I clean my drinking system with lots of hot water then sterilise it using baby bottle sterilising tablets.

Once it is clean, I don't dry it - I store it in the freezer. :-)

Additionally, I don't use anything but water.

People

I know who use powdered drinks or sugar solution tell me the black mold grows really quickly inside the drinking tube and valve.

Drain all the water out of the tube Remove the tube from the bladder and the bite valve and hang it up Bend a metal coat hanger in half (make sure no sharp edges are exposed) push the coat hanger into the bladder and hang the coat hanger up You can also buy airers but the coat hanger works just as well.

From a cleaning point of view you just need baby bottle steriliser and some brushes.

The clean the inside of the tube you can by specialist brushes, they're a brush on the ned of a flexible wire.

I bought a water reservoir cleaning kit for about $7 from Walmart.

Disclaimer: I haven't used it yet

(I only got it a month or two ago.

I haven't gone on a longer hike where I wanted to go to the effort of filling a water reservoir, instead of just bringing a little bottle).

Outdoor Products

Hydro Cleaning Kit

It came with a cleaning brush for the tube and one for the reservoir itself, but most importantly for this question, it comes with a little coat hanger type piece of plastic (similar to Liam's method above).

You fold up the coat hanger thing, then push it into the reservoir and let it pop back into shape, then hang it up.

Before, I always ended up going to a lot of effort to try to balance the reservoir with the hard opening vertical and the rest of the bag

flat, so some air could get in.

It would always flop flat after a few hours, or someone closing a door in the next room, etc.

I'm looking forward to not doing that.

I drain mine thoroughly, hang/suspend it with the open end down, and stick an empty paper towel tube stuffed with paper towels into it to keep it open.

I've found that if I only use water, and let them air dry promptly, I never have a problem.

I only use filtered water in my bladder.

If I feel I want to clean them, I use a warm white vinegar water solution and rinse and flush that way.

take a fish tank pump or air mattress pump and run a plastic tube into the bladder.

It circulates air and takes about 30 minutes.

For the tube itself, I remove the bit valve off the end and swing it around to get the centrifugal force to get most of the water out--then I use the pump--takes about 5 minutes.

When I need to wash a drinking water bottle, canteen, bladder, etc.

I fill it part way with warm water, and add table salt.

This particularly effective for areas that have growth or contaminates and can not be effectively scrubbed.

Add lots of salt, to the point of saturation (when shaken salt still settles to the bottom)

, Shake well.

Most anything that grows well in drinking water gets killed by high levels of salt.

The additional salt works as an abrasive to remove build up.

You can let it sit for a couple of hours, or overnight.

Rinse well and hang upside down to air dry.

For soft sided containers you may need to use a clean item to keep it from collapsing as mentioned in this answer by M Kenyon II

Question: After using water bladder, how to dry it thoroughly besides simply pouring out the water content so any remnant of water inside it is cleanly eliminated?

How to effectively dry/clean the inside of water bladders?

Drain and hang it upside down. A bent coat hanger can be used as a drying rack. The tube is cleaned by removing the bite valve, swinging the pipe and then using a pump to remove excess. Some people clean it using warm water and salt and others use baby bottle sterilizing tablets.

Air drying, as well as warm water and salt/sterilising tablets, are effective.

Air drying works with various techniques.

You can fill with warm water and add salt/sterilising tablets.


Heat up the creosote covered pan.

This softens it.

Then pour some denatured alcohol on it and scrub it off.

I used a scotch bright pad to scrub with the alcohol, and then wiped the now liquid creosote off with a rag.

It will make the rag black and perhaps ruined but it will come off slick and easy.

Do this in a well-ventilated area!

Unfortunately this advice may a bit late for you now, but if you cover the outside of the pots in washing-up liquid before putting them on the fire/wood burner and clean it after use.

The washing-up liquid should stop the soot sticking and it should wipe of fairly easily.

This approach is best if you are at a fixed campsite where you can easily wash your pots after use and the extra washing liquid is not too much of an issue.

If you are backpacking it means you have to carry a large amount of washing liquid and/or carry sticky washing liquid covered pots neither of which are great ideas.

If you've already got your pots in a mess your options are limited.

You'll probably need to do a lot of scrubbing, like you are.

If you haven't already soaking your pots in soapy water overnight may help

but I doubt it will solve the problem entirely.

Unless the black stains bother you for visual reasons, let them be.

Wash the pan off with normal dishwashing methods.

This will take care of the stickyness and most contamination from pan to clothes/fingers etc and having a black layer on your pan does not harm its performance.

In fact, where I am from, sporting a shiny clean kettle will get you a few scornful laughs, and people will complain about the food / coffee not tasting as it should =

P

According to this page on DollarStretcher : Simply apply ketchup (any cheap brand) to the pan and scrub with a steel wool pad.

Sometimes it takes a little elbow grease, but it works great!

The acidity of the ketchup works wonders and steel wool is a great shiner.

I've also used this technique on brass and chrome with great results.

(However, this is just a general dishwashing tip, rather than a specific technique for creosote.)

I haven't tried this on woodsmoke creosote, but in general I've found that dishwasher powder or tablets do a much better job on organic gunk than standard dish soap.

I would try dissolving a hefty amount (maybe half a cup) of dishwasher detergent in a sinkful of hot water and leaving the pots in it overnight before scrubbing.

You'll probably still need the steel wool but you might cut down the scrubbing time a bit.

Safety note: dishwasher detergent is pretty caustic stuff.

Make sure to wear thick rubber gloves when working with it.

Acetone or nail varnish remover dissolves the tars.

It's possible that kerosine or gasoline could work but acetone worked.

Question: I just returned from a five day trip during which we used a friend's Solo Stove (wood burner).  My pots are now covered with a thick, sticky, black layer of creosote.  I've tried steel wool and soap, but this is a HUGE amount of work (20+ minutes per pot).  What is the easiest way to remove this gummy mess?

What is the easiest way to remove creosote from pots and pans?

Along with steel wool, ketchup, dishwasher powder, acetone, nail varnish remover, kerosene or gasoline are recommended.

Acetone, as well as kechup, dishwasher powder/tablets and washing up liquid work well.

Ketchup, dishwasher powder/tablets, washing up liquid work well.


You wouldn't want to use one to climb.

My favourite quote I found on the Internet :

Here's my advice on climbing with grappling hooks: don't climb with grappling hooks.

Real climbers never use them, and for good reason.

You have no idea what they hook onto, so you are trusting your life with something completely unknown.

Those things are just for the movies.

But they can be a good tool for pulling things, grabbing branches, shifting logs etc.

Grappling hooks are sometimes used in the arborist (tree climbing) world.

Rather than being thrown upwards, they are attached to a line in order to retrieve the other end of the line.

Here is a picture of the relevant maneuver.

The hooks on the end are often curved and rotated so that they will not catch on branches (or castle walls, like a movie grapnel), but will instead slip through the tree and entangle a vertical rope.

I'd say google 'grapnel traversal' , but the search is polluted by a bunch of video games that use the term.

If you are very interested, here is some academic work on the subject.

( Note : it opens a .PDF)

I'm pretty sure grappling hooks were originally used in naval combat to allow for boarding other ships, but some googling found that some combat engineers use them to clear trip wires.

Other than that I think they're mostly just useful for pulling on things you don't mind stabbing.

In climbing, there isn't a good use.

However, in canyoneering a variant of the grappling hook is occasionally used to escape from potholes.

It is called an octopus.

You make one by attaching several aid climbing hooks like the BD talon to a potshot (a little cloth bag usually filled with sand).

See this book for a picture.

I have personally used them

and I can attest to the terror associated with pulling on an unknown hook placement on soft sandstone.

Thankfully you are usually over water...

Living on the Florida coastline all my life and being an avid fisherman, I can testify that with well sharpened points, they were extremely handy for pulling up LARGE fish onto a pier or bridge.

We called them "flying gaffs" and only used them on fish destined for the table.

Places like the Skyway bridge and the piers at Ft Desoto often yielded grouper and kingfish far in excess of the # test of our line.

Not exactly your movie-style 3-prong grappling hook, but Fire and Rescue personnel often have hook based systems for use as personal escape devices: One such product is the Petzl EXO which consists of a hook, rope, and rappel device.

Rather than being thrown and hoping to catch an edge to ascend a building, they are attached to a building (wrapped around something big, jammed tight against a windowsill, etc.) and used to descend out of a building.

Additionally, climbers do actually use something called a grappling hook , but similar to the rescue products, they are not thrown, but are rather carefully placed by hand.

Once stuck into a hole/crack/flake on the rock, they can be used to pull the body higher up the wall.

Pulling down dangerous tree limbs.

We have had a few elm trees fall victim to Dutch Elm Disease, and one of them has large cracks all over it, and we're afraid large sections of the tree will fall onto people, so we use grappling hooks to pull down the larger, more dangerous branches instead of having to stand under it with a chainsaw.

Question: A friend was asking about grappling hooks the other day, apparently they'd seen a mountaineering program where the guy carried a grappling hook. We couldn't quite figure out why, I've never seen anyone use one (outside of a comic book).   Are they mountaineering equipment?  When (if ever) would you use one?  If so how?

Is there any practical use for a grappling hook?

Climbers do actually use something called a  grappling hook , but similar to the rescue products, they are not thrown, but are rather carefully placed by hand.  However, in canyoneering a variant of the grappling hook is occasionally used to escape from potholes. They were originally used in naval combat to allow for boarding other ships. Now they are used for pulling on tree limbs, landing fish, shifting logs, etc.

They can be used in canyoneering but are not ideal for climbing. They can be used for pulling down tree limbs, naval combat, pulling things and fishing.

They are not ideal for climbing, though can be used in canyoneering.

They are useful for naval combat, fishing and pulling on things you don't mind stabbing.

They can pull down dangerous tree limbs, pulling things.


Firstly, safety.

Stepping or leaning on a rotten log is not fun if you end up going through it ( Dynadin did it when Geocaching and ended up with a large number of scratches down one arm, and it could have been worse!)

