Robusto's answer does a good job explaining the meaning of the sentence, but for the sake of completeness, here's the origin of the phrase.

Apparently during the first World War, the Allies had an anti-tank grenade which was colloquially referred to as a "toffee apple"

thanks to the appearance of its bulb: In the John Wayne movie "Rio Bravo", one of the characters launches a "toffee apple" at the enemy lines and says the phrase "How you like them apples?

" referring, of course, to the bomb.

As movie phrases are wont to do, it entered popular consciousness as a boastful expression of triumph.

It is used as an expression of gloating when someone turns the tables on someone else.

There is a good example in the movie Good

Will Hunting , where Matt Damon's character (Will Hunting) gets a girl's phone number in a Harvard bar where he, coming from working-class South Boston, is, despite his extraordinary intellect, socio-economically out of his league and is insulted by the Harvard rich kid (Clark) whom he has bested — actually, destroyed — in an argument.

On the street later he sees his rival for the girl's attention through a restaurant window.

He goes up and raps on the glass to get the young man's attention, and the following dialogue occurs: Will: Do you like apples?

Clark:

Yeah.

Will:

Well, I got her number.

How do you like them apples?

It can also be used as an expression of surprise at a sudden turn of fortune.

I'm pretty sure that the phrase, "how do you like them apples," does not appear in the Wizard of Oz.

The apple tree says, "What do you think you're doing!"

and "How would you like to have someone come along and pick something off of you."

Rio Bravo was a western - no one shot a "toffee apple" mortar in the movie.

If they did use the phras, "how do you like them apples," it would be an anachronism, because the phrase was apparently popularized during World War I.

The British had a trench mortar that was called a "toffee apple."

The same mortar was alternately called, "plum pot."

Early in the war, before the "toffee apple" trench mortar was developed, soldiers made improvised explosive devices, grenades and mortars using empty "plum and apple" jam tins.

The words "plum" and "apple" may have been associated with mortars and grenades as a result.

Other grenades were also called "apples" during the war, so it was not always a specific reference to the "toffee apple"-style trench mortar.

But even though the expression became popular during the war, there is one known example (as far as I know) of the expression used in Texas in 1895 (also a t the above link ), so it may have been regional or not widely known before it spread in the trenches of WWI.

And its original meaning may not have had anything to do with trench mortars or grenades, even if they played a role in how troops understood or used the expression during the war:

Bryan is the best cotton market in this section of the state and has received more cotton than any other town in this section.

How do you like "them apples?"

The Eagle, (Bryan, Texas), September 26, 1895, page 2.

This phrase appears in the Wizard of Oz in 1939, years before rio bravo.

In the first scene with the Tin Man, a tree throws apples at him and says, "How do you like them apples!"

An episode of Perry Mason ("The Case of the Sunbather's Diary" Season 1, Episode 17) has the phrase as "How do you like those potatoes?"

A language book from the 1920s uses this version of the phrase in a setting that suggests the 'them potatoes' version was also popular: http://books.google.com/books?id=W9kRAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22how%20do%20you%20like%20those%20potatoes%22&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q=%22how%20do%20you%20like%20those%20potatoes%22&f=false Looking through Google Books, both 'them/those apples' and 'them/those potatoes' seem to only go back to about the 1920s in print, but the earliest version being a 1919 book of military history where it's listed, without elaboration, amongst humorous stories and sayings.

This suggests the military origin of the phrase to be correct, though in use before it was said in any movie.

As for the meaning -- older versions tend to use it as an expression of surprise, akin to "How 'bout that!"

or "I'll be!"

Nowadays, however, it's most commonly used as an expression of gloating.

(Person #1: "I got 20 points in the game!"

Person #2: "Well, I got 200, so how do you like them apples?")

Question: What exactly does this phrase mean and in which situations is it used?

How do you like them apples?

The term "How do you like them apples" is generally used as an expression of gloating and can be used when someone turns the tables on someone else or to express surprise at a sudden change of fortune.

The phrase can be used as an expression of gloating when someone turns the tables on someone else. It can also be an expression of surprise at a sudden turn of fortune. Some people believed it first appeared in the movie the "Wizard of Oz", some don't think it did. There have been other references to the term in movies. It is also believed to have originated in WWII when the British had a piece of equipment called a "toffee apple". Today, it is used as expression of gloating.

It is used as an expression of gloating but can also be used as an expression of surprise.

Nowadays, it is most commonly used as an expression of gloating when someone turns the tables on someone else.

It is used as an expression to gloat at someone else's misfortune.

It is used as an expression of gloating when someone turns the tables on someone else.

It can also be used as an expression of surprise at a sudden turn of fortune.

Nowadays, however, it's most commonly used as an expression of gloating.

Also an expression of surprise at a sudden turn of fortune.

The British had a trench mortar that was called a "toffee apple."

The same mortar was alternately called, "plum pot."

Early in the war, before the "toffee apple" trench mortar was developed, soldiers made improvised explosive devices, grenades and mortars using empty "plum and apple" jam tins.

The words "plum" and "apple" may have been associated with mortars and grenades as a result.

Other grenades were also called "apples" during the war, so it was not always a specific reference to the "toffee apple"-style trench mortar.

S0: This phrase appears in the Wizard of Oz in 1939, years before rio bravo.

S1: In the first scene with the Tin Man, a tree throws apples at him and says, "How do you like them apples!"

It is used as an expression of gloating.

It can be used as an expression of surprise.


When used in the context of "fine-grained control", for example, it carries the connotation of "very precise": a volume knob that gives you fine-grained control means that you can set your volume to the exact level that you desire, you don't have to choose only between "too quiet" and "too loud".

I can't find a reference on this, but I think the etymology comes from sandpaper.

Sandpaper is made with grains (originally sand) and if you make coarse-grain sandpaper you can quickly remove lots of unwanted wood, but the result is rough.

If you make fine-grain sandpaper you can smooth or polish the wood to a high degree, with great control, but the work is slower because the smaller grains don't remove as much wood.

This metaphor extends into other tools where the tools offer control of minute details in order to achieve specific results.

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

It just means what it sounds like: comprised of smaller entities.

This could imply higher quality or fidelity if smaller entities make the system's overall properties better.

The sandpaper analogy reads very well.

In pre-digital photography, "grains" of light-sensitive silver nitrate were used to capture images.

It gets very technical, very fast,

but I think it's safe to say "the smaller (finer) the grain, the higher the possible image resolution: Wikipedia search results

In Computer Science (as you're looking for), coarse-grained means ' monolithic ' fine-grained means ' modulized ' or ' devided into smaller pieces ' For examples, there are many kinds of architecture for web services: monolithic architecture is coarse-grained architecture.

microservice architecture is fined-grained architecture.

These meanings are illustrated in this article .

Question: I always see "fine-grained" in technology articles. What does it mean?

What does "fine-grained" mean?

The term "fine-grained" can have various meaning depending on context, although in the context of "fine-grained control" it carries the connotation of being "very precise". It could alos refer to the level of detail or the resolution of images. In Computer Science, "fine-grained" means "modulized" or "divided into smaller pieces".

When used in the context of "fine-grained control", for example, it carries the connotation of "very precise":  a volume knob that gives you fine-grained control means that you can set your volume to the exact level that you desire, you don't have to choose only between "too quiet" and "too loud". The etymology comes from sandpaper which is made from grains and you can smooth or polish the wood and by extension to other tools. In photography, grains of silver nitrate were used to capture images. It suggests higher fidelity because of the smaller entities involved. Similar terms are used in Computer science and architecture.

Fine grain means it is made up of small entities to make it very precise.

There is no clear definitive answer, but in the context of technology, "fine-grained" could either mean that it provides precision control over something or is comprised of smaller entities.

Sandpaper is made with grains (originally sand) and if you make coarse-grain sandpaper you can quickly remove lots of unwanted wood, but the result is rough.

If you make fine-grain sandpaper you can smooth or polish the wood to a high degree, with great control, but the work is slower because the smaller grains don't remove as much wood.

This metaphor extends into other tools where the tools offer control of minute details in order to achieve specific results.

In pre-digital photography, "grains" of light-sensitive silver nitrate were used to capture images.

"the smaller (finer) the grain, the higher the possible image resolution:  Wikipedia search results

The suggestion is that it is comprised of smaller entities.

Implying higher quality or fidelity if smaller entities make the system's overall properties better.

In Computer Science (as you're looking for),    coarse-grained  means ' monolithic '  fine-grained  means ' modulized ' or ' devided into smaller pieces '   For examples, there are many kinds of architecture for web services:   monolithic  architecture is  coarse-grained  architecture.

microservice  architecture is  fined-grained  architecture.

Fine grained means it is made up of small entities.

In the context of technology, "fine-grained" could be that it provides more precise control.

In this context, "fine-grained" could simply mean that it is comprised of smaller entities.


I'm not sure about this rugby scrum origin theory.

I found a snippet of a 1981 William Safire column in New York Times Magazine article that indicates this guess was put forth by an AJ Gracia of Southbury, Connecticut.

It goes on to call it an "offbeat etymology." Etymonline has the phrase dated from 1958, but with no mention of rugby.

I found the phrase used over a decade earlier ( 1947 ) in the English translation of Haitian Jacques Romain's Masters of the Dew done by Langston Hughes and Mercer Cook.

Again, no rugby context: It would be interesting to know what original French phrase was translated as such.

Hughes went on to use the phrase again in Simple Takes a Wife , 1953—the

next reference I can find in print.

Edit :

Safire wrote another column on the phrase in 1997 which drops the mention of rugby altogether.

