title: "Put me in touch with whomever created it"?

text: He created it. Put me in touch with him. So which is correct and why:   * Put me in touch with whomever created it.   * Put me in touch with whoever created it.


title: What is the correct usage of "whom"?

text: I am still very confused on when to use _who_ and _whom_ , I understand the idea these sentences are correct: >   * He is the person who won the competition. >   * That is the person whom I went on holiday with. > But what would be correct in the following sentence: > This image shows a patient who is... or whom is? Would it be _who_ because the patient is the subject, or is it?


title: "Who" vs. "whom" in tricky sentence

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What's the rule for using "who" or "whom"? Which is correct? > A certificate is a statement that states **who** is entitled. > > A certificate is a statement that states **whom** is entitled. Is _who_ a subject?


title: "Whom" or "who" for object of a subordinate clause inside a relative clause

text: > They interviewed several candidates **who** he thought had the experience > and qualifications he required. My test prep book says this should be "who" because of the subordinate clause's predicate: > They interviewed several candidates **_who_** he thought **had the > experience and qualifications** he required. I feel like it should be "whom" as it's the object of the main clause. > The interviewed several candidates **_whom_ he thought** had the experience > and qualifications he required. Who's right?


title: Who vs. Whom for: "...Satan, who/whom everyone imagines with horns."

text: > **Possible Duplicates:**   >  What is the correct usage of "whom"?   >  Using "who" and "whom" I'm not sure what the clause is called, but it usually describes something (such as Satan). I would think it's "whom" because, in this context, everyone is imagining _him_ with horns. They don't imagine _he_ with horns. That's how I reason it, but it's confusing at times. Thoughts? What if it were: "...Satan, who/whom everyone imagines has horns"? Would you use "who" or "whom"?


title: Double "whom" sounds clunky, but is correct?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What's the rule for using "who" or "whom"? I believe the following sentence is correct, but am slightly unsure as it sounds a bit clunky - plus, the irony of it being incorrect would be unbearable. > "Thank you to Bill and Ted, whom I'll never be able to thank in person but > without whom my education would not have been possible."


title: what is the difference in the usage of the following?

text: What is the difference in the usage of "whom" and "who"? please also tell me the rules behind their usage and some examples to clarify their difference.


title: Case of Pronoun

text: I want to know **_** you talked to. (who or whom) I want to know **_** the culprit is. (who or whom)


title: What is the best rule for determining when to use "Who" and/or "Whom"

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Using "who" and "whom" This is a topic that always causes me to take pause. I never really know if I am using who correctly or if whom would be better in each instance. Say for instance, I want to ask about software and try to determine the author. I ask, "This software was written by who?" or should I ask, "This software was written by whom?" How shoudl I determien which to use? I often find myself rewording a sentence conatining who or whom so that I won't sound uneducated.


title: "who" or "whom" as a relative pronoun - not always so easy

text: I take it for granted we all know when to use the relative pronouns "who" and "whom". And we also know that since the early nineteenth century there has been a steady decline in the use of "whom" especially in speech, and people tend to use "who" most of the times. Let's assume, however, that someone is writing a formal letter and that he prefers to use "whom" whenever possible. He got stuck on these two sentences: >   * They chose the candidate who they thought would have the best > initiative. >   * They chose the candidate whom they thought would have the best > initiative. > If "whom" is the right relative, he will have no problem using "who" because it's also acceptable. But if the right relative is "who", then it would be a mistake to use whom. My question is: "In the above sentence, is the relative pronoun the object of "thought" or is it the subject of "would have". PS I'm aware that some scholars advise against asking questions about "whom" because "who" is the relative pronoun most people use. But I understand it is not obsolete and is still used by a few people, in formal speech, in documents, etc, especially in the UK.


title: Subject vs. Object marking for whoever?

text: I know similar questions have been asked before, but I'm having trouble reconciling the following sentence, received in an email: > Can we ask whomever is your contact there to email us a job so we can check > backward compatibility? I could understand using objective case if the sentence were "can we ask (him) to email...", but I get tripped up considering "whomever" to be the subject of "(he) is your contact there".


title: who or whom in this context?

text: I am unsure which is the grammatically correct one in the following context: > ...trying to find a programmer with _who_ / _whom_ I could collaborate. Which one is the correct usage?


title: Is this a correct use of 'whom'?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What's the rule for using "who" or "whom"? "The negative may be insecurity, in lieu of an absolute authority whom can to confirm your beliefs." This is the sentence. I am unsure whether to use who, or whom. Thanks


title: Who vs whom in a sentence

text: Which of the two sentences is correct? _Everybody **who** we need_ or _Everybody **whom** we need_ Please explain the grammatical reason behind it. Thanks


title: Whom vs Who: object Judas + whom

text: > The test itself lies in attempting to apply this new update to a card > belonging to Judas, **whom is** a legitimate user of the system. Is _Judas_ considered the subject or the object? I'm considering _Judas_ to be the object and hence applying _whom_ after the comma. Is this correct? I read about _whom_ vs _who_ at LINK, but I'm not sure if I'm applying it correctly to this case. I've also tried the _whom+him_ test by asking _Whom does the card belong to?_ with the answer _It belongs to him_.


title: who/whom after I

text: What is the correct usage of who/whom after first person pronoun "I" > I ___ am most concerned, was not consulted. I think it should be who?


title: Is there a simple explanation on where to use "who" vs "whom"?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Using who and whom I can usually guess which to use where, but I can never explain it to others, is there a simple explanation (with examples) that makes sense?


title: Whom or who in this case? Google thinks who

text: I was asking someone "whom were you horrible to?" And thought, is it who or whom? I believe it's whom but when I typed the phrase into Google search It felt differently.


title: "Tiger eats who" or "tiger eats whom"

text: I have an answer to a question _Tiger eats rabbit_. What would be the question for this? > Tiger eats who? > > Tiger eats whom? Which is correct among these two sentences?


title: "Whoever" Vs. "Whomever"

text: On the subject of "whoever" and "whomever", I was reading this but I am still confused: http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoever.asp What is the correct use of whoever/whomever in the following sentence? > I like your copy, congratulations, whoever is writing it. Whoever? Whomever? Is there a difference between US and UK English?


title: 'whom' vs 'who'

text: How does one use 'whom' in a sentence? Is this sentence correct? Ex: I am delighted for all my cousins who have found happiness.


title: Which is correct

text: I want to know which sentence is correct "I know what you are doing and with who" or "I know what you are doing and with whom"


title: "Whom"/"Who" in subordinate clauses

text: I've come across the following sentence in a book: > “I wanted to learn everything I could about it from whomever in the country > might have specialized knowledge of it.” I know that the _whomever_ is the object of the preposition _from_ (hence _whom_ ). However, isn't it at the same time the subject of the subordinate clause? Therefore, should it not be _whoever_? (Like in: “I was escaping from I don't know what.” NOT “I was escaping from me don't know what.”) In my view, the sentence would be more elegant if it read: > “I wanted to learn everything I could about it from whoever in the country > might have specialized knowledge of it.” > > “I wanted to learn everything I could about it from whomever in the > country.” > > “I wanted to learn everything I could about it from whomever in the country > who might have specialized knowledge of it.” > > “I wanted to learn everything I could about it from whomever in the country > with specialized knowledge of it.”


title: Which one is the best answer and why?

text: I am really looking for the answer. I will be happy to hear your answers. Thanks Question: > She brought her three friends, none of .... I have ever met before. > >   1. who >   2. which >   3. whom >   4. whose >


title: Contemporary written usage of "whom" in objective case

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What's the rule for using "who" or "whom"? I was writing a LinkedIn recommendation one day, and ended up pondering for a while which of these forms to use: > … is a great developer **whom** I always found easy to work with. > > … is a great developer **who** I always found easy to work with. Both are basically correct in contemporary English, right? But is one or the other preferable, and if so, why? (In this case I went with the latter, as it seemed more common (Google) and I wanted to avoid sounding unnecessarily “archaic”, although I’m not sure whether that would have been the case. Also note that I try to write in a “friendly professional” style instead of overly formal one. :-)


title: What does 'graft probe’ mean? Is it well-received word?

text: I found the word ‘graft probe’ in the headline of a Associate Press news in today’s Washington Post (April 11) reporting that former president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak is presently in detention in Sham El-Sheikh in Egypt. Though I guess ‘graft probe’ means investigation of criminal act such as bribery, corruption and abuse of authority, I can’t find the word in any of English Japanese dictionaries at hand, Merriam, Webster Free Dictionary and Cambridge Dictionary Online. What does 'graft probe’ mean? Is it a day-to-day English word? The article begins with the following line: "Mubarak detained for 15 days in _graft probe_ : Egypt’s prosecutor general has announced a 15-day detention for the country’s former president to investigate accusations of corruption and abuse of authority."


title: Word meaning "of many different kinds" in this context?

text: I'm looking for a word that describes a meal that consists _of many different kinds_ of food (in a way that gives pleasure) similiar to the word _varied_ I guess, but used in this context: let's say Johnny and his little sister arrived at the dinner table for dinner their mom prepared. They're blown away by what's in front of them; there's fish, chicken, pork, soup, and even Johnny's favourite spaghetti and meatballs and more. Dinner is usually pretty plain with only a few simple dishes that's it, but I guess mom's in a good mood today so she decided to treat them with a special dinner. And Johnny may say "wow mom, today's dinner is pretty [that word]!" What is the word I'm looking for?


title: "Were you" or "You were"

text: In a sentence like the following: > You want to know how long **you were** unavailable. Should I write "you were" or "were you"? Second version (with "were you") is: > You want to know how long **were you** unavailable.


title: "Don't mistake me"

text: Many times during conversation I hear the phrase _Don't mistake me_. Is it grammatically correct when used to mean _Don't take negative connotation of my word_. Shouldn't they say _Don't take me by mistake_?


title: "My personal opinion is..." Is it always pointless to use the words "personal" and "personally"?

