New answers tagged style
The short answer to your question is that major style guides offer detailed and somewhat varied guidelines for handling the personal names of people from other countries and languages. Because the advice tends to be extensive, I'll limit myself to discussing the handling of Russian names recommended by three prominent U.S. style guides: MLA Style Manual, ...
I would use (if you are trying to stick to inclusion): remain a valid inclusion in discussions of recordings or justifiably remain included in recordings discussions because it sounds weird to talk about something being a valid discussion point in a single discussion unless you are talking about a specific past discussion. I think it sounds ...
This history of the different editions of the book is interesting: History of 1984 book covers In the 40s, the first american and uk versions, it was spelled out. Then in 50s we started to see the numbers.
Orwell actually called the book Nineteen Eighty-Four, but even that was transformed into nineteen eighty-four on the cover of the first edition — and the figure 1984 appeared as well. There have been many editions, some featuring the title spelled out in words, others using the figures. The 1987 Penguin edition I have, first published by that house ...
Unless the dispute over the name is an integral part of the work you've been taught, I genuinely don't think it matters; given that the dispute exists, no reasonable instructor would expect you to definitively know which is the correct one, and both clearly refer to the same book.
It doesn't matter. I'd argue the 1984 title is in more common usage nowadays. However there are many early covers suggesting maybe Orwell himself titled it Nineteen Eighty-Four. I think you can choose whichever you please; however, Nineteen Eighty-Four may sound pretentious today because of its scarcity. My favorite new cover: Penguin Books ...
I'd suggest you use whatever is on the cover of your book. In this case it's the number in digits. And in this case it's spelled out: Update: According to this Brown University site It says: 29.c. George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four: A Novel printed wrappers, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1949, Advance Review Copy, First American Edition. ...
Both are valid, but imho the numerical format is more succinct and stands out from the surrounding text. Consider this sentence: During my holiday trip, I will spend just 1-2 nights in London followed by 10-15 days touring the rest of Europe, and return by 28th or 29th. Or some (made up) recipe: 1-2 finely chopped onions 3-5 tsp flour Few ...
Both convey the same meaning but the fully written form "two to eight days"/"two to four tablespoons" doesn't leave place to any effort of interpretation: It explains what the dash would stand for.
Group tends to imply that the individuals have something in common -- they know each other, they work at the same place, they're all Americans. Bunch tends to imply that the individuals are being grouped together more arbitrarily. That breaks down in informal use, but if you're trying to find a difference that's the best I can offer.
I would say a bunch of people is informal. You can use it where informal writing is appropriate. Otherwise, choose another word, like group. bunch (dictionary.com, definition #3) Informal. a group of people: They're a fine bunch of students. Update This update addresses the concerns expressed in the comments about when a situation calls for informal ...
Is it appropriate to write in an essay A bunch of people or A bunch of friends? If your audience/teacher/professor says no, that is the answer. In theory, if someone says, "A bunch", the reader might want to know "how many?" Likely, you were corrected as per "a bunch of carrots" vs "a group of people". Colloquially, you'd probably say a bunch of ...
You may want to express centigrade in terms of fahrenheit for instance, or efficiency in terms of kilowatts of electricity generated as opposed to expressing it in terms of number of houses heated; but there the real usefulness of this technical expression ends. There are always far better ways to form an everyday sentence without it. Alas, all the time ...
Yes, the original capitalization should be preserved.
The key to understanding why is or his may be required in these sentences has to do with the intended object of each sentence. Your first and third sentences have husband as an object: His actions reveal him to be a husband who is not jealous but is zealous. His actions reveal him to be a husband who is zealous, not jealous. It is clear what the ...
I would say you need the his but not the is. That's basically because the is comes before the not in that sentence, but the his comes after the not in its sentence. You basically need to follow the syntax of what comes after not.
Top 50 recent answers are included