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

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

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

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.


2

It sounds naff and gives off the impression of being grammatically incorrect, regardless of whether it actually is. Firstly there are the two abbreviations and the use of such a short and broad determiner "it", might as well count as a third contraction. So the sentence sounds very terse and somewhat devoid of meaning. Even with context, the question ...


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.


1

I'd expect an advertisement to advertise what it's selling before it advertises what it costs. 5 eggs for a dollar ... not ... A dollar for 5 eggs Perhaps that's because a vendor would offer eggs, instead of asking for dollars. Therefore, they should advertise "more for less".


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

Apple did not mean "think differently". That is, they are not suggesting that you think in a different way. They really meant "think different", that is, rather than thinking about the things you usually think about, think about things that are different. An analogous slogan might be, "Thinking about your opportunities as a high school graduate? Think ...


1

As a native speaker, I can tell you that even thought it should probably sound weird to me, it absolutely does not. However, I can't even read the phrase without hearing "ba da da DA daahhh" in my head. "Think Different," on the other hand, is nigh upsetting, so I'd say my ears are about tuned like those of the rest of the American folks.


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.



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