Comments for Pain in the English https://painintheenglish.com Forum for the gray areas of the English language Fri, 28 Jul 2017 21:38:27 +0000 hourly 1 Comment on couple vs couple of by Jonathan Finch https://painintheenglish.com/case/267/#comment-27384 Jonathan Finch Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:20:01 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/267/#comment-27384 “A couple of things” is incorrect.

Besides it being incorrect,
the word "of" adds nothing to the meaning of the phrase,
"a couple things."

]]>
Comment on “This is she” vs. “This is her” by LEW https://painintheenglish.com/case/811/#comment-27383 LEW Wed, 26 Jul 2017 03:22:57 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/811/#comment-27383 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

]]>
Comment on “This is she” vs. “This is her” by LEW https://painintheenglish.com/case/811/#comment-27382 LEW Wed, 26 Jul 2017 03:21:47 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/811/#comment-27382 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

]]>
Comment on Computer mouses or computer mice? by SteeeveTheSteve https://painintheenglish.com/case/534/#comment-27381 SteeeveTheSteve Fri, 21 Jul 2017 22:33:24 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/534/#comment-27381 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.

]]>
Comment on equivalency by jayles https://painintheenglish.com/case/5870/#comment-27380 jayles Fri, 21 Jul 2017 17:27:48 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/5870/#comment-27380 http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=equivalence%2Cequivalency&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=17&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cequivalence%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bequivalence%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BEquivalence%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BEQUIVALENCE%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cequivalency%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bequivalency%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BEquivalency%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BEQUIVALENCY%3B%2Cc0

Even in American books, equivalence is far more common.

]]>
Comment on equivalency by K. Satyanarayana Rao https://painintheenglish.com/case/5870/#comment-27378 K. Satyanarayana Rao Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:20:21 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/5870/#comment-27378 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'.

]]>
Comment on Proper use of st, nd, rd, and th — ordinal indicators by Grimalkin https://painintheenglish.com/case/4636/#comment-27377 Grimalkin Thu, 20 Jul 2017 18:09:42 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/4636/#comment-27377 February 10-16, 2014

or . . .

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

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

]]>
Comment on Past tense of “text” by Monocle https://painintheenglish.com/case/474/#comment-27376 Monocle Thu, 20 Jul 2017 13:22:36 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/474/#comment-27376 Just say 'texd' sounds like text but when written denotes past tense.

]]>
Comment on Past tense of “text” by HuertaVivian8 https://painintheenglish.com/case/474/#comment-27375 HuertaVivian8 Wed, 19 Jul 2017 17:48:18 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/474/#comment-27375 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.

]]>
Comment on Past tense of “text” by HuertaVivian8 https://painintheenglish.com/case/474/#comment-27374 HuertaVivian8 Wed, 19 Jul 2017 17:41:49 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/474/#comment-27374 Text past tense stays the same. He text mr today. He text me yesterday.

]]>
Comment on 10 Head of Cattle by chris1 https://painintheenglish.com/case/158/#comment-27373 chris1 Wed, 19 Jul 2017 12:41:33 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/158/#comment-27373 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.

]]>
Comment on “How is everything tasting?” by mrcdsmith https://painintheenglish.com/case/5187/#comment-27372 mrcdsmith Wed, 19 Jul 2017 04:34:39 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/5187/#comment-27372 It bugs me because, while the food may possess flavor or "taste", it is NOT "tasting". My taste buds are doing the tasting.
A woman may be wearing a hat.
A woman may be tasting food.
A food may have a taste but does not engage in tasting.
And it's weird that they seem concerned not with whether the food is good or flavorful but with the immediate-right-now-interface of the food and my tongue: "how is everything tasting" implies RIGHT NOW.

It does seem like it just suddenly appeared and I don't know why.

]]>
Comment on Difference between acronyms and initials? by wendy1 https://painintheenglish.com/case/4862/#comment-27371 wendy1 Wed, 19 Jul 2017 01:34:41 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/4862/#comment-27371 When did they first start? KFC being a later such name. IBM,FBI, CIA........

