title: Refer to something belonging to someone else and I

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  My wife and I's seafood collaboration dinner How do I refer to something that belongs to both myself and someone else? Example:   \- My friend's and I's party.   \- Mine and my friend's party.   \- My friend's and my party. I can't figure it out :/


title: Plural of "daughter in law"

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Words that are pluralized in the middle? I was asked to write the plural of _daughter in law_ in an aptitude exam. I wrote it as _daughters in law_. Please tell me the right answer.


title: Plural possessive with compound subject

text: Is it "John and Becky's knowledge" or "John's and Becky's knowledge"?


title: Possession in Compound Nouns

text: In a compound noun with a postpositive adjective, such as "Director-General" or "Court Martial," the noun is pluralized by using the plural form of the first word (i.e. "Directors-General" or "Courts Martial"). # Question: How are possessive forms of both the singular and plural compound nouns formed? ## Answer formats: Please include the "Director-General" and "Court Martial" example in your response.


title: "My wife and I's seafood collaboration dinner"

text: I just stumbled upon a Reddit post titled: > My wife and I's seafood collaboration dinner. How does it look? Sure enough, the top comment immediately points out that it should be "my wife's and my". However, a cross-post to the Grammar subreddit produced the following comment: > It's fine as it is written. "my wife and I" is a noun phrase, functioning as > a subjective pronoun in the singular and made possessive with the > apostrophe. It is exactly the same as "our". > > It seems weird because you would never use "I's" on its own but it is not on > its own here - it is part of a noun phrase. That's a rather intriguing argument. Does it hold any water?


title: Is “Paul’s and my ideas” *really* the correct possessive?

text: Do you always have to put other people before yourself? When you are telling a story about yourself and another person, it is correct to reference the other person first. For example, > Tim and I went shopping. Given that rule, then is this also the case in the following type of sentence, where you’re forming a possessive of two people, one of whom is you yourself: > Please see attached Paul's and my ideas on this subject. This doesn't look at all right to me, but aside from rearranging the whole sentence I can't see how to make it right. Can I write: > Please see attached myself/my/mine and Paul's ideas on this subject. or does that go against the whole rule about putting the other person first? I know I can make the sentence work by changing it around but I would like to know if there is a rule for this type of sentence.


title: One or two possessive apostrophes for two subjects with different possession

text: 'The similarities between Odelle's and Smith’s artistic depictions of women [...]' OR 'The similarities between Odelle and Smith’s artistic depictions of women [...]' The point in question regards the apostrophes. One claim is that the first one on Odelle isn't necessary. It seems like this would be true only if Odelle and Smith were collaborating on their art. However, **the intended meaning of the sentence is that both subjects, although similar, each have unique treatment of women in their art.** The word that throws me off is depictions. Because this word is plural perhaps the first claim is true? This way Odelle and Smith could still have unique depictions but share the compound subject possession. Really scratching my head over this one...


title: Third-Person Possessive Pronouns in Dual Possessives

text: I understand the rules for dual possessives, but I was writing and I realized that I have no idea how the following sentence should be written. _She and Kevin's house is big._ or _Her and Kevin's house is big._ Normally for a dual possessive, if there is joint possession (two people owning one thing), only the last noun takes the possessive form, but the first sentence sounds and reads awkwardly. Is it actually correct? The pronoun seems to be the source of the confusion, as I would have no trouble choosing between the following: _Kim and Kevin's house is big._   _Kim's and Kevin's house is big._ The first would be correct because the house belongs to both Kim and Kevin, so only the last noun, "Kevin", takes the possessive form. Does the same rule apply when one of the nouns is a pronoun, or is there a different rule in such cases? Can someone help me out, please? Note: I realize that there are similar discussions already:   "My wife and I's seafood collaboration dinner"   Question about dual possesive nouns   Correct form of object of sentence with grouped possessive and personal pronoun? However, these questions only discuss the proper formation of the **first- person pronoun** in such cases (i.e., "I" vs. "my"). I'm interested in the rules for correctly forming the **third-person pronoun**.


