The answer is simple.

You just need to think about how you learned your native language.

By ear.

Children learn how to speak their native tongue first, and only then learned the grammar and spelling.

Thus, many will "sound" a word out to spell it.

English language learners, on the other hand, usually learned how to spell a word first, and focused on pronunciation later.

I think that the same goes for all languages.

Native speakers that do not take the time to learn their own language properly, or that do not read much, tend to misspell homophones.

In French, for instance, many people will replace infinitive form (« manger », to eat ) with past participle (« mangé », eaten ), or confuse « ses » and « ces

» (his,her vs these).

Astonishingly enough, foreigners that study the language do not have this homophony problem in their “source language” and therefore are aware of a grammatical difference.

It sounds like people assume translation is mathematically speaking an injective thing.

The confusion is that in many UK (and probably US) schools the difference is not taught.

The use of the apostrophe is considered by many to be totally confusing and so it is omitted in many places where it is required.

There is a name for the addition of extra apostrophes in places where they are not needed.

These are "Grocers' Apostrophes" which refers to the common sight on market stalls and grocers' shops where the price labels may erroneously refer to "Banana's" or Apple's".

Sometimes I wonder how often this mistake is made out of carelessness, versus ignorance.

I'm well-versed in the difference

betweent the two, yet

I've still made the gaffe on occasion.

Due to the homophoneous nature of the words, the mistake is easily made while typing, and particularly easy to miss while proofreading, too.

In American English (I can't speak for other varieties), even though the two are both spelled and pronounced distinctly in standard writing and slower articulate speech respectively, they tend to be pronounced the same in regular speech.

you're =

\yər, ˈyu̇r, ˈyȯr, ˌyü-ər\ and your = \yər, ˈyu̇r, ˈyȯr\ (from Merriam-Webster, with American rhotic pronunciation).

Note that the only difference is the one variant for "you're".

So it is understandable that there is the possibility of mistaking one for the other.

This pair, like other homophones are often mentioned explicitly in language studies in elementary school in the US.

Making the mistake later in life is usually simply a one time mistake (like the other homophones).

If the mistake is systematic then that is probably a sign of lack of concern for orthography.

I think people get confused because the apostrophe is used in possessives as well as contractions, but in this case the possessive

your has no apostrophe.

Not an answer as such, but I'm sure this might help some people: http://yourandyoure.com/ :)

Question: I have seen many comments on different blogs and forums where English native speakers spelled  you're  as  your . I'm not a native speaker, but I know and understand the difference between the two. Why is there a confusion?  My initial guess is that  your  and  you're  have similar pronunciation and because I carry some accent from my native language (Romanian) I can identify the difference better.  Edit  (thanks Chris): The same can be asked for other homophones:  there/their/they're ,  its/it's .

"Your" vs. "you're": Why the confusion?

Thes two words tend to be pronounced the same in regular speak and it's possible that in many UK and US schools, the difference is not taught. Furthermore, native speakers are naturally more susceptible to making spelling errors with homophones.

It is believed that the confusion arises because the spoken language is generally learnt first then the spelling, but for English speakers, they learn the spelling first and then the pronunciation. However, some believe that the spelling comes first and then the pronunciation afterwards, which is the cause of the confustion. Equally, native English speakers do not learn their language correctly and confuse homophones; words spelt and pronounced the same. Some believe this homophonic difference is not properly tuatht in schools, although others suggest it is explicitly outlined in elementary schools in the USA. Some people believe that the presence of the apostrophe, also known as the Grocer's apostrophe can cause confusion because it is also used in contraction and possessive forms. It is considered that the mistake is either carelessness or just poor attention to orthography.

Sometimes this mistake is made due to carelessness and sometimes due to ignorance.  Even though the two are both spelled and pronounced distinctly in standard writing and slower articulate speech respectively, they tend to be pronounced the same in regular speech.   Due to the homophoneous nature of the words, the mistake is easily made while typing, and particularly easy to miss while proofreading, too. Native speakers that do not take the time to learn their own language properly, or that do not read much, tend to misspell homophones.

Native speakers that have not learned their own language properly, or that do not read much, tend to misspell homophones.

There is regular confusion with these two words because they are pronounced the same in regular speech. Furthermore, the difference may not be taught very well in English-speaking countries and native speakers a naturally more susceptible to making spelling errors with homophones.

The confusion is that in many UK (and probably US) schools the difference is not taught. The difference is not often taught.

In American English (I can't speak for other varieties), even though the two are both spelled and pronounced distinctly in standard writing and slower articulate speech respectively, they tend to be pronounced the same in regular speech.

You learn the correct spelling from the pronunciation.

Native speakers do not learn their own language correctly, read very little and so mispell homophones. This is not the case for foreign learners of English.

The confusion arises because the difference is not taught.

Although some say the difference is taught .

The placement of the apostrophe is often incorrect.

The confusion is due to carelessness rather than ignorance. However, sometimes the mistake can be just a once off or indeed it can be careless orthography.

Native speakers in general are more likely to misspell homophones.

It could be that the difference between these two words is not taught very well in English-speaking countries.

Although both are written differently, they are pronounced the same in regular speech.


The statement "I win" is typically used to declare that the subject has just won the game.

Before the statement, it may well not be known that a "win" has occurred.

Indeed, because the action is so extremely recent in the past, it is effectively considered the present.

While you technically may be right in that the win occurred in the past, language does not make this distinction.

Call it an idiomatic usage case, if you will.

I wouldn't over-analyse the reason.

I disagree with the accepted answer in its explanation.

If you've just had lunch, you'd say "I ate" (past-tense) and not "I eat" (present tense) - even if you're saying it "just a few seconds after" having lunch.

It is absurd to argue that "I win" is used because the winning has only happened in the recent past, it is being carried over to the present (although a runner might say "I win" as he is overtaking another runner).This is sledging , whereas the usage above is clearly about semantics/phraseology.

When you say "I win," you're being helpful - by effectively speaking for/on behalf of an umpire/adjudicator (or a referee), who is the proper authority to declare the winner.

Conventionally, an umpire would say "Player X wins ", and not "Player X won ".

If there was a third person (acting as an adjudicator) physically present, and he declares one of the two players the winner, you'd certainly say " I won! "

even if it was immediately/seconds after.

In linguistics, there are three honorifics assigned to any discourse : the speaker, the hearer and the bystander.

Here, the speaker is speaking for the invisible bystander.

You're also likely to say " I won! "

with a particularly tough-to-beat opponent, implying incredulity/emphasis.

I think you can use both.

I win means I've won when the game has just finished.

I've won means for example that you've won 30 minutes ago.

You can call something that happened 2 minutes ago by present, not past.

There are elements of RaghuramMK's and Noldorin's answers at play here.

I do think an exclamation of "I win!"

at least in part serves as an answer to "OK, so who wins?"

(even if that question wasn't explicitly asked).

I believe this is its grammatic function, if you will.

It's a declaration, like a shorter form of "I am victorious!".

I also think there is some period of time beyond which the winner stops saying "I win" and switches to saying "I won", and it's not very long.

But how long depends a lot on the venue and the emotional magnitude of the victory.

Someone who has just won a world championship might be screaming "I win!

I win!

I win!"

for what seems like quite a long time, as they run around in celebration.

Whereas if my brother beats me in a casual game of cards, he might say "I win" as he plays the last card, with the "winning moment" lasting less than one second.

Usage varies, of course, but I would only use

I win in situations where it's pseudo-future.

Chess commentaries commonly say '...and

Black wins in 3 moves', meaning that the game, though technically still in progress, is effectively over.

There, wins could be replaced by will have won , since the game reported on has finished (presumably by White's resignation); if I were Black in that situation I could say I will win in three moves or I win in three (or, of course, Mate in three ).

The gloating phrase would be "I've won!"

I'm winning

I'm winning this time (while the game continues).

I've won

I've won this time.

(after it is over).

Question: For a long time I was wondering why there is  I win  instead of  I won . I met such usage in a lot of games and movies.   For me, it's logical to say  I won , because this  winning  action is done already.  I win  for me seems like  I'm winning right now .  Can anyone clarify this for me?

Why do we say "I win" instead of "I won"?

Both "I win" and "I won are considered acceptable. However, "I win" is mainly acceptable because it is used to declare that the subject has just won the game.

There are divergent opinions as to whether this is expressing a present tense or a past tense or both. For some, it means the "winning" has just occurred and because this occurred so recently in the past, it is considered a present event. In fact, before the declaration of winning, it may not be known if a "win" has occurred. Others contest, that you are effectively speaking for the absent "referee" or "umpire" or the invisible bystander. Finally, others believe that "I win" simply means you are saying you won the game that has just finished; you can use the present for something that happened in a very near past i.e something that occurred 2 minutes ago.

The statement "I win" is typically used to declare that the subject has just won the game.  I've won  means for example that you won 30 minutes ago. When you say "I win," you're being helpful - by effectively speaking  for/on behalf of an umpire/adjudicator  (or a referee), who is the proper authority to declare the winner. But you can use both.

The statement "I win" is typically used to declare that the subject has just won the game. It's an idiomatic declaration, like a shorter form of "I am victorious!". Because the action is so extremely recent, it is effectively considered the present. However, both "I win" and "I won" can be used.

Both "I win" and "I won are considered acceptable. However, "I win" is mainly acceptable because it is used to declare the winner in the present.

It means the "winning" has just occurred. It may not be clear that this had occurred before the declaration of the win.

It is expressing the present tense occurence of the event and not the past.

The speaker is speaking for the invisible bystander.

There's a period of time after which the winner would start saying I won.

The phrase "I win" is generally used to declare the winner in the present.

Because the action occurred so recently in the past, it could be considered the present.

Both "I win" and "I won" are considered acceptable.


I think informally, they have the same meaning.

However, the phrase "a lot" refers to an indeterminate unit of measure (which may in certain contexts actually be determinate, e.g. land measurements).

