Asked by: Alicia Jerde
Score: 4.7/5
(51 votes)
Written is the past participle of write.
Is written a real word?
“Written” and “wrote” are both forms of the verb «to write.» Wrote is the simple past tense of «to write.» Written is the past participle of «to write.»
What kind of word is written?
Written can be an adjective or a verb.
Can Written be a noun?
writing used as a noun:
Something written, such as a document, article or book. … The style of writing of a person. «I can’t read your writing.»
Have written meaning?
(I have written) >> present perfect … We use the present perfect when we are talking about an event that started in the past and the event still has some influence in the present. ( I had written) >> past perfect … that means you did the writing at the past and finished at the past too …
34 related questions found
How do you use written in a sentence?
Written sentence example
- It is a little speech that I have written for him. …
- Disappointment was written in his face. …
- His uncle had written her a letter saying: …
- They have also written to Mr. …
- Had Alex written off marriage completely? …
- Surprise was written on Dean’s face. …
- Had she written a suicide note then?
Is it I haven’t written or I haven’t wrote?
either say, «I didn’t write to you this week,» or, «I haven’t written to you this week. » «I haven’t wrote to you this week,» is grammatically incorrect.
What is the example of written?
Written is the past participle form of the word write. An example of written is a book that an author created several years ago. The definition of written is words put down so that they can be read. An example of something written is a letter.
What is the noun of written?
noun. the act of a person or thing that writes. written form: to commit one’s thoughts to writing. that which is written; characters or matter written with a pen or the like: His writing is illegible.
What is the base word of written?
The Latin root word scrib and its variant script both mean “write.” Today we have “written” a unique podcast script to permanently “write” these roots into your memory!
What part of speech is neatly?
The word »neatly» is an adverb. Adverbs are words that can modify verbs, adverbs, or adjectives in a sentence.
What is write a short note?
It means a short description on any given subject. The subject could be any kind of topic such as a person, a thing, a happening, or an idea. As the name implies, the short note is rather brief and is not expected to cover the subject in detail.
How do you write any word?
5 Simple ways to improve your written English
- Expand your vocabulary. To express yourself clearly, you need a good active vocabulary. …
- Master English spelling. You must know how to spell those words correctly. …
- Read regularly. People often say that we learn to write best by reading. …
- Improve your grammar. …
- Just do it!
Am I right or am i rite?
(colloquial, rhetorical question) Said by someone who has just stated what he or she considers to be an unassailable truth.
How do I start just writing?
How to ‘just write’
- Write any old drivel. …
- Start with a word-count goal first, then progress to project goals. …
- Track your progress. …
- Make specific appointments with your writing. …
- Get the conditions as right as possible, but work with what you’ve got. …
- Get an audience for your writing.
Is that Wright or right?
Right basically means correct or acceptable whereas wright refers to a builder or creator. However, it is not very easy to remember these meanings as all these words sound the same.
What does noun mean in writing?
A noun is a word that names a person, place, thing, or animal in a sentence. A noun can function as a subject, direct object, indirect object, subject complement, object complement, appositive, adjective, or adverb. In English, many nouns are not gender sensitive.
What is the plural form of home?
1 home /ˈhoʊm/ noun. plural homes. 1 home. /ˈhoʊm/ plural homes.
What are gerunds English grammar?
A gerund is a noun made from a verb root plus ing (a present participle). A whole gerund phrase functions in a sentence just like a noun, and can act as a subject, an object, or a predicate nominative.
What is writing explain with example?
«Writing» is the process of using symbols (letters of the alphabet, punctuation and spaces) to communicate thoughts and ideas in a readable form. … Generally, we write using a pen/pencil (handwriting) or a keyboard (typing). With a pen/pencil we usually write on a surface such as paper or whiteboard.
What are the examples of written communication?
Examples of written communications generally used with clients or other businesses include:
- Email.
- Internet websites.
- Letters.
- Proposals.
- Telegrams.
- Faxes.
- Postcards.
- Contracts.
Is written and was written?
Both expressions contain the past participle ‘written’ and are in the passive voice. So ‘Macbeth is written by Shakespeare’ is by no means a present tense. A present continuous could be created by saying ‘Macbeth is being written by Shakespeare’ which is wholly wrong as it was written over 400 years ago.
Which of the sentence is grammatically correct?
In order for a sentence to be grammatically correct, the subject and verb must both be singular or plural. In other words, the subject and verb must agree with one another in their tense.
Did not write or did not write?
8. Incorrect: He did not wrote the test last week. Correct: He did not write the test last week. The helping verb ‘did’ is followed by the present tense of the verb and not the past tense form.
What makes one word more “real” than another? Are there degrees of “realness” for words?
Totally “real”
“Real” words can be defined in a few different ways. The most obvious and restrictive definition is a word accepted as being “standard,” which means it appears in the dictionary and is recognized as valid by prescriptive grammarians—grammarians who prefer that the written word follow the rules of formal Standard English, the term used to describe the type of English that’s considered to be the norm for educated speakers. (For a good look at prescriptive vs. descriptive grammar, see this excellent entry by 
mendax.) This is the definition that most of us think of when we label a word as being “real.”
Sort of “real”
A second definition, more forgiving than the first, describes words that are recognized by the dictionary but considered nonstandard—words which are accepted through common, frequent usage, especially in dialects, other casual speech, and the less formal types of writing, but which aren’t considered grammatical or proper by a wider audience. Words in this category include irregardless, which is likely a combination of “irrespective” and “regardless”; ain’t; and alright, which is the nonstandard spelling of “all right.” In many cases, the nonstandard word is a portmanteau—a word created by blending the sounds and meanings of two other words. Over time, words like these might become standard by virtue of having been used so often and for so long that they’re accepted by even the most prescriptive of grammarians. Motel (motor + hotel), chortle (chuckle + snort), and smog (smoke + fog) are all portmanteaus that were once considered informal or nonstandard, but which are now accepted as standard. Similarly, trademarks and jargon from certain professions or interests can become mainstream—think jazzercise (jazz + exercise), palimony (pal + alimony), and breathalyzer (breath + analyzer).
Other words considered sort of “real” are contracted versions of longer words, like “mobile” for mobile phone or “cell” for cellular phone. These contractions can also become standard over time, as has happened with “flu” for influenza, “phone” for telephone, and even “TV” for television.
But until words in this category lose their “nonstandard” label in the dictionary, like the examples above, most grammarians would encourage you not to use them except in more casual writing and speech.
Not “real”
A third definition includes slang and words that are just being coined and used by various groups. Most people, grammarians or otherwise, would consider these words to be a level or two below nonstandard and therefore definitely not “real.” However, these words have a certain currency, thanks to their ability to proliferate rapidly via the internet and casual conversation as they’re picked up and used by more and more people. Phat, ginormous, and conversate are just a few examples of words we could consider to be “real” in the sense that they’re understood by those who use them, but they’re not “real” in the sense that they’re neither recognized by a wider audience, nor are they recognized as belonging to Standard English. It wouldn’t be appropriate to use them in an essay for school, in a resume, in an email to a work colleague, or in most other types of written communication, but you might use them in things like emails among friends or very casual blog posts.
Most slang terms and similar words enjoy a brief popularity, falling in and out of fashion very quickly (almost nobody uses “groovy” seriously anymore), so it’s probably a good idea to use them sparingly. Not only might several groups of people not understand what they mean, but they also tend to date the works they’re in. Likewise, you’ll want to avoid modern slang in fandoms set in the past—Sherlock Holmes wouldn’t take a “phat case,” and nobody in Arthur Conan Doyle’s works would describe the Hound of the Baskervilles as “ginormous.” You could always do some research and use some slang from the appropriate period to help your fics feel authentic, but be careful not to go overboard since that could backfire by confusing or annoying your readers.
Even though slang isn’t considered “real” or even “sort of real,” some of it might eventually become mainstream. Many slang terms have made the transition to “real” words over time—jazz is one that immediately comes to mind.
Really not “real”
And then there are words that are really not “real,” like the fantastic nonsense words in Lewis Carroll’s poem “Jabberwocky.” Nearly all of them are portmanteaus. In fact, Carroll’s the one who first began using the word portmanteau in the way it’s being used in this feature—the word originally meant a sort of a large suitcase, but he appropriated it to describe the words he created: slithy is a combination of “slimy” and “lithe,” mimsy comes from “miserable” and “flimsy,” and so on.
Other words that fall into this category are malapropisms, or words used incorrectly, usually in a comical way:
“Shh! Hakkai said we had to aggravate our voices in the library,” said Goku.
“That’s moderate, you stupid monkey,” Gojyo said, rolling his eyes.
The term malapropism comes from the play The Rivals by Richard Brinsley Sheridan, whose character Mrs. Malaprop loves using big words—even though she uses them incorrectly all the time (such as when she substitutes “allegory” for “alligator” in the famous line, “she’s as headstrong as an allegory on the banks of Nile”). While the words in malapropisms themselves aren’t wrong, the meanings being attributed to them are, so in a sense malapropisms can count as being really not “real.”
General nonsense words or made-up terms would also fall under this definition. Phasers in Star Trek, the vorpal blade in “Jabberwocky,” and naquadah reactors from Stargate: SG1 are just a few examples of clearly made-up words. Words like these would be obviously wrong if used in contexts other than the fandoms to which they belong.
Because they’re really not “real,” nonsense words and malapropisms should be used as features of either a narrative or character voice only.
So is this a “real” word or not?
If you’re not sure, the best way to decide if you’re using a “real” word or not is to look it up in either a dictionary or a usage guide—Dictionary.com is useful because they compile definitions from multiple sources, and they’ll often tell you if a word is used or spelled differently in American versus British English. They also label particular words or definitions as nonstandard or slang where appropriate, so you won’t have to guess. As for usage guides, any decent writing handbook should have a section on the more commonly used idioms, colloquialisms, and nonstandard words and phrases to help you decide whether you’re using a “real” word or not. (For a short list of usage guides and writing handbooks that have been reviewed by members of this community, you can go here.)
Practical application
As always, it’s up to you to decide what tone and flavor you want to give your writing. Nonstandard words are most likely to occur (and more likely to be accepted by readers) in the dialog, which is meant to reflect natural speech patterns, while the narrative portion of many stories is written paying more attention to the rules of Standard English than not—particularly if it’s a neutral third-person narration. A third-person narration that focuses on one particular character’s point of view will probably use at least some of that character’s nonstandard vocabulary. A first-person narration, though, draws entirely from the speech patterns of the character doing the narrating.
For instance, Sha Gojyo of Saiyuki, a gambler with little formal education, would be more likely to use slang and loose, informal grammar in both his speech and thoughts, while Cho Hakkai, a former schoolteacher, would stick to more proper grammar in both his dialog and narrative written from his point of view. So while Gojyo might say,
“Yeah, sorry. It was kind of a spur-of-the moment thing, leaving like that.” Gojyo shrugged, casual-like, to show he wasn’t worried about what Sanzo might say.
Hakkai’s point of view for the same incident would probably be something more like,
“My apologies, but the decision to leave had to be made quickly.” Hakkai raised his shoulder in a casual shrug, showing he wasn’t concerned about what Sanzo might say.
If you’re focusing on what sounds most authentic for your characters and your story, that particular consideration easily trumps any concern over whether you should be using “real” words or not.
Sources:
Dictionary.com
Fowler’s Modern English Usage by R. W. Burchfield
Garner’s Modern American Usage by Bryan A. Garner
“Jabberwocky” on Wikipedia
Rules for Writers, 6th ed. by Diana Hacker
На основании Вашего запроса эти примеры могут содержать грубую лексику.
На основании Вашего запроса эти примеры могут содержать разговорную лексику.
Marc has written a real masterpiece.
It is written about a Real person, according to the same Real person.
Not conventional love letters, written to a real beloved, but surprise letters for strangers.
