Is there a word meaning "an unwanted eponym"?

An eponym is one way to eternal (if posthumous) fame. But is there a word meaning an eponym someone would sooner not have? (One would presume that Captain Charles _Boycott_ , Mr Justice _Lynch_ , and Patrick _Hooligan_ would not appreciate their undying notoriety.)


"Password Reset Mail" or "Reset Password Mail"?

We are working on a web project that has a password reset feature. Now the problem is, between "Password Reset Mail" and "Reset Password Mail", which is better?


Are homonyms considered single words?

There are many homonyms in the English language, words that are spelled the same and pronounced the same but have different meanings. A few examples:   * A grizzly _bear_ can _bear_ great weight.   * I _stake_ out the house while perched on a _stake_.   * I took a _bow_ after shooting my _bow_.   * Take your _pick_ of any _pick_ or shovel.   * I came to _see_ the Bishop's _see_. Are these considered one word or two? Does it perhaps depend on their etymology? Maybe if both meanings can be traced to the same root they are one word and if they derive from different sources they are two? Alternatively, how are words defined? Is it in terms of spelling, of meaning, of origin or a combination of the three? The free dictionary defines _word_ as > A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or > printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a > single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes. That definition can be read as describing homonyms being both single (a word is a representation of sound in writing) and multiple (a word communicates a meaning) words.


Which of these phrases are equivalent, if any, and why

Some say the following two phrases are equivalent because of Raising (linguistics)! Example 1 > He doesn't believe that bigfoot exists   >  He believes that bigfoot doesn't exist Are those two phrases really equivalent? In case they are, are the phrases from the examples below also equivalent? If so, why? Example 2 > He doesn't love that bigfoot exists   >  He loves that bigfoot doesn't exist Example 3 > He doesn't hate that bigfoot exists   >  He hates that bigfoot doesn't exist Example 4 > He doesn't know that bigfoot exists   >  He knows that bigfoot doesn't exist To me none of the examples contains two equivalent phrases.   The example that seems more likely to have equivalent phrases, to me, is example 1, but, if the guy i'm talking about in example 1 doesn't know what bigfoot is, how can he hold a belief of any sort about the existence or nonexistence of bigfoot (phrase 2)? I mean, phrase 1 doesn't state that he believes something about bigfoot, so phrase 1, in this case, seems to be right. IMPORTANT SIDENOTE: I don't mean to state or imply that all possible sentences that can be written in the stated format will not be equivalent and I also don't mean to state or imply that the linguistic principle of raising is somehow incorrect.


is it correct to use "wide range of courses that has opened my eyes"?

Please tell me if the following sentence requires "have" or "has": > My degree in Cell Biology and Genetics has allowed me to take a wide range > of courses that **has/have** opened my eyes to new aspects of the field.


"The current crop of X (was/were)" - Which is correct?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is the usage of “are” correct when referring to a team/group/band?   >  Is “a wide range of features” singular or plural? From here: > The current crop of golfers were getting ready for the afterlife, one way or > the other. My question:   * Is this the correct verb agreement?   * I thought that `of golfers` was a prepositional phrase, and that `crop`, which is a singular noun, should dictate the verb agreement.


Present simple form for City/group of people

Let's say we have a group of people who starts an activity together. The name of group can be:   York speaks English! - as York is 3rd person singular. But at the same time:   York speak English! - as York could be understood as a group of people, thus 3rd person plural. The group is suppose to practice English together. What is a correct form?


"... the top ten issues that the voting public care about"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Are collective nouns always plural, or are certain ones singular?   >  Is “staff” plural? This feels wrong to me (sounds like it should be `cares`) but `issues` is plural and in the case of "the people that the public care about" there it feels much more natural (though still somewhat awkward). What is the actual rule?


Which one is correct in the context:"have" Or "has"

> 1) Our team of nationally recognized trainers has earned multiple titles…. In the first version _team_ is the object making _has_ correct. Or > 2) Our team of nationally recognized trainers have earned multiple titles…. In the second version _trainers_ is the object making _have_ correct.


"XYZ caterers is.." or "XYZ caterers are.."?

In the following statement, which one is grammatically correct? > XYZ caterers **is** on to something big OR > XYZ caterers **are** on to something big I thought that it should be 'are' as caterers is plural. But it has been suggested that I might be wrong. What do you think?


Would 'There are 300,000 dollars in my bank account' be correct usage?

Would using _there are_ instead of _there is_ be acceptable in utterances that talk about quantity? For example, >   * There are 300,000 dollars in my account. >   * There are 20 gallons of petrol in my tank. >


Is the following sentence grammatically correct? It doesn't sound right

> **Possible Duplicates:**   >  "A total of 10 babies is sleeping." v.s. "A total of 10 babies are > sleeping." v.s. "Ten babies in total are sleeping."   >  Is "a total of 10 payments" singular or plural? > A total of 315 questionnaires was received from your area, and in particular > the response to Question 10 was most positive. Was / Were ?


Conjugating verbs for nouns referring to groups of people

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is staff plural? Frequently when reading tech articles, I see sentences like "Microsoft have released ..." or "Apple have announced ...".   This seems wrong to me because the nouns are singular; Microsoft and Apple are individual companies, even though they refer to groups of people. I have not seen this usage outside of tech journalism, but it's pervasive enough that it makes me wonder: is this actually the correct usage? As a follow-up question, is it correct to use a plural pronoun for a singular antecedent like this? For example, "Apple **has** announced **they** are changing **their** name to Orange" or "Apple **has** announced **it** is changing **its** name to Orange". The second form seems technically correct but sounds awkward.


Is the usage of "are" correct when referring to a team/group/band?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is staff plural? It always sounds wrong to me when people refer to a a proper team/group/band/etc in plural form, e.g.: > Nirvana are the creators of grunge.   >  The Avalanche are on the road to the Stanley Cup this year. To me, this sounds correct: > Nirvana is the creator of grunge. If the name is plural, it sounds correct: > The Foo Fighters are on tour this year. What is the rule for this? I seem to be hearing this more and more these days.


Is wrong to say "two and two are not five"...?

Since the childhood days we have been memorizing the tables of numbers saying : **two ones are two (2 x 1 = 2)** **two twos are four (2 x 2 = 4)** **two threes are six (2 x 3 = 6)**.... However recently I came across a rule stating that if the mathematical operation of two or more fixed numbers(constants) yields a fixed numeral, then the singular form of verb should be used to denote the operation connecting the operands and the result. This makes the sentence look like : **Two twos is four**. Is it really so??


I checked the grammar of my research article using a leading software. This is my sentence:   * _A total of 12.3 million sequences_ **_was used_** _for the establishment of database._ The error is: _'Potential issues with passive voice usage'_ Anything wrong here? ( **NOTE:** Er, the OP's question is about **passive voice** , but the "duplicate" linked thread is about subject-verb number agreement. Perhaps there's a related issue here, on subject-verb number agreement (which is debatable), but the OP's main question on passive voice ought to be addressed. Anyway, a short answer post here would probably be more appropriate than a related link. -- F.E.)


"Is equal to" or "equals"

Are both _is equal to_ and _equals_ similar in meaning? Which is the more natural? For example, _one plus one equals two_ or _one plus one is equal to two_.


Which is correct "is" or "are"

Whilst watching the football last night I ended up starting a small debate and now I would like to know which sentence is correct, would it be: Chelsea are losing 2-0 or Chelsea is losing 2-0 Many Thanks


“Is on” or “are on”?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is staff plural? >   * The family _is_ on a tour >   * The family _are_ on a tour > Which one is correct and why?


"is" vs "are" when followed by a number

I read the following sentence on YouTube and initially thought it was grammatically incorrect: > Here are 10 minutes of the movie Black Hawk Down! I thought "are" should have been "is" but then I realized _minutes_ is plural so the plural form, _are_ , is used correctly. I also thought how most people would naturally say "Here is ten dollars in change" but is the use of the singular form, _is_ , correct since _dollars_ is plural? Am I misunderstanding a rule?


Grammatically correct?

Which is correct? The coaching staff at Smith Sports ARE the best? Or The coaching staff at Smith Sports IS the best?


Which is correct: The rest of the staff is or are? The rest of my family is or are?

I hope you can enlighten me. I get varying answers in Google and I need to find out which is the correct grammatical structure for these sentences. > The rest of the staff is/are on leave at the moment. > > The rest of my family is/are arriving late.


Should I use loves or love

This is a quote that I got from one of our customers: "I'm proud to be part of an elite group of individuals that genuinely **loves** going to work on a Monday morning!"


"All I need (is/are) cigarettes and alcohol": which one is correct?

In one of Oasis's songs — _Cigarettes and Alcohol_ — there are two sentences that make me confused: > All I found was cigarettes and alcohol ...and... > All I need is cigarettes and alcohol Why would _is_ and _was_ be correct in these sentences instead of _are_ and _were_ , since they're referring to more than one thing?


"A total of 10 babies is..." vs. "a total of 10 babies are..." vs. "Ten babies in total are..."

Which one is the correct one? >   1. A total of 10 babies is sleeping. (A) >   2. A total of 10 babies are sleeping. (B) >   3. Ten babies in total are sleeping. (C) > For me, both (A) and (C) are correct. But (B) is also used in speech.


Should I use "has" or "have" to describe what a company [has/have] done

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Are collective nouns always plural, or are certain ones singular? I am writing a company profile, and am struggling with the language style. Which of these is better? > [company name] has developed three technology platforms. or... > [company name] have developed three technology platforms. Are they both grammatically correct?


Are collective nouns always plural, or are certain ones singular?

I'd say _Microsoft have a way of bending the rules_ and _I know that McLaren have won the championship_. While this sounds strange, I believe it is correct English (sorry, I'm not native). But when it's a small company, would you still use it this way? Is a company always plural, or are small companies singular? I.e., would you say _Bakery Johnson makes fine bread_ or _Bakery Johnson make fine bread_? Is it _My book seller, Woody's, have moved_ or is it _has moved_?


