word choice - Usage of "expect to" and "expectation to/of"

I've written:

I expect to see you on Monday. I'm
counting the days.

To improve it, I've changed it in:

With the expectation to see you on
Monday, I'm counting the days.

A friend told me: No! You should write the following.

With the expectation of seeing you
on Monday, I'm counting the
days.

Who's the smart one? My friend or me? Is there a general rule to apply here? Like with expect/expectation, but also for willing/wish, etc.

Answer

One of the properties of individual words in a language - and often one of the hardest for foreigners to learn - is what linguists call their "subcategorization frame" : the particular kinds of word and phrase that they require, or allow, to follow them in a sentence.

Rhodri's answer is generally correct: "expect" requires a direct object, which may be of various types including a "that" clause ("I expect that he will come", and an infinitive clause ("I expect to win").

But "expectation" has different requirements: it may take a direct object only if that is a "that" clause ("His expectation that I would come"; any other object must be expressed in a PP (prepositional phrase) introduced by "of": "my expectation of winning").

The bit I disagree with in Rhodri's answer is the implication that because it is a noun, "expectation" cannot take a direct infinitive. This is not so: "expectation" does not take an infinitive, but "ability" can: ("His ability to climb came in useful").

word choice - What is the proper way to refer to the Original Poster (OP)?

In a comment, I was corrected by referring to a user named alice as a "he". I said (context):

I know he thinks he needs all of the eigenvalues, but I've learned that ...

and was corrected to by another user

But a protip: the username "alice" and the pronoun "he" typically don't go together. Probably better to stick to gender-neutral singular they.

Which of these would be correct?

1. I know he thinks he needs all of the eigenvalues, ...


2. I know he/she thinks he/she needs all of the eigenvalues, ...


3. I know they think they need all of the eigenvalues, ...


4. I know the OP thinks they need all of the eigenvalues, ...

Clearly this question is related:

Is there a correct gender-neutral singular pronoun ("his" vs. "her" vs. "their")?

I'm interested in the last case where OP is essentially a pronoun, but the usage sounds awkward. Is there a good way to refer to OP or should I stick with "they"?

Answer

As the comments say OP is a noun here.

He/she is too longwinded. "They" is gender neutral. Theirs, they're, they are, them etc.

I would go with option 4 as it identifies "them" as "the OP". Option 3 could confuse readers about who the actual subject is.

capitalization - Which words in a title should be capitalized?

Are there any concrete rules that say which words (parts of speech) in a title should start with a capital letter? What would be a correct capitalization for the title of this question?

Answer

This Writer's Block page on capitalization sums up the rules in one page which is the most useful that I have found, basically these rules from the Chicago Manual of Style plus a number of minor rules which are worth reading:

1. Always capitalize the first and the last word.


2. Capitalize all nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, and subordinate conjunctions ("as", "because", "although").


3. Lowercase all articles, coordinate conjunctions ("and", "or", "nor"), and prepositions regardless of length, when they are other than the first or last word. (Note: NIVA prefers to capitalize prepositions of five characters or more ("after", "among", "between").)


4. Lowercase the "to" in an infinitive.

grammar - What/such + [indefinite article] + uncountable noun (without an adjective)

I have tried to do a bit of research on the topic, but to no avail. Can uncountable nouns which are not determined by an adjective or a subordinate clause be used with the indefinite article for emphasis?

Which of the cases below are correct (probably both)?

• What patience! What heat!


• What a patience! What a heat!

Now, what I was able to find out. According to MacMillan,

The answer is that while uncountable nouns don’t have plurals (usually, although there are exceptions to that rule too) they can in certain circumstances be preceded by an indefinite article. These circumstances are when you are qualifying or limiting the noun’s meaning in some way.

In these cases provided by MacMillan, the uncountable noun's meaning is definitely limited by an adjective or a subordinate clause:

• Theirs is a love that will be put to the test.


• You’re going to spend your life chasing a happiness that always
  eludes you.



• I want my daughter to develop a healthy respect for danger but not to
  live in fear.

Another example can be found here:

"Table M2.3: Using Indefinite Article" in LSEG4 says: "The indefinite article is used with uncountable nouns in order to suggest the idea of 'a kind of'." (For examples please consult LSEG4.)

and then:

• Jane used to display an extravagant Italian elegance.