So, technically, "lots of" should be more than "a lot of", since the latter refers to a single unit of measure, and the former refers to multiple units of the same measure (if used in the same context).

Both phrases are very informal; however, there is a denotation for "lot" that indicates "a group" e.g. "a job lot" or, at an auction, one "unit" that is being bid upon.

This is not a very common definition outside of certain markets; dictionary.com gives it as "11.

a distinct portion or parcel of anything, as of merchandise: The furniture was to be auctioned off in 20 lots."

Thus, it is entirely possible that "a lot of apples" could refer to a specific grouping of apples being sold or auctioned; if one purchases several of these, then one might refer entirely correctly to "lots of apples."

To avoid confusion, it may be better to use "many" and the verb "to have," e.g. "I have many apples."

You will almost certainly be understood with either of your phrases, but as they are colloquial they may not translate as precisely to non-native speakers as you may wish.

There is no difference.

They have the same meaning.

The NOAD I had on my Mac Mini reported the following: The expressions a lot of and lots of are used before nouns to mean a large number or amount of.

In common with other words denoting quantities, lot itself does not normally function as a head noun, meaning that it does not itself determine whether the following verb is singular or plural.

Thus, although lot is singular in a lot of people , the verb that follows is not singular.

In this case, the word people acts as the head noun and, being plural, ensures that the following verb is also plural: a lot of people were assembled (not a lot of people was assembled ).

A lot of and lots of are very common in speech and writing, but they still have a distinctly informal feel and are generally not considered acceptable for formal English, where alternatives such as many or a large number are used instead.

Written as one word, alot is incorrect, although not uncommon.

See also the notes given from the Oxford Living Dictionaries .

There IS a difference between lots and a lot.

When "a lot" means "too much" then "lots" cannot be substituted.

When you say, "I've eaten a lot today," you are talking about the QUANTITY of food you have eaten.

However, "I've eaten lots today" indicates frequency.

You have eaten lots of times.

Additionally if someone gives you too much, you say, "That's a lot (of whatever!)!You would NOT say, "That's lots (of water)" for example.

The phrase " A LOT OF" is a determiner used to identify if the noun that comes after the phrase is plural or singular.

In the sentence "A lot of works are missing.

" The word "work" refers to a number of works finished in class, I would say the verb which comes after the noun should be plural because the works referred to -are many following the grammar rule "A plural noun takes a plural verb".

Question: What is the difference between "Lots" and "A lot"?  For instance:   I've got  a lot of  apples   I've got  lots of  apples

Difference between "Lots of" and "A lot of"

Whilst some people might believe there is a difference between the two, it is generally accepted that they have the same meaning.

A lot of and "lots of" mean a large quantity of something and the terms are generally used informally. The preference is for "many" or a "number of" in formal speech. "A lot" can also be written as one word; "alot". There is a difference between them, as some people believe "lots" can mean frequency as in "I ate lots today". In grammar, "A lot of " is a determiner to qualifty the noun that follows it it as being singular or plural. A "Lot" can also mean a group of things as in a "job lot". So, "a lot of apples" could mean a group of apples being sold at auction. If there were several groupings these could be "lots of apples"

The expressions  a lot of  and  lots of  are used before nouns to mean  a large number or amount of.  There is a denotation for "lot" that indicates "a group" e.g. "a job lot" or, at an auction, one "unit" that is being bid upon.   But, these are both informal and have the same meaning.  A lot of  and  lots of  are very common in speech and writing, but they still have a distinctly informal feel and are generally not considered acceptable for formal English, where alternatives such as  many  or  a large number  are used instead.

These expressions have the same meaning.

These are both informal and have the same meaning.  A lot of  and  lots of  are very common in speech and writing, but they still have a distinctly informal feel and are generally not considered acceptable for formal English, where alternatives such as  many  or  a large number  are used instead.


To me, “next Tuesday” means the Tuesday that comes next week.

For example, on Monday, October 11 and Wednesday, October 13, “next Tuesday” means October 19.

Whereas on Monday, October 18, “next Tuesday” means October 26.

“This Tuesday” refers to the Tuesday that comes this week, which on Wednesday would refer to yesterday, and on Monday refers to tomorrow.

Similarly, “Last Tuesday” is the Tuesday that came last week.

Without any descriptors, day names by themselves mean the next such day in the future unless used in the past tense.

“He will do it on Tuesday” means the next time there is a Tuesday, which on Monday would mean “tomorrow” but on Wednesday would mean the following Tuesday.

In the past tense, day names mean the last such day which occurred.

“He did it on Tuesday” means the most recent day that was a Tuesday.

Not everyone may agree with this analysis, but in my experience this is what most people mean when they use “this”, “last”, and “next” with day names.

This clearly has no definitive answer - usage varies between speakers.

To me, "next Tuesday" means (strictly) the next instance of a Tuesday, although I just wouldn't use it on Sunday or Monday (preferring the day after tomorrow/tomorrow or an unqualified "Tuesday", which generally refers to the current week, past or present).

However, I accept that this is personal and that others may sometimes mean "the next Tuesday but one", bizarre as that may seem.

This assumes that I know what day it is, which cannot always be relied on.

My preferred use is to specify "this coming Tuesday" or "the Tuesday after next" when I talk about days, specifically because of the ambiguity of what "next Tuesday" could be.

That's just my preference, though.

My answer to another question making a similar inquiry about using the phrase "next week"—

The issue isn't as definitive as you might think.

Ultimately, it comes down to what interpretation of "next" you consider to be correct.

For example, the American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed) defines 'next' simply as Immediately following, as in time, order, or sequence Following this definition, "next weekend" will always mean the weekend with the start date in closes proximity in time.

If the phrase is used during a weekend, of course, you'd be referring to the weekend following the one you are currently experiencing.

However, the issue gets more complicated if you look to other definitions.

The Oxford American Dictionary has a specific definition for 'next' when used in the context of time: (of a day of the week)

nearest (or the nearest but one)

after the present : not this Wednesday, next Wednesday Here, we're given the choice

: it can either mean the weekend with the closest start date, or the following one (as specified by the parenthetical addition or the nearest but one ).

This definition has come about mostly because of usage development.

Many words and phrases in the english dictionary have meanings contrary to their technical definitions, and yet are still used commonly and considered valid.

Thus, while technically "next" implies immediate sequence, it is used in other ways (which dictionaries like the OAD have accommodated for validity), so it's really a matter of personal preference.

For example, it is unlikely that I will even use the phrase "next weekend" during the week, because some people might be confused as to what I am referring to.

Instead, I will say "this weekend," unless it is currently the weekend, in which case I will say "next weekend."

"next-Tuesday" would be better said as "Tuesday of next week".

Thus, the answer to your question would be "on Tuesday".

There are several possibilities: This Tuesday is the Tuesday of the week that we are in.

Next Tuesday is the Tuesday of the week we'll be in after this one.

This appears to be the most common usage, and makes most sense when you're trying to distinguish between imminent Tuesdays.

They both refer to the same date; this (coming) Tuesday, which is the next Tuesday on the calendar from today.

This Tuesday refers to this (coming) Tuesday, or the Tuesday that comes next on the calendar from today.

Next Tuesday refers to the Tuesday after this (coming)

Tuesday, or the Second Tuesday on the Calendar from today.

This usage seems rare... but is actually what I understood for many years (although I was aware that people didn't always share my views).

Some people switch meanings on Tuesday.

For example, they mean (1) on Sunday and Monday, but (2) from Wednesday onwards.

Occasionally, I've heard people talking who have different understanding of the terms, but who happen to come to the same conclusion about the date of an appointment!

And then there's "Last Tuesday"...

but let's not get started on that one!

All in all, unless you know that you speak the same "calendar language" as someone else (and it isn't always obvious) your best bet is to: Use a different way to express yourself, "Tuesday of Next Week", for example.

Use dates, "Tuesday 11th".

Or get out your calendar and point.

I know someone who would confuse it even further with the usage "Tuesday first" meaning the first Tuesday after today - where most people would interpret that as meaning a Tuesday which landed on the 1st of a month.

Question: At what point does  next Tuesday  mean    the next Tuesday that will come to pass     and no longer    the Tuesday  after  the Tuesday that will come to pass?   And, when does the meaning switch back?

Which day does "next Tuesday" refer to?

This question has no definitive answer and usage varies between speakers. Many people may claim that "next Tuesday" is the Tuesday of the week after this one. However, some people will use "next Tuesday" to refer to the next instance of a Tuesday.

It means the Tuesday that is coming next week. The next time that day occurs, just as in the past tense it means the last time that day occurred. However, usage varies depending on the individual speaker's interpretation, which can depend on how "next" is interpreted. The Oxford Dictionary has a specific interpretation of "next". People may have different interpretations, but still  manage to meet on the right day. There are better alternatives that could be used for clarity such as "the Tuesday of next week". Alternatively, using and pointing at a calendar is suggested to avoid any confusion.

The issue isn't as definitive as you might think. There are several possibilities. Often "This Tuesday" is the Tuesday of the week that we are in and “next Tuesday” means the Tuesday that comes next week. It is often better to specify "this coming Tuesday" or "the Tuesday after next" when I talk about days, specifically because of the ambiguity of what "next Tuesday" could be.   All in all, unless you know that you speak the same "calendar language" as someone else (and it isn't always obvious) your best bet is to:   Use a different way to express yourself, "Tuesday of Next Week", for example.

This is open to some interpretation.  It often means "the Tuesday in the next week", although it can also refer to "the next instance of a Tuesday".

The answer to this question is subjective and will depend on personal preference. Many people may claim that "next Tuesday" is the Tuesday of the week after this week. However, some people will use "next Tuesday" to refer to the next Tuesday after today.

Usage varies depending on speakers' interpretation.

It can depend on how you interpret "next"

Other definitions can cause confusion to the intpretation of next.

Use dates as an option. Or take out the calendar.

