Certainly many usage guides have advised against use of this " singular they " on various "logical" grounds.

Nevertheless, singular they has long been part of the English language, and there are various posts on Language Log giving examples of it being used in the Bible , by Shakespeare , by the president , by the Canadian Department of Justice , etc. .

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language 's coauthor Geoff Pullum (a frequent Language Log contributor) calls the idea that they must never occur with a singular antecedent a myth .

There is no shortage of usage "experts" who advise against it, as the other answers in the question should make clear (though these days their reasoning tends away from a simple "it's wrong" towards something more defensive–"some

people will think it's wrong, so avoid it").

But despite them, use of singular they occurs at all levels of the language, both spoken and written, informal and formal.

It's not ungrammatical per se on the basis of analysis of actual usage using reasonable linguistic methods.

But use it at your own risk of being criticized by the self-righteous but misinformed.

Up until very recent times the natural answer would have been "Anyone who loves the English language should have a copy of this book in his bookcase", because "his" was also a gender-neutral pronoun.

It turned out, however, that "his" could only function as a gender-neutral pronoun if it were a plot by the patriarchy or something, so we're in the process of trying out alternatives.

I've heard serious proposals to substitute "their", "his or her", "her", "its", and even "hisorher".

Of those alternatives, I use "their" because it sounds the most natural to me, but usually I avoid pronouns altogether, as in, "This book should be book in the bookcase of anyone who loves the English language."

That style has the additional advantage of making you sound formal and pedantic.

Second one (for writing purpose), if I believe the " THEY/THEIR (SINGULAR) " article.

A good general rule is that only when the singular noun does not specify an individual can it be replaced plausibly with a plural pronoun :

“Everybody” is a good example.

We know that “everybody” is singular because we say “everybody is here,“ not “everybody are here” yet we tend to think of “everybody” as a group of individuals, so we usually say “everybody brought their own grievances to the bargaining table.”

“Anybody” is treated similarly.

However, in many written sentences the use of singular “their” and “they” creates an irritating clash even when it passes unnoticed in speech.

It is wise to shun this popular pattern in formal writing .

I have gone to using their instead of the increasingly awkward him/

her in all but the most formal of my writings.

His or her is sounding very contrived, and it is no better to substitute her for him than to have him as the gender neutral pronoun.

The use of their is increasingly common and should simply be accepted by grammarians, though it will probably take a century or so before the high and mighty accept this increasingly common usage.

See here or here or here .

Executive summary:

His/her is to be avoided.

In a business English course at WVU in 1987, I was taught to avoid the sexist language/agreement problem by making the subject plural: Anyone All the people who love the English language should have copies of this book in their bookcases.

In these days of exaggerated care for egalitarianism it is always a conundrum whether to use "his", "her" or "their".

And perhaps we should be concerned about egalitarianism.

On the other hand, the traditional use of the masculine gender to stand in for both sexes still doesn't seem too outré to me.

As a guy, perhaps I am missing something.

What I would do, if I were writing technical works, would be to write one with a masculine user, and the next time do it for a feminine user.

Leave each work (whether an essay or a book) consistent as to gender of the subject user.

Alternatively, if you are a female writer, your user should always be female; and if a male writer, then male user.

Lot's of choices out there!

Try to offend as many people as possible.

Question: Is this sentence grammatically correct?   Anyone who loves the English language should have a copy of this book in  their  bookcase.   or should it be:   Anyone who loves the English language should have a copy of this book in  his or her  bookcase.

Is it correct to use "their" instead of "his or her"?

It is true that many usage guides advise against using the "singular they", however, the use of the singular "they" occurs at all levels of the language. Therefore, there is no clear rule as to whether this is acceptable or not.

Views vary - some people regard the use of the plural as informal and incorrect but it is an increasingly widespread and accepted form in this context.

Some grammarians have advised against use of thie" singular  they " on various "logical" grounds, but it is not ungrammatical per se on the basis of analysis of actual usage using reasonable linguistic methods. Sngular  they  has long been part of the English language, with examples of it being used  in the Bible ,  by Shakespeare ,  by the president ,  by the Canadian Department of Justice ,  etc. Use of singular  they  occurs at all levels of the language, both spoken and written, informal and formal.  The use of  their  is increasingly common and should simply be accepted by grammarians, though it will probably take a century or so before the high and mighty accept this increasingly common usage. His/her  on the other hand should be avoided.

It's not ungrammatical on the basis of analysis of actual usage using reasonable linguistic methods. However, some usage guides have advised against use of a " singular  they " on various "logical" grounds.

It is generally agreed that use of the singular "their" is not grammatically incorrect, although there do exist language guides that advise against it.

No - this is a widespread usage and has been for a very long time, however ungrammatical it may appear.

It is alright - but can often be avoided by changing the sentence structure.

It is a popular form that should be avoided in formal writing.

The use of there is increasingly common way to avoid his or her.

I was taught specifcally to use plural pronouns as a way of avoiding sexist language.

You can still use the masculine gender as a gender-neutral form.

Sngular  they  has long been part of the English language, with examples of it being used  in the Bible ,  by Shakespeare ,  by the president ,  by the Canadian Department of Justice ,  etc. .

There are certainly language usage guides that advised against using 'their' in the singular form.

This particular use of 'their' is not grammatically incorrect.


"On accident" (meaning "accidentally") does seem to be an unusual usage that frequently appears in opposition to the much more idiomatic "on purpose" (meaning "purposefully").

These are the kinds of idioms commonly used by e.g. children in explaining why something has gone wrong: —"You broke my toy on purpose!" —"No, it was on accident!".

A quick survey of the 34 incidences of "on accident" in the Corpus of Contemporary American English show about half have the sense discussed here, and "on accident" does occur in opposition to "on purpose": HAAS:

That happens in so many cases where you're got misinformation

that's either leaked on accident or on purpose.

— from "Gunman Kills 32, Wounds 28 at Virginia Tech" on On the Record w/ Greta Van Susteren on Fox News, 2007 JACOBUS:

Big difference when it's on purpose and when it's on accident.

— from "Dean, Democrats and Iowa's Deadline", on CNN, 2003 Other examples are from fiction:

"Dad better not see this or you'll get it.

I'll tell him we were play fighting, and I slugged you on accident.

Evan Shopper, "If I have to hit one of you, I'll hit you both" in The Massachusetts Review , 2003

She was thirteen years old, called herself a "gangsta ho" even though all her friends were white, and had already dropped out of school.

On accident," she said - she'd broken her collarbone the year before horsing around on her cousin's dirt bike and missed so much school that she simply never bothered returning. — Emily Shelton, "From MEMPHIS (Short story).

" in Chicago Review , 2003 "By accident", in contrast, has 1419 results, making it more than 100 times more common, and occurring not just in spoken and informal written English, but also in formal edited writing in academic journals, magazines, and newspapers.

"On accident" sounds strange to me. "

By accident" sounds better, but I can't understand how it could be much different from "On purpose", albeit very strange to say "By purpose".

A quick Google search of "fell by accident" versus "fell on accident" suggests that "by accident" is used about 99% of the time.

But with "tripped by/on accident" there are more results for "on".

I've never encountered "on accident" until seeing this question, so I think it must be something peculiar to the US.

He tripped on accident.

He was eaten by accident.

Those are the forms I would use, if forced to choose between them.

However, there is no grammatical difference between the two 1 , and I chose those because they "sound right" .

I don't believe there is actually a rule which states which to use, but I could be wrong about that.

This matter, of course, is solved if we use the word accidentally .

Yes, the second sentence is in passive voice, while the first is in active, but I don't think that's the root cause.

As the original question makes pretty clear, this is a change in progress (you see this kind of stratification by age all the time with changes in progress).

In the earlier stages of such a change, you can't expect to find it much in writing, so results from google, etc, are going to be misleading.

It's likely there is also regional variation here as well.

To me "on accident" (raised in northern California) is normal, though sounds slightly less formal.

As for why this might be happening, I like ShreevatsaR's theory.

In situations like these, I tend to lengthen out the phrase.

Replace "by" with "by way of

a/an" He tripped by way of an accident.

accident here adds information to the clause "he tripped" "Purpose" is something thought out, perhaps written down, requiring more formal thought.

A synonym for "purpose" is "intent".

He tripped by intent sounds better than "He tripped on intent".

Therefore, I would guess that although we are more comfortable with "tripping 'on' purpose" I wonder if "tripping by purpose" is actually a more accurate phrase.

In addition, "He tripped on..." could be followed by an object as well. "

He tripped on a cat" Sorry for the rambling.

Both sound reasonable to my ear, though I like "by accident" better.

Doing some basic corpus analysis finds that "by accident" is much more prevelant.

The Corpus of Contemporary American English lists 1419 occurrences of "by accident" vs only 23 for "on accident".

A quick Google comparison gives 7,030,000 hits for "by accident" vs 1,020,000 hits for "on accident".

Interesting to be sure.

Perhaps this is in reference to Barratt's paper on the topic, and language change in general.

Changes like this do happen, and it isn't unusual for usage to be clearly defined by generations (consider the verb impact).

One conclusion drawn here is that people are seeking parallelism with "on purpose", though it also concedes that it's hard to know for sure.

I have some friends in the south (Louisisana) who always say "on accident" and think "by accident" sounds wrong.

My friends in the North (New Jersey/Pennsylvania) think "on accident" sounds wrong.

It may be a regional thing, but I don't have enough data to say for sure.

Usual fluent english usage would be "...

by accident" as distinct from "..

on purpose".

