may/might/can

"May" is used to indicate permission or possibility. "Might" is the past tense of "may" and indicates possible intention. For some speakers, "may" indicates a higher probability than "might." "I may go to the movie tonight" (quite likely); "I might go to the movie tonight (less likely)."

Webster"s says "might" is "used in auxiliary function to express permission, liberty, probability, possibility in the past or a present condition contrary to fact or less probability or possibility than may or as a polite alternative to may or to ought or should .

Webster"s defines "may" as "have permission to. . . have liberty to <"you may say what you please, I won"t do it"> . . .used nearly interchangeably with "can""; it defines "might" as "used in auxiliary function to express permission, liberty, probability, possibility in the past . . . or a recent condition contrary to fact<"if he were older he might understand"> or less probability or possibility than "may" <"might get there before it rains"> <"might be a good idea to wait and see"> or as a polite alternative to "may" <"might I ask who is calling"> or to "ought" or "should" <"you might at least apologize">."

"May" usually implies permission or to have freedom, which may or may not be granted externally; i.e., you can give yourself permission or freedom to do something, such as go to the store. "May" is also sometimes used interchangeably with "can" and "might," and is also used to express a wish, desire, purpose or expectation. Remember, it is a present tense auxiliary verb. Also from Webster"s, ""Can" and "may" are most frequently interchangeable in senses denoting possibility; because the possibility of one"s doing something may depend on another"s acquiescence, they have also become interchangeable in the sense denoting permission."

Evans and Evans say:" "He may" does not have the "s" ending we ordinarily expect in a present tense verb. This is because "may" is an ancient past tense form. But it had come to be felt as a present tense by the time English became a written language. "Might" is a new past tense form that was created for it, but which has also come to be felt as a present tense. Today "may" and "might" are treated as subjunctive tenses. They represent different degrees of probability rather than a difference in time. The present subjunctive form "may" represents an event as possible while the past subjunctive form "might" represents it as possible but not likely, as in "he may come" and "he might come". In asking permission, "might" is more diffident than "may", as in "might I come in?", since it politely suggests that the speaker does not expect to get what he is asking for and so won"t be surprised by a refusal. . . ." Evans and Evans also imply a polite, almost deferential, way of putt! ing it. "May" and "might" are used similarly to "can" and "could." If you are at a job interview, you might say either, "I can start next Monday" or "I could start next Monday"; the first one is more direct, more self-confident, but depending on the interviewer"s personality, "can" might be seen as presumptuous, so the softer, more indirect "could" might be a better choice. Similarly, compare the difference in tone of these two statements that might be made by your date at the end of your first evening out together: "I want to see you again" and "I would like to see you again." The first is more aggressive; the second is softer and more along the lines of a request.

They go on to say, "In refusing permission, "you may not" is felt to be disagreeably personal and dictatorial and "you cannot" is almost universally preferred. In discussing a decision, or arguing about it, "can" is required. We never say "why mayn"t I?" or "mayn"t I?" but always "why can"t I?" or "can"t I?" since we are assuming that something more than a whim is involved. In granting permission "may" is still used occasionally, as in "you may keep it till Friday". But most people now feel that it is more courteous, less autocratic, to say "you can keep it till Friday". In asking permission, "may" is generally felt to be more polite than "can", as in "may I look at it?" but "can" is also used here, as in "can I look at it?" Since the speaker knows very well that he is able to look at it, this use of "can" is simply carrying politeness one step further by refusing to question the other person"s good will. In time, this too may be accepted as the more polite form, but that! is not yet the case."

"May" is used not just for permission, but also for possibility, as "might" is, and as "can" is. It has long been used that way, and there is no reason not to continue to use it that way, as long as your meaning is clear. "Your broken arm may take two months to heal" means not that I"m giving your arm permission to heal within two months, but that it"s possible that it will take that long to heal. If I say "Your broken arm may take two months to heal. It might even take four months," I am saying that it"s possible that your arm will take two months to heal--and it"s also possible, although not likely, that it will take as long as four months. They both indicate possibility, but in different degrees. I can also say "A broken arm can take as long as four months to heal. Yours, however, may not take that long. In fact, you might be out of the cast in as little as two months." All three of these are statements of possibility. The first is "can" in the sense of physical possib! ility; the second is "may" in the sense of "there is a chance that"; the third is "might" in the sense of "there is a chance that, but it isn"t likely."

