There are some situations where status may be considered countable.

In those cases, the plural form can be used as statuses .

MacMillan dictionary gives 4 definitions for status , and 3 of them are referred to as countable.

Personally, I would use status as the plural form instead of statuses .

In Latin, the nominative plural of status as a 4th declension noun is statūs .

This would be uncomfortable in English, and so the English plural is statuses .

The Latin adjective has a different masculine nominative plural of statī , but then means something more like the English static .

I see that I've very late to answer.

I usually try to avoid the use of "status" as a plural, instead option to use the near-synonym " state ".

Take for example these three attempts at pluralizing "status", all of which I've seen coworkers using: The product should support the following statuses: Red Green Blue The product should support the following status: Red Green Blue The product should support the following statii: Red Green Blue None of those sound natural, and one is objectively wrong .

The issue is sidestepped by substituting "states": The product should support the following states: Red Green Blue

Many moons ago, our own tchrist wrote * …

If for some bizarre reason you simply cannot bring yourself to use the normal English plural form “statuses”, then you must learn that the true plural of status is statUs, with a macro[n] over the u [ i.e. , statūs] and pronounced “statoose”.

That’s because status comes from the Latin declension that forms plurals according to that particular rule, which incidentally is just like the plurals of apparatus and prospectus, but unlike the plural of words like radius, which becomes radii because it’s from a different declension, and also unlike genus and corpus, which go to genera and corpora respectively because they are from still another declension.

And please don’t ask me about octopus, since it’s Greek not Latin, and we do not care to offend any sensitive octopedal feelings. :-)

Wouldn’t it be much easier to simply s/$/es/ ?

A word to the wise: don’t use fancy forms out of yesteryear unless you really REALLY do know how they work(ed).

It just sounds silly.

* Message-ID: <5g2fu0$jve$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu> in comp.lang.perl.misc, March 11, 1997.

I always though that status should not be used as plural, but I notice that statuses is reported from the CoCA in sentences like: Young people across a wide range of socio-economic statuses increasingly value choosing their own spouses, and individual choice [...].

[...], but those with higher threat statuses need even more conservation.

Certain references were also made about specific types of sexual activity including individuals' virginity statuses.

Statuses is used in academic context, with a frequency of 192 (compared with a frequency of 3 and 4 in magazines and newspapers).

Usually "statuses", but some people use "status" As others have mentioned, there are several possible plural forms of status .

statuses, regularly formed using the English plural suffix

-(e)s.

This is listed in various dictionaries e.g. Collins English Dictionary , Merriam Webster .

status, taken from Latin.

This is listed in a few dictionaries e.g. the Oxford English Dictionary (which actually gives three forms): Pl.

( rare ) status

/ˈsteɪtjuːs/, (now usu.) statuses /ˈsteɪtəsɪz/, ( rare ) statusses /ˈsteɪtəsɪz/.

It’s not objectively better to use the Latinate plural form, or to try to pronounce it similarly to the way the Romans did.

Status has been an English word, not just a Latin word, for a long time now.

Latinate plurals ending in -us are rarely used in English, and in fact, several usage guides say the English form -uses is generally preferable.

The original Dictionary of Modern English Usage by H.W. Fowler, 1926 (as reproduced in the new 2009 edition) says in the entry for "-us": Many [words ending in "-us"] are from Latin fourth-declension words, whose Latin plural is -us

(pronounced ūs); but the English plural -uses is almost always preferred, as in prospectuses.

The contemporary usage guide writer Bryan Garner wrote the following passage: nexus.

The acceptable plural forms are nexuses (English) and nexus

(Latin).

Naturally, the English form is preferable—e.g.:

"The nexuses of activity for both rooms are the counters where the marijuana is dispensed."

Glenn Martin, "

The Tokin' Joint," S.F. Chron., 24 Aug. 1997, at Z1.

Some writers have betrayed their ignorance of Latin by writing * nexi, as if it were a second-declension noun.

To me, it seems simpler to just go with the regular English plural statuses,

but if you prefer to use the Latinate plural status for whatever reason, you’ll have to make some additional choices about pronunciation (it doesn't seem obvious to me how to pronounce it ).

Words that inflect similarly Some other English words that inflected in the same way as status in Latin are apparatus, coitus, fetus, flatus, hiatus, impetus, meatus, nexus.

I see some references to status as uncountable as well, but that doesn't make much sense to me.

I've always used statii, apparently incorrectly:

Merriam-Webster, at least, calls for "statuses"

Question: What is the plural form of "status"?

What is the plural form of "status"?

There does not appear to be much agreement as to the accept plural form of "status", and indeed, if may actually be "status". However, many people also use "statuses".

There is no definite rule but the most common plural form by far is "statuses".

Merriam-Webster suggests  "statuses" and statuses  is used in academic context, with a frequency of 192 (compared with a frequency of 3 and 4 in magazines and newspapers). The plural is usually "statuses", but some people use "status".

Usually "statuses", but some people use "status".  There are several possible plural forms of  status .  In Latin, the nominative plural of  status  as a 4th declension noun is  statūs .

There is disagreement about whether the plural form of 'status' is 'status or 'statuses'. However, in Latin, the plural form is 'status'.

It depends on the situation - the plural can be statuses but others prefer status.

The Latin is not a good guide so the English plural has become statuses.

You can use "states" instead if uncomfortable with statuses.

The Latin forms are rarely applied and best ignored.

It is usually "statuses", but some people use "status".

There is disagreement about whether the plural form of 'status' is 'status' or 'statuses'.


The most polite ways are probably: "May we have the bill/check, please?" "Could we have the bill/check, please?"

"Could we get the bill/check, please?

This has the meaning...

"Is it possible for you to give us the bill, as we're ready to leave and wish to pay"

Alternatively, when the server comes by and asks if you'd like anything else, a polite response would be: "

No thanks, just the bill, please" "Excuse me, Bill/check please" is casual and perhaps fine in casual situations, but it's still a little curt.

You can't go wrong with a full sentence question.

Note, in Canada, I've seen the word "bill" used most often.

Also note, in a Fancy restaurant, you will typically be asked if there is anything else.

A simple, "No thanks, I think that's all for tonight" will tip the server to bring the bill.

When paying, a credit card put in the envelope and left on the table will have the server silently take an bring back the completed bill.

I think check is American, bill is British : both are fine, adding "Can I have" as Daniel says is certainly more polite.

A common way to ask for the bill is to just make extended eye contact with the waiter, perhaps making a 'writing a cheque' guesture.

Two parts to your question.

Each part has been accurately but separately answered elsewhere but here's the summary: 1.

When asking for the bill/check in a restaurant, what's the polite way to phrase the question?

See Atomix's answer: "May we have the bill/check, please?" "

Could we have the bill/check, please?

" "Could we get the bill/check, please? 2.

Is there a politeness difference between bill and check ?

As TRiG's answer says, there is none.

But check is used chiefly in the USA and bill is used in the UK (and I think most other English speaking territories).

"Can I have the bill, please."

The word check should not be used in this context outside the USA.

In the USA, it's fine.

There's no politeness difference between bill and check .

I don't think anyone cares which word you use, as long as you're polite.

I usually use the word "check".

Most servers interpret the "money" gesture (rub your index finger against your thumb) as "I'd like to pay now" and will not and bring the check.

Question: I used to say  check please , but my English teacher said that it's wrong, and the proper way is to say something like  bill please.  What's the truth?

How should I ask for a bill in a restaurant politely?

The most polite ways to ask for a bill in a restaurant are probably "May we have the bill, please?" or "Could we have the bill, please?". You probably shouldn't use the word "check" in this context outside of the USA.

"Check" is American, "bill" is British : both are fine, and adding "Can I have" is certainly more polite.

The most polite ways are probably:  "May we have the bill/check, please?"  "Could we have the bill/check, please?"  But check  is used chiefly in the USA and  bill  is used in the UK and  most other English speaking territories.  Being polite is the main thing.
A common way to ask for the bill is to just make extended eye contact with the waiter, perhaps making a 'writing a cheque' guesture.

The most polite ways may be "May we have the bill/check, please?"; or "Could we have the bill/check, please?"

The most polite way to say this is probably "Can I have the bill, please?" or "Could we have the check, please?". Alternatively, you might find that making eye-contact with the waiter and making a writing gesture will be enough.

The most polite ways are probably:  "May we have the bill/check, please?" OR  "Could we have the bill/check, please?"

Check is American, bill is British : both are fine, adding "Can I have" is certainly more polite.

The word  check  should not be used in this context outside the USA.

I don't think anyone cares which word you use, as long as you're polite.

The most polite way to do this is probably to ask "Can I have the bill, please?" or "Could we have the check, please?".

Making eye-contact with the waiter and making a writing gesture with your hand may be enough.


Those living in early twentieth century called the years 1900-1909 "The Aughts" .

This Wikipedia article provides some more context.

I've heard "the noughties" (easy transition from "nineties") and "the two-thousands" (literal interpretation of "2000s") for the decade just gone.

I think this is something that doesn't have a real answer as it appears to change with each century and is different depending on your location.

Wikipedia's entry for the 2000s echoes this inability for people to come up with a single name for this decade

let alone all "first decades of a century".

In my circle I have usually heard the previous decade referred to as "the two-thousands".

As to whether it might be called that in 30 years or so, it's hard to tell.

I agree that "the tens" sounds weird, but isn't that because you'd say "the teens" instead?

The "Noughties" became a fairly standard term pretty quickly, at least in the UK.

But I've still yet to hear anyone give a good term for the decade from 2010-2019.