text: Is this kind of redundancy acceptable in both speech and writing, formal and informal ? Would the following sentences have their meaning changed if we omitted "personal" or "personally" ? Would they lose anything at all ? >   * She is a personal friend of mine. >   * It's my personal opinion.... >   * Personally, I would advise you... >   * The manager said he will examine the matter personally. >   * Personally, I don't care whether... >   * I have a personal interest in the matter. >


title: “All X-related things” / “All things X-related” / “All things X related”?

text: My French origins (probably?) would have me intuitively write “all X-related things”, but it seems usage favours the construct “all things X-related”, or even without a hyphen: “all things X related” (see Google results for “all related things”). So, are any of these incorrect? Which one would be best? (If that's any help, I want to say “software engineer with a passion for all things user related”. Also in this particular case, should I write “user **s** related” instead?) Thanks!


title: Idiom/phrase for someone who faced a lot of difficulties in life

text: I came across the Kannada saying "Benkiyalli aralida hoovu", meaning someone faced lot of difficulties in life. Is there an equivalent idiom/phrase in English?


title: 'Preclude' vs 'Exclude' vs 'Prevent'

text: I'm trying to really understand how the word `preclude` differs from either `exclude` or `include`. Merriam Webster defines preclude as               to make impossible by necessary consequence : rule out in advance      Which sounds a lot like either `prevent` or `exclude`. Does prevent block a future action from happening, while preclude eliminates the possibility of that action altogether?


title: Word describing one who is not aware of their own actions

text: I'm reading a book and writing an essay where I need to describe the main character's personality traits, but I can't quite find the word for unaware of one's actions


title: Choose the proper variant to complete the sentence:

text: ... misses the kisses, ... kisses the misses. A) An rejected lover, a accepted lover B) An accepted lover, a rejected lover C) A rejected lover, an accepted lover


title: "To refuse oneself" vs "to refuse"

text: In which cases can we use "to refuse oneself" instead of "to refuse"? Can you use "oneself" to give more emphasis to the sentence, or are you only allow to use it when you refuse something done to you? In particular, I know this example is acceptable: > I **refuse myself** more food than I can fit in a small plate But can you use it like this? > While the expression is acceptable, I **refuse [myself]** to say it.


title: When is it necessary to use a hyphen in writing a compound word?

text: Some words are written without hyphens ( _nonaggression_ , _nonbeliever_ ), and some words are written with a hyphen ( _well-intentioned_ ). Is there a schema in the use of a hyphen?


title: Are hyphens needed in a noun-phrase that precedes 'manner'?

text: I sometimes use "manner" to use noun-phrases as adverbs, like "in the manner of a vigilant watchdog". If I reverse the order, does the noun phrase then have to be hypenated? Like so: "in a vigilant-watchdog manner"


title: "Company-assigned" or "company assigned"

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When is it appropriate to use a hyphen? In phrases describing something that has been assigned to someone, should the phrase be hyphenated or not?               He uses a company-assigned phone number.      or               He uses a company assigned phone number.      What is the rule for similar phrases?


title: Should "two-week" be hyphenated in "a two-week all-expense-paid trip"?

text: Which is correct — "a two-week all-expense-paid trip" or "a two week all- expense-paid trip"?


title: husband-and-wife team or husband and wife team?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When is it necessary to use a hyphen in writing a compound word? Referring to a sentence from an online magazine: "Lonely Planet was started in 1975, when the British hippie **_husband-and- wife_** team Maureen and Tony Wheeler self-published a guide to cheap travel in Southeast Asia." I have noticed that in other resources also: that **_"husband-and-wife_** " team is used instead of **"husband and wife** " team. What is the right usage?


title: Hyphenating “steady state”

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When is it appropriate to use a hyphen? I am unsure if and when to hyphenate **steady state** (in a mathematical context), i.e.: > We now calculate the steady-state concentration from the given formula. I looked at this generic hyphenation question, but the links given there did not give a clear rule for this case. To me, it seems most natural to write: > This is the steady state described by the formula. But, at the same time: > This is the steady-state concentration described by the formula. That is, hyphenate if it describes another noun but not if it stands on its own. Does that make sense? Searching for books on Amazon brings up titles with both **steady state** and **steady-state** which seem to at least partially conform to this rule. Or would it be better to just chose either hyphenation or no hyphenation and then stick to that consistently?


title: Is it "deep-sky object" or "deep sky object"?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When is it necessary to use a hyphen in writing a compound word? What is correct, _deep-sky object_ or _deep sky object_? Does common usage trump grammar? Or, alternatively, if they are both correct, which one should be preferred? _Inconclusive discussion on Wikipedia_.


title: Using hyphen and quote marks in composed term?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When is it necessary to use a hyphen in writing a compound word? I want to write a term composed out of multiple words, and I would like to know whether I have to use hyphens or quotes. Following options came to my mind:   * 'but he said' argument   * 'but he said'-argument   * but-he-said argument   * but-he-said-argument


title: "Inward-pointing" or "inward pointing"

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When is it necessary to use a hyphen in writing a compound word?   >  To hyphenate or not? Which one is correct? > The normal vector we mean is the **inward-pointing** normal. > > The normal vector we mean is the **inward pointing** normal.


title: What is the correct usage of a charged-off or charged off loan in the Financial space?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When is it necessary to use a hyphen in writing a compound word? Does proper grammar dictate a preference towards using "charged-off" or "charged off" to describe a loan that a financial institution is not going to recover funds for?


title: Is it "interest free" or "interest-free" when describing a loan without an interest rate?

text: I watched a clip a show shown on TruTV about a woman who was angry about not having been offered free cash for thirty days. According to the receptionist in the financial services place she was in, the sign she (the disgruntled customer) read meant that one can receive a loan free of interest within a 30-day span. However, the sign reads: > INTEREST LOANS   >  Bring a Friend to   >  American Jewelry and Loan   >  Get 30 days of interest free cash! Notice the final line. There's no hyphen between "interest" and "free," so isn't the customer's misunderstanding valid? I'm assume that "interest" has to modify "free" in order to conjoin the words. So, to remind you: When describing a loan that's free of interest (0% interest), is it "interest-free" or "interest free?" I'm assuming it's the former. For the record, I have googled this, and I came up with mixed results. Some sites use "interest free" and others use "interest-free."


title: "Multi-column" or "multicolumn"?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  To hyphenate or not? Which is the proper one? I mainly use this term in computer terminology, like "grid multicolumn sorting".


title: When is it appropriate to use a hyphen?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  To hyphenate or not? What is the proper way to spell "side dish"? Is it: "side dish" or "side- dish"? Also, Is it "ham-fried" or "ham fried"? Basically, when do you use hyphens?


title: Using "non-" to prefix a two-word phrase

text: Does "non-" prefixed to a two word phrase permit another hyphen before the second word? If I want to refer to an entity which is defined as the negation of another entity by attaching "non-" it seems strange to attach the "non-" only to the first word when the second one is really the word naming the entity. For example, > non-control freak looks like a person obsessed with not being in control rather than one who is simply not obsessed with control. > non-control-freak actually looks better because the "freak" is attached to the "non-" as much as it is to "control-", without the space implying the presence of a phrase break. This question and its answers make it sound like totally detaching the "non" could be an option, but if I were following the convention of hyphenating "non-" could I add a hyphen after the next word to resolve this problem?


> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Hyphenation in compound adjectives Does one need to hyphenate, e.g.: "The ten word story" or "The ten-word story"? I can see why one might need to hyphenate in the plural case: "the ten word stories" vs "the ten-word stories", because the former could be interpreted as "ten stories with words" instead of "stories with ten words".


title: On the Making of Decisions—Compound, Hyphen, or Space?

text: I'm responsible for most of the copy editing at my job. While it goes pretty smoothly most of the time, there is one area that keeps creating a bit of cognitive dissonance for me:   * decisionmaking   * decision-making   * decision making I almost want to go German on it and make it into a compound word as in the first choice, but then I start thinking that a space would be more readable. Then the hyphen appears out of nowhere as a less-than-satisfying compromise between the two. No matter how I decide to go, I really haven't been able to find any peace on the matter. Are there any official declarations from any of the major style guides on this matter? For what it's worth contextually, the final customer for a lot of my writing is the US Federal Government.


title: What (if any) is the proper hyphenation for the phrase "it's all too easy"?

text: Are any of the following correct? > It's all too-easy   >  It's all-too-easy   >  It's all too easy Explanation/citations would be greatly appreciated


title: "boilinghot" vs "boiling-hot" vs "boiling hot"

text: As the title indicates, these three forms of words/phrases can be quite confusing to me sometimes. When should they be written as one word ("boilinghot"), when should they be written in two words ("boiling hot"), and when should they be written as a hyphenated compound ("boiling-hot")? Does it make any difference which is used? There are other terms like this, such as blackboard/black board/black-board; swingman/swing man/swing-man etc.


title: Separate vs. joined words (hyphen or not)

text: English is not my native language, and sometimes it's confusing.. Especially uk-english vs. american and hyphens Can someone explain a bit when to use which of these? It's for a global english website               football team, footballteam, football-team     movie fan, moviefan, movie-fan          "football-players/fans" vs. "football players/fans"      Thanks


title: In "type of guy" constructions, do you use hyphens or not? For example

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  To hyphenate or not? "Did you see this silly poll? It says that if I were a superhero, I would be Captain America." "Really? I don't know; I see you as more of a Thor-kind-of-guy." Or should that be, "I see you as more of a Thor kind-of-guy? Or simply, "I see you as more of a Thor kind of guy"?   Which form is best?


title: punctuation of "damned if you do and damned if you don't"

text: Personally, I think quotes are best, but lately, I'm hearing that quotes are incorrect and dashes should be used between the words. What say you? > damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't or > "damned if you do and damned if you don't" By the way, I love your website.