He concludes "a black-English origin for the phrase is pretty likely" and cites a 1954 example, four years earlier than OED 's earliest reference (1958).

He also dug up this more plausible origin of the phrase: Other evidence there of the phrase's black origin is a recollection from Norman Pierce of Jack's Record Cellar in San Francisco of Shove Day, or Bump Day, the traditional Thursday off for domestic servants in the 1920's, ''on which blacks 'accidentally' jostled whites in public places, railways, streetcars, etc.''

Edit #2 :

I just found another antedating of the phrase.

These are from Black Thunder by Arna Wendell Bontemps (close friend of Langston Hughes), 1936:

Answers.com also cites the rugby reference.

It also notes the other meaning of the phrase as in "They supposedly support equality, but when push comes to shove they always seem to promote a man instead of a woman".

I think the difference is "if" vs. "when".

I see think the "when" meaning is more prevalent.

It means "when actually tested".

Push is just a push, and things have escalated to a shove now.

It now means business.

Escalate to get the thing accomplished.

According to this site , this term comes from rugby, where, after an infraction of rules, forwards from each team face off and push against one another.

Well my understanding of the phrase has always been this: Pushing and shoving is a way of referring to fighting, particular little man-to-man arguments.

They start with a push and a shove, so when "push comes to shove", it means a fight will break out.

Fighting is the last resort, or at least the least desired outcome of an argument.

In one of the Discworld books, Terry Pratchett alludes to the origin of this word as being midwifery (I think it's Nanny Ogg who has the relevant line).

I imagine he just made this up though...

The earliest instance of the idiom I found is from Central Valley project of California: Hearings .

United States.

Congress.

House.

Committee on Flood ControlFebruary 7-9, 1935 : page 52

It's my guess that the idiom is derived from the fixed expression push and shove , which Wikipedia calls Siamese twins or binomials.

The order of the words are never reversed and they are usually conjoined by the words and or or .

The words constituting a Siamese twins phrase may be synonyms , antonyms, include alliterations or similar-sounding words that often rhyme.

The combination: push and shove is firmly rooted in the 19th century (earlier instances I did not find in Google Books) and clearly expresses a frustrated type of struggle, where people or animals have to fight each other in order to reach their objective.

As seen in the following excerpts: Young Men's Christian Association , 1903

The Nursery by Fanny P. Searverns 1867

The Donkey and The Pigs

The London Review and Weekly Journal of Politics, Literature, Art... 1860 For the rest of us

, we push and shove ourselves into the best places, after the manner of Englishmen, that is, to our mutual discomfort, and without the least necessity ; and then we look round, and compose ourselves, to the due enjoyment of the imposing spectacle.

Missionary Chronicle Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. Board of Foreign Missions, Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A .

Some go about begging and push and shove one another, [each greedy to get first].

Others go about begging unthreshed rice of the donor.

They strive for food, transgressing the rules of propriety.

They do not properly demean themselves.

From push and shove to "when push comes to shove" the path seems to me fairly straightforward.

After all what is a shove if not a more decisive and aggressive type of push?

A shove represents a surge of energy, the last resort, the final action when no alternative option is available.

I suspect it might have its origins in the 16th and early 17th century English, during the English Civil War.

The phrase that comes to mimd is a description of what happens when opposing pike blocks engaged in melee.

It was described as push of pike and musket butt.

That phrase would have percolated through the population easily since the civilian population was intimately associated with the armies.

It could easily morph into push comes to shove as that rolls off the tongue so easily and aptly describes the soldiesr in the pike blocks doing exactly that.

Question: "When push comes to shove" means "as a last resort" or "if absolutely necessary". Does anyone know why the phrase came to be used in this way?

What is the origin of the phrase "when push comes to shove"?

There is no clear agreement as to the exact origins of the phrase "when push comes to shove", although it's possible that it's meaning is essentially "when actually tested". There is a William Safire column from 1981 in the New York Times Magazine that proposes its possible origins, and it may possibly be related to a rugby scrum.

It could have a rugby-related origin, but it has been seen in a 1947 book by Jacques Romain. Answers.com provides rugby-related references. One interpretation is that it means "if" v "when" with "when" being stronger.Another interpretation is that it means "when it is tested". It has developed to mean "to escalate" which is used in a business environment. It is also interpreted as starting something small, like a small fight that escalates into something bigger, the least desirable outcome of an argument. It may also have originated in the English Civil War in relation to opposing pipe blocks.

The origin may have come from rugby and the scrum or it may have come from a midwifery term.

Terry Pratchett alluded to the origin of this expression as being from midwifery. However, others claim that it comes from the expression "push and shove", or from 16th and early 17th century English, during the English Civil War.

There is no clear answer to this question, but possible origins could be midwifery, the English Civil War or the fixed expression "push and shove".

I found a  snippet  of a 1981 William Safire column in  New York Times Magazine  article that indicates this guess was put forth by an AJ Gracia of Southbury, Connecticut.

S8: Safire wrote  another column  on the phrase in 1997 which drops the mention of rugby altogether.

I found the phrase used over a decade earlier ( 1947 ) in the English translation of Haitian Jacques Romain's  Masters of the Dew  done by Langston Hughes and Mercer Cook.

There are other rugby references: Answers.com  also cites the rugby reference.

It also notes the other meaning of the phrase as in "They supposedly support equality, but when push comes to shove they always seem to promote a man instead of a woman".

I think the difference is "if" vs. "when".

I see think the "when" meaning is more prevalent.

Push is just a push, and things have escalated to a shove now.

Pushing and shoving is a way of referring to fighting, particular little man-to-man arguments.

They start with a push and a shove, so when "push comes to shove", it means a fight will break out.

Fighting is the last resort, or at least the least desired outcome of an argument.

S5: It's my guess that the idiom is derived from the  fixed expression  push and shove , which Wikipedia calls  Siamese twins  or binomials.

S6: The order of the words are never reversed and they are usually conjoined by the words  and  or  or .

S7: The words constituting a Siamese twins phrase may be  synonyms , antonyms, include alliterations or similar-sounding words that often rhyme.

S8: The combination:  push and shove  is firmly rooted in the 19th century (earlier instances I did not find in Google Books) and  clearly expresses a frustrated type of struggle, where people or animals have to fight each other in order to reach their objective.

S22: A  shove  represents a surge of energy, the last resort, the final action when no alternative option is available.

It may have origin in the English Civil War.

The origin may be from rugby, describing a scrum.


I did some searches in the Corpus of Contemporary American English and compared the results to similar searches in the British National corpus .

What I found was that overall, in American English there was a 7.9-to-1 ratio of

don’t to do not .

With breakdowns by type: SPOKEN 19.6FICTION 17.9MAGAZINE 7.5NEWSPAPER

7.7ACADEMIC 0.5TOTAL 7.9

In British English overall, the ratio was 4.4-to-1 in favor of don’t , with breakdowns by type: SPOKEN 56.9FICTION 16.8MAGAZINE 4.1NEWSPAPER 3.4NON-ACAD 0.9ACADEMIC 0.2MISC 0.9

So, if it is reasonable to conclude anything from this data, it is that Americans overall use don’t about twice as frequently as the British, but the British use don’t in speech about 2.9 times more frequently than Americans.

In any case, these are not big enough ratios to be noticeable by anyone not counting every incidence.

I think we use "don't" and "can't" almost exclusively in normal conversation here in the U.S. "Do not" and "cannot" are reserved for making special emphasis or dramatic effect.

But we have a long history of using the word "don't" — particularly in admonishing our former colonial masters.

Have a look at this colonial American flag (Gadsden Flag, source: Wikipedia).

And its naval equivalent:

I'm new to the site.

I stumbled across this forum question, because as a British ESOL Tutor, living in the USA for the past 25 years, my lesson for my students tonight is about "contractions"!

I, from my own personal experience have observed and noted, that the spoken contraction (don't) is definitely 'spoken' less frequently, by all and sundry, around Palm Beach County where I reside.

In fact, as a Brit, I treasure be a proud and frequent speaker of contractions, especially (don't!)

but my oldest teenage son and his teenage buddies rarely speak this contraction.

They, in fact, to my observant ear, only say "do not"!

I'm constantly admonishing my son for not saying "don't!

", instead choosing his wording in a similar vein to his fellow teens.

I will, however, bring to your attention, that my son likes to text IDK, in place of "I don't know".

Which then makes me in turn chuckle, because of his infrequent use of the contraction "don't".

I need to draw to his attention

his acronym doesn't make sense unless he actually uses the contraction "don't" in his conversation, because his acronym should instead read IDNK (I do not know)!

I don't doubt that we say "don't" in the US as much as our cousins across the pond.

That is, I expect usage is similar in the US and UK.

I've voted for nohat's answer, because of the evidence, but I offer my observations anyway:

I find that Americans generally use accepted contractions, including don't .

I rarely hear do not except for emphasis.

Another data point:

In Star Trek:

The Next Generation , Worf and Data are conspicuous for their contraction-free speech, again including don't (Worf is formal by choice; Data has some kind of weird programming deficiency).

This is actually played up in the show from time to time.

Everyone else uses don't freely.

When I was young

I was taught not to use contractions in my written works.

I wonder if the same English style conventions were taught in the UK, and if that has any effect on American and UK script writers or not.

I believe children are now being taught to write more conversationally, and contractions are not frowned on in written language as much as they used to be.

Question: This is really a question for Americans.  When watching US TV or films, it's often my impression that—while using all the other contractions—Americans don't seem so keen on 'don't' and use 'do not' rather more often than we Brits. I also don't think this difference only occurs when it is stressed.  Any comments?

