For some languages, there are academies that decide topics such as grammar and spelling of things, for example, for the Spanish language, there are 22 academies in 22 different countries, all making decisions on spanish grammar in their country. I would like to know if there is something that serves the same purpose for the English language.
78003
Some languages have a "regulatory body" issuing recommendations and guidelines regarding the use of that language.  For example in the case of Spanish it's the  whose status is recognised in all Spanish-speaking countries. The Academy, among other things, publishes a dictionary (""), in print and , which is usually given a lot of prestige (but is not without , of course).  Are there any such authorative—or at least influential—institution(s) or publication(s) for the English language?
37850
Is there a reason behind the ordering of letters in the English alphabet? i.e. why are we taught “A,B,C,D,E,F,...,Z”? Why not “L,A,S,U,I,Z,...,C”?  I am asking this because, in some of the languages I know, I am told that the ordering of the letters in the alphabet is based on the ease with which they can be pronounced or the frequency with which they are used or depending on the part of the vocal cord that needs to be stressed to pronounce the letter.  Is there a similar rationale?  EDIT  You can see a couple of references for arrangement of letters in Sanskrit  and .
92694
Are there other schools for witches and wizards in the rest of the world? In the books they only speak of 3 schools, but what about Asian or American people?  And even more, were they affected by the events happening in Europe?
98496
First of all, English is not my first language. I have a question, maybe a basic one, about this phrase:     The situation highlights the mismatch between some areas of training and available jobs to/for them.   Should it be "available jobs to them" or "available jobs for them"?  Sorry if the question is really basic.
3672
If you're interested in grammar, as I am, I am sure you have delved into a thought process about infinitive to, and like me, you have probably questioned what it is, or what it could be defined as. My mind always wants to place it in the Eight Parts of Speech, and I know this is foolish of me to some regard, so I stray from it, but I still wish to designate it under something that can be explain it. So, this is the motivation for this post, this question: What is the infinitive to, and why?  Here are my thoughts: There are three real possibilities, going back through the times. First, we can say that it is part of the verb that comes after it (to go, to run, etc.). This could be supported by the claim that you are not supposed to "split" infinitives ("To boldly go"), but only that.   Secondly, we could consider it a subordinator. I came across this designation most recently in my studies of modern and transformational grammar. As of right now, it is still the one I accept, especially as a result of the trend of designating more phrases as clauses. It works, except it's weird. Do we call this a unique subordinator as a result of how it operates? For example, to-infinitive clauses call for non-finite verb forms, which typically have an implied subject as a part of their clause. For example, "I want to go to the store." In the infinitive clause, "I" is the implied subject, as a understand. So, again, this works. However, things get a little weird when other subordinators come into play. For example, "I'm excited for you to win the competition." Now, if I'm right, those of you will say that "for" is a preposition here, as a result of the new-grammar stuff, but I'm going to count it as a subordinator, as defined by my own beliefs and that of a lot of other grammars. So, how do the clauses work in such a sentence? According to transformational grammar, "for you to win the competition" is defined as an ordinary clause. So, does that mean that it also contains a secondary clause within itself (the infinitive clause part)? If so, how do those two clauses work in conjunction to each other when one is so integrated? "For you to win the competition" looks to just be one clause, but if that's the case, doesn't "to" have to represent something else?  This moves us on to the third way to look at things, which is to consider "to" as auxiliary verb, a defective one at that. There are a lot of things to support this, and it even allows for the split infinitive. Furthermore, it calls for a non-finite verb form to follow, like an auxiliary. But, as I said before, it's defective in the way that is all it can function as.  As I said, I still accept to as a subordinator, but I want to be proven wrong or right. Wrong by showing evidence of it being something else, or right by showing how clauses operate when it seems to be layered up.
92213
English has a lot of pangrams, which are short sentences that use every letter of the alphabet at least once.  has several examples. But is there a similar thing that is designed to use (almost) every phoneme of the English language?  I know it would be nearly impossible to come up with something that uses all of them (and it is mostly likely going to be a paragraph, and not a sentence, given the amount of phonemes), but still, my question remains: is there such a thing? (And what is it called?)
49944
Besides , which are the  that can be found in English? Are there any that are peculiar to dialects such as Singlish or Indian English? Please provide an example sentence for each order along with pertinent information such as tense, mood, voice, etc.