title: Confusion over the general rules governing the use of the hyphen in English

text: I often get confused by the rules for using hyphens. According to this entry from the Oxford Dictionaries web site, I must always use a hyphen in these cases: >   1. Hyphens are used in many compound words to show that the component > words have a combined meaning. >   2. Hyphens can be used to join a prefix to another word, especially if the > prefix ends in a vowel and the other word also begins with one (e.g. _pre- > eminent_ or _co-own_ ). >   3. Hyphens can also be used to divide words that are not usually > hyphenated. > Ok, with these three rules in mind, I suppose I should write _living-room_ : after all, these two words have a combined meaning. To support this argument, I may say we write _bedroom_ — one word only — which means we’ve combined _bed_ and _room_ to refer to one thing, the bedroom. So _living room_ should either be hyphenated or written together as only one single word. Equally, _food handling department_ should be written as _food-handling department_ even though as with _living-room_ , I have never actually seen it written with a hyphen. I am a bit confused. Isn’t hyphenating these words arguably a grammatical error, or does hyphen usage vary from one country to another? (I mean, for example, that perhaps in England they write _living room_ , in Australia _livingroom_ , and in Canada perhaps _living-room_.) * * * As tchrist pointed out in the comment section, hyphen usage has nothing to do with grammar. It's only a ortographic convention. The reason I'm asking this question is: I once took an IELTS preparing course and there was a question whose answer was _food-handling department_ but I wrote _food handling department_. My answer was considered to be wrong - according to the entity behind the course, _food-handling department_ was the only acceptable answer. Given hypen usage is only _convention_ and not _grammar_ , can we really say I got that question wrong?


title: Hyphenating adjectives

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  To hyphenate or not?   >  When is it appropriate to use a hyphen? In the phrase > It is simply a large door sized wall of fire. Should "door sized" be hyphenated to "door-sized"?


title: When adding prefixes to noun phrases, should you hyphenate?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When is it necessary to use a hyphen in writing a compound word?   >  Using “non-” to prefix a two-word phrase When adding a prefix to a noun, I've been taught to usually hyphenate (e.g. _life  → pro-life, breakfast → pre-breakfast, coal → anti-coal_) with some exceptions (e.g. _preschool_ ). But how does this work with noun phrases? Do you leave out the hyphen? For example:   * pre Independence Day   * anti pen and paper


title: To hyphenate or not?

text: As a non-native speaker of English and an engineer by training, I always get confused about hyphenation and almost always end up referring to Google every time I need to make that decision. Does anybody know of a concise, comprehensive style guide to hyphenation that explains this rather complex issue, once and for all?


title: Is it Game time or game-time?

text: I'm trying to verify the correctness the following sentence: > Game time is Sunday. Is it correct or should it be "Game-time"?


title: Agents based or Agent-based?

text: Which of the following 3 options is the right one ? Agent based routing Agents based routing Agent-based routing ? (there are more than only one agent, if that matters) Thanks


title: Is it appropriate to use a hyphen in compound adjectives?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When is it necessary to use a hyphen in writing a compound word? I've searched the web and "English Language & Usage", but am having problems finding the answer to the following question: Is it appropriate to use a hyphen for compound adjectives consisting of two adjectives having the same, how do I put it, "status"? That is, _grammatically speaking_ , they could each stand on their own instead of the compound word. Thus, I'm not talking about words like "well-mannered", but rather words like "thermomechanical/thermo-mechanical" ("thermal" + "mechanical") or "magnetorheological/magneto-rheological" ("magnetic" + "rheological"). In short, is it "thermomechanical" or "thermo-mechanical"? Thanks!


title: hyphenation of adjective phrases

text: Should adjectival phrases that are hyphenated when they modify a noun, e.g. a case-sensitive password, be hyphenated when they are predicate adjectives, e.g. The password is case-sensitive?


title: Should I use hyphens with prefixes like "sub" and "semi"?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When is it necessary to use a hyphen in writing a compound word? Some English texts, use the prefix **sub** put before a given proper word with "-" between them, for example _sub-zero_ , while in the Mathematical contexts there is no such that "-", for example _subgroup_ or _subfield_. The same story could be seen for **semi**. Which way for showing that is right or is better.


title: "Social media post" or "social-media post"?

text: Should "social media" be spelled with a hyphen in the phrase "social media post"? To me, the hyphen looks wrong, but I would like to be able to provide some grammatical rationale to explain why.


title: Hyphenation in compound adjectives

text: > **Possible Duplicates:**   >  To hyphenate or not?   >  When is it necessary to use a hyphen in writing a compound word?   >  When is it appropriate to use a hyphen? In the sentence "Portland is known to be one of the most bike friendly cities in the US", is a hyphen necessary in "bike friendly"? As far as I know, the hyphen is only required when leaving it out would cause ambiguity. Wikipedia uses the example of "a small appliance factory" vs "a small-appliance factory". As far as I can tell, the sentence above is pretty clear. A quick google search for "bike friendly city" brings up instances of both hyphenated and non-hyphenated usage. Thoughts? Please excuse the poor formatting, sent from my iPhone.


title: Hyphen usage. Mono-channel and multi-channel or monochannel and multichannel?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When is it necessary to use a hyphen in writing a compound word? While writing a technical paper about fiber optics this question about hyphens came out. Should this words be used with or without a hyphen? >   * Mono-channel or monochannel > >   * Multi-channel or multichannel > > On published technical papers both forms are found. I would like to know which one is correct. Thanks you.


title: Correct hyphenation of "ever-more-connected"

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When is it necessary to use a hyphen in writing a compound word? What would be the correct way to hyphenate the phrase "ever-more-connected"? Does it even need hyphens? An example sentence: > They were excited about the new possibilities in their ever-more-connected > world. My instinct is to hyphenate it as I have here, but I'm not 100% sure and searching the internet turned up no specific explanations.


title: Metaprogramming vs Meta-programming

text: Which usage of the prefix, "Meta" is correct, "Metaprogramming" or "Meta- programming"? Should the word be hyphenated or not?


title: Should the words "much needed" be hyphenated or not?

text: Here's an example of what I mean: "It's time for some much needed rest and relaxation." Or should it be: "It's time for some much-needed rest and relaxation."


title: To hyphenate borne, or not to hyphenate borne?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When is it necessary to use a hyphen in writing a compound word? In my place of business, it is part of our style guide to hyphenate "vehicle- borne IED," but not hyphenate "foodborne." As the editor, I am looking for some definitive guidance on when adjectives containing "borne" are hyphenated. Any ideas?


title: What is anti-money and how do I launder it?

text: So the phrase "anti-money laundering" has an obvious meaning, referring to something or some process that acts against the laundering of money. However, I find the use of the hyphen slightly confusing. Lets try another example: "anti-gravity modulation" Is this something that acts against the modulation of gravity, or is it the modulation of anti-gravity (as in: my anti-gravity boots keep me stable because they use anti-gravity modulation). Does this just come down to context or am I using incorrect grammar (or am I just confused)?


title: Parenthetical commas and foreign English

text: I advise a friend on her writing, despite not quite knowing an adverb from a proverb (kidding _(kinda)_ ). Invariably, parenthetical commas such as the following: > Jane, my assistant, opened the door. are written as: > Jane, my assistant opened the door. Is there some foreign grammar she is drawing from, where this is common? Australian English or British English perhaps?


title: Use of the word or in place of commas

text: In the following sentence, would you say that the word "or" is used the first 2 times instead of using commas? "If a Partner shall retire or die or become permanently disabled or incompetent he shall be released from this lease." If so, are the three future tense verbs, "shall retire," "shall die," and "shall become," three distinct eventualities such that one's retirement need not be permanent retirement?


title: singular and collective noun for included computer source code

text: In software development, one often has multiple individual files that are referenced or "included" by others. What is the noun for each one of those individual files, and what would you call the collection of them?


title: What is a phrase or a word for someone who says "I knew that would happen" after the fact?

text: Is there a word or phrase that describes someone who claims to have known something all along, but only proclaim this after the incident has occurred?


title: China's victory over Japan was a poisoned chalice

text: I saw this on a newspaper: " For the victory brought in its wake the communist plague.". Is the middle part of the second sentence, "brought in its wake the", correct? I guess it should be "brought its wake in the".


title: "corollarily" or equivalent?

text: A _corollary_ in mathematics is a useful side-effect (with other related meanings, but as it pertains to this question, that's the relevant definition to keep in mind). I want to use the word _corollarily_ in a sentence to mean "in a way that results in this as a corollary of the aforementioned". As an example: _This would annul the mercy towards the victim that the death penalty would corollarily extend._ This would mean that the death penalty of a perpetrator causes a situation which benefits his victim in a specific way which may or may not be the original intent of the imputation of the death penalty for the given crime. There is no such word as _corollarily_ , at least not that I found. So my question is, what is your opinion in regards to using it that way (in either a formal or informal setting) as a coinage? I would like to hear what you think about "adverbizing" words, but specifically this one, and in this way. * * * _If this is too confusing, the example is in reference to the situation where (specifically in a religious context) a woman's (or man's) spouse was unfaithful and will therefore be put to death because the crime of adultery is punished with the death penalty. This woman would now be allowed to marry whomever she wants and this would not be adultery on her part. In removing the death penalty she might now worry that (again, in a religious context) if she marries again, she might be guilty or adultery. So, the death penalty had the corollary effect that mercy was extended to her, allowing her to marry without this worry. Where the originally intended purpose of the death penalty isn't to allow her to marry again, but to punish the crime, but it also has this effect of mercy to the woman "as a corollary". Please, obviously do not comment on the example in this thread, as that would be way off topic. If you really want to discuss this, ask on christianity.SE or even miyodeya.SE, and link us here and we can discuss there._


title: Origins of "tie the knot"

text: A common symbol in modern weddings it the image of knot. The phrase "tie the knot" as a euphemism for marriage that is also commonly recognized. Where does this originate from?


title: Minutes' work or minutes of work

text: If, for example, a teacher was asking their students to continue working for 30 minutes, would it be grammatically correct for them to say "do thirty minutes' work" or would they have to say "do thirty minutes of work"? Thanks.


title: Word for a friend you have never met?

text: Can anyone provide "emotional" word/phrase for a "friend" a you have never met, but feels like you really know him? I won't mind even if it is in a language other than English. :) _Update_ : Would love it if the word/phrase is related to literature.


title: Ambiguity in the statement of an Indian politician.

