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

What does “that” mean in the following sentences? Are there any rules which apply to the exact phrases which “that” refers to?

1. The graphs above show the rates of electricity generation of Kansas and “that” of the U.S. total in 2010. 

Q. Doesn’t “that” refer to “electricity generation”? If yes, isn’t “of” needed before “that”? 

2. The rate of electricity generation by nuclear power plants in Kansas was about the same as that of the U.S. total. 

Q. Doesn’t “that” refer to “the rate of electricity generation by nuclear power plants”? If yes, why is it “that in the U.S. total”, instead of “that of the U.S. total” to be parallel with in Kansas?

Read Comments

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.

Read Comments

In making a plaque, I need to know the correct grammar for the following.

  1. Walking Heavens woods with her daddy.
  2. Walking Heaven’s woods with her daddy.
  3. Walking Heavens’ woods with her daddy.

Read Comments

I just read this in a Wall Street Journal article

 ”Sandy Bleich, a technology industry recruiter, says that for years a bachelor’s degree was enough ... Now recruiters like SHE are increasingly looking for someone with hands-on experience...”

Query: is the use of SHE correct?!

Read Comments

“I had a talk with so and so,” is a common phrase, so I would imagine that “I had a small talk with so and so,” is equally correct. But “small talk” appears to be treated as an uncountable noun most of the time. Is it countable or uncountable? If both, in what contexts does it become one or the other?

Read Comments

“We have to go to the store yet.”

I would just remove the “yet” all together; however, I keep hearing someone use the word yet in this fashion and I am wondering if they are grammatically correct.

Read Comments

Problem with capitalizing and pluralizing official titles. For example:

He is a State Governor (or a state governor; a State governor; a state Governor: a governor of a state; Governor of a State?) in Nigeria. 

She is a deputy registrar (or is it a Deputy Registrar?) in my university. Many Deputy Registrars (or is it deputy registrars?) attended the conference.

Some university Registrars (or is it university registrars) have criticized the policy. 

Many Presidents (or is it presidents) came in person. Others were represented by their Vice Presidents (vice presidents?)

Read Comments

Is it correct to say “she is in my same school”?

Read Comments

Dear Sirs, I read your post on “I was/ I were”.  I found it very helpful, resuscitating memories of English classes. I’m still not sure if I should use “was” or “were” in this sentence, below. 

“And if anyone else were to peek, they would see the bear cubs looking fast asleep, dreaming of all the things they loved.”

The “anyone else” might be peeking and might not be peeking. We don’t know. “were” sounds better to my ear, but my MS Word has it underlined in green. Who is correct? Me or the machine?

Read Comments

Now, I’ve been rolling this question over for few weeks now. I personally believe whom in the cases, but on we go. After writing most of this, I think [1] should be who now.

The infinitive phrase/clause normally takes the objective case as its “subject”.

“I wanted to meet him.”

Thus, the corresponding interrogative:

“Whom did he want to meet?”

But what happens if you take this construction and use it with a copular verb?

[1] “Who/whom am I to judge.” (?)

[2] “I am who/whom to be.” (?)

Which may correspond to the declarative sentences (U=unacceptable; A=acceptable):

[1a] “I am he to judge.”

[1b] “I am him to judge”

[2a] “I am he to be.”

[2b] “I am him to be.”

[2c] “I am to be he.” (U)

[2d] “I am to be him.”(A)

It is possible to expand them into relative clauses:

[1a'] “I am the person who can judge them.”(A)

[1b'] “I am the person whom can judge.” (U)

[2a'] “I am the person (who) you should be.” (U)

[2b'] “I am the person (whom) you should be.” (A)

The construction has two verb constructions (one copular and the other infinitive) vying for dominance. So thoughts? These conundrums are fascinating and, due to my obsessive-compulsiveness, frustrating. </p>

Read Comments

Latest Comments

As a full stack developer who speaks/writes several coding languages with direct consequences for syntactical errors, I will say that I appreciate the more liberal view of how to apply rules to human language. Also, somehow, I got here after being curious about hypercorrective phonetic overcompensation vs overregularization. (What a mouth full.)

If we approach this philosophically, the rules of language are helpful for standardizing communication in order to create clarity and reduce mistakes. When they are overly formal or held too tightly, they seem to do the opposite. While I will certainly concede that, "this is she," is correct based on the consensus of today's experts I would simply like to point back to the valid arguments of context describing English as a largely Germanic language greatly impacted by the French and Victorian English and thus take a slightly more fatalistic perspective. If the exact evil powers of colonial imperialism which conquered the west didn't envelop and permeate so much of modern academia, the technically right mode could very easily be, "this is her." The language is a mishmash, mutt of a thing anyway.

Please ask yourself why the rules "need" to be upheld. Are they moving us towards a beautifully absolute linguistic truth? I think not. They have been forged and derived, refined and convoluted by a lot of people with a lot of opinions and experiences over a lot of time. When viewed with actual humility and a little bit of perspective, these debates are interesting, but their importance is a bit over-inflated. It really is lovely how language evolves with us as a dynamic aspect of animal interaction.

