, e.g. George Bush.

Popularity does not necessarily imply fame either.

Famous' cannot be used interchangably here.

A famous person is someone a lot of people know about.

A popular person is someone who is liked by people who know that person.

Famous means known by many people because of their achievements or works, while popular means liked by many people.

Popular = "well-liked [main factor] and well-known".

An example: Rebecca Black is famous, but not popular.

Famous refers to being well-known due to achievements, or works. Popular refers to being well-liked


The best choice for your construction would be over the weekend .

Neither.

The answer is “this weekend”, as in “I will see her this weekend .”

Depending on which weekend you mean, you could also say “next weekend”, which is the weekend following “this weekend”.

“On the weekend” is sometimes used, but sounds odd to me.

“During the weekend” would only be applicable if you were clarifying that you meant not before or after, but during the weekend.

I would suggest at the weekend as normal English usage.

It's pointless trying to make a case for any difference in meaning between any of these prepositions.

The main area where usage varies is that Americans favour "on the weekend" whereas Britons favour "at the weekend" Both nations also use over the weekend (for Americans, this is actually the most common form; for Brits, it's a close second).

But for Brits, during the weekend is the least favoured of these top four prepositions (it's second-to-bottom for Americans, who really don't like at the weekend).

And I'm pleased to report that in the weekend just isn't in the running according to NGrams!

Most speakers will be quite safe with this/next weekend , because most people in any particular linguistic community will have a common understanding of what these terms mean, but it's worth knowing that others may think differently , particularly when you're online and interacting with people who don't necessarily share your local idiomatic usage.

On the weekend is the normal usage.

You can use during the weekend if your meaning specifically involves periods of time rather than just sometime "on the weekend."

Question: Which is correct?   I will see her  on  the weekend.  I will see her  during  the weekend.

"On the weekend" or "during the weekend"

The answer to this question will be subjective and also subject to regional trends. In America, "on the weekend" is normal usage, whilst this would sound odd to British speakers. "During the weekend" is not a particularly common expression and "over the weekend" would probably be more common for all English speakers.

"Over the weekend" is the best answer. However some think that neither solution is  correct, whilst others believe "this weekend" is the answer as in " I will see her this weekend". Similarly, "On the weekend" is an unusual use and during the weekend” would only be applicable if you were clarifying that you meant not before or after, but  during  the weekend.These are mainly differences between UK and US English, with US using "on the weekend" and UK "at the weekend". "At the weekend" is the standrard English expression. Some believe that "this/ next weekend"  will be also understood by native English speakers.

On or during the weekend can both be used. Other possible suggestions, include this weekend, at the weekend, or over the weekend.

Although "on the weekend" is used (mainly in the US), it can sound strange to some people. Alternatives include "this weekend", "at the weekend", or "over the weekend". "During the weekend" may be used  if your meaning specifically involves periods of time rather than just sometime "at the weekend."

The answer to this question may be subjective and depend on regional variation. "On the weekend" would be considered acceptable depending on the region, and "During the weekend" could be used if you were referring to the weekend as a specific period of time. However, it is possible that neither choice is the best and that "Over the weekend" or "This weekend" may be more appropriate.

The answer is “this weekend”, as in “I will see her  this weekend .”

Depending on which weekend you mean, you could also say “next weekend”, which is the weekend following “this weekend”.

During the weekend” would only be applicable if you were clarifying that you meant not before or after, but  during  the weekend.

At the weekend is the normal English expression.

There are differences between UK and US English, with US using "on the weekend" and UK "at the weekend".

This/ next weekend will be also understood by native English speakers.

Other alternatives suggestions, this weekend, at the weekend, or over the weekend.

It is possible that the best choice would be neither of these phrases, with "this weekend" or "over the weekend" being potentially better choices.

"On the weekend" would be considered acceptable depending on the regional variant of English.

"During the weekend" would be acceptable if you referring to the weekend as a specific period of time.


In this context, toy is defined New Oxford American Dictionary as follows: an object, esp.

a gadget or machine, regarded as providing amusement for an adult So, yes, an iPad, or similar fancy electronic gadget, could be considered a "cool toy".

Other examples of toys are luxury cars or motorcycles.

Cool toy is not a technical term.

Here, cool is an informal way of saying excellent or fashionable ; see the definition number 7 at Merriam-Webster or Wiktionary .

What is cool is highly subjective; different people will have different opinions.

For example, some might say that iPhone is cool; others might disagree.

A cool toy doesn't have to be electronic.

For example, I think that LEGO is extremely cool.

(But again, others might disagree and say that Playmobil is cooler.)

Cool here is used informally to mean fashionable .

When the article says it is more than a cool toy , it means the toy is not just fashionable but has real value.

cool toy means a gadget that you just MUST have because it is is the latest 'thing', but you really don't need it.

In this context where it says more than just a cool toy , it means that it has a practical purpose that you can use for more meaningful tasks (not just to play with...).

A few month ago I said 'awesome gadget' than I walked around considering whether or not I should buy an iPad.

It's a cool toy nobody really needs it, but my wife.

Question: I found a word 'cool toy' in the following sentence in today's New York Times article:'Spending money on tablet computers may seem an extravagance, but some educators say they are more than just a cool toy.'What does 'cool toy' mean? What are typical items of cool toy, for instance? Are they electronic toys?

What does 'cool toy' mean?

It is generally agreed that "cool toy" is not a technical term and does not have to be electronic. It is mainly used informally to refer to something that is fashionable, such as a luxury car or motorcycle. However, what is classed as "cool" will be highly subjective.

Toys  can be luxury cars or motorcycles. "cool toys" is not a technical term.It is actually an informal way of saying "excellent" and is highly subjective. Neither does the toy have to be an electronic toy to be cool."cool" is used to mean "fashionable"

A cool toy may be fashionble or desirable. Examples of cool toys can include cars and motorcycles.