- there could be a big hole underneath

you can't see.

Also logs which are wet or covered in moss or mildew can be slippery, which may cause you to fall.

This also prevents damage to the ecosystem (lots of animals make homes in rotten logs).

Secondly, noise.

Breaking through bracken or sticks etc when you can step over them could cause your prey when hunting to flee, if you can prevent this by simply stepping over said stick, log, etc, then you may as well do so and save yourself some aggravation.

It means to be mindful of what you do, how and where you move, what you do to your environment and so on.

Aside the topics mentioned by @Aravona (security, noise), it may mean to avoid unintended killing of small animals or plants, or to generally avoid leaving any marks in nature, or actually wherever you move.

Sound advice not only for hunting, I'd suggest.

This statement is one of those pieces of wisdom that sounds profound, but isn't.

Following this advice can lead you into trouble as easily as it can help you avoid trouble.

The other answers have illustrated the latter.

However, before you step over something, you better know what is on the other side.

Stepping on a flattish rock is better than stepping over it into a mud puddle or onto a clump of flowers or that snake.

I have always heard this in a hiking context, where it is fatigue and safety related.

There is also a 'second verse' in the version I was taught: dont step on something you can step around.

It is basic common sense, but combined into a mantra since after a day (or multiple) on the trail with a pack, fatigue does set in.

Its easy to justify in your mind the short cut to step on the rock instead of stepping over because its a small rock, or over instead of around the fallen tree to save 4-5 steps.

Too often these sorts of short cuts lead to injury or worse, and they usually occur when tired, or in a rush.

The canonical reason for this (in a hiking context, where noise is not an issue but fatigue can be) is that it saves effort.

Think about the physics -- when you step up on to a log, you are doing some work to lift your body and gear up there.

Unless you then jump off the log (which could be dangerous), you are also doing some work to slowly lower yourself to the ground level.

Alternatively, when you step over the obstacle and put your foot back down on the other side at the same level, you aren't really expending any more effort than normal walking.

(setting aside that you may have to lift your foot a little higher so you don't trip!)

I have heard this explaination multiple times from various weathered hikers, but the first was probably something to do with Cub Scouts

-- I was able to locate a reference in the Scout handbook, and find it highly likely that this is the reasoning behind Mr. Bear's (good) advice; possibly also the source.

Boy Scouts Handbook by Boy Scouts of America, 1911 edition, pg.

145, http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/29558/pg29558.txt : "Third, observe these two rules given by an old woodsman: (1) Never walk over anything you can walk around; (2) never step on anything that you can step over.

Every time you step on anything you lift the weight of your body.

Why lift extra weight when tramping?"

Equal expressions would be "Leave no trace."

and the sentiment of "pack it in, pack it out."

Do not be needlessly invasive on the environment.

If the place is pristine when you get there, it should be when you leave.

Question: Fred Bear’s 10 Commandments of hunting state as the first principle:     Don't step on anything you can step over    What does he mean with this statement? I don't really get what's the problem with "stepping on something".

"Don’t step on anything you can step over." - What does this mean?

Firstly, safety.  For example, logs which are wet or covered in moss or mildew can be slippery, which may cause you to fall. It also means to be mindful of what you do, how and where you move, and what you do to your environment, to avoid unintended killing of small animals or plants, or to generally avoid leaving any marks in nature, or actually wherever you move.

This is about avoiding injury, saving energy and respecting your environment.

This is in order to avoid injury and save energy.

This is about respecting your environment.


I use my hip pockets mostly for holding snacks or other items that I want regular and immediate access to .

When I go out on a hike I pack both hip pockets full of granola bars and other goodies, then I don't have to stop on the trail when I want a quick snack.

I keep my keys in the hip pockets on the small mountain biking bag

I carry every day, as well as a couple tools for making small adjustments on my bike while I'm riding.

I'll also keep one or two food bars in there just in case of a snack attack.

Other things you can keep in there can include: pocket knife compass small headlamp/flashlight extra batteries small point and shoot camera chapstick hand sanitizer pretty much any item you would normally keep in your pants pockets, but don't want to pack them full while hiking.

You're

needs may vary depending on your activity, but the intent of the hip pockets is to keep the small items that you are going to want to be able to have quick access to without stopping and taking off your backpack.

It depends on the size of the pocket, so here are a few very different ideas for small things you might want to get at without stopping (for long): Many I've seen would take a small phone or compact camera.

I've used them to support the lens tripod mount when hiking with a SLR and long zoom lens, to reuce the load on my neck.

Similarly a GPS (like an etrex) fits in there, though I carry mine on the shoulder strap for better signal and access.

A compass is handy if you don't want to carry it round your neck.

When travel-backpacking (as opposed to wilderness hiking), this can be a good place to keep tickets, passports and money.

Again the phone or source of music if you want one.

When moving fast (speed hiking or trail running)

energy snacks can go in there for access on the go.

Quick access to water would be needed too (Camelbak or bottle in a belt holster).

If you like to whittle, a folding knife can go in there.

Smokers may find them quite handy too (though hopefully not in the wilderness).

One unusual but very useful item: a mirror in the hip pocket of a child-carrying backpack to check if the child is awake.

In my 2-3 days outings backpack (45L), I wasn't sure what to put in the hipbelt pocket.

Then I noticed my 0.3 Adventure Medical Kit fits in there quite nicely.

It's really just the basics like bandages, gauze, and plasters but those things can be dealt with a backpack on.

Before that I had a pocket chain-saw in that pocket

but I stopped carrying it.

Along with all the other answers, I would add toilet paper (in a waterproof bag obviously).

Nice to keep it handy, when you need to go you don't want to have to unpack your entire bag to find it buried at the bottom.

Stuff happens when least expected.

You day hike could turn into an overnight stay quickly and unexectedly.

Be prepare for that situation.

Use that pocket to hold an emergency item such as, but not limited to, an extra lighter and/or tinder, space blanket, folding knife, hand sanitizer, water purification tablets, or anything else that would be helpful during an overnight stay.

Keep condoms in that pocket.

Seriously.

Besides the obvious, a condom is useful if you need to keep your phone, keys (including electronic buttons), or anything else small, dry.

Instructions for use: put small item inside the condom & tie the loose end in a knot.

My hip pocket is wide enough that it can handle a smartphone turned sideways.

I store mine here inside one or more ziplock bags to keep it dry.

Storing it here raises the risk of damaging the device if you fall the wrong way, but overall the convenience is worth it for quick photos or directions.

Question: My rucksack has a small pocket on the hip belt, but I can’t think of anything useful to keep in it while day hiking.  What types of things is such a pocket intended for?  If there is no common purpose for such a pocket, what are some things I could keep in it that would be useful?

What could I keep in rucksack hip pocket?

This pocket is widely used for a phone, GPS, compass, keys, condoms, a compact camera, snacks, cigarettes, a pocket chainsaw, medical kit, toilet paper,  tickets, passports, money or a folding knife.

Toilet paper, condoms, tools, devices, documents, medical kits, snacks and water can be kept in hip pockets.

Toilet paper, condoms, tools, mirrors and cigarettes can go in hip pockets.

Phones, cameras, compasses, documents can be kept there.


In aid climbing this is still sending since hanging on protection is part of the game (as @StrongBad points out, hanging on the rope is a little different than hanging on protection.)

In sport climbing , however, there is no specific word or phrase .

I think the most common ways to describe it are: Projecting

As in "I'm projecting Era Vella 9a.

" This doesn't capture the fact that you've done all the moves, but most sport climbers are focused on the clean send, and so a large part of projecting involves doing all the moves in sequence with the occasional hang.

Worked through all the moves

As in "I worked through all the moves on Predator 5.13b." This could mean that you rappelled in to try each move, but in some groups this will be understood as ground-up climbing. ...

but not clean.

As in "I climbed my first 5.8 today, but not clean.

I had to take once after the crux.

" This will usually be followed by rude people reminding you that you didn't "actually send", and nice people reminding you that you should climb however you want as long as its safe and fun.

Edit: I changed the example here from "sent" to "climbed" because after thinking more about Adam's comment, I think there is a whole connotation involved with "sending" that some climbers may not like appropriated.

I think it's important to realize, though, that not officially "sending" is no less impressive or cool than sending.

My experience in sport climbing circles is that no matter how hard you send or how many times you hang, other climbers will be stoked for you if you're trying hard and enjoying yourself.

Without falling, wouldn’t it be hangdog, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_climbing_terms#hangdog

With falling, I also would go for projecting.

(Speaking of Sports climbing!)

That is a free climb (the outcome).

The term you may use is All Free (AF).

It is much more established in German (Alles Frei, remember, that RP »Rot Punkt« also comes from German).

It (AF) makes more sense in traditional sandstone climbing in Elbsandstein, in multipitch (big wall) climbing and in alpine climbing though.

Check, for example, this book , I quote "The AF (All Free) style was developed in the Alps as the first recognized sport style of free climbing , where the climber uses only natural for advancement and and overcomes the route with his/her own strength."

I would say "I've made all the moves, but not put them together yet".

Usually, when I'm projecting a route, and got into that situation, I think of it as "I've made the moves, but used 120% of my energy.

My challenge then is to make the moves more efficient; saving 2% here, 3% there, until I get it down to 99 or 100%: then all I have to do is make it perfectly :)

No slips, no moves out of place.

It works for me

It depends on the number of rests taken In sport climbing, when you climb a route but hang on the rope to take a rest at one point during the ascent, it is called a one-hang .

If you rested twice during the ascent, it could likewise be called a two-hang .

If you rest on every bolt of the entire route, it is called climbing bolt-to-bolt .

I think the general progression I use is climbed, led, freed, flashed, and on sighted.

I might break freed into red point and pink point if the route or area makes if ambiguous.

I generally break led into a lot of terms like groveled, hang dogged, whimpered, depending on how ugly I was.

Terms like projecting to me

mean you are working towards freeing the route, but if I led a route with a single fall and have no plans to go back, I would describe that as projecting.

