What is the best literary technique to introduce a new word, conceived by yourself, in your story?

I am an aspiring novelist, and there's this "science fiction & fantasy" story I am working on, wherein I have coined some new words here and there. I am sending this question to the proficient wordsmiths in the _stackosphere_ , and beseech them to yield a proper way, say a literary technique, to introduce a brand new word without offending the multitudinous readers and publishers who maybe inclined to consider a word not included in Oxford Dictionary a heresy. Thanks.


Is there significant difference of meaning between ‘Stop-and-frisk ‘and ‘Frisk and stop’?

There was the following sentence in New York Times (January 4th) article titled “The commish, the 2nd time around”: > "On the eve of leaving office, Bloomberg, defensive about the scar on his > legacy, noted to Capital New York that in L.A. Bratton — considered the > godfather of the sort of aggressive policing tools that have come under fire > — was just as much a proponent of stop-and-frisk as Kelly was. “Bratton did > more stop and frisks per capita than Kelly did,” Bloomberg said. “They’ll > call it ‘ **frisk and stop’** instead of ‘ **stop-and-frisk**.’” > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/opinion/sunday/dowd-the-commish-the-2nd- > time-around.html?pagewanted=2&hp&rref=opinion I understand ‘stop and frisk’ as a flow of in investigating action, but can’t understand how you can physically ‘frisk someone, then stop him.’ Though I may be too literal, it sounds somewhat illogical to me. What is the difference of meaning here between ‘stop-and-frisk‘and ‘frisk and stop’?


"I kindly ask to" vs "I ask to kindly"

Let's take the following two sentences as examples:   1. I kindly ask you to send the letter to your boss.   2. I ask you to kindly send the letter to your boss.   3. It would be kind of you to send the letter to your boss. (this one would be understood the same way in English and my native language) In our language we use the first one 99% of the time and the second seems to have opposite meaning of its English meaning. What does "to kindly send" mean for English people?   1. Doesn't it sound rude in English? As if I was ordering someone to do something kindly (as if they weren't kind usually) - that's what would be the meaning in my native language. My interpretation is: "Go and do this kindly this time." and I think that this expression shouldn't be used unless someone wants to offend another party. But I've seen this expression more than once so that makes me think that it really means...   2. ...quite the opposite and it is equivalent to "I sincerely believe that you are a very kind person, I'm counting on your kindness to send this letter" - this is a bit persuasive, isn't it? If they don't send it they will make themselves look not kind. So, what's the true meaning of each of the example sentences? To me it's ambiguous.


Does the term "Asian" have different meanings among various English-speaking countries?

I have always had the view that the term "Asian", when pertaining to cultures, primarily refers to the cultures of the Far East. Recently I have been told that it also includes Indian and other cultures located on/around the Indian subcontinent. For reference, I am a native speaker of American English. Would anyone be able to shed some light on whether there is a generally accepted usage in the various English-speaking countries? For example, it seems unnatural _to me_ to refer to a person from India as "Asian", even though I am aware India is geographically located within the continent of Asia.


Is 'hair' singular or plural?

When one says _I was washing my hair_ , is it singular or plural? What is the singular for _hair_?


Hair vs Hairs usage

When we add 's' at the end of a word, it refers to more (unit) of the thing. I.e. A car vs Cars Why is it when we refer to "hair", it is kind of the other way around? i.e.   1) Your hair looks great (comment on ALL your hair)   2) You dyed some of your hairs (comment on SOME of your hair)


Name for the stick running through the small and narrow leaf of a big coconut leaf

Is there any specific term in English for the stick running through the small and narrow leaf of a big coconut leaf? > In coconut tree, there is a stick(resembling a spinal cord) running through > the small and narrow leaf of its main big leaf. In my mother tongue > Malayalam, we call it "eerkili". I have encountered several occasions where > I had to reluctantly use the Malayalam word for this while communicating in > English.


Can dogmas be false? Or is the very meaning absolute?

The word **'Dogma'** , does it mean: _This is the truth_ or _Something that is **believed** to be true_   I did search but I have hard time grasping what it really means. Edit: What I really want answered is: Can dogmas be false? Or is the very meaning absolute.


What's with the apostrophe in the standard spelling of the idiom "how's about"?

A recent question on EL&U asks Is it correct to use "how's" as short for "how does"? I have a series of tangentially related questions about a fairly common (in American English) phrase usually spelled as "how's about":   1. Does the spelling "how's about" make sense under normal conventions of punctuation, and (if so) is the "how's" component of the phrase a contraction or a possessive?    2. If "how's" is a contraction here, what words is it a contraction of?   3. If "how's" is a possessive here, how might we restate the underlying idea to indicate the possessive aspect of _how_ , without including the apostrophe- _s_?    4. If the spelling "how's about" (with an apostrophe) doesn't make complete sense, is there a better way to spell it? By way of background, I note that Robert L. Chapman & Barbara Ann Kipfer, _Dictionary of American Slang_ , Third Edition (1996) offer the following entry on "how's about": > **how's about** _**prep phr_** _by 1925_ What do you feel or think about: > _How's about a drink?_ —Budd Schulberg The first edition of this dictionary (1961) reported that "how's about" means "how about," suggesting that the apostrophe- _s_ is simply an instance of proparalepsis (adding an extra syllable or letters to the end of a word). But even if we attribute the additional sound to proparalepsis, we have not yet explained why orthographically the spelling came out as "how's." Not surprisingly, an Ngram Viewer graph of Google Books content shows "how's about" as being generally far more common than "hows about," "howsabout," and "howzabout"—three possible alternative spellings.


Can "Sure" be used to respond to "Thanks"?

I often hear "Sure" in response when I say "Thank you" or "Thanks" to someone. I don't know — is this correct usage? If it is considered good, I'll use it someday.


Is this sentence correct?

> But like most young people of my generation, waking up 6 am in the morning > to study things **you** do not understand, is not an idea that appeals to me Is my usage of 'you' in this context wrong? It sounds weird, but it doesn't sound right when I replace it with 'I' and 'We' either. EDIT: It's wrong either way right? Is it better if I replace the whole phrase with > waking up 6 am in the morning to study incomprehensible things, is not..


What's the accusative absolute?

I'm no grammarian and so I am seeking an informal and comprehensible answer. I read the following definition for accusative-absolute, but I don't fully understand it, possibly due to the many technical terms such as: _accusative_ , _finite verb_ and _nominative absolute_. > a construction in English, especially colloquial English, consisting of a > pronoun in the accusative case joined with a predicate that does not include > a finite verb and otherwise identical with the nominative absolute (as **him > being my friend** in “ **him being my friend** , I granted his request”) I first heard this at 54:31 in this video


Help me I just got in trouble with direct address comma at work

I write stuff like this: > Karen, our team can help you. However, in this case I wrote: > Karen, Mike and Joe can help you. I was trying to tell Karen that Mike and Joe could help her. However, she read it as "Karen, Mike and Joe together could help someone else." How was I supposed to punctuate this?


Can "mustn't" be used for conclusions?

I heard this sentence in an American film a while ago as I was watching it on DVD (the part after **but** is verbatim): _"I'm doing my best but **I mustn't be doing it right**."_ This is something I occasionally hear in American films: phrases like _"he mustn't have done it"_ or _"she mustn't be studying now"_ , where a logical conclusion is expressed. So far I've thought that the normal thing to say is _"he can't have done it"_ or _"she can't be studying now"_. My question is: Can **mustn't** be used to express a logical conclusion when the speaker is certain that something didn't happen or isn't happening, at least in informal speech? Is this an American usage? (I've never heard this usage in British English, but this doesn't mean it doesn't exist.) Is there a change going on in the usage of the particular modal verb? Note: All the references I've checked don't even mention this use of **mustn't**. Google books aren't of help either. EDIT: I should clarify that I'm asking this question because if I wanted to express that I'm certain I'm not doing something right (as in the sentence quoted from the film) I'd say _"I'm doing my best but I **can't** be doing it right"_. I would think that the use of **mustn't/must not** wouldn't be standard usage (although the meaning is perfectly clear to me; I never mistook it for an injuction).


One has to cook himself or themself?

Wanted to know which form is better and why One has to cook himself? OR One has to cook themself?


"At schedule" vs. "by schedule" vs. "on schedule"

Let's assume that I wash my car every Saturday at noon. How do I say it using the word _schedule_ : > I wash my car at/by/on schedule. **Update:** It's not about doing something on a regular basis. It's about doing something on schedule — at an exactly defined day and time every week. If I say "I wash my car regularly", it simply means that I don't forget to wash my car, but doesn't imply I do it every time at the same time.


Question on law firm application

> “We pride ourselves on being law, less ordinary. How are you less ordinary?” I do not understand how the first sentence makes sense. Anyone care to explain? (Assuming it is not a typo.)


Usage of "for" correct?

My coworker uses "for" in a way that just doesn't look right to me and I want to know if he is using it correctly. Examples below: "Let me know, _for_ I’ll need to change the purchase order." "May I have your contact, _for_ I received different information and they need to be placed into the PMM system."


Reflexive possessive pronoun

Is there a single word (similar to Russian _свой_ for those familiar with Russian) which I could put into this sentence? > By tomorrow, one of us will see the money in **__** account. meaning that > By tomorrow either **you** will see the money in **your** account or **I** > will see the money in **my** account.


A word which is like 'manually' but means 'by eye' not 'by hand'?

We make software for searching video and I am continuously explaining that this product 'avoids the need to watch video manually'. This grates with me because 'manually' means 'by hand' and you don't watch with your hands. Is there a word which is the counterpart for 'manually' but means 'by eye'?


Should "no longer" have a hyphen?

I have always put a hyphen in the fragment "no-longer X", but neither the BBC website or the Economist seem to put one in. I always thought that > The piece of string was no longer than five inches. should not have one, but > After I cut it, the string was no-longer whole. needed one, because longer is a comparative. Certainly when I read the two sentences above aloud I put a different emphasis on the words. Does anyone know if this is or was common? I'm from the UK, if that makes a difference to the answer.


