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

Andrew Cuomo, in his popular COVID press conferences, often uses the words “dose” and “dosage” interchangeably (at least so it seems). Here is an example:

“We have the operational capacity to do over 100,000 doses a day — we just need the dosages.”

Here is another:

“To date, New York has administered 2.5 million dosages, with about 10% of New Yorkers receiving their first dose. Ninety-two percent of dosages allocated to the state to date have been used.”

I thought “dosage” refers to the amount in a dose, like x milligrams. A single dosage can have multiple milligrams, so, when you pluralize “dosage,” what exactly are you referring to, if not the number of doses?

Read Comments

I recently ran across the working word in a document that was: “re-substantial.”

Even if it were only listed as "resubstantial," my question is this: Is this even a real word? If it is, what on earth does it actually mean?

Your help is greatly needed.

Read Comments

Is it grammatically ok to use the adjective “respective” with a singular noun ?

Many dictionaries such as Longman define the term “respective” as follows.

used before a plural noun to refer to the different things that belong to each separate person or thing mentioned.

But, I often see “respective” used with a singular noun as follows (cited from an Internet site).

Each of the Division’s three regional offices - in Chicago, New York, and San Francisco - handles criminal matters arising in its respective area and serves as the Division’s liaison with U.S. attorneys, state attorneys general, and other regional law enforcement agencies.

I wonder if the above usage is now common, though it is gramatically incorrect.

Read Comments

In our office we are advocates for our client and in representing what we do with a client we have times that we advocate for our clients. I am under the impression that you can advocate for your client to do something with them and several of my co workers disagree stating that you can only advocate for them to receive something with another provider or resource. Who is corrent? examples:

Can you correctly say:

“the care support provider provided advocacy in encouraging the client to participate in therapy” or the “Care manager advocated with the client to participate in therapy weekly.”

Can we advocate for a client to do something that they are recommended to do. Using advocated in the place of “encouraged”

office question responses appreciated.

Read Comments

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

Latest Comments

How about we call it 1st of an annual event if you feeL you must have 1st annual and then you might add unless interfered with an act of GOD; whereby, you may better use inaugural/final as God wills it.

can you use an uncountable noun as a countable one?
Is it okay to say I play musics? Do you give people advices? I would like some informations about this. And if I'm wrong that would be extraordinary newses.
I'm not saying I don't have excess baggagess, but I find it important to use our intelligences to get this right.
I can feel the electricitys in the air about this topic and I'm willing to put moneys on it... I don't care, I'll even wager some rices too. I'd bet all the petrols at the refinery too. Golds? I'll buy some to bet against your supply of lumbers.

Hit me up, we can discuss it over coffees, while we watch the tennises down by the concretes.

If this comment does your head in, then you are proof that it's LEGO, not LEGOs.

Thank you for such a visual explanation of the subject. I think it will be useful for many students. I advise those who want to master grammar at an excellent level to use training videos on YouTube, in which experienced teachers tell the grammar rules of the English language in an accessible form. I found more than a hundred videos on this topic there and noticed that most of them were posted by channels with about 23 thousand subscribers! I am sure this is because the authors of such channels used the services of http://soclikes.com/ in order to wind up subscribers for YouTube.

Cool insformation, thank you!

“hate with passion”

  • venqax
  • February 25, 2021, 6:33pm

I think you're correct to say that including "a" in all the examples slightly changes the meaning of the phrase. Both a'ed and a-less seem grammatically fine. I would also say that "hate with a passion", specifically, is an idiomatic expression, so somewhat immune to routine rules. You done good. It ain't over till it's over.

I would say that with the use of "not only", the "also" is simply redundant, and so unnecessary. The "but" might not even be needed, though just being concise for its own sake isn't always the best way to go.

"Not only did George buy the house, but he remodeled it."

By the time

  • venqax
  • February 25, 2021, 6:06pm

I think either would be okay, grammatically. As others have said, in this case "was starting" might be more specific and therefore informative, if in fact the film was just beginning. Saying "had started" is more ambiguous about how long it had been running. If it had been going for, say, half an hour, you probably wouldn't say it was starting, but might still say it had started.

Just curious, but what is "resubstantial" intended to mean, in context?

Fora vs Forums

I love your pop up. Just clicked "no" on the "need a proofreader" question and was greeted with: "OK, genius. Good luck." The next time I do need a proofreader, you will be my first stop. All the best!

Fora vs Forums

My complements on your hilarious pop up. I just clicked "no" on the "need a proofreader question" and was greeted with "OK genius, Good luck." I love it. The next time I do need a proofreader you will be my first stop. All the best!