since your/her takes are!!!!

I think this is an example of students having learned some "rules" by heart which aren't rules.

Your is the possessive of you, and you can be singular or plural.

The main point is that the subject of the verb is name , or if you address multiple people, names If you are addressing a single person, you can say: What is your name ?

If you are asking a group of people to give their name s , you ask: What are your names ?

But the conclusion that "your" takes "are" is absurdly and wrongly oversimplified.

"Who are you?

" would be correct, because "you" is the subject of the sentence.

But "What is your name?" is different: "Name" is the subject of that sentence.

It is modified by the adjective "your", but that doesn't change the subject.

Because of that, your student is correct.

The sentence you mentioned is talking about the person's name, not the actual person.

That's what makes the difference.

No.

"What IS your name?" is correct.

The subject of the sentence is not "you", but "name".

"Name" is singular.

A common error in English is to confuse the subject of the sentence with modifiers on that subject when selecting the appropriate verb.

For example: RIGHT: "The girl with the cats is here."

WRONG: "

The girl with the cats are here."

"Cats" is plural, so if "cats" was the subject of the sentence, the correct verb would be "are".

But "cats" is not the subject of the sentence.

The subject is "girl", which is singular.

So the correct verb is "is".

Similar thing here.

"Your" is not the subject of the sentence.

It is an adjective modifying "name".

This case is a little easier than my example because "your" is an adjective, not a noun, and so can never be the subject of a sentence.

(Unless you are talking about the word itself.)

You might say "You are ...", but you would never say "Your are ...".

It must always be "Your X is/are ...", where X is a noun.

(Or some more complex sentence, of course.)

After thinking it through, I think the best response of the teacher (you!)

for this particular student once he or she asked, I think we should say "what are your name?"

since your/her takes "are"! is probably, Because name takes "is" !

And if he or she looked confused, then you could add,

It's because name takes "is" , so you should say, "What is your name?" , or "What are your names?" .

If your course is about conversational English and it doesn't emphasize grammar, perhaps this is the best way to go, in my opinion.

There is no grammar terminology in the reply.

(Please note that I avoided even using the word "either" intentionally.)

My point is your reply should match your student .

It's obvious that this student understands the word take , and he or she could formulate questions and at least understand simple answers, and yet still couldn't tell which word is the main word of a phrase, indicating his or her unclear understanding on common English sentence structures.

However, if your course also includes grammar, then you can take it as a good opportunity to discuss with your student(s) the concept of singular vs. plural in English, and the possessive form of you (which is your ) and other pronouns, and how to find the main word in a noun phrase, and sentence structures in English, and so on.

I think it is correct to ask "What is your name?", and also correct to ask "What are your names?", depending on the way you are using it.

If you are asked what is your name, you are expected to reply with your name and your surname e.g Adelaja Adebisi, which is a compound name making it singular.

On the other hand, if asked what are your names, and you give your names as Adelaja Adebisi Tolulope, then, the Tolulope added to it makes it plural so it is correct.

Question: My student today asked me why we say "what  is  your name?" instead of "what  are  your name?".  I think we should say "what  are  your name?" since your/her takes "are"!   Please explain. Thank you in advance.

Should we say "what are your name?" not "what is your name?"?

It is correct to ask "What is your name?", and also correct to ask "What are your names?", depending on the way you are using it.

What is your name?' is generally correct, you can also ask 'what are your names?'.


There is a common expression in the US that goes

You learn something new every day.

The usage goes back to at least the mid 1800s and has risen in popularity since the later 20th century.

I've found a saying that seems to be related to the meaning described by you: Live and learn (Wiktionary): An exhortation to gain knowledge from living experiences.

Commonly used after an accident or misfortune to indicate a moral lesson.

It is also mentioned as You live and learn

(The Free Dictionary)

: something that you say when you have just discovered something that you did not know.

There's a sample sentence:

I had no idea they were related.

Oh well, you live and learn .

P.S.

In Russian, we have a saying "Live for a century and learn century through" (Век живи, век учись - Vek zhivi, vek uchis').

Or, "one lives through one's life and learns all through one's life", since the word век has an antique sense of 'human lifespan'.

It is used to be said exactly in the manner of "live and learn", after one has discovered something previously unknown.

Sometimes the contemplative ending ".. and still one dies a fool" is added.

Similar to @PeterBagnall's answer, a related expression in English is: Even old dogs can learn new tricks.

Interestingly, there is a related, opposite expression in English: You can't teach an old dog new tricks.

This negative expression apparently dates back to 1534 - and started as a literal rather than figurative assertion, also one that underscored difficulty rather than impossibility .

Both expressions have many modern variants, but all with which I am familiar include "old dog(s)" and "new trick(s)".

Using the positive or negative (variants of these)

expression(s) reflects a speaker's general optimism or pessimism about learning as people (figuratively) or dogs (literally) age.

You're never too old to learn Which also has a connotation that you're never too old to start something new.

An oft-heard sentiment at commencement ceremonies is: Graduation is not an end, but a beginning.

Then there's:

The more I learn, the less I know.

That ageless paradox goes back a long time.

I've found these quotes online, attibuted to Socrates:

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”

“The more I learn, the more I learn how little I know.”

Einstein is said to have said: “The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.” while the music group Kansas famously sang: “

And if I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know.”

My dad was fond of quoting this Dutch proverb:

We grow too soon old and too late smart.

These three are not necessarily well-known sayings, but they are related quotes worth mentioning:

“You'll never know everything about anything, especially something you love.”

(Julia Child)

“I am learning all the time.

The tombstone will be my diploma.”

(Eartha Kitt)

“Anyone who stops learning is old, whether at 20 or 80.

Anyone who keeps learning stays young.”

(Henry Ford)

Question: A saying in my language would literally translate like this: ‘As long as one lives one is learning!’    I would like to know whether there is an equivalent in English for this saying.

The English equivalent of a saying

Suggestions for equivalent sayings include: You're never too old to learn; The more I learn, the less I know; You learn something new every day; Live and learn; and The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.

Live and learn, the more I learn the less I know, the more I learn the more I learn how little I know, you learn something new every day are all possible phrases.


Here's how I interpret it:

My fantasy is having two men at once.

This has a very obvious sexual meaning.

One cooking.

One cleaning.

This makes you reinterpret the earlier sentence with a non-sexual meaning:

My fantasy is having [one man cooking for me while another man cleans for me].

This subverts your expectations, which may be funny to you (depending on your sense of humor).

I think it retains some of the overtones of the original sentence, however.

Neither of the words "cooking" nor "cleaning" have any sexual connotation whatsoever.

That's the joke.

By attaching such mundane activities to a fantasy , one that starts with such an obvious sexual tone, it becomes a turn of phrase meant to make you laugh.

It's a PG-rated joke.

I'd like to add one small thing.

Even though it is becoming less so, cooking and cleaning are still considered tasks that fall to women.

So in this case, a woman fantasizing about two men performing those tasks is a play on gender-roles and her wish to escape them.

I'm a heterosexual woman, but I often joke that what I really need is a wife.

The joke in question has a similar play on traditional gender roles.

It's a joke.

When you read the first sentence -- "My fantasy is having two men" -- you immediately think that she's talking about sex.

Then when she says "one cooking, one cleaning", she is saying that it's not about sex at all, it's about housework.

That's why it's a joke.

She starts out making you think she's talking about sex, then pulls the rug out from under you when she makes it apparent that she's NOT talking about sex.

(I think this joke is originally from Rita Rudner.

Personally I thought it was pretty funny.)

Jay is 100% correct.

The humor lies in the overturning of expectations in the set-up line from the word “having,” which, in English, has a clearly sexual connotation.

This joke works well in English because the language is compact — in this case, all the punch-line words are Anglo-Saxon, rather than Latinate, and therefore more efficient from a timing and syllabic perspective.

Think how awkward this would be in French, in which language you can’t just say “having two men,” without violating the grammatical rules of L’Académie Francaise: J'ai deux hommes.

L’un qui fait la cuisine et l’autre qui fait le ménage .

Somehow, this lacks the punch (by the way, French perfection is not guaranteed).

Despite how ruined I've become thanks to the internet, I don't think this one is a sexual joke, but a common joke that is not limited to English language only.

In my interpretation, the tweet describes a situation where a woman has two lovers who do some of her housework.

As a male, let me tell you that cooking a full course meal for even a small family and washing all the dishes afterwards takes a lot of time and is very exhausting.

You could swap the sexes and get a joke about how a man wishes he could have all his house work done by two women.

And in some countries this isn't a fantasy or even an uncommon scenario.

I don't think that it's meant to be sexual in this instance - it's a fairly straightforward joke.

Some alternatively-minded people might read it as sexual, though: 'cleaning' is one word used to refer to a person giving oral to a female (can be male, but more often female) after she has had sex without a condom.

While just about any word can be given a tone of sexual innuendo in the right sentence,

e.g. I took the guy I met at the bar home with me and he really cleaned my clock!

the whole point of this joke is that the meaning is not sexual after an opening that implies something sexual will follow.

It's a common enough interpretation of gender stereotypes that men fantasize about sex and women fantasize about having a man to take his share of the domestic burdens.

Question: Just read a tweet,   My fantasy is having two men at once. One cooking. One cleaning.   Is it a word play in which 'cleaning' refers to a sexual intercourse or, actually, 'cleaning' is there intended having its literal meaning?

Should "cooking" and "cleaning" be taken literally in "...two men at once. One cooking. One cleaning."

It's a joke. By attaching such mundane activities to a  fantasy , one that starts with such an obvious sexual tone, it becomes a turn of phrase meant to make you laugh. Neither of the words "cooking" nor "cleaning" have any sexual connotation whatsoever.