If it"s ambiguous in context whether permission or possibility is meant, a rewrite is in order. But there is no reason that I can see to take away the possibility sense of "may" simply because "may" is also used in giving permission. After all, "can" is increasingly encroaching upon "may" in that sense. If it continues to do so (as looks likely), and if others decide to adopt the distinction between "may" and "might" for simplicity"s sake, "may" may well drop out of the language altogether sometime in the future.

Swan"s Practical English Usage says, "The commonest uses of "may" and "might" are to talk about possibility, and to ask for (and give) permission. . . . "Might" is not the past of "may"; it suggests a smaller (present or future) probability than "may"." And Evans and Evans say, ""May" represents an event as possible while. . ."might" represents it as possible but not likely."

R. L. Trask, in Mind the Gaffe: The Penguin Guide to Common Errors in English (2001), says, . . ."might have" is counterfactual: it is always followed by something that is not true. But "may have" is not counterfactual: it is followed by something which is not known to be false. This contrast is of central importance in standard English, and mastery of it is essential. So, ignore all those football coaches who routinely intone *If it hadn"t been for that dodgy call, we may have won". Standard English absolutely requires "might have won" here, and, if you find this unnatural, you will simply have to grit your teeth and learn it. You can"t imagine how awful that non-standard "may have" sounds to careful writers." Rodney Huddleston in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002) considers this a dialectical variation. In Dialect A the usage is ungrammatical; in Dialect B it is grammatical. He concludes (p. 203): "Conservative usage manuals tend to disapprove of the Dialect B usage, but it is becoming increasingly common, and should probably be recognised as a ! variant within Standard English.

Merriam Webster"s Dictionary of English Usage says, "On a more puzzling note, a few commentators. . .do note the puzzling use of "may" where "might" would be expected. There seem to be two places where such substitution occurs: in describing hypothetical conditions, and in a context normally calling for the past tense. . . : If he"d have released the ball a second earlier--when [the pass receiver] made his cut--he may have had a touchdown. --Dan Dierdorf, CBS television, 20 Dec. 1986 "Here "might have had a touchdown" would have been expected. "In the second example we have a context where the past is called for: Born in Buffalo, N.Y., he may have gone to Princeton. . .but he made his reputation as a railroader. --Forbes", 15 Sept. 1970 "This one is especially confusing since "may" in such surroundings suggests that the writer does not know whether he went to Princeton; "might" (which is the verb we would have expected) would suggest that he could have gone if he had want! ed to. "No one has a satisfying explanation for why these substitutions occur, and we are as stumped as everyone else. Here is about all we can tell you: we have more British evidence for the substitution (and more notice is taken of it by British commentators) than we have American evidence. But we do have both. The substitution is more frequent in speech than in writing. British evidence and British comment suggest that in print it is most likely to be found in the newspapers. . . ."

Besides being the past tense of can, "could" is also called a modal. That means that it sets up a condition that may or may not be real. Consider these differences. I could go if he would ask me. = This is a condition, based on another premise. I cancelled my plans before I realized I could go. = This is a simple past tense. "Can" and "may" are most frequently interchangeable in senses denoting possibility. The original definition of "can" was "to know of, to know how," and carried with it the notion of knowing how to do something--mental ability rather than physical ability, although this was later extended to physical ability. From these two uses, "can" came to take on the connotation of possibility. The transition from "possibility" to "permission" ("may") is subtler than the handbooks think. It comes from permission given by not inhibiting or prohibiting; thus, possibility.

