"Essence" in this context is a synonym for "element", and "essential" for "elemental".

In pre-atomic theory, there were four "known" elements or essences — Earth, Air, Fire and Water — and a putative fifth element (quinta essentia).

The fifth element was believed to be superior to the others, and so, "quintessential" has come to mean something that is superior.

Somewhat missed in the answers thus far: the "fifth essence" is in fact identical to the "æther" of yore; said to be the stuff the stars and other heavenly bodies are made of.

Thus, anything composed of the "fifth essence" had to be exceptional.

It's the fifth element after earth, air, fire, and water, so it is presumably superior to those or completing those.

"quint" means fifth.

The "quintessence" is the fifth essence.

The fifth element was the one supposed to come after air, fire, earth, and water in the Medieval Age.

The origin of the word quint is the late 17th century; it derives from French, which took the word from Latin quintus (fifth) from quinque (five).

In Italian, quinto means fifth , and has the same origin.

Quintessential derives from quintessence (from Latin quinta essentia ), which was considered thought to fill the Universe beyond Earth.

In modern physics, quintessence is a hypothetical form of dark energy.

The NOAD reports that the origin of quintessence is late Middle English (as a term in philosophy), via French from medieval Latin quinta essentia ("fifth essence").

Sorry, I don't agree with the previous answers.

In alchemy, "essence" was the result of the distillation in an alambic (still used for perfumes) ; the process leads to a fairly purified product, but it can't be perfect ; you still have some impurities.

Thus, you repeat it again and again.

On the fifth time, it was considered that you could not do any better.

"Essence" means "element".

It was believed in the Medieval Age to be the fifth element behind Earth, Air, Fire, and Water.

Question: Doesn't "quint" mean "five"?  What does that have to do with the meaning of "quintessential"?

Where does the "quint" in "quintessential" come from?

"Essence" in this context is a synonym for "element", and therefore, "quintessential", means "the fifth element". In pre-atomic theory, there were four "known" elements, and therefore, the fifth element was believed to be superior than the others. Therefore, anything composed of the "fifth essence" had to be exceptional.

Quint'  means 'fifth' and it refers either to the 'fifth element' or to the fifth stage in the purification process used in achemy.

Quintessential  derives from  quintessence, which was considered thought to fill the Universe beyond Earth. "Essence" in this context is a synonym for "element", and "essential" for "elemental". S1: The "quintessence" is the fifth essence.  The fifth element was the one supposed to come after air, fire, earth, and water in the Medieval Age. The fifth element was believed to be superior to the others, and so, "quintessential" has come to mean something that is superior.

The fifth element after earth, air, fire and water was believed to be superior to the others, and so, "quintessential" has come to mean something that is superior. Quintessential  derives from  quintessence  (from Latin  quinta essentia ), which was thought to fill the Universe beyond Earth.

The word "quintessential" is derived from the word "quintessence", being the fifth element, which was believed the fill the universe.

quit' means 'five' as the word refers to the mysterious 'fifth' element, sometimes referred to as 'aether'.

'quint' does refer to 'five' but it is actually the fifth refinement stage in the purification process used in alchemy.


I read once that "whilst" is preferred if you think that starting your sentence with "while" could change the meaning.

Consider this sentence:

While I walk

I don't often whistle.

That could mean, "I walk, but I don't often whistle", or it could mean "I don't often whistle while I walk".

Changing it to:

Whilst

I walk

I don't often whistle.

Removes that ambiguity.

I admit that the sentence itself is poorly constructed, but it does show one reason you'd use "whilst" over "while".

Always taking a bit of a chance using the Internet to answer an Internet question, but Daily Writing Tips says that not only are while and whilst interchangeable, but that in fact while is the original version.

The very authoritative Michael Quinion backs this up on World Wide Words (and that is a site well worth visiting for anyone interested in the English language).

So I think your question proceeds from a false premise: they haven't come to be used to mean the same thing, they do mean the same thing, and there is nothing wrong with using while in all cases.

(And to answer the question that wasn't asked, since it is shorter than whilst and clearly understood by US as well as British English-speakers, I'd say stick with while every time.)

While and whilst annoy me.

Same goes for among and amongst.

As far as I'm concerned, the number one rule should always be don't opt for the -st equivalent simply because it sounds more distinguished.

Generally, I find 'whilst' more befitting when preceding a present participle.

With that said, the following take on your example seems a tad more agreeable: Whilst walking down the street, the sun was shining.

It seems they are interchangeable, but whilst is primarily used by the British.

"whilst" is "while" plus the suffix "-s" (with "-t" added by analogy with "amongst", "amidst").

The earliest citation in the OED for "whilst" as a conjunction meaning "while" is 1375.

So maybe that's the answer to your question.

I have served as an editor for a scientific journal for many years.

In my observation, authors who use British English spellings also use "whilst" and "amongst".

The journal is published in North American English.

We consider these British spellings and always change them to "while" and "among".

I know this is a dead thread, but it still appears in current searches, so I add this comment in the hope it comes back to life!

Although ‘while’ and ‘whilst’ can share a meaning when used as a conjunction, only ‘while’ can be used as a verb (‘while away the hours’) and a noun (‘this could take a while’).

Also, ‘whilst’ conveys the meaning of ‘alternatively’, or ‘but’, or ‘whereas’, however ‘while’ means ‘at the same time’.

So ‘whilst’ follows a comma, and ‘while’ does not.

Example...

“I told jokes while she ate lunch”.

We could both be eating lunch together.

“I told jokes, whilst she ate lunch”.

It is now clear that I am not eating lunch, and she is not telling jokes.

Another example where only ‘whilst’ works to convey a comparison...

“I watch action movies, whilst you watch dramas”.

This means that generally I don’t watch dramas and you don’t watch action movies.

“I watch action movies while you watch dramas” means I go and watch action movies whenever you are watching dramas.

I may love dramas...

I just don’t like watching them with you.

If there was ever a distinction in meaning -- that "whilst" meant "whereas; although" while "while" meant "at the same time as" -- it seems to have been lost by the early 19th century, as can be seen by the usage of "whilst" in the works of great writers, in contexts where the meaning of "whereas" would not fit.

For example: Whilst wandering on in this slow manner, they were again surprised ... by the sight of Mr. Darcy approaching them, and at no great distance.

-- Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice, ch.43 Whilst he was watching the patient thus, the younger lady glided softly past, and seating herself in a chair by the bedside, gathered Oliver's hair from his face. -- Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, ch.30 A cab had driven up whilst the American had been talking.

-- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventure of the Dancing Men

Question: I think most folk happily use either "while" or "whilst". I've a vague recollection that at one time "while" indicated the passing of time and "whilst" was essentially the same as "whereas" or "although".  So using while for time passing...   While I was walking down the street the sun was shining.   ... and whilst for whereas/although...   Whilst I was walking down the street I often prefer to hop.   Any views?

When did "while" and "whilst" become interchangeable?

There is no clear agreement as to when "while" and "whilst" became interchangeable, but it is possible that "while" was the original term. If they did ever have different meanings, they probably lost them before the 19th century, and it is also possible that they have always meant the same thing, and it seems that "whilst" is primarily used by the British.

They are more or less interchangeable, except that the -st version is more UK spelling and also only 'while' can be used as a verb.

The earliest citation in the OED for "whilst" as a conjunction meaning "while" is 1375 and some argue that 'while' is the original version.  It seems they are interchangeable, but  whilst  is primarily used by in British English. Although ‘while’ and ‘whilst’ can share a meaning when used as a conjunction, only ‘while’ can be used as a verb and a noun. Also, ‘whilst’ conveys the meaning of ‘alternatively’, or ‘but’, or ‘whereas’, however ‘while’ means ‘at the same time’. Therefore, ‘whilst’ follows a comma, and ‘while’ does not.

While and whilst do mean the same thing and are entirely interchangeable.

There is some disagreement as to whether or not the two terms have always been interchangeable. However, the earliest evidence of them being used interchangeably dates from 1375 and any difference in usage seems to have disappeared at the latest by the 19th century.

They are interchangeble but 'while' is the older version.

Don't use the 'st' version just because it sounds fancier.

They are interchangeable, but  whilst  is primarily used by the British.

They are the same - "whilst" is "while" plus the suffix "-s" (with "-t" added by analogy with "amongst", "amidst").

The difference is that 'while' can be used as a verb but 'whilst' cannot.

If there was ever a distinction in meaning it seems to have been lost by the early 19th century.

A tip is that "whilst" is preferred if you think that starting your sentence with "while" could change the meaning.

There is some discrepancy as to whether they have always been interchangeable or if there was once a difference in use.

The earliest evidence that they might have been interchangeable dates from 1375.

If there was a difference in meaning, it seems to have been lost by the 19th century.


To an American ear, it sounds awkward, but in British English, this is not uncommon.

Ironically, a Brit will probably tell you that the correct form is "I have

got a small dog".

This is definitely an American English/British English thing, as you can't do it in American English but you can in British English.

In American English, you can't contract "have" if you are using it as a plain (not a "helping" or "auxiliary") verb.

"I've a dog" and "They've a great time" are not grammatical in American English.

There are a number of other restrictions on contractions of "have" besides the one you cite.

For example, you can't use contracted "have" followed by "not": "I've not been there" is not grammatical in American English even though "I've been there" is—if you want to contract, you have to say "I haven't been there".

