grammar - The hidden flaw in "singular they"—what to do about reflexive pronouns?

We have a highly regarded answer by nohat to a question about gender-neutral pronouns, in which he points to the "singular they" and its long history of use in English. (Note that he also advises against using it.) Example:

If someone wants to watch TV tonight, they'll have to do the dishes.

This avoids having to say "he or she" in mixed-gender situations. Okay, fine. I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch if people want to talk this way.

But it occurrs to me that "singular they"—infelicitous at the best of times—really falls apart when extended into the realm of reflexive pronouns:

If someone wants to watch TV tonight, they'll have to do the dishes all by themselves. [?]

That feels very wrong. The only alternative, if one paints oneself into that corner, is to flip it back to singular:

If someone wants to watch TV tonight, they'll have to do the dishes all by themself. [???]

That feels worse.

If I'm to state this as a question, I guess I would put it thus: How can use of a "singular they" truly be reconciled? Is it really as much of a linguistic dead end as it feels to me?

Answer

“Themself”

Themself was used in the past, and there is no law or authority that prohibits anyone from using it today. I have used it in personal correspondence, conscious of its rebellious and contradictory nature; however, I have to confess many of my correspondents are in the field of language teaching, and they tend to be more open-minded.

Although the singular themself is gaining currency, it would be an arduous challenge for anyone to produce a recent government bill, act, tax form, or any official English document that contains the actual reflexive pronoun. And if they could produce a formal document, it would be akin to seeing an exotic and engendered butterfly in the wild.

It's simply not done; not today, not in a formal context simply because it looks “wrong”. Themself looks dialectal, a word that an uneducated native speaker person might use. While the singular they, their and them are extremely common in speech—and increasingly so in writing as it avoids having to write the cumbersome he or she; his or her; him or her—yet many English native speakers consider themself not a “proper word”, and whenever instances of ourself and themself appear in writing, these words stick out like a sore thumb.

---

Those in favour of “themself”

Pam Peters in ‘The Cambridge Guide to English Usage’ advocates:

The singular reference in ‘themself’ obviously serves a purpose, especially after an indefinite noun or pronoun. If we allow the use of ‘they’/’them’/’their’ for referring to the singular, ‘themself’ seems more consistent than ‘themselves‘. We make use of ”yourself‘ alongside ‘yourselves’ in just the same way. ‘Themself’ has the additional advantage of being gender-free, and thus preferable to both ‘himself’ and ‘himself/herself‘. It’s time to reinstate it to the set of reflexive pronouns!

Those against …

From an article in Language Log, March 08, 2007, two American English authorities condemn the use of themself

1. As MWDEU (Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage) 1989 puts it (p. 898):

This use of themself is similar to the use of they, their, and them in reference to singular terms... Such use of they, their, and them is old and well established, but this use is not.

2. Wilson's Columbia Guide (1993) is stern on the matter (p. 435):

Theirselves and themself for themselves are limited to Vulgar English or imitations of it; both are shibboleths.

adding that

Themself can also occur as an unfortunate result of trying to avoid using a gender-explicit reflexive pronoun by using a blend of the plural them with the singular self. The choices are themselves or himself or herself or both the last two...

Themselves

An Ngram showing themself tells us that it existed and exists. An Ngram that compares themself and themselves reflects its usage more accurately.

Him(self) or herself

An Ngram that compares themself (blue line); himself or herself (red line); him or herself (green) and herself and himself (yellow) tells us that the majority of writers (and editors) feel more comfortable using a longer equivalent than the succinct themself.

On Google Books, the politically-correct expression, "herself or himself", produces around 1,480 results. Here are some examples:

The differentiation between self and not-self certainly seems related to the growth of the object concept, during which the child learns to see herself or himself as an object in space and time, separate from the mother.
_{Research Manual in Child Development 2003}

1963, Standard Civil Code of the State of California

the case may be, for the permanent support and maintenance of [3] herself or himself, and may include therein at her or his discretion an action for support, maintenance and education of the children of said marriage during their minority.

and as recently as 2009, Code of Federal Regulations

(a) An ALJ [Administrative Law Judge] may disqualify herself or himself at any time. (b) Until the filing of the ALJ's decision. either party may move that the ALJ disqualify herself or himself for personal bias or other valid cause. The party shall file with the ALJ, promptly ..

---

Whereas himself or herself gets 8,190 hits

George Herbert Mead and Human Conduct, 2004

He sees it, in the first instance, as being merely the object that the individual is to himself or herself. Obviously, human beings can, and do, think of themselves as being a given kind of object. The human being may see himself or herself as male or female, young or old, rich or poor, married or unmarried …

Interestingly, the authors use the impersonal pronouns it and itself when referring to babies and small infants on page 58.

The human infant or very young child is not an object to itself. While in the eyes of others it acts as a baby, it doesn't recognize itself as a baby. It doesn't see itself as someone who is helpless, gets sick, cries a lot, spends a lot of time sleeping, ...

In a formal or technical register, himself or herself, will usually be preferred. And it seems highly unlikely that it will change in the near future.

Criminal Law, 2010, page 357

Section 2 Any person who
(a) Purposely engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily injury to himself or herself or a member of his or her immediate family or to fear the death of himself or herself or a member of his or her immediate family; and
(b) Has knowledge or should have knowledge that the specific person will be placed in reasonable fear of bodily injury to himself or herself or a member of his or her immediate family or induce fear in the specific individual of the death of himself or herself or a member of his or her immediate family; is guilty of stalking.

---

And those sitting on the fence

In 2013, Catherine Soanes, guest blogger on OxfordWords blog, and one of the editors of the OED 2nd edition 2005, argued:

Given that it’s now largely acceptable to use they, them, or their instead of the more long-winded ‘he or she’, ‘him or her’, or ‘his or her’ (especially in conjunction with indefinite pronouns such as anyone or somebody) it might be argued that, logically, it should also be OK to use themself, it being viewed as the corresponding singular form of themselves. However, this isn’t yet the case, so beware of themself for now! The correct versions of the opening examples in this section should be:

1. It’s not an expensive way for somebody to make themselves feel good.


2. Anyone would find themselves thinking similar thoughts.

Of course, if you dislike the use of gender-neutral third-person plural pronouns for singular subjects, or you’re working to a style guide that prohibits them, you should reword the sentences so as to incorporate gender-specific third-person singular pronouns instead:

1. It’s not an expensive way for somebody to make himself or herself feel good.


2. Anyone would find himself or herself thinking similar thoughts.

[…] To sum up, the wheel has not yet come full circle and ‘themself’ remains a standard English outcast. . . for now.

If you dislike using “themself”, what can you do?

The OP's example:

If someone wants to watch TV tonight, they'll have to do the dishes

all by themselves

Sound perfectly acceptable to my ears. In speech and in an informal context, it is perfectly fine. For anyone who dislikes this solution I would suggest the following:

If I am speaking to more than one person

i) For those who want to watch TV tonight, they'll have to do the dishes all by themselves

or to any individual, male or female

ii) If someone wants to watch TV tonight, he or she will have to do the dishes
all by themselves

or you could try this "clunkier" version

iii) If someone wants to watch TV tonight, he or she will have to do the dishes all by him or herself

If I had to use this particular construction, for efficiency's sake, I'd choose him or herself, which is well-documented and represented by the green line in the third Ngram chart.

grammar - Between you and ("me" or "I")?