There are several possibilities. Often " This Tuesday" is the Tuesday of the week that we are in and “next Tuesday” means the Tuesday that comes next week.

Many people would refer to "next Tuesday" as the Tuesday during the next week after this week.

The answer to this question is clearly subjective and depends on personal preference.

Some people would use "next Tuesday" to refer to the next Tuesday after today.


You don't say something is "kick-assy", you say something is "kick-ass."

So I think the correct form would be "kick-assness".

You wouldn't use this in any formal setting, though.

I agree with awesomeness as an alternative.

Kickassiness uses the often-sarcastic -iness ending (compare "truthiness", "maverickiness", and the phonetically similar "helpy"); so, analogously to those words, it gives the impression that something is trying to pose as kickass but is not succeeding.

I'd probably go with "kickassness" or "kickassitude" if that was not the desired impression.

All the above are perfectly cromulent productions from the base word; don't let any prescriptivist tell you different.

I'd say "kick-assery" is a lot better than kickassiness since "kick-ass" stems from a verb.

English - natural language in general, is "productive", which is to say that it happily accommodates new words derived from existing ones on standard patterns.

Slang and familiar language are by nature more productive than formal language.

Thus, if you use "kickassiness", people (at least, people who understand "kick-ass") will mostly understand you even if they have not heard it before.

Whether or not they adopt it themselves is in the lap of the gods, of course (and the answers by @Epago and @Claudiu suggest that it is unlikely because slightly more natural alternatives already have some currency).

It is also unlikely to impress English teachers, judges in courts of law, or prospective employers, of course, but you probably already knew that.

Although it's rarely used in slang, it's neither an accepted nor a proper word.

Instead, I would use "awesomeness".

Even Wordnik turns up zilch, and Google shows a measly 300 something hits.

There doesn’t really seem to be a need for this word.

Futhermore, I agree with @Claudiu.

“ kickassness ” seems to be the term you’re looking for.

Question: I have been looking for a word that means kickassiness, but haven't come across one. Is this an accepted word? If not, what word can be used in its place?

Is kickassiness an accepted word?

It is generally agreed that "kickassiness" is not an accepted or proper word in English. Other more acceptable alternatives could be "kickassness" or "awesomeness".

The interpretation is highly subjective. Some people believe "kick-ass" is the correct adjective and not "kick-assy", therefore by deduction, "kick-assness" would be the correct from. Others believe that "kickassiness" is using similar reformed words such as "sarcasticness" and based on this logic would use "kickassness" or "kickassitude".  Another proposl is "kick-assery" as "kick-ass" stems from a verb. As English tends to be quite a flexible language, people would understand "kickassiness". Some suggest that it is rarely used in slang, so is not an accepted or proper word and should never be used formally. Neither do Google searches deliver a lot of hits, and therefore there is no real need for the word. "Awesomeness" is proposed as an alternative.

This is neither an accepted nor a proper word. Instead, I would use "awesomeness" as an alternative. "Kick-assery" is a lot better than kickassiness since "kick-ass" stems from a verb or “ kickassness ”.

This is not a proper word. Alternative suggestions include "kick-assness" or "kickassness". However, "awesomeness" could also be used.

It is generally agreed that "kickassiness" is not an accepted word in English. Other more acceptable alternatives could be "kickassness" or "awesomeness".

"Kickassiness" follows the formatting similar to other words,

"kick-assery" would be a better form as it stems from a verb.

English language is flexible and "kickassiness" would be acceptable

It is not a word to be used in formal settings. "Awesomeness" would be a better alternative.

There are very few internet hits, there is no need for this word.

"Kickassiness" is not an accepted word in English.

A more acceptable word might be "kissassness".

"Awesomeness" could be a more acceptable word.

"Kick-assery" could be a more appropriate word.


In my opinion, neither previous nor prior work in this context for what you want to express, because both expressions imply December 2009.

Also, 'between' is a bit vague, because while the context implies you are comparing the rates of the two months, 'between' carries the idea of comparing the rates for the whole period between those two months.

Why not simply 'Comparison of rates: Jan 2010 and Jan 2009'?

It is not especially clever, but it is shorter than the two phrases you propose.

Neither "previous" nor "prior" are correct here, because they would refer to December 2009.

If you want to use a business analysis buzzword, you could use "year over year", as in Year-over-year comparison of rates for January If you are addressing normal people, however, I'd suggest simply Comparison of rates between January 2010 and January 2009

The Oxford Corpus of English lists several example sentences for prior :

She visited me on the day prior to her death.

Mrs Scott had to spend two weeks in hospital, including a week prior to the Caesarian birth.

For previous : The month previous to publication . . .

The starting grids are based on a reversal of the finishing order of the previous race.

Both prior and previous have similar definitions: 'existing or occurring before in time or order' and 'existing or coming before in time, order, or importance' respectively.

From these two points (examples of usage in English and dictionary definition), I can see no evidence that either word is more or less appropriate in your context.

However, I would say the following sound better: Comparison of rate between January 2010 and the prior month.

Comparison of rate between January 2010 and the previous month.

That is, I would use the rather than its , although your sentences are grammatical.

EDIT: Now that I understand that the OP was talking about comparing January 2009 and January 2010, I offer these suggestions: Comparing the rates of January 2010 and the prior January.

Comparing the rates of January 2010 and the previous January.

I also agree that it would be easier, and perhaps better, just to say 'Comparing the rates of January 2009 and January 2010.

In general for comparing corresponding periods across years you use the expression year on year

Neither prior nor previous are words necessary to convey the meaning of the statement.

The clearest way, so that no one misunderstands the question, is to delineate it completely: Comparison of rates between Jan 2009 and Jan 2010.

This "statement" implies that there is a list to follow with the said comparisons indicated.

It is not meant to convey all of the actual comparisons.

It seems to be more of a heading.

Question: If I want to show the comparison between rate in 2010 Jan and 2009 Jan, which of the following should I use?    Comparison of rate between 2010 Jan and its prior month.  Comparison of rate between 2010 Jan and its previous month.

Can "prior" or "previous" be used to describe the same month of last year?

It is agreed that neither "prior" nor "previous" work in this context because they would refer to December 2009.

Neither "previous" nor "prior" are appropriate because both imply December 2009. It would be simple to just say "Comparison of rates: Jan 2010 and Jan 2009".  The other alternative is to use the business term "year on year" . Another alternative is "comparing the rates of January 2010 and the previous January's".

Neither  prior  nor  previous  are correct here for conveying the meaning of the statement.  The clearest way, so that no one misunderstands the question, is to delineate it completely:   Comparison of rates between Jan 2009 and Jan 2010.

Neither "previous" nor "prior" are correct here, because they would refer to December 2009.

It is agreed that neither "prior" nor "previous" in the examples provided is correct.

Neither previous nor prior are suitable. Use "compariso of rates"

Use "comparing the rates of Jan. 2010 and the previous January"


As requested, this is my summary translation of the answer by A.Stefanowitsch, the host of Sprachlog : 'seven-and-twenty years' corresponds to the original germanic pattern.

In Old English this was the usual way of forming complex number words.

The influence of Norman French brought in the modern form and displaced the original pattern, which survived until about 1700 [Weinstock 1999].

It has been suggested that the switch began with the high numbers and progressed downwards [Weinstock 1999], and an informal corpus analysis gave a first confirmation [Diller 2005, S. 105].

The original germanic form still survives in dialects, especially in references to age and time

[Cahill und Gazdar 1997], which fits the examples in Sherlock Holmes .

CAHILL, Lynne und Gerald GAZDAR.

1997 A lexical analysis of numeral expressions in Dutch, English and German.

DILLER, Hans-Jürgen (2005)

Rezension zu Weinstock 2003.

Anglia -- Zeitschrift für englische Philologie 123.2, S. 104-106. WEINSTOCK, Horst (1999) Historical and comparative aspects of numerals between twenty-one and twenty-nine.

In Uwe Carls und Peter Lucko (Hgg.), Form, function and variation in English: Studies in honour of Klaus Hansen.

Frankfurt:

Peter Lang, S. 65–77.

[Neuabdruck 2003 in Horst Weinstock, Kleine Schriften: Ausgewählte Studien zur alt-, mittel-

und frühneuenglischen Sprache und Literatur.

Heidelberg: Winter].

Counting in scores is not strictly the same phenomenon as the units-before-tens count, but does seem to share some of the same "flavour".

It appears in formal speech in, for instance, the Gettysburg Address ("Four score and

seven years ago our fathers brought forth ...

and in the biblical "three score years and ten" noted by @Benjol).

In British literature of the interwar period (this post is too informal and time too short for me to investigate sources, but I'm thinking of the Swallows and Amazons books by Arthur Ransome and Cold Comfort Farm by Stella Gibbons as good prospects), both counting in scores and the one-and-twenty forms would seem to be noted as low-status rural dialect markers.

Another literary instance, Poem XIII of AE Housman's A Shropshire Lad , "When I was one-and-twenty" (1896) is also rural in setting.

Lincoln's use thirty years before was probably something of an archaic rhetorical flourish as well.

It still survives in some well-worn expressions, mostly cultural heritage: Threescore and ten ("score" being 20, that makes 70, which is one's allotted lifespan) Four and twenty (as in blackbirds ) 'Four score and seven years ago' (Gettysburg Address)

There are probably others (I'm leaving this answer open for additions)

It hasn't completely fallen out of use (or at least, it hadn't twenty years ago).

I had a colleague throughout the 80's who would habitually say 'five and twenty to' for times.

He was probably in his 40's.

(in Cambridge, the original one).

Google Ngrams for 24 , 25 , 26 and 27 appear to show the same trend, with the German-like numerical expressions declining since 1800, but generally significantly in the region around 1940.

All of them have retained a nontrivial amount of use into the modern era, however.