I discussed this in a question about I’ven’t .

I think what you feel uncomfortable with is contraction of "have" as a main verb.

When it's an auxiliary verb in, say, a perfect, contraction feels fine:

I've had a car before.

But contraction of main verb "have" meaning to own or possess feels weirder. ?

And I've a car right now.

However, I have a feeling that people will contract main verb have in British English, but take that with a grain of salt.

Americans faced with some kind of strange usage are far too willing to blame it on British English.

I think "I've a car" is fine, but unusual on its own: as part of a longer sentence it's unexceptionable: "I've a car in the garage".

I suspect this is for prosodic reasons: "I've a car

" has no word you can stress, other than "car", so people tend to change it to either "I have a car" or "I've got a car".

The other case is different: I can't think of any examples where I would expect to find "he's a pen", though I would rate it as perfectly grammatical.

"I've" seems fairly normal to me as British (or at least Scottish) English, and is completely unambiguous.

I don't think this

"he's" would ever be understood as "he has" rather than "he is".

They are both strictly correct but both slightly inelegant.

The third especially could be confused with "He is a pen" Some people like to avoid contractions like that in formal writing, but most people probably won't mind (or even notice).

It's probably wise to favour the contraction if you want to emphasise another part of the sentence: "I've never been so insulted!"

It is rarely appropriate to use contractions in a formal writing environment.

I've heard the first construction in speech, mainly British English, but not the second.

Technically, there's nothing wrong with it, although Uncle Mikey is correct that it's rarely appropriate to use contractions in formal writing.

The only reason the second one seems strange is because most people would say "They're having a great time," I suppose because they're in the middle of having it.

I have said, though, "I'd a great time...

" I just happen to speak too quickly.

I also say "I've got..." rather than "I have.

" When I'm not speaking incorrectly, I generally just say "I've."

So, it's not just a British thing.

(I've) is a fine contraction, just in American English you can only use it to replace (I have)

when 'have' is used as an auxiliary verb (eg: In conjunction with a past participle).

I've been there.

(Correct)I've a dog.

(Incorrect)

When the verb 'have' isn't auxiliary, It can't be contracted with pronouns.

Question: I feel uncomfortable saying sentences like the following:    " I've  a car" instead of " I have  a car"  " They've  a great time" instead of " They have  a great time"  " He's  a pen" instead of " He has  a pen"  etc   I ask this because I read this sort of thing in a book.  Are they correct? And what is the rule? Can you use such forms in a formal setting?

Is it appropriate to use short form of "have" ('ve) when it means possession?

How acceptable the short form of have is may possibly be down to region, with this sound being potentially more acceptable in British English than American English. However, regardless of this possibility, it is rarely acceptable to use contractions in formal writing.

Views vary but is appears that the contraction indicating possession is used only in UK English and only in informal contexts.

To an American ear, it sounds awkward, but in British English, this is not uncommon.  It is not technically wrong to use contractions, but is rarely appropriate to use contractions in a formal writing environment.

Although not strictly ungrammatical, this can sound awkward and inelegant. However, this may be heard at times. In addition, it is rarely appropriate to use contractions in a formal writing environment.

It appears that this use of the contraction is limited to British English but in any case is still slightly inelegant. The example of "he's" for "he has" is incorrect however, and in any case, contractions are never appropriate for formal writing. You may want to use a contraction in informal speech to emphasise a different word in the sentence.

Not in US English but's it's ok in UK English.

"I've" is a normal form in British English.

They are both current forms but avoid using either in formal writing.

I think "I've a car" is fine, but unusual on its own: as part of a longer sentence it's unexceptionable: "I've a car in the garage".

It seems to be the case that this usage of the contracted 've is acceptable in British English but not in American English.

Contractions are rarely appropriate in formal writing.

You may want to use a contraction to emphasise another word in the sentence.

The example contraction of "he's" instead of "he has" is not considered correct.

This use of the contraction is considered correct but not particularly elegant.


"Betwixt" is archaic and highly marked for American English, but not technically wrong.

"Learnt" is non-standard, but intelligible and probably not a problem.

I've never heard or seen the word "trebble", and would mark it as an error in any piece of formal writing.

"Treble" (in British English at least) can mean the same as "triple", as well as high in (musical) pitch, as in the opposite of "bass" (see also the Wiktionary entry ).

"Learnt" (again, British English) is an alternative past form of "learned" ( Wiktionary again ).

"Betwixt" is a great word, but is somewhat archaic ( Wiktionary, one more time ).

Despite that, either "twixt" or "betwixt" was used in the film Serenity .

My $.02 USD:

Betwixt: not commonly used nationwide

; I've heard it (and used it) in New England.

Trebble: We don't double up the b.

It's spelled 'treble' and it is still in use.

In American English, we don't substitute the -ed ending on verbs with a t. Learnt

= learnedSpelt = spelled and so on. Without wanting to speak ill of Texas...

it's Texas.

They have their own dialect of English down there.

As a bit of anecdotal evidence, my nickname is "Lin" (short for Linda).

My Texas friends manage to take the letters Lin and somehow stretch two syllables out of them. "

Le-in" it becomes.

Why?

I have NO idea.

Treble might be more acceptable if the US played darts more often.

In BE, the 3x multiplier ring of a dart board is called the treble ring of which the highest scoring segment is the treble twenty. http://www.pdc.tv/staticFiles/b6/b3/0,,10180~177078,00.pdf

I've never heard an American use betwixt, trebble (or aught, naught, or nought), or learnt, although: "betwixt and between" as a figure of speech would be "acceptable".

"larnt" is an Appalachian dialect word that would cost you points in a school paper.

I'm American, and the only place I've ever seen treble used was on computer speakers and car stereos (as in bass and treble ).

Question: I grew up speaking British English. The words I learnt were occasionally marked off in papers, despite their being English words. Are words like  betwixt ,  trebble ,  learnt  acceptable in papers for English classes for professors in America, specifically Texas?

Are "betwixt", "trebble", etc., acceptable in American English?

It is generally considered that "betwixt" is an archaic word but not technically wrong. "Learnt", however, is non-standard in American English. "Trebble" does not exist, unless the intended word is "treble".

Some of these terms may be technically correct but they are still unusual so best avoided in formal documents.

"Betwixt" is archaic and not commonly used in American English, but not technically wrong.   "Learnt" is non-standard, but intelligible and probably not a problem.  "Treble" in British English at least can mean the same as "triple", as well as used in music. In American English it is rarely used, except for speakers.

"Betwixt" is archaic and not common in American English, but not technically wrong. Similarly, "Learnt" is non-standard, but intelligible.  However, "trebble" would be marked as an error in formal writing, in favor of the current "treble".

Whilst "betwixt" and "learnt" are considered either non-standard or archaic, they are generally not considered a problem in an American academic setting. There is less agreement about the word "trebble"/"treble".

Betwixt' is used in the US but only in certain areas like New England, and 'trebble' is used widely with one 'b'.

None of these are used in US English commonly except for the phrase 'betwixt and between'.

Treble' is only used for computer speakers and car stereos.

Whilst non-standard or archaic, Betwixt and Learnt are not considered a problem in American English classes.

There is some disagreement as to whether the word "treble/trebble" is acceptable.


Punctuation inside quotes is a rule that was invented by American publishers and is not necessarily followed elsewhere.

The original reason had to do with typesetting mechanics and is obsolete.

Also, if you're preparing technical texts such as about computer programming, this can result in technically incorrect material.

In practice, you are at the mercy of whoever is editing or grading your material.

But to answer your question, it can certainly be "acceptable" in many parts.

Yes.

See the Economist style guide : If the quotation does not include any punctuation, the closing inverted commas should precede any punctuation marks that the sentence requires.

More at the Guardian style guide .

Actually, Wikipedia seems to give a good answer to this.

I think it can be summarized as "most people just make it up as they go."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_marks#Typographical_considerations If you're an American, periods or commas almost always go inside the quotation marks.

If you're British, periods and commas only go inside if they're part of the actual quote.

Unless you're a journalist, or publishing fiction.

Then you do it the American way!

I really don't consider one way more correct than another.

I guess it just depends on what your audience expects.

The only thing that goes inside quotation marks is the quotation.

If the quotation contains punctuation, the punctuation should be included inside the quotation marks.

If not, the punctuation is perfectly fine outside the quotation marks.

The answer I remember for British English is If the quoted material forms a complete sentence (even if it's broken out of), even if it is not a complete sentence in the original source, and there is a punctuation mark before the opening quote, then the full stop should go inside.

"I think", he said "that would be a good idea."

The full quote forms a complete sentence and starts with a capital letter, even though it's broken out of to interject

the he said .

I think there were even more subtleties in the article in The Right Word at the Right Time .

(It's a rather excellent Readers Digest book.)

I was taught that if the quote has more than one sentence, then you do it like this, with a period in and a period out: Statement:

I once heard a quote that said "Stop.

You can't go.

If you go, you can't stop.

If you stop, you can't go.".

Question: Is there a quote that says "Stop.

You can't go.

If you go, you can't stop.

If you stop, you can't go."?

That isn't a real quote, by the way.

If it only has a phrase, or if it only has one sentence, then you do it like this:

Statement:

John said "Get out of here".