If I had to guess what term is most likely to emerge for 2010-2019, I'd say perhaps "The Teens", but I suspect actually no term will catch on until the Twenty-Twenties.

I can only think of "the single digits" to call the first nine years of the new millennium.

I usually hear the decade of 2000 through 2010 referred to as the two thousands.

But the year 2000 is really the last year of the 1990s.

For consistency the decade 2001-2010 should be referred to as the 20 zeroes and this decade 2011-2020 is the 20 tens.

Like every other decade we just say the number with the zero and add an s.

I will offer the correct answer.

Quite simply, for the two decades 2000-2010, and also 2010-2020 (the current decade), in fact there is no popular slang term .

There were attempts to popularise "naughties" but it never caught on.

Regarding back in 1900-1920.

I have not been able to find any clear reference on the issue.

The first ten years of any century could accurately be referred to as the 'singular', or 'unit', years, as opposed to those of double digits that follow.

That would be a designation consistent with the linear principles of fundamental mathematics, no?

Fot the current century, I would propose:

two thousand zeroes

My reason being, I think most people would understand what you meant.

(because of its recentness)However Im not so sure it would work for the first decade of a century in general.

i.e. in the fifteen zeroes davinci focused his attention on developing military machines for his patrons.

Its a little more ambiguous, but maybe understandable...

FWIW, this period has been called the 'Zeroes' by a Dutch radio station : The first decennium of this century is described as the 'Zeroes'.

It concerns the first ten years of this millennium.

Question: 80s: the "Eighties"    90s: the "Nineties"    00s: the ???   For that matter, what is the second decade called? The "tens" just doesn't sound right.

What is the name of the first decade in a century?

There are a number of different potential names for the first decade in a century. Those living in the early twentieth century call that decade "The Aughts", whilst the terms "the noughties" and "the two-thousands" have also been used for the first decade of this century.

There is no fixed term - both "noughties" and "two-thousands" have been used for 2000-2009 and no term exists for the years 2010-2010.

This appears to change with each century and is different depending on your location.  The "Noughties" became a fairly standard term pretty quickly, at least in the UK. And it was referred to as the 'Zeroes' by a  Dutch radio station. "The two-thousands" is another option, or "the single digits". Quite simply, for the two decades 2000-2010, and also 2010-2020,  in fact  there is no popular slang term .

"The noughties" and "the two-thousands" are commonly used for 2000-2009 and a dutch radio station uses the term "the zeroes". One suggestion for 2010-2019 is "the teens".

There is currently no agreed term for the first or second decade of the century. However, various names have been suggested for the first decade, including "the naughties", "the single digits" or "the two thousands". Additionally, a suggested term for the second decade of the century is "the teens".

The years 1900-1909 were called the "aughts"

There is no fixed term - both "noughties" and "two-thousands" have been used.

The "noughties" is common in the UK at least, but there is no term for the years 2010-2019.

The decade of 2000 through 2010 is referred to as the two thousands.

The first ten years of any century could accurately be referred to as the 'singular', or 'unit' years.

There are a number of terms that are in use to name the first decade of the 21st century, including "the naughties", "the two thousands" or "the single digits".

There is currently no agreed upon term for the first or second decade of the century.

One suggested name for the second decade of the century is "the teens".


Both are correct.

In a dialogue, a pause can be used for effect, putting emphasis on the greeting, eg:

Hello, Mr. Black.

"Hello" is said first, then a pause, then the name.

Normally, people would say: Hello Mr. Black.

Without any pauses in their speech.

When writing a letter or email, it is quite common to do this: Hello

Mr. Black, Bla bla bla... Or in a more formal situation: Dear Mr. Black, Bla bla bla...

It is uncommon to put a comma before the title even in an informal email salutation (though quite acceptable), but it would never be done in a formal letter/email.

Not placing a comma before a proper noun will change the object of the sentence.

These examples should explain: Let's eat, John!

(Correct)

Let's eat John!

(This means you'd like to eat John.)

Let's eat, everybody.

(Correct)

Let's eat everybody

(This means you'd like to eat everybody.)

When I read Hello, Mr. Black

I find that I mentally need there to be a comma at the end as well, or perhaps a full stop.

Hello, Mr. Black, how are you today?

Hello, Mr. Black.

And the result is that the name is emphasized.

Whether you want to do this or not depends on the circumstances, but for letter writing this is usually not what you want.

If you simply want a standard greeting put the comma after the name (or a full stop if the greeting is your whole sentence).

Hello Mr. Black.

Hello

Mr. Black, how are you today?

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

In formal writing you would put a comma after greetings: "Hello, Mark."

In emails and informal writing, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

I, for one, feel self-conscious about using commas like that in emails; it seems too formal.

In the specific case of the opening salutation I would not insert a comma between the greeting and the name if a comma came after the name, but I would if some other punctuation followed the name.

The following examples all "look correct" to me: "

Hi Mark, how are you?"

"Hi, Mark.

How are you?"

"Hello Mark, what's up?"

"Hello, Mark!

What's up?

But the "Hi, Mark, how have you been?"

example that you gave looks over-punctuated to me.

The title of the question said “in a letter” in which case you would be better sticking to: Dear Mr. Black,

How are you today?

(The the rest of the letter follows.)

Other forms may be grammatically correct and certainly not a problem in an email.

But for a the more traditional context of a letter, I think your safest bet is this one.

You need to place a comma between the salutation and the name of the person addressed.

Hello, Mr. Black.

How are you today?"

Question: Sometimes I see a comma  after  the proper name:   Hello Mr. Black,  In order to give you....   But my native language is not English and I think that the comma in this phrase should be placed  before  the proper name:    Hello, Mr. Black.  In order to give you....   What is the correct punctuation in English?

Where should the comma be placed in the salutation of a letter?

It is considered that putting the comma before or after a persons name in a salutation is correct. There should be a comma after a greeting, but it may not be correct to place another comma after the person's name. In fact, it may be best not to place a comma before the name if a comma already follows the name.

There is no hard and fast rule but in salutations it is much more common to put the comma only after the name.

Some suggest that in case of the opening salutation you should not insert a comma between the greeting and the name if a comma came after the name, but only if some other punctuation followed the name.  Others say that you need to place a comma between the salutation and the name of the person addressed. The title of the question said “in a letter” in which case you would be better sticking to:   Dear Mr. Black,

In a letter, it would be best to use "Dear Mr. Black,". It is uncommon to put a comma before the title even in an informal email salutation (though quite acceptable), but it would never be done in a formal letter/email.

The answer to this question appears to be subjective and there does not seem to be a correct answer. Some people will advocate avoiding commas before names whilst other may feel it is required. Other people may feel that a comma needs to follow the name. In any case, it is unlikely to have much importance which you choose.

Both forms are correct but it is much less common to place the comma before the name.

Not placing a comma before a proper noun can change the meaning.

If commas are placed before and after the name it will emphasise the name as it is unusual

In formal writing the comma comes after but in emails it does not matter.

I would insert a comma before only if punctuation came after the name.

For letters you should put the comma only after the name.

Both styles of punctuation are considered correct and it is unlikely to be very important which you choose.

Many people would prefer to avoid putting a comma before a name in a salutation.

Some people feel that a name must be placed before a name after a salutation.

Some people advocate putting a comma after the name in an opening salutation.


Dutch, not an uncommon nickname, seems to be used for a variety of reasons.

It could be because a person is connected to Holland, or because a person is of German descent.

Here, "Dutch" is from "Deutsch," the German-language word for "German.

" Other reasons are more idiosyncratic.

Here are some examples: Ronald Reagan , 40th President of the United StatesAs a boy,

Reagan's father nicknamed his son "Dutch", due to his "fat little Dutchman"-like appearance, and his "Dutchboy" haircut; the nickname stuck with him throughout his youth.

Dutch Schultz , notorious gangsterHis old associates dubbed him "Dutch" Schultz in honor of a deceased strong-arm thug who was notorious for dirty fighting at the turn of the century.

Dutch Ruppersberger , U.S. congressmanDutch is legally part of his name: Charles Albert Dutch Ruppersberger III, but it wasn't always.

When Rep. Charles Albert Ruppersberger III (D-Md.)

first ran for Congress in 2002, he decided that his 13-letter last name was too long to put on a bumper sticker.

Besides, he says, he needed something catchier, something that would stick in people’s heads.

So he opted for his lifelong nickname: Dutch.

But there was one hitch:

It wasn’t his real name, so he couldn’t put "Dutch" on the ballot.

"When you market yourself, you have to make sure that you have the same name on the ballot, so I needed ‘Dutch’ on the ballot," he said in an interview.

So what I did is I legally

-- I’m a lawyer -- I legally added Dutch to my name.

So I would go by C -- period -- A -- period -- Dutch, and all of the bumper stickers would say, ‘Go Dutch.’

So legally I added Dutch to my name."

But why did he choose "Dutch"?

The Maryland Democrat’s nickname has been --Dutch-- since the moment of his birth.

--When I was born ...

the doctor came out and said to my father, ‘You have a big blond Dutchman,’ -- he said.

--So they started calling me ‘Dutch,’ and when my mother and he would write letters, he’d ask, ‘How’s the Dutchman doing?’

I’ve been called Dutch all of my life.-- Dutch Fehring , Stanford's winningest baseball coach.

It was during his freshman year in high school that he earned the nickname --Dutch,-- because he was of German descent.

After Fehring returned a kickoff 60 yards for a touchdown, a local sportswriter tabbed him --The Flying Dutchman--

and the nickname stuck.

Arnold Schwarznegger's character's (nick)name in the film "Predator" was "Dutch".