Не стандартные любовные письма, написанные реальному возлюбленному, а неожиданные письма для незнакомцев.
The Unfinished War , written by a real Afghan war vet — Major General Aleksandr Lyakhovsky.
Неоконченная война», которая была написана настоящим ветераном афганской войны — генерал-майором Александром Ляховским.
Результатов: 96941. Точных совпадений: 1. Затраченное время: 466 мс
Documents
Корпоративные решения
Спряжение
Синонимы
Корректор
Справка и о нас
Индекс слова: 1-300, 301-600, 601-900
Индекс выражения: 1-400, 401-800, 801-1200
Индекс фразы: 1-400, 401-800, 801-1200
Twentyfive questions appear in the list of questions already asked on this forum that are similar to this question. Of those, 8 titles do not mention the «real word» phrase. The other 17 ask about a specific word, typically using a standard form: «Is X a real word«. Additionally, I’m sure, many questions asked on this forum omit real and simply ask something to the effect of «Is X a word».
How can a question ask if a word is real without using the word as a word?
Detailed answers will be entertained. Explanations and examples of consensual approaches to designating some words as real, and others not, are of most value to me. How and when do, for example, scientific terms, become real terms? Nextmost in value are scales or systems of realness. For example, where do nonsense words, nonce-words, spurious words and neologisms fall on a scale of realness? within some system of realness? The central idea of both values (consensual approaches, and scales or systems) is to take the question beyond the realm of personal opinion as much as possible.
Any answers will be greatly appreciated.
Edit: It has been suggested that this question duplicates a question asking when a word becomes a word. This question differs markedly:
- Temporal considerations («when») are secondary, if relevant at all.
- This question does not use a self-referential definition of ‘word’, unlike the suggested duplicate, which verges on incoherence by asking when a word becomes a word. But we all know what that question is meant to ask…or do we?
- While I’m sincere in saying any answers to my question are appreciated, certainly no answer solely or primarily referencing appearance in a dictionary will be accepted (in the constrained sense of ‘accepted’ used on this forum). No self-respecting dictionary will define ‘word’ in a primary sense as dependent on dictionary inclusion. For example, the primary definition of ‘word, n.’ in the OED is «I. Speech, utterance, verbal expression.» This definition has no direct connection to appearance in one or more dictionaries.
Those specific considerations (and others along the same lines) aside, serious answers to my question would account for my mention of nonsense and nonce-words, et al. For example, the list of spurious words in the OED (compact edition): does the OED define ‘spurious words’ as ‘unreal words’?
It seems to me that on a forum such as this, a working definition of «real word» would be sine qua non, and that self-defeating definitions such as reference to appearance in dictionaries which themselves define ‘word’ as something quite other than ‘an entry in a dictionary or lexicon’ would be rejected outright. Threshold elements in the working definition, on the other hand, might well be unavoidable: for example, «one or more occurrences of an utterance embued with communicative power» or some such gibberish might be construed as constituting part of a desirable answer to the question of what the phrase «real word» means.
Similarly, the assertion that what constitutes a «real word» is arbitrary is a non-answer. We all understand something when we encounter the phrase, and there is more commonality than not in our somewhat various understandings.
asked Aug 23, 2015 at 7:06
JELJEL
32.3k4 gold badges64 silver badges106 bronze badges
12
A word can be considered a real word even if it’s not in an established dictionary. Many words that have yet to appear in dictionaries are widely understood, and could be added over time — if their usage continues. Others fall away over time, but during their peak, they would have been just as real as standard dictionary words.
Merriam-Webster’s Help Section has a question on this: If a word is not in the dictionary, does that mean it isn’t a real word? which indicates
One of the most prolific areas of change and variation in English is vocabulary; new words are constantly being coined to name or describe new inventions or innovations, or to better identify aspects of our rapidly changing world. Constraints of time, money, and staff would make it impossible for any dictionary, no matter how large, to capture a fully comprehensive account of all the words in the language. And even if such a leviathan reference was somehow fashioned, the dictionary would be obsolete the instant it was published as speakers and writers continued generating new terms to meet their constantly changing needs.
…
Most general English dictionaries are designed to include only those words that meet certain criteria of usage across wide areas and over extended periods of time. As a result, they may omit words that are still in the process of becoming established, those that are too highly specialized, or those that are so informal that they are rarely documented in professionally edited writing. The words left out are as real as those that gain entry; the former simply haven’t met the criteria for dictionary entry – at least not yet (newer ones may ultimately gain admission to the dictionary’s pages if they gain sufficient use).
answered Sep 4, 2015 at 8:31
RonanRonan
7,2527 gold badges37 silver badges61 bronze badges
5
If it shows up in a dictionary you respect, it’s a real word. Dictionaries add words based on real-world usage. So if enough people use it in print, in multiple placed (e.g. books as well as internet) for a long enough time, it will show up in a dictionary. Of course, each dictionary decides how much «enough» is. For Urban Dictionary, which is crowdsourced, one posting makes it «real». For the official Oxford English Dictionary, which takes years to update, it requires a lot more instances of a new word before it is included. Other dictionaries, including Oxford Dictionaries Online, steer a course somewhere those extremes, adding words fairly quickly. some additions from last year:
http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2014/08/oxford-dictionaries-update-august-2014/
But the «real» answer is that for English, there is no central authority that decides whether a word is «real»—a word is real if, when you use it, people (or at least your peeps) grok it.
Edit: I changed the first word of above answer from «When» to «If».
answered Aug 23, 2015 at 9:01
Brian HitchcockBrian Hitchcock
13.5k1 gold badge21 silver badges38 bronze badges
0
What is a word? There can’t be a definite answer, unless one person uses it and another person understands it.
For most of us words are in the dictionary. But in scientific fields there are a lot of words that are in no standard dictionary and every day new scientific terms are invented.
My grandmother used words only she used. I have a lot of individual words or terms I use for language and grammar only for myself because a lot of grammar terms are vague, clumsy, unpractical or lacking. For me those terms are words as house or mouse.
Young children have words only the mother understands. So what is a word?
answered Sep 6, 2015 at 14:33
rogermuerogermue
13.7k6 gold badges22 silver badges56 bronze badges
To answer your question:
How can a question ask if a word is real without using the word as a word?
I’d ask: Is X expression a real word? Let me explain. My apologies for such a long answer, but I think your question deserves it.
WORDS
An explanation following widely accepted principles
Definitions
- Humans can only describe what comes to be known to them through their senses.
- The data we collect from the real world through experience is stored in our consciousness in
ideas. - To transmit the data stored in an idea we use expressions.
- When the transmission of an idea, i.e. an expression, becomes meaningful to other party different than ourselves, thus allowing them to store a mirrored version of one of our experiences; we call that communication.
- Expressions are susceptible to having more than one interpretation.
- Ideas can always be expressed in more than one way.
Proposition 1
An expression to become a word must describe an item that belongs to the real world. This is evident by definition 1.
Proposition 2
An expression can also become a word if it describes an item not belonging to the real world. By definition 3 we have that an expression is the transmission of an idea. However an idea is not limited to what exists in reality. An idea can be the result of the operation of ideas, which are beyond the scope of this treatise, when at least one operand came from the real world. An example: Minotaurus = Human + Bull.
Proposition 3
The quality of our communication with others is never perfect. This is evident by definition five. The quality of the communication is greater when the amount of incongruencies between the original idea and the mirrored version tends to zero.
Proposition 4
If we take Proposition 3 and definition 6 as truthful, the next is also true. The relationship between idea transmitted and idea received is many to many, thus a new entity needs to be created: meaning.
Proposition 5
The level of an expression depends on the amount of human beings that have access to the reference of the meaning of an expression. If it’s two people, it remains as an expression. If more than two people have access, we might call it a term. If a large amount of people, e.g. a community, have access to it, we call it a word.
answered Sep 9, 2015 at 8:22
2
There are many times words «appear» in language yet is not (yet?) supported by the typical «it appears in a dictionary» defense. I believe the question can only truly be answered in a modern world when coupled with it’s CONTEXT. In addition, when coupled with an agreed upon usage of a given word, a brand new bouncing baby «Boyiee»!!! is born.
Ok, I amuse no one but myself with that but the concept is true if not in any way quantifiable. In this day and age of social media, it is significantly more argument provoking to suggest that any one person can become the one that tips the proverbial scale from «non-word» to officially a «word». 10 years ago that may have been a worthwhile discussion potentially dabbling into what might have been an interesting brain-tickle for the OP but today’s proliferation of communicative method and media surely makes the issue moot. For this post’s sake let’s say that if anyone is heard saying it on Youtube, Reddit or Snapchat it may be credited as a «word.»
In the OP’s own quote: For example, the primary definition of ‘word, n.’ in the OED is «I. Speech, utterance, verbal expression.» opens the door to a vast array of interpretations. Take what was previously little more than a noise meaning «I guess it’s «OK»…would probably fall under the «Utterance» category and has now been reborn as «meh» in written form. Now who is to say that this is not a ‘real word»? It not only conveys meaning but is understood by a number of people to mean a particular thing.
Combine CONTEXT with this idea of COMMON USAGE
So now, I think the OP will be satisfied with what discourse they originally intended to provoke with the «philosophy of language» question. Once context is added to «meh» like a toddler seated alone at a table staring blankly into a plate of tepid broccoli, it is simple minded to argue the validity of the ‘realness’ of the word. Truly, the idea has been communicated and understood on both the sending and receiving side in the context of «picky-eater» and there is little point in further arguing the matter in hopes that Webster will one day catch up.
And that’s all I got to say about that…
answered Aug 23, 2015 at 21:26
8
«A real word», as in the question ‘is X a real word?’, or more simply ‘is X a word’ asks for answers expressing support from a triumvirate of authoritatively determinable conditions:
-
X must be communicative, which is to say that it must be both expressive and susceptible to interpretation. Usage (for a simple example, as evidenced by material showing usage beneath a dictionary or lexicon headword, but extending to other instances in written material, or instances attested by personal, verbal experience) is considered proof of this. ‘Usage’ is here intended in a diachronic sense; that is, if usage at any time, past or present can be evidenced, that is also evidence the word is communicative.
-
X must be conventional, in the sense that it conforms to the linguistic conventions of the language at issue (here English). The proof of this is less satisfying and complete, but generally (for English) the edge cases are clear: a word written in Arabic or Greek characters, for example, or merely transliterated from those languages, is not considered an English word until and unless it has been ‘assimilated’.
-
X must be acceptable, in that it is not deliberately or through ignorance misrepresented as a word. ‘Acceptable’ is here intended in a synchronic sense; that is, X must be currently acceptable to meet the contraints of this test. Acceptability changes over the course of time, and what one day may be considered acceptable as a word, the next day may not, or vice versa. Thus, if a word is no longer acceptable but was once, or the other way around, pointing that change and its engendering circumstances out is highly relevant when answering the question ‘is X a word’. Proof of acceptability is, as with conventionality, more difficult to come by, but can be achieved by citing expert sources that support or deny acceptability and showing how any expert sources that oppose the former must be mistaken.
The 3 conditions are interdependent. Proof of usage is not valid proof that something proposed as a word is a word unless proof of acceptability and conventionality can also be offered (whether such proof is explicit or not).
This answer does not, of course, completely answer the question, and it fails to spell out the relationships of 1-3 and scientific, jargon, cant, slang, nonsense, nonce, spurious, neologistic, et al. terms. Those relationships are, however, inferable. This answer does suggest a legitimate path forward when an answer to a question of the general form ‘is X a word’ is sought.