Is there a funny expression for "Keep it simple"?

There is an expression in my native language that goes "Don't try to give birth to a bicycle". It usually encourages someone to use a solution that has already been found, or to refrain from making some trivial process overly complicated. I'm familiar with the canonical "Don't re-invent the wheel", but I don't find it particularly funny.


Is “make a dream board” a synonym to “draw a blue print”? Is it a trendy expression?

I came across the word, “*make a dream board” in the sentence of New York Time’s (December 16) article titled “Split by Race and Wealth, but Discovering Similarities as They Study Steinbeck.” The article deals with the recent program of intermediate schools in two different town of Westfield and Plainfield to let their student read John Steinbeck’s “Of Mice and Men.” “Students in Westfield, about 25 miles southwest of Manhattan, said the project had brought a different world right to their doorstep and taught more empathy. As part of the exchange, each student _made a “dream board” of goals and aspirations_ to be shared with the group on Tuesday.” I searched for meaning of “dream board” on Google, only to find the following description in WikiHow other than the title of internet game. “Setting goals is something we're all familiar with. In fact, it’s almost become a cliché that some people no longer pay attention to. Making a dream board can take the cliché out of setting your life goals, and can even help you to accomplish those goals.” It appears to me “make a dream board” means to “draw a blue print” in our old expression. Did it come from “Dreamboard Game”? Is it a novel expression, because the NY Times writer uses this phrase in parenthesis?


Is "To whom could we direct our questions to?" grammatical?

Which of these sentences are proper? :   1. If we have further questions with regards to x&y, to whom could we direct our questions?   2. If we have further questions with regards to x&y, to whom could we direct our questions to? Or is it true that both are grammatical and either one could do?


Difference between the sentences

I have come across these many times “Please excuse me. I have to leave now to put my children **_TO SLEEP._** ”   “Please excuse me. I have to leave now to put my children **_TO BED._** ” Is there a difference between any of the sentences? Similarly as follows: "Please **_SWITCH_** your mobile phone to silent mode.”   “Please **_PUT_** your mobile phone on silent mode.” In any case, is one sentence more grammatically correct than another?


Spelling of contracted years

Full years can be contracted to two digits like > He graduated the university in '92. What I'd like to ask is how would this sentence be spelled out:   * _"in 'ninety two"_?   * _"in ninety two"_?   * maybe, it's pronounced and spelled some other way?


Do you shoot a gun or fire a gun?

> He shot a gun.   >  He fired a gun. Do these sentences mean the same thing? I often hear the former, but it has always felt wrong to me (as if another gun were the target).


Oh no I didn't! Oh yes, you did?

As it is the season of pantomime, I have three questions: >   1. Can anyone think of a name for the traditional comic contretemps > between the show's villain and kids in the audience when the former shouts > something like 'Oh no I didn't (throw the cat in the loo!)' and the audience > screams 'Oh yes you did!'? > >   2. If a 'double entendre' is a joke with two meanings, what is a joke > which has a funny meaning which the kids can laugh at, and a deeper, usually > obscene, meaning which the mums and dads find hilarious? > >   3. What do we call the age at which you stop laughing at the simple > meaning and first understand that the Grand Dame is actually talking about > her testicles? > >


Punctuation of possessive quotations

I believe that these five sentences may be correctly punctuated. Do you agree? I'm using quotes around the movie title (as _The New Yorker_ does) instead of italics. Although it may be ugly, I’m banking on all punctuation as being correct. Please, no suggested recasts. I thank you for any feedback. >   1. He said, “I thought I heard Judy say, ‘ “Gone with the Wind” ’s cast > was unparalleled.’ ” >   2. Joe said, “ ‘Gone with the Wind’ ’s cast was unparalleled.” >   3. “Gone with the Wind” ’s cast was unparalleled. >   4. “ ‘Gone with the Wind’ ’s cast was unparalleled,” Joe said. >   5. Joe said “I thought I heard Judy say, ‘It was "Gone with the Wind” > ’s’.” >


using plural when referring to cent and cents

What is the correct grammar when saying cent or cents? Do you use plural when you are referring to more than 1. For example do you say I have Five Hundred Dollars and 36 cents in the bank or Five Hundred Dollars and 36 "cent".


Is "data" considered singular or plural?

> Related to this question and this question. My non-native English speaking friend just asked me: Data _is_ ...   or   Data _are_ ... I said _both_ but that's because I've been desensitized from reading/writing both (especially from writing code and adding quick comments). **My question** : Is it acceptable to utilize either for a **university paper**? Or is one _safer_ than the other (when confronted with stickler professors) ?


Data is/are in a global context

I have been commissioned to script a series of brief videos on the importance of data accuracy and consistency. The videos are directed to employees of a company with offices around the world--North and South America, Europe (but _not_ the United Kingdom), East and South Asia, Australia and Africa. The videos are to be in English, which is the _lingua franca_ of all company communications, and are to be couched in a "bright" colloquial style. I am drafting these employing the singular construction of _data_ , because this usage is dominant in US business circles, and the plural construction would sound either "odd" or inappropriately "formal" to most employees. My question is: Is the plural construction so dominant among English users in any of the business communities where my client is active that I should advise that two versions of the videos be produced, one employing data in the singular and the other in the plural? I may say that I have consulted these ELU questions: 1, 2, 3, 4, and none appears to address my concern; and the discussions I have found on Google dwell rather on what should be _taught_ globally than what is actually _used_.


Should I use support or supports with data?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is "data" considered singular or plural? Which one the following is right grammar "Limited data **support** the use of ..." or "Limited data **supports** the use of ..."


"Data" — singular or plural

Which of the following is correct? > The data was kept in soft form.   >  The data were kept in soft form.


Is "Do your data bear this out?" correct?

While reading SICP, if found the following expression: > Since the Fermat test has O(log n) growth, how would you expect the time to > test primes near 1,000,000 to compare with the time needed to test primes > near 1000? **Do your data bear this out?** Is it correct? Shoudn't it be "Does your data bear this out?"


about the word data

I though it was British vs. American but watching Star Trek I've noticed the same character using two different pronunciations. Then I noticed other characters doing the same. Is there any rule for using one or another? I've searched online and found two definitions, one singular and another plural, both uncountable. How can something uncountable be plural?


plural and the use of it

consider the following sentence: Once all data are collected, it is exported as ... I am not sure whether it is correct to use the word 'it' in this context?


Plurality of data

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is "data" considered singular or plural? Milton Friedman, the Nobel-prize winning economist used to threaten that he would "take away any graduate student's Ph.D. if they used the word data as a singular." Proper usage of the word data is in the plural:   * The data _are_ very hard to gather   * The findings follow directly from the data. _They_ unambiguous support our hypotheses I'm wondering though how you refer to data in the following sentence, "The analysis using the data should go quickly since I am familiar with **them (??)** " I'm not sure how to correctly refer to data in the above sentence. Most people (including myself), find it hard to use the first two examples correctly. This last example seems even trickier. Does anyone have advice on the right way to refer to data in the above sentence?


"Data shows" Vs "Data show"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is “data” considered singular or plural? I was reading a book in which the author has used the sentence as follows: > _**Data show_** that unemployment in America is in smaller states where > farming is the main occupation. But when I am searching in the internet it reveals that **Data shows** is used more frequently. Can anyone explain the correct usage?


I know not if I ~

I know not if I will ~ What does it mean? What is I know not if I ~?


One of the underlined words is wrong. Choose either A, B, C or D

"What (are:A) you talking (about:B)? (I'm:C) not (understand:D) you." At first, I thought C, so the sentence would be "What are you talking about? I don't understand you." And I chose C because I believe "understand" is a state verb doesn't accept "ing". But then some dudes said to me that D is definitely the correct choice, so the sentence would be "What are you talking about? I'm not understanding you." So what do you say and why?


"since ages" or "for ages"?

`since` is used to refer to a point of time in the past and `for` is used with time interval. However I've come across this phrase "I haven't seen you since ages". Is it correct usage of `since` since `ages` denotes an interval of time?


Travel/Travelers & Journey/Journeyers

When I change Travel to Travelers, what is that? Is that some sort of participle? Also, how is this accomplished with Exodus? As in 'Exodus-ers'. Does one use the Latin ablative?


What does “disposal advance” mean?

I’m having trouble understanding the meaning of _disposal advance_. What do the following sentences mean? > These are the amounts that we believe you are entitled to. You can derive no > rights. The amounts are at your disposal advance.


Should I refer to the following as a "handrail," "guard rail," or a "wooden handrail?"

I might be mistaken, but I feel odd calling the following "wooden handrails", since _handrails_ are supposed to be made of metal. ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/tN8mP.jpg) ![http://otherplacesotherlives.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/dsc_1790.jpg?w=425&h=640](http://i.stack.imgur.com/0X0cl.jpg) Is it OK to call it "handrail", "guard rail", or a "wooden handrail"? Or is there a better term for it?


Proverb or expression for a situation with two choices, both leading to a different kind of trouble

I'm searching for a proverb or expression that describes a situation which has two choices or two ways out (that is, somewhat of a forced choice) where both lead to some kind of trouble (but not the same trouble). As an example: Let's say that you can chose to go either left or right. If you go left, you will have to fight your way through an army of trolls. If you go right, you will have to go through a desert without any food or water for one week.


What is the exact meaning of the line, “No closure. That word should be stricken from the English language"?

I’m a little bit hesitant to post this question in view of the gravity and seriousness of the matter to those who are directly involved with the 9/11 tragedies. But as a newspaper reader, I would like to understand the exact meaning of the words delivered by the mother of a firefighter who died on duty in the 9/11 attacks, when she learned that Osama Bin Laden was killed by U.S Military forces on May 1st. She said: > I cried. I took a look up at the sky and said 'They got him!' Now the day > has come, and it's a mixed emotion. It's sad; it's triumphant. I feel > absolutely fantastic. I hope it brings some comfort to the families. _No > closure. That word should be stricken from the English language_.   > (New York Times May 3rd. Today’s Quote) Could you explain to me the line - “ _No closure. That word should be stricken from the English language_ ,” so that a non-native English speaker can understand it?