Question: 19th century English texts occasionally use Germanic-style number words, such as "four-and-twenty", but the same text would also have the modern "twenty-four" in places (see e.g. Conan-Doyle for several examples).   How did the usage of germanic-style numbers change historically? When did the Germanic forms fall out of use?   (I have asked this question previously on  Sprachlog  (German) and got a short  answer by A.Stefanowitsch , but would appreciate any additional input.)

19th century English texts occasionally use Germanic-style number words, such as "four-and-twenty". When did this fall out of use?

This style of reading numbers in English may not have completely fallen out of use. In fact, a Google Ngrams analysis shows German-like numerical expressions declining since 1800, but it was still persisting in 1940.

It is an old English format for forming complex numbers and influenced by Norman French. It is suggested that the change occurred with higher number values, but the format is still used in some dialects mainly in reference to age and time. It has occurred historically in some literature as well as in political speeches such as the Gettysburg address. It still survives in some well-worn expressions, mostly cultural heritage as in "Four and twenty (as in  blackbirds )"

This format was the original germanic pattern. In Old English this was the usual way of forming complex number words. The influence of Norman French brought in the modern form and displaced the original pattern, which survived until about 1700 [Weinstock 1999]. It still survives in some well-worn expressions, mostly cultural heritage:   Threescore and ten  ("score" being 20, that makes 70, which is one's allotted lifespan)  Four and twenty (as in  blackbirds )  'Four score and seven years ago' (Gettysburg Address)

Google Ngrams for  24 ,  25 ,  26  and  27  appear to show the same trend, with the German-like numerical expressions declining since 1800, with significant decline in the region around 1940. However, it has not completely fallen out of use.

This style of reading numbers in English may not have completely fallen out of use. In fact, a Google Ngrams analysis shows that use has declined since 1800, but it was still persisting in 1940.

An old English format for forming complex numers.

It has occurred historically in some literature as well as in political speeches such as Lincoln's use.

This style of reading numbers might not have completely fallen out of use.

A Google Ngrams analysis seems to show decline since 1800 but steady use persisting in 1940.


I would say that it is probably grammatical, but because 'neither' is not common introducing a clause like that, it is very confusing: it is not clear on first reading what the relationship is between the main clause and the parenthetical phrase.

Apart from the suggestions already made, 'but' would mend it, as it makes the relationship between them clearer: XXIII, but neither IIIXX nor XIIIX,

I would say "The Roman numeral for 23 is XXIII.

Variations like IIIXXX and XIIIX, although logical, would not be correct."

I see no reason for it to be incorrect: 'neither IIIXX, nor XIIX' is known as dependent clause , so you have: (subject) (dependent clause) (transitive verb) (direct object) (adverbial phrase)

It is the same, in my opinion, as

In Roman, XXIII — not IIIXX or XIIX —

represents 23 Of course, adverbial phrases can be moved around reasonably freely.

However, I do like Mike Pope's rewording.

I'm not sure if it's correct grammar, but it sounds awkward to me.

It's like saying he, neither she nor it, is going to the store.

It just doesn't sound right.

I would instead say: XXIII represents 23 in roman, but IIIXX and XIIIX do not.

If you really want to use that construction, then "XXIII, not IIIXX or XIIIX, represents 23 in Roman numerals", but other respondents have suggested more elegant forms.

Incidentally

(and I know you didn't say this, but still...), neither IIIXX or XIIIX can represent 23, so I wouldn't say "although logical", as per Mike Pope's suggestion.

IIIXX and XIIIX would represent 17, although they both break the rules of Roman numeral syntax, I believe.

Also, "roman" should be capitalised: "Roman".

Question: I want to say that we cannot represent 23 in Roman as both IIIXX and XIIIX. The correct representation for 23 in Roman is XXIII.  If I write like this   XXIII, neither IIIXX nor XIIIX, represents 23 in roman.   is it correct grammar?

XXIII, neither IIIXX nor XIIIX, represents 23. Is it correct grammar?

It is generally agreed that, whilst this phrase might be correct grammar, it does not sound particularly natural, and in fact, might be a little confusing.

There is divided opinion as to how the phrase should be written. Some people believe grammatically, the form is correct. However, a better way of phrasing suggested is "The The Roman numeral for 23 is XXIII." Others feel it sounds awkard, even if it supposed to be grammaticaly correct and suggest "XXIII represents 23 in roman, but IIIXX and XIIIX do not."

It may be correct grammatically, but it sounds awkward. The best way to put it is: "The Roman numeral for 23 is XXIII and variations like IIIXXX and XIIIX, although logical, would not be correct."

There is no reason for it to be incorrect: 'neither IIIXX, nor XIIX' is known as  dependent clause , so you have:   (subject) (dependent clause) (transitive verb) (direct object) (adverbial phrase). However, although it is probably grammatical, as 'neither' is not common when introducing a clause like that, it is very confusing: it is not clear on first reading what the relationship is between the main clause and the parenthetical phrase.

The sentence may be grammatically correct, but it sounds awkward.


"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink" is an English proverb.

If you want the horse to drink, the most you can do is lead it to water; after that, the horse drinks only if it wants to.

More generally, the proverb is used in the senses of "there's only so much you can do" or "people will do what they want" or "you can't help people who don't want to be helped".

This proverb is one of the oldest in English , having been recorded in Old English Homilies , 1175:

Hwa is

thet mei thet hors wettrien the him self nule

drinken [who can give water to the horse that will not drink of its own accord?]

So "Chuck Norris can lead a horse to water AND make it drink" simply reverses the proverb: Chuck Norris can do something which the proverb says is impossible.

(The humour is partly from the appropriation of a commonplace proverb for Chuck Norris purposes.)

Something similar would be "Chuck Norris can eat his cake and have it too", reversing the proverb

"You can't eat your cake and have it too".

(Once you eat your cake, you'll no longer have it with you: this proverb is these days more commonly stated as "you can't have your cake and eat it too".)

There is an idiom in English : You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Even favorable circumstances won't force one to do something one doesn't want to, as in We've gotten all the college catalogs

but he still hasn't applied

--you can lead a horse to water.

This metaphoric term dates from the 12th century and was in John Heywood's proverb collection of 1546.

It is so well known that it is often shortened, as in the example.

The whole notion here is that Chuck Norris has superpowers, making possible the impossible even.

These jokes are only funny when you hear many of them in a row and one seems to outdo the other.

The dynamics of the joke have been explained so I won't rehash that

but I don't see the meta-joke being mentioned here

so I'll explain it.

A kind of meta-joke, a joke above the jokes, is to tell a series of really unfunny jokes.

So while the jokes in and of themselves aren't funny the string of jokes clearly not meant to be funny can be funny.

If it's just one joke you might say, "Meh, that wasn't funny."

But a barrage of really stupid jokes, if they are ridiculously unfunny like the one above, is funny.

And finally it's kind of an inside joke that some people actually find the unfunny jokes funny.

That's a meta-joke on top of the meta-joke.

P.S.

I don't find Chuck Norris jokes funny either, but I get it.

This is related to the idiom: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Meaning: People, like horses, will only do what they have a mind to do. or Something that you say which means you can give someone the opportunity to do something, but you cannot force them to do it if they do not want to.

So the sentence you refer to is a joke which points out the determination (decisiveness) of Chuck Norris.

Well I guess Chuck Norris is so physically capable that he can "force" a horse to drink water no matter what, even if it doesn't want to, so you'd better watch out if you mess with Chuck Norris.

Question: Chuck Norris can lead a horse to water  and  make it drink.   I read this on  http://chucknorrisfacts.com .  What I think this sentence means, is: Chuck Norris can take his horse to where the water is and then his horse will drink the water. So, what is funny about this? Isn't it something pretty normal?

What does this mean: 'Chuck Norris can lead a horse to water AND make it drink'? Why is it funny?

This joke plays on the notion that Chuck Norris is so powerful that he is able to do something which the English proverb says is impossible. The notion is that Chuck Norris has superpowers.

It is an English proverb dating back to the 12th century meaning you can bring the horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink.  There is only so much you can do to help people, you cannot force people to do something they don't want to do. By extension, it is suggesting Chuck Norris has exceptional powers because he actually can make the horse drink. Some people do not find this a funny joke, but understand what is meant.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"  is an English proverb.  If you want the horse to drink, the most you can do is lead it to water; after that, the horse drinks only if it wants to. Meaning:  People, like horses, will  only do what they have a mind to do. The whole notion here is that Chuck Norris has superpowers or the determination to make possible the impossible.

Chuck Norris can lead a horse to water AND make it drink simply reverses the proverb: Chuck Norris can do something which the proverb says is impossible.


Taken from Wiktionary : Funnest is a regular superlative of the adjective fun .

However, the use of fun as an adjective is itself still often seen as informal or casual and to be avoided in formal writing, and this would apply equally to the superlative form.

Merriam-Webster, however, gives fun as an adjective without comment, and states that funner and funnest are ‘sometimes’ used.

Because of the remaining stigma, most fun may be preferred in formal writing.

Given that every English speaker would understand you, it's fine.

It's a word.

Don't worry too much about what dictionaries say, they are trying to report on the language, not prescribe it.

"Funnest" has good English morphology.

For instance, it doesn't begin with the glottal "ng" sound, which doesn't occur in English at the start of a word.

That kind of thing would tend to spoil all chances of an utterance from becoming an English word.

It is derived from "fun", which is already an English adjective, and it is derived according to a rule that derives many existing superlatives.

So you have here a good candidate for a word which could easily pass into usage among a group of English-speaking people, and evidently it has.

The only problem is that it's not widely used.

The human brain probably handles language not simply with with rigid rules, but through the memorization of a large number of special cases and exceptions based on examples and correction during language acquisition.

This is why numerous irregularities can happily exist.

Examples that are not heard are sometimes ruled out by native speakers as ungrammatical.

"Funnest" sounds strange simply because it's rarely heard, other than from children (who are usually going to be corrected to say "most fun" instead, thereby ensuring that they too will come to regard "funnest" as strange, when they will have long forgotten that they uttered it when they were small.)