In this context, cool  is a way of saying  excellent  or  fashionable. However, when the article says it is  more than a cool toy , it means the toy is not just fashionable but that it also has real value or a practical purpose. This does not solely refer to electronics, - luxury cars or motorcycles may be referred to as "cool toys".

In this context the phrase "cool toy" refers to a fashionable gadget. A "cool toy" does not have to be electronic and other examples may include luxury cars or motorcycles.

Toys  can be luxury cars or motorcycles.

It is an informal way of saying "excellent" and is highly subjective.

It does not have to be an electronic toy to be cool.

A cool toy means fashionable or excellent,

More than a cool toy means it has realy practical value.

Other examples can includes luxury cars or motorcycles

The word "cool" is used in this context to informally declare that something is fashionable.

The phrase "cool toy" in this article is referring to a fashionable gadget.

Other examples of "cool toys" include luxury cars or motorcycles.

A "cool toy" doesn't have to be electronic.


Dishonesty and other vices are often seen as corruptions, or shortcomings in a person's character or composition.

An integral person, on the other hand, is whole.

Such a person is not lacking in moral virtues.

Etymology online has the following entry for integrity : mid-15c.,

"wholeness, perfect condition," from O.Fr.

integrité, from L. integritatem (nom.

integritas)

"soundness, wholeness," from integer "whole" (see integer).

Sense of "uncorrupted virtue" is from 1540s.

That doesn't answer why integrity also means honesty, but you can see that circa 1540 the word began being used to express "uncorrupted virtue," which implies honesty, as a virtuous person does not lie.

I'm not sure that integrity and honesty are entirely synonymous.

I think integrity is closer to the word consistent than the word honest.

Of course, you couldn't really be dishonest and have integrity because dishonesty requires inconsistency between your words and your thoughts.

I agree with @John

Weldon that integrity and honesty aren't synonymous.

So defining integrity becomes important, and I'm inclined to go with the crowd on that--integrity in a human being is a state of having all the important virtues.

Being "whole" or "complete" as a being of virtue.

There would probably be some disagreement about which virtues are required for integrity, of course.

In this view, honesty can be seen as a necessary condition of integrity--you can't be "integrated" without it--but you can be honest and still lack integrity if you also lack other crucial virtues.

I think people sometimes think of integrity as synonymous with honesty because it's one of the most obvious virtues, and one that most people can agree is necessary for integrity.

In the usage where integrity means honesty, it comes from a meaning that what you communicate and your actions/intentions are coherent with each other, forming a whole that has the property of integrity.

This question -> 1 <- was closed, but I don't see it as a duplicate of this one at all.

In the Mental Health professions, one speaks of "being Integrated" or "well Integrated", but the term "integrity" itself almost invariable has no special meaning.

Rather, it has the common usage that associates it with ethical or moral values.

A person could be "well integrated" i.e., in no way suffering from Associative Identity Disorder (the current term, not M.P.D.), and still have ethics or morals that their society would judge to be poor.

So, the answer to the closed question is No, 'Integrity' is not an antonym to 'Honesty', but 'Integrated' could certainly be considered one.

The answer to this question is that strictly speaking Integrity and Honesty are not identical, but in common usage what most other members of a society consider to be a whole, complete "well adjusted" person is usually one that they also consider honest.

Question: The word  integrity  meaning  wholeness  seems to come from the word  integer  which, roughly speaking, refers to whole numbers. Why does  integrity  also mean  honesty ?

Why "integrity" means "honesty"

It is not clear whether or not "integrity" and "honesty" are actually synonymous. In fact, integrity might be closer to the word "consistent". Integrity could also be better explained as "having all the important values", of which one may be honesty, although it is possible to be honest whilst lacking integrity.

Dishonesty and other vices are often seen as corruptions, or shortcomings in a person's character.An integral person, on the other hand, is whole However, integrity and honesty may not be entirely synonymous. it would be impossible to be dishonest and have integrity, because dishonesty requires inconsistency between your words and your thoughts.People sometimes think of integrity as synonymous with honesty because it's one of the most obvious virtues, and one that most people can agree is necessary for integrity.Integrity in a human being is a state of having all the important virtues.

Integrity means wholeness, soundness and uncorrupted virtue, which implies honesty.

Integrity and honesty are not entirely synonymous.  People sometimes think of integrity as synonymous with honesty because it is one of the most obvious virtues, and one that most people can agree is necessary for integrity.

It is not clear whether "integrity" and "honesty" are perfect synonyms or not. However, "integrity" may often be used to refer to "honesty" because honesty is seen is a necessary virtue in order for one to have "integrity".

A person could be "well integrated" i.e., in no way suffering from Associative Identity Disorder (the current term, not M.P.D.), and still have ethics or morals that their society would judge to be poor.

I'm not sure that integrity and honesty are entirely synonymous.

I think integrity is closer to the word consistent than the word honest.

Of course, you couldn't really be dishonest and have integrity because dishonesty requires inconsistency between your words and your thoughts.

I think people sometimes think of integrity as synonymous with honesty because it's one of the most obvious virtues, and one that most people can agree is necessary for integrity.

So defining integrity becomes important, and I'm inclined to go with the crowd on that--integrity in a human being is a state of having all the important virtues.

Being "whole" or "complete" as a being of virtue.

There would probably be some disagreement about which virtues are required for integrity, of course.

In this view, honesty can be seen as a necessary condition of integrity--you can't be "integrated" without it--but you can be honest and still lack integrity if you also lack other crucial virtues.

In the Mental Health professions, one speaks of "being Integrated" or "well Integrated", but the term "integrity" itself almost invariable has no special meaning.