text: Derek O' Brien is celebrity turned politician in India. Recently in a TV debate on a National TV channel he was recorded saying that **he was a Christian first, before that an Indian**. (Watch the video linked, for the actual speech.) The link to the video:  Derek O' Brien on National TV (youtube 20 seconds) Due to lack of explicit punctuation in English while being spoken, IMO, his statement can be deciphered to mean two quite different things. One of them paints the celeb communal and the other a patriot! The possible meanings, IMO:   1. That he considers his faith and its interests to be above the nation and her interests!   2. That he considers his faith to be of great importance to him, but before it(the faith), he puts the nation and her interests.  What he actually meant is of great controversy, because, if he did indeed mean the first thing, he was being communal and that is a taboo in India _(a secular nation by constitution)_ , as great as being a racist is in the US. **What in your opinion did he actually mean and why?**


title: Differences between dialects

text: I'm Italian and I'm trying to improve my English, but I have some difficulty speaking with and understanding people of different countries. For example when I study English in books it seems to be easy to learn, but when I have to use it at work with people of different countries I have a lot of problems. So the question is: what is "real" English? Where can I study it? It is good to watch some films in English or would that teach me "bad" English?


title: Does the sentence, “Lots of twilhearts went to the movie” make sense? If it does, what does it mean?

text: I’ve been making dictation of English news broadcasting for a couple of years in order to maintain listening proficiency of English. On yesterday's AP radio news broadcasted through AFN Tokyo (Eagle 810), I heard the following lines reporting the latest box office sales ranking. > “Lots of twilhearts went to the movie this weekend to see Edward and Bella > wed. “Twilight Saga Breaking Dawn Part 1” is No. 1 at the box office.” The beginning word of the above line certainly sounded to me as “Lots of twilhearts,” not “twilight.” But I don’t know what “twilheart” mean. I found the word, “twilhearts” in several excerpts on Google without definition, but there’s no entry of such word as “twilhearts” in any English dictionaries at hand. Does the statement “Lots of twilhearts went to the movie to see Edward and Bella wed,” make sense? If it does, what does it mean? If it doesn’t make sense, do you have any idea about what the right word it should be”?


title: What is the proper term for a ternary digit?

text: A binary digit is a **bit**. Is there an equivalent term for a _three-state digit?_ (e.g., a digit representing true, false, or unknown)


title: A relative adverb or a conjunction or both?

text: I am not familiar with the idea that an adverb can function as a conjunction at the same time. Here are a couple of sentences that are confusing me. > This is the reason _why_ she left him. ...and > He was transferred to New York, _where_ he was promoted to a higher level. The relative adverbs _why, where, when,_ and _how_ seem to introduce a clause. Therefore, can they also be called conjunctions? If yes, would I be right in assuming that relative adverbs can function as conjunctions _at the same time_?


title: He considers that X is Y. vs He thinks that X is Y

text: The following verb in sentence 1 strikes me as strange when it has the same meaning as in sentences 2 and 3 below.   1. He considers that blue cheese is delicious.   2. He thinks that blue cheese is delicious.   3. He believes that blue cheese is delicious. Is sentence 1 acceptable? Is it maybe acceptable in British English but not in American English?


title: Refer to the state of something "at the time"

text: I want to communicate this: > I didn't think the zoo would attract visitors _in its state at the time_. What can I replace "state at the time" with? Perhaps something like "then- state"? I can't say "current state", because that would refer to the _present state_ , not the state _at the time_ I'm referring to.


title: Term for piece of music without voice

text: We call a piece of music with voice a _song_. What do we call a piece of music without voice? We _sing a song_ but _play a XXX_.


title: Which is the proper spelling: "disfunction" or "dysfunction"?

text: Is this word spelt **dysfunction** or **disfunction**?   Are there any correct spellings at all for this word? The reason I asked is because I've always learned to spell it as "disfunction" until recently, when I realized I'm starting to see more of "dysfunction"


title: How to count "Chinese yam"

text: I am not sure if most westerners have seen or eaten this food. Here is a picture of Chinese yam. As you can see in the picture, there are two _sticks_ , but I am not sure if _stick_ is a correct quantifier for Chinese yam. Which is the right one to go with it? a. 2 Chinese yams   b. 2 sticks of Chinese yam   c. 2 Chinese yam tubers/taproots   d. 2 tubers/taproots of Chinese yam


title: When would you say "woods", and when would you say "forest"?

text: Is there any difference here at all?


title: Answering with "Let's!" or "Let's go!"

text: I have been reading conversations like the following: > Person 1: Hey, let's go for a jog this afternoon!   > Person 2: Let's! Is it correct to only say "Let's!" instead of "Let's go!"?


title: How different is “Be rid of somebody” from “Get rid of somebody”? Are they interchangeable?

text: In the movie review article of Clint Eastwood’s “J. Edgar” in the New Yorker magazine (November 14) titled “the Man in Charge,” there was the following sentence: > “A single scene with Robert F. Kennedy in the early sixties, when, as > Attorney General, he was Hoover’s boss—stands in for Hoover’s relations with > the various Presidents who _longed to be rid of him_ but didn’t dare show > him the door. Hoover tells Kennedy that he has evidence of his brother’s > sexual escapades with dubious women, and his job remains intact.” I noticed the writer (David Demby) used the phrase “various Presidents longed to “ _be rid of”_ Hoover,” instead of “get rid of” Hoover and show him the door. As I checked the difference of meaning between “be rid of” and “get rid of” with a dictionary at hand (Sanseido’s The Wisdom Dictionary), it defines “be rid of” as “be released from nuisance / trouble,” and “get rid of” as “remove (expel) nuisance / trouble.” Oxford Dictionary also defines “get rid of” as “ _take action_ so as to be free” and “be rid of” as “be freed or relieved of.” If the above definitions apply to the above quote, “be rid of” sounds oddly passive, inactive, and somewhat derogative to a president’s authority to me, and I wonder why the most powerful man in America needed to mercifully “be rid of” one of his mere subordinates, not “get rid of” him to show the door, if he found his subordinate a grave obstacle to his governance, no matter how the latter brandishes his power. Did the author intend to say all presidents who had dealt with Hoover were bound hand and foot by Hoover for almost 50 years and wished simply to "be rid of"? Is it improper to use “get rid of,” instead of “be rid of” Hoover?


title: What's the difference between these sentences?

text: What's the difference between > I'm going to eat my lunch and > I have to go for my lunch and where can I use these sentences?


title: Why are "colleagues" becoming "work colleagues"?

text: I've noticed over the last few years that people who were formerly my colleagues have become my work colleagues. Does anyone know why this should be so? (Perhaps I should also mention that the buildings we used to call "stations" have become "train stations". Perhaps these are specific examples of a more general phenomenon?)


title: Use of "e.g." — are parentheses necessary?

text: Is it appropriate to use "e.g." in a sentence without using parentheses? >   1. This administrative access control should provide visibility into > access via multiple vectors (e.g. group access rights versus individual > account rights). >   2. This administrative access control should provide visibility into > access via multiple vectors e.g. group access rights versus individual > account rights. >


title: "Cancelled" or "Canceled"?

text: _**Cancelled_** or **_Canceled_** ? Which one is right? > You have successfully canceled the registration or > You have successfully cancelled the registration


title: What's the difference in meaning and usage between "target" and "goal"?

text: What are the differences in usage and meaning? For example, is it, > My targets for 2011 are... or > My goals for 2011 are... Which one is correct or more suitable here?


title: Origin of the word "cum"

text: What is the origin of the word _cum_? I'm trying to find the roots for its prevalent usage, especially in North America.


title: Is "one of ten" plural or singular?

text: In the following sentence: > One out of ten people **speaks** (English) as their mother tongue Is "one out of ten" considered singular, or should **speaks** be changed to **speak**?


title: ...if to a reduced degree - meaning, usage

text: > Even so, many of the original advantages of stored programs (such as > enhanced security and reduction in network traffic) still apply, **if** to a > reduced degree. The use of stored programs is still regarded as a “best > practice” by many application developers and architects. Would the meaning of the sentence be the same, if I changed **if** to **even if**? To me, this particular usage of **if** looks strange.


title: Shotgun and front seats in the car

text: What does "calling shotgun" have to do with reservation of a seat near the car driver?


title: Difference between "kinds of books", "kinds of book", "kind of books"

text: I want to know the difference between the usage of "kinds of books", "kinds of book", and "kind of books".


title: "I always hate that"

text: Is _I always hate that_ grammatically correct? Is it a common phrase? For example, > You're always taking pictures of everything. **I always hate that.**


title: Where does "give something a whirl" come from?

text: While > My head is in a whirl. makes sense to me (whirl: a movement of something spinning round and round) I wonder about > _give something a whirl_ which means _to try something to see if you like it or can do it_. I don't get the connection between _whirl_ and _to try_. Where does is it come from?


title: “will have seen yesterday”

text: This is a part of a sentence: > As many of you will have seen yesterday, . . . What does it mean? The words _will_ and _yesterday_ seem to be in contradiction. Is that a correct sentence?


title: What are the pros and cons of learning English from movies and radio?

text: I dedicate one to two hours each day to learning English. I'm focusing on listening and speaking (and improving my accent, of course). I want to know what the pros and cons are of learning English from movies and television (usually U.S. series such as _24_ , _Lost_ , _Prison Break_ etc.) and radio (on stitcher.com and other online stations).


title: "Will shortly appear automatically" — what is the correct order of words in this fragment?

text: I want to say that an answer will appear shortly, and automatically, on the screen. I'm not sure whether the correct sentence is: > The answer will shortly appear automatically. or maybe: > The answer will automatically appear shortly. And I'm not even sure either of these sentences makes sense. Which is the way to go?


title: Can a verb split a subject and its attributive prepositional phrase?

text: Recently a program gave me this text in a dialog box: "All purchases have been downloaded for this account." While I understand its meaning, splitting the subject (the noun and its attributive phrase) makes it awkward in my mind. "All purchases for this account have been downloaded" seems clearer to me. Is there a grammar rule to cover this?


title: Is word "crap" considered a vulgarism?