"Led Zeppelin was" vs. "Led Zeppelin were"

> Led Zeppelin were an English rock band formed in London in 1968. (Source.) Is "were" really the right word here? It feels like it should be "was". After reading the answers and my own searching, it appears to be correct in this case Should I use American English or British English?


Organisation - singular or plural?

In formal (not colloquial) English, is an organisation such as a sports club singular, plural, or is it discretionary? E.g. is it preferable to write "The X club WAS formed" or "The X club WERE formed", or doesn't it matter?


My family *is* or My family *are*?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Are collective nouns always plural, or are certain ones singular?   >  Which is correct: The rest of the staff is or are? The rest of my family is > or are? I've done a bit of research and I understand that "family" should be preceded by singular or plural verb depending on how you want it to be treated. For example, > His family _is_ one of the oldest in the county. and > His family _are_ all doctors. These are apparently both correct. But in the following instance, could a grammar expert tell me which should be be? > When his family are abducted or > When his family is abducted ? Thanks.


Are units in English singular or plural?

I am a little bit confused about using units in English, sometimes I hear that people use singular units for plural things, sometimes they use plural ones. Which one is correct?   * 3 meter(s) long?   * during a 2 week(s) period?   * 0.5 dollar(s)


The first batch of special prizes "have vs. has"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is "group" singular or plural? Which is correct? > The first batch of special prizes **has** been distributed. > > The first batch of special prizes **have** been distributed. Google says "have" but I find it hard to believe.


Google "have" or "has" been acquired

Saying either:               Google have been acquired      and               Google has been acquired      both sound correct, however I'm wondering what differences "has" and "have" bring to the sentence? What it, in linguistic terms, is the difference between the two?


Can the name of a country be considered a plural noun, as a collective of e.g. its citizens?

> Brazil have Neymar. Argentina have Messi. Portugal have Ronaldo. Germany > have a team! I read this on Facebook, and someone said the singular "has" is supposed to be there instead of the plural "have" in all cases within the quoted phrase. I got myself thinking, though, whether the plural wouldn't be correct, making each country's name a collective of the people that are part of it, or perhaps a collective reference to the national team of each country in this specific case. I've seen uses such as > the police are conducting an investigation making the noun "police" a collective of all people within a police force, but I'm not sure these kinds of usage are a recurring mistake by native speakers or something of that nature.


Are monetary values plural?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Are units in English singular or plural? I want to say: > Those sixty dollars are gone > > That sixty dollars is gone The reason I ask is because I was originally typing: > Those $60 are gone But that looks funny to me. Which is more correct?


"The committee has" vs. "the committee have"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is a company always plural, or are small companies singular? I have two statements like this: >   * The committee has approved expenditure of hundred crores. >   * The committee have gone on holiday. > The uses of _has_ and _have_ in the above statements confuse me. Can anyone explain me why _has_ has been used in the first sentence, why I shouldn't use _have_ in the place of _has_ in first sentence, and vice versa in the second statement?


A pack of wolves run through the woods

Is the correct to say > A pack of wolves run through the woods or is the correct English > A pack of wolves runs through the woods The former sounds right. However, I think the subject is _a pack_ and _of wolves_ adds a description to the subject. In this case the subject is singular, so therefore the verb must be singular. Am I correct? It just doesn't feel right.


Collective nouns and subject-verb agreement: general rule or arbitrary?

A newspaper ran this headline recently: > (1) Police _crack_ down on IAC protesters. _[emph added]_ Why did it not read: > (2) ? Police _cracks_ down on IAC protesters. I have found instances of `police cracks` in newspapers: "Police cracks whip" and "Chesterfield police cracks down on drunk drivers". However, google's ngram viewer suggests that `police cracks` is significantly less frequent: ![Ngram frequency of police crack and others](http://i.stack.imgur.com/yfi3C.png) I think that the difference between `Police _crack_ down` and `Police _cracks_ down` is influenced by subject-verb agreement and that the difference in this example reflects the grammatical number of the verb's subject. Here, `cracks` is inflected for singular number, which implies that its subject is singular, and `crack` is inflected for plural number, which implies that its subject is plural. E.g.: > The army cracks down on IAC protesters. _[singular]_ > > The armies crack down on IAC protesters. _[plural]_ The confusing thing about (1) and (2) is that the subject, `police`, looks like it is singular; the plural form would be `polices`, but I have never heard this form (for the noun). It sounds like `police` fits the definition of a collective noun, which Wikipedia says is "the name of a number (or collection) of people or things taken together and spoken of as one whole. For example, in the phrase 'a pride of lions', pride is a collective noun." `Police` fits this because it refers to (i) some relevant police force or (ii) some relevant group of police officers, which are both collections of people taken as wholes. It does _not_ refer to a single police officer. **So one might conjecture that verbs whose subjects are collective nouns are inflected for plural number.** However, it sounds like `group` also fits the definition of a collective noun because it refers to a collection of individuals taken as a whole. And I think that both of the following sound acceptable. > (3) The group crack down on IAC protesters. > > (4) The group cracks down on IAC protesters. The above conjecture also doesn't explain why it is sometimes okay to use `police cracks`. **My preliminary questions:** Do (1), (2), (3) and (4) all sound acceptable to everyone else? Are `police` and `group` both collective nouns? **My main questions:** If (3) and (4) are both acceptable and `police` and `group` are both collective nouns, then why does (1) _but not (2)_ sound acceptable, or at least why is `police crack` better than `police cracks`? How do you determine the correct conjugation for a verb whose subject is a collective noun? Is there a general rule, or does it vary from case to case? **My secondary questions:** Does the behavior of (1) and (2) have to do with synesis? Is using `police` to refer to the police force more like a synecdoche or other kind of rhetorical trope? Does it matter if you add `the`: > (5) The police crack down on IAC protesters. > > (6) ? The police cracks down on IAC protesters. I ask these secondary questions because I find it interesting that `police` is, to me, a near synonym of `police force`, but `police force` (ngram verb comparison) behaves oppositely to `police` (ngram verb comparison) when it comes to subject-verb agreement: > (7) ? The police force crack down on IAC protesters. > > (8) The police force cracks down on IAC protesters. [Note: the question mark at the beginning of an example indicates questionable grammaticality.]


Equal, is equal to, equals, are equal to

Which is correct? Given 240 kph (240 kilometres per hour) = 149 mph (149 miles per hour) How does one say this? > -240 kph **equal** 149 mph.   >  -240 kph **equals** 149 mph.   >  -240 kph **is equal to** 149 mph.   >  -240 kph **are** 149 mph. Is 240 kph _singular_ or _plural_ (kilometre or kilometres)?   Or 240 kph is a seperate kind of thing?


Is "the USA" singular or plural?

On the one side, the USA is just one country. Logic says it should be, then, singular, just like the United Kingdom is. Example: > The USA owns this domain. On the other side, if I however expand "the USA" to "the United States of America", I'd tend towards using plural -- the noun the verb agrees with, "States," is definitely plural. Example: > The United States of America own this domain. → The USA own this domain. What form should I prefer?


"Her whole family IS/ARE biologists"?

I'm not sure whether to put _is_ (number agreeing with the singular _her whole family_ ) or _are_ (number agreeing with plural _biologists_ ) in this sentence: > Her whole family is/are biologists. * * * After some more searching, it seems to make it correct, the _whole_ would need to be removed. Based on this other question, I think "Her family _are_ biologists." is technically correct but " _All of_ her family _are_ biologists sounds better." Still not certain.


"Who is" or "Who are"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is a company always plural, or are small companies singular? When asking about the identity of a business/company, which of these is the most correct? "Who is [Company]?" or "Who are [Company]?"


Plural/singular form for a company in American English?

Somewhere on the internet a guy claims that in American English it's proper to use the singular form for conjugating the predicate of group terms such as _company_ , _band_ , _team_ etc. In British English, he claims, it's more common to use the plural form for there. My question is threefold.   1. Is it true that it's not the _intended_ meaning that governs numerus?   2. If so, how profoundly rooted is that difference in the dialects?   3. If it is, how does one formulate the following in American English? > \-- The diversity level amongst the people you've hired must be low?   >  \-- No, our staff **is/are** actually quite different individuals.


Conjugation of answer to "How much money is there?"

I'm using a website - www.ixl.com \- to teach my child how to count American coins, amongst other activities. The site also has many questions on English grammar. One thing that doesn't seem right - and perhaps I'm missing something here - is their conjugation of the response to "How much money is there?" Here is an example of what I'm referring to: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/VpL2q.png) I've never encountered the question where there's only a single penny (1¢) displayed. Thus there are always several cents. I would have thought that the answer should be conjugated with the plural conjugation. Is the correct answer to "How much money is there?" (in the case of the three 1¢ coins and the 5¢ coin shown in the image) "There are eight cents."? Or am I missing something? **EDITED:** There might be a previous question on this site whose answer would be applicable to this OP's question, but neither of those two threads cited to mark this OP's thread as a "duplicate" has an answer for the OP's question: the 1st "duplicate" thread discusses _"A total of X"_ and its number when it is a subject, the 2nd thread involves a possible subject-dependent inversion with a measurement phrase with a sentence beginning with "Here". This OP's specific question deals with numerous topics, and its sentence also involves a leading "There", which ends up making the issue even more involved. Please get the **_duplicate_** mark off this thread so I can give the OP an answer. -- F.E.


Is *Network operator* considered singular or plural?

> Network Operator pays Company X, and Company X pays Ringtone Provider   >  Network Operator pay Company X, and Company X pay Ringtone Provider Which one is correct?


I am still confused about have or has

This is the sentence: > "... Has established a committee who has/have been appointed as the > custodians of ..." Do I use _has_ or _have_? Do I use _custodian_ or _custodians_?


Family go vs family goes?

I am wondering which one is current? > -my family go...   >  \- my family goes... Which is correct?


usage of believe in 3rd person

I was watching a video about a car company. The narrator was talking about the company Tesla and said: > Tesla believe it can lead the revolution and change the face of motoring > forever. The statement was made when describing the principles of the company. No other person was present in the narrative. Shouldn't it be _believes_ as that is the 3rd person singular form of _believe_?