Dishonesty and other vices are often seen as corruptions, or shortcomings in a person's character.An integral person, on the other hand, is whole. However, integrity and honesty may not be entirely synonymous. Some think "integrity" is closer to the word "consistent" than the word honest. Of course, it would be impossible to be dishonest and have integrity, because dishonesty requires inconsistency between your words and your thoughts. Being "whole" or "complete" is a virtue.Honesty can be seen as a necessary condition of integrity--you can't be "integrated" without it--but you can be honest and still lack integrity if you also lack other crucial virtues.  IThe answer to this question is that strictly speaking Integrity and Honesty are not identical, but in common usage what most other members of a society consider to be a whole, complete "well adjusted" person is usually one that they also consider honest.

Dishonesty and other vices are often seen as corruptions, or shortcomings in a person's character or composition.

Integrity and honesty may not be entirely synonymous.

Integrity means wholeness, soundness, perfect condition.

Integrity means uncorrupted virtue, which implies honesty.

It is unclear whether "integrity" and "honesty" truly are synonyms.

It is possible that "integrity" has become synonymous with "honesty" because "honesty" is seen as necessary for one to have "integrity".


Definitely "an".

The word X-ray is never pronounced any way other than "exray", and as has been discussed before, the choice of a or an is based solely on pronunciation, regardless of spelling.

Since X-ray is pronounced beginning with a vowel, it must be preceded by an .

'an', because how it sounds is what matters.

An interesting example is an hour , et.

al.

The fact that h is not considered a vowel from the article point of view says a lot about English pronunciation.

Another interesting example of article form leaking unusual information, from Life, the Universe and Everything : "I think," said Ford in a tone of voice which Arthur by now recognized as one which presaged something utterly unintelligible, "that there's an SEP over there.

It means that the author meant that SEP achronym is to be pronounced 'es ee pee' and never 'sep'.

In this situation you use "an", because phonetically the sound you are making (the X) starts with an "E": you hear "Ex - ray".

This is true of any letter that, when pronounced, sounds like it starts with a vowel, and often you will need to adapt your use of "a" or "an" even for the same letter.

For example: A Nasty cold was going around the office vs

An NHS doctor was the first to diagnose the bug

Phonetically you say "EN AITCH ESS", so you use "An NHS".

Likewise, as you say "EX-RAY", you say, "An X-Ray".

The way the word is pronounced is the key factor here, rather than the spelling.

Edit

: Looks like JSBangs beat me to it :)

"An X" is correct, as the pronunciation of the letter X has an initial vowel sound.

The choice of the indefinite article in English is purely phonetically based.

Since the pronunciation of the letter X is headed by a vowel, an is the natural choice.

Question: I was asking this question on Area 51: "How do I tell if an airport scanner is a X-ray scanner?", but I keep wanting to put an 'an' in front of X-ray because it starts with the 'eh' sound.  So is it 'a' or 'an'?

Does one use 'a' or 'an' before the word X-Ray?

The article used before a word is based on pronunciation, regardless of spelling. As a result, the article used in front of X-Ray should be "an".

The word  X-ray  is never pronounced any way other than "exray", and as has been discussed before, the choice of  a  or  an  is based solely on pronunciation, regardless of spelling.Since  X-ray  is pronounced beginning with a vowel, it must be preceded by "an". The choice of the indefinite article in English is purely phonetically based.Since the pronunciation of the letter X is headed by a vowel, " an" is the natural choice.

An X-Ray because X is pronounced as a vowel.

Since  the pronounciation of X-ray  begins with a vowel sound, it must be preceded by  "an".

"An" is the correct choice here because the pronunciation of "X-ray" starts with an initial vowel sound.

Since  X-ray  is pronounced beginning with a vowel, it must be preceded by  an .

Phonetically you say "EN AITCH ESS", so you use "An NHS".

An X-Ray because it phonetically sounds better


This varies greatly by geography.

In the Southeastern United States, it is not uncommon for some women to address or answer people--even strangers--of either sex with terms of endearment, such as Honey , Sugar , Sweetie , Darling , Baby , etc.

This practice is so intimately associated with "The South," that it will almost always be awkward or at best unusual for someone without a "southern accent" to speak in this way.

These terms do seem to be acceptable throughout the U.S. and Canada when speaking to a significant other or to very young children.

If this is not the way that you are known to speak, it could be awkward to use any of these terms to address a friend.

It does depend upon the genders of speaker and the addressee, and the cultural/geographical/linguistic background of the addressee.

I agree with Jay's answer, but would add that "Dear Sir", "Dear Mr. Smith", etc.

used to be (still are?)

considered standard openings for formal or business letters.

In this pro forma context, the word "dear" is nearly meaningless.

Perhaps at most, it means "I respect you, and I respect the tradition of opening my letter this way".

Taking the geographical oddities a little further in Cornwall (South West of the UK) complete strangers, normally women, may finish questions with the term 'my lover'.

IE "

That'll be seven sixty

my luuver" best pronounced with a distinct country burr.

Here in Australia there's an equivalent which is 'Darl' - short for darling, again best pronounced with a good Queensland aussie accent.

In answer to your question many couples have pet names, which are normally toe curlingly cute - fluff bunny, didums etc, but the use of darling, honey etc sounds a little 1950's to my English/Australian ear.

We use mate a lot, as in 'Cheers mate' for anyone we're interacting with - works for friends and aquaintances - but then Australia is known for being very informal.

In the American South, it’s quite common for women to address total strangers, as honey , sugar , baby , etc.

(On TV, black men do too, but I haven’t observed this first-hand.

It might be fiction.)

It’s a tricky thing because you’re taking a very familiar attitude.

If you’re a vigorous Southern woman with heaps of personality, it’s charming.

You’re just irrepressibly friendly.

For maximum effect, you have to give the impression that if the president of France walked in the diner door, you’d call him honey too.

But if you have to ask, don’t call people honey .

Most people don’t, and you especially shouldn’t.

You weren’t born into it.

You’ll stand out.

In fact, if your demeanor towards someone is otherwise professional, and especially if you are a man and that person is a woman, never address them using such terms.