What's the difference between a picture and an image? I think this is the missing question as these have already been asked: Picture/Photo Image/Glyph Photo/Image


Word for rhetorical style where different arguments get progressively weaker

I'm looking for a word to describe the rhetorical style where one uses different arguments that are not additional, but rather get weaker and weaker. I'm not explaining it very well, so let me give an example. If _Alice_ argues that _X_ is true because of _Y_ , _Bob_ might say:   1. _X is not true_.   2. _Even if X were true, it's irrelevant_   3. _Even if X were true and relevant, it doesn't speak in favour of Y_. I'm quite sure I've seen a word to describe such a kind of reasoning, but it was a long time ago and I don't have a clue what it was (I'm not even 100% sure the word was in English). Is there a word to describe this?


Virtually is like almost or practically?

In the first definition of the word _virtually_ there is written: > almost [= practically]: > >   * Virtually all the children come to school by bus. >   * He was virtually unknown before running for office. > which makes me wonder whether _virtually_ means _almost_ or _practically_ , because the meaning of _almost_ is not the same as _practically_ , is it? Could you explain what they mean by this? If you will take a sentence "You'll be able to understand virtually every aspect of computing", it seems that the word _virtually_ has no effect if it means _practically_ because understanding is theory, not praxis, and I feel that they don't mean "understand almost every aspect" either. Does "understand virtually" mean "be able to apply the knowledge in praxis"?


Origins: "try and" over "try to" — how did we get there from here?

In written and standard semi-formal (and above) spoken English, one would use "try to": > Try to be a better person. > > Try to get the fishhook out of my thumb, please. > > Try to find a pharmacy when you need one. But in spoken English, we (Americans, at least) usually substitute "try and" for all those cases. "Try to" makes sense because the "to" begins the construction of an infinitive: "try to be", "try to do", "try to act" and so on. "Try and" on the other hand doesn't seem to make any sense. I'm curious how the "try and" crept in, and when. It's really tough to Google small words like these, so I'm not finding anything on the Web. Is it a contraction of something like "Try hard, and ..."? Note: I've seen this question and it is somewhat related but doesn't tell me what I want to know. **Edit** Observe how, even on this site, people tend to gravite toward the "try and" construction. **Turning it on its head** Note that you can't make a negative construction with "try and": > It's raining. Try not to get wet. > > It's raining. Try not _and_ get wet. [?] Even adding _do_ doesn't help. The following means something different from "try not to get wet." > It's raining. Don't try and get wet. Even use of _to_ instead of _and_ there means something else: > It's raining. Don't try to get wet. "Try not to get wet" means try to stay dry. "Don't try to get wet" means avoid actively seeking out a soaking, and implies that a soaking might in fact be what you are looking for.


Why do we "beat seven bells out of" someone?

To thrash someone within an inch of his life is sometimes referred to has _beating seven bells out of_ him. But why should _seven_ be the number chosen? This source here acknowledges the phrase exists but is silent as to the etymology, and here the phrase appears as _kick seven bells..._ and alternatively _ten bells_ , which I have never come across. I've heard it suggested that the term derives from _seven bells_ , the nautical expression for half-an-hour before the end of the watch (so one would beat someone within a small space of the end of his life). But how do we reconcile that with the alternative _beat seven shades (of shit) out of_?


How do Americans pronounce the word 'progression'?

In British English, we pronounce the word 'progress' as pro--gress. Whereas in American English it's pronounced as prog--ress. So how would Americans pronounce the word 'progression'? It sounds wrong to me to be pronounced as anything other than pro--gresh--on.


Why "USSR" but not "UCSR"?

USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The adjective "Soviet" is formed from the noun "Soviet" which in Russian means "Council". (That was roughly the idea behind the revolution and USSR formation that the workers and peasants should rule the state by means of "councils"). So why was some analogous word not created in English? Like "Councillous" or something. Is there some explanation or this "just happened"?


"More that" vs. "more than"

Here is an example of something I occasionally encounter, and it always trips me up. The title of an applied mathematics book from Stanford University in 1959 is (bold mine) > Partial Differential Equations with More **that** Two Independent Variables > in the Complex Domain I myself would certainly use _more than_ in all instances of constructions like the example above, but I also see _more that_ from time to time. Whence comes this alternate construction?


Appropriateness of "putting my child down to sleep"

I was telling a friend of mine that I was getting my child ready to go to sleep when I heard an audible gasp. I was told that "putting my child down to sleep" is a phrase used in connection when euthanizing pets. What is the proper was of saying that you are getting your child to sleep?


Is a "doozy" a good or bad thing?

I'm interested in the etymology of the word " **doozy** ". And primarily whether it is a _good_ or _bad_ thing? I always understood it to mean something exceptionally bad. e.g. > Watch out for that first step. It's a doozy. But I've just read it used in a positive sense here. > "[Kerber hits a] backhand winner from behind the baseline, that's a doozy."


Is it appropriate to use "Hey yourself"?

I've heard this phrase in a couple of movies, it was being used like this: > -Hey, John! > > -Well, hey yourself, Mike! Sounds pretty simple, but my question is about how appropriate is it to say that in a conversation. It sounds a little "offensive" to me, and in the movies it was being used with a negative meaning (e.g. greeting a person who you don't really like to see/talk with). So does it really have a "negative" meaning, or am I wrong?


Comma use in “I am passionate about X, whether it be …”

I have trouble telling when I’m overusing commas. My question is if the comma between _undertake_ and _whether_ is needed: > I am passionate about the quality of work I undertake, whether it be school > work, or cooking food in the kitchen.


How to make a statement and then iterate through a list thereafter

I would like to state a fact, and then, if possible, in the same sentence, iterate over a list of properties related to that fact. Here are a few examples: > The construction site had two entrances: one to the east, and one to the > west. > > or > > The construction site had two entrances, one to the east; and one to the > west. Is either of these the preferred method? Are there ways of saying this in a similar fashion that would be correct or 'more preferable'? EDIT: I've recently found this > http://theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon < which suggests the semicolon method is the right way to go. I'll leave the question here to invoke any comments.


superlative and "elative": What is "Elativ" in English?

I always forget that "elative" is no grammar term in English. In Latin grammars (at least in German ones) "Elativ" is a superlative form that is not translated as superlative but with "very/highly", expressing a high degree but not the absolutely highest degree. What is the English term for an expression such as: \- a most interesting novel


Meaning of "before" in this sign

In "US Sign and Safety" I came across the road sign shown in the image below. Can someone explain what part of speech the word "before" is? I'm asking because it seems that these two graphs are both valid, so "before" can be a sub- conjunction (temporal connotation) or a preposition (spatial connotation). ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/cxN06.png) ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/elsBF.gif)


What does 'to be maxed out' mean?

![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/ov20H.jpg) I want to understand what Chandler means when he says he's maxed out after thinking he's embarrassed by his bunny costume.


which one is the most correct answer?

i want to get a professional photographer to take my photo. which question is grammatically correct?   1. do you know where I can get a professional photographer take my photo?    2. do you know where I can have a professional photographer to take my photo? I saw the difference is only "get" and "have" part. and also "to" in sentence 2. please tell me the true answer.. thank you


Relative pronouns, "that" or "who", for type of person

A non-native speaker is asking ... Which should you use, 'which' or 'that,' in the following statement? Since this is mainly talking about the types of persons (within 'her'), you might use 'that,' but would you also use 'who'? > Sam was praising the industrious worker **_who/that_** she was when she was > in the office, not the lazy housewife **_who/that_** she was when she was at > home.


Is there a comma after and/or before though in a sentence?

Is there a comma after and/or before "though" in a sentence? For example, I am talking about a method that is very slow. At the end of the paragraph I say: > We will see in the following sections _though_ there is a workaround to > reduce the exponential explosion of the computational time.


Why do "prisoner" and "jailer" mean different things?

If _jail_ and _prison_ are (at least nearly) synonymous, why does _jailer_ refer to the captor, and _prisoner_ refer to the captive?


What is the difference between "heading to" and "heading for"?

What is the difference between _to_ and _for_ in the following statements? >   * I am headed to the airport. > >   * I am headed for the airport. > >


Should an adverb go before or after a verb?

For example: > The word **rarely** turns up outside of those contexts. > > The word turns up **rarely** outside of those contexts. Which one is correct and why?


Adverbs right after the subject

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Should an adverb go before or after a verb? Is it correct to write a sentence this way? > Now we can speak about the steps that I’ve **previously** listed. Or it would be better move the temporal adverb to the end? > Now we can speak about the steps that I’ve listed **previously**.


"Would of course be" vs. "of course would be"

I am not sure about the position of 'of course' inside a sentence. Please consider these two versions and comment on that: >   1. A comprehensive documentation would _of course_ be highly valuable... >   2. A comprehensive documentation _of course_ would be highly valuable... >


> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Position of the adverb "of course"   >  Should an adverb go before or after a verb? I was wondering what position of an adverb relative to more than one auxiliary verbs are generally? For example, "have basically been doing something" or "have been basically doing something"? Thanks!


Position of the adverb "of course"

> ...which is of course zero. > > ...which of course is zero. Which one is preferred?


The right usage of "basically"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  “have basically been doing something” or “have been basically doing > something” > I'm searching basically for conversation classes" or > I'm basically searching for conversation classes The second one sounds better to me, but is the first one actually wrong or are they both possible? If they are, why? Is "basically" considered as an adverb of manner? Is there some sort of rule on the position of this adverb?


Where should adverbs be placed to be most easily parsed by non-native English speakers?

