In this instance, the pronoun "who" is the object of the verb "know".

So you want to use objective case whom.

The quantity of verbs has no effect on the choice between who and whom.

The only thing you need to figure out is whether or not you need a subject for a verb.

If who/whom is the subject of a verb, use who.

Otherwise, use whom.

The non-technical instruction on choosing the right word: Who can only be used as a subject, so if you don’t need a subject, don’t use who; use whom.

For this example, the correct choice is whom.

“The man who/whom I know to be unhappy…” I suppose this is followed by a verb.

The simple subject of the sentence (of the verb that follows) is man, not who/whom.

Who/whom is not the subject of a verb, so you use whom.

Another way to write the example, which might make it easier to parse, is as follows: “The man, whom I know is unhappy,…” As we see, whom is not serving as the subject of any verb.

Source: Precise Edit

As the question is tagged with acceptability , I will report the following paragraph, reported by NOAD in the usage of who section: The normal practice in modern English is to use who instead of whom ( Who do you think we should support? )

and, where applicable, to put the preposition at the end of the sentence ( Who do you wish to speak to? ).

Such uses are today broadly accepted in standard English, but in formal writing it is best to maintain the distinction.

If you want to avoid writing who when you should use whom (or vice versa), you can use that .

the man that I know to be unhappy

That is a relative pronoun used to introduce a defining or restrictive clause, especially one essential to identification; it is used instead of when , which , who , whom .

the book that I have bought yesterday the person that I will meet tomorrow the year that Anna was born

As I write, all other answers agree that whom is the correct choice in this construction (because "whom I know to be unhappy" is an auxiliary phrase, wherein whom is not the subject of a verb).

I don't dispute the strict grammatical position, but I would say that, as suggested by this NGram , whom appears to be increasingly falling into disuse.

Correspondingly, here are over 1000 written instances of " who I know to", most if not all of which are "incorrect" according to strict grammar.

In my opinion, whom is already becoming somewhat 'dated', and it's only a matter of time before it disappears completely.

"I know the man to be unhappy" seems be more informative, but it doesn't answer the question until you change it again to "Him I know to be unhappy".

Or how about

"I know that man [him] to be unhappy.

This would indicate that you want the objective case - whom.

The main verb in your question is "know", so it is "The man whom I know to be unhappy", just as it is "The man whom I know".

It gets more complex if you replace 'to be' with 'is', as there are several possible meanings.

The man who , I know, is unhappy" is equivalent to "The man who is unhappy (I know it)", so whom would be wrong.

The man, whom I know, is unhappy" =

"The man is unhappy: I know him (not he).

Without any commas, or (just as wrong)

with a single comma after 'know', ambiguity makes it impossible to say what the pronoun should be (unless the rest of the sentence makes it clear).

Moral:

punctuation is important, and don't lazily cut "to be" down to "is" unless you are clear about how you are changing the meaning.

NB

Precise Edit's answer (quoted by Lauren), leaves out all the commas in this phrase , so isn't helpful.

Very simple.

MAN is the subject of the main clause.

The VERB of the main clause is IS.

(This man is unhappy).

"who I know" is a subordinate adjective clause modifying MAN.

The person speaking knows the man.

The subject of the subordinate clause is

I. The verb is KNOW.WHOM is what we call the subordinate clause marker, but it is also the presumed object of the verb KNOW, so it takes the objective

(Whom) case, not the subjective.

When pronouns follow a TO BE verb, and refer back to the subject of the sentence, they take the SUBJECTIVE case.

(I am HE.

She is WHO?)Most of the time, one's ear tells one what word to use.

To answer the direct question ... Verb clauses can be nested and are parsed from the inner most to the outermost.

so "I know '

x to be" is a verb clause which after being parsed would resolve effectively to "is" and therefore your second statement is true - it the correct stereotype verb clause would be "the man who is unhappy".

The response to the other comment - I don't know if this a culture thing

but I do not find it to be correct usage to replace who with that.

That can only be used when talking about NOT-people.

Question: Which of these phrases is more correct?   The man  who  I know to be unhappy  The man  whom  I know to be unhappy   Is one of the verbs in the phrase more important, thus determining the noun case, or is something else happening with the particular combination of verbs? ( The man whom I know  is valid but  the man to be unhappy  isn't; the tense must be specified as in  the man who is unhappy .)

"Who" versus "whom" with multiple verbs

It is generally agreed that, in this instance, the pronoun "who" is the object of the verb "know" and therefore, the objective case "whom" should be used. The number of verbs has no effect on the choice between who and whom. However, it is worth highlighting that "whom" is become dated and it is possibly only a matter of time before it disappears completely.

The correct answer is "whom" as the direct object of the verb "to know". The choice between "who" and "whom" has nothing to do with the number of verbs but which noun is the subject and which is the object. "Whom" is the correct grammatical form although its use is waning and may be replaced by "who" in all cases.

In this instance, the correct form would be 'whom', as it is the object of the verb 'know'. However, 'whom' is falling out of usage and 'who' is increasingly common for both subject and object.

The main verb in your question is "know", so it is "The man whom I know to be unhappy", just as it is "The man whom I know". The quantity of verbs has no effect.

The correct choice in this case is "whom".

Number of verbs has not effect. Work out subject and object.


It all depends on how technical you want to be.

(I am writing as the spouse of a nationally recognized expert on wild turtles, tortoises and terrapins in the US.)

In the US there are 50 species of "chelonians" excluding sea turtles.

Among experts they are identified by strict Latin taxonimic names when precise species identification is required.

There is also a looser English taxonomy, but there is enough regional variation that experts fall back on Latin when confusion arises.

But, even experts in "casual" conversation use the word "turtle" to include "turtles, tortoises and terrapins"; e.g. "I study turtles."

Some non-experts refer to the shelled animals that live primarily in water (lakes, rivers and streams) as "turtles" and those that live primarily on land as "tortoises".

However, in the US northeast, the most common land dweller is the "box turtle ".

Bottom line, in casual conversations in the US the word "turtle" encompasses all those shelled creatures.

In discussion with passionate "turtle people" try to use the correct taxonomic name.

Your colleague is correct to an extent.

Generally in British English, tortoise refers to the land animal, turtle to the marine animal, and terrapin to the freshwater animal.

In U.S. English, turtle is used as a catch-all term for all animals of that type, but distinctive tortoises like the giant Galapagos tortoise will be called such.

Yes.

American English often uses "turtle" for tortoise, in British English the two terms are not interchangeable, and (for what it's worth)

Indian English often uses tortoise as the generic term for both turtles and tortoises.

( The Hare and the Tortoise is never * The Hare and the Turtle , and Indian languages—and Japanese is similar according to a comment above—usually have the same words for both, and this is mapped to tortoise , not turtle .)

So it varies from region to region.

As evidence, the Compact Oxford English Dictionary (UK) says, under tortoise that it's "Called turtle in North America", and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language gives, under tortoise , definition 1b saying " Chiefly British A terrestrial or freshwater chelonian."

That they are distinct in British English can be seen from this exchange from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland :

“When we were little,” the Mock Turtle went on at last, more calmly, though still sobbing a little now

and then, “we went to school in the sea.

The master was an old Turtle—we used to call him Tortoise–—”

“Why did you call him Tortoise, if he wasn’t one?”

Alice asked.

“We called him Tortoise because he taught us,” said the Mock Turtle angrily.

“Really you are very dull!”

In the NOAD is reported that turtle means: a slow-moving reptile, enclosed in a scaly or leathery domed shell into which it can retract its head and thick legs.

Family Testudinidae : numerous genera and species, including the European tortoise ( Testudo graeca ). (also sea turtle) a large marine reptile with a bony or leathery shell and flippers, coming ashore annually on sandy beaches to lay eggs.

Families Cheloniidae (seven species) and Dermochelyidae (the leatherback).

a freshwater reptile related to the turtles, typically having a flattened shell.

Called terrapin in South Africa and India and tortoise in Australia.

• Order Chelonia : several families, in particular Emydidae and Kinosternidae .

any reptile of this order, including the terrapins and tortoises.

It's then true that in American English the term turtle can be used to refer to an animal that in other English languages is called tortoise .

This is not something that happens only in American English, though.

Also other languages have a word equivalent to turtle (In Italian tartaruga ) and one equivalent to tortoise (in Italian testuggine ), but the first can be used instead of the second (even if it is less accurate).

To notice also that, for example, in Italian the European tortoise is called tartaruga .

Yes.

American speakers do use the term turtle to refer to both the land-based and marine reptiles .

Whereas many (not all)

BrEng speakers will differentiate between the two species.

I always thought it strange that the cartoon series my son used to watch, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles , back in the late 1980s was titled so.

It was obvious that the four pizza-obsessed ninja turtles; Raphael, Leonardo, Donatello and Michelangelo performed their heroic deeds on land and and hardly ever in sea or freshwaters.

Although I do remember they spent some time in the sewers....

And now nearly thirty years later, I find that Americans still prefer to use the term turtle .

In The Big Bang Theory, season 8 episode 17, Amy and Sheldon make an important announcement: Amy : We have some exciting news.

Leonard :

OK Sheldon :

As you know, Amy and I have been together a long time.

And a lot of things that I never thought were possible; now seem possible.

Penny : Okaaay...

Amy :

After a careful evaluation of our relationship, we decided that the time was right to take a step forward.

Leonard : ...

OK Sheldon :

Do you want to say it?

Amy :

Let's say it together.

Sheldon and Amy : We're getting a turtle!

We then see the couple in a pet shop choosing a tortoise .

This is all the more remarkable considering that Sheldon and Amy are scientists, Sheldon a theoretical physicist while Amy a neurobiologist.

Question: Obviously there are two different animals — a tortoise and a turtle. But I have been told by a colleague that in the US the word  turtle  is used to describe both.  I find this odd as for example the Galapagos tortoise was fairly well known (old & big) and it would surely be a mistake to refer to it as a turtle.

