Context is not a mass noun, and takes the plural -s .

"Another context" not "other context"

I upvoted the top two answers, because they are both correct.

To clarify, it should be either ... in another context?" or ...

in other contexts?

Both are correct and acceptable, but never "in other context?"

Example: 'The word "seaboard" can be used in the context of a coastline; it may also be used in (many) other contexts.'

When there's one, it's context, when more than one (or possibly so)

it's plural - contexts.

Using "any other context" or "another context" sounds to me like you are pre-suposing there is only one other, although it would not be very clear.

Of the two options you supplied, ... in other contexts? is correct.

Another option, ... in another context? is also correct, but whether you use it will depend on whether there are multiple "contexts" or just one, to consider.

Of course, "context" is singular, indicating only one; while "contexts" is plural, indicating many.

Thus, to say ...

in other context? would be incorrect, as "other" implies multiple, while "another" implies one.

Question: I just asked about the phrase "Eastern Seaboard" in another question. I used the sentence: Is "seaboard" used in other contexts? I thought this didn't sound very good, so I changed it to: Is "seaboard" used in other context? Should context ever be pluralized? Or is it a mass noun?

Should I say "context" or "contexts"?

Since "context" is not a mass noun, it will take the plural -s. Alternatively, you could say "another context" instead of "other context".

Context is not a mass noun, and takes the plural -s, so it is fine to say "contexts".

Context  is not a mass noun, and takes the plural  -s .  Another option,   you could use is 'in another context' .

Context  is not a mass noun, and takes the plural  -s.  Of the two options given, "... in other contexts"   is correct.

The word contexts is a countable noun and should be pluralised. The term "contexts" is correct.

Using "any other context" or "another context" sounds to me like you are pre-suposing there is only one other, although it would not be very clear.

Of the two options, in other contexts? is correct.


Speaking as a programmer, no.

A list can even contain no items at all.

Edit: on a more serious note, let's say I take a piece of paper and a pen, and make my grocery list.

And then it just so happens that all I need is milk.

That piece of paper with a single word on it would still be my grocery list, and not my grocery word.

Sounds like you are getting hung up on semantics.

Sure, it may not technically be a "list" at that point, but unless you are referring to it as such in the narrative, why fight it?

I mean, it is just a formatting element at that point and technically not a grammar issue.

It may be grammatically correct, or correct in certain casual documents such as a grocery list (I am unaware of any grocery-list police), but is not a best or even good practice in more formal documents (anything involving an outline, for instance)—with one exception, discussed below.

Here's a correct example (I use numbers/letters only for ease of reference; a bulleted list follows the same logic): Foods1.

Vegetables a. carrots b. potatoes2.

Fruits a. strawberries b. oranges3.

Grains a. rice b. wheat

Here's an example of what not to do: U.S.

Pre-Revolution a.

Early

Revolution a.

No Taxation without Representation" b. Colonial Warfare3.

Constitutional Congress4.

Civil War

a. States' Rights b. Slavery

The problem with the second example (where the first item has only one sub-item) is that without a second sub-item, the two levels are essentially equal.

If the only thing I'm going to say about pre-Revolutionary times is to discuss the early settlers, then those terms are both referring to the same topic

and I'm being redundant in the outline.

Note item 3, which has no sub-items.

That is the correct way to handle the case of only one item: pick one term and put it at the appropriate level of the outline.

Of course, as Roger Pate says, in a rough draft there may be an overriding reason to make a one-item list (as a visual cue to think further about the list), but this would need to be corrected if you never add to the list.

This is the one exception mentioned above.

A list can have only one item, or even no items.

However, you're doing more than just typing in some text into your document: you're creating something that people need to read and understand.

For that purpose, it may very well be absurd to only have one item in your list; you have to judge based on the context of what you're writing and the expected audience.

Conversely, you could use a single-item list as emphasis.

For example, if this bullet-point ends up displayed at the bottom of the page and the preceding text is ambiguous about how many items there may be, then it would be natural to become confused when arriving on the next page and a new paragraph.

Particularly if this is a rough draft to which you expect to later add items, then you should keep the solitary bullet-point; polish in later revisions as the content becomes more concrete.

If you look "list" up in the dictionary, it says a "considerable number or long series," so no, one item is not a series or a list.

I think it is absurd to bullet one item.

What ever happened to writing in paragraphs, instead of having to bullet everything?

Inherent in its name, a "bullet" is supposed to be fast, so it's good for quick words or phrases, not whole sentences and paragraphs.

It seems as if people started bulleting EVERYTHING once we started using Microsoft PowerPoint and other software, which uses templates with preset bullets.

That doesn't mean you have to always write in bullets; you can turn the feature off.

If you truly have a list, then bullet it.

If you only have one item, or you are writing in long sentences and paragraphs, don't bullet them; that's not what bullets were designed for, just like a "list" was not designed for one item.

Then it's just a note.

Question: I have a document where someone is suggesting we have a bulleted list with only one item.  That sounds absurd to me.  Doesn't a "list" imply more than one item?

A list with only one item

Whilst the dictionary defines a list as a "considerable number of long series", there is disagreement about whether a list has to contain more than one item or not, and some people may even argue that a list doesn't even need one item. In a programming sense, it is true that a list can contain no items at all. On the other hand, there are circumstances where having only one item on a list may well be absurd.

There is no set rule so base it on the context and if only one item consider making it a note rather than a list.

This is more of a formatting element and technically not a grammar issue. You could use a single-item list as emphasis.  There is differing opinion as to whetheraA list can have only one item, or even no items or  if a list needs to contain a considerable number or long series of items.

If you look "list" up in the dictionary, it says a "considerable number or long series," so no, one item is not a series or a list.

The dictionary definition of "a list" says that is it a series of items. However, many agree that a list can have just one item or even none at all.

A list can contain just one item or even no items.

It does not matter what you call it so don't worry about calling it a list.

There are no set rules - you have to judge from the context.

Technically a list has to be made up of many items - if there is only one bullet point then why put it in a list? It is really a note.

A list can have only one item, or even no items.

It is generally agreed that a list can have one item or even none at all.

The dictionary definition of a "list" says that it is a series of items.


There are two different kinds of things called a "router", with two different pronunciations, originating from two different verbs "route" and "rout".

The confusing part of this is that the two pronunciations overlap the two different things.

A router as above (computer thing, from verb "route"), or anything else which routes something, is "rooter" or "rowter" depending on how you pronounce "route" (US English has both "root" and "rowt",

British English has only "root") A router (woodworking tool, from verb "rout", an electrical one is shown above)

is "rowter", never "rooter", in both the US and the UK and other countries.

The dictionary entry may be referring to the wood tool only.

Source: Oxford Online Dictionary & Cambridge Dictionary

The New Oxford American Dictionary (NOAD) reports that router has two different meanings.

router 1 /ˈraʊdər/ noun A power tool with a shaped cutter, used in carpentry for making grooves for joints, decorative moldings, etc.

router 2 /ˈraʊdər/ noun A device that forwards data packets to the appropriate parts of a computer network.

In both the cases, the pronunciation is the same.

As comparison, the pronunciation of route (as reported from the NOAD) is /rut/, /raʊt/; the pronunciation of rout is /raʊt/.

In British English, the word is pronounced /ˈraʊtə/ when it has the first meaning, and /ˈruːtə/

in the second case.

Where I live both things are called "rowter" even though we say "root" 66, so if they lived in the U.S. That would be standard.

If they said "rooter" it might sound like a thing used to clean drains.

A router (rooter) routes.

A router (rauter) routs.

To my ear, the American pronunciation is really grating.

I was born in the US.

I pronounce the computer apparatus "rooter" as in "hooter".

I just had a manager at work try to correct me today, but I stuck to my guns.

A rooter is used to clean pipes (specifically to remove roots, or other obstructions).

Because that pronunciation exists, router is pronounced as indicated in the other answers.

The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (CALD) does not include the word 'router'

However, the meaning of route has been described as the following:

route UK /rut/

US /rut/ , UK /raʊt/ noun

[ C ] a particular way or direction between places

The route we had planned took us right across Greece.

I live on a bus route so I can easily get to work.

a method of achieving something

A college education is often the best route to a good job.

US ( UK round )

a set of regular visits that you make to a number of places or people, especially in order to take products as part of your job route UK /rut/

US /rut/ , UK /raʊt/ verb [ T usually + adv/prep ] to send

Deliveries are routed via/by way of London.

Since the CALD did not specify from which sound the word 'router' is originated, so my conclusion is 'router' can be pronounced as 'ruter' or 'rauter' according to UK pronunciation!

However, if the company which produced the device pronounces it as a 'rauter' then it is 'rauter' otherwise it is 'ruter'.

Question: Merriam-Webster lists both  ˈrüt  and  ˈrau̇t  as possible pronunciations for  route  but only ˈrau̇-tər  for  router .   Is it really wrong to pronounce  router  as  'rüter  ?

What is the correct way to pronounce 'router'?

There are two different definitions for the word "router" and this may lead to different pronunciations, although the New Oxford American Dictionary provides the same pronunciation for both.

In British English it is always "rooter" but in US English the computer device is a "rowter" and the drain cleaning or carpentry tool is a "rooter".

There are two different kinds of things called a "router", with two different pronunciations.  A  router  (computer thing), or anything else which routes something, is "rooter" or "rowter" depending on how you pronounce "route" (US English has both "root" and "rowt",

There are two different kinds of things called a "router", with two different pronunciations, originating from two different verbs -  "route" and "rout". The computer apparatus  is pronounced as in "hooter".