How may/can I help you? You are being polite when you say "may," but you are being practical when you say "can," which expresses an ability.

grammarNOW! says:

In present-day English, there is little if any difference between the uses of these words when they refer to either possibility or permission. But at least retaining the difference in degree between "may" and "might" enables us to use more precision when we speak of possibility. On the other hand, if no one understands the distinction anymore, why bother? I think keeping—and teaching--such distinctions adds breadth to the language.

"May" is used to indicate permission or possibility. "Might" is the past tense of "may" and indicates possible intention. For some speakers, "may" indicates a higher probability than "might." "I may go to the movie tonight" (quite likely); "I might go to the movie tonight (less likely)."

Webster"s says "might" is "used in auxiliary function to express permission, liberty, probability, possibility in the past or a present condition contrary to fact or less probability or possibility than may or as a polite alternative to may or to ought or should .

Webster"s defines "may" as "have permission to. . . have liberty to <"you may say what you please, I won"t do it"> . . .used nearly interchangeably with "can""; it defines "might" as "used in auxiliary function to express permission, liberty, probability, possibility in the past . . . or a recent condition contrary to fact<"if he were older he might understand"> or less probability or possibility than "may" <"might get there before it rains"> <"might be a good idea to wait and see"> or as a polite alternative to "may" <"might I ask who is calling"> or to "ought" or "should" <"you might at least apologize">."

"May" usually implies permission or to have freedom, which may or may not be granted externally; i.e., you can give yourself permission or freedom to do something, such as go to the store. "May" is also sometimes used interchangeably with "can" and "might," and is also used to express a wish, desire, purpose or expectation. Remember, it is a present tense auxiliary verb. Also from Webster"s, ""Can" and "may" are most frequently interchangeable in senses denoting possibility; because the possibility of one"s doing something may depend on another"s acquiescence, they have also become interchangeable in the sense denoting permission."

Evans and Evans say:" "He may" does not have the "s" ending we ordinarily expect in a present tense verb. This is because "may" is an ancient past tense form. But it had come to be felt as a present tense by the time English became a written language. "Might" is a new past tense form that was created for it, but which has also come to be felt as a present tense. Today "may" and "might" are treated as subjunctive tenses. They represent different degrees of probability rather than a difference in time. The present subjunctive form "may" represents an event as possible while the past subjunctive form "might" represents it as possible but not likely, as in "he may come" and "he might come". In asking permission, "might" is more diffident than "may", as in "might I come in?", since it politely suggests that the speaker does not expect to get what he is asking for and so won"t be surprised by a refusal. . . ." Evans and Evans also imply a polite, almost deferential, way of putt! ing it. "May" and "might" are used similarly to "can" and "could." If you are at a job interview, you might say either, "I can start next Monday" or "I could start next Monday"; the first one is more direct, more self-confident, but depending on the interviewer"s personality, "can" might be seen as presumptuous, so the softer, more indirect "could" might be a better choice. Similarly, compare the difference in tone of these two statements that might be made by your date at the end of your first evening out together: "I want to see you again" and "I would like to see you again." The first is more aggressive; the second is softer and more along the lines of a request.

They go on to say, "In refusing permission, "you may not" is felt to be disagreeably personal and dictatorial and "you cannot" is almost universally preferred. In discussing a decision, or arguing about it, "can" is required. We never say "why mayn"t I?" or "mayn"t I?" but always "why can"t I?" or "can"t I?" since we are assuming that something more than a whim is involved. In granting permission "may" is still used occasionally, as in "you may keep it till Friday". But most people now feel that it is more courteous, less autocratic, to say "you can keep it till Friday". In asking permission, "may" is generally felt to be more polite than "can", as in "may I look at it?" but "can" is also used here, as in "can I look at it?" Since the speaker knows very well that he is able to look at it, this use of "can" is simply carrying politeness one step further by refusing to question the other person"s good will. In time, this too may be accepted as the more polite form, but that! is not yet the case."