]]>
Comment on Resume, resumé, or résumé? by aussieVic https://painintheenglish.com/case/193/#comment-27368 aussieVic Tue, 18 Jul 2017 08:43:51 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/193/#comment-27368 From the number of differing comments displayed here over at least six years merely confirms that there is really no correct/incorrect way in which this counfusing word should be written, let alone pronounced.
I believe that it comes down to the manner in which it is used (by the writer - presuming she/he knows what they're doing-oh, dear LOL) in the users own area of residence.
Personally, I have considered the correct way is "resumé" for the following reasons -
1) Writing/spelling it in this way, especially in isolation, shows the reader she/he should not considering 'continuing' in any manner. In other words "I am a list of experiences concerning the person named in this paper".
2) Pronunciation should be as "ey" to ensure the listener(s) understands what this word indicates "that this form/letter (CV-lol) is a list of experiences of the named person, do not continue 'doing' anything - except to use one's ears". It assures the listener that she/he only has to listen, you are not expected to continue with any manual 'work'.

]]>
Comment on “all but” - I hate that expression! by Stef https://painintheenglish.com/case/258/#comment-27367 Stef Tue, 18 Jul 2017 03:50:39 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/258/#comment-27367 Holy.Shit.
I am so glad somebody else has seen the bullshit in that expression.

]]>
Comment on Plural of “insurance”? by Jeff Blackman https://painintheenglish.com/case/4164/#comment-27366 Jeff Blackman Fri, 14 Jul 2017 15:56:54 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/4164/#comment-27366 The word insurance is plural in and of itself. It's all-inclusive. It's a "thing" (noun) but it's also a plurality. the radio ad should have said "We accept all major insurance" or they could have also said "We accept all major insurance plans" but "insurances" definitely doesn't sound right. I agree with you on that...

]]>
Comment on Proper label for an annual event that skipped a year by Scott Bradley https://painintheenglish.com/case/4330/#comment-27365 Scott Bradley Thu, 13 Jul 2017 18:03:55 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/4330/#comment-27365 Just a question about your response... Is it "regardless" meaning without regard or "irrespective" meaning without respect for? Irregardless is not a correct use of regard.

]]>
Comment on Right Question For this Answer (about count/rank/order) by Jithin J https://painintheenglish.com/case/250/#comment-27364 Jithin J Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:26:11 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/250/#comment-27364 "What is the position of Manmohan singh in the chronological order of Indian Prime ministers ?"
i know that your question was published in 2004..it is too late but it will be helpful for others....who are having similiar problems

]]>
Comment on Plural s-ending Possessives by Dorrie Fox https://painintheenglish.com/case/223/#comment-27363 Dorrie Fox Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:56:15 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/223/#comment-27363 I would like to make a house sign for our last name FOX. Would it be The Foxes or The Fox's

]]>
Comment on your call will be answered in the order it was received by joeacupuncture https://painintheenglish.com/case/592/#comment-27362 joeacupuncture Fri, 7 Jul 2017 19:19:59 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/592/#comment-27362 If the average American lexicon were greater than about 500 words, "Calls are answered chronologically" might be a viable option.

]]>
Comment on Can every letter be used as a silent letter? by Hairy Scot https://painintheenglish.com/case/4441/#comment-27361 Hairy Scot Fri, 7 Jul 2017 01:39:12 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/4441/#comment-27361 @jayles
I always pronounce "wh" in the same way for "when", "where", "whether", "which", and "who".
Here in NZ, as you probably know, there is an interesting twist on "wh" in certain place names.

]]>
Comment on Might could by sally1 https://painintheenglish.com/case/573/#comment-27360 sally1 Fri, 7 Jul 2017 00:38:29 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/573/#comment-27360 Or simply, “I’m not sure but I might." But all three are grammatically fine. "Might could" is a survivor from the Scots (and old Norm/Norse) that probably is part of the Southern Mountain Dialect and the Scots-Irish heritage. See Wiktionary.

]]>
Comment on Is “leverage” a verb? by cipriana https://painintheenglish.com/case/5392/#comment-27359 cipriana Thu, 6 Jul 2017 22:20:57 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/5392/#comment-27359 I prefer to use "provide leverage". But that´s just me.

]]>
Comment on “graduated high school” or “graduated from high school”? by carole https://painintheenglish.com/case/4505/#comment-27358 carole Thu, 6 Jul 2017 18:13:00 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/4505/#comment-27358 I certainly was not taught that this is proper grammar. However, I graduated from high school in the 1960's. Had this changed?