The word "router" can refer to one of two different items and this may have a bearing on the pronunciation of the word. It is possible that both pronunciations are acceptable and the one you choose may be a matter of personal choice.

There are two different things called a "router" and the pronounciation varies in US English but not in British english.

a "router" can be a computer device that forwards data or a carpentry tool that makes grooves.

In the US both are called "rowter" and a "rooter" is a tool for cleaning drains.

The rowter pronounciation sounds wrong to English ears.

There are two different definitions for the word "router" which may have a bearing on its pronunciation.

The dictionary entry in question may be referring to only one definition of the word.

Some people pronounce "router" the same as "hooter".

It is possible that either pronunciation is acceptable.


This is Indian English.

See Vishy's Indian English Dictionary .

July 12, 2006

Vishy's Indian English Dictionary: doubt doubt.

/DOWT/.

A question asking for clarification.

In standard English and American, the noun doubt is uncountable and refers to a lack of complete trust in something.

Doubt may be expressed as simply as doubting someone's abilities or as profoundly as someone doubting their own religious faith.

Not so in India.

In India, doubt can be used as a countable noun.

When a school teacher goes over an intricate concept in class, she invariably leaves some students with doubts in their mind about their understanding of the material just covered.

Students ask her questions to get a better understanding of the concept and each such question is called a doubt.

It is entirely normal to hear a statement like "I have just one doubt, miss" or "If you have any doubts before the exam tomorrow, come see me in the staff room".

The doubts in the aforementioned sentences are not as much rooted in a lack of faith as in a lack of understanding.

Attentive readers would have encountered the Indian English sense of doubt a fair bit on online message boards in threads started by Indians.

Titles such as "Visual Basic .NET/Oracle doubt" are not uncommon for threads on programming-related message boards.

It is my understanding that this sense is mostly prevalent in southern India,

but I could be wrong on this count.

A native English speaker does not recognize "doubt" as a synonym for "question".

The examples given (like "Doubt about TinyMCE content css"), no matter how prevalent, are awkward.

Even if it can be justified by picking a fitting definition entry, it's not something we would ever say.

We understand it, but we also understand when a French person says "Let me explain you something".

Saying "question" instead of "doubt" is a better choice.

In most cases when this happens the person is really a non-native English speaker as you said.

In some languages that grew from Latin the word that is used for doubt can also be used for question.

Dúvida is the Portuguese for doubt, but it can also be used as question.

For example, when kids at school say to the teacher Eu tenho uma dúvida (which word-by-word would translate as "I have a doubt"), they mean that they want to ask a question to the teacher about what has been taught.

And if I go to a store in Brazil and say Eu tenho uma dúvida sobre esse produto ("I have a doubt about this product" in word-by-word translation), what I mean is that I want to make a question about the product.

The same happens with duda , which is the Spanish word for doubt.

It may also be the case in other languages, but I'm not sure.

Therefore, when you give a presentation and native Portuguese speakers say "I have doubts about what you said", don't think that they don't quite believe in what you said.

They may just have questions to ask you.

I'm not a language expert, but I've been dealing with a lot of those doubts… By opening with "I have a doubt"

, you don't simply state "

I have a question; …"

followed by question's content, but instead you claim that "I understand all this, but …" before bringing to discussion a particularly unclear aspect of the topic.

The construct as such is therefore not good or bad, nor is it in any way rooted in Latin as suggested above (my native language is of Latin origin and we don't/can't abuse the "doubt" either in original or in translations, while the Indians do it without having the Latin heritage).

It is all about the correct usage in a given context.

The expectation when using this construct is that what follows the "I have a doubt", either the question itself or the whole conversation about it, should show that indeed you have gone to the process of analysing the problem at hand on your own, and you are stuck in a detail for which you need clarification.

However, you will find that many of those asking have no idea about the big picture either and haven't tried to solve the problem on their own, and this is why you tend to answer them "No dude, you don't have a doubt, you simply have no clue about this subject".

It is in such context that the use of "doubt" stands out and annoys in the conversation.

Now whether this is a vocabulary issue (unlikely) or it can be explained in the Indian context by a tendency to 'fake' knowledge by using "doubt" to make the question asked appear as a minor clarification request, that I leave to others to sort out.

Looking at some of the questions listed in mmyers's suggested search on Google , I'd suggest that "doubt" is being as a synonym for "uncertainty", which is valid.

For example: Doubt about TinyMCE content css Doubt About NavigationBar Basic doubt about sensor usage

I often see Japanese people using "doubt" instead of "suspicion", and wouldn't be too surprised if they used it when they meant "question".

My suspicion is that the Japanese use the same word for both "doubt" and "suspicion", and therefore don't know when they ought to use "suspicion" in English.

I'm sure I remember reading something about doubt being used this way in parts of northern England in times past.

My memory, however, is vague.

Question: I often see questions on Stack Exchange sites which I presume are written by non-native English speakers who use the word "doubt" in place of the word "question". Is this a case of misunderstanding the correct meaning or are people being taught that this is correct usage?

Can "doubt" sometimes mean "question"?

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

It is possible that use of the word "doubt" as a synonym for the word "question" may well be correct Indian English. However, a native English speaker would not recognise this definition.

This usage of "doubt" occurs in Indian English and is a question seeking clarification. For example, it is entirely normal to hear a statement like "I have just one doubt, miss"

This is Indian English. A native English speaker does not recognize "doubt" as a synonym for "question".  In standard English and  American, the noun doubt is  uncountable and refers to a lack of  complete trust in something. Doubt may  be expressed as simply as doubting  someone's abilities or as profoundly  as someone doubting their own  religious faith.

A native English speaker would not consider "doubt" as a synonym for "question". Saying "question" instead of "doubt" is a better choice.

The word "doubt" is not a synonym for "question" in English.

This is used in Indian English as a question seeking clarification. For example, it is entirely normal to hear a statement like "I have just one doubt, miss"

A native English speaker will not recognize "doubt" as a synonym for "question".

In British English "doubt" is more likely to be used as a synonym for "uncertainty".


I have been using the followingphrases

but I am still not confidentthat

they are grammatically correctand sound right: "in regards with something" "in regard to" is the right way here.

"with regards to something" This is OK.

Somehow I have the feeling that "with regard to" is more normal though.

Paul Brians seems to back this up . "regarding something" This is OK, e.g. film title "Regarding Henry", etc.

I have also heard/read people using anarbitrary combination of the above(e.g. "

in regards to").

Are thosecorrect?

If yes - are they equivalentor

the usage depends on context?

It's much easier to answer your question if you put in some examples you've seen.

Anyway I hope the above is enough.

Note that there is a completely different usage "regards to" as in "give my regards to old Broadway and tell them I will soon be there" etc.

The only correct terminologies are with regard to , in regard to , regarding , and as regards .

With regards to and in regards to are mere nonstandard variations.

"Regarding" is better than "in regard to".

"About" is absolutely fine and good old plain English - nothing wrong with it.

Plain English is good and eminently preferable every time.

All too often people try and be clever by using fancy and/or unnecessary words.

Just say it how it is.

Awful:

In regards to With regards to Fine: About

In relation to With regard to In relation to Concerning

You speak in regard to something or with regard to someone.

Examples:

In regard to work habits, John puts in too many hours.

With regard to Peter, he puts in none.

Even when using "with regard to", most people use it incorrectly.

Why not avoid this word altogether and say "concerning", "about" or "in the matter of", all perfectly sound and correct. "

With regards to" is colloquial and incorrect.

Collins paper back dictionary has 'with regards' as correct.

I tend to go with this.

Question: I have been using the following phrases but I am still not confident that they are grammatically correct and sound right: "in regards with something" "with regards to something" "regarding something" I have also heard/read people using an arbitrary combination of the above (e.g. "in regards to"). Are those correct? If yes - are they equivalent or the usage depends on context?

Which is correct: "with regards to," "in regards with," "regarding"?

The only correct versions are "with regard to", "in regard to", "regarding" and "as regards". Other versions are mere non-standard variation. "With regards to" is considered colloquial and incorrect.

The only correct terms are with regard to , in regard to , regarding , and as regards - with regards to and in regards to are mere nonstandard variations.

The only correct terminologies are  with regard to ,  in regard to ,  regarding , and  as regards .  You speak in regard to something or with regard to someone.  With regards to  and  in regards to  are mere  nonstandard  variations.  "Regarding" is better than "in regard to".

"With regard to" is more normal to some people.  Collins paperback dictionary also shows 'with regards' as correct. These are simply non-standard  variations.

There appears to be little agreement about which of these terms are correct or whether there is any meaningful different between them.

You could use "regarding" or "about" - keep it simple. With regards to" is colloquial and incorrect


I would say that it doesn't signify is that

okay?

so much as tell me more.

It also suggests empathy in addition to agreement.

To me, it seems roughly equivalent to

I totally agree with you, you know?

In addition to sharing the opinion, it also subtly connotes that both parties arrived at the same conclusion, possibly in the same way.

Slightly OT, but it reminds me of the similar (but not identical) Canadian English phrase:

That's cool, eh?

It's a sentence softener... and a way to get general acceptance from the person you are speaking with.

Anyway, best described with an example: girl 1: That's girl's outfit is SO ugly!

girl 2: OMG, how does she even live with herself?

girl 1:

I know, right?

She is SOooo uncool.

"I know" can be a strong statement, so adding the question "

right?

" is a way of getting general acceptance from the other person.

It seems to me that "right?

