"Try and" has largely been relegated to colloquial use, and "try to" is generally considered the correct form.

They are basically synonymous. "

Try and" is not really more rude, in my opinion.

According to alt.usage.english , "try and" is probably older than "try to," and, when used, implies success or failure of whatever action is being attempted.

As far as speech goes though, they're the same thing.

If you're writing, "try and" is generally discouraged.

Try and is a paraphrase of try to , typically used in informal promises and instructions, as in: I’ll try and keep in touch with her [and] Try and come soon.

It expresses a supportive attitude, as Fowler (1926) noticed, and has a particular interpersonal role to play, hence its relatively high frequency in conversation.

From the article in ‘The Cambridge Guide to English Usage’

"Try and...", while accepted in everyday usage, always sounds wrong to me, as if the speaker is commanding you to do two things:

try something unspecified , and then do this other thing .

I believe "try and do" is more of an oral expression, but has the same meaning as "try to do".

In writing, I would always use "try to do".

"Try and do" is the form of "try to do" in my native dialect (centered in Pittsburgh, maybe), and probably wouldn't sound strange to any American or Canadian.

A related construction is "needs done" instead of "needs to be done", which is more rare outside that dialect.

When in doubt, remember the words of the great orator, Bart Simpson: "I can't promise I'll try, but I'll try to try." On my suggestion, now enshrined in the Guardian style guide : try to never "try and".

As Bart Simpson put it: "I can't promise I'll try, but I'll try to try"

There is no difference.

"Try to" is the "classic" version -- "try and" has been increasing in usage recently (and is quite the pet peeve of mine),

but I've never known an English speaker to see a difference in meaning between the two.

This is really strange, in Norwegian it's a lot of confusion between homphones "og" (meaning and ) and "å" (equivalent to the word to ) that are pronounced the same (the g is silent, and o is sometimes the same sound as å, which is approximately the same sound as the vowel in "wall").

This is not surprising, but I've noticed the same confusion occur in related languages like English where it's not homophones.

Perhaps it's something about the grammar of the Germanic languages that causes this difference to be hard to understand?

(There could be a slight intentional difference in meaning between "try to" and "try and" but usually it seems like a mistake)

The use of "try and" seems to me to be an effort to build optimism into the language.

If one actually is unsure of success one would appropriately say, "I will try to succeed."

However, If there is no doubt that success will occur what need is there to insert "try and" into the phrase when then one could simply say, "I will succeed."

"Try and do" is regarded as a colloquial and ungrammatical version of "try to do", but is really grammatical if you accept that it expresses a slightly different meaning technically.

"Try and do" seems to imply that you will try, but that you WILL do something, while "try to do" doesn't seem to express any certainty about the outcome of your trying.

That said, people generally use "try and do" to mean "try to do", and you can save it from being labeled ungrammatical by calling it idiomatic.

On way to see that try and instead of try to is wrong is to say it in the past tense.

Yesterday, I tried to do something vs yesterday, I tried and do something.

Future tense, I will try to do something tomorrow vs I will try and do something tomorrow.

Question: What is the difference between  try to do  and  try and do ?  To me (non-native speaker), asking someone  try and do this  seems a bit rude. It's like saying you can try all you want but this must be done: try and fail is not an option. However, asking someone  try to do this  means I am asking you to try: success is bonus, failure is OK.

Difference between "try to do" and "try and do"

Although it is possible that these two expressions are basically synonymous, "try and" is generally considered more colloquial. "Try and" may generally be discouraged in writing. However, it could be argued that "try to" expressed less certainty about the idea being expressed than "try and".

Both forms are correct, but "try and" is more limited in range (e.g. cannot be used in the past tense) and sounds colloquial or less formal.

They are basically synonymous, but "Try and do" is more of an oral expression. "Try and" has now largely been relegated to colloquial use, and "try to" is generally considered the correct form.

They are basically synonymous, especially in speech. However "try and do" is more colloquial.

Whilst most people would probably agree that there is no difference in understanding, "try and" is probably considered more colloquial and should be avoided in writing. Some people also may claim that there is a subtle difference in the level of certainty implied in the two sentences, with "try to" implying less certainty about the success of the activity in question.

The most common form nowadays is 'try to' - although 'try and' has long been used it is now discouraged.

The 'try and' form is more oral and 'try to' more written in usage.

In some parts of the US 'try and' is still more common.

Think of the example "I can't promise I'll try, but I'll try to try" - which shows that  'and' does not always work.

"Try and" does not work in the past tense, which shows it is less useful.

"Try and" has largely been relegated to colloquial use, and "try to" is generally considered the correct form.

"Try and" may actually be older than "try to," and, when used, implies success or failure of whatever action is being attempted.

Most people would agree that there is no difference in understanding between "try and" and "try to".

People may well claim that "Try and" is largely colloquial and that "try to" should be used in writing.

It is possible that using "try to" implies less certainty about the activity in question.


The Chicago Manual of Style has an interesting way to address this: They omit the apostrophe, unless there are periods in the abbreviation.

So this would give you ATMs , or alternately A.T.M.'s .

( A.T.M.s looks weird.)

chicagomanualofstyle.org, "Plurals"

This page indicates that acronyms ending in the letter "S" get an apostrophe, something I've seen before, but can't find in a general reference.

So one would write ATMs and SOS's .

This page on the North Carolina State University website references AP's rule as being to always use an apostrophe.

The 2009 AP Stylebook's "plurals" entry has no section on acronyms, but mentions "VIPs", I can't find anything addressing how to specifically pluralize acronyms.

(The "abbreviations and acronyms" section is also of no help.)

Personally, I omit using apostrophes unless I can't avoid it.

I do use them when talking about single letters or where it would avoid confusion.

(For example, SOs for "Significant Others" looks like an incorrectly capitalized SOS.)

To paraphrase Carol Fisher Saller , the clearer usage is the correct one.

I agree with Wikipedia , wordreference and CMOS - acronyms and initialisms are "regular" nouns; plurals are formed by adding "s".

Checking Google Books for actual usage in a relatively "contentious" case, I searched for: "OSs" unix windows linux 3120 written instances

"OSes" unix windows linux 1060 instances "OS's" unix windows linux 520 instances "Simpler" cases such as CDs vs CD's are even more decisive (over 10:1 in favour of the former).

The first is the correct usage, in my view.

The third may be quite acceptable however, since the M in ATM could equally stand for 'machine' or 'machines', though I think pluralising the actual acronym is much clearer in speech.

In any case, never use an apostrophe.

's should only be appended to a word to create the posessive form ("of ..."), never for plurals.

Oxford Dictionary [e.g. SOS, noun (plural SOSs) ] and The Economist [e.g. Are ATMs stealing jobs? ]

both go for the first option.

Since this is a question about acronyms, and the Federal Government's bureaucracy is notorious for using acronyms, I decided to look up the answer in the United States Government Printing Office (GPO) Style Manual (2000).

Rule 8.11 of the GPO Style Manual states: "

While an apostrophe is used to indicate possession and contractions, it is not generally necessary to use an apostrophe to show the plural form of most acronyms, initialisms, or abbreviations, except where clarity and sense demand such inclusion."

As examples, the rule suggests: OKsABCsRIFsYWCAs

The rule does not show an exception for an acronym, but does refer to one case I found interesting -- the "Oakland A's" needs an apostrophe because otherwise it would be the "Oakland As."

From that I would assume that if the addition of an s to an acronym would appear to give the acronym a different meaning, then an apostrophe would be in order.

But since acronyms are capitalized letters, the addition of a small s should not make a difference, except where (for some reason) one is writing in a format that is all capitals -- such as the format that military and diplomatic messages were sent until very recently.

I vote for the first, "ATMs".

The second is just wrong (apostrophe is not used for plurals, ever).

This is because ATM is a defined term for an AT machine , and using it as plural "automatic teller machines" would be a redefinition of a common abbreviation, which one should not be trigger-happy about.

The third, however, does not solve the real need to say there's more than one.

It is though clear from the sentence, but might not be so in a general case.

Using 's to pluralize something is called a "Greengrocer's apostrophe".

I think the battle against the Greengrocer's apostrophe is one we're bound to lose - even if grammar of the general population improved, we'd still occasionally be facing nouns which have a mixture of upper and lower case, for which adding an s by itself at the end would be confusing.

Either of the first two is acceptable, but I would recommend the first as the apostrophe isn't needed to convey your meaning, and as such is not required.

The third is just wrong since it creates an awkward sentence that is hard to say and discomforting to read.

Most acronyms, including ATM, have a well-defined and commonly accepted meaning, which very rarely includes the pluralization.

Avoid the ambiguity and include the s.

Just a small addition to the subject and one that is probably as much related to typography as it is to grammar...

There is an issue with all-caps.

For example, if we were: Talking about ATMs.

Then the apostrophe is out.

But, if we were: TALKING ABOUT ATM'S.

Then the case for using one is much stronger as it serves to differentiate A utomated T eller M achine from, say, A utomated T eller M achine S oftware Of course, that doesn't address the question of why you'd be using all-caps in the first place...

Question: For example, if I wanted to write the equivalent of   There are many automated teller machines in this city.   Would it be   There are many ATMs in this city.   or   There are many ATM's in this city. (could get confused with possessive form or contraction).   or just   There are many ATM in this city. (assuming the final s is included in Machines represented by M).   Maybe something else?

What is the correct way to pluralize an acronym / initialism?

The answer to this question will be subjective, but the most popular way of pluralising an acronym is probably to use an s with no apostrophe. It is generally agreed that apostrophes should only be used to indicate possession.

An apostrophe is used to indicate possession and contractions, but not to show the plural form of most acronyms, initialisms, or abbreviations, except perhaps for acronyms separated by periods or ending in S.

The general consensus is that you should never use an apostrophe.  But if the addition of an s to an acronym would appear to give the acronym a different meaning, then an apostrophe would be in order.  Since acronyms are capitalized letters, the addition of a small s should not make a difference and it should be clearly understood. Therefore, acronyms and initialisms are "regular" nouns;  plurals are formed by adding "s".

