Profiteering can be used here.

From Cambridge Dictionary : profiteer (noun): a person who takes advantage of a situation in which other people are suffering to make a profit, often by selling at a high price goods which are difficult to get.

profiteering (noun):

The pharmaceutical company has been charged with profiteering from the AIDS crisis.

From Oxford Dictionaries : profiteer (verb)

: make or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally: seven food merchants were charged with profiteering.

'Hoarding' is the word that comes to my mind.

That at least covers the storage of scarce resources, but I'm not sure if it is really the right word to include selling it at a higher price.

How about 'Price-fixing'?

That would be a collection of 'competitors', artificailly increasing the price by some means (possibly by limiting supply).

This is the very definition of " cornering the market ."

There is a general phrase that has made itself into a legal one: Price Gouging

In New York it reads as follows:

New York State’s Price Gouging Law (General Business Law § 396-r) prohibits merchants from taking unfair advantage of consumers by selling goods or services that are “vital to the health, safety or welfare of consumers” for an "unconscionably excessive price" during an abnormal disruption of the market place or state of emergency.

An abnormal disruption in the market place may be triggered by "weather events, power failures, strikes, civil disorder, war, military action, national or local emergency, or other causes.” https://ag.ny.gov/price-gouging

Cornering the Market is the best term if you're actually buying so much of the item that prices go up.

It rarely happens.

Stockpiling implies that you're stocking up on something, without necessarily implying that you plan to profit from that.

Profiteering is simply a value-laden term for increasing prices when demand goes up.

Hoarding implies keeping a disproportionate share of something for oneselve, not necessarily for profit.

As I stated in a comment earlier to moioci, "cornering the market" merely means having complete control of it, not necessarily by hoarding a commodity.

A few examples, quickly found: Dell set to corner the market for desktop virtualization hardware Apple trying to corner market on location-based advertising?

Is a Silver Market Corner Underway?

Romero's Undead Island Trying To Corner The Market On Water Zombies Will Microsoft Corner the Desktop Security Market?

And even: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/24

My "source" is obvious: widespread, common usage.

The definition given in Wikipedia is a narrow one applying to a specific domain.

The term has much much broader use.

Please, people!

Wikipedia is not the holy scriptures!

At least look a little bit further!

The proper answer would be a combination of all the terms Joel mentioned: "Hoarding and Stockpiling with an intention to Profiteer and Corner the Market".

I know of no single word in English for this, but "Cornering the market" is not it.

Perhaps you could assemble one in German?

Arbitrage is a related term for taking advantage of difference in prices, and may include storing something for later sale.

For instance, if the arbitrageur can secure storage for less than the difference in price between buying today and a contract for sale in the future.

This might occur when the market is expecting the price of the commodity to increase dramatically, and therefore prices for future contracts are still high.

However, it does not relate to trying to increase demand by lowering supply.

I believe the word you're looking for is "forestall".

According to Webster's dictionary : 1: to prevent the normal trading in by buying or diverting goods or by persuading persons to raise prices forestalling the wheat harvest and selling it at three times its cost — G. B. Shaw

Question: Like storing gasoline to create an artificial demand and sell it a higher price later.

Word for when people store scarce resources to increase demand and sell at higher price

There may not be any single word that describes such a concept. However, some words that might convey a similar meaning include "Profiteering", "Hoarding", or "Arbitrage" which is a related term for taking advantage of difference in prices.

Profiteering  is one suggestion as according to the Cambridge Dictionary, refers to  a person who takes  advantage of a situation in which  other people are suffering to make a  profit, often by selling at a high  price goods which are difficult to  get.  Others argue that profiteering  is simply a value-laden term for increasing prices when demand goes up.  Hoarding is another suggestion, but this  implies keeping a disproportionate share of something for oneselve, not necessarily for profit. S0: Cornering the Market  is another term if you're actually buying so much of the item that prices go up. But you could argue that "cornering the market" merely means having complete control of it, not necessarily by hoarding a commodity.  There is also a general phrase that has made itself into a legal one:  Price Gouging. And finally, arbitrage  is a related term for taking advantage of difference in prices, and may include storing something for later sale and according to  Webster's dictionary : 'forestall' means to prevent the normal trading in by buying or diverting goods or by persuading persons to raise prices.

Suggested expressions and terms include profiteering, hoarding, price gouging, arbitrage and forestalling.

There may not be any single word that describes such a concept. However, some words that might convey a similar meaning include "Profiteering", "Hoarding", or "Arbitrage".

Arbitrage  is a related term for taking advantage of difference in prices, and may include storing something for later sale.

According to  Webster's dictionary : 'forestall' means to prevent the normal trading in by buying or diverting goods or by persuading persons to raise prices

There are a range of terms that may be applicable to such a concept, such as "Profiteering", "Hoarding" or "Arbitrage".

There is no single word in English to describe such a phenomenon.


Thee , thou , and thine (or thy ) are Early Modern English second person singular pronouns.

Thou is the subject form (nominative), thee is the object form, and thy

/thine is the possessive form.

Before they all merged into the catch-all form you , English second person pronouns distinguished between nominative and objective, as well as between singular and plural (or formal): thou - singular informal, subject ( Thou art here.

You are here. )

thee - singular informal, object ( He gave it to thee. )

ye - plural or formal

, subject you - plural or formal, object Interestingly, when the first English translations of the Bible were being made, the informal thee and thou were used specifically in reference to God to indicate an approachable, familiar God, but as the language changed this paradoxically brought thee and thou to sound more formal to the modern English speaker.

‘Thou’ is historically perceived in Yorkshire (England) as being disrespectful, or over-familiar in a formal context, e.g. if used to address a teacher, or upon greeting a stranger…

However, ‘thee’ is perceived to be more respectful, as with the French usage of the words ‘vous’ and ‘tu’, of which ‘tu’ is regarded as offensive if used inappropriately (another conversation altogether).

Barnsley folk are especially well know for having the bad habit of using ‘thou’, including one instance I’ve heard of with a French teacher, who mistakenly believed it to be endearing, and quickly chastised her pupils once she was put in the picture.

A classic Yorkshire phrase, often attributed to Ossett: Don't thee thou me, thee thou thissen, and 'ow tha likes thee thouing.

(Don't you thou me, you thou yourself, and see how you like it!)

A paradigm would help here: I, me, my (mine) we, us, our(s) thou, thee, thy (thine) you, you, your(s)

he/she, him/her, his/her(s)

they, them, their(s) A table would be better still

but I don't know how to do that here.

Now all you've got to remember is that the left side of the second row is obsolete, so that both sides of that row are now the same.

If you're ever moved to try to sound archaic, as when using a rotary dial phone or having God over for tea, you can use the second row, choosing the appropriate form on the pattern of the corresponding forms in the first or third row.

There are still a lot of dialect forms heard in different places.

For instance in a pub in Edinburgh

I saw a sign above a urinal:

NOW WASH YOUR HANDS.

Under it one wag (or just a Scottish pedant)

had written

We Scots dinna pee on we'r hands .

Perfectly good Scots - and perfectly good sense too.

Great answer from keithjgrant.

Put otherwise, thou is closely equivalent to the French tu or the German du , and ye is like the French vous or the German Sie.

These answers are helpful.

To succinctly clarify one aspect:

Thou is a more familiar or informal way to say 'you.'

Thee is the more formal way to say 'you.'

Dustin Hoffman, as Ben Braddock, might say "Dost thee desire tea, Mrs. Robinson?"

but "Dost thou desire tea, Elaine?"

I was 'brung-up reet proper' around Preston, Colne, Lytham and so on.

This is now forty years ago and these forms existed then and were in common use.

Thou didn't exist except in approbation.

If thou don't come 'ere reet

now I'll give 'ee heck.

The most common usage was Thee/

Thou art.

You could never tell which it was because it was always spoken as Th'art.

As pointed out before thy is possessive, but it could used in place of thee/thou.

If thy (or maybe tha) wants some th'ard better get a move on.

I am not quite sure what verb and conjugation 'ard is.

And th'all

(they-all this time) knew a brogue was a shoe.

(cf.

y'all Central SE USA) Only just realised ...

them there

Lancashire lads also tended to pronounce words like knew with an American-ish vowel sound.

Question: What is the difference between  thee  and  thou  and how are they used?

What is the difference between "thee" and "thou"?

"Thee" and "Thou" are both Early Modern English second-person singular pronouns. "Thou" is considered disrespectful in Yorkshire, whereas "Thee" is considered more respectful.

They are Early Modern English forms of second person "you". Local variants can occur.

Thee ,  thou , and  thine  (or  thy ) are Early Modern English second person singular pronouns.  Thou  is the subject form (nominative),  thee  is the object form, and  thy. Put otherwise,  thou  is closely equivalent to the French  tu  or the German  du , and  ye  is like the French  vous  or the German  Sie.

Thee ,  thou , and  thine  (or  thy ) are Early Modern English second person singular pronouns. However, ‘thee’ is perceived to be more respectful. ‘Thou’ is historically perceived in Yorkshire (England) as being disrespectful, or over-familiar in a formal context.

Thee and Thou are Early Modern English second-person singular pronouns.

Thou is considered disrespectful in Yorkshire.


The a/an rule is based purely on sound.

Would you say the words inside the parentheses if you were reading the sentence out loud?

If yes, then you use the first word in the parentheses to decide whether or not to use an or a .

If not, then—wait, what do you mean you wouldn’t say the words in parentheses?!

The example given is not parenthetical: (i)

I need a (memorable) idiom.

A parenthesis is a remark which you insert into the middle of a sentence as if you are interrupting yourself.

A parenthesis contributes to the meaning of the sentence but interrupts and stands outside its syntax.

In writing, we typically use curved brackets, dashes, or commas to mark a parenthesis.

The syntax of the example sentence is not interrupted by the word memorable .