" is a way of creating a bond between the two people talking.

I usually hear it in the context of sharing some fact that you wouldn't tell someone to his/her face, e.g. "How does she even live with herself?"

from Atomix's example.

It's like saying, "Right?

We share this idea and therefore we are similar and should be friends."

Emphatic agreement in a youthful, maybe feminine register.

I visited because I'm using the phrase myself and have been doing so for about a year.

I moved to NYC about three years ago, and I'm wondering where this particular phrase came from in my vocabulary.

I really like it.

For me, it does indicate collusion ("I know") and a request that the collusion be validated ("right?").

However, I believe the expectation of validation is already implied because the rising action of "right?" is generally very subtle and casual on my part.

I'm expecting the person to already validate my attempt at collusion.

The phrase also seems chummy, a way of saying in shorthand, "I agree with you completely and therefore we are kindred spirits.

I usually say it almost as a bestowal of praise upon the other person, as if to say, "What a wonderful person I have found who validates my existence so completely with their similar thoughts on things that I had not expected people to think similarly about.

What a pleasant surprise!"

Anyway, those are just my thoughts.

It probably did become abundant because of television, but it definitely seeems like something that would arise in either the Midwest, Deep South, or California (all of which I have ties to) because of a need in those areas to validate community over individuality and that I would feel more compelled to use in the Northeast, where I might feel isolated and want to frequently make references to ways that I might bond or fit in with others in my community.

It is a friendly assertion that the speaker has already had the same idea–as in, "yeah, I know"

According to Urbandictionary its, An affirmation that you agree with or can relate to the precedingstatement.

It can be used whether the speaker actually knows or not,but in the latter case it usually means that the speaker can attributethe preceding statement to themselves as well.

Some examples include, Student: I couldn't pay attention to the lecture because of that ball of sweat hanging from the professor's nose.

Classmate: I know,

right?

Carrie: I can't belive

Alvin cut her hair like that!

Lisha: I know, right?

I know;

right?

I think we can break the slangy idiom “I know, right?”

down into two parts: I know (that) .

I get what you mean.

I've had the same thought.

I've been aware of it as well.

(Yeah, it is,)

right?

It is really so, right?

By the literal interpretation of the sentence, it could grammatically mean to ask whether the speaker, “ I ,” knows something or not ; albeit not making much sense in the context.

So it would be reasonable to consider it to be a combined contraction of the two sentences above showing the consentience between the speaker and the lister(s).

And “I know; right?” might be more preferable punctuation in this sense.

Question: Not only is my seventh grader using this phrase, but her teachers are as well.  I suppose it means  I totally agree with you and you totally agree with me  but it sounds like there is a subtle  Is that okay?  at the end with the right part.  What do you think?

What does "I know, right?" mean?

The phrase "I know, right" is a way to get general acceptance from the person you are speaking with or to express emphatic agreement. "I know" indicates collusion and "right?" is a request for that collusion to be validated.

It's a sentence softener, expressing emphatic agreement in a youthful, maybe feminine register and indicating both collusion ("I know") and a request that the collusion be validated ("right?")..

It suggests empathy in addition to agreement.  It's a sentence softener and a way to get general acceptance from the person you are speaking with.  It is a way of creating a bond between the two people talking.

It is a friendly assertion that the speaker has already had the same idea – as in, "yeah, I know. According to  Urbandictionary  it is an affirmation that you agree with or can relate to the preceding statement.

This construction appears to be a friendly way of indicating that you agree with the preceding statement.

It's a sentence softener... to get general acceptance from the person you are speaking with.

It expresses emphatic agreement in a youthful, maybe feminine register.

It indicates both collusion ("I know") and a request that the collusion be validated ("right?").

It is a friendly assertion that the speaker has already had the same idea–as in, "yeah, I know"

It's a way of showing consentience between the speaker and the lister(s).

By the literal interpretation of the sentence, it could grammatically mean to ask whether the speaker, “ I ,” knows something or not ; albeit not making much sense in the context. So it would be reasonable to consider it to be a combined contraction of the two sentences above showing the consentience between the speaker and the lister(s).


“What’s up?” is a greeting whose meaning is mostly irrelevant in that the asker doesn’t want an answer to the literal question which means something like “What is new?”

or “What’s happening (right now/in your life)?”.

The simplest response if you don’t have information you want to share immediately with the asker is probably just to say something like “not much”, “not too much”, or “hey (man/dude)”.

If you’re offered “what’s up” in response to a greeting of your own, you should read it as a request for you to proceed to the content part of what you want to talk about.

"Not much, how about you?"

Unless, of course, you are in the midst of something exceptional.

It's just a greeting meaning "What is happening?", and a reply that nothing's happening means you're fine.

Depends on the tone in which it's asked - with the right tone, it can be synonymous with "What's wrong?

", where, with a less concerned tone, it's more of a "How are you?".

I'd reply very similarly to either.

That is an expression that has about as much meaningfulness as "How are you?"

or "How's it going?"

All, including "What's up?" are used as greetings.

Now, each can be taken literally where someone may want to truly know "how you are", particularly if you've been sick, for instance, but all those terms are very commonly used along with the traditional greeting words, "Hi, "Hello", "Hey".

Responses?

What's up?

"Not much, how about with you?"

How are you?

- "Fine, and you?"

How's it going?

- "OK.

How's it going with you?"

If you want to be unconventional, you can reply "the sun" or "me, barely."

That usually gives people pause.

It used to be asked only when the person addressed seemed to be in some kind of trouble.

Some people, I believe, now use it as a simple greeting.

I've never been greeted in this way myself, so I can only speculate that the reply might be something like '

Yeh, I'm good.'

Options: Not much, what's up with you?

Oh, the usual.

Hey!

To directly reply to "What's up?"

(as a rhetorical question), "'sup" does the job.

(American)

"Stuff, y'know." (The same stuff keeps happening like it happens all the time.

You already know what kind of stuff.)

You can respond using this (pick one): Thank God, I am doing well (or:

Unfortunately, I'm not doing so well today, or: Everything is in order, or: Not much, et al.).

I think it is acceptable as well to reply back with the same greeting: How are you doing (today/tonight/this morning/

this afternoon/this evening)?

Question: Sorry if it's a trivial question, but when someone uses  what's up  as a greeting I have no idea what they want to hear. What are the possible answers and what does this question mean exactly?

What is an appropriate response to "what's up" greeting?

The simplest response to a "what's up?" greeting is simply "not too much" or "hey". If someone says "what's up" in response to your own greeting, this would be a request for you to proceed to what you want to talk about. Some people may simply respond "yeah, I'm good."

This is a greeting and the simplest response is probably just to say something like “not much”, “not too much”, or “hey”.

“What’s up?” is a greeting whose meaning is mostly irrelevant in that the asker doesn’t want an answer to the literal question which means something like “What is new?” That is an expression that has about as much meaningfulness as "How are you?" I think it is acceptable as well to reply back with the same greeting:   How are you doing (today/tonight/this morning/. The simplest response if you don’t have information you want to share immediately with the asker is probably just to say something like “not much”, “not too much”, or “hey (man/dude)”.

“What’s up?” is a greeting whose meaning is mostly irrelevant in that the asker doesn’t necessarily want an answer. If you’re offered “what’s up” in response to a greeting of your own, you should read it as a request for you to proceed to the content part of what you want to talk about.

"What's up?" is simply a greeting and shouldn't be taken literally. You can simply respond, "Not much, how about you?", although you might want to answer the question literally for comic effect. If, however, you receive this question as a response to your own greeting, you should take that as an indicator to keep talking.

The simplest response is probably just to say something like “not much”, “not too much”, or “hey”.

In the past it would be asked only when the person addressed seemed to be in some kind of trouble - now it's a simple greetings.

This is simply a greeting and should not be taken literally.

The most common response would be to say simply, "Not much, how about you?", although you can always answer literally if you want to be humorous.

If some says "What's up?" after your initial greeting, you should take it as an indicator to continue talking.


Everyone's assuming that this is "think differently" with the -ly dropped off, but note that there are also formations like think fruit or think pink , and "think different" could belong to that group.

In other words "What should I think about this product?"

"Think (that it is) different".

Anyway, "think differently" is a terrible slogan.

Merriam-Webster claim

that different as an adverb dates at least as far back as 1744.

Well, it's certainly not the first time an adjective is used as an adverb in American English.

I'd call it informal, but not necessarily ungrammatical.

One possibility we're forgetting here is the that the adjective may be a substantive adjective .

Substantive adjectives are adjectives which are used alone without the noun they are describing.

For example, good , bad , and ugly in this sentence, 'The good , the bad , and the ugly , which is really, 'The good people , the bad people , and the ugly people .'

In this case, Apple's slogan, 'Think different', would be read 'Think different things', and is thus a perfectly grammatical.

Apple did not mean "think differently".

That is, they are not suggesting that you think in a different way.

They really meant "think different", that is, rather than thinking about the things you usually think about, think about things that are different.

An analogous slogan might be, "Thinking about your opportunities as a high school graduate?

Think college."

"Think differently" would mean: Please think in a way that is different from the way that other people are thinking. "

Think different" means:

Think about things that are different, or how to do things that are different.

The slogan doesn't tell you how to think, but what to think.

If the message is taken to mean: Think "different".

Then it could be grammatically incorrect.

Just not sure I can say this is "punctuationally" correct, but from a logo/branding/marketing point of view the use of punctuation may take something away from the impact of the message even if making the intention of the message unclear.

