John is right.

"She insists that he take his medicine" is a directive. She is insisting that he should take his medicine.

"She insists that he takes his medicine" is a statement of fact. She is confirming that he actually has taken his medicine, and does so regularly.

Social is a broader word with more definitions. Societal's definition is a subset of social's. There is another post on this here:

http://www.painintheenglish.com/post.php?id=977

Sorry Javid, I have to disagree. Certainly your parents can now consider themselves 1st generation Americans according to definition 1. As their child, you can also consider yourself a 2nd generation American. But. you can also STILL consider yourself a 1st generation American according to definition 2. You are STILL a native-born citizen of a country (the US) whose parents have immigrated into that country. Your parents' citizenship is irrelevant. They immigrated to the United States. Immigrate simply means to come to a country to live, usually, permanently. Your parents weren't born in the US, right? Becoming citizens didn't somehow cause them to actually be born in the US, right? A naturalized citizen doesn't cease being an immigrant when they become a citizen. By definition, if you live somewhere and aren't native-born, then you are an immigrant. That's what the word means. So, you can certainly feel free to consider yourself a 1st or 2nd generation American, whichever you choose.

Earlier, I posted that "...David is right...", but I meant to say "...John is right..." Sorry about that John. Clearly I meant to agree with you, as there is no post by any "David".

Head shot certainly doesn't work. A head shot is a professional 8 x 10 glossy photograph of an actor or model, sent to prospective employers as part of his or her portfolio.

Rincewind, Comrade smack, you are right about not removing any apostrophes from the contraction part. However, using apostrophes to indicate plurality is definitely correct in some circumstances. The traditional rule for apostrophes has always been to also include using them for forming plurals with numbers, single letters, abbreviations or acronyms, and when pluralizing words where the word itself is used abstractly as a noun (which is exactly the case for do's and don't's). Recently, some have suggested that such use is old-fashioned, but it is still correct.

Not only were you right "too", John. Your explanation was BETTER, much more specific.

Imagine my surprise when I checked the dictionary and found that they are usually pronounced the same. The only difference I found listed was that some pronounce oral as oh-ral (1st syllable rhymes with "owe", something which I almost never hear, by the way).

Like some others above, I, too, emphasize the aw- more in aural. I actually use a vowel sound half-way between aw- and ah- for aural. Mind you, I'm not saying this is correct. I wonder whether this is a regional thing, maybe an older pronunciation, or just my own affectation (one shared by at least a few).

Cascader, it's not a question of whether it's a book of books. It's a matter of whether "Book of Mormon" is a book, edited by Mormon, or the actual title of said book. Since it could be understood either way, it's really up to the speaker to use whichever represents his or her intent.

In spite of what others have posted, I would say ...don't's and ...don'ts are both correct. Do's and don't's is the older, more traditional way.

for a more complete discussion of this, see my post at:

http://www.painintheenglish.com/post.php?id=1521