In this example "ATMs" would be the more widely accepted correct usage/The apostrophe should be used for possessive forms, not for plurals. Wikipedia ,  wordreference  and  CMOS  maintain that acronyms are "regular" nouns and  their plurals are formed by adding "s".

It is generally agreed that you do not use an apostrophe to pluralise any word or acronym. However, there will be some who defend the use of apostrophes when pluralising acronyms if such use helps correct understanding.

Only use an apostrophe if the abbreviation has periods between each letter or ends in S.

Acronyms and initialisms are "regular" nouns;  plurals are formed by adding "s".

An apostrophe is used to indicate possession and contractions, but not to show the plural form of most acronyms, initialisms, or abbreviations.

Go for the first option - apostrophes are never used for plurals

The apostrophe is technically incorrect but it is still useful in some cases and so is probably here to stay.

Both are OK but the first is better as the apostrophe is not needed.

It will vary depending on whether you are writing all caps or not - for the sake of clarity an apostrophe may be needed.

Since acronyms are capitalized letters, the addition of a small s should not make a difference and it would be clearly understood.

It is generally agreed that an s without an apostrophe is the correct way to pluralise an acronym.

There will be some people that argue that apostrophes can be used to pluralise words if they help to ensure correct understanding.


i.e. stands for id

est (Latin), which means " that is ".

You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something.

Pronounce it "eye - ee".

e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means " for example ".

You use it to link in an example of a more generic term.

Pronounce it "ee - jee"

For i.e. I usually say "that is", occasionally "eye-ee".

For e.g.

I always say "for example".

When I was in college, one of my philosophy professors instructed us to use translated English for abbreviated or initialized latinisms when reading a text aloud.

I would agree that in most cases you should speak the translated English rather than speaking the letters of the initialization.

i.e. is used for clarification and should be spoken "that is" .

While most English speakers will recognize the meaning of "eye ee" when spoken, saying "that is" is clearer.

e.g. is used for providing one or many examples and should be spoken "for example" .

While i.e. and e.g. are relatively common, other abbreviated or initialized latinisms, such as viz. , are less frequent and their English translation should certainly be provided when reading from a text that includes a latinism.

For example, take the following quote from Plato :

Perfect wisdom has four parts, viz., wisdom, the principle of doing things aright; justice, the principle of doing things equally in public and private; fortitude, the principle of not flying danger, but meeting it; and temperance, the principle of subduing desires and living moderately.

When reading that quote aloud, the translation for viz. should be provided.

Incorrect:

"Perfect wisdom has four parts, viz , wisdom, the principle..."

"Perfect wisdom has four parts, videlicet , wisdom, the principle..."

Correct: "

Perfect wisdom has four parts, namely , wisdom, the principle..."

"Perfect wisdom has four parts, that is to say , wisdom, the principle..." Speaking the translation for initialized and abbreviated latinisms provides greater clarity for the audience than simply speaking the initials or the latin.

Just pronounce the letters: "Eye eee" and "eee gee".

I have never met anyone who actually said "id est" and "exempli gratia", which is what they really stand for.

I can't believe this wasn't addressed in the Oatmeal Comic

but I usually say the letters or replace it with "for example" (and now, thanks to the comic, I'll replace it with "in other words" instead and use e.g. when I mean "for example").

and as for the pronunciation of the Latin: i.e. = id est e.g. = IgzemplI gra:tI (NB a: is pronounced like the "a" in car or can't) but remember - as has been mentioned here; it's much better practice to use the English long-forms in speech: i.e. - "that is" / "or" e.g. - "for example"

Latin abbreviations i.e. =

that is, such as, or "in other words" e.g = for example et.

al. =

and others (i get a lot of strange looks when I use this) NB. =

nota bene;

Note well (and this one as well

I have no idea why this one is capitalized) etc. =

et cetera ("and other things", or "and so forth") and yes

when reading aloud I just use the translation to avoid confusion Pronuciation: just say the letters for most cases; except etc.

and et cetera are pronounced the same.

et.

al.

is pronounced et all

Question: How are  i.e.  and  e.g.  pronounced?

How are "i.e." and "e.g." pronounced?

The answer to this question will be subjective. Some people will pronounce the letters as they are read, whilst others will replace "i.e." with "that is" and "e.g." with "for example".

For "i.e." say "eye-ee" but it is better to say "that is" and for "e.g." always say "for example".

These are pronounced "eye - ee" and "ee - jee". In most cases you should speak the translated English rather than speaking the letters of the initialization, so "that is"  and "for example". No one actually says "id est" and "exempli gratia", which is what they really stand for.

i.e. and e.g. are pronounced  "eye - ee" and "ee - jee", respectively. However, while most English speakers will recognize the meaning of  "eye - ee"  and "ee - jee" when spoken, saying  "that is"  or "for example" is clearer.

Many English speakers would simply read out these acronyms phonetically. However, there will be people who claim that it is more correct to say aloud their translated English meaning, such as "that is" or "for example".

Just pronounce the letters: "Eye eee" and "eee gee".

These are pronounces "eye - ee" and "ee - jee".

Many English speakers would simply advise reading out the letter phonetically.

Some people would defend the use of the English translation for their meaning, such as "that is" and "for example".


How can I explain to people that the phrase "off of" is grammatically incorrect?

You can't, because it's not.

There are thousands of examples of “off of” in the Corpus of Contemporary American English , not just in spoken English, but in magazines, newspapers, and academic journals as well.

“Off of” is well-established as standard in American English.

Plain “off” may be stylistically preferable in many cases, but it is simply not a rule of English grammar that if a word could be removed it must be removed.

Some people seem to think that such a rule exists.

It does not.

The phrase "off of" has a long history, which, according to the OED, stretches back roughly 500 years.

If you want to consider it to be "wrong", then it certainly has a lot of staying power.

Here are their quotations using "off of": ?

c1450 in G. Müller Aus mittelengl.

Medizintexten (1929)

116 Take a sponfull of e licour..of of e fyir and sette it in good place tyl at it be ny colde, soo as ou mayst suffryn to holdyn

er-in in hand.

a1616 SHAKESPEARE Henry VI, Pt. 2

(1623) II.

i. 98

A fall off of [ 1594 Falling off on] a Tree. 1667 A. MARVELL Corr.

in Wks.

(1875) II.

The Lords and we cannot yet get off of the difficultyes risen

betwixt us. 1678 J. BUNYAN Pilgrim's Progress 49 About a furlong off of the Porters Lodge. 1712

R. STEELE Spectator No. 306. 6, I could not keep my Eyes off of her. 1720 D.

DEFOE Mem.

Cavalier 281,

I had perswaded him off of that. 1748 S. RICHARDSON Clarissa V. xiii.

Biting my lip, [was to indicate] Get off of that, as fast as possible.

1775 P. OLIVER in T. Hutchinson's Diary 7 Dec. I. 581

A Rebell Pirate..taken..off of Cape Ann.

a1805 in F. J. Child Eng. & Sc.

Pop.

Ballads (1894)

V. IX.

Aff o

the weather [read wether]

he took the skin,

An rowt his bonny lady in. 1824 J. WIGHT Mornings at Bow St. 21 Two young men..were charged by a watchman with having ‘bother'd him on his bate,’ and refused to ‘go along off of it when he tould 'em.’

1843 T. C. HALIBURTON Attaché 1st Ser.

II.

xii.

The groom has stole her oats, forgot to give her water, and let her make a supper sometimes off of her nasty, mouldy, filthy beddin'.

1868 HARTLEY Clock Alm.

in Leeds Mercury Weekly Suppl.

5 Oct., He connot forshame

To lift up his een off

o' th' graand. 1875 P. BROOKS New Starts in Life viii.

129 If you could have filled his pockets with gold, and feasted his hunger off of silver dishes. 1884 ‘M. TWAIN’

Adventures Huckleberry Finn vi.

I'd borrow two or three dollars off of the judge for him. 1909 G. GREIG Mains's Wooin' 6

He's swallowed the dictionar', min,

an's tryin' to get 'er aff

o's stammack.

a1922 T. S. ELIOT Waste Land Drafts (1971) 5

The reputation the place gets, off of a few barflies. 1962 F. NORMAN Guntz i. 15

, I got hold of this very very old typewriter off of a friend of mine. 1974 J. STUBBS Painted Face xxiii.

284 Get off of me, will you, sir? 1990 B. ROCHE Poor Beast in Rain II.

i. 44, I was hangin' around here all the time, gettin' sweet nothin' off of you.

This may perhaps be more common in American English nowadays, but it certainly didn't originate there.

I don't know how you can explain to people in general that it's grammatically incorrect, but here is one idea: when you go to a James Brown tribute concert and the singer says "Get up offa that thing" what you could do is to trounce the security guards, climb on to the stage, pounce onto the singer, grab the microphone and say "In fact you should be saying not 'get up offa that thing' but 'get up off that thing' since 'offa' is grammatically incorrect.

" I'm sure everyone will thank you for your grammatical corrections.

Being serious for a moment though, it's very difficult to decide what is or is not "grammatically correct".

E.g. in the UK we say "outside my house" but US people often say "outside of my house".

How can you actually decide which of these two is grammatically correct?

Unfortunately it's not possible since English grammar is not a science like physics but merely a description of what people actually do, and that has changed very significantly over the years.

If I was teaching someone English

I would definitely say "off" is correct and "off of" is wrong, but this kind of decision is based on intuition, based on the usages of educated native speakers.

Off of does sound barbarous to the speaker of British received pronunciations but it's common (in every sene of the word) in regional dialects such as Cockney.

Perhaps grammar is a tribal mark of affiliation rather like the choice of vocabulary as in for example "toilet" vs "lavatory".

The simple answer?

It is an Americanism similar to saying "Don't forget to write me" (American) as opposed to "Don't forget to write to me" (everywhere else).

Or is there perhaps some simple way I can explain this to most people?

Yes, by explaining that the word of in that context, is unnecessary.

It is superfluous.

An unnecessary added extra.

It is surplus to requirements.

It adds nothing to the meaning of sentences.

