I keep hearing a couple of people from Kentucky and Oklahoma say things like, "Whenever I was ten years old".

Like they were ten years old more than once.

Or, "Whenever I was in High School".

This just seems like the word should be "When" in these circumstances.

It drives me crazy when I hear this.

This usage, where it means "at an unspecified/uncertain time" is fairly common.

I usually hear it (and say it) in a construction more like, "Whenever it was that I first came to...".

I don't know if you would also object to this structure.

In terms of being "valid", the dictionary lists: adv.

At whatever time.

When.

See Usage Note at whatever. conj.

At whatever time

that: We can leave whenever you're ready.

Every time that

: The child smiles whenever the puppy appears.

Surely you say things like "whenever you want" -- this is the same "whenever".

This is a known dialect feature of the American South (but I can't find a reference right now).

I don't know that it has a different meaning from "when" in your dialect.

I have noticed this as well among youth in Northwest Arkansas.

I first started noticing it about 6 months ago.

My wife has started misusing "whenever" as well.

It should only be used to refer to indefinite or unknown times, not a single, specific time.

Correct use: "Whenever I am in St. Louis, I visit Busch Gardens."

Incorrect use: "Whenever I was 5 years old, I went to Busch Gardens."

The first time I heard it used incorrectly was on MTV by a young man from TN.

Since then I have noticed news reporters on HLN and CNN use it as well.

My first thought was that it was about "location" but I am now inclined to believe that it is either about education or people hearing it and thinking that they, themselves have been wrong all their lives.

"Whenever I was at the fire...." I too cringe when it is improperly used.

This is standard usage in Northern Ireland.

I've never heard it anywhere else

(I live in the Republic, and I've never heard it here or from my English relatives).

Question: I increasingly encounter people who misuse "whenever" when they really mean "when":   Whenever I first came to St. Louis, I lived with my Aunt Judy...   Bugs me to death. Obviously they are talking about a one-time event, not "every time I visited St. Louis", which would be a valid use of "whenever".  Is this a common misuse? Is this a regional thing (St. Louis, MO, USA)? This isn't a valid alternate use, is it?

Improper use of "Whenever"

This use of the word "whenever" may be a regional phenomenon, with it being more common in Kentucky, Oklahoma, Northwest Arkansas and the American South in general. It may also be standard usage in Northern Ireland.

This usage is common as a dialect term in the southern states of the US and in Northern Ireland.

This usage, where it means "at an unspecified/uncertain time" is fairly common in certain locations. It is a known dialect feature of the American South. This is also standard usage in Northern Ireland.

If "whenever" is used to mean "at an unspecified/uncertain time, it is fairly common. However, the expression referred to in the question is used in the American South and in Northern Ireland.

This misuse of the word "whenever" appears to exist in the south of the USA and Northern Ireland. The word "whenever" should be used to refer to an "uncertain/unspecified time".

This is a dialect term in Kentucky and Oklahoma.

The usage meaning "at an unspecified/uncertain time" is fairly common.

This is a known dialect word in the American South.

I have noticed this among young people in Northwest Arkansas.

This is an incorrect usage that is becoming more common among the young.

This is standard usage in Northern Ireland.

It is fairly common to use "whenever" to referred to an "unspecified/uncertain time".

This particular use of the word "whenever" appears to be a regional dialect found in places like the Southern states of the USA or Northern Ireland.


From the NOAD : titled /ˈtaɪdld/ adjective (of a person) having a title indicating high social or official rank.

entitle /ɪnˈtaɪdl/

/ɛnˈtaɪdl/

verb [trans.]

(usually be entitled) 1.

give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something: employees are normally entitled to severance pay | [trans.]

the landlord is entitled to require references .

give (something, especially a text or work of art) a particular title: an article entitled "The Harried Society." - [trans.]

archaic give (someone) a specified title expressing their rank, office, or character: they entitled him Sultan .

In your example, you should say I really liked the conclusion to rands' latest blog post entitled "How to Run a Meeting."

The verbs entitle and title are synonyms.

Regarding nouns, title is a noun, entitle is not.

Title on its own is an adjective (the title story - the story from the book

the book got its title from), entitle is not.

Entitle has an additional association to the meaning of having rights to or honor: I was entitled to the deduction.

The verb entitle regards the given name as a more distinguished feature of an object, more than the verb title .

When you say The book is titled "Far away from here".

you are saying that technically it has that title, but when you say The book is entitled "Far away from here".

you are implying some sort of preference, either that you liked the book, or that the title was appropriate, or that the book has become famous, or that you want to suggest people to read it, something that gives to the book more than just a simple title.

I entitle this book with her name.

means I am giving this book something special by giving it a title of more importance to me , suggesting strong emotions.

The director wanted to title the movie "Loud air".

means what it says.

In this sentence using entitle instead of title would be kind of strange, unless something more is said about the movie or the director.

In your sentence "I really liked...

" suggests preference, honor, and, although titled and entitled are both correct, entitled suggests "appropriately titled" or "nicely titled" which is what the author really wanted to express.

There is an interesting article on this topic at the following URL.

It provides usage statistics.

"Titled", I believe, typically refers to title as in rank or nobility .

"Entitled" means (for one) "to give a title to" or designate.

"Entitled" would denote a usage whereby one is deserving of, as opposed to "Titled" where someone is already honored.

"Entitled", when used to refer to how something is titled, is just confusing usage.

Using "the article was titled ... " is more concise.

According to dictionary.com, 'title' as a verb means "to furnish with a title; designate by an appellation; entitle."

I conclude both are acceptable.

I think I tend to use 'titled' preferentially, probably because it's shorter.

Question: When is it appropriate to use "titled" vs. "entitled"?  For example, which is the correct word to use in the following sentence?   I really liked the conclusion to  rands’ latest blog post entitled “How  to Run a Meeting”.

When is it appropriate to use "titled" vs. "entitled"?

It is generally agreed that the term "titled" refers to having a title indicating high social or official rank, whilst "entitled" means "to give a title to" or designate. Although, it is possible that both might be acceptable for the same usage.

Both words mean "to furnish with a title" and so they are interchangeable.

The verbs  entitle  and  title  are often used as synonyms, but using "entitled" to refer to how something is titled, is just confusing usage. "Entitled"  means  "to give a title to" or designate or means having rights to or honor: I was  entitled  to the deduction.  "Titled"  typically refers to title as in  rank or nobility .

Both are acceptable. Opinions and preferences differ regarding which should be used.

There does not seem to be a correct answer to this question as it is subjective and possible that both options are acceptable.

"Titled" appears to refer to the possession of high social or official rank

"Entitled" means deserving something but "titled" means already honored.

Some people believe that "titled" is more correct.

It is possible that both are correct and acceptable.


There is no need for "fastly" because "fast" is both an adjective and an adverb.

So, "I ran fast" is completely correct.

The existence of "fast" as an adverb does not preclude the future development of a word "fastly", but it does hinder it.

One might note that the corresponding adjective "slow" does take the -ly suffix, but this has no impact on the behavior of "fast".

(There is also no real reason why, for example, we have warm/warmth, but cool/coolness.

Semantically related things sometimes have similar morphological patterns, and sometimes not.)

One interesting thing worth noting (that was brought up in a comment by Jimi Oke) is that there are cases of adjectives with identical adverbs that also have an -ly form; for example, we have "right" and "wrong" as adjectives and adverbs, but we also have "rightly" and "wrongly".

In such cases, the -ly form has carved out its own semantic niche; the adverb "right" and the adverb "rightly" cannot be used interchangeably in every situation.

I can say "turn right" and "rightly so", but I can't exchange them in either sentence.

With normal adjectives that cannot become adverbs without -ly , usually the -ly just transparently makes the adjective adverbial — it doesn't have its own separate semantic nuances (e.g. "quickly" simply means "in a quick manner").

The adverb form of fast is irregular.

It is one of several exceptions, as is "well" as mentioned by Dena A.

a fast runner / run fasta hard worker / work harda bad smell / smell bad etc.

etc.

etc.

About work hard: 'he works hard', in contrast to 'he is hardly working'.

Two different meanings.

Fast is an adverb as well as an adjective, so you wouldn't use fastly .

Another common adverb that doesn't follow the pattern of ending in ly is well ,

not the expected goodly , which is actually an adjective and means a large quantity, e.g. a goodly sum .

Per etymonline, fastly is the 'former adverbial form of fast (adj.), from O.E. fæstlic "firm, fixed, steadfast, resolute;" obsolete in 19c.

, simple fast taking its place.'

There you go folks, so much for logic...

Though word fastly used in many places (you can find many results by searching Google ) but still it is not correct.

For reference see the definition of word fast from WikiDictionary See the post wrong / fast-- adverbs with no 'ly' ending to learn more.

This reminds me of how small children extrapolate grammatical constructions in seemingly logical ways, except English is not always that logical.

So my daughter (3¾) will correctly say "I colour in neatly" or "I'll do it carefully", but then also "It comes lastly" "I can hop bigly" "Go farly" "Squeeze me hardly" etc.

Oh, fastly is a word alright.

It just happens to be an obsolete one.

"Fast" can also mean to hold onto in a strongly, and "fastly" is the adverb of that word.

E.g. "The crew held fastly onto the hand-rail of the boat as it rolled in the storm"

This is emblematic of a misunderstanding that gives rise to forms truly abominable, begetting debellished hypercorrections thusly seen in casual prose all over the internet todaily.

The problem is that people oftenly get this mistaken notion that adverbs need to end in ‑ly .

I know no likely explanation for this blunder, but they stilly do it anywaily.