Is it correct to say "between you and me" or "between you and I"?

I am not a native English speaker, so please bear with me.

"are created equal" - helping verb or linking verb?

In the following clause,

that all men are created equal,

is "are" serving as a linking verb (in which case you could say "the created (to be) equal men") or as a helping verb for main verb created (in which case one could ask...I think, not completely sure about this, sounds kind of weird... "how did the men create?" and you could reply "to be equal")?

Or better yet, is there any correct answer?

[I tried to start thinking about this... one question I had was, is it possible for men to "create" (in the sense that "create" == "spawn", or something like that)? Or does create mean something else in this case? Or am I missing something blindingly obvious?]

grammatical number - What is the correct way to pluralize improper fractions?

Say, for example, I'd like to express that I have four complete six-slice pizzas and one with five out of six slices. Would I say "I have 29/6 pizzas"? "4 and 5/6 of a pizza" for mixed fractions?

Answer

Generally one uses only a fraction when expressing a ratio: 1/6 of a pizza, 1/3 of a pizza; it seems reasonable to extend this to improper fractions because you are comparing the amount of pizza you have to a "standard" size. However, using an improper fraction is discouraged in general and therefore would be somewhat jarring to use "naked", so I'd be inclined to write it out in some fashion: "I have twenty-nine sixths of a pizza" (longest, but best) or "I have 29 6ths of a pizza" (shortest and rather poor-looking, and can still easily cause a pause for interpretation) over "I have 29/6 of a pizza" (forces the reader to stop and figure out what you mean, which is just bad).

If you eliminate the improper fraction, it's no longer a ratio and therefore is best expressed as a plural: "I have 4 and 5/6 pizzas."

grammar - Can adjectives always be used as nouns when they denote a plural and are preceded by the definite article?

An adjective appears to be used as a noun when denoting an animate plural and preceded by the definite article:

'The successful are those who strive.'

'The foolish are those who procrastinate.'

Is this always the case?

Answer

Yep. Because there is always an assumed "people" attached. So long as it's an adjective that can reasonably be used to describe people, you should never run into an issue.

If you ever feel uncomfortable with your construction, just substitute "X people" for your "the X" and see if your sentence still works grammatically.

contractions - Was "Do not you want to know..." correct 200 years ago, and is now incorrect?

"Do not you want to know who has taken it?'' cried his wife impatiently.

-Pride and Prejudice (1813)

According to one of the answers in
Is "Don't you know? " the same as "Do not you know?"?, "Do not you want to know..." is "ungrammatical; you is not heavy enough to shift past not". 200 years does not seem to be that long. When did this happen?

I do not like contractions, so I would like to use "Do not you.." but all the sources say I should use "Do you not..." instead. I am just curious how "Do not you..." became incorrect within 200 years.

orthography - Plural of The Letter S

In a previous question here What is the proper way to write the plural of a single letter? (another apostrophe question) someone asked what the plural of a letter is. The answer given was for uppercase letters use a lower case S with no apostrophe, but for lower case letters use an apostrophe for clarification.

What about when using the letter S? In either case, having Ss or s's looks odd. Would the plural be Ses or S's?

And when using uppercase letters that can become a word, such as Is and As, is no apostrophe okay or should an apostrophe be added for clarification?

This may be marked as duplicate for Plural of an initialism that ends with the letter S or similar questions concerning acronyms ending in S, but I believe this is different because I am asking about the letter itself, not an acronym.

grammaticality - I and am

I sometimes find myself writing something like this:

XXX is a project I admire and am very interested in.

The "I and am " feels strange here. It somehow sounds more natural in the third person: "He admires and is very interested in...."

Am I just imagining things – is it OK to use this construction, or should I use something completely different?

Answer

This sentence is an example of Conjunction Reduction, the syntactic rule that deletes repeated material in conjoined constituents, for example

• Bill washed the dishes and Bill swept the floor. ➝
  Bill washed the dishes and swept the floor.


• Bill washed the dishes and Bill dried the dishes. ➝
  Bill washed and dried the dishes.

The relative clause modifying project in the original sentence is the focus, so let's get it out of a subordinate clause and see what it looks like:

• I admire and am very interested in the project.

which comes from

• I admire the project and I am very interested in the project.

by a perfectly normal application of Conjunction Reduction.

There's nothing grammatically wrong with this sentence.

One thing that may make it feel wrong to some -- but not others; there's a lot of individual variation here, since everybody makes up their own internal rules, for their own reasons, about what "sounds right" -- is that the first verb of the conjoined VP (admire) is uninflected for person and number, while the second verb (am) is inflected, for first person singular present tense.

Both verbs agree of course with the same subject, but morphologically instead of syntactically, which may produce some distress to those who require more grammatical parallelism between conjoined verbs.

Another related difficulty might be that the inflected form am is so closely linked to its subject pronoun I that it is difficult to separate them, and indeed most of the time they're contracted to I'm. This makes am feel rather isolated out there.

Again, this isn't a grammatical problem per se, but it can occasion some distress in some readers.

I say "readers" because nobody would say such a sentence, of course. We'd say I'm instead of am, by repeating the subject -- and adding no new syllables, so timing isn't affected. This is allowed syntactically because Conjunction Reduction is an optional rule applied to reduce unwelcome repetition, and in any given case this repetition may simply not be unwelcome.

adverbs - Why is "fastly" not a word?

As well as being an adjective, fast is an adverb. We use it all the time as such:

He ran fast.

However, though slow is definitely an adjective, it sounds wrong when used as an adverb, because slowly is more common.

He ran slow.

We would always say:

He ran slowly.

My question is, why isn't fast treated the same way as slow; why is there no fastly, while there is a slowly?

Answer

Because real, living languages have quirks and are never entirely systematic. The "ly" ending is generally indicative of an adverb in English, but not all adverbs end in "ly", and not all words ending in "ly" are adverbs.

Absolute consistency in a language is an indication that the language is a pidgin, a relatively new creole, or an artificial language (like Esperanto or Volapük). Any language that is in everyday use and has been around long enough to gather scratches and dings, will have them.

Quick and fast are both words that may or may not be related to rapidity. In their adjective forms, quick also means living, and fast can mean secure or firm. As an adjective or an adverb having to do with speed, fast seems to have been the result of some strange semantic drift in the period leading up to Middle English.

grammatical number - Organisation - singular or plural?

In formal (not colloquial) English, is an organisation such as a sports club singular, plural, or is it discretionary? E.g. is it preferable to write "The X club WAS formed" or "The X club WERE formed", or doesn't it matter?

comparatives - "than do I" vs. "than I do"

I need grammatical explanations for the following two sentence structures:

1. The mistakes children make in learning to speak tell linguists more about how children learn language than do the correct forms they use.


2. Freedman's survey showed that people living in small towns and rural areas consider themselves no happier than do people living in big cities.