Question: How can I explain to people that the phrase off of is grammatically incorrect? I‘ve heard this phrase used a lot, especially by Americans (though they aren't the only ones). In my understanding, off of should usually be replaced by off , as in, I took the book off the shelf as opposed to I took the book off of the shelf Am I wrong? Or is there perhaps some simple way I can explain this to most people?

How can I explain to people that the phrase “off of ” is grammatically incorrect?

The answer to this question will be subjective, but it's quite possible that the form "off of" is grammatically correct and there are thousands of examples of it in the Corpus of Contemporary American English. It's actual used may depend on region. However, one way to convince people not to use "off of" would be to point out that the word "of" in such a context is unnecessary.

Views vary - "off of" is commonly used and there is no rule to say it is incorrect, but at the same time the "of" is superfluous as it adds nothing to the meaning and in that sense it can be said to be incorrect.

You can explaini hat the word  'of'  in that context, is unnecessary and superflous, although there are examples of “off of” in the  Corpus of Contemporary American English. “Off of” is well-established as standard in American English, but not used in standard British English.

Although “off of” is well-established as standard in American English, plain “off” may be stylistically preferable in many cases, as "off" can be considered unnecessary in this context.

The use of "off of" is, in fact, not grammatically incorrect. As a result, there is no way to explain that people that it is. However, if you wanted to convince people not to use it, you could simply explain that it is unnecessary.

"Off of" as a form dates back 500 years and is not incorrect.

"Off of" is more colloquial in British English.

The word "of" is unnecessary in this context - it adds nothing to the meaning of the sentence and that is why it is incorrect.

There are examples of “off of” in the  Corpus of Contemporary American English.

You can explaini hat the word  'of'  in that context, is unnecessary and superflous.

It is not possible to explain to people that the use of "off of" is incorrect because it is, in fact, not.

If you wanted to convince people not to use "off of", you might consider pointing out that it is unnecessary.


I think it helps to know the history of the word Internet .

When computers were first connected together the resulting configuration was called a network .

Later people connected networks together.

That was called an internet .

Eventually most of the networks in the world were connected into one large internet that became known simply as the Internet .

In other words, there is a technical distinction between an internet and the Internet .

For what it is worth, my iPad wants me to capitalize Internet .

The fact that Web is short for World Wide Web , Sir Tim's wonderful invention, makes me think that Web should be capitalized too.

It's a matter of style.

The Guardian style guide uses lowercase: internet net, web, world wide web web, webpage, website, world wide web .

is there at least some consensus among the more popular style guides/dictionaries on this?

Not really.

Wikipedia has a page on the topic, Internet capitalization conventions , with a section on usage: Examples of media publications and news outlets that capitalize the term include The New York Times, the Associated Press, Time , and The Times of India .

In addition, many peer-reviewed journals and professional publications such as Communications of the ACM capitalize "Internet", and this style guideline is also specified by the American Psychological Association in its electronic media spelling guide.

More recently, a significant number of publications have switched to not capitalizing the noun " internet .

Among them are The Economist, the Financial Times , The Times , the Guardian , the Observer and the Sydney Morning Herald .

As of 2011, most publications using "internet" appear to be located outside of North America, but the gap is closing.

Wired News , an American news source, adopted the lower-case spelling in 2004.

Around April 2010, CNN shifted its house style to adopt the lowercase spelling.

Wired has a 2004 piece on their decision to use internet, web and net .

Pick your own style and be consistent.

Regarding Internet, the Wikipedia disambiguation page mentions:

The Internet is a worldwide publicly accessible system of interconnected computer networks.

Where not capitalized, internet can refer to any internetwork .

You could apply the same reasoning for Web (World Wide Web) as opposed to any "web".

Although there is still the debate about Web site vs. "website" ;) If you consider proper noun as referring to "specific people, places, or things", Internet and "the Web" do qualify for their capitalize letter.

Wired magazine has a feature article on exactly this question , with reasons to support answers both ways, and in short it depends on your context and audience.

However, it concludes that the lowercase version will eventually win the day.

My reasoning is that there is really only one network named Internet - therefore it's the Internet, while "web" is a more generic term, meaning any network (but probably referring to YouTube anyway ;).

I would say that it is becoming less and less common to write "Internet", as if it were a proper noun.

Indeed, the use of the phrasing "the internet" tends to indicate that "internet" is not a proper noun, because if it were, the word "the" would be redundant, and we would happily (still) refer to the internet as simply "Internet" (which used to be an accepted style, but will likely look odd to any reader not versed in the history of the internet).

The proportion of people who are familiar with the origin of "the internet" as a proper noun, or indeed to who understand that the phenomenological features of the internet qualify it as being capable of having a proper noun, seems to be dwindling.

My guess is that most people think of the internet as being like the telephone system or the air - a thing that lacks either unity, number, or identity.

Question: There seems to be some inconsistency on whether people capitalize the words  internet  and  web  (as in  World Wide Web ) as proper nouns. What is the official ruling on when or if these words should be capitalized?  Obviously, I am not asking about when they are the first word in a sentence or in the title of a book or other publication.   Example:     "The  web  is the most commonly known  feature of the  Internet ."

Should the words "internet" and "web" be capitalized?

The answer to this question will be subjective, although some people and devices will insist that the capitalised version is correct. That being said, many style guides and publications have recently switched to using the non-capitalised version.

Although the upper case should be used in that the word is actually a proper noun, it is becoming less common in practice.

It's a matter of style. The Guardian style guide uses lowercase.   In addition, many peer-reviewed journals and professional publications such as  Communications of the ACM  capitalize "Internet", and this style guideline is also specified by the American Psychological Association in its electronic media spelling guide.  More recently, a significant number of publications have switched to not capitalizing the noun " internet, e.g., around April 2010, CNN shifted its house style to adopt the lowercase spelling.   It is becoming less and less common to write "Internet", as if it were a proper noun.

This may be a matter of style. The Guardian style guide uses lowercase for internet, net, web, world wide web, webpage and website.   However, as Web  is short for  World Wide Web , some maintain that  Web  should be capitalized.

Whilst it is generally considered that lowercase writing of "internet" and "web" is becoming more common, the answer to this question will largely depend on your own style, context and audience. Some people will argue that Web should be capitalized.

The word "Internet" is capitalised when it refers to the World Wide Web rather than a smaller internet.

World Wide Web should also be capitalized as it is a proper noun.

It varies - recently the lower case rendition has become more common.

Technically it should be with a capital "I" but it is up to you.

As there is only one Internet we should use upper case.

It is becoming less common to use the upper case.

The answer to this question will depend on style, context and audience.

It is generally agreed that lowercase writing of the words "internet" and "web" is becoming more common.

Some people would say that Web should be capitalized.


This is actually really easy, do you mean "it is" or not?

Frankly native speakers seem to make more mistakes with it than foreign learners.

The easiest way to remember is that you don't say "he's" or "she's" if you're talking about something someone owns.

There are special words for that: "his" and "hers".

It follows, then, that there'd be a special word for the genderless

"it" too - "its".

Print this out, perhaps. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe

If nothing else works, it can be beneficial to point out that none of these related possessive forms has an apostrophe:

his hers its theirs yours ours

If something belongs to it , its form looks just like his and hers .

If it is short for it is , then it's it's .

Contractions always take an apostrophe.

(You can't write cant for cannot .)

Possesives can, but need not.

("Is that her book?"

"No, it's Pat's book")

What is the best way to explain to a learner of English how to choose between

it's and its ?

I sat on my mat

you sat on your mat •

he [my brother] sat on his mat •

she [my sister] sat on her mat •

It [the dog] sat on its mat.

we [my dog and I] sat on our mats

you [you and your dog] sat on your mats

they [he and his dogs] sat on their mats.

Note the total absence of any possessive apostrophe.

We do not say * I sat on my's mat .

The possessive determiner , its , is precisely what its grammatical term suggests—possessive; hence the genitive or possessive apostrophe is unnecessary.

It's as simple as that.

Lynne Truss in her book Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation explains it in a rather straightforward manner: The rule is: the word 'it's' (with apostrophe) stands for 'it is' or 'it has'.

If the word does not stand for 'it is' or 'it has' then what you require is 'its'.

It needs to be understood that there was much disagreement about this up until maybe 60 years ago, when the "authorities" finally agreed that the possessive of "it" should be "its", to avoid confusion with the contraction "it's",

meaning "it is" or "it has".

Like any such change in the "rules" of English, it's taken decades to take hold.

And, I'll have to admit, when keyboarding its fairly easy to get it wrong.

Question: Probably one of the most frequent grammar mistakes in the English language is:   The dog sat on it's mat.   Since spelling checkers don't catch it, and it is even logical, since you would correctly write:   The dog sat on Fluffy's mat.   What is the best way to explain to a learner of English how to choose between  it's  and  its ?

What is the best way to explain how to choose between "its" and "it's"?

The easiest way to choose between "its" and "it's" is to ask whether or not you mean "it is". If it is short for "it is", then it's "it's" as contractions always take an apostrophe.

The rule is to use "it's" when you mean "it is" and "its" when you mean "of it".

This is actually really easy, you ask yourself if you mean "it is" or not?  S1: If the word does not stand for 'it is' then what you require is 'its'.  Lynne Truss in her book  Eats, Shoots & Leaves states that the rule is: the word 'it's' (with apostrophe) stands for 'it is' or 'it has'.

Contractions always take an apostrophe. Therefore, if the word does not stand for 'it is' or 'it has', then what you require is 'its'.

The easiest way to explain this is to make it clear that contractions always have an apostrophe.

The rule is to use "it's" when you mean "it is".

Remember you don't say "he's" or "she's" if you're talking about something someone owns.

Contractions always take an apostrophe, so "it is" goes to "it's" but possessives don't always.

"Its" is precisely what its grammatical term suggests—possessive; hence the genitive or  possessive apostrophe  is unnecessary.

If the word does not stand for 'it is' or 'it has' then what you require is 'its'.

There was much disagreement about this up until maybe 60 years ago, it was agreed that the possessive of "it" should be "its", to avoid confusion with the contraction "it's".