The point here is that, when somebody asks a question on this Q&A site that takes the form of ‘is X a word’, they are asking for an authoritative answer. Answers that account, whether implicitly or explicitly, for the 3 conditions proposed, will be considered authoritative, and can be supported with reference to external authority.
answered Sep 9, 2015 at 20:15
JELJEL
32.3k4 gold badges64 silver badges106 bronze badges
0
A dictionary word
As opposed to «a made-up word,» or «non-dictionary word,» the phrase «a real word,» means little existentially beyond literally: «a dictionary word,» i.e. a word published alphabetically in a dictionary along with its definition(s).
e.g.
Though it may be perfectly cromulent, the word «cromulent» is not a real word.
answered Sep 6, 2015 at 10:46
chillinchillin
7473 silver badges7 bronze badges
1
A few decades before Luther developed his argument, a German blacksmith named Johannes Gutenberg had invented a new system of movable-type printing, allowing the reproduction of the written word at greater speeds and lower costs than the laborious and less-durable woodblock approach.
За несколько десятилетий до появления тезисов Лютера немецкий кузнец по имени Иоганн Гутенберг изобрёл новую систему книгопечатания подвижными литерами, что позволяло воспроизводить написанные слова с большей скоростью и с меньшей стоимостью, чем при трудоёмком методе печати быстро изнашивающимися деревянными блоками.
Meanwhile, the internet, much like the written word, struggles to reflect the linguistic diversity of the spoken word.
Между тем, интернет, во многом подобно письменному слову, не в состоянии в полной мере отразить лингвистическое многообразие.
In principle, however, any form of communication dependent on the written word could be considered to be “written”, although it should always, except in the case of official diplomatic correspondence, be confirmed by the subsequent traditional exchange of letters.
Однако в принципе любые формы сообщений, основанные на письменном слове, можно считать » письменными «, хотя такие сообщения должны всегда, за исключением случаев, когда речь идет об официальной дипломатической переписке, подтверждаться последующим традиционным обменом письмами.
Since its birth 5,000 years ago, the written word has given us civilisation and technology.
С момента её появления, 5000 лет назад, письменность подарила нам цивилизацию и технологии.
What advantages do you think illustration has over the written word in conveying information at times like this?
Почему, на ваш взгляд, в такие моменты, как сегодня, графическое изображение способно лучше передавать информацию, чем печатное слово?
We can do it by talking to each other; we can do it through video; we can do it through the written word.
Мы можем обсуждать идеи, беседуя друг с другом, или через видео, или путем письменного дискурса.
But everyone that I knew had an interest in the primacy of the written word in terms of nurturing a democracy, nurturing an enlightened life.
Все, кого я знал, профессионально занимались, прежде всего, грамотной письменной речью, в плане привития демократии, привития тяги к просвещенной жизни.
Improved printing efficiency, combined with steep declines in cost, led to a dramatic increase in access to the written word between 1450 and 1500, even though only an estimated 6% of the population was literate.
В период с 1450 по 1500 годы рост эффективности печати в сочетании с падением её стоимости привёл к резкому повышению доступности писаного слова, хотя, по оценкам, лишь 6% населения было грамотным.
The colonized were able to maintain aspects of their local culture through different aural versions of the same written «word» because the common meaning existed only in the shape.
Колонии могли сохранять особенности своих собственных культур с помощью различных версий произношения одного и того же письменного «слова», т.к. общее значение существовало только в письменном виде.
It was amid this wave of renewed interest in the written Russian word that Read Russia emerged in New York in 2012.
На фоне такого роста интереса к печатному слову в 2012 году в Нью-Йорке появилась организация Read Russia.
Have you written even one word of this book?
Ты написал хотя бы одно слово из этой книги?
If so, see Change an equation that was written in a previous version of Word.
Изменение формулы, созданной в одной из предыдущих версий Word.
But the elevation of the Social Chapter, previously a list of good intentions, to the status of fundamental constitutional rights, threatens to encumber workers and businesses in the member states with burdensome judicial proceedings and expensive social entitlements written by judges in Luxembourg whose last word is beyond appeal.
Но возвышение «социальной главы», первоначально представлявшей собой лишь перечень добрых намерений, до статуса фундаментальных конституционных прав, угрожает обременить рабочих и предприятия в странах-членах тягостными судебными процедурами и дорогостоящими социальными компенсациями, предписанными судьями в Люксембурге, последнее слово которых не подлежит пересмотру.
Written into the statutory language was the word “intangible,” a non-ironic congressional recognition perhaps that the law is so vague that it has no basis in a tangible reality.
Принятое в юридическом языке слово «нематериальное» — это, возможно, лишенное всякой иронии признание конгресса, что закон настолько расплывчат, что в нем нет опоры для осязаемой, материальной реальности.
My first instructor in Russian politics, Professor Richard Pipes, told his charges some decades ago not to take seriously analyses of Russia written by people who have never been to Russia, nor speak a word of the Russian language.
Мой первый преподаватель российской политики профессор Ричард Пайпс (Richard Pipes) несколько десятилетий тому назад сказал нам, что не следует серьезно относиться к аналитическим материалам о России, которые пишут люди, никогда там не бывавшие и не знающие ни слова по-русски.
In her written remarks, Ms. Wedgwood had made an editing suggestion to add the word “persons” after “accused”, which occurred twice in the second sentence.
В своих письменных замечаниях г-жа Уэджвуд внесла редакционное предложение добавить слово “лиц” после слова “обвиняемых” в двух местах во втором предложении.
More evidence may have to be presented in written form, but the Prosecutor does share the reservation expressed by the other organs about the use of the word “select” in relation to indications by the judges that only certain witnesses may be required to be called.
Возможно, будет необходимо представлять большее число показаний в письменной форме, но Обвинитель не согласна со сделанной другими органами оговоркой в отношении использования слова «отобрать» в связи с указаниями судей на то, что может потребоваться вызов в суд лишь определенных свидетелей.
It is written in mathematical language, and the letters are triangles, circles and other geometric figures, without which means it is humanly impossible to comprehend a single word.»
Вселенная написана на языке математики. Где буквы — это треугольники, круги и другие геометрические фигуры, без которых невозможно понять ни одного слова».
» In such cases and in particular if no other written proof is provided to the carrier, Customs authorities are recommended, at the request of the carrier, to insert into counterfoil No. 1 of the TIR Carnet under item 5 » Miscellaneous » the word » Escort «, followed by a short indication of the reasons which had led to the requirement for such escorts.
» … В таких случаях и, в частности, если перевозчику не предоставляется никакого другого письменного доказательства, таможенным органам рекомендуется, по просьбе перевозчика, вписывать в графе 5 » Разное » на корешке № 1 книжки МДП слово » Сопровождение » с последующим кратким указанием оснований для включения требования, касающегося такого сопровождения «.
Примеры употребления слов в разных контекстах собраны автоматически из открытых источников с помощью технологии поиска на основе двуязычных данных. В случае обнаружения неточностей или замечаний к тексту, используйте опцию «Сообщить о проблеме» или напишите нам
The internet is rapidly advancing. With the rise of AI content creation platforms and tools like ChatGPT, we’re starting to see a lot more generative content – and it’s getting harder and harder to tell which pieces are actually written by humans. With recent Google algorithm updates designed to counteract AI-spammy content, high-quality content is soon going to dominate search engines. But if you’re not Google, how can you tell? Some articles slip through the cracks and are able to publish robotic misinformation throughout the web. Not all AI content is bad, and not all bad content is written by AI, but there’s definitely a correlation between AI-produced fluff and expertly-written human content. In a few years, I’m not so sure we’ll be able to tell the difference, but for now – sometimes it can be pretty obvious.
I’ve been messing around with these text and image editors for several months now, and I’ve found that there are a few tell-tale signs of AI-generated content. Let’s go over some technical and non-technical things to look for.
The 2023 Artificial Intelligence Boom
So much buzz about AI these days. You can’t go past a few tweets on Twitter before running into an announcement about the next magical AI platform that can customize your entire wardrobe, redesign your bedroom, or generate some realistic avatars. These tools are nothing short of amazing & are only the start of something bigger.
We’re starting to see artificial intelligence tools transition from a being fun gimmicks to show friends to powerful & complex tools that are literally changing the way we live and work. With that comes a whole new set of challenges, one of which is the rise of AI-generated, spammy content.
If you’re a writer, you might be thinking “Great, another thing I have to compete with.” And you’re not wrong. AI content is getting better and better and it’s only going to continue to improve. As an avid copywriter, I’ve started to see the uptick in AI-generated content and figured I’d start investing ways to sort through it. Although OpenAI is working on a watermarking system to help distinguish natural vs AI content, there is still no official method available.
It’s not just blog posts – AI is now being used to generate everything from school research papers, e-commerce product descriptions and even chunks of code. And as AI gets better and better at imitating human writing, it’s getting harder and harder to tell the difference between what’s been written by a machine and what’s written by a human.
But what’s the point? If an AI can write an article that looks and feels just like one that’s been written by a human, why does it matter? Well for starters, it’s getting harder and harder to trust the things we read. In a world where anyone can say anything, it’s important to be able to spot the difference between fact and fiction. With the rise of AI-generated content, we’re at risk of losing levels of authenticity previously represented with some of the most popular online websites, blogs, and scholarly produced content. So how can you ensure that the content you’re reading is the real deal?
How To Tell If An Article Was Written With AI
To discourage spammy, low-quality content, Google has started penalizing sites that publish generative content. Beyond the realm of Google, academics & other professionals have seen a huge surge in AI-generated content. So, whether you’ve come across content in an academic, professional, or casual setting, you might want a way to validate if certain content was written by another human. But how can you tell?
After months of manually analyzing content, I still find myself getting stumped depending on the complexity of the AI used. While I don’t think most AI tools can write past an undergraduate college level, I’d like to be able to sort between real and generated content. Luckily, there are a few tools & manual methods you can use to determine if a piece of text was written by an AI.
Here are my personal best tips and tools to spot AI content in 2023:
Method 1: Using Undetectable AI’s Multi-Detection Tool
The first tool we’ll go over to determine if something was written with AI is Undetectable AI. This tool works by checking content by putting it through a fine-tuned model that’s been trained off different batched documents submitted to each of the AI detectors they feature. Behind the scenes, they assigned a likelihood based off training and give a predictable result based on all the tested content. So when using Undetectable, the tool basically checks the likelihood of returning positive based on 8 different detectors at once.
❗️
Looking to bulk test academic, professional, or business content? Check out Originality. If you’re looking for a tool that works as both a plagiarism and AI detector that’s built for serious content publishers, editors, or academics – this is your tool.
To use Undetectable’s AI Checker, paste your sample of writing inside the input box & submit it for testing! You’ll see results from popular detection tools like GPTZero, Writer, Crossplag, Copyleaks, Sapling, ContentAtScale, Originality, and ZeroGPT. Did I mention the tool is free?!
Method 2: Originality.ai (professional writing)
If you’re looking for an industry-leading content checker that will determine if writing is both plagiarized or written with AI, check out Originality. This tool uses a combination of GPT-4 and other natural language models (all trained on a massive amount of data) to determine if content seems predictable. Originality seems to be the only non-official AI content detection tool accurate for both ChatGPT & GPT 4 (the most advanced generative language tools).
With pricing starting at 0.01 per 100 words, it’s pretty reasonable if you’re looking for a more professional, industry-level content detection checker. I’ve had good luck with it and will continue to use it when checking production-level copy.
To use Originality, paste content into the checker and scan it. As an example, I went back into originality about two weeks after I initially published this article & entered the paragraph above to see the results (written by me and without using any AI) and these were the results:
Impressively enough, it was able to find the exact blog I “copied” the content from and marked the text as having a low likelihood of being written with AI. I was honestly impressed at how quickly it was able to find this article. For what it’s worth, combining AI detection with a plagiarism checker is a really solid way to be even more confident about the origins of written content.