I once read a review which claimed this was a way to explain his accent away.

As for T-Bone Walker, Wikipedia tells me Aaron Thibeaux Walker[4] ....

In 1929, Walker made his recording debut with a single for Columbia, "Wichita Falls Blues"/"Trinity River Blues," billed as Oak Cliff T-Bone.[1]

Oak Cliff was the community he lived in at the time and T-Bone a corruption of his middle name .

We have answers for T-Bone Walker, but not for T Bone Burnett.

An article by the Newark Star Ledger (posted on his own site ) says: Christened Joseph Henry Burnett, T Bone came by his nickname "honestly," around the age of 5, he says.

The fact that he shared a moniker with famous Texas guitarist T-Bone Walker caused some wincing when he first started to perform, but he stuck with it.

So his name doesn't begin with a T and he didn't copy it from Walker, he just picked it somehow.

Some other T-Bones : T-Bone Slim (1890-1942), pen name for American poet, songwriter, and labour activist

Matti Valentine Huhta:

Apparently Slim was a common name for hoboes, perhaps because they tended to be skinny from lack of food.

And maybe the T-Bone was for ironic contrast, and for the T sound from the end of Matti.

His " Lumberjack's Prayer " begins: "I pray dear Lord for Jesus' sake, /

Give us this day a T-Bone Steak".

T-Bone (rapper), a Christian rapper: "His name came from being called ' Bones ' as a youngster because he was very skinny.

The 'T' was "added to give the name a little slang edge, hence the name 'T-Bone' was born."

" And these three all have names beginning with T: Tony "T-Bone" Bellamy, lead guitarist, pianist and vocalist of the 1970s band Redbone.

Tom "T-Bone" Wolk, an American bassist: "guitarist G.E. Smith ... gave him the nickname T-Bone — for blues guitarist T-Bone Walker — after Wolk played his bass behind his head during a solo".

Tom "T-Bone" Stankus, an American musician.

I have no doubt that "T-Bone" comes from the steak.

I think that a cut of steak is something considered fairly rugged and manly, so for this reason it might be attractive as a nickname.

Of course that is just speculation.

Also, I notice (from Wikipedia)

that T-Bone Walker got his nickname because his middle name starts with a T. I suspect that a name like T-Bone could easily arise from this sort of connection.

Having played in the brass section of a marching band in grade school, I know that trombones are frequently referred to as "t-bones".

In the context of musicians, I have often assumed that those bearing the moniker "T-Bone" were, among other things, notorious trombonists (or "tromboners" per band director Dewey Largo on The Simpsons ) but clearly this is not a reference that translates into popular culture with any frequency.

Question: Does the nickname  Dutch  have any significance? I know it was Reagan's, and I'm sure I've come across it in other books/films.  Also  T-Bone , as in  T-Bone Walker ,  T-Bone Burnett : what does that mean? (I realise T-bone is a steak, but why would people be named after a meat cut, and why this one?)

What do the American nicknames 'Dutch' and 'T-Bone' mean?

"Dutch" is not an uncommon nickname and may refer to someone of German descent or connected to Holland or, as the case of Ronald Reagan, to a "dutchboy" haircut. It is unclear what the nickname "T-bone" means, although the term is often used as a slang expression for the trombone.

The nickname "Dutch" usually denotes some connection or link to Holland or Germany and T-Bone appears to originate from "Thibeaux".

Dutch could be used because a person is connected to Holland, or because a person is of German descent. For example, Reagan's father nicknamed his son "Dutch", due to his "fat little Dutchman"-like appearance, and his "Dutchboy" haircut; the nickname stuck with him throughout his youth.   "T-Bone" most probably comes from the steak.  A cut of steak is something considered fairly rugged and manly, so for this reason it might be attractive as a nickname.  But there is also a musical reference as trombones are frequently referred to as "t-bones".

"Dutch" could be used for someone connected to Holland, or because a person is of German descent. Reagan's father nicknamed his son "Dutch", due to his "fat little Dutchman"-like appearance, and his "Dutch boy" haircut and the nickname stuck with him throughout his youth. "T-Bone" probably refers to the cut of steak, as something considered fairly rugged and manly, so for this reason it might be attractive as a nickname.

The answer to this question may well be different in every case. The nickname "Dutch" may well be applied because of someone's connections to the Netherlands. However, in the case of Ronald Reagan, it was due to his "Dutchboy" hairstyle as a child. With regards to the nickname "T-bone", it may well come from the steak cut, with it being considered perhaps rugged and manly.

Dutch is not uncommon as a nickname and is used mainly because of a connectio with Holland or Germany.

Arnold Schwarznegger's character's (nick)name in the film "Predator" was "Dutch" in part to explain the actor's German accent, and T-Bone appears to come from Thibeaux oiginally as this was T-Bone Walker's middle name.

Other people may have picked up the name T-Bone randomly.

The nickname T-Bone may come from the fact that trombones are sometimes referred to as "T-bones".

Someone may be nicknamed "Dutch" because they have some connection to the Netherlands.

Ronald Reagan was nicknamed "Dutch" by his father owing to his "Dutchboy" haircut as a child.

The nickname "T-Bone" may come from the steak as it could be considered something 'rugged and manly'.


I have always used "I reckon" to mean, "I have applied a process of thought and come to this conclusion".

"I think" is a statement of my assumptions.

"I believe" is generally something I cannot prove or defend, specifically referring to my "beliefs" in a religious or spiritual context.

For some perspective, I am a native speaker from the Southern United States.

"I think" is a statement of cursory conclusion, while "I believe" indicates a more deeply considered and committed position.

Note that someone may say "I think" when they actually mean "I believe", simply because it might be received as less confrontational.

"I reckon" carries an ever lower level of assertion than "I think", (or perhaps an even higher level of conciliation).

As an example... When a sheriff in the deep south says, "I reckon I'm takin' you to jail.", it means he's definitely taking you to jail.

There is no question in that sheriff's mind.

He doesn't think or believe, he knows. ;~)

And an up vote for Anthony.

I'd consider both "I believe" and "I think" to reflect roughly equivalent levels of (limited) confidence.

"I reckon" is significantly lower-confidence- more akin to "I'd guess" than than it is to the other two.

I believe "I reckon" is more commonly used in British English.

I think that in American English, it's considered to be colloquial.

english.stackexchange.com/users/189/Paused until further notice.

All three are essentially interchangeable, but many think

I believe reflects uncertainty on the part of the speaker.

I believe (heh-heh) that "I believe" acknowledges the possibility of error, and the shortage of evidence, more explicitly than "I think" does.

"I reckon" originally meant "I calculate" and so carries a far stronger promise of accuracy.

If you begin a sentence with "I reckon", you better be right.

Rather than just pointing out degrees, let's talk about what you can hold a conviction in .

These terms also connote degrees.

You can think a conjecture is true.

You can believe in a theory, holding it to be true.

One of them requires some foundation even if only subjective from the perspective of the speaker.

While the other includes possibilities that may be clearly absurd.

I think these lottery numbers will be lucky.

Raises no questions to me.

I believe these lottery numbers will be lucky.

Makes me wonder what you know about the method of number selection at the lottery.

That's not to say every belief is reasonable.

Most are certainly not reasonable, but they're still not random.

I'm a Christian

: I believe the world was created in 6 days.

You're clearly nuts.

But, I understand why you believe that.

It's in your cannon.

As for reckon it has two meanings.

Meaning to calculate.

This is the archaic definition from which the current usage derives, largely lost in the United States.

A southern regionalism for belief.

Often used sarcastically or pejoratively by outsiders to mock southerners.

I'd stay stay away from reckon entirely.

Unless you're planning a comedy skit.

Question: These are the three most common ways to say "I think." (At least, I believe so. I mean, I think so. Um...)  Are there any subtle differences between them? Are there situations where one of the three is more suitable than the others? Can you say you hear a particular form all the time in the streets, while the other two are much less common?

Are there any differences between "I believe" vs "I think" vs "I reckon"?

The distinction between "believe", "think" and "reckon" is likely to be very fine, however, "think" and "reckon" may refer to more cursory conclusions that "I believe", which is a more deeply considered and committed position. It's also possible that "I reckon" carries a lower level of assertion than "I think", although other people would assert that it involved calculation and is therefore more certain than "believe" or "think".

The terms are interchangeable and may indicate varying levels of certainty in different speakers. Using "I reckon" can appear uneducated and expose the user to mockery.

"I reckon" is more commonly used in British English and is significantly lower-confidence- more akin to "I'd guess" than than it is to the other two. "I believe" is generally something I cannot prove or defend, specifically referring to my "beliefs" in a religious or spiritual context.   "I think" is a statement of cursory conclusion, while "I believe" indicates a more deeply considered and committed position.  "I believe" and "I think" reflect roughly equivalent levels of (limited) confidence.

"I think" is a statement of cursory conclusion, while "I believe" indicates a more deeply considered and committed position.  "I believe" acknowledges the possibility of error, and the shortage of evidence, more explicitly than "I think" does.  "I believe" is generally something that cannot be proven or defended, specifically referring to my "beliefs" in a religious or spiritual context.  "I reckon" carries an ever lower level of assertion than "I think". "I reckon" is more commonly used in British English.

There does not appear to be a clear answer to this question. There is disagreement about which of these three denotes more certainty. Some people might claim that "I believe" is more certain than "I think" or vice versa. Equally, there is no agreement as to whether "I reckon" is a more or less confident statement than the other two.

In the Southern US "I reckon" implies more thought than "I think", and "I believe" refers to religious beliefs.