Here is a typical English vowel chart: As you can see, /æ/ and /ɛ/ are quite close to each other, and so have quite a similar sound.

The difference is in the degree of openness: /æ/ is “near-open” and /ɛ/ is “open-mid”.

If you want to make a clear distinction between the two, you need to practice, practice, practice.

When I was learning phonetics, I found the best practice was to try to make long continuous vowels that go along the axes, like /iiiiiiiieeeeeeeeɛɛɛɛɛɛɛɛææææææææaaaaaaaa/.

Once I was able to master making the entire continuum, it became easier to find individual points along the continuum.

As I don't know Turkish, so I'm afraid I can't give you examples of pronunciation in your native language, but this may still help: salary: SAH - lah - ree celery: CELL - lair - ree

Celery e as in evetSalary as the e in lütfen

You could pronounce salary just as if it were a Turkish word as well.

The /æ/ sound (which in American English is the sound present in words like cat , gap , fan , man ) is pronounced by dropping your jaw down as if you were going to say [ä]; then from that position try saying /ɛ/.

@Mehper

C. Palavuzlar

The easiest thing you can do in keeping the difference between [ɛ] and [æ]is to pronounce every [æ]

like [a].

I know most people don't even realize a simple fact that for most British people [æ] is quite a foreign sound.

In the Midlands, Northern Britain, Scotland, Wales, Ulster and Ireland [a] is the most usual, typical realization of [æ].

The same is true for both Canadian and Caribbean dialects &/or accents.

The most dictionaries I consulted show that the first e in celery is IPA e (seləri).

Read what the important phonetician Daniel Jones said about æ The correct sound of æ can generally be obtained by remembering that æ must have a sound intermediate in quality between ɛ and a .

In practising the sound, the mouth should be kept very wide open.

The sound may be obtained by imitating the baaing of a sheep which is very like ˈbæː .

Those who are unable to obtain the exact quality by practising such exercises should note that it is better to err on the side of

a rather than on the side of ɛ (my emphasis) .

a is actually used for æ in some parts of the North of England.

(Note 401 in this book ).

I also noticed the emphasized part from my own experience with words such as happy and laptop .

You might subscribe to a podcast located at speakmoreclearly.com which offers phonological analysis and pronunciation practice of English accents (British, American and Australian).

Repeated practice on this sentence will do wonders: '

Yet another white man doomed to rot under the tropic sun!'

Question: For a non-native English speaker like me, it's always been hard to sound æ and ɛ differently. For example, "salary" and "celery" are two words that I tend to pronounce identically.  Is it OK to go on like this or should I practice to get it right?

How can I practice differentiating between the "æ" and "ɛ" sounds in English phonology?

The answer to this will be subjective, but the main way to practice differentiating between these two vowel sounds will probably involve a lot of repetition and tryng to make long, continuous vowels that go along the axes. With these particular vowel sounds, you will want to keep your mouth very wide open.

The most important thing is to practice a lot and form the right shape with the mouth and jaw, taking words that give good examples of these sounds.

The difference is in the degree of openness: /æ/ is “near-open” and /ɛ/ is “open-mid”.  If you want to make a clear distinction between the two, you need to practise. For most British people [æ] is quite a foreign sound. In the Midlands, Northern Britain, Scotland, Wales, Ulster and Ireland [a] is the most usual, typical realization of [æ].

One practice technique is to try to make long continuous vowels that go along the axes. For example: iiiiiiiieeeeeeeeɛɛɛɛɛɛɛɛææææææææaaaaaaaa. You could also pronounce salary as though it was a Turkish word. The speakmoreclearly.com podcast also offers phonological analysis and pronunciation practice of English accents.

There are many different pronunciation practice techniques available. For example, you could try identifying similar sounds in Turkish. You could also consider practising a long sound which passes through all the vowels. There are also online resources such as speakmoreclearly.com which could help you with your pronunciation.

Try making all the sounds on the continuum and then pick out the individual one.

Keep the mouth wide open when practising.

You might subscribe to a podcast located at speakmoreclearly.com which offers phonological analysis and pronunciation practice of English accents (British, American and Australian).

One way of practising particular vowels would be to make one long continuous sound that passes through all of them.

You could try to identify the Turkish sounds that are similar.

There are online tools, such as speakmoreclearly.com which can help your pronunciation.


You often hear people say that -ize is American and -ise is British.

While it is certainly true that -ise has become dominant in Britain, -ize is the older spelling, and it once was dominant everywhere.

Americans have retained it, while the British have increasingly – since the mid-20th-century I think – favoured -ise .

Why, I don't know.

Last time I checked, both the (British) Oxford and Collins dictionaries gave -ize as the first spelling.

I'm British and

I always use the -ize spelling, not least because the letter z is so underused, but also because it more accurately indicates its pronunciation (and -ise is plain ugly).

The "z" is American , the "s" is British .

As an American I always use "z" for these words, and apparently many UK spellcheckers do not mark it as wrong and the Oxford English dictionary even gives "organization" as the first spelling, saying (also organisation).

Yet my (US English) Firefox marks the "organisation" variant as misspelled and suggests "organization".

My advice: unless you are writing under guidelines that suggest otherwise, use the "z" form for these words.

In publishing, we usually call these -ize and -ise spellings.

Some UK publishers prefer -ize, but -ise is the predominant UK style.

See Oxford spelling on Wikipedia .

OED prefers -ize spellings.

The US requires -ize .

The UK accepts both, but (with the OUP as the main exception) prefers -ise .

And this is one of the few cases where "international" English follows the US convention.

The ISO favours -ize spellings.

Inbuilt computer dictionaries set

to UK English rarely support -ize .

Feel free to overrule them.

That is because many spell checkers use American English.

Basically, z is used in North American English (American and Canadian), while s is used in British spellings.

You can find explanations for this on the internet — like here, for example: http://www.studyenglishtoday.net/british-american-spelling.html

Which spelling you use, depends on who your audience is.

If your writing is to be read mainly or only by speakers of American or Canadian English, use the North American spelling.

If it is not, then use the British spelling.

Apparently, if you see a process of transformation, or as Dictionary.com defines the suffix, "1.

To cause to become, resemble or agree with" the word should end with -ize, originating from the Late Latin -izāre, and the greek izein.

Or -ize is the rule if there is a smaller word prior to the suffix.

-ise is apparently from the latin past participle of words for "take", "see", and "cut" Analyse, for example, comes from (lysis) meaning dissolution.

See http://theconversation.com/its-time-to-recognize-and-internalize-the-us-suffix-ize-19828

The New Oxford American Dictionary reports

both the words, and the spelling checker used from the Mac OS X (10.6) corrects me when I write organisation .

Considering that US English is set as first language (followed by British English), I would think that organization is the American English word (even though it is not reported by the New Oxford American Dictionary ).

Question: What is with words that have forms that end both in -zation and -sation , such as localization and localisation ? Many spell checkers recommend -zation .

Are the endings "-zation" and "-sation" interchangeable?

It appears that the endings "-zation" and "-sation" are interchangeable in the UK but not in America. You often hear people say that "-ize" is American and "-ise" is British, however, both are accepted in the UK, although "-ise" is the dominant form there.

Nowadays, American uses -ize and British English uses -ise but retains -ize as an alternative.

The "z" is  American , the "s" is  British . Some UK publishers prefer -ize, but -ise is the predominant UK style.  The US requires  -ize .The UK accepts both, but (with the OUP as the main exception) prefers  -ise . And this is actually one of the few cases where "international" English follows the US convention.

In general,  z  is used in North American English (American and Canadian), while  s  is used in British spellings.  Some UK publishers prefer -ize, but -ise is the predominant UK style; while the US requires  -ize . Which spelling you use depends on who your audience is. Unless you are writing under guidelines that suggest otherwise, use the "z" form for these words.

Which variation you choose to use will depend on your audience or the style guide you are following. However, it is generally agreed that the spelling containing a z is North American and the spelling containing a s is British.

The US requires -ize but UK accepts both, but (with the OUP as the main exception) prefers -ise.

It is because many spell checkers use American English.

And this is one of the few cases where "international" English follows the US convention.

The variation containing a z is generally considered North American whilst the variation containing an s is considered a British variant.

Which you choose to write will depend on your audience or the style guide you are following.


There are some situations where status may be considered countable.

In those cases, the plural form can be used as statuses .

MacMillan dictionary gives 4 definitions for status , and 3 of them are referred to as countable.

Personally, I would use status as the plural form instead of statuses .

In Latin, the nominative plural of status as a 4th declension noun is statūs .

This would be uncomfortable in English, and so the English plural is statuses .

The Latin adjective has a different masculine nominative plural of statī , but then means something more like the English static .

I see that I've very late to answer.

I usually try to avoid the use of "status" as a plural, instead option to use the near-synonym " state ".

Take for example these three attempts at pluralizing "status", all of which I've seen coworkers using: The product should support the following statuses: Red Green Blue The product should support the following status: Red Green Blue The product should support the following statii: Red Green Blue None of those sound natural, and one is objectively wrong .

The issue is sidestepped by substituting "states": The product should support the following states: Red Green Blue

Many moons ago, our own tchrist wrote * …

If for some bizarre reason you simply cannot bring yourself to use the normal English plural form “statuses”, then you must learn that the true plural of status is statUs, with a macro[n] over the u [ i.e. , statūs] and pronounced “statoose”.

That’s because status comes from the Latin declension that forms plurals according to that particular rule, which incidentally is just like the plurals of apparatus and prospectus, but unlike the plural of words like radius, which becomes radii because it’s from a different declension, and also unlike genus and corpus, which go to genera and corpora respectively because they are from still another declension.

And please don’t ask me about octopus, since it’s Greek not Latin, and we do not care to offend any sensitive octopedal feelings. :-)

Wouldn’t it be much easier to simply s/$/es/ ?

A word to the wise: don’t use fancy forms out of yesteryear unless you really REALLY do know how they work(ed).

It just sounds silly.

* Message-ID: <5g2fu0$jve$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu> in comp.lang.perl.misc, March 11, 1997.