It’s patronizing and offensive, an echo of the sexual attitudes of the 1950s and ’60s.

In Australia and New Zealand you'll hear any of the terms luv , mate , cuz , bro , darl , darlin , honey , sweets , cobber , dear , sir , ma'am and even on occasion buddy , you guys , jokers , blokes , sheilas , and so on.

It seems to depend on the individual as to when and how these terms are applied.

None of them are generally considered sexist or offensive when used casually but that too depends on the context because they can equally be used as terms of endearment or sarcastically.

At any rate, using any of the above terms to address another individual seems better than “hey you” and other less appropriate or derogatory terms such as babe , retard , wanker , asshole , and much worse.

However, even these horrid terms are used quasi-endearingly within groups of individuals, especially teens.

My mom uses the word 'love' when addressing her close friends.

Like by saying "Thanks, love!

Much appreciated!"

And also sometimes if I thank someone like a store clerk for their help, they will say "You're welcome, honey."

I think the word Dear is quite okay while addressing your close friends.

I do that very often

and it's not so awkward.

As for Honey.. that would mean a little more than friends, or extremely close friends who wouldn't mind being addressed anything at all!

In the end it all depends on your relationship with the friend to whom you are addressing.

As part of a new campus initiative, my college's student body had to take a sexual harassment test.

Interestingly enough this test claimed any term of endearment such as, "sweetie" or "honey" was a form of sexual harassment.

I live in Chicago, but in the South Eastern United States its not uncommon for friends to refer to each other in such a manner.

The novel A Confederacy of Dunces , which is widely championed for its depiction of Louisiana accents, frequently includes dialog where friends call each other "babe" and "honey.

It's more of a cultural thing than anything else, but as a general rule I would avoid using the terms in language or writing since they can have drastically different meanings.

If you use those words in the office then you feel some inclination towards those who you addressed.

Again it depends on geography.

Question: As far as I know  dear ,  darling , and  honey  are commonly used between lovers, but I suppose there are more words like that. What else is commonly used?  Which of these can be used to address a (close/not close) friend without sounding sarcastic or awkward?

Using "dear", "darling", or "honey"  to address a friend

It can depend on geographic regions. Many southern US states use  a range of terms of endearment such as "honey" , " sugar ",  "baby , etc. although these terms are used mainly for females. There are many other terms depending on the region, such as "my luvver" in Cornwall in the UK and "Darl" in Australia. In fact, Australians prefer the more generic "cheers mate" to greet anybody, and there are many other terms used to salute people including "cuz", "bro", etc. Dear  is also acceptable when addressing your close friends. However, in professional situations, more restrained terms of address are preferred, and some people dislike intimate terms of endearment altogether.

Terms like Honey, Darling, Love are generally acceptable between close friends, especially females. However in certain areas/countries it is more common to use when addressing acquaintances and strangers. Other terms include Baby, Sweetie, Sugar.

This varies depending on where you live, and also depending on your relationship with the friend you are addressing. However, suggestions include darling, dear, love, you guys, mate, honey, sugar, sweetie, baby, etc.

The answer to this question will depend on where you are in the world, who you're talking to and your relationship with them. All over the world, there are a range of different terms that might be usable, such as "darl", "buddy" or "lover". In the American South, for example, it is not uncommon for women to address even complete strangers as "honey" or "sugar".

Southern US, it is common for females to call other people, friends and strangers Honey, Sugar, Sweetie, Darling, Baby between friends and strangers

These names acceptable to call a partner or young children

In Cornwall UK, women often use 'my lover' to strangers.

Australians have many terms to address friends and aquintances including, Cheers mate, Darl, Bro, Honey, Sweets. Buddy etc

Terms like Love, Dear and Honey can be used to addressed close friends.

The answer to this question will depend on the region that you are in.

The answer to this question will depend on who you are talking to and your relationship with them.

Around the world, there are a range of terms that could be potentially used, such as "honey", "darl", "buddy" or "lover".

In the American South, it is considered quite normal for women to address even complete strangers as "honey" or "sugar".


You could always go with "I am looking to find a friendly environment where I can enjoy my work and the people I work with." :-)

However, "with whom" is clearly the correct form for your proposed wording.

Whoever suggested "whom with" was smoking dope or something it like.

Your second example is correct.

I don't believe I've ever seen "whom with".

"with whom" is correct, because your dependent clause is "with whom I work", and prepositions (emphasis on pre ) should in most cases introduce a prepositional phrase, except in some cases where it makes the statement seem awkward.

(BrE)

Although prescriptivists will lament, in British standard spoken English, I would say neither of these is the norm.

Nearly everyone will say: I am looking to find a friendly environment where I can enjoy my work and the people I work with.

Actually looking to find also sounds pretty formal to me, and enjoying people has certain overtones, so they'd be more likely to say:

I am looking for a friendly environment where I can enjoy my work and the company of the people I work with.

Forget the old 'rule' about not ending a sentence with a preposition.

Churchill killed that one, if it wasn't dead already.

In the UK, whom is now used mostly only in written English, and only after a preposition, so - with whom And this is what virtually all British-published English language courses for foreigners now teach.

You do occasionally hear someone use whom in spoken English, but they stick out like a sore thumb.

Believe me, whom is on the way out.

The "whom with" suggestion might actually refer to the "whom...with" structure, like: I am looking to find a friendly environment where I can enjoy my work and the people whom I work with

Question: I've been looking, but I have not come across this 'whom' related question anywhere. Specifically in this circumstance, I feel 'with whom' flows more naturally but I remember someone suggested that 'whom with' is actually the proper order since it is referencing 'the people'   I am looking to find a friendly environment where I can enjoy my work and the people whom with I work.   Or   I am looking to find a friendly environment where I can enjoy my work and the people with whom I work.