On the other hand, "funner" and "funnest" are not so unheard of that it has not made its way into some dictionaries, such as Merriam-Webster.

If a word is in at least one major dictionary, it's safe to regard it as a word.

Some dictionaries may be more conservative than others, but, on the absolute scale, they are maintained by some pretty darn conservative people who will not too casually lend their support to a new word.

If some of them think something is a word, that's probably good enough for the rest of us.

I wouldn't use "funnest" anywhere but in the most colloquial setting.

Certainly I would not use it in anything written.

As reported by the NOAD, fun is used as adjective in informal contexts; its superlative is funnest , while funner is its comparative.

Funner makes me shudder.

For some reason "more fun" is firmly embedded in my psyche as the correct expression.

"funnest" doesn't raise the same reaction, for reasons I don't understand.

When someone says "it's funner", it makes me believe that there's been a lapse in their education.

Question: We seem to be stuck at an impasse on this issue.  Is  funnest  a word or not?  If so, does it mean "most fun"?

Is "funnest" a word?

It is generally agreed that "funnest" is an acceptable word and that it is the superlative of the adjective "fun". Given that every English speaker would understand you, it's fine.

There is a divergence of opinion as to whether it is a term to use or not. Some people feel it is a word every English speaker would understand and its absence in dictionaries should not be of concern, it suffices it appears in one major dictionary because ssme dictionaries tend to more conservative than others, but generally dictionaries are written by conservative people not inclined to support newly coined words. It is the superlative form of "fun". It sounds strange because it is not often used, except by children who are often corrected to use "most fun" instead. It should only be used in colloquial settings and not in formal language. Funner is the comparative form and "funnest" is the superlative. To some people these are strange form and the use of "it's funner" to some people suggests the speaker has a low level of education.

Strictly speaking,  fun  is used as adjective in informal contexts; its superlative is  funnest , while  funner  is its comparative. However, the use of  fun  as an adjective is itself still often seen as informal or casual and to be avoided in formal writing, and this would apply equally to the superlative form. The main problem is that it's not widely used.  "Funnest" sounds strange simply because it's rarely heard, other than from children (who are usually going to be corrected to say "most fun" instead.)  "More fun" is what most people would regard as the correct expression.

Funnest is an informal word, and is  is a regular superlative of the adjective  fun .

It is generally agreed that "funnest" is an acceptable word and that it is the superlative of "fun".

It is the superlative form of "fun" and is generally used informally. However, in formal writing "most fun" is preferred.

It is a word every English speaker would understand. The absence of the word in dictionaries should not be of concern, it suffices it appears in one major dictionary. Some dictionaries tend to more conservative than others, but generally dictionaries are written by conservative people not inclined to support newly coined words. It is the superlatie form of "fun".

"Funnest" is the superlative form of "fun".

It is agreed that this is an acceptable word.


I believe that the more common one is "fæk".

According to Wikipedia:

Since the acronym FAQ originated in textual media, its pronunciation varies; "fack," "fax," "facts," and "F.A.Q." are commonly heard.

Wikipedia's sources are the Jargon file and FAQs about FAQs .

I have only ever heard it pronounced 'Eff Ay Que'.

However it does seem to be one of those phrases that will never have a 'proper' pronunciation.

In a general sense, initialisms and acronyms are most properly pronounced as the letters, e.g. "Eye Arr Ess" or "Arr Pee Jee" rather than "Erse" or "R'pug."

Pronouncing the letters individually rather than coming up with a pronunciation for something that is not an actual word avoids misunderstandings.

That being said, especially in contexts where the given acronym or initialism will be used often (FAQ in a web context; various military acronyms)

there will often be an accepted pronunciation that the community recognizes for use within the community.

The only reasonably objective way I can think of to gauge the relative popularity of the pronunciations "fack" and "f-a-q" is by consulting a Google Ngram Viewer chart for "a FAQ" versus "an FAQ.

" Here's the chart I got matching "a FAQ" (red line) against "an FAQ" (blue line) for the years 1980 through 2008 in English-language publications of all sorts: Though historically "a FAQ" has been more common, the results for the two options are so close for the last few years included in the chart that their relative popularity in 2014 is anyone's guess.

The results for American English publications are much the same as the overall results: But the results for British English publications are somewhat friendlier to "an FAQ" and yet at the same time seemingly more volatile: On the strength of these charts, both pronunciations of FAQ appear to be thoroughly mainstream.

As a precautionary measure, you might ask around to see whether a consensus exists in your workplace favoring one pronunciation or the other, since such a local consensus might amount to a house style on pronunciation.

But if no such consensus exists, I think that you should feel free to use whichever pronunciation you prefer.

In order to avoid misunderstandings I think FAQ should be pronounced as an initialism (where you keep each letter separated: Eff-Ay-Kyu) rather than as an acronym (where the letters are pronounced as a word: fack).

Definitely articulate each letter individually...

Don't say "fack" or when I was younger, in my mind FAQ = "

f

*** u" which made me really confused.

Never heard anyone say anything besides F A Q anyways.

Question: I hear FAQ(s) pronounced like a word in "FACK(s)", while I go letter by letter. In usage, what is more common?  (Similar to SQL vs Sequel)

What is the commonly accepted pronunciation of FAQ?

Since the acronym 'FAQ' originated in textual media, it is likely to have a range of ways of pronouncing it. However, the most popular way is probably to articulate each letter individually.

Since the acronym FAQ originated in textual media, its pronunciation  varies; "fack," "fax," "facts," and "F.A.Q." are commonly heard.   The majority of people probably pronounce it as 'Eff Ay Que'.      V

It is generally thought to be pronouced as 'Eff Ay Que'. However,  "fack," "fax," "facts," and "F.A.Q." are commonly heard.

Since FAQ primarily appears in print media, it is likely to have a range of ways of pronouncing it. However, the most popular was is probably to spell out the individual letters.

It appears that the most common pronunciation is to spell out the letters individually.

Since FAQ primarily appears in print media, it is likely to have a range of different ways of pronouncing it.


Self-fulfilling prophecy .

(I am not aware of a single-word equivalent in English.)

I remember my cousin, who is a psychologist, mentioned about the term "Pygmalion effect".

Here is a definition from Wikipedia: The Pygmalion effect , or Rosenthal effect , refers to the phenomenon in which the greater the expectation placed upon people, often children or students and employees, the better they perform.

The effect is named after Pygmalion, a Cypriot sculptor in a narrative by Ovid in Greek mythology, who fell in love with a female statue he had carved out of ivory.

The Pygmalion effect is a form of self-fulfilling prophecy, and, in this respect, people with poor expectations internalize their negative label, and those with positive labels succeed accordingly.

Within sociology, the effect is often cited with regards to education and social class.

The Yankee's nascent loss...

Depending on exact context, you might get away with "conjure".

Even "will" might do.

If someone says "...

", and everyone starts believing it, ...

and it actually happens —

what is the word for that?

( verb ) predict early 17th century: from Latin praedict- ‘made known beforehand, declared,’ from the verb praedicere, from prae- ‘beforehand’ + dicere ‘say.’

He predicted the Yankees were going to lose (and everyone believed it), and they did lose.

Synonym: foretell

(past tense, foretold )

However, logically there is no way to prove that any prediction or foretelling has anything at all to do with any outcome.

You might argue that predictions have psychological effects which may influence an outcome, but that's very difficult if not impossible to prove.

But to answer the question more specifically, the noun forms for them would be: prediction forecast

Besides the already mentioned self-fulfilling prophecy , the closest things that come to my mind are: lack of confidence diminished self-esteem which are rather the cause to make happen what you described.

In the Bible, the verb to call means "to speak something into existence", but it only refers to God.

Question: If someone says "the Yankees are going to lose", and everyone starts believing it, including the players, and it actually happens — what is the word for that?

What word means "to speak something into existence"?

It is possible that there is no single-word equivalent in English. However, some options include "conjure" or "self-fulfilling prophecy". Additionally, the verb "to call" means "to speak something into existence" but it only refers to God.

Self-fulfilling prophecy is the phrase for this, although not a single word. The  Pygmalion effect refers to the phenomenon in which the greater the  expectation placed upon people, often  children or students and employees,  the better they perform. "Conjure" or "forecast" could possibly be used.  In the Bible, the verb ' to call'  means "to speak something into existence", but it only refers to God.

"Self-fulfilling prophecy" is an expression used in this context. However "to conjure" or 2to call" may be used depending on the context.

It is possible that there is no single-word term to describe this concept. However, some options include "conjure" or "self-fulfilling prophecy". Additionally, the verb "to call" means "to speak something into existence" but is reserved solely for God.

I am not aware of a single-word equivalent in English.

"Speaking something into existence" might be called a "self-fulfilling prophecy" or "conjuring".

In the Bible, "to call" means to "speak something into existence" but only refers to God.


I would always use "on".

At least if you are talking about the contents you can find on it.

If you're talking about its hardware structure for instance, then, "in" can maybe fit in some cases, I guess.

I suppose the large number of "in" prepositions in the phrase can be explained like this: in many languages, including Russian we use the preposition which can be translated into English as "in".

So what people often do when they don't know what the correct way is - they "copy" exactly as it's told in their native language.

I guess the number of native speakers who use the Internet is much smaller.

'On the internet' would refer to data/items/websites that one can find there.

as Pierre said, the 'Internet' can also be seen as a web of hardware elements like routers and switches.

that switch is 'in the internet'

If you're talking about information retrieved from the Internet, people routinely say "it is stored ON the Internet", "I found it ON the Internet", "information ON the Internet is ..." etc.

The only example I can think of where you would use "in" would be a phrase like, "I am interested in the Internet".

As noted in response to AmiroucheDouda's post, you might use "in" when "Internet" is used as an adjective to modify some other word.

Like, "We live in the Internet age", "In an Internet-based system, access is ...", "Thinking in Internet terms ...", etc.