I always though that status should not be used as plural, but I notice that statuses is reported from the CoCA in sentences like: Young people across a wide range of socio-economic statuses increasingly value choosing their own spouses, and individual choice [...].

[...], but those with higher threat statuses need even more conservation.

Certain references were also made about specific types of sexual activity including individuals' virginity statuses.

Statuses is used in academic context, with a frequency of 192 (compared with a frequency of 3 and 4 in magazines and newspapers).

Usually "statuses", but some people use "status" As others have mentioned, there are several possible plural forms of status .

statuses, regularly formed using the English plural suffix

-(e)s.

This is listed in various dictionaries e.g. Collins English Dictionary , Merriam Webster .

status, taken from Latin.

This is listed in a few dictionaries e.g. the Oxford English Dictionary (which actually gives three forms): Pl.

( rare ) status

/ˈsteɪtjuːs/, (now usu.) statuses /ˈsteɪtəsɪz/, ( rare ) statusses /ˈsteɪtəsɪz/.

It’s not objectively better to use the Latinate plural form, or to try to pronounce it similarly to the way the Romans did.

Status has been an English word, not just a Latin word, for a long time now.

Latinate plurals ending in -us are rarely used in English, and in fact, several usage guides say the English form -uses is generally preferable.

The original Dictionary of Modern English Usage by H.W. Fowler, 1926 (as reproduced in the new 2009 edition) says in the entry for "-us": Many [words ending in "-us"] are from Latin fourth-declension words, whose Latin plural is -us

(pronounced ūs); but the English plural -uses is almost always preferred, as in prospectuses.

The contemporary usage guide writer Bryan Garner wrote the following passage: nexus.

The acceptable plural forms are nexuses (English) and nexus

(Latin).

Naturally, the English form is preferable—e.g.:

"The nexuses of activity for both rooms are the counters where the marijuana is dispensed."

Glenn Martin, "

The Tokin' Joint," S.F. Chron., 24 Aug. 1997, at Z1.

Some writers have betrayed their ignorance of Latin by writing * nexi, as if it were a second-declension noun.

To me, it seems simpler to just go with the regular English plural statuses,

but if you prefer to use the Latinate plural status for whatever reason, you’ll have to make some additional choices about pronunciation (it doesn't seem obvious to me how to pronounce it ).

Words that inflect similarly Some other English words that inflected in the same way as status in Latin are apparatus, coitus, fetus, flatus, hiatus, impetus, meatus, nexus.

I see some references to status as uncountable as well, but that doesn't make much sense to me.

I've always used statii, apparently incorrectly:

Merriam-Webster, at least, calls for "statuses"

Question: What is the plural form of "status"?

What is the plural form of "status"?

There does not appear to be much agreement as to the accept plural form of "status", and indeed, if may actually be "status". However, many people also use "statuses".

There is no definite rule but the most common plural form by far is "statuses".

Merriam-Webster suggests  "statuses" and statuses  is used in academic context, with a frequency of 192 (compared with a frequency of 3 and 4 in magazines and newspapers). The plural is usually "statuses", but some people use "status".

Usually "statuses", but some people use "status".  There are several possible plural forms of  status .  In Latin, the nominative plural of  status  as a 4th declension noun is  statūs .

There is disagreement about whether the plural form of 'status' is 'status or 'statuses'. However, in Latin, the plural form is 'status'.

It depends on the situation - the plural can be statuses but others prefer status.

The Latin is not a good guide so the English plural has become statuses.

You can use "states" instead if uncomfortable with statuses.

The Latin forms are rarely applied and best ignored.

It is usually "statuses", but some people use "status".

There is disagreement about whether the plural form of 'status' is 'status' or 'statuses'.


The most polite ways are probably: "May we have the bill/check, please?" "Could we have the bill/check, please?"

"Could we get the bill/check, please?

This has the meaning...

"Is it possible for you to give us the bill, as we're ready to leave and wish to pay"

Alternatively, when the server comes by and asks if you'd like anything else, a polite response would be: "

No thanks, just the bill, please" "Excuse me, Bill/check please" is casual and perhaps fine in casual situations, but it's still a little curt.

You can't go wrong with a full sentence question.

Note, in Canada, I've seen the word "bill" used most often.

Also note, in a Fancy restaurant, you will typically be asked if there is anything else.

A simple, "No thanks, I think that's all for tonight" will tip the server to bring the bill.

When paying, a credit card put in the envelope and left on the table will have the server silently take an bring back the completed bill.

I think check is American, bill is British : both are fine, adding "Can I have" as Daniel says is certainly more polite.

A common way to ask for the bill is to just make extended eye contact with the waiter, perhaps making a 'writing a cheque' guesture.

Two parts to your question.

Each part has been accurately but separately answered elsewhere but here's the summary: 1.

When asking for the bill/check in a restaurant, what's the polite way to phrase the question?

See Atomix's answer: "May we have the bill/check, please?" "

Could we have the bill/check, please?

" "Could we get the bill/check, please? 2.

Is there a politeness difference between bill and check ?

As TRiG's answer says, there is none.

But check is used chiefly in the USA and bill is used in the UK (and I think most other English speaking territories).

"Can I have the bill, please."

The word check should not be used in this context outside the USA.

In the USA, it's fine.

There's no politeness difference between bill and check .

I don't think anyone cares which word you use, as long as you're polite.

I usually use the word "check".

Most servers interpret the "money" gesture (rub your index finger against your thumb) as "I'd like to pay now" and will not and bring the check.

Question: I used to say  check please , but my English teacher said that it's wrong, and the proper way is to say something like  bill please.  What's the truth?

How should I ask for a bill in a restaurant politely?

The most polite ways to ask for a bill in a restaurant are probably "May we have the bill, please?" or "Could we have the bill, please?". You probably shouldn't use the word "check" in this context outside of the USA.

"Check" is American, "bill" is British : both are fine, and adding "Can I have" is certainly more polite.

The most polite ways are probably:  "May we have the bill/check, please?"  "Could we have the bill/check, please?"  But check  is used chiefly in the USA and  bill  is used in the UK and  most other English speaking territories.  Being polite is the main thing.
A common way to ask for the bill is to just make extended eye contact with the waiter, perhaps making a 'writing a cheque' guesture.

The most polite ways may be "May we have the bill/check, please?"; or "Could we have the bill/check, please?"

The most polite way to say this is probably "Can I have the bill, please?" or "Could we have the check, please?". Alternatively, you might find that making eye-contact with the waiter and making a writing gesture will be enough.

The most polite ways are probably:  "May we have the bill/check, please?" OR  "Could we have the bill/check, please?"

Check is American, bill is British : both are fine, adding "Can I have" is certainly more polite.

The word  check  should not be used in this context outside the USA.

I don't think anyone cares which word you use, as long as you're polite.

The most polite way to do this is probably to ask "Can I have the bill, please?" or "Could we have the check, please?".

Making eye-contact with the waiter and making a writing gesture with your hand may be enough.


Those living in early twentieth century called the years 1900-1909 "The Aughts" .

This Wikipedia article provides some more context.

I've heard "the noughties" (easy transition from "nineties") and "the two-thousands" (literal interpretation of "2000s") for the decade just gone.

I think this is something that doesn't have a real answer as it appears to change with each century and is different depending on your location.

Wikipedia's entry for the 2000s echoes this inability for people to come up with a single name for this decade

let alone all "first decades of a century".

In my circle I have usually heard the previous decade referred to as "the two-thousands".

As to whether it might be called that in 30 years or so, it's hard to tell.

I agree that "the tens" sounds weird, but isn't that because you'd say "the teens" instead?

The "Noughties" became a fairly standard term pretty quickly, at least in the UK.

But I've still yet to hear anyone give a good term for the decade from 2010-2019.

If I had to guess what term is most likely to emerge for 2010-2019, I'd say perhaps "The Teens", but I suspect actually no term will catch on until the Twenty-Twenties.

I can only think of "the single digits" to call the first nine years of the new millennium.

I usually hear the decade of 2000 through 2010 referred to as the two thousands.

But the year 2000 is really the last year of the 1990s.

For consistency the decade 2001-2010 should be referred to as the 20 zeroes and this decade 2011-2020 is the 20 tens.

Like every other decade we just say the number with the zero and add an s.

I will offer the correct answer.

Quite simply, for the two decades 2000-2010, and also 2010-2020 (the current decade), in fact there is no popular slang term .

There were attempts to popularise "naughties" but it never caught on.

Regarding back in 1900-1920.

I have not been able to find any clear reference on the issue.

The first ten years of any century could accurately be referred to as the 'singular', or 'unit', years, as opposed to those of double digits that follow.

That would be a designation consistent with the linear principles of fundamental mathematics, no?

Fot the current century, I would propose:

two thousand zeroes

My reason being, I think most people would understand what you meant.

(because of its recentness)However Im not so sure it would work for the first decade of a century in general.

i.e. in the fifteen zeroes davinci focused his attention on developing military machines for his patrons.

Its a little more ambiguous, but maybe understandable...

FWIW, this period has been called the 'Zeroes' by a Dutch radio station : The first decennium of this century is described as the 'Zeroes'.

It concerns the first ten years of this millennium.

Question: 80s: the "Eighties"    90s: the "Nineties"    00s: the ???   For that matter, what is the second decade called? The "tens" just doesn't sound right.

What is the name of the first decade in a century?

There are a number of different potential names for the first decade in a century. Those living in the early twentieth century call that decade "The Aughts", whilst the terms "the noughties" and "the two-thousands" have also been used for the first decade of this century.

There is no fixed term - both "noughties" and "two-thousands" have been used for 2000-2009 and no term exists for the years 2010-2010.

This appears to change with each century and is different depending on your location.  The "Noughties" became a fairly standard term pretty quickly, at least in the UK. And it was referred to as the 'Zeroes' by a  Dutch radio station. "The two-thousands" is another option, or "the single digits". Quite simply, for the two decades 2000-2010, and also 2010-2020,  in fact  there is no popular slang term .

"The noughties" and "the two-thousands" are commonly used for 2000-2009 and a dutch radio station uses the term "the zeroes". One suggestion for 2010-2019 is "the teens".