More elegant in prose would be "...accidentally"

Question: There is a great chasm on these phrases in the US.  The great divide seems to be currently centered at the age of 40.  The younger generation has began shifting to "on accident" for unknown reasons.  What is your view?

Is it correct to say "on accident" instead of "by accident"?

"On accident" appears to be much less common than "by accident", although it may have come about as opposition to "on purpose". "By accident" is probably used about 99% of the time, although differences in usage may also be regional. In any case, it is not clear whether there is actually a rule to say whether one or the other is more correct.

On accident' appears to have arisen from a mistaken comparison to 'on purpose'. It is far less commonly or less widely used and therefore may sound incorrect in formal texts.

A google search will give hits that show "by accident", opposed to "on accident" is used 99% of the time. This could also be American English usage only. One conclusion drawn here is that people are seeking parallelism with "on purpose".

Although understandable, "on accident" is said to sound strange to many people, in favor of "by accident". This may be a regional difference. However, Google searches and other checks show that "by accident" us used the vast majority of the time.

The exact answer to this question may depend on the regional dialect where you are. However, it appears that most people prefer "By accident" and indeed, most corpus studies show this to be signficantly more common.

On accident' appears to have arisen from a mistaken comparison to 'on purpose'. It is far less commonly used and therefore may sound incorrect in formal texts.

By accident' is far more common - 'On accident' must be US English - it is not used in UK English..

On accident' is a new form that is still not widely used.

In the southern US people say 'on accident' and in the north 'by accident'.

"By accident" appears to be the more approved term.

Most corpus-analyses seem to demonstrate that "By accident" is used significantly more than "On accident".

The difference in usage of "On accident" and "By accident" could be regional.


Though I would understand both in written and oral communication, I find the first to be pretty odd.

I wouldn't ever use it, and strongly prefer the second, "according to".

Why is this so odd?

I looked a bit in the OED at the use of "as per" (odd in itself for combining two prepositions).

It was first used in 1869 as a "slang" form "as per usual" by itself.

I did however come across an entry that has a similar meaning to what you're looking for here: "by".

By.

a.

According to; as stated, indicated, or directed by, as per advice, per instructions, per invoice, per ledger, etc.

Usually preceded by as.

This was used as early as 1446 and as late as 1989.

The difference here, I think, has been touched on:

this meaning implies some obligation or requirement.

No other entries seem to come close, and this matches my own mental lexicon for "per" and "as per".

It just doesn't fit in this situation.

The two phrases have the same meaning but different in register. "

According to" is normal register while "as per" connotes commercial correspondence as in: The shipment will arrive prior to December first, as per our agreement.

Both are bad English and are unnatural and incorrect uses of English as they are superfluous and add no additional or necessary information to the sentence.

In general this type of mistake is common amongst Indian speakers of English.

I believe, quiet ironically, that it is thought to add an air of intelligence to a statement.

In fact, to a native speaker, it adds an air of pretentiousness that may serve to undermine the speaker in the eyes of the listener.

It clearly goes without saying that any statement you make is 'as per your knowledge' or 'according to your knowledge' unless stated otherwise.

What else could possibly be the case.

What is the difference for example, between these statements with and without this structure... A) "

Manchester United won the Premier League in 2012" B) "

According to my knowledge, Manchester United won the Premier League in 2012"orB) "

As per my knowledge, Manchester United won the Premier League in 2012"

In English we use 'according to...' to cite someone else.

To cite oneself is clearly absurd, unless you are citing a paper you published, or something you have formally written.

To cite your opinion or knowledge is meaningless.

We use 'as per' to refer back to something, such as 'as per our previous discussion' or 'as per the rules of the game'.

Again, to use it to refer back to your knowledge appears ridiculous.

Regards and best of luck Sanjay

Per means according to , so you can in fact say "per our agreement, you must...".

The as in your first sentence is pleonastic, and sounds affected: I'd avoid it.

The very common "as per usual" is a humorous prolixity.

Whether to use per or according to is the same as whether to use any archaic form or common usage.

In some areas (e.g. law) it's more common to see per , so you could use it to set the tone as legalese.

People who want to sound important write as per .

People who are important write according to .

Just to clarify... '

As per' is often used in legal discussions, for example regarding contracts.

For example, "As per article 4 section 8..." and this has a different meaning to "According to article 4 section 8..." For example if Article 4 Section 8 stated that you needed a doctors note in order to take sick leave you might say...

As per Article 4 Section 8 of our contract, I have attached a copy of my doctors note.

whereas with according to the meaning would be different.

According to Article 4 Section 8 I must supply a sick note in order to take sick leave.

I understand that per is an older and more formal version of according to , so it is very common to encounter per in some very serious and formal written language while according to has become a normal usage.

Question: See the following two sentences.   As per my knowledge it is right.   According to my knowledge it is right.    Are both the sentences right?  What is the difference and use of "as per" and "according to"?

What is the difference between "as per" and "according to"?

It is possible that they both mean the same thing. However, there may be a difference in register, with "as per" being considered more formal. However, some people would claim that they are both poor English or at least have different meanings. It is possible that "according to" is used more to cite someone and "as per" is used to refer back to something.

The more common form is 'according to' nowadays - 'as per' is not incorrect but it can sound pretentious or overly formal.

Per  means  according to.  The two phrases have the same meaning but a different register. 'As per' is an older form and is often used in legal discussions, for example for contracts.

The two phrases have the same meaning but different in register.  "According to" is normal register while "as per" connotes commercial correspondence as in:   The shipment will arrive prior to December first, as per our agreement

The main difference between these two sentences appears to be register, with "as per" being the more formal of the two. However, in the examples given, both would be considered poor English.

The more common form is 'according to' - but 'as per' is not incorrect.

The two phrases mean the same but vary in register.

The correct form of 'as per' is actually 'per'.

As per' is used by people who want to sound important.

As per' is more often used in legal texts.

As per' is an older form that has been replaced by 'according to'

S1: 'As per' is often used in legal discussions, for example for contracts.

Per' is also an older and more formal version of  'according to'.

Both sentences would be considered quite odd and possibly poor English.

The main difference between these two sentences is probably the register, with "as per" being more formal.


"Go."

The understood subject is "You". "

[You] go" makes sense to me.

One could argue that in certain contexts, the single letter "I" is a sentence (depending on your definition of a sentence):

"Who is it?"

"I" This (one letter) is the shortest possible, unless you count the "empty utterance".

It is said both the longest and the shortest sentence comes from the wedding ceremony: I do.

"Be!"

The verb "to be" in the imperative mood.

Though it's the same number of letters as "Go!

", I'd say it wins as it comes first alphabetically. ;)

"No!" works perfectly, in my opinion.

This.

That is the shortest, in number of words, complete English sentence that directly answers your question.

I don't know if it even qualifies in this context, but according to the story, an author (variously Oscar Wilde or Victor Hugo), wondering how his new book was selling, sent a single-character telegram to his publisher: ?

The reply was !

that is, well .

The shortest sentence in the entire English Language, is the reply: I.

It is a reply to the question: "Who is it?"

Reply: "

I." That's shorter than "Go!"

I would vote for "I am."

"I sentence you to time already served.

You are free to go."

Even better than that, contemplate (the pithy, wholly implied) section 7.1 of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (as translated from the original German):

"O!"

As a variant of the exclamation "Oh!", an interjection of fear, surprise, admiration, etc.

It obviously can't be less than three letters (

**.) and still be a complete thought.

Go.

Hi!

Ho!

(same as "Hi")

This doesn't include responses since they require other sentences.

Since you already have many sweet, and short, answers I can only speculate on your intentions and provide, possibly, interesting link to one word sentences .

No.

Also Q: Which is the fifth letter of the alphabet?A: E.

Eh? Used to represent a sound made in speech, especially one used to express enquiry, surprise, or to elicit agreement [ODO]

It depends on how you define sentence and then how you define shortest .

The answer does not appear to be Go , though (although that's quite a good shot at an answer).

The question uses the phrase complete sentence from which we can probably assume that the Original Poster is referring to a fully grammatical utterance headed by a finite verb.

With regards to shortest , there are at least two ways we could measure this.

We could do it orthographically, in which case the sentence with the fewest letters would probably be the imperative of the verb

' X ' (pronounced /eks/).

Although usually used transitively, as in the Mark Twain quote: 'I shell have to x this ere paragrab,' said he to himself, as he read it over.' ...

it could easily be used intransitively too: A.

What shall I do now?

B. X!

[meaning "start crossing out"]

However, although 'X' contains only one orthographic symbol, in terms of sound it consists of three segments: /eks/.

So, if by shortest sentence, we mean shortest in terms of segments, then this word wouldn't do.

The sentence Go has one consonant sound plus a diphthong - /gəʊ/ in Southern standard British English and /goʊ/

in General American.

We could regard this as having either two or three segments.

However, it is plainly obvious that this could be shorter.

The reason is we also have a verb owe which has exactly the same sound without the /g/, namely /əʊ/

or /oʊ/.

However, it is quite hard to use this verb without a following complement, and so an imperative sentence might be a bit implausible:

Owe! .

A better contender in terms of segments might be the verb OOH meaning to make an ooh sound, as in the audience oohed and aahed .

So if you were in the audience at one of those sitcoms where the audience were directed to laugh, clap, ooh and aah, one of the directions you might get, could feasibly be the imperative: Ooh!

This fully complete one word sentence consists only of the one vowel.

In phonemic script it looks like this: /u:/.