Instead, the word memorable functions as an adjective modifying idiom .

Consequently, the pronunciation rule applies to the word memorable and the article to use is a .

Compare this variation: (ii)

I need an (well, if I need anything at all) idiom .

Not an example of great writing, to be sure.

But it shows how a parenthesis interrupts and stands outside the syntax of a sentence.

The phrase “well, if I need anything at all” is not part of the noun phrase “an idiom”.

The pronunciation rule still applies, but it applies to the word idiom and the article to use is an .

This is true even though you would not normally pair an with well .

You would, for instance, say: (iii)

I need a well known idiom.

The difference is that well is parenthetical only in example (ii) above.

A bracket only means that the word or phrase inside is less important or in some cases less relevant.

But in any case that does not exclude bracketed words from the general sentence structure.

Therefore, in this case the preferred way is: I need a (memorable) idiom.

But you must understand that this is only the preferred way, not necessarily the right way.

English is a rapidly growing and changing language and has numerous styles and methods.

Sometimes more than one way can be called "right".

And in my opinion both examples may be correct grammatically.

You choose "an" vs. "a" based on the following word, be it in brackets or parentheses or anything else.

Having the word in (parentheses) doesn't change this any more than having a word in "quotes" or italics does.

As a practical matter, I try to match the a/an status of first word enclosed in parentheses and the first word on the other side of them.

Thus, in this instance, I might try: I need an (easy-to-remember) idiom.

or: I need an (unforgettable) idiom.

If no available alternative adequately expressed my intended meaning, I would simply drop the parentheses:

I need a memorable idiom. or rework the sentence to avoid the break after the indefinite article:

I need an idiom (memorable preferred).

I call my policy "practical" because I suspect that a mismatch—justifiable or not on appeal to logic or to outside authorities—would be distracting to a certain number of readers, and I would rather have them focus on what I'm trying to say than ponder whether I've used the right indefinite article.

Since the trick of enclosing a word or phrase in parentheses for effect isn't high on my list of essential literary tools, I don't mind using it after a/an only when the preceding indefinite article suits both the first word in parentheses and the first word beyond them.

Parentheses are meant to be optional; the sentence should make sense both with and without the "memorable".

So neither option will work.

Instead, try: I need a memorable idiom.

I need a (preferably memorable) idiom.

I need an idiom (which must be memorable).

I need a (memorable) way of putting things.

It all depends on how you would read it aloud.

In your example you want "an".

Reading this aloud you would not notice the bracket and instead want to hear "an easy".

If you had a parenthetical phrase rather than a tightly coupled adjective you might want to keep the article tied to its eventual partner.

For instance, "He provides a (actually he doesn't provide much of anything

and I hate his stupid guts) path to information.

" In this case, it sounds like you've broken off from the main idea of the sentence and your parenthetical expression is more of an apostrophe .

Since it's followed by memorable , not idiom , in your second example, a is the correct choice.

In real life, you'd say "I need a memorable idiom".

So write it that way too.

In this particular structure, I have no doubt the article would go with the parenthetical:

"an (easy) path," because we read the sentence with the parenthetical (that part with a pause and a 'lower tone' to signify parenthesis).

We don't skip it.

Question: When  a/an  precedes a parenthetical aside (sometimes seen in informal/conversational writing), should the vowel rule depend on the first word in parentheses, or the next word in the "regular" flow of the sentence?   I need a (memorable) idiom (preceding an  m  word; use  a )   or   I need an (memorable) idiom (preceding an  i  word; use  an )

"A/An" preceding a parenthetical statement

It is possible that both options are grammatically correct, although some people would say that it entirely depends on how the sentence would be read aloud.

The a/an rule is based on sound. The answer is "a (memorable idiom)". The syntax of the sentence is not affected by the parenthesis. Reading this sentence out loud, the bracket would have no effect. Consequently, the pronunciation rule applies to the word "memorable"  and the article before it is  " a".  The presence of the parenthesis does not interrupt the word "memorable" and so the pronunciation rule applies.The answer is "a" as the indefinite article. However, some people believe both answers are grammatically correct as there are different styles in English which they consider to be a growing language.

The  a/an  rule is based purely on sound. It all depends on how you would read it aloud. Therefore, in this case the preferred way is:   I need a (memorable) idiom.   You choose "an" vs. "a" based on the following word, be it in brackets or parentheses or anything else.

The pronunciation rule still applies, but it applies to the word  idiom  and the article to use is  an. It depends on how you would read it aloud. However, both examples may be grammatically correct.

The a/an rule is based on sound. The answer is a (memorable idiom). The syntax of the sentence is not affected by the parenthesis. Consequently, the pronunciation rule applies to the word memorable  and the article to use is " a".  The presence of the parenthesis does not interrupt the word "memorable" and so the pronunciation rule applies.The brackets or parentheses have no effect on the structure of the sentence, so normal grammar rules apply i.e "a" before "memorable" and "an" before "idiom"

The bracket has no effect on the structure of the sentence

If there is no alternative to the problem, try using an alternative.

The solution is to use either a/a depending on the word in brackets.

In this particular structure, I have no doubt the article would go with the parenthetical:

Some people would argue that the correct answer in this example is "an".

Some people would argue that the correct answer is "a".

Some people argue that the correct answer depends on how the sentence would be read aloud.

It's possible that both are grammatically correct.


There are three very different uses of that : Subordinating that : “I know that this is the answer.”

Demonstrative pronoun that : “ That is not the answer.”

Adjectival

that : “ That answer is not it.”

Double that occurs because the first that is the subordinating that , and the second that is a demonstrative pronoun or adjectival that .

That is, if you subordinate a clause that begins with pronominal or adjectival that with that , you get that that , as in “you know that that that that from the previous sentence was different from the one in this sentence.”

Of course it is acceptable grammar .

The rules of English grammar are the very reason why such "strange things" happen in the first place.

Now, whether or not you actually end up using a double "that" or rewording it, is a different question.

But it is a question of style .

Read: personal preference.

Personally, more often than not, I don't find a double "that" to be distracting or leading to confusion at all.

Quite the contrary: it is a) perfectly self-explanatory and b)

it certainly leads to less confusion than leaving one of those "that"s out.

I don't think that that is a problem.

Having said that, it would still make sense if one of the "that"s in the previous sentence were omitted.

EDIT:

In response to Reg's comment: If a "that" is omitted, it's the first one that is removed.

Replacing the second "that" with "it" may clarify things: I don't think that it is a problem.

I don't think

it is a problem.

Hence saying "I don't think that is a problem" is fine - as long as you're familiar with this particular usage of the word "that".

If not, then it could obviously cause confusion.

This is correct.

The two words are performing different functions.

The first that is used to introduce a clause.

The second that is used to refer to a specific thing.

I would argue that it might very well be correct, but if it makes you uncomfortable, it may also distract your readers.

You've likely seen the common example: The human brain often skips any extra words that appear in the the sentence they're reading The same behaviour might happen with the extra "that" appearing in your sentence.

So while it might be correct in theory, perhaps you could reword your sentence such that it becomes more readable for your audience.

It's perfectly fine to write "that that" or to simply write "that": your choice, your style, your need at the moment.

If the question is about how do I handle the problem personally, I always try to minimize my usage of the word "that" in order to avoid these instances altogether.

That bike that is blue" becomes " the bike which is blue" or simply, "the blue bike."

Therefore: "That that is blue" becomes "that which is blue" or even "what is blue" in some contexts.

"I know that it is true" becomes "I know it is true."

I simply omit the word "that" and it still works.

"That that is true" becomes "That which is true" or simply, "The truth."

I do this

not because it is grammatically incorrect, but because it is more aesthetically pleasing.

The overuse of the word "that" is a hallmark of lazy speech.

Indeed, if avoiding these instances causes you to think outside the box, your speech and writing will become more fresh and creative as a result.

To clarify, I don't go out of my way to avoid the word "that."

I simply reduce my daily usage of it in order to avoid confusion.

I use 'that that' quite often because it gives you an explicit reference to the exact subject referred to previously.

Simply replacing it with 'this' sometimes will not do as I sometimes wish to refer to 'that' specifically.

Question: Have you ever had a case where you felt compelled to include strange things like a double  that  in a sentence? If so, then what did you do to resolve this?  For me, I never knew whether it was acceptable grammar. However, what I did learn was that it was a  logic distractor , could lead to confusion, and therefore should be reworded to avoid this.

How do you handle "that that"? The double "that" problem

In is generally agreed that "that that" is not a problem in English grammar. However, you might want to re-word a sentence such that it becomes more readable for your audience.

It is correct because both words are performing different functions. The first "that" is introducing the subordinate clause and the second one is a demonstrative adjective.  However, for stylistically the word choice could be changed so as not to confuse the reader. It is not distracting, so it is perfectly fine to use both "thats" in this sentence. Indeed, the human brain has a tendency to skip words, so in this sentence, this could be of benefit here where the second "that" is ignored.

This is acceptable  grammar and is a question of  style . It would still make sense if one of the "that"s in the sentence were omitted.  Replacing the second "that" with "it" may clarify things:   I don't think that  it  is a problem.  But bear in mind that the two words are performing different functions.

A double "that" is not distracting and does not lead to confusion. However,  you may prefer to reword your sentence so that it becomes more readable for your audience.

In is generally agreed that "that that" is not a problem in English grammar. However, you might want to re-word a sentence to remove "that that" if you feel it will make a more comfortable read.

It is correct because the first "that" is introducing the subordinate clause and the second one is a demonstrative adjective.  Both words are performing different functions.

For clarification, the word choice could be changed.

It is generally agreed that this is not a grammar problem in writing.

You may want to re-word your sentence in order to remove instances of "that that" if you feel that it will make a more comfortable read.


As you said, it means "kind of".

It's very informal and you won't find it in dictionaries.