There is currently no agreed term for the first or second decade of the century. However, various names have been suggested for the first decade, including "the naughties", "the single digits" or "the two thousands". Additionally, a suggested term for the second decade of the century is "the teens".

The years 1900-1909 were called the "aughts"

There is no fixed term - both "noughties" and "two-thousands" have been used.

The "noughties" is common in the UK at least, but there is no term for the years 2010-2019.

The decade of 2000 through 2010 is referred to as the two thousands.

The first ten years of any century could accurately be referred to as the 'singular', or 'unit' years.

There are a number of terms that are in use to name the first decade of the 21st century, including "the naughties", "the two thousands" or "the single digits".

There is currently no agreed upon term for the first or second decade of the century.

One suggested name for the second decade of the century is "the teens".


Both are correct.

In a dialogue, a pause can be used for effect, putting emphasis on the greeting, eg:

Hello, Mr. Black.

"Hello" is said first, then a pause, then the name.

Normally, people would say: Hello Mr. Black.

Without any pauses in their speech.

When writing a letter or email, it is quite common to do this: Hello

Mr. Black, Bla bla bla... Or in a more formal situation: Dear Mr. Black, Bla bla bla...

It is uncommon to put a comma before the title even in an informal email salutation (though quite acceptable), but it would never be done in a formal letter/email.

Not placing a comma before a proper noun will change the object of the sentence.

These examples should explain: Let's eat, John!

(Correct)

Let's eat John!

(This means you'd like to eat John.)

Let's eat, everybody.

(Correct)

Let's eat everybody

(This means you'd like to eat everybody.)

When I read Hello, Mr. Black

I find that I mentally need there to be a comma at the end as well, or perhaps a full stop.

Hello, Mr. Black, how are you today?

Hello, Mr. Black.

And the result is that the name is emphasized.

Whether you want to do this or not depends on the circumstances, but for letter writing this is usually not what you want.

If you simply want a standard greeting put the comma after the name (or a full stop if the greeting is your whole sentence).

Hello Mr. Black.

Hello

Mr. Black, how are you today?

english.stackexchange.com/users/380/Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

In formal writing you would put a comma after greetings: "Hello, Mark."

In emails and informal writing, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

I, for one, feel self-conscious about using commas like that in emails; it seems too formal.

In the specific case of the opening salutation I would not insert a comma between the greeting and the name if a comma came after the name, but I would if some other punctuation followed the name.

The following examples all "look correct" to me: "

Hi Mark, how are you?"

"Hi, Mark.

How are you?"

"Hello Mark, what's up?"

"Hello, Mark!

What's up?

But the "Hi, Mark, how have you been?"

example that you gave looks over-punctuated to me.

The title of the question said “in a letter” in which case you would be better sticking to: Dear Mr. Black,

How are you today?

(The the rest of the letter follows.)

Other forms may be grammatically correct and certainly not a problem in an email.

But for a the more traditional context of a letter, I think your safest bet is this one.

You need to place a comma between the salutation and the name of the person addressed.

Hello, Mr. Black.

How are you today?"

Question: Sometimes I see a comma  after  the proper name:   Hello Mr. Black,  In order to give you....   But my native language is not English and I think that the comma in this phrase should be placed  before  the proper name:    Hello, Mr. Black.  In order to give you....   What is the correct punctuation in English?

Where should the comma be placed in the salutation of a letter?

It is considered that putting the comma before or after a persons name in a salutation is correct. There should be a comma after a greeting, but it may not be correct to place another comma after the person's name. In fact, it may be best not to place a comma before the name if a comma already follows the name.

There is no hard and fast rule but in salutations it is much more common to put the comma only after the name.

Some suggest that in case of the opening salutation you should not insert a comma between the greeting and the name if a comma came after the name, but only if some other punctuation followed the name.  Others say that you need to place a comma between the salutation and the name of the person addressed. The title of the question said “in a letter” in which case you would be better sticking to:   Dear Mr. Black,

In a letter, it would be best to use "Dear Mr. Black,". It is uncommon to put a comma before the title even in an informal email salutation (though quite acceptable), but it would never be done in a formal letter/email.

The answer to this question appears to be subjective and there does not seem to be a correct answer. Some people will advocate avoiding commas before names whilst other may feel it is required. Other people may feel that a comma needs to follow the name. In any case, it is unlikely to have much importance which you choose.

Both forms are correct but it is much less common to place the comma before the name.

Not placing a comma before a proper noun can change the meaning.

If commas are placed before and after the name it will emphasise the name as it is unusual

In formal writing the comma comes after but in emails it does not matter.

I would insert a comma before only if punctuation came after the name.

For letters you should put the comma only after the name.

Both styles of punctuation are considered correct and it is unlikely to be very important which you choose.

Many people would prefer to avoid putting a comma before a name in a salutation.

Some people feel that a name must be placed before a name after a salutation.

Some people advocate putting a comma after the name in an opening salutation.


Dutch, not an uncommon nickname, seems to be used for a variety of reasons.

It could be because a person is connected to Holland, or because a person is of German descent.

Here, "Dutch" is from "Deutsch," the German-language word for "German.

" Other reasons are more idiosyncratic.

Here are some examples: Ronald Reagan , 40th President of the United StatesAs a boy,

Reagan's father nicknamed his son "Dutch", due to his "fat little Dutchman"-like appearance, and his "Dutchboy" haircut; the nickname stuck with him throughout his youth.

Dutch Schultz , notorious gangsterHis old associates dubbed him "Dutch" Schultz in honor of a deceased strong-arm thug who was notorious for dirty fighting at the turn of the century.

Dutch Ruppersberger , U.S. congressmanDutch is legally part of his name: Charles Albert Dutch Ruppersberger III, but it wasn't always.

When Rep. Charles Albert Ruppersberger III (D-Md.)

first ran for Congress in 2002, he decided that his 13-letter last name was too long to put on a bumper sticker.

Besides, he says, he needed something catchier, something that would stick in people’s heads.

So he opted for his lifelong nickname: Dutch.

But there was one hitch:

It wasn’t his real name, so he couldn’t put "Dutch" on the ballot.

"When you market yourself, you have to make sure that you have the same name on the ballot, so I needed ‘Dutch’ on the ballot," he said in an interview.

So what I did is I legally

-- I’m a lawyer -- I legally added Dutch to my name.

So I would go by C -- period -- A -- period -- Dutch, and all of the bumper stickers would say, ‘Go Dutch.’

So legally I added Dutch to my name."

But why did he choose "Dutch"?

The Maryland Democrat’s nickname has been --Dutch-- since the moment of his birth.

--When I was born ...

the doctor came out and said to my father, ‘You have a big blond Dutchman,’ -- he said.

--So they started calling me ‘Dutch,’ and when my mother and he would write letters, he’d ask, ‘How’s the Dutchman doing?’

I’ve been called Dutch all of my life.-- Dutch Fehring , Stanford's winningest baseball coach.

It was during his freshman year in high school that he earned the nickname --Dutch,-- because he was of German descent.

After Fehring returned a kickoff 60 yards for a touchdown, a local sportswriter tabbed him --The Flying Dutchman--

and the nickname stuck.

Arnold Schwarznegger's character's (nick)name in the film "Predator" was "Dutch".

I once read a review which claimed this was a way to explain his accent away.

As for T-Bone Walker, Wikipedia tells me Aaron Thibeaux Walker[4] ....

In 1929, Walker made his recording debut with a single for Columbia, "Wichita Falls Blues"/"Trinity River Blues," billed as Oak Cliff T-Bone.[1]

Oak Cliff was the community he lived in at the time and T-Bone a corruption of his middle name .

We have answers for T-Bone Walker, but not for T Bone Burnett.

An article by the Newark Star Ledger (posted on his own site ) says: Christened Joseph Henry Burnett, T Bone came by his nickname "honestly," around the age of 5, he says.

The fact that he shared a moniker with famous Texas guitarist T-Bone Walker caused some wincing when he first started to perform, but he stuck with it.

So his name doesn't begin with a T and he didn't copy it from Walker, he just picked it somehow.

Some other T-Bones : T-Bone Slim (1890-1942), pen name for American poet, songwriter, and labour activist

Matti Valentine Huhta:

Apparently Slim was a common name for hoboes, perhaps because they tended to be skinny from lack of food.

And maybe the T-Bone was for ironic contrast, and for the T sound from the end of Matti.

His " Lumberjack's Prayer " begins: "I pray dear Lord for Jesus' sake, /

Give us this day a T-Bone Steak".

T-Bone (rapper), a Christian rapper: "His name came from being called ' Bones ' as a youngster because he was very skinny.

The 'T' was "added to give the name a little slang edge, hence the name 'T-Bone' was born."

" And these three all have names beginning with T: Tony "T-Bone" Bellamy, lead guitarist, pianist and vocalist of the 1970s band Redbone.

Tom "T-Bone" Wolk, an American bassist: "guitarist G.E. Smith ... gave him the nickname T-Bone — for blues guitarist T-Bone Walker — after Wolk played his bass behind his head during a solo".

Tom "T-Bone" Stankus, an American musician.

I have no doubt that "T-Bone" comes from the steak.

I think that a cut of steak is something considered fairly rugged and manly, so for this reason it might be attractive as a nickname.

Of course that is just speculation.

Also, I notice (from Wikipedia)

that T-Bone Walker got his nickname because his middle name starts with a T. I suspect that a name like T-Bone could easily arise from this sort of connection.

Having played in the brass section of a marching band in grade school, I know that trombones are frequently referred to as "t-bones".

In the context of musicians, I have often assumed that those bearing the moniker "T-Bone" were, among other things, notorious trombonists (or "tromboners" per band director Dewey Largo on The Simpsons ) but clearly this is not a reference that translates into popular culture with any frequency.

Question: Does the nickname  Dutch  have any significance? I know it was Reagan's, and I'm sure I've come across it in other books/films.  Also  T-Bone , as in  T-Bone Walker ,  T-Bone Burnett : what does that mean? (I realise T-bone is a steak, but why would people be named after a meat cut, and why this one?)

