Proofreading Service - Pain in the English
Proofreading Service - Pain in the English

Your Pain Is Our Pleasure

24-Hour Proofreading Service—We proofread your Google Docs or Microsoft Word files. We hate grammatical errors with passion. Learn More

Proofreading Service - Pain in the English
Proofreading Service - Pain in the English

Your Pain Is Our Pleasure

24-Hour Proofreading Service—We proofread your Google Docs or Microsoft Word files. We hate grammatical errors with passion. 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.

Do You Have a Question?

Submit your question

Latest Posts : Opinion / Criticism

I moved to the US from Japan when I was 16, and in the 30 years I’ve lived here, I’ve noticed the ease with which Europeans communicate with native English speakers even when they have heavy accents. In contrast, Asian immigrants seem to have a harder time being understood by the native speakers. Asians typically blame the problem on their accents and their pronunciation but Americans, particularly urban Americans, are used to hearing a variety of accents. It seems to me that there is something else at work causing the difference between Asian and European ESL speakers.

Compared to the Japanese language, some of the phonemes in English are very subtle (like the th sound). So, over the phone, when we are spelling a name, we provide contextual information, like, “M as in Mary. S as in Sam,” and so on. The subtleties are lost over the phone, and we cannot differentiate between N vs. M, S vs. F, and so on. The Japanese language does not have this problem. I believe English is a more context-dependent language because there is a constant need to fill in the information lost in the subtleties.

Even when two native speakers are talking to each other, often they can’t hear each other well (e.g., noisy bar, subway platform, poor quality phone connection, etc..) but they THINK they hear everything. They are actually filling in the missing information from the context.

The reason Europeans have an easier time even with heavy accents is that their cultures are still very similar. They are able to provide better contextual information as they speak. Because Asian cultures are so different, Asian speakers are not able to provide enough contextual information in their sentences and their body language. Even if they can speak with no accent, their sentences can come out sounding foreign, like the automatic translation provided by Google—grammatically correct but incomprehensible. This makes it hard for Americans to understand especially if the speaker has a heavy accent.

A friend of mine is a pilot for Japan Airlines. As long as he is communicating within the context of air travel (like speaking to the passengers on the plane about the delays and weather forecast), nobody has trouble understanding him. This is because the cultural context in this instance is very narrow and well-defined which allows everyone to fill in the gap easily. But he has trouble understanding and being understood outside of this context because of the wide range of contextual possibilities.

If a French person were talking to an American about how he was treated at a particular restaurant, neither would have any problem understanding the cultural context since the restaurants in France function very much like the restaurants here in the US. But the restaurants in Japan work very differently. In fact, their customs in restaurants are so different that some Japanese people take an etiquette class to be able to eat at Western restaurants. (You can see an example of this in the movie, Tampopo). When you are deficient in the cultural knowledge to this degree, accent becomes a secondary issue. Even with flawless pronunciation, you could still have trouble being understood because the listeners have no idea what you are referring to.

Many native speakers find Indian English speakers hard to understand, even those who have been speaking English all their lives. We readily recognize Indian accent like we recognize Southern and British accents. So, the problem is not lack of familiarity. I think it’s the lack of contextual information because the Indian culture too is very different. We mistakenly believe that the problem is their accent.

What do you think?

Read Comments

I consider “data” as collective, like “sugar.” You can have a lot of sugar or a lot of data. Then “the sugar IS on the table,” or “the data IS correct.”

I do not like “the data ARE.” Never did. I worked as a technical writer and my philosophy was as I have stated. (Even though data can have one bit called datum, whereas sugar must have one grain.)

Read Comments

I was quite comfortable with the concept of direct and indirect speech that had been drummed into my head by a succession of teachers at the schools I attended in the 50s and 60s.

However the term “indirect speech”, like so many other facets of the English language, has now apparently undergone a change.

At least that is what one noted linguist would have us believe.

Read Comments

As in: the pie charts give information about the water used for residential, industrial and agricultural purposes ...

To me, “give” here sounds crude, as if the writer could not come up with the right verb; whereas “provide” sounds more appropriate, albeit just a bit high official. 

So in an English exam I would have to mark the writer down? Am I correct in my thinking?

Read Comments

Why do people feel it necessary to add “of” to some phrases?

For example:

How big of a problem.
How long of a wait.
How bad of a decision.

Seems rather a waste of time.

Read Comments

I want to play a Star Wars video review as listening practice for an EFL student. However, it contains a strange construction that I can’t figure out how to explain: “Now, the question most likely on your mind, be you Jedi or be you Sith, is...”

I know that it would be easy enough to say, “It means ‘whether you are Jedi or Sith,’” but I wonder if there’s a better explanation.

Read Comments

I’ve noticed that “haitch” is becoming more common than “aitch” when it comes to pronouncing “H”. Why is this, and what is the thinking on which pronunciation is preferable (or even correct)? My mind goes back to my 4th year high school Latin teacher who was very fond of rendering what he obviously considered witty quotes about “Arrius and his haspirates“.