This then might be a contender for the shortest sentence in English.

But of course there are others.

For example there is always: Aah! ... which looks like this: /a:/!

english.stackexchange.com/users/76472/Araucaria - Not here any more.

Question: What is the shortest comprehensive sentence in English?

Shortest comprehensive sentence in English

The answer to this question will depend on what definition you use for a sentence, but some possible contenders for shortest comprehensive sentence could be "Go.", "No." or "This.".

Views vary but probably the shortest is the letter 'I' spoken in response to a question like 'Who is there?'

Go.', 'You.', 'Be.' 'No,' are all suggestions, as well as the single letter 'I.' or 'I am.'. Or it is said both the longest and the shortest sentence comes from the wedding ceremony:  I do. It would however, depend on how you define sentence  and then how you define  shortest .

Suggested answers for the shortest sentence include: "No"; "Go"; "Hi"; "Oh"; and "This". Two-word sentences include "I do" or "I am".

The answer to this question will depend on your definition of a sentence. However, there are a number of one-, two- or three- letter words that could function as complete sentences in their own right.

Possible a sound such as 'ooh' or 'aah'.

It is said both the longest and the shortest sentence comes from the wedding ceremony:  I do.

There are a range of one-, two- and three- letter words that could possibly function as whole sentences, such as "I", "Go" or "Hi".

The answer to this question will depend on how you define a sentence.


Unless they are actually your colleagues (i.e. none of them are your bosses!

or clients, or third-parties), I would stick with the neutral:

Dear All, (quite common) or

maybe: Dear Everyone, (less common)

I just checked by looking up the emails we (as a group) receive from the hierarchy above: They all begin with 'Dear All' (translated in French by 'Bonjour à tous et à toutes', since the equivalent of 'all' is not gender-neutral in French.)

To me, Dear all conveys laziness.

A well-thought-out message should have a specific audience that the message applies to.

Dear coworkers ,

Dear minions , Dear Death-Eaters , Dear residents , etc. is not that much more difficult to type.

Then someone reading the message can more easily discern whether the message applies to them or not.

Dear all is perfectably acceptable.

So is Dear Colleagues.

It depends on how formal or informal you want to be, and what is normal usage in your workplace.

If in doubt, do what appears to be normal practice.

I find that using a non-standard, but polite greeting in an email tends to be quite effective in getting people to actually read what you are writing.

For instance, when writing to a group of people, it is quite common (in New Zealand) to write: To whom it may concern, or, as has been mentioned: Dear All,

But I tend to write something off carte like (assuming that I worked at British Telecom–which I don't):

Dear BT Person, I have found that this unusual approach—which also feels less impersonal—can be more likely to garner an audience.

But where I currently work, we have a tool to address everyone individually, we just leave a placeholder where their name is, so it will say: Dear Mr. Smith, or Dear Kevin, Which I think is probably the best way to get it done if it is convenient.

Nowadays often only "All:" is used - not very nice

but that's the way it is.

Salutations are not for beauty; they are a tool to alter reader's mode of understanding, often to make the message more convincing.

If you are suggesting something formal, talking from position of rights or power, you may want to use more formal "Dear Colleagues" to make the argument stronger.

If you are making a proposal, and want to downplay it as in "hey, it's an idea, a basis for further thinking and please judge it as such", a simple 'All,' would do a better job.

In all cases, basic netiquette requires that meaningless text should be avoided when addressing a large group of people.

It's easier to write than to read, so one should invest in brevity.

All is not a addressing mode, when we talk to somebody we can use all to denote a group of people but while writing an email it surely doesn’t make any sense.

Dear

All is surely not correct English to start with the email, rather you could use dear colleagues at a workplace.

I presonally find writing dear

all very informal

and hence always use dear colleagues.

Question: I have observed that in my work place, whenever a mail is sent to more than one person( like an information, meeting request or a notice etc.), the mail starts with the salutation "Dear All". This, somehow, doesn't seem correct to me. For me, a salutation should address the reader individually, at least in its singular form, as in "Dear Colleagues".  Am I correct in thinking that?

Is it appropriate to use the salutation "Dear All" in a work email?

There is some disagreement as to whether "Dear All" is acceptable or not, and some people may feel that it is lazy. However, "Dear Colleagues" would be perfectly acceptable. The answer may well depend on how formal you wish to be.

Dear All is perfectly acceptable if you want a less formal salutation that something like Dear Colleagues.

Yes, 'Dear all' is perfectably acceptable, but something more formal might be "Dear Colleagues".

"Dear all" may be considered to be perfectly acceptable. However, it depends on how formal or informal you want to be, and what is normal usage in your workplace. Some people maintain that "Dear all" conveys laziness.

The answer to this question will depend on the context and how formal you wish to be. However, even then, the answer will be subjective. Some people find it perfectly acceptable, whilst others find it lazy writing.

Dear All sounds lazy - try to be more specific.

Dear all is perfectably acceptable, as is Dear Colleagues.

It depends on the context - Dear All is fine but Dear Colleagues sounds more formal and proper.

It is not grammatically correct, even though it is widely used.

Yes, 'Dear all' is perfectably acceptable.

Something more formal might be "Dear Colleagues".

Some people find this salutation perfectly acceptable.


Why not ask your readers to help you with copy editing?

Place a short, unobtrusive notice at the very top of every new blog post:

English is not my native language.

If anyone would like to help improve the grammar and clarity of this post, your suggestions and contributions would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Then compare their suggestions to what you wrote.

That is how you improve.

Soon, you might have a few readers to submit your blog post to before you publish them.

One of the things that I usually do is to Google the exact phrase to see if native English speakers have used it before.

For example sometimes you think you've heard someone saying an expression such as "your best bet is to", but you're not sure, then your best bet would be googling it, within the double quotes.

And also there's this highly recommended upcoming website called English Language and Usage on StackExchange which people can ask questions and expect fast answers related to the English language.

Oh I just googled to see whether it's appropriate to use "The" before "English Language".

I would recommend to use grammarly.com service.

It is an online instant grammar checker.

Even though it would not be able to cover all of your needs (proper phrasing, text structure analysis, etc), I'm sure you will find it useful in addition to the tools/approaches you already use.

I "has" no problems with non-native speakers, being one myself :)

I was reluctant to write in English for some time, but only by writing can we improve our language skills (see that inversion after "only" - still not sure about it).

Another thing -- people do appreciate good content, as long as it is comprehensible.

So, just write! :)

Why bother man?

Just keep your writing simple, concise and understandable.

Concentrate on making a good, simple and correct sentence that expresses something meaningful.

I'm a non-native English user, professional writer too, but I don't feel shy to write for the natives.

I have written hundreds of blogs, articles, and web contents for the natives without feeling I'm a non-native English writer :)

Keep your spirit up.

Question: What if someone who is not a native English speaker wants to write for a blog in English, but is not sure about the correctness of his writings? How could one ensure that the article won't annoy readers with its wrong language?  What would you recommend in this case? What should one pay attention to in the first place? What resources are there online for ensuring that an article is written well enough to be published?

Recommendations for non-native English speaking bloggers

There are a number of ways that a non-native could ensure that their blog is received well by readers. One simple technique would be to ask readers to help with copy editing. You could also use Google to check for specific phrases or use Grammarly to check your writing.

You could ask readers to help or check on Google or grammarly but the main thing is just to keep writing - most readers really won't mind about minor errors.

One idea would be to ask your readers to help you with copy editing. You can also Google the exact phrase to see if native English speakers have used it before or use grammarly.com. The main thing is to concentrate on  making a good, simple and correct sentence that expresses something meaningful.

A website called English Language and Usage on StackExchange allows people to ask questions and expect fast answers related to the English language. You may also do a Google search for the exact phrase to see if native English speakers have used it before. Grammarly.com is also recommended, or you could ask your readers to help with copy editing.

There are a number of ways that you can improve your writing as a non-native speaker. Firstly, you could use Google or online forums to check the usage of phrases or sentences that you're unsure about. You could also use Grammarly.com to check your writing. Finally, you might even want to consider asking your readers to suggest improvements to your writing.

Just write - no-one cares about minor errors.

You could ask your readers to help you with copy editing

You can Google the exact phrase to see if native English speakers have used it before.

You could also use the  grammarly.com  service.

You could ask your readers to help you improve your writing with their suggestions.

Using Google to check for usage of particular phrases can be a useful tool.

There are forums and websites where you can query the usage of phrases or sentences.

You might want to consider using Grammarly.com.


This is a difficult question, because English is in the middle of a shift of social mores with regards to obscenities and vulgarities.

The "traditional" swear words (fuck, shit, ass, damn, etc.) have had their offensiveness gradually worn down over the past century, to the point where in many communities they're generic modifiers.

Large parts of the Internet hold to this ethos.

However, this shift is by no means complete or universal, as many people will still be offended by those words.

Be very careful in unfamiliar situations with people you don't know, since you cannot easily predict how they'll react to your language.

At the same time, new language taboos are arising with regards to racial and some sexual epithets.

You probably would not see an economics blog use the word "nigger" so casually, nor "fag", "cunt", or others.

However, the social conventions regarding these are even more chaotic and context-sensitive than the conventions for the older expletives.

If you want to avoid giving offense, you should always stick to the most conservative, expletive-free register, as no one is going to be scandalized by your failure to say "fuck".

Relative to where and who?

I wouldn't use the f word as a synonym for "very" in Salt Lake City, Utah.

In the Marines it's just another word.