Should I use the singular or plural verb in mathematical formulae ("Two and two make/makes four")?

I remember somebody correcting me once when I said, "Two and two makes four", since the conjunction _and_ would imply the use of a plural verb. They would prefer I said: > Two and two make four. I've been thinking about it and wondering if one or the other is correct, or if both are. It would seem that using the plural verb is grammatical. However, I've heard the singular verb being used more often and feel that it is correct. Is there some exception about using the singular verb in logical statements and mathematical formulae?


Is "staff" plural?

Which one of these two statements is correct? > Our staff do ... > > Our staff does ... Is _staffs_ correct?


Why do they use "Apple are" instead of "Apple is"?

Examples taken from OMG Ubuntu: >   * Apple are expected to finally give a release date for OS X Mavericks, > the latest update to their desktop operating system at an event today. > >   * For Mavericks Apple are adding even more functionality. > > Why do they use _are_ instead of _is_?


Destroy or Destroys

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is a company always plural, or are small companies singular? I came across a mocked up newspaper article earlier and there was a discussion about whether the following is grammatically incorrect: > "Black Friday as Sweden destroys us" To me, this looks wrong. I'd always say: > "Black Friday as Sweden destroy us" To add context this comment would relate to the Swedish national football team defeating the English team. I presume therefore that Sweden is treated as a plural/collection, but I can't find a definitive answer anywhere.


Is Football/Soccer/news lingo special?

While reading up on todays match, there was this line: > Thomas Muller wants a penalty before Algeria counter and have a chance but > Germany survive. Breathless!1 I would have written this as either _before the Algerian counter_ or _before Algeria counters and has_. Is there some grammar rule or even basic knowledge I'm missing, or is this phrasing special to sports reports and possibly known to be off?


Which of these is correct?

Which of these film introductions demonstrate the correct use of English Grammar? I have used example (1), but have been taken to task for so doing. >   1. Eagle Films present > >   2. Eagle Films presents > >


Why doesn't the word 'confirm' have "3rd person -s" in this text?

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jul/11/liverpool-luis-suarez- barcelona-transfer-medical The issue is in the headline 'Liverpool confirm Luis Suárez’s £75m move to Barcelona pending medical'. Nevertheless It says "A Liverpool statement said: “Liverpool FC confirms that Luis Suárez will ..." in the third paragraph I don't catch the difference. Can someone explain it to me? Lot of thanks.


Pluralisation of sports teams in British and American English

Why do British and American English differ in this respect: British > Southampton **are** eyeing up a ready-made replacement for Luke Shaw American > Southampton **is** eyeing up a ready-made replacement for Luke Shaw American sports journalism differs in their reference to teams. The American style is to treat the team as singular, whereas the British use plurals. What are the rules in other variants of English (Aus, NZ etc.)?


Usage of "its" and "their"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is a company always plural, or are small companies singular?   >  Is "staff" plural? When a political candidate gets an endorsement from a newspaper, the sentence would be > The Los Angeles Times gave Candidate x **its** endorsement. Is it appropriate to use _their_ instead of _its_ if we rewrite the sentence to include _editorial board_? > The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times gave Candidate x **their** > endorsement.


"Equal" versus "Equals"

I've seen variants of this question, but nothing explicitly like the one below: > Three feet equals/equal a yard. Which is correct? Is there a definitive explanation? Please indicate BrE vs AmE if you have a view.


Is "a total of 10 payments" singular or plural?

> A total of 10 payments were made. OR > A total of 10 payments was made. Which is correct? Or can both be correct?


the rest of her family was or the rest of her family were

which is correct: a) she didn't mind a mild storm when the rest of her family were present b) she didn't mind a mild storm when the rest of her family was present


Subject–Predicate Errors

The following quotes all seem to contain agreement errors between their subjects and predicates: > A total of five youths were arrested in both incidents. Shouldn't it be "A total . . . was"? The sense is plural overall, but the subject is the singular "total." The object of the preposition is "five youths." Nonetheless, the verb should be the singular "was," agreed? > Early returns from rural areas indicated that support from the Communists > remain strong. Shouldn't it be ". . . support . . . remains strong"? > A group of neighborhood volunteers are identifying these houses and forcing > owners to fix them up or tear them down. Shouldn't it be "A group . . . is"? > The council's actions, concluding more than six hours of testimony on the > matter, effectively nullifies a city hearings officer's decision. Shouldn't it be "The council's actions . . . nullify"?


"India have won" vs. "India has won"

I would like to know when to use singular or plural verb agreement when talking about a country. E.g., >   1. India have won the match. >   2. India has won the match. > Which statement is grammatical? Please illustrate with some more examples.


Is the word "management" singular or plural?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is a company always plural, or are small companies singular? Which one of the following is correct? > Management gets its ideas from its employees.   >  Management gets their ideas from their employees.


Is a music band a singular or a collective entity, grammatically speaking?

> **Duplicate:**   >  Is the usage of "are" correct when referring to a team/group/band? What is correct to say? > Korn* is a great band OR > Korn* are a great band. (* You can replace your favourite band's name here) Of course everybody there is no doubt about the following sentences: > The Beatles **are** a great band > > Led Zeppelin **is** a great band But with certain kinds of names, the situation becomes difficult. > Metallica are a great band OR > Metallica is a great band Is there any consensus on this matter?


Jury was divided or Jury were divided?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Are collective nouns always plural, or are certain ones singular?   >  Is "staff" plural? What is correct? The jury was divided or The jury were divided? I am told that the latter is accurate because all of the jury do not have the same opinion in the particular case. Then, how does the subject verb agreement fit in 'The jury is still out' ? I mean, 'The jury is out' would allude to a situation were the opinion on a matter is (are?) still divided.


Staff and percent. Which one of these two statements is correct?

**Which one of these two statements is correct?** 60% of staff work or 60% of staff works


Is "group" singular or plural?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is a company always plural, or are small companies singular? When I'm referring to a group _of multiple things_ , should it be considered singular or plural for the purposes of applying a verb to it? For example, which is correct in the examples below? > A sentence is a group of words that is followed by a period.   >  A sentence is a group of words that are followed by a period. > > The group of people constitutes a jury.   >  The group of people constitute a jury. > > A group of crows is called a 'murder'.   >  A group of crows are called a 'murder'. My instinct is that it depends on whether the verb is referncing the group itself or the members of the group directly, but is that right?


Company names, use of "have" and "has"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Are collective nouns always plural, or are certain ones singular? Should company names be followed by "has" or "have"? It depends on whether a company is treated as a singular proper-noun: > Samsung has gotten itself in a lot of trouble recently. Or plural proper-noun: > Samsung have stated they don't imitate cooler products. Are both acceptable?


"Two and two makes four" vs. "two and two make four"

>   1. Two and two makes four. >   2. Two and two make four. > Which is grammatical? Please provide your reasoning.


"Caretaker" vs "Caregiver"

What is the difference between the two? I think that "caretaker" is more appropriate for someone who takes care of things or inanimate property; whereas "caregiver" would be someone who takes care of a person. I'm just amused at how the opposite roots of "give" and "take" are used to mean the same thing.


How to pronounce family names?

Does anyone know a tool to look up names like _Rumbaugh_? Sometimes I hear something like "rumba" or even "rambo". Is there a dictionary where I could look up the correct pronunciation?


Is "so" a pronoun?

Reminded by What is the grammatical function of so in this sentence, something that has always bothered me is that the word "so" can be used as a pronoun: > It looks like rain Responding with: > No, I don't think so. (Where "so" refers to the statement about rain "that it looks like rain".) Definition of 'so' \- see items 21, 22, where they say it is a pronoun: > **–pronoun** > >   * such as has been stated: _to be good and stay so_. > >   * something that is about or near the persons or things in question, as in > number or amount: _Of the original twelve, five or so remain_. > > Rather, I am not bothered that it might function as a pronoun (weird things happen). I am perfectly fine with it being a pronoun and using it...so. But it never seems to be mentioned in a list of pronouns (as much as memory can serve). It is not in the set of canonical pronouns. "Thus" seems to share this use. So...(clears throat), what is the provenance and history of this usage? Do other languages have a similar use of a word that introduces a deduction as also a pronoun for a sentence? (And are there any other such non-canonical pronouns?)


Proper punctuation for parentheses

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there any rule for the placement of space after and before parenthesis? Should you put a space in between the outside of parentheses and punctuation?


What is an "Open loop"?

In "Getting Things Done", David Allen refers to "Open Loops", meaning things that are incomplete. Q: What past reference to an "Open loop" is he alluding to? Is that phrase "Open Loop" something that's been used in other areas before and is being redefined by David Allen, or is this a brand new phrase?


Would you use the word "swum" these days? I mean, grammatically, it is the past participle of the verb "to swim", but it seems to me that no one uses it anymore. If it's the case, how would You describe the fact that You have already performed an act of swimming today? With "swum" it would be like this: "I've already swum today"


Push-up vs.Press-up

What's the difference between push-ups and press-ups? I browsed the Internet but it seems that both words are used interchangeably.


how do I use a hyphen when defining an acronym in the middle of the term?

Example: "Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) level unemployment" I need a hyphen between "Area" and "level". Later in the document the term appears as "MSA-level". Should it be: "Metropolitan Statistical Area- (MSA) level unemployment" [note the spaces/lack thereof] or "Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) -level unemployment" [note the spaces/lack thereof] or "Metropolitan Statistical Area-(MSA) level unemployment" [note the spaces/lack thereof] or "Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)-level unemployment" [note the spaces/lack thereof] or "Metropolitan Statistical Area-level (MSA) unemployment" or "Metropolitan Statistical Area level (MSA) unemployment" [no hyphen at all] or ??? Note: this is the first instance of the term/acronym being introduced within the document, so definition here is necessary. (Or is it?) Thoughts appreciated!


"of both which" or "of which both"

Consider the following sentence: `This takes a lot of time and money to keep going, ... I have little.` Which would fit best in that ellipsis? `of both which` or `of which both` or `both of which` In my mind (and to my ears), `of both which` sounds correct, but I'm not sure.