What do the American nicknames 'Dutch' and 'T-Bone' mean?

"Dutch" is not an uncommon nickname and may refer to someone of German descent or connected to Holland or, as the case of Ronald Reagan, to a "dutchboy" haircut. It is unclear what the nickname "T-bone" means, although the term is often used as a slang expression for the trombone.

The nickname "Dutch" usually denotes some connection or link to Holland or Germany and T-Bone appears to originate from "Thibeaux".

Dutch could be used because a person is connected to Holland, or because a person is of German descent. For example, Reagan's father nicknamed his son "Dutch", due to his "fat little Dutchman"-like appearance, and his "Dutchboy" haircut; the nickname stuck with him throughout his youth.   "T-Bone" most probably comes from the steak.  A cut of steak is something considered fairly rugged and manly, so for this reason it might be attractive as a nickname.  But there is also a musical reference as trombones are frequently referred to as "t-bones".

"Dutch" could be used for someone connected to Holland, or because a person is of German descent. Reagan's father nicknamed his son "Dutch", due to his "fat little Dutchman"-like appearance, and his "Dutch boy" haircut and the nickname stuck with him throughout his youth. "T-Bone" probably refers to the cut of steak, as something considered fairly rugged and manly, so for this reason it might be attractive as a nickname.

The answer to this question may well be different in every case. The nickname "Dutch" may well be applied because of someone's connections to the Netherlands. However, in the case of Ronald Reagan, it was due to his "Dutchboy" hairstyle as a child. With regards to the nickname "T-bone", it may well come from the steak cut, with it being considered perhaps rugged and manly.

Dutch is not uncommon as a nickname and is used mainly because of a connectio with Holland or Germany.

Arnold Schwarznegger's character's (nick)name in the film "Predator" was "Dutch" in part to explain the actor's German accent, and T-Bone appears to come from Thibeaux oiginally as this was T-Bone Walker's middle name.

Other people may have picked up the name T-Bone randomly.

The nickname T-Bone may come from the fact that trombones are sometimes referred to as "T-bones".

Someone may be nicknamed "Dutch" because they have some connection to the Netherlands.

Ronald Reagan was nicknamed "Dutch" by his father owing to his "Dutchboy" haircut as a child.

The nickname "T-Bone" may come from the steak as it could be considered something 'rugged and manly'.


I have always used "I reckon" to mean, "I have applied a process of thought and come to this conclusion".

"I think" is a statement of my assumptions.

"I believe" is generally something I cannot prove or defend, specifically referring to my "beliefs" in a religious or spiritual context.

For some perspective, I am a native speaker from the Southern United States.

"I think" is a statement of cursory conclusion, while "I believe" indicates a more deeply considered and committed position.

Note that someone may say "I think" when they actually mean "I believe", simply because it might be received as less confrontational.

"I reckon" carries an ever lower level of assertion than "I think", (or perhaps an even higher level of conciliation).

As an example... When a sheriff in the deep south says, "I reckon I'm takin' you to jail.", it means he's definitely taking you to jail.

There is no question in that sheriff's mind.

He doesn't think or believe, he knows. ;~)

And an up vote for Anthony.

I'd consider both "I believe" and "I think" to reflect roughly equivalent levels of (limited) confidence.

"I reckon" is significantly lower-confidence- more akin to "I'd guess" than than it is to the other two.

I believe "I reckon" is more commonly used in British English.

I think that in American English, it's considered to be colloquial.

english.stackexchange.com/users/189/Paused until further notice.

All three are essentially interchangeable, but many think

I believe reflects uncertainty on the part of the speaker.

I believe (heh-heh) that "I believe" acknowledges the possibility of error, and the shortage of evidence, more explicitly than "I think" does.

"I reckon" originally meant "I calculate" and so carries a far stronger promise of accuracy.

If you begin a sentence with "I reckon", you better be right.

Rather than just pointing out degrees, let's talk about what you can hold a conviction in .

These terms also connote degrees.

You can think a conjecture is true.

You can believe in a theory, holding it to be true.

One of them requires some foundation even if only subjective from the perspective of the speaker.

While the other includes possibilities that may be clearly absurd.

I think these lottery numbers will be lucky.

Raises no questions to me.

I believe these lottery numbers will be lucky.

Makes me wonder what you know about the method of number selection at the lottery.

That's not to say every belief is reasonable.

Most are certainly not reasonable, but they're still not random.

I'm a Christian

: I believe the world was created in 6 days.

You're clearly nuts.

But, I understand why you believe that.

It's in your cannon.

As for reckon it has two meanings.

Meaning to calculate.

This is the archaic definition from which the current usage derives, largely lost in the United States.

A southern regionalism for belief.

Often used sarcastically or pejoratively by outsiders to mock southerners.

I'd stay stay away from reckon entirely.

Unless you're planning a comedy skit.

Question: These are the three most common ways to say "I think." (At least, I believe so. I mean, I think so. Um...)  Are there any subtle differences between them? Are there situations where one of the three is more suitable than the others? Can you say you hear a particular form all the time in the streets, while the other two are much less common?

Are there any differences between "I believe" vs "I think" vs "I reckon"?

The distinction between "believe", "think" and "reckon" is likely to be very fine, however, "think" and "reckon" may refer to more cursory conclusions that "I believe", which is a more deeply considered and committed position. It's also possible that "I reckon" carries a lower level of assertion than "I think", although other people would assert that it involved calculation and is therefore more certain than "believe" or "think".

The terms are interchangeable and may indicate varying levels of certainty in different speakers. Using "I reckon" can appear uneducated and expose the user to mockery.

"I reckon" is more commonly used in British English and is significantly lower-confidence- more akin to "I'd guess" than than it is to the other two. "I believe" is generally something I cannot prove or defend, specifically referring to my "beliefs" in a religious or spiritual context.   "I think" is a statement of cursory conclusion, while "I believe" indicates a more deeply considered and committed position.  "I believe" and "I think" reflect roughly equivalent levels of (limited) confidence.

"I think" is a statement of cursory conclusion, while "I believe" indicates a more deeply considered and committed position.  "I believe" acknowledges the possibility of error, and the shortage of evidence, more explicitly than "I think" does.  "I believe" is generally something that cannot be proven or defended, specifically referring to my "beliefs" in a religious or spiritual context.  "I reckon" carries an ever lower level of assertion than "I think". "I reckon" is more commonly used in British English.

There does not appear to be a clear answer to this question. There is disagreement about which of these three denotes more certainty. Some people might claim that "I believe" is more certain than "I think" or vice versa. Equally, there is no agreement as to whether "I reckon" is a more or less confident statement than the other two.

In the Southern US "I reckon" implies more thought than "I think", and "I believe" refers to religious beliefs.

"I think" is a statement of cursory conclusion and  "I reckon" is even more cursory, while "I believe" indicates a more deeply considered position.

"I reckon" can be used ironically when the speaker is quite sure about the statement.

Both "I believe" and "I think" reflect roughly equivalent levels of (limited) confidence but "I reckon" is significantly lower-confidence- more akin to "I'd guess".

"I reckon" is more common in UK English but in US English it sounds colloquial

"I believe" acknowledges the possibility of error, and the shortage of evidence, more explicitly than "I think" does but "I reckon" originally meant "I calculate" and so carries a far stronger promise of accuracy.

These terms also connote degrees but it depends on context - "I reckon" is often used to mock regional dialects in the US and should otherwise be avoided.

"I think" is considered to be less committal and confident than "I believe".

Some people would consider that "I believe" demonstrates a certain level of doubt.

There is no agreement about whether "I reckon" is stronger or weaker in confidence.

It is possible that "I reckon" is more common in British English.


"Thy" is an English word that means "your" in the second person singular.

English used to have a distinction between singular and plural in the second person, such that we had the following:

Singular: thou, thee, thy Plural: ye, you,

your Nowadays, we just have "you" and "your" in place of those six distinct words (which is why in nonstandard English, we have things like "y'all" or "youse" to distinguish 2nd-person plural from 2nd-person singular).

I believe it's still used in parts of Yorkshire.

I me

my mine Thou thee thy thine

(You you your yours)

He him

his his She her her hers

We us our ours

Ye

you your yours (You you your yours)

They them their theirs

Basically, it means "your".

If you want more detailed definition, check on the Merriam-Webster site : archaic : of or relating to thee or thyself especially as possessor or agent or as object of an action —used especially in ecclesiastical or literary language and sometimes by Friends especially among themselves

Archaic.

From dictionary.com .

thy –pronoun the possessive case of thou (used as an attributive adjective before a noun beginning with a consonant sound): thy table.

thou –pronoun Archaic (except in some elevated or ecclesiastical prose) .

the personal pronoun of the second person singular in the nominative case (used to denote the person or thing addressed): Thou shalt not kill.

‘Thy’ is an old word meaning ‘ your ’ that was used for talking or writing to one person.

Not really answering the question, but adding some cultural context.

One

(maybe the only) place

most people meet these words nowadays is in old hymns:

Thine be the glory Great

is thy faithfulness

How great thou art

Just a closer walk with thee

Oh come all ye faithful

The OED has a lot to say about thou , pron and n¹ .

Here is just a very small bit of that: History of use of forms

In Old English, the inherited distinctive 2nd singular forms (including the other members of that paradigm, i.e. thee pron .

, thine adj .

and pron ., thy adj .)

were in regular use independently of register or the status of the addressee.

In Middle English they were gradually superseded by the plural ye, you, your, yours , which occurred with singular reference originally for reasons of showing respect, deference, or formality, but gradually became the usual forms in the standard language.

On the details of this process see discussion at you pron .

, adj ., and n .

Although still occurring in religious contexts (in prayers or hymns addressing God) and in archaic language, later use of the th- forms in ordinary speech has been largely restricted to regional English (now chiefly in the north of England).

The forms were formerly also employed by Quakers in addressing a single person as a mark of equality, a feature which had largely fallen out of use by the 20th century.

While use of thee pron .

as subject form occurs early and is frequent in regional use (see thee pron .

II.), use of thou pron .

as object form is rare; Eng.

Dial.