As in this other thread I would use "in the internet" in the context of Application Programming Interfaces, or APIs.

While an Average Joe user reads content off the "front" of an internet website (its Graphical User Interface, or GUI), a function call to an API actually sends a programming thread into the content of the website to retrieve the answer.

That retrieval lends a sense of depth, of looking something up in a website, that reading content that's already displayed on the front just doesn't.

Question: When should I use "in the Internet" and when "on the Internet"?

"In the Internet" vs. "on the Internet"

Generally, most people would use the preposition "on" when referring to the internet. However, if you're discussing its hardware structure, "in" can maybe be acceptable. "In" can also be used when "internet" is a modifying adjective.

On the internet refers to data/items and websites that can be found online.The use of "in the internet" would be in phrases like "interested in the internet" or related to Application Programming Interfaces.The use of "in the internet" would be in phrases like "interested in the internet" or related to Application Programming Interfaces.

On the internet' would refer to data/items/websites that one can find there. If you're talking about information retrieved from the Internet, people routinely say "it is stored ON the Internet". The only example I can think of where you would use "in" would be a phrase like, "I am interested in the Internet".

"On the Internet" is widely used. However, "in" may be used when "Internet" is used to modify another word, or when talking about hardware structures.

Generally, most people would use the preposition "on" when referring to the internet. However, it might be acceptable to use the preposition "in" when discussing the hardware of the internet or when "internet" is a modifying adjective in the sentence.

"On the internet" refers to data/items and websites that can be found online.

On the internet' would refer to data/items/websites that one can find there. If you're talking about information retrieved from the Internet, people routinely say "it is stored ON the Internet", "I found it ON the Internet", "information ON the Internet is ..." etc.

You might use the preposition "in" in relation to the internet when discussing hardware or if "internet" is a modifying adjective in the sentence.


Wiktionary says : Abbreviation of wollnot or woll + not , negations of archaic form of will .

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology agrees: XVII.

contr.

of wonnot , assim.

of wol

not As to other forms, Etymonline only mentions wynnot :

first recorded mid-15c.

as wynnot , later wonnot (1580s) before the modern form [ won't ] emerged 1660s.

Won’t actually has a pretty interesting and complex history.

Ultimately it does come from a contraction of will and not , but it all happened in a rather roundabout way.

It all started off with the Old English verb willan/wyllan , meaning to will , wish , or want .

Even in Old English it was used occasionally to denote a future intent.

“Ic wille gan” could mean “I want to go” or

“I will go”, depending on context.

Now, the thing about negatives in Old English is that they were often reduced: na(w)ðer = nahwæðer = ne +

hwæðer

neither = not +

whether næfre = ne +

æfre never = not + ever nabbað =

ne + habbað haven’t = have + not We nabbað naðor ne hlaf ne wæter.

We have neither bread nor water.

Not comes from naht via noht .

Related to nawiht meaning naught , it originally meant in no way , but came to be used as an emphatic form of ne .

Subsequently it became unstressed and supplanted ne altogether.

This is an example of Jespersen’s Cycle .

All these things combined led to a new negative form of willan , wynnot .

The past forms of willan began with wold- , which is where we get would .

Under the influence of these forms and the related verb wol , wynnot became wonnot by the late 1500s.

Finally, the modern form won’t emerged by the 1660s as a result of reducing the final vowel in wonnot .

It appears to be the first word so contracted; most of the other -n’t contractions we use today ( can’t , couldn’t , shouldn’t , &c.) arose in the 1700s, modelled after won’t .

In modern English, cannot is the only uncontracted -not compound that survives.

As for the other contractions such as -’ll and -’ve , their history is just as long, though perhaps slightly less convoluted.

But that’s a story for a different question.

;) Also, remember that spelling in Old English was less standardised than in modern English.

There were often several equally valid ways to spell the same word, especially when you took different accents and dialects into account.

So sometimes it’s difficult to get a good historical account of pronunciation and usage changes.

Still, as far as I can tell, this is basically how it went down.

Source:

The Online Etymology Dictionary .

It's a contraction of woll not .

A friend found this explanation of the etymology of "will" via Google Books.

I found it interesting.

Will is from the Gothic wilgan, Saxon willan, Dutch willen, German wollen.

Among the various writers cited, I find it written wil, wyl, wyll, wrill, wol, woll.

In Scotland it is often, to this day, pronounced wull, and in some parts of England as if it were written wool!

The past tense was variously written when used as an auxiliary, wold, wolde, wouldin, wulde, would.

The German has present will, imperfect wolte.

Now, as wol and will seem originally to have been the same in meaning, if not in every thing but spelling, and that difference perhaps merely arising from ignorance or conforming to a vicious pronunciation, it does not seem amiss to consider would as derived from will; it certainly is derived from wol, and is as certainly the past tense of will, the auxiliary, to which wol is equivalent, and with which it was interchangeably used.

It was fairly common to form the negative of a word by swapping the first letter (if a consonant) with an "n", or simply adding an "n" if the word started with a vowel.

Chaucer used the word nas to mean "ne was", or "was not".

Nill was the contraction of "ne will", whence willy nilly meaning "willing or unwilling" (or "like it or not").

Nill was driven out by won't .

There are many other examples that have survived — e.g., naught meaning "nothing" is the negative of aught meaning "anything of value".

Neither is the negative of either .

The same thing happened in other European languages.

Willy nilly in Latin is volens nolens .

One and none are ullus and nullus .

In Afrikaans iemand is "somebody", and niemand is "nobody", erens means "somewhere", and nerens means "nowhere".

Willn't is an archaic version that remains in some dictionaries.

I have no idea if it is in current use.

Once I found it as a teenager, I very, very occasionally used it as a bit of a joke.

Question: "Don't", "wouldn't", "couldn't" and "isn't" are all contractions of "do not", "would not", "could not" and "is not"... So what's "won't" a contraction of?  It appears to be "will not", but if so, why isn't it " willn't "? (And if there's no good reason, has it  ever  been "willn't" at any point in history?)

What is "won't" a contraction of?

Won't is a contraction of "Woll" and "not", with "woll" being an archaic form of "will". However, "willn't" is an archaic form that still exists in some dictionaries.

According to Wicktionary the abbreviation of "wollnot" or "woll+not" are negative forms of the archaic form of "will". It originates from the verbs "willan/wyallan" meaning to "will", "wish" or "want". In Old English this could also denote future intent. Finally, the modern form  "won’t"  emerged by the 1660s as a result of reducing the final vowel in  wonnot .Old English spelling was also less standardised, so there were several ways of spelling a word, so it is not always clear historically of its pronunciation and usage.Willn't is an archaic version still in some dictionaries.The source is from the Gothic, Saxon, Dutch and German words.Pronunciation, particularly in Scotland, means "will" is often pronounced like "wool"

It's a contraction of  woll not, negations of archaic form of  will .   In modern English,  cannot  is the only uncontracted  -not  compound that survives.   In Scotland it is often, to this day,  pronounced wull, and in some parts of England as if it were written  wool!

"Won't" is an abbreviation of  willn't, wollnot  or  woll  +  not, which are negations of an archaic form of  will.

"Won't" is a contraction of "Woll" and "not", with "woll" being an archaic form of "will".

"Willn't" is an archaic form that still exists in some dictionaries.


Generally speaking, in English, accusative (also known as “objective”) pronouns (like me ) are the “default” form.

That is, unless there is a specific syntactic rule requiring use of a different case, such as nominative ( I ), genitive ( my/mine ), or reflexive/intensive ( myself ), in English you use the accusative case.

In the syntactic context where a pronoun is not serving a role relative to an explicit verb, such as when it is the simple answer to a question, or if one is labeling something, such as a photo, accusative pronouns are standard.

“Who wants to come?”

“Me.”

Nominative pronouns are impossible here—you cannot answer the question “Who wants to come?”

with “I”, nor would anyone label a photo “I”.

This holds even if negated: “Who wants ice cream?”

“Not me.”

If you want to use the highest register, most formal English, however, you should avoid the question of what case to use with pronouns standing alone, and use a complete sentence: “I do not want ice cream.”

"I" is used when the speaker is the subject of the sentence: "I kissed Eve.

" "Me" is used when the speaker is the object of the sentence.

Eve kissed me."

Strict grammatical logic says that the same is true when answering questions.

"Who kissed Eve?

" "I did.

" or just "I."

However in common usage, going back centuries, people frequently use "Me" as a single word answer where "I" would seem logical.

It's so common that it can't be considered wrong: "Me.

" .. "Who did Eve kiss?" "Me.

By way of illustration; the classic nursery rhyme: "Who killed Cock Robin?" "I," said the Sparrow, with my bow and arrow

" Adding "not" changes nothing.

"Who kissed Eve?

"Not I" - agrees with the formal, and still acceptable grammar "Not me" - agrees with common usage Both are fine.

Not I" is perhaps a bit ostentatiously literate "

Who did Eve kiss?

" "Not me."

-- never "Not I" Just as with that old chestnut less versus fewer , it's a one way street.

People rarely say fewer when less is "correct" (except sometimes deliberately, to annoy).

People rarely say "

Not I" when "Not me" is "correct".

Bottom line: if you always say "Not me", you'll never be wrong.

But you miss out on the chance to be extra rigorous in your grammar.

I would say either “I don’t” or “not me.”

I do not know whether “not me” is grammatically correct or not.

If “not me” is acceptable, I guess that “not I” should be the grammatically correct form because “who” in the question is the subject.

But even if so, “not I” sounds like a phrase for the sake of grammatical correctness.

In traditional English folk songs you will often find lines like: ...Fair lady, could you fancy I?

and there's also:

I care for nobody,

no not I , if nobody cares for me (The Miller of Dee)

I'm also reminded of Edmund Blackadder being irritated by an old witch's turn of phrase, and reprimanding her:

"It's

Yes it is not That it be !"