title: Using possessive when talking about two

text: What's the correct form of writing this possessive sentence:   1. Helena and my birthdays are coming.   2. Helena's and my birthdays are coming.   3. My and Helena's birthdays are coming. Any links about the grammar rules related can be useful. Thanks in advance


title: If I am saying "Someone and Myself's (possession)", what would the correct usage in this phrase be?

text: I was just wondering how to properly use the phrase, I am trying to talk about something that belongs to both my friend and myself so how would I say that? My friend and myself's? or a different way?


title: Chained possessive words

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  “My wife and I’s seafood collaboration dinner” I’m sure there are better ways to write the following sentence, but I was curious to know if this sentence is grammatically correct: > Every day, Mike would send letters to Sarah and Thomas’s daughters’ > boyfriends. My hunch is that the apostrophe placement is incorrect. The idea is that Mike is sending letters to the daughters of Sarah and Thomas.


title: Job title + possessive case

text: Is the following construct (grammatically) correct? Swiss mathematician and physicist Leonhard Euler's contribution to number theory was [...] It sounds clumsy to me; however, this rewrite sounds pedantic: Leonhard Euler was a mathematician and physicist. His contribution to number theory was [...]


title: How to denote possession with "Bureau of Statistics"

text: When denoting possession with Bureau of Statistics, does one use "Bureau's of Statistics" or "Bureau of Statistics'"? E.g. >   * according to the Bureau's of Statistics Consumer Price Index >   * according to the Bureau of Statistics' Consumer Price Index >


title: How do I express possession of an item owned by enumerated groups of several individuals?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "Nikki's and Alice's X" vs. "Nikki and Alice's X"   >  Preferred way to apostrophise in case of dual or multiple ownership by > distinct entities A group of football players and a group of basketball players at college share a house. Is that house   * the football players and basketball players' house   * the football players' and basketball players' house   * something else? I think the correct answer is the first option, as it seems to be the logical result of applying the individual rules for possession of an item by more than one person and possession of an item or items by groups of individuals, but I would like to be sure.


title: Apostrophe in multiple plural posession

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  “Nikki’s and Alice’s X” vs. “Nikki and Alice’s X”   >  Preferred way to apostrophise in case of dual or multiple ownership by > distinct entities (writers' and teachers' wages) or (writers and teachers' wages) writers and teachers are both plural When you have multiple nouns, and all those nouns own the same thing, do you put the apostrophe showing possesion in all the nouns or just the last noun?


title: Multiple people possession

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is "my wife and I's" correct, or should it be "my wife's and my"?   >  Preferred way to apostrophise in case of dual or multiple ownership by > distinct entities? What is the correct grammar to use in a phrase like "Chris' and Claire's email addresses"? Is it correct to add the apostrophe to each owner in the list?


title: My and my brother's education... ?

text: I am not convinced with this sentence somehow. " My Dad focused on my and my brother's education" It doesn't sound right to me. How can I write it in a better way?


title: Usage of "of" in genitive: "The queen of England's crown" or "The queen's of England crown"?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  “My wife and I’s seafood collaboration dinner” What is the correct way of these two sentences?   1. The queen of England's crown   2. The queen's of England crown Strictly linguistically, sentence 2 should be the correct one, since the crown belongs to the queen and not to England but it sounds really awkward to pronounce.


title: Why do we say "of mine/of his" instead of "of me/of him"?

text: > He's a friend of **mine**.   >  That's a car of **his**. Why do we use the possessive when the meaning would be the same while not using it (e.g. _a friend of me_ and _a car of him_ )? I thought maybe it is short for _That's a car of **his [cars]_** , but I have no way of making sure; it sounds a little odd that way to me.


title: What is the proper way to say possesive with "person X" and self?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  My wife and I's seafood collaboration dinner I've never known what the proper way to use a sentence in which you and a specific person (as in you can't just say "our" because you want to specify who) possess something. Is it "Julie's and mine", "Mine and Julies", "Julie and my"...? For instance, "Julie and my favorite band is Eluveitie." "That sandwich is Ben and mine." They all sound a bit strange, which is the correct way to say this?


title: Using "heretofore" in the past perfect

text: Is it grammatically correct to use "heretofore" in the past perfect? > ...the king's power, which had heretofore been absolute. The meaning of "heretofore" is "before now", but would it still work in the past? What I really want to say is "before then." Is there a word for that, or would "heretofore" still work for that?