• John had an incredible thirst for knowledge.

While it is clear with these cases of use, I wonder to which extent this might also be true speaking of uncountable nouns used without any determination by an adjective or a subordinate clause.

• What patience! What heat!


• What a patience! What a heat!

To me, both variants sound correct. The one with the indefinite article seems to be limiting the meaning of the noun. In other words, we have an omitted (presumed) attributive there: What a [fantastic] patience! What a [terrible] weather!, and that seems to be adding a kind of emotional emphasis. However, I'm not quite sure about that, and I fail to find any reliable sources. So, any hints would be really appreciated.

word choice - "____ and me" versus "____ and I"

Possible Duplicates:
When do I use “I” instead of “me?”
Which is correct, “you and I” or “you and me”?

While reading an article from a certain newspaper this morning on grammar pet peeves, I noticed one that I had never heard of before, concerning the usage of "me" vs. "I." The examples were something like: "The pool amazed my friend and me"; and "My friend and I were amazed by the fireworks." I have never, ever heard of using "____ and me," but the writer of this article believes that when using the passive, it should be "____ and me." Is this correct?

grammar - Can't decide whether to use focus or focuses in this sentence

I feel like I should use "focuses" as using "focus" sounds weird in the following sentence.

Risks are not identified prospectively, i.e. this is a case of “Fighting the Last Battle” syndrome, whereby management focus most on risks that have occurred recently.

Are they both acceptable? I'm not big on the rules of the English language, I tend to just go by what sounds right in my head and here "focus" seems out of place.

I appreciate any feedback.

A question on the usage of the definite article "THE"

A question on the usage of the definite article "THE"

The sentence below comes from Word Smart II: How to Build a More Educated Vocabulary.

Federal law requires manufacturers to demonstrate both the safety and
the efficacy of new drugs. The manufacturers must prove that the new
drugs are efficacious.

The 1st sentence presents both 'manufacturers' and 'new drugs' without articles. But in the 2nd sentence both are presented with definite articles.

Is there any specific reason for this or no good reason so the 2nd sentence is no problem without articles?

grammatical number - Is the plural form of ID spelled ID's or ID?

How to write or tell that collection of Email ID's has been attached.

grammar - Should I Use a Comma before the Second “and”

Please enter your email and password, and click on the “Log In”

button.

Should I use a comma before the second “and”?

Answer

Yes, because the second 'and' is used as a conjunction for two clauses.

[Clause 1], and [Clause 2]

Try this page. :)

american english - Does modifying a collective noun with a number make the subject plural?

The word dozen is a collective noun, i.e., singular when we think of them as groups and plural when we think of the individuals acting within the whole. So we might say:

Talking about eggs: "A dozen is probably not enough."
Talking about a party with friends: "A dozen are coming over this afternoon."

So, a dozen roses would likely be considered singular (like a bouquet). We might say, "A dozen roses costs ten rupees," as per subject-verb agreement.

1) However, since we have six dozen, does the modification of the noun by a number change the subject to plural, resulting in cost? Or is it all moot because of the plural roses?

In American English, collective nouns tend to be singular while in British English they may be both. That said, I've seen the suggestion that cost be used, which would be straightforward to me if dozens (plural) were used. From an American perspective, I feel the subject should remain singular when modified by a number: "Three dozen is enough to feed an army," or "Two dozen pizzas is/are too much" (the be verb is interchangeable in the 2nd example).

2) Is sticking with singular in the case above purely my American usage side showing, or is it a shared phenomenon?

Wikipedia states:

When modified by a number, the plural is not inflected, that is, has no -s added.

3) (Main Question) Does this have any bearing on whether the subject is treated as a plural? That is, since a plural is not inflected, could the subject remain singular, or is this irrelevant?

Note this is not a duplicate, since that question is vague and about to be closed and my suggested edit, which is the basis of this question, was rejected.

Answer

Looking at the effective interaction with the dozens, I suggest that the singular is appropriate. You are paying one price for the lot. As such six dozens is being treated as a single collective unit.

Six dozen roses costs 60 rupees. [You are buying one thing]

If you were quoting a price for each dozen, you probably would say

Six dozen roses cost 10 rupees per dozen. [You are buying six things]

word choice - "Expectations of" vs. "expectations for"

There are some questions related to this topic (Usage of "expect to" and "expectation to/of" and "Need of" vs. "need for"), but I haven't found one directly addressing this word combination.