Question: Not too long ago, Apple Computer used the phrase "Think Different" as an ad slogan. Is this a grammatical error (that is, it should be "Think Differently"), or are they trying to say something else (and what would it be)?

Is Apple's Old Slogan, "Think Different", grammatically incorrect?

Apple were not intending to say "Think differently" but instead encouraging people to think about "different things". Indeed, it's possible that the word "different" may be used as a substantive adjective. Therefore, there slogan doesn't tell you how to think but what to think.

The "different" is being used here as a substantive adjective, as in "Thinking about your opportunities as a high school graduate? Think college."

Apple did not mean "think differently".  They really meant "think different", that is, rather than thinking about the things you usually think about, think about things that are different.

Apple really did mean "think different". That is, rather than thinking about the things you usually think about, think about things that are different.

Apple's slogan might be informal but it is not considered to be grammatically incorrect. Furthermore, the slogan invites you to think about "different things" rather than to think "differently".

It means that you should think their products are different - and it sounds better as a slogan.

Adjectives are often used as an adverb in American English in an informal way.

The slogan doesn't tell you how to think, but what to think.

It might be informal, but it is not necessarily grammatically incorrect.

Apple's slogan invites you to think about "different things" not to think "differently".


'Had' is the past form as well as the past participle of 'have'.

The first sentence is in the simple past tense which typically has this form: Subject + past form of verb I had (past tense of have) a bad day.

I reached (past tense form of 'reach')

the office late.

The simple past is used normally to denote an action that is completed in the past.

The second sentence is in the past perfect tense which has this form: Subject + had + past participle of verb

If two non-consecutive events happened in the past, this tense is used to show the first event.

By the time we arrived, the party had begun. =

The party began.

Then we arrived.

By the time we arrived, they had eaten all the food! =

They ate all the food; then we arrived.

I had had a bad day already, and I arrived home to find that it had been robbed! =

I was having a bad day.

During the day my home was robbed.

Then I arrived home and found out about the robbery.

Refer to Kajaco's example as well.

Here, the past perfect is used to show which incident/action happened first.

Consider this sentence: I had eaten my breakfast.

This is the past perfect form with the verb eat .

This uses the past participle ( 3rd form) of the verb.

Now, just substitute the verb eat with have .

I had had my breakfast.

There's an idiomatic difference between "to have a bad day" and "to be having a bad day".

The first (mostly) refers to external events and the second (mostly) to your internal reaction to them (mood, headache, etc.)

- but there's no bright-line separation between them, just as there isn't in life.

Perhaps fully-enlightened Buddhists or Stoics can completely separate external events from their own reactions to them - but then, a fully-enlightened Buddhist or Stoic wouldn't refer to any particular day as being "bad", either.

It might be helpful to ring all the changes on this phrase and see how its meaning shifts: I have a bad day.

(Don't use this.

It doesn't work.)

Present:

I am having a bad day.

Today, bad things are happening and I am in a bad mood.

I have been having a bad day.

Much the same as "I am having a bad day", but with a hint of hope that things might be about to change.

I have had a bad day.

The effect of this one is very similar to "I am having a bad day" - bad things might or might not still be happening, but I am definitely still in a bad mood.

Past:

I had a bad day.

It's behind me; the bad part is over.

Even if I say "I had a bad day today ", the implication is that the day has ended

- I'm probably at home drinking a beer.

I was having a bad day.

I am talking about a particular time in the past (e.g., at 18:00 last Monday evening.)

At that particular moment, bad things were happening

and I was in a bad mood.

" Chuck shouldn't have crossed me - he knew I was having a bad day. "

I had been having a bad day.

Bad things had been happening; my mood was bad; things might (or might not!)

have been just about to change for the better.

" I had been having a bad day when suddenly I found a $100 bill blowing down the street. "

I had had a bad day.

On the day I am speaking of, bad things had happened (and might still have been happening at the moment I am referring to), and my mood was bad.

This particular phrase leaves some ambiguity - the bad day might still have been going on

, it might have been over

but I still had a headache, or I might already have been home unwinding with a beer.

This evening you will tell your wife, "I crashed the car because I had a bad day."

Later this month you will explain to the insurance adjuster, "I crashed my car because I had had a bad day." Just for fun: http://www.reocities.com/oosterwal/puzzle/had.htm

The first sentence uses the simple past of the verb "to have".

The second sentence uses the pluperfect (past perfect).

I'm not sure, but as the schoolboy put it...

"I had 'had', where I would have had 'had had',

if 'had had' had had the teacher's approval."

You are asking about the difference between these.

If you are asking about meanings , then the first is a simple statement of fact that stands alone.

The second implies another thought coming with it, such as I had had a bad day at work already, when I got home and discovered the basement was flooded.

Question: For example, what is the difference between the following two sentences:   I had a bad day  I had had a bad day

What does "had had" mean? How does this differ from "had"?

The construction "had had" is the past perfect tense and is used to show the first event when two non-consecutive events happening in the past. "Had" on the other hand, is the simply past and is used to denote a completed action in the past.

The second sentence is in the past perfect tense and where two non-consecutive events happened in the past, this tense is used to show the first event, as in "I had had my breakfast when…"

The first sentence uses the  simple past  of the verb "to have".  'Had' is the past form as well as the past participle of 'have'.  The second sentence uses the  pluperfect  (past perfect). The first sentence is in the simple past tense which typically has this form:  Subject + past form of verb   I  had  (past tense of have) a bad day.

The first sentence is in the simple past tense which typically has this form:  Subject + past form of verb. For example:   I  had  (past tense of have) a bad day.  The second sentence uses the  pluperfect  (past perfect). The second sentence is in the past perfect tense which has this form:  Subject + had + past participle of verb.

The difference between these two sentences is that the first sentence is the simple past of the verb "to have" and the second sentence is the past perfect form.

The 'had had' results from the fact that 'had' is the past form as well as the past participle of 'have'.

The second sentence is in the past perfect tense and if two non-consecutive events happened in the past, this tense is used to show the first event, as in "I had had my breakfast when…"

It's a question of simple past v pluperfect.

The first sentence is the simple past of the verb "to have".

The second sentence is the past perfect of the verb "to have".


I think it comes down to A) how religious the other person is, B) how religious you are, and C) how much you want to avoid potentially insulting the person.

If they are very religious and you are not, and you want to avoid any hint of insult to their religion or any potential conflict, better just say something religious or at least agreeing back: "

Thanks, same to you".

If you can't stand to say something that even acknowledges their beliefs, I think it at least doesn't hurt to acknowledge their sentiment, so you could just say "Thanks, bye.

" That's probably what I'd do.

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

I had a friend in college who liked to respond to "God bless" with "Goddess protect".

As I recall he did so just to be different from us other geeks who would sometimes respond with "Live long and prosper".

Seriously, though, I think that a polite "Thank you" should be sufficient.

I'll often reply, "Take care."

Sounds a little warmer than "bye," and not particularly religious.

You could respond with a Jewish farewell, illustrating that not everyone sees the world the same way, but also probably alienating your friend Shalom!

Or you could be polite and simply say you too!

"Be well," said with a smile.

english.stackexchange.com/users/928/In the Booley House

The origin of "goodbye" (hence "bye") is "God be with you", so it is about on the same level.

I think "goodbye" (or perhaps "goodbye to you, too") could be appropriate, just "bye" perhaps not so much.

Question: What should the correct response be (from someone not overtly religious) if someone says "God bless" when parting company?  "Bye now" or "Bye" doesn't seem an adequate response.

Response to "God Bless" when parting company

When parting company, there are many ways to respond to "god bless" and all will depend on how relgious you and the other person are. However, in most circumstances you could respond with "Take care" or "Thank you" or even simply "Goodbye".

It depends on the context - if you want to avoid potentially insulting the person, a neutral option might be to say "Thanks, bye"

It comes down to A) how religious the other person is, B) how religious you are, and C) how much you want to avoid potentially insulting the person.  If they are very religious and you are not, and you want to avoid any hint of insult to their religion or any potential conflict, better just say something religious or at least agreeing back. If you can't stand to say something that even acknowledges their beliefs, I think it at least doesn't hurt to acknowledge their sentiment, so you could just say "Thanks, bye". The origin of "goodbye" (hence "bye") is "God be with you", so it is about on the same level, so "goodbye" (or perhaps "goodbye to you, too") could be appropriate, just "bye" perhaps not so much.

"Take care"; "goodbye"; or perhaps "goodbye to you, too" could be appropriate.

The answer to this question will depend on how religious you are, how religious the other person is and how likely you are to offend them. However, there are a range of options to respond to "God bless", such as "Take care", "Thank you" or "Goodbye".

It comes down to A) how religious the other person is, B) how religious you are, and C) how much you want to avoid potentially insulting the person. A neutral option might be to say "Thanks, bye"

You could try a jokey response like "Goddess protect"

Another option is "take care" - warmer than "bye" and not too religious.

You could use a Jewish farewell like Shalom or just say "you too"

The origin of "goodbye" (hence "bye") is "God be with you", so it is about on the same level.

There are a range of options to respond to "God bless", such as "Take care", "Thank you" or "Goodbye".


Prescriptively, you're correct, this should be were since this is being expressed with the subjunctive mood.

Descriptively, I think you'll find both in the wild.

In informal speech, most people I know would prefer was in this case (and those that don't are sticklers for the subjunctive).

I do think that you are much more likely to see were written though, especially in formal writing.

Either form is correct, and the subjunctive forms are far from dead.