Question:

Did John say "Get out of here"?

Question: Possible Duplicate:  Is it correct to use “punctuation outside of the quotations”, or “inside?”     I've heard that you should always place ending punctuation inside of quotes, no matter what.    Are there any cases where it is appropriate for a sentence to end with  ". ?

Is it ever acceptable for a period to come after a quote at the end of a sentence?

It is generally agreed that the answer to this question will depend on regional variations. Keeping the period inside quote is an American trend and not necessarily followed elsewhere. As a result, there are parts of the world where it is perfectly acceptable to put the period after a quote. It may also depend on what your audience expects.

There is no hard and fast rule for this - do whatever makes the meaning clearer.

Punctuation inside quotes is a rule that was invented by American publishers and is not necessarily followed elsewhere.  In British English, periods and commas only go inside if they're part of the actual quote. In British English is  If the quoted material forms a complete sentence then the full stop should go inside.

The  Economist style guide says:  If the quotation does not include any  punctuation, the closing inverted  commas should precede any punctuation  marks that the sentence requires. If you're British, periods and commas only go inside if they're part of the actual quote. Punctuation inside quotes is a rule invented by American publishers and is not necessarily followed elsewhere.

Yes, in certain parts of the world, apart from America, it is acceptable to put punctuation marks outside of quotation marks. The general rule appears to be that if the quote includes punctuation, the punctuation should stay inside the quotation marks, whereas if it doesn't, any necessary punctuation should remain outside of the quotation marks.

This is a rule invented by publishers and not followed everywhere.

Yes - if the quote itself contains no punctuation.

On the quotation should go inside the marks.

Put it in marks if the quotation is a complete sentence.


The Grammar Girl has a good article on this topic, basically: It is fine to use however at the beginning of a sentence; you just need to know when to use a comma.

If it means " to whatever extent ", don't use a comma:

However wrong it is, I will say it loud and clearly.

If it means " nevertheless ", use a comma:

However, I don't give a damn.

I think this advice comes from the (somewhat strange) idea that sentences should have one complete idea.

If your sentence begins with the conjunction "however", then it's an extension of the idea in the previous sentence and is therefore not a "complete idea".

The same reasoning is behind advice not to begin sentences with "or" and "and".

Of course this advice is silly because sentences and "complete ideas" don't always line up, and there's no reason that a conjunction can't join a sentence with the previous one.

There is no rational, linguistically valid reason for this rule.

It's just a convention promulgated by misguided English writing teachers.

Yes.

However, it should be done sparingly.

Here's a pretty good writeup: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/starting-a-sentence-with-however.aspx

However you parse the rule, this usage is correct.

However, this may not be.

I think both are fine, but they are different cases.

Yes, but you cannot start a story with it.

I also believe that there should be no more than one 'however' per three sentences.

It is acceptable to start a sentence with however .

However, according to Strunk & White’s Elements of Style , it may only be used at the beginning of a sentence when it means “in whatever way” or “to whatever extent”.

When the word is used to mean “nevertheless”, it may not come first in its sentence or clause.

Strunk & White’s Misused Expressions

No grounds whatsoever .

However, a teacher is a teacher , so if you want to get a higher grade, I would suggest "basking in your own glory" without telling your teacher they are in the wrong.

Question: I have heard that starting a sentence with  however  is wrong. What are the grounds for this view and is it still held by a majority of pedants?  They would suggest changing   However, some people are beginning to doubt this.   to   Some people, however, are …   or   Some people are, however, beginning …

Is it acceptable to start a sentence with “however”?

It is generally agreed that it is perfectly acceptable to use "however" at the beginning of a sentence. There are people who claim that there is no rational reason for such a rule preventing its use.

It is fine as long as you use a comma when it means 'nevertheless' and no comma when it means 'to whatever extent'.

It is acceptable to start a sentence with  however, but you cannot start a story with it.  According to Strunk & White’s  Elements of Style , it may only be used at the beginning of a sentence when it means “in whatever way” or “to whatever extent”.  When the word is used to mean “nevertheless”, it may not come first in its sentence or clause.

It is acceptable to use "however" at the  beginning of a sentence, but you need  to know when to use a comma.

There are no rational grounds for this rule and it is perfectly acceptable to start a sentence with the word "however".

The advice is based on the incorrect idea that a sentence should have one complete idea, and can therefore be ignored.

Yes, it is perfectly acceptable to start a sentence with the word "however".

There are no rational grounds for this rule.


I don't think I was ever taught a clear-cut rule, and as a non-native speaker, I am probably spoiled to some extent by the usage of dashes in other languages.

That being said, following nothing but my intuition I would use: a semicolon when the sentences express related, yet independent (especially grammatically independent) thoughts; they could well stand on their own, separated by a period.

a dash when the second sentence backs up the first one, nails it down to something, restates or amplifies it, provides reasons or examples, or when the second sentence could not stand on its own "as is" for grammatical reasons.

I will try to demonstrate my point by rewording the notorious examples from

The Oatmeal accordingly.

My aunt had hairy knuckles; she loved to wash and comb them.

My aunt had hairy knuckles — she suffered from hirsutism.

When dinosaurs agree on something, they'll often high-five one another; dinosaurs are all about high-fives.

When dinosaurs agree on something, they'll often high-five one another — they cannot talk and have to resort to gestures.

I gnaw on old car tires; it strengthens my jaw

so I'll be better conditioned for bear combat.

I gnaw on old car tires — to strengthen my jaw

so I'll be better conditioned for bear combat.

Again, this is just my two cents, and I'm only putting them in because the other answers so far seem to miss the point of your question by focusing on non-sentential relations and sometimes not even mentioning semicolons at all.

I don't know whether my answer comes close to being correct or not, but I hope it will at least serve as a turning point for getting the discussion back on topic.

Semicolon is used to join sentences that can stand alone, but are joined to emphasize their relationship.

En dashes are used to indicate periods of time or other numerical ranges.

Hyphens are used to combine open compounds.

Em dashes are used to disrupt the flow of a sentence and bring emphasis to the coming point.

It is a more informal and stronger version of the colon.

It can also act as a stronger version of the comma.

Typically, if I'm connecting two closely related sentences, I use a semicolon; I use dashes in instances where commas would also be acceptable—usually where commas would be confusing—or where parentheses would also be acceptable.

Firstly, you should be aware that there are two different kinds of dashes: the en dash and the em dash.

The em dash (—; historically, an em is precisely the width of the letter "M", but now defined by the height of the font) is generally used to add a passage into the middle or end of a sentence.

This is similar to using parenthesis, but should be read without adding a pause.

Moreover, the em dash in fact interrupts the sentence, so no pause should be used at all; an interruption should be emphasized.

This dash is also often used as a de facto interruption; for example in dialog when the speaker for some reason cannot continue.

In use, the em dash is not surrounded by spaces.

This is done—like this—because it otherwise uses excessive spacing.

Some publishers or style guidelines may instead prefer the narrower en dash (–; an en half the width of an em).

This character is usually – as in this example – surrounded by spaces.

Suggestions on the use of semicolons can be found as answers to this question .

In Comma Sense ( Richard Lederer and John Shore — ISBN 0-312-34255-1)

it's reported that the dash is used: to set off a though or explanatory remark with a sentence:

If I remember well — bear in mind I have been on New York City 5 years ago — Central Park is close to Fifth Avenue. to introduce an appositive: When I frequented the ITIS — the secondary school on Cantore Street — I was still a teenager.

to signify a sudden change in thought:

We are going to — what's that burning smell? before the citation of an author or source of a quotation.

In the other cases, a different punctation should be used.

Here is what I think: Semicolon is

a mood-switcher It switches your "learning mood" to "exciting mood" and vice versa.

When dinosaurs agree on something, they often high-five one another; dinosaurs are all about high-fives.

Godzilla is a misunderstood creature; beneath his raging desire to set people on fire & eat them lies a gentle giant who just wants to cuddle Dash is an explainer It further explains a concept before it.

When dinosaurs agree on something, they'll often high-five one another — they cannot talk and have to resort to gestures.

Godzilla is a misunderstood creature — beneath his raging desire to set people on fire & eat them lies a gentle giant who just wants to cuddle

This answer is inspired by RegDwigнt's answer .

Question: When you want to connect two closely related sentences, you can use a semicolon or a dash. (You can also use a dash for other kinds of non-sentential relations). How would you choose whether to use a semicolon or dash?

Should I use a semicolon or a dash to connect two closely related sentences?

There does not appear to be a clear-cut rule, but it is generally suggested that semi-colons can be used to connect two related but independent thoughts whilst a dash can be used to interrupt a sentence or connect an idea which could not function as a sentence on its own. Dashes can also be used where commas may be confusing.

Use a semicolon to express related, yet independent thoughts, and dashes when inserting an extra element like in parentheses.

A semicolon is used to join sentences that can stand alone, but are joined to emphasise their relationship.  Hyphens are used to combine open compounds or to set off a though or explanatory remark with a sentence, or indicate periods of time.

A semicolon is used to join sentences that can stand alone, but are joined to emphasize their close relationship. Em dashes are used to disrupt the flow of a sentence (in a similar way to the use of commas or parentheses) and bring emphasis to the coming point.