This is a joke. Neither of the words have sexual connotations.


It depends on whether you can stand up or are seated outside when being carried by a typical example of the transport in question, on its size, and if it is enclosed.

Cars and the typical small helicopter typically don't really allow a person to stand up and are enclosed, therefore one is "in" them.

On the other hand, early open-cockpit aircraft and later passenger aircraft, buses, bicycles, motorbikes and ships all allow their users/occupants to stand (or the occupants are seated outside), hence one is "on" such transport.

Small boats are a mixed case; One can be "in" or "on" a small, boat.

On the one hand it is small and may be enclosed, on the other hand, one can stand when aboard one (however foolish it may or may not be to do so), and one is seated outside when sitting.

If we have an imaginary vehicle, eg a "snarfblagger", if it is small, enclosed, and doesn't really allow a person to stand within it, a person using it is probably "in" it.

On the other hand, if the "snarfblagger" is ridden like a bicycle or a horse, or is large enough to stand and walk around inside, then a person using it is "on" it.

Here's a jumble of thoughts, because I'm not sure if there is a definitive answer here:

I believe you would use "on" in any situation where you could ever describe yourself as "boarding the [vehicle]".

You can use the verb "to board" with train, plane, or boat.

Once you have boarded the plane, you are on board the plane - or just "on the plane" for short.

You would not board a car, though.

Also, to be "on the car" would mean to be sitting on the roof of the car - so perhaps we do not use "on" with "car" because it would have a different meaning than the one we intend.

You can board a helicopter, and

I think you could therefore say "on the helicopter", though I think more people would say "in the helicopter".

[Maybe this is because being "on" the helicopter, as with the car in the above point, would be extremely painful if the rotor were moving :P]

You get on a train because you can move around from car to car and walk around from place to place, you get in a car because you must remain seated in a single position inside the car and do not have the option of moving around.

I think you're right in saying it is involved with the size and the nature of the vehicle.

I have no history to back me up here, but I believe it goes like this: You cannot physically get on top of a train in any normal environment.

You stand on a platform and then you get onto a train.

It may have originated from the days before platforms, where you would climb up to reach the train, thus getting 'on' it.

This is similar with both buses and boats.

You tend not to get on the roof of one.

You also tend to stand on buses and trains, and may consider the floor of the vehicle as what you stand 'on'.

A car is different.

They're not all that big, so standing on one is different to being in one.

You don't stand up in cars.

You always consider being in a seat instead of on a platform.

A car is smaller, so you feel more claustrophobic, and definitely inside .

It's because of the location of the thing that moves the vehicle, the size of the vehicle, and its height.

On a train, the tracks are below you, and you typically must use a small set of steps to climb up to the height where the people and cargo are. "

In" also works for a train, but it isn't as common because a train is very large.

In a helicopter, the rotor blades are above you, and the vehicle is typically quite small with a very small payload capability, comparable to a car.

On a jet or in a jet both work.

On bus, in a bus both work.

For most road vehicles, only the biggest ones work with "on", like buses.

In a boat and on a boat both work, but "in" is more commonly used for very small boats, and "on" is more commonly used for big boats.

I don't think it's particularly strange or illogical if you think about it.

Like others have mentioned it implies nuances regarding the subject vehicle.

With a car being a small motor vehicle

the in implies the movement of lowering your arse to the seat immediately as you enter.

A train or bus being larger vehicles require the patron to step on to a platform or step through the doors first before taking a seat.

The same applies to ships, planes and trams.

This is the same with board as in to board a train I presume

you know it's not usual to board a car .

Question: I was trying to work out why get  in  car but  on  most other transportation systems.  Get in  a car, helicopter  Get on  a train, plane, boat (although  in  feels like it works ok here)  Is it the size of vehicle? The function (private/public transport), or something else? How would you know whether to use  in  or  on  for an unknown vehicle?

Why do you "get in a car" but "get on a train"

You get on a train because you can move around from car to car and walk around from place to place, you get in a car because you must remain seated in a single position inside the car and do not have the option of moving around. It depends on the size and the nature of the vehicle. You would use "on" in any situation where you could ever describe yourself as "boarding the [vehicle]".

On' is used in any boarding situation. Otherwise this depends on the size and nature of the vehicle.


When you are asking a question about how to do something, the preferred way to ask would be to use "How do I..." (or "

How can I...", or "Where would I..."): How do I plant flowers in my garden?

How do I transpose flute music for clarinet?

How can I get my two-year-old to stop misbehaving?

Where can I get more information about asking questions in English?

If I am answering such questions in written form (say, on a blog, or in a book), a good way to summarize this information in a concise title is to use "How to..." (or "Where to..."): How to plant flowers in your garden How to transpose flute music for clarinet How to stop your two-year-old from misbehaving Where to get more information about asking questions in English Essentially, How do's are questions, and How to's are declarations.

In the title of a Stack Exchange question, either one can work.

How do I get a mailchimp list name and list i

d using php?

That works fine; you are essentially asking your question in the title of your question .

How to get a mailchimp list name and list

id using php That works fine, too.

You are essentially giving a title to what you hope will be a set of answers to your question.

How to do X is not a question but an NP, a clause which behaves like a noun † .

It has no subject-auxiliary inversion

I am asking you [how to do X].

Notice

the absence of a question mark.

How to do X works just fine as a title, however.

Tutorials are often called How-tos because they don't ask questions but answer them.

This module teaches you [how to do X].

How do I do X?

is the corresponding question.

It is marked as a question by subject-auxiliary inversion, made possible with do-support (the use of do to supply an auxiliary where one is needed).

This works just fine as a title, too.

(Practically anything works as a title.)

This matter has been often been treated here; here is a very early question on the subject.

Technically, a free relative clause or fused-relative clause .

Some linguists go even farther and distinguish this as an embedded question or open interrogative when it plays the semantic role of a question.

In English, questions are indicated in various ways, including word order.

In these cases, the question would be formed by switching the order of the subject and the verb but since they lack an auxiliary verb, they require do -support .

"How to..." is not a question, so if a question is written this way the easiest change (if there is no auxiliary verb) is to insert the necessary "do" and form the question in reference to the asker (referred to as "I").

That said, it's not absolutely necessary that the title of a "question" post actually take the form of a question , so sometimes a description of the problem (or even its expected solution) is used.

Similarly, a tutorial can be referred to as a "how-to" because it is not asking a question but instead providing instructions on how to do something.

I notice that you have a number of questions on your network profile that are "How to" with a question mark.

e.g.

How it's better to invoke gdb from program to print its stacktrace?

How to use git diff --color-words outside a Git repository?

How to get parent PID of a given process in GNU/Linux from command line?

This is ungrammatical, because "How to" is not a question .

There are two ways of correcting this: either remove the question mark, or change it to "

How do I...?

In other words, both How to use git diff --color-words outside a Git repository and How do I use git diff --color-words outside a Git repository? are fine.

Your editors could have chosen either option but they happened to choose the latter.

Personally, I think "How do I...?

" sounds more appropriate for the title of a question .

"How to" is a declaration and suggests that you are going to tell people how to do whatever it is.

So "How to" sounds more appropriate for the title of an answer to me.

(This is also why tutorials are called "How tos"

- they are telling you how to do something.)

However, that's a personal preference, and as J.R. points out , you can use either - both would be grammatically correct.

People often use "How to" rather than "How do I" in Stack Overflow or Stack Exchange questions, because the word "I" gets a scary warning about the question being subjective and may be closed. https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/69769/38765

(Note: I deliberately used bad English in the last paragraph of the question)

As a side note, in general, please don't rely on Stack Overflow content as examples of high quality English!

A better title for this question would be: When do I write "

How to" instead of "

How do I"?

:D

Question: On the other hand  the edit  that fix mistype in "How to" got though community approval.  What is the rule about "How to" and "How do I"? Why are some tutorials called "How to"s?

Why do my "How to" questions often get renamed to "How do I"?

"How to..." is not a question, so if a question is written this way the easiest change (if there is no auxiliary verb) is to insert the necessary "do" and form the question in reference to the asker (referred to as "I").   In other words, both  "How to use  git diff --color-words  outside a Git repository"   and    "How do I use  git diff --color-words  outside a Git repository?"  are fine.

How to is a noun phrase that behaves like a noun, it is not a question.


IMO It is rare that police arrest people without adequate suspicion.

OR Police rarely arrest people without adequate suspicion.

The adverb rarely generally modifies a verb or a form of a verb, as in: We rarely walk.

We prefer to take a car .

As this NGram shows, OP's specific construction is rarely used these days...

My guess is that many of the (relatively few) instances in recent decades will either be citing older texts, or they'll be things like [but]

it is rarely that [simple] , which isn't quite the same usage.

The adverb/adjective issue is a sterile debate.

Indeed, as OED specifically says under rarely (phrase)... it is (very) rarely that : = it is (very) rare that Having said that, as the above chart implies, and this one makes crystal clear you should stick to the more "regular" adjectival form in this specific construction today.

A similar usage shift involving adverb/adjective forms has occurred with it is well that vs it is good

that .

It's not that the older form was (or even, is ) "wrong".

It's just gradually fallen out of favour

The sentence: It is rarely that police arrest people without adequate suspicion.

is an example of it-cleft .

Clefting is a construction by which a single sentence is broken up into two clauses so that the clause moved to the front receives more emphasis.

Let's see how it works in your example: Police rarely arrest people without adequate suspicion. and imagine we wish to emphasize how rarely this happens, then we would write:

It is rarely that police arrest people without adequate suspicion.

Imagine, however, that we want to emphasize people without adequate suspicion , then we would write:

It is people without adequate suspicion that police rarely arrest.