text: Most common damn-words in English are of course the f-word and the s-word, which are - for my best knowledge - considered vulgarisms. The word "crap" may be used as a damn-word, however I'd bet, that it is not vulgar. Am I correct?


title: What other expressions and sayings do you have as an alternative to ‘Rip Van Winkle meets Facebook.’?

text: In today’s (Feb.10) article titled _Out of Touch, Out of Time_ written by Thomas L. Friedman, I found a really cool phrase, _this is Rip Van Winkle meets Facebook_ , which I understand describes Hosni Mubarak's preposterous decision. In Japanese, when we encounter such an anachronism, we say _it’s like meeting an old ghost on the road_ , _ghost has come back_ , or _return to Genji/Heike-era_. Note:Genji and Heike were two martial clans rivaling for the hegemony of Japan through 11–12 century. Because Friedman uses a recent word, Facebook, this witty remark seems to be his own coinage to me. I think you have many other well-worn English epigrams corresponding to _Rip Van Winkle meets Facebook_. Can you give me some of old versions? > Watching President Hosni Mubarak addressing his nation Thursday night, > explaining why he would not be drummed out of office by foreigners, I felt > embarrassed for him and worried for Egypt. This man is staggeringly out of > touch with what is happening inside his country. This is Rip Van Winkle > meets Facebook.


title: "Up until that time" sounds awkward -- is there a better way to say it?

text: Maybe I'm having a bad day, but I've just written a sentence similar to this one, and it doesn't read well for me, but I can't think of anything better right now: > The task was to build a new accounting system; **up until that time** they > had been doing everything by hand.


title: "Until next week"

text: Today is Tuesday of week 1.   I have just been told to do X **until next week**. When is the last day I can do X?   Sunday of week 1? Sunday of week 2?


title: Why there is an "h" in proper names like Afghanistan, Baghdad and Lamborghini?

text: An "h" may be used to prevent the "g" from being soft, as in _spaghetti_ , but there is no need for an "h" in the mentioned proper names.


title: Catalogue artists

text: Can I say "Catalogue artists" to name a chapter where there is a list of the artists present in an exhibition catalogue?


title: Punctuation following an interruption with a dash

text: I am not sure what the correct punctuation to use when ending a clause that was introduced with a dash when the next character in the main sentence is a punctuation mark. Take the following contrived example: > He was walking down the street when he saw something quite surprising - > being easily surprised was one of his characteristics - : a blue car. Is the punctuation correct in this situation? Even in terms of spaces around the punctuation marks? The same question applies if the interruption appears at the end of a question. For instance: > What on earth could he be expecting from her - she had long ago ceased to > believe he cared for her - ?


title: Changing the meaning of sentence by grammar

text: I would like to ask for meaning of the two following sentence, and whether or not is the grammar correct. Please check my suggestions both "sentences" and meanings. **"I wish I never met you."** \- I met you just now but I do not want to meet you at all (from now to the future). So I wish not to meet you in the future anymore. **"I wish I would have never met you."** \- I regret the day when I have met you. It has happened very long time ago. It was mistake and I regret the fact that I know you.


title: "It will depend on what I [will] see"

text: I want to refer to the future. When someone asks me: "what are you going to do when you have a chance to look at [something]?". How should I reply? Basically, the question is which one is correct (or none): > It will depend on what I see or > It will depend on what I **will** see


title: Present perfect or past simple?

text: I know the basic rules about using PP and PS (like specified time in the past etc.) but in some cases, it is not clear to me: **I have finished painting.** \- present perfect, I just announce that. **I have finished painting for today** \- not sure here? I say that today I will not paint anymore but still I feel PP could be possible. What tense should be here?


title: Present perfect or simple past

text: Why is it better to use simple past than present perfect in the first six sentences? 1.Did you win the game of chess? 2.Did you see Ann? 3.Did you call Jane? 4.When did you join the company? 5.Did you watch her new movie? 6.Did you watch the new movie? You haven't listened to a word, I have said. (Is correct according to the test, but is simple past also possible?) Where is my bike? It_ _was_ ** ___** outside the house, but it’s not there now. (be) was(My choice) has been It_ **_ _stopped_ __ ___ __** raining for a while, but now it’s raining again. (stop) has stopped stopped The police_ **arrested_ ___ __**_three people, but later they let them go. (arrest) arrested my choice have arrested The town is very different now. It_ _has changed_ ** ___ __ ___ _**_a lot. (change) changed has changed my choice


title: Grammar Question: "have never read"

text: > I am afraid I **_have never_** read Life of Pi, the novel by Yann Martel. Is this sentence wrong? If not wrong, is it sloppy? To me it seems more appropriate to say: > I am afraid I **_never_** read Life of Pi, the novel by Yann Martel. If neither is wrong, which is the better way of writing? If possible, could you also contrast the inclusion/exclusion of "have" in the "have never" in the sentences below? >   1. I **_have never_** read anything so stupid in my entire life. >   2. I **_have never_** been to the USA. >   3. I **_have never_** eaten at that restaurant. >   4. I **_never_** read the books; I only attended the lectures. >   5. I **_never_** lied. >   6. I **_have never_** lied. [sentence seems wrong] > On a side note, would the sentence be improved if it is made less wordy? > I never read Yann Martel's Life of Pi.


title: "I have never said" versus "I never said"

text: > I have never said this.   >  I never said this. Is the usage of _have_ in the first sentence justified or grammatically correct?


title: Is saying, "This is funnier too" incorrect?

text: Regardless of context, is the sentence itself correct? What I said was something along the lines of, "This is smarter, and it is funnier too."


title: Why is writing "$1" correct but writing "%100" isn't?

text: It seems like "%100" _should_ be correct if "$1" is correct.


title: What does "kick him off his peg" mean?

text: I read an article, and here is an excerpt: > "One instance involved a staff member emailing his work group to say he'd > completed a job, which the interviewee interpreted as 'big-noting' himself," > Dr Yell said. "Consequently, he replied with a sarcastic email, cc'ed to the > group, asking 'what took him so long', in order to 'kick him off his peg'. What does "kick him off his peg" mean? And what is it's origin?


title: Does "awe" have a colloquial meaning (similar to "awesome")?

text: The meaning of _awe_ is given in dictionaries as "an emotion variously combining dread, veneration, and wonder that is inspired by authority or by the sacred or sublime" (this definition is from Merriam-Webster, the meaning in the OED is more expansive but basically the same). _Awesome_ , the adjective derived from the noun, means, in its old and literary sense, "full of awe" or "inspiring awe". But _awesome_ has a colloquial and slang usage and meaning as well: > "It is one [of] the three words which make up most American sentances [sic]. > The American vocabulary consists of just three words: Omygod, awesome and > shit." (Urban Dictionary; similarly, though less profane, in the OED) Does _awe_ have a colloquial or slang usage as well? And if not, does the common colloquial use of _awesome_ influence the meaning that native speakers of American English understand when they encounter the word _awe_?


title: Right word for "convince somebody to do something softly"?

text: I would like some help with a word which means _convince_ but which indicates that it takes quite a lot of gentle effort to achieve the desired result. > My name is Gopal and I love Aarthi. She loves Raghav. > > Ever since Raghav lost his job, Aarthi hadn't met me too often as she wanted > to be with him. Finally, on her weekly holiday I **___ ___** her to meet up Which of the following words fits best for the above blank with that meaning? Here are the dictionary definitions for the words that I have found. > **Cajole** = persuade someone to do something by sustained coaxing or > flattery.   >  **Persuade** = cause (someone) to believe something, esp. after a sustained > effort; convince.   >  **Coax** = persuade (someone) gradually or by flattery to do something.   >  **Wheedle** = employ endearments or flattery to persuade someone to do > something or give one something.   >  **Palaver** = prolonged and idle discussion.   >  **Blarney** = talk that aims to charm, pleasantly flatter, or persuade.   >  **Sweet-talk** = insincerely praise (someone) in order to persuade them to > do something.   >  **Inveigle** =persuade (someone) to do something by means of deception or > flattery.


title: Adjective with proper noun

text: Rephrasing the entire question: Do we use the article "the" when we use an adjective with a proper noun? Which of these is correct, and why? > The terrible Mr. Brown set my boat on fire. > > Terrible Mr. Brown set my boat on fire. > > The US-based Galacto, Inc., takes care of its customers. > > US-based Galacto, Inc., takes care of its customers. ~~Do we use the article "the" when we use an adjective with a proper noun? Which of these is correct? > The Switzerland-based ABC Fund operates in most countries of the EU. > > Switzerland-based ABC Fund operates in most countries of the EU. I have a feeling the first sentence is correct but that it sounds a little old-fashioned. What about phrases like, "The terrible Mr Brown"? You could argue that we're actually saying, "The terrible man Mr Brown". Said like that it sounds like an appositive, but is there something else going on here? Is there a term for this kind of phrase? EDIT: By using the noun _fund_ in my example, I have not made it clear what the question is. How would "the" work in "The US-based XYZ, Inc."? ~~


title: Is there a term for words that are sounded out initialisms?

text: The words "okay" and "emcee" seem to both be somewhat widely accepted (at least, I can find both in several dictionaries). But it seems to be agreed that these are simply sounded-out spellings of the initialisms "O.K." and "M.C." respectively. Are there any other words like this, and is there a general term for them?


title: What is a "go-around" in this context?

text: Well, to begin with, I don't even know what is the usual meaning of "go- around". So, if you know, please, explain it to me. But in this case this noun ("go-around") seems even to be used in a slightly different sense. One user whose name is Chrisnfolsom, while answering my question on the proper way how to describe a woman that isn't able to conceive a baby said in his answer these words: > The joke was not meant to provide answers, but a funny lesson on the > complexity of the English language - not that other languages aren't > complex. Many lessons are best illustrated through humor - although the > underlying lessons of that message can be missed entirely. Thanks for the > **_go-around_** here; I was able to give my daughter a lesson in the fun and > folly of language. I don't know what he meant here by "go-around" (italics and bold type in the quote are mine). Of course, I could have asked him there this question, but since I don't even know the primary meaning of that word, I think it would be proper to make it as a separate question and not spend his time. Special request for Chrisnfolsom: If you happen to see this question, please, explain to me what you meant by "go-around" there - no one else knows better than you what you were saying.