Howeverly certain they are of this non-rule, nothing could be furthlier from the truth, and the soonlier they realize this, the morely their writing stands to gain; it sure won’t happen beforely.

This semisilly answer is intended to come across friendlily, not meanly or worsely.

Question: Slow  has the adverb  slowly . I tend to use  fastly  as the adverb for  fast .  However, it is underlined in most spell checkers I use, which makes me wonder about the existence of this word.  Is  fastly  a correct word? If not, what should be used instead, and why is that different from its antonym?

Is "fastly" a correct word?

It is generally agreed that "fastly" is not necessary because "fast" is both an adjective and an adverb. However, it is possible that "fastly" as a word does exist but is simply obsolete.

Th word "fast" is both an adjective and an (irregular) adverb and therefore there is no need for "fastly".

The adverb form of fast is irregular. Fast  is an adverb as well as an adjective, so you wouldn't use  fastly . There is the argument that "fast" can also mean to hold onto in a strongly, and "fastly" is the adverb of that word. Fastly  is used in many places (you can find many results by searching  Google ) but still it is not correct.

There is no need for "fastly" because "fast" is both an adjective and an adverb.

Fastly is not correct in this context because "fast" is both an adjective and an adverb. However, "fastly" might be acceptable if "fast" is being used in the sense of holding onto something tightly.

"Fastly" is not correct in this context because "fast" is both an adjective and an adverb.

"Fastly" is acceptable if used in the sense of "holding fastly" (strongly) to something.


It appears that this is a British/American distinction.

The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) reports 92 incidences of “fill out a/the/this form” and just 2 of “fill in a/the/this form”, clearly establishing “fill out” as the standard idiom in American English.

I haven’t worked out how to search the British National Corpus yet, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the results were reversed there.

Edit:

OK, I got the BNC to respond to queries—although it sure takes its sweet time—and I got 19+7=26 results for “fill in a/the form” , and 5+1=6 for

“fill out a/the form” .

So it does appear that British English favors fill in over fill out , although not to the degree to which American English favors fill out over fill in .

Both are perfectly acceptable.

As an Englishman living in the US for almost 20 years, "fill out" still sounds jarring to my ears.

I had never heard it used before I came to America.

I rarely hear "fill in" on this side of the Atlantic.

In my dialect of American English, you "fill out the form" by "filling in the blanks" on the form.

P.S. to fill out the form is to complete it.

To fill in the form is to supply information as required.

The Americanism follows in line with other usages: Knock out (to complete, slang , verb )

Round out (add more in order to ensure a broad range, slang) fill out (no form-based, as in "

why don't you use the rest of those flowers to fill out this basket" )

Question: Does one  fill out a form  or does one  fill in a form ? I've gotten different answers from the people I've asked.  Google search results:      fill  in  a form — 14,200,000  fill  out  a form — 7,000,000

"Fill out a form" or "fill in a form"

It appears the the difference between "fill in a form" and "fill out a form" may be a British/American distinction. It seems that British English favours "fill in" whilst American English favours "fill out". However, it is generally considered that both are perfectly acceptable.

Both forms are acceptable, but "fill out" is much more common in US English, whereas "fill in" is more common (although less exclisuvely so) in British English.

Both are perfectly acceptable. This appears that this is a British/American distinction. British English favors  fill in  over  fill out , although not to the degree to which American English favors  fill out  over  fill in .

It appears that this is a British/American distinction. Both are perfectly acceptable. In American English, you "fill out the form" by "filling in the blanks" on the form. "Fill out" may sound jarring to English people.

Whilst both appear to be acceptable, "Fill out" is more common in American English and "Fill in" is more common in British English.

As an Englishman living in the US for almost 20 years, "fill out" still sounds jarring to my ears.

In my dialect of American English, you "fill out the form" by "filling in the blanks" on the form.


If you want to be perfectly and unimpeachably correct, you will pronounce the word forte , meaning something that is one’s strong point, identically to the word fort , and reserve the FOR-tay pronunciation only for the musical term.

Most people don't know about this distinction and pronounce it FOR-tay for all senses, both the “strong point” sense as well as the musical term.

Most people will not notice or care if you do that.

In fact, if you say that some subject is or is not your “fort”, people will look at you quizzically and perhaps even ask “do you mean FOR-tay?”.

On the other hand, if you use the pronunciation “FOR-tay” those of us who know the difference may judge you to be ignorant.

In either case, you take a risk of some sort.

Bryan Garner came up with the name “skunked term” for words like this, in his 1998 Dictionary of Modern American Usage : When a word undergoes a marked change from one use to another … it’s likely to be the subject of dispute.

Some people (Group 1) insist on the traditional use; others (Group 2) embrace the new use.…

Any use of [the word] is likely to distract some readers.

The new use seems illiterate to Group 1; the old use seems odd to Group 2.

The word has become “skunked.”

My advice is to find a substitute word or phrase.

This source http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forte suggests that the correct pronunciation of the word in your context is 'fort', as it is derived from the French 'fort' (strong) and the 'for-tay' pronunciation appeared through confusion with the 'forte' in music meaning loud, which is Italian and correctly pronounced 'for-tay'.

The Oxford Dictionary considers both forms to be correct.

The French feminine form was substituted for the masculine in English, similar to locale, morale etc.

The Pronunciation was latterly inflected.

As reported by the NOAD, the pronunciation is |ˈfɔrˌteɪ| or |fɔrt| , whenever forte means a thing at which someone excels, or loud/loudly.

In the first case, the origin of the word is from a French word fort (masculine), or forte (feminine), from Latin fortis ; in the second case the origin is the Italian word forte , from the Latin fortis .

The difference is that in the first case the word has been borrowed from French, while in the other case the word has been borrowed from Italian; in both the cases, the word derive from the same Latin word.

In Italian, the used word is forte for both the meanings; if there is any difference in the pronunciation is probably to differentiate the different origin of the English words.

Define "proper."

Language change, including pronunciation change is inevitable.

And reference books, no matter how prescriptive, cannot stem the tide of change, which can come from overwhelming use by the masses.

Frankly, I've never heard forte (meaning strength) pronounced as anything other than for-tay, and I am fifty two.

If you are unsure or waffling, I suggest you pronounce it the way that the social group you wish to identify with pronounces it, and that can include pronouncing it differently around different people.

In common American usage I have always heard "for-tay" because saying "fort" sounds like another word spelled f-o-r-t meaning a temporary dwelling.

I always heard the ‘strength’ meaning came from fencing, where you try to parry with the inner half of the blade (the forte), because it's stronger than the outer half, the foible.

If so, it would come from Italian rather than French, so two syllables.

NOAD has three pronunciations: |ˈfɔːteɪ| |ˈfɔːti| |fɔːt|(with

the first one only for the musical term).

Question: I've always heard people say something like "Pronunciation is not my [for-tay]" ... but I feel that I've heard that the correct pronunciation is "Confusing people is my [fort]" What is the proper way to pronounce this word?

Is "forte" pronounced "fort" or "for-tay"?

There is no complete agreement regarding the correct pronunciation of the word "forte", although it seems that most people will pronounce it "FOR-tay" in all contexts. However, the Oxford Dictionary considers both forms to be correct.

By far the most common form is "FOR-tay" but it is up to you which you prefer to use as there is no rule.

The Oxford Dictionary considers both forms to be correct.   But, If you want to be perfectly and unimpeachably correct, you will pronounce the word   forte , meaning something that is one’s strong point, identically to the word  fort , and reserve the FOR-tay pronunciation only for the musical term.

This is not pronounced as anything other than "for-tay",  because saying "fort" sounds like another word meaning a temporary dwelling.

It is generally agreed that both forms of pronunciation are acceptable.

The correct pronounciation may be "fort" but by far the most common one is "FOR-tay".

Both are correct - as the word comes from the Italian and from the French it can be spoken either way.

There is no rule on this - you can pronounce it the way people in your social group pronounce it.

In American usage "fort" has another meaning and so that pronounciation would be confusing.

The term also exists in fencing - again from the Italian.


In the music education community, we often say "audiate" when referring to hearing a melody in "the mind's ear".

The term was coined by music education guru Edwin Gordon, and I think it's pretty well-known amongst musicians (in addition to music teachers ).

Just based on the comparable stem, I would expect the term to be to ' auralize '.

I suppose the same can be said for 'audibiilze', although 'audiolize' would only seem comparable if the visual word was 'videolize'.

I agree with the poster who suggested audiation , as that is the process of imagining sound.

In response to your second edit, there is another very appropriate and widely accepted word for representing information with sound: sonification .

I don't think there's a good single word for this. "

Auralise"(/ze) is the most natural, and even that would give most people a double-take before they understood it.

I think it'd be best to rephrase slightly, such as

X is a presentation of Y in audio form

X is an auditory illustration of Y

It appears that both "audibilized" and "audiolized" are being used, if only sparingly.

Personally, I have never encountered either before (but I think everyone would understand them, thanks to the obvious parallel to the widely used visualized ).

The question doesn't really make sense, What I was trying to achieve was to

say that something is an audibilized presentation of some other thing, exactly the same way we use visualized presentation.

Hmm?

Usually one would say "a visualization".

I'm not sure what "visualized presentation" is meant to be.

A visualization of data etc.

There are some suggestions as answers here, frankly I think they are dubious.

If you want to say this in English, "represent in sound" as a verb and "representation in sound" or "sound representation" would be OK.

I would suggest audible, sonic , or simply audio.

I realize these lack the 'made into' suffix, but I think your listeners will stumble less over these than auralize or audibilized.

To me audibilized suggests that some imperceptible sound was amplified to the point of audibility, rather than translated from another sensory modality.