"with whom" or "whom with"

"With whom" is the correct phrase because the dependent clause is "with whom I work".

The second exampleof the sentence is correct.  One option is: "I am looking to find a friendly environment where I can enjoy my work and the people I work with."   "with whom" is clearly the correct form for your proposed wording.   "Whom with" is not the correct form. Another option is "I am looking for a friendly environment where I can enjoy my work and the company of the people I work with".  "Whom" is being less frequently used or indeed taught in English language courses.

"With whom" is correct and "whom with" is not used. However, many people would say " I am looking to find a friendly environment where I can enjoy my work and the people I work with".

In this case, the second example is the grammatically correct one. However, in reality, it is probably the case that neither example is the most accepted. You may be better off writing "I am looking to find a friendly environment where I can enjoy my work and the people I work with."

One option is: "I am looking to find a friendly environment where I can enjoy my work and the people I work with."  :-)

S0: "with whom" is correct, because your dependent clause is "with whom I work", and prepositions (emphasis on  pre ) should in most cases  introduce  a prepositional phrase, except in some cases where it makes the statement seem awkward.

Nearly everyone will say:  I am looking to find a friendly environment where I can enjoy my work and the people I work with.

Actually  looking to find  also sounds pretty formal to me, and  enjoying people  has certain overtones, so they'd be more likely to say:

I am looking for a friendly environment where I can enjoy my work and the company of the people I work with.

Forget the old 'rule' about not ending a sentence with a preposition.

In the UK,  whom  is now used mostly only in written English, and only after a preposition, so  -  with whom  And this is what virtually all British-published English language courses for foreigners now teach.

You do occasionally hear someone use  whom  in spoken English, but they stick out like a sore thumb.

With whom is the correct form
Whom with is not correct

In reality, the most accepted way of writing this sentence is probably neither option and would be "I am looking to find a friend environment where I can enjoy my work and the people I work with".


Robusto's answer does a good job explaining the meaning of the sentence, but for the sake of completeness, here's the origin of the phrase.

Apparently during the first World War, the Allies had an anti-tank grenade which was colloquially referred to as a "toffee apple"

thanks to the appearance of its bulb: In the John Wayne movie "Rio Bravo", one of the characters launches a "toffee apple" at the enemy lines and says the phrase "How you like them apples?

" referring, of course, to the bomb.

As movie phrases are wont to do, it entered popular consciousness as a boastful expression of triumph.

It is used as an expression of gloating when someone turns the tables on someone else.

There is a good example in the movie Good

Will Hunting , where Matt Damon's character (Will Hunting) gets a girl's phone number in a Harvard bar where he, coming from working-class South Boston, is, despite his extraordinary intellect, socio-economically out of his league and is insulted by the Harvard rich kid (Clark) whom he has bested — actually, destroyed — in an argument.

On the street later he sees his rival for the girl's attention through a restaurant window.

He goes up and raps on the glass to get the young man's attention, and the following dialogue occurs: Will: Do you like apples?

Clark:

Yeah.

Will:

Well, I got her number.

How do you like them apples?

It can also be used as an expression of surprise at a sudden turn of fortune.

I'm pretty sure that the phrase, "how do you like them apples," does not appear in the Wizard of Oz.

The apple tree says, "What do you think you're doing!"

and "How would you like to have someone come along and pick something off of you."

Rio Bravo was a western - no one shot a "toffee apple" mortar in the movie.

If they did use the phras, "how do you like them apples," it would be an anachronism, because the phrase was apparently popularized during World War I.

The British had a trench mortar that was called a "toffee apple."

The same mortar was alternately called, "plum pot."

Early in the war, before the "toffee apple" trench mortar was developed, soldiers made improvised explosive devices, grenades and mortars using empty "plum and apple" jam tins.

The words "plum" and "apple" may have been associated with mortars and grenades as a result.

Other grenades were also called "apples" during the war, so it was not always a specific reference to the "toffee apple"-style trench mortar.

But even though the expression became popular during the war, there is one known example (as far as I know) of the expression used in Texas in 1895 (also a t the above link ), so it may have been regional or not widely known before it spread in the trenches of WWI.

And its original meaning may not have had anything to do with trench mortars or grenades, even if they played a role in how troops understood or used the expression during the war:

Bryan is the best cotton market in this section of the state and has received more cotton than any other town in this section.

How do you like "them apples?"

The Eagle, (Bryan, Texas), September 26, 1895, page 2.

This phrase appears in the Wizard of Oz in 1939, years before rio bravo.

In the first scene with the Tin Man, a tree throws apples at him and says, "How do you like them apples!"

An episode of Perry Mason ("The Case of the Sunbather's Diary" Season 1, Episode 17) has the phrase as "How do you like those potatoes?"

A language book from the 1920s uses this version of the phrase in a setting that suggests the 'them potatoes' version was also popular: http://books.google.com/books?id=W9kRAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22how%20do%20you%20like%20those%20potatoes%22&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q=%22how%20do%20you%20like%20those%20potatoes%22&f=false Looking through Google Books, both 'them/those apples' and 'them/those potatoes' seem to only go back to about the 1920s in print, but the earliest version being a 1919 book of military history where it's listed, without elaboration, amongst humorous stories and sayings.

This suggests the military origin of the phrase to be correct, though in use before it was said in any movie.

As for the meaning -- older versions tend to use it as an expression of surprise, akin to "How 'bout that!"

or "I'll be!"

Nowadays, however, it's most commonly used as an expression of gloating.

(Person #1: "I got 20 points in the game!"

Person #2: "Well, I got 200, so how do you like them apples?")

Question: What exactly does this phrase mean and in which situations is it used?

How do you like them apples?

The term "How do you like them apples" is generally used as an expression of gloating and can be used when someone turns the tables on someone else or to express surprise at a sudden change of fortune.