Regardless of the explanation above, as Fumble Fingers clearly shows, you're better off if you stick with:

It is rare that police arrest people without adequate suspicion.

More on the grammar regarding this question can be found here at ELU.

We have two rules of grammar that can apply here.

The first is that an adverb modifies a verb, and to be is a verb.

The second is that a "predicate adjective" can modify a subject, using a "linking verb" such as "be" (feel, look, seem, appear, etc. would be other examples).

Since both rules can apply, which one is actually applied is a matter of habit and/or style, and therefore a challenge for a non-native speaker.

As FumbleFingers has touched upon with one of his examples, it would seem that we are moving from using the first rule to the second one.

It would also seem that we haven't quite moved all the way there yet.

For example, "the pie tasted well" is quite old-fashioned by now, having been pretty much entirely replaced with "the pie tasted good" in the 20th century.

On the other hand, "I don't feel good" and "I don't feel well

" both occur regularly, while "I feel good" is much more common than "I feel well."

Furthermore, "I feel poorly" is a midwest-US colloquialism, meaning the same as "I don't feel well".

("I feel poor" would have the unrelated meaning that the person didn't feel rich.)

So, clearly, there's an inconsistency in usage.

Clearly "it is rarely that" is antiquated.

However, it is well/good to keep in mind that if another noun is provided for the verb to act upon, the adjective will revert to an adverb: It is rarely the case that police arrest people without adequate suspicion.

One further point is to avoid confusing action verbs with linking verbs, and thereby using adjectives where adverbs belong.

These are all considered incorrect grammar (although they are often used, especially in the US):

I don't hear good.

I don't see good.

I did good on my exam.

It is rarely that police arrest people without adequate suspicion.

This is a it-cleft sentence, and it applies a stress on the rare occasion of police arresting people without adequate suspicion.

In other word, without giving any stress it could be written like this - Police rarely arrest people without adequate suspicion.

In this sentence rarely is an adjunct.

It's a frequency adjunct.

We can consider it as a form of time adjunct.

And so it can correctly occur in the focus position of an it-cleft sentence.

Hence the following sentence is correct - It's (very) rarely that police arrest people without adequate suspicion.

(OED has an entry for

it's (very) rarely that... )

An adverbial can be divided into four categories - adjunct , subjunct , disjunct and conjunct .

But it's only the adjunct , and not other adverbials, that can occur in the focus position of an it-cleft sentence.

In negative or interrogative all adjunct can occur in the focus position of an it-cleft sentence.

But in positive sentence not all adjuncts can occur in the focus position.

Some need modifiers, and some can occupy the position without the use of any modifiers.

It's the manner adjunct and degree adjuncts that takes modifiers - It was very carefully that John cut the cake.

It was carefully that John cut the cake [INCORRECT]

The time and place adjuncts can occur in that position without the help of any modifiers.

It's frequently that he looses money.

It's very frequently that he looses money.

[I will try to update it later with more info]

Question: It is rarely that police arrest people without adequate suspicion.   I suppose it means that:   The police rarely arrest people without adequate suspicion.   but I couldn't find this in my grammar book.  Is this sentence pattern possible?

Correctness of "It is rarely that + [clause]"?

One might say "It is  rare  that police arrest people without adequate suspicion" OR "Police  rarely  arrest people without adequate suspicion". The adverb  "rarely"  generally modifies a verb or a form of a verb, as in:  We rarely walk.

Rarely' can act as a modifier, as can 'it is rare'.


"Thanks to" works for both positive and negative consequences.

You can correctly say "Thanks to X, the project succeeded" and "Thanks to X, the project failed."

Or another dimension is you can say "No thanks to X" if X did not help in any way (or hindered the project),

versus saying "thanks to X" because X did help in some way.

I can't think of a specific way to do what you're looking for, so instead I'd suggest a set like the following: Positive outcome, positive contribution: "Thanks to X, Y" Positive outcome, negative contribution: "In spite of X, Y" Negative outcome, positive contribution: "In spite of X['s hard work/good effort/etc], Y" Negative outcome, aligned contribution/causal link: "[In part] due to X, Y" For example: "Thanks to Paul, we got all our TPS reports done on time."

In spite of Dave's colossal screw ups, we did manage to get all the gold we needed for the pyramid."

In spite of Imhotep's amazing invisibility, the heist was foiled by police.

" "Due to Grontar's enormous left foot, the ritual circle was ruined."

Yes there is.

Look at this...

Damn!

The cricket match is cancelled and it was the final match.

All thanks to rain!

We are just being ironic there.

Here, thanks to would mean due to/or because.

Similar thread here .

Since you don't want to sound ironic try "In spite of" or "despite"

In the UK, "no thanks to" is a common opposite.

As in: I made it to work on time, no thanks to the weather! or Andy Murray got through to the final, no thanks to the doubters, and went on to win.

A suitable counterpart of "thanks to" would be "because of":"Thanks to X, the project succeeded""Because of X, the project failed."

"Because of ...", "as a result of ..." or "due to ..." They assign responsibility but without a positive or negative connotation, whereas "thanks to ..." implies a certain amount of happiness about the situation (unless it's used ironically).

I'm a spanish speaker and we say "por culpa de" which would be literally "by fault of" which makes sense to me

but I have seen it just a few times really.

Question: The thing to which the phrase "thanks to" is attributed usually produces positive consequence.  I wonder if there is a negative counterpart.  EDIT:  Many thanks.  I have now learned that  thanks to  can gain a negative meaning via irony.  But what if I do not want to sound ironic?

Is there a negative counterpart of the phrase "thanks to"?

A suitable counterpart of "thanks to" would be "because of", "as a result of" or "due to". "In spite of" is often used, and "Thanks to" can be used ironically.

Because of' is a negative counterpart, though 'thanks to' can work positively or negatively.

Thanks to' can work positively or negatively.


This word has no clear semantic antonym.

It has a grammatical antonym, of course, which is simply the word non-default : the non prefix is used, usually with a hyphen.

undefault is strange as an adjective, and indefault or adefault completely so.

The un prefix can be used to negate the participial adjective

defaulted , which is derived from the verb to default .

If a financial loan is in good standing (payments are being made) we might say that it's an undefaulted loan.

The question is, what does non-default mean: see the bottom of the answer.

A given parameter in a system can be either undefined, system-defined (default) or user-defined.

Sometimes there is no system-defined state: a value for the parameter must be supplied, or else it is undefined.

Initial values that occur by fluke, and are not documented, are not defaults.

For instance, if the value 42 occurs in RAM location 500 when power is applied to a device, isn't a default, even if it appears to be reliable on every power up.

There is no documented guarantee, and the value may be different in another device from a different production run where a different memory chip was used or whatever.

Defaults are predictable, documented initial values which are defined by the system (operating system, programming language, application, ...).

In some systems, parameters can begin in an undefined state, and there is an initialization procedure which sets them to default values, which can be further configured ("overridden", "customized", "tweaked", ...).

In some systems, when values such as variables are defined, they never have an uninitialized state; if no initial value is supplied, there is an implicit one, and that constitutes a default.

Sometimes there are multiple levels of defaulting.

A programming language might default global variables to zero.

However, a program written in the language might define some variables with non-zero values.

To the language, these values are non-default values, but to the user of the program, they are documented as that program's defaults.

It is not clear whether the initial, undefined state is the "opposite" of the default configuration, or whether the overridden states are the opposite, and this becomes even less clear if there are multiple levels of defaulting.

A user who only sticks with the default values will probably regard the uninitialized state as the opposite: the opposite of the configured (default) state.

("Order versus chaos.")

A user who doesn't think about the uninitialized state, but

chooses between default and customized configurations might regard those two as opposites.

("My choice versus someone else's.")

The meaning of the non-default grammatical antonym of default tends to lean toward the latter definition.

It would be strange to refer to a nonexistent or uninitialized value as non-default (even though, strictly speaking, that is true); non-default usually refers to a well-defined alternative to the default.

I know a bit of programming.

And, it's surprising (I confirmed it with a profound programmer) that an opposite word to default value (strictly in computer science) is defined

Some programming languages take default values unless you define them.

The moment you define them, they are overwritten.

So, I think in your context, not default is defined.

Other good alternatives, as said by Damkerng are customized, user-defined, specific .

custom: Hit [Enter] to select the default value, or type your own custom value.

You may use customized as the antonym of default .

From a programming perspective, I would say that a non-default value is either assigned or manually assigned .

Question: What is the antonym for "default" (computer science). For example there is "default value", how to say "not default"? Is there a one word for "not default" :)?

What is the antonym for "default"?

There is no clear antonym. However, "non-default", "custom" or "manually assigned" may be used.

The grammatical antonym is non-default, defined also works in context. Custom, customized, manual and assigned can also work.

Custom, customized and assigned/manual work.


Do is a transitive verb.

—it requires a direct object.

Consequently, have + the past participle done is a present perfect construction, a verb, and this is not a complete sentence:

I have done... What have you done?

—you have to tell us: I have done the report.

I have done the dishes.

I have done what you told me.

But when you use the past participle done with a form of be there are two interpretations.

One is that the result is a passive construction.

This report was done by me =

I did this report.

Ordinarily, however, a passive I am done =

Somebody did me doesn’t make any sense.

Consequently, we interpret done as a predicate adjective: I am done (with this task) =

I am finished (with this task), I have nothing more to do (with this task).

This use of the past participles done and finish is called a deverbal , a verbform which has lost its ‘verbiness’.

This cannot be done with every verb, but some other verbs this has happened to are interest , (“I am interested in science”), drink (“John is drunk”) and lose (“I think we’re lost”).

"To be done" is idiomatic and means "to have finished".

For example, "Have you written that email yet?"

"Yes, I'm done."