Question: If a climber completes a route without using their protection that is called sending.  What is the term if one completes the route but had to depend on the rope either for a rest or for a fall?  Let's say using the rope lowers the climber enough that they still have to complete all moves. In other words all moves have been done properly, but the ascent wasn't clean.

What is the term for completing a climbing route uncleanly?

The term you may use is All Free (AF). It depends on the number of rests taken.  In sport climbing, when you climb a route but hang on the rope to take a rest at one point during the ascent, it is called a  one-hang . If you rested twice during the ascent, it could likewise be called a  two-hang .  If you rest on every bolt of the entire route, it is called climbing  bolt-to-bolt . Without falling, it would be hangdog and with falling, it would be projecting.

Projecting, hangdog, one-hang/two-hang and bolt-to-bolt are all options.


A common way in the past was to have a handle similar to a bucket's attached to the pot, often made from a thickish wire (e.g. baling wire).

Classically this was called a billycan , and meant that you could suspend the billy over the fire by the handle using just a stick, either cantilevered over the fire, or suspended like you might find in a spit-roast.

You can then pick up the billy by the handle, either using a stick or a bit of handy cloth and tip with another stick pushing the bottom of the billy.

I use a small cotton towel, such as a tea towel, folded a few times in to a long strip.

If the pan is small and light you can wrap the towel round and hold the ends tightly together to form a handle.

Otherwise use 2 hands.

You do need 2 layers, and synthetic fibres can melt or ignite (if they brush against part of the stove, for example - at least some can handle boiling water).

When travelling light it can be worth carrying something like this.

It's obviously good for drying things (you might not need to dry dishes

but you can dry yourself with it, perhaps starting with a small synthetic towel)

but it's grey useful for handling hot things if everything else you've got would melt or conduct heat fast enough to burn you.

I carry one when bike camping, for example.

A muslin (as used for babies) would be a little lighter.

My (as yet untested) very light cooking system relies on cooking everything in a mug with a handle.

That doesn't get as hot, so if it's a little uncomfortable to hold, any glove would be OK.

I canoe camp, and I bring lightweight canvas or cotton gloves (leather dries too slowly) to prevent paddling blisters.

(There's a picture in my answer to https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/a/6996/163 )

They are also fantastic as "work gloves" eg carrying logs and when you need to handle something hot, like a pot.

They're small enough to fit in a pocket and to be nearby whenever you need them.

I have tried and failed to buy these online; your best bet is a store for farmers (eg The Co op, a hardware store in a farming area, etc) and a little patience.

Small pair or two of channellock pliers or locking vise grips.

The locking vise grips are a little more multi purpose but either or both are handy to have (grab, grip, clamp in the case of the vise grips, tighten bolts, etc)

I use tin cans as pots.

I put a nail hole in opposite sizes just under the rim and string a chunk of bailing wire about 1.5 can diameters.

Twist at each end.

Most cans now have a thin liner of plastic -- essentially a layer of varnish.

While nominally food grade, when it burns it becomes uncertain.

Burn the can in a campfire or your wood stove before making a pot out of it.

The inside of the lip can have a sharp bit where the can opener finished.

Burnish the inside of the cut with the shaft of a screwdriver to press any jaggies flush.

Anyway: In camp, I can use a leather mitten, or a stick to move a pot on/off the fire.

When I have to actually hold something hot, I get out my leatherman -- which is part of my repair kit.

A small pair of channel lock pliers works better, but, hey, the ounces add up.

In practice the leatherman in plier configuration is mostly used to pour coffee or hot water from pot to cup.

Question: How do you deal with handling hot pots / cups without using a pot grip (see the picture for an example)? It's inexpensive and rather light-weight, but why add gear if you can use what you already have? :) I've been usually using a small Leatherman and a stick to stabilise the pot, but it's not particularly convenient and I've had a few mishaps (a whole cup of hot water ending on the ground...)

How to improvise or make pot grip / pot handle

Tin cans can be used as pots and wire can be used to make handles. Pliers or grips and even a strip of tea towel or gloves may also be used to handle pots.

Gloves, pliers, tin cans, handles and cotton towels can be useful.


In general "superhuman" is probably the best choice.

In the example given, "unquestionable loyalty" probably describes him better.

But that would not be "superhuman".

The term selfless may be applied here if your intent is 'extra ordinary gesture from Brad Pitt to his current team' selfless :

Having, exhibiting, or motivated by no concern for oneself; unselfish What Brad Pitt did in the movie "Money Ball" was truly selfless - he turned down an offer of 12.3 million to stay loyal to his team.

Selfless acts are often viewed by others as superhuman and sometimes implausible because people are generally expected to act in their own rational self interest and selfless acts don't fit that mold.

Angelic.

Exceptional.

Exemplary.

Kingly.

Superior.

Above and beyond.

Beyond the call of duty.

Beyond belief.

Noble.

(You can emphasize "noble" by restructuring to: "showed true nobility.")

Mind-blowing.

Unimpeachable.

And many more.

It all depends on the connotation you're after.

A phrase works best for me to describe Brad Pitt's character's act of generosity: "the epitome of selflessness" From the Google dictionary: e·pit·o·me (/iˈpitəmē/) Noun: 1.A person or thing that is a perfect example of a particular quality or type: "she is the epitome of elegance and taste".

"Extraordinary" makes a lot of sense here, as what is human is "ordinary," so "extraordinary" means "beyond human."

Something else that sounds good is "incredible," which means "so powerful that I almost can't believe it."

"Unbelievable" is a pretty obvious one, too.

For your specific situation, I would go with "extraordinary.

" It carries a very similar meaning as "beyond human" but sounds a lot better.

What Brad Pitt did in the movie Moneyball was extraordinary : he turned down an offer of $12.3 million to stay loyal to his team.

I am taking the meaning as what he has done is something too virtuous to be expected from any human , because according to me that is what fits here well.

You can say Godlike which means "beyond human".

What Brad Pitt did in the movie Money Ball was godlike , he turned down an offer of 12.3 million to stay loyal to his team.

Also extraordinary fits quite well, which means pleasant, exceptional and unexpected in general (i.e. from normal human being in this context)

What Brad Pitt did in the movie Money Ball was extraordinary , he turned down an offer of 12.3 million to stay loyal to his team.

Altruist may be a good choice.

Dictionary.com defines altruist as following: altruist —

a person unselfishly concerned for or devoted to the welfare of others (opposed to egoist ).

altruism — 1.

the principle or practice of unselfish concern for the welfare of others; 2.

the philosophical doctrine that right action is that which produces the greatest benefit to others; So, What Brad Pitt did in the movie Money Ball was altruistic , he turned down an offer of 12.3 million to stay loyal to his team.

I think the following three words are the best in the following order Extraordinary http://thesaurus.com/browse/extraordinary Stunning - http://thesaurus.com/browse/stunning

Incredible http://thesaurus.com/browse/incredible Check by replacing these words in your sentence.

Question: Consider this expression   What Brad Pitt did in the movie  Money Ball  was beyond human, he turned down an offer of   12.3 million to stay loyal to his team.   What similar words can I use here for "beyond human"?

What word can I use for saying 'Beyond Human'

Many terms can be used in this context: the epitome of selflessness; extraordinary; incredible; unbelievable; godlike; altruistic; selfless; angelic; exceptional; exemplary; kingly; superior; above and beyond; beyond belief; beyond the call of duty; noble; mind-blowing; unimpeachable; superhuman; and of unquestionable loyalty.

Extraordinary, loyal, unbelievable and selfless can all work.


A good phrase for "non-cold normal temperature" is "room temperature".

If you ask for "room temperature water" then people will know not to give you cold water.

Words like lukewarm and tepid do an accurate job of describing the temperature of the water, but they don't necessarily sound all that natural in the context of buying bottled water.

I think the same could be said for room temperature .

You might just try unrefrigerated instead.

Could I get an unrefrigerated bottle, please?

The word that describes a temperature the same as that of the surrounding environment is ambient , but it may not be understood as such by the average grocer.

To be sure of getting what you wanted, you’d probably have to something like ‘Can I have one that isn't chilled?’

Just ask for "Room Temperature water".

Saying this would help in buying water at a grocers; and also people won't put an excessive amount of ice in your water at restaurants, too.

If you don't want a chilled one, ask for unchilled.

"noncold" doesn't occur because the prefix "non" of Latin origin does not usually combine with adjectives of Germanic origin: we do not have "nonfriendly", "nonhappy", but we do have "nonalcoholic" and "nontoxic".

On the other hand, "non" is broadly compatible with gerund forms of verbs, regardless of their origin: e.g. "nonliving things", "nonsmoking area", as well as with "-er" forms related to "-ing": "nonsmoker".

Something that has not been made cold is also "uncooled"; it's just that the verb more commonly used for deliberately cooling a drink is to "chill": "Beer should be served {chilled | cooled ?}."

To address a question in the comments below: "nonchilled" is also awkward because "non" also doesn't combine with verbs at all, including verbs formed from nouns, and

so it goes poorly with "-ed" adjectives which are derived from verb participles.

"to nonchill" could never be a verb, and so "nonchilled" could never be a participle

: "the weather had nonchilled" is nonsense which probably intends to say "the weather had not chilled".

A counterexample is "nonplussed"; however "plus" is not used as a verb, "nonplus" is basically a unit and note that it's two pieces of Latin origin.

I think the most common expression for the application you want is non-chilled or not chilled .

Matt mentions "Room temperature" but that may be read as somewhat too specific

- it's almost a scientific term.

There's a near term which doesn't strike quite at "normal temperature" but if you need something that's normally hot, you may ask for lukewarm , which is warmer than normal but not by much.

"Lukewarm" (the "e" is silent) generally means "not noticeably hot or cold".

"Room temperature" works, though it's a bit long and unwieldy.

"Tepid" technically means the same thing

but (1) it might be slightly unfamiliar to some speakers, and (2) it has a stronger negative connotation - if you say something's tepid, you're saying it's lukewarm, but you're also kind of saying that it's bad that it's lukewarm.