The phrase can be used as an expression of gloating when someone turns the tables on someone else. It can also be an expression of surprise at a sudden turn of fortune. Some people believed it first appeared in the movie the "Wizard of Oz", some don't think it did. There have been other references to the term in movies. It is also believed to have originated in WWII when the British had a piece of equipment called a "toffee apple". Today, it is used as expression of gloating.

It is used as an expression of gloating but can also be used as an expression of surprise.

Nowadays, it is most commonly used as an expression of gloating when someone turns the tables on someone else.

It is used as an expression to gloat at someone else's misfortune.

It is used as an expression of gloating when someone turns the tables on someone else.

It can also be used as an expression of surprise at a sudden turn of fortune.

Nowadays, however, it's most commonly used as an expression of gloating.

The British had a trench mortar that was called a "toffee apple."

The same mortar was alternately called, "plum pot."

Early in the war, before the "toffee apple" trench mortar was developed, soldiers made improvised explosive devices, grenades and mortars using empty "plum and apple" jam tins.

The words "plum" and "apple" may have been associated with mortars and grenades as a result.

Other grenades were also called "apples" during the war, so it was not always a specific reference to the "toffee apple"-style trench mortar.

Also an expression of surprise at a sudden turn of fortune.

S0: This phrase appears in the Wizard of Oz in 1939, years before rio bravo.

S1: In the first scene with the Tin Man, a tree throws apples at him and says, "How do you like them apples!"

It is used as an expression of gloating.

It can be used as an expression of surprise.


When used in the context of "fine-grained control", for example, it carries the connotation of "very precise": a volume knob that gives you fine-grained control means that you can set your volume to the exact level that you desire, you don't have to choose only between "too quiet" and "too loud".

I can't find a reference on this, but I think the etymology comes from sandpaper.

Sandpaper is made with grains (originally sand) and if you make coarse-grain sandpaper you can quickly remove lots of unwanted wood, but the result is rough.

If you make fine-grain sandpaper you can smooth or polish the wood to a high degree, with great control, but the work is slower because the smaller grains don't remove as much wood.

This metaphor extends into other tools where the tools offer control of minute details in order to achieve specific results.

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

It just means what it sounds like: comprised of smaller entities.

This could imply higher quality or fidelity if smaller entities make the system's overall properties better.

The sandpaper analogy reads very well.

In pre-digital photography, "grains" of light-sensitive silver nitrate were used to capture images.

It gets very technical, very fast,

but I think it's safe to say "the smaller (finer) the grain, the higher the possible image resolution: Wikipedia search results

In Computer Science (as you're looking for), coarse-grained means ' monolithic ' fine-grained means ' modulized ' or ' devided into smaller pieces ' For examples, there are many kinds of architecture for web services: monolithic architecture is coarse-grained architecture.

microservice architecture is fined-grained architecture.

These meanings are illustrated in this article .

Question: I always see "fine-grained" in technology articles. What does it mean?

What does "fine-grained" mean?

The term "fine-grained" can have various meaning depending on context, although in the context of "fine-grained control" it carries the connotation of being "very precise". It could alos refer to the level of detail or the resolution of images. In Computer Science, "fine-grained" means "modulized" or "divided into smaller pieces".

When used in the context of "fine-grained control", for example, it carries the connotation of "very precise":  a volume knob that gives you fine-grained control means that you can set your volume to the exact level that you desire, you don't have to choose only between "too quiet" and "too loud". The etymology comes from sandpaper which is made from grains and you can smooth or polish the wood and by extension to other tools. In photography, grains of silver nitrate were used to capture images. It suggests higher fidelity because of the smaller entities involved. Similar terms are used in Computer science and architecture.

Fine grain means it is made up of small entities to make it very precise.

There is no clear definitive answer, but in the context of technology, "fine-grained" could either mean that it provides precision control over something or is comprised of smaller entities.

Sandpaper is made with grains (originally sand) and if you make coarse-grain sandpaper you can quickly remove lots of unwanted wood, but the result is rough.

If you make fine-grain sandpaper you can smooth or polish the wood to a high degree, with great control, but the work is slower because the smaller grains don't remove as much wood.

This metaphor extends into other tools where the tools offer control of minute details in order to achieve specific results.

In pre-digital photography, "grains" of light-sensitive silver nitrate were used to capture images.

"the smaller (finer) the grain, the higher the possible image resolution:  Wikipedia search results

The suggestion is that it is comprised of smaller entities.

Implying higher quality or fidelity if smaller entities make the system's overall properties better.

In Computer Science (as you're looking for),    coarse-grained  means ' monolithic '  fine-grained  means ' modulized ' or ' devided into smaller pieces '   For examples, there are many kinds of architecture for web services:   monolithic  architecture is  coarse-grained  architecture.

microservice  architecture is  fined-grained  architecture.

Fine grained means it is made up of small entities.

In the context of technology, "fine-grained" could be that it provides more precise control.

In this context, "fine-grained" could simply mean that it is comprised of smaller entities.


I'm not sure about this rugby scrum origin theory.

I found a snippet of a 1981 William Safire column in New York Times Magazine article that indicates this guess was put forth by an AJ Gracia of Southbury, Connecticut.

It goes on to call it an "offbeat etymology." Etymonline has the phrase dated from 1958, but with no mention of rugby.

I found the phrase used over a decade earlier ( 1947 ) in the English translation of Haitian Jacques Romain's Masters of the Dew done by Langston Hughes and Mercer Cook.

Again, no rugby context: It would be interesting to know what original French phrase was translated as such.

Hughes went on to use the phrase again in Simple Takes a Wife , 1953—the

next reference I can find in print.

Edit :

Safire wrote another column on the phrase in 1997 which drops the mention of rugby altogether.

He concludes "a black-English origin for the phrase is pretty likely" and cites a 1954 example, four years earlier than OED 's earliest reference (1958).