Do Americans use the world 'turtle' as a generic word to mean 'tortoise'?

The answer will depend on how technical you want to be and what region you're in. In casual conversation, the word "turtle" is used to include "turtles, tortoises and terrapins". Generally in British English, "tortoise" refers to the land animal while "turtle" refers to the marine animal, whereas in the US "turtle" is used as a catch-all tern for all animals of that type. On the other hand, in Indian English, "tortoise" is the generic term for both turtles and tortoises.

In the US the species is called "chelonians" and this excludes sea turtles.There are lots of regional variations to identify the animal but the correct one is the Latin taxonomic form."Turtles " is  used to denote sea creatures and "tortoises" land animals ,by non-experts, especially in the UK. However, in the US, the preference is for the word "turtles"  as stated in the OED, except for specific species which carry the name "tortoise" such as the Giant Galapagos tortoise. In general, in the US the term "turtle" is also used for "tortoise" whereas in the UK, the terms are not interchangeable. Indian English often uses "tortoise"  as the generic term for both turtles and tortoises. The advice to avoid confusion is to use the correct taxonomic name.

British English speakers often distinguish between shelled animals living in the sea (turtles), on land (tortoises) and in freshwater (terrapins). In contrast, US English speakers often use the word 'turtle' for all three. The distinction is not completely accurate, so experts will often use the correct taxonomic names rather than these broad classes.

In U.S. English,  turtle encompasses all shelled creatures, both marine and land reptiles. Distinctive tortoises like the giant Galapagos tortoise will be called such. It asll depends on how techical you want to be.

The answer to this question will depend on how technical you want to be, but in general, in American English, the term "turtle" is used to refer to both turtles and tortoises.

In the US there are 50 species of "chelonians" excluding sea turtles. Lots of regional variations, but correct species identified by Latin name.

Turtles used to denote sea creatures and "tortoises" land animals by non-experts, esp. In UK

The answer to this question will depend on how technical you want to be.

Generally, it is accepted that in American English, the term "turtle" is used to refer to both turtles and tortoises.


I wouldn't use a particular word, I'd just say, "She can't have a baby."

I would never say something like, "She is infertile/fruitless/barren/sterile .

" – I find that extremely rude.

Historically, a woman with such a condition was considered to be barren , but that word is not used much today (although it is nevertheless likely to be understood).

Nowadays, one would probably say she is "seeing a fertility counselor" or some such circumlocution, and people would infer the rest.

I have always used the word barren , although that word is a bit antiquated.

For some, the word barren may carry a negative connotation.

For instance, when the word is used in the Bible it's written as if it was a curse.

There are Biblical stories of women who were barren but then were blessed by God and were able to conceive.

Consequently, someone who is Jewish/Christian/Muslim might find that particular word a bit insensitive, as it seemingly implies they are cursed.

Perhaps the best way to avoid any potential embarrassment is to state the facts plainly, as in, "She is unable to conceive.

" Even though most people will understand your intent, I'm not a fan of saying, "She cannot have a baby," because that can be taken literally to mean that she is not fit to mother.

Just because someone cannot conceive does not mean they cannot have a child through alternative means, such as adoption or surrogacy.

Joke answers: unbearable, impregnable, inconceivable (maybe that doesn't mean what I think it means...)

In an informal setting, a woman who has passed menopause may describe herself as "dried up" even if she's had many children.

The joke was not meant to provide answers, but a funny lesson on the complexity of the English language - not that other languages aren't complex.

Many lessons are best illustrated through humor - although the underlying lessons of that message can be missed entirely.

Thanks for the go-around here; I was able to give my daughter a lesson in the fun and folly of language.

I personally would say "she was not able to have children", and if that is too difficult just don't bring it up.

I liked the "euphemism treadmill" concept - very illustrative of the situation - I often get dinged for using the words ignorant, or deception as being negative although I find few ways of expressing the same meaning, and both can be positive or neutral when used that way...

Question: "Infertile"; "fruitless"? How would you describe such a woman in an informal talk to your friend?

Is there an informal way to describe a woman that can not have a baby?

It's debatable that you should use a particular word, and you might want to simply say, "She can't have a baby". Terms like "barren" are a bit antiquated and possibly carry a negative connotation. In an informal setting, a woman who has passed menopause may describe herself as "dried up" even if she's had many children.

Some would agree that using the direct phrase "she can't have a baby" would suffice, as opposed to using "infertile/fruitless/barren/sterile". But this direct phrase, for others could imply that she is not fit to mother. "Barren" was the term typically used in the past, although the connotation for some might be that they are "cursed".  The term "dried up" was also used by menopausal women  because of their inability to conceive. Today, the direct phraseology could be replaced by "seeing a fertility" counsellor, as there are other ways of conceiving available.

Many terms such as barren, infertile or sterile can have negative connotations or be embarrassing, so 'unable to conceive' might be preferred. It might be easier to say something like 'unable to have children' to avoid any connotations of unsuitability.

There are several informal ways to describe someone who can't have a baby including, simply she can't have a baby, or an inference, such as she is seeing a fertility counselor. If after menopause, dried up can be used. Historically barren would have been used, however not so used today.

The answer to this question will be a little subjective. Some people will simply prefer to say that "she can't have children" and other would prefer to use an indirect description like "she's seeing a fertility counsellor". There are terms that could be used to describe this concept, such as "barren" or "dried up", but these are likely to be considered offensive.

Just say "she can't have a baby". Some disagree Do not use second phrase

Some people would simply prefer to say that "she can't have children".

Terms that might be used ot refer to this might be "barren" or "dried up", but these are likely to be considered offensive.

People may want to say that she is "seeing a fertility counsellor" in order to not be too direct.


The word unwittingly seems close, though you may have to qualify it.

I found an example

I think demonstrates this use (see page 140 in the search results).

How about a new word: corraccidentally

I think this question can't have a clear answer because this phrase is quite open.

Think about all the situations where this could be applied.

So going to the root of the problem, I think what this phrase is expressing is that the person isn't aware of all the circumstances (or has the wrong idea) when doing something.

So I agree with @Andy that it might be unwittingly.

Or in my opinion inadvertently would be a closer fit to.

That said, it might also be expressed unintentional, since he/she is doing something wrong, thinking its the right thing.

But all those meaning don't cover the harshest way to use this phrase that would make the "accused" a naif, confused or misguided

(I like this last actually) since you could be meaning: "although you are doing the right thing, there is not much merit to it, since it's almost by chance, you don't have a philosophy behind your actions (or a wrong one)"

Serendipitously is the word I would use, although it means something more like "doing the right thing for no reason at all".

The word "Lucky" is frequently used in that situation.

For example, in a case where someone confronted with two doors, decorated with writing in a foreign language, selects the one that is on the right as the "entrance" on the basis that everyone is right handed.

He has made a correct selection, based on incorrect information (that is not why the door is the entrance).

One might say to him: "

Wow, so you just happened to pick the correct choice despite having faulty reasoning?

What a lucky break!"

Although now that I'm thinking about it, the word "Fortuitous" is closer to what I meant.

Ulteriorly.

The individual doing the "right thing for the wrong reason" did it ulteriorly.

I think this might be a candidate: unassumingly

An egoist or megalomaniac...is probably someone who would do nice things for someone to build their own rep etc.

thus doing something "right" for the "wrong" reason.

I'd say the person has reached the outcome "fortuitously" or "accidentally" (both mean "by accident or chance")

Question: Is there a word that means  doing the right thing for the wrong reason  or  getting the right conclusion from the wrong set of presumptions ?

Is there a word that means "doing the right thing for the wrong reason"?

This phrase is quite open and as a result, this question may not have a clear answer. However, some suggestions to describe this concept include the words "unwittingly", "ulteriorly", "lucky" or "unassumingly".

There are a number of suggestions which include mainly adverbsbut also adjectives. such as "unwittingly" , "inadvertently" or "unintentional" also "serendiptiously", "lucky", "ulteriorly", "unassumingly", and "accidentally" . A newly coined word was also suggested "coraccidentally"

If the meaning is that it was done for ethically wrong reasons, you could use 'ulteriorly'. 'Unwittingly', 'serendipitously' , 'fortuitously' or 'accidentally' could be used when the outcome was unexpectedly good regardless of the wrong method.

This phrase is quite open, so no clear answers, however there are some words which could be used. These words include; unwittingly, unintentional, serendipitously, lucky, ulteriorly or unassumingly.

The question might be too open for a precise answer to be possible. However, there appear to be many possible terms to describe such a phenomenon. Some examples include "corraccidentally", "unintentional", or "lucky".

Unwittingly may be the answer.
new word:  corraccidentally
Serendiptiously
Lucky
Lucky
Fortutituos
S0: Ulteriorly.
Unassumingly
Egoist or megalomaniac
Accidently

The question might be too open to provide a precise answer.

There appear to be many possible terms to describe such a phenomenon, but some examples include "corraccidentally", "unintentional", or "lucky".


"It is ME" is not grammatically correct in the academic sense, but is used in spoken English.

It is I" is grammatically correct in the pure sense, but would never be used in spoken English - or very rarely by people who speak in an ultra-formal dialect.

"It is I" would have been correct in Shakespeare's time, in spoken English, but not now.

As reported from the NOAD: me /mi/ pronoun [first person singular] 1. used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself as the object of a verb or preposition:

Do you understand me?

Wait for me!

• used after the verb to be and after than or as :

Hi, it's me.

You have more than me.

informal to or for myself:

I've got me a job.

It's then correct to say

it's me .

The answer to the question 'Who's there?'

is 'It's me.' '

It is I' would normally be heard only when something else follows it, and then only in rather formal contexts, as in 'It is I who have done all the work, so it is I who should get the compensation.'

"It is me," is more common, and correct.

However, "It is I who am here," is also correct, and "who am here" can be left off and implied, making "It is I," also correct.

This question is related to I can run faster than...

In that exchange nohat describes the pronouns being used in the nominative and accusative cases.