If noticed, would someone explain me why "do" appears after "than" in the both of the sentences above?

So, would it be correct if I say, "You explain it more clearly than do I"?

Definite article before specific product names

I would just like to know: Do we use the definite article (the) before specific names of products like iPhone and iPod? If yes, is there any specific rule as to when and when not to use the article "the" before such names?

Thank you!

Answer

First, I'd like to offer some light reading on the subject.

iPhones, iPods, and any other product name on its own does not necessitate that one uses the definite article. The rules regarding product names are the same as for other countable nouns.

Examples:

Give me the iPod.

I'm requesting a specific iPod that, it's suggested, you and I are both familiar with.

Give me an iPod.

I'm requesting that you give me one iPod. It doesn't matter which iPod.

Where is the car?

I'm asking where a particular car is. Again, it's assumed you know which car I'm referring to.

Where is a car?

I'm asking where any car is. If you replace 'car' with 'Mercedes', the meaning doesn't change. Product names aren't special in this regard.

word choice - “Everything you want (to do)” vs “All you want (to do)”

On a language-exchange app I use, a non-native speaker said (emphasis mine):

When you are absolutely sick and tired of exams and everything you want is to listen to music

One person corrected everything to all, and the non-native asked why they made the change. I’ve tried googling the answer for a while now, and read up a little on pronouns and determiners, but I still don’t know how to explain it.

So my question is: How do you explain why you’re supposed to use all instead of everything here?

grammar - Can you end a sentence with a clitic like "they're"?

I saw someone write the sentence "Of course they're". As a native English speaker, this instantly seemed wrong but I couldn't come up with a good reason as to why. I did a bit of research and there seems to be a rule called "stranding" where if there's an object before the clitic then it can't end like that but I don't entirely understand it.

meaning - What does it mean if a person tells one else to "Just shuck it"?

Ok so obviously this is a new thing. Before school let out for the summer I picked my nephew up from school and when he got in the car we started to talk then he told me that another kid told him to "just shuck it" at first I thought he meant "suck it" a vulgar slang but he said "no it's shuck it" I told him I had no clue what that means. Later the same day I tried to look it up but found nothing online to explain what it means when you tell a person to "shuck it" now as of yesterday my nephew and son invited a friend of their's over they were playing a video game and my son told their friend it was his own fault the soldier on the game shot his character then their friend told him "oh shuck it" I heard it and asked what that means and they only told me "it's just something us teens say" but can anyone explain what in the world it means? Is "shuck it" bad grammar?

grammaticality - List + 'much more are' or 'much more is' - what is correct

I have the following question: If a list of items is followed by 'and much more', should the following verb be singular or plural? E.g. "over a hundred hours of gameplay, exciting quests, mysterious locations and much more awaits/await you in the new game". A chap and I disagree strongly on this issue, and I do wonder, which one is correct? I looked at the Corpora of English language and both expressions are present and seemingly acceptable.

My reasoning goes along the lines of 'much more' being a quantifiert of uncountable nouns that sums up the previous items, whereas he says that as long as 'and' is present, plural is a must, irrespetive of the specific content of a sentence.

Looking forward to your answers! :)

word choice - Which preposition to use with "social media"?

I have this sentence, and I'm not sure which preposition is best to use with social media.

Teens take videos and post them through social media.

Should it be--

through social media?

to social media?

on social media?

or rewrite: on social media sites?

Thanks.

Answer

For your particular example, I would suggest to. I think they are all legit, though. It's the Wild West for social media language standards right now. However, I think there are some useful shades of meaning. A politician might get his message out through social media. This is about getting a message out. A teen would say they posted a picture to Facebook. So to for a specific post. through for a broader usage.

grammar - For the first time - the first time

I would like to know the difference between "For the first time - the first time". It seems to me that sometimes they are interchangeable but at other times they are not.

For example: (not interchangeable)

1) Most animals can swim right away the first time they go into water.

2) Most animals can swim right away for the first time they go into water. (seems like they might not be able to swim the second time)

For example: (interchangeable)

3) They met for the first time in 1980.

4) The first time they met was in 1980.

Plus here is an explanation by a Londoner

*|No, they mean different things and have different grammar. 'For the first time' is a complete description of a time, and it implies other times that came before it.

For the first time, he won a prize. [He had never won a prize before this. This was his first time to win a prize. But he might have tried many times before.]

'The first time' needs to be followed by a relative clause saying what is 'first' about it. Then, including the relative clause, it forms a complete description of a time. It also implies there were not other times before this - this one is the first.

The first time (that) he took part in the competition, he won a prize. [He had never taken part in the competition before this. And when finally he did take part, he won.] |*

Is the explanation correct? I have made up two sentence to test the explanation. Would it be correct to say that in 5 it is necessary to understand that I had been trying to win a prize before yesterday?

5) Yesterday I won a prize for the first time.

6) The first time I won a prize was yesterday.

The difference between a clause and a phrase?

This question What is the difference between a phrase and a clause? has an answer, with no embedded examples. The link it provides is not longer active, giving a 404 page not found error. Please don't close this as a duplicate until it, at least, has some answers.

The answer to the duplicate explains the differences between clauses and phrases, but fails to answer my question, as this is the explanation given:

The short answer: clauses contain a subject and its verb, while phrases do not. Note that phrases may contain nouns and verbals, but won't have the noun as the verb's actor.

• I do not understand what is meant by verbals and the noun as the verb's actor may as well be written in Swedish (of which I know not one word!).

So I am posting this question again, as my question has not been answered. Clauses and phrases were the only thing I failed when studying English at school and forever it has been difficult for me to grasp (I don't think it was explained well, as I had a similar problem with positive and negative numbers the same year, and went on the excel at high level maths).

I am looking to understand the very basics of what a clause is, what a phrase is, and by understanding these definitions it, hopefully, will be clear what the differences are.

Can anyone, please, explain this and provide embedded answers?

Answer

I was perusing the net on the hunt for reliable sources to help me understand the subjunctive mood when I came across this section and it reminded me of this question!

I'll quote it in almost its entirety because first, it's very clear and it might be of help to other users and secondly, I liked it.

Clause and Phrases

I. A phrase is a collection of words that may have nouns or verbals,
but it does not have a subject doing a verb. The following are
examples of phrases:

• leaving behind the dog



• smashing into a fence


• before the first test


• after the devastation


• between ignorance and intelligence


• broken into thousands of pieces


• because of her glittering smile

In these examples above, you will find nouns (dog, fence, test, devastation, ignorance,
intelligence, thousands, pieces). You also have some verbals (leaving,

smashing), but in no case is the noun functioning as a subject doing a
predicate verb. They are all phrases.

II. A clause is a collection of words that has a subject that is
actively doing a verb. The following are examples of clauses:

• since she laughs at diffident men


• I despise individuals of low character


• when the saints go marching in



• Obediah Simpson is uglier than a rabid raccoon


• because she smiled at him.