Cusswords are interesting neurologically, they appear to be managed by a different part of the brain than the part that is in charge of ordinary speech.

So if the f-word really did become an ordinary word, (I think the Proto-Indo-European word was something mundane like "to strike"), it would need to be replaced by some other word.

More likely, a taboo word would disappear from use than convert to the stock of ordinary words.

Seeing the F word on the internet probably doesn't mean it is acceptable, the internet is the lawless wild west.

Depending on the circumstances and the company it varies between shocking (my Bridge Club) and background noise (the Steelworks), a former colleague of mine being the record holder for the most uses in one sentence (21).

See also Field-Marshal Slim's quotation of his driver reporting that the car was unserviceable...

"The fucking fucker's fucked."

There is good evidence that "bad language" is stored in a separate part of the brain:

witness the case of the deaf man with Tourettes syndrome who swears in ASL .

And swear words in foreign languages don't set off the same triggers in the brain, so it's very hard to judge how bad they are in context.

Foreign language learners should generally avoid swearing until someone else has done so first.

That's my advice.

The actual question, How bad is the F-word?

has a very context-dependent answer.

It seems that the FCC's 7-dirty-word rule has recently been overturned in some degree, a sign of the times: Jul 22nd, 2010 NEW YORK CITY—Noting that, "we face a media landscape that would have been almost unrecognizable in 1978," the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has struck down attempts by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate so-called "fleeting expletives" in radio and TV broadcasts... read article (warning: expletive ahead)

It used to be very bad, and because of this it has been overused lately, eroding it's superlative offensive status.

In British English as other answers have stated, it mostly depends on context; I would not use the word in front of my mother, for instance.

However it also depends on how it is used.

If for instance I saw something shocking such as a road accident and said “Fucking Hell!”

, few people would be offended.

But if I used it at someone, such as saying “Fuck you”, I would be being very offensive indeed.

Question: I am confused: on the one hand, many of my native-speaker friends keep telling me that the f-word is very, very bad. Much worse than the s-word for example. On the other hand, I see it being used everywhere; for example, in the blogosphere, even by respectable economic blogs (e.g.  http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-fuck-deficit-or-will-deficit-end-fucking-us ).  Is the former intensity of the word decreasing? Is its usage becoming more acceptable in everyday language?

How bad is the f-word, really?

The answer to this question is highly subjective, and it may be the case that traditional swear words have become less offensive over time. In reality, how offensive or used the word is probably depends on context, region and how it's used.

Views vary but take care not to use such language with people you do not know.

A lot of traditional swear words have had their offensiveness gradually worn down over the past century, to the point where in many communities they're generic modifiers. However, this shift is by no means complete or universal, as many people will still be offended by those words. You should be very  careful in unfamiliar situations with people you don't know, since you cannot easily predict how they'll react to your language.  If you want to avoid giving offense, you should always stick to the most conservative, expletive-free register, as no one is going to be scandalized by your failure to say "fuck". Also seeing the F word on the internet probably doesn't mean it is acceptable, the internet is the lawless wild west. In the end, it all depends on context.

"Traditional" swear words (fuck, shit, ass, damn, etc.) have had their offensiveness gradually worn down over the past century, to the point where in many communities they're generic modifiers. However, this very much depends on context. For example, it may be shocking at a bridge club, and quite normal in a steelworks.

The answer to this question will be highly subjective and will depend on both context and whom you are talking to. However, it is claimed that swear words are losing their offensive status gradually.

A change in attitudes is taking place at the moment but to be on the side take care not to use such language with people you do not know.

It depends entirely on who you are with - some people would be deeply offended but others would not care. The fact that it's on the internet widely means nothing.

In addition, swear words in foreign languages don't set off the same triggers in the brain, so it's very hard to judge how bad they are in context.

Context is important. You may not use the word in front of your mother, for instance but would use as an exclamation at something shocking.

It is claimed that offensive words are losing their offensive status gradually.

The answer to this question will really depend on context and who you are talking to.


In the same domain as The Chicago Manual of Style (users working "with magazines, newsletters, corporate reports, proposals, electronic publications, Web sites, and other nonbook or nonprint documents"), you also have: The Economist Style Guide Clarity of writing usually follows clarity of thought.

So think what you want to say, then say it as simply as possible.

Keep in mind George Orwell's six elementary rules ("Politics and the English Language", 1946): Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

Never use a long word where a short one will do.

If it is possible to cut out a word, always cut it out.

Never use the passive where you can use the active.

Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

The Grauniad , Observer and guardian.co.uk style guide .

"No passion in the world is equal to the passion to alter someone else's draft." - HG Wells

For someone doing technical writing for the US Gov't, I have to recommend NASA SP-7084 : Grammar, Punctuation, andCapitalization: A Handbook for Technical Writers and Editors .

There are a few out there

but some tend to be industry specific.

The best general, free and online style guide that I know of

is the Wikipedia: Manual of Style .

Here are some others: The BBC News Style Guide , Apple Publications Style Guide and Yahoo!

Style Guide (this one is pretty good).

I went through my Editing > Style Guides bookmarks folder, here's what I found: As VonC mentioned, the Economist Style Guide is both well-regarded and easy to understand.

The print version is purported to be more thorough than the online, free version.

(I haven't used it much yet, but it looks to be sound after taking a quick dip in the site.)

Onlinestylebooks.com lets you search through a boatload of style manuals.

(Some results seem to link to subscription sites, but many do not.)

The links to the Chicago Q&A columns and AP's Ask the Editor feature are outside their paywalls.

Jack Lynch's Guide to Grammar and Style is a good reference (although I disagree with a few things in it).

In addition to traditional style guides, You can also refer people to pages from some of the excellent grammar blogs out there: Grammar Girl is the only one I know of with a large enough backlog to search through, although others might be able to add to this.

Slate also has good grammar and style columns from time to time, like this piece on why one should not type two spaces after a period.

Also, keep in mind that many older books about style and grammar are now available online, for example, the 1906 Chicago Manual of Style .

(Use with caution; I'm not finding early versions of Chicago or AP there, and surprisingly, I also don't see the 1926 edition of Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage there.)

You can find 88 style guides listed at OnlineStylebooks.com , 70 of which are indexed for search.

OnlineStylebooks.com is owned and maintained by Mary Beth Protomastro, the founder of Copyediting newsletter, the copy chief of More magazine and former editor of the Time magazine stylebook.

OnlineStylebooks.com is not affiliated with any of those publications.

Mary Beth created OnlineStylebooks.com to help copy editors (including herself) quickly consult a variety of style guides.

If you know of a manual that’s on the Internet but not on OnlineStylebooks.com, please tell Mary Beth!

For British English, these are widely used and respected: The Guardian and Observer Style Guide

The Economist Style Guide BBC News Style Guide Fowler's Modern English Usage (sadly only the pocket version of the updated text seems to be available online) For matters of online style, I feel that it often comes down to issues of usability, so I refer to Jakob Nielsen's articles , because they're based on solid research.

(Example: " Writing Hyperlinks: Salient, Descriptive, Start with Keyword ")

For the philosophy and reasoning behind style guides, David Foster Wallace's essay "Tense Present" is unbeatable.

Question: I don't like prefixing all my answers and pontifications about English usage with IMHO.  Where can I find a reasonably well recognized style guide that is online that I can refer people to?  My first choice,  chicagomanualofstyle.org , is for paid subscribers only.  (Emphasis on well recognized, personally, I mostly do technical and office writing)

Where can I find a reasonably well recognized free style guide that is online?

There are a number of well-recognised style guides which you may consider referring to. These include The Economist Style Guide, the Guardian and Observer Style Guide or Jack Lynch's Guide to Grammar.

There are many style guides or manuals that can advise you, and George Orwell has written 6 useful rules for any writer:
Keep in mind George Orwell's six elementary rules for writing good English:
Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
Never use a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possible to cut out a word, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

There are several style books available online including: BBC News Style Guide, Apple Publications Style Guide, Yahoo, The Guardian, The Economist Style Guide and Observer Style Guide. Onlinestylebooks.com  lets you search through multiple style manuals.  In addition to traditional style guides, you can also refer to some of the excellent  grammar blogs  out there e.g. Grammar Girl. Also, keep in mind that many older books about style and grammar are now available online.

Jack Lynch's Guide to Grammar and Style, Grammar Girl, The Chicago Manual of Style, OnlineStylebooks.com, The Guardian and Observer Style Guide, The Economist Style Guide,  BBC News Style Guide,   Fowler's Modern English Usage are all suggestions for style guides.

There is a huge range of free style guides available online as well as grammar blogs. Some prominent examples include The Economist Style Guide, The Guardian and Observer Style Guide or the BBC News Style Guide.

There are various style guides that can advise you, and George Orwell has written 6 useful rules for any writer.

Many editors will try to change your text because they feel compelled to rather than because it is incorrect.

There are many style manuals available online.

There are many guides for this such as   The Guardian and Observer Style Guide


"Try and" has largely been relegated to colloquial use, and "try to" is generally considered the correct form.

They are basically synonymous. "

Try and" is not really more rude, in my opinion.

According to alt.usage.english , "try and" is probably older than "try to," and, when used, implies success or failure of whatever action is being attempted.

As far as speech goes though, they're the same thing.

If you're writing, "try and" is generally discouraged.

Try and is a paraphrase of try to , typically used in informal promises and instructions, as in: I’ll try and keep in touch with her [and] Try and come soon.

It expresses a supportive attitude, as Fowler (1926) noticed, and has a particular interpersonal role to play, hence its relatively high frequency in conversation.