Read Comments

I have often noticed that in Scotland quite a few people tend to confuse words like:

  • amount / number: e.g. Amount of people
  • much / many: e.g. Too much eggs
  • less / fewer: e.g. Less eggs

There are possibly others in this category.

Has anyone noticed this in other areas?

Read Comments

“Defeat to” seems to have gained preference over “defeat by” with media in the UK.

eg:- After Chelsea’s recent defeat to Liverpool Jose said...

Seems like they are confusing “defeat” and “loss”; or is this another evolution that we must suffer?

Read Comments

Is this statement an opinion?

“Everyone wanted to go on the new ride.”

Read Comments

Latest Comments

God bless me, maybe you too! One day at a time!!?!

Another thing to consider is the sequence of events.

Has the person/character already chosen a career (Would have wanted you to) or are they making a choice right now (would want you to)?
Depending on the answer, the subjunctive (if she were alive today) might be the part that needs changing.

This one feels correct:
2.) If she were alive today, she would want you to become a doctor.
It feels correct because today is when the decision is being made in that sentence.

If the decision has already been made this would be more appropriate:
3.) If she had been alive, she would have wanted you to become a doctor.

The point is, her not being alive must line up temporally with the decision.

I have a similar dilemma: a question said as a statement, where the strength of the character is revealed through his tone. He is not looking for an answer and thus his tone drops at the end. If I write a question mark there, then the reader might read an upwards inflection and miss the subtle insight.

The question/statement is as follows:
'How about I settle that grumble in your belly and show you what the fuss is all about?'
or
'How about I settle that grumble in your belly and show you what the fuss is all about.'
As a reader, which one works to convey that he isn't going to take no for an answer?

Maybe I should just rephrase it to avoid confusion:
'Let's settle that grumble in your belly and show you what the fuss is all about.'
But damn it, why limit myself like that?

With 'Who knows', who knows which one is right. It can be expressed as a direct question, like a teacher asking 'who knows the answer to this?'. Or it could be said with sass, like the oracle in the Matrix when she is asked to clarify what Neo is waiting for, 'Your next life perhaps, who knows.' Her tone drops to imply she has no further insight for him.
'Who knows what the answer is.' feels like an alternative of 'I don't know.' or 'No one knows.' or 'I don't know who could possibly know that.'

If this is still confusing, you are not alone.
Don't worry, have a cookie and you'll feel better.

Double Words

I constantly hear my parents (who are of German descent) say double words in a weird way and I am trying to think of a way to describe it. It's not 'inflection' but it has something to do with the way they pause or lack thereof during saying particular words such as Pork Chop. They will say them with different tones like they are two different words and not part of one whole and it really irritates me.

Please, I need a terminology for this.

Jun-Dai is a pretentious asshat, or at least he was in 2004. Also yes "all but" is still a garbage phrase 15 years later.

He was sat

I quite undestand ' i was sat' instead of 'i was sitting' ! To sit is the action of adopting a position in which one's weight is supported by one's buttocks and this action doesn't take long except maybe for an eldery person ! So if i say the phrase 'someone is sitting on the bench', it should express the fact that they are precisely putting their buttocks on the bench' and once they're done, they are sat !

He was sat

I quite undestand ' i was sat' instead of 'i was sitting' ! To sit is the action of adopting a position in which one's weight is supported by one's buttocks and this action doesn't take long except maybe for an eldery person ! So if i say the phrase 'someone is sitting on the bench', it should express the fact that they are precisely putting their buttocks on the bench' and once they're done, they are sat !

It's funny. Even in 2019 the dictionary still hasn't decided and instead has listed both mouses and mice. LOL! Look at #4.
mouse (mous)
n. pl. mice (mīs)
1.
a. Any of numerous small rodents of the families Muridae and Cricetidae, such as the house mouse, characteristically having a pointed snout, small rounded ears, and a long naked or almost hairless tail.
b. Any of various similar or related animals, such as the jumping mouse, the vole, or the jerboa.
2. A cowardly or timid person.
3. Informal A discolored swelling under the eye caused by a blow; a black eye.
4. pl. mice or mous·es (mous′ĭz) Computers A handheld, button-activated input device that when rolled along a flat surface directs an indicator to move correspondingly about a computer screen, allowing the operator to move the indicator freely, as to select operations or manipulate text or graphics.

mines

The cartoon show "O" frequently uses words like this, with a style of speach the is very much like baby talk. My 8yo son had said mines and it took awhile to keep correcting him. We don't live anywhere that that type of speach is used. The TV travels far and wide. Monitor what they watch. Utube is one of the worst.

It's NOT okay. Brian Clark reads the news on ABC radio news with this defect. NO professional news reader should be on air doing this.
Shtructure, shtrike, shtrict...I want to punch him.