It is generally considered that semicolons are use to join together two independent but related thoughts. On the other hand, dashes, are used to joint two sentences to provide additional information to the first one.

Use a semicolon when the sentences express related, yet independent (especially grammatically independent) thoughts, i.e. they could well stand on their own, separated by a period.

Semicolons are generally used to express related yet grammatically independent thoughts.

Dashes are used to provide additional information to another sentence or interrupt the flow of the sentence.


Capability implies unrealised potential, as in "John is capable of winning", which implies John has the ability to win

but it's not definite.

It means more or less "John has the talent that's needed to win."

Ability, on the other hand, implies possibility.

John is able to win" means John is in the running to win but not necessarily that he has the skills or ability to win.

It means more or less "It's possible that John will win".

But here's where it gets more confusing:

"John is able to read" means John can read without doubt, whereas "John is capable of reading" means John has all the necessary brain power and whatnot to be able to read but the question of whether or not he can read at the moment is left unsaid (although the fact that someone does say "John is capable of reading" probably means John can't read right now).

If we would like to describe the functionality of a specific product like a software, I think it is more common to use 'capabilities' (vs 'abilities'):

"MS Word has these capabilities: edit tables, copy and past, styles etc."

There's another shade of meaning not yet touched upon.

able can also be of things, "of a thing (esp.

a boat):

strong, substantial, well built; or a person who is intelligent, skillful, apt, talented, or clever (OED).

Compare, "It is an able ship/

It is a capable ship.

" They are both meaningful, but I would be more likely to use the first one.

Another example, "She is an able tour guide/

she is a capable tour guide".

The second sounds contrived to me, even a little damning.

It's also interesting to note that they entered English through different sources, and that able is the older of the two.

As far as I can tell, these are very nearly perfect synonyms.

I want to give only one condense sentence, so that you can easily to remember.

Capability often refers to extremes of ability .

I have the ability to write, but I don’t have the capability to write a novel.

Ability vs. capability vs. capacity on Grammarist

Question: What is the difference in usage between ability and capability ?

Difference between "ability" and "capability"

There is disagreement as to whether or not these two words are true synonyms. However, it is possible that capabilities are used more to express extremes of abilities. It is also the case that functionalities of a product, for example, are more likely to be referred to as capabilities instead of abilities.

"John is able to read" means John can read without doubt, whereas "John is capable of reading" means John has all theintelligence needed to be able to read but the question of whether or not he can read at the moment is left unsaid

Capability implies unrealised potential, as in "John is capable of winning". Ability, on the other hand, implies possibility. Capability  often refers to extremes of  ability as in the example "I have the ability to write, but I don’t have the capability to write a novel. "

These may be considered to be synonyms. However, capability  often refers to extremes of  ability. In terms of software functionality, for example, "capability" may be better.

There is disagreement about whether or not these two words are exact synonyms. Some people might say that 'capability' refers to extremes of ability. When talking about software functionality, however, 'capability' is the preferred term.

For the functionality of a specific product like a software,  it is more common to use 'capabilities' (vs 'abilities').

Capability often refers to extremes of ability .

There is disagreement about whether there is a signficant difference between these two words, although 'capability' may refer to extremes of ability.

Capability' is generally used when discussing the functionality of software.


It's a deliberate mistake, as is "Learn You".

I think this is based on a comedy routine by Baron Sacha Cohen called Borat.

I'm inclined to think it's a parody of "For great justice!"

from the badly-translated game, Zero Wing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us

Haskell is a very mathematical programming language.

It is typically learned by mathematically inclined people who have big brains.

That makes the subject matter frightening to many people.

It triggers their "math anxiety".

The title is deliberately silly so as not to make people feel anxious.

Haskell books are typically pedantic and formal.

The informal, grammatically incorrect, silly style of the title is kind of promise to the reader that the book won't be overly pedantic and formal.

I think also that the author, who is Slovenian, may be making fun of his own English skills.

(The English inside the book however is very good.)

In better English, the title might be something like, "Learn Haskell for great benefit".

I think it's a Haskell joke, playing on the functional programming style used in that language.

According to this post the phrasing originated in the title of the Haskell tutorial " Write Yourself a Scheme in 48 hours ", written in 2006, and was simply a (not that ungrammatical, but certainly awkward) "portmanteau of two different common memes at the time": the "Teach yourself X in 21 days books", and Peter Norvig's semi-parody "Teach yourself programming in 10 years".

I'd be more inclined to interpret "for Great Good" as a form of "for the Greater Good".

In that case it corresponds with "learning Haskell is good for whole world" per your suggestion.

Compare to "Making the world a better place, one person at a time".

Question: There is a site  learn you a haskell  with the title "Learn You a Haskell for Great Good!". Does "Great Good" mean "very very good"? Does the whole phrase mean "learning Haskell is good for you" or "learning Haskell is good for the whole world" or something else?

What does "great good" mean in the tutorial title "Learn You a Haskell for Great Good!"?

There are a number of possible meanings for the title "Learn You a Haskell for Great Good!". The title could be deliberately silly so as to put people at ease or the author, being Slovenian, may be poking fun at his own English skills. Furthermore, it may be a joke about the programming style used in the Haskell language. In any case, a better re-phrasing of the title would probably be "Learn Haskell for great benefit".

It's a joke based on a deliberate grammatical error.

"For Great Good"  could be interpreted as a form of "for the Greater Good".  On the other hand it could be said that the title is deliberately silly and with mistakes so as not to make people feel anxious. Haskell is a mathematical programming language and Haskell books are typically pedantic and formal. The informal, grammatically incorrect, silly style of the title is kind of promise to the reader that the book won't be overly pedantic and formal.

In better English, the title might be something like, "Learn Haskell for great benefit".  However, "for Great Good" may be interpreted as "for the Greater Good".

There is no agreement on what "great good" means in this statement, but it could mean "great justice", "great benefit" or "the greater good".

It's a joke based on a deliberate grammatical error with the aim of making Haskell look less threatening.

It's a joke based on the style of the Haskell language.

It's a joke based on the style of the teach yourself book.

The title is deliberately silly and with mistakes so as not to make people feel anxious.


Which specific accent are you looking to improve?

Like this website illustrates , there are many of them!

provide an overview of the variety of the sounds of the English language on various levels: in time , with our transcriptions of historical ancestor forms of English, from present-day back to Late Modern English, Early Modern, Middle and Old English, as far back even as Proto-Germanic; over geographical space; by sociolinguistic context.

That being said, you can try some online resources: howjsay.com fonetiks.org acapela-group :

its Text to Speech Demo allows you to listen to a small selection of different accents.

Livemocha is a platform to study foreign languages.

For its spoken language module you record yourself speaking and other users on the site provide feedback.

There is no such thing, in English, as a neutral accent.

Every accent gives some idea about the person speaking.

Even so called 'neutral accents' do so too.

Really all you should wish to do is either polish off some of the rougher edges of your own accent or choose a new accent that you like, one that you think is beautiful or reflects your character, and try to practice it.

In the past I have tried out some computerised speech tutors with my students.

In general I have been unimpressed by the methods or results.

There's a small, English city called Peterborough that's considered to have a neutral accent.

It became the UK's Call Centre Capital because businesses felt that people would prefer a neutral accent and that Peterborough had one.

I'm not sure how they decided what a neutral accent sounded like, or why they thought people would prefer it, but that was what happened.

Software - not sure about that but

you could tune your accent by ear.

Many American TV showns seems to use a homogomised accent, pick one and compare yourself against that.

Avoid "the Wire"

(I still need subtitles for that one) or anything with NYC gangsters.

You are looking for a program that would tell you if you are accent-free?

You cannot be accent free.

Everyone has an accent if we want it or not.

You can speak 'standard' language ( with correct textbook grammar ) but you will always not matter what have an accent.

Maybe precise what do you mean by 'accent-free'?

Free from the accent you live in?

Free from the accent you work within?

Even if you learn how to speak with a different accent perceived as normal, you would have an accent and won't be accent free according to people who have different accent.

It's a bit a of Sisyphean task to be honest.

Question: I have a query regarding enhancing my accent. I am searching for software in which I speak a paragraph and it compares my speech to find out whether it is accent-free or not.

Is there software that can determine whether I speak with a neutral accent?

It's debatable whether there is such as a thing as a "neutral accent". However, a platform that might help analyse your speech is "LiveMocha", which is a platform for studying foreign languages.

There are various ways to check you accent but remember there is no such thing as a neutral accent - everyone speaks with one kind of accent or another.

There is no such thing, in English, as a neutral accent. Maybe you could polish off some of the rougher edges of your own accent or choose a new accent that you like, one that you think is beautiful or reflects your character, and try to practice it.  You cannot be accent free. You can speak 'standard' English with correct grammar, but you will always have an accent.

There is no such thing, in English, as a neutral accent  - you cannot be accent-free.

It is generally agreed that there is no such thing as a "neutral accent" or "accent-free" and thus there is no software that will help you with this task.

There is no such thing as a neutral accent.

Pick an American TV show and compare youself to that.


Certainly many usage guides have advised against use of this " singular they " on various "logical" grounds.

Nevertheless, singular they has long been part of the English language, and there are various posts on Language Log giving examples of it being used in the Bible , by Shakespeare , by the president , by the Canadian Department of Justice , etc. .

