Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

12

Merriam-Webster claim that different as an adverb dates at least as far back as 1744.


10

It's advertising-speak, and that means it doesn't have to mean anything literally. (When an ad announces that something is "Free!" does anyone think you don't have to pay money to get it? Dream on!) Basically, some kind of research has determined that using "New! Improved!" (and, especially, "Free!") in an ad headline, copy, or voice-over leads to some ...


8

It sounds fine to me. (But I'm not actually a native speaker, and Indian English does have a reputation for using the progressive a lot.) This is how I interpret "I'm loving it". (I've put back the 'g' because writing lovin' is too folksy for me.) I also assume "it" refers to something particular, like McDonald's or the food there. Also, I think it helps to ...


7

Since there have been no other similar answers so far: I am a native English speaker and it sounds perfectly natural to me. Cheesy, but natural in terms of grammar. EDIT: @Martha expressed the same sentiment, but as a comment rather than an answer. If I had seen that, I would have left a comment as well. It amounts to more or less the same thing though.


6

You're correct, it should be "What's yours?" not "What's your?". Your is a possessive adjective, and needs to be accompanied by a noun — so "What's your drive?" would be correct. Without the noun, you should use the possessive pronoun, "yours". POSSESSIVE POSSESSIVE PRONOUN ADJECTIVE PRONOUN I my mine you your ...


6

There is no rule that says advertising language must adhere to perfect logic; however, in this case you are simply being too restrictive in your definition of new. Definitions 7-11 of new: coming or occurring afresh; further; additional: new gains. fresh or unused: to start a new sheet of paper. (of physical or moral qualities) different and ...


5

There is no rhyme in the sentence, but its rhythm is iambic, that is, one unstressed syllable followed by a stressed one. It is typical of English speech and frequently found in English verse. The sentence is also alliterative, in that three of the five words begin with the sound /k/. Alliteration was a feature of Old English verse, and it still appeals to ...


5

As others have mentioned in the comments, "high kicks" can refer to moves performed by a dance team; for example, these dancers are doing high kicks in a line: However, the wearer of the T-shirt does her "high kicks" like this: I think the shirt is just meant to playfully say, "I'm an athlete, not a dancer!" by making veiled references to the football ...


5

Well, it's certainly not the first time an adjective is used as an adverb in American English. I'd call it informal, but not necessarily ungrammatical.


5

It is a very common expression. Nowadays it's not at the bleeding edge of hipness (really, it never was) and the McDonald's campaign slogan has made it rather impossible for a person of intelligence to use sans irony. It is a bland and inoffensive attempt at pastel folksiness, the sort of thing that a minor politician or Boy Scout leader or pastor would say ...


5

One possibility we're forgetting here is the that the adjective may be a substantive adjective. Substantive adjectives are adjectives which are used alone without the noun they are describing. For example, good, bad, and ugly in this sentence, 'The good, the bad, and the ugly, which is really, 'The good people, the bad people, and the ugly people.' In this ...


4

On the contrary, it is more like a tautology. That means that both words state the same and therefore one is redundant. While the two words do carry slightly different meanings, they both convey the same general idea: new as compared to old. Here is the new one and there is the old one. ~Shows that this has replaced the older version. improved and thus ...


3

Near rhymes (which also go by several other terms, such as inexact rhymes or slant rhymes) are words that do not completely rhyme, but parts of them do, or the words sound similar. I think "Keep calm and carry on" is more of an example of consonance: Consonance is a poetic device characterized by the repetition of the same consonant two or more times in ...


3

Two areas where grammar tends to have less importance than others are in naming enterprises, and in marketing products. And as the name of an enterprise, there is nothing wrong with "WE ON". There is a bit wrong with this in your tag sentence, however, as in the form you propose the tag sentence, it lacks a verb, and is therefore not a sentence, (Although ...


3

"We on" -- with the verb dropped -- is not standard English. And for me, the dialects which use that kind of formulation are not the ones I'd pick to impress your market. If that's what you're trying to communicate, On Task (or OnTask, perhaps) would be a better name. Though it may already be in use.


3

Actually, "plan work" is grammatically correct. As a native speaker, I also understand perfectly what you are trying to get at. It's just a command. If in doubt, consider the sentence "I plan work." Furthermore, since "plan work" doesn't show up with much in Google, that might make it a perfect slogan for your product. Good luck!


2

"What's your?" is incorrect. "Your" is a possessive adjective. So, to say "What is your?" is like saying "What is her?" or "What is his?" It doesn't make sense because there's no noun in the sentence. "Yours", however, is a pronoun. So, saying "What is yours?" makes sense because there's a noun in the sentence.


2

More for less definitely sounds like a better bargain. Less for more sounds like the old joke "a bargain at half the price." I would say the reason has to do with which of these two phrases sounds more natural: Three for a dollar. A dollar for three. To my ear, the first does. I expect the goods to come first and the price to come second.


2

As a native speaker of AmE, I wouldn't use this. Might I suggest Software on Your Wavelength as an alternative? On your wavelength is a reasonably common idiom with some of the same connotations, and it is a much better match for your desired sentence structure. In my opinion, it still pairs well with "Vibeware" (it's a little less direct connection, but ...


1

These slogans are not grammatically correct, but not because of "that". The problem is the verb "say", which requires a preposition. So you could use stuff in response to which you would say "cool" but you probably want something more like stuff that you would call cool In the latter case, the "that" is optional.


1

The preposition that goes with adapt is generally, to. Adapting to your changes is fine. Although the idea of "keeping pace with changes and adapting as required from time to time" that you seem to want to convey is understandable, "keeping pace with" and "adapting" are two distinct things. The preposition applies to adapt alone. The phrase Adapt with ...


1

If it's a slogan for a product, the choice is commercial rather than linguistic, but if you choose the second, delete the.


1

We eat <brand> -- Our families eat <brand> -- You should eat <brand>


1

Literally, possibly, but I classify it almost as an idiomatic expression and, like (nearly) all idioms, mean something different than the literal meaning of their compotent terms.


1

The most typical examples of oxymorons are phrases in which the meaning of an adjective contradicts the very nature of the noun with which it is associated. A well know example is a "deafening silence" or its symmetric a "silent scream". In the example you cite, we have two adjectives and they don't have opposite meanings. You possibly meant a pleonasm - ...


1

I usually take it to mean that it's a new version of something already in existence and it's improved (as in better than the one before, not worse). That way, it makes sense to me so it's not an oxymoron.



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible