Proofreading Services Retired
We’ve officially closed our proofreading services. You can probably guess why. With AI tools like ChatGPT now doing the job for free (and instantly), the demand for human proofreaders has all but vanished. If you still prefer a human touch, you're part of a rare—and shrinking—breed. We're now back to our roots: a forum for nitpicking the finer points of the English language. Thanks for your past support. We appreciate it.
Submit your question here.
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?
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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“.
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?
“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?
Latest Comments
“by the time”
- taleshka
- February 12, 2025, 12:54pm
If I look at this sentence: "By the time he arrived, the lesson had finished". I wonder if it would be enough just to say "the lesson finished", as the time expression of "by the time" seems to clearly indicate what happened first. Am I right or is it 100% necessary to use Past Perfect with the expression?
Treatment of abbreviations and superscript items in full capital case
- smithcarrie96
- February 12, 2025, 7:35am
Need help with your management assignments? With Management Assignment Help services, you can reach out to the experienced writers for educational advice. From business strategies to case studies, we provide well researched and delivered assignments before the deadline.
gifting vs. giving a gift
- JillG
- February 2, 2025, 7:53pm
Thank goodness somebody else has spotted the difference! The current fashionable usage "gifting" drives me mad. Gifting is something like donating your house to the National Trust. If you hand over a birthday present you are giving it. Gifting implies a certain degree of grandness and selfless generosity.
Screw The Pooch
- BrewJay's Babble Bin
- January 27, 2025, 11:53pm
"Screw The Pooch" means to avoid work, basically the job of an enjineer, work being enerjy or time expenditure. For example, computers use very little enerjy these days compared to an ENIAC (ancient computer -- very expensive to operate). They are also composed of transistors so numerous, clock speeds so high, that artificial intelligence, starting with grammar checkers and automated graphic artists, and ending in no way.
Correct preposition following different? Redux
- PedanticScot
- January 8, 2025, 9:27pm
Warsaw Will Dec-30-2012
"@Hairy Scot - Hi. I don't think "different to" falls into your PS category, as it's pretty old. It seems in fact to be an older usage (1520) than "different from" (which is first attested to in Shakespeare)"
I have searched all of my Shakespeare collection and I can find no examples of "different to".
Treatment of abbreviations and superscript items in full capital case
- ananclipping
- January 4, 2025, 5:44am
Great question, Susan! In full capital case, superscript letters and abbreviations like Jr. should ideally remain in all caps for consistency. However, small caps can be a good choice for abbreviations like "Jr." to keep the text legible and balanced with the rest of the name.
For instance:
JANE MCDONALD (with the superscript letter in normal caps)
WILLIAM DOE, JR. (keeping Jr. in all caps or using small caps for a more refined look).
This way, you maintain uniformity while also giving a slight differentiation to the abbreviations for readability.
“my” vs. “mine” in multiple owner possessive
- Hari
- January 2, 2025, 4:18pm
"This platform is such a great resource for language enthusiasts! It's amazing to see discussions about tricky English usage and grammar. I’ll definitely be coming back to explore more and share insights!" and The Clinical SAS course provides comprehensive training in SAS and clinical data for healthcare and pharma, featuring video tutorials, live class recordings, real-time projects, and a digital certificate.Clinical SAS Video Course
“my” vs. “mine” in multiple owner possessive
- brollyacademy1
- January 1, 2025, 3:41pm
This Is Most Useful And Give More Knowledge For Me And Let Me Share It For Alot Of People.
“my” vs. “mine” in multiple owner possessive
- user116479
- January 1, 2025, 9:16am
“My” works better here since “mine” is a standalone possessive. The sentence should read: “I so appreciate you taking my and Gregg’s child to school today.”
GoogleAdWordsTutorial
I will go home.
Your analysis of home as an adverbial modifier rather than a direct object is spot on. In the sentence "I will go home," home functions as an adverb of place, modifying the intransitive verb go. This contrasts with noun phrases like the beach, which require a preposition (e.g., go to the beach).
Interestingly, home belongs to a special category of place-related words that can function adverbially without to, similar to abroad, downtown, or overseas. This pattern has historical roots in Old and Middle English, where certain location words developed an adverbial sense. That’s why we say "go home" but "go to the park"—not due to simple elision of to, but because home inherently carries an adverbial function.