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 : Usage

In some recent fiction books written by American authors, I have seen the word “acclimated” as in “...she took a day to become acclimated to her new area.”

Shouldn’t this word be “acclimatised” or is this a case of American’s using one word and New Zealanders using another, both for the same purpose?

Read Comments

I’m reviewing a New Zealand scientific report which uses the word ‘equivalency’. This sounds to me like an Americanisation of the word ‘equivalence’, both being nouns but with the redundancy of an additional syllable in ‘equivalency’.

As we use British English (despite word processing software trying to force American English upon us) I’m inclined to use ‘equivalence’.  What do you think?

Read Comments

It grates every time I hear a local radio traffic reporter say “there is an accident just prior to the Erindale Rd turn-off.” 

I believe I’m right in thinking the word ‘prior’ is more correctly used in a time context, meaning earlier than or sooner than. 

Thoughts?

Read Comments

In American Grammar specifically, there is a somewhat new trend of referring to a singular collective as a plural noun. For example, “The band are playing at the Hall tonight.” To which I want to reply “It are?” While the British and Canadians have never understood the concept of singular collectives such as large companies or the aforementioned musical groups known by a name such as Aerosmith or Saint Motel, but why is this becoming popular in America where singular collectives have been referred to, until recently, as a singular entity? It’s on the radio, it’s on TV commercials and even in print. Are singular collectives now plural?

Read Comments

Hi everyone, I’ve got an interesting question from my student:

Trump’s “ask the gays” statement:

- what exactly is wrong with it grammatically?

Thanks!

Read Comments

I would like to know if it is correct to use the adjective “key” predicatively. I was taught that this word is like the adjective “main,” which can only be used in the attributive position. I’ve seen sentences like “This is key to the success of the plan,” but I remember typing something similar and the word processor marked it immediately as wrong. I think both “key” and “main” are special, (irregular, if you want) adjectives (in fact, they have no comparative forms) and feel they should be treated accordingly. I’ve never seen something like “This book is main in our course.” We will normally say “This is the main book in our course.” Thank you for your help!

Read Comments

Could somebody please explain the problem with “as such”? I understand the frustration with its incorrect usage as a synonym for “therefore” or “thus”, but the response thereagainst wants to banish its usage entirely. I am confident that I am using it correctly, but I am constantly being directed to remove it from my papers nevertheless. Could you explain its proper usage?

Read Comments

I noticed in reports of the recent GOP debate a number of instances where the phrase “Person A debated Person B.” was used rather than “Person A debated with Person B.” Is this common in USA?

Read Comments

Is it escaped prison or escaped from prison?

Read Comments

From my local medical centre’s web page:-

“The carpark at xxxxxx Health & Wellness Centre is now limited to 180 minutes. Cars parked longer than this and not displaying an exemption permit will be infringed with a $65 parking fine. This is intended to keep the carpark free for patients and customers of the building only. Unauthorised parkers leaving their vehicles in our carpark all day will be infringed.”

Read Comments

Latest Comments

I'm no expert, but I'm guessing that the rule of thumb is to use similar moods and tenses in each part of the sentence.

If we rearrange these sentences with the the "If-statements" first, it might be easier to analyze them:

1.) If she were alive today, she would have wanted you to become a doctor.

2.) If she were alive today, she would want you to become a doctor.

Both of these rearranged sentences start by using the past subjunctive (simple-past tense): "If she were alive today...." I would expect a similar use of the past subjunctive in the second half of the sentence to match the first part. The second sentence seems to do just that: "If she [were alive] today, she [would want] you to become a doctor."

Brian Garner's "The Chicago Guide to Grammar, Usage, and Punctuation" says that the past subjunctive really refers to the present or future even though it uses the past tense. This seems to fit #2 because it seems to be making a statement about the present.

If the first part of the sentence were making a statement about the past, you would have used the past-perfect subjunctive: "If she had been alive in the 1900s, she would have wanted you to become a doctor." Because the first part of the sentence uses the past-perfect subjunctive (had been alive), the second has a matching past-perfect subjunctive (would have wanted).

What do others think?

eat vs. have breakfast

Eat breakfast has another meaning, too. So to have is more neutral!

You: Hey teacher did you eat breakfast today?
Teacher: Why yes I did and it was quite delectable!
You: Lul
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Eat%20Breakfast

The closest thing that comes to mind is "[sic]". In literary works, it follows words that are intentionally misspelled, usually used when quoting another source verbatim.

On Tomorrow

  • debmcc
  • September 4, 2018, 11:07pm

I just had this conversation with my husband a few days ago. He has never heard it but I have been hearing the phrase “ on tomorrow “ frequently. I was born and raised in the Baltimore area and never heard it until about 8 years ago. It makes me cringe when I hear it. I never hear it 50 miles away on the shore.

“had ran”

"this is surprising", "it is common", "the topic", "it is very", "i", "i","i", "you", "you". Dear pedantic Ashley, you have merely proven you are superior to me in every possible way. Have you answered my question? Surely you of all people know the answer.

“had ran”

To be honest, I am surprised that this is surprising to you. I have worked and traveled around the world and it is common in every language that I have encountered, even British English. ( I do hold a US and UK passport and I speak, write and teach in both versions of English.) There should be tons of linguistic research on the topic if you just search for it, but it is a very common for phrases or incorrect verbs such as this occur in languages.

By the way, I am originally from North Carolina. I have never said had ran nor would I say it. I never heard it in North Carolina. You can't judge everyone in a state or location by what you have heard one or a few people say.

In actuality, actually

  • zmbdog
  • September 3, 2018, 5:28pm

underink's comment pretty much says it all. I think the problem for most people is just that 'actuality' is, in its own structure, kind of awkward. I was actually very surprised to find that 'actuality' is, in actuality, a legitimate word. I expected it to be a bit more iffy in that respect, much like 'ubiquitesness' or, perhaps, 'iffy'. Whether 'iffy' is a word or not, I can't say. But it feels like it shouldn't be. It seems very iffy.

This is an internally consistent theory, but does not really connect with my own personal anecdotal observations.

I have very poor hearing, and I really a great deal on context, and contextualising speech, to work out what people are saying, and that's the same whether they are native English speakers, Europeans, or Asians. I certainly haven't noticed Asians employing less contextualisation.

What I have noticed is that the recognition of English words relies a lot on stress patterns. Our unstressed vowels turn into schwas or obscure vowels so the stress pattern also affects which vowels get pronounced in their true colours. (One example: a group of European ESL students told me they had dined at "mAk-dun-ahlds" and it took several minutes before I twigged they had been to "mək-DON-əlds". A change of stress can make an English word unrecognisable.

I understand that the Japanese language is unstressed, whereas the European languages tend to be stressed, albeit not as irregularly as English. So ... I don't know, but I'm wondering, if there is a lasting difficulty for Japanese users of English, whether this might be due to the need to acquire the habit of using stress patterns?

Exact same

If 'same' means identical then do we say ' exact identical'?
I don't think so.

Or if exact means precise do we say 'precise same'?
I don't think so.

This use of exact same seems to have its origins in America.

"Went missing"

I've never liked the phrase.
It seemed to come out of nowhere (2000?) and, like some other expressions today (Awesome!), gets run into the ground.

Worse yet, 'went missing' can connote a too casual feeling, highly inappropriate when you consider the often troubling, sad circumstances in which its used. Not so bad when it's a favorite pen, but when it's people, W-M is a bad play on words.