In formal contexts, you can use "rather" with the same meaning, e.g.: It was rather cold.

Note: "kind of" is in the Merriam-Webster dictionary (see below).

"Kinda" is not.

Definition: 1:

to a moderate degree 2:

in a way that approximates : moreor less Synonyms: enough,

kindly [chiefly Southern],fairly, like, moderately, more orless, pretty, quite, rather,relatively, something, somewhat, sortof

The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) has 1650 incidences of kinda : TOTAL SPOKEN FICTION MAGAZINE NEWSPAPER ACADEMIC1650 172 1023 244 169 42

It is used overwhelmingly in fiction, and the few examples in newspapers and academic texts are almost exclusively in quotations of spoken English.

So, as the other answers have said, kinda is a pretty informal word, not used in formal texts except in quotations.

I personally would only use the word in very informal situations.

Its 1650 incidences in COCA are comparable to other adverbs, such as besides (1720), tight (1642), and regardless (1607).

As to whether or not it is an “actual” word, I think this is pretty clear evidence that it is.

As for its acceptability, it is listed in some dictionaries, including Random House and Merriam-Webster .

Wiktionary contains such words.

The entry for kinda ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kinda ) includes: kinda (colloquial) kind of

I kinda hafta do this right now.

That's kinda funny.

The NOAD reports that kinda is an informal contraction of kind of ; it was first used in the early 20th century, and it was originally an American English alternation.

Kind of is an informal phrase for rather .

It is a word in spoken language and used in private letter-writing, but has not yet reached the level of recognition as standard language just as words like gonna, or "of" for have and others.

One more generation

and it is in dictionaries with a note about usage and in two generations it will be a normal variant.

Authorities at Oxford and Webster do not control or shape the English Language, they only define it.

In reality, the collective mind of every English speaker shapes the language.

And because some words have gained popularity in some groups and not others, the language has spread out into many dialects.

If you've ever read Mark Twain, you might have found his works difficult to understand as he wrote in the dialect of the Mississipi region.

Now imagine if all English speakers wrote in their own dialect.

We would all have to make a great effort to understand each other.

Authorities of the English language basically determine what words and grammatical structures

the majority of English speakers can understand, so that every English speaker can read books and other published works without trouble.

However, not everyone can understand their English.

My mother teaches in an inner city school and many of her students struggle in grammar because phrases like "Y'all goin' to the zoo

" sound perfectly fine to them as they are grammatically correct in their dialect.

So in short, "kinda" is a word, but not in the common dialect that English Authorities provide.

When writing, I would consider to what audience the work is intended for.

For example, if I were to write an article about the Packers and Bears rivalry, I would use it because people in the Midwestern United States commonly use it.

However I would replace it with a word like "rather" or find stronger diction if writing a formal and proper essay to an English Teacher.

Question: I've used "kinda" as a word basically meaning "kind of" just run together. I wouldn't use it formally, but I noticed that Microsoft Word's spellchecker says that it isn't a word. I searched some and it seems that I'm not the only one who uses it, but it doesn't seem to be too popular.   So is it an actual word? How accepted is it?

Is "kinda" a word?

"Kinda" is indeed a word but is very informal and you won't find it in dictionaries. Any examples in formal or academic texts will be almost exclusively in quotations of spoken English.

"Kinda" is the contraction "kind of" and is thus the colloquial form of "kind of".  It is the alternative to "rather". It can be found in a wide number of  publications as well as in dictionaries such as the Merriam-Webster. The preference for its use can be personal, but generally its use informally is preferred. It has not achieved the recognition of standard English and very much remains in the domain of informal language.

This means "kind of" and it is very informal and you won't find it in dictionaries. 'kinda'  is a pretty informal word, not used in formal texts except in quotations.

Although listed in some dictionaries, "kinda" is very informal and is used in spoken word and fiction. It is not used in formal texts.

"Kinda" is indeed a word but is generally only accepted in informal settings or fiction. It will be very rarely found in formal or academic work and it may not be found in every dictionary.

"kinda" means "kind of" and is a colloquial form. It is the alternative to "rather"

It is mainly used informally. There are a lot of uses in a wide range of publications. The choice of use is personal and can depend on target audidence.

It is also present in some dictionaries including the Merriam-Webster.

The alternative is "rather" or another word if writing a formal essay.

"Kinda" is a very informal word and won't be used in formal settings.

"Kinda is indeed a word, and is included in some dictionaries.

"Kinda" is used a lot in fiction but not much in academic writing.


"Subtract" is the word.

Though the obsolete word "substract" did exist, any occurrence you see these days is most likely just a common mistake, formed by analogy either with "abstract" or with other languages whose corresponding words do have two ‘s’s.

Many recent dictionaries do not list "substract".

Of "substract", the Century Dictionary (1891) said : An erroneous form of subtract , common in vulgar use.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary of 1913 called it "obsolete", while the even older version of 1828 said Note.--Substract was formerly used in analogy with abstract.

But in modern usage, it is written according to the Latin, subtract.

See this word and its derivatives.

Additionally, I know people who find "substract" very annoying. :-)

It seems that the usage of "substract" is linguistically incorrect.

However, I disagree about explaining this usage as a "showing-off".

It seems that other languages do contain the letter "s" as in "soustraction" in French.

People with a multi-lingual background are more likely to make mistakes, and it is nice if we just point that out to them without prejudice.

French people use "substract" mistakingly a lot because in french, the word is "soustraction", which contains the sound "s" inside.

If sub s tract is incorrect according to established English usage, this is only because English usage derives this verb from Latin subtraho ‘to subtract’, which excludes the ‑s‑ .

In many a Romance language — for example, in Spanish — it derives from the Latin prefix

sub‑ coupled with the Latin verb extraho ‘to extract’; hence Spanish sub s traer .

You say ‘sub-tract’ in English where in Spanish we say ‘sub-

ex tract’ ; hence the extra s .

Substract is incorrect in English, but it could equally have been correct if imported differently.

I've never heard of "substract" and, more to the point, neither has my edition of the Oxford English Dictionary.

Even if it is a word, assuming that it means the same as "subtract" I can't see any point in preferring it over the better known word, apart from showing off.

I found the word "substract" in a memoir written by an old Boston lady in the 1920s, describing how she as a child (during the 1850s) pilfered newspapers from her mother's cache and was able to trade them for candy.

I like this usage, as it conveys a kind of arch, sneaky tone better than either "extract" or "subtract"

But it's not mathematical at all.

By looking at the etymology, we can see that "substract" is erroneous.

"subtract" is derived from a the Latin compound verb "subtraho", whose supine is "subtractum".

There is no form "substraho" of this verb.

Question: I read an article recently where the author used "substract" instead of "subtract".  I'm more familiar with the latter word but after doing a bit of googling, it seems that both words are being used, although "subtract" seems more mainstream than the other. Which of the two is more appropriate? Is "substract" even acceptable?

Is "substract" (versus "subtract") a proper word?

"Substract" is linguistically incorrect and many recent dictionaries do not list it. It may have existed in the past, but any occurrence you see these is most likely a common mistake, and there is no obvious reason to prefer it over the better known word, "subtract".

The verb subtract derives from Latin "subtraho". "Substract" is incorrect in English and is not in the Oxford English Dictionary, although the word has been found to be used in literature in the 1920s. Etymologically, "substract" is incorrect as the Latin compound verb is "subtraho"

"Subtract" is the correct word. The obsolete word "substract"  did  exist at one time though, but the usage of "substract" is linguistically incorrect and it is not listed in current dictionaries.

Though the obsolete word "substract"  did  exist, any occurrence you see these days is most likely just a common mistake. Many recent dictionaries do not list "substract".

"Substract" is incorrect English and does not appear in the dictionary. It may have existed in the past, but it is certainly not used any longer and there is no obvious reason to opt for it over "subtract".

"Substract" has been used in writings to designate "remove"

The obsolete word "substract"  did  exist at one time though.

The usage of "substract" is linguistically incorrect and it is not listed in current dictionaries.

"Substract" does not exist in the dictionary and is incorrect English.

The word "substract" may have existed in the past, but it is no longer used.

There is no clear reason to use "substract" over "subtract".


If I am addressing a few people who are well known to me, I would generally use: Dear John, Bill, Jack, If I am addressing a lot of people, or people who are not familiar to me, I would go with:

Dear All,

If you don't know the recipients' names, I refer you to the other answers.

However, if you do know their names, then I will add that I would actually just write: Dear John, Dear Jack, I have been using this formula for more than a decade.

So far, nobody has complained.

For me, this approach has quite a few advantages.

First of all, it is more personal than simply "Greetings" or "Hi all".

Secondly, if one of those people is the main recipient and the other is CC, or if one of them has a higher rank (say, he is the boss of the other), I can reflect that in my address by mentioning him first.

Lastly, this formula can be easily adapted to many situations.

If some (or all) of the recipients are female I simply write:

Dear John, Dear Jane, If I need to make it more formal, I simply write:

Dear Mr. Smith, Dear Ms. Black,

And I can easily extend it to three or even four people: Dear Mr. Smith, Dear Ms. Black, Dear Mr. Blunt,

Now, when I am addressing more than four people, I often do use something like "Greetings", "Hi everybody", "Dear clients", "Dear colleagues".

However, even then I sometimes set the most important recipient apart by writing:

Dear Prof. Black, Dear colleagues, or Dear Mr. President, Dear Members of the Committee,

I rarely begin emails with a salutation.

If I do, it is usually just the name - I have never transferred the pointless 'Dear' to emails.

If I wanted to put one in a group email, I suppose I would start with a word like "friends", or "people", or "folks", depending on the context and formality.

It's kind of a carryover from my medievalist hobby, but I really like using Greetings, or even Greetings! for emails to a group of people.

It's also really handy for addressing a single person when you're unsure of that person's gender and/or title.