In the examples above, we find either a noun or a pronoun that is a subject (bold) attached to a predicate verb (italics) in each case:

• since she laughs at diffident men


• I despise individuals of low character


• when the saints go marching in



• Obediah Simpson is uglier than a rabid raccoon


• because she smiled at him

III. If the clause could stand by itself, and form a complete sentence with punctuation, we call the clause an independent clause. The following are independent clauses:

• I despise individuals of low character


• Obediah Simpson is uglier than a rabid racoon

We could easily turn independent clauses into complete sentences by adding appropriate punctuation marks. We might say, "I despise individuals of low character." Or we might write, "Obediah Simpson is uglier than a rabid racoon!" We call them independent because these types of clauses can stand independently by themselves, without any extra words attached, and be complete sentences.

grammar - Should the words "much needed" be hyphenated or not?

Here's an example of what I mean:

"It's time for some much needed rest and relaxation."

Or should it be:

"It's time for some much-needed rest and relaxation."

american english - "student list" vs "students list"?

What is more accurate to say when writing a noun before a list?
"student list" or "students list"
(also "student group" vs "students group")

syntax - Connecting verbs without the preposition "to"

I came across this sentence:

"Immersion programs provide precisely the type of environment that Krashen claims fosters acquisition"

in "The Teacher`s Grammar of English"- Ron Cowan, page 31.

I would like to know why these two verbs are used in such order - "claims fosters"?
Would not it be correct if it said "claims to foster acquisition"?
What are we dealing with in this case?

grammatical number - What is the correct syntax for a plural possessive of a word already ending in s?

Before you vote to close as a duplicate, note that these two questions deal with similar issues to this, but none of them address all three criteria of this question:

• The singular already ends with an s.


• I am dealing with multiple of the thing.



• I want the possessive of all of them in general.

The singular is class, and the plural is classes. The singular possessive is class's (as addressed here).

What is the plural possessive? Is it classes's, or classes'?

Answer

It is classes', which sounds the same as the singular class's.

I would have thought this was a general rule for plural nouns ending -s', -es' or -ies'.

Punctuations and Closing Quotation Mark

I prefer placing punctuation next to the closing quotation mark like this:
I'm watching "Titanic".

However, when there is already a punctuation within the quote, is it right to add another punctuation after the quote?
Did you say "Hello?"?
No, I didn't say "Hello?".
Then did you say "Hello."?
Yes, I said "Hello.".
A punctuation, before the closing quotation mark, for the quoted sentence. And another one, after the mark, for the main sentence. It might have made sense, if only I have ever seen such usage. (Especially the last one, which contains two full stops. It looks so wrong.)

Answer

This is a matter of style. Consult your style guide, either the one you've adopted or the one thrust upon you. I use The Chicago Manual of Style:

When two different marks of punctuation are called for at the same
location in a sentence, the stronger mark only is retained.

Example:

Who shouted, "Up the establishment!"

The question mark that ordinarily appears at the end of an interrogatory is omitted. I infer from this rule the following:

Who said, "Up the establishment"?

The exception is a period that ends an abbreviation, which is retained thus:

He said, "I don't work for Dewey, Cheatham and Howe, Ltd."!

unless it abuts a period that ends a sentence:

I don't work for Dewey, Cheatham and Howe, Ltd.

differences - "Point to" and "point at"

I'm having trouble putting the difference in meaning between "point to" and "point at" into words and my Longman dictionary isn't helping, I'm afraid.

I'm not a native speaker, but I feel there is a definite difference; however the only thing I can say is that 'point at' feels more aggressive whereas 'point to' feels more casual. Can anyone help?

Answer

I would say point at and point to are often interchangeable in real life.

As an effort to distinguish between them, I do think point at has a more aggressive and accusing feeling while point to merely shows a direction. In other words, when you point at something, you are directly indicating it; when you point to something, you are simply pointing in its direction or showing the way to it.

Last but not least, there's one exception where you point your gun at something but not to something.

conjunctions - What does "but" imply in this sentence?

From the very second paragraph of "Foundation" by Isaac Asimov:

There were nearly twenty-five million inhabited planets in the Galaxy then, and not one but owed allegiance to the Empire whose seat was on Trantor.

I presume he means that they all owed allegiance to the Empire, but that phrasing sounds like he's saying the opposite. I want to read it as if 'but' is the subject of the sentence meaning 'exception'.

Answer

Your presumption is correct. I don't often hear "not one but" used this way in spoken English, but it's not terribly uncommon in written English. (Unfortunately, Google Ngram Viewer is no help here because it offers no way to distinguish between not one but verbed [as in your quote] and not one but number [not one, but two hippos in my swimming pool].)

Anyway, you can think of not one but with a past tense verb as equivalent to not one that didn't with a present tense verb:

There were nearly twenty-five million inhabited planets in the Galaxy then, and not one that didn't owe allegiance to the Empire whose seat was on Trantor.

grammar - Can a noun function as an adverbial?

As we know, some noun phrases can function as adverbials (especially temporal noun phrases). Here is an example taken from Wikipedia:

• James answered this morning.

Can a single noun function as an adverbial? Nouns like "home" or "tomorrow" can function as adverbials, but they are also labelled as adverbs in many dictionaries. So we must find a "pure" noun.

If a noun with plural ending functions as an adverbial, this example can be regarded as a convincing example. (Except some special "plurals", for example "Sundays", which are labelled as adverbs in dictionaries)

grammaticality - Use of “What kind”, and “What kind” vs “Which kind”

If we want to know the exact kind of a group of brids, should we say:

A: "What is the kind of these birds?"

or

B: "What kind of birds are these birds"?

If the questions above are phrased correctly, then there is a new question raised. Suppose there are three kinds of birds: A, B, and C, and the kind C is facing extinction. If we want to know the name of the kind that is facing extinction, how should we ask:

A: What kind of birds is facing extinction?

or

B: What kind of birds are facing extinction?

or

C: Which kind of birds is facing extinction?

Which one is correct?

Can I use an explicit verb in a comparison clause?

It seems that I often write something like this:

The sizes of these datasets seem to grow faster than the processing power of computers does.

Now, a longish text I'd written was proofread (by a non-professional) and in every case the suggested correction was as follows:

The sizes of these datasets seem to grow faster than the processing power of computers.

(Yes – only the last word was deleted by the proofreader.)

Being a non-native user, I'd like to ask if the way of writing that I've adopted from who-knows-where is always wrong. (Personally, I feel that in some cases – too long sentences maybe – it clarifies my intention slightly.)

Answer

It's not wrong. It's just a stylistic thing, in that "does" doesn't add anything to the sentence, so it might as well be removed.

early modern english - "As I am wo/man" in Twelfth Night, II, 2 (Shakespeare): a case of indefinite article omission or no?

Are "As I am man" and "As I am woman" in Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, II, 2 examples of indefinite article omission or not?

This question is (e)specially directed towards those familiar with Shakespearean English.

Voilà Viola's soliloquy in Act II Scene 2:

...How will this fadge? my master loves her dearly;
And I, poor monster, fond as much on him;
And she, mistaken, seems to dote on me.
What will become of this? As I am man,
My state is desperate for my master's love;
As I am woman,—now alas the day!—
What thriftless sighs shall poor Olivia breathe!
O time! thou must untangle this, not I;
It is too hard a knot for me to untie!