In English there is some flexibility in the placement of adverbs: > **A:** Also I ate the lasagna.   >  **B:** I also ate the lasagna.   >  **C:** I ate also the lasagna.   >  **D:** I ate the lasagna also. There is a difference in nuance between these sentences, but I am not concerned with that here. My interest is in simple technical writing where it is most important that the reader be able to parse the sentence grammatically. That is, it should be clear that "also" is an adverb, and that "ate" is the verb being modified. This is trickier for sentences containing long phrases: > Add numerically greater items to the list first. Presumably the answer will depend on the native language of the reader. But I'd appreciate any specific or general advice, as I communicate daily with people who speak many different languages. **Edit** : As many people pointed out, my examples are not good. Here are some examples from real life, edited to respect confidentiality: > While the attenuator is running, occasionally the bias will saturate and the > output will sit at -4 V. vs > While the attenuator is running, the bias will occasionally saturate and the > output will sit at -4 V. The reader's native language is Spanish. > In the past couple weeks we experimented with applying this segmentation to > some of your images and found it made an accuracy improvement of 0.5-1.5%. vs > We experimented in the past couple weeks with applying this segmentation to > some of your images and found it made an accuracy improvement of 0.5-1.5%. The reader's native language is Japanese.


What is the appropriate verb and preposition to say "play the lottery"?

Do we play the lottery? Do we play in/on the lottery? Do we bet the lottery? What is the appropriate verb for the sentence and is it necessary to use a preposition?


What exactly does "distinguish as" mean?

I do understand how distinguish is used to differentiate between two things. However, I've also heard it once being used as: _Jim distinguished it as an old dairy._ So I'm having trouble understanding the usage _"distinguishing A as B"_. The question being, what are we distinguishing between in this case? I was searching this website, and found that distinguish could also possibly mean difference between something and everything else. However, I believe I need more convincing.


Why is the term "double-edged sword" used for something that can be favorable and unfavorable?

When something can have both favorable and unfavorable consequences, the term `double-edged sword` is often used to describe it. Why? Does a `double-edged sword` have unfavorable consequences? Are `double-edged swords` known to accidentally kill the person wielding the sword?


How do you describe a young woman who, while pretty when seen from behind, is ugly when seen from the front?

Is there a term, a phrase or an idiomatic expression to describe a young woman who, while pretty when seen from behind, is ugly, if not repulsive, when seen from the front? After some searches I focused my attention on "double-faced woman", but I'm unsure whether this is the best expression one can think of.


Neither am I / me neither in a specific context

A friend of mine and I were talking about a party that we've had today and he told me the following: > I won't have dinner at home, lol. And I replied: > Neither am I. Based on these topics, Using either, neither and too and Is the statement "Neither am I" right?, my answer was not wrong at all in myself comprehension. I want to know your opinion, is the above wrong? If so, why? And what's the _correctiest_ way to express equality in that situation?


Synonym: Medium or soothsayer

I don't know if many of you watched the new Matt Damon movie _Hereafter_. Near the end of the movie, the little boy who lost his twin brother meets Matt Damon in the Book reading room, and says something like: "Hey, I know you, you are a sight[?]". Indeed, I'm missing the word between the brackets, how did he refer to a medium? He said something like _sightkey_ , _sightkick_ , _sightsikh_ , but none of these are the correct words, I've tried looking it up on the Internet but I'm truly unable to come across this synonym. Can you help?


When are of and that superfluous?

In correspondence to donors of a nonprofit, I think use of the words of and that are superfluous. What is your opinion? He is the boy I saw yesterday vs He is the boy that I saw yesterday. This statement could replace all the notes we send vs. This statement could replace all of the notes we send.


What is the plural of "copy" when applied to the output of copywriters?

If a Copywriter produces several articles for printing, what are his works collectively known as? I feel the answer is not _copies_ as this would indicate it is several articles reproduced from an original. I wonder if it might be _copy_ , a bit like how _data_ is plural?


What is a word for the relationship between "waning" and "non-waning"?

In a recent question, an antonym for _waning_ was requested. _Waxing_ was naturally suggested, but the OP declined the word because he was actually looking for a word meaning _non-waning_ , and thought that "antonym" was the word to describe his request. The difference is: _waxing_ means _getting stronger/more intense_ and _non- waning_ , if it were a word, would mean _unchanging_ (not getting either stronger or weaker). What is the difference between the words actually called, if not antonymous?


When to use "GOP" versus "Republican Party"

I've read lots of professional articles that use the two terms interchangeably, sometimes within the same paragraph. Are the two terms really semantically identical? In formal writing, are there any situations where it would be recommended to use one or the other?


X, Y, Z — horizontal, vertical and ...?

When working in a 2D coordinate system you could say that X is the _horizontal_ axis and Y is the _vertical_ axis. Extending this to 3D, is there a similar word for the Z axis? (I'm aware of _Width_ , _Height_ and _Depth_ , but obviously _horizontal_ and _vertical_ aren't synonymous to _width_ and _height_ , which is why I don't want to call the Z axis the _depth_ axis.)


"X is famous" vs. "X was famous"

When saying a sentence like: > Nikola Tesla **__** famous because he was a genius. Should the blank be replaced by **is** or **was**? Or is it dependent on _when_ the person is/was famous? If so, what exactly are the rules? I searched on Google and English.SE but didn't find an answer, even after using quotes to counter the amount of stop words in the question...


History of "X is dead. Long live X"

What is the history of "X is dead. Long live X"? For example, > Location is dead. Long live Location. > > JavaScript is dead. Long live JavaScript. I feel like I'm missing out on a joke.


During the assembly of the Surveyor 3 probe, someone _sneezed_ a TV camera

Can someone sneeze a camera, or should they sneeze _AT_ the camera? This is an extract from an IELTS practice test. Because the dictionary says "sneeze at smt", I had to put another word from the text, i.e. "installed", which fits better grammatically. However, I then suddenly found in the answer keys that the correct answer is "sneezed". It is obvious by the context that the question is focusing on sneezing at a camera, but the grammatical structure confused me. Please could you comment?


What is the verb X if X relates to "prerequisite" as the verb "require" relates to "requirement"?

The context of this question is naming a function in programming. I'd like to find a good name for a function that takes a parameter of type **prerequisite**. For instance, if I have a function that takes a parameter of type **requirement** , then the name of it could be **require**. But what would be a good corresponding name when the parameter is a **prerequisite**?


Words to describe a semi-literate person

I once had a manager whose level of literacy was lacking to the extent that he would nearly always return my technical reports with sections rewritten such that they became either ungrammatical, or would convey an inaccurate notion to most readers (due to poor wording). One of my colleagues would often describe that manager as being _illiterate_ , or (if he happened to be feeling magnanimous), _semi-literate_. I was wondering, are there any better words or phrases to describe someone who is prone to such things as grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, tautologies and misinterpretation of (relatively) common words/terms? In other words I'm looking for descriptive terms, or even colloquialisms, that would apply to someone who is particularly poor at expressing themselves **in writing**. As an aside, I am also interested in what words could be used to describe the opposite quality... I.e., descriptors for someone who is particularly articulate and eloquent in their writing style, and good at finding the most concise, and effective way of conveying even the most complex ideas. (Perhaps something along the lines of _well-spoken_ , or _well-versed in the art of written communication_?)


There is this driver "who would go" or "who goes"

If you want to explain a situation where, for example, you want to talk about a bus driver who goes and take a coffee sometimes on the way, which one would be more appropriate: > There is this one driver, who goes and gets a coffee on the way and you have > to wait like for 10 minutes. > > There is this one driver, who would go and get a coffee on the way, and you > would have to wait like for 10 minutes.


The word "chemist" and its origins?

I know _chemist_ means someone who sells medicines or drugs. However, we use _physicist_ for someone who studies/researches physics, and so will anyone naturally understand. But it has always confused me why don't we use _chemist_ similarly, and selling medicines is not completely related to studying chemistry. So what is the word's origins and why did its meaning came to be so unnatural?


Why does "-Cy" become "-Sy"?

What rule of grammar, or etymological history, makes "prophe-cy" (noun) become "prophe-sy" (verb)? What causes the C to become an S when the word usage changes?


"More clear" vs "Clearer": when to use "more" instead of "-er"?

Which one of these adjectives is correct? I can see that both of them are being used, I'm just not sure which one is grammatically correct. Are there any general rules to follow as to the use of one against the use of the other?


"More" used in front of "happy"

Is it ever wrong to use the word "more" in front of an adjective? For example, is the following sentence grammatically incorrect: "I am more happy when I am reading poetry"?


When to use more or -er

Is there a rule as to when I use "more" in a sentence or "-er"? For example, "I think it would be more fun/funner if we stayed home tonight." I know the correct usage in this sentence but is there a general rule to follow?


What's the comparative for the word "modern"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "More clear" vs "Clearer", when to use "more" instead of "-er" What's the comparative for the word _modern_?


Rules for single-word comparatives and superlatives

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "More clear" vs "Clearer", when to use "more" instead of "-er" Are there any rules for which words are allowed to have `-er` and `-est` endings? Being a native speaker, I do it by ear, but what distinguishes **free/freer/freest** , **calm/calmer/calmest** , and **speedy/speedier/speediest** from **watchful/*watchfuller/*watchfullest** or **creative/*creativer/*creativest** ?


"Simpler" or "More Simple"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "More clear" vs "Clearer", when to use "more" instead of "-er" Which of these two terms is correct? If they are both correct, are they identical in usage and meaning, or is one of the words more appropriate for some usages than the other?


"None" as plural indefinite pronoun

In my grammar book ( _English Grammar_ , HarperCollins Publishers), I read that _none is occasionally treated as plural, but it is usually regarded as singular_. Can you give me an example of sentence where _none_ is used as plural pronoun?


"Are either of you free?"

In the process of writing to two people I typed: "Are either of you free?" and was immediately called out by my grammar checker which suggested I should write: " **Is** either of you free?" The second of these options feels intuitively wrong to me, as I am addressing two people so should be using the plural. However I feel this is tied up in the whole issue of whether a group should be referred to in the plural or singular sense, e.g. > Red Hot Chili Peppers is a band Uses "is" to indicate that the band is a singular entity, whereas > Red Hot Chili Peppers are a band Uses "are" to indicate that the band is made up of multiple people. So, which is correct? " **Is** either of you free?" or " **Are** either of you free?"