Question: When I intend to buy a non-cold bottled water in a grocery, the seller often gives me a chilled one. I have to express myself again by saying something like "I need a non-cold normal temperature one", then they'll get it.  This is really a heavy sentence that I’d rather avoid, so what”s the word meaning “normal temperature” bottled water?

What's the word meaning “normal-temperature” water?

"Room temperature" is widely used. "Unrefrigerated" or "unchilled" are also options. "Lukewarm" and "tepid" mean neither hot or cold, but sound less natural.

Room temperature may be used, but can have a more specific meaning. Tepid, lukewarm, not chilled, non-chilled and unrefrigerated are all options.

Not chilled, non-chilled and unrefrigerated can be used.


In the U.S., at least, it's not uncommon to hear: The light bulb is burned out .

The expression can be found in writing sometimes, too.

I'm also in the U.S., and I agree with J.R.'s answer, but I also find myself saying:

The [light] bulb went out.

"Went out" is more general, so you can say "the lights went out" during a power outage even if the bulbs are still fine, but if I say a bulb went out, it usually means I need to replace that particular bulb.

I'm in the UK and the most common expression I hear (and use) is that "the bulb has blown".

I'm not sure why we say this, when it doesn't really blow, it just burns out, but it seems pretty common around here (NW England).

As a native speaker of British English, I'd say

The bulb's gone .

I am 42 years old and from the east of England.

I would say the light bulb has "fused".

I learned English from people born before the 2nd world war in general.

People used to say "fused" because of the similar mode of failure.

A old fashioned light bulb and a fuse share a lot on common.

Both have a fine wire encased in a sheath.

Both fail in a similar way.

The wire breaks inside.

Hence fused.

Sometimes light bulbs do shatter when they fail.

In that case it would be more appropriate to say the bulb has blown.

When light bulbs shatter as the failure mode then there has probably been a power surge.

If you are interested I can tell you more about tungsten light bulbs and old style wire fuses.

I'm from the U.S. and have heard multiple ways used commonly.

If you are holding a light bulb that no longer works because the filament is broken you could say: This light bulb is burned out.

This light bulb is blown out.

This light bulb is dead.

If someone wants me to fix a light that won't turn on, they'd typically point at it and say: That light bulb burned out!

That light bulb has blown out!

That light bulb has died!

That light bulb went out!

Typically I am in a better mood if they say "Would you fix it, please?" afterward.

I've heard "...has burned out" and

"...died" with about the same frequency, but "...blew out" seems less common.

Also, "That light bulb went out!"

is common, but I've rarely heard it used to describe the broken state of the bulb, "This light bulb went out.

" makes sense to me, but "This light bulb is gone out." or some other similar construction for the present-tense would seem unusual to me.

The bulb's (has) fused!

This is what I've always heard and used. '

blown' sounds strange and american.

I supose 'the bulb has gone/the bulb went'

needs some thought before being understood.

Question: Lets say, I want to tell my roommate that one of the lightbulbs has stopped working, I usually say    The light bulb is  gone  or  broken down .   I did some search related to these expression and it seems that they are not very common and will sound odd to the natives.

How do native speakers say 'the light bulb has stopped working'

There are a number of expressions: This light bulb has burned out; This light bulb has blown out; This light bulb has died; This light bulb has fused; This light bulb went out; This light bulb is dead; and This light bulb has gone.

Burned out, blown/blown out, dead, fused, died, went out are all options.


The short answer is that each word has its own history (also called its etymology ) that traces where the word came from.

The same is true of letters.

The word quick , for example, has in fact been spelled with a c and k in its distant past.

From etymonline.com :

Old English cwic "living, alive, animate," and figuratively, of mental qualities, "rapid, ready," from Proto-Germanic * kwikwaz (cf.

Old Saxon and Old Frisian quik, Old Norse kvikr "living, alive," Dutch kwik

"lively, bright, sprightly," Old High German quec "lively," German keck "bold"), from PIE root *gweie- "to live" (see bio-).

How we settled on quick instead of kwick is anybody's guess, but it's worth pointing out that very few modern English words begin with "kw-".

Somewhere along the line, "qu-" became the dominant form.

But your same curious question could be asked about words that begin with the Z sound, yet start with an X, like xenon and xylophone .

You can also read more about the letter Q from the same website.

I suggest you and your daughter have a look .

In English, spelling has very little to do with pronunciation.

For example, the word tomato is always spelled T-O-M-A-T-O , regardless of whether it is pronounced toe-may-toe (North American English) or toh-ma-toe

(British English).

So to answer your question, no .

Question may sound like it could be spelled with a K , but the spelling is nothing to do with the pronunciation of the word.

It is spelled with a Q , and any variants such as "kwestion" are wrong.

Ditto @j.r.

It's for historical reasons.

If I was designing an alphabet for English from scratch, it would be different from our present alphabet in many ways.

Yes, the letter "q" is useless because it could almost always be written "kw".

"Q" is also used when transliterating a sound found in Arabic, Hebrew, and other languages that we don't have in English, as in, for example, "al Qa'eda".

"C" is useless.

It either sounds like an "s" ("celery") or like a "k" ("corn").

Well, when followed by "h" it does create a unique sound ("cherry"), but I think we would have been better off to have a distinct letter for that.

"G" can have its unique hard sound ("good"), or it can sound just like "j" ("gentle").

Why not use a "j" when we want the "j" sound?

Etc.

If you're learning English, you just have to learn all these different sounds that the letters can make.

Yes, it would be better if there was one sound for every letter and one letter for every sound.

But there isn't in English.

The child's question is justified.

But really difficult to answer.

The three letters c k q have something to do with the history of letters.

If we study the articulation of the k-sound we find slight differences between k+i, k+a, k+u.

The articulation of k is moved from a frontal position further back.

Semitic languages can produce a k-sound far back in the throat which sounds different from k and they used the special letter q for this special sound.

Somehow this letter got into the Greek and Latin alphabet and even into modern languages of western Europe.

I googled for "history of the letter q" and found an article of en.wikipidia on "q".

They try to make the adoption of the semitic q in Greek and Latin understandable but things remain rather vague and don't get clear.

So one might say q (always followed by u) might be replaced by ku or cu, but somehow we have kept qu, perhaps as a remembrance of the history of letters.

There is an astonishing connection between the letters c k q g. c

is the basic sign.

In k a vertical stroke was placed before c and the half-circle of c was made angular.

In q we have the basic sign c and a vertical stroke placed after c and the stroke was placed into a deeper position.

And in g we have the sign c with a vertical stroke as in q with a little curve at the bottom.

The k-sounds and the g sound have something similar in articulation and the similarity of the signs shows this.

rogermue has a really great answer.

I just want to add a bit of extra context for those who are not as familiar with linguistics in general (and with the historical linguistics of English in particular).

Languages constantly change in many ways.

One such way is pronunciation.

For languages like English that have had a literal form for many years, it makes sense for some older sounds (that are no longer used) to leave behind letters that were used to represent them.

And letters aren't only used to represent sounds, but to represent meanings as well.

Think about how we pluralize words.

We add the suffix "-s" at the end, but it doesn't always sound like an "s" as in cats.

Sometimes it sounds a bit like a "z" as in dogs, or it even adds a syllable (and sounds like "z") as in roses.

There are several sounds and "sound processes/patterns" that need to be considered for creating an alphabet.

These things change over time, and we end up with residue in the way we write that were likely completely logical at one point.

Question: This morning my son asked me the following question that I was unable to answer:   What is the point of the letter  Q ? Why can't we just always use  C  or  K  instead?  For example, " Question " sounds like " Kwestion " and " Queue " & " Cue " both sound the same.   This question might be little stupid, but I would much appreciate it if anyone can come up with a good answer.

What is the use of letter "Q" instead we can spell using letter "C" or "K"

Question  may  sound  like it could be spelled with a  K , but the spelling is nothing to do with the pronunciation of the word. It is spelled with a  Q , and any variants such as "kwestion" are wrong.

Question sounds like a 'k' but this is incorrect. This relates more to history than pronunciation.

This is more to do with history than pronunciation.


The corresponding hyperbolic phrase in this particular syntactic context would be "ages away": Breakfast seemed ages away.

That, however, could be used to express either prospective or retrospective remoteness.

StoneyB's answer ("Ages away") works for looking at events relative to "now" fine (and carries a little ambiguity, possible to work into past or future.)

For looking at events from perspective of time you can use ages later Ages later, the breakfast came at last.

If you apply today, you will get a temporary permit sometimes after all your hair turns white, and a permanent license ages later.

This is very formal and antiquated, but Robert Frost used "ages hence" in

The Road Not Taken : I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence:

"Ages ahead" can be correct use, in particular scenarios.

That said, as noted in other answers, typical use would be some other variant.

If I were to use "ages ahead", it would probably be comparing two things rather than referring to actual time:

According to many myths, Atlantis was technologically ages ahead of all other civilizations at the time.

The sentence compares Atlantis to other civilizations that would have supposedly existed at the same time.

It claims that Atlantis had technology that was massively more developed, as if from the future, despite being at the same time.

If we are referring to the far future, we might say "ages to come".

In the ages to come, what will our descendants think of these bulky laptops?

If saying "ages ahead" you must refer to what the subject is ahead of.

The scientist's research was ages ahead of that of his peers.

(In this case we are not referring to the actual period of time, but how long we think it would take his peers to reach the level he is at.)

Question: Harry looked down at his empty gold plate. He had only just realized how hungry he was. The pumpkin pasties seemed  ages ago .  (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)   It seems like  ago  is the peripheral modifier (CGEL,p436) as the examples in  Webster’s . What I’d like to know, now, is if  ages ahead  can be a possible noun phrase that has peripheral modifier as above?

Can ages ahead be possible?

"Ages away", "ages to come", "ages ahead" are all valid phrases.

Ages away, ages later, ages ahead, ages to come are all options.


As you may know, pwn is a typo for "own."

