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?
Latest Posts : Style
Some authorities (such as IBM and Wikipedia) say that “big data” should not be capitalised, while others say it should be capitalised as “Big Data”.
Logically, it would be capitalised only if it were a proper noun, that is, if it identified a unique individual. For example, “the Internet” refers to the global internet, of which there is only one, so it is capitalised. Big data does not really seem to be like that. In any technical usage, it refers to the use of very large databases, and should therefore be a common noun.
In the popular imagination, however, all instances of big data coalesce into a monstrous global conspiratorial network of databases, called Big Data. It is akin to Deep State.
So, it seems to me that “big data” should be used in any sober context, and “Big Data” reserved for conspiracy theories untethered from objective reality.
But ... in a proofreading context I would have to correct “a Big Data-driven project” to “a big data-driven project”, which is ambiguous as it could mean either “a big project that is driven by data” or “a project that is driven by big data”.
Any suggestions?
I need to give a range of percentages. Do I say “somewhere between 40 and 50%?” or “somewhere between 40% and 50%”? Does the percentage sign get assigned to the first value, even though it’s not verbally articulated?
Is it alright to omit the word “I” in some cases. If I have already been writing about myself and I slip in a sentence that says for example, “Will be in town next week.” Is this acceptable or should I write “I” at the beginning of each sentence?
A) Must we have fish for dinner again?
B) Shall we have to have fish for dinner again?
C) Will we have to have fish for dinner again?
D) Do we have to have fish for dinner again?
Accepting that (D) is by far the commonest utterance and would express annoyance or lament. roughly the same as “I wish we weren’t having fish again”, my concern is with the other options, particularly (B) which looks “grammatical” but just sounds odd to me. (A) is less common today but seems to go back a long way whereas “have to” is relatively modern, so which sound “normal” to you?
How do you handle a quote within a quote within a quote in an MLA citation?
“She said she...” or “She said that she...”
All my life I have received great feedback about my grammar, but these past few years I find myself over thinking it—all the time. It actually causes me to create mistakes where there previously weren’t any. Bizarre?
One such thing that I have thought too much about is the necessity of “that” in phrases like the above. When would you say it’s necessary? Always? Never? Sometimes? Explain! Thanks!
Are adverbs something to be avoided like the plague or an inevitable mutation of the English language that we just have to deal with? I’ve heard it said that they’re the mark of a writer who lacks the vocabulary to use powerful words (for example, “He walked slowly” does not carry the weight of “He plodded” or “He trudged”) and the skill to vary their sentence structure. I’ve seen them used in published in professional work, from George R. R. Martin to J.K. Rowling, so it’s not something authors shy away from and, for the most part, the public accepts it without question.
What is a correct... “A gift of John Doe” or “A gift from John Doe” when referring to a large charitable donation? I like the sound of “of” but not sure which one is right.
What would be the preferred form of each of these:-
a) “in hopes of” or “in the hope of”
b) “a change in plans” or “a change of plan”
c) “apprise” or “inform”
d) “envision” or “envisage”
I favour the second of each of the above, but no doubt there will be different opinions.
Latest Comments
eat vs. have breakfast
- Phu Pham
- September 19, 2018, 7:01am
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
What is the word for intentionally incorrect spelling?
- Vil8tor
- September 9, 2018, 7:04pm
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”
- Rich Byrne
- September 4, 2018, 2:37pm
"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.
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.
Why Asian English Speakers Are Hard to Understand
- PeterBee
- September 2, 2018, 9:36pm
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
- user107174
- September 1, 2018, 4:47pm
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/gone missing”?
- StevenKeys
- August 31, 2018, 7:42pm
"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.
Mixed Clauses / Unreal Sentence Construction
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?