If you're looking for a word that many or all of your audience will understand, why not try "imagine"?

Question: Are there such words as "audiolized" or "audibilized"?  EDIT:  Merriam-Webster has the word  Audibilized  indexed with no definition!  What I was trying to achieve was to say that  something is an audibilized presentation of some other thing , exactly the same way we use  visualized presentation .  EDIT:   This  is a visualization of a sort algorithm. Therefore  this  is ...? Audilization? Auralization? Sound representation?  EDIT:   This one  as well.

"Visualized" equivalent adjective for audio

There does not appear to be an agreed adjective for audio that functions in the same way as "visualized". "Audibilized" and "audiolized" appear to be used, albeit sparingly. Other terms that may serve the same function include "audiate", "audiation" or "sonification". "Representation in sound" would probably be acceptable too.

There is no widely established term for this, but a possibility is "audiate" - a term used by musicians, or "sonify" or even "represent in sound".

There are several suggestions such as audiate, auralize, audibilized and audiolized. Another suggestion is to use audible, sonic , or simply audio. But perhaps a more suitable word to use would be just imagine.

Although ther emay not be a good single word for this, it appears that both  "audibilized"  and  "audiolized"  are being used. Auralise"(/ze) is based on a comparable stem and is the most natural.

It is not clear whether there is a good single word for this concept, although "audibilize" or "audiolize" will be understood by most audiences. One possible suggestion could be the word "auralise".

Perhaps use "audiate" - a term used by musicians.

One possibility is "audiation" and another is "sonification".

Both  "audibilized"  and  "audiolized"  are used, if sparingly.

If you want to say this in English, "represent in sound" as a verb and "representation in sound" or "sound representation" would be OK.

I would suggest audible, sonic , or simply audio.

It is not clear whether there is a single good word to represent this definition.

It appears that audibilized or audiolized are used rarely but would be understood by more people.

One possible suggestion would be the word "auralise".


body shop : Date: 1954 a shop where automotive bodies are made or repaired See this article for "body shop" context: From the sales floor to the body shop to the office there is a resounding feeling that this Ford dealership is a good place to work.

The man in the body shop pointed out that the air filter system overhead was something that Dean Green voluntarily installed for the welfare of the employees.

so...

basically "the mechanic", the technician, the repairman.

Without knowing the context, I can think of body shop as "a garage where repairs to the bodies of vehicles are carried out"; the phrase would then refer to somebody who repairs automotive bodies.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary dates body shop to 1954.

When your car breaks down, you take it to the shop (rarely referred to as a garage any more.)

When your car gets dented in a fender-bender, you take it to the body shop.

In the UK, body shop means this http://www.thebodyshop.co.uk/ , The Body Shop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Body_Shop , a chain of shops selling products for the body, face, hair and home.

Body shopping can also refer to consulting companies that hire people and then provide them directly to their clients for the clients to manage (as opposed to the consulting companies managing them).

The wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_shopping seems to focus on offshore / outsourced work, but it can apply to other consulting companies as well.

In this case the "body shop" would refer to the consulting company, and so "the man in the body shop" might be someone who works for that kind of consulting company.

Question: I recently encountered the expression "the man in the body shop", and I have absolutely no idea what it means. All help is welcome.

What does the expression "body shop" mean?

The term "body shop" could refer to multiple different things, although the most common is probably "a garage where repairs to the bodies of vehicles are carried out". However, the term could also refer to a chain of shops selling body, face and hair products in the UK or a consulting company that provide people to their clients.

The term can mean a place where car bodies are repaired or a firm that hires people out to other firms. It can also refer to a chain of the same name.

A body shop  as a garage where repairs to the bodies of vehicles are carried out. In the UK,  body shop  also refers to a chain of shops selling products for the body, face, hair and home.

A body shop  may be "a garage where repairs to the bodies of vehicles are carried out". The phrase would then refer to somebody who repairs automotive bodies. In the UK, The Body Shop  is a chain of shops selling products for the body, face, hair and home.

The term "body shop" most likely refers to a workshop where cary bodies are repaired. However, in the UK, it may refer to a high-street cosmetics shop.

A body shop is a place where car bodies are repaired.

A Body Shop in the UK is a shop belonging to a chain of the same name.

A body shop can mean a firm that hires people out to other firms.

The term "body shop" would probably refer to a place where car bodies are repaired.

In the UK, the term "body shop" may refer to the high street cosmetics store.


The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage (MDEU) suggests that to is the ordinary word used to construct comparisons using prefer : “when it is used to compare two things in the same sentence, the second […] is usually introduced by to .”

They note that over (“Nine out of ten dentists prefer Crest over the competitors”), and rather than (“He prefers to stand rather than to sit”) are also used.

Rather than is especially helpful when the compared items are infinitive clauses beginning with to , therefore avoiding the problem of too many to s

( * “He prefers to stand to to sit”).

Above can also be used (“Prefers this brand above all others”), although they note that above , along with before , were noted by the OED as being used formerly.

MDEU notes that some commenters have criticized constructions with than and rather than , and suggests ultimately that plain than (“He would have preferred to fast than carry it”) is awkward because it is unfamiliar.

With respect to colloquial speech, I think that in some informal registers you wouldn’t use the verb prefer at all (which is a formal word), and would use like and a compatible syntactic comparative construction: “I like sleeping more than working”

There may be a transatlantic divide here.

As a speaker of BrEng I would always say I would prefer tea to coffee , and never I would prefer tea over coffee .

A:

Would you like a ride?

B:

No thanks, I prefer to walk.

You can't use prefer over in this case.

Over is used when there are two clear choices in the phrase.

Think of over as setting a list of preferences and putting one over top the other.

I prefer jogging over running and walking.

I prefer fish over beef and chicken.

In these two examples, the meaning could be slightly ambiguous and sound like you're comparing two things, not three.

I prefer jogging to running and walking.

I prefer fish to beef and chicken.

My brain does not differentiate the two:

"I prefer sleeping to working" "

I prefer sleeping over working

" Sounds the same to me- perhaps "prefer/to" flows slightly better.

On the other hand "prefer/to" is more likely to be ambiguous: "I prefer sleep to work"

In conversation the word "rather" seems more common than "prefer" but others may have different experience.

Either way- I would be shocked if anyone criticized your usage of "prefer/to" versus "prefer/over" in any unambiguous context- formal or not.

They are both grammatically correct.

"Tea over Coffee" sounds the slightest bit metaphorical to me, and so might have some rhetorical implications in a longer narrative, but that's about the only real difference.

When we say prefer there is an implied over .

Thus, prefer over is tautological.

I think prefer to is preferable.

Question: Many say that "prefer X to Y" has a more formal ring to it than "prefer X over Y". Are there any dialects where you wouldn't use "prefer X to Y" in colloquial speech at all? Conversely, are there any manuals of style that discourage using "prefer X over Y" in formal writing?

Which is correct: "prefer X to Y" or "prefer X over Y"?

There is no agreement as to whether "prefer X over Y" is correct or not. Some will claim that the word "over" is unnecessary whilst others will claim that "over" and "to" are acceptable. Usage may differ between British and American English, however, "to" is probably more common in both.

Both forms are correct but "prefer to" is more common, although in colloquial speech a "more than" construction is more usual.

Some would argue they are both grammatically correct, but the  Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage suggests  that  'to'  is the ordinary word used to construct comparisons using  prefer. In BrEng you would  say prefer tea to coffee , and never  I would prefer tea over coffee .

They are both grammatically correct.   British English speakers may be more likely to say "I would  prefer tea to coffee". The  Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage (MDEU) suggests  that  "to"  is the ordinary word used to construct comparisons using  prefer : “when it is used to compare two things in the same sentence, the second […] is usually introduced by  to .” There may be a transatlantic divide here.

It appear that there may not be a meaningful difference between the two and if there is, it may we regional. However, seems to be a preference for using "to" with the verb "prefer". In any case, using "prefer" in informal speech might not be very common.

Both forms are correct but "prefer to" is more common although in colloquial speech a "more than" construction is more usual.

In conversation the word "rather" seems more common than "prefer".

When we say prefer there is an implied "over" so it is tautological.

The  Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage suggests  that  'to'  is the ordinary word used to construct comparisons using  prefer.

Some people would say that there is no meaningful difference between the two.

It appears that "to" is the more common preposition used with the verb "prefer".

Over is sometimes used when there are two clear choices in the phrase.

The difference in usage might be regional.

Prefer might not be used much informal speech in any case.


As others have said, neither is more correct, nor is either more preferable in an objective sense.

If you were to indicate when you blocked the account you must use the latter, but otherwise either is perfectly fine.

For me, personally, I would prefer the latter in most cases - it's less formal and sounds (to me) more like natural speech, and is (slightly) less verbose.

I, too, would drop the comma in this context, for whatever that's worth.

EDIT

I would use the former if I had blocked the comment before and had to do so again:

"I have previously blocked the user account..."

If this was a software message, as it seems it may be, I would not use that tense.

Instead I would say: The user account has been blocked and all comments deleted.

Otherwise in a regular conversation the latter sentence (minus the comma) would be correct.

I have blocked the user account, and deleted the comments.

This is the present perfect tense.

I blocked the user account, and deleted the comments.

This is the past tense.

Which one is preferable, or more correct?

Either one is correct.

There is a difference between the two, but without context it would be silly to try to explain it.

I have blocked the user account, and deleted the comments.

I blocked the user account, and deleted the comments.

Which one is preferable, or more correct?

There are differences between North American English and British English.

For North American English, this is the present perfect of current relevance/importance.

Often, unless the speaker wishes to illustrate that a past action is important to the current situation, the simple past is used.