He also dug up this more plausible origin of the phrase: Other evidence there of the phrase's black origin is a recollection from Norman Pierce of Jack's Record Cellar in San Francisco of Shove Day, or Bump Day, the traditional Thursday off for domestic servants in the 1920's, ''on which blacks 'accidentally' jostled whites in public places, railways, streetcars, etc.''

Edit #2 :

I just found another antedating of the phrase.

These are from Black Thunder by Arna Wendell Bontemps (close friend of Langston Hughes), 1936:

Answers.com also cites the rugby reference.

It also notes the other meaning of the phrase as in "They supposedly support equality, but when push comes to shove they always seem to promote a man instead of a woman".

I think the difference is "if" vs. "when".

I see think the "when" meaning is more prevalent.

It means "when actually tested".

Push is just a push, and things have escalated to a shove now.

It now means business.

Escalate to get the thing accomplished.

According to this site , this term comes from rugby, where, after an infraction of rules, forwards from each team face off and push against one another.

Well my understanding of the phrase has always been this: Pushing and shoving is a way of referring to fighting, particular little man-to-man arguments.

They start with a push and a shove, so when "push comes to shove", it means a fight will break out.

Fighting is the last resort, or at least the least desired outcome of an argument.

In one of the Discworld books, Terry Pratchett alludes to the origin of this word as being midwifery (I think it's Nanny Ogg who has the relevant line).

I imagine he just made this up though...

The earliest instance of the idiom I found is from Central Valley project of California: Hearings .

United States.

Congress.

House.

Committee on Flood ControlFebruary 7-9, 1935 : page 52

It's my guess that the idiom is derived from the fixed expression push and shove , which Wikipedia calls Siamese twins or binomials.

The order of the words are never reversed and they are usually conjoined by the words and or or .

The words constituting a Siamese twins phrase may be synonyms , antonyms, include alliterations or similar-sounding words that often rhyme.

The combination: push and shove is firmly rooted in the 19th century (earlier instances I did not find in Google Books) and clearly expresses a frustrated type of struggle, where people or animals have to fight each other in order to reach their objective.

As seen in the following excerpts: Young Men's Christian Association , 1903

The Nursery by Fanny P. Searverns 1867

The Donkey and The Pigs

The London Review and Weekly Journal of Politics, Literature, Art... 1860 For the rest of us

, we push and shove ourselves into the best places, after the manner of Englishmen, that is, to our mutual discomfort, and without the least necessity ; and then we look round, and compose ourselves, to the due enjoyment of the imposing spectacle.

Missionary Chronicle Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. Board of Foreign Missions, Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A .

Some go about begging and push and shove one another, [each greedy to get first].

Others go about begging unthreshed rice of the donor.

They strive for food, transgressing the rules of propriety.

They do not properly demean themselves.

From push and shove to "when push comes to shove" the path seems to me fairly straightforward.

After all what is a shove if not a more decisive and aggressive type of push?

A shove represents a surge of energy, the last resort, the final action when no alternative option is available.

I suspect it might have its origins in the 16th and early 17th century English, during the English Civil War.

The phrase that comes to mimd is a description of what happens when opposing pike blocks engaged in melee.

It was described as push of pike and musket butt.

That phrase would have percolated through the population easily since the civilian population was intimately associated with the armies.

It could easily morph into push comes to shove as that rolls off the tongue so easily and aptly describes the soldiesr in the pike blocks doing exactly that.

Question: "When push comes to shove" means "as a last resort" or "if absolutely necessary". Does anyone know why the phrase came to be used in this way?

What is the origin of the phrase "when push comes to shove"?

There is no clear agreement as to the exact origins of the phrase "when push comes to shove", although it's possible that it's meaning is essentially "when actually tested". There is a William Safire column from 1981 in the New York Times Magazine that proposes its possible origins, and it may possibly be related to a rugby scrum.

It could have a rugby-related origin, but it has been seen in a 1947 book by Jacques Romain. Answers.com provides rugby-related references. One interpretation is that it means "if" v "when" with "when" being stronger.Another interpretation is that it means "when it is tested". It has developed to mean "to escalate" which is used in a business environment. It is also interpreted as starting something small, like a small fight that escalates into something bigger, the least desirable outcome of an argument. It may also have originated in the English Civil War in relation to opposing pipe blocks.

The origin may have come from rugby and the scrum or it may have come from a midwifery term.

Terry Pratchett alluded to the origin of this expression as being from midwifery. However, others claim that it comes from the expression "push and shove", or from 16th and early 17th century English, during the English Civil War.

There is no clear answer to this question, but possible origins could be midwifery, the English Civil War or the fixed expression "push and shove".

I'm not sure about this rugby scrum origin theory.

I found a snippet of a 1981 William Safire column in New York Times Magazine article that indicates this guess was put forth by an AJ Gracia of Southbury, Connecticut.

I found the phrase used over a decade earlier ( 1947 ) in the English translation of Haitian Jacques Romain's Masters of the Dew done by Langston Hughes and Mercer Cook.

It also notes the other meaning of the phrase as in "They supposedly support equality, but when push comes to shove they always seem to promote a man instead of a woman".

I think the difference is "if" vs. "when".

I see think the "when" meaning is more prevalent.

Push is just a push, and things have escalated to a shove now.

Well my understanding of the phrase has always been this: Pushing and shoving is a way of referring to fighting, particular little man-to-man arguments.

They start with a push and a shove, so when "push comes to shove", it means a fight will break out.

Fighting is the last resort, or at least the least desired outcome of an argument.

S8: Safire wrote  another column  on the phrase in 1997 which drops the mention of rugby altogether.

There are other rugby references: Answers.com  also cites the rugby reference.

S5: It's my guess that the idiom is derived from the  fixed expression  push and shove , which Wikipedia calls  Siamese twins  or binomials.

S6: The order of the words are never reversed and they are usually conjoined by the words  and  or  or .