For anyone looking to automate and easily test writing, Originality has been my go-to tool. Unlike Content at Scale, Originality will also keep your scans saved in your account dashboard. This is great if you need to revisit multiple pieces of content frequently. Remember, nothing is truly definitive and I want to stress that.
Also, the AI detection score represents the chance the selected writing is AI, not the percentage of the article that is AI. In this example, Originality is 94% sure this paragraph was written by a human. Take that as you wish!
Acceptable Detection Scores
According to the CEO of Originality, if content is consistently ranking under 10%, it is almost certainly in the clear! Only when content rises close to 40 or 50% AI is when you should begin to get suspicious about its origins.
The longer sample you input increases the chance of detection being more accurate (larger sample sizes = more reliable detection) – and reliability doesn’t mean accuracy! Additionally, the more content you scan by the same writer should help give you a better idea when deciding if their writing is legitimate.
Just be careful as some results end up with false positives and false negatives. It is far better to review a series of articles and make a call on a writer/service compared to passing judgement on a single article or text snippet.
Checking Entire Sites
If there is a pattern of consistently high or low detection scores, that should be your largest indicator of AI-written content. One single article is not enough proof to determine if an entire website (or multiple documents of content) have been written with AI assistance. It’s also important to take these detection tools with a grain of salt (I can’t stress this enough!). The more articles from one source you check will result in a greater statistical sample, but so many factors go into detection beyond what a website can do. Some of these factors includes syntax, repetition, and lack of complexity which we’ll get into below. Originality recently introduced a tool to check entire websites at once.
Method 3: Content at Scale AI Detector (casual writing)
The team over at Content at Scale recently released a free AI detector that is hands-down the best tool for quickly detecting AI writing. The tool is trained on billions of pages of data and can test up to 25 thousand characters at a time (that’s nearly 4000 words!)
To use the tool, paste writing into the detection field and submit it for detection. In just a few seconds you’ll see a human content score (indicating the likelihood that a sample of text was written by a human) and you’ll also see a line by line breakdown highlighting what parts of your content have been flagged as suspicious or blatant AI.
A big part of how AI prediction works is by trying to recreate patterns. Patterns are great indicators because AI generators are literally trained on recognizing them to produce what “fits” existing patterns the best. The more your text matches existing formats of writing, the higher probability it was generated.
Below are two screenshots between a ChatGPT output compared to human writing. After testing, you’ll also see a predictability, probability, and pattern score. These scores are a simplified explanation of what’s going on behind the scenes. Human-produced writing is not very predictable because it doesn’t always follow patterns. AI writing is the opposite, it only knows patterns.
Read these two excerpts and see if you could determine the difference in the writing. The first one seems very professional, but you can almost feel what the next sentence is going to be about. The human result is a lot more sporadic. It’s still good writing – it’s just got more creativity in it. Check out Content at Scale if you want a highly accurate, line by line explanation of what’s going on
Method 4: Copyleaks AI Detector
A recent AI detector that’s popped up with really great accuracy has been Copyleaks. The detector alerts you if it believes something is AI written or human-generated with not much else. You could hover over sections of text that you think are suspicious (especially text highlighted in red) and you’ll be able to see a percentage breakdown. The tool even boasts support for GPT-4, which is surprising for how new the upgrade is.
They also have a free chrome extension to check directly within your browser. The tool is free to use for checking individual instances of AI writing but requires a paid plan if you’re looking to use an API to scan tons of documents in a short period of time.
Method 5: Giant Language Model Test Room (casual writing)
Three researchers from the MIT-IBM Watson AI lab and Harvard NLP group created a great free tool to help detect machine-generated text content named the Giant Language Model Test Room (or GLTR, for short). GLTR is currently the most visual way to predict if casual portions of text have been written with AI. To use GLTR, simply copy and paste a piece of text into the input box and hit “analyze.” This tool was built with GPT-2, meaning it won’t be as extensively trained as if it were written with GPT-3 or GPT-4 content. But still works as a decent way to look for easily generated content.
The tool will give you a prediction of how likely it is that the text was generated by an AI. If you want to learn more about the technical details behind GLTR, you can read more on their official website. Each word is analyzed by how likely each word would be the predicted word given the context to the left. If the word is within the top 10 predicted words, the background is colored green, for the top 100 it will shade yellow, the top 1000 red, otherwise violet. If you see content filled with a lot of green, it’s likely generated by an AI.
📕
Understanding GLTR: You can set the colors number value (or keep them default at 10, 100, 1000). If the word following the previous was in the top 10 list of predicted words by GLTR, it will be green. Top 100, yellow, etc. GLTR works by highlighting predictability. The easier it is to predict the next word – the higher likelihood to have been written by AI.
Here’s a side-by-side comparison of an excerpt of an article written by an AI and one written by a human. You can see that the AI-generated text is much more green than the human-written text.
Again, not foolproof, but a somewhat good indicator. I’d say GLTR is a great visual tool we have to determine AI content, but it doesn’t give you an exact score. It’s not declarative (take that as you wish). You won’t get a percentage or number saying “yeah this is probably AI.” By simply pasting a group of text, you can get a good idea of how likely it was written by an AI, but the final call should be based upon your own judgement. Want to see it used compared to Jasper, Hyperwrite, and Lex? Check out this video we made:
Method 6: Writer.com AI Content Detector
Although the parameters for detecting AI content are unclear, Writer.com offers a free and extremely simple AI writing detection tool. You can check text by URL or paste writing directly into their tool to run scans. I’ve had good success with it but struggle to find the methods in which they determine flagged content.
The detector includes 1500 characters of AI content available to check for free, whenever you want. It does fairly well at detecting ChatGPT-generated writing.
Method 7: OpenAI Classifier (made by OpenAI)
OpenAI themselves released their very own language classifier to determine if something was written with AI (especially ChatGPT). Although not very reliable, the company claims you can use their tool to provide insight into determining if something was written with AI. Even though the tool was made by the same company as ChatGPT, OpenAI claims only 26% of AI-written samples they tested were identified properly as AI.
You could use the classifier here. It requires a minimum of 1000 characters & does a lot better with larger chunks of text. Also, text that is always predictable cannot be reliably identified. This includes things like songs or math equations, since each answer will always be the same. With the release of the classifier came some guidelines for educators trying to tackle & digest all the recent explosion about ChatGPT.
To use the classifier, simply paste an article of text into the input and hit “submit.” If you click on the example buttons it will autofill the samples into the text field.
So… how well does the classifier work?
I threw in an article that I wrote a couple weeks ago and got the result “unlikely to be AI-generated” (this is true). After this I tested some ChatGPT writing the classifier resulted in “possibly AI-generated.” Seems good so far, right?
Then I tested two more outputs from ChatGPT and got “unable to tell” and “unlikely written by AI.” So it really seems like a coin toss.
I suggested this detection method first since it was released by OpenAI. It will hopefully get a lot better over the next few months. I have noticed that if a result comes back as probably/ most likely AI, it generally has been produced with AI. The tool just doesn’t always do a great job at catching it to begin with. I have hope, but based on how uncertain it seems so far, I’m going to stick with Originality since I’ve honestly just had more consistent results with it.
Method 8: Technical & Syntactical Signs
The next way to tell if a piece of content has been generated by an AI is to look at the technical aspects of the writing. This isn’t as concrete & may seem obvious, but if you’re having trouble with the previous tools or just want to further break down writing you’ve come across, you should look deep at the content. Here are a few things to look for:
1. Length of extensive sentences: AI-generated content often includes very short sentences. This is because the AI is trying to mimic human writing, but it hasn’t quite mastered extensive sentence complexity as of yet. This is painfully clear if you’re reading a technical blog about something that requires code or step-by-step instructions. We’re not at the point where AI can pass that Turing test just yet. If you’ve tested content using GLTR or Originality, and if content is creative & unique, I’d say it’s in the clear. It’s the technical content that comes off as confidently fishy that you need to look further into.
2. Repetition of words and phrases: Another way to spot AI-generated content is by looking for repetition of words and phrases. This is the result of the AI trying to fill up space with relevant keywords (aka – it doesn’t really know what it’s talking about). So, if you’re reading an article and it feels like the same word is being used over and over again, there’s a higher chance it was written by an AI. Some of the spammy AI-generation SEO tools love keyword-stuffing articles. Keyword stuffing is when you repeat a word or phrase so many times that it sounds unnatural. Some articles have their target keyword in what feels like every other sentence. Once you spot it, you won’t be able to focus on the article. It’s also extremely off-putting for readers.
3. Lack of analysis: A third way to tell if an article was written by an AI is if it lacks complex analysis. This is because machines are good at collecting data, but they’re not so good at turning it into something meaningful. If you’re reading an article and it feels like it’s just a list of facts with no real insight or analysis, there’s an even higher chance it was written with AI. With ChatGPT, we’re nearing the point where AI is able to start to analyze writing, but I still find responses to be very “robotic.” People are starting to use AI to reply to tweets but don’t realize how painfully cookie-cutter their responses are! You’ll notice AI generated writing is a lot better for static writing (like about history, facts, etc) compared to creative or analytical writing. The more information a topic has, the better AI can write & manipulate it.
4. Inaccurate data: This one is more common in AI-generated product descriptions, but it can also be found in blog posts and articles. Since machines are collecting data from various sources, they sometimes make mistakes. If a machine doesn’t know something but is destined to give an output, it’ll predict numbers based on patterns (which aren’t accurate). So, if you’re reading an article and you spot several discrepancies between the facts and the numbers, you can be very confident what what you just read was written using AI. If you come across spammy content, report it to Google. Save someone else the pain of having to waste their time to read something that is clearly inaccurate!
Some studies claim current GPT-3 generated content is indistinguishable from human-written content, but I haven’t seen consistent long-form content written by an AI that seems to be above a collegiate level. We’ll get there for sure, but we’re just not there quite yet.
This one might seem a bit unnecessary for a single blog, but it’s still worth mentioning. If you’re reading an article and the domain seems to be randomly associated with the content posted, thats your first red flag. But more importantly, you should check the sources that are being used in the article (if any). If an author is using sources from questionable websites or simply declares things without any source, it’s either the author isn’t doing their research or could simply be automating a bunch of AI-generated content.
An additional source is to use the Hugging Face Output Detector. This service is based on the GPT-2 Output Dataset released by OpenAI. The reason I’ve included it as an extra method is because I don’t find some predictions to be very accurate. Generally you can get a decent clue based on the response, but I’ve pasted some fully robotic AI writing and it has told me it was 99% real. I’ve also pasted an advanced academic essay written by a human and claimed 99% AI. The more text in each sample increases the likelihood of prediction accuracy. But sometimes it’s really a coin toss – so remember to take all of these services with a grain of salt!
Other Online Detection Methods
Beware when finding random websites that claim they’ll check if your content is AI-generated. If you’re looking for AI-content detection tools, ensure that they describe how they are checking content – because “ai detection” doesn’t mean anything by itself!
Conclusion
It’s not the easiest to tell if an article was written by an AI. The technology has only became recently available after what seemed like a sudden boom in the machine learning industry. An unsettling fact is that AI is just getting so much better each day.
That said, if you’re questioning whether or not an article was written by an AI, your best bet is to use a combination of all of these tools combined with your own judgement! Hopefully these new tools benefit the web by allowing skeptics to filter out trustworthy content across the internet.
Make sure to remember to take the results you see with a grain of salt. Nothing you see is conclusive in any way, shape, or form since there’s no concrete way to detect AI (it leaves no watermark, it’s just words on a screen!)
As AI becomes more sophisticated and the line between human and machine-generated content becomes increasingly blurry, it’s only a matter of time until everything we reach the point where content becomes indistinguishable!
But for now – don’t stress. We’re not there yet 😉
One of the common challenges faced by non-native English speakers is English Grammar. The English language comes with an extensive library of words, slangs, phrases, idioms, etc. The foundation of being strong in your English vocabulary is your mastery of the words in the English language.