"To be done with something" (or "to be

finished with something") to get rid of something or stop using it for good.

"I'm done with email!

It takes up so much of my time."

But "To have

finished with something" means to have finished using it for now.

Can I use the computer now, please?"

"Sure, I've finished with it."

"To have done" is the present perfect of "to do".

"Have you ever sent an email by mistake when you meant to cancel it?"

"Yes, I've done it hundreds of times."

With "almost," as you specify in your question, you would normally say either: I am almost done.

or I have almost finished.

Both can be correct: I'm done with this assignment.

I've done this type of assignment in the past.

It depends on the context.

They mean different things.

"I'm done" means "I am done.

""I've

done" means "I have done."

Both are correct depending upon ,what matter or subject are talking about.

If someone is doing some work and he/she has completed that .

so can be said that i have done.

And if someone has done some work earlier & and now that particualr work is being discussed as a task to perform at that time that person who has already done it can say that i am done.or someone is eating and other person is offering more then can say i am

done.means dont want more at this time can not say i have done.

Question: I want to know if "I'm almost done" is correct, or whether it should be "I've almost done" as a present perfect tense. I often read this on Facebook news feed. Is it correct?

"I'm done" or "I've done", which is correct?

Both are correct depending on the context. They mean different things. "To be done" is idiomatic and means "to have finished".  "To have done" is the present perfect of "to do".

To be done means to have finished. To have done is present perfect of 'do'. Both are correct, a lot depends on context.

Both can be correct, it depends on the context.


The verbs fear and scare reverse their object and subject, like the verbs learn and teach .

The fox scares the rabbit.

The rabbit fears the fox.

The rabbit is scared of the fox.

The fox is feared by the rabbit.

Using feared of to mean scared of is not standard English.

However,some dialects use feared of to mean scared of : I never was feared of Flint in my life, and by the powers, I'll face him dead.

— Treasure Island , by Robert Louis Stevenson.

This kind of reversal of subject and object is not uncommon in languages.

For example, in some dialects learn can also mean teach :

Why, she tried to learn you your book, she tried to learn you your manners, she tried to be good to you every way she knowed how.

— Huckleberry Finn , by Mark Twain

These uses of feared of and learn are not standard English.

In fact, the verb fear is not used with the preposition of in standard English.

Note that in the dialects that use these non-standard forms, there is little chance of confusion with the standard meanings; the prepositions distinguish feared of and feared by , and learn means teach only when it has an indirect object.

Consider using "afraid" or the more formal "frightened" instead of "feared."

I'm not afraid of you.

I'm not frightened by you.

"frightened," unlike "afraid" and "scared," is not normally followed by of

+ pronoun .

Or, using the rather informal "scared": I'm not scared of (sometimes by ) you.

Simple answer: "I am not feared of you" simply cannot be used that way.

Correct would be "I am not afraid of you", which would be (mostly) synonymous with "I am not scared of you".

read the explanations given by others and remember these two sentences and it will clear your doubts:

I am scared of people.

I am feared by the people.

you will then notice the difference in their usage.

Scare vs fear is like borrow and lend give and take provide and receive eat and be eaten

He fears my antics.

My antics scare him.

My antics are feared by him.

He is scared by my antics.

She lends me money.

I borrow money from her.

The money is lent by her.

The money is borrowed by me.

She takes the food they give.

We receive help provided by the welfare department.

They eat rabbits.

Rabbits are eaten by them.

People don't normally say feared of , but we normally say feared by .

His fear of my antics is driving him nuts.

My antics scaring him is driving him nuts.

Question: I am not scared of you.  I am not feared of you.    Are both grammatical? Is there a difference in meaning between them?

"Scared of you" vs. "feared of you"

Using  "feared of"  to mean  "scared of" is not standard English. The verb  fear  is not used with the preposition.  "I am not afraid of you" would be correct, meaning "I am not scared of you". The verbs fear and scare can be seen as similar to borrow and lend, or learn and teach, for example.

The verbs fear and scare reverse subject and object. 'Feared of' is not standard English, use 'afraid' or 'frightened'.

The verbs fear and scare reverse object and subject.


All of these are acceptable as well as some

I'm sure I missed:

I ate enough burgers.

I have eaten enough burgers.

I have had enough burgers.

I've eaten plenty of burgers.

I don't want anymore.

I've had my fill of burgers.

Simpler to say: "I have eaten enough burgers today."

I would say: "I have eaten my fill of burgers today."

As other people have indicated, there are several different ways this sort of thing can be said, but it's worth noting that some of them can have slightly different implications or impressions on the listener.

"I've had enough of (something)

" generally means that you've experienced so much of something that even thinking about it brings up bad feelings for you now.

For example: I've had enough of eating burgers.

I don't want to eat another one as long as I live!

On the other hand, saying something like "I've eaten enough burgers" or "I've had enough burgers" is a less strong statement, and might just mean that you're satisfied with the amount you've eaten and don't feel a need to eat more right now:

I've eaten enough burgers recently.

I think I'll have something else for dinner.

or I've had enough burgers today, but if you really want to go to the burger place, I suppose I could eat another one.

Saying you already ate a food today is a common way of saying you don't want to eat any more.

I already ate burgers today.

People often use this construction with yesterday as well.

The meaning is the same, since the speaker ate burgers yesterday the listener knows they probably don't want any today either.

It is too soon to eat the same food again.

I had burgers yesterday.

The construction you used "I have had enough of eating burgers.

" is correct, but has a different meaning!

That sentnece means that you ate burgers so often (maybe every day for a year) and now you can't eat any more.

They don't taste good to you anymore.

I'd say I am fed up with burgers for today

Question: I have had enough of eating burgers.   Can we say that if I eat too much burger continuosly through the day and don't want to eat it anymore?

I have had enough of eating burgers

Alternative ways to say this include: I already ate a burger today; I am fed up with burgers for today; I have eaten enough burgers today; or I have eaten my fill of burgers today.

I have eaten enough/my fill, being fed up, saying you already ate something are all appropriate.


If you wish to imply that they always think they are right, yet are not always right... know-it-all smarty-pants smart aleck If you wish to imply that they always think they are right, and are indeed always right: genius polymath Einstein sage guru

There could be many including tobyink's options.

However, the closest after know-it-all (or know-all)

I can think of

it is... opinionated - someone who is opinionated has very strong opinions that they refuse to change even when they are clearly unreasonable.

Someone who thinks they are always right but are, in fact, not right is often described as being cocksure .

Completely confident in their own ability or knowledge but with no justification.

3rd vote for "know-it-all" as an all-purpose term that can be used somewhat politely.

In addition to answers above, "smart ass" and "wise ass" are more vulgar, but quite common.

The more polite alternatives are "smart-aleck" and (the rather outdated) "wise-acre" (or "wiseguy" which can also be slang for a joker or a mafia member ... depends on context).

A " pedant " is someone who makes a point of correcting others and showing off how much they know.

Also, whatever my wife & coworkers decide to call me that day... ;)

If someone thinks that they are always right, then they are wrong , for someone who is always right is infallible and certainly I have never come across or heard of anyone in history who has been such.

Infallibility has, of course, been claimed as an attribute of the Pope but in recent years it is my understanding that even that personage has not tended to claim such an attribute.

Most respondents and the questioner seem to understand this question to refer to a person who claims, asserts or believes themselves to be right all of the time, even though they are not.

There are many words, some of them already given, that express the manner in which others might see a person who makes such a claim: opinionated

is perhaps the best I've seen, though even that falls short for someone can be opinionated about some things but accept their lack of knowledge or mistaken thought about others.

Leaving aside the derogatory terms such as, know-it-

all the purpose of which is to deride rather than define, and seeking only to define the characteristic of a belief by someone that they are "always right" suggests that although words such as delusional , foolish , misguided etc.

certainly may be appropriate to the description of someone who believe they are always right, they may, as readily apply to someone who doesn't have that delusion but who demonstrates behaviours or characteristics that befit the use of the particular adjective.

Try as I might, therefore, I have been unable to find any single word in the English Language which specifically defines a person's belief that they are always right.

My conclusion is thus that, as infallibility defines "never being wrong" and as delusional defines having an unrealistic belief , then an appropriate term for a person who believes that they are always right is: delusionally infallible .

Dogmatic Dictionary definition: Adjective, definition:

inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true.

"he gives his opinion without trying to be dogmatic" synonyms:

opinionated, peremptory, assertive, insistent, emphatic, adamant, doctrinaire, authoritarian, imperious, dictatorial, uncompromising, unyielding, inflexible, rigid... In life we make choices all day long which influence how we act, how we think and how we interpret and view our world....

Of course, we all believe we have made all the correct choices... because if we didn't then we wouldn't have made them..

Being "dogmatically assertive" is one of the three primary motives (how we think, act and respond to stimuli) of a human.

The other two primary motives are desire for property and desire for personal pleasure.

However none is as dominant as being assertive.

pompous - affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, or self-important.

pretentious - attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

condescending - having or showing a feeling of patronizing superiority.

Source: Oxford online dictionary

I can't find the right word either.

Narcissist is almost there

but I think they are more delusional with the idea of themselves.

I know someone who I call an absolutist (absolutism).

Not sure if it works as a person.

And most references to the -ism are political in nature.

But.

This person (which I love) is absolutely right every argument and preachy and very crafty at sculpting the conversation back on to me for being too young or not listening well enough .

It drives me nuts.

She is terribly smart but not reflective on herself like she is with the world around her.

Question: What do you call people who think they're always right?

What is a specific term for people who think that they're always right?

Someone who thinks they are always right may be described as pompous, self-important, pretentious, condescending, a know-it-all, smarty-pants, smart aleck, cocksure, wise-acre, wise-guy, or pedant. If that person is always right, then they may be described as a genius, a polymath, a sage, a guru, or Einstein.