There is also a myth that we never use a past time adverbial with the present perfect and most often that is true,

the reason, the "job" of the present perfect is not to reflect on the past and using past time adverbs would take away from that ideal.

However, there are situations where this is not followed.

As I said they are not at all common.

Both are correct, although I would consider the comma optional.

The word "have" is unnecessary.

I would personally choose the second sentence, unless context dictated otherwise.

(For example, if the text surrounding the example sentence was particularly formal.)

Question: One of the tasks I have as site maintainer of a site is deleting spam reported from users. (The spammer account is blocked too, as part of the process.) Which is the preferable sentence, or the most correct one, I should use? I have blocked the user account, and deleted the comments. I blocked the user account, and deleted the comments.

"I have blocked the user account" versus "I blocked the user account"

It is generally agreed that both sentences are correct, although they are different. However, the difference will depend on the context. There may be differences in usage between British and American English.

Both are correct, but they represent different tenses and usage will depend on context.

Often, unless the speaker wishes to illustrate that a past action is important to the current situation, the simple past is used.   If you were to indicate  when  you blocked the account you  must  use the latter, but otherwise either is perfectly fine.

Either one is correct. If you had to indicate  when you blocked the account, then you must use the latter, but otherwise either is perfectly fine.

Although either sentence is generally considered correct, the exact answer will depend on the context of the message. People may naturally tend towards the second option, and there may also be regional differences. If this were a software message however, neither message would be considered acceptable.

Both are correct, but the latter sounds more natural.

In a message I would say: The user account has been blocked and all comments deleted.

This is the difference between the present perfect tense "I have" and the past tense "I blocked".

Unless the speaker wishes to illustrate that a past action is important to the current situation, the simple past is used.

Many people would more naturally opt for the second of these two sentences.

There are differences between the two, but the correct sentence will depend on the context.

There may be regional differences in usage.

Neither of these sentences might be appropriate as a software message.


The simple answer is that if Haiku is not about nature, it is called Senryu .

I've heard different views on whether the Japanese definition is different than the non-Japanese ones, and whether the syllable counts can differ.

There seems to be some subjectivity on definitions, in English poetry at least.

I think the following is Senryu, but you could make a case for it being Haiku: Bugs fall like rain upon my code compiler

shrieks like the wind Blue Screen

The idea of a haiku in English doesn't really make that much sense.

First of all, you might want to note that the whole idea of seventeen syllables is a bogus one.

A Japanese haiku consists of seventeen moras (beats) rather than seventeen syllables.

E.g. Tokyo ("To-u-kyo-u" in Japanese) is four moras but two syllables.

A haiku should have seventeen of these moras, not seventeen syllables.

One rule I can think of is that traditionally Japanese haiku had to start with a "seasonal word" ("kigo" in Japanese).

But there are no "seasonal words" in English.

Nowadays the haiku printed on tea cans in Japan don't have seasonal words so that is purely a traditional arrangement.

Use the first two lines To establish the context; Then go for the kill.

I adhere to the 5-7-5 syllable scheme, because...

well, I was taught that when young and I'm too old to change.

The key idea is "do not waste even a syllable".

So, my opinion is that: A haiku should Have 3 very short lines; personally, I'm stuck on 5-7-5.

It should meld two discordant notions and Say something that has never been said before.

Big bonus points if your second line applies clearly to both your first and your third lines, very cool.

Topic doesn't matter.

Be you.

This is my personal opinion, not a scholarly attempt to answer the question.

I understand that in English, we can say a lot more in 17 syllables than they can in Japanese.

Regardless, the idea is to say a lot with a little.

Make the reader think.

poetic aspects should fall gently, from the page like leaves in autumn

First, pick your subject Write down some words about it Count your syllables

Question: Aside from the syllable count what else do I need consider when writing a Haiku?I'm referring to the English imitation of a Haiku. I have been told that the first two lines should be descriptions and the third line should be the conclusion. But I've noticed that this is not always true. Does a Haiku need to be about nature?

What are the rules in composing a Haiku? (aside from the syllable count)

There are no agreed rules for composing an English imitation of a Haiku. However, if it is not about nature, such a piece would be called Senryu. In fact, some would argue that the concept of a Haiku doesn't make sense in English. That said, one traditional rule is that a Japanese haiku should start with a "seasonal word".

If a Haiku is not about nature, it is called a Senryu. A haiku should Have 3 very short lines, preferable in a 5-7-5 arrangement.

The simple answer is that if Haiku is not about nature, it is called  Senryu . Use the first two lines  to establish the context;   Then go for the kill.  Regardless, the idea is to say a lot with a little.

Some say the idea of a haiku in English doesn't really makesense. If a Haiku is not about nature, it is called a  Senryu. However, it should be three lines. Use the first two lines  to establish the context and then finish it.

There does not appear to be agreement about how to write an English haiku and some people may feel that the concept of haikus is irrelevant to the English language. However, there is a general acceptance that haikus should have three lines of which the third should be the conclusion. Additionally, a haiku may not need to be about nature, but if it is not about nature, it is known as Senryu.

If a Haiku is not about nature, it is called a Senryu .

The idea of a haiku in English doesn't really make that much sense because of the way that the beats and syllables are counted in Japanese.

The key idea is "do not waste even a syllable" and be yourself.

First, pick your subject. Write down some words about it. Count your syllables.

There does not appear to be huge agreement on how to compose English haikus, and some people feel that the idea of a haiku in English does not make sense.

A haiku may or may not need to be about nature, although if it is not about nature, it is called Senryu.

The general scheme for a haiku is three short lines with the last line being the conclusion.


The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary give these senses: literally 2 : in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins> with the following usage note: Since some people take sense 2 to be the opposite of sense 1, it has been frequently criticized as a misuse.

Instead, the use is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary. and for decimate , they have the following senses, with no usage note: decimate 3 a : to reduce drastically especially in number <cholera decimated the population> b : to cause great destruction or harm to <firebombs decimated the city> <an industry decimated by recession>

The New Oxford American Dictionary reports the following note in the usage section: In recent years, an extended use of literally (and also literal ) has become very common,

where literally (or literal ) is used deliberately in nonliteral contexts, for added effect: they bought the car and literally ran it into the ground .

This use can lead to unintentional humorous effects ( we were literally killing ourselves laughing ) and is not acceptable in formal English.

In formal sentences, literally should be used as in

I told him I never wanted to see him again, but I didn't expect him to take it literally.

With regards to decimation , the original meaning is derived from a practice in the military of Ancient Rome.

Quoted from this page : A unit selected for punishment by decimation was divided into groups of ten; each group drew lots (Sortition), and the soldier on whom the lot fell was executed by his nine comrades, often by stoning or clubbing.

The remaining soldiers were given rations of barley instead of wheat and forced to sleep outside of the Roman encampment.

Because the punishment fell by lot, all soldiers in the group were eligible for execution, regardless of the individual degree of fault, or rank and distinction.

Indeed, this word has been so greatly abused over time (perhaps through ignorance) that its more general meaning of "to destroy" or "to severely harm" is now virtually accepted.

They are becoming increasingly common, and it annoys me too.

Since persistent misusers always get their way in the end, I expect literally and decimate to go the way of ultimate and panacea.

The misuse of literally is not intentional or ironic.

It is used by people who have heard it used properly and thought the speaker meant seriously or absolutely .

If literally can mean either its true meaning or its exact opposite, what word can we use when we actually do want to say someone literally wet themselves laughing?

People often use the word "literally" when they really mean "virtually."

As in, "Many people in America have smart phones, netbooks, or laptops virtually attached to their hips.

" Obviously people don't actually have laptops attached to their hips via some leather case with a belt loop, thus you cannot say that they literally have them attached to their hips.

Question: Recently I've heard American TV commentators say "[a person] was literally decimated" and "[a Senator] was literally thrown under the bus". In the first case I think the person was not actually 10% killed, but in the second, I believe they meant that 57 members of the US Senate carried #58 onto Constitution Avenue and threw him under a (hopefully moving) bus. Are usages like these normal or acceptable now? I find them grating, myself.

"Literally" and "Decimate" misuse

It appears that this usage of these words is becoming increasingly common and the intended is use if pure hyperbole to gain emphasis. The term "decimated" in this sense is now virtually accepted.

These usages are not correct but they do indeed seem to be increasingly common.

The  New Oxford American Dictionary  reports the following note in the usage section:   In recent years, an extended use of  literally has become very common. With regards to  decimation , the original meaning is derived from a practice in the military of Ancient Rome and this word has been so greatly abused over time that its more general meaning of "to destroy" or "to severely harm" is now virtually accepted. It is used by people who have heard it used properly and thought the speaker meant  seriously  or  absolutely .  People often use the word "literally" when they really mean "virtually."

The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary literally can also mean virtually, with the following usage note:   Since some people take one sense to be the opposite of the other, it has been frequently criticized as a misuse, with some complaining that people often use the word "literally" when they really mean "virtually."

Yes, the usage of "literally" in this way is indeed common and is also accepted by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

The common usage is just hyperbole and ignores the dictionary meaning.

"Decimation" originally meant a punishment in the Roman army but the meaning has been lost.

The misuse is increasingly common and former meanings may be lost.

The misuse results from misunderstanding.

The  New Oxford American Dictionary  reports the following note in the usage section:   In recent years, an extended use of  literally has become very common,

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary does accept the use of "literally" in the figurative sense.

The use of the word "literally" to mean "virtually" is common, although its misusage may not be intentional.


It's a play on titles from self help programs which utilize ellipsis.

For example I lost 20 pounds in 4 days, and so can you.