"May" is used not just for permission, but also for possibility, as "might" is, and as "can" is. It has long been used that way, and there is no reason not to continue to use it that way, as long as your meaning is clear. "Your broken arm may take two months to heal" means not that I"m giving your arm permission to heal within two months, but that it"s possible that it will take that long to heal. If I say "Your broken arm may take two months to heal. It might even take four months," I am saying that it"s possible that your arm will take two months to heal--and it"s also possible, although not likely, that it will take as long as four months. They both indicate possibility, but in different degrees. I can also say "A broken arm can take as long as four months to heal. Yours, however, may not take that long. In fact, you might be out of the cast in as little as two months." All three of these are statements of possibility. The first is "can" in the sense of physical possib! ility; the second is "may" in the sense of "there is a chance that"; the third is "might" in the sense of "there is a chance that, but it isn"t likely."

If it"s ambiguous in context whether permission or possibility is meant, a rewrite is in order. But there is no reason that I can see to take away the possibility sense of "may" simply because "may" is also used in giving permission. After all, "can" is increasingly encroaching upon "may" in that sense. If it continues to do so (as looks likely), and if others decide to adopt the distinction between "may" and "might" for simplicity"s sake, "may" may well drop out of the language altogether sometime in the future.

Swan"s Practical English Usage says, "The commonest uses of "may" and "might" are to talk about possibility, and to ask for (and give) permission. . . . "Might" is not the past of "may"; it suggests a smaller (present or future) probability than "may"." And Evans and Evans say, ""May" represents an event as possible while. . ."might" represents it as possible but not likely."

R. L. Trask, in Mind the Gaffe: The Penguin Guide to Common Errors in English (2001), says, . . ."might have" is counterfactual: it is always followed by something that is not true. But "may have" is not counterfactual: it is followed by something which is not known to be false. This contrast is of central importance in standard English, and mastery of it is essential. So, ignore all those football coaches who routinely intone *If it hadn"t been for that dodgy call, we may have won". Standard English absolutely requires "might have won" here, and, if you find this unnatural, you will simply have to grit your teeth and learn it. You can"t imagine how awful that non-standard "may have" sounds to careful writers." Rodney Huddleston in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002) considers this a dialectical variation. In Dialect A the usage is ungrammatical; in Dialect B it is grammatical. He concludes (p. 203): "Conservative usage manuals tend to disapprove of the Dialect B usage, but it is becoming increasingly common, and should probably be recognised as a ! variant within Standard English.

Merriam Webster"s Dictionary of English Usage says, "On a more puzzling note, a few commentators. . .do note the puzzling use of "may" where "might" would be expected. There seem to be two places where such substitution occurs: in describing hypothetical conditions, and in a context normally calling for the past tense. . . : If he"d have released the ball a second earlier--when [the pass receiver] made his cut--he may have had a touchdown. --Dan Dierdorf, CBS television, 20 Dec. 1986 "Here "might have had a touchdown" would have been expected. "In the second example we have a context where the past is called for: Born in Buffalo, N.Y., he may have gone to Princeton. . .but he made his reputation as a railroader. --Forbes", 15 Sept. 1970 "This one is especially confusing since "may" in such surroundings suggests that the writer does not know whether he went to Princeton; "might" (which is the verb we would have expected) would suggest that he could have gone if he had want! ed to. "No one has a satisfying explanation for why these substitutions occur, and we are as stumped as everyone else. Here is about all we can tell you: we have more British evidence for the substitution (and more notice is taken of it by British commentators) than we have American evidence. But we do have both. The substitution is more frequent in speech than in writing. British evidence and British comment suggest that in print it is most likely to be found in the newspapers. . . ."

Besides being the past tense of can, "could" is also called a modal. That means that it sets up a condition that may or may not be real. Consider these differences. I could go if he would ask me. = This is a condition, based on another premise. I cancelled my plans before I realized I could go. = This is a simple past tense. "Can" and "may" are most frequently interchangeable in senses denoting possibility. The original definition of "can" was "to know of, to know how," and carried with it the notion of knowing how to do something--mental ability rather than physical ability, although this was later extended to physical ability. From these two uses, "can" came to take on the connotation of possibility. The transition from "possibility" to "permission" ("may") is subtler than the handbooks think. It comes from permission given by not inhibiting or prohibiting; thus, possibility.