"None of us is" or "none of us are"?

In the phrase "none of us is promised tomorrow", should it be _is_ or _are_?


is it compulsory to use "his/her" and "he/she" to refer to a person or just "he" and "his" is enough?

Let see this sentence:               a person needs to change his / her mind so that he /she can become good.      or `a person needs to change his mind so that he can become good` is the second one incorrect? I've never seen anyone write like this `a person needs to change her mind so that she can become good`


Genderless pronoun?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there a correct gender-neutral, singular pronoun ("his" versus "her" > versus "their")? I remember reading that "their" is third person plural, not singular. If you are talking about a student, most people would say: "The student opened their locker". If "their" is plural, then you wouldn't be able to use it. If you can't use "their", what do you use?


Is the singular "they" acceptable in formal writing?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there a correct gender-neutral, singular pronoun ("his" versus "her" > versus "their")? I am linking to this post for reference. The acceptability of "they" as a singular pronoun is growing. Has it grown to the point where it is acceptable in formal publications, such as journal articles, business proposals, or political speeches? It seems to be that it is not quite there; most people are still too concerned about being negatively judged for it. However, the options of "one", "he or she", and "s/he" are similarly avoided for their cumbersome and pedantic tones. I often see either "he" or "she" used exclusively as an alternative, however, as there is no official stance on one pronoun or the other referring to either or, this opens the door for issues of implicit gender discrimination. I try my best to skirt the issue altogether when I write, often dramatically revising paragraph -- and even paper-- structure. This, of course, is ridiculous. What is the best option for communicating the very commonly needed genderless singular personal pronoun in formal situations?


Should I use "his/her" or "its"?

> **Possible Duplicates:**   >  Gender neutral pronoun   >  Is it correct to use "their" instead of "his or her"? I am writing a software documentation. I have this issue: I am talking about a generic user of the software.   Should I say “his preferences”, “his/her preferences” or “its preferences”?


Speaking about someone of unknown gender

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Gender neutral pronoun For example, user clicked the button. I don't know if the user is male or female, what gender should I use? Now I read a book, where the user is "she", but I've seen before books where the user was "they". So, what is right?


Correct pronoun: 'his' or 'their'?

I would like to know whether _his_ or _their_ is the correct pronoun to be used in the following sentence: > Neither she nor he has finished ....... work. In my opinion it should be _their_ but some say _his_ is to be used.


Unisex word for 3rd person?

What can you call a 3rd person who's gender is unknown? > He - Male > > She - Female I've never heard of an unisex word for 3rd person.


Why the two opinions on my following question

What would be the best answer for this sentence? "If anyone comes through the door tell them/him/her" Because I have researched a lot on this topic for addressing and some say to use they/their/them and others to use him or her. Also when I googled it and searched here on this forum the above two opinions were seen. So which is it?


How does one refer to people who use online handles?

I know this more in line with Etiquette (which is only a proposal), but it's been bugging me for a while, and I'd like some clarification. When referring to others on this site (and many others, including forums, chat rooms, etc.) sometimes, online handles of users may not reveal gender. For example, taking user @Robusto, if I were to never click on his profile page, how would I refer to .....yeah. If I'd like to reference @Robusto somehow (pretend I'm thanking @Robusto for @Robusto editing my question) "Thanks to @Robusto for editing my question, **he** really helped me out." or "Thanks to @Robusto for editing my question, **she** really helped me out." or "Thanks to @Robusto for editing my question, **they** really helped me out." or "Thanks to @Robusto for editing my question, **it** really helped me out." What do I do in this case?


grammatical-number when subject and verb are separated by prepositional phrase

Is the following verb selection correct: "None of the 200 hospital patients was discharged today."


How is everyone going with their/his/her assignment?

I wanted to email a group of students to check how they are going with their assignment and it occurred to me that " _how is everyone going with their assignment_ " does not seem grammatically correct. Matching a singular subject " _everyone_ " with a plural word " _their_ " seems a bit odd. However, "how is everyone going with his/her assignment" sounds more off. Thanks heaps! Any comment would be highly appreciated. Wen


"none of them sound right" or "none of them sounds right"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  None as plural indefinite pronoun because none of them sound/s like the obvious choice to me


When I see either friend "he" or "they"

From a recent question on the cooking site: "Every time I see either neighbor _they_ thank me again for the wonderful cookies." It seems that it _should_ be, "Every time I see either neighbor _he_ thanks me again for the wonderful cookies." But that just doesn't sound right. The question was labelled a duplicate because of a gender-neutral aside. The gender issue isn't the the core question. "Either" is a _singular_ noun, is it not? So only the second statement above is correct? It is only after _that_ is clear that the "he or she" issue makes the statement even more awkward if my neighbors are opposite genders.


Is "none" singular or plural? How can I decide?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  None as plural indefinite pronoun With words that indicate portions—some, all, none, percent, fraction, part, majority, remainder, and so forth How can we cdecide the Verb will be singular Or Plural>   * **None** of the garbage was/were picked up.    * **None** of the chairs was/were comfortable.   * She inspected all of the plates and **none** was/were chipped. Can Any one please give some more Example and help me out...... Examples: None of the pie was eaten. None of the children were hungry. In a sentence like “None were missing,” there is an implicit noun that answers the question, “None of what?” That noun is what determines whether none takes a plural or singular verb. Examples:   * None were missing. (None of the cookies were missing.)    * None was missing. (None of the pie was missing.)


how to refer a person with indefined sex?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there a correct gender-neutral, singular pronoun (“his” versus “her” > versus “their”)? the title is a little confuse because i don't know how to explain in one line... so: i have a portuguese phrase like this: Marque alguém como amigo(a). Ele(a) receberá uma notificação. which litteraly translated to english means: Mark someone as friend. He(or she) will get notified. In portuguese, the (a) means the female version of the word. How i can do it in english, like this? Mark someone as friend. He/she will get notified. Thanks!


Why is "was" used instead of "were" in this sentence

> A tree fell onto the school roof in a storm, but none of the students > **was** injured. Shouldn't the correct sentence should be > A tree fell onto the school roof in a storm, but none of the students > **were** injured. because students is plural?


History of usage of singular "they" (gender-neutral)

I have just read in Emma by Jane Austen a phrase which surprised me: > I can think of but one thing - Who is in love with her? Who makes you > _their_ confidant? > > (Jane Austen: Emma, Chapter VIII, Obreey PocketBook) Here the lattest _who_ is clearly in singular (followed by _makes_ ), the gender of the person under question is unknown, so I understand it as a _gender neutral their_ : > Who makes you _his/her_ confidant? Who has confided you the information > about her lover? I wouldn't expect such an old usage of _their_ functioning as a _singular gender neutral_ word. I've always considered this "grammar trick" as a much more modern invention. Is it really a usage of the gender neutral _their_? Is it so old that Jane Austen could have used it? Or was it just some recent editor who didn't consider the good old Austen "correct enough" and "fixed" it?


Incorporating indirect third person pronouns

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there a correct gender-neutral, singular pronoun ("his" versus "her" > versus "their")? I am sure this has been asked before, I just don't know how to put the problem in a few words. I am concerned about using third-person pronouns when refering to a person indirectly, through status, occupation, role, etc... Example sentence:               A free person can do whatever (he / she / he or she / they) think please(s) (him / her / him or her / them).       How should I avoid the controversial use of he and she? Currently I am converting these cases into plurar, so I would write:               Free people can do whatever they think please them.       But what if I must refer to precisely one person? Using "he" is discouraged, using "she" feels wrong for the same reason, using "he or she" is clumsy and sounds "over-correct". I have been encountering "she" in literature, but is there an alternative?


What's the right possessive pronoun for "nobody"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there a correct gender-neutral, singular pronoun ("his" versus "her" > versus "their")?   >  None as plural indefinite pronoun Should it be **_his_** or **_their_** here: A: Why did you put on that baseball cap? B: Because I want to take shower A: Nobody takes shower with **_his_** cap on.


Generic way for writing about person without knowing his/her gender

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there a correct gender-neutral, singular pronoun ("his" versus "her" > versus "their")? Is there generic way to write something like this               Karin Bellow replied to his own post.      But making this sentence generic, because writing `his` I suppose that I write to male person. How can I do that?


Is there a gender-neutral pronoun?

I've noticed a tendency in recent technical literature to use feminine pronouns, instead of the more traditional masculine. For example one might write `she [the user] enters her password`. It's not difficult to see how this may come to be in the age of political correctness, but I always found it quite amusing. To countervail, some computer scientists have started calling the motherboard "fatherboard", which is even funnier. Which brings me to my question: When I write technical documentation, I use the plural `them` or `their` with a singular user. For example, I might write something along the lines of `the user enters their password`, in an attempt to sound vague and non gender-identifying, while at the same time preserving the notion of the user as a person. While this sounds acceptable to my foreign ears, it occurs to me that I might be severely abusing the language.   * Is my usage of `their` in this context correct?   * Is there something else that I can use in its place?


Use of "a user" as the antedecent of "they"

Is it correct to say "The list of reports a user will see may depend on the permissions group(s) they are in."? I have asked the writer to change the text to say "users" to match "they", but he is resisting.


Noun pronoun agreement

Is it now considered appropriate to use plural pronouns to replace singular nouns in order to avoid gender issues?


The following sentence may be found in this recent BBC article: > None of the passengers was charged for the ride. Is the use of _was_ correct here? I would have expected _were_ in its place. Were it not for the fact that the BBC is considered an authority on the usage of English, I would have glossed over this as an editorial oversight. However I'm left wondering whether this usage correct in some way that I am not familiar with.


gender neutral pronoun - he/she or it

I'm a bit lost in gender neutrality. Please see the example below.               A: What, I got a child‽     B: Sooner or later *he or she* will show up.      From my own research, people put preferences this way: they > she > she or he > he. I think that _they_ , _she_ and _he_ should not be used as it is only one child and we do not know anything about the gender. So _she/he_ does seem to be the most suitable for this sentence. Or is it not? PS: Would you rather write "he/she" or "he or she"? (I find she before he less natural than vice versa, although people on the internet say...)