Possessive pronoun drops in fiction

Assuming the reader knows who is being referred to, what do you think is the effect on the reader when possessive pronouns are dropped in fiction. For example: > Brown hair is pulled back into a tight bun, giving cheeks a stretched look. Seems to me (note the subject pronoun drop), the result is that the reader focuses more on the narrator than the character being discussed. All reactions will be appreciated.


Install on, install in, install to

When I say "programs to install on a new PC" it sounds alright to me, but I'm not sure if it's the correct usage. Which one of the following should I use?   * Programs to install **on** a new PC   * Programs to install **in** a new PC   * Programs to install **to** a new PC


Can "with" be replaced by "to" after verbs?

Does this replacement change the meaning to something wrong? Examples: I came with her or I came to her I talk with you or I talk to you


"And" or "but" in this sentence from CNN?

> She may be one of Hollywood's highest-paid women but Charlize Theron is > using her star power to help prevent the spread of HIV in her homeland of > South Africa. That is a sentence from the CNN. And I am wondering whether the use of _but_ on that sentence is correct. As far as I understand, _but_ is used to connect two contradictory things which I cannot see in this sentence. I personally would have written that sentence as follows: > Charlize Theron is one of Hollywood's highest-paid women and she is using > her star power to help prevent the spread of HIV in her homeland of South > Africa. I use _and_ as having money and philanthrophy go together.


Difference between “coat” and “topcoat”, etc

What is the difference between a coat and a topcoat (overcoat, etc)? I want to use a word which mean a part of clothes which I may dress up when I go to a street in the autumn. But as far as I know "coat" might mean something like lab white coat (kind of "robe"). Should I use "topcoat" or some another word? EDIT: I mean something like **this**.


"Vanish into thin air" and "disappear without trace"

I can understand the construction like the following with _vanish_ and _disappear_. >   * The money **vanished from** my wallet. >   * Money seems to **vanish into** a black hole. >   * A strange light appeared and **vanished into** the darkness again. >   * The sun **disappeared** behind a cloud. >   * His sudden **disappearance** is very worrying. > In the following sentence, > All the chocolates **vanished away** in no time at all. what if the adverb _away_ used with the verb _vanished_ is dropped? It appears to be redundant. Both of the idiomatic phrases _vanish into thing air_ and _disappear without trace_ appear to mean "vanish all of a sudden in a way that seems impossible or in a way that cannot be explained or at least difficult to explain", such as >   * When the hunter looked again, the bear had already **vanished into thin > air**. >   * The plane **disappeared without trace** and no survivors were ever > found. > How much does it make a difference, if the first sentence is given "disappeared without trace" and the second one is given "vanished into thin air"? Moreover, the indefinite article _a_ is quite less frequently seen with _disappear without trace_ such as _disappear without_ a _trace_. Does the article _a_ have its own meaning in some contexts or it's just optional?


will be possible to be used

Is it (1) correct, (2) natural/wise to say the following in english: "[X] **will be possible to be used here as** [Y, ie. some function/role]"? Are there any alternatives, and if there are, are they a superior or (else) a roughly equialent thing to say? If it's not correct, could you point out what's wrong with it? What I want to express is that in the future "you will be able to use X as Y here". _Ie. you will be able to use the ladder (not yet built) as an aid to climb up to the roof._ Of course I could use this form, but I'm trying to express it with the former to see if it is possible/OK. In particular I'm trying to avoid putting "you" or "one" in the sentence, but only if it's OK to do so.


Is “Reading strong” a popular alternative to “Read a lot more”?

NPR (October 23) reported that 8 in 10 Americans under the age of 30 have read a book in the past year in comparison to about 7 in 10 adults in general, American adults under the caption “America's Facebook generation is _reading strong_.” I don’t think I’ve head “He / she reads strong,” or “He / she is a strong reader” very often. OALED shows “strong” as the adjective to mean “great in number” in its 14th definition from the top – 1. having a great power. Is “Read strong” a popular way of saying “Read a lot (or hard)”? Can I say “listen to strong,” “Write strong,” or “eat / drink strong,” by the same token?


What do you call the artwork you first see upon entering a place

* When you open the front doors of a building and enter, you would be greeted by this statue or painting.   * After you enter a campus by car, you would encounter this sculpture or fountain.   * An building's vestibule, or foyer would often have this prominent statue or painting.   * A cemetery would have a statue right behind its front gates.   * In the Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C., it would be the elephant. What would you call this artwork or decoration placement?


Should I say a date differently from the way it is written?

Example: October 24 ... is this said "October twenty-four" or "October twenty- fourth"? I assumed that the use of cardinal numbers applied to both speech and writing. This post seems to say that October 24 should be written with the cardinal number but spoken with the ordinal.


Usage of the definite article with the abbreviated name of an equipment in a user's manual

As part of my translation studies, I have to detect anomalies in a user's manual. This manual refers to an equipment whose full name is Compuwash Commander Controller - Model CC-64. Lack of coherence is considered an anomaly in technical writing. My problem is that the manual is not constant in the use of the definite article. It sometimes refers to "the controller CC-64", sometimes to "CC-64 Controller" only:   * The CONTROLLER CC-64 is the brains of the system and contains the following major components: [...]    * The ROC-16 Relay Centers communicate with CC-64 Controller via a 4 twisted pair shielded wire [...] Similarly, it sometimes refers to "the CC-64" and other times to "CC-64" with no article, such a in the examples below:   * The memory and clock/calendar that is resident in the CC-64 has battery backup [...]   * Position the DT-32 Dumb Terminal on a table top next to CC-64 or office [...]. Which of these sentences are faulty? Should I just find out which usage is more frequent in the manual and consider it the correct form? Thank you for your help.


what is one word meaning two people who are of the exact same age?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Word for two people who are the same age I notice this discussion was closed back in February but I need to re-open it because I heard the answer on the radio today. It was on NPR, the show "Says You!" Unfortunately, I didn't hear the first part of the discussion, when they spelled it. The pronunciation though sounded like, "yeeling." It made me think of the word "yearling," but with a definite long e in the middle. I went to the "Says You" website to try to get the spelling but their site is woefully behind: the latest episode is June 2012. I tried entering "yeeling" in Google Chrome's search engine but got no good hits. Did anyone else hear Says You today and know how to spell this word?


Word for thing whose parts are independently movable?

I'm thinking of a specific word here for something that is broken up into pieces which are connected by a kind of joint that allows each piece free motion -- like a Rubik's cube. I believe the word may have something like "sect" as part of it, but I could easily be wrong.


Usage of "granularities" (in plural form)

I wonder whether it is correct to use the word "granularity" in its plural form. For example: >   1. X and Y are commonly used **granularities** in Z research. > >   2. This study can be conducted at both coarse and fine **granularities**. > >   3. This study can be conducted at different **granularities**. > > Can I use "granularities" in the above sentences? Or can I simply use the singular form "granularity"?


Word or phrase to describe an activity that is "used to pass time"

Aside from _pastime_ , what is a word or phrase that can be used to describe an activity that is not pleasurable and used only as a diversion while letting time pass?


What is the pronunciation of the possessive words that already end in s?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When did it become correct to add an ‘s’ to a singular possessive already > ending in ‘s’?   >  Which singular names ending in “s” form possessives with only a bare > apostrophe? My name is Greg — this is Greg **'s** post. If my name ended with an 's', I am aware of the proper apostrophe usage (James → James'), but how should this be pronounced? Phonetically, am I Jameses best friend or James best friend?


What’s the pronunciation of “ s’ ”_(2)?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the pronunciation of the possessive words that already end in s?   >  What’s the pronunciation of “ s’ ”? > Mr **Torres** will be returning to the Amazon rainforest in January next > year to investigate further as this masterful spider is yet to be recognised > as a new species. > > Mr **Torres'** discovery will be registered, verified and his findings > published if this spider proves to be biologically different from the known > species of Cyclosa. [source][1]: Report (1.1 MB) ; (1) 1:00, (2) 1:10 This is the case against tchrist’s answer. Because the BBC’s presenter clearly differentiates the two pronunciations, Mr Torres and Mr Torres’. So I need to wait a new answer. Is the BBC’s pronunciation right or not?


Which singular names ending in “s” form possessives with only a bare apostrophe?

Many questions already ask about this topic (What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in s? , Adding apostrophe-s to a singular noun already ending in “s”, etc.) and their answers vary, but they always give exceptions to the apostrophe-s rule, for example: > 6.24 The general rule for the possessive of nouns covers most proper nouns, > including most names ending in sibilants." Examples they give include _Kansas’s_ , _Ross’s land_ , and _Jones’s reputation_. Exceptions include _Jesus’_ and _Moses’_. Which names does this apply to? Is the _Aeneas’_ form correct, or is it _Aeneas’s_ instead?


I'm looking for the possessive of 'boss'

What is the possessive of boss; ie, how do you describe the son of the boss?


Possessive case for a certain proper noun -ss apostrophe

In the case of the proper noun "Ross" which would be correct: 1) Ross's 2) Ross' Thank you


Bayes' Theorem or Bayes's Theorem? (Similarly, Charles' Law or Charles's Law?)

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When did it become correct to add an ‘s’ to a singular possessive already > ending in ‘s’?   >  Which singular names ending in “s” form possessives with only a bare > apostrophe? Which one is correct?   I thought the latter would be correct but apparently the former is always used; why? ### Edit: Another (confusing) example: Charles'(s?) law


Jenkins' vs Jenkins's vs Jenkins'es

While my question applies to `Jenkins` (software) which was named after `Jenkins` named meant to evoke a feel of English butler, there is a historical precent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jenkins'_Ear Wikipedia article has `Jenkins'` in the title and `Jenkins's` in reference to historical book. However modern grammar rules seem to imply that correct possessive form in modern English would be `Jenkins'es`. So what is correct? Or are several options acceptable?


How do we pronounce "others'"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in s? I know that we pronounce "someone else's" as "someone else sus."   I'm wondering how do we pronounce _others'_. Is it pronounced _others_ , "others sus," or "other sus"?