From the article in ‘The Cambridge Guide to English Usage’

"Try and...", while accepted in everyday usage, always sounds wrong to me, as if the speaker is commanding you to do two things:

try something unspecified , and then do this other thing .

I believe "try and do" is more of an oral expression, but has the same meaning as "try to do".

In writing, I would always use "try to do".

"Try and do" is the form of "try to do" in my native dialect (centered in Pittsburgh, maybe), and probably wouldn't sound strange to any American or Canadian.

A related construction is "needs done" instead of "needs to be done", which is more rare outside that dialect.

When in doubt, remember the words of the great orator, Bart Simpson: "I can't promise I'll try, but I'll try to try." On my suggestion, now enshrined in the Guardian style guide : try to never "try and".

As Bart Simpson put it: "I can't promise I'll try, but I'll try to try"

There is no difference.

"Try to" is the "classic" version -- "try and" has been increasing in usage recently (and is quite the pet peeve of mine),

but I've never known an English speaker to see a difference in meaning between the two.

This is really strange, in Norwegian it's a lot of confusion between homphones "og" (meaning and ) and "å" (equivalent to the word to ) that are pronounced the same (the g is silent, and o is sometimes the same sound as å, which is approximately the same sound as the vowel in "wall").

This is not surprising, but I've noticed the same confusion occur in related languages like English where it's not homophones.

Perhaps it's something about the grammar of the Germanic languages that causes this difference to be hard to understand?

(There could be a slight intentional difference in meaning between "try to" and "try and" but usually it seems like a mistake)

The use of "try and" seems to me to be an effort to build optimism into the language.

If one actually is unsure of success one would appropriately say, "I will try to succeed."

However, If there is no doubt that success will occur what need is there to insert "try and" into the phrase when then one could simply say, "I will succeed."

"Try and do" is regarded as a colloquial and ungrammatical version of "try to do", but is really grammatical if you accept that it expresses a slightly different meaning technically.

"Try and do" seems to imply that you will try, but that you WILL do something, while "try to do" doesn't seem to express any certainty about the outcome of your trying.

That said, people generally use "try and do" to mean "try to do", and you can save it from being labeled ungrammatical by calling it idiomatic.

On way to see that try and instead of try to is wrong is to say it in the past tense.

Yesterday, I tried to do something vs yesterday, I tried and do something.

Future tense, I will try to do something tomorrow vs I will try and do something tomorrow.

Question: What is the difference between  try to do  and  try and do ?  To me (non-native speaker), asking someone  try and do this  seems a bit rude. It's like saying you can try all you want but this must be done: try and fail is not an option. However, asking someone  try to do this  means I am asking you to try: success is bonus, failure is OK.

Difference between "try to do" and "try and do"

Although it is possible that these two expressions are basically synonymous, "try and" is generally considered more colloquial. "Try and" may generally be discouraged in writing. However, it could be argued that "try to" expressed less certainty about the idea being expressed than "try and".

Both forms are correct, but "try and" is more limited in range (e.g. cannot be used in the past tense) and sounds colloquial or less formal.

They are basically synonymous, but "Try and do" is more of an oral expression. "Try and" has now largely been relegated to colloquial use, and "try to" is generally considered the correct form.

They are basically synonymous, especially in speech. However "try and do" is more colloquial.

Whilst most people would probably agree that there is no difference in understanding, "try and" is probably considered more colloquial and should be avoided in writing. Some people also may claim that there is a subtle difference in the level of certainty implied in the two sentences, with "try to" implying less certainty about the success of the activity in question.

The most common form nowadays is 'try to' - although 'try and' has long been used it is now discouraged.

The 'try and' form is more oral and 'try to' more written in usage.

In some parts of the US 'try and' is still more common.

Think of the example "I can't promise I'll try, but I'll try to try" - which shows that  'and' does not always work.

"Try and" does not work in the past tense, which shows it is less useful.

"Try and" has largely been relegated to colloquial use, and "try to" is generally considered the correct form.

"Try and" may actually be older than "try to," and, when used, implies success or failure of whatever action is being attempted.

Most people would agree that there is no difference in understanding between "try and" and "try to".

People may well claim that "Try and" is largely colloquial and that "try to" should be used in writing.

It is possible that using "try to" implies less certainty about the activity in question.


The Chicago Manual of Style has an interesting way to address this: They omit the apostrophe, unless there are periods in the abbreviation.

So this would give you ATMs , or alternately A.T.M.'s .

( A.T.M.s looks weird.)

chicagomanualofstyle.org, "Plurals"

This page indicates that acronyms ending in the letter "S" get an apostrophe, something I've seen before, but can't find in a general reference.

So one would write ATMs and SOS's .

This page on the North Carolina State University website references AP's rule as being to always use an apostrophe.

The 2009 AP Stylebook's "plurals" entry has no section on acronyms, but mentions "VIPs", I can't find anything addressing how to specifically pluralize acronyms.

(The "abbreviations and acronyms" section is also of no help.)

Personally, I omit using apostrophes unless I can't avoid it.

I do use them when talking about single letters or where it would avoid confusion.

(For example, SOs for "Significant Others" looks like an incorrectly capitalized SOS.)

To paraphrase Carol Fisher Saller , the clearer usage is the correct one.

I agree with Wikipedia , wordreference and CMOS - acronyms and initialisms are "regular" nouns; plurals are formed by adding "s".

Checking Google Books for actual usage in a relatively "contentious" case, I searched for: "OSs" unix windows linux 3120 written instances

"OSes" unix windows linux 1060 instances "OS's" unix windows linux 520 instances "Simpler" cases such as CDs vs CD's are even more decisive (over 10:1 in favour of the former).

The first is the correct usage, in my view.

The third may be quite acceptable however, since the M in ATM could equally stand for 'machine' or 'machines', though I think pluralising the actual acronym is much clearer in speech.

In any case, never use an apostrophe.

's should only be appended to a word to create the posessive form ("of ..."), never for plurals.

Oxford Dictionary [e.g. SOS, noun (plural SOSs) ] and The Economist [e.g. Are ATMs stealing jobs? ]

both go for the first option.

Since this is a question about acronyms, and the Federal Government's bureaucracy is notorious for using acronyms, I decided to look up the answer in the United States Government Printing Office (GPO) Style Manual (2000).

Rule 8.11 of the GPO Style Manual states: "

While an apostrophe is used to indicate possession and contractions, it is not generally necessary to use an apostrophe to show the plural form of most acronyms, initialisms, or abbreviations, except where clarity and sense demand such inclusion."

As examples, the rule suggests: OKsABCsRIFsYWCAs

The rule does not show an exception for an acronym, but does refer to one case I found interesting -- the "Oakland A's" needs an apostrophe because otherwise it would be the "Oakland As."

From that I would assume that if the addition of an s to an acronym would appear to give the acronym a different meaning, then an apostrophe would be in order.

But since acronyms are capitalized letters, the addition of a small s should not make a difference, except where (for some reason) one is writing in a format that is all capitals -- such as the format that military and diplomatic messages were sent until very recently.

I vote for the first, "ATMs".

The second is just wrong (apostrophe is not used for plurals, ever).

This is because ATM is a defined term for an AT machine , and using it as plural "automatic teller machines" would be a redefinition of a common abbreviation, which one should not be trigger-happy about.

The third, however, does not solve the real need to say there's more than one.

It is though clear from the sentence, but might not be so in a general case.

Using 's to pluralize something is called a "Greengrocer's apostrophe".

I think the battle against the Greengrocer's apostrophe is one we're bound to lose - even if grammar of the general population improved, we'd still occasionally be facing nouns which have a mixture of upper and lower case, for which adding an s by itself at the end would be confusing.

Either of the first two is acceptable, but I would recommend the first as the apostrophe isn't needed to convey your meaning, and as such is not required.

The third is just wrong since it creates an awkward sentence that is hard to say and discomforting to read.

Most acronyms, including ATM, have a well-defined and commonly accepted meaning, which very rarely includes the pluralization.

Avoid the ambiguity and include the s.

Just a small addition to the subject and one that is probably as much related to typography as it is to grammar...

There is an issue with all-caps.

For example, if we were: Talking about ATMs.

Then the apostrophe is out.

But, if we were: TALKING ABOUT ATM'S.

Then the case for using one is much stronger as it serves to differentiate A utomated T eller M achine from, say, A utomated T eller M achine S oftware Of course, that doesn't address the question of why you'd be using all-caps in the first place...

Question: For example, if I wanted to write the equivalent of   There are many automated teller machines in this city.   Would it be   There are many ATMs in this city.   or   There are many ATM's in this city. (could get confused with possessive form or contraction).   or just   There are many ATM in this city. (assuming the final s is included in Machines represented by M).   Maybe something else?

What is the correct way to pluralize an acronym / initialism?

The answer to this question will be subjective, but the most popular way of pluralising an acronym is probably to use an s with no apostrophe. It is generally agreed that apostrophes should only be used to indicate possession.

An apostrophe is used to indicate possession and contractions, but not to show the plural form of most acronyms, initialisms, or abbreviations, except perhaps for acronyms separated by periods or ending in S.

The general consensus is that you should never use an apostrophe.  But if the addition of an s to an acronym would appear to give the acronym a different meaning, then an apostrophe would be in order.  Since acronyms are capitalized letters, the addition of a small s should not make a difference and it should be clearly understood. Therefore, acronyms and initialisms are "regular" nouns;  plurals are formed by adding "s".