A more interesting question, I think, is whether or not the subjunctive mood is still being used and if the two forms have simply collapsed together.

Is this a meaningful distinction?

How could this be tested?

"WERE" because it is the past subjunctive of "to be".

It's an oversight by the copy-editor.

It's not the biggest deal in the world since the verb "to be" is the only verb in Modern English wherein the difference is obvious, although, if one WANT to speak very formal, correct English, stick with the subjunctive.

Not a native speaker, but indeed it is a conditional and therefore "were" should be used.

However, I hear the incorrect form more often than the correct one, so I guess that "was" is a colloquial, albeit grammatically incorrect form.

I think we need only look at the copy-editor of this book's.

Who the hell allowed "was" to be put there instead of "were"?

I noticed it right away.

"What if there were a stack overflow on..." because it is not true.

It's a condition that is contrary-to-fact.

If it were talking about something true that had occurred in the past, then "was" would be appropriate, but the "what if" automatically triggers a condition

so it's in definite need of the subjunctive.

Probably the biggest problem with the "were" past subjunctive form is the fact that its present form is "be", but most people don't say it that way.

"What if there be a stack overflow on..." is the stiffly formal way of stating something that is possible but unknown.

Most people in modern English would replace it with "is" nowadays, but we still say "if truth be told", "whether it be", "if need be" and so on.

Since that's proposing a hypothetical situation, yes it should be were .

"Was" is the indicative, "were" is a subjunctive.

Since it's a hypothetical, it should properly be "were".

But the subjunctive is effectively deprecated in English, so I expect that "was" is perfectly acceptable.

Question: Possible Duplicate: “If I was” or “If I were”. Which is more common, and which is correct?  Is this correct grammar? What if there was a Stack Overflow on… Shouldn't it be "what if there were a Stack Overflow on…"?

Which is correct: "what if there was" or "what if there were"?

It is generally agreed that the correct form in this example would be "were" and not "was", and you are probably more likely to see "were" in formal writing. However, "was" is much more common in informal speech.

You are right but both forms exist in real life and "was" is probably more common in everyday usage.

This is a conditional and therefore "were" should be used. "Was" is colloquial, albeit grammatically incorrect.

As this is a hypothetical situation, yes it should be "were" as this requires the subjunctive. However, I hear the incorrect form more often than the correct one, so I guess that "was" is a colloquial, albeit grammatically incorrect form.  Either form is correct, and the subjunctive forms are far from dead.

It is likely that both forms are found in common usage. However, "were" would be the correct choice in this context since the phrase takes the subjunctive mood. "Was" is used colloquially and is perfectly acceptable.

You are right but both forms exist in real life.

It's incorrect but actually more widely used nowadays.

Since it's a hypothetical, it should properly be "were".

It is generally agreed that "were" should be used in this example because it takes the subjunctive mood.

"Was" is used colloquially in this context and is likely to be acceptable.

It is probable that both forms are found in common usage.


Both are right.

This is how the Oxford dictionary entry explains the usage: The spellings adviser and advisor are both correct.

Adviser is more common, but advisor is also widely used, especially in North America.

Adviser may be seen as less formal, while advisor often suggests an official position

I just happened to come across this issue writing a final exam for a course in international financial derivatives regulation.

(For those of you who don't know what that is, it's what you do in purgatory.)

Both spellings are correct.

In general,"adviser" is the preferred spelling, especially in the UK.

"Advisor" carries a connotation of someone whose professional capacity is to give advice.

On that basis, and since my course had a strong focus on American regulation, I changed "adviser" to "advisor" regarding "very-high-net-worth individuals ... who tend to employ the service of sophisticated advisors to assess and manage their risk.

" If you want to know my sources, just google "adviser or advisor" like I did and you'll get them all.

Can't resist taking a swipe at the obiter on "amount" vs. "number" in the media.

My two fields are English Literature and Law.

Like Law, English grammar is based on rules which must be faithfully applied in order to preserve a unified fabric, but like Law, English is (forsooth) a living language.

It lives and is preserved our media of communication.

When the editors of the OED want to know what the "correct" usage of a certain term was in the 19th century, they turn to ... the media!

I'm the first to be a stickler for good usage, but don't overdo it.

Advisor should be the preferred spelling, consistent with other official titles: actorconvenorcoordinatoreditorregulator

I am a professional general and scientific editor with over 40-years experience.

The tragedy is that the media often perpetuates mis-spellings and mis-use, witness the current use of 'amount' for every quantitative description, e.g. amount [sic] of people, rather than number of people.

The nearest reference book to my computer, the "Oxford Writers' Dictionary" , says advis/er not -or; ory

I am an academic advisor.

I have seen the term used both way, and after thinking about it, I think that the distinction between one who is a professional advisor and once who gives advice on an informal basis should be maintained.

I had previously called myself an "adviser.

" Now I am an "advisor."

I should point out, however, that there is no difference in pronunciation.

I would not want to assert some distinction that does not exist, as in those ridiculous advertisements that over-articulate the last syllable in "realtor.

Regardless of spelling, the ultimate vowel is still a schwa.

In Australian Financial Services, the legislation uses the spelling Advis e r

so that is the source of truth in Industry.

In regular Australian vernacular both spellings are used.

While in general adviser and advisor mean the same thing, it appears in at least one context that is not true.

In Canadian banks financial advisers are subject to regulation, but financial advisors are not .

Question: I work for a financial services provider and we deal with "Financial Advisors" all the time. Increasingly, I'm seeing people send emails and so forth with the term "Financial Adviser" and the terms adivsor and adviser seem to be increasingly interchangeable. Which then raises the question: what is the difference between adviser and advisor ?

What's the difference between "adviser" and "advisor" -- are both interchangeable?

The words "adviser" and "advisor" are both considered to be correct and have the same pronunciation. However, there is disagreement about which should be the preferred spelling. That said, "adviser" may be perceived as less formal whilst "advisor" may suggest an official position.

Both are right but adviser may be seen as less formal, while advisor often suggests an official position

Both are right. In general,"adviser" is the preferred spelling, especially in the UK, but advisor is also widely used,  especially in North America. the  "Oxford Writers' Dictionary" , says    advis/er   not  -or;  ory   The distinction may be between one who is a professional advisor and once who gives advice on an informal basis.

Both spellings are correct.   In general,"adviser" is the preferred spelling, especially in the UK.  "Advisor" carries a connotation of someone whose professional capacity is to give advice.

Both spellings are considered to be correct, although there may be subtle differences in their usage. "Adviser" may be seen as less formal or professional as "advisor". Furthermore, there seem to be regional differences, with "advisor" being more common in North America. However, in Canada, "financial advisers" are subject to regulation whereas "financial advisors" are not.

S0: Advisor should be the preferred spelling, consistent with other official titles.

In Canadian banks financial advisers are subject to regulation, but financial advisors are not .

Advisor should be the preferred spelling, consistent with other official titles:  actorconvenorcoordinatoreditorregulator

The distinctionmay be between one who is a professional advisor and once who gives advice on an informal basis should be maintained.

Both spellings are considered to be correct.

Adviser is more commonly used outside of North America.

"Adviser" may be perceived as less formal or professional than "advisor".

In Canada, "financial advisers" are subject to regulation whereas "financial advisors" are not.


According to The American Heritage Book of English Usage , Using Ms. obviates the need for the guesswork involved in figuring out whether to address someone as Mrs. or Miss: you can’t go wrong with Ms. Whether the woman you are addressing is married or unmarried, has changed her name or not, Ms. is always correct.

And the beauty of Ms. is that this information becomes irrelevant, as it should be — and as it has always been for men.

RegDwight has given a correct modern answer.

The traditional approach would be different.

Adopting this approach will sound like you're living in the 1950s or earlier, so you shouldn't actually do this, but I thought it would be useful to document what the modern system is reacting against.

You should always know whether a woman is married or unmarried; a woman will sign a letter as either Rachel Jones [unmarried] or Rachel Smith (Mrs.) [married].

Other than in correspondence, you would have been introduced, or there would be a calling card.

If you write to a married or widowed women ( divorced women are excluded from polite company)

then you address her in writing as Mrs. Stephen Smith, using her husband's first name, not her own.

For this reason you can write to "Mr. and Mrs. S. Smith".

Mrs. and Miss are titles of respect; you only use them in relation to ladies; the lower classes are addressed by their first names, or by a bare surname.

This was the usual approach before 1960 or so (after the separation of Mrs. and Miss from the original Mistress in the seventeenth century).

The use of Ms. (at all) was controversial from its proposal by Sheila Michaels in 1961 until some point in the 1980s - William Safire's use of it for Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 is often seen as the pivotal moment for acceptance by its former opponents, in that someone as traditionalist as Safire realised that he couldn't use anything else.

I believe that the announcement of the engagement of "Prince Henry of Wales and Ms. Meghan Markle" on 27 November 2017 is the definitive proof that the title is appropriate in the highest of society.

If you're writing historical fiction, or you want a character to sound very old-fashioned, then using the traditional forms would be appropriate; even if not, it's useful to know what they were.

(This question has been referenced from another marked as a duplicate, so I'm adding an answer here even though this question is old.)

The catch is that this is all politically/socially charged.

The title "Ms" was invented in the 70s (or at least that's when it became widely known) by feminists who objected to being "identified based purely on their relationship with men", to use a phrase that was commonly repeated at the time.

Their intent was that Miss and Mrs should be abolished and replaced with this new "non-sexist" term.

But because the term was advanced as part of a specific philosophy or social agenda, women who did not support that agenda objected to having the term applied to them.