How may/can I help you? You are being polite when you say "may," but you are being practical when you say "can," which expresses an ability.

grammarNOW! says:

In present-day English, there is little if any difference between the uses of these words when they refer to either possibility or permission. But at least retaining the difference in degree between "may" and "might" enables us to use more precision when we speak of possibility. On the other hand, if no one understands the distinction anymore, why bother? I think keeping—and teaching--such distinctions adds breadth to the language.

if/whether

"If" as a synonym for "whether" is commonly used with words like "doubt," "see," "ask," "wonder," "decide," and "know." After "determine," "deliberate," or "reconsider," etc., "whether" is the natural choice. That is, the choice should be determined by considerations of collocation and register, not by an arbitrary (and false) rule that "if" must never be tolerated in such clauses and should only be used in its conditional ("if. . .then") sense.

There are times when "if" is not a proper synonym for "whether." Examples:
Let me know whether you want cake.
Let me know if you want cake.

In these examples, the grammatically correct word would depend on the intended meaning. The difference is this: The first example means "Whether you want cake or you don"t want cake, let me know," whereas the second example means "If you want cake, (then) let me know." There is a difference.

Evans 1957 says that the notion that "if" may not introduce a noun clause, as "whether" may, is a recent one, but it can be traced back to an 18th century dictionary editor. More recent American commentators find the usage of "if" to mean "whether" standard and find "whether" more often used informal contexts. The notion that "whether" and not "if" should be used to introduce a clause is still open to debate.

Merriam Webster"s Dictionary of English Usage has a rather lengthy discussion on this issue, noting that most twentieth-century commentators find the usage of "if" to introduce a clause standard, but adding that "whether" is used in more formal contexts.

The "whether" sense of "if" is not used at the beginning of a sentence. The initial "if" is understood as the ordinary conditional use. The "whether" sense is rarely found except after a verb, and sometimes after adjectives. The insistence on "whether" when an alternative is specified is called "superstition" by Copperud (a noted usage expert).

There is quite a bit more regarding the subjunctive us of "if." Basically, the subjunctive "if" should be used when a clause contains a condition that is hypothetical or contrary to fact, which is sometimes a subjective judgment.

grammarNOW! says:
The use of "or not" (with "whether") is redundant. It is implied in "whether" and should be omitted.

Agreement: compound subjects and their verb

Compounding involves having more than one (subject, verb, , etc.). If you have a compound subject, all subjects would refer to the same predicate. For example (subjects underlined):
Falling leaves, cooler breezes and paler skies signal autumn"s return.

Remember that a regular plural verb does NOT end in /s/, while a singular verb often does (just the opposite of nouns).

A compound subject almost always takes a plural verb, but often some phrases become one to our ear or we sense that they are a unit, especially when the noun following the verb is singular (as "breakfast" is below). In formal use, these are still two subjects, although you may hear them used as one in less formal writing and speaking:
Ham and eggs is my favorite breakfast.
Ice cream and cake is being served.

Some abstract subjects should be treated as singular if they are commonly considered a conceptual unit:
Peace and quiet is rare in this office.

When a compound subject linked by "and" is modified by "every" or "each," the verb is singular:
Each spring and fall brings the danger of more storms.

When a compound subject is joined by "or," "neither...nor," or "either...or" the verb should agree with the subject closest to it.
One or more items were priced below their value.
My sisters or my mom drives me to school.

When you begin a sentence with a verb and the subjects follow, decide whether you have one or multiple subjects and make the verb agree:
Enclosed are a resume and letters of reference.

grammarNOW! says:
When the verb follows a subject placeholder like "there," and then the "real" compound subjects follow the verb, it isn"t so simple. I would use what sounds natural, and not use an awkward verb because it may follow a "correct" rule. This is considered "notional agreement" when the number of the verb is affected by the noun closest to it.