Source 1 and Source 2, which are identical.

Viola, of course, is a young woman dressed as and pretending to be a young man (called Cesario); she has fallen in love with her master (Orsino); who is already in love with Olivia, and he sends Viola (as Cesario) to court her on his behalf; naturally, Olivia falls in love with Viola (as Cesario), who describes herself as "poor monster" because she is, sort of, both (a) man and (a) woman.

It is a feature of Shakespeare's English, and one supposes that of Early Modern English, that the indefinite article is sometimes (or in some cases, usually) 'omitted' in many places where we would use it today. This includes in predicate position, when the (count) noun refers to the noun as a class, after 'ever' and 'never', and so forth. See the online Shakespearean Grammar. Other sources that indicate and exemplify this include A grammar of Shakespeare's language, A Shakespeare grammar, and, much less useful, Shakespeare's grammar. I have also consulted several annotated editions of Twelfth Night but they have been no help.

The phenomenon is said to occur in Twelfth Night in Act IV, Scene 2:

Malvolio: Sir Topas, never was ^ man thus wronged: good Sir
Topas, do not think I am mad: they have laid me
here in hideous darkness.

and

Malvolio: I say, this house is as dark as ignorance, though
ignorance were as dark as hell; and I say, there
was never ^ man thus abused. I am no more mad than you
are: make the trial of it in any constant question.

The symbol ^ indicates that the indefinite article has been omitted.

The author also happens to use the indefinite article in the same scene:

Malvolio: Fool, there was never a man so notoriously abused: I
am as well in my wits, fool, as thou art.

and also in Twelfth Night in such lines as I am ^ true knight (II, 3) and He is ^ knight (III, 4). I prefer not to include line numbers since they differ from version to version.

possessives - "Nikki's and Alice's X" vs. "Nikki and Alice's X"

Which option is grammatical?

1. There will be readings from Nikki Giovanni’s and Alice Walker’s writings.


2. There will be readings from Nikki Giovanni and Alice Walker's writings.

Saying it out loud the latter sounds right, but looking at it the former looks better.

Answer

Wikipedia has this:

Joint or separate possession

For two nouns (or noun phrases) joined by and, there are several ways of expressing possession, including:

1. marking of the last noun (e.g. "Jack and Jill's children")



2. marking of both nouns (e.g. "Jack's and Jill's children").

Some grammars make no distinction in meaning between the two forms. Some publishers' style guides, however, make a distinction, assigning the "segregatory" (or "distributive") meaning to the form "John's and Mary's" and the "combinatorial" (or "joint") meaning to the form "John and Mary's". A third alternative is a construction of the form "Jack's children and Jill's", which is always distributive, i.e. it designates the combined set of Jack's children and Jill's children.

When a coordinate possessive construction has two personal pronouns, the normal possessive inflection is used, and there is no apostrophe (e.g. "his and her children"). The issue of the use of the apostrophe arises when the coordinate construction includes a noun (phrase) and a pronoun. In this case, the inflection of only the last item may sometimes be, at least marginally, acceptable ("you and your spouse's bank account"). The inflection of both is normally preferred (e.g. Jack's and your dogs), but there is a tendency to avoid this construction, too, in favour of a construction that does not use a coordinate possessive (e.g. by using "Jack's letters and yours"). Where a construction like "Jack's and your dogs" is used, the interpretation is usually "segregatory" (i.e. not joint possession).

("General principles for the possessive apostrophe", in "Apostrophe")

So in your example, unless they are writings that Giovanni and Walker co-wrote, you should use Nikki Giovanni's and Alice Walker's writings. Although I agree that it trips off the tongue better with just the second 's, and no doubt only the pedants in the audience would pick you up on it ;)

word choice - Is 'can' an appropriate substitute for 'may' to indicate possibility?

One definition of can in Merriam-Webster Online is:

c —used to indicate possibility < do you think he can still be alive> < those things can happen> ; sometimes used interchangeably with may

But in The Elements of Style written by William Strunk, Jr., it says:

Can. Means am (is, are) able. Not to be used as a substitute for may.

This contradiction makes me confused. So in what situation can can be used "interchangeably" with may, and in what situation it cannot?

EDIT: The two sentences in The Elements of Style make me feel that the author permits only one use of can (be able) in the first sentence and proscribes the other use (may; to indicate possibility) in the second sentence. Did I misinterpret the author's meaning? Or the text is ambiguous?

The passive that begins with 'It is thought' and past tense

Today doing some English grammar exercises I stumbled upon the two examples in The passive section:

It is believed that the children had been hiding for two weeks.

It was thought that the book had been destroyed.

The thing that puzzles me much is the usage of Past Perfect in the first sentence

had been hiding

and, probably, in the second sentence

had been destroyed

I had been searching over the Internet for several hours without any comprehensive answer found.

Would anyone please give a reference to the rule that explains the usage of Past Perfect in constructions like that?

The other related case is the following:

The athlete was alleged to have cheated

I'm sorry for what I said. I was trying to be funny. It was supposed to be a joke

The book was thought to have been destroyed

Why can't I say respectively the following:

The athlete was alleged to cheat

It was supposed to have been a joke

The book was thought to be destroyed

I'm able to easily find the rules on more simple constructions like It is thought that ... + Present Indefinite / Present Perfect but no comprehensive sources on similar but + Past Perfect

The book with exercises is highly recognizable btw but it doesn't give the answer

Thanks

grammar - Which one is correct - " There is only us here" or "There are only us here"

Temporary reopen note:

The linked-to question is about the verb agreeing with the grammatical number of the first item in a list in a there is/are sentence. However there is no list in this question here. Even if there were, us would seem to be plural here, so there is no good explanation of why is may be preferable to are.

You can see the linked-to question here:

The Original Question

I am dubious between these two ways of referring to two people in a place or in an area.

Example:

John: Ok folks, I am going to let you here waiting for the manager to come. It is going to take some minutes until he makes it here.

Josh: Ok, thank you.

Mathew: Alright.

Josh: Hum... Now, there is/are only us here.

Is there any reason why is or are is preferable here?

grammaticality - "...at the top or bottom" vs "...at the top or the bottom"

I'm a bit confused about the usage of "the" in a list. Even after reading this post, it's not clear to me which of the following is grammatically correct.

"Is the [object] at the top or bottom?"

"Is the [object] at the top or the bottom?"

Or should "at" be distributed as well? (In which case, it seems clear that "the" should appear twice.)

"Is the [object] at the top or at the bottom?"

differences - American English: which vs that

We've had an American Americanise some phrases for us (with the point of teaching children English), e.g:

UK English: There’s a little white dog which lives on the second floor.
US English: There’s a little white dog that lives on the second floor.

But there are three sentences which were not altered. We would rather not have a mixture of that and which to make things less confusing for the students. The sentences that were not changed were:

I really like this pencil case which Rose gave me.
There’s a store near here which is open all night.
This is a really cool picture which I brought with me from Little Bridge.

Should these be changed to that, or should we change the other sentences that have already been translated back to which?

Answer

I am not a native speaker but at school I was taught that you should use "that" for defining relative clauses, whereas both "which" and "that" are allowed for non-defining
relative clauses.