Marine Corps Possessive

I am editing my brother’s paper, and I realized I am unsure about the possessive form of _Marine Corps_ , such as > The best kept secret of the Marine Corps Is it > the Marine Corps’ best kept secret or > the Marine Corp’s best kept secret I am leaning towards the first because the _s_ is part of the word _corps_.


possessive form of nouns ending in "x"

Where a noun ends with the letter _x_ , is it proper for the possessive form of the word to end with _'s_ or simply _'_ ? Example 1: > "It is Xerox' position that it owns the patent." > > vs. > > "It is Xerox's position that it owns the patent." Example 2: > "The ox's tail was short." > > vs. > > "The ox' tail was short."


Apostrophe usage in the Iliad (Lombardo)

I'm taking a classics class, and we're currently reading Lombardo's translation of the Iliad. It strikes me incredibly odd how possessive and plural nouns are formed: > The met by the ancient oak tree. / Lord Apollo, Zeus' son, spoke first > (7.15-16) The professor of the class says, for the purposes of our paper, to always use an " 's " to clarify the possessive form of the noun, even if the noun ends in an s. > Achilles's love of battle... Just to make things perfectly clear, the way that I understand usage:   * Single: "Greek" or "Achilles"   * Plural: "Greeks" or "Achilles" (For more than one Achilles, we have to infer plurality)   * Single Possessive: "Greek's" or "Achilles's"   * Plural Possessive: "Greeks'" or "Achilles'" (Once again, for something belonging to more than one Achilles, we have to infer plurality in the sentence) And the pronunciation, as I understand it, is as follows:   * Single: "Greek" or "Achilles"   * Plural: "Greek-s" or "Achilles-s"   * Single Possessive: "Greek-s" or "Achilles-es"   * Plural Possessive: "Greeks" or "Achilles-es" Am I completely off base here, I'm so confused. Can someone shed some light on this?


Apostrophe after Proper Noun ending with s

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in s?   >  When did it become correct to add an 's' to a singular possessive already > ending in 's'? Today's Newyorker News Desk says Texas's insurgent establishment. Is _Texas's_ correct usage? Doesn't seem elegant in any case.


Strunk and White says "Charles's" is correct -- is this still the case?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in s?   >  When did it become correct to add an 's' to a singular possessive already > ending in 's'? I just bought _The Elements of Style_ , an awesome little book. However, in the first section, the authors promote the use of `'s`, no matter what the last letter of a word is, to show possessiveness. Some examples they use:               Charles's friend     Burns's poems      Are these grammatically correct?


Plurals, Possesives, and Proper Nouns ending with 'S'

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in s? I just took a grammar quiz in 10th grade English Honors, and one of the questions was very interesting to me. In this certain section of the quiz, we had to insert (we couldn't take something out) either a semicolon (;), a colon (:), an apostraphe ('), a hyphen (-), or a dash (--). The sentence in question went like this: > Jack Walls, Chris Walls, and Jackie Wallses children were very upset when > they got home. I decided to take out the 'e' and insert an apostraphe between the two S's like so > Jack Walls, Chris Walls, and Jackie Walls's children were very upset when > they got home. I knew that I was told to only insert punctuation, but I decided to take the risk anyway. After class I went to my teacher and showed her. She says she might need to make the question a freebie. Am I right, or is the correct version this? > Jack Walls, Chris Walls, and Jackie Wallses' children were very upset when > they got home.


How is possession indicated with an apostrophe for a name ending ss?

Hi assuming you have a name like Cross, Tess or Ross. What is the correct way of writing including the apostrophe assuming the owner is a singular entity? Eg. Ross's apples Ross'es apples


"Dawkins'" or "Dawkins's"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When did it become correct to add an 's' to a singular possessive already > ending in 's'? I learned from school to use _Dawkins'_ , for example > That is Mr. Dawkins' house. But I see many people write _Dawkins's_ instead. Is it something related to American English as opposed to British conventions?


When a name finishes in "s" can you say Jaume Casals's biography?

Is this sentence correct? Here you can find Jaume Casals's biography. I think the final " 's " is unnecessary, but I am not 100% sure. Could anyone help? Thanks.


Pronunciation of Jesus' feet

Can someone help me to clarify this. Is the word Jesus' feet pronounced as "Jesuses feet" or simply "Jesus feet"? I read up some articles and most of them said both versions are correct. However, when I was in London recently, I heard St. James' Park pronounced as "St. Jameses Park." I am not sure whether it was spelt as St. James' Park or St. James's Park. Should it then be Jesus's feet? Much appreciated! Petra


Party at the Johnsons's?

What is the proper use of the apostrophe in this phrase: > The party is at the Johnsons's Assuming, the regular form of the last name is "Johnson" and there are at least two people in the Johnson family. I assume it should be possessive because it is implied that it is referring to their house. What would the correct form be for a last name ending in an S in its singular form?


Mars's or Mars'?

I'm a pretty fluent English speaker, but this has been bothering me for a long time... It all started when I saw people, for example, saying Mars' atmosphere, according to my knowledge, the only time you have an apostrophe without an "s" is when said word is plural, so in this case it would be Mars's or not Mars'. Am I correct? (I'm using the word Mars merely as an example, this applies to other singular words that ends with an "s" as well.)


Adding “’s” when the name ends with “s”?

Example 1: > Peter’s bag Example 2: > Chris’s car Is example 2 correct? If not, what is the rule for names that end with “s”?


About possessive apostrophe usage!

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in s? Hello! New to English, but doing fairly fine so far... well, here's a situation I had a couple times, and... well, I kind of failed: When my word ends with 's', and I need to use it for a... umm... possessive statement, do I use the possessive apostrophe? If yes, do I have to put another 's' after the apostrophe? Like: > The beasts's claws! or > The beasts' claws!


Genitive form on words ending with "s"

I've found this discussion, where a guy claims that in **British** English it's correct to write _Chris's donkey_ when talking about a single person named Chris and his ass. Does it mean that **American** English treats that differently?! If so, since when?


Apostrophe with Singular Proper Noun made up on Plural Word

I'm normally pretty confident with my punctuation, but this one has been stumping me, and it's probably because I don't know the proper phrasing for what I'm trying to ask: How to we add a possessive apostrophe to a proper noun when that noun is a plural word? I.e., I'm working with a company named WeBuyAssets. Assets is clearly a plural, but "WeBuyAssets" is the proper name of a singular entity. Would the correct possessive here be: WeBuyAssets's CEO (my best guess) or WeBuyAssets' CEO (looks more likely to be used). Thanks for your help!


“Griwes’s” vs “Griwes’ ” for possessive of “Griwes”

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Which singular names ending in “s” form possessives with only a bare > apostrophe? Today on IRC, I used form > Griwes’ and I was instantaneously corrected that the proper form is > Griwes’s I looked over the Internet to find any concrete proof of this, and probably the most concrete one was > Well, according to my Modern Language Association Handbook, only one- > syllable proper names ending in "s" should have an apostrophe and another > "s" added -- "Keats's poems." Polysyllabic names ending in "s" should take > only an apostrophe for the possessive: "Cervantes' books, Hopkins' poems." > The MLA would thus prefer "Dickens' books." (at http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question61965.html) Therefore, which form is correct, and if both are correct, which is preferred? I lived my (nick’s) entire life being sure that the correct form is just _Griwes’_. For the sake of completeness of the question: the nick comes from the word _grievous_ and has the same pronunciation as _grievous_ — it’s just a phonetic spelling of the word in Polish.


When did it become correct to add an “s” to a singular possessive already ending in “‑s”?

According to my grammar book, but at variance to the answer to this question, the correct singular possessive if a word ends in _‑s_ is: > James’s car The grammar book allows exceptions for historical nouns, so the examples in the answer to the above-linked question would pass muster. However, I’m sure that I learnt at school (which, admittedly, was a while ago) that for a singular (proper) noun ending in _‑s_ , the apostrophe went after the _s_ and there was no additional _s_. I don’t wish to start a flame war on which is correct, though my question doesn't really make sense if my grammar book is wrong! What I’m curious about is _when_ the change occurred. : So my question is when did _James’s_ become the correct form and _James’_ the incorrect one?


How to handle the possessive case of the name Franks

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in s?   >  When did it become correct to add an 's' to a singular possessive already > ending in 's'? Hey guys I was wondering where to put the ' when using the possessive case of my surname, Franks. I've seen it done all the below ways, depending on what family member wrote it, but I was wondering which one was correct?   1. Franks'   2. Franks's   3. Frankses'


Correct form of possessive for surname "Woods"

The golfer Tiger Woods's clubs... -or- The golfer Tiger Woods' clubs... The last name Woods is not biblical, etc. It is singular when it refers to the person, Tiger Woods. It is plural when it is the word, "woods". I have, literally, seen it both ways, online and in newsprint, and ask which is correct. (I'll go out on a limb and say that the first example seems right to me, and yet it is the second example that I see more often in print and online) Thank you very much for any education you can provide me on this matter. Sincerely, Sven


When To Use "'s" At The Ending Of The Word?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in s? First, sorry about my English. I would love to know when I need to add _'s_ at the ending of the word. 1) When I meant _is_ , like... _He's famous._ ...to: _he is famous._ 2) When it's like possession (don't know is this right word for that) of that word? And... exactly when?? _John's book._ _Dream's city._ _Alien's ship._ (one alien) _Aliens's ship._ (two or more aliens)


Should words that finish with an "s" take "'s" or simply "s" to form a possessive?

For example, should I write : (1) Chris's dog OR (2) Chris' dog (1) the infants's toy OR (2) the infants' toy ? I read in Struck & White (4th edition from 1979) that you should use option (1) in most cases (except with ancient proper names like Jesus' or Moses'), but Word 2010 corrects that back to option (2). I also read several "duplicate" questions (What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in "‑s"? or Apostrophe after Proper Noun ending with s) but their answer were inconsistent and even added up to my confusion, with one contributor saying that plurals that finish with an "s" should go with option (2), and any other words (except Jesus etc.) with option (1).... Is it a case of old vs modern, or American versus British? Which form would be more correct in a professional setting? Do people actually care? Thank you :-)


Apostrophe for words ending with the letter S

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in s?   >  When did it become correct to add an 's' to a singular possessive already > ending in 's'? I always had this difficulty understanding how to depict possessive nature for words ending with s. For example: Is it correct to say, "James's heart is made of gold"? Or is there any other way to use apostrophes with words ending with S?