title: What does "BlackBerry-ing during a gorgeous party" mean?

text: I came across the word "BlackBerry-ing" in this _New York Times_ article introducing New York governor Andrew M. Cuomo’s "Kitchen Diplomacy." > More grizzled legislators were less impressed, with one senator recalling > that during a question-and-answer period, "I was in the middle of > BlackBerry-ing." Though I guess it's a figurative remark insinuating "sit on the fence," I may be wrong. I have no clue where to find out what "BlackBerry-ing" means from the context of the above sentence. Can anybody tell me?


title: "He didn't know where New Jersey was"

text: I know the past tense carries the past tense in every dependent clause, but referring specifically to places or to things that are eternal, like the Earth, seems a bit weird and therefore we sometimes (I believe incorrectly) say > He didn't know that New Jersey was actually in the East Coast. Because it still is. Or > He thought the Earth was round. So is it square now? Logically speaking, would you consider the use of past tense here a bit confusing in day-to-day speech in these examples? Would you instinctively opt for using the present tense?


title: Tense change: previous actions on something that's currently true

text: I'm describing a situation that happened in the past. To explain it, I want to use a description that is both true now and true when the situation happened. Specifically, I want something like: > She touched me where my neck met my collarbone. Since my neck is _still_ attached to my collarbone (thankfully), I'm wondering if I shouldn't use the present tense here instead: > She touched me where my neck meets my collarbone. Which is preferable, and why?


title: Use of IS and WAS in reported speech

text: Which one is more correct: > Melissa said she **was** going to the mall. or > Melissa said she **is** going to the mall.


title: Didn't you know there+ was/is

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is past tense correct here? What is the difference between the following: > Didn't you know there _was_ an election today. > > Didn't you know there _is_ an election today. Isn't the second one ungrammatical?


title: A question about the usage of the word "occur"

text: I have read a sentence including _occur_ in New Concept English, a well-known English reference book focusing on rules of British English. And in order to fully grasp the word, I tried to make a sentence with it, but in the middle, I was greatly confused by the tense. > It suddenly occurred to me that he [is/was] a considerate leader. Supposing that the truth is he is definitely a considerate manager, and while I was doing something yesterday, the thought slipped into my mind. Which tense is more appropriate? And please explain in detail, thanks!


title: "I didn't know you golf" vs "I didn't know you golfed"

text: While reading a popular author I came across: > "I left my clubs at home, so I can't play." > > "Oh? I didn't know (that) you **golf**." This sounds wrong, but presumably it was passed by at least one editor. To me, the past tense "golfed" would be more appropriate. But if this way works too, what sort of construct is it?


are the tense of the verbs true in each sentence? 1-I think Jimmy did his duty as other police officers do.(simple past+simple present is true?) 2-I think he did the right thing because he is a police officer (simple past+present is true?)


title: Will this kind of entanglement of tenses be acceptable?

text: > All dictionaries I consulted say that "nog" is not an English word. （self- > made) Will this kind of entanglement of tenses be acceptable for English? At first, I used past tense, then switched to present tense immediately. But I think it fits well into the reality,my action of consulting a dictionary has become the past, whereas the dictionaries themselves still remain the same, and say the same thing about that word.


title: Direct to Reported Speech - a scenario of ambiguity

text: The question is: How would one convert > He said, "My name is Harry" to reported speech? Rules do say that the converted sentence reads > He said that his name was Harry. The factor causing discomfort is the 'was' part of it. So it means that his name 'was' Harry and nothing is said about what his name 'is'! So there is a radical change in meaning!! In that light, the converted sentence should read > He said that his name is Harry. Isn't the latter the correct conversion?


title: Shifting tenses in a short story

text: I am writing a short story using past tense, but I am a little bit confused when it comes to writing this part:               She had never seen a man as athletic as him before.  She knew Japanese men (were / are)     not as tall as British men...      Is it appropriate to shift tense here? Or do I use the past tense throughout? The narrator is stating a fact about a **fictional** world in my story. Hope my question and explanation makes sense. Thanks!


title: I thought...WAS vs. I thought ....IS?

text: I read this phrase: **_"I thought your essay about Internet WAS very accurate_** " I wonder why the past tense is used in here! Doesn't it have to be: "I thought your essay about Internet IS very accurate"? Thanks all in advance.


title: Stating facts that occured in the past

text: > We were shocked when we found/find out the toilet had/has no flush. My natural intuition would lead me to write this way: > We were shocked when we found out the toilet had no flush. Then I thought that I was really trying to say that it's the kind of traditional toilet where there is no such thing as a flush — they cover them with banana leaves (seriously). So, I am stating a fact that still holds true. Hence I revised as below. > We were shocked when we find out the toilet has no flush. Can someone please explain and/or correct the sentence above?


title: Using past tense when referencing a still-true fact

text: In the sentence: _"I didn't know she_ **_had_** _a son,"_ Can I say _"I didn't know she_ **_has_** _a son"_ instead, because he is a teenager now? Or are both correct?


title: passive Vs active or omission of 'which is'

text: What is the part of speech of 'regarded' in the following? > "a quality of beauty and intensity of emotion **regarded** as characteristic > of poems" (NOAD) Why isn't it "... [which is] regarded ..."? And in another case: > "a small lizard with wide feet, **found** especially in warm countries" > (CALD) And also: > " **Words used** to describe writing or speech style" (Macmillan) In all these examples, why shouldn't the verbs be in their passive form (e.g. **which is found** , **words that are used** )? I am a ESL learner and I am very confused by these usages!


title: I threw a coin in a well that [was] or [is] in the forest

text: Which statement is correct and why? I threw a coin in a well that was in the forest. vs I threw a coin in a well that is in the forest. Also, is the "is/was" before "in the forest" called a linking verb? Lastly, is the phrase "that [was/is] in the forest" an adjectival phrase that is describing forest?


title: Sequence of Tense

text: Which one is correct? >   1. Centuries ago, people weren't aware that the planets revolved around > the sun. > >   2. Centuries ago, people weren't aware that the planets revolve around the > sun. > > In my grammar book it has mentioned the first one as "grammatical correct sentence", but it has not done such a comparison.


title: Is it grammatically correct to change tense in a sentence?

text: When writing a sentence, can I change from past-tense to present-tense in the middle of it? For example, > Joey realized that the ball is green. or > Joey realized that the ball was green. I am talking about a ball which is always green. The second example implies that the ball was green and that it may or may not still be green. However, Joey realizes it in the past. Is the first sentence grammatically correct?


title: Usage of passive forms without "be" verb

text: I will very grateful if you can help me understand the following issue: As I understand, the next two sentences are interchangeable and have the same meaning: 1) _Acts that are done by humans are not necessarily moral._   2) _Acts done by humans are not necessarily moral._ The first option is a standard way of using the passive form of the verb. However, I don't understand why the second option is correct, If "done" this case as passive form of the verb or even if it can be treated as an adjective, I am expecting to see some tense of the "be" verb before. There are many other similar examples, especially when using verbs like: "shown, suggested, presented, defined and etc." with a reference to a previous sentence of our article/text. Thank you in advance.


title: Why can "which" and "who" be dropped in some sentences?

text: These two sentences are trying to express the same thought: >   1. Now we examine the trunk, which is also called the boot, especially > outside North America. > >   2. Now we examine the trunk, also called the boot, especially outside > North America. > > First, are they grammatically correct? If so, why is it ok to drop the "which is" from the first sentence? Similarly with "who", we can say "This is Robert, who is also called Bob." or "This is Robert, also called Bob."


title: question on past or present in indirect speech

text: Amit: I will send you an email. Me: OK. After one day how can i tell this indirectly. Should i say Amit told me that he would send me an email or Amit told me that he will send me an email. It is now past because he didn't send me an email It is also possible he can still send me an email I am confused should i use will or would?


title: What tense to use when reporting something which has never been true or never happened?

text: > The report said that years ago city planners had planned to build a facility > that **turns** salt water into fresh water, but financial woes made that > impossible. In this sentence should turned be used instead of turns?


title: Which tense would you use... is or was?

text: I am writing a note to a young man's parents after meeting him and don't know which tense is correct. Would you say: Don and I were so impressed with how genuinely kind, well-mannered and articulate he is. or would you say: Don and I were so impressed with how genuinely kind, well-mannered and articulate he was.


title: repeat the past conversation

text: My mum says: > You have to go back home tomorrow by 6pm. The day after, do I tell my friend: > My mum said I have to go back home by 6pm > > OR > > My mum said I had to go back home by 6pm Another example: my mum says > I think it is a good chance for you. Next day after, do I tell my friend: > My mum thought it is a good chance for me. > > OR > > My mum thought it was a good chance for me. When I repeat the past conversation by using "(someone) said", is it a must that I need to change the sentence to past tense, or can I keep it in present tense?


title: Will the sentences be correct?

text: We all know that universal statements are always in present tense. For example, > My grandma did not believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Here, though the sentence is in past tense, _Earth revolves around the Sun_ remains in simple present tense. But in case of a false belief that is contrary to a universal truth, does the above rule apply similarly? For example, > My grandma believed that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Will this sentence be taken as grammatically correct? Shouldn't it be "My grandma believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth"?


title: tense agreement about truth

text: For example, "I found that LA is not an island." (Truth always) or "I ensured them that car insurance is necessary." (Truth in past and now still) Do I have to use "was" instead of "is" for tense agreement?


title: "I told him I am 20" vs. "I told him I was 20"

text: Suppose I am 20 years old. Which the following is correct?   1. Someone asked me how old I am. I told him I am 20.   2. Someone asked me how old I was. I told him I was 20.


title: Is back-shifting necessary in speech and writing

text: Can I say "I told you he is going to the book club" when he has already gone there by now; or is it necessary to back-shift it to past i.e. "I told you he _was_ going to the book club". So will I be understood perfectly if I used the "is going" version (not back=shifting it). This situation seems new to me. So I thought I'd ask that: Does it seem difficult to understand for the other person if we do not back- shift to past??. And is it gramaticaly correct??