It is estimated that there are over 1 million words in the English language. However, if you are taking an English language test such as the Duolingo English test — you don’t have the time and energy to learn and know all the words. Frankly, nobody can.
The truth is you don’t need to learn every single word in the English dictionary. You need to familiarize yourself with the most common real words in the language. These common words are the building blocks of your language skills which you can apply to the various test sections of the DET. You can also confidently use these common words in your day-to-day life, whether you are a student, a career-minded professional, or someone visiting an English-speaking country.
Here, in this article, we will share some of the most common words in the English language that you need to learn and know to pass the Duolingo English test successfully.
We will also discuss the test sections where you will have the opportunity to use them. Finally, we’ll also share some sample practice questions to help you understand where they will appear on your Duolingo English test.
Most Common Real Worlds on the Duolingo English Test
Which Duolingo English Test Sections Test Your English Vocabulary?
The variation on the “yes/no” vocabulary exam is very common in many English tests, including Duolingo English Test. These exams have been used to measure vocabulary proficiency across the CEFR levels or other English Proficiency tests.
The text variation of the “yes/no” question type requires you to distinguish between a collection of written English words and pseudo-words made to seem English-like. Studies show that the text yes/no vocabulary item type predicts listening, reading, and writing ability.
Traditional yes/no vocabulary exams concurrently provide a huge number of stimuli of varying degrees of difficulty. The format is made computer-adaptive by displaying many smaller sets, each containing a handful of stimuli of similar complexity.
This test activity is available in two formats: text and audio. These types of questions will appear in the following test sections of the DET:
- Read and Select
- Listen and Select
Read and Select
In this test section, you will work on a list of terms, some of which are genuine and others are pseudo-words, and you must choose just the proper ones.
Be cautious while selecting the right word, and double-check the spelling since some words seem accurate but are made up!
Listen and Select
Unlike Read and Select, you must listen to the words before picking the correct ones.
The same advice applies to this test problem as the previous one. The pronunciation may sound like a legitimate term, but it isn’t, so pay attention!
Here are some valuable tips that we can give you in answering these test types:
- Only use phrases that you are certain are true! Trust yourself.
- There might be an unlimited amount of genuine terms in the list, so don’t be concerned if one question contains more than another.
- Please read the paragraphs carefully. Some words seem to be authentic, although they vary somewhat from actual English terms.
- Pay close attention to each syllable of each word since some bogus words may change slightly from actual ones.
- Only use terms that you are certain are true.
- Before pressing the NEXT button, double-check the words you’ve chosen.
How to Improve Your Vocabulary And Spelling for the Duolingo English Test?
Adding new terms to your written vocabulary is one of the simplest methods to improve your writing abilities. To learn and apply English vocabulary, you will never run out. A strong vocabulary is beneficial to all writing genres, including fiction, journalism, essays, poetry, etc. Defined as time put in writing, learning new words improves your vocabulary.
- Make reading a habit: Contextual vocabulary development is the easiest.
- Use the dictionaries: Correct usage of online dictionaries and thesaurus is beneficial.
- Word games: Classic games like Scrabble and Boggle may help you learn new words in English.
- Take notes: Using flashcards is a quick technique to learn a vast vocabulary.
- Subscribe to daily word feeds: Some websites, apps, or email services will send you a word a day to help you develop your vocabulary.
- Mnemonics:; Associating words helps you recall their meanings and their use.
- Experiment with new terms in speech: Unable to utilize words, one might build up a large vocabulary.
- 30+ Tips to Speak English Without Grammar Mistakes
What Are the Common English Words You Need to Learn for the Duolingo English Test?
Here is a list of real English words that you can get yourself be familiar with:
Days of the Week
| Sunday | Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday |
| Friday | Saturday | weekdays | weekend |
Months of the Year
| January | February | March | April | May | June |
| July | August | September | October | November | December |
Numbers
| one | twenty-one | forty-one | sixty-one | eighty-one |
| two | twenty-two | forty-two | sixty-two | eighty-two |
| three | twenty-three | forty-three | sixty-three | eighty-three |
| four | twenty-four | forty-four | sixty-four | eighty-four |
| five | twenty-five | forty-five | sixty-five | eighty-five |
| six | twenty-six | forty-six | sixty-six | eighty-six |
| seven | twenty-seven | forty-seven | sixty-seven | eighty-seven |
| eight | twenty-eight | forty-eight | sixty-eight | eighty-eight |
| nine | twenty-nine | forty-nine | sixty-nine | eighty-nine |
| ten | thirty | fifty | seventy | ninety |
| eleven | thirty-one | fifty-one | seventy-one | ninety-one |
| twelve | thirty-two | fifty-two | seventy-two | ninety-two |
| thirteen | thirty-three | fifty-three | seventy-three | ninety-three |
| fourteen | thirty-four | fifty-four | seventy-four | ninety-four |
| fifteen | thirty-five | fifty-five | seventy-five | ninety-five |
| sixteen | thirty-six | fifty-six | seventy-six | ninety-six |
| seventeen | thirty-seven | fifty-seven | seventy-seven | ninety-seven |
| eighteen | thirty-eight | fifty-eight | seventy-eight | ninety-eight |
| nineteen | thirty-nine | fifty-nine | seventy-nine | ninety-nine |
| twenty | forty | sixty | eighty | hundred |
Subjects or General Topics
| Science | Politics | Architecture | Law |
| Physics | Psychology | Anthropology | Economics |
| Statistics | Mathematics | Performing Arts | Visual Arts |
| Archaeology | Business Management | Logic | Literature |
| History | Biology | Humanities | Chemistry |
| Geography | Philosophy | Agriculture | Engineering |
Continents
| Antarctica | Europe | Oceania | Arctic |
| Asia | North America | South America |
Countries
Countries in Asia
| Afghanistan | Georgia | Kyrgyzstan | Pakistan | Taiwan |
| Armenia | India | Laos | Palestine | Tajikistan |
| Azerbaijan | Indonesia | Lebanon | Philippines | Thailand |
| Bahrain | Iran | Malaysia | Qatar | Timor-Leste |
| Bangladesh | Iraq | Maldives | Russia | Turkey |
| Bhutan | Israel | Mongolia | Saudi Arabia | Turkmenistan |
| Brunei | Japan | Myanmar | Singapore | United Arab Emirates (UAE) |
| Cambodia | Jordan | Nepal | South Korea | Uzbekistan |
| China | Kazakhstan | North Korea | Sri Lanka | Vietnam |
| Cyprus | Kuwait | Oman | Syria | Yemen |
Countries in Europe
| Albania | Cyprus | Iceland | Moldova | San Marino |
| Andorra | Czechia | Ireland | Monaco | Serbia |
| Armenia | Denmark | Italy | Montenegro | Slovakia |
| Austria | Estonia | Kazakhstan | Netherlands | Slovenia |
| Azerbaijan | Finland | Kosovo | North Macedonia | Spain |
| Belarus | France | Latvia | Norway | Sweden |
| Belgium | Georgia | Liechtenstein | Poland | Switzerland |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | Germany | Lithuania | Portugal | Ukraine |
| Bulgaria | Greece | Luxembourg | Romania | United Kingdom |
| Croatia | Hungary | Malta | Russia | Vatican City |
Countries in North and South America
| Antigua and Barbuda | Bahamas | Barbados | Belize | Canada |
| Dominica | Dominican Republic | El Salvador | Grenada | Guatemala |
| Jamaica | Mexico | Nicaragua | Panama | Colombia |
| Bolivia | Brazil | Paraguay | Uruguay | Venezuela |
| Costa Rica | Cuba | Trinidad and Tobago | Argentina | Haiti |
| Honduras | United States of America (USA) | Ecuador | Guyana | Suriname |
| Saint Lucia | Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | Peru | Chile |
Countries in Africa
| Algeria | Chad | Ethiopia | Madagascar | Rwanda |
| Angola | Comoros | Gabon | Malawi | Sao Tome and Principe |
| Benin | Zambia | Ghana | Mauritania | Seychelles |
| Botswana | Cote d’Ivoire | Guinea | Mauritius | Sierra Leone |
| Burkina Faso | Djibouti | Guinea-Bissau | Morocco | Somalia |
| Burundi | Egypt | Kenya | Mozambique | South Africa |
| Cabo Verde | Equatorial Guinea | Lesotho | Namibia | South Sudan |
| Cameroon | Eritrea | Liberia | Niger | Sudan |
| Mali | Eswatini | Libya | Nigeria | Tanzania |
| Togo | Tunisia | Uganda | Zambia | Senegal |
| Zimbabwe | Congo | Gambia | Mali |
Countries in Australia and Oceania
| Australia | Fiji | Kiribati | Marshall Islands |
| Palau | Papua New Guinea | Samoa | Solomon Islands |
| Micronesia | Nauru | New Zealand | Tonga |
| Tuvalu | Vanuatu |
| air conditioner | doorknob | greenhouse | painting | swimming pool |
| appliances | doorway | gutters | paneling | threshold |
| attic | dormer | hall | pantry | throw rug |
| awning | downspout | hall closet | patio | toilet |
| back door | downstairs | hallway | picture | trash can |
| backyard | drain | hamper | picture frame | trellis |
| baluster | drapes | heater | plumbing | trim |
| barbecue | driveway | hinge | pool | tub |
| baseboard | dryer | home | porch | upstairs |
| basement | duct | hose | portico | vacuum cleaner |
| bathroom | dustpan | house | quilt | vase |
| bathtub | eaves | inglenook | railing | Venetian blinds |
| beam | electrical outlet | insulation | rake | vent |
| bedroom | electrical system | jamb | range | wainscoting |
| blinds | entrance | key | recreation room | walkway |
| broom | entry | kitchen | roof | wall |
| bunk bed | entryway | ladder | room | carpet |
| carpet | family room | lamp | rug | washer |
| carport | fan | lanai | sash | toilet |
| ceiling | faucet | laundry | screen door | wastebasket |
| cellar | fence | laundry room | shed | water heater |
| chimney | fenced yard | lawnmower | shelf | weather stripping |
| closet | fireplace | library | shelves | welcome mat |
| clothes dryer | floor | light | shingle | window |
| clothes washer | foundation | light switch | shower | windowpane |
| column | frame | linen closet | shutters | window sill |
| concrete | front door | lintel | siding | wood stove |
| cornice | front stoop | living room | sill | yard |
| counter | furnace | lock | sink | door |
| crib | furniture | loft | skylight | doorbell |
| cupboard | fuse box | lumber | sliding door | door jamb |
| curtain rod | gable | mailbox | soffit | garden shed |
| curtains | garage | mantle | staircase | gate |
| dining room | garage door | mat | stairs | girder |
| dishwasher | garage opener | mirror | stairway | storage shed |
| doggie door | garbage can | mop | steps | storm door |
| doghouse | garden | newel | stoop | stove |
Places
| city | town | capital | metropolis | village |
| health resort | seaside resort | winter resort | mountain resort | ski resort |
| big city | large city | small town | city | hamlet |
| city center | downtown | suburb | outskirts | slums |
| region | district | neighborhood | borough | block |
| place | location | site | locality | vicinity |
| intersection | crossroads | junction | traffic light | red light |
| street corner | overpass | underpass | traffic circle | bridge |
| school | hospital | supermarket | store | restaurant |
| bank | post office | museum | library | movie theater |
| church | cathedral | temple | chapel | mosque |
| crosswalk | station | attractions | landmarks | airport |
| ghetto | city limits | environment | yellow light | tunnel |
| hotel | factory | synagogue | port | resort |
Transportation
| bus | bicycle | train | taxi | ship | wheel |
| boat | bike | automobile | vehicle | speedboat | tire |
| airplane | helicopter | auto | tram | vessel | trail bike |
| ferry | chopper | cab | taxicab | trailer | tricycle |
| motorboat | delivery truck | driver | sports car | tugboat | scooter |
| ocean liner | lorry | motor | sedan | steamship | ride |
| car | riverboat | pilot | race car | steamboat | semi |
| passenger | yacht | plane | carriage | school bus | motorcycle |
| railroad | sail | unicycle | engine | kayak | mountain bike |