]]>
Comment on Can every letter be used as a silent letter? by jayles https://painintheenglish.com/case/4441/#comment-27357 jayles Thu, 6 Jul 2017 07:24:55 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/4441/#comment-27357 @HS There is a long article on "wh" here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronunciation_of_English_%E2%9F%A8wh%E2%9F%A9

I do remember being taught to pronounce "whether" as "hwether" at primary school in the 1950's ( SE England) ; but when I started work, I dropped it as being too affected and snobby. Technically though, "wh" is a digraph like "th" and "ch" and "ph".

]]>
Comment on Can every letter be used as a silent letter? by Hairy Scot https://painintheenglish.com/case/4441/#comment-27356 Hairy Scot Mon, 3 Jul 2017 04:26:10 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/4441/#comment-27356 How about the first "h" in "which"?
I'm not sure if it's RP or not, but I often hear English people pronounce "which" in the same way as "witch".

]]>
Comment on Can every letter be used as a silent letter? by Alex Ciprian https://painintheenglish.com/case/4441/#comment-27355 Alex Ciprian Fri, 30 Jun 2017 06:54:41 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/4441/#comment-27355 @jayles: Thanks! Well, you're right - there are thousands of English dialects and accents all over the world! However, this "rule" I'm talking about has to be applied only to RP (Standard English RP) and non-rhotic accents of English. As David Crystal (1995: 262) says in his The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language: "no other consonantal letter has such a variety of sounds, and is prone to such regional variation." My job is not to find a rule to fit them all, but only to understand whether for RP and non-rhotic accents my "rule" can be applied. :)

]]>
Comment on Can every letter be used as a silent letter? by jayles https://painintheenglish.com/case/4441/#comment-27354 jayles Fri, 30 Jun 2017 00:15:52 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/4441/#comment-27354 @AC That seems about right; but perhaps someone will come up with an exception. Maybe I am wrong here, but are there not dialects (perhaps Somerset?) where there is some kind of an "r" sound (non-trilled) at the end of a word?

]]>
Comment on Can every letter be used as a silent letter? by Alex Ciprian https://painintheenglish.com/case/4441/#comment-27353 Alex Ciprian Thu, 29 Jun 2017 21:28:24 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/4441/#comment-27353 @jayles: So, If I am saying: "/r/ (the phoneme, i.e. the sound as in red) occurs only before a vowel phoneme (in British RP and non-rhotic accents of English) and that in every other case, it is silent.", is it enough to be considered as a "rule"? Thanks again!

]]>
Comment on Can every letter be used as a silent letter? by jayles https://painintheenglish.com/case/4441/#comment-27352 jayles Thu, 29 Jun 2017 20:55:41 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/4441/#comment-27352 @AC In "care", "bare", "here", "hare", the final "e" seems to be a spelling hangover rather than a real vowel, and today just affects the pronunciation of the vowel in the previous syllable. Compare cut/cute, car/care, bar/bare/bear, her/here and so on.
Also in the phrase "after all", the "r" sound reappears to link the two words.
Above are just special cases for non-rhotic dialects.

]]>
Comment on Can every letter be used as a silent letter? by Alex Ciprian https://painintheenglish.com/case/4441/#comment-27351 Alex Ciprian Thu, 29 Jun 2017 13:44:34 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/4441/#comment-27351 Thank you very much for the post. May I ask you what happens with the "r" in the following words (in non-rhotic accents like RP): beware /bɪˈwɛə/, care /kɛə/, dare /dɛə/, there /ðɛə/, share /ʃɛə/, compare /kəmˈpɛə/, careful /ˈkɛəfʊl/, sphere /sfɪə/, figure /ˈfɪɡə/, and so on? In all of these cases the “r” is neither at the end of the word nor before consonant (rules that many BrE teachers teach for silent "r") – still, it is silent. Are there any rules that can be applied in these cases? What about: very, necessary, arbitrary, and so on - here the "r" is pronounced, but, even though in the middle of the word, there's no consonant before it (other rule BrE teachers teach for non-silent "r")? What's the rule here? What about the words: order, separate and the like? In "order", for example, the "r" is before a consonant - still, it is silent. On the other hand, in "separate" the "r" is in middle position, but there's no consonant before it - still, it is pronounced and therefore non-silent. What I am trying to learn is whether (or not) there are 2 separate rules for the “r”: one telling me when the “r” must be pronounced and one telling me when the “r” is silent. Am I missing something here? Thank you!
As I have spoken with other BrE experts, I would also like to ask you if the following conclusions are accurate enough and could be considered a rule for the pronunciation of the "r" sound (in British RP and non-rhotic accents of English):
1. "r" is silent in the following words: car, star, sister, mother, word, person, bird (/kɑː/, /stɑː/, /ˈsɪstə/, /ˈmʌðə/, /wɜːd/, /ˈpɜːsn/, /bɜːd/) because it is not followed by a vowel sound.
2. "r" is pronounced in the following words: read, write, red, Rome, grass, green, very, separate (/riːd/, /raɪt/, /rɛd/, /rəʊm/, /grɑːs/, /griːn/, /ˈvɛri/, /'sepərət/) and also in berry, carry, arrange (ˈ/bɛri/, /ˈkæri/, /əˈreɪnʤ/) because it is followed by a vowel sound.
Or, to sum up: /r/ (the phoneme, i.e. the sound as in red) occurs only before a vowel phoneme (in British RP and non-rhotic accents of English). In every other case, it is silent. Thank you!