Do Americans say "don't" as often as the British?

It is possible that there is a difference in the level of usage of "don't" between the UK and the US, and there is data to suggest that Americans use it about twice as much as the British overall but that the British use "don't" about 2.9 times more frequently in speech than Americans. However, the differences are not big enough to be easily noticeable.

If examined the COCA regarding UK and US use of "don't" and "do not", the results show the UK speakers using "don't"  with 4.4.ratio-to-1 .The conclusion, it is that Americans overall use  "don’t"  about twice as frequently as the British, but the British use  "don’t" in speech about 2.9 times more frequently than Americans. These are, however, not big enough ratios to determine distinctive differences. So "don't" and "can't" is almost exclusively in normal conversation in the U.S. "Do not" and "cannot" are reserved for making special emphasis or dramatic effect. However, there seems to be a  degree of personal pride among British people in using contractions, although UK teenagers may not use "don't" frequently despite using IDK in text speech, as from anecdotal experience. It may be the educational experiences are different.

Don't and can't are used as frequently in the US as the UK.

It is generally considered that Americans use the word "don't" extensively.

It is generally believed that Americans use the contraction "don't" as often as British speakers.

in the  Corpus of Contemporary American English  and compared the results to similar searches in the  British National corpus .

"don't" and "can't" is almost exclusively in normal conversation n the U.S. "Do not" and "cannot" are reserved for making special emphasis or dramatic effect.

British English overall, the ratio was 4.4-to-1 in favor of  don't.

So, if it is reasonable to conclude anything from this data, it is that Americans overall use  don’t  about twice as frequently as the British, but the British use  don’t  in speech about 2.9 times more frequently than Americans.

These are not big enough ratios to be noticeable by anyone not counting every incidence.

S1: I find that Americans generally use accepted contractions, including  don't .

S2: I rarely hear  do not  except for emphasis.

S2: I wonder if the same English style conventions were taught in the UK, and if that has any effect on American and UK script writers or not.

S3: I believe children are now being taught to write more conversationally, and contractions are not frowned on in written language as much as they used to be.

Don't and can't are used frequently in the US and is generally excepted.


Not so many.

Most people within the computer domain aren't even aware of all the details.

The slightly larger kilo unit actually have gotten it's own unit, or actually a set of units.

1024 bytes is one kibibyte , 1024 kibibyte is one mebibyte, and so on.

Even within the computer domain, both types of units are used.

Disk storage manufacturers for example uses 1000 as kilo to measure disk sizes, while operating systems uses 1024 as kilo to measure disk usage.

That means that a 2.0 terabyte disk only has room for 1.82 terabyte data.

(Also, as some of the space is used to keep track of the data on the disk, the actual amount that you can store on the disk is even less.)

Even disk manufacturers aren't consistent, and both units has even been mixed to measure the size of a single type of disk.

The (once) so well known 1.44 megabyte 3.25" floppy disk is actually neither 1.44 megabyte nor 1.44 mebibyte.

It's actually 1.44 * 1000 * 1024 bytes, or 1.44 kilo-kibi-byte...

Not many.

At least that’s presumed — by the people who then invented Kibi and Mebi and Gibi .

Yup, there’s sort-of

(I don’t deign to honor them as)

SI prefixes: kB is kilobytes, that is, 1000 bytes (some used “KB” to signify 2 10 bytes, but that’s really nonstandard).

While kiB, kibibytes, is 1024 bytes.

Likewise for MB -> MiB (Mebibytes) and GB -> Gibibytes.

The bi here stands for binary, so the long longform could be Kilobinarybytes .

It’s all weird anyway.

I guess one could presume that even fewer people “outside the domain” are aware of those new binary prefixes than were aware of the old power-of-two one, if you consider that even people inside said domain are unaware of those new prefixes.

The answer is not many.

That's why there is an increasing move to refer to use "kibi", "mebi" and so on as prefixes for these powers of two.

Wikipedia has an article about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix

Umm, not very many?

The computer definitions aren't much use outside computer stuff, so I'd say that the vast majority of non-computer people are ignorant of the distinction (or don't care enough to remember it).

But really, I could guess at numbers all day.

How on Earth would we know the answer to this?

Regardless of how many people know or don't know about it, if you're writing a specification or technical publication, my suggestion is to use the binary prefixes ( kibi, mebi ), that way there is no room for ambiguity.

Actually, kilo- , mega- , etc.

are ambiguous , because some think they ought to be based on powers of 2 in a computing context and powers of 10 otherwise, some disagree, and both sides just go ahead and use what they prefer.

To solve this, the prefixes kibi- (2 10 ), mebi- (2 20 ), gibi- (2 30 ), and tebi- (2 40 ) have been introduced; these I find are rarely used in whole form, but there's increasingly common use of their abbreviations KiB, MiB, GiB, and TiB.

I for one always say "K", "meg", "gig", and "terabyte".

The Wikipedia entry on binary prefixes sums up the issues nicely.

Question: Under SI, the  kilo  prefix refers to 1,000 and mega refers to 1,000,000. In strict computer terms,  kilo  refers to 1,024 (2 10 ),  mega  refers to 1,048,576 (2 20 ) and  giga  is 1,073,741,824 (2 30 ).   The original question was how widely known outside this domain is this distinction?  Going by the answers provided, I should be using binary prefixes in order to remove the ambiguity in my documentation.

Kilo as 1 024, Mega as 1 048 576

It's generally considered that not many people are aware of this distinction and that even many people within the computer domain are not aware of all the details.

Not many people are aware of various SI computer units of measurement. Even disc manufacturers stick to standard 1000 as a kilo and so are inconsistent.Therefore it is presumed that even fewer people “outside the domain” are aware of those new binary prefixes than were aware of the old power-of-two one, if you consider that even people  inside  said domain are unaware of those new prefixes. However, it is important to use these prefixes if writing a technical publication.

Not many people outside the domain would be aware of this distinction. Most people within the computer domain are not even aware this. Both types of units are used in the computer domain and even disk manufacturers are inconsistent.

It is widely believed that not many people would be aware of this. One could presume that even fewer people “outside the domain” are aware of those new binary prefixes than were aware of the old power-of-two one, if you consider that even people  inside  said domain are unaware of those new prefixes.

The answer is that not many people outside of this domain are aware of this distinction and it's possible that not many people within the domain are aware of it either. In any case, using binary prefixes in technical documentation is probably advisable.

People in general are unaware of the different measures..

Therefore it is presume that even fewer people “outside the domain” are aware of those new binary prefixes than were aware of the old power-of-two one, if you consider that even people  inside  said domain are unaware of those new prefixes.

Not many people are familiar with these SI computer measurements.

Disk storage manufacturers for example uses 1000 as kilo to measure disk sizes, while operating systems uses 1024 as kilo to measure disk usage

Even disk manufacturers aren't consistent, and both units has even been mixed to measure the size of a single type of disk.

It is important to use these prefixes however if writing a technical publication.

Most people within the computer domain aren't even aware of all the details

The answer is that probably not many people are aware of this distinction outside this domain and it's possible that even people within it aren't aware either.

It would probably be advisable to use binary prefixes in technical documentation in any case.


Yes, according to Wikipedia

the dis- k version of the word has been used to refer to magnetic storage media since the 1950s when IBM (a US company) pioneered the first hard drive.

Subsequently the advent of optical media from companies such as Philips (Who are Dutch and therefore used the European spelling) and Sony meant that the form dis- c was chosen.

Etymologically speaking both words are synonyms, with the only difference being that disc is more common in British English, whilst disk is more popular in American English.

Rhodri (see below) also notes that the persistence of the word disk (even in European usage) for a magnetic storage medium is in deference to its American roots at IBM.

I was on the ANSI committee that defined the 5 1/4 inch floppy specification (ANSI X3-B8) back around 1980.

Even then, among all the existing manufacturers, there was no consensus about disk versus disc versus diskette.

So both "disk" and "disc" are correct.

As an aside, that was a pretty rockin' crew.

That ANSI committee met three times a year, and always in some cool place, like Lake Tahoe, or New Orleans during Mardi Gras, so we could meet hard all day and party all night, entertaining each other on company expense accounts.

I believe that disk is American English whilst disc is English English.

In the era of personal computers with removable disks, the spelling mostly came from the US computer industry and has taken hold in other parts of the Anglosphere.

Currently, most optical discs are popularly referred to as CDs, DVDs or Blu-Rays, so perhaps the distinction is moot.

No one has used a floppy-disk for decades, the 8-inch ones were certainly floppy, the 5.25 inch ones much less so and arguably didn't deserve the name.

You might have been referring to a 3.5 inch diskette .

Athletes still throw a discus I think.

Whether your car is equipped with disc-brakes or disk-brakes probably depends on where you purchased it.

Well, he is right in the manner that this is how the different spellings have come to be used.

There is however no inherent difference between the spellings.

The difference in usage between magnetic media and optical media is just a convention based on what was originally used when the media was introduced.

When first hard disks were sold, the k spelling was chosen, but when the compact disc was introduced the c spelling was chosen.

I worked for many years at U.S. technology magazines; it may be of interest to readers to see the word-list entries for disc and disk that governed our house style for those words at two magazines that shared the same word list.

Here they are, from an era before DVDs appeared on the scene: disc use for CD-ROMs, audio CDs, and laser discs disk for floppy disks, hard disks; don’t use diskette As you can see, the split in spelling that we followed was based not on a general U.S. preference for disk over disc , but on two separable categories of components/media: magnetic/electronic and optical/electronic.