This is a kind of strange ellipsis, because just tacking on "[lose 20 pounds in 4 days]" doesn't really create a grammatical sentence, but it's something like that.

The ellipsis would be clearer if the sentences were I lost 20 pounds in 4 days, and you can [lose 20 pounds in 4 days] too.

I am America, and you can [be America] too.

And the ellipsis is not so great with "to be", either.

Here's some discussion from Language Log: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004522.html

It follows the form

I <verb

> <rest of predicate>, and so can you!

For example, in I use computers, and so can you!

the "...

so can you" means "you can use computers, too."

The part where it becomes confusing, and funny, is that the verb is not an action verb, but "am."

So "...

so can you" means "You can be America too" in this case.

It's a satirical joke.

The title is deliberately confusing, that's the whole point.

I always took "I Am America" to be hubris inflated for comic effect, and

the "(And So Can You!)

" part to be a backhanded slash at Americans who can't even speak their own language good.

It's a joke on mistakes made with the English language by foreign countries.

If you look at the book there are many more jokes about the book being printed in some Asian country and it seems to make fun of engrish type mistakes.

Question: As a non-native speaker, I found Stephen Colbert’s book title I Am America (And So Can You!) a little hard to dissect. Why so can you? Why isn’t it So Are You ? What’s the full phrase that And So Can You implies?

Please explain "I Am America (And So Can You!)"

The title "I Am America (And So Can You!)" appears to be a play on titles from self-help programmes and functions as a satirical joke. The title is deliberately confusing and is a reference to mistakes made with the English language by foreign countries.

It's a joke based on the language used in self help program titles.

The title is deliberately confusing, that's the whole point. It's a satirical joke. It's a play on titles from self help programs which utilize ellipsis.

The title is deliberately confusing. It's a joke on mistakes made with the English language by foreign countries.

The title is deliberately confusing as a joke about the use of English in foreign countries.

It's a joke based on the language of self help program titles.

IT's a satirical joke with a title that is deliberately confusing.

It's a joke based on mistakes made with the English language by foreign countries.


You are correct that "yeah" and "yep" are informal variants of "yes."

In conversation among friends, any form is appropriate, but "yep" has a slightly dismissive tone.

"Did you find your wallet?"

Yeah, I left it in the other room.

As opposed to "Did you get directions to the theater?"

"Yep.

In the second example, you're implying that you've already got directions

and you don't need to spend time hearing them again.

I use yeah or yep

/yup when speaking casually.

I tend to use yep/

yup when it is being spoken by itself.

I also would correspondingly use nope in the same way.

Did you do it?

Yeah, I did it Yep.

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

Yes is not a formal word; you can use it in both formal and informal contexts.

Looking at the definitions given for

yeah , yeh , yep , or yup , all those words are defined as exclamation & noun nonstandard spelling of yes, representing informal pronunciation.

Looking at the examples provided from the Werriam-Webster Online , it seems that yeah , and yep are used in two different cases.

Yep is used when it's the only word in the answer; yeah is used in the other cases.

That's really what she said?

Yep.

That looks good.

Yeah, I think so too.

Yeah can also be used in a partial negation [yeah, but] meaning that you are affirming only a portion of the question.

Friend: Did you get movie tickets for me with the money I gave you?

You:

Yeah, but they cost ten dollars more than you gave me for them.

Would you be willing to pay for the popcorn?

Friend:

Yep.

You:

OK.

See you there.

In spoken (and informal written)

English, I generally use yeah or yup .

I mostly use yes when additional emphasis is needed, possibly with additional words as confirmation, e.g. if someone said I hadn't completed a task, I might reply

Yes, I did.

In formal written English, Yes should be used.

You might see this, for example, on application forms which have Yes/No tick boxes or similar.

Usually people write yes, unless it is informal writing, then

yeah

and yep can be used.

In spoken English yes is always appropriate, but with friends and relations

yeah

and yep are frequently used.

Sometimes the words can carry more meaning by their tone and repetition.

Mother: "Did you you do your homework yet?"Child:

"yeah,

yeah,

yeah.

" (The homework not done, but the child is tired of being told about it.)

When agreeing with someone I prefer "yeh" whereas with an exclamation such as "yeah, he scored the winning goal"

the "yeah" is cognitively quicker to come off the mind than discerning first whether you want to spell it "yeh" or

"yeah" knowing that the latter has more than one meaning.

Question: As a learner of English I know that yes is a standard variant and the other two are informal, spoken words. I know nothing more about it, and always try using the yes variant, just to not sound inappropriate. But I'd like to be able to not sound too formal in a casual conversation. Could you help me understand the differences between these words and the contexts in which it is okay to use them?

When is it appropriate to use "Yeah" and "Yep" as variants of the word "Yes"?

"Yeah" and "Yep" are informal variants of "Yes", although "Yep" has a slightly dismissive tone. In a conversation among friends, any form is appropriate. "Yeah" can be used in a partial negation where you are affirming only a portion of the question.

In conversation among friends, any form is appropriate, but "yep" has a slightly dismissive tone. Other variations between the terms will depend on context.

"Yeah" and "yep" are informal variants of "yes." Yes  also gives more emphasis. In formal written English,  Yes  should be used.

"Yeah" and "yep" are indeed informal variants of "yes." In conversation among friends, any form is appropriate, but "yep" has a slightly dismissive tone.

In general, in informal situations, "Yes", "Yeah", and "Yep" are all perfectly acceptable. "Yeah" may imply that there is more information to follow, whilst "Yep" is used more in one-word answers and can be perceived as a little dismissive.

Yes is not a formal word; you can use it in both formal and informal contexts.

Yeah can also be used in a partial negation [yeah, but] meaning that you are affirming only a portion of the question.

Yes, Yeah and Yep are all acceptable in informal situations but only Yes is acceptable in formal situations.

"Yep" is generally used for one-word answers and can be perceived as somewhat dismissive.

Use of "Yeah" may imply that there is more information to follow.


Wiktionary says : Antonyms xenomania xenophilia xenophily allophilia (more general)

This is, however, not exactly what you are looking for, since being attracted to foreigners does not imply hating your compatriots.

Allophilia won't fly at all, because it's an antonym for all kinds of prejudice.

I think your best bet is just to be specific: anti-Americanism, anti-Canadianism, anti-Ukrainian sentiment, anti-Irish sentiment, sinophobia, lusophobia and so forth: Americans are increasingly displaying anti-Americanism.

Sinophobia is on the rise in China.

Russian teenagers are showing signs of anti-Russian sentiment.

This will be understood by far more people than any generic term for "irrational fear or hatred of one's own countrymen

" we can come up with.

Not a word, but phrases frequently (mis-)used: self-loathing , self-hating .

For instance, Wikipedia has an article called self-hating Jew

(whatever the validity of the term).

Would it not be simpler to say that person is prejudiced against foreigners and that person is prejudiced against his own country rather than to try to misappropriate yet another medical term?

A phobia once meant a medical condition.

Unfortunately xenophobia's medical use as fear of foreigners has been corrupted by use as a kind of fancy synonym for racism.

Similarly for silly words like homophobia , which means "prejudice against homosexuals" rather than " fear of homosexuals".

Medical words are often subjected to this kind of mistreatment.

Take "nutritional value", which, to a nutritionist, means "the number of calories in a food".

This word has been corrupted in common usage to the extent that people say things like "McDonald's food has no nutritional value" as a way of claiming that McDonald's food is not healthy.

The speaker wants to add credibility to her claim about healthiness by using a fancy "medical" word which she actually doesn't understand, in effect saying that a type of food high in calories contains no calories at all.

I came across this possibility today: oikophobia , which sounds like what I was looking for.

Oikophobia means fearing your ambience.

There is no specific term for fearing one's own community people or local people.

It is generally sociophobia .

Question: Xenophobia refers to the irrational fear or hatred of foreigners. But recently I've seen people displaying (in newspaper articles and other places) an irrational fear or hatred of their own countrymen. Is there a word for that?

Word meaning the reverse of 'Xenophobia'

Whilst there is no term to describe such a concept, it's possible that the best equivalent of "xenophobia" when referring to one's own countrymen is to be specific and say, for example "anti-Americanism" or "anti-Canadianism". The term "self-loathing" or "self-hating" may also work in this context.

There is no specific term so best use a term using anti- plus the relevant nationality, e.g. anti-American or a term such as "prejudiced against".

Wiktionary  offers the antonyms:   xenomania, xenophilia, xenophily and allophilia, but these are not exactly what you are looking for, since being attracted to foreigners does not imply hating your compatriots.  Your best bet is just to be specific: anti-Americanism, anti-Canadianism, anti-Ukrainian sentiment, anti-Irish sentiment, sinophobia, lusophobia and so forth:    Americans are increasingly displaying anti-Americanism.  Oikophobia  means fearing your ambience and could be suitable.

There is no specific term for fearing one's own community people or local people.

There does not appear to be a single term to describe a fear of one's own community. However, one potential term could be "Sociophobia". Otherwise, it might be more effective to use a more specific term such as "anti-american" or "anti-russian".

There is no specific term so use anti- plus the relevant nationality, e.g. anti-American

Another possible term is "self-loathing" or "self-hating" as in "self-hating Jew".

The term "phobia" should be restricted to medical uses - it is better to use a term like "prejudiced against".

The best option to describe such a sentiment is probably to be more specific using terms such as "Anti-American" or "Anti-Russian".

Sociophobia may be an appropriate word to use in this context.

