Pain in the English offers proofreading services for short-form writing such as press releases, job applications, or marketing copy. 24 hour turnaround. Learn More
Joined: December 30, 2006
(email not validated)
Comments posted: 142
Votes received: 208
No user description provided.
"I have found both terminations in verbs like optimiz(s)e, prioritiz(s)e, criticis(z)e. Which (or when, or where) is the academically correct form ?"
The answer is yes.
May 16, 2012, 7:16am
There is no accusative form in English; you meant "objective". Not the same thing.
And the only "true" nominative forms occur only as a tiny corpus of pronouns: I, he, she, we, they and who - if you are one of those who still use "whom".
May 16, 2012, 7:13am
"I would certainly say something like, 'Boy, was I mad. I really went through the roof'. However, it's my biggest pet peeve to hear somebody say, 'Boy, was I mad. I literally went through the roof'."
I'm amused that you would get all huffy about "literally" but yet have no objection to the use of "boy" as an interjection.
Why is the original meaning of "literally" so sacrosanct in your view but not that of "boy"?
May 14, 2012, 7:20am
BJONES: "Fine, let's just change all the meanings of words to whatever we like..."
Well, in a sense, that's what does happen in language anyway.
Why don't you explain how the word "fine" took on its meaning of "OK" in your statement above?
May 2, 2012, 10:49am
"I live in a country where English isn't the primary language so if these usages sound weird to you, they sound even weirder to me."
Not a problem, Ramon. Many constructions that native speakers take for granted can strike you as very odd when you do examine them closer.
A good example is something like "I had better go home" which can be very perplexing to a non-native English speaker when first encountered.
Even more perplexing in its elliptical form: "I better go home"!
April 21, 2012, 7:43am
I must side with Hamish here. The adverb "literally" is (and has been) commonly used in English for emphasis and hyperbole.
Quite obviously, no one hearing a statement like "I'm so hungry I could literally eat a horse" will assume that the speaker is actually hungry enough to eat a horse.
But language pedants have a bad habit of putting up such false arguments to rationalize their various peeves.
No amount of belly-aching is going to change that.
April 21, 2012, 7:36am
"Is it grammatically correct to say 'It had impacts on...'?"
(Sounds pretty leaden though.)
April 21, 2012, 7:17am
Still at it, eh?
April 16, 2012, 12:57pm
It's clearly a regionalism/dialect form. It actually makes some sense too. It seems to simply follow the pattern of all the other personal possessive pronouns: yours, his, hers, its, ours and theirs.
April 16, 2012, 12:56pm
1. "Is it a correct syntax to say: 'I’ve no idea' to shortcut 'I have no idea? I see alot of people doing this and I feel that it is wrong."
I've no idea why you'd have trouble with it. It is perfectly fine English and completely unremarkable.
2. On "I've to go", I wondered: is this a BE usage? To me, (as a Canadian English speaker), it desperately needs either "got" in there or "have" in full to give it emphasis. Now, if the statement were extended e.g., "I've to go to the school tonight", I could certainly see that as a BE usage, though I would say "I've got to go to the school tonight."
Do any UK posters have thoughts on this?
April 16, 2012, 12:49pm
Well, "work" is the infinitive. The fact that it often requires the prepositional marker "to" doesn't change that.
By the way, my preference would be to use the term "base verb" as well.
March 29, 2012, 4:44pm
"if in sentence hasn`t subject or oredicated it is fragment.excample: yes. no. go."
March 29, 2012, 4:37pm
"I cannot stand how people in the USA say 'legos'. drives me nuts.
it hurts my ears like say 'sheeps'."
You must live in an odd place if you're hearing "legos" and "sheeps" all the time...
March 29, 2012, 4:35pm
If LEGO wishes me to "protect its brand name" in my private correspondence and speech, no problem: I'm willing to accept payment to do so!
Otherwise I'll use "LEGOs" or "legos" for a plural when and as I choose, thanks.
March 27, 2012, 5:05am
Typo: make that "weren't".
March 18, 2012, 2:15pm
"but I speak as a Scot when I say that the Scottish version is as I described: Scoh-shia. What you say in the new Canadian one I leave for you to report."
We were'nt discussing the Latin name for Scotland; we were discussing the name of a Canadian province.
Canadians say "SKOE-shuh". How you might choose to pronounce the Latin name for Scotland is moot.
March 18, 2012, 2:14pm
"I'm argentinian and I actually think it IS offensive."
Stop - you're breaking my heart!
You folks also believe the Falklands are the Malvinas. But you lost that argument too.
Life isn't fair. Get used to it.
March 16, 2012, 7:05pm
Well, as one who has lived "Down East", I agree with "dougincanada" here: I've only ever heard NOE-vuh SKOE-shuh.
Nova Scotia is Latin, of course. If it were pronounced in that language it would be NOH-WAH* SKOT-EE-AH.
You'd be hard pressed to find that version in common usage though!
* Or -VAH if you're going with Ecclesiastical Latin.
March 16, 2012, 4:47pm
As for a "lucid argument", there's none to be made because no argument is necessary.
Clearly some dialects use "of" here and some don't.
End of story.
March 15, 2012, 7:26am
©2015 CYCLE Interactive, LLC.All Rights Reserved.