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

When you Google “What does curb your dog mean?”, you find three different answers.

  1. Control your dog.
  2. Pick up dog poop.
  3. Take the dog to the curb to pee or poo.

I always understood it to mean #2, so even when I saw a sign that said “Curb your dog,” I would let my dog poo there but I picked it up afterward. I figured the person who put the sign there would be satisfied with that. But if #3 is what is meant by the sign, s/he would not be happy.

What is confusing is the word “curb” itself. It can mean “control” or “edge of street” which are two completely different definitions, and I would assume that they came from completely unrelated etymological roots. The expression is so vague and confusing that it is ineffective.

The only one that actually makes sense is #1 as “curb” means to control.

#2 doesn’t really make sense. The word “curb” has no definition that means to pick up after something, although it can indirectly imply cleaning up after the misbehavior of your own dog. (i.e., Since dogs cannot control themselves, you need to control the aftermath for them.) It’s too vague. You should just say, “Pick up after your dog.”

#3 is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, “curb” in this context should be used as a noun. I seriously doubt that “take your dog to the curb” was what was meant when the signs first started appearing in public. If you are the first person ever to create this sign, and if you meant to say, “take your dog to the curb”, then you would not write “Curb your dog.” You could not expect other people to understand what you meant by that, as there was no such use of the word “curb” in a verb form. You would have written: “Take your dog to the curb.” My second problem with #3 is that it implies it’s fine to leave the poo as long as you take the dog to the curb.

My theory is that “Curb your dog” originally had only one definition: “Control your dog.” And, the sign originally was introduced because many dogs were not kept on leash, and would cause trouble, like attacking kids, starting a fight with other dogs, barking uncontrollably, and running into the traffic. Ideally, they wanted to say, “Keep your dog on leash”, but at the time, this probably felt too extreme, so they just wanted to ask dog owners to responsibly control their dogs’ behavior. Then, in big cities like New York, some people started interpreting the word “curb” to mean the edge of the street/sidewalk, although it’s a bit of a stretch, given that “curb” in this case should not be used as a verb.

This is my theory of how the expression was originally introduced and evolved to include all three definitions. What do you think?

Read Comments

Why, for a task, can we take it on, or put it off But for clothing we take it off and put it on?

(background: I am an American living in Hungary, so teaching/correcting English comes up a lot, and many here learn British English, so even I learn new words. People here often mix up the words for “put on” your clothes or “take off” clothes. They’ll say put off your jacket, or take on your shoes, etc. This became an embarrassingly awkward situation yesterday when I had to get an x-ray and ultrasound, and the tech didn’t speak very good English. She told me to undress everything, but then said I could take on my trousers, or put off something, and I really had no idea how “undressed” I had to get. I was thinking of how to explain it, that putting should be away from you, and taking should be towards you... but when it comes to clothing, we use the opposite - put ON and take OFF. Unless we’re taking it OUT of a closet and putting it AWAY. aaahh!!!)

Read Comments

Just what does “You have two choices” actually mean? Since “You have a choice” indicates that more than one option exists, what is “You have two choices” meant to convey?

Read Comments

Why do we nowadays have to pre-book or pre-order items? Surely we always used to book or order them, and they would be delivered when ready.

Read Comments

I’ve been seeing and hearing people use “based out of” more and more, when they mean simply “based in.” The phrases at first glance would seem to mean opposite things, as if being “based out of New York” would imply one is not actually in New York. But it’s clear people use them with the same intention. 

Case in point: At the U. S. Small Business Administration website a paragraph about Home-Based Businesses includes this: “In fact, more than half of all U.S. businesses are based out of an owner’s home.”

I see this phenomenon as yet another example of what is to me a peculiar affection for a term or phrase longer than one with the same meaning that’s been considered standard for a long time. Folks no longer plan, they pre-plan. We take preventative steps, not preventive. But “based out of” seems worse, because to me it’s just bad usage.

Read Comments

I’m not sure when it started, but at some point, servers in restaurants, when coming around to your table to check on you, started asking “how’s everything tasting?”, rather than the formerly prevalent “how is everything?”. It seems as if a universal email went out to all wait staff everywhere, with the decree that this is now the proper way to phrase the question. But while it’s no longer a new practice, it still grates on my ears whenever it’s asked of me. I mean, this is FOOD: When asking about someone’s satisfaction regarding food, isn’t the sense of taste implied? Are they otherwise expecting someone to reply, “Well, it TASTES great, but it looks disgusting and smells terrible”? To me, asking “how’s everything” instead would imply not only the food, but also the congeniality and promptness of service, the atmosphere... ie, the overall experience. By narrowing the inquiry down to taste only, it seems to make the statement that the establishment doesn’t much care about the patron’s OVERALL satisfaction! I think this is the aspect of it that disturbs me: I can prepare all sorts of wonderful food in my kitchen, and for a fraction of the price of eating out. What I feel I’m paying for when dining out is the experience as much as the food, and it is my satisfaction with that experience that this new question (besides its annoying redundancy) seems to deliberately avoid.