There is no specific term for fearing one's own community.


common verb =

> official translation google =>

“search the internet (using the Google brand search engine)” photoshop =>

“edit digital images (using the Adobe Photoshop brand image editing software)” facebook =>

“communicate (using the Facebook brand social networking website)” EDIT: to note that the parenthesized items can in some cases be replaced with something more generic, i.e. “using any search engine”, “using any image editing software”, “using any social networking website”.

This is the usage that the owners of the trademarks fear (and object to) because substantial usage of that type constitutes a generic use of their trademarks, which could be grounds for being forced to forfeit the trademark.

Merriam-Webster has a whole list of suggestions: to book engagements via facebook to put something up on facebook to look up someone's personal information using Facebook to look someone up on a social website, to find one's information on a social website To upload a photograph to Facebook so that it may be viewed by others.

To create an event entry on facebook To get on a facebook website.

1.to search for another person through the online directory know as facebook 2.

to send a message through the online directory know as facebook To add someone to your list of friends on the "facebook.com" website. ...

Judging by the list, you can't predict which verb "to facebook" might or might not end up replacing.

Right now, it's just a shorthand for many different things to different people.

I have never heard "Facebook" used as a verb ("to facebook").

Photoshop means "edit a photograph", and Google means "search the web".

Facebook provides too many diverse functions to be easily verbed.

Would the verb be transitive or intransitive (e.g. "I facebooked all day" vs "I'll facebook you")?

In the former case, does it mean "update my profile", "look at friends pictures" or "search for new friends"...?

In the latter case, does it mean "add as friend", "send a message", "write on the wall", "ping"...?

It is unclear.

There is no single defining activity that Facebook is used for or a clear result it produces.

Similarly, spreadsheet or database program names ("1-2-3", "Excel", "Oracle", "MySql") are rarely used as verbs.

These programs, like Facebook can be used for diverse tasks.

It doesn't really replace any other verb.

Think of it like "skiing," which means the act of using skis.

I would say that (for the present day, at least) all of these terms still pertain to the act of using the specific item to which they refer.

Some people do say "Google that with Bing," but this is just to satirize the usage of "Google" as a verb.

I've heard my students say, "I'll facebook you" many times.

Of course, what they mean is, "I'll send you a message on Facebook."

Using trademarks as verbs is almost always discouraged by the trademark holder, as it risks genericizing the trademark.

This is why, for example, Microsoft never describes a PowerPoint presentation as "a PowerPoint", but uses the generic term "slideshow".

Question: I understand that any term, grammatical or not, becomes valid if there is common usage. I'm not concerned about that. Google and Photoshop are both commonly used as verbs. Given that the terms map fairly well to verbs (web searching and image editing), I can follow the logic of their use. Does this work for Facebook, though? What verb is it replacing?

Is "facebook" as a verb different from "google" or "photoshop"?

There is no agreement as to what "Facebook" as a verb would definitively refer to, although some option include "booking engagements via facebook", "looking up someone's personal information using Facebook" or "uploading a photograph to Facebook". Some people may also use "facebook" to describe sending a message to someone on Facebook.

The term can apply to any of the services available on Facebook but generally when people say "I'll facebook you" what they mean is, "I'll send you a message on Facebook."

Facebook provides too many diverse functions to be easily verbed. e.g to create an event entry on facebook or to get on a facebook website.  Or does it mean "update my profile", "look at friends pictures" or "search for new friends"? Usually what people mean is, "I'll send you a message on Facebook." Using trademarks as verbs is almost always discouraged by the trademark holder, as it risks genericizing the trademark.

People often say "I'll Facebook you".  It doesn't really  replace  any other verb, but it is shorthand and may mean different things to different people.

There are number of ways that "facebook" is being used as a verb and they are so varied that it is difficult to say which verb or action the word "Facebook" might be specifically replacing. Some examples include posting a publication on Facebook or upload a photograph to Facebook.

The term has a variety of meanings linked to the different functionalities offered by Facebook, e.g. to upload a facebook so others can view it.

It's just a general term for using Facebook.

When people say "I'll facebook you" what they mean is, "I'll send you a message on Facebook."

There are many different actions that could be represented by the verb "to facebook", including posting something on Facebook or sharing a photograph on Facebook.

Since it could mean many different things to many different people, it's hard to say which verb "to facebook" might be replacing in any given case.


He would be more careful in future.

They plan on getting married in the near future.

In the first sentence, "in future" means "from now on"; the NOAD says its use is chiefly British.

In the second sentence, "in the future" means "the time or a period of time following the moment of speaking or writing."

In future is how they say it in the UK and India.

It is common and considered normal.

In future, we will avoid water beds.

In American English,

In future sounds strange; in the future is preferred or at least will get you fewer strange looks.

You may see "in future" when "future" is modifying a noun for which "in" is an appropriate preposition.

Fore example:

in future ______ shows plays events and etc.

In future is much more common in the UK and Ireland, as in

In future, be more careful.

In the US, we would tend to say

In the future, be more careful.

They mean exactly the same thing.

In future is commonly used in British English and is perfectly correct but has a different meaning than in the future .

In the future refers to an unspecified point in time, while in future means from now on.

It'a shame

I missed you when I popped round to see you yesterday.

I'll ring up beforehand in future .

In the future people will look back at the mobile phones we use today and laugh at their simplicity.

Both forms are possible.

"In future" is often used in reprimands: In future please sign and date your letters

It is very general, talking about all times from now onwards.

You can find many examples on Google (search for "in future please take care").

In the future" is more neutral and more specific:

In the future I would like to go to Australia, but now I don't have enough money.

The difference is only in whether future is a noun or an adjective.

In the future, please be more careful and Please be more careful in the future both use future as a noun.

In future activities, please be more careful uses future to modify the noun activities.

To my knowledge is it not correct to say in future in the place of in the future.

As far as grammar goes the difference between in future and in the future is contextual.

One usually comes across phrases like in future endeavours or in future meets where future serves as an adjective.

But if the reference is only to the times ahead, in the future would be correct and not in future .Thus,it would be correct to say:Be more careful in the future .or

There will come a time in the future when there will be no petroleum left on the planet.and incorrect to go with the other.

However,the spoken word in Britain and many former colonies where the influence of British English is enduring,it's not uncommon to come across simple notes that use in future .

Perhaps they find it more easy on their ears.

Nonetheless,grammatically wanting.

Question: Do in future and in the future imply different meanings? If so, using which one is grammatically correct?

Do "in future" and "in the future" imply different meanings?

Both "in future" and "in the future" are possible, although "in future" is chiefly British and means "from now on". This would strange in American English. "In the future", on the other hand, means "the time or period of time following the moment of speaking or writing".

"In the future" is more common in American English and "in future" in British English, but "in future" has the additional meaning of "from now on".

Both forms are possible. As far as grammar goes the difference between  in future  and  in the future  is contextual.  In the future  refers to an unspecified point in time, while  in future  means from now on.    In future  is much more common in the UK and Ireland, and India. "In future" is also often used in reprimands as in: In future please sign and date your letters

In the future  refers to an unspecified point in time, while  in future  means from now on. "In future" may often be used in reprimands - for example: "In future please sign and date your letters".   However, it not correct to say  in future  in the place of  in the future, and the difference between these phrases  is contextual.

The answer to this question is subjective and will depend on the function of the word "future" in the sentence, as well as the regional dialect of English being spoken. "In future" is more common in British English and other parts of the world, for example. Some people see them as being largely equivalent, whereas others would reject "in future" as being completely incorrect.

In future sounds strange; in the future is preferred or at least will get you fewer strange looks.

Of the two phrase, "in the future" is more common in American English and "in future" in British English, but "in future" has the additional meaning of "from now on".

"In future" is often used in reprimands as in: In future please sign and date your letters

The difference between "in the future" and "in future" will be contextual and depend on the function of the word "future" in the sentence.

"In future" appears to be used more commonly in Britain and former British colonies.

Some people would argue that they mean exactly the same thing.

Some English speakers may reject the use of "in future" as incorrect.


Because more words = more official-sounding.

It's a bad phrase that has taken root in irrelevant situations.

Adding "rate" adds nothing in most contexts.

However, the word rate also means "value" or "number".

From Cambridge : rate (MEASUREMENT) noun a measurement of the speed at which something happens or changes, or the number of times it happens or changes, within a particular period

The very first sense for the noun rate in Merriam-Webster is “reckoned value : valuation”.

The word has more meanings than the one used in physics.

One could therefore make the argument that a rate of speed is a speed which is reckoned (i.e. by measuring or reasoned estimation) rather than guessed.

This is classic genteelism .

Speed is the rate of change of position.

Although "Rate of speed" is technically meaningless, it does, however, usually convey the intended meaning (for better or worse).

As a scientist, I would point out that saying "high rate of speed", when one simply means "high speed", is not merely redundant but outright wrong.

Speed is already a rate in itself (the rate at which distance changes).

According to my dictionary*, the relevant definition of rate is the speed with which something moves, happens or changes

* New Oxford American Dicitionary (2nd Edition)

In the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, S 128 , the term "Rate of Speed" is used throughout.

I suspect this term did not originate in Ontario, but the usage has become official due to its inclusion in legislation.

Question: Why do reporters (and sometimes police officers) say that somebody was going at a  high rate of speed  when they actually mean  high speed ?  In physics, speed is already the rate of distance over time, otherwise known as velocity. Rate of speed is velocity over time, otherwise known as acceleration. By saying  high rate of speed  they would be implying picking up more speed.  Is there a social reason for using  high rate of speed  rather than  high speed ?

"high rate of speed" or "high speed" to mean going fast

It is possible that terms like "high rate of speed" are not just redundant but also incorrect. Such an expression is likely to be used in order to use more words and therefore sound more official. However, correct or not, its meaning is generally understood and indeed it even features in print in the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.