I suspect that the split arose because our magazines had gravitated toward hard disk and floppy disk in the early days of personal computers as a U.S. English preference, but nevertheless adopted the conventional spelling compact disc for CDs when they emerged.

Note that this is essentially anecdotal information

: I don't know how many other U.S. publishers adopted the same distinction, but my impression is that our house style was not unusual in its treatment of these words.

As for why CDs were designated as compact discs instead of compact disks , even in the United States, I believe that the impetus came from vinyl records, which were usually styled discs , rather than disks , when the term was applied to them at all.

That spelling follows in the tradition of the words discophile (since 1940, according to Merriam-Webster's Eleventh Collegiate Dictionary ) discotheque (anglicized since 1954, according to MW), disco (the short form of discotheque , since 1964), and disco (the verb associated with disco music, since 1979).

Disk is American spelling while disc in British spelling.

No difference otherwise.

Question: I thought that a disc was a disc, and it is sometimes spelled  disk . I now have got an indication that those two are not the same thing.  In  this answer  on  Graphic Design , I wrote  floppy disc  in the answer.   I got a comment from someone that it should be  floppy disk . He stated that    Disk  is a magnetic storage media, while  disc  is an optical one.   Is this correct?

Is there a difference between "disc" and "disk" for naming digital storage media?

According to Wikipedia, this difference is correct, with "disk" referring to magnetic storage media since the 1950s. However, both words are synonyms, with "disc" being more common in British English, and both are correct.

Wikipedia agrees with the this definition. Originally, the word was "disk" and became "disc". They are synonyms and both spellings are correct. Manufacturers themselves do not agree on the correct form. Today, they have been replaced by CDs and DVDs. Publishing companies moved to new forms of media to store their data. Prior to this, data was stored on floppy disks or diskettes.

"Disk "is said to refer to magnetic storage hard drives. However, some say the difference is regional, where "disc" is the British English variant, and "disk" is the US English equivalent.

"Disk" has been used to refer to magnetic storage media since the 1950s when IBM pioneered the first hard drive. Conversely, the compact disc was marketed with the "disc" spelling. However, some claim that there is no difference and that this is simply a regional choice, with "disk" being preferred in the US and "disc" being more commonly used in Britain.

There is no clear agreement about whether these two spellings are in fact interchangeable. It is possible that "disk" refers to magnetic storage media and "disc" refers to optical storage. On the other hand, it is also possible that "disk" is an American spelling and "disc" is more British.

The disk is the word used. It then changed to "disc"

Etymologically speaking both words are synonyms, with the only difference being that  disc  is more common in British English, whilst  disk  is more popular in American English.

Disk  is American spelling while  disc  in British spelling.

You might have been referring to a 3.5 inch  diskette .

S4: : I don't know how many other U.S. publishers adopted the same distinction, but my impression is that our house style was not unusual in its treatment of these words.

S5: As for why CDs were designated as  compact discs  instead of  compact disks , even in the United States, I believe that the impetus came from vinyl records, which were usually styled  discs , rather than  disks , when the term was applied to them at all.

S6: That spelling follows in the tradition of the words  discophile  (since 1940, according to  Merriam-Webster's Eleventh Collegiate Dictionary )  discotheque  (anglicized since 1954, according to MW),  disco  (the short form of  discotheque , since 1964), and  disco  (the verb associated with disco music, since 1979).

Disk is used for magnetic storage hard drives.

"Disc" is the British English variant, whereas "Disk" is US English.

It is generally believed that "disk" refers to a magnetic media storage whilst "disc" refers to optical storage.

It is believed that "disk" is American spelling and "disc" is British spelling.

Some people would claim that these spellings are interchangeable.


I suspect that Toyota's advertising department just made up a word they thought sounded nice.

If it were Latin and a noun/adjective, the plural would be priora .

Since this probably is not the case, Priuses seems to be the only choice.

I wish people would stop referring to the latin/greek roots and words.

According to normal grammatical rules assuming the Prius is a proper noun (which it is), then you simply add an "s" but since it ends in "s" you add "es".

So it is properly Priuses.

I have a friend named Gus and an uncle named Gus as well.

When I am with both of them I am with 2 Guses.

Not Guii or Gusiay or whatever.

You cannot under any circumstances change the name of something.

If you have a Prii

then you have no Priuses.

Octopus -> Octopi Prius ->

Prii (pronounced pree-eye).

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

I plan on never being anywhere where more than one Prius is present.

That way, I will never have to use it in conversation.

All jokes aside

, I don't think proper nouns are supposed to be subject to the rules of plurality, and Priuses would be the most common usage.

EDIT: Apparently Toyota actually had a poll about this, and the "offical" answer from Toyota is now prii .

It goes along with a big ad campaign about their new Prius models.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

Even if we assume that "Prius" is Latin, not all Latin words that end in -us are made plural by changing the -us to -i.

As Cerberus notes, in Latin "prius" is the neuter form of the adjective meaning "before" -- with the masculine and feminine forms both being "prior".

The plural of "prius" in Latin is "priora".

(Cerberus said all this between his original post and later comment

so I upvoted his answer, but perhaps this clarifies a little.)

But just because an English word looks like a Latin word doesn't make it a Latin word, especially when it's the name of a product, which would often be a made-up word.

I'm reminded of the story of the Latin professor who reported to the police that he had been mugged.

"Could you identify the hoodlums?"

the policeman asks.

And the professor pedantically replies, "You mean 'hoodla'."

Prius is a loanword from the Japanese puriusu ( プリウス ), an abbreviation of puritii usuita .

puritii ( プリティー ) is, in turn, a loanword from English: pretty .

usuita ( 薄板 ) means laminate or veneer.

When we pluralize loanwords in English, we can choose to either follow the pattern of the original language or simply follow the English rules.

In general, Japanese lacks plural forms (or, to put it another way, every noun is a mass noun)

which is why, for instance, samurai is often pluralized as just samurai .

So you can choose:

A greenwash (the collective noun ) Prius (follow the Japanese pattern) Priuses (follow the English pattern)

Whatever dumb form Toyota's marketing department comes up with (not recommended)

The plural of Prius is Prius cars or more formally, Prius automobiles .

Marketers.

Sheesh.

There is no correct plural for the word Prius at the moment.

The matter is still up for debate.

It is left to Toyota to determine what this should be.

The company has, however, graciously opted to standardize the plural of Prius based on popular opinion.

To contribute or make your voice heard on what you think the correct plural form should be, go cast your vote on the Toyota website website .

The options are: priuses , prium , prien , prius and prii .

No plural is needed.

Attributive modifiers are always used in the singular and trademarks are attributive modifiers.

Correct:

Hand me the Yugoslavia report.

Correct: Hand me the Yugoslavia reports.

Incorrect: Hand me the Yugoslavias report.

Incorrect: Hand me the Yugoslavias reports.

Just as Yugoslavia identifies the country a report is attributed to, Prius identifies the named line of vehicles

a car is attributed to.

There is only, and can ever be, one such named line.

I suppose one could imagine a case where there were two different lines of cars both called Prius .

For example, one can talk about the "Koreas" to mean both North and South Korea.

But that would be the only case where one would need a plural of Prius.

Incorrect: I could have had two V8's.

Correct: I could have had two V8 brand vegetable juice beverages.

Correct: Both my wife and I have Prius cars.

Correct:

My car is a Prius, and so is my wife's.

Ambiguous: I'm glad I'm a man, and so is my wife.

You can read these, and many other fine rules that no sane person follows, in INTA's trademark usage guide .

Question: What would be the correct plural of  Prius , and why?  A Latin professor would say Prium’s the best...

What is the plural of Prius?

It is debatable that there is no correct plural for the word "Prius" and some people would argue that no plural is needed. Strictly speaking, in Latin, the plural would be "priora". However, just because an English word looks like a Laton word doesn't make it a Latin word. Assuming that Prius is a proper noun, the convention would be to add -es, making "Priuses".

There is no final opinion as to the plural of Prius. Some have suggested "Priuses" following English grammar rules, others have suggested "priora" following Latin rules for the Latin word Prius. However, the word is of Japanese  origin meaning laminate and veneer. When Japanese pluralises words they can choose the word format in the foreign word or in Japanese. It has been decided to give the final say to the public who can vote on their favourite word from a given list on the Toyota website.

"Priuses" is the most widely accepted term, although "Prius cars" could be used.

"Priuses" is considered to be the most common usage, although it has been said that it should be up to Toyota. The options are:  Priuses,  prium ,  prien ,  prius  and  prii .

Some people would argue that there is no official plural for "Prius" and that it is for Toyota to decide what it should be. However, according to normal grammar rules, the correct answer should be "Priuses". Other alternatives include "Prii" or simply "Prius cars".

To contribute or make your voice heard on what you think the correct plural form should be, go cast your vote on the Toyota website.

There is no correct plural for the word Prius at the moment.

Toyota chose it as a good marketing name.

There is no correct plural. Toyota will decide. There are word

But it is open to popular vote and there is a choice of words.

No plural needed.  As it is an attibutive modifier for a trademark, no plural required.

The plural of "Prius" in Latin is "priora".

According to normal grammar rules, the correct plural should be "Priuses".

Some would argue that there is no official plural for the word "Prius".

Some believe that this is for Toyota to determine.

Some options may include "Priuses", "Prii" or simply "Prius cars".


All caps are typically used for either of two reasons: Visual Style Capital letters are often used on covers of magazines, in logos and artsy-typography, usually to emphasise the visual style of the letters themselves, rather than the word.