]]>
Comment on Pronouncing “str” like “shtr” as in “shtrong” “shtrange” by vivian https://painintheenglish.com/case/5231/#comment-27350 vivian Thu, 29 Jun 2017 04:19:36 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/5231/#comment-27350 I swear I think Oprah Winfrey started it. Now everyone is pronouncing str, "shtr". I'm just waiting to look in a dictionary and see the change in pronunciation.

]]>
Comment on What exactly is “width” in geometry? by AnthonyR https://painintheenglish.com/case/5834/#comment-27349 AnthonyR Sun, 25 Jun 2017 11:14:38 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/5834/#comment-27349 These are NCTM standards https://illuminations.nctm.org/Lesson.aspx?id=1845

I understand your concept, but to help your daughter succeed in the subject, just explain to her that the width of the bookcase is a practical reference for carpentry. For the geometry of it, the bookcase can be turned on its side to plan a technical measurement.

]]>
Comment on Plural of Yes by Wayne Phillips https://painintheenglish.com/case/4396/#comment-27348 Wayne Phillips Sat, 24 Jun 2017 21:35:55 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/4396/#comment-27348 It's definitely NOT yes's. After all, we're not saying that the plural of yes belongs to yes! Actually, in my opinion, that form looks wrong even when pluralizing numbers. So, for instance, I usually write "the 1970s" and not "the 1970's". But I know the accepted form with numbers includes the apostrophe. It just seems unnecessary, unless where a 5 could be mistaken for an s in a particular typeface.

Anyway, "yeses" is apparently correct. However, someone mentioned "ayes" which is an interesting alternative.

]]>
Comment on Use of multiple periods by MoJoe https://painintheenglish.com/case/482/#comment-27347 MoJoe Fri, 23 Jun 2017 19:37:28 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/482/#comment-27347 I have been using "…" Between thoughts when emailing or texting since the Internet began.....I write the way I Think… In blips and stumbles. I find I can better get across what I want to say… If I'm not worrying about proper sentence structure and punctuation!

]]>
Comment on Mileage for kilometers by david4 https://painintheenglish.com/case/451/#comment-27346 david4 Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:42:04 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/451/#comment-27346 mileage, has at least 5 different definitions that I know of, however for the translation of the definition provided above, use, 'klicks' or 'kilometrage'. The later you can find in a french dictionary but not an english one, and is not widely used, likely because it is too had to say. The word, mileage, is still used in metric countries to denote distance and often people will respond 300k and make the assumption that you understood 300,000 km. The definition (variant) of the word very clearly means distance in miles and so the meaning has developed ambiguity in metric countries (because many metric countries converted from imperial to metric in the 70s), and an older person or a "smart ass" might assume miles. Thus to remove ambiguity, klick (or less favourably klik) should be used. You can find this word in both oxford and webster.

I speculate that the reason why there is no english word is because oxford (British) and webster (American) are the 2 prevailing authorities for the english language and neither of these countries use kilometres as their base unit of measurements. In Canada, the Quebec province explicitly has a linguistic department to create french words (in particular english equivalents), however there is not an linguistic department for english.