In this example "ATMs" would be the more widely accepted correct usage/The apostrophe should be used for possessive forms, not for plurals. Wikipedia ,  wordreference  and  CMOS  maintain that acronyms are "regular" nouns and  their plurals are formed by adding "s".

It is generally agreed that you do not use an apostrophe to pluralise any word or acronym. However, there will be some who defend the use of apostrophes when pluralising acronyms if such use helps correct understanding.

Only use an apostrophe if the abbreviation has periods between each letter or ends in S.

Acronyms and initialisms are "regular" nouns;  plurals are formed by adding "s".

An apostrophe is used to indicate possession and contractions, but not to show the plural form of most acronyms, initialisms, or abbreviations.

Go for the first option - apostrophes are never used for plurals

The apostrophe is technically incorrect but it is still useful in some cases and so is probably here to stay.

Both are OK but the first is better as the apostrophe is not needed.

It will vary depending on whether you are writing all caps or not - for the sake of clarity an apostrophe may be needed.

Since acronyms are capitalized letters, the addition of a small s should not make a difference and it would be clearly understood.

It is generally agreed that an s without an apostrophe is the correct way to pluralise an acronym.

There will be some people that argue that apostrophes can be used to pluralise words if they help to ensure correct understanding.


i.e. stands for id

est (Latin), which means " that is ".

You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something.

Pronounce it "eye - ee".

e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means " for example ".

You use it to link in an example of a more generic term.

Pronounce it "ee - jee"

For i.e. I usually say "that is", occasionally "eye-ee".

For e.g.

I always say "for example".

When I was in college, one of my philosophy professors instructed us to use translated English for abbreviated or initialized latinisms when reading a text aloud.

I would agree that in most cases you should speak the translated English rather than speaking the letters of the initialization.

i.e. is used for clarification and should be spoken "that is" .

While most English speakers will recognize the meaning of "eye ee" when spoken, saying "that is" is clearer.

e.g. is used for providing one or many examples and should be spoken "for example" .

While i.e. and e.g. are relatively common, other abbreviated or initialized latinisms, such as viz. , are less frequent and their English translation should certainly be provided when reading from a text that includes a latinism.

For example, take the following quote from Plato :

Perfect wisdom has four parts, viz., wisdom, the principle of doing things aright; justice, the principle of doing things equally in public and private; fortitude, the principle of not flying danger, but meeting it; and temperance, the principle of subduing desires and living moderately.

When reading that quote aloud, the translation for viz. should be provided.

Incorrect:

"Perfect wisdom has four parts, viz , wisdom, the principle..."

"Perfect wisdom has four parts, videlicet , wisdom, the principle..."

Correct: "

Perfect wisdom has four parts, namely , wisdom, the principle..."

"Perfect wisdom has four parts, that is to say , wisdom, the principle..." Speaking the translation for initialized and abbreviated latinisms provides greater clarity for the audience than simply speaking the initials or the latin.

Just pronounce the letters: "Eye eee" and "eee gee".

I have never met anyone who actually said "id est" and "exempli gratia", which is what they really stand for.

I can't believe this wasn't addressed in the Oatmeal Comic

but I usually say the letters or replace it with "for example" (and now, thanks to the comic, I'll replace it with "in other words" instead and use e.g. when I mean "for example").

and as for the pronunciation of the Latin: i.e. = id est e.g. = IgzemplI gra:tI (NB a: is pronounced like the "a" in car or can't) but remember - as has been mentioned here; it's much better practice to use the English long-forms in speech: i.e. - "that is" / "or" e.g. - "for example"

Latin abbreviations i.e. =

that is, such as, or "in other words" e.g = for example et.

al. =

and others (i get a lot of strange looks when I use this) NB. =

nota bene;

Note well (and this one as well

I have no idea why this one is capitalized) etc. =

et cetera ("and other things", or "and so forth") and yes

when reading aloud I just use the translation to avoid confusion Pronuciation: just say the letters for most cases; except etc.

and et cetera are pronounced the same.

et.

al.

is pronounced et all

Question: How are  i.e.  and  e.g.  pronounced?

How are "i.e." and "e.g." pronounced?

The answer to this question will be subjective. Some people will pronounce the letters as they are read, whilst others will replace "i.e." with "that is" and "e.g." with "for example".

For "i.e." say "eye-ee" but it is better to say "that is" and for "e.g." always say "for example".

These are pronounced "eye - ee" and "ee - jee". In most cases you should speak the translated English rather than speaking the letters of the initialization, so "that is"  and "for example". No one actually says "id est" and "exempli gratia", which is what they really stand for.

i.e. and e.g. are pronounced  "eye - ee" and "ee - jee", respectively. However, while most English speakers will recognize the meaning of  "eye - ee"  and "ee - jee" when spoken, saying  "that is"  or "for example" is clearer.

Many English speakers would simply read out these acronyms phonetically. However, there will be people who claim that it is more correct to say aloud their translated English meaning, such as "that is" or "for example".

Just pronounce the letters: "Eye eee" and "eee gee".

These are pronounces "eye - ee" and "ee - jee".

Many English speakers would simply advise reading out the letter phonetically.

Some people would defend the use of the English translation for their meaning, such as "that is" and "for example".


How can I explain to people that the phrase "off of" is grammatically incorrect?

You can't, because it's not.

There are thousands of examples of “off of” in the Corpus of Contemporary American English , not just in spoken English, but in magazines, newspapers, and academic journals as well.

“Off of” is well-established as standard in American English.

Plain “off” may be stylistically preferable in many cases, but it is simply not a rule of English grammar that if a word could be removed it must be removed.

Some people seem to think that such a rule exists.

It does not.

The phrase "off of" has a long history, which, according to the OED, stretches back roughly 500 years.

If you want to consider it to be "wrong", then it certainly has a lot of staying power.

Here are their quotations using "off of": ?

c1450 in G. Müller Aus mittelengl.

Medizintexten (1929)

116 Take a sponfull of e licour..of of e fyir and sette it in good place tyl at it be ny colde, soo as ou mayst suffryn to holdyn

er-in in hand.

a1616 SHAKESPEARE Henry VI, Pt. 2

(1623) II.

i. 98

A fall off of [ 1594 Falling off on] a Tree. 1667 A. MARVELL Corr.

in Wks.

(1875) II.

The Lords and we cannot yet get off of the difficultyes risen

betwixt us. 1678 J. BUNYAN Pilgrim's Progress 49 About a furlong off of the Porters Lodge. 1712

R. STEELE Spectator No. 306. 6, I could not keep my Eyes off of her. 1720 D.

DEFOE Mem.

Cavalier 281,

I had perswaded him off of that. 1748 S. RICHARDSON Clarissa V. xiii.

Biting my lip, [was to indicate] Get off of that, as fast as possible.

1775 P. OLIVER in T. Hutchinson's Diary 7 Dec. I. 581

A Rebell Pirate..taken..off of Cape Ann.

a1805 in F. J. Child Eng. & Sc.

Pop.

Ballads (1894)

V. IX.

Aff o

the weather [read wether]

he took the skin,

An rowt his bonny lady in. 1824 J. WIGHT Mornings at Bow St. 21 Two young men..were charged by a watchman with having ‘bother'd him on his bate,’ and refused to ‘go along off of it when he tould 'em.’

1843 T. C. HALIBURTON Attaché 1st Ser.

II.

xii.

The groom has stole her oats, forgot to give her water, and let her make a supper sometimes off of her nasty, mouldy, filthy beddin'.

1868 HARTLEY Clock Alm.

in Leeds Mercury Weekly Suppl.

5 Oct., He connot forshame

To lift up his een off

o' th' graand. 1875 P. BROOKS New Starts in Life viii.

129 If you could have filled his pockets with gold, and feasted his hunger off of silver dishes. 1884 ‘M. TWAIN’

Adventures Huckleberry Finn vi.

I'd borrow two or three dollars off of the judge for him. 1909 G. GREIG Mains's Wooin' 6

He's swallowed the dictionar', min,

an's tryin' to get 'er aff

o's stammack.

a1922 T. S. ELIOT Waste Land Drafts (1971) 5

The reputation the place gets, off of a few barflies. 1962 F. NORMAN Guntz i. 15

, I got hold of this very very old typewriter off of a friend of mine. 1974 J. STUBBS Painted Face xxiii.

284 Get off of me, will you, sir? 1990 B. ROCHE Poor Beast in Rain II.

i. 44, I was hangin' around here all the time, gettin' sweet nothin' off of you.

This may perhaps be more common in American English nowadays, but it certainly didn't originate there.

I don't know how you can explain to people in general that it's grammatically incorrect, but here is one idea: when you go to a James Brown tribute concert and the singer says "Get up offa that thing" what you could do is to trounce the security guards, climb on to the stage, pounce onto the singer, grab the microphone and say "In fact you should be saying not 'get up offa that thing' but 'get up off that thing' since 'offa' is grammatically incorrect.

" I'm sure everyone will thank you for your grammatical corrections.

Being serious for a moment though, it's very difficult to decide what is or is not "grammatically correct".

E.g. in the UK we say "outside my house" but US people often say "outside of my house".

How can you actually decide which of these two is grammatically correct?

Unfortunately it's not possible since English grammar is not a science like physics but merely a description of what people actually do, and that has changed very significantly over the years.

If I was teaching someone English

I would definitely say "off" is correct and "off of" is wrong, but this kind of decision is based on intuition, based on the usages of educated native speakers.