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language 's coauthor Geoff Pullum (a frequent Language Log contributor) calls the idea that they must never occur with a singular antecedent a myth .

There is no shortage of usage "experts" who advise against it, as the other answers in the question should make clear (though these days their reasoning tends away from a simple "it's wrong" towards something more defensive–"some

people will think it's wrong, so avoid it").

But despite them, use of singular they occurs at all levels of the language, both spoken and written, informal and formal.

It's not ungrammatical per se on the basis of analysis of actual usage using reasonable linguistic methods.

But use it at your own risk of being criticized by the self-righteous but misinformed.

Up until very recent times the natural answer would have been "Anyone who loves the English language should have a copy of this book in his bookcase", because "his" was also a gender-neutral pronoun.

It turned out, however, that "his" could only function as a gender-neutral pronoun if it were a plot by the patriarchy or something, so we're in the process of trying out alternatives.

I've heard serious proposals to substitute "their", "his or her", "her", "its", and even "hisorher".

Of those alternatives, I use "their" because it sounds the most natural to me, but usually I avoid pronouns altogether, as in, "This book should be book in the bookcase of anyone who loves the English language."

That style has the additional advantage of making you sound formal and pedantic.

Second one (for writing purpose), if I believe the " THEY/THEIR (SINGULAR) " article.

A good general rule is that only when the singular noun does not specify an individual can it be replaced plausibly with a plural pronoun :

“Everybody” is a good example.

We know that “everybody” is singular because we say “everybody is here,“ not “everybody are here” yet we tend to think of “everybody” as a group of individuals, so we usually say “everybody brought their own grievances to the bargaining table.”

“Anybody” is treated similarly.

However, in many written sentences the use of singular “their” and “they” creates an irritating clash even when it passes unnoticed in speech.

It is wise to shun this popular pattern in formal writing .

I have gone to using their instead of the increasingly awkward him/

her in all but the most formal of my writings.

His or her is sounding very contrived, and it is no better to substitute her for him than to have him as the gender neutral pronoun.

The use of their is increasingly common and should simply be accepted by grammarians, though it will probably take a century or so before the high and mighty accept this increasingly common usage.

See here or here or here .

Executive summary:

His/her is to be avoided.

In a business English course at WVU in 1987, I was taught to avoid the sexist language/agreement problem by making the subject plural: Anyone All the people who love the English language should have copies of this book in their bookcases.

In these days of exaggerated care for egalitarianism it is always a conundrum whether to use "his", "her" or "their".

And perhaps we should be concerned about egalitarianism.

On the other hand, the traditional use of the masculine gender to stand in for both sexes still doesn't seem too outré to me.

As a guy, perhaps I am missing something.

What I would do, if I were writing technical works, would be to write one with a masculine user, and the next time do it for a feminine user.

Leave each work (whether an essay or a book) consistent as to gender of the subject user.

Alternatively, if you are a female writer, your user should always be female; and if a male writer, then male user.

Lot's of choices out there!

Try to offend as many people as possible.

Question: Is this sentence grammatically correct?   Anyone who loves the English language should have a copy of this book in  their  bookcase.   or should it be:   Anyone who loves the English language should have a copy of this book in  his or her  bookcase.

Is it correct to use "their" instead of "his or her"?

It is true that many usage guides advise against using the "singular they", however, the use of the singular "they" occurs at all levels of the language. Therefore, there is no clear rule as to whether this is acceptable or not.

Views vary - some people regard the use of the plural as informal and incorrect but it is an increasingly widespread and accepted form in this context.

Some grammarians have advised against use of thie" singular  they " on various "logical" grounds, but it is not ungrammatical per se on the basis of analysis of actual usage using reasonable linguistic methods. Sngular  they  has long been part of the English language, with examples of it being used  in the Bible ,  by Shakespeare ,  by the president ,  by the Canadian Department of Justice ,  etc. Use of singular  they  occurs at all levels of the language, both spoken and written, informal and formal.  The use of  their  is increasingly common and should simply be accepted by grammarians, though it will probably take a century or so before the high and mighty accept this increasingly common usage. His/her  on the other hand should be avoided.

It's not ungrammatical on the basis of analysis of actual usage using reasonable linguistic methods. However, some usage guides have advised against use of a " singular  they " on various "logical" grounds.

It is generally agreed that use of the singular "their" is not grammatically incorrect, although there do exist language guides that advise against it.

No - this is a widespread usage and has been for a very long time, however ungrammatical it may appear.

It is alright - but can often be avoided by changing the sentence structure.

It is a popular form that should be avoided in formal writing.

The use of there is increasingly common way to avoid his or her.

I was taught specifcally to use plural pronouns as a way of avoiding sexist language.

You can still use the masculine gender as a gender-neutral form.

Sngular  they  has long been part of the English language, with examples of it being used  in the Bible ,  by Shakespeare ,  by the president ,  by the Canadian Department of Justice ,  etc. .

There are certainly language usage guides that advised against using 'their' in the singular form.

This particular use of 'their' is not grammatically incorrect.


"On accident" (meaning "accidentally") does seem to be an unusual usage that frequently appears in opposition to the much more idiomatic "on purpose" (meaning "purposefully").

These are the kinds of idioms commonly used by e.g. children in explaining why something has gone wrong: —"You broke my toy on purpose!" —"No, it was on accident!".

A quick survey of the 34 incidences of "on accident" in the Corpus of Contemporary American English show about half have the sense discussed here, and "on accident" does occur in opposition to "on purpose": HAAS:

That happens in so many cases where you're got misinformation

that's either leaked on accident or on purpose.

— from "Gunman Kills 32, Wounds 28 at Virginia Tech" on On the Record w/ Greta Van Susteren on Fox News, 2007 JACOBUS:

Big difference when it's on purpose and when it's on accident.

— from "Dean, Democrats and Iowa's Deadline", on CNN, 2003 Other examples are from fiction:

"Dad better not see this or you'll get it.

I'll tell him we were play fighting, and I slugged you on accident.

Evan Shopper, "If I have to hit one of you, I'll hit you both" in The Massachusetts Review , 2003

She was thirteen years old, called herself a "gangsta ho" even though all her friends were white, and had already dropped out of school.

On accident," she said - she'd broken her collarbone the year before horsing around on her cousin's dirt bike and missed so much school that she simply never bothered returning. — Emily Shelton, "From MEMPHIS (Short story).

" in Chicago Review , 2003 "By accident", in contrast, has 1419 results, making it more than 100 times more common, and occurring not just in spoken and informal written English, but also in formal edited writing in academic journals, magazines, and newspapers.

"On accident" sounds strange to me. "

By accident" sounds better, but I can't understand how it could be much different from "On purpose", albeit very strange to say "By purpose".

A quick Google search of "fell by accident" versus "fell on accident" suggests that "by accident" is used about 99% of the time.

But with "tripped by/on accident" there are more results for "on".

I've never encountered "on accident" until seeing this question, so I think it must be something peculiar to the US.

He tripped on accident.

He was eaten by accident.

Those are the forms I would use, if forced to choose between them.

However, there is no grammatical difference between the two 1 , and I chose those because they "sound right" .

I don't believe there is actually a rule which states which to use, but I could be wrong about that.

This matter, of course, is solved if we use the word accidentally .

Yes, the second sentence is in passive voice, while the first is in active, but I don't think that's the root cause.

As the original question makes pretty clear, this is a change in progress (you see this kind of stratification by age all the time with changes in progress).

In the earlier stages of such a change, you can't expect to find it much in writing, so results from google, etc, are going to be misleading.

It's likely there is also regional variation here as well.

To me "on accident" (raised in northern California) is normal, though sounds slightly less formal.

As for why this might be happening, I like ShreevatsaR's theory.

In situations like these, I tend to lengthen out the phrase.

Replace "by" with "by way of

a/an" He tripped by way of an accident.

accident here adds information to the clause "he tripped" "Purpose" is something thought out, perhaps written down, requiring more formal thought.

A synonym for "purpose" is "intent".

He tripped by intent sounds better than "He tripped on intent".

Therefore, I would guess that although we are more comfortable with "tripping 'on' purpose" I wonder if "tripping by purpose" is actually a more accurate phrase.

In addition, "He tripped on..." could be followed by an object as well. "

He tripped on a cat" Sorry for the rambling.

Both sound reasonable to my ear, though I like "by accident" better.

Doing some basic corpus analysis finds that "by accident" is much more prevelant.

The Corpus of Contemporary American English lists 1419 occurrences of "by accident" vs only 23 for "on accident".

A quick Google comparison gives 7,030,000 hits for "by accident" vs 1,020,000 hits for "on accident".

Interesting to be sure.

Perhaps this is in reference to Barratt's paper on the topic, and language change in general.

Changes like this do happen, and it isn't unusual for usage to be clearly defined by generations (consider the verb impact).

One conclusion drawn here is that people are seeking parallelism with "on purpose", though it also concedes that it's hard to know for sure.

I have some friends in the south (Louisisana) who always say "on accident" and think "by accident" sounds wrong.

My friends in the North (New Jersey/Pennsylvania) think "on accident" sounds wrong.

It may be a regional thing, but I don't have enough data to say for sure.

Usual fluent english usage would be "...

by accident" as distinct from "..

on purpose".