Modern English speakers have become more comfortable using the accusative case in comparisons even though traditionally comparisons have used the nominative case.

It is further noted that "both forms are standard.

Modern English has slurred the distinction between cases, using word order to denote case rather than declension.

We still use different words for most personal pronouns (he/him, I/me, we/us), but have lost it for you/you.

"I talk to you."

"You talk to me."

When asking "Who is there?" it would be correct to answer in the nominative case, "I am here."

Likewise, asking "Who is it?" should elicit "

It is I" or "I am it."

While it is formally correct to say "It's I", while informal or popular usage allows "It's me", it would be incorrect to say "It's him and I" (as in the title of a currently popular song), which mixes objective and nominative cases; it could be either "

It's he and I" or "It's him and me".

Question: I was taught at school that the following expression is not grammatically correct:   Who is there? It's me.   The correct one is:   Who is there? It's I.   Can you let me know which one is accurate?  Here is a good explanation about both forms.

Which one is correct to say: "It's me" or "It's I"?

It is generally considered that "It's me" or "It's I" are both standard forms. "It is ME" is not grammatically correct in the academic sense, but it is used in common speech. "It is I" would rarely be used in spoken English, and whilst it may have been correct in Shakespeare's time, it is no longer.

"It is me" is not grammatically correct, but used in spoken English. "It is I" grammatically, would be the more correct form, but less used in modern English. "I" would normally be correct if something else followed the sentence, for example, If the answer was extended to "It is I who am here" this would also be correct, so it could be implied "It is I" is correct. Both forms are considered correct. Over time the lines have blurred in distinguishing nomnative from accusative cases.

"It is I" is technically correct, but would be considered overly formal in normal speech. "It is me" is more common.

While it is gramatically correct to say "It is I", while informal spoken usage is "It is me". "It is I" would have been correct in Shakespeare's time, in spoken English. "It is I" would normally be heard only when something else follows it and then only in rather formal contexts.

"It is me" is what is commonly said and many people will consider it to be correct. However, "It is me" is technically grammatically incorrect, whilst "It is I" would be the grammatically incorrect phrase. Despite this, "It is I" is only likely to be heard in very formal circustances. It was used more often in the past, but is rarely used today.

In that the pronouns being used in the nominative and accusative cases.

"It is ME" is not grammatically correct in the academic sense, but is used in  spoken  English.

Normally "I" would have something following it.

"It is I" is grammatically correct and "It is me" is grammatically incorrect.

"It is I" would have been correct long time ago but is no longer used.

"It is I" will only today be heard in very formal contexts.

"It is me" is more common and some people will consider it to be correct.


I think the word you may be looking for is aloof , meaning "not friendly or forthcoming; cool and distant".

[Websters]

Although James had many friends, he remained aloof from them and hardly ever socialized with them.

Edited to add: The word also carries the connotation of supercilious , which means "behaving or looking as though one thinks one is superior to others".

You could also simply say: James remained aloof from his friends.

Title of this question was a bit misleading.

First thing that came to mind was that the person was introvert or even somehow socially constrained.

If you are sure that the reason for this is that he thinks he is superior to his friends, he might be "snob" ( as Hellion already said ), "pretentious" or "haughty".

However as someone who prefers to stay home instead of going out with my friends, I'd like to point out that it is not necessarily person being smug, but merely one that avoids crowds, possibly a "homebody" in a good sense.

Unsociable or antisocial maybe, if someone doesn't go out much at all (if he does go out, but not with his "friends", perhaps he's just changed his circle of friends).

That's a very specific question.

I am unaware of a word that means exactly that.

You would have to say something like: He doesn't go out with his friends because he thinks they're beneath him.

There are a couple of words/phrases referring to someone who doesn't go out much: stick-in-the-mud , and stay-at-home , but these are general terms.

This question is clearly some kind of trick or paradox.

If "he" doesn't go out with them, and thinks he is superior to them...

likely they are not "his friends ".

Nor he is "their" friend.

See if this is of any help to you.

hubristic is what I think I'd use...

I personally would call such a person an "asshole", but "snob" also comes to mind as a possibility.

Elitist doesn't quite cover all the bases ( e.g. , it doesn't necessarily imply that someone won't go out with his friends), but that's what I might call someone who refuses to go out with people who are "beneath" him.

It works well alongside snob (as Hellion and user4395 mentioned).

Perhaps one could riff off the idea of social stratification to create a new word/phrase, although they'd have to explain what they meant as soon as they used the term.

Question: What do you call a person who does not go out with his friends because he thinks he is superior to them?

What do you call a person who does not go out with his friends?

This is a very specific question, and it's possible that there is no word that has precisely this definition. However, other words that might serve to express this concept include "aloof", "a homebody" "antisocial" or "hubristic".

"Aloof" is a term that is suggested, but much depends on the persons attitude to his "friends". If they think they are superior snob, "pretentious" or "haughty".could apply. If their preference is simply to stay at home than go out  a "homebody" is another term. Other alternatives are "antisociable", "antisocial" or "hubistric". Some would consider derogatory terms, whereas another turn of phrase could be "stick-in-the-mud".

Aloof' carries the meaning of distance and unfriendliness, but other words emphasise one or the other: 'pretentious', 'haughty', 'unsociable', 'snobbish'.

There are many words that describes a person who does not go out with his friends. Some examples are; aloof, unsociable, antisocial, stick-in-the-mud and stay-at-home. If he thinks his friends are beneath him, he could be called a snob, pretentious, haughty, elitist, hubristic.

There are variety of ways of describing someone who does not go out with their friends because they think they are superior to them, including "snob", "hubristic" or "elitist".

snob ( as Hellion already said ), "pretentious" or "haughty".


Sole Proprietor : the person who owns and controls a sole proprietorship.

I am the sole proprietor of this business.

Or...

Independent Contractor : A person working independently, under a contract; a self-employed person.

I am an independent contractor.

Or...

Self-Employed (or Freelancer)

: working for yourself.

I am self-employed.

I am a freelancer.

In Australia, they can be self-employed, freelancers, contractors, sole practitioners (for professional services), sole traders (for other services), and probably a lot more besides...

I don't know if I have heard of sole proprietors here.

Sole proprietorship or simply proprietorship .

The owner is called the proprietor .

In the UK, a one person business is often referred to as a one-man band.

"My consulting business is actually just me.

I'm a bit of a one-man band at the moment"

It comes from the practice of a street entertainer playing multiple instruments at once.

The question is vague.

In the U.S, "sole proprietor" is a legal term that signifies the one human being who is responsible for the debts of a business and legally entitled to the profits of the business.

A sole proprietorship is distinguished legally from partnerships and corporations, in which the debts of a business are not the responsibility of a single, "natural person," another term of legal art.

In usual practice, a sole proprietor is also the daily manager of the business, but this need not be true.

Nor is it necessarily true that a sole proprietorship has only one person working at the business.

It refers to a technical legal relationship.

(See Wikipedia for "sole proprietor.")

In the U.S., one term commonly used for people who work for themselves is "self-employed," regardless of the legal form of ownership, which would not normally be known or of significance to most people.

That term, however, does not imply that the person works alone.

A person who owns and runs a small shop with several employees would still be called "self-employed."

A person who works alone may be called a "sole practitioner" or a "lone practitioner" although that term encompasses people who do not work alone so long as those with whom they work are in an auxiliary capacity.

Thus a doctor who is not in a group practice would be referred to as a sole practitioner even though the doctor may employ a nurse or secretary or receptionist, none of whom practice medicine.

EDIT

: I see the the OP was particularly interested in the incidence of taxation.

The entity that has primary liability for taxes depends on the exact legal form under which the business operates.

There is, however, a doctrine in U.S law called "piercing the corporate veil" that may impose secondary liability for corporate debts on other parties.

Moreover, U.S. tax law is arcane and Byzantine and so is the domain of highly specialized accountants and lawyers.

Any questions about primary and secondary liability for taxes should be asked of those specialists.

I won't even venture a guess.

The term self-employed without employees seems to be used by multiple organisations: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Eurostat (provides statistics for EU institutions)

The Dutch statistics agency Department for Business Innovation & Skills in the UK (powerpoint)

english.stackexchange.com/users/71848/JJ for Transparency and Monica

I'd rather think that proprietor means owner what, in turn, means that such person is not necessarily working in his/her business alone..

One person business would be the best..

Question: I'm wondering what is the term for the person, that is doing business on his/her own and has tax liability. It's different in each country, I'd like to know how they are called in USA and UK.

What is a one-person business called?

A one-person business can be called many different names in both the USA and UK. A sole proprietor, for example, is someone who owns and controls a sole proprietorship. Other terms include "Independent Contractor", "Self-employed" or "Freelancer". In the UK, a one-person business is often referred to as a one-man band. In medical circles, a doctor who does not belong to a group practice may be described as a "sole practitioner".

There are a number of suggestions such as "sole proprietor",  "self-employed", "freelancer" . A sole proprietor is usually the person who manages the business as distinct from legal partnerships or corporations. Some think "proprietor" means the owner, but does not necessarily work in their business alone. Another term is "Independent Contractor". None imply the person works alone. In the UK, the more informal term is "one-man band". Another US term is a "sole/lone" practitioner but may apply to specific professions such as doctors. In relation to tax liability, this can depend on the legal form of the business. Asking the expert here would be best.

In the US, a (sole) proprietership is a legal term to designate a business where a natural person is responsible for the debts and entitled to the profits. 'Self-employed' is a common general term, but independent contractor, freelancer, sole trader and other terms can be used.

A one person business is called being self-employed and appears to be used by multiple organisations. Other terms include; sole proprietor or practitioner, independent contractor or freelancer. In the UK, a one person business is often referred to as a one-man band.

It is not clear whether there is much difference between usage in the UK and the USA, but some terms to describe a single-person business include "sole proprietor", "independent contractor" or "self-employed". In the UK, such a person is also often referred to as a "one-man band".

The party who has tax liability will be determined by the business' legal form.