Shall / Will

"Shall" is a formal version of "will" but they are not always interchangeable. The use of "shall" seems to be on the decline, unless you want to affect a certain sense of formality or emphasis. It means "will have to, is determined to, promises to, or definitely will." The past tense of "shall" is "should," which carries with it a sense of requirement or necessity. It is an auxiliary verb meaning "must, ought or would."

Warriner, 1968, says, "The old distinction between these words is no longer observed by most people."Shall," which was once considered the only correct form for the expression of the simple future in the first person, has been replaced by "will" in speech and writing of most people. . . . In a few expressions "shall" is the only form ever used and so presents no usage problem: "Shall we go?" "Shall I help you?" To use "will" in these expressions would change the meaning. With the exception of these special uses, "will" is as correct as "shall."

British usage differs slightly. In American English, "shall" remains entrenched in legal usage and some other constructions as mentioned above. Otherwise, it is often seen as pretentious.

Interrogative forms may depend on your preference, but I see no problem with saying, "Shall we go to the park this afternoon?" I would presume that you would be willing to go with me if I asked it that way. If I had no idea and wondered what our plans might be, I would say, "Will we go to the park this afternoon?"

Webster"s Online has an interesting usage note following these definitions and usage points:

1. archaic
   a : will have to : MUST
   b : will be able to : CAN
2. 
   a -- used to express a command or exhortation
   b -- used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory
3. 
   a -- used to express what is inevitable or seems likely to happen in the future
   b -- used to express simple futurity 4 -- used to express determination

Usage: From the reams of pronouncements written about the distinction between shall and will-dating back as far as the 17th century-it is clear that the rules laid down have never very accurately reflected actual usage. The nationalistic statements of 18th and 19th century British grammarians, who commonly cited the misuses of the Irish, the Scots, and occasionally the Americans, suggest that the traditional rules may have come closest to the usage of southern England. Some modern commentators believe that English usage is still the closest to the traditionally prescribed norms. Most modern commentators allow that will is more common in nearly all uses. The entries for shall and will in this dictionary show current usage.

Here is The American Heritage Dictionary"s usage note:
The traditional rules for using shall and will prescribe a highly complicated pattern of use in which the meanings of the forms change according to the person of the subject. In the first person, shall is used to indicate simple futurity: I shall (not will) have to buy another ticket. In the second and third persons, the same sense of futurity is expressed by will: The comet will (not shall) return in 87 years. You will (not shall) probably encounter some heavy seas when you round the point. The use of will in the first person and of shall in the second and third may express determination, promise, obligation, or permission, depending on the context. Thus I will leave tomorrow indicates that the speaker is determined to leave; You and she shall leave tomorrow is likely to be interpreted as a command. The sentence You shall have your money expresses a promise ("I will see that you get your money"), whereas You will have your money makes a simple prediction. ·Such, at least, a! re the traditional rules. The English and some traditionalists about usage are probably the only people who follow these rules, and then not with perfect consistency. In America, people who try to adhere to them run the risk of sounding pretentious or haughty. Americans normally use will to express most of the senses reserved for shall in English usage. Americans use shall chiefly in first person invitations and questions that request an opinion or agreement, such as Shall we go? and in certain fixed expressions, such as We shall overcome. In formal style, Americans use shall to express an explicit obligation, as in Applicants shall provide a proof of residence, though this sense is also expressed by must or should. In speech the distinction that the English signal by the choice of shall or will may be rendered by stressing the auxiliary, as in I will leave tomorrow ("I intend to leave"); by choosing another auxiliary, such as must or have to; or by using an adverb such as ! Certainly. ·In addition to its sense of obligation, shall also can con vey high moral seriousness that derives in part from its extensive use in the King James Bible, as in "Righteousness shall go before him and shall set us in the way of his steps" (Ps 85:13) and "He that shall humble himself shall be exalted" (Mt 23:12). The prophetic overtones that shall bears with it have no doubt led to its use in some of the loftiest rhetoric in English. This may be why Lincoln chose to use it instead of will in the Gettysburg Address: "government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." See Usage Note at "should."

grammarNOW! says:

Upon his decision not to seek re-nomination, President Lyndon B. Johnson said, "I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president." He was being formal, but I think he was also making a slight connotative distinction: His "shall" was an intent, and his "will" was an absolute, irrevocable purpose.