Therefore:
"I really like this pencil case which Rose gave me."
Here, the relative clause only adds information about a pencil case that is already known
(this pencil case). In this case, as far as I know, you can also use "that".

The relative pronoun cannot be omitted.

"I really like the pencil case that Rose gave me."
Here the relative clause defines the pencil case: I am talking about the pencil case
that Rose gave me, not about another one. In this case, it is compulsory to use "that".
Alternatively, you can omit "that" altogether:
"I really like the pencil case Rose gave me."

This is at least the rules that I recall from school and I may be wrong.
I also do not know if the American and the British use differ on this since I am neither

from Great Britain nor from the United States.

word choice - Which of these two sentences is correct ("processes" vs. "process")?

Which of the following two sentences is correct?

Read more about the processes behind my projects.

...or...

Read more about the process behind my projects.

The one on top looks right technically, but the one on bottom sounds better to me.

Answer

Both are grammatically correct. They denote different things, depending on...whether or not there are multiple processes involved.

'Little' and 'small' in British vs American English

Is the preference for 'little' over 'small' one of the things that differentiates British from American English?

I find expressions like "I'm only little" or "She's only little" in British children books. This is something new to me. Are these also common in American English?

I am not a native English speaker, but I guess I am more accustomed to American English. I would have said "She's still very small" instead.

grammatical number - Is "Selected 1 of 1 Entries" correct pluralization?

I'm trying to work out any possible pluralization strings for an application that handles dynamic values, and I'm a little stuck on the English here.. What I think sounds right doesn't feel right.

Pluralization options:

• Selected 1 entry (correct)


• Selected 2+ entries (correct)

But if I want to include the total as well:

• Selected 1 of 1 entries (is this correct? it sounds correct to me)


• Selected 0 of 1 entries (is this correct?)


• Selected 1 of 2 entries (correct)

I know it's trivial, but these little details matter to me..

EDIT: If the count is the max, another option is to express this as:

• Selected all 2 entries (correct)


• Selected all 1 entry (this doesn't sound correct? is it?)

Answer

Using entries for a single entry is not correct, which can be demonstrated by describing them/it. Adding an adjective to break up a standard expression helps analysis because it’s no longer the customary expression which “just is”:

There is 1 available entry (Indisputably correct)
Selected 1 of 1 available entry (Follows by analogy)

There are 2 available entries (Indisputably correct)
Selected 1 of 2 available entries (Follows by analogy)

There are 1 available entries (Indisputably wrong)
There is 1 available entries (Indisputably wrong)
Selected 1 of 1 available entries (Wrong by analogy)

Using “1 of 1 entries” probably sounds right because

• it’s very common


• the “1 of” implies that there is more than one available, and therefore entries might be expected to follow it.

but just because “everyone does it” doesn’t make it correct.

grammar - What's the difference between these two phrases?

What's the difference between these two phrases?

• their systems’ security posture


• their systems security posture

Is there any difference in the meaning? If not, when we use either of them?

contractions - Is there another way to write the possessive -s?

I have a question regarding the possessive. Which one of the two is correct?

1. Caroline's car


2. Caroline her car

Or are they both correct?

punctuation - Two periods required?

When a sentence ends with a parenthetical statement which itself ends with a period, does the sentence also need a period? Example:

I love eating vegetables (carrots, peas, etc.).

The two periods don't look correct, but seem technically correct.

grammatical number - "3-month retreat" or "3-months retreat"?

Which one is the correct (or more commonly used) form: "3-month retreat" or "3-months retreat"? How about "3-day" vs. "3-days" and "3-week" vs. "3-weeks" in the same context? (This is retreat as in meditation retreat and for U.S. English.)

Answer

In American English, you'd use the singular. So "3 day weekend" or "8 week course" or, yes, "3 month retreat".

grammar - How to decide whether to use 'that' or 'which'?

I understand the principle behind choosing either 'that' or 'which' but I still find myself struggling to know in certain situations whether to use it or not. For example, "Here is a link to the article, which can be found on the Environment section of the website". Would it be that or which? I would use assume 'which'.

Do any of you have tips/strategies for knowing when to use 'that' or 'which' when writing a sentence?

Thanks

grammaticality - Was I driving more than 5 mph under the speed limit, or less than 5 mph under the speed limit?

Suppose I am driving 38 miles per hour in a 45 zone. This, of course, is seven miles per hour under the speed limit. Of course, I am driving this slowly because the road is wet, and safe driving habits suggest that when the road is wet, one should consider the safe speed limit to be five miles per hour less than the posted limit.

For this situation, which is correct?

• "I am driving more than 5 mph under the posted speed limit"


• "I am driving less than 5 mph under the posted speed limit"

To support the first case: my speed discrepancy from the posted limit is more than 5 mph. TO support the second case: my total speed was less than 45 less 5 (equals 40).

---

Edit: As many pointed out, there are certainly ways to assemble a phrase to remove any ambiguity. But that's not really the point of why I asked. My reason for asking is two-fold:

1. The scenario came to mind when I was driving after a recent snowfall. I was minding my speed, but thought about accident situations. I wondered what would happen if I got in an accident and told the officer, "officer, I was driving more than 5mph under the speed limit." Would that indicate careful or safe driving? Could that phraseology be used against me? Would the insurance company clamp down on that usage of a phrase to deny a claim?


2. More generally, how do comparisons work? There are (at least) two comparisons in either construction: "under the posted speed limit," which unambiguously means "slower than the legal limit," and "more/less than 5 mph." However, in this case, "5 mph" isn't a speed at all; it is a discrepancy. One cannot drive at a speed discrepancy; in fact, the only reason the quantity "5 mph" has units at all is because of the mathematical property that units be additively consistent (i.e. you cannot add 5 mph to 17 bananas). Restructuring the phrase to use a dimensionless quantity also removes ambiguity: "I was driving slower than 89% of the speed limit."

So my question could really be more abstractly framed as: when relatively comparing something to another comparison, does the "relational arrow" point in the direction of the inner-most comparison?

Other examples:

• It is less than 5 degrees below freezing (29 degrees, or 23 degrees?).


• I am more than 5 pounds below my target weight of 180 lbs (177 lbs, or 172 lbs?).

Answer

I think the other answers have missed a key factor in how this would be interpreted. And that's that it's a lot more common to be talking about your speed in relation to the national speed limit than to be talking about your speed in relation to 5mph less than the speed limit.

In other words it is unusual to say that your speed was "less than (national limit - 5)", whereas it's fairly common to quantify how much less than the national speed limit you were.

So I think that

I was driving more than 5 mph under the posted speed limit

is very clear that you mean that's how much you were under the limit by. In fact it took me a little while to find your other meaning at all.

Edit: David Richerby makes another excellent point: if you were indeed saying that your speed was "less than (national limit - 5)" you would say "I was driving at less than (national limit - 5)". Not "I was driving less than (national limit - 5)". Further evidence for the ambiguity being negligable in this instance. Do read his answer.

possessives - "Me and Joey's" or "mine and Joey's"

Which of the following should I use?

