Should I use [sic] on British quotes for words like "defence"?
539430
I am assuming that you are an American, writing in American English.\n\nWhat follows is my opinion, not what I would consider grammatically correct.\n\nIf the quote was *extremely* and *obviously* British, then no. If there was any possible confusion, then yes.\n\nLet me illustrate:\n\nTony Blair, Prime Minister of England, wrote, "The defence of our great country is in disarray."  That clearly comes from a British source.\n\nHowever.\n\nSam Snodgrass wrote, "When the defence of a country is amuck, we can all find ourself dead."  In this case, I would probably add [sic], as it is not clear that it was a British speaking, AND I want to make sure that people KNOW that I didn't mistype the word!\n\nLawrence\nhttp://www.truebiblesermons.com
330390
I'm sorry I'm replying without answering the question, but please, PLEASE, PLEASEEE never never NEVER put an unnecessary apostrophe in the posessive form of "its." I can see maybe leaving out a necessary apostrophe if you're too lazy, but adding one just demonstrates ignorance, because technically it takes more time to do so. Please don't, for the more sensitive among us. Open a grammar book. It's a tragedy the subject's not taught these days.
1004789
Should you have to use one or the other, "ought to" is slightly stronger. But they are very nearly equivalent. Pip usually say "should" as a casual remark.
852243
Could it be that they're using Eng (US) rather than Eng (UK)?  Being a Brit, I'd write "misspelt" rather than "misspelled" - but this wouldn't be incorrect.  I think we all have our favourite (favorite?) hates in written English, but we mustn't let this affect our blood pressure!
782013
Yes. It should not be an issue if the phrase is properly used.
890936
I think it's a workable quote.\n\nI'd suggest dropping the vulgarity, not because I'm a prude, but because it distracts from the quote when the vulgarity is edited out.  If you only post it where it's not censored, then that's okay.  \n\nI suggest replacing it with one verb.  That way it flows better as the two statements are congruous.  For example:\n"I'm not a slave to a god that doesn't exist.\nI'm not a slave to a world that doesn't care."\n\nActually, I'd rather see "care" replaced with a two-syllable word.  It would flow much better.  I see some okay words like "comfort" and "nurture," but those don't thrill me.\n\nTry this different approach:\n"I'm not a slave to a god that isn't.\nI don't care for a world that doesn't."\n\nKind of twisty with the words.  It might be seen as too pretentious, though.
375493
Both of the expressions you list could be used with the same meaning, though one of them might fit better than the other in a particular sentence, depending on what you want to emphasize.   The expression "attacks of bees" is perhaps a little less likely, except in certain special constructions.  (You might use it, for instance, if "bees" is the first in a list -- "The attacks of bees, red ants, mosquitoes and every other biting insect you can imagine made it a memorable picnic!")\n\nBut if you are actually trying to use the words you list (instead of just giving them as a general example of how to put the words together), I suspect the expression you ACTUALLY want is "Bee attacks".   With this kind of compound expression of two nouns the first noun is usually in the singular, not plural.
1031217
All three are correct.  The first two have words that indicate an alternative, which is fine.  They are necessary because they indicate another possibility.  The third is an indirect question illustrating doubt in the fact that Singapore is clean, and, by the way, it is.  \nhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whether\n\nAlso, our future English professor should watch out for plurals, they can bit you in the arse: one sounds, two sound.
11318
Square brackets are most commonly used around the word 'sic' (from the Latin 'sicut', meaning 'just as'), to explain the status of an apparent mistake. Generally, sic means the foregoing mistake (or apparent mistake) was made by the writer/speaker I am quoting; I am but the faithful messenger; in fact I never get anything wrong myself. Book reviewers in particular adore to use sic. It makes them feel terrific, because what it means is that they've spotted this apparent mistake, thank you, so there is no point in writing in. However, there are distinctions within sic: it can signify two different things:\n\n1) This isn't a mistake, actually, it just looks like one to the casual eye.\n2) Tee hee, what a dreadful error! But it would be dishonest of me to correct it.
496752
You'd be better off saying it in plain English.\n\nCheck out hanzismatter.com and see for yourself what gets lost in translation.
855558
Here is a possible answer:\nhttp://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/6/messages/952.html
837731
It's actually quoted as an example even in the Oxford Dictionary. They say it's spoken English and used instead of "why". I agree with those who think it's not excellent English, but you know, use sometimes is sovereign and creates rules of its own!
246797
Example : "He studies [Kabbalah], but probably not as enthusiastically as I do....Brits are kind of allergic to the idea [of God]." Madonna - Us Weekly\n\nThe use of parenthesis shows that those are not the exact words Madona used, the words in the parenthesis are added to make it clear what she was talking about.  Also, when they use ... it means that something was left out of the quote.
420415
It depends on where it fits in the sentence.  If used as a subject, the correct one is "The King and I."  As in "The King and I were dancing."\n\nAs a subject, "Roger and Me," as in "He asked Roger and me."  When in doubt, mentally remove the proper noun and see if it sounds alright: I was dancing; He asked me.
332446
false; \n\nmany English mistakes in this sentance , take out the 'of' for a start, should be brother and sister not 'or' no need to go on i think.
643221
I always presumed you were a native speaker (or at least had lived in the UK long enough to be considered what they call 'native-level proficiency') so I guess that must answer the question.\n\nAs other people have said here, you're actually better-spoken (well, -written) than a lot of true native speakers here.\n\nI can't recall ever seeing a single answer or question from you that seems in any way less than perfectly natural English.\n\nPlus you get bonus marks for frequently using the highly-cool word 'whilst'. Wish I could say that word without looking like a North American fool :)
282627
Don't be so impulsive\n\n'Make up your mind' would be a better english equivelent phrase.\n\n'No seas' is a directive not a statement.