"I think" is a statement of cursory conclusion and  "I reckon" is even more cursory, while "I believe" indicates a more deeply considered position.

"I reckon" can be used ironically when the speaker is quite sure about the statement.

Both "I believe" and "I think" reflect roughly equivalent levels of (limited) confidence but "I reckon" is significantly lower-confidence- more akin to "I'd guess".

"I reckon" is more common in UK English but in US English it sounds colloquial

"I believe" acknowledges the possibility of error, and the shortage of evidence, more explicitly than "I think" does but "I reckon" originally meant "I calculate" and so carries a far stronger promise of accuracy.

These terms also connote degrees but it depends on context - "I reckon" is often used to mock regional dialects in the US and should otherwise be avoided.

"I think" is considered to be less committal and confident than "I believe".

Some people would consider that "I believe" demonstrates a certain level of doubt.

There is no agreement about whether "I reckon" is stronger or weaker in confidence.

It is possible that "I reckon" is more common in British English.


"Thy" is an English word that means "your" in the second person singular.

English used to have a distinction between singular and plural in the second person, such that we had the following:

Singular: thou, thee, thy Plural: ye, you,

your Nowadays, we just have "you" and "your" in place of those six distinct words (which is why in nonstandard English, we have things like "y'all" or "youse" to distinguish 2nd-person plural from 2nd-person singular).

I believe it's still used in parts of Yorkshire.

I me

my mine Thou thee thy thine

(You you your yours)

He him

his his She her her hers

We us our ours

Ye

you your yours (You you your yours)

They them their theirs

Basically, it means "your".

If you want more detailed definition, check on the Merriam-Webster site : archaic : of or relating to thee or thyself especially as possessor or agent or as object of an action —used especially in ecclesiastical or literary language and sometimes by Friends especially among themselves

Archaic.

From dictionary.com .

thy –pronoun the possessive case of thou (used as an attributive adjective before a noun beginning with a consonant sound): thy table.

thou –pronoun Archaic (except in some elevated or ecclesiastical prose) .

the personal pronoun of the second person singular in the nominative case (used to denote the person or thing addressed): Thou shalt not kill.

‘Thy’ is an old word meaning ‘ your ’ that was used for talking or writing to one person.

Not really answering the question, but adding some cultural context.

One

(maybe the only) place

most people meet these words nowadays is in old hymns:

Thine be the glory Great

is thy faithfulness

How great thou art

Just a closer walk with thee

Oh come all ye faithful

The OED has a lot to say about thou , pron and n¹ .

Here is just a very small bit of that: History of use of forms

In Old English, the inherited distinctive 2nd singular forms (including the other members of that paradigm, i.e. thee pron .

, thine adj .

and pron ., thy adj .)

were in regular use independently of register or the status of the addressee.

In Middle English they were gradually superseded by the plural ye, you, your, yours , which occurred with singular reference originally for reasons of showing respect, deference, or formality, but gradually became the usual forms in the standard language.

On the details of this process see discussion at you pron .

, adj ., and n .

Although still occurring in religious contexts (in prayers or hymns addressing God) and in archaic language, later use of the th- forms in ordinary speech has been largely restricted to regional English (now chiefly in the north of England).

The forms were formerly also employed by Quakers in addressing a single person as a mark of equality, a feature which had largely fallen out of use by the 20th century.

While use of thee pron .

as subject form occurs early and is frequent in regional use (see thee pron .

II.), use of thou pron .

as object form is rare; Eng.

Dial.

Dict.

records use (as a stressed form) in northern regional English, Surv.

Eng.

Dial.

records use in Wiltshire, and Sc.

National Dict.

records use in Orkney.

Is also says: Form history

As with other pronouns, the form history of this word is affected by its frequent position in low stress and the development of unstressed beside stressed variants; compare the early development of proclitic and enclitic forms (see Forms 2a, 2b).

It is assumed that in Old English þ—ᵗ the length of the vowel depended on the degree of stress in the sentence (compare R. M. Hogg Gram.

Old Eng.

(1992) I. §5.198).

The modern standard diphthongal pronunciation ( /ðaʊ/ ) reflects a stressed form; compare Middle English þuu , þou (see Forms 1α).

Regional forms, on the other hand, often reflect a reduced vowel (compare e.g. early modern English and regional tha ); such reduction is seen earliest in the Old English enclitic forms -to , -ðo (see Forms 2a).

The modern standard voiced pronunciation of the initial consonant reflects late Middle English lenition of the originally voiceless dental fricative in unstressed words (also found in other pronouns, e.g. this pron .

and adj ., that pron.¹ ).

Original voicelessness is reflected by forms with initial t- (see Forms 2β), which occur even when preceded by voiced consonants.

Such forms originally arose by assimilation to preceding dental stops ( d , t ) or dissimilation from preceding sibilant fricative ( s ), and accordingly occur especially when the forms are enclitic, where often the verbal endings -s , -t , -st preceded them (see Forms 2a, and compare discussion at T n.⁷ ).

In Middle English, such spellings are particularly frequent after d or t in texts of the 13th cent.

and grow less frequent with standardization.

(Insular Scots (now chiefly Shetland) du, doo , on the other hand, shows the influence of Norn.)

Probably the the most important part of all that is that in modern times it is restricted to regional use in the north of England, and perhaps in Orkney.

It still gets used for other things, though.

This is a very basic paradigm in English, with roots, and suffixes, and irregularities.

Paradigms are to make grammar easier to remember.

This is not rocket science.

If you speak English, you already know the paradigm for I, me, my, mine.

It's the same paradigm (except for the nominative) with thou, thee, thy, thine .

Note that me, my, and mine rhyme with thee, thy, and thine .

That's your mnemonic for usage, Use thou, thee, thy, and thine exactly the same ways as you would use I, me, my, and mine , respectively.

I and thou are both subject pronouns, and the others all rhyme.

Question: I read a sentence containing the word  thy , but I cannot find the meaning of that word.    Is it older English, or is it still used in contemporary English today?

What does "thy" mean?

"Thy"is an English word that means "your" in the the second person singular. However, in modern times, it is largely restricted to regional use in the north of England or Orkney.

"Thy" is an English word that means "your" in the second person singular but is only used nowadays in northern England and parts of Scotland.

‘Thy’ is an old word meaning ‘ your ’ that was used in the second person singular.  It is the possessive case of thou  (used as an attributive adjective before a noun beginning with a consonant sound): thy table.

‘Thy’ is an old word meaning ‘ your ’ that was used for talking or writing to  one  person. It is still used in parts of Yorkshire.

Thy is an old English word meaning "your" and was used when talking to one person. It may still be in use in parts of Yorkshire.

"Thy" is an English word that means "your" in the second person singular.

It is used nowadays only in the north of England and parts of Scotland.

Thou, thee, thy, thine equate to the first person forms I, me, my, mine.

"Thy" is an old English word meaning "your" and was used when talking to one person.

"Thy" may still be used in parts of Yorkshire.


You could say "a half hour" or "half an hour".

The article choice depends on where in a phrase you place it.

Would you ever say "I'll be back in hour"?

No, because while possibly legal, the use of the article "an" would be needed to make it sound like a native English speaker.

"half-hour" is commonly written with a dash (hyphen) and is a distinct word in the dictionary.

So, "a half-hour" = 30 minutes = "half an hour".

In Australia we say 'half an hour'.

You might hear 'a half hour', but it would sound stilted.

This is probably changing with the influence of American television.

The top one is correct.

I'll be back in half hour would be OK if it said I'll be back in a half hour

Note that "a half hour" is an American usage, British people only use "half an hour".

The very same question puzzles me these days.

The title should be "half an hour" versus "a half hour"

I used to apply the former.

I notice it is an issue when I read the entry in electronic dictionary of Longman contemporary English version 5.

It offers examples like, 1.

half a mile/pound/hour etc

half a pound of butter; It’s about half a mile down the road.

She drank half a bottle of wine.

half a million dollars; 2. a half hour/mile etc You can’t just waltz in a half hour late.

It’s about a half mile down the road.

a half day excursion to the island; He demanded a half share of the money.

Both items belong to entry of half with the meaning of "exactly or about 50% (½) of an amount, time, distance, number etc"

The dictionary does not explain the difference.

I infer it is the same and both are correct.

Maybe the only difference lies in habit or region.

For instance, many mention on this page, British people and Americans apply this in different ways.

Question: I'll be back in half an hour.  I'll be back in half hour.   Which is the correct sentence? Are there any differences between British English and American English?

"Half an hour" versus "half hour"

You could potentially use either, however, in Britain and Australia, it is more common to hear "half an hour". However, in America, it is possible that you will hear "a half hour".

In US English it is acceptable to say "a half hour" or "half an hour" but in British you should use only "half an hour".

You can say "a half hour" or "half an hour". "Half-hour" is commonly written with a dash (hyphen) and is a distinct word in the dictionary. Note that "a half hour" is an American usage, British people only use "half an hour".

"A half hour" is an American usage. British people only use "half an hour".

The exact answer will depend on the region, but both are generally considered to be correct. For instance, Americans will say "a half hour" and British or Australian speakers will say "half an hour".

The article choice depends on where in a phrase you place it - for example you would not say "I'll be back in hour" because you need the article.

Provided there is an article before "half hour", both are considered correct.

Some people would accept "a half hour" as correct.

Some people are comfortable using "half an hour".

The exact answer may well depend on the region, with Americans preferring "a half hour" and British speakers preferring "half an hour".


There is no standard term to describe the English spoken throughout the United Kingdom, because the English spoken in Northern Ireland is so different from the English spoken in Great Britain that it is usually included with Irish English (or Hiberno-English ).