In the context of a game, "own" is slang for "completely defeat the opponent; win by a large margin.

" The word "pwn" is only used for "own" in this sense.

Because it originated on the internet recently, is slang, and has no obvious pronunciation, there is no uniform pronunciation for "pwn.

" I have personally heard native English speakers argue that it should be pronounced like pawn, like pone, and like own.

My personal preference is pone; that seems to be the funniest pronunciation.

It is safe to say that this word is quite slang (though not vulgar).

Many, perhaps most, English speakers will not understand you if you use it.

On the other hand, it's ubiquitous on the internet.

The way I've always heard it pronounced is poned (it rhymes with own)

It is typically used in internet talk and means owned.

i.e. I pwned him in a game of Battlefield

Well, lots of people pronounce it 'poned', 'pawned' or even owned.

It is a typo for 'owned'.

I prefer 'pone' but to be honest, there is probably no right way to say it.

Something no ones mentioned is that the p may not be a typo even if it is next to the O on the keyboard.

Within the letter

P you have the vertical line of an "I"

joined with an "O".

I'm guessing the original intent

was that it was a trick leet shortening of "I owned".

The pronunciation I think is as everyone else has said , poned.

it was a hacker culture term years before gamers got hold of it.

i heard it back in the late 80s / early 90s.

pwn is a typo because on standard english keyboards the o and the p are right next to each other, the i is on the other side of o, not between them.

i pwned that system...

meaning you got an exploit that gave you total access to do what you wanted with it.

pronounced, it's either just own or pone (like corn pone, not p-one).

pronouncing the p was kind of a n00b thing to do.

definitely not 1337.

pwn, pwns, pwn'd, pwnage, pwnzor look up leet-speak

it's older than you think!

I have heard it pronounced "poned" (sounds like "owned").

Since it originated as a typo for "OWNED" I'd say that pronunciation makes the most sense.

I prounounce it as p-eu-nd, or pew-nd.

(a word that sort of rhymes with pew-nd: ew)

Question: Following the  new Troy Hunt web site ,  http://haveibeenpwned.com/ , I'm curious to know exactly what it means and how to pronounce it. Since it seems there are many jokes about it, I don't want to make a mistake with my English colleagues.  Troy gives us the following definition:   Pwn: from the verb own, as meaning to appropriate or to conquer,  compromise or control.

How is "pwned" pronounced, and what does it mean?

Many believe this should be pronounced "poned" (sounds like "owned"). Variations include poned, pawned or owned.

It shoud sound like 'owned', though multiple options exist.

It shoud sound like 'owned'.
Multiple possibilities exist.


The common phrase is go into effect : I was born shortly before the Snail Rights Act went into effect .

Of course, that's an invented example.

Let's look at some real examples from COCA : In June 2002, the McCain-Feingold Act went into effect , banning federal party committees from raising "soft money" donations from labor unions and corporations outside the scope of federal campaign finance law.

Texas Senate Bill 1107, which went into effect Jan. 1, amended a state law to require proof of bacterial meningitis vaccination for new students younger than the age of 30 attending college for the first time.

At issue is whether the penalty people will pay for refusing to buy insurance amounts to a tax.

If it does, the argument goes the court can't hear the case until someone actually pays the tax, which won't happen until 2015 after that part of the law goes into effect .

A single word for a policy being in effect is simply either of the verbs "to start" or "to begin".

The new policy { starts | begins } on Jan 1, 2015.

The exact context may make a difference, but on average I think the most common term would be... implementation - the realization of an application, or execution of a plan, idea, model, design, specification, standard, algorithm, or policy.

It's a particularly common usage in computer science and the IT industry, but it's also perfectly suitable in the context of government policies, etc.

I would use "enter into force", which is a common (legal) term for the point at which a decided-upon norm becomes enforceable against violators.

Another way to say that a policy went into effect (using @snailplane's language) is to use the phrase "effective date": The effective date of this policy is June 1, 2014.

I'm pretty sure I've heard the term 'rollout' used to indicate the time a policy is to become effective.

One example can be found in the Washington Times here.

The article is titled "Planned rollout of new D.C. cameras hits a snag" and talks about the cameras not issuing live tickets starting on Monday as planned as some cameras haven't been issuing 'warning' tickets for a full 30 days.

In that context, the writer clearly is referring to the date the cameras begin issuing 'real' tickets as the 'rollout' date.

TFD says: roll·out ( n .) 1.

The inauguration or initial public exhibition of a new product, service, or policy

I think you are confusing two very different things, policy and law .

A law is drafted by parties who have an interest in its content.

If a constitutionally (and politically) competent legislator can be persuaded to bring it forward, the law is proposed to whatever body is constitutionally charged with legislation.

That body considers the law, debates and often amends its provisions, and ultimately (there may be further constitutional hoops to jump through) enacts it.

Upon enactment, the law takes effect: becomes binding upon all citizens and corporations which fall under its provisions.

It now falls to the executive and judicial authorities (supposing these to be entities distinct from the legislature) to implement the law: to put it into practical effect through public exercise of the public powers these authorities wield.

A policy need undergo none of these events, because a policy is not a law ; it is merely a principle adopted by some entity as an appropriate guide to its subsequent actions.

A policy may be embodied in a written statement, or it may be an entirely tacit and even unconscious assumption.

It may be published and trumpeted, or maintained surreptitiously.

It requires no formal enactment beyond the assent of those who agree to be governed by it, it is binding upon no-one at all (including those who adopt it), and it cannot be enforced or implemented except by extra-constitutional means, taking effect on whatever occasion, to whatever extent, and by whatever means, its adopters choose.

Question: Usually a policy will go through different stages: making a draft, being revised, being approved by the government, and then taking effect.  Is there a single word for "taking effect" of a policy?  For example,   I was born shortly before the introduction/enaction/beginning of some policy.   Thanks!

What is the word for a policy taking effect?

Start, begin, enter into force, effective date, rollout or go into effect may be used in this context.

Start, begin, enter into force, go into effect, rollout are all options.


Some English words borrowed directly from other languages retain the plural form of the other language.

For example, fermata is pluralized as fermate , and cirrhosis becomes cirrhoses .

The most familiar examples are words taken directly from Latin, of which there are at least hundreds: persona / personae , matrix / matrices , fulcrum / fulcra , and so forth, but there are examples from Greek, Italian, and so on.

Over time, some plurals have been regularized, especially in American English, and especially when referring to modern concepts as opposed to ancient— there are far more database schemas than database schemata out in the wild.

Because the Latin irregular plurals are most common, and sound loftier than the regular plural, there is a tendency to hypercorrect the plural of any word ending in -us and -um

in particular, even when there is no historical basis for it.

And thus, Oxford tells us The standard plural in English of octopus is octopuses .

However, the word octopus comes from Greek, and the Greek plural form octopodes is still occasionally used.

The plural form octopi is mistakenly formed according to rules for Latin plurals, and is therefore incorrect.

At some point, of course, any "incorrect" usage that becomes popular enough becomes "correct," and so it is that various dictionaries will include octopi (and ethoi and diplomae and so on) as acceptable plurals.

American Heritage and Merriam-Webster list it as an acceptable alternative.

M-W has an Ask the Editor segment on the matter.

As snailplane pointed out in the comments, octopus is derived from Greek, and so the correct plural would be octopodes , not octopi .

From Oxford Dictionaries.com : The standard plural in English of octopus is octopuses .

However, the word octopus comes from Greek and the Greek plural form octopodes is still occasionally used.

The plural form octopi , formed according to rules for some Latin plurals, is incorrect.

And from the Online Etymology Dictionary : octopus (n.) 1758, genus name of a type of eight-armed cephalopod mollusks, from Greek oktopous , literally "eight-footed," from okto "eight" (see eight)

+ pous "foot" (see foot (n.)).

Proper plural is octopodes , though octopuses probably works better in English.

Octopi is from [the] mistaken assumption that -us in this word is the Latin noun ending that takes -i in plural.

As pointed out above, octopuses would probably be acceptable in all but the most formal of circumstances.

From The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and The British National Corpus (BNC) : COCA BNC octopuses 147 results 29 results octopi 44 results 11 results octopoda 4 results 0 results octopodes 2 results 3 results The most common plural is octopuses .

Use that.

The alternative octopi is also somewhat common.

In fact, it's common enough that we should probably consider it standard as well, but because octopus isn't actually derived from Latin , pluralizing it this way may rankle some feathers.

If you'd like to avoid criticism, avoid using this form.

We'll discount octopoda entirely since all four results are from Orson Scott Card's Lost Boys , in which fictional characters discuss the proper plural of octopus .

The least common on the list is octopodes .

Although you can make an argument that this plural is more correct than octopi , the fact is few people know it and fewer people use it.

If you pluralize octopus this way, you'll draw more attention to how you're saying it than what you're saying.

Octopodes probably isn't common enough to be considered standard, and worse, it may fail to communicate entirely.

The verdict?

If you want to communicate, use octopuses .

Save the other plurals for when you want to use words like toys.

Even one source will change its answer to a question such as this as time passes and language evolves.

For example: The 1998 edition of Chambers Dictionary gives octopuses as the main answer, and lists octopodes as an archaic form.

I know that earlier editions of the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary did not have the 'archaic' annotation.

Their web site currently only lists octopuses .

As to the red line to which you refer, I shall assume that it was added by your word processor's spell check function.

That is, of course, dependent upon the dictionary which it uses and, as can be seen from the other answers, they don't all entirely agree, though almost all of them agree that octopi is wrong, for the reasons explained by choster.

"octopuses" and "octopi" are valid plurals for "octopus".

I prefer "octopi" --

it sounds more entertaining, without risking a double entendre .

Spell-checkers are often incorrect.

For example, good spell checkers do not include the word "calender", because misspellings of "calendar" are far more common than correct usages of "calender".

Also, most spell-checkers are implemented by building a list of common base words, and adding some rules for common variations on those base words.

( Programming Pearls has an essay on how combining this approach with "hashtables" allows spell-checking large numbers of words, while using surprisingly little memory.)