There are range of terms to describe such a person, including "Sole proprietor", "independent contractor" or "self-employed".

In the UK, a one-person business is often referred to as a "one-man band".


It's better to say " make a cake " or " bake a cake ".

Though you can find a lot of web pages using "cook a cake".

Examples:

He knows how to bake a cake better than anyone else.

Making a basic sponge cake is very easy.

Baking is done in an oven, cooking is done on a stove-top and typically implies using water.

You can bake pies, roasts, cookies, bread, casseroles, pizza, and cakes.

You can cook vegetables and noodles.

It is common and acceptable to say "cook a meal" or "cook dinner" rather than "bake a meal" or "bake dinner", even if the meal was all prepared in an oven.

It becomes more confusing when you consider certain other food types.

Eggs can be fried, scrambled, or boiled, but you rarely hear of anyone baking or cooking eggs.

The bottom line is that bakers bake things and those things they produce are " baked ", whereas cooks (or chefs) cook things and those things they produce are " cooked ."

It's not wrong, but it's more common to see 'bake a cake', as that is almost always the cooking method used.

Provided that it is an oven based cake you should say " bake ".

If describing a cake that isn't made in the oven (eg a fish cake)

you could say " cook ".

It should be "bake a cake" and not "cook a cake".

Baking is when you put something in an oven-toaster-griller, and cooking is when you put something on the stove-top.

I just checked dictionary.com.

It says that "cook" means: to prepare (food) by the use of heat, as by boiling, baking, or roasting. to subject (anything) to the application of heat.

So cooking includes boiling, baking and roasting.

Wich means its not even on the same level of precision.

So we can say we "cook" for everything that's been heated but we can't cook a salad or cold food.

I guess that something prepared on the stove-up can only be "cooked" but then something baked is also "cooked".

The same would be applied to roasted and boiled.

If you guys have other sources that say the opposite please share ;)

Question: Is it wrong to say "to cook a cake"?

Is it wrong to say "cook a cake"?

If the cake in question is an oven-based cake, you should say "bake". Ultimately, baking is done in an oven and cooking is done on a stove-top. The correct answer should be "bake a cake".

Baking is done in an oven, cooking is done on a stove-top and typically implies using water. The bottom line is that bakers  bake  things produce " baked " goods, whereas cooks (or chefs)  cook  things and produce are "cooked" food . Cooking can includs boiling, baking and roasting, and although something prepared on the stove-up can only be "cooked,  something baked can also be "cooked". We can say we "cook" for everything that's been heated but we can't cook a salad or cold food. It will all depend on how the cake is made, but if the cake is an oven-based cake, then it is "bake a cake".

Baking or making a cake would be the preferred terms. While cooking can be used as a general term ('cook a meal'), cakes are almost exclusively baked and so this is the term used.

It's not wrong to say cook a cake, but it's more common to say bake or make a cake. To bake, implies baking in the oven, to cook would implies to cook on the hob.

Whilst "cook a cake" is not technically wrong, "back a cake" would be better. Cooking is generally performed on a stove whilst baking is generally performed in an oven.

The bottom line is that bakers  bake  things and those things they produce are " baked ", whereas cooks (or chefs)  cook  things and those things they produce are " cooked ."

Baking is something that goes into the oven

It should be "bake a cake" and not "cook a cake".

Whilst "cook a cake " is technically not wrong, "bake a cake" would be better.

Baking is generally done in an oven whilst cooking is generally done on a stove.


I did some research using the Corpus of Historical American English , and it paints the following picture: (X axis: year, Y axis: incidences per million words)

This shows that from whence has been in constant use all the way back to 1810 (that's how far the Corpus goes).

Indeed, as the World Wide Words post already linked by Shaun says: And even a brief look at historical sources shows that from whence has been common since the thirteenth century .

It has been used by Shakespeare, Defoe (in the opening of Robinson Crusoe : “He got a good estate by merchandise, and leaving off his trade, lived afterwards at York; from whence he had married my mother”), Smollett, Dickens (in A Christmas Carol : “He began to think that the source and secret of this ghostly light might be in the adjoining room, from whence, on further tracing it, it seemed to shine”), Dryden, Gibbon, Twain (in Innocents Abroad : “He traveled all around, till at last he came to the place from whence he started”), and Trollope, and it appears 27 times in the King James Bible (including Psalm 121:

“I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help”).

Emphasis added.

(The King James Bible was completed in 1611).

As you can see from the above graph, from whence is on a steady decline; however, so is whence all on its own, so the graph isn't really that helpful.

What we really want is the ratio :

The values on the Y axis in this graph tell you how many times more often whence was used without from rather than with.

So, around 1920, whence all by itself was roughly 10 times more popular than from whence ; nowadays, on average, every second usage of whence is prefixed by a from , according to the Corpus.

In other words, from whence has been actually gaining "relative" popularity since 1920.

It looks as if there has always been some doubt about whence versus from whence .

The first edition of Wycliff's Psalms (1382) has: I rered vp myn eȝen in to the mounteynes;

whennys shal come helpe to me.

But the edition of 1388 has:

I reiside myn iyen to the hillis; fro whannus help schal come to me.

I can imagine 14th century grammarians having the same argument we're having now: "

Nay!

Thou canst nat say, fro whannus : yt lakketh gramer!"

It is technically redundant to say from whence , since whence means from where .

However, most modern usage of the word is prefixed with from .

It is a topic of heated debate in some circles.

Both 'whence' and 'from whence' are commonly used.

The addition of 'from' is a more recent addition ('whence' is first recorded circa 1300, 'whence from' 1568)

but seems to be just as common.

It might seem somewhat tautological given that most dictionaries list 'whence' as meaning 'from which place', but it is one of those phrases that has been used for so long it has become standard.

The NOAD reports the following note about the use of from whence and whence : USAGE Strictly speaking, whence means from what place , as in whence did you come?

Thus, the preposition from in from whence did you come?

is redundant and its use is considered incorrect by some.

The use with from is very common, though, and has been used by reputable writers since the 14th century.

It is now broadly accepted in standard English.

Question: I just saw a  parody on the Lord of the Rings , where one of the characters says:   it must be cast back in the fire from whence it came!   This struck me as odd, since I expected them to say "whence it came"; but now I find that "from whence" seems to occur as well.  Does anybody know whether this is correct, or whether it has been correct at some point and subsequently fell into disgrace (or vice versa)?

Is "from whence" correct? Or should it be "whence"?

It appears that whilst, "whence" and "from whence" are both commonly used, the phrase "from whence" has been gaining popularity since 1920. Technically, it is redundant to say "from whence" since "whence" means "from where", but it has been used for so long that it has become standard.

There has always been doubt whether to use "whence" or "from whence" , however "from whence" has become more popular today.  Purists argue that "from whence" is technically wrong as "whence" already means "from where".It might seem somewhat tautological given that most dictionaries list 'whence' as meaning 'from which place', but it is one of those phrases that has been used for so long it has become standard, so using "from whence" would be somewhat tautological, but it has been standardised.

Technically, 'from whence' is redundant, since 'whence' already means 'from where'. However, both have been commonly used since the 13th or 14th century.

Both 'whence' and 'from whence' are commonly used. According to Corpus, nowadays, on average, every second usage of  whence is prefixed by a from, however around 1920 whence was more popular. Whence  means  from where, so it is technically redundant to say  from whence.

It appears that 'whence' and 'from whence', whilst not exactly equivalent, have been used as such for such a long time that it is hard to say when 'from whence' became so common.

So, around 1920,  whence  all by itself was roughly 10 times more popular than  from whence ; nowadays, on average, every second usage of  whence  is prefixed by a  from , according to the Corpus.


The latter describes your salary: if you sit at your desk and don't get fired, you'll get $500.

The former is more a description of the situation: somehow, by hook or by crook, I manage to scrape together $500.

The use of "per" imply a causal connection between the passage of time and the arrival of your pay.

"Each" encompasses the possibility there's no connection, and it's just happenstance.

The two are equivalent.

Neither holds any implications as to how you come by the money; that is implied by 'earn'.

Per means 'for every' or 'for each', so it's almost exactly the same as just saying 'each'.

Per is perhaps more common.

"Each month" is a fixed amount, "per month" can be an average.

I'd say that "I earn $500 per month" suggests that your monthly salary from a single source is $500, whereas "I earn $500 each month" could mean that you make $500 from potentially multiple sources.

"$500 per month" connotes "I earn money at a rate of $500 per month."

So if you work for half a month, you will earn $250.

"I earn $500 each month" implies that from the start of the month to the end of the month you acquire $500.

There are subtle differences in meaning.

“I earn $500 each month” says that each month, considered separately, the sum of your receipts is $500.

This can mean that the sum equals $500 exactly .

But it can also mean $500 at least .

For example, you can write: I earn $500 each month.

During peak months, I earn as much as $800.

"I earn $500 per month” express a rate , or linear relationship, between time and money.

It means that over n months, the sum of your receipts is n × $500.

Again, this can mean that the monthly sum equals $500 exactly .

But it can also mean $500 on average .

For example, you can write: I earn $500 per month.

This is considering the year as a whole.

The summer months are slower, but I always make it up over the holidays.

There is no difference.

The following sentences are equivalent: I earn $500 each month.

I earn $500 per month.

I earn $500 every month.

I earn $500 a month.

My [monthly] salary is $500.

From personal experience, I would say that per month is the least likely to be used in this context.

Question: What is the difference between these two sentences?   I earn $500  each  month   I earn $500  per  month

What is the difference between “I earn $500 each month” and “I earn $500 per month”?

It's possible that some people may perceive that the phrase "I earn $500 per month" describes your salary, whereas "I earn $500 each month" describes your situation. On the other hand, some people will say that these sentences are equivalent, although "per" is perhaps more common. In any case, the differences in meaning are subtle.