Off of does sound barbarous to the speaker of British received pronunciations but it's common (in every sene of the word) in regional dialects such as Cockney.

Perhaps grammar is a tribal mark of affiliation rather like the choice of vocabulary as in for example "toilet" vs "lavatory".

The simple answer?

It is an Americanism similar to saying "Don't forget to write me" (American) as opposed to "Don't forget to write to me" (everywhere else).

Or is there perhaps some simple way I can explain this to most people?

Yes, by explaining that the word of in that context, is unnecessary.

It is superfluous.

An unnecessary added extra.

It is surplus to requirements.

It adds nothing to the meaning of sentences.

Question: How can I explain to people that the phrase off of is grammatically incorrect? I‘ve heard this phrase used a lot, especially by Americans (though they aren't the only ones). In my understanding, off of should usually be replaced by off , as in, I took the book off the shelf as opposed to I took the book off of the shelf Am I wrong? Or is there perhaps some simple way I can explain this to most people?

How can I explain to people that the phrase “off of ” is grammatically incorrect?

The answer to this question will be subjective, but it's quite possible that the form "off of" is grammatically correct and there are thousands of examples of it in the Corpus of Contemporary American English. It's actual used may depend on region. However, one way to convince people not to use "off of" would be to point out that the word "of" in such a context is unnecessary.

Views vary - "off of" is commonly used and there is no rule to say it is incorrect, but at the same time the "of" is superfluous as it adds nothing to the meaning and in that sense it can be said to be incorrect.

You can explaini hat the word  'of'  in that context, is unnecessary and superflous, although there are examples of “off of” in the  Corpus of Contemporary American English. “Off of” is well-established as standard in American English, but not used in standard British English.

Although “off of” is well-established as standard in American English, plain “off” may be stylistically preferable in many cases, as "off" can be considered unnecessary in this context.

The use of "off of" is, in fact, not grammatically incorrect. As a result, there is no way to explain that people that it is. However, if you wanted to convince people not to use it, you could simply explain that it is unnecessary.

"Off of" as a form dates back 500 years and is not incorrect.

"Off of" is more colloquial in British English.

The word "of" is unnecessary in this context - it adds nothing to the meaning of the sentence and that is why it is incorrect.

There are examples of “off of” in the  Corpus of Contemporary American English.

You can explaini hat the word  'of'  in that context, is unnecessary and superflous.

It is not possible to explain to people that the use of "off of" is incorrect because it is, in fact, not.

If you wanted to convince people not to use "off of", you might consider pointing out that it is unnecessary.


I think it helps to know the history of the word Internet .

When computers were first connected together the resulting configuration was called a network .

Later people connected networks together.

That was called an internet .

Eventually most of the networks in the world were connected into one large internet that became known simply as the Internet .

In other words, there is a technical distinction between an internet and the Internet .

For what it is worth, my iPad wants me to capitalize Internet .

The fact that Web is short for World Wide Web , Sir Tim's wonderful invention, makes me think that Web should be capitalized too.

It's a matter of style.

The Guardian style guide uses lowercase: internet net, web, world wide web web, webpage, website, world wide web .

is there at least some consensus among the more popular style guides/dictionaries on this?

Not really.

Wikipedia has a page on the topic, Internet capitalization conventions , with a section on usage: Examples of media publications and news outlets that capitalize the term include The New York Times, the Associated Press, Time , and The Times of India .

In addition, many peer-reviewed journals and professional publications such as Communications of the ACM capitalize "Internet", and this style guideline is also specified by the American Psychological Association in its electronic media spelling guide.

More recently, a significant number of publications have switched to not capitalizing the noun " internet .

Among them are The Economist, the Financial Times , The Times , the Guardian , the Observer and the Sydney Morning Herald .

As of 2011, most publications using "internet" appear to be located outside of North America, but the gap is closing.

Wired News , an American news source, adopted the lower-case spelling in 2004.

Around April 2010, CNN shifted its house style to adopt the lowercase spelling.

Wired has a 2004 piece on their decision to use internet, web and net .

Pick your own style and be consistent.

Regarding Internet, the Wikipedia disambiguation page mentions:

The Internet is a worldwide publicly accessible system of interconnected computer networks.

Where not capitalized, internet can refer to any internetwork .

You could apply the same reasoning for Web (World Wide Web) as opposed to any "web".

Although there is still the debate about Web site vs. "website" ;) If you consider proper noun as referring to "specific people, places, or things", Internet and "the Web" do qualify for their capitalize letter.

Wired magazine has a feature article on exactly this question , with reasons to support answers both ways, and in short it depends on your context and audience.

However, it concludes that the lowercase version will eventually win the day.

My reasoning is that there is really only one network named Internet - therefore it's the Internet, while "web" is a more generic term, meaning any network (but probably referring to YouTube anyway ;).

I would say that it is becoming less and less common to write "Internet", as if it were a proper noun.

Indeed, the use of the phrasing "the internet" tends to indicate that "internet" is not a proper noun, because if it were, the word "the" would be redundant, and we would happily (still) refer to the internet as simply "Internet" (which used to be an accepted style, but will likely look odd to any reader not versed in the history of the internet).

The proportion of people who are familiar with the origin of "the internet" as a proper noun, or indeed to who understand that the phenomenological features of the internet qualify it as being capable of having a proper noun, seems to be dwindling.

My guess is that most people think of the internet as being like the telephone system or the air - a thing that lacks either unity, number, or identity.

Question: There seems to be some inconsistency on whether people capitalize the words  internet  and  web  (as in  World Wide Web ) as proper nouns. What is the official ruling on when or if these words should be capitalized?  Obviously, I am not asking about when they are the first word in a sentence or in the title of a book or other publication.   Example:     "The  web  is the most commonly known  feature of the  Internet ."

Should the words "internet" and "web" be capitalized?

The answer to this question will be subjective, although some people and devices will insist that the capitalised version is correct. That being said, many style guides and publications have recently switched to using the non-capitalised version.

Although the upper case should be used in that the word is actually a proper noun, it is becoming less common in practice.

It's a matter of style. The Guardian style guide uses lowercase.   In addition, many peer-reviewed journals and professional publications such as  Communications of the ACM  capitalize "Internet", and this style guideline is also specified by the American Psychological Association in its electronic media spelling guide.  More recently, a significant number of publications have switched to not capitalizing the noun " internet, e.g., around April 2010, CNN shifted its house style to adopt the lowercase spelling.   It is becoming less and less common to write "Internet", as if it were a proper noun.

This may be a matter of style. The Guardian style guide uses lowercase for internet, net, web, world wide web, webpage and website.   However, as Web  is short for  World Wide Web , some maintain that  Web  should be capitalized.

Whilst it is generally considered that lowercase writing of "internet" and "web" is becoming more common, the answer to this question will largely depend on your own style, context and audience. Some people will argue that Web should be capitalized.

The word "Internet" is capitalised when it refers to the World Wide Web rather than a smaller internet.

World Wide Web should also be capitalized as it is a proper noun.

It varies - recently the lower case rendition has become more common.

Technically it should be with a capital "I" but it is up to you.

As there is only one Internet we should use upper case.

It is becoming less common to use the upper case.

The answer to this question will depend on style, context and audience.

It is generally agreed that lowercase writing of the words "internet" and "web" is becoming more common.

Some people would say that Web should be capitalized.


This is actually really easy, do you mean "it is" or not?

Frankly native speakers seem to make more mistakes with it than foreign learners.

The easiest way to remember is that you don't say "he's" or "she's" if you're talking about something someone owns.

There are special words for that: "his" and "hers".

It follows, then, that there'd be a special word for the genderless

"it" too - "its".

Print this out, perhaps. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe

If nothing else works, it can be beneficial to point out that none of these related possessive forms has an apostrophe:

his hers its theirs yours ours

If something belongs to it , its form looks just like his and hers .

If it is short for it is , then it's it's .

Contractions always take an apostrophe.

(You can't write cant for cannot .)

Possesives can, but need not.

("Is that her book?"

"No, it's Pat's book")

What is the best way to explain to a learner of English how to choose between

it's and its ?

I sat on my mat

you sat on your mat •

he [my brother] sat on his mat •

she [my sister] sat on her mat •

It [the dog] sat on its mat.

we [my dog and I] sat on our mats

you [you and your dog] sat on your mats

they [he and his dogs] sat on their mats.

Note the total absence of any possessive apostrophe.

We do not say * I sat on my's mat .

The possessive determiner , its , is precisely what its grammatical term suggests—possessive; hence the genitive or possessive apostrophe is unnecessary.

It's as simple as that.

Lynne Truss in her book Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation explains it in a rather straightforward manner: The rule is: the word 'it's' (with apostrophe) stands for 'it is' or 'it has'.

If the word does not stand for 'it is' or 'it has' then what you require is 'its'.

It needs to be understood that there was much disagreement about this up until maybe 60 years ago, when the "authorities" finally agreed that the possessive of "it" should be "its", to avoid confusion with the contraction "it's",

meaning "it is" or "it has".

Like any such change in the "rules" of English, it's taken decades to take hold.

And, I'll have to admit, when keyboarding its fairly easy to get it wrong.

Question: Probably one of the most frequent grammar mistakes in the English language is:   The dog sat on it's mat.   Since spelling checkers don't catch it, and it is even logical, since you would correctly write:   The dog sat on Fluffy's mat.   What is the best way to explain to a learner of English how to choose between  it's  and  its ?

What is the best way to explain how to choose between "its" and "it's"?