The term British English is generally used to refer to the English spoken in Great Britain, including Scotland, England, and Wales.

Welsh English and Scottish English are the terms for the specific dialects spoken in those countries, and the term English English is used sometimes to describe the English specifically spoken in England.

Often British English is used to refer to English English in contrast to Scottish, Welsh or other varieties of English.

I think most English speakers would understand the term "British English" and know that you don't mean the dialect spoken primarily in America.

No English speaker would use "English English" to denote that dialect.

I have read that saying British English is too specific, British English is less specific than English-English (I've never come across this before).

Even inside England there are regional dialects, so where would you stop?

As an Englishman I think it should be just 'English'.

"British English" is only too specific if you're trying to speak of "English as spoken by everyone except Americans and Canadians."

I might call that "Commonwealth English" but I'm not sure.

I think that "English English" is the term that's too specific, since it leaves out the Scots and the Welsh.

British English is perfectly fine and is mainly used to mean "not American English".

It is only used when you actually need to differentiate between the two.

I would take 'British English' to refer to the varieties of English spoken in Great Britain, i.e., English, Welsh, and Scottish English, primarily.

(I'm not clear on edge cases like the Isle of Man and Isle of Wight).

More loosely, it would also cover the English of Northern Ireland.

I have read that saying British English is too specific, and that I should say English English.

Is that true?

Hum, well, what do you mean by "British English" here?

The question is a bit too vague to really answer.

The traditional term for the form of English pronunciation used in the south-east of England and the middle or upper classes was "received pronunciation".

In the recent editions of the Cambridge pronunciation dictionary (was originally Daniel Jones's dictionary)

this is now called BBC English.

What do people understand when I refer to British English?

I would guess that you were talking about spelling differences.

British English is misleading as a term.

It gives the impression that there is somehow, just one form of English that is spoken exactly the same, all over the UK.

It's really more of a collective term for the different forms of the language, within the UK.

Covering what is literally English (the language used in England) and the other, non-English British forms.

Question: I have read that saying British English is too specific, and that I should say English English. Is that true? When I say British English, what do people think I am referring to?

What should I call the English spoken in UK?

There is no standard term used to describe the English spoken throughout the UK, although the term "British English" is generally used to refer to the English spoken in Great Britain. The term "English English" would definitely not be used by an English speaker.

The term is not precise but "British English" usually means the forms of English other than the dialect spoken primarily in America.

British English  would  mainly be used to mean "not American English".  But, British English is misleading as a term as there is no standard term to describe the English spoken throughout the United Kingdom. Welsh English  and  Scottish English  are the terms for the specific dialects spoken in those countries, and the term  English English  is used sometimes to describe the English specifically spoken in England. Most English speakers would understand the term "British English" and know that you don't mean the dialect spoken primarily in America, but no English speaker would use "English English" to denote that dialect. British English  would  mainly be used to mean "not American English".

Most English speakers would understand the term "British English". The term  British English  is generally used to refer to the English spoken in Great Britain, including Scotland, England, and Wales.  No English speaker would use "English English".

It is generally agreed that "British English" is not "too specific" and is a perfectly acceptable term to refer to the English spoken in the United Kingdom. However, the precise term you may wish to use may depend on exactly where you are in the British Isles and for this reason, British English may be a misleading term.

British English is sometimes used to refer to English English in contrast to Scottish, Welsh or other varieties of English.

Most English speakers would understand that the term "British English" means English other than the dialect spoken primarily in America.

British English is just about spelling differences.

British English is misleading as a term as there are so many variants in the British Isles.

It is generally agreed that British English is a perfectly acceptable term to refer to the English spoken throughout the United Kingdom or to differentiate it from American English.

It is generally agreed that there is nothing too specific about the term "British English" and that "English English" is not used.

Some people would claim that there is no suitable term for all English spoken across the UK and that British English is a misleading term.

The question may be too vague to answer.

Some people would be quite comfortable with it being called "English".


I keep hearing a couple of people from Kentucky and Oklahoma say things like, "Whenever I was ten years old".

Like they were ten years old more than once.

Or, "Whenever I was in High School".

This just seems like the word should be "When" in these circumstances.

It drives me crazy when I hear this.

This usage, where it means "at an unspecified/uncertain time" is fairly common.

I usually hear it (and say it) in a construction more like, "Whenever it was that I first came to...".

I don't know if you would also object to this structure.

In terms of being "valid", the dictionary lists: adv.

At whatever time.

When.

See Usage Note at whatever. conj.

At whatever time

that: We can leave whenever you're ready.

Every time that

: The child smiles whenever the puppy appears.

Surely you say things like "whenever you want" -- this is the same "whenever".

This is a known dialect feature of the American South (but I can't find a reference right now).

I don't know that it has a different meaning from "when" in your dialect.

I have noticed this as well among youth in Northwest Arkansas.

I first started noticing it about 6 months ago.

My wife has started misusing "whenever" as well.

It should only be used to refer to indefinite or unknown times, not a single, specific time.

Correct use: "Whenever I am in St. Louis, I visit Busch Gardens."

Incorrect use: "Whenever I was 5 years old, I went to Busch Gardens."

The first time I heard it used incorrectly was on MTV by a young man from TN.

Since then I have noticed news reporters on HLN and CNN use it as well.

My first thought was that it was about "location" but I am now inclined to believe that it is either about education or people hearing it and thinking that they, themselves have been wrong all their lives.

"Whenever I was at the fire...." I too cringe when it is improperly used.

This is standard usage in Northern Ireland.

I've never heard it anywhere else

(I live in the Republic, and I've never heard it here or from my English relatives).

Question: I increasingly encounter people who misuse "whenever" when they really mean "when":   Whenever I first came to St. Louis, I lived with my Aunt Judy...   Bugs me to death. Obviously they are talking about a one-time event, not "every time I visited St. Louis", which would be a valid use of "whenever".  Is this a common misuse? Is this a regional thing (St. Louis, MO, USA)? This isn't a valid alternate use, is it?

Improper use of "Whenever"

This use of the word "whenever" may be a regional phenomenon, with it being more common in Kentucky, Oklahoma, Northwest Arkansas and the American South in general. It may also be standard usage in Northern Ireland.

This usage is common as a dialect term in the southern states of the US and in Northern Ireland.

This usage, where it means "at an unspecified/uncertain time" is fairly common in certain locations. It is a known dialect feature of the American South. This is also standard usage in Northern Ireland.

If "whenever" is used to mean "at an unspecified/uncertain time, it is fairly common. However, the expression referred to in the question is used in the American South and in Northern Ireland.

This misuse of the word "whenever" appears to exist in the south of the USA and Northern Ireland. The word "whenever" should be used to refer to an "uncertain/unspecified time".

This is a dialect term in Kentucky and Oklahoma.

The usage meaning "at an unspecified/uncertain time" is fairly common.

This is a known dialect word in the American South.

I have noticed this among young people in Northwest Arkansas.

This is an incorrect usage that is becoming more common among the young.

This is standard usage in Northern Ireland.

It is fairly common to use "whenever" to referred to an "unspecified/uncertain time".

This particular use of the word "whenever" appears to be a regional dialect found in places like the Southern states of the USA or Northern Ireland.


From the NOAD : titled /ˈtaɪdld/ adjective (of a person) having a title indicating high social or official rank.

entitle /ɪnˈtaɪdl/

/ɛnˈtaɪdl/

verb [trans.]

(usually be entitled) 1.

give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something: employees are normally entitled to severance pay | [trans.]

the landlord is entitled to require references .

give (something, especially a text or work of art) a particular title: an article entitled "The Harried Society." - [trans.]

archaic give (someone) a specified title expressing their rank, office, or character: they entitled him Sultan .

In your example, you should say I really liked the conclusion to rands' latest blog post entitled "How to Run a Meeting."

The verbs entitle and title are synonyms.

Regarding nouns, title is a noun, entitle is not.

Title on its own is an adjective (the title story - the story from the book

the book got its title from), entitle is not.

Entitle has an additional association to the meaning of having rights to or honor: I was entitled to the deduction.

The verb entitle regards the given name as a more distinguished feature of an object, more than the verb title .

When you say The book is titled "Far away from here".

you are saying that technically it has that title, but when you say The book is entitled "Far away from here".

you are implying some sort of preference, either that you liked the book, or that the title was appropriate, or that the book has become famous, or that you want to suggest people to read it, something that gives to the book more than just a simple title.

I entitle this book with her name.

means I am giving this book something special by giving it a title of more importance to me , suggesting strong emotions.

The director wanted to title the movie "Loud air".

means what it says.

In this sentence using entitle instead of title would be kind of strange, unless something more is said about the movie or the director.

In your sentence "I really liked...

" suggests preference, honor, and, although titled and entitled are both correct, entitled suggests "appropriately titled" or "nicely titled" which is what the author really wanted to express.

There is an interesting article on this topic at the following URL.

It provides usage statistics.

"Titled", I believe, typically refers to title as in rank or nobility .

"Entitled" means (for one) "to give a title to" or designate.

"Entitled" would denote a usage whereby one is deserving of, as opposed to "Titled" where someone is already honored.

"Entitled", when used to refer to how something is titled, is just confusing usage.

Using "the article was titled ... " is more concise.

According to dictionary.com, 'title' as a verb means "to furnish with a title; designate by an appellation; entitle."

I conclude both are acceptable.

I think I tend to use 'titled' preferentially, probably because it's shorter.

Question: When is it appropriate to use "titled" vs. "entitled"?  For example, which is the correct word to use in the following sentence?   I really liked the conclusion to  rands’ latest blog post entitled “How  to Run a Meeting”.