There are differences in that the first sentence describes your fixed salary, wheras the second broadly describes your situation and denotes the passage of time before you are paid. However, some people do not see a difference in the two sentence as neither indicates how you earn the money. However, for some people "each month" is a fixed amount whereas "per month" can be an average. "per month" could be interpreted to mean a single source of income, whereas"each month" several sources of income. $500 per month" connotes "I earn money at a rate of $500 per month" whereas “I earn $500  each  month” says that each month, considered separately is the sum of your receipts is $500. There are subtle differences. It is suggested that "per" is the more commonly used form ,whereas some disagree with this.

There is some disagreement on the differences in practice, but 'per' and 'each' are near synonyms and can be used interchangeably here.

Per means 'for every' or 'for each', so it's almost exactly the same as just saying 'each'. However there are subtle diiferences, "Each month" is a fixed amount, "per month" can be an average.

The answer to this question is subjective. Some people believe that the two phrases are equivalent whereas others believe there are subtle differences. For example, "per" might imply an average whereas "each" may imply a fixed amount.

Describing 2 different things.
There are similarities
The differences
Implying multiple sources of income
Different meaning.
Multiple sources of incoime

More many people, the two phrases are entirely equivalent.

For some people, "per" implies an average, whereas "each" implies a fixed amount.


There's no such word as semiproduct in normal English.

Regardless of whether it is the finished product or not, a steel sheet is still a product; it has been produced from raw materials.

I would think 'component' would be more appropriate, but there are lots of industrial in-words, so as Tragicomic says, there's no reason you can't use semiproduct so long as your colleagues understand it.

The word you are asking for is semifinished or semiprocessed , which are adjectives; the nouns you would use are semifinished product , or semiprocessed product .

To tackle this from yet another angle for good measure, there is the word prefabrication , which refers to the process of producing "semiproducts" which are later assembled to the final product on site: The most widely-used form of prefabrication in building and civil engineering is the use of prefabricated concrete and prefabricated steel sections in structures where a particular part or form is repeated many times.

[...] Prefabricated bridge elements and systems offer bridge designers and contractors significant advantages in terms of construction time, safety, environmental impact, constructibility, and cost.

S]mall, commonly-used structures such as concrete pylons are in most cases prefabricated.

Radio towers for mobile phone and other services often consist of multiple prefabricated sections.

Modern lattice towers and guyed masts are also commonly assembled of prefabricated elements.

Prefabrication has become widely used in the assembly of aircraft and spacecraft, with components such as wings and fuselage sections often being manufactured in different countries or states from the final assembly site.

One more possibility, depending on the nature of the material, would be "assembly" or even "sub-assembly", especially when such a thing can be serviced or replaced in isolation.

A car, for instance, might have a fusebox assembly, which can be removed as a unit, or a fuel sensor sub-assembly, which includes not only the sensor itself but also the connecting wire, mounting bracket, tube, and screws.

If you're talking about production line, there is technical term called WIP (Work In Process).

So you'd better simply call it WIP material or in process material , which means it's not finished yet.

About computer, there are many different things, if that's a piece of code that's called snippet .

Also component and module are used.

Modules are like blocks of info and editable info that can be placed anywhere.

Components are parts of the functionality of the system.

(Gallery, Address book and so on)

This may be usage that is specific to your industry, and if you call it a semiproduct and the people you work with understand it, it should be fine.

I've heard it called production material , which is different from raw material in that it is used in the production process but is not actually converted into a new and finished product.

Question: This question is related to industry and manufacturing. I'm wondering if there is a word "semiproduct". We use it to describe a piece of material - for example steel sheet, pipe, elbow, dome, U-profile, … that could is not a product itself, but will be later used in the manufacturing process. But it's not raw material either, it's something in between.  Is there a  better  correct word that would collectively describe these things?

Is there such a word as "semiproduct"?

There is no such word in English as "semiproduct". However, there are many other terms that may be appropriate, such as "semifinished", "prefabrication" or "component". However, it may be that the term "semiproduct" is specific to your industry, and if the people you work with understand it, it should be fine.

There is no such word , the word in English is "component" or "module" is an alternative, although "semiproduct" may be industry-specific in the asker's case. "Semifinished" or" semiprocessed" resulting in "semifinished/semiprocessed" products is the correct term. "Prefabrication" is another term whereby by "semiproducts" are processed to be used in bigger structures. Depending on the type of work involved, "assembly" or "sub-assembly" could also be the correct terms or "production metal". Similarly, on production lines, there is a term called Work in Progress or WIP meaning the product has not been fully completed. This could be a term that could be used.

Terms like 'component' or 'semifinished/ semiprocessed product' could be used, depending on the context. WIP (Work In Process) could be used, or semiproduct or another term could be used by your own industry.

There's no such word as semiproduct in normal English. You could use semifinished or semiprocessed product. Alternatively use assembly, sub-assembly, production material, or work in process (WIP). However it may be specific to your industry, and if you call it a  semiproduct  and the people you work with understand it, it should be fine.

There is no such term as "semiproduct" in English. However, if your colleagues understand you when you say "semiproduct", then it should be fine to use the term. Otherwise, what this material is called will vary from person to person. Some potential names include "semifinished product", "production material" or "work in process".

The word does not exist.
Semifinished
Prefabrication
"assembly" or even "sub-assembly"
WIP used in
Also  component  and  module  are used
production metal

The answer will be subjective, with terms such as "semifinished product", "production material" or "work in process" being used.

If people understand what you mean when you say "semiproduct", then it should be fine.


It could be construed that way, but it depends on what is said after it.

If I said: Needless to say, two plus two is four you wouldn't find it condescending, because generally it is needless to say that two plus two is four.

If I said: Needless to say, cribellate spiders have no need for glands producing hygroscopic adhesive.

You might, depending on your knowledge of spiders, disagree with the first clause and thus find it a little condescending.

It is up to you to judge your potential audience and tailor your writing to them.

No, it just indicates that the writer expects the fact that follows to not be surprising to the reader.

The Cambridge Dictionary Online describes the phrase as: Needless to say: as you would expect; added to, or used to introduce, a remark giving information which is expected and not surprising.

Examples 1)

The life and adventures of Martín Chuzzlerwit (Charles Dickens, 1844)

It has been rumoured, and it is needless to say

the rumour originated in the same base quarters , that a certain male Cbuzzlewit, whose birth must be admitted to be involved in some obscurity, was of very mean and low descent.

The Complete Tales of Uncle Remus

(Joel Chandler Harris, Richard Chase, 2002)

No typographical device could adequately describe Daddy Jack's imitation of the flushing of a covey of partridges, or quail; but it is needless to say that it made its impression upon the little boy.

I find it is quite the opposite.

If you were to neglect to qualify an obvious statement with something like "needless to say", or "as you know", the reader might then feel like he is being condescended to because you are telling him/her information

he/she already knows.

By adding the qualifier, you establish some common ground, in essence saying "I know that you know what I'm telling you already, and I don't want to insult your intelligence, so please don't be offended."

It is not condescending at all.

It is just a different set of words used to convey the same meaning as '...

and hence it follows that ....' If it were condescending, then the phrase '...

last but not the least ...' would also be condescending to the person who is addressed last in some list.

Does putting that word 'least' in there mean that there is someone in the room who thinks that person is the 'least' ?

Of course not !

It is just an expression used instead of saying '...

it is thus obvious that...', '... it can thus be deduced that...' , '...it implies that...' Needless to say, needless to say is not condescending at all.

In addition to other answers, I want to add:

In formal writing, that phrase should be avoided.

If it's needless to say, why are you saying it?

If you want to be concise, everything you say should serve a purpose.

At best, it sounds like extra fluff; unless you're writing in a genre in which that fluff is ok.

Question: Isn't the term a bit condescending?

Does "needless to say" convey to the reader that he is ignorant?

The term "needless to say" shouldn't necessary be construed in this way, but it depends on what is said after it. Generally, this phrase simply indicates that the writer expects the fact that follows not to be surprising to the reader. Ultimately, it is up to you to judge your potential audience and tailor your writing to them.

It could be construed that way, but it depends on what is said after it. If you are stating a known fact afterwards, it is not condescending. The person speaking should use their discretion when writing and tailor their writing style. The writer is expects the fact that follows to not be surprising to the reader. Cambridge Dictionary Online  describes the phrase as:   Needless to say:  as you would expect;  added to, or used to  introduce, a remark giving information  which is expected and not surprising. In fact, some would say that it is the opposite to condescending. If you were to neglect to qualify an obvious statement with something like "needless to say", or "as you know", the reader might then feel like he is being condescended to because you are telling him/her information. Some believe it should not be used in formal writing as they are just "filler"  words.

This is generally not seen as condescending at all, but is rather a way to establish common ground and note that the information is already known to the listener or reader. However, this should normally be avoided as unnecessary in formal writing.

Needless to say indicates that the writer expects the fact that follows to not be surprising to the reader and is therefore not condescending. However it could be construed that way.

The answer to this question will depend on the specific context, however, "needless to say" is not normally considered to be condescending in general use.

it is thus obvious that...', '... it can thus be deduced that...' , '...it implies that...' Needless to say, needless to say is not condescending at all.

The writer should tailor their work to their audience.

It is suggesting the reader already knows the fact.

The answer to this question will depend on the specific context.

In general use, this phrase is not considered to be condescending.


You can say "late" if you are referring to the deceased's name, or a position from which it is obvious who you mean.

This is respectful, formal, and businesslike.

The late John D. Rockefeller was a very generous man.

My late husband was a very generous man.

But not *The late guy was a very generous man.

"Rest in peace" should always be written as RIP (which really is an abbreviation of the Latin).

It should not be used as an adjective.

Thus, one cannot say The * rest-in-peace guy was a very generous man except one wants to be extremely informal, but this is certainly not respectful.

I propose two options: Use

deceased :

The deceased was a very generous man Punctuate any reference to the dead with RIP (written), may he/

she/

they rest in peace , or may his/her/their [gentle] soul[s] rest in [perfect] peace :

The man, may his gentle soul rest in peace , was very generous.