]]>
Comment on issue as problem by Lee Robert https://painintheenglish.com/case/5355/#comment-27345 Lee Robert Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:51:16 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/5355/#comment-27345 Sadly it is true that we no longer have problems - everything is now an issue. No more health problems, financial problems or problems with our computers or TV cable - we have issues. An issue used to be something with more than one point of view, such as gun control or abortion, and a problem was something everyone agreed needed to be solved. But now issue is regularly used as a synonym for problem, which it isn't - you cannot universally substitute problem for issue. One would never talk about the women's equality problem or the gay-rights problem, because a problem always has a negative connotation. If my cable goes out, my computer freezes, or a hotel loses my reservation, those, my friends, are problems, not issues.

]]>
Comment on Resume, resumé, or résumé? by P Buenafé A. Briggs https://painintheenglish.com/case/193/#comment-27344 P Buenafé A. Briggs Wed, 21 Jun 2017 00:57:18 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/193/#comment-27344 In re: Roger Burnell's entry, quote: "Sorry to correct Jun-Dai, however 'anyways' is not an English word!" - end quote; I fully agree that the aforecited word isn't an English-word. However, 'tis a popularly-accepted American-English slang that – in my opinion – signifies the speaker's unique 'Americanness' and personal comfy in being such one. . .irregardless of anybody's discomforts or critique.

]]>
Comment on Resume, resumé, or résumé? by P Buenafé A. Briggs https://painintheenglish.com/case/193/#comment-27343 P Buenafé A. Briggs Wed, 21 Jun 2017 00:18:19 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/193/#comment-27343 The verb 'resume' [meaning: "to continue working on a unfinished job"] is to be ideally-avoided when one includes the word "resumé" [pronounced "reh zhoo may"] or "résumé" [pronounced "reh zhoo reh] in the contents of your resumé [or résumé] to be 'snail-mail' sent to your prospective employer... such as: "Please evaluate the contents of my resume for their affinity to your published-requirements of the job-position opening that I am interested to do." Contextually, that sentence can't pass muster to a spelling-corrector-nutso; but the following, could: "Please evaluate the contents of my resumé for their affinity to your published-requirements of the job-position opening that I am interested to do." AND: "Please evaluate the contents of my résumé for their affinity to your published-requirements of the job-position opening that I am interested to do."

There are strict correct-spelling-nutsos in HR Departments; and your incorrectly-spelled word resumé [or résumé - or correctly-American-English-spelled "resume"] can very-likely get your application-letter fast-forwarded on-the-fly to the receiver's trash-can!

This particular French-word's total-absorption into the English tongue [and especially into the American-English lingo] isn't an excuse to do away with the accented "é" or "és" because:
(a) at best, the writer is presumed a lackluster and a liberal-minded idiot with 'loose' manners as regards laws'/rules' abidance who shouldn't be entrusted with mathematical calculations, scientific experientations, engineering specifications, financial matters [accounting, auditing], medical prescriptions, written legal argumentation, military secrets, pædagogical teaching and poetic/oratorical writings!

and,

[b] at worst, the writer would be perceived as an English-speaking anti-French / anti-France racist extraordinaire who'd anglicized everything-French not out of routine convenience but for outright hatred against everything France-related. . .excepting french fries, perhaps - but definitely not any comely mademoiselle (if one is an English-speaking gent with raging-testosterone) or a Monsieur Adonis (if one is an estrogen-driven English-speaking lady)! That is, in addition to those irresistible bottles French champagne and cognac—which respective international trademarks can get the foolish English-speaking idiot legally-prosecuted if such stupid-fool insists to anglicize any of 'em!!! Moreover, any idiotic English-speaking moron could likely physically-and-insultingly thrown-out by enraged mobs of Québécois and/or Québécoise off the Canadian Province of Québéc with the proscriptive words "Persona non grata" explicitly tattooed in his/her passport to signify his/her lifelong-ban from re-entry into the extremely-discriminating world of those proud-of-their distinctive French-culture and everything-français, les Canadiennes et les Canadiens!

]]>
Comment on Plural s-ending Possessives by Scott VanVliet https://painintheenglish.com/case/223/#comment-27342 Scott VanVliet Tue, 20 Jun 2017 18:18:40 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/223/#comment-27342 My boss's last name is Fox. When I refer to him in an email, for example: "As requested, Mr. Fox' (or should it be Fox's) expense report is attached." I get confused on what way is correct. Thank you!

