'Chef-speak' or perhaps 'cook-speak' - why use unnecessary adverbs e.g. to roast off, to cook down?
923295
You forget "Drizzle"! (as in olive oil) - but yes, I quite agree with you. I think the correct term for all this "cheffy" nonsense is "Bullshit" - because I can think of no other more fitting term!
673161
You're asking about the grammar, right?\n\nYour sentence is very understandable to native speakers.  Obviously, a couple of the first few native speakers who read this question didn't even realize that you were asking about grammar.\n\nI think that it's probably fine the way it is, but if you'd like to make the sentence even more native-like, I'd say "Vitamin C is necessary for the prevention and cure of scurvy."
267162
It is correct in spoken English as well as written English(firstly and secondly etcetra should be used mostly when you're asked things to be told in direct points only.Otherwise I'd suggest that you go towards a more creative aproach in handling it if you're writing a story, essay..... or atleast try to disguise the firstly and secondly point like -\n\nThe the time was near and first and foremost I had forgotten to get the dinner ready.The second thing which worried me was that my right eye would start twitching madly if I didn't do anything properly.....\n\nSee how creative you can get!!!)
542724
I agree. \n\nAnd you know what you should do with people who tell you to "unthaw" something before cooking. Make them a meal with "unthawed" ingredients. Then tell them what they did wrong. Or not, either way it's funny.
1044925
One. It just requires a question mark at the end! It's OK apart from that, although as others have said, there are other ways of saying it..! The tense is fine though!\n\nTwo. The second 'travel to London' is redundant - not necessary. I'd replace it with 'go'!! AND, as you would be travelling to London WITH Helen, I'd say 'we' instead of 'I'!\n"If Helen had invited me to travel to London with her, we would go tomorrow."
126338
Laziness..spell-checker and the internet... Enough said....\nIt's a pet-peave of mine too.. I don't expect perfect grammar, but I at least want to be able to understand what one is saying to me...I'm not a perfectionist, but let's get real...Nobody takes you seriously if you can't tell the difference between to, two and too...Geez! DRIVES ME CRAZY!!
585654
It sounds like you might be writing with a computer word processing program that is objecting to your style of writing. \n\nYou shouldn't necessarily avoid the passive voice. Sometimes it's the only way to make sense. However, in normal speech and interesting writing, in English we tend to prefer the "active voice." That just means that the subject of the sentence is primary and the action flows from the subject.\n\n "I ran the race." "Jill ate my ice cream." "Bob bought a new bike."\n\nThose sentences above are in the active voice. That is, the action in the sentences was performed by the subjects of the sentences and it is who is performing the action that is important. YOU ran the race. Who at your ice cream? Why it was JILL. She's always taking your things. It isn't important in the sentence about Bob that a bike was bought. Bikes are bought every minute somewhere in the world. What is important is that this time BOB bought one.\n\nSometimes the passive voice is preferable, though. When you want to emphasize the doing and not the do-er. The action takes the prominent place in the sentence.\n\n"Our home was destroyed by that tornado." \n\nThat is the passive voice. While you can say "That tornado destroyed our home," you're then putting the emphasis on the tornado and not your home. \n\nGenerally, stick to the active voice, but don't shy away from the passive completely. That's why we have both modes of expression.\n\nGood luck. I hope that this helps.
354207
Stop burning your food and it wont stick (polite way of saying learn to cook)
373253
I think it is very impolite to add extra's when the dessert has already been served.\nThat's like putting ketchup on your steak.\nAnd that's coming from a man.\nEven if he's called Dr. Bob.
587124
B. You are stating two separate ideas here, so a comma is appropriate. The colon is used when you want to define the phrase, but here you have separate phrases, so you don't modify or define here. D. is also incorrect because you are defining the action of the sea, and not describing it. It would be the same as saying "I, went to the bus station."