Today is me and Joey's anniversary
Today is mine and Joey's anniversary

dialects - Pronunciation of "especially"

In some podcasts (it seems the speaker was from California) I heard that the word "especially" was pronounced with "ks" sound like "ikspeshally".

What was it likely to be, personal way of pronouncing this word or a local dialect?

Answer

I live in Idaho and I hear people pronounce especially this way all of the time.

More often than not (at least around here) it gets pronounced either "ex-specially" or "eck-specially" or "eg-specially". There are many people here who have their own dialect.

Don't even ask me about "creek" and "crick"...

comparisons - Should I keep the second "than" in "A is better than B and than C"?

I'm comparing an object A to 2 other objects B and C.

Objects names are somehow long so It seems to me that adding another "than" makes the sentence clearer:

A also had a significantly better predictive value on these outcomes

than its simplified version B and than the alternative version C.

A colleague told me I should remove the second than.

Is there a rule stating I should remove it ? Else, is the sentence really clearer this way ?

Answer

You can keep the second than. It's clearer with the second than since without it there is some ambiguity about the meaning of and.

A car is more desirable to him than a free place to stay and^? a motorcycle.

Are we to understand a place to stay and a motorcycle as a "package deal" or as separate comparands?

We can't afford to buy you a car, but we can get you a motorcycle and you can continue to live here with us rent-free.

P.S. Of course you can always use or instead of and (and with or without the second than) if B and C are not a duo but separate items each being compared in turn to A.

grammaticality - Is "any" also used with plurals?

I found on a research paper the following statement:

Is any particular images satisfying the requirements ?

I thought any can only be used with singular terms. So I was surprised when I've seen "images" rather than "image".

Am I correct?

Answer

I would take that to be a typo. The verb should agree with the noun:

• Is any particular image satisfying the requirements?


• Are any particular images satisfying the requirements?

Any can be safely used in both cases. Have a look at these example sentences from Wiktionary:

• Choose any items you want. [items — plural]


• Any person may apply. [person — singular]


• I haven't got any money. [money — uncountable]

Merriam-Webster defines any as follows:

1. one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind [...]


2. one, some, or all indiscriminately of whatever quantity [...]

Emphasis mine.

Lastly, note psmears' comment that it might be more appropriate to use present simple rather than present continuous in your case (though further context might justify either). I will also add that there should be no space before the question mark.

History of the non-rule that proscribes ending a sentence with a preposition

Famously, if not accurately, Winston Churchill is supposed to have responding to an editor who had "fixed" a sentence ending with a preposition by writing, "This is the sort of thing up with which I will not put." The terminal preposition/adverb construction is often required in German grammar and I am asking if the English "rule" that proscribes the usage arose as an expression of anti-German sentiment around about the time either the two world wars started up. What is the history of this "rule?"

Answer

From Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1989):

Where did this "cherished superstition" come from? It seems to have originated with the 17th-century English poet, playwright, and essayist John Dryden. In 1672, Dryden wrote a piece of criticism called "Defence of the Epilogue," the main purpose of which was to demonstrate that the English use by writers of Dryden's time was superior to that of an earlier generation of writers. ... The italic line is from [Ben] Jonson's Catiline (1611); the comment on it is Dryden's:

"The bodies that those souls were frighted from.

"The Preposition in the end of the sentence; a common fault with him, and which I have but lately observ'd in my own writings."

As for the supposed anti-German aspect of the rule against ending sentences with prepositions, a Funk & Wagnalls booklet titled "Faulty Diction" (1915) offers this comment:

prepositions. Some authorities object to the use of a preposition as the final word in a sentence, but such usage is in accord with the genius of all the Teutonic languages. The correctness of such usage—often the necessity for it—is to be determined by the meaning intended to be conveyed.

It seems fairly clear that the author of this pamphlet (published at an early stage of the Great War) considered English to be among the "Teutonic languages" and hence capable of exercising its genius by placing prepositions at the end of sentences.

usage - Can you say 'you' after 'cut off'?

If you cut or rip something off somebody (I know it must seem a little strange to ask a question about this context, but I am writing a rap song and want to be sure about this phrase) and you want to say: 'I rip your head off', could you also say the following?

'I rip your head off you'

Would it still make sense or just sound weird?

Answer

Your example would work, but it's certainly sounds odd.

To my ear at least, your sentence makes sense, but implies that you are holding your head rather than, for want of a better word, wearing it.

I would opt for

I rip your head off

Rather than the strange

I rip your head off you

As suggested by Scott in the comments, I rip you head off your body would work, but still sounds less idiomatic than my preferred version.

grammaticality - Reported speech - questions

In the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language; Huddleston and Pullum 2002, they make the following qualifying comment:

... reported speech covers the reporting of spoken and written text but also that of unpoken thought. (p. 1023 - bold H&P's)

We can immediately see from this excerpt that reported speech is being used as a technical term to represent a particular linguistic phenomenon, not as a literal interpretation of the two words 'reported' and 'speech'. This is demonstrated by the fact that reported speech is given by these authors to include not only written text, but also unspoken thoughts.

In comments on this thread: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/205730/what-exactly-is-reported-speech-does-it-really-exist-and-how-do-you-recognise it is proposed by various commentators that to be reported speech, there must first be some speech or thought to be reported. Reported speech, it is claimed, is a report 'of what someone else said' (italics original).

However in their section on indirect reported speech (p.1024), two of the first examples of indirect reported speech given by CaGEL are:

• Did she say if I'll be invited?

and

• Will I be invited, did she say?

Now the answer to both of these example questions (which are the same question framed in two different ways), may well be: "No, she didn't". One thing, for certain, is that the person producing the 'reported speech' here has no knowledge of the original spoken text at all. In fact, they don't even know if there even was such a text in the first place. There may very well have been none.

So, on the basis of the views given by the commentators on the linked-to thread, which do not seem altogether unreasonable (with the caveat that the views are not unreasonable if based on either established practice or authoritative sources), this should not be classed as reported speech. There is no known original speech being reported.

My question is, are the two examples above, examples of reported speech? If so, what are the specific criteria for reported speech which are satisfied by the two examples. I have not been able to find any such criteria in CaGEL. If these are not examples of reported speech, which criteria of reported speech do they fail to meet? - and what authoritative sources can be referred to, to back up this point of view?

Apparently, such problems are easily resolved by recourse to readily available resources, but I have not been very successful. Any help or genuine insights, therefore, would be greatly appreciated!

Answer

The specific criterion for the syntactic construction called reported speech (or indirect speech or indirect reported speech) that is satisfied by the two questions (Did she say if I'll be invited? and Will I be invited, did she say?) is that both contain the reporting verb "say" - either in the matrix clause or in what the CGEL (p1204) calls a "parenthetical, a kind of supplement".

Assuming that John is the asker of the question, he could rephrase it in direct speech as: Did she say: "John will be invited?"

The Oxford Dictionary Of English Grammar, in its entry on reported speech (p361), states: "Reported speech is the same as indirect speech." The ODEG continues: "When we report speech we can use an introductory reporting verb (e.g. say, tell). This is the usual meaning of the term."