title: Starting a sentence with "In the following, ..."

text: My native language is German, where we have a phrase **_"Im Folgenden"_** to start a sentence. In scientific writing (e.g., in a paper) can I start a sentence with > In the following, we refer to three examples that are ... Is it better to use > In this section, we refer to three examples that are... In other words, is it true that "In the following" cannot be used by itself, there must be another word, like "In the following chapter..."


title: can we say "look forward and downward"?

text: Suppose I'm instructing people to learn Chinese kungfu and I ask them to look at the direction, downward and forward(it's the movement of their eyes). If I want to say "look forward and look downward at the same time", can I express it in the following way? > "look forward and downward." I don't know if it's natural in English. If not, how should we say? Thank you in advance.


title: Is 'persona' similar to 'personality'?

text: Is there any difference between persona and personality, or do they have the same meaning? Are there any different way of using these words?


title: "Let's" vs. "lets": which is correct?

text: Say I'm promoting a product. Which is correct? >   * [Product] let's you [do something awesome]. >   * [Product] lets you [do something awesome]. > Or neither?


title: Usage of Lets vs Let's for 'Let us'

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "Let's" vs. "lets": which is correct?   1. Lets now see how it can be done.   2. Let's now see how it can be done. Is sentence 1 wrong?


title: Is there a word for "Someone who/Something that caches"?

text: Cache is defined as: > noun   >  a collection of items of the same type stored in a hidden or inaccessible > place : _an arms cache_ | _a cache of gold coins_. and has the following synonyms: > hoard, store, stockpile, stock, supply, reserve; arsenal; informal stash. I'm looking for a word for someone/something that _does_ the caching, my first thought was that they are a "Cacher" but that doesn't seem to be a word. This makes sense to me though as you have a "Hoarder", "Storer", "Stockpiler", "Stocker", "supplier" etc. Does anybody know the right word?


title: Is it redundant to say, "…based on any arbitrary criteria?"

text: Should "arbitrary" suffice on its own, or does it make sense to include "any?"


title: What is the difference between "special" and "especial"?

text: I can decide accurately which to use in a given context, but I can't make out the actual difference in definition between "special" and "especial". I have searched two authoritative dictionaries to no avail.


title: Do we need “about” in “Employees are unhappy with about low wages”?

text: I saw the following lead copy of today’s New York Times (May 24) article titled, “Union Effort Turns Its Focus to Target “ “The retailer's employees are unhappy with _about_ low wages and short workweeks.” I have a simple question. Do we need “ _about_ ” after "with"? Isn't this redundant?


title: Is the use of a hyphen between "non" and an adjective strictly necessary?

text: Do I need to put a "-" between "non" and an adjective? As an example in physics we say "a non isolated photon", "non tight photon"... The context is very formal (paper publications and similar). Is there a general rule? Are there some differences between countries?


title: Etymology vs. ethymology

text: Merriam-webster lists the word _etymology_ but not _ethymology_. Is the latter spelling wrong, or is it used in some regional variation?


title: "After downloaded" vs. "After downloading"

text: What is the difference between "After downloaded" and "After downloading"? Are they both grammatical? >   1. After downloaded, I start running this program. > >   2. After downloading, I start running this program. > > Is it also correct to say "after to download"?


title: "to be computed"or"being computed"?

text: I am a little bit confused regarding _to be computed_ and _being computed_ : > Each node in this figure is a task that corresponds to an intermediate table > that needs **to be computed** and the arrows between nodes indicate > dependencies between the tasks. Or: > Each node in this figure is a task that corresponds to an intermediate table > that needs **being computed** and the arrows between nodes indicate > dependencies between the tasks. Which one is preferred? Why?


title: What does 'engage' mean as in 'The VC has officially engaged'

text: I read the newspaper articles about investments, often see something like: > The VC [venture capitalist] has officially engaged. What does _engage_ mean in this context?


title: Word for "unable to be bought"

text: I'm writing a paper which includes some analysis of the fact that love cannot be bought. Repeating "cannot be bought" is becoming banal and repetitive, and I was wondering if there is a suitable replacement for it.


title: Correct punctuation to introduce a supporting quote

text: What is the correct way to punctuate the end of a sentence before a quote that directly supports the statement? I assume either a colon or a semicolon, but I have no idea which is correct. For example: > Waldo is a better hide-and-seek player than Clem **;** "Waldo was the winner > of the past ten annual hiding awards" (Where's Waldo 13). > > Waldo is a better hide-and-seek player than Clem **:** "Waldo was the winner > of the past ten annual hiding awards" (Where's Waldo 13). (Excuse the silly example, but I didn't have a better one.)


title: Use of "because of"

text: In high school, the teacher told me that _because_ is used to answer “why” question, as below: >   * Why ~~you~~ are you using my shoes? >   * I am using your shoes because I like them. > However, the use of _of_ after _because_ looks like it changes the meaning to something completely different: > The sun hid its light because of the eclipse How can I distinguish where I should use just a plain _because_ without any _of_ following it from where I should use the full _because of_ phrase?


title: Are "traitor" and "trader" pronounced the same?

text: Are "traitor" and "trader" distinguishable when spoken with any English accent? My English-speaking friends seem to pronounce them exactly the same way.


title: What is the unit measure used to detect magnetic indentations in a hard drive?

text: As the title states, what is the unit measure used to detect magnetic indentations in a hard drive? To clarify, what I mean by indentation is, what is measured to determine if a byte is a 1 or 0?


title: The usage of relationship

text: I want to express that the sleeping time has no much relationship with the activity and ... But the following sentence looks very strange. Please help me paraphrase this one: > No absolute relationship between sleep time and the activity, entertainment, > and learning time.


title: siphon vs. syphon - any reason to prefer one over the other?

text: I've come across two spellings for this word. **Siphon** and **syphon** are apparently both correct. English is not my first language and this word is not used often in practice, especially in written form. I am very curious about this. Is there any reason to prefer one over the other? And which spelling would be more common? Is it a regional thing (like maybe American like one and British the other) or something else. I wonder if this is a specific case of more common interchange between _i_ and _y_ in some words - which would be interesting. Wikipedia suggests that siphon may be more common spelling.


title: Does “can be” have an alternative that is not in the passive voice?

text: I have been experimenting with different forms of grammar recently, and have enabled Verbose Grammar Checks in Microsoft Word to alert me when I am unknowingly using the passive voice. I wanted to find an alternative to _can be_ that is not in the passive voice. If possible can you alter the following sentence, to avoid the passive voice: > C♯ can be compiled natively.


title: What adverb, typical of AmE, coincides the most with the BrE sense to "quite" [=to a noticeable or partial extent]?

text: As long as -- seemingly -- the adverb "quite" in AmE idiomatically carries an emphatic sense to it -- pretty much similar to saying "completely" or "absolutely" as in "That girl looks quite pretty!" -- what adverb (or phrase, or grammatical construction) would Americans typically use -- in speech and writing -- that would coincide the most with the chiefly BrE sense to "quite" [=to a noticeable or a partial degree]? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Quite?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Pretty?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Rather?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fairly?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Somewhat?s=t Would they more likely say something like: >   * That girl looks somewhat pretty. > >   * That girl looks rather pretty. > >   * That girl looks fairly pretty. > >   * That girl looks not too [...]. > >   * That girl looks pretty to some degree (or extent, or point). > > > > Etc. Or, would they rather use a "-ly" ending adverb and say: >   * That girl looks moderately pretty. > >   * That girl looks passably pretty. > >   * That girl looks partially pretty. > > > > Etc. In informal contexts, would they more likely say something like: >   * That girl looks sort of/kind of (sorta/kinda) pretty. > >   * That girl looks some pretty. > >   * That girl doesn't look too [...]. > > > > Etc. Consider the phrase "That girl looks...pretty" merely as an example. The adverb (or phrase, or construction" should work also with other instances of BrE "quite", e.g. "I'm quite well".


title: Alternatives to the common construction "didn't used to"

text: I am hearing the use of this odd-sounding construction more and more frequently as of late. For example: > I didn't used to smoke. > > I didn't used to work for McDonald's. I was trying to think of alternatives to this phrase but all I could think of was _previously_ : > I didn't previously smoke. > > I didn't previously work for McDonald's. That said, **to me** , the use of "previously" instead implies an event took place that changed the fact in the statement. In other words, to me, "previously" is more similar to "prior to (something)," whereas "didn't used to" refers to the general _past_. Are there any better alternatives to that of which I have already thought?


title: Single word for someone having a fetish for watching women breastfeed?

text: My wife was wondering if there were people out there who have a thing for watching women breast feed their kids. I went to google it but nothing really came up (So I'm posting here to look for the right keyword), the only close Wikipedia article was for 'Erotic Lactation', which isn't really what I'm referring to.


title: Use "have" or "has" any/anyone/anything in the question?

text: Similar to this question, is it correct to use `have` or `has` with any* (any/anything/anyone/...) in a question? Examples:   * Have/Has any of my advices help you?   * Have/Has anyone of you seen it? Does it depend on the context, or is there a general rule?


title: Which of the below is correct?

text: We were given a question like: > Use an article to fill in the blank: > > 1.Man is **___ __ ___ ___** creation of God. Options were a) **a** b) **the** After blasting my mind off, i guessed the answer to be `a` like > Man is a creation of God since it _sounded_ better. But I would like to know when to use **the** and **a**


title: What does the grave accent mark on words mean?

text: What exactly does the grave accent mean in English? An example from Shakespeare’s Sonnet 30: > The sad account of fore-bemoanèd moan


title: "Boys will be boys!" Is 'will be' a future simple of 'be' or a present simple of modal auxiliary 'will'?

text: In the proverb: > Boys will be boys! is 'will be' one verb or two?   1. the _future simple of 'be'_ (one verb)? or   2. the _present simple of modal auxiliary 'will'_ \+ the _bare present infinitive of 'be'_ (two verbs)?