If you are working together on a project, then I rather like Dear team

This can be appropriate even if the recipients include people from both your company and the client.

It's a subtle reminder that you are all working towards a common goal.

More generally, I'd just use Dear all, or just All,

"Sirs" is just completely wrong.

If you are addressing more than one man, it would be "Gentlemen".

Email is still sufficiently young that formal conventions have not emerged.

I find it useful to imagine myself in the mind of the recipient and ask what information I need to give them in the greeting.

If the email is really to be sent with equal priority to a number of recipients and they regard themselves as part of a group (fellow developers for example), then I would use Dear All, If, actually, the email is a mailshot to a number of individuals who don't know each other, then its an individual email.

Dear Sir, or possibly Dear Sir (or Madam), Here, I prefer to use the convention that Sir is neuter.

And lastly, if an email is really to a single individual, but with a few more individuals copied in (such as a question to an individual developer, but where I want the email trail to be visible to the group), then I would use Dear Bob (Alice, Charlie, Dilbert)

The last one is not a convention I have seen elsewhere, but I find it works for me.

I have been using, "Hello to all".

It seems to work well for both male and female recipients and is formal enough to use in a business setting.

If it is a formal letter, then you can use 'Dear Sirs' but if it is informal, simply 'Hi' is fine. '

Hi' addresses either one person or many, the same as 'you' refers to one person or many.

I would not ever use 'Gentlemen', but I am from Australia where our English is more informal.

I usually just use the words

Hi All,

You can also use gents to refer to many recipients.

I agree with louiser89 and I will add that - even though many people or perhaps most people don't think that "Dear" is appropriate on emails - I will continue to use "Dear" or, in my language, "Caro (Cara)".

It is not only because we have always used it in letters and in commercial correspondence; it is not just traditions.

"Dear" is a nice word, it is gentle and polite.

It is not a word that could ever offend anybody.

And it is certainly not formal, unless you consider formal the people you love or that you consider your friends, or the people you like.

So why not use it also in emails?

How can something nice become formal or old fashioned or, worse, strongly disliked?

Of course we should never consider it obligatory, but why be against it?

Dear Friends, don't be too angry with me: English is not my language, but it is a very "dear" language to me for many reasons.

Question: How do you greet multiple recipients in an e-mail?  Assuming they're both male, I just use "Sirs", but it seems a bit informal.

How do you greet multiple recipients in an e-mail?

There are many different ways of addressing a group in an e-mail. Depending on how formal the message is, you could start with "Dear All", "Dear Sirs" or "Gentlemen". If you're working on a project together, you could simply write "Dear team". However, you may just want to write all of their names individually if you know them.

There are numerous and highly subjective suggestions as how to address people on email. There is the option of using "Dear" and variant uses of "Dear" depending on the familiarity with the recipient/s with the option of adding or not their first name. Some people disagree with using "Dear", but others think it is a gentle and polite word. Others use other generic forms of salutation such as "Greetings", whereas some do not use any salutation at all. It is suggested that as email is a recent form of communication, no standardised salutations have emerged. However, some consider"sirs" to be incorrect in this context whereas "Gentlemen" would be more appropriate, even though Australians feel "Gentlemen" is too informal and "gents" could be used. On the other hand, some believe "Dear Sirs" is correct in a formal setting. Others use "Hi" and "Hello to all" as other suggestions to greet a group of people.

Email is still sufficiently young that formal conventions have not emerged. If you  know their names, I would actually just write:   Dear John, Dear Jack. A more general greeing is to just use   Dear all,   or just   All or hello to all.  Some suggest not starting emails with a salutation.

Suggestions include Dear all; Gentlemen; Hello to all; Hi; and Dear team. Alternatively, you could greet the people individually, as in: Dear John, Dear Jack

Use of "Dear" and variant uses of "Dear"

Personal style greetings used for emails to a group, which would depend on context.

You could just write all their names individually.

Some possibilities for addressing a group are "Dear All", "Dear Sirs" or "Gentlemen", depending on who you're writing to and how formal you want to be.

If you are working together on a project, you could address them as "team".


The pronunciation/spelling-out of "1:1" is "one to one" or "one-to-one.

" I just wanted to add that you wouldn't say "ratio one-to-one.

" You would either say "a ratio of one-to-one" or "a one-to-one ratio."

In speech this is obviously always pronounced "ratio one to one."

In writing, it is a matter of style.

Anything of a technical nature should always be written in the 1:1 form, but when writing prose, fiction or something informal, you should certainly consider writing it as it would be spoken: "The mix was applied in a one-to-one ratio."

The use of hyphenation and words instead of numerals makes the sentence flowing and readable, and encourages the reader's eye to see this as a single, commonly-occurring term.

Note that for the purpose of clarity ratios should generally be stated in the same clause and the same order as the two sets being compared: "Boys and girls were present in a ratio of 3:2."

You would pronounce it "a ratio of 1 to 1", but it's worth noting that there are sometimes exceptions.

In films and photography , for example, ratios such as 16:9 and 4:3 are often described as "16 by 9" and "four by three", respectively.

Hmm, not sure how correct this is

but I read a:b as "a is to b".

And a:b::c:d as "a is to b as c is to d".

Probably British English (else it's Indian :))

I am Indian and I say 1:1 "one to one" and a:b::c:d "a is to b as c is to d".

In the United States, "one-to-one ratio" is preferred.

A pronunciation of "ratio" is given at the following.

In addition, The American Heritage Dictionary shows both a two-syllable and three-syllable pronunciation for ratio. https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=ratio

Question: How do I pronounce "ratio 1:1"?  Should I pronounce it "ratio 1 to 1"?

How do I pronounce "ratio 1:1"?

You would pronounce this either as "a ratio of one-to-one" or "a one-to-one ratio".

The pronunciation is "one to one", using the word order "Ratio one to one".In the USA, it is a three-syllable pronunciation according to US American Heritage Dictionary. In writing, the presentation of "ratios" is an issue of style. Colons must be used, but where words are used instead of numerals, this can make reading easier. Hhowever word order of sets must be respected to understand the concept as in "Boys and girls were present in a ratio of 3:2." It is to be remembered, that ratios are expressed differently in the photographic and cinema domains as in 16:9 is described as 16 by 9.

You would either say "a ratio  of  one-to-one" or "a one-to-one ratio." The use of hyphenation and words instead of numerals makes the sentence flowing and readable, and encourages the reader's eye to see this as a single, commonly-occurring term.

In the USA, it is a three-syllable pronunciation.

In writing, it is an issue of style. The colons must be used, but using words instead of numerals can make reading easier, however word order of sets must be respected to under the concept as in "Boys and girls were present in a ratio of 3:2."

Ratios are expressed differently in the photographic and cinema domains.

In the world of film and photography different descriptions are used for ratios.


The answer is simple.

You just need to think about how you learned your native language.

By ear.

Children learn how to speak their native tongue first, and only then learned the grammar and spelling.

Thus, many will "sound" a word out to spell it.

English language learners, on the other hand, usually learned how to spell a word first, and focused on pronunciation later.

I think that the same goes for all languages.

Native speakers that do not take the time to learn their own language properly, or that do not read much, tend to misspell homophones.

In French, for instance, many people will replace infinitive form (« manger », to eat ) with past participle (« mangé », eaten ), or confuse « ses » and « ces

» (his,her vs these).

Astonishingly enough, foreigners that study the language do not have this homophony problem in their “source language” and therefore are aware of a grammatical difference.

It sounds like people assume translation is mathematically speaking an injective thing.

The confusion is that in many UK (and probably US) schools the difference is not taught.

The use of the apostrophe is considered by many to be totally confusing and so it is omitted in many places where it is required.

There is a name for the addition of extra apostrophes in places where they are not needed.

These are "Grocers' Apostrophes" which refers to the common sight on market stalls and grocers' shops where the price labels may erroneously refer to "Banana's" or Apple's".

Sometimes I wonder how often this mistake is made out of carelessness, versus ignorance.

I'm well-versed in the difference

betweent the two, yet

I've still made the gaffe on occasion.

Due to the homophoneous nature of the words, the mistake is easily made while typing, and particularly easy to miss while proofreading, too.

In American English (I can't speak for other varieties), even though the two are both spelled and pronounced distinctly in standard writing and slower articulate speech respectively, they tend to be pronounced the same in regular speech.

you're =

\yər, ˈyu̇r, ˈyȯr, ˌyü-ər\ and your = \yər, ˈyu̇r, ˈyȯr\ (from Merriam-Webster, with American rhotic pronunciation).

Note that the only difference is the one variant for "you're".

So it is understandable that there is the possibility of mistaking one for the other.

This pair, like other homophones are often mentioned explicitly in language studies in elementary school in the US.

Making the mistake later in life is usually simply a one time mistake (like the other homophones).

If the mistake is systematic then that is probably a sign of lack of concern for orthography.

I think people get confused because the apostrophe is used in possessives as well as contractions, but in this case the possessive

your has no apostrophe.

Not an answer as such, but I'm sure this might help some people: http://yourandyoure.com/ :)

Question: I have seen many comments on different blogs and forums where English native speakers spelled  you're  as  your . I'm not a native speaker, but I know and understand the difference between the two. Why is there a confusion?  My initial guess is that  your  and  you're  have similar pronunciation and because I carry some accent from my native language (Romanian) I can identify the difference better.  Edit  (thanks Chris): The same can be asked for other homophones:  there/their/they're ,  its/it's .

"Your" vs. "you're": Why the confusion?

Thes two words tend to be pronounced the same in regular speak and it's possible that in many UK and US schools, the difference is not taught. Furthermore, native speakers are naturally more susceptible to making spelling errors with homophones.