| railway | sailboat | Vespa | jet boat | truck | car |
Colors
| amber | dark | pale | tan | cream |
| amethyst | denim | pastel | tangerine | crimson |
| apricot | desert sand | peach | taupe | cyan |
| aqua | ebony | periwinkle | teal | silver |
| aquamarine | ecru | persimmon | terracotta | slate |
| auburn | eggplant | pewter | thistle | spectrum |
| azure | emerald | pink | tint | slate |
| beige | fuchsia | primary | tomato | orchid |
| black | gold | puce | topaz | scarlet |
| blue | goldenrod | pumpkin | turquoise | sea green |
| bronze | gray | purple | ultramarine | secondary |
| brown | green | rainbow | umber | sepia |
| buff | grey | red | vermilion | shade |
| burnt umber | hue | rose | violet | shamrock |
| cardinal | indigo | ruby | viridian | silver |
| carmine | ivory | russet | wheat | orange |
| celadon | khaki | rust | white | mauve |
| cerise | lavender | saffron | wisteria | mustard |
| cerulean | lemon | salmon | yellow | olive |
| charcoal | light | sapphire | coral | maroon |
| chartreuse | lilac | lime | magenta | mahogany |
| chocolate | cinnamon | sienna | complementary | copper |
Technology
| design | desktop | download | net | network | paste |
| disk | document | file | online | password | |
| enterprise | format | podcast | pop-up | programmer | |
| flash drive | font | upload | printer | program | screenshot |
| gigabyte | home page | Internet | save | screen | software |
| shift key | spreadsheet | trash | username | web | wireless |
| virus | storage | undo | website | network | window |
Food
| wheat | rye | oats | corn | rice |
| bakery goods | bread | rolls | cakes | cookies |
| cereal | corn flakes | oat flakes | popcorn | pies |
| pasta | macaroni | noodles | spaghetti | muffin |
| sesame roll | cinnamon roll | hamburger bun | hot dog bun | lamb chops |
| oatmeal | cookie | crackers | biscuits | toast |
| apple pie | meat pie | pizza | pancake | doughnut |
| beef | pork | veal | lamb | plum |
| beefsteak | roast beef | ground beef | hamburgers | pork chops |
| salmon | trout | cod | tuna | sole |
| fish steak | fish fillet | smoked fish | caviar | grapes |
| shrimp | crab | oysters | melon | cherry |
| apple | pear | apricot | peach | nectarine |
| lemon | orange | tangerine | grapefruit | corn |
| banana | kiwi | pineapple | watermelon | mineral water |
| hazelnuts | walnuts | almonds | peanuts | soft drinks |
| peas | green peas | beans | string beans | kidney beans |
| tea | coffee | milk | cocoa | hot chocolate |
Animals
| amphibians | butterflies | fox | blindworm |
| frog | silkworm | gazelle | boa |
| frogspawn | swallowtail | gerbil | chameleon |
| newt | barbel | giraffe | constrictor snake |
| tadpole | carp | goat | copperhead |
| toad | cod | grizzly bear | coral snake |
| arachnids | crab | guinea pig | cottonmouth |
| harvestman | eel | hamster | crocodile |
| scorpion | goldfish | hare | diamondback |
| spider | haddock | hare | gecko |
| tarantula | halibut | hedgehog | iguana |
| birds | jellyfish | horse | lizard |
| albatross | lobster | hyena | rattlesnake |
| biddy | perch | lion | venomous snake |
| blackbird | pike | llama | python |
| canary | plaice | lynx | salamander |
| crow | ray | mammoth | saurian |
| cuckoo | salmon | marmot | sea snake |
| dove, | sawfish | mink | sidewinder |
| pigeon | scallop | mole | snake |
| duck | shark | mongoose | turtle |
| eagle | shell | mouse | tortoise |
| falcon | shrimp | mule | bullock |
| finch | trout | otter | camel |
| flamingo | ant | panda | chimpanzee |
| goose | aphid | pig, hog | dachshund |
| gull | bee | platypus | elephant |
| hawk | beetle | polar bear | turkey |
| jackdaw | bumblebee | polecat | vulture |
| jay | caterpillar | pony | woodpecker |
| kestrel | cockroach | porcupine | wren |
| kookaburra | dragonfly | prairie dog | dolphin |
| mallard | flea | puma | swift |
| nightingale | fly | raccoon | bear |
| nuthatch | gadfly | rat | roundworm |
| ostrich | grasshopper | reindeer | tit |
| owl | harvestman | rhinoceros | beaver |
| parakeet | ladybug | seal | millipede |
| parrot | larva | seal | tapeworm |
| peacock | louse | sheep | leech |
| pelican | maggot | skunk | earthworm |
| penguin | midge | sloth | roundworm |
| pheasant | moth | squirrel | millipede |
| piranha | nymph | tiger | armadillo |
| raven | wasp | weasel | badger |
| robin | mammals | whale | bat |
| rooster | anteater | wolf | bear |
| sparrow | antelope | zebra | beaver |
| stork | swallow | swan | swift |
| abatement | acid rain | air pollution | air quality |
| algae | amoeba | algal blooms | algae land |
| biofuels | biomass | biosphere | carbon count |
| bring bank | brown bin | carbon emissions | turbine |
| toxin | carbon dioxide | carbon offset | carbon tax |
| carbon monoxide | carbon-neutral | climate change | compost |
| carpooling | climate | conservation | cryptosporidium |
| civic amenity site | composting | dioxins | disposal |
| compostable | development plan | draught-proofing | dumping |
| deforestation | domestic waste | environmental | green bin |
| domestic charges | emissions projections | electric vehicle | emissions |
| ecosystem | effluent | fuel poverty | global warming |
| ecotourism | fossil fuels | greenhouse gases | groundwater |
| flora and fauna | greenhouse effect | organic food | household waste |
| greener | hazardous waste | particulate matter | organic |
| habitat | insulation | planning permission | pay by weight |
| incinerator | litter | radioactive | plastic bag levy |
| landfill | noise pollution | refuse | radon |
| municipal waste | oil spill | river basin | renewable energy |
| noxious gases | ozone layer | solar panel | sewage |
| organism | permits | sustainable tourism | toxic |
| pesticides | radiation | zero emissions | tidy towns |
| post-consumer waste | reforestation | atmosphere | ventilation |
| recycle | reuse | biodiversity | backyard burning |
| renewable resource | smokeless fuel | energy efficiency | bioenergy |
| smog | sustainable | amenities | energy rating |
| surface water | traffic calming | biodegradable waste | wind |
Work and Jobs
| accountant | butler | cryptographer | exporter | illustrator |
| actor | cab driver | custodian | exterminator | importer |
| actress | calligrapher | dancer | extra | instructor |
| actuary | captain | dentist | falconer | intern |
| advisor | cardiologist | deputy | farmer | internist |
| aide | caregiver | dermatologist | financier | interpreter |
| ambassador | carpenter | designer | firefighter | inventor |
| animator | cartographer | detective | fisherman | investigator |
| archer | cartoonist | dictator | flutist | jailer |
| artist | cashier | director | football player | janitor |
| astronaut | catcher | disc jockey | foreman | jester |
| astronomer | caterer | diver | game designer | jeweler |
| athlete | cellist | doctor | garbage man | jockey |
| attorney | chaplain | doorman | gardener | journalist |
| auctioneer | chauffeur | driver | gatherer | judge |
| author | chef | drummer | gemcutter | laborer |
| babysitter | chemist | dry cleaner | general | landlord |
| baker | clergyman | ecologist | geneticist | landscaper |
| ballerina | clergywoman | economist | geographer | laundress |
| banker | clerk | editor | geologist | lawyer |
| barber | coach | educator | golfer | lecturer |
| bellhop | concierge | empress | guide | librettist |
| biologist | consul | engineer | hairdresser | lifeguard |
| blacksmith | contractor | entertainer | handyman | linguist |
| bookkeeper | cook | entomologist | harpist | lobbyist |
| bowler | cop | entrepreneur | Highway patrol | locksmith |
| builder | coroner | executive | hobo | lyricist |
| butcher | courier | explorer | hunter | magician |
| maid | muralist | painter | physicist | private detective |
| mail carrier | musician | paleontologist | pianist | producer |
| manager | navigator | paralegal | pilot | professor |
| manufacturer | negotiator | park ranger | pitcher | programmer |
| marine | notary | pathologist | plumber | psychiatrist |
| marketer | novelist | pawnbroker | poet | psychologist |
| mason | nun | peddler | police | publisher |
| mathematician | nurse | pediatrician | policeman | quarterback |
| mayor | oboist | percussionist | policewoman | quilter |
| mechanic | operator | performer | politician | radiologist |
| messenger | ophthalmologist | pharmacist | president | rancher |
| midwife | optician | philanthropist | prince | ranger |
| miner | oracle | philosopher | princess | real estate agent |
| model | orderly | photographer | principal | receptionist |
| monk | ornithologist | physician | private | referee |
| registrar | sailor | scuba diver | socialite | student |
| reporter | salesperson | seamstress | soldier | surgeon |
| representative | samurai | security guard | spy | surveyor |
| researcher | saxophonist | senator | star | swimmer |
| restaurateur | scholar | sheriff | statistician | tailor |
| retailer | scientist | singer | stockbroker | tax collector |
| retiree | scout | smith | street sweeper | taxi driver |
| taxidermist | toolmaker | treasurer | usher | waiter |
| teacher | trader | truck driver | valet | waitress |
| technician | trainer | tutor | veteran | warden |
| tennis player | translator | typist | veterinarian | warrior |
| test pilot | trash collector | umpire | vicar | watchmaker |
| tiler | travel agent | undertaker | violinist | weaver |
| welder | woodcarver | workman | wrangler | writer |
Common Adjectives
| adorable | adventurous | aggressive | ugliest |
| agreeable | alert | alive | unsightly |
| amused | angry | annoyed | uptight |
| annoying | anxious | arrogant | vivacious |
| ashamed | attractive | average | wicked |
| awful | bad | beautiful | witty |
| better | bewildered | black | wrong |
| bloody | blue | blue-eyed | ugly |
| blushing | bored | brainy | unusual |
| brave | breakable | bright | vast |
| busy | calm | careful | wandering |
| cautious | charming | cheerful | wide-eyed |
| clean | clear | clever | worried |
| cloudy | clumsy | colorful | zany |
| combative | comfortable | concerned | outrageous |
| condemned | confused | cooperative | perfect |
| courageous | crazy | creepy | poised |
| crowded | cruel | curious | precious |
| cute | dangerous | dark | putrid |
| dead | defeated | defiant | real |
| delightful | depressed | determined | rich |
| different | difficult | disgusted | shiny |
| distinct | disturbed | dizzy | sleepy |
| doubtful | drab | dull | sore |
| eager | easy | elated | spotless |
| elegant | embarrassed | enchanting | stupid |
| encouraging | energetic | enthusiastic | talented |
| envious | evil | excited | tender |
| expensive | exuberant | fair | thankful |
| faithful | famous | fancy | tired |
| fantastic | fierce | filthy | outstanding |
| fine | foolish | fragile | plain |
| frail | frantic | friendly | poor |
| frightened | funny | gentle | prickly |
| gifted | glamorous | gleaming | puzzled |
| glorious | good | gorgeous | relieved |
| graceful | grieving | grotesque | scary |
| grumpy | handsome | happy | shy |
| healthy | helpful | helpless | smiling |
| hilarious | homeless | homely | sparkling |
| horrible | hungry | hurt | stormy |
| ill | important | impossible | successful |
| inexpensive | innocent | inquisitive | tame |
| itchy | jealous | jittery | tense |
| jolly | joyous | kind | thoughtful |
| lazy | light | lively | tough |
| lonely | long | lovely | panicky |
| lucky | magnificent | misty | pleasant |
| modern | motionless | muddy | powerful |
| mushy | mysterious | nasty | proud |
| naughty | nervous | nice | quaint |
| nutty | obedient | obnoxious | repulsive |
| odd | old-fashioned | open | selfish |
| silly | smoggy | splendid | strange |
| super | tasty | terrible | thoughtless |
| alter | stability | energy | aware | license |
| amendment | logic | rejected | expansion | objective |
| area | approach | role | legislation | income |
| assume | theory | benefit | evidence | consistent |
| categories | perceived | sought | acquisition | features |
| circumstances | instance | considerable | shift | deduction |
| code | investigation | phase | prior | apparent |
| comments | convention | published | framework | implies |
| communication | ethnic | hypothesis | professional | status |
| community | resident | range | construction | strategies |
| component | constraints | technical | emphasis | sequence |
| concept | formula | section | data | research |
| conference | attributed | annual | obvious | commitment |
| consent | proportion | demonstrate | reaction | criteria |