This means that every unusual ending needs to be specially added to the dictionary.

For example, the dictionary could include "octopus" and have a rule that "octopus" + "es" is also a valid word.

If nobody bothered to add "octopi" to the dictionary, it would be marked in red by your spell-checker.

By the way, StackExchange's spell-checker complains about "StackExchange" and "hashtable", but not about "octopuses" or "octopi".

Question: What is the plural of octopus? Is it octopuses, octopi or octopodes?  Normally in English it's supposed to be octopi, but when I type it, it has a red line under it (by the spell check), which means that it's incorrect. I also saw the word octopuses in my school's textbook. I got really confused about which one is correct.  Thanks! Any help would be appreciated.

What is the plural of octopus?

The most common plural form is octopuses. As it is a Greek word, the correct plural is octopodes. However, octopi is also used.

Octopuses and octopodes can vbe used, octopi is also suggested.


I personally use the US when speaking about the country generally, the States when talking to someone overseas (about coming over, comparatively), and rarely, or never the USA .

However, I think generally, most people use the US in conversation.

I think the only time I hear people use the USA is when they say it emphatically and patriotically.

In US, the word most commonly spoken out of three is "US".

"USA" is more formal and official.

While, based on my own experience, "States" is hardly used by natives.

As a general rule, spoken language uses the smallest available options.

As far as I know, "US" can be used as an adjective while the others can't (though I'm not sure why) -- "US cities" is OK but

"USA cities" or "States cities" sound weird.

That might be one reason for its frequency.

Some of the trouble comes from being a federation of states, not a single country.

"The States" refers to the collection of states, "The US" refers to the states that are united, or, more loosely, to the union of States.

The problem is that there's very, very, very many nations made up of multiple states.

Even Belgium is made up out of 3 parts that could very well be called states.

The USA" is therefore the only unambiguous way to refer to "The United States of America", in fact it might better be "The United States of North America".

Ultimately, the USA have no name for there union!

Except maybe just "America", after the continent it is the biggest nation in.

It would also retrofit the use of "Americans", which probably used to refer to people that lived on the continent, but now refers to citizens of "The United States of (North) America".

Ultimately it doesn't matter.

The US, The States, the USA, it all refers to the same thing in people's heads.

Just use the word your audience expects you to, that'll work best.

well, here in Brazil it is comon to refer to USA as "the States", although we say a "brazilianized" version of it : "

os estates".

We use it to refer to America, since it it easer to say than "US" or "USA" and we also try to say "os estates" with an American accent to make it sound more "American".

Also Brazilians do not refer themselves as Americans, neither to Canadians.

Americans refers exclisively to people from the USA.

Canadians are Canadians and Brazilians are Brazilians.

USA - United States of America.

US - United StatesThe States -

well, self-explanatory

I'm from England

and I have never heard anyone English refer to it as the states, though I've watched American sitcoms where a character might say it.

We don't really say the US either, we prefer saying America or USA, moreso America than anything else (despite theire being two seperate contintnets which have America within their name).

I think it's just a preference thing, but like I said the English like saying America or USA Note:

we use 'America' for North America.

When I travel oversea, I always answer that I am from States, and people understand.

When my friends come back from travel oversea, I ask either "when were you back to States?"

or "When were you back to US?"I rarely use USA in conversation, I use it in formal paper.

I was taught that way.

Question: Are the any differences in formality or context between "the USA", "the US" and "the States"?   I've tried NGram and it seems that "the US" is by far the most common expression and "the States" is the least common (would you sound like you are from the 19th century if you used it?). Of course, the search doesn't include spoken language.   Finally, in a conversation, would you say "the US" or "the United States?

Differences between "the USA", "the US" and "the States"

In the US, the word most common out of three in conversation is "US". People mau use the US  when speaking about the country generally, and the States  when talking to someone about coming over from overseas.  "USA" is more formal and official. "US" is also used as an adjective while the others are not.


In our electron pump, when you turn the crank, one side gets a surplus of electrons, or a negative charge, and on the other side the atoms are missing said electrons, resulting in a positive charge.

Said here means which are mentioned earlier in the text , or, simply, these .

The sentence could be rephrased thus: In our electron pump, when you turn the crank, one side gets a surplus of electrons, or a negative charge, and on the other side the atoms are missing these electrons, resulting in a positive charge.

So, as an atom misses an electron (the electron's orbital is empty), it assumes positive charge.

I had problems with that particular word as well until I learned to add in my head " ...

the XXX that we have said something about previously... ".

" the atoms are missing said electrons " becomes "the atoms are missing the electrons that we have said something about previously "

I think you have misunderstood the big picture.

BOTH sides of the pump have atoms both before and after.

Before the "crank is turned", every atom has exactly the right number of electrons.

Afterwards, one side has extra electrons and the other side has fewer electrons.

To add to CopperKettle's answer, said is normally only used this way in legal documents.

(For instance in a police report or a contract.)

Sometimes people use it in normal, non-legal writing too.

I guess they do that for humorous effect.

There's no need to use it that way yourself.

Adjectives are used to describe a noun or pronoun.

Said" is used as an adjective in a legal or formal context to avoid any potential for misinterpretation of the sentence which may arise from misidentifying a previously described subject noun.

If there is no potential for confusion of the subject noun then the adjective "said" is redundant

and it's primary use

is as an affectation intended to make the speaker sound more intelligent, which rarely works.

In the example given, there is no need to clarify which electrons are missing so the adjective (said) failed to either clarify the sentence or add to the authors perceived intellect.

Question: In our electron pump, when you turn the crank, one side gets a surplus of electrons, or a negative charge, and on the other side  the atoms are missing said electrons , resulting in a positive charge.   The part in a bold font is confusing to me. I can't make grammatical sense of it. One side gets a surplus of electrons and the other side gets the atoms. How does  are missing said electrons  fit into the rest of the sentence?

"said" as an adjective

"Said" is used as an adjective in a legal or formal context to avoid any potential for misinterpretation of the sentence which may arise from misidentifying a previously described subject noun.

Said is an adjective used in legal contexts.


He probably means I am willing these parking spots into existence .

i.e., I am creating these parking spots by the force of my will (volition).

which, of course, is not literally true.

It's a figure of speech.

He is essentially saying that he's wanting a good parking spot so badly that his desire alone is making the spots available, as if that is some sort of superpower.

It's intended to be a humorous way to express a feeling of triumph.

The context suggests that this wasn't the intended meaning in this case but, "to will a parking spot" could also mean "to bequeath a parking space to someone by the terms of a will"

In a densely populated city in which parking spaces are valuable, it would not be unheard of for someone to leave a parking space they owned to an heir when they died.

It is his way of emphasizing the intensity of his desire.

He is wishing for a great parking spot just like one of these.

Scott nailed it unless you're not sure if he said 'willed it into the spot'.

You have to 'will' cars into tight parking spaces.

You must believe its going to fit, because it will fit.

Then you just have to (will it into place) make it fit.

He will never give the parking space up!

He will die before doing so.

Others acknowledge his asset enough to want it gifted in his will, so he might even be open to bribery and grovelling :).

This a macho-dominance thing, not a fantasy-wish thing, I'll bet.

Besides, he said this AFTER getting the parking spot, not before.

I agree with Blah.

I've used such language (albeit not over a parking spot!)

on occasion...

Question: A guy is bragging about a great parking spot he has gotten in front of the building. And he says:   I am just  willing  these great parking spots.   What does it mean?

Meaning of "to will a parking spot"

It's a figure of speech. He  means he is willing  these parking spots  into existence, that he wants  a good parking spot so badly that his desire alone is making the spots available, as if that is some sort of superpower.   It is his way of emphasizing the intensity of his desire and he is wishing for a great parking spot.

This is a figure of speech emphasising desire.


Speaking for the UK, if we served a dessert looking like that, it would probably be a chocolate mousse (although this seems to have been piped into the dish, which isn't what you'd normally do with mousse).

However, I don't know enough about US pudding to know whether that dessert pictured

actually is something we'd call a chocolate mousse, or just looks like it.

A quick search for a US recipe for chocolate pudding yields something that probably isn't a mousse since it doesn't seem to have much air whipped into it.

Maybe it does from the boiling milk, but a typical UK home-made mousse you'd whip egg-whites then fold them into your chocolate (whereas chocolate mousse bought in a pot from a shop

almost always has gelatine, I assume because it has to stay fluffy a lot longer).

There is such a thing as custard, and it can be (rarely) flavoured with chocolate, but if your pudding doesn't have eggs in it then it pretty much isn't custard.

Anyway "chocolate custard" certainly isn't a common dessert here.

Based on the recipe I found, we might call it "chocolate sauce" and wonder why it's being served on its own!

So I suspect the problem is you're asking for the UK name for something that isn't typically served here, and doesn't really have a UK name.

I'm a Brit that's spent a number of years in the US.

There's no direct analogue.

But, if you want to describe it, remember, context is everything.

Just as dessert is the name of the 'sweet course of a meal' in the US, you can get things with the name dessert in them and not be confused.

Likewise with pudding .

Plus, in British English pudding isn't even a generic name for 'sweet things' in all contexts (because you'll be really surprised when you take a bite of steak+kidney pudding) but is actually a reference to a shape, specifically the 'pudding bowl' (and hence leading to the name 'pudding bowl haircut')

Just call it what it is, 'chocolate pudding'.

Anyone who knows what it is, will know, and anyone who doesn't, won't— whatever the name.

Quoting from Wikipedia : In Commonwealth countries these [North American] puddings are called custards (or curds) if they are egg-thickened, blancmange if starch-thickened, and jelly if gelatin based.

Pudding may also refer to other dishes such as bread and rice pudding, although typically these names derive from the origin as British dishes.

Gelatin pudding is very common in the US.

Anything you buy at a grocery store or make from a boxed mix will most likely be gelatin.

Egg-thickened custards are higher-quality but more difficult to make.