Pompous, pretentious, condescending, smart aleck, cocksure, wiseguy and pedant can be used.


Note that in some sports, notably tennis, there is a division in which "match" occupies a higher place.

For instance in tennis, the players engage in a match, which consists of multiple sets, which consist of games.

Game and match mean the same thing when this hierarchy doesn't apply: when a single game is considered to be a match.

Which one is used depends on the region:

both the region where the sport originates, and the region from which the speaker comes from who describes it as either a game or match.

One-game-match sports from Britain tend to attract the "match" terminology.

See also: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/34105/what-determines-whether-a-sporting-event-is-a-game-match-contest-or-something

Something of a generalization, but if you're calling it soccer

then you're most likely in the USA, or a place whose English is influenced by American English (since the USA is by far the most populous English-speaking region in which "football" means something else).

So team sporting events are generally called "games", soccer included.

But MLS does use "match" at least sometimes, so I suspect US soccer fans do likewise sometimes.

If you're speaking British English then formally it's pretty much always a "match", even if for some reason you're calling it "soccer" rather than "football".

Football itself is "a game" ("the game of football", "the beautiful game"), but a particular fixture is "a match" ("did you see the match?", "I'm going to the match").

The word "game" is also used when talking about the event in a less formal way ("he had a great game") and for variety.

Quoting a BBC news report that I'm watching that just reminded me of this question: "A capacity of 79 thousand people will be in there, watching the game, but around the world would you believe something like a billion people all over the planet will watch this match on television".

By the way, it's not exactly incorrect to call it "soccer" in British English (AFAIK the term was coined in England

meaning "asSOCiation football", as distinct from rugby football).

But it's unnecessary to specify, and "football" is preferred by almost everyone.

Calling it "soccer" suggests that you refer to something else as just "football", which means you're either some kind of foreigner or really devoted to rugby.

I don't know what happens in Australia, where "soccer" would often be used to distinguish from Aussie rules football.

If I had to guess, they would call it a "soccer match" there.

Either is valid, although I'm sure you will notice regional differences as to which is used.

In the Midwest of the US, I almost always hear game rather than match.

I think that match is used in sports in general like in wrestling (no game), but game is more like with friends or with sports with several players.

Also note that the FIFA games use match like the official page.but at the end they are equally intercheable.

For what it's worth, FIFA's Laws of the Games, Law 7 refers to 'The Duration of the Match'.

Game or match?

This depends on what you mean.

I hope this adds a bit on your understanding of the two words...

When you say game, it could mean the game itself, not necessarily played, being played or about to be played.

It is simply the sports with the rules/regulations/etc.

When you say match, it means a game that was played, being played or about to be played by competing teams.

Examples:

I love playing the soccer game in my PS Vita.

The game itself

I love the soccer match between the X and the Y in my PS Vita.

Here the game was played

The soccer game was played by the X and the Y. - Here the game was played so now you could say it is a match.

The soccer match between the two teams was great!

Again, this means the game was played

Question: Which is the more correct: soccer game or soccer match? Are they both equally valid?

Should I say soccer game or soccer match?

If you're speaking British English then formally it's almost always a match. However, either is valid, and there may be regional differences. For example, in the Midwest of the US, you almost always hear game rather than match.

This varies regionally. In the UK it's generally 'match', whilst in the US it's 'game'.


Either "himself" or "herself" is most accepted by prescriptive grammarians.

"Herself" is increasingly used by itself in academic writing to counterbalance the sexist implications of assuming that everyone is male (by using the male form as the generic for all people).

"Themselves" is probably most common but (practically speaking) could be considered more casual.

I do not believe I have ever seen "themself" and would personally consider it the least appealing of all possible options.

A native speaker might use it to make a point or promote language change, but in an obviously non-native speaker it would almost certainly be taken as an error.

If I were you, I would go with "him or herself" or "themselves."

Almost all English speakers and writers use "themselves."

This question was studied in 2009 by Collins Dictionaries for the Committee on Bible Translation.

The conclusion is that the plural generic is almost universal and increasing, against masculine generic and other alternatives.

http://www.niv-cbt.org/information/collins-corpus-report/ 1.

Generic pronouns and determiners

This part of the study considered the types of pronouns and determiners that are used to refer to indefinite pronouns (such as someone, everybody and one) and non-gender specific nouns (such as a person, each child and any teacher): A. masculine (he, his, himself, etc.);

B. feminine (she, her, herself, etc.); C. plural/gender-neutral (they, them, one, themselves, etc.); D. alternative forms (s/he, him or her, his/her, etc.)

In all the varieties of English analyzed, plural/neutral pronouns and determiners account for the majority of usages.

Between 1990 and 2009, instances of masculine generic pronouns and determiners, expressed as a percentage of total generic pronoun usage in general written English, fell from 22% to 8%.

e.g. ‘…when a person accepts unconditional responsibility, he denies himself the privilege of “complaining” and “finding faults.”’ Instances of ‘alternative’ generic pronouns and determiners fell from 12% to 8%.

e.g. ‘Any citizen who wants to educate himself or herself has plenty of sources from which to do so.’

Instances of plural/neutral generic pronouns and determiners rose from 65% to 84%.

e.g. ‘If you can identify an individual who metabolises nicotine faster you can treat them more effectively.’

Figures for the other corpora analyzed in the study are broadly comparable with figures from the general written English corpus both in overall magnitude and in the general trend over time.

There is no universally accepted "correct" answer: whatever you choose, himself or herself or themselves or themself , you are going to annoy some of your readers.

If you care, the only solution is to find another way of saying it.

Anyone can find the answer.

Anyone can find the answer without help.

You can find the answer yourself (and

so can anyone else).

The answer is left to the reader to find.

—and so forth.

I would go with "themself."

Singular

they/them has a long history in the English language, and has come back into style with a lot of mainstream publications as a way to avoid inserting gender into general statements like the one you're making.

"Himself" or "herself" are both correct.

"Themselves" is technically incorrect, but has found common usage lately due to concerns about sexism.

The most practical advice is to avoid the idiom, e.g. with something like

"Anyone can find the answer without help."

(slightly changes the meaning)

"One can find the answer oneself.

" (rather formal) "One can find the answer on one's own."

(still kind of formal)

"Anyone can find the answer using only common sense."

(getting casual and changes the meaning somewhat)

Question: I am wondering which following form is correct:   Anyone can find the answer himself.  Anyone can find the answer themselves.   More generally, what reflexive pronoun should I use with anyone/anybody?

Anyone can find the answer himself vs. anyone can find the answer themselves: what reflexive pronoun should I use with anyone/anybody?

There is no universally accepted "correct" answer. Himself,  herself, themself or  themselves are all valid. "Themselves" is probably most common and technically incorrect -  it could be considered more casual but has found common usage lately due to concerns about sexism.

Himself/herself/themself are all correct. While technicallyincorrect, themselves is widely used.

Themselves is widely used but technically incorrect.


The term I'm familiar with is 'biracial.'

Sometimes, if one of the two racial backgrounds goes back many generations (i.e., is considered to be more or less homogenous), we might self-identify as

I'm half ~~~~~~.

For instance, someone might want to describe themself as half-Chinese or half-Lithuanian.

I use the latter for myself, because it is true.

Half-American does not work, because American is not a race in this sense.

But a lot of people might wish to refer to themself as (for example) half-Irish , half-Greek , half-Italian , half Japanese , half-Cherokee , etc.

I am talking about people referring to themselves.

For someone to self-identify as half-something is usually a sign that they value that racial or genetic component of their background.

In other words, it is a term that is used positively.

People can also refer to others as half-something, which may or may not be true, and may or may not be intended as a kind statement.

Cautian: We have the term half-breed , which also refers to someone who is considered (rightly or wrongly) to be half something.

It is an offensive term, a racial slur, and pretty much no longer used in today's English.

But it is encased in our popular culture, largely due to cowboy-and-Indian movies , where you might hear the term half-breed used to describe someone who is half-American Indian and half-something else.

In the 1970s television show, Kung Fu , the main character is half-Chinese and half-Caucasian American.

Here we say mixed ethnicity.

The term mixed race,

although implied, would not be used officially in a multicultural society since it might offend.

You can use the term Eurasian for someone who is half Asian, half European.

The term dual heritage is also used in public services to describe someone with two ethnicities.

Question: My mother is an American and my father is a Chinese, is there a term for people with two racial backgrounds in English?  Update: Is "halfer" a good word for it? Is it kinda derogatory?

How to call people with two racial backgrounds in English?

Mixed ethnicity, biracial, dual heritage can be used to describe someone with two racial backgrounds. The term  Eurasian can be used  for someone who is half Asian, half European.

Biracial and mixed ethnicity can work, as well as dual heritage. Eurasian is one example.

Dual heritage can be used, Eurasian is another example.


I'd go with "

Them's my boys!"

It is not "grammatical" but it preserves the casual and dialectical feel of the original, as well as the prosodic features.

I'd feel fine saying or hearing "

That's my boys!".

"That's my boy!"

is literally a prideful expression of the exclaimer's relationship to a single boy which also implies some degree of personal responsibility for or shared ownership of the boy's success which prompted the exclamation.

"That's my boys!

" implies the same degree of pride and personal connection as it sounds similar to the well-known singular form.

However, its literal meaning is different: it's more like an abbreviation, e.g. of "That's [how] my boys [do it]!

", or "That's [what] my boys [can do]!".

These statements emphasize the ease and regularity with which said boys perform successfully.

I find that the singular form can actually be exclaimed with this meaning in mind as well (e.g. "That's [how]

my boy [does it]!").