He was a very generous man; may his gentle soul rest in peace .

Mr. M, RIP , was a very generous man.

Mr. M, may he rest in peace , was a very generous man.

Use while alive : While alive , he was a very generous man.

He was a very generous man while he was alive .

The past tense and tender memories can also suffice, depending on context:

He was a very generous man.

As always, one's tone is most important factor in situations such as this.

I would refer to the deceased unless I was aware of a particular sensitivity in the culture or context.

The deceased was a very generous man.

Some might suggest the dear departed

but I find this archaic and a little patronising.

He's "Resting".

He's "Definitely Deceased".

He's "Passed On.

Is No more.

Has ceased to be.

Expired and gone to meet his maker.

A stiff!

Bereft of life, rests in peace!

His metabolic processes are now history.

He's off the twig, he's kicked the bucket, he's shuffled off his mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the Choir Invisible!

This is an EX-PERSON!"

Another option would be to say : " he passed away".

Like " he passed away in his sleep" .

As far I know..

The term "late" is used in a more formal settingalthough " died" is not a disrespectful word..

I think sometimes we tend to conjure a rather violent death

Use the person's name, with "late" if you must make it clear they are dead.

I think the terms like "the deceased" are too impersonal.

"The departed" is a polite, formal expression that also works, and it's also a popular movie (though I never saw it).

I think the only respectful way to refer to a person who has died is when we do not talk about body but we talk about person's ideas, love, theories which has made impact in our lives.

Only body dies, not the person's contribution to the world.

That is why a "respectful way" is needed as an expression of thanks.

We can say that is person is "no more among us" which conveys the idea that we are referring to the soul which has traveled somewhere else leaving the body behind.

Question: What is a respectful way to refer to a person who has died? Is it OK to call that person "rest in peace"?   The rest in peace guy was a very generous man.

What is a respectful way to refer to a person who has died?

"Rest in Peace" should always be written as RIP and it should not be used as an adjective. Therefore, one cannot say "The rest in peace guy was a very generous man". You can instead use the word "late" if you are referring to the person's name or simply refer to them as "the deceased".

There are several ways of referring to the dead. The word "late" can be used if you use the person's name, and is a respectful and business-like form. However, "rest-in-peace" should always be written as RIP and should not be used as an adjective. You cannot say the "rest-in-peace guy...". However, you could say  "(name of person) may his gentle soul rest in peace".  Another alternative is the use the word "the deceased" to reference to dead person. Equally, "while alive" could be used to mention the person's achievements when they were alive. There is also the expression "Dear Departed," but this is quite old-fashioned and not used much.

The late [name]' would be the most polite, although 'the decesased/departed' could also be used where not considered too impersonal. 'Rest in peace' cannot be used as an ajective and cannot refer to the person themselves.

The late, departed, or deceased are polite, formal expressions used to describe a person who has died.

A more common way to refer to the recently deceased is to refer to them by name with the word "late" before their name. It is also possible to use the terms "the deceased" or "the departed".

Only body dies, not the person's contribution to the world.

That is why a "respectful way" is needed as an expression of thanks.

A more common way to refer to a person is by referring to someone by name and saying the word "late" before their name.

It is also possible to refer to recently deceased people as "the deceased" or "the departed".


The closest thing might be the NATO Phonetic Alphabet . AlphaBravoCharlieDeltaEchoFoxtrotGolfHotelIndiaJulietKiloLimaMikeNovemberOscarPapaQuebecRomeoSierraTangoUniformVictorWhiskeyXrayYankeeZulu

If you mean the names as we learn them in school, then they're very rarely written down (so I'm effectively inventing these spellings), but they would (in British English) be:

Ay

/eɪ/ Bee /biː/ See

/siː/ Dee /diː/

Ee

/iː/ Eff /ɛf/

Gee /dʒiː/ Aitch /eɪtʃ/

— sometimes pre-aspirated as Haitch /heɪtʃ/, though this is considered incorrect in RP Eye /aɪ/

Jay

/dʒeɪ/

Kay /keɪ/ Ell /ɛl/

Em /ɛm/

En /ɛn/

Oh /oʊ/ or /əʊ/ Pee /piː/ Queue /kj(ə)uː/

Ar

/ɑː/ — with varying degrees of rhotacism

; I grew up in the West Country, so say /ɑʵː/

Ess /ɛs/ Tee /tiː/

You /j(ə)uː/ Vee /viː/

Double-you /ˈdəb(ʉ)l.j(ə)uː/ Ex /ɛks/

Why /waɪ/

Zed /zɛd/

I get what you mean by asking about a is for apple ; whilst I'm sure I was taught something like that when first learning to read, it has been so infrequently used since then

(I'm now 35)

that I honestly couldn't tell you what they were.

The letter names above, though, are how I would spell out my name to someone unfamiliar with it, for example.

The Nato Phonetic Alphabet ( Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta and so on) would be familiar to some, but not to all — my mother would probably think me pretentious for using it.

But that is what our police would use to provide clear, unambiguous details of a car number plate over the radio, for example.

I think a conventional alphabet that starts with "A is in Apple" is the one form esl.about.com .

The purpose is to illustrate a prototypical word starting with each letter for pedagogical purposes (not necessarily to make the pronunciation of the letters distinct like a phonetic alphabet).

That list says: A as in "apple" B as in "boy" C as in "car" D as in "dog" E as in "ear" F as in "flag" G as in "great" H as in "house" I as in "insect" J as in "joy" K as in "kind" L as in "light" M as in "magic" N as in "night" O as in "orchestra" P as in "people" Q as in "question" R as in "red" S as in "sure" T as in "truck" U as in "unique" V as in "video" W as in "wow" X as in "xerox" ("xylophone" is also often used here) Y as in "yes" Z as in "zebra"

Bill posted a link to the law enforcement phonetic alphabet, namely.

Here the idea is to make each letters word have a distinct sound.

A as in Adam B as in Boy C as in Charlie D as in David E as in Edward F as in Frank G as in George H as in Henry

I as in Ida J as in John K as in King L as in Lincoln M as in Mary N as in Nora O as in Ocean P as in Paul Q as in Queen R as in Robert S as in Sam T as in Tom U as in Union V as in Victor W as in William

X as in X-ray Y as in Young Z as in Zebra

The authors of children's books make a living constructing and publishing lists of interesting words for characters.

For example, Sesame Street ABC Flash Cards There are others on Amazon — search for Dr Seuss' ABC, An amazing alphabet book! and Thomas' ABC book .

These books, and many more like them help children connect writing to the sound of nouns, a cornerstone of learning any language.

Question: I have just read  the newest post of DOGHOUSEDIARIES , and I am wondering whether the words for characters are fixed in the USA or the UK, as I am not a native English speaker.  For example:   A  as in  apple

What are the conventional words for characters (A-Z)?

There does not appear to be an agreed set of words for each of the letters of the alphabet and authors of children's books have made a living publishing lists of interesting words for characters, such as Sesame Street ABC Flash Cards. The closest thing to an established set of words might be the NATO Phonetic Alphabet, but this is used to provide clear, unambiguous details.

The closest thing to a standard would be the NATO Phonetic Alphabet (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie), which uses words starting with those letters. Children's books introducing the alphabet associate letters with common nouns, but generally do not teach pronunciation of the letters themselves. These letters would be pronounced according to regional dialects.

There are several different conventional words for the letters of the alphabet. One of them being the NATO Phonetic Alphabet .  AlphaBravoCharlieDeltaEchoFoxtrotGolfHotelIndiaJulietKiloLimaMikeNovemberOscarPapaQuebecRomeoSierraTangoUniformVictorWhiskeyXrayYankeeZulu.  However there is another version A as in "apple" B as in "boy" C as in "car" D as in "dog" E as in "ear" F as in "flag" G as in "great" H as in "house" I as in "insect" J as in "joy" K as in "kind" L as in "light" M as in "magic" N as in "night" O as in "orchestra" P as in "people" Q as in "question" R as in "red" S as in "sure" T as in "truck" U as in "unique" V as in "video" W as in "wow" X as in "xerox" ("xylophone" is also often used here) Y as in "yes" Z as in "zebra"

There is no fixed phonetic alphabet in English, but a very commonly understood one is the Nato Phonetic Alphabet, which runs as follows: Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta, Echo, Foxtrot, Golf, Hotel, India, Juliet, Kilo, Lima, Mike, November, Oscar, Papa, Quebec, Romeo, Sierra, Tango, Uniform, Victor, Whiskey, Xray, Yankee, Zulu.

These books, and many more like them help children connect writing to the sound of nouns, a cornerstone of learning any language.

For example, Sesame Street ABC Flash Cards There are others on Amazon — search for Dr Seuss' ABC, An amazing alphabet book! and Thomas' ABC book .


It is acceptable, but you should use it with care.

Generally, you should avoid having long texts in parentheses, as the reader will eventually forget that he is inside a parentheses block.

In serious papers and letters, you should avoid it completely, and rather find a way of re-phrase it.

In conversational e-mails, blog posts, StackExchange posts etc.

it might be more natural to use it, but the inner parenthesis should never be long (just a couple of words).

The most important is to make sure that the reader don't get confused of where the parenthesis start and end.

Example

With nested parentheses This is a quick example on how to rephrase a potential problematic use of nestedparenthesis.(It can be a less important section like this (which is quite long, even if it is not important), and when you continue, the reader might be lost in where in the parenthesized text he is, and might wonder if he still is inside any parentheses.)Anyway, the main text continues here.

Re-phrased to remove nesting This is a quick example on how to rephrase a potential problematic use of nested parenthesis.

(It can be a less important section like this.

It is quite long, even if it is not important.

Now when you continue, the reader is not lost anymore because the long section is taken out in a separate paragraph, and no inner parentheses can be mistaken for an early termination of the outer section.)

Anyway, the main text continues here.

I believe it's acceptable , but vaguely considered poor form , and I tend to avoid it (often by restructuring a sentence and busting out some emdashes) unless I'm intentionally using it to be cute.