S7: The words constituting a Siamese twins phrase may be  synonyms , antonyms, include alliterations or similar-sounding words that often rhyme.

S8: The combination:  push and shove  is firmly rooted in the 19th century (earlier instances I did not find in Google Books) and  clearly expresses a frustrated type of struggle, where people or animals have to fight each other in order to reach their objective.

S22: A  shove  represents a surge of energy, the last resort, the final action when no alternative option is available.

It may have origin in the English Civil War.

The origin may be from rugby, describing a scrum.


I did some searches in the Corpus of Contemporary American English and compared the results to similar searches in the British National corpus .

What I found was that overall, in American English there was a 7.9-to-1 ratio of

don’t to do not .

With breakdowns by type: SPOKEN 19.6FICTION 17.9MAGAZINE 7.5NEWSPAPER

7.7ACADEMIC 0.5TOTAL 7.9

In British English overall, the ratio was 4.4-to-1 in favor of don’t , with breakdowns by type: SPOKEN 56.9FICTION 16.8MAGAZINE 4.1NEWSPAPER 3.4NON-ACAD 0.9ACADEMIC 0.2MISC 0.9

So, if it is reasonable to conclude anything from this data, it is that Americans overall use don’t about twice as frequently as the British, but the British use don’t in speech about 2.9 times more frequently than Americans.

In any case, these are not big enough ratios to be noticeable by anyone not counting every incidence.

I think we use "don't" and "can't" almost exclusively in normal conversation here in the U.S. "Do not" and "cannot" are reserved for making special emphasis or dramatic effect.

But we have a long history of using the word "don't" — particularly in admonishing our former colonial masters.

Have a look at this colonial American flag (Gadsden Flag, source: Wikipedia).

And its naval equivalent:

I'm new to the site.

I stumbled across this forum question, because as a British ESOL Tutor, living in the USA for the past 25 years, my lesson for my students tonight is about "contractions"!

I, from my own personal experience have observed and noted, that the spoken contraction (don't) is definitely 'spoken' less frequently, by all and sundry, around Palm Beach County where I reside.

In fact, as a Brit, I treasure be a proud and frequent speaker of contractions, especially (don't!)

but my oldest teenage son and his teenage buddies rarely speak this contraction.

They, in fact, to my observant ear, only say "do not"!

I'm constantly admonishing my son for not saying "don't!

", instead choosing his wording in a similar vein to his fellow teens.

I will, however, bring to your attention, that my son likes to text IDK, in place of "I don't know".

Which then makes me in turn chuckle, because of his infrequent use of the contraction "don't".

I need to draw to his attention

his acronym doesn't make sense unless he actually uses the contraction "don't" in his conversation, because his acronym should instead read IDNK (I do not know)!

I don't doubt that we say "don't" in the US as much as our cousins across the pond.

That is, I expect usage is similar in the US and UK.

I've voted for nohat's answer, because of the evidence, but I offer my observations anyway:

I find that Americans generally use accepted contractions, including don't .

I rarely hear do not except for emphasis.

Another data point:

In Star Trek:

The Next Generation , Worf and Data are conspicuous for their contraction-free speech, again including don't (Worf is formal by choice; Data has some kind of weird programming deficiency).

This is actually played up in the show from time to time.

Everyone else uses don't freely.

When I was young

I was taught not to use contractions in my written works.

I wonder if the same English style conventions were taught in the UK, and if that has any effect on American and UK script writers or not.

I believe children are now being taught to write more conversationally, and contractions are not frowned on in written language as much as they used to be.

Question: This is really a question for Americans.  When watching US TV or films, it's often my impression that—while using all the other contractions—Americans don't seem so keen on 'don't' and use 'do not' rather more often than we Brits. I also don't think this difference only occurs when it is stressed.  Any comments?

Do Americans say "don't" as often as the British?

It is possible that there is a difference in the level of usage of "don't" between the UK and the US, and there is data to suggest that Americans use it about twice as much as the British overall but that the British use "don't" about 2.9 times more frequently in speech than Americans. However, the differences are not big enough to be easily noticeable.

If examined the COCA regarding UK and US use of "don't" and "do not", the results show the UK speakers using "don't"  with 4.4.ratio-to-1 .The conclusion, it is that Americans overall use  "don’t"  about twice as frequently as the British, but the British use  "don’t" in speech about 2.9 times more frequently than Americans. These are, however, not big enough ratios to determine distinctive differences. So "don't" and "can't" is almost exclusively in normal conversation in the U.S. "Do not" and "cannot" are reserved for making special emphasis or dramatic effect. However, there seems to be a  degree of personal pride among British people in using contractions, although UK teenagers may not use "don't" frequently despite using IDK in text speech, as from anecdotal experience. It may be the educational experiences are different.

Don't and can't are used as frequently in the US as the UK.

It is generally considered that Americans use the word "don't" extensively.

It is generally believed that Americans use the contraction "don't" as often as British speakers.

in the  Corpus of Contemporary American English  and compared the results to similar searches in the  British National corpus .

"don't" and "can't" is almost exclusively in normal conversation n the U.S. "Do not" and "cannot" are reserved for making special emphasis or dramatic effect.

British English overall, the ratio was 4.4-to-1 in favor of  don't.

So, if it is reasonable to conclude anything from this data, it is that Americans overall use  don’t  about twice as frequently as the British, but the British use  don’t  in speech about 2.9 times more frequently than Americans.

These are not big enough ratios to be noticeable by anyone not counting every incidence.

S1: I find that Americans generally use accepted contractions, including  don't .

S2: I rarely hear  do not  except for emphasis.

S2: I wonder if the same English style conventions were taught in the UK, and if that has any effect on American and UK script writers or not.

S3: I believe children are now being taught to write more conversationally, and contractions are not frowned on in written language as much as they used to be.

Don't and can't are used frequently in the US and is generally excepted.