So what we really ended up with was that feminist women identified themselves as "Ms", unmarried non-feminist women identified themselves as "Miss", and married non-feminist women identified themselves as "Mrs".

What could under other circumstances have simplified titles, reducing 2 to 1, resulted instead in complicating them, increasing 2 to 3.

I don't think there's as much heat attached to it today as there was back then.

But you can't just say, "Oh, it's easier to use Ms for all women because then I don't have to know whether or not they're married."

Many non-feminist women don't like the title and object to having it applied to them, just as many feminist women object to the titles Miss and Mrs.

The only "easy answer" is to call a woman by the title she prefers.

If she refers to herself as "Mrs Mary Smith", then that's what you should call her.

If you don't have anything from her giving a title, ask her.

Well, I suppose if you want to make a social point, for or against feminism, you could use the title you prefer whether she likes it or not.

Personally, I just avoid using any title at all when I can.

I just refer to her as "Mary Smith" without any Miss, Mrs, or Ms.

Assuming that I do not know if the individual addressed is married, when should I use Miss Brown, and when should I use Ms. Brown?

You might use "Miss" to address a female child under the age of thirteen.

Otherwise, if you don't know if they are married, then Ms. is a convenient get-out.

A rather strange point was raised in the accepted answer to this question.

Personally, I wish this information were relevant for both men and women, but the fact is, it is a feature of our language that men are always styled 'Mr' unless they have some other title or style, and women have the privilege of being styled 'Miss' or 'Mrs'.

Some women will be seriously offended if you don't address them by their preferred title.

In business correspondence, 'Ms' is almost always appropriate, but in social correspondence, one would do well to try to find out what the lady in question prefers.

Question: There has been some disagreement in my other online searches, and in my own education.  Assuming that I do  not  know if the individual addressed is married, when should I use  Miss Brown , and when should I use  Ms. Brown ?

When is it appropriate to use the title "Miss" as opposed to "Ms."?

There is no agreement about what the most appropriate titles are for addressing a woman whose marital status is unknown. Ms. is often recommended as a good option, especially in business correspondence, although this may cause offence to people who prefer to be referred to as Miss or Mrs. In general, it is probably best to avoid the title altogether and simply use her full name. Alternatively, you could try to find out which title she prefers.

Ms. applies to both married and unmarried women so you will never wrongly address a married woman as Miss or vice versa but some women dislike Ms so you should use whatever form of address they prefer or none.

The title "Ms" started to be used in the 1970s by feminists who objected to being "identified based purely on their relationship with men". If you're writing historical fiction, or you want a character to sound very old-fashioned, then using the traditional forms would be appropriate; even if not, it's useful to know what they were. You might use "Miss" to address a female child under the age of thirteen.  Otherwise, if you don't know if they are married, then Ms. is a convenient get-out.

According to  The American Heritage Book of English Usage, using Ms. obviates the need for the guesswork involved in figuring out whether to address someone as Mrs. or Miss. Whether the woman you are addressing is married or unmarried, has changed her name or not, Ms. is always correct. In business correspondence, 'Ms' is almost always appropriate, but in social correspondence, one would do well to try to find out what the lady in question prefers.

It is generally agreed that "Ms." is always appropriate unless the person in question specifies to the contrary.

Many non-feminist women don't like the title and object to having it applied to them, just as many feminist women object to the titles Miss and Mrs.

Ms. applies to both married and unmarried women so you will never wrongly address a married woman as Miss or vice versa.

However, Ms. is politically charged to some extent because it has become connected with the feminist movement and some women do not wish to be associated with that movement - so call a woman by the title she prefers or use no title.

Ms. Is convenient when you do not know how to address a women.

Some women will be seriously offended if you don't address them by their preferred title, but in business correspondence Ms is almost always appropriate.


Well, with certain words it's simply impossible to start a grammatical sentence: one such word that comes to mind is "ago".

It always comes after other words (e.g. "one hour ago"), never at the beginning of a sentence or clause.

[Before someone points it out: note the use-mention distinction .

A sentence like

'Ago' is a word you cannot start a sentence with.

starts with the word "'ago'" and not with the word "ago".]

But if your question "Is there any valid rule discouraging the use of a certain word to start a sentence?"

(emphasis mine) implicitly restricts attention to words that can grammatically start sentences, then it's not clear what it would take for a rule that discourages something grammatical to be "valid".

Certainly there exist people who disapprove of certain words starting sentences for their own idiosyncratic reasons, such as the "but" I started the previous sentence with.

Are these "rules" valid?

I wouldn't consider them valid, but I don't know what valid means to you. :-)

In school we were taught to "never begin a sentence with 'and', 'but', or 'so'".

But I do anyway.

And so do a lot of other people.

The past tense of many verbs make no sense as the first word in a sentence: 'went', 'tried', etc., unless it's in a context where sentence fragments are OK: 'Where you been?', 'Went to the shops'. '

Ago' is a particularly nice example because it wouldn't even work in an informal sentence fragment.

Is there any valid rule discouraging the use of a certain word to start a sentence?

There's a rule (can't say if it is valid or not)

that numbers, no matter how long, at the start of a sentence should be written out in words, Seven thousand,

four hundred and seventy-six trombones led the big parade so some people avoid putting numbers there.

Also, it's a bit odd to capitalize terms which are computer commands which won't work if they are capitalized:

Ls is how you get a listing of your files

so some people might avoid putting those terms at the start of sentences.

Use of greek letters or numerals is discouraged.

See also Is it okay to start a sentence with a Greek letter (variable)?

Question: Is there any rule you think is valid that discourages the use of a certain word to start a sentence? Because I suspect the answer is no. But it would be good to have a blanket answer to this kind of question.

Is there any valid rule discouraging the use of a certain word to start a sentence?

Whilst there may not be a valid rule discouraging the use of a certain word to start a sentence, there are certain words with which it is impossible to start a sentence, such as "ago". Certain words have been discouraged in this sense in school, such as "and" or "but", but many people do not follow this rule. The use of Greek letters or numerals is also discouraged.

There are no rules but it is impossible to start a grammatical sentence with certain words, such as "ago", which can only come after other words.

he past tense of many verbs make no sense as the first word in a sentence: 'went', 'tried', etc., unless it's in a context where sentence fragments are OK: 'Where you been?', 'Went to the shops'. 'Ago' is anothere example. Schools used to teach "never begin a sentence with 'and', 'but', or 'so'". Use of  greek letters  or  numerals  is discouraged.

With certain words it's simply impossible to start a grammatical sentence: one such word 'ago'. However, it is also frowned upon by some to start a sentence with 'and', 'but', or 'so'.

There are certain words with which it is impossible to start a grammatically correct sentence. Also, traditionally, people have been discouraged from using words like "and", "but", "so", greek letters or numerals to start sentences.

It's impossible to start a grammatical sentence with certain words, such as "ago", which can only come after other words.

We are often taught to "never begin a sentence with 'and', 'but', or 'so'" but in reality many people ignore this.

It is impossible to start a sentence with the past tense of many verbs e.g. "went" except in sentence fragments.

Use of greek letters or numerals at the start of a sentence is discouraged.

With certain words, it is impossible to start a grammatically correct sentence.

At school, some students were taught never to begin a sentence with words like "and", "but", or "so".

The use of greek letters or numerals at the beginning of sentences is discouraged.


I would say that the word gay means ‘homosexual’ only, with two caveats: A lot of people, especially young people, use gay as a generic adjective meaning ‘bad’ or ‘lame’.

This is, of course, considered inappropriate and rude by polite society, but use of gay in this way is pervasive in situations where there are a lot of young people, such as video gaming communities (like XBox Live).

People are definitely aware that gay used to mean ‘happy’, ‘merry’, or ‘lively’.

The theme song to

The Flintstones talks about a gay old time , and many people know that this usage at one time was predominant.

There is a similar situation with the word queer .

Some people might use gay to mean ‘merry’, but only in a tongue-in-cheek or double-entendre kind of way.

The Corpus of Contemporary American English , for example, has two examples of “gay old time”, one from 1993, and one from 1994.

There is one more example that is from the big screen adaptation of The Flintstones , also released in 1994.

In contemporary English, I would say that yes, gay means homosexual only.

Its original meaning was, as you mention, merry or lively , and you will certainly see it used this way if you look at written English from a few decades ago.

However, it's very unlikely you'd see it used that way today.

In commonly used English today, "gay" has become interchangeable with "homosexual" and most readers will understand it in that way, either as an adjective or as a noun.

Though I'm not a fan of the plural form "gays".

As always, though, context is the most important thing because the English language is fabulously ambiguous towards the meaning of gay.

There are certain phrases, which admittedly are not in common usage, but where the reader would understand that the word gay would not mean "homosexual" unless there was a clear double meaning, e.g. "gay hue" or "gay abandon".

Also, applying gay to transient things, such as a mood, would probably alert the reader to the fact you did indeed mean "happy".

In addition, "gaily" and "gaiety" would not be generally understood as pertaining to homosexuality though they are usually only used in archaic contexts.

Unless perhaps the writer meant "gaiety" in terms of stereotypical homosexual behaviour, e.g. "there was much gaiety" could mean "everyone was acting in a very camp manner", or perhaps something like

"there were many men who were proud to be gay".

Personally, because I am caught between favouring clear and concise language and loving the use of flowery, overblown and overwrought, archaic language, I try to reserve the word gay for when I mean "merry".

I also enjoy the possibilities of secondary meanings.