Dict.

records use (as a stressed form) in northern regional English, Surv.

Eng.

Dial.

records use in Wiltshire, and Sc.

National Dict.

records use in Orkney.

Is also says: Form history

As with other pronouns, the form history of this word is affected by its frequent position in low stress and the development of unstressed beside stressed variants; compare the early development of proclitic and enclitic forms (see Forms 2a, 2b).

It is assumed that in Old English þ—ᵗ the length of the vowel depended on the degree of stress in the sentence (compare R. M. Hogg Gram.

Old Eng.

(1992) I. §5.198).

The modern standard diphthongal pronunciation ( /ðaʊ/ ) reflects a stressed form; compare Middle English þuu , þou (see Forms 1α).

Regional forms, on the other hand, often reflect a reduced vowel (compare e.g. early modern English and regional tha ); such reduction is seen earliest in the Old English enclitic forms -to , -ðo (see Forms 2a).

The modern standard voiced pronunciation of the initial consonant reflects late Middle English lenition of the originally voiceless dental fricative in unstressed words (also found in other pronouns, e.g. this pron .

and adj ., that pron.¹ ).

Original voicelessness is reflected by forms with initial t- (see Forms 2β), which occur even when preceded by voiced consonants.

Such forms originally arose by assimilation to preceding dental stops ( d , t ) or dissimilation from preceding sibilant fricative ( s ), and accordingly occur especially when the forms are enclitic, where often the verbal endings -s , -t , -st preceded them (see Forms 2a, and compare discussion at T n.⁷ ).

In Middle English, such spellings are particularly frequent after d or t in texts of the 13th cent.

and grow less frequent with standardization.

(Insular Scots (now chiefly Shetland) du, doo , on the other hand, shows the influence of Norn.)

Probably the the most important part of all that is that in modern times it is restricted to regional use in the north of England, and perhaps in Orkney.

It still gets used for other things, though.

This is a very basic paradigm in English, with roots, and suffixes, and irregularities.

Paradigms are to make grammar easier to remember.

This is not rocket science.

If you speak English, you already know the paradigm for I, me, my, mine.

It's the same paradigm (except for the nominative) with thou, thee, thy, thine .

Note that me, my, and mine rhyme with thee, thy, and thine .

That's your mnemonic for usage, Use thou, thee, thy, and thine exactly the same ways as you would use I, me, my, and mine , respectively.

I and thou are both subject pronouns, and the others all rhyme.

Question: I read a sentence containing the word  thy , but I cannot find the meaning of that word.    Is it older English, or is it still used in contemporary English today?

What does "thy" mean?

"Thy"is an English word that means "your" in the the second person singular. However, in modern times, it is largely restricted to regional use in the north of England or Orkney.

"Thy" is an English word that means "your" in the second person singular but is only used nowadays in northern England and parts of Scotland.

‘Thy’ is an old word meaning ‘ your ’ that was used in the second person singular.  It is the possessive case of thou  (used as an attributive adjective before a noun beginning with a consonant sound): thy table.

‘Thy’ is an old word meaning ‘ your ’ that was used for talking or writing to  one  person. It is still used in parts of Yorkshire.

Thy is an old English word meaning "your" and was used when talking to one person. It may still be in use in parts of Yorkshire.

"Thy" is an English word that means "your" in the second person singular.

It is used nowadays only in the north of England and parts of Scotland.

Thou, thee, thy, thine equate to the first person forms I, me, my, mine.

"Thy" is an old English word meaning "your" and was used when talking to one person.

"Thy" may still be used in parts of Yorkshire.


You could say "a half hour" or "half an hour".

The article choice depends on where in a phrase you place it.

Would you ever say "I'll be back in hour"?

No, because while possibly legal, the use of the article "an" would be needed to make it sound like a native English speaker.

"half-hour" is commonly written with a dash (hyphen) and is a distinct word in the dictionary.

So, "a half-hour" = 30 minutes = "half an hour".

In Australia we say 'half an hour'.

You might hear 'a half hour', but it would sound stilted.

This is probably changing with the influence of American television.

The top one is correct.

I'll be back in half hour would be OK if it said I'll be back in a half hour

Note that "a half hour" is an American usage, British people only use "half an hour".

The very same question puzzles me these days.

The title should be "half an hour" versus "a half hour"

I used to apply the former.

I notice it is an issue when I read the entry in electronic dictionary of Longman contemporary English version 5.

It offers examples like, 1.

half a mile/pound/hour etc

half a pound of butter; It’s about half a mile down the road.

She drank half a bottle of wine.

half a million dollars; 2. a half hour/mile etc You can’t just waltz in a half hour late.

It’s about a half mile down the road.

a half day excursion to the island; He demanded a half share of the money.

Both items belong to entry of half with the meaning of "exactly or about 50% (½) of an amount, time, distance, number etc"

The dictionary does not explain the difference.

I infer it is the same and both are correct.

Maybe the only difference lies in habit or region.

For instance, many mention on this page, British people and Americans apply this in different ways.

Question: I'll be back in half an hour.  I'll be back in half hour.   Which is the correct sentence? Are there any differences between British English and American English?

"Half an hour" versus "half hour"

You could potentially use either, however, in Britain and Australia, it is more common to hear "half an hour". However, in America, it is possible that you will hear "a half hour".

In US English it is acceptable to say "a half hour" or "half an hour" but in British you should use only "half an hour".

You can say "a half hour" or "half an hour". "Half-hour" is commonly written with a dash (hyphen) and is a distinct word in the dictionary. Note that "a half hour" is an American usage, British people only use "half an hour".

"A half hour" is an American usage. British people only use "half an hour".

The exact answer will depend on the region, but both are generally considered to be correct. For instance, Americans will say "a half hour" and British or Australian speakers will say "half an hour".

The article choice depends on where in a phrase you place it - for example you would not say "I'll be back in hour" because you need the article.

Provided there is an article before "half hour", both are considered correct.

Some people would accept "a half hour" as correct.

Some people are comfortable using "half an hour".

The exact answer may well depend on the region, with Americans preferring "a half hour" and British speakers preferring "half an hour".


There is no standard term to describe the English spoken throughout the United Kingdom, because the English spoken in Northern Ireland is so different from the English spoken in Great Britain that it is usually included with Irish English (or Hiberno-English ).

The term British English is generally used to refer to the English spoken in Great Britain, including Scotland, England, and Wales.

Welsh English and Scottish English are the terms for the specific dialects spoken in those countries, and the term English English is used sometimes to describe the English specifically spoken in England.

Often British English is used to refer to English English in contrast to Scottish, Welsh or other varieties of English.

I think most English speakers would understand the term "British English" and know that you don't mean the dialect spoken primarily in America.

No English speaker would use "English English" to denote that dialect.

I have read that saying British English is too specific, British English is less specific than English-English (I've never come across this before).

Even inside England there are regional dialects, so where would you stop?

As an Englishman I think it should be just 'English'.

"British English" is only too specific if you're trying to speak of "English as spoken by everyone except Americans and Canadians."

I might call that "Commonwealth English" but I'm not sure.

I think that "English English" is the term that's too specific, since it leaves out the Scots and the Welsh.

British English is perfectly fine and is mainly used to mean "not American English".

It is only used when you actually need to differentiate between the two.

I would take 'British English' to refer to the varieties of English spoken in Great Britain, i.e., English, Welsh, and Scottish English, primarily.

(I'm not clear on edge cases like the Isle of Man and Isle of Wight).

More loosely, it would also cover the English of Northern Ireland.

I have read that saying British English is too specific, and that I should say English English.

Is that true?

Hum, well, what do you mean by "British English" here?

The question is a bit too vague to really answer.

The traditional term for the form of English pronunciation used in the south-east of England and the middle or upper classes was "received pronunciation".

In the recent editions of the Cambridge pronunciation dictionary (was originally Daniel Jones's dictionary)

this is now called BBC English.

What do people understand when I refer to British English?

I would guess that you were talking about spelling differences.

British English is misleading as a term.

It gives the impression that there is somehow, just one form of English that is spoken exactly the same, all over the UK.

It's really more of a collective term for the different forms of the language, within the UK.

Covering what is literally English (the language used in England) and the other, non-English British forms.

Question: I have read that saying British English is too specific, and that I should say English English. Is that true? When I say British English, what do people think I am referring to?

What should I call the English spoken in UK?

There is no standard term used to describe the English spoken throughout the UK, although the term "British English" is generally used to refer to the English spoken in Great Britain. The term "English English" would definitely not be used by an English speaker.

The term is not precise but "British English" usually means the forms of English other than the dialect spoken primarily in America.

British English  would  mainly be used to mean "not American English".  But, British English is misleading as a term as there is no standard term to describe the English spoken throughout the United Kingdom. Welsh English  and  Scottish English  are the terms for the specific dialects spoken in those countries, and the term  English English  is used sometimes to describe the English specifically spoken in England. Most English speakers would understand the term "British English" and know that you don't mean the dialect spoken primarily in America, but no English speaker would use "English English" to denote that dialect. British English  would  mainly be used to mean "not American English".

Most English speakers would understand the term "British English". The term  British English  is generally used to refer to the English spoken in Great Britain, including Scotland, England, and Wales.  No English speaker would use "English English".

It is generally agreed that "British English" is not "too specific" and is a perfectly acceptable term to refer to the English spoken in the United Kingdom. However, the precise term you may wish to use may depend on exactly where you are in the British Isles and for this reason, British English may be a misleading term.

British English is sometimes used to refer to English English in contrast to Scottish, Welsh or other varieties of English.

Most English speakers would understand that the term "British English" means English other than the dialect spoken primarily in America.

British English is just about spelling differences.

British English is misleading as a term as there are so many variants in the British Isles.

It is generally agreed that British English is a perfectly acceptable term to refer to the English spoken throughout the United Kingdom or to differentiate it from American English.

It is generally agreed that there is nothing too specific about the term "British English" and that "English English" is not used.

Some people would claim that there is no suitable term for all English spoken across the UK and that British English is a misleading term.

The question may be too vague to answer.

Some people would be quite comfortable with it being called "English".