This pluralization of the phrase has the benefit of also fitting the phonetic pattern of the singular form as it has the same number of syllables and can be exclaimed with the same sing-songy inflections in pitch.

You can just try : "My boys !"

If the questioner is using "That's my boy" to indicate that a certain action or behaviour, such as a comment, which has just taken place is highly characteristic and representative of the male person to whom it refers then more appropriate than "those" or "them's" would be "That's my boys".

"That's

my boys" effectively says "That's typical of my boys", "That's the way my boys are", "

That's how it is with my boys".

It should be noted that in this scenario the phrase may not actually refer to the speaker's child, in the same way that "Go on my son" is often used between male friends.

An example conversation where such use of the phrase would fit well might be where a woman hears from a friend that her husband and son were seen returning from a football game, cheering victoriously and waving their scarves.

The thought of this scene is one that amuses and touches emotionally - and seems both familiar and unquestionable - so the women smiles and says "Ahh yes...

that's my boys!"

If the intended sense of "That's my boy" is "Well done young man!"

, then a colloquial plural version, certainly in the UK, would be "Good lads!"

The problem with "Them's my boys" as a plural version is that it only makes sense if said to someone other than the boys in question, whereas with the singular "That's my boy" is typically used as praise to the boy in question.

On the other hand, if the intended sense of "That's my boy" is "That person there is my son", then a plural is simply "Those are my boys".

I don't think any sprachgefühl is lost when you make it plural.

I can't say I've heard someone exclaim "those are my boys" as much I have heard "that's my boy.

" I think the feeling that is usually conveyed by this expression is one of boastfullness.

Is that the sprachgefühl you were going for?

By the way, sprachgefühl is a very cool word--

thanks for introducing it to me.

I'm going to have to integrate it into my lexicon.

I think it worth mentioning that this particular idiom is paralleled, at my guess is preceeded by, " attaboy ".

This, in turn is from Titus Andronicus saying, "That's my boy" as a reference to his son.

In that context, it would probably be more accurate to say that the plural is " that's my boys."

That said, the common modern (American?)

plural is either "

Those're my boys!"

or "Them's my [or me] boys".

Strictly speaking, though, when you move from singular to plural, the original would have been, "that's my boys" or perhaps, "there're my boys".

Again, though, in SAE, "Those're my boys!" is a perfectly acceptable plural.

If you're telling someone that the young men in question are your children, then "Those are my boys" sounds right to my Midwestern ear.

If you're telling someone that you are proud of the achievement(s)

or accomplishment(s)

of these young men

then "That's my boys!

" would sound right.

If addressing the young men directly, though, I'd probably use "Good job, boys!".

ell.stackexchange.com/users/4943/Bob Jarvis - Reinstate Monica

"That's my boy!

is an expression probably loved as much at the boy himself.

Learn it, love it and keep it in your armoury of English idioms to be used at some precious moment.

You modify these things at your peril.

So the answer is "no".

Alas, there is no a plural of this phrase that preserves the sprachgefühl.

-But

I bet some of the smart people on Stack Exchange can come up with something you mean -but using entirely different words.

Question: Is there a plural of this phrase that preserves the  sprachgefühl ?  The obvious "those are my boys" somehow doesn't feel right.

Plural of "that's my boy"

You can say 'that's my boys' or 'them's my boys'.


The "into" says something about the path the rocket took. "

At" only says something about how they were aiming.

"in" would not be appropriate, since that would imply that Russia fired the rocket from Ukraine.

"at" would not be appropriate, because they weren't aiming at Ukraine: they were aiming at some more specific target within Ukraine.

To hit that target, the rocket must go into Ukraine.

The article is emphasizing how Russia crossed the border with their rocket.

(Of course these accusations are at the moment not proven, but this is about English, not politics or news.)

Firing a missile at something would mean that I am firing at a target .

Unless Russia is firing very powerful nuclear weapons, it would be strange to think that it is aiming at "Ukraine" as its target.

It would be hard to miss, but it would certainly not be a big feat either.

In this case, what is meant is that Russia fired missiles at targets that are somewhere inside Ukraine.

The wording is chosen to emphasize the fact that Russia did not move into Ukraine to fire, but that they are firing from within Russia to a target within Ukraine.

Obviously, the actual targets are either unknown or deemed unimportant to be mentioned in the headline: the main message is not that some target was fired at, but that a country that denies all military involvement in this conflict is now said to have fired missiles that crossed the border of what is internationally still regarded as an autonomous country.

Not at all a poor use of a preposition.

Perhaps it's somewhat idiomatic, but into is a commonly-used preposition when talking about rockets and missles, whether those are being fired into space, into the ocean, or into enemy territory.

Commercial and military satellites are frequently fired by rockets into orbit Source: Peter P. Wegener,

What Makes Airplanes Fly?:

History, Science, and Applications of Aerodynamics , 1997

We build huge bridges and concrete dams and send mammoth rockets into space Source:

E.J. Hearn, Mechanics of Materials Volume 1 , 1997 Von Braun recognized that shooting rockets into the heavens could arouse fear and religious anxiety Source: James Gilbert, Redeeming Culture: American Religion in an Age of Science , 1997

Four Turkish F-100 fighter planes buzzed concentrations of National Guardsmen and fired rockets into the sea Source: Andrew Faulds, 1988 Lebanese terrorist groups lobbed rockets into Israel's northern settlements and tried to penetrate the border Source:

Ira Sharkansky, Policy Making in Israel: Routines for Simple Problems and Coping with the Complex , 1997 Against von Braun's fervent hope that this would not happen, German military forces launched more than thirteen hundred V-2s at targets in England, and more than sixteen hundred V-2s into Belgium and France Source: Stuhlinger & Ordway, Wernher von Braun, Crusader for Space , 1994 The preposition at is common when specifying a particular target, but into is frequently used to indicate that a missile or rocket landed inside a particular region or country.

"Russia fired rockets at Ukraine"

The missiles went from Russia in the direction of Ukraine, but they did not necessarily get as far as Ukraine.

People would read this to mean that they did not in fact reach Ukraine, since otherwise they would have used a different preposition to make it clear that the missile had reached the Ukraine, which makes a more shocking headline.

"Russia fired rockets in Ukraine" Someone associated with Russia, perhaps Russian soldiers, while inside Ukraine's borders, fired a rocket.

"Russia fired rockets into Ukraine" Missiles were fired from Russia, and the missile did end up inside Ukraine's borders.

You are quite right that logically you would fire at Ukraine since Russia aimed to attack Ukraine, however, being English myself I know that this is actually valid and correct English (to say "into").

It is more of a local quirk (I am currently studying Arabic where I have to compare quirks between my own language and theirs) within the English language; that when talking about vast areas/entities like this, i.e. regions/countries (Ukraine being a region and an entity), you are more likely to say "into", irrespective of what armament was used.

However if you were talking about something smaller and more specific, say, a plane then "at" should be used.

Another example of specifics would be "firing at Ukrainian soldiers" which of course the quote you see in the title later refers to

(I read the story earlier today).

This seems fine in American 4th grade.

However, ' and ' seem to imply that someone may have stated this phrase in other press.

Are there any cited names listed in the rest of the article other than the reporter?

Being on that mobile os is that your cache and/or news results may be poisoned by another running app.

I've seen this before on android.

Question: A headline from a BBC News app on my mobile reads:   Russia 'fired rockets  into  Ukraine'   I could not find this on the BBC website, but it shows on my cellphone.      Why  into?  You fire  at  someone/something. Maybe  into  refers to somewhere  inside  Ukraine but it looks a poor use of the preposition.   Correct me, please.

Russia 'Fired Rockets INTO Ukraine' - BBC

You are quite right that logically you would fire at Ukraine since Russia aimed to attack Ukraine. "Into" refers to the path the rocket took. "At" refers to how they were aiming.  However, in this case, it means that Russia fired missiles at targets that are somewhere inside  Ukraine.

Inside' refers to the rocket's path, 'at' refers to how it was aimed.


You could also use aiming .

Here's the HTML

we're aiming to generate.

"Here's the HTML we would like to generate.

" "Shooting" in this case means "trying" (i.e. if you shoot at a target, your are trying to hit it, but you may not).

By "shooting" for a goal, you are trying to reach it, but are not certain you will ("I'm shooting to leave here by 4:30, but the boss may ask me to stay late.").

In this case, there may be some reason the person believes that the goal may not be accomplished.

Or they are just using poor phrasing to mean "This is the HTML we are expecting to generate".

In the case the meaning is "Intending" I wouldn't use "shooting" in this case.

"Here's the HTML we're intending to generate.

" would sound better.

It's a malformation of the apparently American Idiom: "shooting for" .

I've never heard it phrased that way, but I have heard "shooting for" in Canada and the western US.

I am a native speaker from the UK with a lot of exposure to US English (work in IT) and I have never heard this expression before.

I would guess it is either a typo or a slip of the tongue.

The person could have English as a second language and 'shooting' in his/her language could be a standard phrase.

I have experienced that a lot in my time I Germany.

German phrases will be translated directly into English and used as if it were the Queen's English ;-)

As another poster suggested, 'aiming' might be a better word but 'shooting' conveys a different meaning

and I could only guess what was really meant.

It could be that 'shooting' sounds better than just 'aiming' - more pro-active!

See comments below

Here's the HTML

we're planning to generate...

To be strictly pedantic/semantic, aiming and shooting are two different things.

Aiming is only targeting, shooting is targeting and pulling the trigger.

In the context of the tutorial, the author is not only aiming or intending, he's actually trying to help the reader make the attempt.

There are actually two cliches in the that paragraph ("rubber meets the road" and "shooting to ...