I'm trying to determine whether I should use "expectations of" or "expectations for," in the following:

I had to reevaluate my expectations of myself.

I had to reevaluate my expectations of college.

I had to reevaluate my expectations of the future.

OR

I had to reevaluate my expectations for myself.

I had to reevaluate my expectations for college.

I had to reevaluate my expectations for the future.

Is one more grammatically correct than the other in all cases (regardless of the type of noun that follows)? Or, are they both correct in different cases; if so, what are they? Thanks.

grammaticality - Proper way to handle plurals with “whose”

I came up (re)phrasing a question like this:

What's so special about directories whose name begins with a dot?

But now, I'm wondering whether this is the correct handling of plurals or not. Should the following be preferred?

What's so special about directories whose names begin with a dot?

^{(In French both are correct and have different meanings — singular suggests that each directory has one name, plural suggests each directory can have several names, but it might be different in English.)}

Answer

The second is correct in this context. Since whose is referring to the plural directories, it must take a plural noun:

What's so special about directories whose names begin with a dot?

The above holds unless the directories collectively have one name, in which case it would be correct to use name in the singular.

contraction vs full form - appropriate usage of I am / I'm

I am trying to explain to someone why the following quote should use "I am" rather than "I'm":

I don't care how old I'm, I still like [media]

I feel that I am correct, but cannot recall the rule.

grammar - Use of possible/it is possible

I am editing an article by a non-native speaker who is using the expressions:

1. what is to be learned

meaning the things that the students are expected to learn or that which is to be learned

2. what is possible to learn

meaning those things which it is possible for a student to learn in a particular situation

3. what is made possible to learn

in the following sense: the teacher (or circumstances) make it possible for the student to learn X so X is "what is made possible to learn"

The first of these phrases seems grammatically correct to me, even though it is a bit awkward.

The second two phrases sound wrong to me but I am having difficulty analysing exactly why they don't work (particularly in the case of "what is made possible to learn".

The main problem seem to be that one can't say "X is possible to learn": that we need to say "it is possible to learn X", so "what it is possible to learn" would probably be better. But I suspect there is another problem with the third sentence - I just can't put my finger on.

I would really appreciate if someone could help me to understand exactly what the problem is with these constructions and, if possible, suggest an alternative.

word choice - “By whom?” vs. “Who by?”

Are “by whom?” and “who by?” perfect equivalents?

I have the feeling that the use of “who by?” is just a way of avoiding use “whom” but I have no evidence or proof. The anglophone people I talk to hardly use “whom”.

Are both expressions equally used, or is the difference between them only regional?

Answer

They're not perfect equivalents, but they're pretty close. The biggest difference, of course, is that whom is a pretty formal word, so "By whom?" is a very awkward reply to, say, "He got f'd." Either "By who?" or "Who by?" would be much more natural.

Another difference is that if someone uses a by-phrase that you didn't quite catch, or that you're surprised about, you can reply "By whom?" or "By who?", but not "Who by?", to request a repetition. ("By who?" is the most common wording in this case: "This book is by Mr. Aasefalsdfjaose." "By who?")

usage - Has the expression "powered by", as used in website or softwares, a positive connotation?

This question is a spin-off of this one in Portuguese SE. In that question, the OP wanted to know how to translate to Portuguese the expression powered by as used in websites or softwares when another company provides part of its functionality.

Personally, as a foreigner learning English, powered by seems to me as a positive way to say that, for instance, company XYZ is providing web hosting or the search engine for my website. It sounds to me like the website is proud to have such company offer me it's services.

I would like to know if native English speakers feel the same way or powered by sounds like a neutral way to say the same thing.

Answer

Provided that XYZ Corporation is a giant of its kind, to say that your website, or whatever, is powered by it is a sutle way to add value to that product and enhance its earnings potential.

The same applies to reviewed by, supported by or recommended by, in different contexts.

Reported speech WITHIN a conditional clause

Let's assume the following examples:

---

[Direct Speech] James to his team: What is the problem?

[Reported Speech] James asked them what the problem was (could also be James asked them what the problem is)

Reply

[Direct Speech] Team : The algorithm fails to calibrate correctly.