( Example Image )

Contextual emphasis: Capital letters can be considered a third form of emphasis, among Italics and Bold text.

They are used to denote a louder, almost shouting (and in many cases actually shouting) pronunciation.

This is done by tabloid newspapers, for example:

Political Correctness Gone MAD!

(in this example, the exclamation mark is used, erroneously, to add even more volume)

Legal documents sometimes use capital letters to denote areas of special importance.

They are, presumably, trying to avoid the area being overlooked by the reader, by making it stand out from the rest of the text.

This product comes with NO WARRANTY.

There are also technical reasons for using capital letters.

Here are just some examples of this: Typesetting systems (old computers, stencils, ...) that don't allow for italics or bold text may encourage some to use capital letters instead Capital letters to denote a SURNAME as opposed to a first name (according to wikipedia, this is done in francophone countries)

There are suggestions, some call it a consensus, that upper case text is harder to read than correctly capitalised text.

This, to my knowledge, first manifested itself in public policy when British road signs were changed in 1957.

The Worboys Committee proposed a new type face called Transport , using lower case letters for the first time.

This is based on the idea that one reads the shape of the word rather than each individual letter.

The All caps article on Wikipedia summarises the evidence for this.

It's not even always a good idea to capitalise acronyms and initialisms, as illustrated by this ridiculous example: Have they turned on the LASER yet?

Rhodri rightly says that this is uncommon and only happens to de-facto words.

As Jimi pointed out, ALL CAPS in email and instant messaging conversations is considered shouting, and people who use it extensively are considered trolls .

ALL CAPS ON THE INTERNET OR IN WRITTEN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS

IS OFTEN THE RESULT OF A MISTAKE BY OLDER, OR LESS EXPERIENCED, COMPUTER USERS

WHO USE CAPSLOCK AND FORGET

THAT IT IS ENABLED.

GENERALLY, WHEN IT IS NOT A MISTAKE, IT DENOTES SHOUTING, EMPHASIS, IMPORTANCE, OR URGENCY.

IT CAN ALSO BE USED IN SCENARIOS

WHERE CLEAR TEXT IS

REQUIRED - THOUGH

THIS IS USUALLY EMPLOYED WHEN WRITING BY HAND.

MY ANSWER IS IN ALL CAPS

BECAUSE IF YOU READ IT BACK IN YOUR HEAD

IT WILL SOUND LIKE I'M SCREAMING

AT

YOU MARCO :D!

They are usually used to add emphasis.

They are also often used in place of italics in situations where those can't be displayed.

All caps is used primarily for emphasis.

When used excessively in an electronic message (email, discussion thread, etc), this is called shouting and it is considered quite rude.

For more on the various uses of all caps , see the Wikipedia article .

Lo, these many years ago, I took a typing class (manual typewriters, for a true sense of age!).

We were instructed to use ALL CAPS as a substitute for bold and underline ( _ _) as a substitute for italics .

When I started going on line (long before publicly available Internet), I was taught to surround text with asterisk (*) when I intended bold and with underscore (_)

when I intended italic .

If you pay attention to the markup used in this forum, you can see how those conventions have been honoured and expressed over time and through changing technology.

In English classes (native English, not ESL or second-language) we were also taught to use ALL CAPS to separate the 'description' from the 'real' text.

So, in your error message example, ERROR: is telling you that what follows is an error message as distinct from a warning message (WARNING:) or a purely informational message (INFO:).

A similar concept applies to dialogue the way it is normally written in plays.

As a side note, I was also taught that underline was introduced with the typewriter and that previous to that scribes and typesetters used actual italics (and bold).

I have not been able to confirm that anywhere, though.

The other answers are, of course, also correct.

Used to emphasize a point you want to make.

But using it excessively would seem like you are shouting at the top of your voice.. which is not very nice.....

All CAPITALS make reading quite difficult too...

In some usage circles, titles and other things that would properly be set in italic are translated to uppercase instead.

For example: The Soandso Players will be performing THE TURN OF THE SCREW at the K---- Memorial Theater this August 30 th and 31 st .

I am told that this is a carryover from typewritten manuscripts, particularly stage plays and the like, where upper case is used to distinguish character names from dialogue.

Question: In many error messages and conversations, I come across words in all capital letters, as demonstrated in the examples below.   ERROR: Please type your e-mail address.   or   ME: I can't make it   SHE: I HATE you.   ME: I'm soo sorry.   What is the typical meaning of or reason for these words written in all capital letters?

What do all capital letters typically refer to in writing?

There are many different reasons for using all caps. One example is for visual style, such as magazine covers, and another might be for contextual emphasis. Capital letters are sometimes used to denote areas of special importance, particularly in legal documents. However, when use in an e-mail or message conversation, ALL CAPS is considered shouting and it is considered quite rude.

All caps is used for visual or linguistic effect, to create emphasis. In legal documents it can be used to focus on some text. When it first appeared on roadsigns in the UK, it was believed it was easier to use. It is not recommended capitalising acronyms, whereas all capital letters is considered shouting in modern forms of communication. It is also use in some circles to replace Italics, as in the theatre industry. It can also be used to separate a description from a real text.

Sentences may be written in all capitals for emphasis but when used too much it is rude, like raising your voice.

Legal documents sometimes use capital letters to denote areas of special importance. Capitals can also be used to add emphasis, as an alternative to italics or bold type. However, when used expensively in electronic messages, it is considered to be shouting and rude.

There are a few reasons why words might be written in all capitals. Mainly, this is done to add emphasis to a word or phrases. Additionally, in some circumstances it may be used when italics are not possible. Extensive use of all-capitals is considered shouting.

It's not even always a good idea to capitalise acronyms and initialisms, as illustrated by this ridiculous example: Have they turned on the LASER yet?

Used visually or for linguistic emphasis

Used in legal documents. To focus on the text.

In modern forms of communication, all caps can be considered as shouting.

used to separate description from real text.

In some cirlces, titles usually set in Italics are converted into uppercase.

Sentences may be written in all capitals for emphasis.

Text in all capitals is often seen as shouting.

Writing whole words in all capital letters is normally done to add emphasis.

If used extensively, all-capital letters can denote louder pronunciation or shouting.

In some circumstances, all-capitals may be used where italics are not available.


Poison is contextual and can be an artificial or natural material — different materials can be poisons to different organisms in different doses and/or when misused.

Further, poison usually denotes potential lethality.

Venom is a material created and used by an organism to aid in defense and/or hunting.

Venoms are not necessarily fatal — many stun, sting, or disable.

Venom is venom regardless of context, and can also be poison in some contexts.

Both words are used heavily in metaphor.

Poison is often used to describe something that corrupts, destroys, or has the potential to do so, usually over time — an eventuality.

Venom is often used to describe harsh speech or hurtful aggressiveness.

Venom is a toxin that is harmful only when it enters the bloodstream, produced by animals of various species.

Poison is a toxin that is harmful when ingested (and, in more general terms, however it gets into the system).

It is also a catch-all term for any harmful substance.

Thus there are many venomous snakes, but very few poisonous ones, i.e. ones you would have to eat for them to harm you.

Venom is contained by a living organism, and it is often used as an offensive/defensive measure to ensure survival.

Venom is often poisonous to the intended target.

Poison is an item that is harmful or dangerous to the person/thing to which it refers.

Arsenic is poisonous to humans.

Cobra venom is also poisonous to humans and other animals.

The venom of a "Daddy Long Legs" spider is not considered to be toxic to humans, however.

Venom , poison , and to a lesser extent toxin are informally used interchangeably, referring to all substances that are harmful to living things.

Below I will list what is my understanding of their technical differences; but as English is a living and very lax language, and as the words are used in multiple separate scientific fields, I'm sure there is some argument over the matter.

Therefore, what I or anyone else tells you about their definitions isn't set in stone, so to speak.

A toxin is any inanimate substance that has an adverse interaction with an individual's biological processes, i.e. not a bacterial or other disease.

This is distinct from a substance that damages anything it touches like a corrosive substance, because a toxin only works by exploiting specific biological processes.

That is to say, what is toxic to a human being may not be toxic to a bird because their biological processes are different, whereas a corrosive substance is more or less equally damaging to most any creature it touches.

A poison is a toxin that can be absorbed through body tissue.

Poisons are thus dangerous to touch or swallow.

There are many animals partially or wholly coated in poisons such as dart frogs or even shrews, but snakes are not among them.

Poisons also don't need to belong to animals or plants; certain chemical elements such as arsenic, lead, or mercury are poisons usually found outside of any living body.

A venom is a toxin that is not absorbed through the skin or mucous membranes, requiring it to be injected intentionally, such as through snake fangs or insect stingers.

This necessarily means that venoms are only found produced within animals and plants.

The two kinds of venom are hemotoxins which damage red blood cells and neurotoxins which damage nervous tissue.

Presuming there are no cuts or other breaks in the skin or mucous membranes, venoms are completely safe to touch or swallow, but be warned that many people have tiny cuts they aren't aware of, and it's good practice never to touch venom or any toxin without protective equipment anyway.

As venoms are always biologically produced substances, they contain proteins, and so it's possible to have allergies to otherwise mild venoms such as bee stings.

Theoretically, you could be allergic to biological poisons such as dart frogs, but it's not possible to have an allergy to a non-biological toxin such as arsenic.

Snakes especially are often referred to as poisonous , but that's usually incorrect - poisonous would mean they were toxic to touch or eat.

Many snakes are venomous as they bear and inject venom.

