Take the Pain out of Proofreading!
Want to make sure that there are no embarrassing errors in your press release, job application, or marketing copy? Or, is English your second language, and you want to make sure that you sound professional? We can help you.
Upload your Microsoft Word (.docx) file here:
Or, share your Google Doc with email@example.com. Within seconds, you will receive a notification with our price, and a link to place your order.
Once we have received your order, we will edit your document within 24 hours. All our editors are American (mostly New Yorkers). We do not outsource overseas. Learn More »
Recently on Discussion Forum
In my opinion, there is a slight difference between ‘motive and motivation’. Motivation is what makes a person determined to do or achieve something wrong or right. Motivation is like the power you need to do something. Whereas motive is the reason that makes you want to do something also wrong or right. For example, if you decide to buy two loaves of white bread for a week anyhow, there should be a motive to that. In other words, motive is whatever reason we have for doing something. Whereas motivation is what makes us pursue those reasons themselves. For grammar sake, these words can sometimes be used interchangeably. ‘And therefore their differences lie in their context, not in their connotation.
Isn’t “agree the terms” simply bad form? The following is taken from today’s online Guardian in a quote from Theresa May: . . . the prime minister said she believed it was “necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the European Union”. Then as the article continues, the same usage appears in the Guardian’s own words: “The EU institutions and 27 remaining member states, however, have long said they were determined the divorce settlement, such as the rights of EU citizens in the UK and Britons on the continent and the size of Britain’s exit bill, must first be agreed before substantive talks on a future relationship could begin.”
Agree to the terms, yes; but agree the terms?
Be agreed upon, yes; but settlement be agreed before?
I have not run across this usage in US English, so is it something happening in British writing/speech?
There is a structure used by native speakers that I often read on social media, referring to people who have passed away, on the day of their anniversary. e.g. “He would have been 60 today.” Shouldn’t it be “He would be 60 today”? Meaning, if he were alive, he would be 60 today.
Consider the following sentence: “Last year, the rent was $500, but now it’s risen to $1,000. The rent is two times higher than it used to be.”
To me, this sentence is misleading, since “two times higher” would mean starting with a value of $500 and duplicating it, twice (in other words, $500 + $500 x 2 = $1,500). It seems the correct sentence should read:
“The rent is two times as high as used to be.”
Are both forms acceptable? Unfortunately, it seems that the more confusing form (”two times higher”) has become more common.