[Reported Speech] They told him the algorithm failed to calibrate correctly.

---

Now if we move to a conditional (hypothetical) sentence, should it be:

• If James asked them what the problem was, they would tell him the algorithm fails to calibrate correctly

Or

• If James asked them what the problem was, they would tell him the algorithm failed to calibrate correctly

---

Issue

It seems that in sentence #2 we lose the "present" situation as if the related story were set in the past, which is not the case.

So I would tend to say the correct one is the first sentence. It would mean we should use the reported speech in the if clause but not in the main one (with would)?

tenses - If you were listening..., you might wonder

This is part of Obama's commencement speech:

Which brings me to my third point: Facts, evidence, reason, logic, an understanding of science — these are good things. (Applause.) These are qualities you want in people making policy. These are qualities you want to continue to cultivate in yourselves as citizens. (Applause.) That might seem obvious. (Laughter.) That’s why we honor Bill Moyers or Dr. Burnell.

We traditionally have valued those things. But if you were listening to today’s political debate, you might wonder where this strain of anti-intellectualism came from.

In the last sentence, Obama was talking about Donald Trump and was basically saying that Donald Trump doesn't know what he's talking about.

Assuming that the conditional construction of the last sentence represents a hypothetical situation, why did Obama make it sound like a hypothetical situation to describe an apparently real situation?

Also, is this kind of expressing a real situation hypothetically common in English?

grammar - Singular or plural in these sentences . .

I've often written sentences like these:

1. The structure and linearity here is [are?]what is [are?] stifling creativity.


2. Compare: The pencil and pen are in the room. [Where is seems wrong]


3. The project is based on chapter information and book category, which is [are?] useless when guiding you toward the actual objectives.


4. There is [are?] a table and chair in the room.



5. Compare: A table and chair are in the room

Is the is appropriate in these sentences? Especially the first one; I don't quite get the rules at play here, so am only going by what sounds right.

grammaticality - Older than me (or I)?

Is it correct to say, "She's older than me" or "She's older than I?" I almost always hear people say the former (me). If I remember correctly my grade school grammar, though, the test to apply is to say the sentence out in full: "She's older than I (am old)." In that case, the subject form I seems to be correct.

I've often wondered and would appreciate a definitive answer.

grammaticality - Possessive apostrophe for owner of owner of owner of

I've read Preferred way to apostrophise in case of dual or multiple ownership by distinct entities and "Nikki's and Alice's X" vs. "Nikki and Alice's X", but my question is a little different. Not sure if the title is correctly chosen or not.

So the question is, if something belongs to a person, whose name I don't know for example, then I would say:

1. It's my uncle's sister's nephew's object


2. It's my uncle sister nephew's object

I suppose the first one would be correct, but it looks strange. Can anyone point to a rule that specifically states how to deal with the possessive apostrophe in those situations?

Answer

The first example is the correct usage as it is the object of the nephew of your uncle's sister.

1. It's my uncle's sister's nephew's object

It does not matter how many people are in the list, each one will still have a possessive apostrophe in a list like this.

1. It's my uncle sister nephew's object

This doesn't make any sense as it describes the object of someone who is your uncle-sister-nephew.

What tense should this sentence be phrased in based on the accompanying action which has taken place?

In the following scenario you can buy/sell offices in different cities, so say the user purchases an office in London, then the user sells it and we wish to show the user a message that the sale has taken place, should it be phrased like:

this,

You sold your Office which is situated in London for 495,000.

or

You sold your Office which was situated in London for 495,000.

Answer

It is generally phrased as something like:
"Your London office (or office in London) has just sold for $495,000".
This is because of aspect in reference to past tense.

Independent clause markers

I understand independent clauses, and how there are certain markers such as however, therefore, consequently which can denote an independent clause. The common example of use is when one of them follows a semi-colon and is follwed by a comma, followed in turn by an independent clause. That is all good. My question is are they only 'markers' when in the initial position, or are they still such when used elsewhere in a sentence? For example:

a) The bus was late; consequently, many people missed their appointments.

b) The bus was late. Many people, consequently, missed their appointments.

Is the consequently in the second example able to be viewed as an independent marker? This is possibly not a great example but hopefully will give you the idea behind my question.