The author adds cliches elsewhere, like "I know this isn't rocket science" and while I admit, it does make for interesting reading, in the end, to be clear in a tutorial, cliches are probably best replaced with concise instruction, especially if the target audience is not all from the same cultural background.

Shooting (other than indescriminate) requires that you are aiming at something

and that's exactly what the phrase means and can also be said in English

- You're aiming to generate the HTML.

In this case aiming

Question: I don't know what "shooting" means in this sentence:   This is where the rubber meets the road. Let's start by building a page that just spits out our DB entries in a mildly pretty form. Here's the HTML we 're shooting to  generate:  (Code snippet follows)   Could anybody enlighten me?  I met the sentence above in this  tutorial  and I think "intending", "aiming" and "would like to" are all good replacement in that context.

The meaning of "shooting" in this sentence "Here's the HTML we're shooting to generate"

In this context, "shooting" means "aiming" or intending", as in the American idiom of "shooting for".

Aiming and shooting are different things. This is a malformed idiom. You can instead say 'aiming' or 'intending'.

You can say 'aiming' or 'intending' instead.


You are going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight, aren't you ?

They are called question tags and are generally used with declarative questions.

I've been told by native speakers not to use it the way I used to and the way you think!

In India, the commonest way to make a question tag is to add no!

You like it, no ?

-This is incorrect.

Now, You like it, right?

may be okay but

not a proper way to form a question tag .

The proper way to form it is...

You like it, don't you?

OR You don't like it, do you?

Your example, as stated by user3169 You are going tomorrow on [sic] the 1130 flight, aren't you?

Good read is here on About.com.

Are you going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight?

Is it that you are going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight?

If you won't mind telling me, are you going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight?

I tend to use 'correct' instead of right.

It's is still used at the end of the sentence, but sounds a little more refined.

Your flight is at 11:30, correct?

Here are some options:

You're going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight, right?

You're going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight, is that right?

You're going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight, correct?

You're going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight, aren’t you?

Here are a couple subtleties: Phrasing the last question in the negative

indicates that you expect a positive answer (confirmation).

That is, “aren’t you?”

implies that you expect that the person is going on the 11:30 flight.

However, this doesn’t apply to questions that are just forms of “right?”.

In

“Is that right?”

, stress indicates whether you expect a positive or negative answer.

“Is that right ?”

indicates that you expect a positive answer.

“Is that right?” and “Is that right ?”

indicate surprise or doubt.

You're going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight, yes?

This works, but can make you sound like a foreigner: You're going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight,

no?

Here are some more options, which might be perceived as more formal or in some way accusing or challenging the other person, though they can also be used neutrally, depending on your intonation.

(Even the very typical options above can be made to sound challenging with the right intonation.)

You're going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight, is that not right?

You're going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight, is that not correct?

You're going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight, is that so?

You're going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight, is that

not so?

You're going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight, are you?

You're going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight, true?

You're going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight, is that not true?

You're going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight, is this right?

You're going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight, is this not right?

You're going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight, is this so?

You're going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight, is this not so?

And here are some other ways to ask for expected confirmation, which are familiar and commonplace but convey a distinctive emotional attitude toward the expectation:

You're not going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight, are you?

You're really going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight?

Are you really going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight?

You're going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight— are you kidding?

You're going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight— are you joking?

You're going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight— are you serious?

To get a feeling for how all the various alternative forms affect the tone, you’ll just have to notice the contexts and intonation when people use them.

If you're a beginner and want to play it completely safe, just use the four at the top of this message.

Notice that “that” is the most ordinary way to refer to the proposition.

“This” also refers to the proposition but sounds formal.

However, “it” would normally refer to something else, and it sounds clumsy or mistaken to use it to refer to the proposition in question

(“You’re going on the 11:30 flight, is it right?”), at least in American English.

It came to my attention that you are going on the 11:30 flight tomorrow.

Could you please confirm that?

or I heard that you are going on the 11:30 flight tomorrow.

It better be true!

Question: What are some alternative ways of  confirming  a point, situation, etc. apart from saying “…, right?” at the end of a sentence to make it a question? (e.g. You are going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight, right?)  What are some good similar ways to ask the same question  (in a way that we are confirming our point and it is not all unknown to us)

Alternative ways of saying "...., right?"

"Correct?" can be used instead of "right?". "Aren't you?" or "Don't you" can be used. For example: "You like it, don't you?", or "You are going tomorrow on the 11:30 flight,  aren't you?"

Don't you' and 'aren't you' work well. You can also use 'correct?'.

Don't you' and 'aren't you' work well.
Correct can be used instead of right.


The question needs more clarity.

Also, it's one of my colleagues .

We use plural after one of X. To me, it seems that you know that he's single but asking him the experience of marriage and not the status .

Especially your words any marriage experience!

This brings up the probability of asking whether the answerer has married at least once in his lifetime. :)

Are you married - you are asking the status and probable answer (in that single case), could be No

, I'm not.

I also agree with Lascivious Grace that No, I'm divorced works

but then you want to ask the experience of being ever married in past.

I'd ask... Have you ever been married?

And the answer could be, No, not yet!

Or

Yes, once

but I'm divorced.

This is just my opinion though.

Natives might have something in their bags. :)

Your first sentence isn't a common construction.

The only way I'd say "

Did you X before?

" is when the order of events is part of the question:

"I went for a run" "Did you stretch before [that]?

" (or more likely "Did you stretch beforehand?" or "Did you stretch first?")

So choosing between your two questions

I choose the second, but that's because the first is pretty much wrong.

You should be choosing between "Did you ever get married?" and "Have you ever been married?".

The former gives the impression that you're asking about the process of getting married (i.e. weddings) and the latter gives the impression that you're asking about married life.

So although the answer to either question is the same, you might want to signal which one you're interested in, to help move the conversation along.

The correct thing to ask here would be Have you ever been married?

Judging from the question, you seem to know for sure that the person is currently single, hence this sentence.

"To get married" is the action of going through the actual wedding ceremony.

If you ask, "Did you get married before?

" it sounds to me like an incomplete sentence, because you are asking if the wedding took place before an event, such as, "Did you get married before the holiday?"

However "to be married" is the state of being married, not the action of the wedding, so I think what you want to ask is "Have you been married before", as you proposed, or "Have you ever been married", as others have suggested.

I sometimes find it easier to sort this out by checking in the present tense.

Directly converting your two options, you get Do you get married? and Are you married?

#2 clearly makes more sense here, so "have you been married before" should work better as well.

"Have you ever been married" works well too, though the two behave slightly differently: "ever" | "before" |-------+----------+------------------------------------------------ TRUE | FALSE | Currently married, never been married before TRUE |

TRUE | Married to someone in the past, and currently married to another TRUE | TRUE | Married to someone in the past, not currently married FALSE | FALSE | Never been married

You'll note that someone who is currently married for their first time would respond that they've never been married before, while if you ask if they've EVER been married, they'd probably say yes (because "ever" includes the present tense... though depending on context someone might assume you're asking about their past -- for example, if you know they're currently married they could assume you're not counting their current marriage).

Question: One of my colleague is single. I want to know does he have any "marriage" experience. Should I say:   Did you get married before?   or   Have you been married before?

Did you get married before

The correct thing to ask here would be  Have you ever been married?

It would be correct to ask if they have ever been married.


In this case you are talking about the option you choose in a game.

You could read the sentence as The option scissors cuts the option paper or, abbreviated, Scissors cuts paper

So while "scissors" is plural and you would always say "scissors cut paper", in this case the word refers to an option within the game (singular) rather then the actual item.

Compare with "scissors are better than .....

" if you are a fan of sharp metal things, but if you are talking about the game you'd get "(the choice of) scissors IS better than ..."

The reference is to the US tv show 'The Big Bang Theory', and to one of its main characters Dr Sheldon Cooper.

He speaks excellent if highly idiosyncratic English.

I listened carefully to a video and he does say 'cuts'.

While grammatically 'scissors cut paper' is correct, explanations on the internet of the standard game 'rock-paper-scissors' and the Big Bang Theory game 'rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock' (which Sheldon attributes to 'the internet pioneer Sam Kass') vary between 'scissors cut paper' and 'scissors cuts paper'.

Possibly the use of 'cuts' is influenced by the fact that all the other choices in the game are singular, and therefore use 'cuts' eg 'paper covers rock'.

A few words, though singular in nature, are made of paired items and generally treated as plural: scissors, pants, trousers, glasses, pliers, tongs, tweezers, and the like.

Many are often used with the word pair as in pair of pants or pair of scissors.

(Tricky Plurals)

So the correct version in your case would be "scissors cut paper".

I think, the reason for confusion is: scissors cut paper, whereas, a pair of scissors cuts paper.

I agree with Esoteric.

In the game "scissors" is a choice in the game - a title, if you will.

So, you might say "the choice of scissors" cuts the choice of paper.

"Choice" is singular, so you use "cuts" Maybe more clear if you enclose scissors in quotes, as such:"Scissors" cuts "paper."

If you are talking about the tool made up of 2 scissors, you would say "scissors cut paper" because "scissors" is plural.

I know this because I never say "This scissors is sharp.

" I always say "These scissors are sharp."

So the tool is made up of two things, two scissors, and they cut.

They don't cuts.

I have seen the same question come up with bands such as "The Ramones" and "The Replacements" and "The Bare Naked Ladies" The Ramones rock !

Or "The Ramones" rocks !

Depends on if you are talking about a singular band called "The Ramones" or multiple Ramones.

Multiple Ramones definitely rock.

But the band called "The Ramones" rocks.

SoThe Ramones rock.

But"The Ramones" rocks.