There are no snakes who produce their own poison, but the Japanese grass snake and the common garter snake include animals in their diets who are harmless to them but toxic to humans and can pass poisons to humans this way.

Venom is used to refer to the poisonous substances that animals like snakes and scorpions produce.

Poison is used to refer to substances that could harm or even kill somebody through its chemical action.

To illustrate the difference, consider this article: Poison, not snake, killed Cleopatra, scholar says

The article says that Cleopatra may have "died from drinking a mixture of poisons and not from a snake bite.

"The snake bite would release venom.

But Cleopatra drank something to kill herself -

that's poison.

This other article explains the same as: Cleopatra Died From Poison.

She used hemlock, not snake's venom, says historian

I have copied here a clear distinction between these terms as provided in reference dictionaries .

Poison , toxin , venom are terms for any substance that injures the health or destroys life when absorbed into the system, especially of a higher animal.

Poison is the general word: a poison for insects .

A toxin is a poison produced by an organism; it is especially used in medicine in reference to disease-causing bacterial secretions:

A toxin produces diphtheria .

Venom is especially used of the poisons secreted by certain animals, usually injected by bite or sting: the venom of a snake .

You have some good definitions, but I will add a bit of usage.

When someone has been struck down by venom—the bite of a venomous animal, or venom on a blade—they have been poisoned.

When someone has ingested something poisonous they have been poisoned.

Although technically incorrect, people often talk about snakes being poisonous, by which they mean venomous.

Venom is a word that is less commonly used now.

In that respect, in day-to-day usage you can get away with using "poison" when it might be more technically accurate to use "toxin."

Question: What is the difference between “venom” and “poison”? Both in usage and in meaning.

What is the difference between “venom” and “poison”?

The main difference between venom and poison is that venom is contained within a living organism and used as a defence measure whereas as poison is a toxin that is harmful when ingested. Venom is often poisonous for its intended target. In usage, the two terms are often used interchangeably and are often used in metaphor. For instance, "poison" is often used to describe something that corrupts whilst "venom" is often used to describe harsh speech or hurtful aggressiveness.

The difference between venom and poison is that venom is a natural substance wherea s poison can be man-made. Poison usually denotes letalithy.  Both words are used metaphorically for effect, to describe corruption or destruction or aggressivness..Venom is harmful as it enters the bloodstream, whereas poison is ingested. Some venoms may not be toxic.

Poison refers to substances that could be harmful or fatal through chemical action when ingested, whereas venom is a defensive material produced by animals, usually injected by a bite or sting.

Poison ,  toxin , and  venom  are terms that are often used metaphorically and interchangeably for any substance that injures the health or destroys life when absorbed into the system.  Venom  is especially used for the poisons secreted by certain animals, usually injected by bite or sting. The use of venom has become less common.

The terms "venom" and "poison" are both used to refer to substances that are harmful to living things. However, a venom is considered a poison that is injected, such as the venom of a snake. Both are used heavily in a metaphorical sense, however, venom is generally used less often today.

Below I will list what is my understanding of their technical differences; but as English is a living and very lax language, and as the words are used in multiple separate scientific fields, I'm sure there is some argument over the matter.

Therefore, what I or anyone else tells you about their definitions isn't set in stone, so to speak.

I have copied here a clear distinction between these terms as provided in reference dictionaries .

Poison can be artificial or natural. It denotes lethality. Venom is created by an orgnism, and may not be fatal.  Both words are used metaphorically for effect, to describe corruption or destruction.

Poison refers to substances that could be harmful or fatal through chemical action when ingested.

Venom is a defensive material produced by animals, usually injected by a bite or sting.

Venoms and poison are generally used interchangeably to refer to substances that harmful to living things.

Venoms is a kind of poison that is injected, such as the venom of a snake.

Both words are used a lot in a metaphorical sense.


People here are telling you that "there are" is right.

In terms of any kind of Standard English, that is 100% true.

When expletive-there + copula is used in the subject position, the copula verb is supposed to agree with the noun phrase to the right.

However, I suspect you are interested in also knowing if there is any significance to your intuition that "there's" sounds acceptable as well.

You are not the only one who finds that construction acceptable.

The use of "there's" without regard to number agreement is increasingly common in casual US English.

It is as if "there's" is becoming a separate lexical item of its own.

Linguistically speaking, such a change would certainly be possible.

Additional evidence for this hypothesis comes from what you mentioned in your question, that "there is" sounds bad, but "there's" sounds okay — this suggests some sort of disconnect between the two.

It is There are so many .

There ... are ...

many.

To clarify many vs. much: Use the word 'many' if the object is countable (no matter how larger the number) and treat the noun as a plural.

"There are many creatures in the ocean."

Use the word 'much' if the object is measurable but not countable and treat the noun as singular.

"There is much water in the ocean."

People here are telling you that "there are" is right.

In terms of any kind of Standard English, that is 100% true.

When expletive-there

+ copula is used in the subject position, the copula verb is supposed to agree with the noun phrase to the right.

Respectfully, I don't think it's constructive or accurate to use the term 'correct' to describe what's used in Standard English and say, or leave implied, that what's said in Nonstandard English is 'incorrect'.

Nonstandard English, which is what we use for the vast vast majority of our "English use" lives, is every bit as correct as Standard English.

When a structure reaches this degree of use and acceptance and is a linguistically recognized variant, how could it be described as incorrect?

I think it still can be described as Nonstandard.

Given its widespread use, I think rather than saying, "Linguistically speaking, such a change would certainly be possible", one would have to say, linguistically speaking, such a change has already occurred and we're still trying to figure out the reasons why.

I see there's as the speaker saying,

The situation is - There's two men at the door - The situation is, two men at the door

This variant also sees widespread use with 'here' -

Here's your keys; 'how' -

How's your parents/How's your mom and dad?; 'where' -

Where's my books?

I'll check a couple of sources to verify my own memory, but I think that studies have shown that there's + plural is much more common than the alternative.

The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English This was found to be so even in the speech of graduate students and their professors.

[Source:

The Grammar Book An ESL/EFL Teachers Course]

My feeling would be that the tendency of professors and grad students would tend towards a use of Standard English and I don't think that they would feel that they had fallen out of that standard when they naturally used there's + plural .

The correct phrase should be There are as explained on Grammarly:

The choice between the phrases there is and there are at the beginning of a sentence is determined by the noun that follows it.

Use there is when the noun is singular

(“There is a cat”).

Use there are when the noun is plural (“There are two cats”).

Grammarly Questions is plural, so the grammatically correct sentence would be: "There are so many questions on this website."

Question: There are so many questions on this website.  There is so many questions on this website.   The former "sounds right," but the contracted form of the latter does as well:   There's so many questions on this website.   Which is correct?

"There are so many" vs. "There is so many"

The expression "there's" without regard to number agreement is increasingly common in casual US English. However, in Standard English, the correct answer would be "there are" when referring to more than one object.

"There are" is right in the sentence.  "There's" is not acceptable.Many think it is correct and there is greater frequency of use in US English. So "there's" may become a lexical unit of its own Difference between "many" v "much"  "many" is countable, "much" is not. The choice between the phrases there is and there are at the beginning  of a sentence is determined by the noun that follows it. Use "there is" if the noun is singular and "there are" if it is plural. Grammarly is correct in this instance.

"Questions" is plural, so the grammatically correct sentence would be: "There are so many questions on this website."

The correct version of this phrase is "There are so many". However, the choice between the phrases "there is" and "there are" at the beginning  of a sentence can be determined by the noun that follows it.

The correct answer is "There are many" because the verb should agree with the noun to the right in this case.

Many think it is correct and there is greater frequency of use.

The correct phrase should be  There are  as explained on Grammarly:

Use there are when the  noun is plural (“There are two cats”).

S15: I'll check a couple of sources to verify my own memory, but I think that studies have shown that  there's + plural  is much more common than the alternative.

S19: My feeling would be that the tendency of professors and grad students would tend towards a use of Standard English and I don't think that they would feel that they had fallen out of that standard when they naturally used  there's + plural .


A slum is characterized by its run-down status, while a ghetto is characterized by the people who live there.

Both usually mean some degree of poverty, being overcrowded, and having high crime rates.

Historically, a ghetto would be a place to put groups such as immigrants, Jews or black people, who weren't allowed to live anywhere else.

Nowadays the reasons are mostly economical and cultural; people can't afford to live wherever they like, and choose to live among others with similar background.

A ghetto doesn't have to be particularly poor, some Chinatowns for example can be called ghettos even though they are not really slums.

Sometimes, "slum ghetto" is used to clarify both the ethnic grouping and the poverty of an area.

Originally, yes, but people not aware of the history use them interchangeably now.

The word ghetto was used to refer to a concentration of a particular ethnicity into a single neighborhood.

In Poland during WWII Jews were forced to live in communities where they did not mix with others.

In the United States this term was used to describe the ethnically-centered neighborhoods in the big cities.

A slum is a very low income area marked by poor living conditions, sometimes crime.

Some ghettos became slums and so now the two ideas have intertwined in the minds of many.

In a ghetto you will find people of the same race/socio-economic status/etc.

While today indistinguishable from a slum, from a historical perspective, a ghetto was meant as a separate part of a society where 'certain' people were moved (as for instance the Warsaw ghetto for Jews during WWII).

A slum, on the other hand, is merely a very poor neighborhood.

Ghetto can also be used as an adjective, and not necessarily a negative one, depending on context and speaker.

While the modern ghetto is usually of a lower socio-economic class, I think of a slum as much more destitute.

Also, lest we forget the term slumming it, as in stooping beneath one's self, indicating perhaps again the implied undesirable factor of a slum.

