Isn’t it great to have a nice little space on the internet where you can avoid all the petty nastiness of current politics, especially all the horrid news that keeps coming from the White House? A place where you can forget about all that, and think about language, without hearing about Donald Trump and his cronies?
By the way, did you see what Melania Trump was wearing today?
This is something my phone has been telling me recently, which, frankly, I’m quite sceptical about. Am I really in danger? Continue reading
You may have thought yesterday, when reading about the word almost, that there are a few other similarly-constructed words in English. There’s already, alright, and altogether, all of which are really just all + ready/right/together. And often you can replace the single word with all + together etc. Not always though…
You? Why for you, both are correct!
Seriously though, are both of these correct? Do they have the same meaning?
I hope today finds you well.
Yesterday I mentioned that well is quite a common filler in English, used to give us a moment to think, or even for no particular reason at all. After I finished writing, I asked myself, Why well?
Well, it depends, doesn’t it?
Even if you’ve never thought about it before, it’s perhaps not too surprising that the word into is a combination of the words in and to. If you think about any sentence in which you might use the word, it clearly combines the meaning of both:
He walked into the room.
To is there because there’s movement, and to usually comes after verbs of movement. In is there because he ends up in the room. Easy. But, does this mean we can always replace in to with into?
Or should that be terribly? This is something that can be confusing for native speakers, and I’ve noticed recently more and more people getting into tangles with this area of language. Which ironically, I think, is due to people having more knowledge about language than before. First of all though, what aspect of language are we talking about here?