What is the accepted stance on using "they" in a singular form?

Is it good English to say "They have just left", when talking about a single person (perhaps someone you don't know the gender of)? (I am a native English speaker, I'm looking for the view held by lexicographers).


their or his/her

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is it correct to use "their" instead of "his or her"? Often I seen some write wrote "their" and some using "his/her". Which is correct? Everyone has their weaknesses. or Everyone has his or her weaknesses.


What do you say when you don't know someone's gender?

For example, I want to refer to someone on the internet, but I don't know this person's gender. Which personal-pronoun do I use? (as article I mean he, she, it, etc)


Everybody has to obey their own parents

I am new here and I don't really know how to post, so please forgive my mistakes. My question is this: Is a sentence like " _everybody has to obey **their** own parents_" nowadays completely acceptable under a grammatical point of view or it is still preferable, in written form, to use " _everybody has to obey **his/her** own parents_"? Thank you very much and sorry if this has been asked before.


Use of singular they for specific person

The following quotes are from the Wikipedia article. It seems to me that they all use "they" for generic person. For example, in the Chesterfield's example: "If a person is born of a . . . gloomy temper . . . they cannot help it.", "a person" appears to be singular but it represents any person. It is essentially plural. 'Tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech."— Shakespeare, Hamlet (1599); "If a person is born of a . . . gloomy temper . . . they cannot help it."— Chesterfield, Letter to his son (1759); "Now nobody does anything well that they cannot help doing"— Ruskin, The Crown of Wild Olive (1866); "Nobody in their senses would give sixpence on the strength of a promissory note of the kind."— Bagehot, The Liberal Magazine (1910); "I would have every body marry if they can do it properly."— Austen, Mansfield Park (1814); Caesar: "No, Cleopatra. No man goes to battle to be killed." Cleopatra: "But they do get killed" —Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1901); "A person can't help their birth."— W. M. Thackeray, Vanity Fair (1848); "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another . . ." —United States Declaration of Independence; **My question** Is the use of singular they in the following passage grammatically correct? Someone was approaching my room. I could see that they were alone judging from their footsteps. They knocked on my door. I didn't answer. They knocked again. I still didn't answer so they left.


more usage of their and they with any way

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there a correct gender-neutral, singular pronoun (“his” versus “her” > versus “their”)? I want to learn more usage of 'their' which is an possessive and in any way of 'they'. You can see a few examples below. Are all those words correct usage in those sentences? _to banish_ : If someone is banished, **they** are punished by being sent away from the country where they live. _to invade_ : if someone or something invades your privacy **they** disturb you when you want to be alone. When an actor completely immerses **themselves** into a role...


Subject-verb agreement with "each"

In a blog in Harvard Business Review, David Franke writes: > After all, _each person_ has _their_ own ego, personal goals, aspirations > and agendas; there is always going to be a need for compromise, negotiation, > and politicking. Does the subject agree with the verb here?


Which one to use as general Personal Pronoun: he, she or it

## The issue On my mother language, Portuguese, we have a lot of little differences to English on Pronouns. ## My question Which phrase is correct? Since I don't know if user is a man or a woman (or a bot), which pronoun I have to use after the comma punctuation?   1. Every time a user replies the e-mail, he receives error notifications.   2. Every time a user replies the e-mail, she receives error notifications.   3. Every time a user replies the e-mail, it receives error notifications.   4. Every time a user replies the e-mail, man receives error notifications.   5. Every time users reply the e-mail, they receive error notifications. ## The mess On Portuguese, "user" = "usuário", that is a male noun, so I think that 1st option is correct. But changing "user" by "person" = "pessoa", that is a female person, I think that the 2nd option is the correct. I don't know if "it" (3rd option) can be use to generalize to male, female and objects in English... On Portuguese, we can generalize it using another type of pronoun, "se", that can function like "man" on English (4th option), but I don't know if it is appropriate to use as a general pronoun or if it cause some confusion with a male person... Or I can use only the 5th option? "it" doesn't have a direct correspondent word on Portuguese as "Personal Pronoun":               English   Portuguese    Meaning     -------   ----------    -------     "he"    = "ele"      -> A male person     "she"   = "ela"      -> A female person     "it"    = "ele"      -> An object that has a male Portuguese noun     "it"    = "ela"      -> An object that has a female Portuguese noun      Well, we can use another type of pronoun, "Demonstrative Pronoun" (similar to "this" and "that"), to have the same meaning as "it":               English          Portuguese   Meaning     --------------   ----------   -------     "it" = "this"  = "isto"       A thing near first person (I)     "it" = "these" = "isto"       Some things near first person (I)          "it" = "that"  = "isso"       A thing near second person (you)     "it" = "those" = "isso"       Some things near second person (you)          "it" = "that"  = "aquilo"     A thing far from first and second persons     "it" = "those" = "aquilo"     Some things far from first and second persons


Gender neutral reflexive pronoun — equivalent to "himself" and "herself"

How would you refer to a gender neutral subject with a reflexive pronoun? > It is unbelievable how a perpetrator will cast **oneself** in the role of > victim. That does not seem right. Is there a better word other than "oneself"? I thought "oneself" would refer to the narrator. Here I try to refer to the subject. **Themselves:** It is possible to use a 'singular they' for pronouns, but to say "themselves" surely can not be correct as a gender neutral reflexive pronoun? According to this article, it would only seem to make sense when qualified by a singular they. **Themself:** "The form is not widely accepted in standard English" according to the Oxford dictionary. > It is unbelievable how they, as a perpetrator, will cast **themselves** in > the role of victim. I'd like to avoid making the sentence this complex.


'Their' singular or plural?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there a correct gender-neutral, singular pronoun ("his" versus "her" > versus "their")? 'Their' is a third person plural; however, I often see it used as a third person singular as well. Is this simply a stylistic preference? Or are there hard grammatical rules behind the answer?


Should "none" as a pronoun be used as singular or plural?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  None as plural indefinite pronoun I was programming when it suddenly struck me that I did not know if "none" should be singular or plural. Fore instance, should I write "none is yellow", or "none are yellow", if I know nothing more about what "none" refers to? In this related question, it came out that in many instances "none" as a plural indefinite pronoun is completely acceptable. However, that didn't really teach me when to use it as singular or plural.


Can a word "it" be used to refer to a person as well?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there a correct gender-neutral, singular pronoun ("his" versus "her" > versus "their")?   >  Is it appropriate to refer to a person of unknown sex by "it"? If so, could anyone give an example pls?


Gender-neutral possessive

I often use _their_ as a gender-neutral term. Example: > When a writer promotes their work ... But I am not sure whether this is acceptable English, or whether this is rather colloquial. I.e. can a formulation like this be used in formal language, e.g. papers or official documents?


How to take the gender of an anonymous person into consideration?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Gender neutral pronoun Very often, I find myself writing about _a user_ , an anonymous person whose gender I don't know. Right after mentioning this abstract user, I need to make a reference to the said person, and I often end up using _he/she_ , as a shorter version of _he or she_. Example: > Note that the user may get confused by the fact that green button turns red > when he/she presses the blue button. And then I need to make another reference in another sentence right after that, and I find it heavy to write _he/she_ again... So I write _he_. I am confused by this because in French, every single noun has a gender. We don't have any neuter. _Utilisateur_ , which means user in French, is masculine. Whereas _personne_ is feminine. So I don't have this problem in French. If I talk about _a user_ then I can say _he_. If I talk about _a person_ , I say _she_. But how to deal properly and elegantly with this situation in English? Is it acceptable to say _he_ , as when one says _man_ while talking about both men and women in general?


Using "they" for single person

I have encountered some people using pronoun "they" when referring to a single person, such in this example: > Even if the cyclist is 100% at fault (I don't think they are), leaving the > scene of an accident is a far more serious offense than failing to yield the > right of way. Is this happening in order to avoid specifying gender of the subject (if unknown), and is this use regular?


User: She, He, She or He, or They?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there a correct gender neutral, singular pronoun (his vs. her vs. > their)? I would like to know if when I'm writing about a "user" (in the broad sense), what do I use? Example: "from the user’s perspective, saving a file is very easy; ? only needs..." What is correct: she, he, she or he, or they.


Can "a person" be used as plural?

Is it acceptable to write: _A person can develop their talent._ or _a person can develop their uniqueness_? In this case the _person_ is used as a general term, not a specific person.


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

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


Addressing someone with no specified gender

How do you address someone whose gender is not specified, when you are writing something? Take this as an example: > The teacher said we should go; `____` said we are good pupils. Would you insert _he_ or _she_? I’ve often read _she_ in these cases, but is this a general rule?


Is there a correct gender-neutral, singular pronoun ("his" versus "her" versus "their")?

Is there a pronoun I can use as a gender-neutral pronoun? > Each student should save **his** questions until the end.   >  Each student should save **her** questions until the end.


About adjective possessive pronouns

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there a correct gender-neutral, singular pronoun (“his” versus “her” > versus “their”)? In the sentence ‘Everyone should make _everyone’s_ part’, what adjective possessive pronoun should replace the word _everyone’s_?


None have showed up? Huh?