title: "School Students" — what, like there's any other kind of student?

text: I think this might be a Pennsylvania thing: every so often, you'll see a van or small bus labeled, not "School Bus" or anything ~~sane~~ normal like that, but "School Students". ![Gray minivan with yellow "SCHOOL STUDENTS" sign attached to the top](http://i.stack.imgur.com/JjHM6.jpg) Whenever I see a van like that, I find myself wondering, _school_ students? Is that as opposed to... ... uh... nursing home students? Courthouse students? Bacon students? **I mean, what other kind of student is there?** Can anyone shed some light on this tautology? _Is_ it a tautology? Does it sound normal to anyone who didn't grow up in Pennsylvania? [Aside: Lord help me, I'm using the meaning tag...]


title: Adding "one" to an expression like "more than the average"

text: Is it necessary to add the word "one" in the following sentence? > Mary was clearly not a typical child; she was more quiet and inexpressive > than the average (one). Does that _one_ belong there?


title: Position of adverbial phrase

text: Is there a difference in these two sentences, and if so, what is the difference?   1. Immediately afterwards I remembered having met her.   2. I remembered having met her immediately afterwards. I think there is a difference but cannot identify what it is.


title: Positioning of adverb phrases

text: Here are three ways to say the same thing. I wonder if there are particular rules regarding to the position of adverb phrases: > Then play those passages over and over again in your memory Or, > Then play those passages in your memory over and over again Or, > Then play over and over again those passages in your memory I think the last is the worst choice but the first twos seem ok. The first is better because "over and over again" is closer to "play" so it is emphasized. Agreed?


title: Are there any rules on the positioning adverbs should take in a sentence?

text: For example: > Ever wish you could share information **broadly** Could it be rewritten to: > Ever wish you could **broadly** share information Are there any rules for the position of the adverbs.


title: Adverb position in perfect tenses

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Are there any rules on the positioning adverbs should take in a sentence? My question concerns the adverb position in perfect tenses. For example look at these sentences: > Your settings have been successfully saved. > > Your settings have been saved successfully. In our English lessons at school we have learned that adverbs _usually_ follow verbs. Is only one of the above sentences gramatically correct or is it rather a question of language style? If you search for these phrases using Google, you will find out that both are frequently used. And again: > Both are frequently used. > > Both are used frequently. Both sentences sound correct.


title: Correct use of "immediately"

text: I have two variants of one sentence and I want to find out which of them is correct and why:   1. So you'll see immediately the notification when the crucial for you information changes.   2. So you’ll immediately see the notification when information crucial for you changes. Main concern is position of "immediately".


title: Can "already" be used after a simple past verb in American English?

text: A British colleague asked if these two sentences are grammatically acceptable in American English: > They found already high recognition in Europe and we wish to carry that > further. > > Furthermore, they will perform a Shostokovich cycle at London's Wigmore > Hall, which they presented already in Chicago and New York. He says that the "already" directly after the verb sounds off key in British English.


title: Is "out" a preposition or an adverb in these sentences?

text: Is _out_ a preposition or an adverb in these sentences?   1. "We need to get the hell out of this place."   2. "We need to get out and leave this place."


title: "Quick question" vs. "short question"

text: Which one would you prefer: "quick question" or "short question" for a question that you know is simple and will only take a moment to answer? Or maybe "simple question"? The problem I have with "quick question" is that I don't think a question may be "quick", because it is not moving anywhere.


title: Is metathesis correct?

text: Pronouncing _asterisk_ as _asterix_ /æstərɪks/ is called metathesis. Some common examples of this phenomenon that I have heard are _ask_ -> _aks_ and _introduce_ -> _interduce_ /ɪntərˈdjuːs/. So this phenomenon has a fancy name. But is it correct to say _asterisk_ as _asterix_? How does one decide whether it's metathesis or just a mispronounced word?


title: Is "Lingo" appropriate in a formal context?

text: Is the word "Lingo" appropriate in a formal context? It sounds much more professional to me than "jargon", but I still have it in the back of my mind that it is slang. Is there a synonym that would be better?