If it's a pudding made from milk, corn starch and flavourings mixed together and whisked, then the British equivalent is Angel Delight .

(This is a brand name, but it's synonymous with the dessert in the same way as Hoover is with vacuum cleaners.)

If the same ingredients are cooked and then cooled, then it's flavoured custard.

Egg-free custard made from corn starch, milk and flavourings is very popular in the UK.

Individual pots of chocolate custard do exist, although they're not as popular as American pudding seems to be.

Ambrosia is a popular brand .

I think is it 'vla' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vla ) although probable no one will use that word ;)

A chocolate mousse is a hybrid of a pudding & a flavored whipped cream served on it's own rather than as a topping.

Pudding in the US is milk mixed with cornstarch, gelatin, sugar, & flavoring, & often requires no cooking.

Custard is the most like pudding in consistency, but made with eggs.

Blancmange & Flan/

Pudim are technically Jellos/Gelatins made with milk & eggs.

They're too stiff & jiggly to be puddings.

European puddings would confuse Americans.

A Rolly Poly Pudding there is a Swiss Roll Cake here, a Yorkshire Pudding

there is a hollow biscuit here, a Kugel there is a casserole here, a Boudin & Kishka there is sausage here, Cheese Pudding there is Sweetened Ricotta here, Groaty Dick there would be an unsweetened hot breakfast cereal here,

Pease Pudding/Pottage there is Split Pea Soup here,

Toad in the Hole

there is a deconstructed Corndog here

, Spotted Dick there is Fruitcake made with lard here, Figgy Duff there is "Brown Bread in a Can" here (love that stuff), Sussex Pond Pudding there is basically a doughnut with a fruit filling made with lard.

Question: I think the word  pudding  is used mostly as a general name for sweet dishes in the UK, whilst in the US it is a specific dessert. What do the British people call it? It looks delicious innit?

What do the British call the dish which is called 'pudding' in the US

In the UK, if we served a dessert looking like that, it would probably  be  a chocolate mousse (although this seems to have been piped into the dish, which isn't what you'd normally do with mousse).  There's no direct analogue.

There is no direct analogue, the closest-looking equivalent is a chocolate mousse.


I think the closest expression with the same meaning and very similar connotations would be the French expression: C'est la vie.

meaning That's life.

You can use the French phrase as is because it is famous enough to be understood in any English speaking country.

Certainly there are some more possibilities to say it in a polite way as to avoid vulgarity: Stuff happens.

or you can use the English idiom : Worse things happen at sea. as a way of telling someone not to worry so much about their problems.

A polite and reassuring way:

"It could have been worse"

Lucian's suggestion of "C'est la vie" is a good one.

There are a few other ways you could express the same idea:

Depending on the context, you might want to reference Murphy's Law.

Murphy's Law is often stated as: Anything that can go wrong, will.

This is a phrase you would use if you were talking about things going wrong before they did, or how they could have been avoided.

If you're talking about something going wrong after the fact, and especially something that could not have been prevented, you could also say: That's life!

This is a more idiomatic way of phrasing Pazzo's suggestion.

The implication is the same: in life, things happen, good and bad, and you just have to deal with it.

For a more literary tone, you could use the Burns quote suggested by TRomano's comment, the actual original phrasing of which is: The best-laid schemes

o' mice

an' men Gang aft agley

This is often misquoted in more standard English as: The best-laid plans of mice and men Oft go awry.

Things happen in life that we may not like. or Bad things happen.

To avoid the expletive, you could just say "stuff happens", which is somewhat idiomatic (though not nearly so idiomatic as "shit happens").

That's still rather informal

but, in the right context and used only occasionally, informality can work well in an essay.

It lightens the mood.

Be careful not to over-use informality and be careful that it's only a little break from the serious stuff and that it doesn't ruin the flow.

Question: I am trying to write an essay and the only phrase I can think of is "shit happens". I'm wondering; is there any formal way to say  shit happens ?

Is there a polite, formal way to say "sh!t happens"?

Alternative suggestions include "it could have been worse", "c'est la vie", "stuff happens" or your could even refer to Murphy's Law, depending on the context.

Stuff happens, c'est la vie, it could have been worse and Murphy's Law are all things you could say.


While it does not explicitly mean "afraid of wife", henpecked refers to a man who is controlled by his wife.

Much more vulgar, pussy-whipped has the same meaning.

In Chinese, 怕 is not exactly a direct translation of the English "afraid" in the main sense of the word.

Afraid usually means feeling fear, a distressing emotion of impending pain or danger - it's more like the Chinese 恐 in most cases.

For example, in Chinese you can say 怕冷, but this does not mean you are actually "afraid of the cold" in the English sense

- this is too strong.

It's more like you are "intimidated by the cold."

So I would say 怕 more like "intimidated by," and 怕老婆 as "intimidated by my wife.

" Or, as others have said, browbeaten, whipped, or henpecked.

However, be aware that all of these have a negative connotation in English (of the man being weak), so I feel that "intimidated by my wife," which is neutral, most closely captures 怕老婆.

These are subtle differences, but I feel it's these little things that make learning a language both fun and challenging.

a man who does everything he is told to by the lady in his life [and vice versa], often for fear of reprisals, can be described as under the thumb .

see 'under my thumb' by the rolling stones...

A wife may "wear the pants in the family," meaning she has runs the household.

Not so much fear as a lack of control.

As I said in my comment, henpecked is the closest term to what you are searching.

Logically, all henpecked men are afraid of their wives.

I mean, that's why they are henpecked.

If you take liberty, you may toss a word - wife-o-phobia !

It is not standard

but I'm quite sure that it'll be understood since 'phobia' is not an unknown term anymore.

Another word that comes to my mind is 'wife-ridden' .

The word 'ridden' in this sense may be used to describe someone having control over someone up to an extent that it develops 'fear' in the subject being controlled.

As a doctor, I know another word.

From New Latin, from Greek gametē (means wife) the word comes ' gametophobia '.

Ideally it should be 'fear of wife' but sources say that it's gamete+gamos (marriage)

SO

it's actually 'fear of marriage'.

So, if we describe a bachelor 'gametophobic', he's afraid of getting married but if we refer a married man a gametophobic, he's afraid of his wife?

I'm not sure!

Another word I can think of is obedient husband .

An obedient husband will say that he is not "afraid of his wife" per se, but if you observe his behavior closely, whatever his wife wishes, he will comply, for her wish is his command.

;-) Obedient husband can sound even poetic!

I am, with the utmost affection, your obedient husband, and most humble servant.

-- Elegant Epistels: Being a Copious Collection of Familiar and Amusing Letters

One of my favorites is, "If mama aint happy, aint nobody happy."

Meaning, "If the mother of my children is unhappy, everyone in the family is unhappy."

Another one that comes to mind is whipped .

If you say a guy's whipped

you mean he's been beaten into submission by his partner and is unwilling to do anything that might anger her.

For example, "he's too whipped to go to the bar tonight."

For a clinical-sounding term, you could describe the man as uxoriphobic , which is not listed directly in any dictionary that I could find, but comes from the Latin root uxor , meaning "wife", and the suffix -phobia , meaning "fear of".

Question: Are there any English idioms that are used to describe a man being afraid of wife?  In Chinese there are lots of ways to express it, formal ways, condescending, or colorful. Please describe the situations to use them when giving your suggestions.

Phrases that express "afraid of wife" in English

Whipped, henpecked and wife-ridden have been suggested, along with obedient husband. A man who does everything he is told to by the lady in his life can be described as  "under the thumb".  A wife may be said to "wear the pants in the family," to mean she runs the household. "Uxoriphobic" could be used to describe a man who is afraid of his wife.

Whipped, uxoriphobic, henpecked and under the thumb can convey this idea.


Way back is used for 'long ago'.

Check OxfordDictionaries's entry way back (informal)

Long ago Your sentence sounds strange to me with those words in it.

Don't use it that way.

Probably , you are confused with this - make one's way back (to something) - to work one's way back to something or some place as in ...

I made my way back to the little town in the densest fog I have ever seen.

I went for a walk and got lost.

It took hours for me to make my way back.

So, read the entry and clarify your doubt! :)

You can simply say Have a safe way back! if you mean to wish someone a safe trip back to the place from which they have come.

"Have a safe trip home!"

is probably the most common expression.

In my neck of the woods we say things like: Have a safe trip back home.

Have a safe trip back.

Have a safe way home.

Have a safe way back.

We're looking for a safe way back home.

Many of the roads are flooded.

Here's an attestation of "Have a safe trip back": And here's an attestation of "a safe way back home".

In my AmE dialect, "way" can mean both "route" and "trip/journey".

The use of an article (i.e. " a ... way back" in your sentence) makes it unambiguous.

The phrase "way back" referring to a time long ago is an adjective phrase and does not accept an article - or, for example, a possessive pronoun, as in "my way back" in Maulik V's example.

I should note, though, that the way somewhere generally refers to the route , not to one specific trip.

I think this is the reason the others are reading your sentence as being awkward.

And I don't know about other dialects, but "back to home" is incorrect for American English, and should be "back to your home" or "back home".

"way back" is an idiomatic expression for "long time ago", short for "a long way back in time".

For example: "When did you meet Joe for the first time? "

"That was way back when I still was a teenager".

In your case, you are using by coincidence the word "way" followed by the word "back".

You could have said "wish you a safe journey back home", or "wish you a safe travel back home".

It has nothing to do with the idiomatic expression and is fine to use.

Dan Bron's suggestions are slightly better, but not to a degree where your sentence would be wrong.

"Wish you a save way back home" sounds maybe a bit too worried that something could go wrong.

Of course if you are a bit too worried then the sentence is exactly correct.

The phrase way back has two primary meanings, as others have pointed out.

Using way back can be used to refer to a long time ago, such as "way back when.

" In this instance way is describing the word back as being very far back.

How far back was it?

It was way back.

This meaning could also be applied to distance, meaning that something was a very long distance back on a path.

Using way in this sense is fairly colloquial, not often found in formal writing.