| contact | network | facilitate | welfare | transition |
| create | derived | factors | procedure | environment |
| debate | dimensions | promote | sum | integration |
| elements | previous | conclusion | security | text |
| enforcement | draft | styles | precise | marginal |
| equivalent | liberal | notion | pursue | symbolic |
| established | authority | major | issues | labor |
| evolution | conflict | image | discretion | target |
| export | source | assessment | policy | identified |
| external | psychology | fundamental | adjustment | capacity |
| final | positive | evaluation | assistance | commission |
| focus | purchase | injury | site | journal |
| generation | exposure | decline | academic | modified |
| hence | occupational | internal | goals | mechanism |
| impact | consequences | chapter | equation | appropriate |
| imposed | despite | job | parameters | approximate |
| justification | funds | reliance | physical | partnership |
| label | concentration | principal | series | parallel |
| location | link | coordination | alternative | specified |
| minorities | technology | philosophy | removed | corresponding |
| negative | dominant | illustrated | outcomes | ensure |
| occur | economic | involved | percent | structure |
| overall | emerged | regime | implementation | project |
| primary | complex | institute | investment | select |
| regulations | computer | items | consumer | achieve |
| relevant | distinction | region | traditional | transfer |
| required | constitutional | analysis | distribution | function |
| resources | participation | survey | potential | credit |
| sector | available | financial | process | individual |
| specific | principle | estimate | variables | contract |
| statistics | option | domestic | output | access |
| substitution | generated | trend | revenue | compounds |
| sufficient | corporate | interaction | contribution | immigration |
| summary | attitudes | undertaken | cycle | implications |
| validity | task | techniques | excluded | compensation |
| whereas | enable | version | perspective | prime |
| energy | lethargy | pink | verdure |
| fitness | weakness | prime | vigor |
| strength | disease | robustness | wholeness |
| well-being | illness | salubriousness | clean bill |
| bloom | infirmity | salubrity | eupepsia |
| complexion | sickness | shape | fine feather |
| constitution | hardihood | soundness | good condition |
| euphoria | hardiness | stamina | top form |
| fettle | healthfulness | state | complaint |
| form | healthiness | tone | condition |
| haleness | lustiness | tonicity | illness |
| ailment | indisposition | malady | infirmity |
| disease | queasiness | nausea | diseasedness |
| disorder | unhealthfulness | syndrome | unhealth |
| ill health | unwellness | bug | affliction |
| pastiche | cantilever | taxonomy | generative |
| sustainability | curvilinear | hierarchy | ambiguity |
| ergonomy | rectilinear | scale | catalyst |
| genius loci | Miesian | section | penetrate |
| facade | Corbusian | formal | appropriate |
| charette | permaculture | nodes | inspiration |
| regionalism | blobitecture | pods | contemporary |
| threshold | exurbia | grain | amalgamation |
| massing | walkability | extrapolate | performative |
| enfilade | pilotis | device | hegemony |
| materiality | verticality | elevation | curate |
| poché | rebate | iconic | bifurcate |
| post-industrial | mullion | organic | superimpose |
| diagrammatic | muntin | dichotomy | confluences |
| vernacular | gentrification | eclectic | gestalt |
| modular | stylobate | kitsch | zeitgeist |
| deconstruction | obscure | sequence | banal |
| parametric | space | interstitial | motifs |
| program | fabric | iteration | procession |
| skin | metaphor | juxtapose | homogenous |
| building envelope | legibility | stereotomic | palimpsest |
| vault | dimension | tectonics | paradigm |
| arcade | moment | liminal | dissonance |
| fenestration | celebrate | articulate | adjacencies |
| truncated | negotiate | ephemeral | parallax |
| parti | dynamic | domesticity | assemblage |
| flâneur | language | anthropogenic | aesthetic |
| phenomenology | context | regenerate | monolithic |
| brutalism | gesture | hybrid | uniformity |
| morphology | duality | nuance | transient |
| redundancy | robust | bespoke | holistic |
Business/Workplace
| accounts | build | company | leader | partner |
| achievement | business | competition | leadership | partnership |
| advantage | capital | concept | management | passion |
| advertising | capitalism | confidence | market leader | performance |
| agreement | career | consultant | marketing | persistence |
| ambition | chairman | consultation | marketplace | pioneer |
| appreciation | client | consumer | mastery | planning |
| approach | clincher | contract | meeting | portfolio |
| authority | co-op | incentive | mentor | position |
| benefits | co-worker | industry | merger | potential |
| boss | colleague | jet-setter | milestone | price |
| bottom line | commerce | job | raise | priorities |
| brainstorm | responsibility | job security | money | pro |
| branch | scope | labor force | negotiation | product |
| brand | stability | laborer | prosperity | productivity |
| experience | expert | expertise | finances | firm |
| growth | hard sell | hard work | ideas | impact |
| proprietorship | coaching | investment | messaging | power |
| resource | team | launch | open doors | profit |
| satisfaction | work | results | opportunity | cooperative |
| solution | sales | sector | organization | corporation |
| talent | skill | staff | owner | revenue |
| vision | supplier | teamwork | return | shareholder |
| growth | hard sell | ideas | impact | implementation |
| referral | program | assessment | promotion | proprietorship |
| goal | growth | hard sell | ideas | impact |
| costs | customer | deal | department | departments |
| desk | desktop | determination | division | drive |
| effort | employee | employment | enterprise | entrepreneur |
| fortune | implementation | economy | excellence | executive |
| expansion | expectation | sale | program | prosperity |
Sample Practice Questions from the Duolingo English Test that Test Your “Yes/No” Vocabulary
They’ve developed these activities to assist students like you in practicing for the Duolingo English Test for free. You may also prepare for the Duolingo English Test by going to Duolingo Test Free Practice – Exercises and Information.
What English Spelling Skills Do You Need to Improve for the Duolingo English Test?
A common challenge for non-English speakers is that a few words in English sound and look familiar but have a different meaning. Or on other occasions, a few words are commonly misspelled. And usually, the misspelling happens with a single alphabet, “i” or “e”. There are many nuances to the English language that confuses and leads to spelling mistakes.
And the rarest form is extremely long multi-syllable words, and in some cases, these words are foreign even to native and fluent English speakers.
Let’s look at both these scenarios with multiple examples.
Commonly Confused English Words
The difficulty with spellcheck is that it might misspell words. English is full of similar-sounding but differently written terms.
Usually, English learners misinterpret many words with similar (but not identical) meanings due to confusing structures or even multiple meanings. Here are some of the most frequently misunderstood English terms.
English Words with Troublesome Spelling
The ever-evolving English language may be challenging to spell because of its quirks and exceptions.
It is only since the advent of the printing machine that they have standardized the terms in American English. While spellcheck apps are excellent, understanding and being competent in spelling are crucial both at school and at the workplace.
People will evaluate you based on your misspelled words, fair or not. That may harm your grades or professional growth.
i – e and e – i
“i before e unless after c” is one of the first English spelling rules students learn in school. This only works when the word with a long ee, like in shield.
| i – e | e – i |
| piece relief believe niece chief priest thief |
conceive conceit receive receipt eight heigh feign |
Silent Letter
When writing a word, don’t forget to spell it with its silent letter even though it is not spoken. In other words, more than half of the alphabet may occur as silent letters.
At times, you may find them at the beginning, end, or center of the words, and you wouldn’t know they were there based on the word’s sound.
Lengthy Words
When you break them down into their component pieces, they’re not as terrifying as they seem. This is how most lengthier words function and many of them are scientific or medical phrases. You’ll have a good start if you understand the most frequent Latin and Greek roots (there are many lists online, such as this one).
Examples:
- antidisestablishmentarianism
- supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
Is the Word British or American?
The majority of the spelling changes between the two forms are common and well-known. There’s undoubtedly a lot to say about it, but one of the main reasons is that British English has sought to maintain the spelling of the terms it has taken from other nations for the most part. To simplify spelling, American English has attempted to confirm the spelling of specific terms to the way they are spoken in English.
| American | British |
| labor | labour |
| color | colour |
| favor | favour |
| favorite | favourite |
| realize | realise |
| apologize | apologise |
| license | licence |
| defense | defence |
Common Misspelled English Words
Below is a list of commonly misspelled words. Get yourself familiar with it to avoid committing mistakes:
What are a Few Tips to Improve Your English Spelling?
These suggestions for improving your spelling are based on professional guidance. Take a look at the fundamentals listed below:
- Keep a list of difficult terms. Underline the word’s most difficult section.
- Don’t use a spell-checker! Don’t trust a spell-checker. The most often misspelled terms I’ve seen online are there and there.
- Learn words’ prefixes and suffixes.
- Don’t depend on the rules. As previously said, every rule has an exception.
Additional FAQs — Duolingo Enlgish Test Vocabulary
What is the Best Way to Prepare for the Duolingo English Test?
The Duolingo English Test is a test that assesses and evaluates real-world language proficiency.
Take a free practice exam on their preparedness page.
They have a detailed guide that includes information on the test questions and test-taking tips and strategies.
What is A Real English word?
A real word has meaning in the English language. As a point of reference, the term ‘real word’ is often used in conjunction with the teaching of nonsensical words.
Nonsense words are made-up words that are used to aid in the teaching of important phonetic sounds.
What is the Duolingo English Exam Passing Score?
The range of Duolingo scores is 10-160. You will view their total result rather than the sub-scores for each ability since the scores are holistic.
Universities often demand a minimum score of 110; however, this is not always the case and might vary from institution to university.
-
#1
Hello everyone, I have seen a sentence:
This computer is made in Japan
Compared to this sentence,
which sentence is correct?
This book is written by Shakespeare. or This book was written by Shakespeare?
Thanks so much for your kind help!
-
#2
This book was written by Shakespeare?
This version sounds more natural to me as an isolated sentence. After all, Shakespeare has been dead for centuries.
Sometimes people use present-tense verbs in literature about books that were written in the past. If you were writing an article about Shakespeare’s plays, I wouldn’t be surprised to see that you used verbs in the present tense to give your article a lively quality. However, I don’t think this consideration is important if you merely want to tell us that Shakespeare wrote a book.
-
#3
This (brand of) computer is made in Japan. The company is making some right now.
This (particular) computer was made in Japan. It is two years old.
-
#4
Both sentences in #1 are correct.
This book was written by Shakespeare.This describes an event that happened long ago (him writing this book).
This book is written by Shakespeare.This describes the book. Specifically, it tells us the author.
You can often provide the same meaning, while saying different things.