]]>
Comment on “Can I get” vs. “May I have” by Hairy Scot https://painintheenglish.com/case/230/#comment-27339 Hairy Scot Sun, 18 Jun 2017 06:11:47 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/230/#comment-27339 "May I have" or "I would like" would be preferable to any of the "get" options when speaking to a waiter or shop assistant.
When speaking to a customer the use of "do you want......" should be dropped in favour of "would you like".

"Listen up" and "do the math" should be consigned to the bin for all time.

]]>
Comment on “Can I get” vs. “May I have” by RATTY https://painintheenglish.com/case/230/#comment-27336 RATTY Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:52:53 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/230/#comment-27336 Another Americanism that is creeping into our vocabulary is "listen up". Also, why are so many British women and men obsessed with driving 4 x 4's (another American influence). America has the infrastructure to deal with them - our little island doesn't! Glad I got that off my chest!

]]>
Comment on “Can I get” vs. “May I have” by RATTY https://painintheenglish.com/case/230/#comment-27335 RATTY Wed, 14 Jun 2017 18:45:41 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/230/#comment-27335 "Can I get?" instead of "Can I please have?" is yet ANOTHER Americanism. Why are people like sheep when it comes to anything American?

]]>
Comment on semi-colon and colon in one sentence by Alison Weddle https://painintheenglish.com/case/2477/#comment-27334 Alison Weddle Tue, 13 Jun 2017 02:14:50 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/2477/#comment-27334 I need the correct grammar for a bulleted sentence in a resume. please advise. Thank you!!

" -Performs administrative and computer related duties, including: writing and editing reports, documents, and policies; communicating with staff inside the agency and customers/individuals outside the agency; monitoring agencies website for accuracy;" etc, etc.....

Thank you!

]]>
Comment on 10 Head of Cattle by Gopalakrishnan https://painintheenglish.com/case/158/#comment-27333 Gopalakrishnan Mon, 12 Jun 2017 16:30:58 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/158/#comment-27333 Cattle is used as a plural. Earlier it used to be under collective noun - like herd of cattle, not herds of cattle or herd of cattles or herds of cattles.
Hence "head of cattle". It used be used with numbers like- 50 head of cattle.

]]>
Comment on “This Wednesday” vs. “Next Wednesday” by anthony1 https://painintheenglish.com/case/4650/#comment-27332 anthony1 Mon, 12 Jun 2017 03:51:35 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/4650/#comment-27332 My daughter argues that next wednesday means the one after next!,i say it means the next wednesday on the calender!.

]]>
Comment on Computer mouses or computer mice? by christina1 https://painintheenglish.com/case/534/#comment-27331 christina1 Sat, 10 Jun 2017 11:04:50 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/534/#comment-27331 At work we use mouses seeing we have 3 just in a matter of 3 feet just for one person to use. When cleaning we will say, lift up the mouses.

]]>
Comment on “I says” by Dariusss https://painintheenglish.com/case/237/#comment-27328 Dariusss Mon, 5 Jun 2017 13:18:22 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/237/#comment-27328 I often hear this grammatical slaughtering in older white American generations from the Midwest region of the US. I have corrected many people on this grammatical blasphemy and they still continue to use this form of language.

]]>
Comment on “Anglish” by john2 https://painintheenglish.com/case/4392/#comment-27327 john2 Thu, 1 Jun 2017 05:20:22 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/4392/#comment-27327 I just came across Anglish this early this morning. It's intriguing to say the least. However, it does seem to be clunky and awkward. Languages always was a bit of a hobby to me. But if you really want to get a good go at it, start with the kids, and tell them to start speaking Anglish to annoy their parents. :-)

]]>
Comment on Writing out percentages correctly by Ashkr https://painintheenglish.com/case/859/#comment-27326 Ashkr Wed, 31 May 2017 14:05:13 +0000 https://painintheenglish.com/case/859/#comment-27326 I do work in the legal field, and @ DebbieA, we do not write "percent" when writing out a percentage. We write it as "per cent". Also, I realize this conversation originated quite some time ago, but - speaking from experience - you MUST write out percentages in legal documents. For instance, in a promissory note, you would say that there was a principal sum with interest "at the rate of three and nine-tenths per cent (3.9%) per annum..." Percentages written out can be very tricky though. I still catch myself having to count exactly how many digits over from the decimal point the percentage goes, so that I will accurately reflect that amount when putting it into words.

]]>