Dogs' or dogs's?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in s? Me and a friend are wondering whether the right form of the possessive for the plural of a word (say dog) would be dogs' or dogs's Example sentence: > Those dogs' water bowls are empty or > Those dogs's water bowls are empty Also, could you please clear up the use of the possessive on words both singular and plural which end with the letter 's'?


How do you write "a class's constructor"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in s? I want to write this sentence: > In a singleton pattern, a class's constructor needs to be private instead of > public. it is correct to write:   * a classes constructor   * a class' constructor   * a class's constructor   * a classes' constructor


How do I pronounce "s's" and "s'"?

> **Possible Duplicates:**   >  What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in s?   >  Pronouncing possessive words that already end in s How do I pronounce possessives that end with the awkward "s's" and "'s"? Examples: > I found the mistress's attitude ridiculous > > These are the eggs' shells. > > Which coat is Amos'?


Apostrophes and s’s

I always forget the rule about if something is possessive put 's at the end, for example "the sailor's hat". I know some people say to remember because it has a different meaning if it's plural (e.g. "the sailors hat" would mean there's multiple sailors owning the hat) but it also doesn't make sense if 's is expanded to it is (e.g. "the sailor is hat"). Does anyone have any advice on how to remember this? I had to look it up and found this article which claims that if something has an s at the end already it is preferable to add 's (see note on rule 2). I was taught not to. Is it better to add a second s? For example Chris's golf clubs vs Chris' golf clubs.


How do you make a word like "parent(s)" possessive?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in s? "Please submit your and your parent(s)' federal tax returns." Is the possessive of "parent(s)'" correctly formatted in that sentence? I know the apostrophe comes before the "s" for just parent singular, and it would come after the "s" for parents plural, but what if I don't know if it is one or two parents, and therefore want to use the (s)?


How to properly spell "belonging to a virus"?

In a SU topic about computer viruses I wanted to write a sentence starting with something like `The ability of a virus to...`. So I started writing `A viruse's ability to...` and realized that `viruse's` doesn't seem quite right. Nor does `viruss'` or anything else I can come up with. What is the proper way to write this word in this context?


What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in "‑s"?

What is the possessive of a noun ending in _‑s_? Are these both right, or is the second one wrong?   1. the boys' books   2. the boss' car


Apostrophe Usage with Arkansas

Currently, we are having an issue at work where we may not be able to tack on apostrophes to words programmatically, in order to make them possessive, because of certain edge cases; such as Arkansas' versus Arkansas's. From what I've read on the Purdue OWL, you should add an apostrophe to a singular form of a word to make it possessive, even if it ends in -s. However, I've also come across several debates. So, my question is: how do you correctly make Arkansas possessive?


What is the correct syntax for a plural possessive of a word already ending in s?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in s? Before you vote to close as a duplicate, note that these two questions deal with similar issues to this, but none of them address all three criteria of this question:   * The singular already ends with an _s_.   * I am dealing with multiple of the thing.   * I want the possessive of all of them in general. The singular is _class_ , and the plural is _classes_. The singular possessive is _class's_ (as addressed here). What is the plural possessive? Is it _classes's_ , or _classes'_?


Jones's or Jones'?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in s?   >  When did it become correct to add an 's' to a singular possessive already > ending in 's'? I've always heard that when talking about stuff belonging to either a Jones or many Jones, you'd write Jones' (pronounced Joneses). But recently I've stumbled upon a book which consistently uses Jones's when talking of a single Jones. What's the correct way of using possesives?


Usage of Process's and process' in technical writing

What is the difference between Process's and Process' . Please mention the usage as well.


Forbes' or Forbes's

Is it correct to say "Forbes' building was sold to NYU" or "Forbes's building was sold to NYU" ? Or perhaps both are correct?


Is English particularly well suited for so-called "natural language programming"?

Programming languages like **sEnglish** , **Inform7** , **WolframAlpha** , and even **AppleScript** purport to use the "natural language programming" (NLP) paradigm. Even **SQL** is a kind of NLP, if you think about it. Since I've only ever seen these in English, I wonder if the grammar and syntax of English make it a great candidate for programming expressions. I'm inclined to doubt it, because my beef with NLP is that English vocabularly is overloaded and is particularly ambiguous, whereas programming languages (even NLP) demand clarity and precision of expression. So you get sucked into thinking "Hey, natural language, this should be easy. I already speak English!" And you wind up unconsciously extending the syntax with other constructions that are understood in English by humans, but don't survive the compiler's syntax checking. Note that I'm not asking if English is "logical," because it isn't. And, as John McWhorter says, "No language makes perfect sense."


Two octopi? What's the proper plural?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Octopuses, octopi, or octo? What is the "proper" plural of "octopus"? A web search turns up three candidates, but is there a "right" answer?


Plural form of Octopus and Radius

I have recently found this video online from Merriam Webster saying the plural form of octopus is in fact octopuses. The video explains how octopus comes from the Greek language and thus it would be incorrect to say octopi since that is a latin plural form. The Greek plural of octopus would be octopodes, but octopus actually turns into an English word which makes the plural octopuses. With that being said, why do dictionaries have octopi listed as the plural form if that is incorrect? Is the plural so widely misused that they just threw in octopi in there? And then there is the Latin word radius. No one ever uses the word radiuses however it is listed in the dictionary. In fact, even my google chrome and firefox spell checker tells me radiuses is incorrect. Is this word never meant to be used? Despite radius also being an English word, people will always say radii for the plural version.


Once and for all: What's the plural form of "Octopus"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "Octopuses", "octopi", or "octo"? I've heard octopi, octopuses, octopodes, octopoids, and every time someone uses any of those, all people in the surrounding area immediately launch into an argument about which it is. So, which one is the actual plural form of octopus?


What do people normally call a glass walled lab or room?

I remember reading Dan Brown's the Lost Symbol and coming across a word that was used to call one of Katherine lab/research rooms. I can't remember what it is, and this really bugs me. Does anyone know this word? (Or at least understand what I'm talking about?) Thanks Edit 1: Maybe it doesn't even have to be glass walled. Just any kind of lab or just a room.


Hypernyms for restaurant dishes

Suppose I classify dishes in a restaurant menu. I would like to classify them by two categories:   * _Category 1_ :      1. entree      2. main course      3. dessert     4. etc.    * _Category 2_ :      1. meat      2. fish      3. vegetables      4. cheese     5. etc. What would you call _category 1_ and _category 2_ ?


Which is correct: "standing on line" or "standing in line"?

I'm curious to hear from folks in the the Northeast United States (or anyone, really) an explanation of why "standing on line" seems preferable to "standing in line" in the US northeast. I imagine for many people that their reasons for preference will be that "It just sounds better," just as my reasons for my preference is that "standing on line" sounds too awkward to my ears. That said, I can't even create a linguistic argument for why it might be more "correct."


use of "is" or "are"

Which is correct?   * 1.) _Attached_ **are** _our compensation plan, an independent contract agreement, and a W9._ or   * 2.) _Attached_ **is** _our compensation plan, an independent contract agreement, and a W9._ I thought because each of the items segregated by the comma was singular it should be "is".


How is "e.g." pluralized?

How is "e.g." pluralized? Usually I just see "e.g." used regardless of the number of examples given, but I don't know if that's correct or merely a product of widespread ignorance. More rarely, I've seen "ee.g." and "e.e.g." but I haven't been able to verify that either of those is right.


Meaning of "I know for a fact don’t anybody go by there"

> I know for a fact _don’t anybody go by there._ What is the meaning of the italicised part?


What does "email exchange" mean?

What does "email exchange" mean?


What does an exclamation mark inside parentheses "(!)" mean? I saw this in a book review I was reading and I didn't understand what the use of it was. Can someone help me?


Someone who forms their own opinion

Is there a single word for someone who forms their own opinion based entirely on their personal experience, without having been influenced by any outside source?


Is there a forum or discussion group to discuss programmatically editing English grammar and spelling in texts?

I am a programmer and my current project has me scanning and analyzing texts to see what elements can be corrected automatically. For example, change _i_ to _I_ , _ur_ to _your_ , etc. Basically getting rid mobile text speak. That's pretty straight forward. However, things get a bit more interesting when you have a sentence like, "i fOund you dog. Plz call." In my programming, most of that is simple to correct. But what about 'you dog?' Was it meant to be 'your dog?' Was it meant to be 'you, dog?' So you can see, this could get pretty deep, and I think it will be fun to analyze English grammar rules to see what can be accomplished through computer means. My google searches are coming up with nothing, so if any of you English buffs out there are also programmers who have discussed rules like this, please let me know where I can join in. Thanks!


How much not better than average is enough?

This is adapted from a silly conversation I had about a baseball player. It set me wondering how to describe this sort of wordplay linguistically. > HIM: Do we leave Jay in center?   >  HER: He's pretty good.   >  HIM: Better than average maybe.   >  HER: Not _much_ better than average ...   >  HIM: Better than not much better than average, I think ...   >  HER: But not so much better than average that he's _much_ better than > average ...   >  HIM: _Enough_ better than average.   >  HER: Exactly. Typography in writing, representing prosody in speech, make it easy enough to sort out what's going on here. But how do you explain it in terms of a linguistic which confines itself to what is _verbally_ expressed?   * How does “traditional” grammar analyze and describe these shifts in scope?   * Are these terms and concepts readily understood by, say, high-school students or moderately advanced EFL students?   * Does any “modern” grammar afford better terms and concepts?


Are there any simple rules for choosing the definite vs. indefinite (vs. none) article?

I can’t for the life of me figure out where to use _a_ and where to use _the_ — and where there is no article at all. Is there a simple rule of thumb to memorize? The standard rule you always hear: > “If a person knows which item you are talking about then use "the" . . . doesn’t clear things up for me, as I have no idea whether or not they know.


