In a formal academic writing (in the everyday sense), is it appropriate to use phrases such as "step out on" to titillate the reader?   Since I am not a native English speaker, and since I have not yet accurately catched the general range of humor in the US, I wonder if using such phrases would be instead considered as a disrespect?
3245
I was reading  titled "Optimal Symmetric Rendezvous Search on Three Locations." While talking about the history of search problems, the author mentions the following anecdote in passing.     In 2007 a letter writer to the Guardian newspaper queried, “I lost my wife in the crowd at Glastonbury (a music festival). What is the best strategy for finding her?” A reader replied, “Start talking to an attractive woman. Your wife   will reappear almost immediately.”   While I found it quite amusing to read this, I do not often come across papers with such witticisms. Is there an unwritten rule about the tone of sobriety that is considered appropriate in academic papers? Are jokes or anecdotes fine as long as they do not appear forced?
24856
My non-native English speaking friend just asked me: "Data is..." or "Data are..."?  I said both but that's because I've been desensitized from reading/writing both (especially from writing code and adding quick comments).  My question: Is it acceptable to utilize either for a university paper? Or is one safer than the other (when confronted with stickler professors)?    Related questions:
5566
I often write what "sounds" right (being not a native English speaker/writer), and I believe the expression "that being said" to be fairly common, as opposed to a more complete form like "that's been said" or "Having said that".  In doubt, I turn to , which seems to confirm the . (not exactly the right reference, I know.)  Yet, I don't think that "that being said" is correct, especially in writing. "That said" is even more common. Is it also acceptable in writing?  What expression would you use in formal writing? (Not too formal though: like a )
43580
What does this phrase mean? And in what cases is it appropriate to use it?
29073
I've heard this phrase in a couple of movies, it was being used like this:     -Hey, John!      -Well, hey yourself, Mike!   Sounds pretty simple, but my question is about how appropriate is it to say that in a conversation. It sounds a little "offensive" to me, and in the movies it was being used with a negative meaning (e.g. greeting a person who you don't really like to see/talk with).   So does it really have a "negative" meaning, or am I wrong?
82501
This is one bit of academic etiquette I'm not sure about. When I write to another researcher, a peer (we're both professors). I've never exchanged with before and never met him but I know of him (and he probably knows of me).  Erring on the side of formality, I write to him “Dear professor Mortimer”. I sign with my first name, because that's how I've always signed my emails (there's a formal signature block below, with full name and contact details) and I think it indicates a willingness to be called by my first name (which I prefer, but I don't want to force people one way or the other).  Is that going to be well received? Will people take the hint? Or should I just start using first names from the start? (it does sound weird to write “dear Philipp” to someone you don't know)
28819
In the course of answering  (which is now deleted and may be viewed only by 10K+ community members), we have evoked some dispute over whether the phrase      Am I needing to read this book?   is grammatical.  I think it is correct, although not common, but others think differently. Is this a correct grammatical structure, albeit perhaps a bit odd?    EDIT: I think I should clarify further.  I don’t disagree that this phrasing is unusual; in fact, that’s what I said in the other answer.  What I am interested in is whether it is correct or not. I think it is because of its uncommonness that I am not certain. It might be more straightforward to ask it this way:     Is the sentence “I am needing to read this book” grammatical?  If not, why not?
20231
I was reading this today:  We look forward to following your progress.  Am I correct in thinking that it is missing a be or that -ing should be removed?  So  We look forward to be following your progress.  or  We look forward to follow your progress.  Interestingly I get the same jarring feeling when reading the examples here
78335
I hear and read them all the time. I mean stuff like:      You're just going to stay here?   Instead of:      Are you just going to stay here?    Then I write like this out of habit and get called out on my grammar issues by people who speak English much worse than I do. That's kinda embarrassing. So, could someone please explain to me whether it's correct or not? Are they acceptable at all, and if so, in which situations?      So, what? You're gonna kill me now?
