I can't see a difference in meaning between the two sentences either, and the second one does sound a bit weird, as in syntax that you wouldn't normally hear.

An interesting book (although by no means a complete reference) on this topic is 'Speak, a short history of languages', by Tore Janson.

"This program doesn't seem to slow down neither my computer nor my downloads." Is this correct, or should neither/nor be used instead? And how about this one: "This program doesn't seem to either slow down my computer or make my downloads

In Greece, this phrase (in greek, of course) is nowadays used as a saying or proverb, when something bad is going to happen to someone. For example, if I'm looking for someone to, say, beat him up, people could ask themselves 'for whom the bell

Check also my post here ! The 'Maple Leafs' is indeed a proper name, and as such it has lost all connections with the real thing we like to call a maple leaf, semantically at least. When such words are 'reset' and become proper names, or

Everywhere I've seen it, they call them 'mice', as I believe is the correct form. 'Walkman' is a complex word that means something entirely different than its constituent words, i.e. it does not refer to a man who is walking. In this case,

Don't you use 'hairs' when you want to refer to hair strands as individual objects in a group, as opposed to the whole of someone's hair? As in 'I have split hairs'.

On the contrary, comedy brings out the wittiest of wordplays! Anyway, the sentence is correct; if you want to substitute 'none' for 'all', you will also have to change 'ever' with 'never', so as to keep the meaning the same (keep one negation

I think it would be up to the writer and their definition of what a single purpose is. If you see 'educate and entertain' as a single unified goal, you can say 'the main purpose'. I think it's a pretty liberal decision in this case, rather than

I think the sentence 'He can't wear anything' as it is, confers the first meaning of 'He can wear nothing.' It's a simple negation and the two sentences are totally equivalent as far as semantics is concerned. If you want to confer the second