I'm intrigued by the good doctor's line in analogical inference: A woolly bear is not a bear, a ladyfinger is not a finger, and a ladybird is not a bird, as we have noted previously in this blog. By the same token, alright is not the same

You have misread the post: I doubt whether "off of" is a "double preposition". I would take the "off" as adverbial. i.e. "I would take the 'off' in 'off of' as adverbial". Elsewhere, "off" can be a preposition (e.g. "off the

Absolutely right, Rocky. Your answer is spot on. All the best, MrP

Hello J., In British English, you would say: 1. She was admitted to hospital yesterday. MrP

We have seen some complaints posted by some members in some forums regarding our website layout and simplicity. Remember, we are just genius traders , not webmasters, and we are always dedicating our time in trading to satisfy our members and to

1. Only dead fish go with the flow. Or live fish; e.g. Atlantic salmon, when they migrate to the sea. MrP

Surely one knows something is Standard English because some authority has told them it's so. I doubt that it's such a pedestrian and conscious process, for most native speakers. It might be true to say that you know that something is

Allied military planners of the Second World War were not much given to flamboyant apocalyptic doomsaying. If they could have got away with calling it Plan WQ/675a(ii), they would have done so. MrP

What are we going to teach them if we do not teach them Standard English? Yes; and to some extent, standard English could be defined as the form of English non-natives learn. Another consideration is consistency. If a native speaker

1. He or I is/am/are to go. "Am" and "is" still sound odd to me; which only leaves "are". That sounds odd too, but not as odd as "am" or "is". My choice isn't popular with writers on grammar; in texts from Murray's 1795 Grammar to