Has the language really changed this much in twenty years? "None of your students have showed up" - a sentence supplied by this very website as a proper one - seems wrong on two counts to me. Twenty years ago (or in my high school and college) "none" took a singular verb, as did "no one" and "nobody" and "nothing." And the past perfect of "show" was "shown." Show, showed, shown. They will show up. They showed up yesterday. They had already shown up. In this example sentence ("None of your students have showed up...") I cringed two times. Shouldn't it read, "None of your students has shown up..."? Or am I really that old?


plural noun/singular verb and vice versa

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  None as plural indefinite pronoun In my work I am often exposed to sentences written by nonnative speakers of English. I often come across sentences with a singular noun and a plural verb as in: No error occurs when the file is loaded. I know this is not technically wrong, but I am used to the general case being written No errors occur when the file is loaded. I suppose one argument could be that if you used the plural noun version, it wouldn't cover the case where there is one error. But to me, using the plural noun emphasizes "not even one" and so is the better choice. Are these sentences completely interchangeable? Is one preferred by native speakers over the other?


How can this sentence be corrected to be more concise and grammatically correct?

Is the following sentence grammatically incorrect because the word "they" is plural when there is only one teacher? How can it be corrected? > Thomas may be afraid to speak to the teacher as he feels they hold prejudice > against him. Alternatives I concidered are > Thomas may be afraid to speak to the teacher as he feels he hold prejudice > against him. and > Thomas may be afraid to speak to the teacher as he feels the teacher hold > prejudice against him. but these seem even more awkward.


How one refers to a third person without specifying the sex or number?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there a correct gender-neutral, singular pronoun (“his” versus “her” > versus “their”)? Is there a generalized way to do this. Who is it used in modern media (internet, tv, movies, songs), in a colloqial context, (among family and friends), and in a formal environment (work office)


What is a proper gender-neutral form of himself or herself

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there a correct gender-neutral, singular pronoun ("his" versus "her" > versus "their")?   >  Gender neutral reflexive pronoun — equivalent to "himself" and "herself" I am thinking "themself" is a very old deprecated way of saying this. What would be more proper? An example would be: One does not simply build Rome themself. It just seems awkward with "themself."


Singular they: Is it proper?

In one of my answers here, I used the singular they: > When someone orders a rouge, **they** mean red wine which in French > translates to le vin rouge. My question is, is it right for me to use _they_? Or since I used _someone_ at the beginning, is it imperative for me to use _he_ or _she_? Any insights?


Using 'they' for person of unknown sex

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Gender neutral pronoun. In everyday use, I often use the pronoun "they" to refer to a unknown person if I do not know their sex. As in: > Bob: Who was it that emailed you about the company cutting back? > > Sally: I don't know. They didn't say. I remember using "they" this way in a paper for my college English 101 class, and my teacher marked off for it, saying that it is incorrect. So is it? It's definitely much easier to say than "he/she"... Perhaps it's considered correct (or at least accepted) in speech but not in written form?


Gender question

> **Possible Duplicates:**   >  Speaking about someone of unknown gender…   >  Gender neutral pronoun I'm writing a paper about markets and mention several times providers and their offers. The problem is when I use the singular, since I'm not sure if I should use a male or female pronouns. For example, is it a provider and **his** offer or a provider and **her** offer?


Using "their" vs. "his"

Why do we use _their_ instead of _his_ in this sentence? > another driver flashes their lights


Avoiding his/her in technical writing

I need to refer to a user of a certain service and would like to avoid a perticular gender such as his/her and not use one either. Could I say "The user attempts to maximize own capacity.", instead of "The user attempts to maximize his own capacity"? Thanks a lot.


Use of they as singular

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is it correct to use "their" instead of "his or her"? I, and many people I have heard, occasionally use 'they' and 'their' in the singular when gender is not known. For example, > Someone burgled our house yesterday. **They** must've cut **their** head on > the broken window, because there is blood there. I would like to know:   * Is this incorrect or not used in some places?   * If not, I have read, such as in style books, the awkwardness of not assuming certain people are a 'he' or 'she' and using 'his' and 'hers' with them respectively, thereby having to say 'the reader... he/she should...his/her'. Why don't they simply use 'they' and 'their'?   * Is this a recent development in English?   * Is this type of usage present in other languages (pronouns for both genders)?


Is it appropriate to refer to a person of unknown sex by "it"?

I would like to treat a user as a non-gender noun and refer to it with the gender-neutral pronoun, _it_. E.g., > **The user** defines two variables, x and y. **It** then multiplies each > variable by a prime number. However, on Wikipedia I found this: > The word "it", however, has an extremely impersonal connotation, even > offensive, in common usage and is rarely used in English to refer to an > unspecified human being or person of unknown gender. This is because the > word "it" connotes that the person being specified is inferior to a person > or is an object. Is to appropriate to refer to a person of unknown sex as _it_? Should I rephrase my sentence as follows: > **The user** defines two variables, x and y. **The user** then multiplies > each variable by a prime number.


Is the sentence “ask any doctor — they'll all tell you that alcohol is a poison” grammatically correct?

I am not a native speaker and I find the following sentence pretty confusing. > Ask any doctor — they'll all tell you that alcohol is a poison. Here the speaker is referring to any doctor. Why is _they_ used instead of _he/her_? Or to put it in other words shouldn't the correct form of the sentence be as follows? > Ask any doctor — he/she'll all tell you that alcohol is a poison.`


Anyone: ("they" or "he/she") why is it sometimes plural?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is it correct to use "their" instead of "his or her"? Plural versus singular: > Anyone can learn to dance if **they** want to. > > Anyone can learn to dance if **he or she** wants to. Resources online tell me that anyone is a singular indefinite pronoun. Then why is it sometimes acceptable to use the plural 'they' with 'anyone' in some cases? Does it substitute and replace 'he/she'? note: this previous posts also says anyone is [singular]: "Anyone has" or "anyone have" seen them?


"I need to" vs "I will need to"

Can we use "I can't come right now, I need to take a shower" if we are informing a friend? Or should it be "I can't come right now, I will need to take a shower"?


What is the meaning "would have" in this sentence?

None of the days in March are the days that I **would have** gone to office,but for being on annual leave.


Referring to a person, should I use the capital letter for "Fascist"?

As I understand, the word Fascism must be capitalised, while the adjective fascist should not. But what if "Fascist" is used as a noun? Eg: "The headmaster was enlisted in the National Fascist Party and therefore he was a Fascist" Thanks for the help.


What is the most common collocation to describe the seven trumpets blown in Revelation?

Revelation 8:1-2 (of the Bible) says the following (KJV): > And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about > the space of half an hour.   >  And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given > seven trumpets. I want a concise way to refer to these seven trumpets. Options I have considered include:   * the seven trumpets of Revelation   * the seven trumpet blasts of Revelation (or substitute "the Apocalypse" for "Revelation" in either case). **Is any of these phrases the most common collocation for describing the event mentioned in Revelation 8:1-2; if so, which one; and if not, what is?** If it matters, assume some variety of British English or General American English, as suits you. Note: for my use case, the collocation must include a reference to both an instrument being blown and an allusion to Christian eschatology. Other aspects (e.g. the number of instruments; the specific name of the instrument; etc.) are negotiable.


Are words like "otherwise" and "maybe" considered compound words?

I typically think of words like "bittersweet" or "sandstorm" when I think of compound words. But words like "otherwise" or "maybe" also have two other complete words inside of them; are they also considered compound words? The reason I ask is because most of the stereotypical examples directly relate to the meanings of each part. "Otherwise" doesn't really seem to relate to _both_ "other" and "wise".


Is this compound sentence grammatically correct?

So, I’ve stumbled upon this really long sentence, and now I’m wondering if it is grammatically correct. > So they figured since I’m a real person and I’m in the movie and I’m > actually me and they wanted to use me as me in the actual movie and I didn’t > even know yet that I was me in the movie although I did know I was me but I > didn’t know I was in the movie, they had better let me know that I was in > the movie as me and let me see if after I knew I was me playing me in the > movie that I would be okay with being me in the movie as myself now that I > knew there was actually a movie with me in it.¹ (I’ve counted 19 simple sentences.)


Is using "I don't know that" instead of "I don't know if" grammatically correct?

When asked whether he recognized equal rights of atheists, George H. W. Bush said1: > No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should > they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God. I would understand if he had used another verb: > No, I don't think/believe that atheists should be considered... I would also understand if he had chosen another conjunction: > No, I don't know if atheists should be considered... Is the original quoted sentence grammatically correct? Is it common to use **know** in the sense of **think**? Or is this some dialect-specific meaning? Could you please give some more examples of this usage of **know**? 1 Wikipedia source


Who is Jesus H. Christ?

When used as an expletive, the name _Jesus Christ_ often gets an _H_ inserted into the middle of it for some reason. I've heard lots of guesses about what the H stands for, the most popular one being _Henry_ , but no one seems to actually know, and I've never gotten any good explanation of where it came from or why it became popular to insert it.   * Is there any documentation of when _Jesus H. Christ_ as opposed to simply _Jesus Christ_ came into currency as an expletive?   * Is there any authoritative explanation of what, if anything, the H was originally supposed to stand for?


A different word for "Rhyming Dictionary"

Is there a different word, a synonym or neologism for "Rhyming Dictionary"? I mean something like Rhyming + thesaurus?


What is the difference between a "category" and a "type"

Is there a difference between the terms _category_ and _type_? I can't seem to figure out when I should use one over the other.


What would be the British English equivalent to "The Elements of Style"?

I've been referred to this book by a lot of people, but one of the basic "rules" that it mentions - making your language more "cut and dry", which seems to be more of a thing with American English, whereas more complex sentence structure is commonplace in British English. Essentially, I'm asking two questions:   * Is there a British English equivalent of _The Elements of Style_?   * Am I correct in thinking that the type of writing advocated in that book is generally considered to be _substandard_ or _uncommon_ in the UK?


What is the opposite of the perfect aspect?

Most tenses exist in a perfect and non-perfect form, e.g. present vs. present perfect and past continuous vs. past perfect continuous. What is the group of tenses that are not perfect called?


What's the right spelling of "synchronized"?

What's the right spelling of _synchronized_ (like in _synchronized swimming_ ), and are there any differences between the British and American English?