Gay is also a last name.

My high school music teacher was Mrs. Gay.

I disagree with every answer that says Gay only means homosexual, especially when the question already points out that there is a place named Fort Gay.

That's the kind of thinking that got Microsoft in hot water in the first place.

Maybe we should reclaim the word "gay" to mean "merry" and "care free", by using it in this sense all the time.

This would make the word less effective as a derogatory word.

The word were originally used by the gay (in this case homosexual) community because it were a positive term.

I feel quite gay right now. ;)

A number of words kept their old meanings (in America) through the 1960s, but changed their meanings decisively as a result of the "sexual revolution" that took place in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

"Gay" and "queer" are two words that have predominantly one connotation after 1970.

The (original) Flintstones came out before this time.

In UK English, the word gay has changed its meaning more than any other any word in recent times IMO.

In late 19th century English, a “gay girl” was a prostitute.

The word also meant lively and happy; hence the daft old dance

the Gay Gordons, which involved everyone jumping around and shouting “Hoots Mon”.

Gay was also quite a common girls’ name.

In the 1970s there was something called “The Gay Liberation Front”, the first well known and well publicized organization fighting for the rights of homosexual males.

This is where the meaning of gay for homosexual comes from.

I would guess that before then, this meaning of gay was only used in “homosexual slang” — that is, between themselves.

More recently gay as an adjective meaning a lame person or thing, has come into use among very young people, mostly of school age.

This usage has been frowned upon by many older people.

In the 1970s there was a very popular gay and very camp comedian who would play on the ambiguities of meaning, and say things like “I’m feeling very gay today.”

Question: Dictionary.com lists eight meaningsof gay , with “merry, lively” asthe first entry. Microsoft banned anXbox user for listing FortGay (a real place) as hishometown: Xbox Live considered the term gay absolutely inappropriate in any context. As a non-native English speaker, my question is whether in contemporary English, does gay always mean homosexual ? Are British and American English the same in this respect?

Does “gay” still include the meaning “merry”?

It is generally acknowledge that "gay" can have other meanings since it is also used as a generic, though inappropriate, adjective meaning "lame". Additionally, people are certainly aware that gay used to mean "happy" or "merry" and "Gay" is also a common surname. However, some people will assert that in contemporary English, the word "gay" only means "homosexual".

The word gay only means ‘homosexual’, with two caveats: a lot of people, especially young people, use gay as a generic adjective meaning ‘bad’ or ‘lame’ and the earlier meaning still survives in set phrases such as "gay abandon".

In  contemporary  English, the word  gay  means ‘homosexual’ only, with two caveats:   A lot of people, especially young people, use  gay  as a generic adjective meaning ‘bad’ or ‘lame’. People are definitely aware that  gay  used to mean ‘happy’, ‘merry’, or ‘lively’. Some people might till use  gay  to mean ‘merry’, but only in a tongue-in-cheek or double-entendre kind of way. There are certain phrases, which admittedly are not in common usage, but where the reader would understand that the word  gay  would not mean "homosexual" unless there was a clear double meaning, e.g. "gay hue" or "gay abandon".

I would say that the word  gay  means ‘homosexual’ only, with two caveats:   A lot of people, especially young people, use  gay  as a generic adjective meaning ‘bad’ or ‘lame’.

Whilst some people would consider that "gay" only means "homosexual" in contemporary English, it is also true that "gay" has more recently come to mean "bad" or "lame". "Gay" is also a surname in English.

The word gay only means ‘homosexual’, with two caveats: a lot of people, especially young people, use gay as a generic adjective meaning ‘bad’ or ‘lame’.

The word "gay" has become interchangeable with "homosexual" but there are exeptions such as set phrases like "gay abandon" or using the word to describe something transient such as "gay mood"

Gay is also a surname and occurs in place names.

"Gay" and "queer" are two words that have taken on a new meaning since about 1970.

The word "gay" has gone through various meanings but the predominant one now is "homosexual".

Recently, the word "gay" has also come to mean "bad" or "lame".

Some people would consider that "gay" only means "homosexual".


I've worked with IETF people and developers who spend a lot of time on Apache, who tend to use: AuthN - Authentication AuthZ - Authorization

You'll find these abbreviations in a lot of IETF technical documents.

Yes, I know British spelling prefers s over z (authorisation).

You could think of replacing the word 'authentication' with 'identification', since in this context, I think they are probably equivalent.

You could then substitute 'authorization' with 'permission'.

Then, abbreviate as 'ident' and 'perm'.

I suppose you could take the approach taken when abbreviating 'internationalization' as 'i18n' (and 'localization' as 'l10n': 'authentication' =

> 'a12n' 'authorization' =

The idea is to keep the first and last letters of the word, and replace all of the interior letters with a number representing the count of the letters removed.

Of course, looking at 'a12n' and 'a11n', you may not know the meaning right away, so this is probably not the best solution.

authent. and authoris. ?

I would say that your current versions are fairly difficult to read, and also not particularly easy to tell apart from one another at a glance.

I would chose a synonym authenticate synonyms: attest, authenticate, avouch, testify (to), vouch (for), witness authorization synonyms: allowance, authorization, clearance, concurrence, consent, granting, green light, leave, license (or licence), sanction, sufferance, warrant (As a non-native speaker)

I would chose attest and grant . .

Why not just: - Autho - Authe

Question: As a programmer I use the word Authentication and the word Authorisation in my code. I'd like to find nice abbreviations or alternative words for each of them that are not ambiguous and has reasonably large 'psychological distance' between. i.e. they don't look too similar i.e 'Auth' is not OK because it is ambiguous. At the moment I have just removed some letters Authtictn Authristn Any suggestions? Update: Since this question is now under threat I have moved it's gist to: http://www.eatmybusiness.com/food/2014/02/08/short-alternatives-of-the-word-authentication-and-the-word-authorisation/272/

Short alternatives of the word Authentication and the word Authorisation

Potential abbreviations for the word "Authentication" and "Authorization" include "AuthN" and "AuthZ", which are common in a lot of IETF technical documents. You could also consider "authent." and "authoris." or "autho" and "authe".

The options are to use AuthN and AuthZ or authent. and authoris.or a synonym or Autho - Authe.

IETF people and developers who spend a lot of time on Apache, tend to use:   AuthN - Authentication   AuthZ - Authorization . You could use authent.  and  authoris. or S0: autho.  ad authe.

I've worked with IETF people and developers who spend a lot of time on Apache, who tend to use:   AuthN - Authentication   AuthZ - Authorization. You could use: - Autho - Authe

Potential solutions to this problem could be "Autho" or "AuthZ".

Use AuthN and AuthZ.
Use authent. and authoris.
Try a synonym.
Try Autho - Authe


Is this the right usage?

For "fixing to (do something)", that depends.

If I am writing an academic paper or a business-related email, then no.

If I am in Boston, or Chicago, or San Francisco

and I don't want to sound out of place,

then no.

But if I am living in the South of the US and I am having casual conversation, then "fixing to" might often be just the right word to use.

"Fixing dinner" is much more prevalent than "fixing to (do something)".

I say this because I don't think it would feel out of place in any of the (northern and eastern US) places I have lived (though I would imagine it would get the heaviest use in the South).

Still, I probably wouldn't personally use that phrase in formal, written English.

"Fixing to ..." is common usage in the southern US, meaning "about to" or "preparing to" do something, but rarely if ever at the beginning of a sentence.

Perhaps in answer to a question: "Whatcha doin', Pa?

" "Fixin' to hunt me some possum."

Even though I can be offended by incorrect grammar to the point where it might be obnoxious at times, I still embrace local colloquialisms.

Having been born and bred in the Deep South (US), I use "fixing to" regularly.

Yes, it means "about to".

However, since we don't pronounce hard g's at the end of these expressions, it would be pronounced "fixin’ to".

It's also appeared in song titles, most notably I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-To-Die I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-To-Die is the second album by the influential San Francisco psychedelic rock group Country Joe and the Fish, released in 1967.

The title track remains one of the most popular Vietnam protest songs from the 1960s and originally appeared in a 1965 7" EP titled Rag Baby: Songs of Opposition.

If I'm fixing (or fixin') to do something, fixing is an adverb, answering the question of "when" you're going to start doing something.

I'm from the South (Savannah, Georgia) and this is common usage in those parts.

This "fixing" is completely different from the verb "fixing" in this sentence:

"I'm fixing the broken gate" -

How about this one?

"I'm fixing to start fixing the broken gate".

The first fixing is an adverb, the second one a verb.

Miriam Oglesbee Ellison

Um.... That's colloquialism.

Southern people say "fixin to" while African American people tend to change the expression to "fittin to.

" They mean the same thing.

It essentially means to prepare to do something.

"We were fittin to go to the park, when, suddenly the weather changed, as did our plans."

Question: Use of  fixing to  at the beginning of a sentence is prevalent in the southern states of Amerca. Is this the right usage?  And is this only a southern US thing?  Examples:   Fixing to call her.  Fixing dinner.  Fixing to leave the house.

"Fixing to" at the beginning of a sentence

Whether or not "fixing to" can be used correctly at the beinning of a sentence will depend on the context. It is generally agreed that in a formal document, this usage is not acceptable. However, in colloquial speech in the Southern US, this is very common and means "about to".

This is a colloquial expression commonly used in the Deep South of the US, with many variants and examples in songs.

"Fixing to ..."  is  common usage in the southern US, meaning "about to" or "preparing to"  do something, but rarely if ever at the beginning of a sentence.  It essentially means to prepare to do something.