For anyone who doesn't know, this is a BBC comedy programme and the line is obviously done for comic effect, but it stems from the fact that 'it be' was commonly used at one time, and might still be used in certain English dialects.

It's clear that that many kinds of 'incorrect' or non-standard usage have been around for a long time

and I don't think it's up to us (we) in the 21st century to tell them they were wrong.

The point of language is communication.

As long as there's no chance of confusion when using Not I/Not me, it's a matter for personal choice.

Let it be!

"Not I" is the grammatically correct way to say it (it's a way of rephrasing "I do not.")

However, in common parlance (as opposed to formal), you will probably hear "not me" more often, though it's grammatically incorrect (it might be rephrased as "me do not.")

As for why it became so common, I couldn't tell you.

And yes, in casual conversation, it can sometimes sound awkward and perhaps a bit snooty.

But it's not the only case where the grammatically correct way of saying something sounds that way.

TL; DR version: "Not me" probably won't get you funny looks in casual conversation.

If you're writing an essay or giving a speech, use the grammatically correct form, "Not I."

Question: With the enthusiastic question of "Who wants ice-cream?", what is the more correct response?     (Not) I.  (Not) me.    Neither response is a sentence. The first response of "(not) I" sounds stuffy, like it should be followed with an indignant sniff. The second sounds like American idiom and acceptable for casual speech.    What do you say?

"Who wants ice-cream?" — Should I say "(not) I" or "(not) me"?

It is not clear whether "not me" is grammatically correct, but most people would agree that it is acceptable and more common. "Not I" may in fact be the more grammatically correct option and you might want to use it if writing an essay or giving a speech.

In English, the "accusative" form, or object pronoun in this case, is usually "me", unless a specific syntax dictates otherwise.If you are using the most formal English, try using full sentences as in "I do not want ice cream". "I" is used when the speaker is the  subject  of the sentence as in. "I kissed Eve. Historic uses tended to use object pronoun as the subject as in "Fair lady, could you fancy I?".

Generally speaking, in English, accusative (also known as “objective”) pronouns (like  me ) are the “default” form. "I" is used when the speaker is the  subject  of the sentence and "me" is used when the speaker is the  object  of the sentence.    Strict grammatical logic says that the same is true when answering questions.   However  in common usage, going back centuries, people frequently use "Me" as a single word answer where "I" would seem logical.

"Not me" is the widely accepted version. However, "Not I" could be used in more formal, grammatically correct circumstances. Otherwise, you might say "I don't".

It is not clear whether "not me" is grammatically correct, but most people would agree that it is acceptable and more common. "Not I" may in fact be the more grammatically correct option and you might want to use it in formal writing.

If you're writing an essay or giving a speech, use the grammatically correct form, "Not I."

If “not me” is acceptable, I guess that “not I” should be the grammatically correct form because “who” in the question is the subject.

Bottom line: if you always say "Not me", you'll never be wrong.

I would say either “I don’t” or “not me.”

TL; DR version: "Not me" probably won't get you funny looks in casual conversation.

I do not know whether “not me” is grammatically correct or not.

I is used when the speaker is the  subject  of the sentence:   "I kissed Eve.

Both are possible. "Not I" is a much more formal use and "Not me" is more colloquial. The purpose of language is communication, once there is no confusion, it can be a matter of personal choice.

"Not me" may not be grammatical, if it is not than "Not I" is the correct form, although it sounds as if complying to grammatical forms more than anything.

"Not I" is the grammatically correct way to say it (it's a way of rephrasing "I do not.")  However, in common parlance (as opposed to formal), you will probably hear "not me" more often, though it's grammatically incorrect (it might be rephrased as "me do not.")

Most people would accept the form "Not me" as correct and acceptable.

Some people claim that "Not I" is the most grammatically correct choice in this instance.

It is not clear whether "not me" is grammatically correct or not.

You may wish to use "Not I" in formal writing.


If I'm not mistaken, another is a contraction of an other , but since an/a mean singular, saying many another would seem incorrect.

The Free Dictionary as well as Merriam-Webster say that "many a/another" expresses "each of a large indefinite number".

"many a man" "many another day will come" In German it would be translated as "so manch", "manch ein".

Compare 1M and 135M, I don't think "like many another" is a standard phrase.

I haven't seen it before until now in this question, and I don't think it's correct either.

"Many a" is an idiom, a fossilised remnant of a construction which is no longer productive in English.

I would say it has a rather archaic flavour itself, and would not be used in formal contexts.

"Many another" is an extension of this, and feels odd to me.

Undeniably the construction is less common than it was , but it's still perfectly standard English... ...which includes 8300

written instances in Google Books from the 21st century.

Note that it's the equivalent of "

Like many others " , not "Like many other" , unless followed by a plural noun (where "Like many other children" equates to "Like many another child " ).

The phrase 'like many another' is perfectly legitimate, though possibly slightly old fashioned (like me, but I've used the phrase on many another occasion, though not in EL&U answers as it happens).

The comparison is with a singular object, which can be stated explicitly or omitted (implied).

The word 'child' (or 'student') is optional in the following examples; the sentences are both grammatically correct.

Like many another in his class, John is thirteen years old.

Like many another child in his class, John is thirteen years old.

The phrase 'like many other' requires an object, which must be plural and explicit.

Omitting 'children' leaves a non-grammatical sentence.

Like many other children in his class, John is thirteen years old.

The phrase 'like many others' uses an implicit plural object (which must be omitted).

Although the comparison is with the other children, you cannot include 'children' in the comparison while you keep 'others'.

Like many others in his class, John is thirteen years old.

You could also write any of the following, each of which uses only one of 'many' or 'other': Like many in his class

, John is thirteen years old.

Like many children in his class, John is thirteen years old.

Like others in his class, John is thirteen years old.

Like other children in his class, John is thirteen years old.

Writing the following has a slightly different connotation; it implies that all the other children in the class are thirteen, which could happen, but is fairly improbable.

Like the other children in his class, John is thirteen years old.

To me it sounds like a contraction of: Like many before, here is another

Question: I've come across "like many another" in a GMAT question. Its use is similar to "Like many other" e.g. "Like many another in his class, John is thirteen years old."  It has 1M hits in google (compare to 135M for "like many other").I would like to know if it's a mistake or an uncommon but standard phrase.

Is the phrase "Like many another" correct in standard English?

There is no clear agreement as to whether "like many another" is correct English or not. However, it is referenced in the Meriam-Webster Dictionary to express "each of a large indefinite number". Regardless, it is likely to be very archaic and would not be used in formal contexts.

The Free Dictionary and Merriam-Webster state that "many a/another" mean "each of a large indefinite number"Another" is a contraction of "an other" but given "a/an" imply a singular form, using "many other" seems incorrect.Never seen before, but not considered correct."Many a" is an idiom, and is a remnant of a construction that no longer exists in English, so "many another" as an extension also sounds incorrect.

"Many a" is an idiom, a fossilised remnant of a construction which is no longer productive in English. The phrase 'like many another' is perfectly legitimate, though possibly slightly old fashioned.

Like many another' may well be legitimate, though possibly slightly old fashioned and unknown to many. "Like many other" is much more widely used.

There is no clear agreement as to whether "like many another" is correct English or not. However, it is referenced in the Meriam-Webster Dictionary. Regardless, it is likely to be very archaic and likely not suitable even in formal writing.

It appears that this expression is referenced in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

There is no clear agreement about whether this is a standard or correct phrase in English.

This phrase could be very archaic and not suitable even in formal contexts.


VonC's answer is more to the point, but I just can't resist the urge to post this Venn diagram: Image credit.

The most probable term would be "geek", as in "computer geek" (roughly "computer whiz").

(not the US geek from fifty years ago, as the lowest form of circus performer, who did horrible, demeaning things).

Even though a geek is not necessarily smart or into computers, but can be in general a "weird person", the only usage of geek I know in French culture is related to computer.

This thread mentions : "Nerd" has several meanings/usages.

One is that of a studious intellectual, meant to be negative but carrying a whiff of envy.

The other is "awkward pain in the neck".

One (non-official) difference between nerd and geek (in the computer field) could also be in term of general activity: "Nerd" = producer "Geek" = consumer Eg.

a nerd creates video games, a geek plays the video games.

But those two terms certainly cannot be limited to this simple interpretation.

That being said, I thought the remark from John Hodgman was quite accurate:

Comedian John Hodgman recently spoke at a Washington DC press dinner, following Barack Obama, touting Obama as the first Nerd President, since Obama had admitted to collecting comic books and being a fan of Star Trek.

Obama's Nerd intellectualism was contrasted to the "Jock" mentality that had defined the Bush years.

In the midst of this speech Hodgman suddenly referred to Obama as a geek, quickly adding this aside: "And to those who say, 'Wait, there's a difference between nerds and geeks,' I answer, 'Shut up, nerd!'" Nicely illustrated by phdcomics :

Obligatory xkcd reference :

Geek or Nerd = People who are passionate about something and laughed at by people who are NOT willing to take the time or effort find something to be passionate about and in fact trying their best to poke fun at people who care about something :-)

Merriam-Webster defines them thusly:

Geek - an enthusiast or expert especially in a technological field or activity Nerd - one

slavishly devoted to intellectual or academic pursuit

I'd say they're virtually synonyms.

I've certainly heard them used interchangeably.

My definition of a Geek is that its somebody that is very interested in something and knows a lot about that subject, but also knows a lot or just as much about many other subjects.

ie computers AND maths AND physics AND chemistry AND politics.

A Nerd however goes VERY deep on one subject and has a cursory interest in other subjects.

What this means is that geeks do some really interesting things in some fields, and manage to cross fields really easily.

But the focused advances in most fields come from the hardcore Nerds.

Thus a Nerd is a very hardcore focused Geek.

A theory of a hierarchy, based on level of social interaction capabilities, has been discussed over numerous, excellent bottles of beer.

