Your Pain Is Our Pleasure

We proofread your Google Docs or Microsoft Word files within 24 hours. 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. 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

Many years ago using the prefix co- and co meant two different things. Now they are used interchangeably, but is this correct? I was taught if you used co- you were a subordinate and if you used co you were equals. An example. A co-pilot is subordinate to a pilot, however coauthors means both writers were equal in the endeavor. Once upon a time, a co-chairwas subordinate to the chair. Now co-chair and cochair are used flagrantly to mean the same thing, they are equally sharing the duties of chairperson. What are your thoughts on this?

Read Comments

All of a sudden spectators are not “looking on” but “watching on”. Does that make them onwatchers?

They no longer say “welcome to” but “welcome along to”.

“Early on” has become “early doors”.

Players now “contest for” the ball.

They now “update you” with the latest scores.

To me all of that is rather more idiotic than idiomatic.       :-))

I’m sure there are many more examples that I have (thankfully) missed.

Read Comments

I should probably count myself fortunate that I almost reached my allotted three score and ten without having come across this dreadful word.

But alas my belief that a mentor has a protégé has now been cruelly shattered.

Read Comments

Two scenarios:

  1. You are an antipodean cricket commentator and during a broadcast you realise that your Indian co-commentator is pronouncing some words/names differently from you.
  2. You are at a social gathering and notice that everyone else pronounces words/names differently from you.

The words/names in question could be for or example:

  • Tendulkar with a soft ‘oo’ sound as opposed to your hard ‘u’ (as in dull).
  • Nepal with “paul” as opposed to your ‘pal’.
  • Debut as ‘dehbyew’ as opposed to your ‘dayboo’.

In each situation how do you react?

Read Comments

I’m all for the metric system, and I’m sure a lot of British schoolchildren would be well pissed off if UKIP’s idea of restoring the imperial system ever came to fruition. But I do find sentences like this, in a item on the BBC website, rather strange and unnatural:

Mr Teller says the first question is not “How can we make a tonne of money?”

I know that tonne is our unit of measurement now, but does it have to take over our idioms as well, especially as this is probably more of an American idiom anyway (I think we Brits would be more likely to say ‘ton(ne)s of money’)?

The following idioms are all listed in British dictionaries with ‘ton’ or ‘tons’:

They came down on him like a ton of bricks.

That bag of yours weighs a ton!

I’ve got tons of work to do.

We’ve got tons of food left over from the party.

I don’t know why the BBC insist on using tonne in idioms. Perhaps they think young people won’t know what a ton is. I say keep the idiomatic ton, and leave tonne for weights. After all people don’t say they’re off to spend a new penny, do they? (Actually I’m not sure anyone says that anymore anyway!)

Read Comments

Discussion on appropriate use of these two phrases came up on another forum. I believe it depends on context. Would be interested in hearing other views.

Read Comments

Another oddity from my favourite source, The New Zealand Herald:

“Perhaps it’s time to deal to the ads that are just plain downers?”

It may be an undetected error or a misprint, but knowing the Herald, I’m sure the author, the proof readers, and the editors, all thought that “deal to” made perfect sense in the given context.

Read Comments

I’m an English teacher in France. In this question I am seeking confirmation that the following use of “used to” is no longer in use. I’m willing to be enlightened.

“Where used you to live before you came here?”

The form that I would employ is:

“Where did you use to live before you came here?”

My source is “Pratique de l’anglais de A à Z” by Michael Swan and Françoise Houdart. In this book they say that you can use either with or without the auxiliary ‘did’. I would not have been shocked by “Where were you living before you came here?”

The book is really very useful and well organized, but occasionally I come across sentences that seem (to me) to be archaic. The version I have was published in 1983. And before any of you say it, no this is not my only source for my English lessons.

So I would be glad of your opinions.

Read Comments

I have heard the president hypercorrect personal pronouns as in “he gave it to Michelle and I.” Is this common now even in the highly educated? Would this have been heard by a highly educated person 30 years ago?

Read Comments

Another interesting phrase from The Independent:

“nearby to where he lives”

This journalist must be paid by the word. Wonder what was wrong with “near where he lives”?

Link to the article »

Read Comments

Latest Comments

“Me neither.” or “Me either”

  • osbert
  • February 22, 2018, 2:02pm

"Me either" makes as much sense as "I could care less", I think both are dull-brained mistakes, possibly originally by a non-native English speaker, then subsequently accepted as good English. "Me neither" is rough, but at least logical: "nor I, either" just isn't heard these days, but "neither am/have I" is commonly heard and logical. Grammar: descriptive rather than prescriptive, but some howlers ought to be laughed out of court.

“Me neither.” or “Me either”

  • osbert
  • February 22, 2018, 2:01pm

"Me either" makes as much sense as "I could care less", I think both are dull-brained mistakes, possibly originally by a non-native English speaker, then subsequently accepted as good English. "Me neither" is rough, but at least logical: "nor I, either" just isn't heard these days, but "neither am/have I" is commonly heard and logical. Grammar: descriptive rather than prescriptive, but some howlers ought to be laughed out of court.

LEGO does not refer to the bricks, but to the brand. Therefore, it is incorrect to say LEGOs, as you would be referring to multiple LEGO companies. The only correct way to refer to them is "LEGO bricks."

The name "LEGO" is not derived from English language, and therefore it cannot be stated that the very English method of adding an 's' for a plural is definitively correct. In this case I would suggest LEGO pieces (as the company itself requests), especially now that the LEGO brand has diversified into films, video games, and even cake tins. It is worth noting, however, that throughout most of the world the plural of LEGO has always been simply LEGO.

Neither is or neither are

  • jayles
  • February 20, 2018, 10:18pm

On google books "neither are to blame" shows up just nineteen times, whereas "neither is to blame" has over five thousand results.

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1432&bih=...

Neither is or neither are

  • jayles
  • February 19, 2018, 4:54am

" neither were significant predictors of the outcome measures"
"they were not working mischief, neither were they doing any great good; "
"neither were most of their members prepared to take part as citizens."
"Things are either what they appear to be: or they neither are, nor appear to be"
"And if the fountains are not gods, neither are the rivers,"
"Neither are we truly portraying what Christ's disciple means. "

Both are possible, depending on the context:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=n...

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22neither%20we...

Neither is or neither are

  • Edinrin
  • February 17, 2018, 10:42am

'Neither are' is correct
For example: neither are to blame for the damage done.

well, actually, grammar rules themselves don't exist. there has never been any set rules, because the "rules" depend on how a majority decides to speak, and they change as the years go by. "ain't" used to be considered grammatically correct and was used by rich English folk, but when "commoners" started using it, they decided it wasn't proper English. this fact won't change how society treats grammar (like it's friggin LAW), but I feel like we should all be more lax and just use whatever feels right to us. I mean, soon, "I did good on my test" will be considered proper grammar.

On Tomorrow

It’s a church thing. I’m willing to bet that the people heard saying “on tomorrow” are heavily influenced by the church. Church folk are the people I’ve ever heard say it.

There is a male coworker that when ever he speaks to the females in our office always starts with "Heyyy name, how's it going?" Is it just me, i feel it is so disrespectful and annoying. What are your thoughts?