title: Quoting vs Citing

text: When you would use the words "quoting" and when "citing" , where "quote" and where "citation"?


title: More than 1000 gallons of paint is/are sold each day

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Plural/singular verb agreement with units   >  Does modifying a collective noun with a number make the subject plural? Can anyone help me determine the correct verb in this sentence? I am not sure what to do. If it were not such a complex introductory phrase, it would be more obvious. The general consensus of my friends who are not professional writers is that the verb should be _are_. To me the question is whether or not the subject is singular (i.e., “a large collective volume of paint”, perhaps in a tank) or plural (a lot of the individual gallon containers of paint). If simplified to other options, it would be like these:   1. Paint is sold.   2. Gallons of paint are sold.   3. More paint is sold.   4. More gallons of paint are sold.   5. More than 1000 gallons of paint is sold. [emphasis on total volume]   6. More than 1000 gallons of paint are sold. [emphasis on individual containers]


title: Need we use “sums” in sentences whenever they describe the sum of plural objects?

text: Need we use _sums_ in the case that the sentence describes the sum of plural objects? For example, “100 centimeters sums to one meter” versus “100 centimeters sum to one meter”. They both seem make some senses. For one thing, it is the sum of 100 objects, so it is suitable to use plural. For the other, in spite of how many things summed, the sum itself is a singular, so we’d better to use it in the singular way. Which side is correct?


title: Verbs that follow an amount of time, singular or plural?

text: Which one is grammatically correct? >   1. One hour and a half is all you have left. >   2. One hour and a half are all you have left. >   3. Two hours is all you have left. >   4. Two hours are all you have left. > And why?


title: Plural/singular verb agreement with units

text: When writing about specific quantities, should the verb reflect a singular or a plural value? Do abbreviations vs. spelled-out words make any difference? > I took 2 ml of water, which was/were then added... > > Six microliters of protein solution was/were placed in a centrifuge...


title: What is the adjective form of "black humo(u)r"?

text: If one were to describe a statement by referring to "black humour", how should he/she go about forming the adjectival form of the term? > "blackly humourous" or > "black humourous"


title: "Plan to do" vs. "plan on doing"

text: What are the differences between the following? >   1. He is planning **to do** something. >   2. He is planning **on doing** something. > When to use each?


title: Combining past and future tense

text: I want to say that in the past I decided something that I will do in the future: > Already in my bachelor years I decided that I want work at [. . .] after my > master. Is _want_ here correct, or should it be written in another tense?


title: Alternatives to "and/or"?

text: As a programmer, I have no problem with seeing or using "and/or" in technical documentation. For example, > I can upvote an answer that satisfies me and/or mark it as accepted. That's perfectly good English to me. However, if I were writing a novel, or even just an essay, or — heaven forbid — a poem, "and/or" would seem extremely out of place. My question is, what should I be using instead? (I solemnly swear I will not use that knowledge to actually write a poem.)


title: Is it appropriate to use "and/or" in a sentence, and how else might I achieve this?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Alternatives to "and/or"? Is it okay to say "and/or"? How else might I phrase a sentence like the following? > The amount of happiness displayed by the bunny increased when either the > bunny was well fed and/or when the bunny was watching a sunset. I am writing a scientific paper, and it is important that the events have the same effect when they occur separately or together; I have written a trivial example replacing esoteric words with more familiar ones.


title: Is there a word to express and/or?

text: So when I want to say "You can choose an apple and/or pear, and a bottle of soda and/or juice." Is there a better way to say this, without the clump of and/or?


title: Inclusive "or" in speech

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Alternatives to "and/or"? This has bothered me for a long time. As a software developer, the `or` is inclusive (`xor` is exclusive and rarely used / not needed). However, in speaking English, "or" is traditionally exclusive. > You can have an apple or an orange The above would imply that you can have one or the other (without the "either," it is not strictly clear, but it is implied). Is there any preferred way to say an inclusive or? > We can restrict registration and/or purchase "and/or" is kind of clunky, especially when speaking. Is there another inclusive or word or a way of phrasing a sentence to make options inclusive?


title: Is there a word to describe the organisation of cells?

text: For example whether an organism is unicellular or multicellular would be its **_**. There is a word 'cellularity', though I don't think that is quite the word I am looking for.