Besides considering all the chance that went into the correct rules, might you also ask yourself how so much pedantry drives socioeconomic polarization and then reassess how the rules are impacting clear, error free communication as well as the oppression of entire communities of human beings. If the dominant results are derision and confusion instead of clarity, maybe further revision is in order. Are your lingual loyalties based in the fear of societal decline or simple change. Are you afraid of not being able to distinguish yourself socially or economically by the content of your character and quality of your thoughts? Essentially you're ferociously defending a system that was created by other imperfect humans. Have some flexibility and please refrain from the slippery slope arguments about complete deconstruction. That is the most absurd bit I I read in this long list of comments. I dislike the word "conversate" as much as the next girl, but the fundamentals of language suggest that if enough people use a word or phrase, it will become part of vernacular and then proper diction. It will creep up on some scholar and start popping into peer reviewed articles and everyone will stop caring and it will be normalized...

By the way, for bruschetta, how many of you say brew-shedda and how many of you say brew-skate-ah? The second one is correct...at least according to formal Italian. I can't tell you how many intelligent people I meet who just don't know what they don't know.

In the end, if you're too attached to your high horse, do some reading about the theory of multiple intelligences and expand your understanding of the human experience in order to breed empathy and better guide your heart in these situations. Being ruled by your ego, insecurity, fear, and even sense of tradition makes you sound far more infantile than any simple colloquial telephonic reception.

Be well,
Eliza

As a full stack developer who speaks/writes several coding languages with direct consequences for syntactical errors, I will say that I appreciate the more liberal view of how to apply rules to human language. Also, somehow, I got here after being curious about hypercorrective phonetic overcompensation vs overregularization. (What a mouth full.)

If we approach this philosophically, the rules of language are helpful for standardizing communication in order to create clarity and reduce mistakes. When they are overly formal or held too tightly, they seem to do the opposite. While I will certainly concede that, "this is she," is correct based on the consensus of today's experts I would simply like to point back to the valid arguments of context describing English as a largely Germanic language greatly impacted by the French and Victorian English and thus take a slightly more fatalistic perspective. If the exact evil powers of colonial imperialism which conquered the west didn't envelop and permeate so much of modern academia, the technically right mode could very easily be, "this is her." The language is a mishmash, mutt of a thing anyway.

Please ask yourself why the rules "need" to be upheld. Are they moving us towards a beautifully absolute linguistic truth? I think not. They have been forged and derived, refined and convoluted by a lot of people with a lot of opinions and experiences over a lot of time. When viewed with actual humility and a little bit of perspective, these debates are interesting, but their importance is a bit over-inflated. It really is lovely how language evolves with us as a dynamic aspect of animal interaction.

Besides considering all the chance that went into the correct rules, might you also ask yourself how so much pedantry drives socioeconomic polarization and then reassess how the rules are impacting clear, error free communication as well as the oppression of entire communities of human beings. If the dominant results are derision and confusion instead of clarity, maybe further revision is in order. Are your lingual loyalties based in the fear of societal decline or simple change. Are you afraid of not being able to distinguish yourself socially or economically by the content of your character and quality of your thoughts? Essentially you're ferociously defending a system that was created by other imperfect humans. Have some flexibility and please refrain from the slippery slope arguments about complete deconstruction. That is the most absurd bit I I read in this long list of comments. I dislike the word "conversate" as much as the next girl, but the fundamentals of language suggest that if enough people use a word or phrase, it will become part of vernacular and then proper diction. It will creep up on some scholar and start popping into peer reviewed articles and everyone will stop caring and it will be normalized...

By the way, for bruschetta, how many of you say brew-shedda and how many of you say brew-skate-ah? The second one is correct...at least according to formal Italian. I can't tell you how many intelligent people I meet who just don't know what they don't know.

In the end, if you're too attached to your high horse, do some reading about the theory of multiple intelligences and expand your understanding of the human experience in order to breed empathy and better guide your heart in these situations. Being ruled by your ego, insecurity, fear, and even sense of tradition makes you sound far more infantile than any simple colloquial telephonic reception.

Be well,
Eliza

We use the plural of the animal from which they were named. Mice is no less awkward than calling it a mouse in the first place.

equivalency

  • jayles
  • July 21, 2017, 1:27pm

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=eq...

Even in American books, equivalence is far more common.

equivalency

I think 'equivalency' is mostly used in America. Even the ngram view of 'equivalence' and 'equivalency' makes it clear that the use of the former is widely prevalent. There is no specific reason to add 'equivalency' to the existing 'equivalence'.

February 10-16, 2014

or . . .

. . . from the 10th to the 16th of February, 2014.

We may SAY ordinals, but we do not WRITE them.

Past tense of “text”

Just say 'texd' sounds like text but when written denotes past tense.

Past tense of “text”

Past tense should remain the same as present tense. "Text" is much more smooth since the "t" sound at the end can have a "d" sound...almost redundant to add another.

I text you today. I text you yesterday.

Past tense of “text”

Text past tense stays the same. He text mr today. He text me yesterday.

10 Head of Cattle

  • chris1
  • July 19, 2017, 8:41am

Have you tried counting the hooves of cattle? Easier to do a head count .... ergo head of cattle! 3 cows is 3 cows 1500 head is a herd of cattle.