'... the weather' vs. '... weather'

There are two correct (I hope so) sentences with _weather_ taken from a book: >   * Was _the weather_ nice? >   * Did you have nice _weather_? > Can somebody explain why there's an article in the first sentence and there isn't an article in the second one?


Articles with "calls" and "stories"?

I'm responding a test. I write a correct answer: >   * I was telling _the_ stories this time yesterday. >   * He isn't answering _the calls_ at the moment. > Is the use of the definite article in these examples correct?


Rules for articles usage

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Are there any simple rules for article usage ("a" vs "the" vs none) Is there a good rule for articles usage? I just don't get it and everytime in doubts.


Which article must I use and why?

Would you please explain the difference between the following? > **The** average American city requires a prodigious amount of fish daily. And: > **An** average American city requires a prodigious amount of fish daily. Thanks in advance


"In a book store near my school" vs. "in the book store near my school"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Are there any simple rules for article usage (“a” vs “the” vs none) Which article should I use in the following situations?   1. There is only one book store near my school, and I buy books there. Suppose that I'm having a conversation with a person who doesn't know anything about that book store, my school, how many book stores are near it, or if there are any at all. Which of the following should I use? >     * I buy books in _a_ book store near my school. >     * I buy books in _the_ book store near my school.   2. The same situation, but there are several book stores near my school, and I buy books in only one of them.   3. The same situation, but I buy books in all of the book stores without any distinction. I hope that I made myself clear enough.


when do we omit the article in an OF-phrase?

When do we omit the definite article THE at the beginning of a phrase and for what reason? _Removal of skin_ or _the removal of skin_. Could someone give some examples?


"Everyone knows what a/the proton is"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Are there any simple rules for article usage ("a" vs "the" vs none) Which is correct?   1. Everyone knows what a proton is.    2. Everyone knows what the proton is.    3. Everyone knows what proton is.


'a thesis' or 'the thesis'?

I have some questions concerning sentences.   1. ... majoring in Biological Systems Engineering chosen by [full name] conclude with preparation of **a thesis** and the engineering exam. The title of the thesis prepared by ...   2. ... majoring in Biological Systems Engineering chosen by [full name] conclude with preparation of **the thesis** and the engineering exam. The title of the thesis prepared by ...   3. ... majoring in Biological Systems Engineering chosen by [full name] conclude with preparation of **thesis** and the engineering exam. The title of the thesis prepared by ... Which sentences is correct? Which sentence is better? Thank you for your help in advance.


usage of articles: definite article or zero article?

>   * the Chinese invented the paper >   * the Chinese invented paper > I can't decide which article we get before _paper_ -- zero article or _the_. Are we talking about paper in general (so zero article is used before it) or is the definite article _the_ used?


An Apple Is Green

Which one is correct? >   * An apple is green. >   * Apple is green. >   * The apple is green. > Please describe for me.


Definite article – usage of 'the' dependent on context

Which of the three articles (a/an/the) would the blanks in the following sentence take? **It is not unusual for ____ editor to tamper with _____ writer's manuscript.** I think it should be **'an'** and **'the'** in the first and second blank respectively, but my colleagues think otherwise. Please suggest.


Definite article with "signs of strange weapons"

A police officer is discussing a case, after returning from the crime scene: > 'Hardly that,' said he, 'when I saw **signs of strange weapons** I was > inclined to think so.' Referring to those signs of strange weapons so definitely, why doesn't the police officer say " _the_ signs of strange weapons"?


"The height of the building" or "Height of the building"?

I'd like to know when I should use 'the' and when I shouldn't. For example: " **The use** of 'the' is confusing" or " **Use** of 'the' is confusing" ? "There's a building over there, **the height** of the building is 50m" or "There's a building over there, **height** of the building is 50m" ? "What's **the rule** behind it?" or "What's **rule** behind it?"


"The messenger" vs "A messenger"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Are there any simple rules for article usage ("a" vs "the" vs none) Can someone explain the difference between 'the messenger' and 'a messenger'? Please don't just explain that one is a definite and another is an indefinite article. I have seen people using both where differentiating one from the other seems difficult to understand. For example: > I am just the messenger. > > I am just a messenger.


Problem in recognizing correct definite/indefinite articles out of context

I have read some grammar points about definite/indefinite articles, but I still have problems recognizing the right choice in questions requiring them. I know sometimes I can omit articles but I don't know exactly when.(Maybe this is the most confusing point for me!) For example: > It would be difficult to imagine---life without---telephone. Answer:(zero > article/the) Why not?(zero article/zero article) Why "the" is needed here? > > \---government is now insisting that --- math is taught with traditional > methods. Answer:(The/zero article) Why not?(zero article/zero article) Why > "the" is needed here? > > \---company needs to make sure that it is earning --- profit. Answer:(A/a) > Why not(zero article/a)? Isn't company a general thing? Or maybe any special > company?(using "the") We don't have any context here to understand what it > really means. Same things here: I don't mind---airport;it's---flying that I > hate.(the/the) or (the/zero article) During---spring semester,---chemistry > will not be offered.(the/zero article) or (zero article/zero article) > > \---Microscope was invented by him.(the/zero article) Can someone please > provide information or resources to get better answers?


Small Question Regarding Article the or a

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Are there any simple rules for article usage ("a" vs "the" vs none) I always don't understand which one to use, **a** or **the** or nothing. I got a question about programming and wanted to ask something like "What would be the best way to release a beta version of a plugin?" Here I'm always not certain that a noun after the **of** , in this case, **plugin** , should have which article, a or the or none. Which one is correct?   1. "What would be the best way to release a beta version of **a** plugin?"   2. "What would be the best way to release a beta version of **the** plugin?"   3. "What would be the best way to release a beta version of plugin?" I understand that **a** means one of many and **the** means a specific one. So I guess #1 is the correct sentence but I'm not sure. Also if the sentence gets more details like "What would be the best way to release a beta version of **(a/the/none)** plugin of WordPress?" Then it becomes specific to WordPress so should the noun, plugin, have an article, the? But there are so many WordPress plugins in public. So it could be a; I don't know. But what if the sentence is like "What would be the best way to release a beta version of **(a/the/none)** plugin of WordPress which I'm currently working on?" This one should be **the** I guess because it's very specific. This is really a hard part to get in English for me. Thanks for your explanation. [Update] I found another confusing case. > Me: If I use the WordPress caching functionality, does it slow down ( > _the/a/none_ ) page loading speed? > > Somebody: No, it won't affect _(the/a/none)_ speed. > > Me: Are you sure? How can you tell it won't affect _(the/a/none)_ server > responses? In this case, it's specific to the speed on a server which uses WordPress caching feature. However, it could be many; there are lots of Web servers which installed WordPress and using the caching system. So it could be one of those. So I don't know if _a_ could be applied here too.


the definite article in front of a noun that is followed by a defining clause

When we want to refer to a specific noun, we use the definite article 'the'. When the noun is followed by a defining clause, again we use the defining article 'the'. My question is why the following sentence does not have the article 'the'? The who-clause seems to require the article. _People who haven't got cars can't stop at these out-of-town stores_ Moreover, if I want to refer to, say, some cookies that can be find at a particular store, should I say: _Rolo Cookies are cookies (that are) sold at Tesco_. or _Rolo Cookies are the cookies (that are) sold at Tesco?_ Another example: _"Make that change" is a/the??? slogan written on the Oriflame eye shadow pallet_. Could someone explain why sentence #2 in the question is ungrammatical because there i is no explanation why the article is used: Use of article in front of product names


How to use articles? When to use "a", "an", "the"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Are there any simple rules for article usage ("a" vs "the" vs none)   >  When should I use “a” vs “an”? Can anyone explain to me when and where to use articles? I always get confused with the usage of _a_ , _an_ , _the_.


articles when not to use

Which of the following sentences are correct?   1. Although it lives in all oceans and most seas, it prefers temperate and polar regions.   2. Although it lives in all oceans and most seas, it prefers the temperate and polar regions.


Using "the/a/an" with "and" and "or"

Suppose I need to mention two nouns in a phrase so that they are joined with either "and" or "or". Do I use "the/a/an" with the both of the nouns or just with the first one?


Do you know the reason why we must use the article a instead of the in the following?

> A human ear responds to a wide range of frequencies. My teacher already has said me, when you are speaking about a part of your body that it belongs to it- it is not artificial et cetera- you must say the following: the eye the ear . . et cetera. But, I just have seen the above sentence. Would anybody kindly elaborate it? Many thanks


articles in English

Most of the time I understand how to use articles, but when it comes to certain sentences I start to lose confidence. Could anyone please consider the following uses? In each case I am trying to explain how I see it, any corrections or answers are welcome. (Maybe somebody has links to some pieces of texts, where each article is explained, if so then please post a link here) **A.** > ( **1** )The potential disruptions in ( **2** )the functioning of ( **3** ) > an integrated global monetary system could result in ( **4** )a renewed > global economic meltdown as well as ( **5** )a drop off in ( **6** > )international commodity trade.   1. Perhaps disruptions were mentioned earlier? But if they were not, does it mean that they are specific? (we know that they stem from "...the functioning of..." and that they "could result in...")   2. As I understand, we can use _the_ before a noun if it is followed by "of something"?   3. Isn't "integrated global monetary system" something unique? (thus requring using _the_ ).  **B.** > This global oversupply of commodities is ( **1** )a direct consequence of > the decline in purchasing power and rising levels of poverty [.] ( **2** > )Oversupply contributes in turn to the further depression of the earnings of > the direct producers through the closure of excess productive capacity.   1. Isn't "direct consequence" something specific? It is indicated what is the essence of this consequence (that is, "global oversupply") and we can see that the consequence occurred due to "the decline in" . This question correlates with **A**.( **2** ).   2. The absence of the definite article in ( **2** ) is not clear. Maybe it is a mistake. Maybe it is an uncountable, general noun. However, could (or should) we use _the_ as we have a connection with the previously mentioned "global oversupply". The second sentence sounds for me like "[this] oversupply contributes..."  **C.** > The legal basis for CEEPUS is ( **1** )an international Agreement signed by > the member states and open for accession.   1. Isn't a particular "international agreement(that was signed...and then serving as "the legal basis" for a particular thing )" implied here (thus, requiring _the_ )?  **D**. > [It] is a two-year Program that provides the( **1** ) students with the( > **2** ) essential insights, capabilities and intellectual tools to analyse > the legal problems of the information society   1. Why is _the_ used? I can assume that, for example, enrolled (thus, particular) students are implied there. However can we use zero article if we are talking, for example, about any and all students (that is, indefinite 'population' of students) who are interested in this program.    2. Why is _the_ used? I can assume that these insights were mentioned somewhere earlier (in other sections describing this particular program). Or _the_ is used because they are somewhat particular insights, that is "essential insights ... to analyse [smth]" however these 'insights' still sound to me like an abstract concept - infinite set of such essential insights. (And not a particular set of some cognitive processes) because there is not any strong description of them. Each student can obtain a different set of skills/methods and a different level of knowledge to analyse the problems. Thus there can be infinite set of such essential insights.