When is it appropriate to use "titled" vs. "entitled"?

It is generally agreed that the term "titled" refers to having a title indicating high social or official rank, whilst "entitled" means "to give a title to" or designate. Although, it is possible that both might be acceptable for the same usage.

Both words mean "to furnish with a title" and so they are interchangeable.

The verbs  entitle  and  title  are often used as synonyms, but using "entitled" to refer to how something is titled, is just confusing usage. "Entitled"  means  "to give a title to" or designate or means having rights to or honor: I was  entitled  to the deduction.  "Titled"  typically refers to title as in  rank or nobility .

Both are acceptable. Opinions and preferences differ regarding which should be used.

There does not seem to be a correct answer to this question as it is subjective and possible that both options are acceptable.

"Titled" appears to refer to the possession of high social or official rank

"Entitled" means deserving something but "titled" means already honored.

Some people believe that "titled" is more correct.

It is possible that both are correct and acceptable.


There is no need for "fastly" because "fast" is both an adjective and an adverb.

So, "I ran fast" is completely correct.

The existence of "fast" as an adverb does not preclude the future development of a word "fastly", but it does hinder it.

One might note that the corresponding adjective "slow" does take the -ly suffix, but this has no impact on the behavior of "fast".

(There is also no real reason why, for example, we have warm/warmth, but cool/coolness.

Semantically related things sometimes have similar morphological patterns, and sometimes not.)

One interesting thing worth noting (that was brought up in a comment by Jimi Oke) is that there are cases of adjectives with identical adverbs that also have an -ly form; for example, we have "right" and "wrong" as adjectives and adverbs, but we also have "rightly" and "wrongly".

In such cases, the -ly form has carved out its own semantic niche; the adverb "right" and the adverb "rightly" cannot be used interchangeably in every situation.

I can say "turn right" and "rightly so", but I can't exchange them in either sentence.

With normal adjectives that cannot become adverbs without -ly , usually the -ly just transparently makes the adjective adverbial — it doesn't have its own separate semantic nuances (e.g. "quickly" simply means "in a quick manner").

The adverb form of fast is irregular.

It is one of several exceptions, as is "well" as mentioned by Dena A.

a fast runner / run fasta hard worker / work harda bad smell / smell bad etc.

etc.

etc.

About work hard: 'he works hard', in contrast to 'he is hardly working'.

Two different meanings.

Fast is an adverb as well as an adjective, so you wouldn't use fastly .

Another common adverb that doesn't follow the pattern of ending in ly is well ,

not the expected goodly , which is actually an adjective and means a large quantity, e.g. a goodly sum .

Per etymonline, fastly is the 'former adverbial form of fast (adj.), from O.E. fæstlic "firm, fixed, steadfast, resolute;" obsolete in 19c.

, simple fast taking its place.'

There you go folks, so much for logic...

Though word fastly used in many places (you can find many results by searching Google ) but still it is not correct.

For reference see the definition of word fast from WikiDictionary See the post wrong / fast-- adverbs with no 'ly' ending to learn more.

This reminds me of how small children extrapolate grammatical constructions in seemingly logical ways, except English is not always that logical.

So my daughter (3¾) will correctly say "I colour in neatly" or "I'll do it carefully", but then also "It comes lastly" "I can hop bigly" "Go farly" "Squeeze me hardly" etc.

Oh, fastly is a word alright.

It just happens to be an obsolete one.

"Fast" can also mean to hold onto in a strongly, and "fastly" is the adverb of that word.

E.g. "The crew held fastly onto the hand-rail of the boat as it rolled in the storm"

This is emblematic of a misunderstanding that gives rise to forms truly abominable, begetting debellished hypercorrections thusly seen in casual prose all over the internet todaily.

The problem is that people oftenly get this mistaken notion that adverbs need to end in ‑ly .

I know no likely explanation for this blunder, but they stilly do it anywaily.

Howeverly certain they are of this non-rule, nothing could be furthlier from the truth, and the soonlier they realize this, the morely their writing stands to gain; it sure won’t happen beforely.

This semisilly answer is intended to come across friendlily, not meanly or worsely.

Question: Slow  has the adverb  slowly . I tend to use  fastly  as the adverb for  fast .  However, it is underlined in most spell checkers I use, which makes me wonder about the existence of this word.  Is  fastly  a correct word? If not, what should be used instead, and why is that different from its antonym?

Is "fastly" a correct word?

It is generally agreed that "fastly" is not necessary because "fast" is both an adjective and an adverb. However, it is possible that "fastly" as a word does exist but is simply obsolete.

Th word "fast" is both an adjective and an (irregular) adverb and therefore there is no need for "fastly".

The adverb form of fast is irregular. Fast  is an adverb as well as an adjective, so you wouldn't use  fastly . There is the argument that "fast" can also mean to hold onto in a strongly, and "fastly" is the adverb of that word. Fastly  is used in many places (you can find many results by searching  Google ) but still it is not correct.

There is no need for "fastly" because "fast" is both an adjective and an adverb.

Fastly is not correct in this context because "fast" is both an adjective and an adverb. However, "fastly" might be acceptable if "fast" is being used in the sense of holding onto something tightly.

"Fastly" is not correct in this context because "fast" is both an adjective and an adverb.

"Fastly" is acceptable if used in the sense of "holding fastly" (strongly) to something.


It appears that this is a British/American distinction.

The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) reports 92 incidences of “fill out a/the/this form” and just 2 of “fill in a/the/this form”, clearly establishing “fill out” as the standard idiom in American English.

I haven’t worked out how to search the British National Corpus yet, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the results were reversed there.

Edit:

OK, I got the BNC to respond to queries—although it sure takes its sweet time—and I got 19+7=26 results for “fill in a/the form” , and 5+1=6 for

“fill out a/the form” .

So it does appear that British English favors fill in over fill out , although not to the degree to which American English favors fill out over fill in .

Both are perfectly acceptable.

As an Englishman living in the US for almost 20 years, "fill out" still sounds jarring to my ears.

I had never heard it used before I came to America.

I rarely hear "fill in" on this side of the Atlantic.

In my dialect of American English, you "fill out the form" by "filling in the blanks" on the form.

P.S. to fill out the form is to complete it.

To fill in the form is to supply information as required.

The Americanism follows in line with other usages: Knock out (to complete, slang , verb )

Round out (add more in order to ensure a broad range, slang) fill out (no form-based, as in "

why don't you use the rest of those flowers to fill out this basket" )

Question: Does one  fill out a form  or does one  fill in a form ? I've gotten different answers from the people I've asked.  Google search results:      fill  in  a form — 14,200,000  fill  out  a form — 7,000,000

"Fill out a form" or "fill in a form"

It appears the the difference between "fill in a form" and "fill out a form" may be a British/American distinction. It seems that British English favours "fill in" whilst American English favours "fill out". However, it is generally considered that both are perfectly acceptable.

Both forms are acceptable, but "fill out" is much more common in US English, whereas "fill in" is more common (although less exclisuvely so) in British English.

Both are perfectly acceptable. This appears that this is a British/American distinction. British English favors  fill in  over  fill out , although not to the degree to which American English favors  fill out  over  fill in .

It appears that this is a British/American distinction. Both are perfectly acceptable. In American English, you "fill out the form" by "filling in the blanks" on the form. "Fill out" may sound jarring to English people.

Whilst both appear to be acceptable, "Fill out" is more common in American English and "Fill in" is more common in British English.

As an Englishman living in the US for almost 20 years, "fill out" still sounds jarring to my ears.

In my dialect of American English, you "fill out the form" by "filling in the blanks" on the form.


If you want to be perfectly and unimpeachably correct, you will pronounce the word forte , meaning something that is one’s strong point, identically to the word fort , and reserve the FOR-tay pronunciation only for the musical term.

Most people don't know about this distinction and pronounce it FOR-tay for all senses, both the “strong point” sense as well as the musical term.

Most people will not notice or care if you do that.

In fact, if you say that some subject is or is not your “fort”, people will look at you quizzically and perhaps even ask “do you mean FOR-tay?”.

On the other hand, if you use the pronunciation “FOR-tay” those of us who know the difference may judge you to be ignorant.

In either case, you take a risk of some sort.

Bryan Garner came up with the name “skunked term” for words like this, in his 1998 Dictionary of Modern American Usage : When a word undergoes a marked change from one use to another … it’s likely to be the subject of dispute.

Some people (Group 1) insist on the traditional use; others (Group 2) embrace the new use.…

Any use of [the word] is likely to distract some readers.

The new use seems illiterate to Group 1; the old use seems odd to Group 2.

The word has become “skunked.”

My advice is to find a substitute word or phrase.

This source http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forte suggests that the correct pronunciation of the word in your context is 'fort', as it is derived from the French 'fort' (strong) and the 'for-tay' pronunciation appeared through confusion with the 'forte' in music meaning loud, which is Italian and correctly pronounced 'for-tay'.

The Oxford Dictionary considers both forms to be correct.

The French feminine form was substituted for the masculine in English, similar to locale, morale etc.

The Pronunciation was latterly inflected.

As reported by the NOAD, the pronunciation is |ˈfɔrˌteɪ| or |fɔrt| , whenever forte means a thing at which someone excels, or loud/loudly.

In the first case, the origin of the word is from a French word fort (masculine), or forte (feminine), from Latin fortis ; in the second case the origin is the Italian word forte , from the Latin fortis .

The difference is that in the first case the word has been borrowed from French, while in the other case the word has been borrowed from Italian; in both the cases, the word derive from the same Latin word.