"Geeks," "nerds," and "dorks" all have the same level of passion for their field of study.

As a result, it is impossible to distinguish among them based on their level of skill and degree of interest.

Instead, it was concluded, one night, that it was better to organize them by their social skills.

"Geeks" have a high level of social skills and are able to interact with people outside their area of expertise: they might be geeks in, say, Ruby on Rails programming, but they can chat up an art historian with alacrity.

Nerds, on the other hand, are less comfortable outside their circle of peers--a C# programming nerd can talk to an advertising sales rep,

if he/she must, but only if there is a substantial amount of alcohol involved.

For those unfortunate people who are so absorbed in their subject matter as to consider social interaction with anyone beyond their ken...

we tend to call them dorks.

It's an cruel classification, but it exists all the same.

A fourth class have been discussed, usually late into the drink, and it's the question of the "poser," or someone who thinks they are an expert in something and think they belong in the "geek" or "nerd" class.

Even "dorks" agree that the proper term for them is probably "dweeb."

Someone reasonably famous once said "Nerds are simply Geeks who earn lots of money

" I think it was in the context of Bill Gates.

Question: Which term correctly identifies those who enjoy and are involved with programming and technology,  geek  or  nerd ?

Which term correctly identifies those who enjoy programming/technology: "geek" or "nerd"?

Whilst it is possible that these terms are virtually synonyms and interchangeable, "Geek" is probably the more common in this context.

The most likely term is "geek" meaning "computer geek" and not the circus performer referred to fifty years ago.A "nerd" is someone who creates "video games"; a "geek" is someone who plays them. It can mean people passionate about something who are mocked by others. The difference is that a nerd has very deep interest in a subject, but a "geek" would have some skills in certain areas but have skills that can apply to many areas.There is no distinction.The joke about the difference is that one earns more than the other.

A geek  is an enthusiast or expert especially in a technological field or activity. But,"Geeks" still have a high level of social skills and are able to interact with people outside their area of expertise. A nerd is someone who is slavishly devoted to an intellectual or academic pursuit and nerds are less comfortable outside their circle of peers. Comedian John Hodgman recently spoke at a Washington DC press dinner, following Barack Obama, touting Obama as the first Nerd President, since Obama had admitted to collecting comic books and being a fan of Star Trek. You could say that a Nerd is a very hardcore focused Geek.

Geek and nerd are virtually synonyms and are used interchangeably.

Whilst it is possible that these terms are interchangeable, "Geek" is probably the more common in this context.

Someone reasonably famous once said "Nerds are simply Geeks who earn lots of money

"Geek" is possibly the more common term in this context.

It is possible that these terms are interchangeable.


To add to Martha's answer : The simple past ("Did you see this") refers about an event in the past

The present perfect ("Have you seen this") suggests a link with the present time.

If "this" is something you could have seen but cannot anymore

(you should have been there seeing "this" at the time, but it wouldn't have the same impact if you see it again now), then "Did you see" is more appropriate.

It is about an event that happened once in the past.

If "this" is something you can check out whenever you want, "Have you seen" is more to the point, because it suggests that, if you haven't seen it in the past, you could consider seeing it now or in the near future.

It is about an event which can happen again or is still relevant in the present.

The difference is pretty subtle, but the "did you..." version implies more of an event, i.e. something that needs to be seen just once, perhaps because it's temporary.

So, Have you seen [insert movie title]?

but Did you see last night's [insert TV show name] episode?

Edit

: note that there's nothing wrong with "Have you seen last night's episode?", or with "Did you see the movie?", but there is a (slight) difference in meaning.

There is a difference between UK and US usage in this case (though I believe that the difference has been diminishing over the past few decades).

In my (UK) idiolect, "Did you see this?" is very unlikely, because "did you see" implies that the opportunity for seeing it has passed, which is inconsistent with "this".

Without "this" (eg "Did you see what he did?")

the implication is that he has stopped doing it. "

Did you see this yet?

" is impossible in my idiolect for the same reason.

"Have you seen this?" implies that you still could see it even if you haven't yet.

Thus Martha's "Have you seen last night's episode?" to me implies that the episode is still available in some way and you could still see it.

I would not say "Have you seen last night's performance of the play?"

As I say, I believe that this distinction is not there (or at least not as strong) in US English.

Ex: Have u seen my glasses?

Did you see my glasses?

"Have you seen" implies that the person saw your glasses sometime in the recent past right up to the present moment.

"Did you see" is asking if the person has ever seen your glasses, at any time in the past.

It makes a big difference if you're looking for a lost pair of glasses.

It wouldn't help much if the person had seen them four years ago.

You want to know where they are now! source

Did you see James?

No, I did not have any dates with him.

Have you seen James?

No, I have no idea where he is.

Question: What's the difference between these two phrases?

What is the difference between "Have you seen this?" and "Did you see this?"

Generally, the phrase "Have you seen this?" suggest a link with the present time and implies that you could still see the item or event in question even if you haven't yet. "Did you see this", on the other hand, refers to an event in the past. However, there may be a different between UK and US usage.

Did you see? is the simple past and refers to events in the past. Whereas "have you seen this" is the present perfect and suggests a link with the present.There is a difference between UK and US usage.

"Did you see this?" implies that the opportunity for seeing it has passed, which is inconsistent with "this". The present perfect ("Have you seen this") suggests a link with the present time.   "Did you see this?" implies that the opportunity for seeing it has passed, which is inconsistent with "this".

The present perfect ("Have you seen this") suggests a link with the present time. The simple past ("Did you see this?") refers to an event in the past. "Have you seen this?" implies that you still could see it even if you haven't yet.

Generally, the phrase "Have you seen this?" implies that you could still see the item or event in question even if you didn't see it earlier, whilst "Did you see this" refers to an event in the past. However, there may be regional differences in usage and "Did you see this?" is an unlikely expression in UK English.

"Did you see?" is the simple past and refers to events in the past. Whereas "have you seen this" is the present perfect and suggests a link with the present.

The phrase "have you seen" implies that you could still see it now even if you didn't see it earlier.

There may be a difference in usage depending on the region.

The phrase "Did you see this" is unlikely in UK English.


Perhaps you mean begging the question ?

According to BegTheQuestion.info, it means: "Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself.

When one begs the question, the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place.

A simple example would be "I think he is unattractive because he is ugly."

The adjective "ugly" does not explain why the subject is "unattractive" -- they virtually amount to the same subjective meaning, and the proof is merely a restatement of the premise.

The sentence has begged the question.

Interestingly, the term "begging the question" is commonly misused to mean, "to raise the question."

It's a Fallacious Argument , of which there are many varieties, find one here that fits your specific case... could well be Argument By Laziness (or Argument By Uninformed Opinion) http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

I think you're actually thinking of a logical fallacy, known as the appeal to misleading authority, or ipse dixit.

This occurs when someone incorrectly assumes an opinion to be fact.

In contrast, hyperbole is an exaggerated statement not intended to be taken as fact.

I would call this prejudice or prejudgement : making a judgement before heeding relevant facts or considering other viewpoints; presenting opinion as fact without sufficient evidence.

Pontification could be related.

The term you are looking for seems to be hyperbole .

The Wikipedia entry defines it pretty well: Hyperbole ... is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech.

It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

Merriam-Webster simply defines it as "extravagant exaggeration", which is perhaps the most generic meaning.

Most commonly the word is used in the context of a debate/argument.

It evidently refers more to the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device, but emotion/persuasion often goes hand in hand, so it's pretty appropriate for the case you're considering.

I hope most are agreed that "hyperbole" is not a good answer for the original question.

I'm thinking the sentiment expressed in the question is close to a definition of "dogmatic," though "dogmatic" does not connote anything about being extreme, more about simply stating opinions as if they were facts.

The question pertains as much to the arguing from a particular point of view as it does to the expression of that point of view.

"Dogmatic" seems to have this overtone, since the employment of dogma is almost exclusively in the context of persuasion, and not infrequently, argumentation.

Anyway, it follows that "to argue dogmatically" would be very close to the second part of "arguing emotively from an extreme, or biased, point of view as if your view is fact," but it does not capture the "extreme" aspect the poser wants, more the "arguing as if your view were already ascertained fact" aspect.

So, "dogmatic" is not a perfect fit--but maybe there isn't one.

Question: I'm fairly sure there is a word or phrase to describe arguing emotively from an extreme, or biased, point of view as if your view is fact, but I can't remember what it may be. (I am wanting to use this word or phrase in a reply, I promise it is not a crossword clue.)  Any hints?

Using or arguing a biased opinion as fact

There is no clear agreement as to what this particular concept is called, but potentially applicable terms could be "Begging the question", "logical fallacy" or "pontification".

The asker may be seeking for "beg the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. It is o ften incorrectly used as "to raise the question". It is a "fallacious argument". It's a logical fallacy.Prejudice or pre-judgement. Similarly, "pontification" could be another word.The term required is "hyperbole" as defined by Wikipedia.

This is a Fallacious Argument , of which there are many varieties. It could also be referred to as  prejudice  or  prejudgement or dogmatic.

Suggestions include "to beg the question"; "logical fallacy"; "prejudgement"; "pontification"; "hyperbole" or "dogmatic".

I think you're actually thinking of a logical fallacy, known as the appeal to misleading authority, or ipse dixit.

I would call this prejudice or prejudgement : making a judgement before heeding relevant facts or considering other viewpoints; presenting opinion as fact without sufficient evidence.

The term you are looking for seems to be hyperbole .

I'm thinking the sentiment expressed in the question is close to a definition of "dogmatic," though "dogmatic" does not connote anything about being extreme, more about simply stating opinions as if they were facts.

According to BegTheQuestion.info, it means: "Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself.

When one begs the question, the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place.

The asker may be seeking for the wording "beg the question" which is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. It is often incorrectly used as "to raise the question"

It could also be referred to as  prejudice  or  prejudgement.

This could also be referred to as "dogmatic".