It is believed that the confusion arises because the spoken language is generally learnt first then the spelling, but for English speakers, they learn the spelling first and then the pronunciation. However, some believe that the spelling comes first and then the pronunciation afterwards, which is the cause of the confustion. Equally, native English speakers do not learn their language correctly and confuse homophones; words spelt and pronounced the same. Some believe this homophonic difference is not properly tuatht in schools, although others suggest it is explicitly outlined in elementary schools in the USA. Some people believe that the presence of the apostrophe, also known as the Grocer's apostrophe can cause confusion because it is also used in contraction and possessive forms. It is considered that the mistake is either carelessness or just poor attention to orthography.

Sometimes this mistake is made due to carelessness and sometimes due to ignorance.  Even though the two are both spelled and pronounced distinctly in standard writing and slower articulate speech respectively, they tend to be pronounced the same in regular speech.   Due to the homophoneous nature of the words, the mistake is easily made while typing, and particularly easy to miss while proofreading, too. Native speakers that do not take the time to learn their own language properly, or that do not read much, tend to misspell homophones.

Native speakers that have not learned their own language properly, or that do not read much, tend to misspell homophones.

There is regular confusion with these two words because they are pronounced the same in regular speech. Furthermore, the difference may not be taught very well in English-speaking countries and native speakers a naturally more susceptible to making spelling errors with homophones.

The confusion is that in many UK (and probably US) schools the difference is not taught. The difference is not often taught.

You learn the correct spelling from the pronunciation.

Native speakers do not learn their own language correctly, read very little and so mispell homophones. This is not the case for foreign learners of English.

The confusion arises because the difference is not taught.

Although some say the difference is taught .

The placement of the apostrophe is often incorrect.

The confusion is due to carelessness rather than ignorance. However, sometimes the mistake can be just a once off or indeed it can be careless orthography.

Native speakers in general are more likely to misspell homophones.

It could be that the difference between these two words is not taught very well in English-speaking countries.

Although both are written differently, they are pronounced the same in regular speech.


The statement "I win" is typically used to declare that the subject has just won the game.

Before the statement, it may well not be known that a "win" has occurred.

Indeed, because the action is so extremely recent in the past, it is effectively considered the present.

While you technically may be right in that the win occurred in the past, language does not make this distinction.

Call it an idiomatic usage case, if you will.

I wouldn't over-analyse the reason.

I disagree with the accepted answer in its explanation.

If you've just had lunch, you'd say "I ate" (past-tense) and not "I eat" (present tense) - even if you're saying it "just a few seconds after" having lunch.

It is absurd to argue that "I win" is used because the winning has only happened in the recent past, it is being carried over to the present (although a runner might say "I win" as he is overtaking another runner).This is sledging , whereas the usage above is clearly about semantics/phraseology.

When you say "I win," you're being helpful - by effectively speaking for/on behalf of an umpire/adjudicator (or a referee), who is the proper authority to declare the winner.

Conventionally, an umpire would say "Player X wins ", and not "Player X won ".

If there was a third person (acting as an adjudicator) physically present, and he declares one of the two players the winner, you'd certainly say " I won! "

even if it was immediately/seconds after.

In linguistics, there are three honorifics assigned to any discourse : the speaker, the hearer and the bystander.

Here, the speaker is speaking for the invisible bystander.

You're also likely to say " I won! "

with a particularly tough-to-beat opponent, implying incredulity/emphasis.

I think you can use both.

I win means I've won when the game has just finished.

I've won means for example that you've won 30 minutes ago.

You can call something that happened 2 minutes ago by present, not past.

There are elements of RaghuramMK's and Noldorin's answers at play here.

I do think an exclamation of "I win!"

at least in part serves as an answer to "OK, so who wins?"

(even if that question wasn't explicitly asked).

I believe this is its grammatic function, if you will.

It's a declaration, like a shorter form of "I am victorious!".

I also think there is some period of time beyond which the winner stops saying "I win" and switches to saying "I won", and it's not very long.

But how long depends a lot on the venue and the emotional magnitude of the victory.

Someone who has just won a world championship might be screaming "I win!

I win!

I win!"

for what seems like quite a long time, as they run around in celebration.

Whereas if my brother beats me in a casual game of cards, he might say "I win" as he plays the last card, with the "winning moment" lasting less than one second.

Usage varies, of course, but I would only use

I win in situations where it's pseudo-future.

Chess commentaries commonly say '...and

Black wins in 3 moves', meaning that the game, though technically still in progress, is effectively over.

There, wins could be replaced by will have won , since the game reported on has finished (presumably by White's resignation); if I were Black in that situation I could say I will win in three moves or I win in three (or, of course, Mate in three ).

The gloating phrase would be "I've won!"

I'm winning

I'm winning this time (while the game continues).

I've won

I've won this time.

(after it is over).

Question: For a long time I was wondering why there is  I win  instead of  I won . I met such usage in a lot of games and movies.   For me, it's logical to say  I won , because this  winning  action is done already.  I win  for me seems like  I'm winning right now .  Can anyone clarify this for me?

Why do we say "I win" instead of "I won"?

Both "I win" and "I won are considered acceptable. However, "I win" is mainly acceptable because it is used to declare that the subject has just won the game.

There are divergent opinions as to whether this is expressing a present tense or a past tense or both. For some, it means the "winning" has just occurred and because this occurred so recently in the past, it is considered a present event. In fact, before the declaration of winning, it may not be known if a "win" has occurred. Others contest, that you are effectively speaking for the absent "referee" or "umpire" or the invisible bystander. Finally, others believe that "I win" simply means you are saying you won the game that has just finished; you can use the present for something that happened in a very near past i.e something that occurred 2 minutes ago.

The statement "I win" is typically used to declare that the subject has just won the game.  I've won  means for example that you won 30 minutes ago. When you say "I win," you're being helpful - by effectively speaking  for/on behalf of an umpire/adjudicator  (or a referee), who is the proper authority to declare the winner. But you can use both.

The statement "I win" is typically used to declare that the subject has just won the game. It's an idiomatic declaration, like a shorter form of "I am victorious!". Because the action is so extremely recent, it is effectively considered the present. However, both "I win" and "I won" can be used.

Both "I win" and "I won are considered acceptable. However, "I win" is mainly acceptable because it is used to declare the winner in the present.

It means the "winning" has just occurred. It may not be clear that this had occurred before the declaration of the win.

It is expressing the present tense occurence of the event and not the past.

The speaker is speaking for the invisible bystander.

There's a period of time after which the winner would start saying I won.

The phrase "I win" is generally used to declare the winner in the present.

Because the action occurred so recently in the past, it could be considered the present.

Both "I win" and "I won" are considered acceptable.


I think informally, they have the same meaning.

However, the phrase "a lot" refers to an indeterminate unit of measure (which may in certain contexts actually be determinate, e.g. land measurements).

So, technically, "lots of" should be more than "a lot of", since the latter refers to a single unit of measure, and the former refers to multiple units of the same measure (if used in the same context).

Both phrases are very informal; however, there is a denotation for "lot" that indicates "a group" e.g. "a job lot" or, at an auction, one "unit" that is being bid upon.

This is not a very common definition outside of certain markets; dictionary.com gives it as "11.

a distinct portion or parcel of anything, as of merchandise: The furniture was to be auctioned off in 20 lots."

Thus, it is entirely possible that "a lot of apples" could refer to a specific grouping of apples being sold or auctioned; if one purchases several of these, then one might refer entirely correctly to "lots of apples."

To avoid confusion, it may be better to use "many" and the verb "to have," e.g. "I have many apples."

You will almost certainly be understood with either of your phrases, but as they are colloquial they may not translate as precisely to non-native speakers as you may wish.

There is no difference.

They have the same meaning.

The NOAD I had on my Mac Mini reported the following: The expressions a lot of and lots of are used before nouns to mean a large number or amount of.

In common with other words denoting quantities, lot itself does not normally function as a head noun, meaning that it does not itself determine whether the following verb is singular or plural.

Thus, although lot is singular in a lot of people , the verb that follows is not singular.

In this case, the word people acts as the head noun and, being plural, ensures that the following verb is also plural: a lot of people were assembled (not a lot of people was assembled ).

A lot of and lots of are very common in speech and writing, but they still have a distinctly informal feel and are generally not considered acceptable for formal English, where alternatives such as many or a large number are used instead.

Written as one word, alot is incorrect, although not uncommon.

See also the notes given from the Oxford Living Dictionaries .

There IS a difference between lots and a lot.

When "a lot" means "too much" then "lots" cannot be substituted.

When you say, "I've eaten a lot today," you are talking about the QUANTITY of food you have eaten.

However, "I've eaten lots today" indicates frequency.

You have eaten lots of times.

Additionally if someone gives you too much, you say, "That's a lot (of whatever!)!You would NOT say, "That's lots (of water)" for example.

The phrase " A LOT OF" is a determiner used to identify if the noun that comes after the phrase is plural or singular.

In the sentence "A lot of works are missing.

" The word "work" refers to a number of works finished in class, I would say the verb which comes after the noun should be plural because the works referred to -are many following the grammar rule "A plural noun takes a plural verb".

Question: What is the difference between "Lots" and "A lot"?  For instance:   I've got  a lot of  apples   I've got  lots of  apples

Difference between "Lots of" and "A lot of"

Whilst some people might believe there is a difference between the two, it is generally accepted that they have the same meaning.

A lot of and "lots of" mean a large quantity of something and the terms are generally used informally. The preference is for "many" or a "number of" in formal speech. "A lot" can also be written as one word; "alot". There is a difference between them, as some people believe "lots" can mean frequency as in "I ate lots today". In grammar, "A lot of " is a determiner to qualifty the noun that follows it it as being singular or plural. A "Lot" can also mean a group of things as in a "job lot". So, "a lot of apples" could mean a group of apples being sold at auction. If there were several groupings these could be "lots of apples"

The expressions  a lot of  and  lots of  are used before nouns to mean  a large number or amount of.  There is a denotation for "lot" that indicates "a group" e.g. "a job lot" or, at an auction, one "unit" that is being bid upon.   But, these are both informal and have the same meaning.  A lot of  and  lots of  are very common in speech and writing, but they still have a distinctly informal feel and are generally not considered acceptable for formal English, where alternatives such as  many  or  a large number  are used instead.