There is no doubt, however about The Cure, which is a singular name.

With or without quotes, The Cure sucks.

I think the correct point in this is that scissors do cut paper.

But when describing the action happening now a way of saying scissors are cutting the paper is 'scissors cuts paper'.

When you play the game and scissor and paper comes up then then the scissors cuts (the) paper.

Question: First I'd apologize for I can't describe it clearly.I've heard that "scissors cut paper" is correct, but I found Sheldon said "scissors cuts paper" in  The Big Bang Theory .Which is correct, or both of them?

scissors cut/cuts paper, which is correct?

The correct version in your case would be "scissors cut paper". In the game, "scissors" is a choice, so you could read the sentence as  "the scissors option cuts the paper option" - hence  "scissors cuts paper ". Another source of confusion may be that scissors cut paper,  whereas  a pair of scissors cuts paper.


Fast food is served at a fast food restaurant, such as Mcdonalds, &c; while junk food a specific type of food such as chips, pop, &c. Obviously, junk food could be served as fast food.

Essentially, the adjective: "fast" modifies the noun "food" in describing how long it takes the consumer to get the food ready to be eaten, that is the food will be ready very soon.

The adjective: "junk" describes the quality and nutritional value of the food.

Here "junk" is considered as that which is not usable, i.e. garbage.

Therefore to answer your question, different aspects of the food are being described. preparation time quality

Fast food refers to the assembly process.

Usually, fast food is obtained at a restaurant, where the entire restaurant is designed to get customers their food in matter of a few minutes.

The classic example is the McDonald's hamburger.

Junk food refers to the food's nutritional value.

Junk food is typically processed, containing high amounts of sodium, calories, and/or fat, with little nutritional value, such as bag of Doritos chips, or a candy bar.

There is some overlap between the two terms.

If a hamburger is put together at a fast food restaurant using, say, 70% lean beef, a lot of salt, and a cheap bun made from bleached flour, that burger could be regarded as both fast food and junk food.

However, not all fast food is junk food, and not all junk food is fast food.

Many fast food restaurants, responding to criticism about health concerns and obesity issues, have put healthier choices on their menus in recent years.

A related term is convenience food , which is not generally sold in restaurants, but in supermarkets.

It's designed to be easily prepared or consumed.

Again, there's a lot of overlap between junk food and convenience food, but the two are not necessarily synonymous.

For example, baby carrots that are sold prepeeled and prewashed could be considered a convenience food, but they wouldn't be considered junk food.

They may refer to the same thing, but I think the distinction is that fast food refers to the way the food is prepared/served, whereas junk food refers to the kind of food.

Fast food was introduced as opposed to traditionally cooked (slow) food: instead of someone preparing a large quantity of food in advance before serving it to people, or people ordering a meal and having to wait for the whole meal to be prepared in a traditional way, fast food was prepared in a quick way (all the ingredients being ready at hand and the classic burger being fried the moment you ordered it.

Junk food can be prepared as fast food , but it simply means food that is not adding any really healthy nutrients to one's diet.

So I could very well prepare “slow” junk food.

Fast food may be thought of as convenience food .

It is quick.

It can be, but is not always, junk food .

Junk food is food that is not nutritionally-dense, or, put another way, is calorie-dense for the nutrient content.

The confusion comes thus: these terms are sometimes used as synonyms, while they are not.

This is because there is not complete overlap between the two sets: the set of fast food can include a quick green leafy salad with a light oil-and-vinegar home-made dressing, while the set of junk food does not contain the same salad.

Expanded in full, with respect to these two sets:

There are foods that are only fast food: a quick salad made with dark-green vegetables; There are foods that are only junk food: a corn-starch custard topped with meringue; And there are foods that are both: a store-bought hamburger topped with wilted, nearly-white lettuce; Finally, there are foods that are neither: a duck confit served with a side-salad topped with candied walnuts.

Therefore, we see that these two terms do not describe the same item , although they are mistakenly often used as synonyms.

A freshly made salad from top quality in season locally produced products can be fast food served in less than 5 minutes.

Junk food is food that people “look down” on, e.g. it has lots of fat, or is low quality etc.

It is often but not always served quickly.

So you can have a “take a way” that takes 1 hour to arrive, but is just a ready made source added to cheap cuts of meat, cooked badly in lots of fat.

Question: What is the difference between "fast food" and "junk food"?  Are they the same or not?  "Are they used in the same way?"

Difference between "fast food" and "junk food"

They may refer to the same thing, but a distinction is that  fast food  refers to the way the food is prepared/served, whereas  junk food  refers to the  kind  of food. Fast food  is obtained at a restaurant, such as McDonald's, where the entire restaurant is designed to get customers their food in matter of a few minutes. Junk food describes the quality and nutritional value of the food. Junk food is  typically processed, low quality and  not nutritionally dense.

Fast food refers to the assembly process in restaurants. Junk food can also be fast food, it refers to food's low nutritional value.

Junk food refers to food's low nutritional value. It can also be fast food.


In colloquial spoken language some people use me neither in place of

neither do I. A-

I don't like getting up in the morning.

B-

Neither do I. /Me

neither.

In the US some people will also use me either in that case: A-

I don't like getting up in the morning.

B- Me either.

But this is very informal and not to be used in a learning environment where I would stick to

neither do I .

You could find "me either" used in a sequence in a sentence like: A-

This does not seem very clear.

B-

It doesn't seem clear to me either.

To answer subsidiary question asked in comment about the pronunciation of either and neither: The letters [ei] in both words can either be pronounced /aɪ/ or /i/ .

And to my knowledge this is not a UK vs US difference, although I think /i/ is more frequent in the US, /ˈaɪðə/ and /ˈnaɪðə/ can both be heard in the UK.

The question was asked a few years ago on ELU with lots of detailed answers.

As stated in the other answers, “Me neither” can be used instead of “

Neither do I” or “Nor I”.

It's the equivalent of “Me too” or “So do I”, but used after a negative sentence.

It's used to change the subject of a sentence to the speaker.

In most cases, “Me either” isn't a phrase in its own right.

Usually, the two words are separated by a comma or pause.

“either” works like “also” and “too”, but again is used with negative sentences.

It's a discursive marker.

“Me neither” can also be considered equivalent to “I don't, either”.

Here are some examples: A: I don't like her.

B:

Me neither. and A

: She doesn't like me.

B

: She doesn't like me, either.

If B says “Me neither.”

in the last example, they are at risk of sounding as if they are saying “I don't like you, either.”.

Probably, the sentences that use “I” to replace the subject (“neither do I”, “I don't either”) are safer to use for an English learner than those that use “me” to replace the subject (“me neither”).

The opposite rule goes for replacing the object.

Either and neither are very similar and very different at the same time.

Either and neither both give option between two choices (ie.

I can take either this cookie or that cookie.

Neither of the cookies look tasty).

The big difference is that neither is the negative form of either .

Where either is inclusive, neither is exclusive.

Imagine it like this

(I will borrow from one of the other comments for the examples):

A-

I don't like getting up in the morning.

B-

Neither do I. /Me

neither.

In this case the statement is negative for the narrative (No I don't like getting up in the morning).

Additionally you can look at it as exclusive.

You are excluding yourself from the group of people who like getting up in the morning.

A-

I don't like getting up in the morning.

B- Me either.

In this case me either is colloquially correct but technically wrong because the statement is negative A-

This does not seem very clear.

B-

It doesn't seem clear to me either.

Statement A here is positive because you can agree (yes, it does seem to be not clear)

In this case either is correct because you are including yourself in the people who think "this" does not seem very clear.

There's not a huge difference – they both mean about the same thing and can be used interchangeably in most circumstances.

A look at the Google Ngram results for them

I think shows that their history is closely tied together between they pretty much mean the same thing.

While usage varies between speakers and regions, of course, generally if the statement being agreed with is a response to a question or request, me

neither is used: Question: Terry:

Would you like coke or pepsi?

Alex: Neither, thank you.

Kris:

Me neither.

However, if the response is in agreement to a negative statement, then me either is more common, generally.

Negative statement: Terry: I didn't like the movie last night.

Alex: Me either.

I am English and prefer to say "me neither" because it is much more logical than me either.

The N in neither indicates "No".

I think it sounds better

but this is what I have been used to living in England for 57 years.

The response "Me either" seems incorrect to me.

It's makes no sense as a negative response.

For example, in this scenario: Terry: Would you like coke or pepsi?

Alex:

Neither, thanks.

Kris: Me either.

If I were Terry I would be serving Kris either a coke or pepsi before they could say anything about it!

"Me either" should be slapped out of someone's mouth, if using the same way as "me neither".

It may be more common in some places than in others, but that doesn't make it correct, OR acceptable!

The comma example would be an acceptable exception; even though it would still sound weird.

I.E. "Would you like a Coke or a Pepsi?

" "Me, either.

" Still seems it should be separated into "Me?

Either."

I have learned that you should use "either" when there is already a negation in sentence.

E.g. "I don’t like it either.

" Don’t is a negation so either would be used.

On the other hand if I want to say a shorter version. "... me neither.

" You convey negation with the word "neither" as there are no other elements in your sentence with the negation of your statement.

That is the one simple and logic explanation in grammar that always stuck to me.

Question: I want to know the difference between "me neither" and "me either", are both correct?

What is the difference between "me neither" and "me either"?

English people would say "me neither" because it is much more logical than me either.  It is said that you should use "either" when there is already a negation in sentence. The big difference is that  neither  is the negative form of  either . Some people consider them to be interchangeble. Others beleve that "me either" is simply wrong.

Me either' is incorrect and can only be used in this way when there is already negation. It's best to use 'me neither'.

Me neither' is more appropriate even though the meanings are similar.