The easiest way to choose between "its" and "it's" is to ask whether or not you mean "it is". If it is short for "it is", then it's "it's" as contractions always take an apostrophe.

The rule is to use "it's" when you mean "it is" and "its" when you mean "of it".

This is actually really easy, you ask yourself if you mean "it is" or not?  S1: If the word does not stand for 'it is' then what you require is 'its'.  Lynne Truss in her book  Eats, Shoots & Leaves states that the rule is: the word 'it's' (with apostrophe) stands for 'it is' or 'it has'.

Contractions always take an apostrophe. Therefore, if the word does not stand for 'it is' or 'it has', then what you require is 'its'.

The easiest way to explain this is to make it clear that contractions always have an apostrophe.

The rule is to use "it's" when you mean "it is".

Remember you don't say "he's" or "she's" if you're talking about something someone owns.

Contractions always take an apostrophe, so "it is" goes to "it's" but possessives don't always.

"Its" is precisely what its grammatical term suggests—possessive; hence the genitive or  possessive apostrophe  is unnecessary.

If the word does not stand for 'it is' or 'it has' then what you require is 'its'.

There was much disagreement about this up until maybe 60 years ago, it was agreed that the possessive of "it" should be "its", to avoid confusion with the contraction "it's".


Here is a typical English vowel chart: As you can see, /æ/ and /ɛ/ are quite close to each other, and so have quite a similar sound.

The difference is in the degree of openness: /æ/ is “near-open” and /ɛ/ is “open-mid”.

If you want to make a clear distinction between the two, you need to practice, practice, practice.

When I was learning phonetics, I found the best practice was to try to make long continuous vowels that go along the axes, like /iiiiiiiieeeeeeeeɛɛɛɛɛɛɛɛææææææææaaaaaaaa/.

Once I was able to master making the entire continuum, it became easier to find individual points along the continuum.

As I don't know Turkish, so I'm afraid I can't give you examples of pronunciation in your native language, but this may still help: salary: SAH - lah - ree celery: CELL - lair - ree

Celery e as in evetSalary as the e in lütfen

You could pronounce salary just as if it were a Turkish word as well.

The /æ/ sound (which in American English is the sound present in words like cat , gap , fan , man ) is pronounced by dropping your jaw down as if you were going to say [ä]; then from that position try saying /ɛ/.

@Mehper

C. Palavuzlar

The easiest thing you can do in keeping the difference between [ɛ] and [æ]is to pronounce every [æ]

like [a].

I know most people don't even realize a simple fact that for most British people [æ] is quite a foreign sound.

In the Midlands, Northern Britain, Scotland, Wales, Ulster and Ireland [a] is the most usual, typical realization of [æ].

The same is true for both Canadian and Caribbean dialects &/or accents.

The most dictionaries I consulted show that the first e in celery is IPA e (seləri).

Read what the important phonetician Daniel Jones said about æ The correct sound of æ can generally be obtained by remembering that æ must have a sound intermediate in quality between ɛ and a .

In practising the sound, the mouth should be kept very wide open.

The sound may be obtained by imitating the baaing of a sheep which is very like ˈbæː .

Those who are unable to obtain the exact quality by practising such exercises should note that it is better to err on the side of

a rather than on the side of ɛ (my emphasis) .

a is actually used for æ in some parts of the North of England.

(Note 401 in this book ).

I also noticed the emphasized part from my own experience with words such as happy and laptop .

You might subscribe to a podcast located at speakmoreclearly.com which offers phonological analysis and pronunciation practice of English accents (British, American and Australian).

Repeated practice on this sentence will do wonders: '

Yet another white man doomed to rot under the tropic sun!'

Question: For a non-native English speaker like me, it's always been hard to sound æ and ɛ differently. For example, "salary" and "celery" are two words that I tend to pronounce identically.  Is it OK to go on like this or should I practice to get it right?

How can I practice differentiating between the "æ" and "ɛ" sounds in English phonology?

The answer to this will be subjective, but the main way to practice differentiating between these two vowel sounds will probably involve a lot of repetition and tryng to make long, continuous vowels that go along the axes. With these particular vowel sounds, you will want to keep your mouth very wide open.

The most important thing is to practice a lot and form the right shape with the mouth and jaw, taking words that give good examples of these sounds.

The difference is in the degree of openness: /æ/ is “near-open” and /ɛ/ is “open-mid”.  If you want to make a clear distinction between the two, you need to practise. For most British people [æ] is quite a foreign sound. In the Midlands, Northern Britain, Scotland, Wales, Ulster and Ireland [a] is the most usual, typical realization of [æ].

One practice technique is to try to make long continuous vowels that go along the axes. For example: iiiiiiiieeeeeeeeɛɛɛɛɛɛɛɛææææææææaaaaaaaa. You could also pronounce salary as though it was a Turkish word. The speakmoreclearly.com podcast also offers phonological analysis and pronunciation practice of English accents.

There are many different pronunciation practice techniques available. For example, you could try identifying similar sounds in Turkish. You could also consider practising a long sound which passes through all the vowels. There are also online resources such as speakmoreclearly.com which could help you with your pronunciation.

Try making all the sounds on the continuum and then pick out the individual one.

Keep the mouth wide open when practising.

You might subscribe to a podcast located at speakmoreclearly.com which offers phonological analysis and pronunciation practice of English accents (British, American and Australian).

One way of practising particular vowels would be to make one long continuous sound that passes through all of them.

You could try to identify the Turkish sounds that are similar.

There are online tools, such as speakmoreclearly.com which can help your pronunciation.


You often hear people say that -ize is American and -ise is British.

While it is certainly true that -ise has become dominant in Britain, -ize is the older spelling, and it once was dominant everywhere.

Americans have retained it, while the British have increasingly – since the mid-20th-century I think – favoured -ise .

Why, I don't know.

Last time I checked, both the (British) Oxford and Collins dictionaries gave -ize as the first spelling.

I'm British and

I always use the -ize spelling, not least because the letter z is so underused, but also because it more accurately indicates its pronunciation (and -ise is plain ugly).

The "z" is American , the "s" is British .

As an American I always use "z" for these words, and apparently many UK spellcheckers do not mark it as wrong and the Oxford English dictionary even gives "organization" as the first spelling, saying (also organisation).

Yet my (US English) Firefox marks the "organisation" variant as misspelled and suggests "organization".

My advice: unless you are writing under guidelines that suggest otherwise, use the "z" form for these words.

In publishing, we usually call these -ize and -ise spellings.

Some UK publishers prefer -ize, but -ise is the predominant UK style.

See Oxford spelling on Wikipedia .

OED prefers -ize spellings.

The US requires -ize .

The UK accepts both, but (with the OUP as the main exception) prefers -ise .

And this is one of the few cases where "international" English follows the US convention.

The ISO favours -ize spellings.

Inbuilt computer dictionaries set

to UK English rarely support -ize .

Feel free to overrule them.

That is because many spell checkers use American English.

Basically, z is used in North American English (American and Canadian), while s is used in British spellings.

You can find explanations for this on the internet — like here, for example: http://www.studyenglishtoday.net/british-american-spelling.html

Which spelling you use, depends on who your audience is.

If your writing is to be read mainly or only by speakers of American or Canadian English, use the North American spelling.

If it is not, then use the British spelling.

Apparently, if you see a process of transformation, or as Dictionary.com defines the suffix, "1.

To cause to become, resemble or agree with" the word should end with -ize, originating from the Late Latin -izāre, and the greek izein.

Or -ize is the rule if there is a smaller word prior to the suffix.

-ise is apparently from the latin past participle of words for "take", "see", and "cut" Analyse, for example, comes from (lysis) meaning dissolution.

See http://theconversation.com/its-time-to-recognize-and-internalize-the-us-suffix-ize-19828

The New Oxford American Dictionary reports

both the words, and the spelling checker used from the Mac OS X (10.6) corrects me when I write organisation .

Considering that US English is set as first language (followed by British English), I would think that organization is the American English word (even though it is not reported by the New Oxford American Dictionary ).

Question: What is with words that have forms that end both in -zation and -sation , such as localization and localisation ? Many spell checkers recommend -zation .

Are the endings "-zation" and "-sation" interchangeable?

It appears that the endings "-zation" and "-sation" are interchangeable in the UK but not in America. You often hear people say that "-ize" is American and "-ise" is British, however, both are accepted in the UK, although "-ise" is the dominant form there.

Nowadays, American uses -ize and British English uses -ise but retains -ize as an alternative.

The "z" is  American , the "s" is  British . Some UK publishers prefer -ize, but -ise is the predominant UK style.  The US requires  -ize .The UK accepts both, but (with the OUP as the main exception) prefers  -ise . And this is actually one of the few cases where "international" English follows the US convention.

In general,  z  is used in North American English (American and Canadian), while  s  is used in British spellings.  Some UK publishers prefer -ize, but -ise is the predominant UK style; while the US requires  -ize . Which spelling you use depends on who your audience is. Unless you are writing under guidelines that suggest otherwise, use the "z" form for these words.

Which variation you choose to use will depend on your audience or the style guide you are following. However, it is generally agreed that the spelling containing a z is North American and the spelling containing a s is British.

The US requires -ize but UK accepts both, but (with the OUP as the main exception) prefers -ise.

It is because many spell checkers use American English.

And this is one of the few cases where "international" English follows the US convention.

The variation containing a z is generally considered North American whilst the variation containing an s is considered a British variant.

Which you choose to write will depend on your audience or the style guide you are following.