Read Comments

I’ve always believed that, especially with clothing, that there are stripes (vertical) and bands or hoops (horizontal) but I hear more and more people describing bands or hoops as stripes, and even as horizontal stripes. Another evolution?

Read Comments

Aside from being accurate in quoting from Highlander I had never really given much thought to the construction of this phrase, but I recently overheard a discussion in which one of the protagonists was adamant that there is a subtle difference in meaning between the two versions.

His reasoning was beyond me and I will not repeat it here for fear of tainting your views, however it did pique my curiosity.

Read Comments

This phrase has aggravated me since the first time I heard it. Those who use it justify it as being akin to, “...same thing!” which has never sat right me. In my opinion, something is either the same or it is different. By this token, “Same difference!” sounds like a junk phrase that sounds correct but is, in fact, meaningless. It grates for me as much as “irregardless”. 

Am I incorrect? Is there any validity to this phrase, outside of modern colloquialism?

Read Comments

Has anybody come across the idiom “Fit as a butcher’s dog”, and if so, is it mainly confined to the North of England? Eric Partridge suggests it originates from Lancashire, but it seems to be used in Yorkshire as well. Also, is it usually used only with the meaning of physically fit, or is its use extending to the other (British) meaning of fit - sexually attractive?

Read Comments

Latest Comments

Pled versus pleaded

{t may be "old-fashioned, but then so am I. I go with "pled."

Nope

Would Nancy Reagan's Just Say No To Drugs campaign been more successful if it was Just Say Nope To Dope?

As comedian John Mulaney noted, In porn movies you hear lots of "Yea", "Oh Yeah","Uh-Huh","Mm-hmm","Yes YES!" but never "Yep"

age vs. aged

One of these areas included young adults and middle aged adults.

graduate high school simply goes against the grain , the structure of the language, that is why it sounds so illiterate ! It has nothing to do with idiomatic expressions. Whenever I hear it , as i did today on NBC News , it's a shock !!

With friend, the adverb form matches the adjective form. Both are "friendly".

Resume, resumé, or résumé?

  • Phils
  • May 19, 2016, 5:01pm

This debate has gone on since June, 2004. I will say I've learned that Curriculum Vitae is singular and Curricula Vitae is plural (vitarum would mean each one refers to multiple lives)... but as far as resume is concerned, there have been professors, editors, French people, Canadians, Australians, so on, all discussing this and arguing over which dictionary is correct and so on...

It seems that, much like the required number of licks to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop... the world may never know.

“she” vs “her”

  • Warren
  • May 19, 2016, 11:42am

Which is incorrect?
a. Lucia enjoys cooking more than him.
b. The success of the plan depends on us girls.
c.I wouldn't trust Nancy or her with my secret.

Complete sentence in parentheses

Parentheses (constantly utilized as a part of sets) allow a writer to provide additional information. The parenthetical material may be a solitary word, a part, or various complete sentences.

Whatever the material inside the brackets, it must not be syntactically fundamental to the encompassing sentence. If it is, the sentence must be recast. This is a simple mix-up to keep away from. Just read your sentence without the parenthetical content. If it makes sense, the the enclosures are satisfactory; if it doesn’t, the punctuation must be altered.

http://wordmaker.info/ending-with/fe.html

<b>Appropriate utilization of “as such”</b>

The expression "as such" is not a synonym for "accordingly" and its reciprocals. This is a modern and incorrect utilization, although regrettably progressively basic. The expression signifies "in such capacity" or "in itself"; these are its sole right meanings.

My guess is that the common misuse of this expression arises from the fact that there is frequently a close logical connection between use of "accordingly" and its reciprocals and "as such", although the nuance is different.

By method for instance, here are two right sentences which pass on considerably the same importance, and which contrast just in supplanting "as such" with "appropriately":

I am a lawyer, and as such I am formally qualified to express opinions about legal matters.

I am a lawyer, and accordingly I am formally qualified to express opinions about legal matters.

Thank God I am MOT crazy. For the last 10 years i have been aghast as well as bemused at this seemingly "sudden" change in grammar when referring to the "disappearance " so something or someone.Usually "a person"or "an airplane".
God thank you for guiding me to the good old "Google". Now I know, as I thought, it is just another slang attempting to be sophisticated in the British fashion. Now I can sleep at night.Yeah!