Numbers

Most people say large numbers like "a hundred and fifty. Two hundred and seventy-five", etc. I am pretty sure that this is wrong, but I can't yet find proof. I think you're supposed to say, "one hundred fifty. Two hundred seventy-five." I think I remember this from grammar school, plus my niece's math homework, but when I look it up online, people are defending the 'and' version. But I don't trust opinions: I want a good source (partially because I'm pretty sure I'm right.) (from english.stackexchange.com:) "When I learned this “rule” (in first grade, I believe), it was explained that and separates the whole part from the fractional part: 2⅔=two and two thirds. The word and would only represent the decimal point in decimal numbers when they are read out in the formal “fractional” reading of decimals, as 2.3=two and three tenths, or 1.75=one and seventy-five one-hundredths. That is, according to this rule, *one hundred and fifty is ungrammatical because, if it is supposed to mean 150, it should be one hundred fifty, and if it is supposed to be mean 100.50, it should be one hundred and fifty one-hundredths. The rationale behind the rule is that you should only have one and in a phrase, so if the number were 403⅞, you wouldn’t say four hundred and three and seven eighths. Of course, most of the time the decimal point is read as point: 2.3=two point three; 1.75=one point seven five or one point seventy-five; 100.50=one hundred point five zero, one hundred point five oh, or one hundred point fifty. The fractional reading of decimal numbers also starts to become a bit ridiculous if there are more than three digits after the decimal point: nobody would say 3.14159265=three and fourteen million one hundred fifty-nine thousand two hundred sixty-five one hundred millionths. As you have undoubtedly observed, many Americans don’t follow the rule about and only being used to separate whole and fractional parts, and insert and just before the units of a number less than one hundred, although the forms without and are quite common too. 457 four hundred fifty-seven or four hundred and fifty-seven 2001 two thousand one or two thousand and one 1,000,001 one million one or one million and one"

Have Shaved or Have Shaven?

I don't see a clear-cut answer anywhere yet.

If I were you, I'd read this (I did!)

all about the subjunctive tense

Has proved vs. has proven

one answer, from http://www.english-test.net/forum/ftopic14596.html: "'Proven' suggests something conclusive and final, whereas 'proved' would typically convey the notion that the method has so far been successful but that perhaps there could still be room for more testing."

Comma Usage Question

"don't put a comma after the main clause when a dependent (subordinate) clause follows it (except for cases of extreme contrast).

Incorrect: She was late for class, because her alarm clock was broken.

Incorrect: The cat scratched at the door, while I was eating.

Correct: She was still quite upset, although she had won the Oscar. (This comma use is correct because it is an example of extreme contrast)"

source: Purdue OWL: Commas

Lie, lay, laid, lain

LIE versus LAY
Lie vs. Lay usage Present

Lie, Lying: to tell a falsehood:
Present: I lie, and I am lying.
Past: I lied about eating the cake.
Past Participle: I have lied about eating ice cream too.

Lie, Lying: to recline
Present: I lie, and I am lying.
Past: I lay down after eating too much cake last night.
Past Participle: I have lain down for hours and hours on cold winter Sundays.

Lay, Laying: to put or place
Present: I lay the book on the table, and I am laying down the book.
Past: I laid the slippers next to the bed.
Past Participle: I have laid many coins on store counters in the past.

Hints that might help to remember:
LaiN is for sleeping, which happens at Night.

LaiD and LaiD: Always put or place the 'D' at the end.

I lay down yesterday....I lAY down yesterdAY.

Questions to Come Back to

past tenses of drag? drink?
spelling for words like traceable....I always want to spell it tracable. I can see that that is wrong.

"That" and "Which"

Here is a great explanation from KentLaw.edu about when to use "that" and when to use "which", as well as when to use a comma.

"2. When choosing between "that" and "which," use "that" to introduce a restrictive clause and "which" to introduce a nonrestrictive clause. Although some writers use "which" to introduce a restrictive clause, the traditional practice is to use "that" to introduce a restrictive clause and "which" to introduce a nonrestrictive clause. When writing a restrictive clause, do not place a comma before "that." When writing a nonrestrictive clause, do place a comma before "which.""

Grammar/punctuation questions

If you're writing and have 2 words that seem like they should be hyphenated in a row, do you hyphenate both, or just the first, or what? Case in point: the phrase "brute force code breaking"...how on earth do you write that? brute-force code breaking? brute-force code-breaking? bruteforce code-breaking?Also, Why do people say 'if it were the case' or 'if I were her', etc., instead of 'if it WAS the case' or 'if I WAS her'?Do you put a comma before saying just in case ... so...let's say...'I mopped the floor, in case anyone might come over.' I don't think you put a comma, but the more I think about these things, the more confused I get. Thanks! (that is, if anyone even reads this!!)

I'm convinced that no one knows all the rules of punctuation

Just when you thought you had a resource that would finally answer all of your punctuation questions, this comes along:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/06/28/040628crbo_books1