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: August 19, 2010
Comments posted: 26
Votes received: 67
We hear this a lot in the US too. I think it's business-speak leaking into general speech. As with most corporate jargon, there is almost always a better phrase available.
May 23, 2012, 12:58am
What are you people babbling about? I thought this was a website about English, which is an actual living language, not an imaginary one.
October 27, 2011, 11:50pm
Have your ears checked. There is nothing wrong in ending a sentence with a preposition.
October 27, 2011, 10:53pm
The word "beside" is a preposition, therefore it has no plural.
To my ear, the sentence "What can I do but complain?" sounds best. It is concise. It avoids the plural preposition and the unneeded gerund.
October 24, 2011, 7:52pm
I disagree. A semicolon, when used to join two phrases, each of which could be a sentence, replaces the conjunction. When a conjunction is used a comma is employed.
October 24, 2011, 7:24pm
You need know only this: a conjunction is not needed after a semicolon because a semicolon relpaces a conjunction.
October 23, 2011, 8:17pm
I stand by my comment. Punctuation, at its best, does not lead us through the maze of badly constructed sentences. It thrusts us through the good ones.
October 21, 2011, 2:20am
I hope you kept the receipt for this book, as it is rubbish. A semicolon is never used with a conjunction. In specific instances it replaces the conjunction. Others, I am sure, will explain.
October 20, 2011, 1:42am
What are you talking about? And to whom?
September 19, 2011, 12:35am
I have always advocated against the hyphen in this case. I believe Winston Churchill would have too.
September 18, 2011, 6:07pm
You are right, both sentences are awkward. Moreover, both are factually wrong.
From a grammatical standpoint, I'd say scrap them both and start over. This would be better:
"That I write books is proof I am an entrepreneur."
But the problem is not grammatical. Merriam-Webster defines an entrepreneur as "one who organizes, manages, and assumes the risks of a business or enterprise." Merely writing a book is none of that.
August 14, 2011, 5:44pm
This site concerns itself with English, which is a living language, and a real one. Anglish is imaginary, like Esperanto or Atlantean (or Antlantish?). Have you an issue that is relevant to today?
June 7, 2011, 1:54am
I am not bothered by "on tomorrow." Its meaning is clear—as clear as "on Tuesday." It's the same construction. I hear it rarely, I admit. But really, haven't you— Tom, and Millie and all you others—something better to vex over?
March 26, 2011, 3:33am
The answer to your question is yes and no. There are instances where "I have" and I have got" mean the same thing. For example: I have/got to go. In other cases there is a slight distinction: I have a rash versus I have got a rash. There is a slight change in tense, but not an exact one.
The word "got" has a bad rep. It should not. Use it.
March 26, 2011, 3:25am
I’m more bothered by the phrase “black-educated” than I ever could be by “on tomorrow.”
March 4, 2011, 6:23am
I think "gift" as a verb is a vogue word that will die under its own weight. I hope. Similarly, we hear "plating" used to describe the arrangement of food on a dish, but mainly on cooking programs. Nobody says "plate me more potatoes, Ma" without being smacked. (One hopes.)
"Gift" as a verb is awkward: "Friends, Romans, Countrymen—gift me your ears." I don't think so.
This usage will either expire or flourish, inane or not. You are not required to use it.
February 17, 2011, 4:14am
Have you ever been in Boston? It it's a mostly blue-collar town, like most of America. If do you visit, Shawn, visit Southie. And say your piece—you may just get educated.
January 14, 2011, 5:25am
And by "out familiarity" I clearly meant "our familiarity." Ain't typing the Dickens?
December 8, 2010, 5:05am
The words "everyone" and "everybody" are not entirely interchangeable. For example, the phrase "God bless us, everyone" is generally taken to mean "God bless us all," while the phrase "God bless us, everybody" might be taken to mean "hey y'all, God bless us." That we understand the first phrase in one particular way only has more to do with out familiarity with Dickens than with word definitions.
But I disagree with RushanFrass who says, " 'Everyone’ is used in the passive voice while ‘everybody’ is used in the active voice…" (I also object to the casual use of the stray ellipsis, but let it pass.)
Bryan Garner says this:
"The point about the passive voice is that the subject of the verb doesn't perform the action of the verb. Instead you back into the sentence:
Passive: The deadline was missed by the applicant.Active: The applicant missed the deadline."
Substitute "the applicant" with either "everyone" or "everybody." Both sentences are clear and grammatical; there is no difference in meaning.
The distinction between "everyone" and "everybody" is not passive versus active voice. It is a matter of an author's personal preference.
December 7, 2010, 10:34pm
The answer is: "a quarter of a percent."
The problem is that only the small percentage of the population that understand percentages understands you. Say "nearly none" or "almost no," depending on circumstances.
You will get away with it .25% of the time. (Just a guess.)
November 18, 2010, 11:57am
©2016 CYCLE Interactive, LLC.All Rights Reserved.