I noticed in reports of the recent GOP debate a number of instances where the phrase “Person A debated Person B.” was used rather than “Person A debated with Person B.” Is this common in USA?
Is it really correct to say such a thing as, “We are waiting on your mother,” when referring to the anticipation of the arrival of someone’s mother? It would seem to me that it would be more appropriate, if not more comfortable (at least for the lady), to “wait for your mother.” One can wait on the corner, and one can wait on a table (if that is his profession), but does one really want to wait on his dinner? It seems to me that the preposition “from” has been replaced by “on” when used in conjunction with the word “wait.” It makes me cringe! Lately, I’ve heard it so often, I must look like a victim of St. Vitus Dance!
Is it escaped prison or escaped from prison?
Is this not just perpetuating the English caste system? Why are words like “a lot of”, ” a bit of”, “get” considered lower-class words and “a great deal/number of” and similar cumbersome periphrases considered “better” ?
For instance: “We need to do everything we can prevention-wise.” Other similar words: taxwise, money-wise, property-wise, food-wise I realise there has been resistance to indiscriminate usage; the question is really about what constitutes “indiscriminate”? Secondly, why the prejudice against what is a productive and concise suffix, when the alternative phrases are cumbersome and pretentious.
How do we justify “a” with a non-count noun such as “...to have a knowledge of Latin...” ?
Can anyone tell me why the second ‘a’ in Canada and Canadian is pronounced differently? I’m English/British and I and from England/Britain. Surely it should either be Can-a-da & Can-a-dian or Can-ay-da & Can-ay-dian... My guess is it has something to do with the French influence, but I would love to know for sure. Here in the UK our language has been heavily influenced over the years, including by the French and it has always interested where these things start or change.
In my opinion, the greatest pain in the English language is the so-called Tenses. Generation after generation, grammarians and linguists have been trying to use the term for describing how English Verb System works writing more and more wise books on the subject, without any visible results. Millions of ESL/EFL learners find Tenses to be hopelessly tangled, confusing and totally incomprehensible. So do a great number of ESL/EFL teachers. And it is no wonder, because describing English grammar as having only past and present is like trying to describe a car as having three wheels. I think that English can do perfectly well without “Tenses” because it is a meaningless and therefore useless term.
From my local medical centre’s web page:- “The carpark at xxxxxx Health & Wellness Centre is now limited to 180 minutes. Cars parked longer than this and not displaying an exemption permit will be infringed with a $65 parking fine. This is intended to keep the carpark free for patients and customers of the building only. Unauthorised parkers leaving their vehicles in our carpark all day will be infringed.”
“I’ve lived many years in Kentucky.” How comfortable are you with this grammar in writing? Would you prefer “I’ve lived in Kentucky for many years” ? Is this just an Americanism? How widespread is this pattern?
A change that has happened in my lifetime is the use of ‘1800s’, ‘1900s’ and so on. When I was young they referred to the first decade of the century. They would be followed by the ‘1910s’, ‘1920s’ et al. Now they’re used to mean the whole century. I’m not whinging - just noting the changes that happen with the years.
A colleague of mine claimed that you can say “In the long term” instead of “In the long run”. Is that correct?
Could I use both a colon and semicolon in a sentence? A college will provide help for students who are struggling in homework; the resources are: study skills that help students to be on top of coursework, counselors will give advices dealing with the workload, and the option to drop a class early.
Does this “The flu is going around. In order to keep from catching it, you should gargle and wash your hands regularly” Make sense? I’ve never heard. “In order to keep from catching it.” used in a sentence before.
I was in empty space in an elevator one day when it occurred to me that it’s actually “pains-taking”, the taking of pains to do something thoroughly. I’d never thought about it before. But it’s too hard to pronounce “painz-taking”, because the “z” sound must be voiced; whereas the unvoiced “s” combines easily with the “t” to make “-staking”, so that’s what we say. That’s my theory, but BrE might be different. Is it?
For example, “Every morning, I wake up at 6:00 am and then I make a cup of coffee.” As a writing teacher for international students, I see this kind of sentence all the time. I know it is technically correct to use a comma before a coordinating conjunction, but I have found that so many Americans omit this comma that it has become extremely commonplace even among native English speakers. Is it socially acceptable in writing to omit the comma? How serious is it to mandate that my international include this comma?
Could you please explain the difference in the following sentences? 1. The instruments used are very reliable. 2. The instruments being used are very reliable. Are participle 2 “used” and passive participle 1 “being used” interchangeable in this context?
I seem to be pretty fond of the adverb ‘pretty’ used as a modifier, so was rather surprised when one of my young Polish students told me that his teacher at school had said that this use was ‘OK with his mates’ (his words), but inappropriate in the classroom. Looking around I see that this is not an isolated objection, although people didn’t seem to complain about it much before 1900. Why has this word, much used by eighteenth and nineteenth century writers, writers of prescriptive grammar included, attracted this opposition in more recent times?
The New York Yankees The Utah Jazz The Orlando Magic
I’m new here, and am wondering what all you experts think about the use of the word “leverage” as a verb. It seems it’s being used more often recently. Personally I feel that “leverage” is a noun, as defined by Merriam-Webster’s as “the action of a lever or the mechanical advantage gained by it”. However it seems that mainly financial and managerial types seem to like using is as a verb - “Hey, let’s leverage the unfortunate circumstances of these people that can’t pay their bonds, and get their homes for free”. What does it mean? Although MW does give it as a verb as well, it’s interesting that investopedia.com gives it as “1 The use of various financial instruments or borrowed capital, such as margin, to increase the potential return of an investment.”, i.e. it lists the verb first. Other sources give different meanings, suggesting that the meaning of “leverage” as a verb is not very clear. I wonder what these people do when their roof leakages, or the engines of their cars failure? Just for interest, over the years I’ve bookmarked the following in my web browser (under info / language / English): Are You Stupid Enough to Use Leverage As a Verb? Leverage is NOT a Verb! (please excuse the language there where not appropriate :) Oh yes, and a quote from Seth Godin’s blog (although I’m not sure who he is quoting): “leveraging” , - comment: i asked everyone on my team not to use those words. the frequency of use of words like “leverage” is inversely proportionate to the amount of original thought. the more you say “leverage”, the less you’ve probably thought about what you’re saying. (Seth is an American marketer, motivational speaker and author)