-
#5
Both sentences in #1 are correct.
This book was written by Shakespeare.
This describes an event that happened long ago (him writing this book).
This book is written by Shakespeare.
This describes the book. Specifically, it tells us the author.
You can often provide the same meaning, while saying different things.
This (brand of) computer is made in Japan. The company is making some right now.
This (particular) computer was made in Japan. It is two years old.
Thanks so much for your kind help!
But can I just say «this» instead of pointing out » brand of » to say
This computer is made in Japan.
Does it make sense?
-
#6
Both sentences in #1 are correct.
This book was written by Shakespeare.
This describes an event that happened long ago (him writing this book).
This book is written by Shakespeare.
This describes the book. Specifically, it tells us the author.
You can often provide the same meaning, while saying different things.
But if I want to ask the author, we should say «who wrote this book?» instead of «who writes this book» (because my teacher has corrected me)
Am I right?
Thanks so much for your kind help!
-
#7
But if I want to ask the author, we should say «who wrote this book?» instead of «who writes this book» (because my teacher has corrected me)
I agree with your teacher. «Who wrote this book?» is an ordinary question when you are asking about a book that was written long ago.
«Who writes this book?» This seems to ask whether somebody is actively writing the book at the time when you ask the question. That is confusing and wrong if you are asking about a book that was written in the past.
-
#8
I agree with your teacher. «Who wrote this book?» is an ordinary question when you are asking about a book that was written long ago.
«Who writes this book?»
This seems to ask whether somebody is actively writing the book at the time when you ask the question. That is confusing and wrong if you are asking about a book that was written in the past.
Thanks so much for your kind help!
In this way, we should say » This book was written by Shakespeare»
And sometimes, passive voice and linking verb structure should use different tenses:
The glass was filled with water by Jane.(Jane filled the glass with water in the past)
The glass now is filled with water.(It described the status of the glass, not the action am I right?)
Thanks so much!
-
#9
You’re welcome.
In this way, we should say » This book was written by Shakespeare»
Right.
The glass was filled with water by Jane.(Jane filled the glass with water in the past)
Right.
The glass now is filled with water.(It described the status of the glass, not the action am I right?)
You are right again. The focus is on the current status of the glass, not the time when it was filled by somebody. In real life, a speaker might well use «The glass is full of water.» However, you have the right idea about the relationship between the verb’s tense and the speaker’s intention.
Last edited: Aug 25, 2016
-
#10
You’re welcome.
Right.
Right.
You are right again. The focus is on the current status of the glass, not the time when it was filled by somebody.
Thanks so much for your kind help!
I still find some verbs which can be understood as linking verb structure or passive voice (like be crowded with, be covered with), they have the same difference.
I know I can say: This piece of material is made of iron.
But I’m not sure if I can say: This piece of material is made with iron or This piece of material was made with iron.
Thanks a million!
-
#11
If I only wanted to comment about what the piece was made of, I’d use the present: This artifact is made of iron.
If I wanted to comment about when an artifact was made, I’d use «was» to talk about something that was made at some time in the past: This artifact was made of iron about 2,000 years ago by a village smith who lived near the area where the city of Manchester is now.
As a general rule, use the past to describe an action that took place in the past. If you want to talk about the material an object is made of, then you’ll probably choose the present tense. As you mentioned earlier, your interest in this situation is focused on the current composition or status of the object.
-
#12
If I only wanted to comment about what the piece was made of, I’d use the present: This artifact is made of iron.
If I wanted to comment about when an artifact was made, I’d use «was» to talk about something that was made at some time in the past: This artifact was made of iron about 2,000 years ago by a village smith who lived near the area where the city of Manchester is now.
Thanks so much！
But what about “be made with”
We can only use this structure to say that something was made by some kind of material in the past， like someone wrote a book in the past. Am I right？
-
#13
We seem to be wandering off topic, moyeea. However, I’ll give you a quick answer about how I use «made with» and «made of»: This chair is made of wood. = The material of the chair is wood. The chair was fashioned/made from wood.
This chair was made with hand tools = I used hand tools, not machines, when I created/made the chair. Maybe I used a saw and a hammer.
-
#14
We seem to be wandering off topic, moyeea. However, I’ll give you a quick answer about how I use «made with» and «made of»: This chair is made of wood. = The material of the chair is wood. The chair was fashioned/made from wood.
This chair was made with hand tools = I used hand tools, not machines, when I created/made the chair. Maybe I used a saw and a hammer.
Thanks so much！
I understand， I really appreciate for your kind help！
Thanks a million！
-
#15
Hello, everyone. I have a similar question.
As a general rule, use the past to describe an action that took place in the past. If you want to talk about the material an object is made of, then you’ll probably choose the present tense.
Can I apply this rule to the following sentences?
1. This picture
is
taken by Kenny.
→ If I want to emphasize the fact that Kenny took the picture, not the action itself.
2. This book
is
written by Kenny.
→ If I want to emphasize the fact that Kenny wrote the book, not the action itself.
3. This painting
is
drawn by Kenny.
→ If I want to emphasize the fact that Kenny drew the painting, not the action itself.
4. This (kind of) cake
is
made by Kenny.
→ If I want to emphasize the fact that Kenny made/created/invented this cake, not the action itself.
Thank you very much.
-
#16
1. This picture
is
taken by Kenny.
→ If I want to emphasize the fact that Kenny took the picture, not the action itself.2. This book
is
written by Kenny.
→ If I want to emphasize the fact that Kenny wrote the book, not the action itself.3. This painting
is
drawn by Kenny.
→ If I want to emphasize the fact that Kenny drew the painting, not the action itself.
You have a lot of passive sentences here, Kenny. If I wanted to refer to these things, I would use active sentences and the past simple: (1) Kenny took this picture. (2) Kenny wrote this book. (3) Kenny painted this painting. All of these sentences emphasize the fact that you were the one who took the picture, wrote the book, and painted the painting. By using active sentences, I give you a natural role as the active agent in all of these actions. I really don’t see any good reason to use the picture, the book, or the painting as the subjects of these sentences.
4. This (kind of) cake
is
made by Kenny.
→ If I want to emphasize the fact that Kenny made/created/invented this cake, not the action itself.
If you regularly make this kind of cake, I would express the idea this way: Kenny makes this kind of cake.
-
#17
You have a lot of passive sentences here, Kenny. If I wanted to refer to these things, I would use active sentences and the past simple: (1) Kenny took this picture. (2) Kenny wrote this book. (3) Kenny painted this painting. All of these sentences emphasize the fact that you were the one who took the picture, wrote the book, and painted the painting. By using active sentences, I give you a natural role as the active agent in all of these actions. I really don’t see any good reason to use the picture, the book, or the painting as the subjects of these sentences.
If you regularly make this kind of cake, I would express the idea this way: Kenny makes this kind of cake.
Thank you for your explanation.
Because of the exercise in the textbook, students were asked to practice writing the passive sentences. Some wrote them in past tense, which I think is correct and logical, but some wrote them in present tense, as the example sentences given. I wonder if present tense is also acceptable with different meanings.
-
#18
I wonder if present tense is also acceptable with different connotations.
You’re welcome. The present tense is sometimes used in passive sentences about how something is made or done. People sometimes use it in references to where something is regularly made/manufactured: These cars are made in Italy. People often use it in references to the materials from which something is made: This chair is made of wood.
More often than not, however, I use the past simple in references to something that was made or done in the past: This guitar was made in Japan. This sculpture was carved by Bernini.
Last edited: Aug 11, 2021
-
#19
You’re welcome. The present tense is sometimes used in passive sentences about how something is made or done. People sometimes use it in references to where something is regularly made/manufactured: These cars are made in Italy. People often use it in references to the materials from which something is made: This chair is made of wood.
More often than not, however, I use the past simple in references to something that was made or done in the past: This guitar was made in Japan. This sculpture was carved by Bernini.
I see. Thank you for your help.
-
#20
You’re welcome. The present tense is sometimes used in passive sentences about how something is made or done. People sometimes use it in references to where something is regularly made/manufactured: These cars are made in Italy. People often use it in references to the materials from which something is made: This chair is made of wood.
More often than not, however, I use the past simple in references to something that was made or done in the past: This guitar was made in Japan. This sculpture was carved by Bernini.
Hi owlman5,
What did you mean by «in references [plural] to»? What is the difference in meaning betweent «in reference to» and «in references to»?
-
#21
Hi owlman5,
What did you mean by «in references [plural] to»? What is the difference in meaning betweent «in reference to» and «in references to»?
There isn’t any important difference in meaning. I used the plural because I was thinking about more than one reference. I often refer to things that were made or done in the past.
-
#22
People often use it in references to the materials from which something is made: This chair is made of wood.
So, both of the following are possible:
a. This chair is made of wood.
b. This chair was made of wood.
(a) means that the chair is composed of wood. [what]
(b) means that the chair was made in the past. [when]
Is that right?
-
#23
So, both of the following are possible:
a. This chair is made of wood.
b. This chair was made of wood.(a) means that the chair is composed of wood. [what]
(b) means that the chair was made in the past. [when]Is that right?
I view both sentences as statements about what the chair is/was made of rather than statements about when the chair was made.
If you wanted to say something about when the chair is/was made, it would be a good idea to mention a date or a time in the sentence: The chair was made last week. I am assembling a chair now, but I should be done before noon.
-
#24
I view both sentences as statements about what the chair is/was made of rather than statements about when the chair was made.
1. Let’s say, a chair is in front of us. We would say «the chair is made of wood» rather than «the chair was made of wood» because «be made of» is like «be composed of». The chair is now still composed of wood.
2. However, we would say «the chair was made from wood» rather than «the chair is made from wood» because «be made from» refers to when it was made.
3. For «the chair was made of wood», it would be a good idea to mention a date or a time in the sentence: «the chair was made of wood
ten years ago
.»
Are these right?
-
#25
1. Let’s say, a chair is in front of us. We would say «the chair is made of wood» rather than «the chair was made of wood» because «be made of» is like «be composed of». The chair is now still composed of wood.
I would probably use is rather than was in this sentence.
2. However, we would say «the chair was made from wood» rather than «the chair is made from wood» because «be made from» refers to when it was made.
Would we? Does it? I have some doubt about these assumptions.
If I wanted to refer to the material from which a chair was made in the past, I would probably phrase the sentence this way: The chair was made of wood. If I used the sentence, I might very well be referring to a chair which no longer exists: As I recall, the chair was made of wood. I haven’t seen it for years, however, so I might be wrong.
3. For «the chair was made of wood», it would be a good idea to mention a date or a time in the sentence: «the chair was made of wood
ten years ago
.»
Ten years ago certainly seems like a good thing to include in a comment about when a chair was made: Somebody made this chair ten years ago/The chair was made ten years ago.
-
#26
If I wanted to refer to the material from which a chair was made in the past, I would probably phrase the sentence this way: The chair was made of wood. If I used the sentence, I might very well be referring to a chair which no longer exists: As I recall, the chair was made of wood. I haven’t seen it for years, however, so I might be wrong.
Thank you, owlman5.
But in post #13 you said «chair is made of wood. = The material of the chair is wood. The chair was fashioned/made from wood.»
If you don’t mind, could you please tell me about «is/was made from» and «is/was made with»?
a. This chair is made from wood.
b. This chair was made from wood.
c. This chair is made with wood.
d. This chair was made with wood.
How can I choose from these tenses? I mean, in what context would they be used?
Last edited: Jan 31, 2023
-
#27
You’re welcome. I don’t think that the preposition has anything to do with the tense that you use in those sentences. I prefer of.
If the chair is sitting in front of you and you are mostly commenting on what material it is made of, is makes sense to me: The chair is made of wood. I don’t care about when it was made.
If you are trying to emphasize the fact that the chair was made in the past, then was is the sensible choice: The chair was made of wood.