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



Joined: February 3, 2004  (email not validated)
Comments posted: 477
Votes received: 973

No user description provided.

Questions Submitted

Recent Comments

(cries) I didn't actually miss that but I didn't want to post four times in a row.

Dyske, I wish we had a preview....

speedwell2 April 21, 2005, 10:02am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Anonymous was me, sorry....

speedwell2 April 21, 2005, 5:40am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Persephone and I are on the same page, but I'd make a slight additional change and say, "How about a return to the days when women were in such vulnerable and inferior positions, that it was easier for powerful men, who knew they could get away with it, to take advantage of them?"

speedwell2 April 21, 2005, 5:36am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Wouldn't you like it better if the sentence read, "He had spoken to his teacher before the examination had begun?" I think there's nothing wrong with "He spoke to his teacher before the examination began."

But "He had spoken to his teacher before the examination began" seems like an awkward mixture to me. Anyone else think so?

speedwell2 April 20, 2005, 1:18pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Persephone... subtle, subtle. LOL

speedwell2 April 20, 2005, 1:16pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Pet, the use of "differentiated" is correct in this sentence. The word can be used, and often is used, outside of a mathematical context--for instance in biology, to refer to 'cell differentiation."

But technical meanings aside, both the transitive and intransitive meanings of the word are well attested and correct, even in situations in which you may personally prefer a synonym such as "discriminate" or "distinguish."

speedwell2 April 20, 2005, 4:44am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

I have a recurring problem with Scotch and soda, but... uh, never mind. :)

speedwell2 April 19, 2005, 4:15am

3 votes    Permalink    Report Abuse

Both ways work for me also, and, like CQ, I had to read twice to catch the "on." I agree, use the "on" if you think it sounds better.

speedwell2 April 18, 2005, 4:48am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Marriage has nothing to do with it. Ownership in common is what counts here. One may correctly say, for example, "John Doe and Mary Roe's lawsuit against their employer."

speedwell2 April 15, 2005, 10:40am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Excellent. Hooray :) Best wishes to all of you.

speedwell2 April 14, 2005, 7:46am

3 votes    Permalink    Report Abuse

OK, I see that they're inconsistent... and I'm not going to help you decide which mistake to prefer in place of the correct usage. Maybe someone else will help you with that.

speedwell2 April 14, 2005, 7:45am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

They're both OK, but the second is less informal and I prefer it.

speedwell2 April 14, 2005, 7:43am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Really? When I did desktop publishing, I was supposed to use *appropriate* punctuation. An apostrophe is a different punctuation mark from a single quote.

speedwell2 April 14, 2005, 3:55am

1 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Dyske still hasn't mentioned if he really is "...a father of a newborn...." LOL

speedwell2 April 13, 2005, 9:52am

3 votes    Permalink    Report Abuse

I live in the US, and I've rarely heard people refer to even "glorified" babysitters as nannies. "Nanny" is very close in meaning to "au pair" or "governess," who is the professional caretaker of the kids on a full-time basis, sort of in loco parentis, as Dave says.

On the very few occasions when I've heard "nanny" used for "babysitter," it was for a temporary gal to sit at home with the kids and take care of the house while Mom and Dad were on vacation for a week or two.

speedwell2 April 13, 2005, 9:49am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

I was always taught it was an apostrophe, because apostrophes are usually what you use to replace missing letters or numbers in, for example, contractions such as "don't" and "I'm."

speedwell2 April 13, 2005, 9:41am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Gee, Dan, for someone who uses the internet, you sure are provincial as hell. Loser.

speedwell2 April 12, 2005, 10:16am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Got one.

"When you have 'double possession' - when two or more people (or subjects) own one item and both (or all) of their names are mentioned, the apostrophe is applied only to the second (or last) name.

'We had coffee at Ermintrude and Marmaduke's mansion.'"

Think of your statement as "The advisor of Bob and Tina Rusk [not Rusks] suggests...".

speedwell2 April 12, 2005, 10:15am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

First, absolutely, as Nicholas says. Will find cite.

speedwell2 April 12, 2005, 10:11am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Slemmet's solution is the proper and elegant one. It's not clear to me whether you should use "Officials of..." or "The officials of...," but that's a quibble you can quickly resolve.

speedwell2 April 5, 2005, 4:53am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse