Linguistic Pet Peeves

Why? You can do that in English - retask words just by shuffling them around in sentences. Heck, I did it just now.

There are some words (usually beginning with the letter "H") that I've seen used both ways and I've never been sure which is correct.For example, "I have a hypothesis" vs. "I have an hypothesis" or "It's a historical fact" vs. "It's an historical fact."Can anyone tell me which of these is correct?

I guess this is where I should state my question.Which one of the following sentences is correct?Does god has free will?Does god have free will?I've always thought that "has" is the right one to use. "God" is a third person so shouldn't it be "has"? However, "have" sounds better for some reason which I can't quite put my fingers on yet.So, which one is it?

Modern English. Old English.

The only time you use "an" is to avoid glottal stops. Since there would be no glottal stops in the h-words you've chosen, a is the proper use.On the other hand, the h in "herb" is silent, so the proper use is "an herb."

Yeah, that's what I was always taught. To be specific, I was told that a comma "denotes a point where you would take a breath."To be honest, comma usage is one thing that still somewhat baffles me. I think I have some idea how it's used but I'm still not that clear on it. Does anyone know of a good, online source that explains this? Hmm...that's a good question. I never gave it much thought. I suppose I assumed it was grammatically incorrect as the word "bad" isn't generally used that way. I don't think I've ever seen the dictionary show "bad" as a noun, but I guess there's a first time for everything.As I said, I'm no English major so don't take my word for anything.

Does God have free will?And thanks for your answer regarding "a" vs. "an." How ironic that someone whose first language is not English knows it better than those for whom it is.

That's odd because I've always said, "a herb" (fully pronouncing the "H"). I'll have to ask around and see if this is an Australian thing or if I'm just weird.

Well, I said that it sounded better with "have" as oppose to "has". What I was asking for is why. "Has" is used to described a third person in singular form. "Have" is used for first person (both singular and plural), second person (again, both), or third person (only plural form). "God" is singular... unless we're talking about the borg.

Ha! You should see my English and philosophy papers. I beat the living daylight out of native English speakers. Actually, one of my former English profs used to refer people to me to proof read their papers.

Oops. Sorry, I misunderstood.I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with the formal rules of English to say. For what it's worth, though, here is how I would break it down.As a question ("Does God have free will?"), the word is "have." As an affirmative statement ("God has free will."), the word is "has." As a negative statement ("God does not have free will."), the word is "have."I wish I could explain why this is but I'm afraid I don't really know. I only know that this is how I've always used the words. Sorry.And yes, in my experience, it's not at all uncommon to come across "non-native English speakers" who know it better than native speakers. To be honest, it doesn't surprise me any more.

You've stumbled on my big pet hate in speech. Double negatives. The idea that double negatives are 'wrong' or amount to a positive is an utter invention, an ugly convention forced on language by academics with their heads far too far up their own bums. In natural English grammar a double negative, like a double positive is an affirmation or strengthening of the statement.

ahem.fewer is quantitative, less is not. if you can count it, you use fewer. if you cannot, you use less.so you would have fewer calories but less fat.

nowadays, h is a consonant.

has no one mentioned "your" for "you're" and vice-versa?