"Fixing to ..."  is  common usage in the southern US, meaning "about to" or "preparing to"  do something, but this is rarely if ever used at the beginning of a sentence.

This usage of the word "fixing" is common in the Southern USA and means "getting ready" to do something.


You can actually say "The program erred at line 44", but it's not very idiomatic. "

Err" also occurs in the saying "To err is human, to forgive is divine".

If you're looking for the correct idiom, you could say "the program encountered an error at line 44" or "the program hit an error at line 44", etc.

I'd say errored IS a valid word.

It's the past tense of the verb "to error".

I've seen (well, mostly heard)

this word used to mean to operate incorrectly, to display an error message, to encounter an unexpected error, to halt unexpectedly

This is a relatively recent usage of the word

(I can't find any authoritative samples of it)

it might be considered too informal or slangy.

Also, some people might not be sure what precisely you are trying to say.

Thus, you should describe more fully what the program is doing.

The program encountered an error at line 44.

Wiktionary Merriam-Webster (new words, slang)

The verb 'to error' has a different meaning than 'to err'.

An "error" in a computer program isn't necessarily a mistake, but can be an exceptional circumstance.

For example, if a program tried to open its configuration file, but you deleted it, the program might fail by displaying an error for this unexpected circumstance.

You could say "the program errored.

" You can't say "the program erred" because the program isn't making a mistake here.

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

I've seen it enough in computing contexts that I consider it acceptable there.

I wouldn't use it in other domains myself, though, except possibly in a geeky tongue-in-cheek way (e.g., "my DVD player errored out on that scratched disk.")

To use "errored" you would have to consider error a verb, but the dictionary doesn't.

"Error" is a noun, used to mean mistake.

You wouldn't say "The program mistaked at line 44."

Your usage "threw an error" is correct, because it uses error as a noun.

You may choose one of the following options: The program returned an error at line 44

The program generated an error at line 44

The program encountered an error at line 44

The program reached an error at line 44

The program gave an error at line 44

Within programming circles, I'd say that "errored" is a perfectly fine term to use.

It seems to be fairly widely understood as a verb form for "error".

Outside of computing, I'd probably avoid it.

You generally won't hear someone say "Todd errored on his test".

It's a field-specific bit of terminology.

That being said, while discussing things within the field of computing, I'd prefer "the program errored/failed/crashed" over "erred", as some others have suggested.

Any of those would be concise and make sense.

I would also prefer the options above over "The program threw an error" in informal settings, simply for the fact that it's less wordy, unless the focus of the statement was how exactly the program did the throwing.

In technical documents, "threw an error" might be preferable to "errored".

You can say the program threw an error though I'd be more inclined to use "caused", as "threw" sounds a little odd (though it is used in the context of exceptions in C++).

(You might also want to provide a more information than merely saying that an error has occurred!)

Question: If "errored" is not a valid word, then how should I say: The program errored at line 44 I guess I could say: The program threw an error at line 44 But why is "errored" wrong? Is there a better alternative?

Is "errored" correct usage?

It is possible that, in programming circles, the word "errored" is perfectly acceptable in this context. However, if you're looking for an alternative, other possible options include "The program encountered an error", "The program generated an error" or "The program erred".

The word "errored" is acceptable within a computing context but might sound out of place elsewhere. There are many other ways of making the same report using the noun "error".

Within programming circles, I'd say that "errored" is a perfectly fine term to use, but outside of computing, I'd probably avoid it. "Error" is a noun, used to mean mistake.  To use "errored" you would have to consider error a verb, but the dictionary doesn't.  You may choose one of the following options:  The program  returned  an error at line 44 ,  the program  generated  an error at line 44, the program  encountered  an error at line 44

To use "errored" you would have to consider error a verb, but the dictionary does not.  If you're looking for the correct idiom, you could say "the program encountered an error at line 44"; or "the program hit an error at line 44", etc.

In computing circles, the word "errored" might be acceptable. However, in order to use the word "errored", the word "error" would have to be a verb, and this is not supported by the dictionary. Instead, alternative choices could be "generated an error", "encountered an error" or "threw an error".

You could say the program "erred" or more idiomatically "encountered an error".

You cannot say the program "erred" because the computer has not made a mistake.

The term is accceptable in computing context but not recommended elsewhere.

To use "errored" you would have to consider error a verb, but the dictionary considers it only a noun.

There are a number of ways to report this using the word "error" as a noun.

"Errored" is a perfectly fine term to use within programming circles.

You could say the program threw an error or perhaps use "caused", as "threw" sounds a little odd (though it is used in the context of exceptions in C++).

This is a relatively recent usage of the word

To use the word "errored" you would have to consider "error" to be a verb, but the dictionary does not.

In computing circles, many people would find the word "errored" acceptable.

Other possible alternatives to "errored" include "generated an error", "encountered an error" or "threw an error".


'null' is qualitative, representing the absence of quantity.

Closer to the word 'void' than the number 'zero'.

Example: he reduced it to nil.

'zero' is quantitative.

Example: he got zero on his exam.

No, they are not the same.

In an everyday language context, 'null' can mean that something is meaningless, as in: The agreement became null when Sam failed to fulfill his side.

In a programming/data context (though I still think this is a language question, rather than a programming question),

'null' can mean the absence of information.

If you are wondering how many apples there are, 'null' means 'I don't know'.

'Zero' means that you know that there aren't any apples.

Zero always refers to a quantity.

Is there a difference between a cheque(check) with $0.00 and a NULL(VOID) check?

Yes.

A $0.00 cheque will put exactly $0.00 into your bank account.

A check with VOID written on it will not be processed.

The difference may be subtle, but there is a difference.

0 represents an integer in the set of all integers (called the set Z in mathematics)NULL is not an integer, and it could represent the absence of things that aren't even numbers.

A NULL and VOID Check for example.

A NULL Marriage.

A NULL Agreement

null and zero are used in many contexts where they have different meanings.

In math you can have a set with no items in it (a null set) or you can have a set with a zero in it ({ 0 }) which are not the same.

In programming some languages make null the same as zero (C++) but some don't (Java).

In databases a record might have a null value in one field or it might have a zero and these are not the same.

Zero is can be used to indicate a counted quantity whereas null cannot.

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

It's not just null and zero too.

What about "nothing","naugt","none" etc.

Zero is usually a noun.

Zero is a number.

Zero can refer to the symbol "0".

Null is usually an adjective (Null set, Null argument, Null pointer, *a nullity).

Null is a not a number, usually has a different symbol each time.

Programmers are forced to make these distinctions all the time (although, 'null' is often modelled as the number 0).

Although it is important in programming, the distinction is more to do with logic and mathematics.

They do have quite different roles in language although I guess in a few cases they are the same. History of Zero

The words have very different meanings.

In math, I can do an equation, such as subtract two numbers, and get zero.

If I don't answer the question, it could be considered null.

If the question were an elementary test, zero could be the correct answer, worth points, whereas not answering the question does not result in a correct answer.

So, one can indicate that a computation has been done, the other that it has not been done.

"Zero" is a number, an integer between -1 and 1.

It is a physical quantity representing no countable number of an object.

"Null" is a concept of irrelevance or undefined state.

For example, an agreement might become "null and void" when it is no longer applicable or enforceable, or a computer data structure pointer with no instantiation associated with it might be considered "null".

The confusion comes in the representation of a computer NULL in execution.

Typically, the NULL is represented as a 0 in the memory or code.

But that is just a convention.

It's like saying "I am Spoxjox".

Well, no, I am not Spoxjox.

I am represented by the "name" or "tag" or "handle" of "Spoxjox", but I am a human being, not a sequence of letters on a discussion board.

Similarly, the concept of NULL might be represented by a zero (0), but it is not the same as the number zero.

No.

Zero is a number.

Zero is also a place where a mathematical function achieves an output value of zero.

Null has a wide variety of uses.

Here are a few: null set - a set devoid of elements null contract - unenforceable contract The Java computer language uses null as a "graveyard" object that holds no value

"Nula" is the word for "0" in Hungarian and other European languages.

"Null" means "void of legal force" ...

that's essentially "invalid".

It's an adjective, as has been mentioned.

I'm not a programmer, so

maybe that's why I don't equate the two at all.

Compare "Are you Rachel?"

with "Are you tired?"

Question: Are  zero  and  null  perfect synonyms?

Is there a real difference between "null" and "zero"?

No, these are not perfect synonyms. The difference may be subtle, but there is a difference. Zero always refers to a quantity whereas "null" is a concept of irrelevance or undefined state. Null is not a number and represents the absence of quantity.

Null  and  zero  are not the same and they are used in many contexts where they have different meanings.  Null' is qualitative, representing the absence of quantity. Null is also used as an adjective (Null set, Null argument, Null pointer, *a nullity). S2: "Null" is a concept of irrelevance or undefined state. Zero is a noun and always refers to a quantity and can be used to indicate a counted quantity whereas null cannot.

The words have different meanings.  In math you can have a set with no items in it (a null set) or you can have a set with a zero in it ({ 0 }) which are not the same.  In programming some languages make null the same as zero (C++) but some don't (Java).  In databases a record might have a null value in one field or it might have a zero and these are not the same. Zero can be used to indicate a counted quantity whereas null cannot.

It is generally agreed that these are not perfect synonyms. There are many instances in which "zero" is a value whereas "null" refers to the absence of a value.

It is generally agreed that these words are not perfect synonyms.

There are many examples in which zero is a value but null is the absence of a value.