More elegant in prose would be "...accidentally"

Question: There is a great chasm on these phrases in the US.  The great divide seems to be currently centered at the age of 40.  The younger generation has began shifting to "on accident" for unknown reasons.  What is your view?

Is it correct to say "on accident" instead of "by accident"?

"On accident" appears to be much less common than "by accident", although it may have come about as opposition to "on purpose". "By accident" is probably used about 99% of the time, although differences in usage may also be regional. In any case, it is not clear whether there is actually a rule to say whether one or the other is more correct.

On accident' appears to have arisen from a mistaken comparison to 'on purpose'. It is far less commonly or less widely used and therefore may sound incorrect in formal texts.

A google search will give hits that show "by accident", opposed to "on accident" is used 99% of the time. This could also be American English usage only. One conclusion drawn here is that people are seeking parallelism with "on purpose".

Although understandable, "on accident" is said to sound strange to many people, in favor of "by accident". This may be a regional difference. However, Google searches and other checks show that "by accident" us used the vast majority of the time.

The exact answer to this question may depend on the regional dialect where you are. However, it appears that most people prefer "By accident" and indeed, most corpus studies show this to be signficantly more common.

On accident' appears to have arisen from a mistaken comparison to 'on purpose'. It is far less commonly used and therefore may sound incorrect in formal texts.

By accident' is far more common - 'On accident' must be US English - it is not used in UK English..

On accident' is a new form that is still not widely used.

In the southern US people say 'on accident' and in the north 'by accident'.

"By accident" appears to be the more approved term.

Most corpus-analyses seem to demonstrate that "By accident" is used significantly more than "On accident".

The difference in usage of "On accident" and "By accident" could be regional.


Though I would understand both in written and oral communication, I find the first to be pretty odd.

I wouldn't ever use it, and strongly prefer the second, "according to".

Why is this so odd?

I looked a bit in the OED at the use of "as per" (odd in itself for combining two prepositions).

It was first used in 1869 as a "slang" form "as per usual" by itself.

I did however come across an entry that has a similar meaning to what you're looking for here: "by".

By.

a.

According to; as stated, indicated, or directed by, as per advice, per instructions, per invoice, per ledger, etc.

Usually preceded by as.

This was used as early as 1446 and as late as 1989.

The difference here, I think, has been touched on:

this meaning implies some obligation or requirement.

No other entries seem to come close, and this matches my own mental lexicon for "per" and "as per".

It just doesn't fit in this situation.

The two phrases have the same meaning but different in register. "

According to" is normal register while "as per" connotes commercial correspondence as in: The shipment will arrive prior to December first, as per our agreement.

Both are bad English and are unnatural and incorrect uses of English as they are superfluous and add no additional or necessary information to the sentence.

In general this type of mistake is common amongst Indian speakers of English.

I believe, quiet ironically, that it is thought to add an air of intelligence to a statement.

In fact, to a native speaker, it adds an air of pretentiousness that may serve to undermine the speaker in the eyes of the listener.

It clearly goes without saying that any statement you make is 'as per your knowledge' or 'according to your knowledge' unless stated otherwise.

What else could possibly be the case.

What is the difference for example, between these statements with and without this structure... A) "

Manchester United won the Premier League in 2012" B) "

According to my knowledge, Manchester United won the Premier League in 2012"orB) "

As per my knowledge, Manchester United won the Premier League in 2012"

In English we use 'according to...' to cite someone else.

To cite oneself is clearly absurd, unless you are citing a paper you published, or something you have formally written.

To cite your opinion or knowledge is meaningless.

We use 'as per' to refer back to something, such as 'as per our previous discussion' or 'as per the rules of the game'.

Again, to use it to refer back to your knowledge appears ridiculous.

Regards and best of luck Sanjay

Per means according to , so you can in fact say "per our agreement, you must...".

The as in your first sentence is pleonastic, and sounds affected: I'd avoid it.

The very common "as per usual" is a humorous prolixity.

Whether to use per or according to is the same as whether to use any archaic form or common usage.

In some areas (e.g. law) it's more common to see per , so you could use it to set the tone as legalese.

People who want to sound important write as per .

People who are important write according to .

Just to clarify... '

As per' is often used in legal discussions, for example regarding contracts.

For example, "As per article 4 section 8..." and this has a different meaning to "According to article 4 section 8..." For example if Article 4 Section 8 stated that you needed a doctors note in order to take sick leave you might say...

As per Article 4 Section 8 of our contract, I have attached a copy of my doctors note.

whereas with according to the meaning would be different.

According to Article 4 Section 8 I must supply a sick note in order to take sick leave.

I understand that per is an older and more formal version of according to , so it is very common to encounter per in some very serious and formal written language while according to has become a normal usage.

Question: See the following two sentences.   As per my knowledge it is right.   According to my knowledge it is right.    Are both the sentences right?  What is the difference and use of "as per" and "according to"?

What is the difference between "as per" and "according to"?

It is possible that they both mean the same thing. However, there may be a difference in register, with "as per" being considered more formal. However, some people would claim that they are both poor English or at least have different meanings. It is possible that "according to" is used more to cite someone and "as per" is used to refer back to something.

The more common form is 'according to' nowadays - 'as per' is not incorrect but it can sound pretentious or overly formal.

Per  means  according to.  The two phrases have the same meaning but a different register. 'As per' is an older form and is often used in legal discussions, for example for contracts.

The two phrases have the same meaning but different in register.  "According to" is normal register while "as per" connotes commercial correspondence as in:   The shipment will arrive prior to December first, as per our agreement

The main difference between these two sentences appears to be register, with "as per" being the more formal of the two. However, in the examples given, both would be considered poor English.

The more common form is 'according to' - but 'as per' is not incorrect.

The two phrases mean the same but vary in register.

The correct form of 'as per' is actually 'per'.

As per' is used by people who want to sound important.

As per' is more often used in legal texts.

As per' is an older form that has been replaced by 'according to'

S1: 'As per' is often used in legal discussions, for example for contracts.

Per' is also an older and more formal version of  'according to'.

Both sentences would be considered quite odd and possibly poor English.

The main difference between these two sentences is probably the register, with "as per" being more formal.


"Go."

The understood subject is "You". "

[You] go" makes sense to me.

One could argue that in certain contexts, the single letter "I" is a sentence (depending on your definition of a sentence):

"Who is it?"

"I" This (one letter) is the shortest possible, unless you count the "empty utterance".

It is said both the longest and the shortest sentence comes from the wedding ceremony: I do.

"Be!"

The verb "to be" in the imperative mood.

Though it's the same number of letters as "Go!

", I'd say it wins as it comes first alphabetically. ;)

"No!" works perfectly, in my opinion.

This.

That is the shortest, in number of words, complete English sentence that directly answers your question.

I don't know if it even qualifies in this context, but according to the story, an author (variously Oscar Wilde or Victor Hugo), wondering how his new book was selling, sent a single-character telegram to his publisher: ?

The reply was !

that is, well .

The shortest sentence in the entire English Language, is the reply: I.

It is a reply to the question: "Who is it?"

Reply: "

I." That's shorter than "Go!"

I would vote for "I am."

"I sentence you to time already served.

You are free to go."

Even better than that, contemplate (the pithy, wholly implied) section 7.1 of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (as translated from the original German):

"O!"

As a variant of the exclamation "Oh!", an interjection of fear, surprise, admiration, etc.

It obviously can't be less than three letters (

**.) and still be a complete thought.

Go.

Hi!

Ho!

(same as "Hi")

This doesn't include responses since they require other sentences.

Since you already have many sweet, and short, answers I can only speculate on your intentions and provide, possibly, interesting link to one word sentences .

No.

Also Q: Which is the fifth letter of the alphabet?A: E.

Eh? Used to represent a sound made in speech, especially one used to express enquiry, surprise, or to elicit agreement [ODO]

It depends on how you define sentence and then how you define shortest .

The answer does not appear to be Go , though (although that's quite a good shot at an answer).

The question uses the phrase complete sentence from which we can probably assume that the Original Poster is referring to a fully grammatical utterance headed by a finite verb.

With regards to shortest , there are at least two ways we could measure this.

We could do it orthographically, in which case the sentence with the fewest letters would probably be the imperative of the verb

' X ' (pronounced /eks/).

Although usually used transitively, as in the Mark Twain quote: 'I shell have to x this ere paragrab,' said he to himself, as he read it over.' ...

it could easily be used intransitively too: A.

What shall I do now?

B. X!

[meaning "start crossing out"]

However, although 'X' contains only one orthographic symbol, in terms of sound it consists of three segments: /eks/.

So, if by shortest sentence, we mean shortest in terms of segments, then this word wouldn't do.

The sentence Go has one consonant sound plus a diphthong - /gəʊ/ in Southern standard British English and /goʊ/

in General American.

We could regard this as having either two or three segments.

However, it is plainly obvious that this could be shorter.

The reason is we also have a verb owe which has exactly the same sound without the /g/, namely /əʊ/

or /oʊ/.

However, it is quite hard to use this verb without a following complement, and so an imperative sentence might be a bit implausible:

Owe! .

A better contender in terms of segments might be the verb OOH meaning to make an ooh sound, as in the audience oohed and aahed .

So if you were in the audience at one of those sitcoms where the audience were directed to laugh, clap, ooh and aah, one of the directions you might get, could feasibly be the imperative: Ooh!

