Your Pain Is Our Pleasure

Pain in the English offers proofreading services for short-form writing such as press releases, job applications, or marketing copy. 24 hour turnaround. Learn More

Discussion Forum

This is a forum to discuss the gray areas of the English language for which you would not find answers easily in dictionaries or other reference books. You can browse through the latest questions and comments below. If you have a question of your own, please submit it here.

Search Pain in the English

Latest Posts

The following sentence is taken from Advanced English CAE: 

Within seconds Barry, who was wearing enormous rubber boots, had tied a rope to the front bumper of the car and was pulling it out with the tractor.

I’d say: 

Within seconds Barry, who was wearing enormous rubber boots, tied a rope to the front bumper of the car and pulled it out with the tractor. 

Any opinions?

Read Comments

I recommend that you do not take this pill.

I recommend that your wife does not take this pill.

I recommend that you not take this pill.

I recommend that your wife not take this pill.

Are all four sentences correct English? Do many native American/British English speakers use verb forms like in the first two sentences?

Read Comments

I am sure most of us will agree that “from” is the only preposition which should follow the word “different”. However it would be interesting to hear logical argument from those who favour others such as “to” and “than”.

Read Comments

Shouldn’t “who are you?” be “whom are you?” and “who is this?” be “whom is this?”

Read Comments

My co workers and I are in disagreement over how a phrase should be worded using proper English in the legal documents we type into our computer system.

If one were to say (using proper English) that John Smith used to own a piece of property would one say:

“The current tenant states that John Smith IS the previous owner of 2400 Green Cir.”

OR would one say:

“The current tenant states that John Smith WAS the previous owner of 2400 Green Cir.”

Which way is correct? And WHY (please explain why the correct way is correct--what rules apply, etc.).

Read Comments

In English, there are comparisons and superlatives for some colours. Take for example: black, blacker, blackest; blue, bluer, bluest.

How about other colours like silver and gold/golden?

Read Comments

I was talking with someone via Facebook. I thought she was wrong, and she wrote back to me: “No, Donna, it is you who are wrong”. Had she left out the word “who” then I believe “are” would be correct, but since she included the word “who” then it changes to singular “you” which would require the word “is”. I believe it shoud read “No, Donna, it is you who is wrong”. Please help me on this grammatical issue.

Read Comments

Watching the World Cup recently has prompted me to ask: Why do the announcers refer to teams as if they are plural? For instance, “England are on the attack.” I think it should be “England is on the attack,” as we are referring to the English team which is a single unit and therefore singular?

Read Comments

In the interest of being concise, is it acceptable to use “Following is a complete list of tags...” instead of “The following is a complete list of tags...”

Read Comments

I was speaking to my administrator and explaining how I met another person in our company. I said “her and I traveled to Kansas together”. She stopped me and said it should be “she and I traveled to Kansas together”. I feel both were appropriate, but she disagreed. Could we both be correct?

Read Comments

Latest Comments

“Rack” or “Wrack”?

  • OJ
  • June 23, 2016, 11:59am

Doesn't look good on proofreading site to find: "tends ton go along" (on this page)

Everybody vs. Everyone

I´d like to thank you all for this nice help ( :

Texted

we don't say look-ed --- we say looked.

therefore -- texted, as in looked

I need to write out 65.25476% for a document. Can you help

Indirect Speech?

Whilst I agree that the term "indirect speech" has almost always been used in writing to refer to "reported speech", it has on occasion been used to refer to oblique or circuitous ways of addressing a topic. For instance, in some tome on Quakerism from 1808:

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=bNQ3AAAAYAAJ...

and in Judson's Burmese-English dictionary 1893 "this speech is indirect and circuitous":

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=LSEYAAAAYAAJ...

The question for you would be if the term "indirect speech" is not to be used for these types of polite roundabout ways of addressing a topic, what other terminology could be used?

Indirect Speech?

Whilst I agree that the term "indirect speech" has almost always been used in writing to refer to "reported speech", it has on occasion been used to refer to oblique or circuitous ways of addressing a topic. For instance, in some tome on Quakerism from 1808:

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=bNQ3AAAAYAAJ...

and in Judson's Burmese-English dictionary 1893 "this speech is indirect and circuitous":

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=LSEYAAAAYAAJ...

The question for you would be if the term "indirect speech" is not to be used for these types of polite roundabout ways of addressing a topic, what other terminology could be used?

couple vs couple of

It is all part of an evil American plot to eliminate prepositions.

:)

couple vs couple of

Think of all the apples in the world. You just want two apples. So you choose "a couple of" them. That's how I see it. Perhaps some people confuse "a couple apples" with "a few apples." Interesting how they do get "few" right: No one says, "a few of apples." Seems people should be able to keep the two separate without using up too much brain power.

Is "there her is! correct?

I play a game with my grandchild: Put her blanket over her head and ask where she is...she pulls it down and I say "there her is!" Is this correct English?