7 Aches

You probably know the word "ache". It can be a verb or a
noun, and means "to hurt" or "a pain". We sometimes combine
the word "ache" with parts of the body. For example, if our
back hurts, we say that we have "backache" or "a backache".
We do *not* do this with all parts of the body. For example,
we cannot say that we have a "handache". There are really
only five parts of the body that we combine with "ache".
They are shown below, plus two other words that we use in a
slightly different way.

--

BACKACHE

EARACHE

HEADACHE

STOMACHACHE

TOOTHACHE

--

HEARTACHE
We do not use this to mean a *physical* pain in the heart.
Instead, it means an emotional pain.

FACEACHE
This means an ugly or miserable-looking person. (BrE)
7 Aches

You probably know the word "ache". It can be a verb or a
noun, and means "to hurt" or "a pain". We sometimes combine
the word "ache" with parts of the body. For example, if our
back hurts, we say that we have "backache" or "a backache".
We do *not* do this with all parts of the body. For example,
we cannot say that we have a "handache". There are really
only five parts of the body that we combine with "ache".
They are shown below, plus two other words that we use in a
slightly different way.

--

BACKACHE

EARACHE

HEADACHE

STOMACHACHE

TOOTHACHE

--

HEARTACHE
We do not use this to mean a *physical* pain in the heart.
Instead, it means an emotional pain.

FACEACHE
This means an ugly or miserable-looking person. (BrE)

7 Measurements

Here are 7 systems of measurement for things like time,
distance and money.

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
1. TIME

1000 milliseconds = 1 second (sec)
60 seconds = 1 minute (min)
60 minutes = 1 hour (hr)
24 hours = 1 day
7 days = 1 week (wk)
28, 30 or 31 days = 1 month (mth)
12 months = 1 year (yr)
365 days = 1 year
BUT every 4th year = 366 days (a leap year)

Also note:
52 weeks = 1 year (approximately)

People often use the following terms:
48 hours (2 days)
72 hours (3 days)

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
2. DISTANCE
There are two systems for measuring distance in the English-
speaking world:

a) metric
10 millimetres (mm) = 1 centimetre (cm)
100 centimetres = 1 metre (m)
1000 metres = 1 kilometre (km)

b) imperial/US
12 inches (in) = 1 foot (ft)
3 feet = 1 yard (yd) (approximately 1 metre)
1760 yards = 1 mile (approximately 1.6 km)

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
3. AREA
Area is the extent of a surface. It is 2-dimensional. Area
is often expressed using the word "square" + the distance.
For example, if a room is 10 metres long and 5 metres wide,
it is 50 square metres (50 sq. m). But we can also use the
distance + the figure 2. Then we would write 50m2.

Here are two examples:

My table is 3 metres long x 2 metres wide:
area = 6 sq.m, or
area = 6m2

My town is 3 miles x 4 miles:
area = 12 sq. miles

We often measure the area of land using:
hectare = 10,000 square metres
acre = 4,840 square yards

Warning!
There is a difference between "square metres" and "metres
square". If my room is 10 feet x 10 feet, it is 100 square
feet but 10 feet square. We can only say this when the
length and the width are the same.

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
4. VOLUME
Volume is the amount of space occupied by an or
enclosed in a container. It is 3-dimensional. Volume is
often expressed using the word "cubic" + the distance. For
example, if a room is 5 metres long, 3 metres wide and
3 metres high, it is 45 cubic metres (45 cu. m). But we can
also use the distance + the figure 3. So we write 45m3.

