I think that technically "onward" is the word to use if you're referring to time, and "onwards" is the word to use if you're talking about space (distance). So "Let us continue onwards towards the mountain." "New technology is part and parcel of the onward march of progress." Usually we write "From now on ..." rather than "From now onward" - and "From now onwards" would technically be wrong. Having said all that, most English speakers use "onward" and "onwards" interchangeably in practice.
Dictionary.com says that the battle is over. "Onward" and "onwards" are regarded as two forms of the same word--with "onward" being more commonly used. In the USA, we would never use "onward" in that construction. "From now on" is everyday speech. "Onwards" is rare in American English. In fact, most of us say "move on" rather than "move onward."
The management decided to send the workers for training to enhance their skill/skills. skill or skills?
1. I only pay for an average of 5 dollars for my lunch everyday in school. 2. I pay for an average of 5 dollars only for my lunch everyday in school. Both correct?
I only pay an average of 5 dollars everyday for my lunch at school. or... I only pay 5 dollars for my school lunch. (more common - the "an average" and "per each" or "per day" is implied)
No. The correct statement is shorter and easier: Does shale oil contain fewer contaminants than oil from the desert?
Contaminants can not be counted, why "fewer"? This word has more than one meanings. meanings = plural Rights?
According to the magazine's annual rich list, Mr Gates' fortune rose to $86bn, from $75bn, followed by investor Warren Buffett, up $14.8bn to $75.6bn. It was bad news for US President Donald Trump, who slipped 220 spots to 544 and must now rub along on just $3.5bn. rub along on = means what?
In many cases contaminants can be counted. When you get car emissions tested you see how many parts per million of certain contaminants there are. But on the issue of "fewer" v "less", while some consider there to be a usage prescription ("fewer" if countable, otherwise "less") the use of the two has overlapped significantly, and now it is more a matter of what simply sounds more natural. The general rule is still as noted, but to be too strict on usage can lead to cases of hypercorrection, where the supposed prescriptive usage results in non-standard language. For example, it is possibly more natural to say "I have seen fewer films than you this week", but you wouldn't say "I have seen this film at fewest 5 times" but rather "I have seen this film at least 5 times". In shops you will see signs saying "10 items or less" rather than "10 items or fewer". The overlap possibly comes due to the opposite of both words being "more", yet when asked what the opposite of "more" is, most people will probably only say "less". So "less" is becoming more popular for count nouns. The correct sentence would be "this word has more than one meaning". "One meaning" is a singular phrase. Compare to: "This word has more than two meanings". The same applies to right / rights. "the judication had infringed upon two of his rights: the right to bear arms and the right to religious freedom"
To rub along means to carry on, manage, cope, in spite of difficulties. So to rub along on just USD3.5bn is a sarcastic statement, as there should be no difficulties with that amount of money, even if Gates and Buffett have 20 times more.
Nitpick: Shouldn't that be, "I pay only 5 dollars..."? "I only pay 5 dollars..." implies that I'm the only one who pays it.
"Only I" is slightly stronger than "I only" but they mean the same thing. "Only 5 dollars" is clearer than if the "only" is separated from the "5 dollars".
No they do not. In the case of "I only paid...", "Only" in that position is an adverb limiting the verb. Therefore it cannot relate to the subject of the clause. Which is why you have to say "Only I" when you mean that I was the only person.