The term is technically meaningless and is just used to make the text sound more impressive.

Saying "high rate of speed", when one simply means "high speed", is not merely redundant but outright wrong.  Although "Rate of speed" is technically meaningless, it does usually convey the intended meaning. Yet, interestingly, in the  Ontario Highway Traffic Act, S 128 , the term "Rate of Speed" is used throughout.

Although "Rate of speed" is technically meaningless, it does, however, usually convey the intended meaning (for better or worse).

This is an incorrect phrase, but it is still easily understood and commonly used. One reason may relate to people trying to sound more official in their speech by using more words. In fact, the term may even be used regularly in official contexts in certain regions, such as Canada, for example.

It is used sometimes in official documents.

In the  Ontario Highway Traffic Act, S 128 , the term "Rate of Speed" is used throughout.

It might have occurred because people use more words when trying to sound official.

This is an incorrect phrase but has become more common.

Although it is incorrect, this phrase is still easily understood.

This term may even be used in an official context in certain regions, such as Canada.


You should remove the spaces.

Unless, of course, you are quoting a poem, in which case the slash indicates a line break: We review a module theme per user.

Wikipedia has more info : There are usually no spaces either before or after a slash.

Exceptions are in representing the start of a new line when quoting verse, or a new paragraph when quoting prose.

The Chicago Manual of Style (at 6.112) also allows spaces when either of the separated items is a compound that itself includes a space: Our New Zealand / Western Australia trip .

(Compare use of an en dash used to separate such compounds.)

The Canadian Style:

A Guide to Writing and Editing prescribes "

No space before or after an oblique when used between individual words, letters or symbols; one space before and after the oblique when used between longer groups which contain internal spacing", giving the examples "n/a" and "Language and Society / Langue et société".

In print I would leave no space, but for online usage I bracket the "/" with spaces because it is a non-breaking character and results in huge, clunky amalgamations that take up a whole line, leaving the previous line with but a couple of words.

This is the kind of break I mean: If you wanted to use some long words, you could go the antidisestablishmentarianism/pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosisroute.

The two long words won't break at a line end because of the slash, but will if the slash is surrounded by spaces.

I believe the correct usage is word/word unless you're writing a line break in a poem: Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? /

Thou art more lovely and more temperate:

Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May, /

And summer's lease hath

all too short a date:

Punctuation surrounding a slash is a matter of style.

The Chicago Manual of Style, for example, allows for a space on either side of the slash when either of the separated items has a space itself.

For your example a space on either side of the slash would be appropriate according to that style convention.

Regarding line breaks, you probably want the front space padding the slash to be a non-breaking space, as starting a new line with a slash would be jolting for a reader.

As a technical writer I need to edit content written by engineers.

for some reason they have a tendency to use spaces before and after slashes, and I religiously remove them.

I have started rethinking my inflexibility in this matter as I believe there are times that spaces make the content more user friendly.

A case in point is either/or listings of terms that contain other symbols, for example "PMC_IO51 / XMC_IO_B-9".

The spacing makes it clear that the slash is not part of either term.

Normally, no spaces should be used; however, placing a slash with no spaces between two long, polysyllabic words (common in technical writing) makes the sentence harder to scan.

This could be one case where ignoring your style guide is justified.

Question: I usually put a space before and after / , when indicating alternatives. We review a module / theme per user. Is it correct, or should I rewrite the sentence to remove those spaces? We review a module/theme per user.

Should I write "module/theme" or "module / theme"?

It appears that punctuation surrounding the use of slashes is a matter of style, however, in this example, there should probably be no spaces either side of the slash unless you're writing a poem. Spaces may be more common when separating two long polysyllabic words, something which is common in technical writing.

Generally spaces should not be included unless you are quoting from a poem, but the exceptions are technical texts, where spaces can help to avoid confusion, and online texts, where they can help to avoid excessively long amalgamations that take up a whole line.

Wikipedia states :   There are usually no spaces either before or after a slash. The correct usage is word/word unless you're writing a line break in a poem:  Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? /

The spaces should be rmeoved. Normally, no spaces should be used. However, placing a slash with no spaces between two long, polysyllabic words (common in technical writing) makes the sentence harder to scan. Punctuation surrounding a slash is a matter of style.

The correct answer to this question will potentially be a question of style. However, it is generally agreed that obliques should have no spaces either side of them unless the two items being separated contain a space themselves.

Spaces should be removed unless you are quoting a poem.

Leave no spaces in print but online it is recommended to avoid long and clunky amalgamations.

Spaces can be helpful in technical writing to avoid ambiguities.

Spaces can be justified if they make the text easier to read.

It is generally considered that there should be no spaces either side of an oblique.

Spaces may be permitted either side of an oblique if the two items in question contain spaces.

Punctuation choices when using obliques are a matter of personal style.


Using the past tense is a way of offering flexibility in an invitation or request.

You don't need to feel compelled to accept because it is being phrased as a passing thought.

A whim.

The difference between I wonder if you'd like to come for dinner and

I was wondering if you'd like to come for dinner

is that the second sounds more hesitant.

It's used to make the invitation less direct and thus more polite.

"I wonder if you'd like to come for dinner" sounds like something your boss would say, it's almost like an order to come to dinner.

There's nothing wrong with the grammar in the second form; if you are wondering now then you must have been wondering for at least a small period of time beforehand.

I was wondering, and now I am asking.

"I was wondering" gives the other more freedom to accept or refuse because it has the feeling that I will not get embarrassed if you refuse my invitation because I was and not I am !

That was in the past!

Why isn't the present tense used?

I am wondering if you would like to come for dinner. =========================

The only word indicating tense in your example is 'am'.

But in this situation, it's really only a present tense FORM.

This FORM is used to be more direct, in this case, it could [note 'could' is a future] be taken as rather abrupt.

Past tense FORMS, "I was

wondering" are used in English to be more indirect and therefore more polite, softer, less challenging.

Compare " Do

you want something to eat?"

versus " Did you want something to eat?" Tense FORMs as opposed to the actual use of tense to mark time are simply different grammatical/pragmatic animals.

Question: Why isn't the present tense used? I am wondering if you would like to come for dinner.

Why is the past tense used in "I was wondering if you would like to come for dinner?"

Using the past tense "I was wondering" is a way of offering flexibility in an invitation or request. It makes the invitation less direct and more polite.

It's a polite way of asking which offers greater flexibility.

Using the past tense is a way of offering flexibility in an invitation or request. "I was wondering" gives the other more freedom to accept or refuse. It's used to make the invitation less direct and thus more polite. "I wonder if you'd like to come for dinner" sounds like something your boss would say, it's almost like an order to come to dinner.

Using the past tense is a way of offering flexibility in an invitation or request.  It's used to make the invitation less direct and thus more polite. However there's nothing wrong with the grammar in the second form.

Although there is nothing wrong with using the present tense in this case, the past tense is often used to be more polite.

It's a way of offering greater flexibility and avoiding a sense of obligation.

It leaves the recipient more freedom to refuse.

Using the past tense is used to make the sentence more polite.

There is nothing wrong with using the present tense in this example.


0.25 miles.

The rule I follow is that you use the singular only when talking of exactly one mile .

You'd also say half a mile , quarter of a mile , etc.

, but in these cases it's as though you're still talking of "a mile" first, and then taking half or quarter of it.

Let me say something further, with the caveat that it may be my own idiosyncratic usage: use the singular only when talking of the natural number 1, that is, when you're essentially "counting" miles and there's a single one of them.

Use the plural in all other cases, even for the real number 1.0: just like "0.9 miles" or "1.1 miles", also say "1.0 miles" (but "1 mile").

[Mathematically, natural numbers ("counting numbers") are a subset of real numbers, but more properly what we have is an inclusion map , so it does make sense to distinguish between 1 and 1.0, actually.

And the distinction between natural numbers and real numbers does have applications elsewhere in English: consider "fewer than" versus "less than".

You'd say "fewer than five items" but "less than 5.0 inches", since a length doesn't have to be an integer number of inches, you're not counting but assigning a real value.]

Another

aside: the SI standard for symbols is to use the same symbol for singular or plural, so you'd write "2 km" even if you were reading it as "2 kilometres".

Of course, since you're using miles, you probably don't care about this. :-)

Depends how you say it.

You'd say "nought point two five miles" (plural) but "a quarter of a mile" (singular)

I'd leave it singular unless talking about a range such as "0.25 - 2 miles".

In a table, for example, the heading would be the same regardless of the units.

You can always abbreviate as "mi" and avoid the issue.

Simon's answer is also good.

Also note that it's actually more awkward to say 0.25 mile than "point two five of a mile".

For reasons I'm not too sure about, we usually say "0.25 miles" rather than "0.25 mile".

If you Google for both terms, there are about 700,000 "0.25 miles" but less than 100,000 "0.25 mile", and the first few hits for "0.25 mile" give things like "0.25 mile swim" or "0.25 mile wireless setup", where the "mile" is forced to singular anyway.

If we followed the definition of "plural", the correct usage would be: 0.25 mile 0.5 mile 0.9 mile 1.0 mile 1.3 mile (or 1.3 miles, according to Wiktionary note below) 2.0 miles 2.2 miles..

As the definition is: Plural: of, relating to, or constituting a class of grammatical forms usually used to denote more than one or in some languages more than two http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plural

However, as Shinto pointed out in his answer here, people usually use the plural form for 0.25.

Here is an interesting note from the Wiktionary about the usage of plural for fractions (and decimals) in general: While the plural form generally refers to two or more persons or things, that is not always the case.

The plural form is often used for zero persons or things, for fractional things in a quantity greater than one , and for people or things when the quantity is unknown.