These expressions have the same meaning.

These are both informal and have the same meaning.  A lot of  and  lots of  are very common in speech and writing, but they still have a distinctly informal feel and are generally not considered acceptable for formal English, where alternatives such as  many  or  a large number  are used instead.


To me, “next Tuesday” means the Tuesday that comes next week.

For example, on Monday, October 11 and Wednesday, October 13, “next Tuesday” means October 19.

Whereas on Monday, October 18, “next Tuesday” means October 26.

“This Tuesday” refers to the Tuesday that comes this week, which on Wednesday would refer to yesterday, and on Monday refers to tomorrow.

Similarly, “Last Tuesday” is the Tuesday that came last week.

Without any descriptors, day names by themselves mean the next such day in the future unless used in the past tense.

“He will do it on Tuesday” means the next time there is a Tuesday, which on Monday would mean “tomorrow” but on Wednesday would mean the following Tuesday.

In the past tense, day names mean the last such day which occurred.

“He did it on Tuesday” means the most recent day that was a Tuesday.

Not everyone may agree with this analysis, but in my experience this is what most people mean when they use “this”, “last”, and “next” with day names.

This clearly has no definitive answer - usage varies between speakers.

To me, "next Tuesday" means (strictly) the next instance of a Tuesday, although I just wouldn't use it on Sunday or Monday (preferring the day after tomorrow/tomorrow or an unqualified "Tuesday", which generally refers to the current week, past or present).

However, I accept that this is personal and that others may sometimes mean "the next Tuesday but one", bizarre as that may seem.

This assumes that I know what day it is, which cannot always be relied on.

My preferred use is to specify "this coming Tuesday" or "the Tuesday after next" when I talk about days, specifically because of the ambiguity of what "next Tuesday" could be.

That's just my preference, though.

My answer to another question making a similar inquiry about using the phrase "next week"—

The issue isn't as definitive as you might think.

Ultimately, it comes down to what interpretation of "next" you consider to be correct.

For example, the American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed) defines 'next' simply as Immediately following, as in time, order, or sequence Following this definition, "next weekend" will always mean the weekend with the start date in closes proximity in time.

If the phrase is used during a weekend, of course, you'd be referring to the weekend following the one you are currently experiencing.

However, the issue gets more complicated if you look to other definitions.

The Oxford American Dictionary has a specific definition for 'next' when used in the context of time: (of a day of the week)

nearest (or the nearest but one)

after the present : not this Wednesday, next Wednesday Here, we're given the choice

: it can either mean the weekend with the closest start date, or the following one (as specified by the parenthetical addition or the nearest but one ).

This definition has come about mostly because of usage development.

Many words and phrases in the english dictionary have meanings contrary to their technical definitions, and yet are still used commonly and considered valid.

Thus, while technically "next" implies immediate sequence, it is used in other ways (which dictionaries like the OAD have accommodated for validity), so it's really a matter of personal preference.

For example, it is unlikely that I will even use the phrase "next weekend" during the week, because some people might be confused as to what I am referring to.

Instead, I will say "this weekend," unless it is currently the weekend, in which case I will say "next weekend."

"next-Tuesday" would be better said as "Tuesday of next week".

Thus, the answer to your question would be "on Tuesday".

There are several possibilities: This Tuesday is the Tuesday of the week that we are in.

Next Tuesday is the Tuesday of the week we'll be in after this one.

This appears to be the most common usage, and makes most sense when you're trying to distinguish between imminent Tuesdays.

They both refer to the same date; this (coming) Tuesday, which is the next Tuesday on the calendar from today.

This Tuesday refers to this (coming) Tuesday, or the Tuesday that comes next on the calendar from today.

Next Tuesday refers to the Tuesday after this (coming)

Tuesday, or the Second Tuesday on the Calendar from today.

This usage seems rare... but is actually what I understood for many years (although I was aware that people didn't always share my views).

Some people switch meanings on Tuesday.

For example, they mean (1) on Sunday and Monday, but (2) from Wednesday onwards.

Occasionally, I've heard people talking who have different understanding of the terms, but who happen to come to the same conclusion about the date of an appointment!

And then there's "Last Tuesday"...

but let's not get started on that one!

All in all, unless you know that you speak the same "calendar language" as someone else (and it isn't always obvious) your best bet is to: Use a different way to express yourself, "Tuesday of Next Week", for example.

Use dates, "Tuesday 11th".

Or get out your calendar and point.

I know someone who would confuse it even further with the usage "Tuesday first" meaning the first Tuesday after today - where most people would interpret that as meaning a Tuesday which landed on the 1st of a month.

Question: At what point does  next Tuesday  mean    the next Tuesday that will come to pass     and no longer    the Tuesday  after  the Tuesday that will come to pass?   And, when does the meaning switch back?

Which day does "next Tuesday" refer to?

This question has no definitive answer and usage varies between speakers. Many people may claim that "next Tuesday" is the Tuesday of the week after this one. However, some people will use "next Tuesday" to refer to the next instance of a Tuesday.

It means the Tuesday that is coming next week. The next time that day occurs, just as in the past tense it means the last time that day occurred. However, usage varies depending on the individual speaker's interpretation, which can depend on how "next" is interpreted. The Oxford Dictionary has a specific interpretation of "next". People may have different interpretations, but still  manage to meet on the right day. There are better alternatives that could be used for clarity such as "the Tuesday of next week". Alternatively, using and pointing at a calendar is suggested to avoid any confusion.

The issue isn't as definitive as you might think. There are several possibilities. Often "This Tuesday" is the Tuesday of the week that we are in and “next Tuesday” means the Tuesday that comes next week. It is often better to specify "this coming Tuesday" or "the Tuesday after next" when I talk about days, specifically because of the ambiguity of what "next Tuesday" could be.   All in all, unless you know that you speak the same "calendar language" as someone else (and it isn't always obvious) your best bet is to:   Use a different way to express yourself, "Tuesday of Next Week", for example.

This is open to some interpretation.  It often means "the Tuesday in the next week", although it can also refer to "the next instance of a Tuesday".

The answer to this question is subjective and will depend on personal preference. Many people may claim that "next Tuesday" is the Tuesday of the week after this week. However, some people will use "next Tuesday" to refer to the next Tuesday after today.

Usage varies depending on speakers' interpretation.

It can depend on how you interpret "next"

Other definitions can cause confusion to the intpretation of next.

Use dates as an option. Or take out the calendar.

There are several possibilities. Often " This Tuesday" is the Tuesday of the week that we are in and “next Tuesday” means the Tuesday that comes next week.

Many people would refer to "next Tuesday" as the Tuesday during the next week after this week.

The answer to this question is clearly subjective and depends on personal preference.

Some people would use "next Tuesday" to refer to the next Tuesday after today.


You don't say something is "kick-assy", you say something is "kick-ass."

So I think the correct form would be "kick-assness".

You wouldn't use this in any formal setting, though.

I agree with awesomeness as an alternative.

Kickassiness uses the often-sarcastic -iness ending (compare "truthiness", "maverickiness", and the phonetically similar "helpy"); so, analogously to those words, it gives the impression that something is trying to pose as kickass but is not succeeding.

I'd probably go with "kickassness" or "kickassitude" if that was not the desired impression.

All the above are perfectly cromulent productions from the base word; don't let any prescriptivist tell you different.

I'd say "kick-assery" is a lot better than kickassiness since "kick-ass" stems from a verb.

English - natural language in general, is "productive", which is to say that it happily accommodates new words derived from existing ones on standard patterns.

Slang and familiar language are by nature more productive than formal language.

Thus, if you use "kickassiness", people (at least, people who understand "kick-ass") will mostly understand you even if they have not heard it before.

Whether or not they adopt it themselves is in the lap of the gods, of course (and the answers by @Epago and @Claudiu suggest that it is unlikely because slightly more natural alternatives already have some currency).

It is also unlikely to impress English teachers, judges in courts of law, or prospective employers, of course, but you probably already knew that.

Although it's rarely used in slang, it's neither an accepted nor a proper word.

Instead, I would use "awesomeness".

Even Wordnik turns up zilch, and Google shows a measly 300 something hits.

There doesn’t really seem to be a need for this word.

Futhermore, I agree with @Claudiu.

“ kickassness ” seems to be the term you’re looking for.

Question: I have been looking for a word that means kickassiness, but haven't come across one. Is this an accepted word? If not, what word can be used in its place?

Is kickassiness an accepted word?

It is generally agreed that "kickassiness" is not an accepted or proper word in English. Other more acceptable alternatives could be "kickassness" or "awesomeness".

The interpretation is highly subjective. Some people believe "kick-ass" is the correct adjective and not "kick-assy", therefore by deduction, "kick-assness" would be the correct from. Others believe that "kickassiness" is using similar reformed words such as "sarcasticness" and based on this logic would use "kickassness" or "kickassitude".  Another proposl is "kick-assery" as "kick-ass" stems from a verb. As English tends to be quite a flexible language, people would understand "kickassiness". Some suggest that it is rarely used in slang, so is not an accepted or proper word and should never be used formally. Neither do Google searches deliver a lot of hits, and therefore there is no real need for the word. "Awesomeness" is proposed as an alternative.

This is neither an accepted nor a proper word. Instead, I would use "awesomeness" as an alternative. "Kick-assery" is a lot better than kickassiness since "kick-ass" stems from a verb or “ kickassness ”.

