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

When used in that way, it is being used wrongly, and has somehow become common in the US.
Just as when they say "I could care less" but mean the opposite. It's not that the phrase is strange, it's the diction of the speaker that is strange. In countries that are not the US, people say "I couldn’t care less" and mean it to be understood the way it was spoken.

About "Respective"

  • dec
  • March 29, 2020, 12:13pm

the 'respective' is redundant in 'its respective area'.

i would add a comma after 'area'; but i am not sure about 'serves' or 'serve'. hmm, i guess 'serves' to match the tense of 'handles' (but could be 'handle' and 'serve').

“she” vs “her”

  • Little
  • March 21, 2020, 2:53pm

Which is correct? If I were a child I’d want her as a mother or If I were a child I’d want her for a mother?

“she” vs “her”

  • Little
  • March 21, 2020, 2:51pm

Which is correct, I wanted to send her and her dad on vacation or I wanted to send she and her dad on vacation

Also, too (an affectation I've adopted for the specific purpose of keeping the Sarah Palin fiasco fresh in people's minds: The mapping linked in the post immediately previous to mine doesn't show any regionalism to my marginally practiced eye. The ratios appear evenly distributed across population centers in the continental US, with the correct form still dominating for the present. (Thank whatever powers there are for small favors.)

Recent conversations on the subject dominated by Pacific Northwesterners and myself (New England born and raised and a hardcore "by accident" purist) revealed an interesting wrinkle: there are actually adults who use both, preferring to apply "on accident" to themselves and "by accident" to others. Further probing was rewarded only with the vaguest sense of a difference, but imputing intent does seem to be in play, i.e., one knows one's own intent and says "on accident" contrary to "on purpose," but with others one can only make the assumption that it was "by accident" based on reaction rather than intent. (Personally, I don't buy it, but my prescriptive criticism isn't going to make much headway with adults set in their linguistic ways.)

I like to simplify a sentence in order to figure it out. Let's do away with grandmother. If I am talking to my 5 year old daughter, I might say "I want you to become a doctor." However, if my daughter is 50 years old and a struggling attorney, I might say "I would have wanted you to become a doctor if it had been my decision."

Substantial vs. substantive

To me, substantive relates to quality, where substantial relates to size.

"The two parties engaged substantively" - ie, well
"The two parties engaged substantially" - ie, a lot

I read recently the way to do it is if you live at 123 Main St ,smalltown,VA 45643 and you are forced like I am to have a po box than your address is.
John Doe, 123 Main St # 543, Smalltown, VA 45643.