Well I do it, but

then I spend a lot of time as a mathematician.

If it gets confusing I think using alternative bracket glyphs assists ([{<« »>}]) .

Though using the guillemets (« ») as brackets can get you in to trouble, as a lot of languages use them as speech marks.

(Wikipedia) ]

My English Composition professor told us that if you ever feel you need to use nested parentheses, that is one sure sign you need to rewrite the sentence instead.

Here's what one technical editor has to say on the topic: Nesting parentheses should be done with square brackets "([ ])".

But since square brackets are usually used for citations, this is confusing.

The answer is to eliminate all nested parentheses by appropriate rewording.

(Dashes, otherwise not recommended, can have a use here.)

I have found that people who appreciate stressing thoroughly the logical construction of their sentences to make them totally unambiguous tend to use parentheses a lot, and to nest them, even though (see other answers)

it's considered poor form.

In particular, scientists (especially mathematicians and logicians) seem to do that more commonly than other people.

In looking at this question, I was immediately reminded of the work of William Faulkner, an undoubtedly well-known author in the United States.

He is notorious for his complex sentences that can go on for pages.

In some of them, he unapologetically uses nested parentheses.

While Faulkner sets a precedent doing this, it is not at all proof of the 'correct' usage.

His motivation is quite different.

I like the way Louis Rubin puts it in his essay

The Dixie Special: William Faulkner and the Southern Literary Renascence : His very style itself, with the long sentences, the liberal deployment of adjectives, the parentheses, and the parentheses within parentheses, proceeds from the conviction that reality can be represented only when presented in its full complexity, leaving out nothing that is important.

His admiration for Thomas Wolfe, he said on several occasions, was for that novelist's attempt, however impossible of fulfillment, to put all experience on the head of a pin.

I bring Faulkner's example up for the sake of introducing a different angle on the OP's question.

It may not be the best choice stylistically to nest parentheses, but there have been literary precedents that show the practice.

The example of Faulkner's usage of the nested parentheses shows that there is a purpose in his writing to convey a sense of complexity and to leave nothing out .

Parentheses are a way to stuff more ideas into a sentence than it could otherwise bear.

They make life easier for the writer who is trying to capture all his ideas as they bubble up, but harder for the reader trying to make sense of it all.

If you nest your parentheses, you risk losing your reader entirely.

So I'd say, in your first draft, go ahead and use as many parentheses as you want, but in later drafts you should try to eliminate them — especially the nested ones.

Question: Is it acceptable to nest parentheses (for example, if I (meaning myself) write like this)?

Is it acceptable to nest parentheses?

In general, nesting parenthesis is acceptable, but should be used with care and avoided completely in serious papers and letters. In fact, many people would consider it poor form and a sign that you probably need to rewrite the sentence instead. However, if you are going to nest parenthesis, technical editors might suggest using square brackets.

It is acceptable to use nested parentheses, but they should be used cautiously and to avoid having long texts within parentheses. They should be avoided in formal or academic papers.You must ensure that the reader does not get confused so in the end, it may be better to rephrase the sentence. Technically, they should be included in square brackets, but because these are also used for citations, they can be confusing. Dashes could be used as an alternative, but are not recommended. Some consider nested parentheses as a useful technique to include additional content in the sentence. Although, it might help the writer, they still risk confusing the reader. It is recommended having them in the first draft, but eliminating them later.

It is technically acceptable, and can be a way for writers to fit more ideas into a sentence. However, it can be confusing for a reader. In general, parentheses (particularly double parentheses) should be avoided and kept shorter if possible.

It is acceptable to nest parentheses, but you should use it with care as you can risk confusing the reader. It can be considered as poor form and should be avoided or re-phased in serious papers and letters.

Nesting parentheses is considered acceptable but unadvisable as it could confuse the reader.

Acceptable but use with care and avoid having long texts in parentheses

Nesting parentheses is considered acceptable but something to be avoided.

Nesting parentheses could be confusing for the reader.


Mehper beats me to it with outside , so I'll just throw in a third alternative for the sake of completeness.

Historically, without is an antonym of within , and Merriam-Webster still says that the first meaning of without is "outside" without further comment, but I don't actually see it being used that way these days.

Wiktionary marks that usage as " archaic or literary ".

Outside is an antonym to within .

For example: Within or outside of an organization or institution.

Outwith means outside of something.

In Scottish English the antonym is outwith .

I think it nicely resolves the problems with using without or outside , which often don't accurately reflect the intended meaning.

There's a picture of it on Wikipedia being used on a sign:

I agree with "without.

" Reminds me of a Marx Brothers exchange: "Without" is a broader term, covering both "lacking" and "the absence of," and also means "outside." (This double meaning led to the Marx Brothers routine: "

There's a girl waiting without."

"Without what?" "Without food or clothing."

"Well, feed her and send her in.") From

On Language , by William Safire.

To me the antonym of 'within' is 'between' and here is why: Previous answers proposed 'outside' as the/an antonym of 'within'.

However an obvious antonym of 'outside' is 'inside' which is different from 'within'.

To find the 'true' antonym of 'within' I tried to find in which context(s) the word is used.

After a moment of reflexion I recalled that 'within' has to do with group theory and analysis of variance.

In group theory the properties of elements falling into groups are analysed.

For example think of a class of students divided into two groups: males and females.

Each student can provide his or her weight.

It is then possible to calculate the variation of weight either: 1)

WITHIN groups (e.g. within males and then separately within females) and2)

BETWEEN groups (e.g. between males and females).

To me

the 'real' antonym of 'wihin' whould be thus 'between'.

However there may be other contexts

I have not thought of where this is not valid.

Precising the context in which you want to use the word would be valuable next time.

I don't think 'without' or 'outside' groups mean the same as 'between' groups (and similarly for 'inside' and 'within').

Let me try to explain my point by using these words in a context of comparison.

Let's imagine once each student has given her or his weight

the teacher ask the students the following questions: 1)

What are the difference of weight BETWEEN male and female students?2)

What are the difference of weight

WITHIN male students?3)

What are the difference of weight WITHIN female students?

First let's imagine how the students could have answered.

For question 1 a possible basic answer would be to calculate the mean weight of male students (let's imagine it is 70 kg) and then the mean weigth of female students (let's imagine it is 60 kg).

The obsious conclusion (however possibly statistically incorrect) would be that boys are heavier than girls by a difference of 10 kg.

For question 2 a possible answer would be to calculate the difference between the heaviest boy and the lightest boy.

For question 3 a similar answer could be given for girls.

We have just imagined an example of comparison where 'between' and 'within' have precise meanings which can be understood by answering math questions.

Now if you do not see the difference with 'inside' and 'ouside' let's use these words in the previous questions: 1)

What are the difference of weight OUTSIDE (or WITHOUT)

male and female students?2)

What are the difference of weight INSIDE male students?3)

What are the difference of weight INSIDE female students?

First you could say that the use of 'inside' in place of 'within' is not that much of a shock in question 2 and 3.

However a possible interpretation would be to search for weight differences inside the body of each student which does not make any sense.

Second please read question 1 out loud.

To me it does not make any sense and it is the strongest evidence that 'outside' or 'without' cannot replace 'between'.

And to me the same applies to 'inside' and 'within' even if it is less obvious.

Question: Does "within" have an antonym? If there is an antonym, which one is it?

Does "within" have an antonym? If so, what?

The exact answer to this question will depend on the context, but historically, the antonum of "witihin" has been "without". Other possible antonyms include "outside" and "outwith", which is Scottish English.

Outside is generally seen as the antonym, but it depends on the context. The opposite of 'within the groups' could be 'between the groups'.

Without, outside, outwith are antonyms of within. Between could also be used depending on the context.

The answer will depend on geography and context, but possible antonyms for "within" include "without", "outwith", "outside" or "between".

Mehper beats me to it with outside , so I'll just throw in a third alternative for the sake of completeness.

For example: Within or outside of an organization or institution.


When organizations of similar size, states, or armies liaise, I have seen "counterpart" used quite often.

Example ; ...said Navy Capt.

John Kirby, spokesman for the top U.S. military officer, Adm. Mike Mullen, who spoke briefly by phone on Monday and Wednesday with his counterpart in Cairo, Army Lt.

Gen. Sami Enan.

obviously, it's only usable in that limited context of two structures/organizations interacting (as @Dour points out it can not be used to describe two equal-ranking colleagues on the "same side"), so it may not be what you are looking for.

Although it isn't a word I've often used, I believe compeer is the word you might be looking for.

Defined as: a person of the same rank or status; equal; peer.

It is the best I think you will find, unless you just go with one of the above answers which do makes sense.

My Webster's lists the following synonyms for colleague : coworker, fellow worker, workmate, teammate, associate, partner, collaborator, ally, confederate.

None of these really work in the sense you're looking for, something that means "in exactly the same job" as you.

If no one strikes gold for you here, I would suggest that one alternative for you is to be more specific about the actual job function:

My wife is a periodontist, just like me.

Jean and Kate were both trial lawyers.

Here are a few traits I share with my fellow QA consultants at IBM: [List]

Ed and Bill

and I have a lot of disagreements, but we're all teamsters and we stick together.

I think the word you're looking for is confrere

It comes from the French, and is masculine.

The feminine equivalent (in French) is consoeur though, in certain contexts you could also use guildsman, union-worker These last two terms refer to another person of the same job-class.

Though not colleagues, there is still an implied federation (that I think you were trying to avoid).

The question is also a bit of a repeat

The meaning of colleague is a person with whom one works, especially in a profession or business .

Even if there isn't any reference to the working place, the word is used when two people have contacts.

The meaning coworker is fellow worker ; looking at the meaning of fellow , on the NOAD

I read the following definition:

informal a man or boy:

he was an extremely obliging fellow .

a boyfriend or lover:

has she got a fellow ?