This is not a proper word. Alternative suggestions include "kick-assness" or "kickassness". However, "awesomeness" could also be used.

It is generally agreed that "kickassiness" is not an accepted word in English. Other more acceptable alternatives could be "kickassness" or "awesomeness".

"Kickassiness" follows the formatting similar to other words,

"kick-assery" would be a better form as it stems from a verb.

English language is flexible and "kickassiness" would be acceptable

It is not a word to be used in formal settings. "Awesomeness" would be a better alternative.

There are very few internet hits, there is no need for this word.

"Kickassiness" is not an accepted word in English.

A more acceptable word might be "kissassness".

"Awesomeness" could be a more acceptable word.

"Kick-assery" could be a more appropriate word.


In my opinion, neither previous nor prior work in this context for what you want to express, because both expressions imply December 2009.

Also, 'between' is a bit vague, because while the context implies you are comparing the rates of the two months, 'between' carries the idea of comparing the rates for the whole period between those two months.

Why not simply 'Comparison of rates: Jan 2010 and Jan 2009'?

It is not especially clever, but it is shorter than the two phrases you propose.

Neither "previous" nor "prior" are correct here, because they would refer to December 2009.

If you want to use a business analysis buzzword, you could use "year over year", as in Year-over-year comparison of rates for January If you are addressing normal people, however, I'd suggest simply Comparison of rates between January 2010 and January 2009

The Oxford Corpus of English lists several example sentences for prior :

She visited me on the day prior to her death.

Mrs Scott had to spend two weeks in hospital, including a week prior to the Caesarian birth.

For previous : The month previous to publication . . .

The starting grids are based on a reversal of the finishing order of the previous race.

Both prior and previous have similar definitions: 'existing or occurring before in time or order' and 'existing or coming before in time, order, or importance' respectively.

From these two points (examples of usage in English and dictionary definition), I can see no evidence that either word is more or less appropriate in your context.

However, I would say the following sound better: Comparison of rate between January 2010 and the prior month.

Comparison of rate between January 2010 and the previous month.

That is, I would use the rather than its , although your sentences are grammatical.

EDIT: Now that I understand that the OP was talking about comparing January 2009 and January 2010, I offer these suggestions: Comparing the rates of January 2010 and the prior January.

Comparing the rates of January 2010 and the previous January.

I also agree that it would be easier, and perhaps better, just to say 'Comparing the rates of January 2009 and January 2010.

In general for comparing corresponding periods across years you use the expression year on year

Neither prior nor previous are words necessary to convey the meaning of the statement.

The clearest way, so that no one misunderstands the question, is to delineate it completely: Comparison of rates between Jan 2009 and Jan 2010.

This "statement" implies that there is a list to follow with the said comparisons indicated.

It is not meant to convey all of the actual comparisons.

It seems to be more of a heading.

Question: If I want to show the comparison between rate in 2010 Jan and 2009 Jan, which of the following should I use?    Comparison of rate between 2010 Jan and its prior month.  Comparison of rate between 2010 Jan and its previous month.

Can "prior" or "previous" be used to describe the same month of last year?

It is agreed that neither "prior" nor "previous" work in this context because they would refer to December 2009.

Neither "previous" nor "prior" are appropriate because both imply December 2009. It would be simple to just say "Comparison of rates: Jan 2010 and Jan 2009".  The other alternative is to use the business term "year on year" . Another alternative is "comparing the rates of January 2010 and the previous January's".

Neither  prior  nor  previous  are correct here for conveying the meaning of the statement.  The clearest way, so that no one misunderstands the question, is to delineate it completely:   Comparison of rates between Jan 2009 and Jan 2010.

Neither "previous" nor "prior" are correct here, because they would refer to December 2009.

It is agreed that neither "prior" nor "previous" in the examples provided is correct.

Neither previous nor prior are suitable. Use "compariso of rates"

Use "comparing the rates of Jan. 2010 and the previous January"


As requested, this is my summary translation of the answer by A.Stefanowitsch, the host of Sprachlog : 'seven-and-twenty years' corresponds to the original germanic pattern.

In Old English this was the usual way of forming complex number words.

The influence of Norman French brought in the modern form and displaced the original pattern, which survived until about 1700 [Weinstock 1999].

It has been suggested that the switch began with the high numbers and progressed downwards [Weinstock 1999], and an informal corpus analysis gave a first confirmation [Diller 2005, S. 105].

The original germanic form still survives in dialects, especially in references to age and time

[Cahill und Gazdar 1997], which fits the examples in Sherlock Holmes .

CAHILL, Lynne und Gerald GAZDAR.

1997 A lexical analysis of numeral expressions in Dutch, English and German.

DILLER, Hans-Jürgen (2005)

Rezension zu Weinstock 2003.

Anglia -- Zeitschrift für englische Philologie 123.2, S. 104-106. WEINSTOCK, Horst (1999) Historical and comparative aspects of numerals between twenty-one and twenty-nine.

In Uwe Carls und Peter Lucko (Hgg.), Form, function and variation in English: Studies in honour of Klaus Hansen.

Frankfurt:

Peter Lang, S. 65–77.

[Neuabdruck 2003 in Horst Weinstock, Kleine Schriften: Ausgewählte Studien zur alt-, mittel-

und frühneuenglischen Sprache und Literatur.

Heidelberg: Winter].

Counting in scores is not strictly the same phenomenon as the units-before-tens count, but does seem to share some of the same "flavour".

It appears in formal speech in, for instance, the Gettysburg Address ("Four score and

seven years ago our fathers brought forth ...

and in the biblical "three score years and ten" noted by @Benjol).

In British literature of the interwar period (this post is too informal and time too short for me to investigate sources, but I'm thinking of the Swallows and Amazons books by Arthur Ransome and Cold Comfort Farm by Stella Gibbons as good prospects), both counting in scores and the one-and-twenty forms would seem to be noted as low-status rural dialect markers.

Another literary instance, Poem XIII of AE Housman's A Shropshire Lad , "When I was one-and-twenty" (1896) is also rural in setting.

Lincoln's use thirty years before was probably something of an archaic rhetorical flourish as well.

It still survives in some well-worn expressions, mostly cultural heritage: Threescore and ten ("score" being 20, that makes 70, which is one's allotted lifespan) Four and twenty (as in blackbirds ) 'Four score and seven years ago' (Gettysburg Address)

There are probably others (I'm leaving this answer open for additions)

It hasn't completely fallen out of use (or at least, it hadn't twenty years ago).

I had a colleague throughout the 80's who would habitually say 'five and twenty to' for times.

He was probably in his 40's.

(in Cambridge, the original one).

Google Ngrams for 24 , 25 , 26 and 27 appear to show the same trend, with the German-like numerical expressions declining since 1800, but generally significantly in the region around 1940.

All of them have retained a nontrivial amount of use into the modern era, however.

Question: 19th century English texts occasionally use Germanic-style number words, such as "four-and-twenty", but the same text would also have the modern "twenty-four" in places (see e.g. Conan-Doyle for several examples).   How did the usage of germanic-style numbers change historically? When did the Germanic forms fall out of use?   (I have asked this question previously on  Sprachlog  (German) and got a short  answer by A.Stefanowitsch , but would appreciate any additional input.)

19th century English texts occasionally use Germanic-style number words, such as "four-and-twenty". When did this fall out of use?

This style of reading numbers in English may not have completely fallen out of use. In fact, a Google Ngrams analysis shows German-like numerical expressions declining since 1800, but it was still persisting in 1940.

It is an old English format for forming complex numbers and influenced by Norman French. It is suggested that the change occurred with higher number values, but the format is still used in some dialects mainly in reference to age and time. It has occurred historically in some literature as well as in political speeches such as the Gettysburg address. It still survives in some well-worn expressions, mostly cultural heritage as in "Four and twenty (as in  blackbirds )"

This format was the original germanic pattern. In Old English this was the usual way of forming complex number words. The influence of Norman French brought in the modern form and displaced the original pattern, which survived until about 1700 [Weinstock 1999]. It still survives in some well-worn expressions, mostly cultural heritage:   Threescore and ten  ("score" being 20, that makes 70, which is one's allotted lifespan)  Four and twenty (as in  blackbirds )  'Four score and seven years ago' (Gettysburg Address)

Google Ngrams for  24 ,  25 ,  26  and  27  appear to show the same trend, with the German-like numerical expressions declining since 1800, with significant decline in the region around 1940. However, it has not completely fallen out of use.

This style of reading numbers in English may not have completely fallen out of use. In fact, a Google Ngrams analysis shows that use has declined since 1800, but it was still persisting in 1940.

An old English format for forming complex numers.

It has occurred historically in some literature as well as in political speeches such as Lincoln's use.

This style of reading numbers might not have completely fallen out of use.

A Google Ngrams analysis seems to show decline since 1800 but steady use persisting in 1940.


I would say that it is probably grammatical, but because 'neither' is not common introducing a clause like that, it is very confusing: it is not clear on first reading what the relationship is between the main clause and the parenthetical phrase.

Apart from the suggestions already made, 'but' would mend it, as it makes the relationship between them clearer: XXIII, but neither IIIXX nor XIIIX,

I would say "The Roman numeral for 23 is XXIII.

Variations like IIIXXX and XIIIX, although logical, would not be correct."

I see no reason for it to be incorrect: 'neither IIIXX, nor XIIX' is known as dependent clause , so you have: (subject) (dependent clause) (transitive verb) (direct object) (adverbial phrase)

It is the same, in my opinion, as

In Roman, XXIII — not IIIXX or XIIX —

represents 23 Of course, adverbial phrases can be moved around reasonably freely.

However, I do like Mike Pope's rewording.

I'm not sure if it's correct grammar, but it sounds awkward to me.

It's like saying he, neither she nor it, is going to the store.

It just doesn't sound right.