I can't afford to move out of east oakland California.

There is extreme poverty, and where the violence is sickening to me.

Full of turf gangs creating what mainstream media usually calls the killing fields.

I dont think Ive ever called this area a 'slum'.

The term ghetto started in WW2 to describe some of the areas the Jewish people were forced to live.

I think that term applies more because it's more about a specific race of people forced to live in a specific area due to whatever reasons.

Here it's due to poverty and a horrid educational system.

When I hear the term "Slum" or "Slums", I tend to think about people forced to live under slum lords that will grossly over pack their land with people.

I consider parts of Rio de Janeiro to be slums where there is people so over packed they're almost standing on each other.

Mostly for bad areas, people use the term "hood"

Question: What is the difference between a  ghetto  and a  slum ?

What is the difference between a "ghetto" and a "slum"?

Whilst the two concepts have intertwined in the minds of many and people use them interchangeably now, there is a difference between a "ghetto" and a "slum". Both usually mean some degree of poverty, being overcrowed and having a high crime rate, but a slum is characterised by its run-down status, while a ghetto is characterised by the people that live there. In a ghetto, you will generally find people of the same race/socio-economic status.

Slums are characterised by their run-down status, whereas ghettos are characterised by the group that live there. Sometimes, ghettos are not necessarily poor. Some Chinatowns are called "ghettos". The term "slum ghetto" denotes an area of poverty with a particular ethnic group. An example of a slum would be some parts of Rio de Jainero. Historically, the ghetto was a concept that emerged during WWII when the Jews were quartered into small areas of cities. By extenstion, the word "slumming" means stooping below oneself. A similar word to "ghetto" is "hood" which denotes a place where criminal activity occurs and of low socio-economic status.

A slum refers to a run-down, poor place, whereas a ghetto is characterized by a neighbourhood that houses a certain type of people.

A slum is characterized by its run-down status, while a ghetto is characterized by the people who live there.

A slum is a run-down area whereas a ghetto is characterised by the people who live in it.

S5: Sometimes, "slum ghetto" is used to clarify both the ethnic grouping and the poverty of an area.

In a ghetto you will find people of the same race/socio-economic status/etc.

While today indistinguishable from a slum, from a historical perspective, a ghetto was meant as a separate part of a society where 'certain' people were moved (as for instance the Warsaw ghetto for Jews during WWII).

A slum is characterized being run-down, while a ghetto is characterized by the people who live there.

Both usually imply a degree of poverty, being overcrowded, and having high crime rates.

From a historical perspective, a ghetto was meant as a separate part of a society where 'certain' people were moved

A slum is merely a very poor neighbourhood.


These are two different things.

You should not conflate them.

How would you describe someone that continues to perform and action solely because they have observed someone else performing that same action, but do not know the reason.

The colloquial expression that comes to mind here is "monkey see, monkey do."

Or, they perform an action in a certain way and do not change to a better method, only because they believe the current method must be the best way to do it because it has been done that way previously.

You could say they are set in their ways or hidebound .

The term Cargo Cult could fit this situation.

See the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult and scroll down to 'Other uses of the term'.

At one extreme, sheeple can be used to describe people who follow the masses and act without thinking for themselves.

In a commercial environment, especially at a large company (although small ones are by no means immune to this effect), one might say that such people are suffering from "institutional inertia".

they perform an action in a certain way and do not change to a better method, only because they believe the current method must be the best way to do it because it has been done that way previously.

Traditionalist.

One could say they are "set in their ways".

But that's more the latter scenario.

For the first... well, sheeple (which is a portmanteau of "sheep" and "people", btw) doesn't quite cut the mustard here, but it's not far from it, as it is "doing something without thinking".

There's a slightly obscure word that means something very close to this: perseverate.

The word comes from the medical context (discussing mental illness), and means to continue doing something after the reason has disappeared.

Slightly different shade of meaning: do it by rote ,

that is, you've learnt it by repetition and do it without knowing why.

Some previously-mentioned words (eg hidebound , traditionalist , perseverate ) seem good.

Reactionary

(“Opposed to change; urging a return to a previous state” or “Very conservative”), conservative (“A person who favors maintenance of the status quo or reversion to some earlier status”), and stick in the mud (""one who is slow, old-fashioned, or unprogressive; an old fogey) must also be mentioned.

Stick in the mud dates from the late 1500's, according to phrases.org.uk , which also says figurative phrase 'stick in the mud' ... was preceded in the language by earlier versions, for example 'stick in the briers, clay, mire' etc.

These were usually applied to people who remained in a difficult situation, either by choice or because they were stuck.

english.stackexchange.com/users/11433/James Waldby - jwpat7

Question: How would you describe someone that continues to perform and action solely because they have observed someone else performing that same action, but do not know the reason. Or, they perform an action in a certain way and do not change to a better method, only because they believe the current method must be the best way to do it because it has been done that way previously.  What word/phrase/expression would you use to describe this scenario?

Continuing to do something just because it was done before, without knowing why

These two concepts are not the same thing and should not be conflated. A potential colloquial phrase to describe one of these scenarios would be "monkey see, monkey do". Additionally, you could say that such people are "set in their ways" or are "traditionalist". The term "Cargo Cult" may also refer to this phenomenon.

The question seems to raise a search for several terms and some believe they are not the same. Some expressions suggested are "monkey see, monkey do," or to be "set in one's ways/hidebound". The term Cargo Cult was also suggested with a Wikipedia reference. Alternatively, "sheeple" was suggested, although some disagreed with this suggestion. "Persevate" was also another term proposed.

Several expressions can be used to describe such people, including set in their ways; traditionalists; hidebound; suffering from institutional inertia; sheeple or being part of a Cargo Cult.

Suggested terms and phrases include set in their ways; hidebound; cargo cult; sheeple; traditionalists; and perseverate.

There is a wide range of terms that might describe such people, including "hidebound", "sheeple", traditionalist" or "perseverate".

There are two different meanings at play.

Common expressions like "monkey see, monkey do"

"Cargo Cult" could be the meaning sought.

"Sheeple" is a term for people who follow the masses blindly.


I was always taught to use "these" instead of "these ones."

Well, this is grammatically correct:

Try taking these pills.

"pills" is a plural noun "ones" is a plural noun Looks fine, technically, to me.

I would say it's fairly unnatural, though.

It is perfectly correct to say "Try taking these ones."

Also, in this situation, this statement sounds entirely natural.

One might also hear, "Try these."

Having been informed of a Question Update, here is my new answer.

(try + to V)

We use this to indicate difficulty in the activity given by the verb.

for example, if some one is lying on the floor complaining of an injury to the leg, we might say try to stand up

This indicates that, because of the purported injury, we do not yet know whether this person will be able to stand or not.

Therefore, they should try and find out. (try v-ing)

We use this when suggesting a solution to a problem.

For example, if someone is beside you in the crowd of a sporting event or similar and they complain that they cannot see, you might respond try standing up Here

you are suggesting the activity given by the verb.

We know that the person is physically capable of standing up; we are suggesting that they 'try it out' to see what the results are.

Applying this to your example, 'try taking...' would appear to be correct since the doctor is probably not questioning your ability to swallow the pills but rather suggesting that they might solve your problem

(i.e. make you feel better).

Hope this helps.

I think these ones rather than just these implies there's some specific attribute applicable to each of the proffered alternatives, suggesting they've been individually checked and found to have the required attribute.

So a greengrocer might refer to some specially selected apples as these ones if you didn't fancy the scabby ones originally offered.

But I can't see a doctor using this construct to refer to an alternative pack of pills which he presumably hasn't even opened and examined.

I agree with @FumbleFingers that the inclusion of 'ones' seems to add emphasis on a difference between the old pills and the new (ones).

I'm not quite sure why there is so much question over 'these ones' from the other posters as I have always thought it ok.

Nevertheless, if you really do want to avoid it but still want to emphasise the difference, maybe go for:

Try these instead.

If I asked which one should I choose, you might answer: Try these If I then tried them and they were no good

and I asked for a replacement,

you might respond:

Try these instead Just to reiterate, I see no problem with 'these ones' and would even be happy with:

Try these ones instead

Question: A patient is complaining that the pills that he had given her a week ago don't help, so he opens a drawer, takes another pack of some other pills and says: "Try taking these ones".  Is it correct to say like this? Does it sound natural?

Is "try taking these ones" correct? (doctor speaking to a patient)

it is generally agreed that this phrase in this context is grammatically correct. However, there is no agreement as to whether or not it sounds natural. The term "these" instead of "these ones" may be preferred.

The stentence is grammatically correct and sounds natural. An alternative could be "try these". "Ones" is likely used to indicate specific pills and add emphasis.

It is perfectly correct and natural in this context to say "Try taking these ones".

Although people may not agree if it sounds natural, it is perfectly correct to say "Try taking these ones."

It is considered that this statement is grammatically correct, though it might sound a little unnatural.

I'm not quite sure why there is so much question over 'these ones' from the other posters as I have always thought it ok.

Nevertheless, if you really do want to avoid it but still want to emphasise the difference, maybe go for:

Suggesting an additional attribute to the designated object.

It is perfectly correct and natural in this context to say "Try taking these ones", although "these pills" and "these" are also correct.

This sentence might sound a little unnatural.

It is considered that this statement is grammatically correct.


If your target audience is the world, then you target not only people with a knowledge of American English, British English, and so on, but also people like myself, to whom English is not a mother tongue but a foreign language.