This does support the usage of plural for 0.25 though, since it is less than one.

But if that is how people use it, we definitely can't say that it is incorrect.

.25 miles or a quarter of a mile.

It's really not complicated or confusing if you think of it in terms of being a fraction.

Essentially, as soon as you go into decimal, you're changing units into partial units.

0.25 would actually be 25 units of "hundredth-miles"

Question: I have seen people say both 0.25 mile and 0.25 miles. Should we use plural or singular for a fraction of a mile?

Should we use plural or singular for a fraction of a mile?

The generally agreed rule is that you should use the singular only when talking of exactly one mile, although the real answer may depend on how you say it.

The most common usage is "0.25 miles" but a "quarter of a mile".

You use the singular only when talking of exactly  one mile . You'd say "nought point two five miles" (plural) but "a quarter of a mile" (singular). The plural  form is often used for zero persons or  things,  for fractional things in a  quantity greater than one , and for  people or things when the quantity is  unknown.

One might say "nought point two five miles" (plural) but "a quarter of a mile" (singular). We usually say "0.25 miles" rather than "0.25 mile".

The answer to this question is subjective, but it appears that the plural form is much more common than the singular. Some people may advocate only using the singular form for the number 1 and using the plural in all other cases.

Use the singular only when talking of exactly one mile .

It depends on how it is spoken - You'd say "nought point two five miles" (plural) but "a quarter of a mile" (singular).

Leave singular unless talking about a range of distances.

The use of "0.25 miles" appears to be much more common than "0.25 mile".

The answer to this question is subjective.

Some people may advocate only using the singular form when talking specifically about the natural number 1 and using the plural in all other cases.


The classic example (which is probably an urban myth) is a foreign learner saying "I ate a chicken last night" when he meant "I ate some chicken last night".

Mistaking chicken (the meat) for a countable noun makes it sound like he ate an entire bird.

I think you are correct in that if a noun is unambiguously mass or count then the qualifier doesn't matter, the meaning can be taken from the noun.

However compare

: I ate too much fish vs.

I ate too many fish.

If the noun is ambiguous in that way, then the meaning must be taken from the qualifier.

So if you mistook "fish" for a term that was always mass or common, then you could produce an ambiguous statement.

(Inspired by Shinto's example)

Some words have different meanings depending on count/ noncount usage.

If you turn in "a paper", it means you have given the teacher an assignment, while simply having "some paper" means you have plain paper with nothing on it.

I have two papers, means I have two assignments.

I have two pieces of paper means I have two pages.

I have

a chicken means I have a bird, and I have some chicken means I have some bird meat.

Most words only have one meaning and usage, so confusing the two just sounds awkward rather than truly confusing like the paper and chicken examples.

I was recently in a grocery store where the express lane was marked "10 Items or Fewer."

I made a mental note that that was a classy chain, so in a marketing sense, getting it right made a difference.

You can't enroll in Tattooing 101 because you have too many classes.

You can't enroll in Tattooing 101 because you have too much class.

You cannot make too many glasses if you don't have much glass.

You can make fewer glasses if you have less glass.

You can only make a little glass if you only have a little glass.

My uncle has too much wood in his cabinet shop; there's not enough space left for a new planer.

My uncle has too many woods in his cabinet shop; there's no need for him to stock zebra wood.

My sister doesn't like that radio station; she says it has too much blues.

My sister doesn't like that wallpaper; she says it has too much blue.

My sister doesn't like that wallpaper; she says it has too many blues.

Here's a real life example.

"Here's a box full of books, most of them are quite good.

Here's another box.

It has less good books in."

"Here's a box full of books, most of them are quite good.

Here's another box.

It has fewer good books in.

" (1) feels like it should be parsed as follows: "It has [less good] books in".

That is, the books in the box are of (uniformly?)

lower quality.

"less good" is behaving like a compound adjective.(2) on the other hand, seems to suggest "It has fewer [good books] in".

"Good books" is behaving like a compound noun.

The suggestion this time is that the books are possibly of similar quality, it's just that the box isn't as full: there are fewer books.

Question: Less/fewer, too much/too many, amount/number... When people get these things wrong, it bugs me. But I cannot think of a situation where mistaking a mass noun for a count noun (or vice versa) would ever introduce any kind of ambiguity.  Is there such a case?

Mass nouns and counts nouns. Does getting it wrong ever matter?

If the noun is unambiguously mass or count, the qualifier probably doesn't matter. Whilst there are situations where mistakenly using a countable noun instead of a mass noun would lead to confusion, in general, there are very few. For example, mistaking chicken (the meat) for a countable noun makes it sound like someone ate an entire bird.

One example (of many) would be "I ate a chicken last night" instead of "I ate some chicken last night" - the non-countable is treated as if it is countable thereby creating confusion of meaning.

Some words have different meanings depending on count/ noncount usage.  If you turn in "a paper", it means you have given the teacher an assignment, while simply having "some paper" means you have plain paper with nothing on it.  Most words only have one meaning and usage, so confusing the two just sounds awkward rather than truly confusing like the paper and chicken examples.

If a noun is unambiguously a mass or a count then the qualifier doesn't matter - the meaning can be taken from the noun.  Some words have different meanings depending on count/noncount usage.

Some words have a different meaning depending on whether they are treated as mass nouns or countable nouns. One example is the word "chicken".

Mistaking chicken (the meat) for a countable noun (A BIRD) makes it sound like an entire bird.

The potential for confusion arises when a noun is not unanbiguously mass or count, e.g. chicekn.

Another example is "glass" (not countable) versus" glasses" (countable) - so "You cannot make too many glasses if you don't have much glass".

The word "chicken" is one word where the meaning of a sentence will change depending on whether it is countable or not.

Some words have a different meaning depending on whether they are countable nouns or not.


Working part-time in customer support, I have to deal with the same situation very often, and I often have to google for "awkward" names, too.

What I usually end up with when nothing helps, is either of the following:

I just drop the "Mr/Ms" altogether. "

Dear Maria Cannavaro", "Dear Wei Li", etc.

If the person is located in the US, I assume that they do not object to being addressed by their first name. "

Dear Maria",

"Dear Alex".

Also, I might sometimes use a simple "Hi there" or "Hi", but usually only if the person has previously contacted me using a similar informal address.

Lastly, sometimes people do ask me for a license key in a formal, polite way, but sign as "B. Smith".

In that case, they either don't really care how I address them, or they don't want me to figure out their gender or full name for some reason, which I must respect.

Not one of these people has ever objected to my use of "hi".

Given our construction of gender, 'tis usually a far greater sin to falsely assign a gender than to avoid formal address.

For Wei Li , I would not break up the name and say Dear Wei or Dear Li , because some people use reverse order with surname first, and some people have compound names.

If you are lucky there may be a title you can choose.

"Dear Professor Doe" is safe for either gender.

Likewise of "Doctor" (either the academic or the medical/veterinary/dental variety), and for military, police or clerical ranks.

Failing that I go with "Dear Full Name" as others have suggested, as it contains nothing that might offend and still conveys a basic degree of formality and respect.

english.stackexchange.com/users/2851/dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten

In 2015, ODO added Mx (pronounced like "mix") as a gender-neutral pronoun.

See definition 2 for Mx on ODO Pronunciation:

/məks/ /mɪks/

NOUN

A title used before a person’s surname or full name by those who wish to avoid specifying their gender or by those who prefer not to identify themselves as male or female "To me, Mx Bond embodies the very best kind of girl a boy could ever grow up to become." Origin 1970s: apparently from M (as in Mr, Mrs, Ms, etc.)

+ X1 (probably denoting an unknown or variable factor or quantity). For further reading: Mx (title) on Wikipedia

The word was first proposed in the late 1970s.

The "x" is intended to stand as a wildcard character, and does not imply a "mixed" gender.

Ngram shows some data , but it's unclear what Mx means there.

When faced with this problem in an email (my most normal scenario), I look at the signature and use that to address the person.

Question: When communicating with foreign cultures, the gender of the addressed person is not always clear from the name. What would be a professional way to address someone in this situation. ( Dear Mr or Ms SomeForeignName looks awkward). A hack I generally use is to do a google image search for the name, but this isn't always accurate in all cultures. What's the solution here?

How should I address someone with a known name and unknown gender?

It is generally considered a greater sin to falsely assign a gender than to avoid formal address. If someone has previously contacted you in informal address, you could simply say "Hi there". If the person in question has a title, such as "Professor" or "Doctor", you could use this, but alternatively, you could simply address them by their full name or the name written in their e-mail signature.

It is important not to make a mistake with gender so in the absense of any other option go for a gender neutral salutation like "Hi there"

Go with  "Dear Full Name". Given our construction of gender, 'tis usually a far greater sin to falsely assign a gender than to avoid formal address.  Dear Professor or doctor is safe for either gender if applicable.

The first name may be used or Mr/Ms may be avoided altogether. In informal communication, "Hi" may be used, for example. There may be a hint in the signature.

When faced with such a situation, you may want to simply drop the formal address and use either a less formal address or their full name. Alternatively, you could use the name in their e-mail signature.

If unsure of the gender just begin with Hi or Hi there.

Gender is a sensitive issue so best to avoid getting it wrong.

Another option is to use the full name as in Dear Wei Lu.

If there is a title, use that, e.g. Dear Doctor.

There is the address form Mx but it's not in common usage.

You could check the signature and use that.

When faced with such a situation, the safect option is probably to drop the formal address and simply use their first name.

You might want to use a less formal greeting to avoid problems in this situation.

You might consider addressing the recipient using the name in their e-mail signature.