This fully complete one word sentence consists only of the one vowel.

In phonemic script it looks like this: /u:/.

This then might be a contender for the shortest sentence in English.

But of course there are others.

For example there is always: Aah! ... which looks like this: /a:/!

english.stackexchange.com/users/76472/Araucaria - Not here any more.

Question: What is the shortest comprehensive sentence in English?

Shortest comprehensive sentence in English

The answer to this question will depend on what definition you use for a sentence, but some possible contenders for shortest comprehensive sentence could be "Go.", "No." or "This.".

Views vary but probably the shortest is the letter 'I' spoken in response to a question like 'Who is there?'

Go.', 'You.', 'Be.' 'No,' are all suggestions, as well as the single letter 'I.' or 'I am.'. Or it is said both the longest and the shortest sentence comes from the wedding ceremony:  I do. It would however, depend on how you define sentence  and then how you define  shortest .

Suggested answers for the shortest sentence include: "No"; "Go"; "Hi"; "Oh"; and "This". Two-word sentences include "I do" or "I am".

The answer to this question will depend on your definition of a sentence. However, there are a number of one-, two- or three- letter words that could function as complete sentences in their own right.

Possible a sound such as 'ooh' or 'aah'.

It is said both the longest and the shortest sentence comes from the wedding ceremony:  I do.

There are a range of one-, two- and three- letter words that could possibly function as whole sentences, such as "I", "Go" or "Hi".

The answer to this question will depend on how you define a sentence.


Unless they are actually your colleagues (i.e. none of them are your bosses!

or clients, or third-parties), I would stick with the neutral:

Dear All, (quite common) or

maybe: Dear Everyone, (less common)

I just checked by looking up the emails we (as a group) receive from the hierarchy above: They all begin with 'Dear All' (translated in French by 'Bonjour à tous et à toutes', since the equivalent of 'all' is not gender-neutral in French.)

To me, Dear all conveys laziness.

A well-thought-out message should have a specific audience that the message applies to.

Dear coworkers ,

Dear minions , Dear Death-Eaters , Dear residents , etc. is not that much more difficult to type.

Then someone reading the message can more easily discern whether the message applies to them or not.

Dear all is perfectably acceptable.

So is Dear Colleagues.

It depends on how formal or informal you want to be, and what is normal usage in your workplace.

If in doubt, do what appears to be normal practice.

I find that using a non-standard, but polite greeting in an email tends to be quite effective in getting people to actually read what you are writing.

For instance, when writing to a group of people, it is quite common (in New Zealand) to write: To whom it may concern, or, as has been mentioned: Dear All,

But I tend to write something off carte like (assuming that I worked at British Telecom–which I don't):

Dear BT Person, I have found that this unusual approach—which also feels less impersonal—can be more likely to garner an audience.

But where I currently work, we have a tool to address everyone individually, we just leave a placeholder where their name is, so it will say: Dear Mr. Smith, or Dear Kevin, Which I think is probably the best way to get it done if it is convenient.

Nowadays often only "All:" is used - not very nice

but that's the way it is.

Salutations are not for beauty; they are a tool to alter reader's mode of understanding, often to make the message more convincing.

If you are suggesting something formal, talking from position of rights or power, you may want to use more formal "Dear Colleagues" to make the argument stronger.

If you are making a proposal, and want to downplay it as in "hey, it's an idea, a basis for further thinking and please judge it as such", a simple 'All,' would do a better job.

In all cases, basic netiquette requires that meaningless text should be avoided when addressing a large group of people.

It's easier to write than to read, so one should invest in brevity.

All is not a addressing mode, when we talk to somebody we can use all to denote a group of people but while writing an email it surely doesn’t make any sense.

Dear

All is surely not correct English to start with the email, rather you could use dear colleagues at a workplace.

I presonally find writing dear

all very informal

and hence always use dear colleagues.

Question: I have observed that in my work place, whenever a mail is sent to more than one person( like an information, meeting request or a notice etc.), the mail starts with the salutation "Dear All". This, somehow, doesn't seem correct to me. For me, a salutation should address the reader individually, at least in its singular form, as in "Dear Colleagues".  Am I correct in thinking that?

Is it appropriate to use the salutation "Dear All" in a work email?

There is some disagreement as to whether "Dear All" is acceptable or not, and some people may feel that it is lazy. However, "Dear Colleagues" would be perfectly acceptable. The answer may well depend on how formal you wish to be.

Dear All is perfectly acceptable if you want a less formal salutation that something like Dear Colleagues.

Yes, 'Dear all' is perfectably acceptable, but something more formal might be "Dear Colleagues".

"Dear all" may be considered to be perfectly acceptable. However, it depends on how formal or informal you want to be, and what is normal usage in your workplace. Some people maintain that "Dear all" conveys laziness.

The answer to this question will depend on the context and how formal you wish to be. However, even then, the answer will be subjective. Some people find it perfectly acceptable, whilst others find it lazy writing.

Dear All sounds lazy - try to be more specific.

Dear all is perfectably acceptable, as is Dear Colleagues.

It depends on the context - Dear All is fine but Dear Colleagues sounds more formal and proper.

It is not grammatically correct, even though it is widely used.

Yes, 'Dear all' is perfectably acceptable.

Something more formal might be "Dear Colleagues".

Some people find this salutation perfectly acceptable.


Why not ask your readers to help you with copy editing?

Place a short, unobtrusive notice at the very top of every new blog post:

English is not my native language.

If anyone would like to help improve the grammar and clarity of this post, your suggestions and contributions would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Then compare their suggestions to what you wrote.

That is how you improve.

Soon, you might have a few readers to submit your blog post to before you publish them.

One of the things that I usually do is to Google the exact phrase to see if native English speakers have used it before.

For example sometimes you think you've heard someone saying an expression such as "your best bet is to", but you're not sure, then your best bet would be googling it, within the double quotes.

And also there's this highly recommended upcoming website called English Language and Usage on StackExchange which people can ask questions and expect fast answers related to the English language.

Oh I just googled to see whether it's appropriate to use "The" before "English Language".

I would recommend to use grammarly.com service.

It is an online instant grammar checker.

Even though it would not be able to cover all of your needs (proper phrasing, text structure analysis, etc), I'm sure you will find it useful in addition to the tools/approaches you already use.

I "has" no problems with non-native speakers, being one myself :)

I was reluctant to write in English for some time, but only by writing can we improve our language skills (see that inversion after "only" - still not sure about it).

Another thing -- people do appreciate good content, as long as it is comprehensible.

So, just write! :)

Why bother man?

Just keep your writing simple, concise and understandable.

Concentrate on making a good, simple and correct sentence that expresses something meaningful.

I'm a non-native English user, professional writer too, but I don't feel shy to write for the natives.

I have written hundreds of blogs, articles, and web contents for the natives without feeling I'm a non-native English writer :)

Keep your spirit up.

Question: What if someone who is not a native English speaker wants to write for a blog in English, but is not sure about the correctness of his writings? How could one ensure that the article won't annoy readers with its wrong language?  What would you recommend in this case? What should one pay attention to in the first place? What resources are there online for ensuring that an article is written well enough to be published?

Recommendations for non-native English speaking bloggers

There are a number of ways that a non-native could ensure that their blog is received well by readers. One simple technique would be to ask readers to help with copy editing. You could also use Google to check for specific phrases or use Grammarly to check your writing.

You could ask readers to help or check on Google or grammarly but the main thing is just to keep writing - most readers really won't mind about minor errors.

One idea would be to ask your readers to help you with copy editing. You can also Google the exact phrase to see if native English speakers have used it before or use grammarly.com. The main thing is to concentrate on  making a good, simple and correct sentence that expresses something meaningful.

A website called English Language and Usage on StackExchange allows people to ask questions and expect fast answers related to the English language. You may also do a Google search for the exact phrase to see if native English speakers have used it before. Grammarly.com is also recommended, or you could ask your readers to help with copy editing.

There are a number of ways that you can improve your writing as a non-native speaker. Firstly, you could use Google or online forums to check the usage of phrases or sentences that you're unsure about. You could also use Grammarly.com to check your writing. Finally, you might even want to consider asking your readers to suggest improvements to your writing.

Just write - no-one cares about minor errors.

You could ask your readers to help you with copy editing

You can Google the exact phrase to see if native English speakers have used it before.

You could also use the  grammarly.com  service.

You could ask your readers to help you improve your writing with their suggestions.

Using Google to check for usage of particular phrases can be a useful tool.

There are forums and websites where you can query the usage of phrases or sentences.

You might want to consider using Grammarly.com.


This is a difficult question, because English is in the middle of a shift of social mores with regards to obscenities and vulgarities.

The "traditional" swear words (fuck, shit, ass, damn, etc.) have had their offensiveness gradually worn down over the past century, to the point where in many communities they're generic modifiers.

Large parts of the Internet hold to this ethos.

However, this shift is by no means complete or universal, as many people will still be offended by those words.

Be very careful in unfamiliar situations with people you don't know, since you cannot easily predict how they'll react to your language.

At the same time, new language taboos are arising with regards to racial and some sexual epithets.

You probably would not see an economics blog use the word "nigger" so casually, nor "fag", "cunt", or others.