If reaching these people is important to you, then you might want to write in a relatively simple English, avoiding not only regionalisms, but also: Idioms

that are hard to understand; e.g., some sayings are not trivial or use unusual vocabulary.

As an example, I'd say that “a bitter pill to swallow” is rather straightforward to decipher, even if you have never encountered it before.

“An axe to grind”, on the other hand, is harder, probably because it refers to a situation that you is not part of daily life (for most of us) anymore!

Vocabulary that is out of the ordinary; for example, even though the many words describing different ways to hit or strike (something or someone) express different nuances, “hit” or “strike” is easier to read than “batter” or “thwack” or “clobber”.

Overall, providing a lot of context, and writing simple, concise sentences will help make your point clearer (and not only to “foreigners”).

I would suggest writing in the version of English you are most comfortable with.

That's what you'll communicate in most clearly, and everyone else will understand it from that domain.

English is broad church (British English bias intended :).

My preference in many circumstances would be to not unnecessarily burden yourself with removing any regional colour from your English writing.

Seeking to do so will eventually only make English into a more generic and less expressive language.

If the writing is online you can always make a helpful hyperlink or two.

It's important to be easily understood, but that's not the only important thing.

The answer to this is included in Postel 's Law : “be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others” .

My suggestion: go with what you are comfortable with.

For example, I'm an avid blogger, and I like writing, and I use British English (with a touch of our own Caribbean slang and other things) as my style/mood requires.

You need to be more concerned about using correct grammar and universally correct spelling ( there are some differences between American and British English, but those are not universal spelling/grammatical errors/issues ), than about whether you use American/British/Canadian/Martian English :).

In fact, you could more tend to find yourself in trouble should you try to adapt to the variant of English that you are not accustomed to.

I once researched how the English Wikipedia handles this, because I figured it must be a real issue for them, too.

(On a much larger scale than for you — no offense.

It seems like they are pretty laissez-faire on it.

Basically, their Manual of Style says: [...]

the English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language.

They're just trying to stay consistent inside an article, and to focus on one national variety when there are 'Strong national ties to a topic'.

Not sure how much this is really helping you, but I thought it was an interesting (and for me surprising) approach.

I expected them to focus on one variety, but I think I started my research when I realized that I had just read two article using different spelling varieties.

Question: I know that all variants of English ( American English ,  British English , etc.) can be generally  understood by everybody who knows any of the English variants. However, there are some regionalisms that can lead to ambiguity.   What are the things I must be aware of when the target audience (of my writing: book, blog, etc.) is the world?

Which variant of English should I use when my target audience is the world?

If your target audience is "the world" then this will include people for whom English is a second language. As a result, you may want to write in relatively simple English and avoid regionalisms. Some people would suggest that you should write in the version of English that you are most comfortable with as that's what you'll communicate in most clearly.

The suggestion is to use the language most comfortable. Try also to tailor language to target audience, but ensure grammar and spelling is correct. There is a suggestion of keeping local dialectic forms and be aware that even famous blog sites such as Wikipedia seem to mainly focus on consistency.

Attempt to write in relatively simple English and avoid regionalisms if possible.

While it is important to be easily understood, that is not the only important thing. It is recommended to write in the version of English you are most comfortable with. Correct grammar and universally correct spelling may be more important issues than whether you use American/British/Canadian English.

The most important thing when writing in English is to be understood and use correct grammar and spelling. Regional variations are less important and you should write in the form that you feel most comfortable with. Furthermore, if your target audience is "the world", then you may wish to take into consideration the levels of comprehension of non-native speakers.

I once researched how the English Wikipedia handles this, because I figured it must be a real issue for them, too.

I expected them to focus on one variety, but I think I started my research when I realized that I had just read two article using different spelling varieties.

that are hard to understand; e.g., some sayings are not trivial or use unusual vocabulary.

Decide your target audience and tailor your language. Offer a lot of contet, and write concisely is the recommendation.

Use the English you are most comfortable with.

Wikipedia has no particular standard or particular national variety of English

If your target audience is "the world", then you will need to consider the levels of comprehension of non-native speakers.

The most important thing is to be understood.

You should write in the form of English that you feel most comfortable with.

It's more important to focus on correct spelling and grammar than regional variations.


There are at least two different types of Eskimo: Inuit and Yupik.

In Canada and Greenland, the only type of Eskimo is the Inuit.

However in the United States, both types are present and in Russia, only the Yupik are present.

So, Eskimo couldn't really mean anything other than Inuit in Canada whereas in Alaska it could very well be referring to either.

In Russia, it could only mean the Yupik.

The point is that Eskimo is a more general word than Inuit.

All Inuit are Eskimos but

not all Eskimos are Inuit.

The two words aren't synonyms.

According to Wikipedia , the term is offensive in Canada and Greenland and not elsewhere.

As a Brit with relatively little knowledge of English as it's spoken on the other side of the pond, I would use Eskimo.

It has no negative connotations in Europe

I've heard the term 'Inuit' and vaguely associate it with Eskimo, but I'd never use it actively.

To answer your question, at least from the British perspective, yes it seems that it's only derogatory in Canada; and this is due neither to ignorance nor apathy, to us

it's the correct word.

Having been born and raised in various parts of Alaska I can say, yes, the word is considered offensive there.

Its usage in the media is usually accurate, as most northern indigenous peoples can safely be referred to as 'Eskimos', but the term is a wide generalization - and most wide generalizations are offensive to those they encompass.

If you find yourself about to use the term in conversation, try a more specific replacement.

In Alaska, the most congenial would be 'Alaska Native'.

But I see the term "Eskimo" popping up regularly in news articles that I read; I hardly see the term "Inuit" being used.

Why?

Ignorance?

Apathy?

I would chalk it up to more ignorance than apathy, and also because there is no other generic shorthand word to refer to all the native peoples of northern Canada, Russia, Greenland, and Alaska.

Is the term "Eskimo" offensive only in Canada, or in the rest of the world too?

The Inuit of Canada and Greenland find the word to be pejorative, so the Government of Canada and the media in Canada have understandably taken this into account and refer to them by their own name for themselves.

Many people in Canada don't realize the Inuit consider it a slur, and even less know this in the rest of the world, so you'll continue to see the word in print.

There is a nice explanation by the Alaska Native Language Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks: Although the name "Eskimo" is commonly used in Alaska to refer to all Inuit and Yupik people of the world, this name is considered derogatory in many other places because it was given by non-Inuit people and was said to mean "eater of raw meat."

Linguists now believe that "Eskimo" is derived from an Ojibwa word meaning "to net snowshoes."

However, the people of Canada and Greenland prefer other names.

"Inuit," meaning "people," is used in most of Canada, and the language is called "Inuktitut" in eastern Canada although other local designations are used also.

The Inuit people of Greenland refer to themselves as "Greenlanders" or "Kalaallit" in their language, which they call "Greenlandic" or "Kalaallisut."

Most Alaskans continue to accept the name "Eskimo," particularly because "Inuit" refers only to the Inupiat of northern Alaska, the Inuit of Canada, and the Kalaallit of Greenland, and it is not a word in the Yupik languages of Alaska and Siberia.

I strongly suspect that the claim that "Eskimo" means "eater of raw meat" is an urban legend, just like the "Eskimo words for snow" claim.

The term may be offensive if it's an overly broad or an exclusionary term, but that's a different kettle of fish.

As a random factoid, Esky is a genericized trademark for portable cooler in Australia.

Another brand of portable cooler/esky is Igloo .

Question: I know that "Eskimo" is an offensive term in Canada; they use the term "Inuit".   But I see the term "Eskimo" popping up regularly in news articles that I read; I hardly see the term "Inuit" being used. Why? Ignorance? Apathy?  Is the term "Eskimo" offensive only in Canada, or in the rest of the world too?

Is "Eskimo" a universally offensive term?

"Eskimo" may be used in various news articles because "Eskimo" is a more general word than "Inuit" and the two words aren't synonyms. Additionally, the term "Eskimo" is only considered offensive in Canada and Greenland and has no negative connotations in Europe. However, in any case, it is more likely to be the result of ignorance than aparthy, since there is no other general shorthand word to refer to all native peoples in northern Canada, Russia and Greenland.

The two words are not synonyms. Eskimo is a more general term than Inuit. There are at least two different types of Eskimo, including Inuit and Yupik. Canada is home to Inuits only, Russia only has Yupiks and both peoples live in the US.

The use of "Eskimo" in the media is usually accurate, as most northern indigenous peoples can safely be referred to as "Eskimos". The term is a wide generalization, but there is no other generic way to refer to the native peoples of northern Canada, Russia, Greenland, and Alaska. The Inuit of Canada and Greenland find the word "Eskimo" to be pejorative, so the Canadian government and media have adopted the term "Inuit". Many people in Canada don't realize that  the Inuit consider it a slur, and even fewer know this in the rest of the world, so you will continue to see the word in print.

The term "eskimo" is considered to be offensive only in North America and nowhere else. As a result, it may be frequently used simply as a result of ignorance. However, some usage in the media may be correct since there is no other term that performs the same function.

As a Brit with relatively little knowledge of English as it's spoken on the other side of the pond, I would use Eskimo.

There are at least two different types of Eskimo, including Inuit and Yupik. Canada is home to Inuits only. Russia only has Yupiks and both peoples live in the US.

Usage of the word "eskimo" may be correct as there is no other term that accurately describes the peoples in question, but generalisations like this do tend to cause offense.

Use of the word "eskimo" is probably due to ignorancy more than apathy since the term is not offensive in many other parts of the world.

The term "eskimo" is considered to be offensive in North America but nowhere else.