I would instead say: XXIII represents 23 in roman, but IIIXX and XIIIX do not.

If you really want to use that construction, then "XXIII, not IIIXX or XIIIX, represents 23 in Roman numerals", but other respondents have suggested more elegant forms.

Incidentally

(and I know you didn't say this, but still...), neither IIIXX or XIIIX can represent 23, so I wouldn't say "although logical", as per Mike Pope's suggestion.

IIIXX and XIIIX would represent 17, although they both break the rules of Roman numeral syntax, I believe.

Also, "roman" should be capitalised: "Roman".

Question: I want to say that we cannot represent 23 in Roman as both IIIXX and XIIIX. The correct representation for 23 in Roman is XXIII.  If I write like this   XXIII, neither IIIXX nor XIIIX, represents 23 in roman.   is it correct grammar?

XXIII, neither IIIXX nor XIIIX, represents 23. Is it correct grammar?

It is generally agreed that, whilst this phrase might be correct grammar, it does not sound particularly natural, and in fact, might be a little confusing.

There is divided opinion as to how the phrase should be written. Some people believe grammatically, the form is correct. However, a better way of phrasing suggested is "The The Roman numeral for 23 is XXIII." Others feel it sounds awkard, even if it supposed to be grammaticaly correct and suggest "XXIII represents 23 in roman, but IIIXX and XIIIX do not."

It may be correct grammatically, but it sounds awkward. The best way to put it is: "The Roman numeral for 23 is XXIII and variations like IIIXXX and XIIIX, although logical, would not be correct."

There is no reason for it to be incorrect: 'neither IIIXX, nor XIIX' is known as  dependent clause , so you have:   (subject) (dependent clause) (transitive verb) (direct object) (adverbial phrase). However, although it is probably grammatical, as 'neither' is not common when introducing a clause like that, it is very confusing: it is not clear on first reading what the relationship is between the main clause and the parenthetical phrase.

The sentence may be grammatically correct, but it sounds awkward.


"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink" is an English proverb.

If you want the horse to drink, the most you can do is lead it to water; after that, the horse drinks only if it wants to.

More generally, the proverb is used in the senses of "there's only so much you can do" or "people will do what they want" or "you can't help people who don't want to be helped".

This proverb is one of the oldest in English , having been recorded in Old English Homilies , 1175:

Hwa is

thet mei thet hors wettrien the him self nule

drinken [who can give water to the horse that will not drink of its own accord?]

So "Chuck Norris can lead a horse to water AND make it drink" simply reverses the proverb: Chuck Norris can do something which the proverb says is impossible.

(The humour is partly from the appropriation of a commonplace proverb for Chuck Norris purposes.)

Something similar would be "Chuck Norris can eat his cake and have it too", reversing the proverb

"You can't eat your cake and have it too".

(Once you eat your cake, you'll no longer have it with you: this proverb is these days more commonly stated as "you can't have your cake and eat it too".)

There is an idiom in English : You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Even favorable circumstances won't force one to do something one doesn't want to, as in We've gotten all the college catalogs

but he still hasn't applied

--you can lead a horse to water.

This metaphoric term dates from the 12th century and was in John Heywood's proverb collection of 1546.

It is so well known that it is often shortened, as in the example.

The whole notion here is that Chuck Norris has superpowers, making possible the impossible even.

These jokes are only funny when you hear many of them in a row and one seems to outdo the other.

The dynamics of the joke have been explained so I won't rehash that

but I don't see the meta-joke being mentioned here

so I'll explain it.

A kind of meta-joke, a joke above the jokes, is to tell a series of really unfunny jokes.

So while the jokes in and of themselves aren't funny the string of jokes clearly not meant to be funny can be funny.

If it's just one joke you might say, "Meh, that wasn't funny."

But a barrage of really stupid jokes, if they are ridiculously unfunny like the one above, is funny.

And finally it's kind of an inside joke that some people actually find the unfunny jokes funny.

That's a meta-joke on top of the meta-joke.

P.S.

I don't find Chuck Norris jokes funny either, but I get it.

This is related to the idiom: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Meaning: People, like horses, will only do what they have a mind to do. or Something that you say which means you can give someone the opportunity to do something, but you cannot force them to do it if they do not want to.

So the sentence you refer to is a joke which points out the determination (decisiveness) of Chuck Norris.

Well I guess Chuck Norris is so physically capable that he can "force" a horse to drink water no matter what, even if it doesn't want to, so you'd better watch out if you mess with Chuck Norris.

Question: Chuck Norris can lead a horse to water  and  make it drink.   I read this on  http://chucknorrisfacts.com .  What I think this sentence means, is: Chuck Norris can take his horse to where the water is and then his horse will drink the water. So, what is funny about this? Isn't it something pretty normal?

What does this mean: 'Chuck Norris can lead a horse to water AND make it drink'? Why is it funny?

This joke plays on the notion that Chuck Norris is so powerful that he is able to do something which the English proverb says is impossible. The notion is that Chuck Norris has superpowers.

It is an English proverb dating back to the 12th century meaning you can bring the horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink.  There is only so much you can do to help people, you cannot force people to do something they don't want to do. By extension, it is suggesting Chuck Norris has exceptional powers because he actually can make the horse drink. Some people do not find this a funny joke, but understand what is meant.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"  is an English proverb.  If you want the horse to drink, the most you can do is lead it to water; after that, the horse drinks only if it wants to. Meaning:  People, like horses, will  only do what they have a mind to do. The whole notion here is that Chuck Norris has superpowers or the determination to make possible the impossible.

Chuck Norris can lead a horse to water AND make it drink simply reverses the proverb: Chuck Norris can do something which the proverb says is impossible.


Taken from Wiktionary : Funnest is a regular superlative of the adjective fun .

However, the use of fun as an adjective is itself still often seen as informal or casual and to be avoided in formal writing, and this would apply equally to the superlative form.

Merriam-Webster, however, gives fun as an adjective without comment, and states that funner and funnest are ‘sometimes’ used.

Because of the remaining stigma, most fun may be preferred in formal writing.

Given that every English speaker would understand you, it's fine.

It's a word.

Don't worry too much about what dictionaries say, they are trying to report on the language, not prescribe it.

"Funnest" has good English morphology.

For instance, it doesn't begin with the glottal "ng" sound, which doesn't occur in English at the start of a word.

That kind of thing would tend to spoil all chances of an utterance from becoming an English word.

It is derived from "fun", which is already an English adjective, and it is derived according to a rule that derives many existing superlatives.

So you have here a good candidate for a word which could easily pass into usage among a group of English-speaking people, and evidently it has.

The only problem is that it's not widely used.

The human brain probably handles language not simply with with rigid rules, but through the memorization of a large number of special cases and exceptions based on examples and correction during language acquisition.

This is why numerous irregularities can happily exist.

Examples that are not heard are sometimes ruled out by native speakers as ungrammatical.

"Funnest" sounds strange simply because it's rarely heard, other than from children (who are usually going to be corrected to say "most fun" instead, thereby ensuring that they too will come to regard "funnest" as strange, when they will have long forgotten that they uttered it when they were small.)

On the other hand, "funner" and "funnest" are not so unheard of that it has not made its way into some dictionaries, such as Merriam-Webster.

If a word is in at least one major dictionary, it's safe to regard it as a word.

Some dictionaries may be more conservative than others, but, on the absolute scale, they are maintained by some pretty darn conservative people who will not too casually lend their support to a new word.

If some of them think something is a word, that's probably good enough for the rest of us.

I wouldn't use "funnest" anywhere but in the most colloquial setting.

Certainly I would not use it in anything written.

As reported by the NOAD, fun is used as adjective in informal contexts; its superlative is funnest , while funner is its comparative.

Funner makes me shudder.

For some reason "more fun" is firmly embedded in my psyche as the correct expression.

"funnest" doesn't raise the same reaction, for reasons I don't understand.

When someone says "it's funner", it makes me believe that there's been a lapse in their education.

Question: We seem to be stuck at an impasse on this issue.  Is  funnest  a word or not?  If so, does it mean "most fun"?

Is "funnest" a word?

It is generally agreed that "funnest" is an acceptable word and that it is the superlative of the adjective "fun". Given that every English speaker would understand you, it's fine.

There is a divergence of opinion as to whether it is a term to use or not. Some people feel it is a word every English speaker would understand and its absence in dictionaries should not be of concern, it suffices it appears in one major dictionary because ssme dictionaries tend to more conservative than others, but generally dictionaries are written by conservative people not inclined to support newly coined words. It is the superlative form of "fun". It sounds strange because it is not often used, except by children who are often corrected to use "most fun" instead. It should only be used in colloquial settings and not in formal language. Funner is the comparative form and "funnest" is the superlative. To some people these are strange form and the use of "it's funner" to some people suggests the speaker has a low level of education.

Strictly speaking,  fun  is used as adjective in informal contexts; its superlative is  funnest , while  funner  is its comparative. However, the use of  fun  as an adjective is itself still often seen as informal or casual and to be avoided in formal writing, and this would apply equally to the superlative form. The main problem is that it's not widely used.  "Funnest" sounds strange simply because it's rarely heard, other than from children (who are usually going to be corrected to say "most fun" instead.)  "More fun" is what most people would regard as the correct expression.

Funnest is an informal word, and is  is a regular superlative of the adjective  fun .

It is generally agreed that "funnest" is an acceptable word and that it is the superlative of "fun".

It is the superlative form of "fun" and is generally used informally. However, in formal writing "most fun" is preferred.

It is a word every English speaker would understand. The absence of the word in dictionaries should not be of concern, it suffices it appears in one major dictionary. Some dictionaries tend to more conservative than others, but generally dictionaries are written by conservative people not inclined to support newly coined words. It is the superlatie form of "fun".

"Funnest" is the superlative form of "fun".

It is agreed that this is an acceptable word.