However, the social conventions regarding these are even more chaotic and context-sensitive than the conventions for the older expletives.

If you want to avoid giving offense, you should always stick to the most conservative, expletive-free register, as no one is going to be scandalized by your failure to say "fuck".

Relative to where and who?

I wouldn't use the f word as a synonym for "very" in Salt Lake City, Utah.

In the Marines it's just another word.

Cusswords are interesting neurologically, they appear to be managed by a different part of the brain than the part that is in charge of ordinary speech.

So if the f-word really did become an ordinary word, (I think the Proto-Indo-European word was something mundane like "to strike"), it would need to be replaced by some other word.

More likely, a taboo word would disappear from use than convert to the stock of ordinary words.

Seeing the F word on the internet probably doesn't mean it is acceptable, the internet is the lawless wild west.

Depending on the circumstances and the company it varies between shocking (my Bridge Club) and background noise (the Steelworks), a former colleague of mine being the record holder for the most uses in one sentence (21).

See also Field-Marshal Slim's quotation of his driver reporting that the car was unserviceable...

"The fucking fucker's fucked."

There is good evidence that "bad language" is stored in a separate part of the brain:

witness the case of the deaf man with Tourettes syndrome who swears in ASL .

And swear words in foreign languages don't set off the same triggers in the brain, so it's very hard to judge how bad they are in context.

Foreign language learners should generally avoid swearing until someone else has done so first.

That's my advice.

The actual question, How bad is the F-word?

has a very context-dependent answer.

It seems that the FCC's 7-dirty-word rule has recently been overturned in some degree, a sign of the times: Jul 22nd, 2010 NEW YORK CITY—Noting that, "we face a media landscape that would have been almost unrecognizable in 1978," the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has struck down attempts by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate so-called "fleeting expletives" in radio and TV broadcasts... read article (warning: expletive ahead)

It used to be very bad, and because of this it has been overused lately, eroding it's superlative offensive status.

In British English as other answers have stated, it mostly depends on context; I would not use the word in front of my mother, for instance.

However it also depends on how it is used.

If for instance I saw something shocking such as a road accident and said “Fucking Hell!”

, few people would be offended.

But if I used it at someone, such as saying “Fuck you”, I would be being very offensive indeed.

Question: I am confused: on the one hand, many of my native-speaker friends keep telling me that the f-word is very, very bad. Much worse than the s-word for example. On the other hand, I see it being used everywhere; for example, in the blogosphere, even by respectable economic blogs (e.g.  http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-fuck-deficit-or-will-deficit-end-fucking-us ).  Is the former intensity of the word decreasing? Is its usage becoming more acceptable in everyday language?

How bad is the f-word, really?

The answer to this question is highly subjective, and it may be the case that traditional swear words have become less offensive over time. In reality, how offensive or used the word is probably depends on context, region and how it's used.

Views vary but take care not to use such language with people you do not know.

A lot of traditional swear words have had their offensiveness gradually worn down over the past century, to the point where in many communities they're generic modifiers. However, this shift is by no means complete or universal, as many people will still be offended by those words. You should be very  careful in unfamiliar situations with people you don't know, since you cannot easily predict how they'll react to your language.  If you want to avoid giving offense, you should always stick to the most conservative, expletive-free register, as no one is going to be scandalized by your failure to say "fuck". Also seeing the F word on the internet probably doesn't mean it is acceptable, the internet is the lawless wild west. In the end, it all depends on context.

"Traditional" swear words (fuck, shit, ass, damn, etc.) have had their offensiveness gradually worn down over the past century, to the point where in many communities they're generic modifiers. However, this very much depends on context. For example, it may be shocking at a bridge club, and quite normal in a steelworks.

The answer to this question will be highly subjective and will depend on both context and whom you are talking to. However, it is claimed that swear words are losing their offensive status gradually.

A change in attitudes is taking place at the moment but to be on the side take care not to use such language with people you do not know.

It depends entirely on who you are with - some people would be deeply offended but others would not care. The fact that it's on the internet widely means nothing.

In addition, swear words in foreign languages don't set off the same triggers in the brain, so it's very hard to judge how bad they are in context.

Context is important. You may not use the word in front of your mother, for instance but would use as an exclamation at something shocking.

It is claimed that offensive words are losing their offensive status gradually.

The answer to this question will really depend on context and who you are talking to.


In the same domain as The Chicago Manual of Style (users working "with magazines, newsletters, corporate reports, proposals, electronic publications, Web sites, and other nonbook or nonprint documents"), you also have: The Economist Style Guide Clarity of writing usually follows clarity of thought.

So think what you want to say, then say it as simply as possible.

Keep in mind George Orwell's six elementary rules ("Politics and the English Language", 1946): Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

Never use a long word where a short one will do.

If it is possible to cut out a word, always cut it out.

Never use the passive where you can use the active.

Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

The Grauniad , Observer and guardian.co.uk style guide .

"No passion in the world is equal to the passion to alter someone else's draft." - HG Wells

For someone doing technical writing for the US Gov't, I have to recommend NASA SP-7084 : Grammar, Punctuation, andCapitalization: A Handbook for Technical Writers and Editors .

There are a few out there

but some tend to be industry specific.

The best general, free and online style guide that I know of

is the Wikipedia: Manual of Style .

Here are some others: The BBC News Style Guide , Apple Publications Style Guide and Yahoo!

Style Guide (this one is pretty good).

I went through my Editing > Style Guides bookmarks folder, here's what I found: As VonC mentioned, the Economist Style Guide is both well-regarded and easy to understand.

The print version is purported to be more thorough than the online, free version.

(I haven't used it much yet, but it looks to be sound after taking a quick dip in the site.)

Onlinestylebooks.com lets you search through a boatload of style manuals.

(Some results seem to link to subscription sites, but many do not.)

The links to the Chicago Q&A columns and AP's Ask the Editor feature are outside their paywalls.

Jack Lynch's Guide to Grammar and Style is a good reference (although I disagree with a few things in it).

In addition to traditional style guides, You can also refer people to pages from some of the excellent grammar blogs out there: Grammar Girl is the only one I know of with a large enough backlog to search through, although others might be able to add to this.

Slate also has good grammar and style columns from time to time, like this piece on why one should not type two spaces after a period.

Also, keep in mind that many older books about style and grammar are now available online, for example, the 1906 Chicago Manual of Style .

(Use with caution; I'm not finding early versions of Chicago or AP there, and surprisingly, I also don't see the 1926 edition of Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage there.)

You can find 88 style guides listed at OnlineStylebooks.com , 70 of which are indexed for search.

OnlineStylebooks.com is owned and maintained by Mary Beth Protomastro, the founder of Copyediting newsletter, the copy chief of More magazine and former editor of the Time magazine stylebook.

OnlineStylebooks.com is not affiliated with any of those publications.

Mary Beth created OnlineStylebooks.com to help copy editors (including herself) quickly consult a variety of style guides.

If you know of a manual that’s on the Internet but not on OnlineStylebooks.com, please tell Mary Beth!

For British English, these are widely used and respected: The Guardian and Observer Style Guide

The Economist Style Guide BBC News Style Guide Fowler's Modern English Usage (sadly only the pocket version of the updated text seems to be available online) For matters of online style, I feel that it often comes down to issues of usability, so I refer to Jakob Nielsen's articles , because they're based on solid research.

(Example: " Writing Hyperlinks: Salient, Descriptive, Start with Keyword ")

For the philosophy and reasoning behind style guides, David Foster Wallace's essay "Tense Present" is unbeatable.

Question: I don't like prefixing all my answers and pontifications about English usage with IMHO.  Where can I find a reasonably well recognized style guide that is online that I can refer people to?  My first choice,  chicagomanualofstyle.org , is for paid subscribers only.  (Emphasis on well recognized, personally, I mostly do technical and office writing)

Where can I find a reasonably well recognized free style guide that is online?

There are a number of well-recognised style guides which you may consider referring to. These include The Economist Style Guide, the Guardian and Observer Style Guide or Jack Lynch's Guide to Grammar.

There are many style guides or manuals that can advise you, and George Orwell has written 6 useful rules for any writer:
Keep in mind George Orwell's six elementary rules for writing good English:
Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
Never use a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possible to cut out a word, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

There are several style books available online including: BBC News Style Guide, Apple Publications Style Guide, Yahoo, The Guardian, The Economist Style Guide and Observer Style Guide. Onlinestylebooks.com  lets you search through multiple style manuals.  In addition to traditional style guides, you can also refer to some of the excellent  grammar blogs  out there e.g. Grammar Girl. Also, keep in mind that many older books about style and grammar are now available online.

Jack Lynch's Guide to Grammar and Style, Grammar Girl, The Chicago Manual of Style, OnlineStylebooks.com, The Guardian and Observer Style Guide, The Economist Style Guide,  BBC News Style Guide,   Fowler's Modern English Usage are all suggestions for style guides.

There is a huge range of free style guides available online as well as grammar blogs. Some prominent examples include The Economist Style Guide, The Guardian and Observer Style Guide or the BBC News Style Guide.

There are various style guides that can advise you, and George Orwell has written 6 useful rules for any writer.

Many editors will try to change your text because they feel compelled to rather than because it is incorrect.

There are many style manuals available online.

There are many guides for this such as   The Guardian and Observer Style Guide