title: Other word for an empty promise (that is likely not to be held)

text: I'm not exactly sure how to word my questions properly, but here it is: Say I receive a reply from customer support such as: "We will take your concern very seriously" But I get the feeling that this is just a generic reply without an actual possibility of the promise being fulfilled. How do you call such a statement? * * * Wow, and I feared I asked a poor question. I had never dreamed of getting so much feedback, which is what makes accepting an answer so much more difficult (which is further complicated by not being a native speaker). Thanks to everyone for all the replies! I think I'll go with jwpat7's answer because it lists multiple possibilities along with explanations.


title: Are/is "headquarters" always used as plural?

text: I'm studying _Intelligent Business English_ , there is a question like this: > ... The company has offices in six countries, but the -------- are in > Brussels. > > a. headquarters > > b. main > > c. bank > > d. house I think b, c and d don't make sense, so a is the answer. But the word is "are", which means it is a plural. I looked up a source:   * My dictionary tells it is always plural.   * This discussion: (Link too long, please click here),  So, in most cases, which type is _headquarters?_ Plural or singular?


title: Distinction between pre-hire onboarding and post-hire onboarding

text: Wikipedia talks of onboarding as "the mechanism through which new employees acquire the necessary knowledge, skills, and behaviors to become effective organizational members and insiders." And about.com has an article that discusses "Onboarding: Before The Employee Starts". This is too broad for my usage. In naming projects for my HR department, how can I logically separate tasks relating to bringing the employee in the door:   * Get ID badge   * Get parking pass   * Process W-4 paperwork   * Clean out office and post-first-day organization socialization:   * Initiate sales training   * 30-day follow up   * Introduction to our products   * Employee shadowing


title: "Nikki's and Alice's X" vs. "Nikki and Alice's X"

text: Which option is grammatical? >   1. There will be readings from Nikki Giovanni’s and Alice Walker’s > writings. >   2. There will be readings from Nikki Giovanni and Alice Walker's writings. > Saying it out loud the latter sounds right, but looking at it the former looks better.


title: "his" may be more suitable but why is "him" not ok ?

text: Consider the following :   1. A friend of him came here yesterday.   2. A friend of his came here yesterday. My question is which one is acceptable. If both are acceptable, do they have any difference in meaning. Hope somebody knowledgable could help ...


title: Plural of passerby

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Words that are pluralized in the middle? Why is the plural of "passerby" "passers-by" and not "passerbies"?


title: Listening multiple possessives and the use of apostrophes

text: I want to say that 2 or more people all have something like this: John's and Mary's hats. Is this correct or would it have to be: John and Mary's hats.


title: How do you make the possessive form with "He and I"-style subjects?

text: Despite being a native speaker of American English, I cannot find a construction that sounds natural when trying to form a possessive from coordinated subjects including a first person pronoun, like "He and I" or "My brother and I." If it's "You and I," I can just use "our." But what is the proper way to form a possessive in these other instances? > The cat which belongs to my brother and me ran away. > >   * ? My brother and I's cat ran away. >   * * My brother's and my cat ran away. >   * */? Me and my brother's cat ran away. > Oddly enough, the one which sounds the most natural to me (and which I hear most often in natural speech, is the last: "me and my brother's." My hypothesis is that this is used to avoid the issue with the first-person possessive form, but that could very well be wrong. However, I'm not sure this is the best answer, either, as it introduces some pretty bad ambiguity in some places. > A person who is a friend to both my brother and me got married yesterday. > >   * */? Me and my brother's friend got married yesterday. > I think you can see the obvious problem. What is the proper way to possessivize coordinated first-/third-person subjects? _Edit:_ I would much prefer an answer which does not require rephrasing the entire sentence.


title: Compound possession

text: In the following sentence: > Lewis and Clark's expectations were very much the same. Would you agree that it should be: > Lewis's and Clark's expectations were very much the same. Because even though they were similar, they were not the same, therefore they are different and the apostrophe should be use in both pronouns to show difference. Any opinion is welcomed.


title: possessive case: "you and Bob's wedding"?

text: I understand that, if two nouns possess something, the possessive case is only applied to the second noun, _i.e._ it is "Alice and Bob's wedding". Following this rule, if I talk to Alice and refer to their wedding, would it be correct to say "you and Bob's wedding"? To my (non-native speaker's) sense of language, the "you" sounds completely wrong. So maybe it should be "your and Bob's wedding"?


title: What is the correct way to possessivize (if that's a word) a compound noun?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Preferred way to apostrophise in case of dual or multiple ownership by > distinct entities When forming the possessive of a compound noun, does one add "'s" to both or just one of the nouns? For example, > Jim's and Huck's raft or > Jim and Huck's raft


title: Preferred way to apostrophise in case of dual or multiple ownership by distinct entities

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "Nikki's and Alice's X" vs. "Nikki and Alice's X" Consider describing the wedding of X and Y. If I want to avoid the overly- formal and poor-flowing "wedding of", it is more correct to say "X and Y's wedding" or "X's and Y's wedding"? I acknowledge a very similar question has already been asked: What possessive forms are used for mutual 1st person ownership? But unfortunately the example given is able to be easily phrased a different way and so respondents have been able to get away with avoiding the direct question. Let's face it, we come across the need to get across the concept of mutual possession all the time and we don't always want to have to resort to the more tortured "Z of X and Y" as with the French language. NB: In some cases, people get around this problem by dropping the apostrophes altogether and "adjectivising" the owners, especially if the owners are actually plural entities themselves. Eg. The "Mazda and Mitsubishi combined outputs" instead of the "Mazda's and Mitsubishi's combined outputs". Let's not let this muddy the waters though.


title: My and Linda's or Mine and Linda's?

text: How do you use possessive pronouns in cases where there are multiple "owners" and "objects" in question? For example would it be: "I've included my and Linda's suggestions in the file" or "I've included mine and Linda's suggestions in the file" ? Also, should I always include "both" before the first possessive pronoun in the sentence and what should be the listing order: me first or Linda first?


title: Question about dual possesive nouns

text: I am writing a technical letter for my (and my lab partner’s) senior design project (we are engineering majors) and I would like some help on properly phrasing part of the letter. The project belongs to _my partner and I_. I was always taught in school that in cases of dual possession, _I_ should always proceed the other possessors. Suppose for a moment that the project was just mine. Then in that case, the sentence below would be grammatically correct. > Attached to this email is my project selection. Now if the project only belonged to my partner, this sentence would also be grammatically correct. > Attached to this email is my partner's project selection. However, since this project belongs to both of us, I need to phrase the sentence accordingly. The sentence below doesn’t appear to be correct in my opinion. > Attached to this email is my partner and I's project selection. This one sounds better, but doesn’t follow the rules I was taught. > Attached to this email is mine and my partner’s project selection. So which phrase (if any) should I use to be grammatically correct? Thanks


title: What is the gramatically correct form?

text: What is the gramatically correct form:   * "my mom and dad's house" or   * "my mom's and dad's house"?


title: How to use "my" correctly in a plural possessive?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is "my wife and I's" correct, or should it be "my wife's and my"? Are the following sentences grammatically correct? If not, how should I correct them? This situation has always tripped me up, since "me and (noun)'s (noun)" is the common slang way to speak. > My wife's and my anniversary is on Saturday. Or another example: > Patrick's and my bathroom is painted red.


title: How to indicate possession by e.g. passers-by, mothers-in-law

text: I'm quite fond of internal pluralisation, such as passers-by, mothers-in-law, or even Chambers of Commerce. However, I've recently realised that I've no idea how to indicate possession in such a case. Neither "Mothers-in-law's" nor "mothers'-in-law" seem right. Is there a corrct way of doing this, or should it just be avoided?


title: You and someone else and someone else and you

text: Here's an exact example if the title doesn't make sense. Hello Bob, I wanted to thank you for your and Steve's time earlier this week. Or Hello Bob, I wanted to thank you for Steve's and your time earlier this week.


title: "Me and Joey's" or "mine and Joey's"

text: Which of the following should I use? > Today is me and Joey's anniversary   >  Today is mine and Joey's anniversary


title: Words that are pluralized in the middle?

text: This is purely a curiosity, but I'm fascinated by mid-word pluralization, even if the word in question is a compound word. For example, **passersby** or **standersby**. No others have occurred to me. Can you provide other examples, or a link to a resource that enumerates them? I'm particularly interested in compounds that do not include spaces or hyphens.


title: Plural form of "Son-in-law"

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Words that are pluralized in the middle? I've heard it pronounced both ways: > Sons-in-law and > Son-in-laws While one may be more technically correct than the other, are they both equally acceptable based on popular usage?


title: "my", "of me", "of mine" - when to use these possessive constructions

text: I have been encountering possessive constructions with the preposition "of" and a possessive form of pronoun frequently, but I do not fully understand what it means and when to use it. In particular, "of mine" seems to occur only in "a friend of mine". Question 1: In how far can these forms be used interchangeably? Is "of mine" to be considered archaic? Question 2: While it is pretty clear that "of me" means "my", is it true that "of mine" should be understood as "of my ones"?


> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is "my wife and I's" correct, or should it be "my wife's and my"? How to use the possessive form when referring to someone else and yourself? For example, how could this awkward sentence be rephrased... > We're all going to to the apartment which belongs to Christina and me. ... to use the possessive form? These don't sound/feel right... > We're all going to Christina and me's apartment. > > We're all going to Christina and mine's apartment.


title: 'Sarah and Jane's philosophy of life' or 'Sarah's and Jane's philosophy of life'?

text: I am not sure. I want to say 'Jane's and Sarah's etc' but the 'etc' being both's, is it written 'Jane and Sarah's etc.'? And is this always the case or are there exceptions? Thanks


title: One or two apostrophes for two subjects in the possessive case?

text: Which is correct: [Bonus question: should there be a question mark here instead of a colon?] > The book contains **Marx** and Engels' theories about the nature of society > and politics. or > The book contains **Marx's** and Engels' theories about the nature of > society and politics It seems to me that the former is more common, but I am confused here since the latter seems more logical to me (and matches what you would see in my native language Icelandic).