7939
I have a question about the following construction and which instance is correct.        Selecting an appropriate study topic(s).   Selecting appropriate study topic(s).      When it is both singular and plural due to the parenthesized optional part, should I use the an because of thinking of what follows as being the singular (that is, study topic)?  Or should I omit the an because of thinking of what of what follows as being in the plural (that is, study topics)?
9787
I have been taught that it's grammatically proper to use the before countries like "Sudan and Yemen" but I was never given a reason (if there exists any, of course) when I asked why, except for "it is one of those ambiguous parts of English language that we &ndash; as non-native speakers &ndash; should just accept without trying to look for a reason". Now, I'd like to know if there is any answer to this "why" or I should keep on believing that there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to questions like these.
59429
Last week in college, a student [with a thick South Asian accent] asked me:     "Excuse me, where can I find the room 401?".   I realized that to my native English ears, the word "the" sounded non-native. This had me realize that we sometimes use no article.  I am learning French; in French, we seem to always use some kind of article before nouns. It surprised me, at that moment, to realize that English doesn't always do the same! (That, and using the definite article in "the room 401" seems to make sense if I think about when definite articles are used).  Is there a grammatical name or concept for this "no article" aspect of our language? Are there any websites that can explain this to me?
76538
In many languages, including English, the most important verbs are irregular. Examples include:   to be  to do  to get  to go  to have  to make   The same applies (roughly) to many other languages I know about (Dutch, German, French, Spanish, Swedish) and presumably to many other languages too.  Is there any reason why these everyday verbs tend to be irregular?
102785
There is a question in our grammar book that goes like this:  Her husband, a plumber's assistant, earns only 300 dollars a month, which makes it very difficult for her to feed and clothe her children properly, ______________ send them to school. a. much more b. still more c. much less d. even less  The book says that the answer is C. How do i explain it in the clearest way possible to my student? She is an intermediate level.
21049
I'd like to understand the logic behind uncountable nouns, such as "water", "meat" and others, specially "bread", for example.  I don't understand why can't we count them, since there are different kinds of water (e.g.: still, tap, sparkling, etc.), meat (e.g: beef, pork, etc.) and bread (baguette, bun, etc.).  Sorry if my question seems silly, but I'm not a native speaker.
21938
Is there any alternative to this construction?      It was too stupid a question.    I mean, can we somehow put the 'a' in a different position and is it used in English (maybe informal) or the version I've given is the only possible?  Also, I feel as if something's wrong in my previous sentence, it would be very nice if anybody corrected it.
115065
In Mexico we use word "bloqe" to refer a set of subjects to give titles to teachers. We need electronic signatures and business cards for them and we're not sure what word to use. As the Direction is very conservative, decided not to use "set of subjects" and prefer to use only one word which refers to that.
577
Non-na­tive speak­ers of­ten get con­fused about what the var­i­ous tens­es  and as­pects mean in English. With in­put from some of the folk here I've put to­geth­er a di­a­gram that I hope will pro­vide some clar­i­ty on the mat­ter.  I of­fer it as the first an­swer to this ques­tion. Con­sid­er it a liv­ing doc­u­ment. In­put is wel­come, and good sug­ges­tions will be  in­cor­po­rat­ed in­to the di­a­gram.    No­ta bene: What this is not is a dis­cus­sion of whether there are  more than two tens­es in English. , to which this ques­tion is not in­tend­ed to sup­ply ar­gu­ments one way or the oth­er.  Here, the aim is to pro­vide an overview of what con­struc­tions English-speak­ing peo­ple use for con­vey­ing in­for­ma­tion about ac­tions re­fer­ring to past, present, and fu­ture, and to pro­vide it first and fore­most to pre­cise­ly the peo­ple who are like­ly to use "tense" as a catch-all term in their search, rather than to lin­guists who know bet­ter.  Break­ing News There is now an ex­cel­lent ELU blog ar­ti­cle ti­tled  . It is high­ly rec­om­mend­ed read­ing.
12541
I thought I heard my teacher said: 'Don't construct a sentence without a verb.'  Is there such rule in english grammar?     She looks like 70 years old. Perhaps older.   How about the question above? Is it correct? Is there any book that can be used references for wide range of topics in grammar(including syntax, morphology et cetera)? I have finished oxford grammar in use recently and think it wasn't enough for me.