In Italian, the used word is forte for both the meanings; if there is any difference in the pronunciation is probably to differentiate the different origin of the English words.

Define "proper."

Language change, including pronunciation change is inevitable.

And reference books, no matter how prescriptive, cannot stem the tide of change, which can come from overwhelming use by the masses.

Frankly, I've never heard forte (meaning strength) pronounced as anything other than for-tay, and I am fifty two.

If you are unsure or waffling, I suggest you pronounce it the way that the social group you wish to identify with pronounces it, and that can include pronouncing it differently around different people.

In common American usage I have always heard "for-tay" because saying "fort" sounds like another word spelled f-o-r-t meaning a temporary dwelling.

I always heard the ‘strength’ meaning came from fencing, where you try to parry with the inner half of the blade (the forte), because it's stronger than the outer half, the foible.

If so, it would come from Italian rather than French, so two syllables.

NOAD has three pronunciations: |ˈfɔːteɪ| |ˈfɔːti| |fɔːt|(with

the first one only for the musical term).

Question: I've always heard people say something like "Pronunciation is not my [for-tay]" ... but I feel that I've heard that the correct pronunciation is "Confusing people is my [fort]" What is the proper way to pronounce this word?

Is "forte" pronounced "fort" or "for-tay"?

There is no complete agreement regarding the correct pronunciation of the word "forte", although it seems that most people will pronounce it "FOR-tay" in all contexts. However, the Oxford Dictionary considers both forms to be correct.

By far the most common form is "FOR-tay" but it is up to you which you prefer to use as there is no rule.

The Oxford Dictionary considers both forms to be correct.   But, If you want to be perfectly and unimpeachably correct, you will pronounce the word   forte , meaning something that is one’s strong point, identically to the word  fort , and reserve the FOR-tay pronunciation only for the musical term.

This is not pronounced as anything other than "for-tay",  because saying "fort" sounds like another word meaning a temporary dwelling.

It is generally agreed that both forms of pronunciation are acceptable.

The correct pronounciation may be "fort" but by far the most common one is "FOR-tay".

Both are correct - as the word comes from the Italian and from the French it can be spoken either way.

There is no rule on this - you can pronounce it the way people in your social group pronounce it.

In American usage "fort" has another meaning and so that pronounciation would be confusing.

The term also exists in fencing - again from the Italian.


In the music education community, we often say "audiate" when referring to hearing a melody in "the mind's ear".

The term was coined by music education guru Edwin Gordon, and I think it's pretty well-known amongst musicians (in addition to music teachers ).

Just based on the comparable stem, I would expect the term to be to ' auralize '.

I suppose the same can be said for 'audibiilze', although 'audiolize' would only seem comparable if the visual word was 'videolize'.

I agree with the poster who suggested audiation , as that is the process of imagining sound.

In response to your second edit, there is another very appropriate and widely accepted word for representing information with sound: sonification .

I don't think there's a good single word for this. "

Auralise"(/ze) is the most natural, and even that would give most people a double-take before they understood it.

I think it'd be best to rephrase slightly, such as

X is a presentation of Y in audio form

X is an auditory illustration of Y

It appears that both "audibilized" and "audiolized" are being used, if only sparingly.

Personally, I have never encountered either before (but I think everyone would understand them, thanks to the obvious parallel to the widely used visualized ).

The question doesn't really make sense, What I was trying to achieve was to

say that something is an audibilized presentation of some other thing, exactly the same way we use visualized presentation.

Hmm?

Usually one would say "a visualization".

I'm not sure what "visualized presentation" is meant to be.

A visualization of data etc.

There are some suggestions as answers here, frankly I think they are dubious.

If you want to say this in English, "represent in sound" as a verb and "representation in sound" or "sound representation" would be OK.

I would suggest audible, sonic , or simply audio.

I realize these lack the 'made into' suffix, but I think your listeners will stumble less over these than auralize or audibilized.

To me audibilized suggests that some imperceptible sound was amplified to the point of audibility, rather than translated from another sensory modality.

If you're looking for a word that many or all of your audience will understand, why not try "imagine"?

Question: Are there such words as "audiolized" or "audibilized"?  EDIT:  Merriam-Webster has the word  Audibilized  indexed with no definition!  What I was trying to achieve was to say that  something is an audibilized presentation of some other thing , exactly the same way we use  visualized presentation .  EDIT:   This  is a visualization of a sort algorithm. Therefore  this  is ...? Audilization? Auralization? Sound representation?  EDIT:   This one  as well.

"Visualized" equivalent adjective for audio

There does not appear to be an agreed adjective for audio that functions in the same way as "visualized". "Audibilized" and "audiolized" appear to be used, albeit sparingly. Other terms that may serve the same function include "audiate", "audiation" or "sonification". "Representation in sound" would probably be acceptable too.

There is no widely established term for this, but a possibility is "audiate" - a term used by musicians, or "sonify" or even "represent in sound".

There are several suggestions such as audiate, auralize, audibilized and audiolized. Another suggestion is to use audible, sonic , or simply audio. But perhaps a more suitable word to use would be just imagine.

Although ther emay not be a good single word for this, it appears that both  "audibilized"  and  "audiolized"  are being used. Auralise"(/ze) is based on a comparable stem and is the most natural.

It is not clear whether there is a good single word for this concept, although "audibilize" or "audiolize" will be understood by most audiences. One possible suggestion could be the word "auralise".

Perhaps use "audiate" - a term used by musicians.

One possibility is "audiation" and another is "sonification".

Both  "audibilized"  and  "audiolized"  are used, if sparingly.

If you want to say this in English, "represent in sound" as a verb and "representation in sound" or "sound representation" would be OK.

I would suggest audible, sonic , or simply audio.

It is not clear whether there is a single good word to represent this definition.

It appears that audibilized or audiolized are used rarely but would be understood by more people.

One possible suggestion would be the word "auralise".


body shop : Date: 1954 a shop where automotive bodies are made or repaired See this article for "body shop" context: From the sales floor to the body shop to the office there is a resounding feeling that this Ford dealership is a good place to work.

The man in the body shop pointed out that the air filter system overhead was something that Dean Green voluntarily installed for the welfare of the employees.

so...

basically "the mechanic", the technician, the repairman.

Without knowing the context, I can think of body shop as "a garage where repairs to the bodies of vehicles are carried out"; the phrase would then refer to somebody who repairs automotive bodies.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary dates body shop to 1954.

When your car breaks down, you take it to the shop (rarely referred to as a garage any more.)

When your car gets dented in a fender-bender, you take it to the body shop.

In the UK, body shop means this http://www.thebodyshop.co.uk/ , The Body Shop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Body_Shop , a chain of shops selling products for the body, face, hair and home.

Body shopping can also refer to consulting companies that hire people and then provide them directly to their clients for the clients to manage (as opposed to the consulting companies managing them).

The wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_shopping seems to focus on offshore / outsourced work, but it can apply to other consulting companies as well.

In this case the "body shop" would refer to the consulting company, and so "the man in the body shop" might be someone who works for that kind of consulting company.

Question: I recently encountered the expression "the man in the body shop", and I have absolutely no idea what it means. All help is welcome.

What does the expression "body shop" mean?

The term "body shop" could refer to multiple different things, although the most common is probably "a garage where repairs to the bodies of vehicles are carried out". However, the term could also refer to a chain of shops selling body, face and hair products in the UK or a consulting company that provide people to their clients.

The term can mean a place where car bodies are repaired or a firm that hires people out to other firms. It can also refer to a chain of the same name.

A body shop  as a garage where repairs to the bodies of vehicles are carried out. In the UK,  body shop  also refers to a chain of shops selling products for the body, face, hair and home.

A body shop  may be "a garage where repairs to the bodies of vehicles are carried out". The phrase would then refer to somebody who repairs automotive bodies. In the UK, The Body Shop  is a chain of shops selling products for the body, face, hair and home.

The term "body shop" most likely refers to a workshop where cary bodies are repaired. However, in the UK, it may refer to a high-street cosmetics shop.

A body shop is a place where car bodies are repaired.

A Body Shop in the UK is a shop belonging to a chain of the same name.

A body shop can mean a firm that hires people out to other firms.

The term "body shop" would probably refer to a place where car bodies are repaired.

In the UK, the term "body shop" may refer to the high street cosmetics store.


The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage (MDEU) suggests that to is the ordinary word used to construct comparisons using prefer : “when it is used to compare two things in the same sentence, the second […] is usually introduced by to .”

They note that over (“Nine out of ten dentists prefer Crest over the competitors”), and rather than (“He prefers to stand rather than to sit”) are also used.

Rather than is especially helpful when the compared items are infinitive clauses beginning with to , therefore avoiding the problem of too many to s

( * “He prefers to stand to to sit”).

Above can also be used (“Prefers this brand above all others”), although they note that above , along with before , were noted by the OED as being used formerly.

MDEU notes that some commenters have criticized constructions with than and rather than , and suggests ultimately that plain than (“He would have preferred to fast than carry it”) is awkward because it is unfamiliar.

With respect to colloquial speech, I think that in some informal registers you wouldn’t use the verb prefer at all (which is a formal word), and would use like and a compatible syntactic comparative construction: “I like sleeping more than working”

There may be a transatlantic divide here.

As a speaker of BrEng I would always say I would prefer tea to coffee , and never I would prefer tea over coffee .

A:

Would you like a ride?

B:

No thanks, I prefer to walk.

You can't use prefer over in this case.

Over is used when there are two clear choices in the phrase.

Think of over as setting a list of preferences and putting one over top the other.