218343
Because they don't understand that word order, tenses, etc. may be different in different lands. The same would be true if an English-speaking person tried using perhaps Spanish or French for the first time: it would sound funny to a Spanish or French-speaking person.
956137
Very nice; you must have picked up on the hidden clue.\n\nFrankly, it all depends.  I personally am not very found of grammatical rules, as they seem to be inherently limiting.  As far as I am concerned, you can throw the majority of those rules out the window, as long as you can express yourself clearly and be easily understood.   Case in point: Linguists and English professors do NOT usually make great writers, do they?   In principle, of course, one can always make a strong formal English punctuation argument in favor of your choice "b".  But to me "a" looks much "prettier".   So the question is: Should we keep shoving food into our mouths, mindlessly chewing, and promptly swallowing till our stomachs are full, or should we try to eat less, but eat with our eyes and palates too?   I suppose, it all depends on the circumstances and your point of view.   For instance, if you end up in a hospital with a sever case of malnutrition and dehydration, they “ain’t” “gonna” care much about how you are gonna eat or drink, as long as they end up pumping enough liquids and nutrients into you to save your life.   ... The punctuation waters start getting even murkier as more and more people begin to impose their own rules and restrictions on-line.   Ironically-enough (notice I said Ironically-enough and NOT anomalously-enough LOL) take your own example in this here on-line Y!A milieu, for instance.    The Y!A software will automatically add a question mark (i.e. a "?") to the end of every statement posted, no matter what you do, and be it really a question or NOT!  (And still, they dare to complain that some of those questions aren’t exactly questions)!  LOL    Hence, in a Y!A environment at least, both your choices would be forced into a punctually incorrect stratosphere (for "a" would become "lovelorn"??, and "b" would be transformed into "lovelorn?"?) and the only correct choice would appear to be “the initially incorrect one”, namely just “lovelorn”.  … Now, go figure!   LOL     … Yes my friend, even the oracle should strive for anomalism, at times.  :-)
1114686
It's been years, but I've heard a different variation.  The one I heard (from my mother) included, "Had plenty" vs "You caught twenty?"  and "Ate sufficient" instead of "Dined sufficient."  It seems like there was a third miscommunication in the poem, but I can't remember what it was.\n\nDo these alternative phrases give you anything new to search with?\n\nI did find the site below, but it is a long story (copyright 2005), not an old poem.
1122967
It is a question of style\n\nThe use of the definite article "the" gives more emphasis on the prepositional phrases.\n\nconsider\n\n"it prevents elimination"\n\nand "it prevents the elimination" (of what?)\n\nprepositional phrases function much the same was as an adjective, they modify a noun in this sentence.  By emphasizing the noun with "the" you emphasize the prepositional phrases, relative clauses, and adjectives that go along with it.\n\nuse of "the" also emphasizes that the words assimilation and elimination are nouns and not verbs.\n\nIf you are descibing a process such as digestion, I would not use "the", because you have more emphasis on the process, a verb.  If you are describing the effects of a drug or the results of an experiment, the emphasis is no longer on how something happend but on what happend.  I would use "the" in this case.
1015007
Without a doubt the F bomb. Naturally one needs to watch where you drop it. I use it more for my own personal enjoyment at times when a good expletive is needed, such as dropping the cast iron frying pan on your toe, or yelling with the window up to some dufass driver. It is just such a descriptive word and one nearly everyone understands.
951192
yes\n\ncheat  is  used both transitive and intransitive , meaning it doesnt need to have an object .\nit is usually used for unimportant or insignificant actions  like (cheating on a game)\n\non the other hand decieve needs an object (only transitive) \nused for more serious offences, decieve ones wife for example\nor for something difficult to achieve\nlike \nthe magician decieved the audience into thinking .....
461190
Skills still spill shrill swills.\n\nIt doesn't make all that much sense, but it's a correct sentence.  You can rearrange it a bit and add in sill and shill, as in: 'sills still spill shrill swills' or 'still, shills swill shrill spills' etc., but I like the first one best.