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

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


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

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


title: "I kindly ask to" vs "I ask to kindly"

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


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

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


title: Is 'hair' singular or plural?

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


title: Hair vs Hairs usage

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


title: Is this sentence correct?

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


title: What's the accusative absolute?

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


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

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


title: Can "mustn't" be used for conclusions?

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


title: One has to cook himself or themself?

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


title: "At schedule" vs. "by schedule" vs. "on schedule"

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


title: Question on law firm application

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


title: Usage of "for" correct?

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


title: Reflexive possessive pronoun

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


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

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


title: Should "no longer" have a hyphen?

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


title: Difference between the sentences

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


title: Spelling of contracted years

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


title: Do you shoot a gun or fire a gun?

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


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

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


title: Punctuation of possessive quotations

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


title: using plural when referring to cent and cents

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


title: Is "data" considered singular or plural?

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


title: Data is/are in a global context

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


title: Should I use support or supports with data?

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


title: "Data" — singular or plural

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


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

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


title: about the word data

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


title: plural and the use of it

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


title: Plurality of data

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


title: "Data shows" Vs "Data show"

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


title: I know not if I ~

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


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

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


title: "since ages" or "for ages"?

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


title: Travel/Travelers & Journey/Journeyers

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


title: What does “disposal advance” mean?

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


title: Word for rhetorical style where different arguments get progressively weaker

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


title: Virtually is like almost or practically?

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


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

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


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

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


title: How do Americans pronounce the word 'progression'?

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


title: Why "USSR" but not "UCSR"?

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


title: "More that" vs. "more than"

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


title: Appropriateness of "putting my child down to sleep"

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


title: Is a "doozy" a good or bad thing?

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


title: Is it appropriate to use "Hey yourself"?

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


title: Meaning of "before" in this sign

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


title: What does 'to be maxed out' mean?

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


title: which one is the most correct answer?

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


title: Should an adverb go before or after a verb?

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


title: Adverbs right after the subject

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


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

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


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


title: Position of the adverb "of course"

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


title: The right usage of "basically"

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


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

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


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

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


title: What exactly does "distinguish as" mean?

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


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

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


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

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


title: Neither am I / me neither in a specific context

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


title: Synonym: Medium or soothsayer

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


title: When are of and that superfluous?

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


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

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


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

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


title: When to use "GOP" versus "Republican Party"

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


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

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


title: "X is famous" vs. "X was famous"

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


title: History of "X is dead. Long live X"

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


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

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


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

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


title: Words to describe a semi-literate person

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


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

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


title: The word "chemist" and its origins?

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


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

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


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

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


title: "More" used in front of "happy"

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


title: When to use more or -er

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


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

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


title: Rules for single-word comparatives and superlatives

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


title: "Simpler" or "More Simple"

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


title: "None" as plural indefinite pronoun

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


title: "Are either of you free?"

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


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

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


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

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


title: Genderless pronoun?

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


title: Is the singular "they" acceptable in formal writing?

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


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

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


title: Speaking about someone of unknown gender

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


title: Correct pronoun: 'his' or 'their'?

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


title: Unisex word for 3rd person?

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


title: Why the two opinions on my following question

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


title: How does one refer to people who use online handles?

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


title: how to refer a person with indefined sex?

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


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

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


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

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


title: Incorporating indirect third person pronouns

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


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

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


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

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


title: Is there a gender-neutral pronoun?

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


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

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


title: Noun pronoun agreement

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


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


title: gender neutral pronoun - he/she or it

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


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

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


title: their or his/her

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


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

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


title: Everybody has to obey their own parents

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


title: Use of singular they for specific person

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


title: more usage of their and they with any way

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


title: Subject-verb agreement with "each"

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


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

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


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

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


title: 'Their' singular or plural?

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


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

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


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

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


title: Gender-neutral possessive

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


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

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


title: Using "they" for single person

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


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

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


title: Can "a person" be used as plural?

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


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

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


title: Addressing someone with no specified gender

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


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

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


title: About adjective possessive pronouns

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


title: None have showed up? Huh?

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


title: plural noun/singular verb and vice versa

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


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

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


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

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