I prefer jogging over running and walking.

I prefer fish over beef and chicken.

In these two examples, the meaning could be slightly ambiguous and sound like you're comparing two things, not three.

I prefer jogging to running and walking.

I prefer fish to beef and chicken.

My brain does not differentiate the two:

"I prefer sleeping to working" "

I prefer sleeping over working

" Sounds the same to me- perhaps "prefer/to" flows slightly better.

On the other hand "prefer/to" is more likely to be ambiguous: "I prefer sleep to work"

In conversation the word "rather" seems more common than "prefer" but others may have different experience.

Either way- I would be shocked if anyone criticized your usage of "prefer/to" versus "prefer/over" in any unambiguous context- formal or not.

They are both grammatically correct.

"Tea over Coffee" sounds the slightest bit metaphorical to me, and so might have some rhetorical implications in a longer narrative, but that's about the only real difference.

When we say prefer there is an implied over .

Thus, prefer over is tautological.

I think prefer to is preferable.

Question: Many say that "prefer X to Y" has a more formal ring to it than "prefer X over Y". Are there any dialects where you wouldn't use "prefer X to Y" in colloquial speech at all? Conversely, are there any manuals of style that discourage using "prefer X over Y" in formal writing?

Which is correct: "prefer X to Y" or "prefer X over Y"?

There is no agreement as to whether "prefer X over Y" is correct or not. Some will claim that the word "over" is unnecessary whilst others will claim that "over" and "to" are acceptable. Usage may differ between British and American English, however, "to" is probably more common in both.

Both forms are correct but "prefer to" is more common, although in colloquial speech a "more than" construction is more usual.

Some would argue they are both grammatically correct, but the  Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage suggests  that  'to'  is the ordinary word used to construct comparisons using  prefer. In BrEng you would  say prefer tea to coffee , and never  I would prefer tea over coffee .

They are both grammatically correct.   British English speakers may be more likely to say "I would  prefer tea to coffee". The  Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage (MDEU) suggests  that  "to"  is the ordinary word used to construct comparisons using  prefer : “when it is used to compare two things in the same sentence, the second […] is usually introduced by  to .” There may be a transatlantic divide here.

It appear that there may not be a meaningful difference between the two and if there is, it may we regional. However, seems to be a preference for using "to" with the verb "prefer". In any case, using "prefer" in informal speech might not be very common.

Both forms are correct but "prefer to" is more common although in colloquial speech a "more than" construction is more usual.

In conversation the word "rather" seems more common than "prefer".

When we say prefer there is an implied "over" so it is tautological.

The  Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage suggests  that  'to'  is the ordinary word used to construct comparisons using  prefer.

Some people would say that there is no meaningful difference between the two.

It appears that "to" is the more common preposition used with the verb "prefer".

Over is sometimes used when there are two clear choices in the phrase.

The difference in usage might be regional.

Prefer might not be used much informal speech in any case.


As others have said, neither is more correct, nor is either more preferable in an objective sense.

If you were to indicate when you blocked the account you must use the latter, but otherwise either is perfectly fine.

For me, personally, I would prefer the latter in most cases - it's less formal and sounds (to me) more like natural speech, and is (slightly) less verbose.

I, too, would drop the comma in this context, for whatever that's worth.

EDIT

I would use the former if I had blocked the comment before and had to do so again:

"I have previously blocked the user account..."

If this was a software message, as it seems it may be, I would not use that tense.

Instead I would say: The user account has been blocked and all comments deleted.

Otherwise in a regular conversation the latter sentence (minus the comma) would be correct.

I have blocked the user account, and deleted the comments.

This is the present perfect tense.

I blocked the user account, and deleted the comments.

This is the past tense.

Which one is preferable, or more correct?

Either one is correct.

There is a difference between the two, but without context it would be silly to try to explain it.

I have blocked the user account, and deleted the comments.

I blocked the user account, and deleted the comments.

Which one is preferable, or more correct?

There are differences between North American English and British English.

For North American English, this is the present perfect of current relevance/importance.

Often, unless the speaker wishes to illustrate that a past action is important to the current situation, the simple past is used.

There is also a myth that we never use a past time adverbial with the present perfect and most often that is true,

the reason, the "job" of the present perfect is not to reflect on the past and using past time adverbs would take away from that ideal.

However, there are situations where this is not followed.

As I said they are not at all common.

Both are correct, although I would consider the comma optional.

The word "have" is unnecessary.

I would personally choose the second sentence, unless context dictated otherwise.

(For example, if the text surrounding the example sentence was particularly formal.)

Question: One of the tasks I have as site maintainer of a site is deleting spam reported from users. (The spammer account is blocked too, as part of the process.) Which is the preferable sentence, or the most correct one, I should use? I have blocked the user account, and deleted the comments. I blocked the user account, and deleted the comments.

"I have blocked the user account" versus "I blocked the user account"

It is generally agreed that both sentences are correct, although they are different. However, the difference will depend on the context. There may be differences in usage between British and American English.

Both are correct, but they represent different tenses and usage will depend on context.

Often, unless the speaker wishes to illustrate that a past action is important to the current situation, the simple past is used.   If you were to indicate  when  you blocked the account you  must  use the latter, but otherwise either is perfectly fine.

Either one is correct. If you had to indicate  when you blocked the account, then you must use the latter, but otherwise either is perfectly fine.

Although either sentence is generally considered correct, the exact answer will depend on the context of the message. People may naturally tend towards the second option, and there may also be regional differences. If this were a software message however, neither message would be considered acceptable.

Both are correct, but the latter sounds more natural.

In a message I would say: The user account has been blocked and all comments deleted.

This is the difference between the present perfect tense "I have" and the past tense "I blocked".

Unless the speaker wishes to illustrate that a past action is important to the current situation, the simple past is used.

Many people would more naturally opt for the second of these two sentences.

There are differences between the two, but the correct sentence will depend on the context.

There may be regional differences in usage.

Neither of these sentences might be appropriate as a software message.


The simple answer is that if Haiku is not about nature, it is called Senryu .

I've heard different views on whether the Japanese definition is different than the non-Japanese ones, and whether the syllable counts can differ.

There seems to be some subjectivity on definitions, in English poetry at least.

I think the following is Senryu, but you could make a case for it being Haiku: Bugs fall like rain upon my code compiler

shrieks like the wind Blue Screen

The idea of a haiku in English doesn't really make that much sense.

First of all, you might want to note that the whole idea of seventeen syllables is a bogus one.

A Japanese haiku consists of seventeen moras (beats) rather than seventeen syllables.

E.g. Tokyo ("To-u-kyo-u" in Japanese) is four moras but two syllables.

A haiku should have seventeen of these moras, not seventeen syllables.

One rule I can think of is that traditionally Japanese haiku had to start with a "seasonal word" ("kigo" in Japanese).

But there are no "seasonal words" in English.

Nowadays the haiku printed on tea cans in Japan don't have seasonal words so that is purely a traditional arrangement.

Use the first two lines To establish the context; Then go for the kill.

I adhere to the 5-7-5 syllable scheme, because...

well, I was taught that when young and I'm too old to change.

The key idea is "do not waste even a syllable".

So, my opinion is that: A haiku should Have 3 very short lines; personally, I'm stuck on 5-7-5.

It should meld two discordant notions and Say something that has never been said before.

Big bonus points if your second line applies clearly to both your first and your third lines, very cool.

Topic doesn't matter.

Be you.

This is my personal opinion, not a scholarly attempt to answer the question.

I understand that in English, we can say a lot more in 17 syllables than they can in Japanese.

Regardless, the idea is to say a lot with a little.

Make the reader think.

poetic aspects should fall gently, from the page like leaves in autumn

First, pick your subject Write down some words about it Count your syllables

Question: Aside from the syllable count what else do I need consider when writing a Haiku?I'm referring to the English imitation of a Haiku. I have been told that the first two lines should be descriptions and the third line should be the conclusion. But I've noticed that this is not always true. Does a Haiku need to be about nature?

What are the rules in composing a Haiku? (aside from the syllable count)

There are no agreed rules for composing an English imitation of a Haiku. However, if it is not about nature, such a piece would be called Senryu. In fact, some would argue that the concept of a Haiku doesn't make sense in English. That said, one traditional rule is that a Japanese haiku should start with a "seasonal word".

If a Haiku is not about nature, it is called a Senryu. A haiku should Have 3 very short lines, preferable in a 5-7-5 arrangement.

The simple answer is that if Haiku is not about nature, it is called  Senryu . Use the first two lines  to establish the context;   Then go for the kill.  Regardless, the idea is to say a lot with a little.

Some say the idea of a haiku in English doesn't really makesense. If a Haiku is not about nature, it is called a  Senryu. However, it should be three lines. Use the first two lines  to establish the context and then finish it.

There does not appear to be agreement about how to write an English haiku and some people may feel that the concept of haikus is irrelevant to the English language. However, there is a general acceptance that haikus should have three lines of which the third should be the conclusion. Additionally, a haiku may not need to be about nature, but if it is not about nature, it is known as Senryu.

If a Haiku is not about nature, it is called a Senryu .

The idea of a haiku in English doesn't really make that much sense because of the way that the beats and syllables are counted in Japanese.

The key idea is "do not waste even a syllable" and be yourself.

First, pick your subject. Write down some words about it. Count your syllables.

There does not appear to be huge agreement on how to compose English haikus, and some people feel that the idea of a haiku in English does not make sense.

A haiku may or may not need to be about nature, although if it is not about nature, it is called Senryu.

The general scheme for a haiku is three short lines with the last line being the conclusion.