Using "about" to specify a quantity

When somebody says "this will take me about an hour" or "I ran about four miles", is there an unstated assumption that the actual quantity (time or distance, respectively) will be less than the one specified? I tend to say, for example, "I ran about four miles" if I actually ran a little less than four miles. But I say "I ran a bit more than four miles" if I actually ran a little more than four miles. Is this distinction unnecessary, and can I use "about" for both meanings?


Difference between "keep something on", "hang something on", and "leave something on"

I came across three _verb_ \+ _on_ phrases in today’s _New York Times_ article written by Maureen Dowd and titled _“Stripped off Dignity”_ ; it dealt with unpleasant airport pat-down practices. In the following paragraph, I find the phrases “Keep jacket on,” “Hang on to unfinished bottle,” and “Leave shoes on.” It appears to me all these “keep on,” “hang on” and “Leave on” simply mean “keep on.” It may seem a silly question to you, native English speakers, but I’m curious to know the exact difference in meaning between the above three phrases, and to also understand why does "leaving" shoes “on” means to keep wearing shoes? > John Pistole, the T.S.A. chief, said they are trying to move past a “one- > size-fits-all” program and implement a “risk-based, intelligence-driven > process” by the end of the year that would have more refined targeting. If > passengers are willing to share the same information they give to airline > frequent-flier programs, he said, maybe someday they will be able to _keep > their jacket on_ and their laptop in their briefcase and hang on to that > unfinished bottle of water.” “I’d like to get to the point,” he said > wistfully, “where most people could _leave their shoes on_.


Should "which percentage" or "what percentage" be used within a sentence?

I have the following paragraph: "The contents of a fish tank with 70 fish, of which 10 percent are goldfish, are added to another fish tank with 130 fish, of which 20 percent are goldfish. After the tanks are combined WHAT percentage of the first are goldfish?" The "what" in question is "WHAT". Should it be kept as "which" to match the previous "which"-'s? Also, where would one place commas for the sentence?


what's the difference between "cited in" and "cited after" eg (cited in Hofstadter 1969: 10) and (cited after Manin 1997: 3)


What could be the opposite of (online) live teaching?

I'm looking for an opposite of "live online teaching". Live online teaching would be for instance a lesson that is taught via Skype. On the opposite side, you could record a video of you teaching something and make it available for viewing and/or download. Only in this case the teaching is not "live". Note that I am still considering this method to be "online" in the sense that you access the contents online (as opposed to face-to-face, classroom teaching or learning from a book). I guess what I'm looking for is an opposite of "live", applied to this context.


Why is "sauté" spelled with an accent and "repartee" not?

Why are these words spelled differently? They have the same sound at the end, right?


What is the meaning of the vernacular "beasted"?

Is anyone familiar with the vernacular term "beasted", used as a verb? > e.g. I beasted my exam. My colleague's teenaged son used this exact phrase in a text-message. And she had no idea whether this was a good or bad thing.


meaning of "grapes in my mouth"

Lyrics from The National's _Ada_ : > Stand inside an empty tuxedo with **grapes in my mouth** waiting for Ada I've not come across the phrase before, nor can I find an attributed meaning. One of the song meanings forums suggests this means " _unable to talk since one's mouth is full"_ Is that correct, or is it a phrase the song writers have invented?


To use "test" as an adjectival noun, is the proper form "test" or "testing"?

When I write a document, I am confused when to use **test** or **testing** in my document. For example, which one makes a better statement below? _A test engineer_ vs _A testing engineer_ _software test tool_ vs _software testing tool_


Structure of "As I passed by there looked out from it the face I showed you this afternoon"

While reading Oscar Wilde's _The Sphinx without a secret_ , I came across the following passage: > 'One evening,' he said, 'I was walking down Bond Street about five o'clock. > There was a terrific crush of carriages, and the traffic was almost stopped. > Close to the pavement was standing a little yellow brougham, which, for some > reason or other, attracted my attention. **As I passed by there looked out > from it the face I showed you this afternoon. It fascinated me > immediately**. Although the broad meaning of the emphasized sentence is clear to me, I fail to understand its precise structure. The main point on which I stumble is the use of _there_ , prefixing the verb _to look_. First, to make sure that I understand it correctly: could this sentence be rewritten _**As I passed by, the face which I ~~had~~ showed you this afternoon looked out from it**_? Second, is the use of _there_ in this sentence similar to its use in such constructs as _there is_ , or _there was_? It seemed to me that this was specific to the verb _to be_ 1, but I was basing on nothing but personal experience. **Can you help with examples?**   1 I thought I might mention that I'm not a native English speaker, although this question alone makes it quite obvious. We have a construct in French similar to _there is_ , namely _il y a_ , but it's a _construction figée_ ; that is, a remnant of the past.


Regarding the usage of "being"

Does this sentence: > When no data is being transmitted, D remains high has the same meaning as > When there is no data transmission, D remains high


"Are transmitted" vs. "are being transmitted"

> After eight bits are [being] transmitted, D must go high for at least one > bit time, which is referred to as stop bit. Is "being" required there? Why or why not?


Can a present participle follow a subject?

Which is correct, and why? > some days we went on adventures — him maneuvering our scooter, me resting my > chin … or > some days we went on adventures — he maneuvering our scooter, I resting my > chin …


What are the differences between "seems not" and "doesn't seem"?

Are the following sentences correct? > He seems not to want to help us and > He seems want to help us. Is it correct if I use " _seem_ " in a negative sentence? Which role does " _seem_ " play? Is there any difference in meaning between:   * _It **seems not** working for me._   * _It **doesn't seem** work for me._   * _It **seems not** to be working._ Please tell me the differences between the three of them and in _which situation_ I can use them.


"Inquiry" vs. "investigation"

When I'm involved in a project with the goal of analyzing (following some previously stated criteria) a set of research papers, which word is more suitable: _inquiry_ or _investigation_? Or neither? If neither, please let me know what your suggestion is.


Rules for sentences containing lists of things

Is the following sentence grammatically correct? > "Symptoms of lactic acid build up in muscles include cramps, spasms, fatigue > and sensitivity." Does "sensitivity" need to be qualified, as in "sensitivity to touch"? Can someone point out the "rules" that come into play here?


Difference beween requests “can”, “could” and “may”?

We can use _can_ , _could_ , and _may_ for requests and permissions, but is there any difference between the meanings of the following three versions?   >   1. **May** I go? >   2. **Can** I go? >   3. **Could** I go? >


"Can I" vs "May I"

You may have heard the argument "it's not **can** I go to the bathroom, it's **may** I." If this is true, then any question such as _"can you get me a glass of water?"_ could have the same argument applied to it. It's understood what is meant, but what is the grammatically correct way to phrase the question?


Difference between "can" and "may"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Can/May/Will you help me with this? Which is correct if I want to request for a pen? >   * **Can** I have your pen please? >   * **May** I have your pen please? >


Is 'can' an appropriate substitute for 'may' to indicate possibility?

One definition of _can_ in Merriam-Webster Online is: > c —used to indicate possibility < do you think he _can_ still be alive> < > those things _can_ happen> ; sometimes used interchangeably with _may_ But in _The Elements of Style_ written by William Strunk, Jr., it says: > **Can**. Means _am (is, are) able_. Not to be used as a substitute for > _may_. This contradiction makes me confused. So in what situation can _can_ be used "interchangeably" with _may_ , and in what situation it cannot? EDIT: The two sentences in _The Elements of Style_ make me feel that the author permits only one use of _can_ (be able) in the first sentence and proscribes the other use ( _may_ ; to indicate possibility) in the second sentence. Did I misinterpret the author's meaning? Or the text is ambiguous?


"can I speak to Mr Tom" or "May I speak to Mr Tom" which one is correct

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Can/May/Will you help me with this?   >  Difference between “can” and “may” >   * Can I speak to Mr Tom? >   * May I speak to Mr Tom? > Which one is correct? My thinking is that _can_ expresses the ability to do something while _may_ expresses permission. Here I am asking for permission so I want to use _may_ , but some people use _can_ as well. So which one is correct?


"Can/may/will you help me with this?"

Which word to use when we ask for help? Some conditions:   1. We know that the person asked is able to do it.   2. We don't know if the person asked is able to do it.


May you pass me - Will you pass me

My Grandchildren say "May you pass the salt" etc. They say their teachers say this is ok. To me it sounds very clumsy and I had never heard it used except by them. They have grown in Wiltshire while we are south Hampshire. Is it regional?


Should I use "can" or 'may"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  “Can/may/will you help me with this?” Here is the sentence:               If you like you {can|may} translate this text to English.      What word should I use here and why.


What does “half try” mean?

From Steinbeck's _Cannery Row_ , > Doc was almost supernaturally successful with a series of lady visitors. He > didn’t **half try**. Does it mean that Doc did not do anything to win hearts of these ladies?


"Henceforth" vs. "hereinafter"

What is the most suitable way to express that a sentence/word will be "replaced by" another sentence/word, from that point (in a text, for instance)? >   * Henceforth called/named... >   * Hereinafter called/named... >


What is a word that means "starting from one"?

I'm looking for an adjective that means "to start from the number one." This is so I can describe a sequence that starts from the number one. I want to be able to say something like "Choose any [adj] sequence" where [adj] is the adjective in this question. I know there aren't always words that exist for every combination of words, but can anyone think of a word that might work for this?


Word for "a change of altitude"

I'm looking for a word that describes a generic change in altitude, something that could refer to both ascent or descent.


Why is it "sequacity" and not "sequenicity"?

I'm trying to form a sentence along the following lines: "the difference between **sequence** and synchronicity is important when it comes to understanding..." I'm unsure of the proper use of the word "sequence" in this sentence. I'm comparing it to "synchronicity" and immediately thought that the word "sequence", would become "sequenicity". But the dictionary tells me different, "sequacity". I'm not debating that it isn't the correct word, as the word "sequenicity" doesn't exist, it's just not what I expected.


"Angry with" vs. "angry at" vs. "angry on"

Which is the most appropriate/correct usage? >   * Are you angry on me? >   * Are you angry with me? >   * Are you angry at me? >