(usu. fellows)

a person in the same position, involved in the same activity, or otherwise associated with another: he was learning with a rapidity unique among his fellows .

a thing of the same kind as or otherwise associated with another: the page has been torn away from its fellows .

a member of a learned society: he was elected a fellow of the Geological Society .

• (also research fellow)

a student or graduate receiving a fellowship for a period of research. • Brit.

an incorporated senior member of a college: a tutorial fellow . • a member of the governing body in some universities.

I would use fellow worker to mean a worker involved in the same activity .

Colleague has the meaning you're looking for when the speaker is a member of a licensed profession (doctor, lawyer, that sort of thing).

Copractitioner may be slightly preferable to your fellow-X construction sometimes.

Counterpart means someone who does the same job in a different location but you could extend it to different part of the same organisation.

Question: Is there a word that means something like "someone who does the same job as me"?  I've thought of  colleague  and  co-worker .  These both indicate that someone works at the same place, or some other kind of work relationship, but they don't indicate that the job is the same.  The best I've come up with is  my fellow-X , but this feels cumbersome.

Word for "someone who does the same job as me"

There does not seem to be an agreed term for someone who performs the same job as you but not necessarily at the same place. However, the term "counterpart" is used when organisations liaise with each other in this sense. Other possible options include "compeer" "confrere" or "copractitioner". It may be that you will need to be more specific about the actual job function.

"Counterpart" is the term suggested to indicate someone doing the same job, but in a different location. Another term, from French, is "compere"  whilst others suggest "confrere" with the feminine "consoeur". This term does not mean colleagues but an implied federation.  "Colleague" is another suggestion or "coworker". Again, cCopractitioner  may be slightly preferable to the initial "fellow-X"  construction sometimes. The Webster dictionary provides numerous synonyms, some of which are suggested here, but none seem to represent the person doing the same job as the other.

Counterpart' can be used for someone with the same job, although it often implies the same role in a different company or department. As you say, 'colleague' does not necessarily mean someone with the same position. Other possible terms in different contexts include co-worker, co-practiotioner, associate, workmate, partner, collaborator, confrere or consoeur.

Compeer, or confrere can be used to describe someone who does the same job. A Colleague could be used if in a licensed profession, A counterpart means doing the same job in a different location, or different part of the organisation. Other possible words are fellow worker or copractitioner.

There is no exact answer to this question, but potential terms include "compeer", "confrere", "fellow worker", "colleague", "copractitioner" or "counterpart".

S1: Copractitioner  may be slightly preferable to your  fellow-X  construction sometimes.


As reported on Etymonline : Old English yrþling "plowman" (see earth + -ling ); the sense of "inhabitant of the earth" is from 1590s.

Earthman was originally (1860) "a demon who lives in the earth;" science fiction sense of "inhabitant of the planet Earth" first attested 1949 in writing of Robert Heinlein.

Earlier in this sense was earthite (1825).

However, I found this too: Ælfric

(955–1020) Teacher :hwæt sægest þu yrþlingc hu begæst

þu weorc þin

The word earthling is formed from the word earth and the suffix -ling , meaning something from earth, or something related to earth.

Here earth can either refer to the planet, or to the soil.

It's now mostly used in science fiction to mean humans from earth, but it existed even before that.

One older use is in the meaning of farmer or ploughman , another is in the meaning of mortal as contrast to heavenly creatures or gods.

In science fiction the term Terran is also commonly used.

NOAD gives for “-ling”: forming nouns from nouns, adjectives, and verbs (such as hireling, youngling).

forming nouns from adjectives and adverbs (such as darling, sibling, underling).

forming diminutive words : gosling | sapling.• often with depreciatory reference : princeling

This gives you some more examples...

Origins are well covered.

Another synonym is Earther .

'Earthling', before the sci-fi era, had somewhat the same connotations as 'troglodyte', an lesser, earthy person (see the etymonline provenance as in mplungjan's answer).

This is what probably inspired Heinlein to use it to have people not from Earth refer to people from Earth.

The sci-fi literature has created a number of alternatives, like 'earther' and 'terran'. '

Earthling' has too much of a 1950's scifi connotation and is not used in contemporary sci-fi, except for pejoratively.

As to other planets, generally recognized inhabitant names, though having only imaginary referents, are:

Venusian Martian Jovian Saturnian 'Mercurial','venereal', 'martial', jovial, and 'saturnine' are the respective metaphorical versions (that is, not referring to an inhabitant, but to 'slippery/fickle', 'sex-related', 'military-like', 'convivial', and 'gloomy', respectively). '

Earthy' would be the closest analog for Earth.

The other planets don't really have commonly recognized inhabitant names, but they can be easily created anew:

Mercutian, Uranian, Neptunian, Plutonian (yes, I know... then Erisian, Cerean, Haumean, Makemakean...).

Question: What is the origin of the word  earthling ?  Are there other words with a similar meaning ( marsling ,  venusling )?

What is the origin of "earthling"?

It appears that the word "Earthling" has existed since about 1590, and before the sci-fi era, it had the same connotations as "troglodyte". Other synonyms include the words "Earther" or "Terran".

The term dates back to the 1590s and means "inhabitant of the earth" and even before its sci-fi connotations in the 1950s it meant a lesser, "earthy" person.  In addition to "earthling", sci-fi literature also introduced other terms such as "earther" and "terran". Today "earthling" bears a sci-fi meaning "people from planet Earth". The word is formed by adding the suffix -"ling" to "earth",similar to words such as "hireling" and "youngling"

The suffix -ling is a common way to form nouns from nouns. In this case, the term earthling or earthman previously signified someone dwelling in caves, working with the earth, living under the earth (e.g. a demon) or somehow associated with the earth. Later it developed the meaning distinguishing earth dwellers rather than those living on other planets.

The word  earthling  is formed from the word  earth  and the suffix  -ling , meaning something from earth, something related to earth or inhabitant of the earth

The word "earthling" is formed from the word "earth" and the suffix "-ling" and means of the Earth.

Here earth can either refer to the planet, or to the soil.

This is what probably inspired Heinlein to use it to have people not from Earth refer to people from Earth.

Term dates back to 1590s
How it is formed.
Other synonyms: Earther


'Multiple exclamation marks,' he went on, shaking his head, 'are a sure sign of a diseased mind.'

-- Eric, Terry Pratchett More on this subject on the Discworld and Pratchett Wiki .

It's just for added emphasis.

I do not believe it is strictly grammatically correct, but then using ALLCAPS is not, but people do that too, emphasis once again.

It's fine in informal communication, email, poetry, and advertising headlines.

Three would be most common.

Two, four, or more is rarer.

It's never "officially" correct.

The people who write books about how punctuation should be used in English tolerate only two levels of enthusiasm: not enthusiastic and enthusiastic.

The idea that somebody might be very enthusiastic is too alarming to contemplate.

Never.

At least not for grammatical purposes.

More than one exclamation mark doesn't have any meaning.

An exclamation doesn't get more "exclamationy" by more marks.

Of course, you could still use them, but the interpretation would be entirely up to the reader.

Use of punctuation that doesn't have any grounds in grammar would be more like decoration.

I've seen people invent their own style of punctuation,,,like tripple

commas,,,but

that of course doesn't have any meaning either,,,it

mostly makes the person look unstable... Multiple exclamation marks are sometimes seen in leetspeek, often intermixed with intentional mistakes in the form of 1 , one or eleven : pwnd!!!!11!!111!one!!eleven!!!!

"Keep your exclamation points under control.

You are allowed no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose.

If you have a knack of playing with exclaimers the way Tom Wolfe does, you can throw them in by the handful.

"(Elmore Leonard)

One is enough to convey your feelings in conventional English but people seem to be taking it symbolically to mark the full intensity of their emotion and playing with it sometimes putting more than three exclamatory marks for a simple wish; However, we do not take care of it when it comes to conversation.

Punctuation isn’t grammar.

Where and how often you use exclamation marks and how many you use at any one time is a matter of stylistic judgement.

There will rarely be a need for any at all in an academic paper.

If, on the other hand, you’re writing the captions and speech bubbles for a comic strip, let your maxim be, the more the better.

No. Stop.

Period.

End.

That's it.

Do all those extras add to the meaning that I say No and no more than that, grammatically?

Same with exclamation marks, I guess.

Or else it would undermine the power of the Wonder mark.

Question: Now, I never do this, but in some few cases I have seen people use multiple exclamation (or question) marks like this:   Hey!!!   Is that grammatically correct? (Or just okay). In case it is,  how many  marks are grammatically allowed/accepted?

When and how should I use multiple exclamation marks?

Multiple exclamation marks are generally added for emphasis, although this is not strictly grammatically correct. In informal communication, this would be fine and three is the most common number. However, in terms of what is grammatically allowed, more than one does not have any meaning, and some would argue that you should have no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose. Ultimately, how and when you use exclamatikon marks is a matter of stylistic judgement.

Exclamation marks are not grammatically correct, according to some people, and only serve for extra emphasis. In any case, the consensus is that they need to be used informally and limited in numbers. Some go as far as suggesting never use them at all, whilst other suggest that more than one does not add any additonal meaning. Some suggest exclamation marks are a part of grammar but are limited to two-three per 100,000 words. However, some authors like Tom Wolfe seem to use them freely, and equally people writing seem to use an excessive amount of them to convey emotion. Essentially, exclamation marks are more related to style than grammar.

This is not officially gramatically correct, but is common in informal communication and some other contexts. Multiple exclamation marks add emphasis, and are based on personal preference.

It is strictly grammatically incorrect to use multiple exclamation marks. However it can be used as a matter of stylistic judgement. It is fine in informal communication, but rarely in an academic judgement. It has no meaning, but can be used to emphasis or mark the full intensity of emotion. Three exclamation marks are common, however you are allowed no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose.

The use of three exclamation marks is not generally considered correct, but how many you use and when will depend on stylistic judgement.

For emphasis, but not necessarily grammatically correct.

The use of three consecutive excalamation marks is not generally considered to be correct.

How many exclamation marks you use and when will be a matter for stylistic judgement.