Use of article before Strength

I know strength is a noun. So in some sentences article is used and in some sentences, an article is not used before Strength. Example I was impressed by his strength. She's doing exercises to build up the strength in her legs. I would appreciate if anybody can she some light on it? Parry


A Few Notes on Generic Reference

In English, _generic reference_ takes three possible forms:               A. Cats are cute.          B. A cat is cute.          C. The cat is cute.      But the names of nationalities seem to me to make an exception to this rule. As far as I know, when referring to all the members of a nation, you can only use the _C_ version: _The Italians are musical_ , or _The French are posh_ , or _The British are cold_. Why is it that in this case only _C_ is considered grammatically correct? If all the Italians, or all the French, or all the British are musical, posh, or cold, why can't we also say:               A. *Italians are... // *French are... // *British are...          or           B. *An Italian is... // *A French is... /// *A British is...      ?


When to add "the", "a" or when not to add "the" or "a"?

What's the difference (or correct way of saying it) between the followings:   1. "Review plan" vs "Review a plan" vs "Review the plan"?   2. "Agree on plan" vs "Agree on a plan" vs "Agree on the plan"   3. "Implementation of the plans" vs "Implementation of plans? vs "Implementation of plan"? I suppose it boils down to when do you add "the" or "a" or not add it at all?


"Proxime" vs. "proximate"

When should _proxime_ and _proximate_ be used? Can they be used both to mean _spatial_ as well as _temporal_ nearness? Are they being used differently in British and American English?


How to refer to the original object from which a model is created

If I have, for example, a model ship, model railroad, model car, etc. what is the best word to refer to the original from what this model is created? I'm also looking for a context-free version, to use it in a heading and the table of contents, this is why I'm looking for an alternative for "model" or "prototype".


"Chance of [gerund]" vs. "chance at [gerund]"

Which is correct? >   * If you tell me the cause, I will have a better chance **at** fixing the > problem. >   * If you tell me the cause, I will have a better chance **of** fixing the > problem. > A quick Google search for the two phrases returns a nearly equal number of results. So, perhaps both are correct. However, there are some scenarios where it seems "chance of" is the only correct option. For example, > The chances **of** dying in an airplane crash are nearly 100%. Using " _chances **at** dying_" doesn't seem right in the above statement. Are there any general usage guidelines for this?


What do you call a second try at a test?

At uni you can do the final test of a course twice, what do you call the second test ? Is it a second term ? No that's the second semester isn't it ?


"To consolidate cost"

Is it correct to use the expression "consolidate cost" when you add cost figures in a specific period of time? The context is a description of what a piece of code is doing: > consolidate cost over several periods I've found the following definition of _consolidate_ : > to bring together (separate parts) into a single or unified whole; unite; > combine: _They consolidated their three companies_. But a Google search for "consolidate cost" only returns 12 600 results which is usually an indication of a wrong usage.


Am I using the saxon genitive where I shouldn't?

I have been edited in some SE post while using the saxon genitive in the next sentence, where I'm referring to the ToC of the corresponding MWE. _In this' MWE ToC A and B should link to the same point._ The edition was to change _this'_ with _this_. What is the problem there? "when talking about things that belong to other things"


How did “tongue-in-cheek” get its current meaning?

A statement is said to be _tongue-in-cheek_ if it is not to be taken seriously. How did this meaning come into vogue? Where did it originate from?


Correct version of "arrive"

The "Deutsche Bahn" - our German railway exmonopolist - is driving me nuts each time I ride the train, when the conductors tell us > In 5 minutes, we arrive Bremen consistently in all trains and from all speakers. In my young days, I learned it to be "arrive at" or "arrive in" or "reach" ... did I miss something, or is this a coprorate-language-school-quirk?


American 'cup' measurement — for cheese

One recipe states "one cup of cheese, shredded". Now, does this mean you need a "cup" of cheese (i.e. 8oz.) and then grate it (I am English), or do you grate it first and then measure your "cup" of the resultant grated cheese? The volume will be greater once the cheese is grated! I am anxious to get the right quantity; if it said "one cup of grated cheese" that would be clear. It seems to me that this system of using 'cup' measurement is all based on volume, rather than weight.


Can I say "subscribe by Facebook/Twitter"?

I have a website. I have 5 subscription options in my site. As of now my titles displayed like this:   1. subscribe by email   2. subscribe by rss   3. subscribe using facebook   4. subscribe using twitter   5. subscribe using googleplus My 3,4,5 title looks long. So can I use "by" word instead of "using"? I mean like "subscribe by facebook","subscribe by twitter","subscribe by googleplus".


Word like "misanthropic", but referring to Nature

I am trying to write a sentence where a person has very negative feelings towards Nature and the natural world. The feelings would be misanthropic, if directed towards people. Is there such a word? I'd like to use it in a sentence such as this one: > Bob deliberately put his recyclables into the garbage can, being in a > particularly [word similar misanthropy but directed at Nature/the natural > world] mood, after being pooped on by a pigeon on the way to the office.


Is there a word to describe the virtue of "to do something and ask for nothing in return"?

I am wondering if there is a positive, formal counterpart to the slang "No strings attached" to describe, for example, a parent's unquestioned devotion to their children, or the virtue of someone's "a friend in need is a friend in deed", help first, question later mentality.


Dictionary of English constructions

There is a family of grammars called construction grammar that started perhaps in the 80s with the work of Fillmore & Kay among others. Examples of constructions include:   1. the time + _away_ construction ( _they danced the night away_ )   2. the _way_ construction ( _he glad handed his way into the club_ )   3. the incredulity construction ( _Bush, a humanitarian!?_ ) I'm wondering if there is a dictionary or list of these constructions. I'm not looking for something exhaustive, but fairly extensive. Various online searches have turned up only a Japanese dictionary _The Taishukan Contemporary Dictionary of English Constructions_ , but judging from the Japanese title 〈最新〉英語構文事典, I would say it's unlikely to be what I'm after.


"It's important that he should know" vs. "... shall know"

Which sentence is right? >   * It's important that he should know this. >   * It's important that he shall know this. > Is the _shall/should_ auxiliary or modal verb?


"Centered on" or "centered around"

I have often heard presenters talking about _something centered around another thing_ , but it seems a bit illogical and hence improper to talk like this. Am I right about this?


Why "ain't I" and "aren't I" instead of "amn't I"?

Why do we say "ain't I" or "aren't I" instead of "amn't I"? What's the history of this usage? Are there any other similar patterns in English? I'm guessing it has something to do with the dispreference of two consecutive nasal consonants, but a more authoritative answer would be great.


Do these sentences have the same meaning?

Please tell me if the following sentences have the same meaning or if there is any difference between them. >   1. I can't do this task. >   2. I didn't finish this task. >


Why do signs read "wet floor", not "slippery floor"?

Every other time I see a "wet floor" sign the following idea comes to my mind. That sign forces me through unnecessary mental effort to deduce that wet floors can be slippery. I think it's like providing a set of differential equations that describe slippery floors and expecting that everyone recognizes them and deduces that there's danger of falling. The sign actually means "man, the floor is slippery, you can fall and break apart" and IMO it could just read "slippery floor" instead. Is there any reason why those signs use "wet floor" phrasing?


How can I form a word like "quadruple" for any number I want?

I'm not sure what these are called, but how can I form a word like "quadruple" for any number I want? Like 5× as much is quintuple, what is 31× as much or 147× as much? I want to know how they are formed so I can make my own. Similarly, how do I construct the prefixes, such as unicycle, bicycle, tricycle, quadricycle? I figured out 12 is duodeci-, but how can I form any prefix like this?


Is there another word for five times, such as triple, quadruple?

I forget what the word for 5 times is. I know it is single, double, triple, quadruple but forgot what the one for 5 is.


What does "Backing forward or backing back" in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s comment mean?

I found the phrase _backing forward or backing back_ in Secretary State Hillary Clinton’s remark on the Sunday Show, which was quoted in today’s Washington Post as follows. > Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton continued making the rounds on the > Sunday shows to discuss the fast-evolving situation in Egypt. "This is a > complex, very difficult situation," said Clinton, "We do not want to send > any message about backing forward or backing back." What does _backing forward or backing back_ mean? Does it mean _keep positive support to Mubarak regime_ or _Withdraw support to Mubarak regime_ , or simply mean _move back and fro_ , or _move back further_ on U.S. policy toward Egypt?


Some confusion in conversation, need clarification

I applied for a job today (online). The conversation I had with HR is below. Me: > Since I'm from India so could you please let me know whether you'll be > providing H1B-Visa or not? HR: > This position does not merit an H-1B. The job requires training in the US > for about 2.5 months and then deployment to Antarctica. When we have an > international hire we get a short term J-1 visa for the training period > only. There is no visa requirement for Antarctica. I'm not getting him completely. Does the above means I am allowed to get training in US or I must have a VISA which they are not ready to provide?


"Butt in line" vs "cut in line" vs "bud in line"?

What's the proper term to use if you want to talk about trying to move up in the lineup or switch up?