Other measurements of volume are:
- 1000 cubic centimetres (cc) = 1 litre (L or l)
- gallon (approx. 4.6 litres in UK, approx. 3.8 liters in US)

We use litres to talk about fluids like drinks and petrol.
We also use gallons to talk about petrol and other fluids.

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
5. SPEED
Speed is a measurement that combines distance, quantity,
volume etc AND time. Common ways of talking about the speed
of a car, for example, are:
- 50 miles per hour (50mph)
- 50 kilometres per hour (50kph)

We also use the symbol / when talking about speed:
- 50 people/hour (50 people per hour)
- 1000 l/hr (1000 litres per hour)

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
6. WEIGHT
There are two systems to measure how heavy something is:

a) metric
1000 grams (g) = 1 kilogram (kg)
1000 kilograms = 1 metric ton (metric tonne)

b) imperial/US
16 ounces (oz) = 1 pound (lb)
14 pounds = 1 stone (British)
100 pounds = 1 hundredweight (cwt)*
20 hundredweights = 1 ton*

*There is a slight difference between British and US
hundreweights and tons. For more detail, see:
http://vocabulary.englishclub.com/weights-ukus.htm
http://vocabulary.englishclub.com/weights-metric.htm

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
7. MONEY
Most countries use a basic monetary unit (for example the
dollar) divided into 100 fractional units (example cents).
They use a combination of paper money (banknotes or notes)
and metal money (coins).

Here are some examples from the world"s major currencies:

USA: American Dollar (USD or $)
1 dollar = 100 cents

UK: British Pound (GBP or £)
1 pound = 100 pence

European Union: Euro (EUR)
1 euro = 100 cents

Japan: Japanese Yen (JPY)
1 yen = 100 sen (not used today)

Switzerland: Swiss Franc (CHF)
1 franc = 100 centimes

For a longer list of currencies, see:
http://business.englishclub.com/money_currencies.htm

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Tip!
Words like metre and litre are spelled differently in the
UK and US. The British write metre, kilometre, litre etc.
The Americans write meter, kilometer, liter etc.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Punctuating quotations

In American usage, the comma and period always (still) go inside quotation marks. The British usage of placing punctuation where it actually applies is what they call "logical," and many Americans think so too. But you won"t find any American style guides advocating it. You could say you"re writing for an international audience, and then choosing the British style wouldn"t be so unusual and could certainly be defended. Most of Europe, Canada, and Australia follow it, as do British territories and those areas settled by the British around the world (such as India).

This subject is covered extensively in Fowler"s Modern English Usage and has been the subject of quite a bit of discussion on alt.usage.english. In short, the rule that commas and periods always go within the quotation marks (called traditional style) goes back to the days of movable type, when it was believed the period or comma would be likely to be damaged if it were on the outside of the quotation marks. This traditional style has only lately been questioned because of technical instructional manuals for computer use (where it does matter a great deal whether some quoted matter should be entered exactly as quoted).

For other punctuation than the comma and period, if the punctuation belongs to the quote, put it inside the quotation marks. If not, put it outside. If it belongs to both, put it inside. Example: Did you know that she asked him, "Why?" Traditionally, the question mark within the quotes does double duty and there is rarely a need to double punctuate. Here is what one usage guide, Chambers Guide to Grammar and Usage (1996), says:

When the end of a passage of quoted direct speech coincides with the end of the whole sentence, and there ought logically to be _two_ punctuation marks—one belonging to the quoted words and one belonging to the whole sentence—it is often correct to insert only _one_ punctuation mark and simply take the other for granted. The following rules apply [two examples follow before this one]:
(iii) question/exclamation mark + quotation mark +question/exclamation mark _may be_ reduced. If the two marks are not identical, both should be retained: Why did he shout, ""Look out for that car!"? If the two marks are identical, it would be logical to keep both, and it is not wrong to do so: Why did you say, "Who goes there?"? but it is considered preferable by many people to omit one or the other of the marks, even though it is not strictly logical to do so since each of them is attached to a different part of the sentence: Why did you say, "Who goes there?" Why did you say, "Who goes there"?