64784
So, you have a web site to which you've posted a review stating "How to Kick Ass". This gets censored, which I can understand.  What's a very colloquial, not necessarily modern slang, easily recognizable equivalent to kick ass?  This review is in a military context.  The metric is, would it be inspiring for a graduation speech at West Point but also easily recognizable to a civilian? If it's a bit… colorful, then all the better. But it should be able to pass profanity filters.  Clarification of the context.  It's about a German WWII armored tactics history/handbook.  My original review title was going to be 'Kick Butt 103' - I wanted to convey the sense that it was an impressive course to instill advanced organizational wisdom and experience, in this case on how to dominate your enemy.  Besides the title, my review goes into more details about how it is very much a 'how to' combat manual.  But I did want the title to be somewhat clear on its own.  Amazon wasn't keen on 'butt' however - which I thought a bit over the top.  Butt is colloquial, and colorful, but hardly obscene or profane.  'Kick Ass 103' would work as well.  But 'Trounce 103' or 'Dominate 103', to take two good suggestions below, would, in my opinion, leave a reader rather puzzled as to what I was trying to say - about the only thing those two evoke are edgy website user names.  Pown 103 might work, but that is gamer slang and might be too obscure to older readers.
109675
I encountered this sentence when I was learning another language. I have never used such a sentence in English nor seen one, but it seems it exists.  What idea does this sentence trying to convey? What time should we relate to?
61589
I find this expression strange because it's clearly widely used, but seems sort of "unofficial", the "official" version, meaning the one described in dictionaries and grammar books, being playing games with, not on.  Both expressions seem to be current and valid, according to Google Books. I'm just not entirely clear on the context and the usage.  My understanding is that playing games with implies some sort of tricky, mischievous behavior, which may or may not be intentionally malicious, like office politics or standing someone up on a date ("Jane didn't show up...again. Is she playing games with me?"), while playing games on implies a form of studied deception. ("The ad said that the comic book was in mint condition but there are barely noticeable tears... are they trying to play a game on me?")
28027
Why do British speakers omit the article in constructions like "go to hospital" or "go on holiday"? Pretty much all American speakers would rephrase those as "go to the hospital" and "go on a holiday", I think. Is there any good reason, or forgotten sense behind those words that might explain why the articles are ommitted?  Are there other common constructions other than those two that the British use that drop the article?  EDIT: I just realized per Kosmonaut's comment that Americans do much the same thing with a few nouns, so this isn't all that special.   Do grammaticists designate nouns that can have their article dropped with anything, i.e. do they have anything in common?
41842
I remember when staying a few months in the US years ago that I saw some people using the abbreviations below. However, I can't exactly remember in which contexts I encountered them, (whether I saw my teachers using them when writing something on the board, in papers or in personal notes etc.)  So my question is: Are those abbreviations below commonly used and in which contexts is it okay to use them (e.g. formal texts, personal notes,... or better only used in personal note taking?)         w/o without   w/ with   b/c because      PS: Are there similar abbreviations that are commonly used?
69595
I often use  to keep my sentences gender neutral. Many of my friends (none of them are native speakers), however, consider this to be grammatically incorrect, and suggest me not to use it in formal English exams.  My questions are:   Is singular they widely accepted in English speaking countries such as America and Britain? Is it formal enough to be used in formal situations, such as a public speech? Is it casual enough to be used in informal situations, such as gossiping among friends?
54478
Recently, I overhead a former professor of mine use the word shined, a word that makes me grammatically uncomfortable.  She used it as following: "Then, after we shined a light on the other ball, what happened?..."  My first question is: Is using shined mainstream, over what sounds better to my ear, shone?  If so, is there any historical flip-flopping between the two usages?  Secondly, if shined is in fact legit, can it be used transitively?  Saying something like,      The light shined all throughout the night.   while odd, doesn't sound as bad to my ear as,     He shined the light on the ball throughout the night.   The latter sounds quite bad to my ear.  Indeed, à propos the original question, can shone &mdash; the better sounding alternative to my ear &mdash; be used transitively?
70771
I send a lot of unsolicited emails. In many of them, I ask to buy traditional advertising spots or to help conceive a non-traditional campaign. Oftentimes, I find myself describing these non-traditional campaigns as "out of the box," as in "let's think outside the box!" But I realize this phrase can also be interpreted as "ready-to-go," "turn key" or "prefabricated." That's not what I'm going for.  Am I using the phrase correctly? Is it easily interpreted as I intend? Is there a better phrase?