The other use of way back is to refer to a specific path taken.

In this case back is modifying the noun way , and often includes a destination.

Which way did he take?

He took the way back (to the house).

This implies that the path in question has already been traveled once, but you are now returning.

Your case more closely relates to the second definition, though most people would not use it that way.

Instead, I would simply say Have a safe trip home!

Question: Can I say:   Wish you a safe way back to home   when I am trying to tell someone I wish them to return home safely? When I was googling, I saw that there is another meaning for the phrase  way back , which means  long ago . Because of that I'm unsure whether I am using it correctly in my sentence. Does my sentence sound ambiguous? If yes, how can it be rephrased?

How do I use the phrase "way back" properly?

You can say "Have a safe way back!" "Way back" can also be used to refer to a long time ago, as in "way back when". The other use of  "way back"  is to refer to a specific route.

Way back can refer to a long time ago, as well as returning on a specific path.

Way back can refer to returning on a specific path.


One possibility is that the greeting is intended ironically or sarcastically.

An ostensibly meek, mild-mannered person might be greeted with "Hello, Trouble" or "Here comes trouble!"

as a way of teasing them.

This is similar to calling a very large person "Tiny".

You might say this to anyone, really, but it's one of those things that's funnier when it's not true.

It's a flirtatious phrase often said by a man to a/n (attractive) woman (of child-bearing age).

It's a backhanded way of saying, I like you.

and I'm attracted to you.

without actually saying it directly.

(It can also be used sarcastically by being said to or about a woman who might look a little "edgy" or "slutty" — again, depending on context.)

The word trouble (in this context) alludes to the fact that attractive women often get men into "trouble" because attractive women can often get men to do things men would not otherwise do.

Like spend money, cheat on their wives, "make babies," get married, etc.

It's a way of opening the door for you to respond back to the speaker in a similarly flirtatious way.

Thereby, opening the door for him to talk to you in a more personal way with the goal of eventually "dating" you.

Alternative Theories

To borrow a phrase from JR's page :

Context is everything .

So, in an effort to give a complete answer, a "flow chart" of possible meanings comes to mind as follows.

Is the OP an attractive adult female of child-bearing age and is the speaker a (presumably) heterosexual adult male?

If "yes" to both, I would estimate the odds of the meaning provided above to be roughly 95% to 99%.

If "no" to either, go to step 2.

Does the OP match the description in Tyler James Young's answer: "meek, mild-mannered?

If "yes," I would estimate the odds of that answer being the correct interpretation at 95%-99%.

If "no," go to step 3.

Consider the following alternative meanings.

It's sometimes a backhanded way of a senior male paying a junior male a half-compliment, half-slight.

For example, if the junior male is "studly" or "manly" in some way by either being good-looking, attractive to women, good at sports or a "bad boy."

(Or intelligent or wealthy too, for that matter.)

If the speaker is speaking to a child, it could be the meaning described by FumbleFingers in his/her comment to the OP.

If the speaker is (nominally) speaking to a pet, it could have a similar meaning as FumbleFinger's description; only applied to a pet instead of a child.

It is not always a flirtatious greeting but nearly always friendly.

Can be joking.

Very very rarely because you actually caused a problem, and if you actually did cause a problem, can ease tension.

(source- native speaker)

When you greet a kid you can say "hello little troublemaker" or hello trouble for short.

you can apply it to adults too.

That is the context I would typically hear/use it.

I regularly call my boyfriend ‘troublemaker’ because he is mischievous when he is being flirtatious.

He causes me ‘trouble’ because he make me want to do things like continue talking to him more when I should be doing other things, like sleeping.

It’s affectionate in that way.

If it’s a colleague, they are probably just trying to break the ice with you/ become closer in a friendly way.

English is funny that way, it’s much more the tone and context in which a person says something than the words themselves.

(I know other languages have that too, but it can be so confusing at times, even for a native English speaker)

If they were smiling/laughing or if they looked serious and then grinned after you said hello.

It was just friendly teasing and they want to be more casual with you, which is often a good sign with colleagues.

Question: What does it exactly mean if somebody says "Hello, Trouble" to you?  One of my colleagues said "Hello, Trouble" to me this morning.  I just replied "Hi", as I was not sure what to say.   So just wanted to check what exactly Trouble here means...

If somebody calls you "Hello Trouble", what does it mean?

The greeting is often intended ironically or sarcastically - as a joke. It is very rarely because you actually caused a problem. When you greet a kid you can say "hello little troublemaker" or hello trouble for short. It's a backhanded way of saying,  I like you.  It can be flirtatious (although not always), and it is nearly always friendly.

This can be said ironically, sarcastically, flirtatiously or as a joke.

This can be said ironically, sarcastically or as a joke.


Both its and their are pronouns.

While its is a singular pronoun, their is a plural pronoun.

A company is a collective noun.

In AmE, Company takes a singular verb form and singular pronoun.

While in BrE, Company takes a plural verb form and plural pronoun.

So, depending on that, both are correct.

In AmE: The company will issue its annual report next month.

In BrE: The company will issue their annual report next month.

Your question: should I use its or their in: The company will issue their/its annual report next month ?

In this instance, I'd recommend using its : The company will issue its annual report next month.

This, among other things, echoes Kelly's answer and Fantasier's answer to an old question :

"If a collective noun is seen as a whole, sole, impersonal unit, then singular verbs are more common.

If it is seen as a collection of people doing personal things, then plural verbs are more common.

In American English the verb for the noun is usually singular in all cases except family (if you don't quantify it with members of, people in etc)."

Which also echoes an old answer by FumbleFingers : "(in "British English")

[W]e quite naturally use singular or plural for things like company, family, group , according to context", and information relating to collective nouns which is relatively to find around the web, including on English Language & Usage Stack Exchange .

Back to your sentence, it's clear that it's safer to use its in either British or American English.

Even though it may be possible to use their in British English (and also in American English), I'd personally use it in that specific instance; and though I can't say exactly why, this Google Ngram chart appears to support my choice:

For what it's worth, Google Books Ngram Viewer would suggest that company is more often treated as singular.

But all you can really draw from this is that it's acceptable to treat company as either singular or plural.

I think it comes down to whether or not you want to emphasise the single legal entity or the group of people who make up the company.

In the case of an annual report, it is issued by the single legal entity and so I would use the singular: The company will issue its annual report next month.

In AmE, I think it is 'it'.

So, The company will issue its annual report next month (AmE) In BrE, companies are often called with a plural pronoun

The company will issue their annual report next month (BrE) .

My opinion If you are talking about the 'company' use 'it'.

If you are peculiar about mentioning the owners or authorities, mention 'their'.

The company will issue (their, its) annual report next month.

A company in this grammar is classed as a single entity, so will release its (as ownership) annual report.

A Board of Members would release their (joint ownership) annual report.

Question: The company will issue  (their, its)  annual report next month.   In this case, should I use "its" or "their"?

Its or Their to refer to a company?

In British English, you would say "The company will issue their annual report next month". However, in American English, you would say "The company will issue its annual report next month".

It depends on context, use its for US English and their for UK English.


There isn't a single word for this unless you exclude "paper" from the count.

But both "lined paper" and "notebook paper" should be understood to mean this type of paper.

Without the lines, it is is typically called "blank paper" or "copy paper" (used to be "typewriter paper", but I doubt it is called that by many nowdays).

In American English, one would most likely say Do you want a (blank) piece of paper.

or Do you want a (blank) sheet of paper.

Notice

I said a and not one .

When we are offering people just one of a particular thing, we usually say/use the indirect article if we name the thing, as in this case.

If we don't name the thing, we say Do you want one?

Note that the object shown in the photo is also called a (blank) page , but one would not ordinarily ask for a page in your context.

The object is also one piece/sheet/page of loose leaf paper if all the pieces/sheets/pages are separate and not attached to each other, as they are in a bound notebook .

Are you talking about a single piece of paper, that's not attached to a book?

If so, don't use either "page" or "blank page", because a page is a sheet of paper bound inside a book.

Technically, a page of paper is only one side of a sheet.

If you wanted to talk about the sides of a single loose piece of paper, you'd just say the "side of the paper".

Thus "page" is not used in the context of single pieces of paper.

You could use: (blank) sheet of paper (blank) piece of paper And

because "sheet" is so specific of a word, sometimes people drop "of paper" in "sheet of paper" (blank) sheet

I guess you could technically do the same with "piece of paper", but "piece" is too vague, so people don't usually drop "of paper".

P.S.Wikipedia tells me the technical term is a "leaf of paper", but nobody says that in daily use.

Any piece of paper used for writing would be called a sheet .

If you look at a package of such paper, it will say (for example) 1000 sheets .

page generally refers to an already printed piece of paper, such as in a book or magazine.

If a page in such book or magazine were blank (no printing), that would be a blank page .

This is called "loose leaf paper".

Typically loose leaf paper has straight blue lines with pink margin lines.

This type of paper is normally sold in packs of 100 or 200 sheets and are not necessarily sold loose which means they can be torn out of notebooks with perforations.

Loose leaf generally has three holes so that the piece of paper can fit into a three-ringed binder.

Weird name?

Yes,

but that is what it is.

At least, in English.

(I have also heard it casually called "notebook paper" but that is more vague, and could mean anything.

Loose leaf paper would imply the holes and the lines you are speaking about more specifically.)

ell.stackexchange.com/users/9598/HostileFork says dont trust SE

It's called 'a lined sheet of paper' in UK English.

Or 'lined paper'.

Question: What is this called in English?    1) page  2) sheet  3) blank page   I'm a little confused about the acceptable name.   Context: "Do you want one ( here is one of this three options ) to write down the exercise?"

What is this called in English? paper / sheets/ blank page (picture is attached)

It can be referred to as notebook paper, lined paper or loose leaf paper. Any piece of paper used for writing would be called a  sheet.

You could refer to this as loose leaf paper, a sheet of lined paper in the UK. Notebook paper also works.

You could refer to this as a sheet of lined paper in the UK. Notebook paper also works.