In its separate entry on indirect speech the ODEG (p214) states: "The term indirect speech is often used loosely to cover the reporting of thoughts, using an introductory verb of thinking."

The Cambridge Grammar Of English (Carter & McCarthy, p805) extends the scope of indirect speech to include utterances that use a noun phrase:

Speech reports, both direct and indirect, are most commonly made with
reporting clauses containing verbs such as ask, say and tell with a
reported clause. There are also other, more indirect ways in which
people's speech can be reported, by using nouns such as argument,
comment, complaint, observation, remark to refer to someone's words.

• I didn't like his comment that we were spending too much money.


• Their biggest complaint was that the room was too small.

---

The following extract from Yule's discussion of the topic in Explaining English Grammar is more relevant as an answer to the OP's original question about what can be regarded as reported speech (which was closed for reasons unclear to me).

Yule (p274) focuses on the semantic differences between direct and indirect speech, noting that:

The effect of backshift in tense (in indirect speech) creates a sense
of 'more remote' ... This effect makes the indirect speech forms more
like a narrative account of an event ('telling') and distinct from the
dramatic presentation of the event marked by the direct speech forms
('showing').

Yule goes on to introduce a third category that he calls "Summarized reports", in which there is a even greater remoteness between what was said and what is reported.

The functional distinction between the dramatic nature of direct
speech and the narrative effect of indirect speech is made more
extreme when the structure associated with indirect speech is used to
summarize a speaking event as a way of reporting it. The difference
between what was actually said, as in [8a], and how it was reported,
as in [8b], can be quite large.

• [8] a. "I am waiting here for you. Where are you? You're never on
  time!"


• b. He complained about her being late.

The summarized report in [8b] creates an even greater distance between
the speaking event and the reporting event. It also results in much
greater control being taken by the reporter for the interpretation of
the speaking event. There is, then, a conceptual distinction between

the three types of reporting formats in English (Direct Speech,
Indirect Speech, Summarized Report).

Yule differentiates between the words typically used in the three "quotative frames". For direct speech the quotatative frame includes verbs "which indicate the speaker's manner of expression (e.g. cry, exclaim, gasp), voice quality (e.g. mutter, scream, whisper), and type of emotion (e.g. giggle laugh, sob). It can also include adverbs (e.g. angrily, brightly, cautiously).

The quotative frame in indirect speech tends to include verbs "which indicate the purpose of the utterance (e.g. admit, agree,deny,explain, promise, repsond, suggest). Such verbs present an interpretation by the reporter of the speech act being performed.

The quotative frame in summarized reports includes verbs such as "chat, describe, gossip, speak, talk".

vocabulary - "Make sure" vs. "Make sure that"

Is one more correct than the other?

Make sure the part is connected to the widget.

Make sure that the part is connected to the widget.

Definite or indefinite article when describing a historical person

According to this question:
Definite and indefinite articles when introducing a person

one can use a definite, indefinite or no article at all when introducing a particular person. Which option is the most natural in case of a historical figure, like

ruins of a medieval castle built by the Polish king Casimir the Great

or

ruins of a medieval castle built by a Polish king Casimir the Great

and generally, are both definite and indefinite articles correct here? It will be used as a one-off sentence describing a picture on a stock photography site. Thanks in advance.

Answer

They are all grammatically correct but they have slightly different meanings. This is inevitably a bit subjective but I would say the difference is in which bit is the main information and which bit is the additional information:

ruins of a medieval castle built by the Polish king Casimir the Great
ruins of a medieval castle built by Casimir the Great (who was a Polish King)

We see this structure whenever we want to add extra information to a particular person

the famous George Washington
George Washington (who was famous)

This would not make sense if we said

a famous George Washington

as that would make George Washington and Casimir indefinite.

ruins of a medieval castle built by Polish king Casimir the Great

is a slightly clunkier way of saying the same thing.

On the other hand,

ruins of a medieval castle built by a Polish king Casimir the Great
ruins of a medieval castle built by a Polish King (whose name was Casimir the Great)

Here it is clear that the emphasis is on the fact that the builder was a Polish king (hence the indefinite article), to which we have added his name as an afterthought.

meaning - Ambiguity of "I don't know what you know."

This sentence is interesting to me:

I don't know what you know.

It seems ambiguous. It has two possible meanings. It is so ambiguous that I'm actually struggling a bit to explain the differences without using ambiguous wording, as even context does not always bring clarity to this sentence:

1. It could mean that I am acknowledging that you have knowledge that I don't have. For example, "You are an expert. I am a novice. I don't know what you know." In that case "what" seems to be referring to the knowledge itself.




2. It could also mean that I am unaware of the collection of things that you are knowledgeable about. For example:

   
   
   
   
   
   
   • I give an explanation that is unnecessary, as you already know the reasons.
   
   
   • You: "I already know that, you don't need to explain."
   
   
   • Me: "I don't know what you know. I explained it just in case."
   
   

It also doesn't necessarily seem specific to this form. "I don't know the things that you know" has a similar ambiguity.

The above two differences are similar to the differences between (respectively):

1. I don't have what you have.


2. I don't know what you have.

Or, I guess, in general: "I don't X what you X" vs "I don't know what you X". The ambiguity arises when X is "know": The two constructions end up identical.

So, I have two questions:

1. What is the source of this ambiguity? In particular, is the sentence ambiguous because I have learned to take grammatical shortcuts when using it (that is, is "I don't know what you know" grammatically incomplete, thus leading to ambiguity)?




2. What is the difference between the two readings of this sentence? Does the "what" serve as a subtly different part of speech, for example? Or, considering the "I don't ____ what you have" parallels, perhaps the differences are in the "know"s? It's almost like the first "know" in the second meaning of "I don't know what you know" is subtly different than the other three "know"s.

Answer

I don't know what you know.

The sentence is ambiguous in terms of its meaning because it's ambiguous in terms of its syntax too.

It is possible that the string what you know is a fused relative here (a special kind of relative clause construction sometimes also known as a free relative). In this case the string what you know is a noun phrase. It represents an entity. These kinds of fused relatives with what can be paraphrased using the words the thing(s) that. We can paraphrase the fused relative reading of the sentence (and make it slightly clearer by adding the word same) like this:

• I don't know the same things that you know.

In this reading of the sentence we can consider the simple object of the sentence (as opposed to the full grammatical object of the sentence) as the pronoun what. This word represents the actual thing which is unfamiliar, unknown, to the speaker.

Alternatively, the string what you know could be read as an interrogative clause. In this case, if the you concerned was called Bob, for example, the sentence would mean something like:

• I don't know the answer to the question: What does Bob know?

[I used Bob in the sentence above because the deixis of you could cause further problems here]

Here the whole interrogative clause what you know represents a question, the answer to which is unknown to the speaker.

Grammars like The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language give detailed analyses of the different structures of fused relatives and interrogative clauses. The most pertinent difference is that—according to their analysis—in the fused relative reading what you know is a noun phrase (a phrase headed by a noun or pronoun, in this case the word what) , whereas what you know in the interrogative reading is an interrogative clause (and therefore ultimately headed by a verb, in this case the verb know).

There is a nice test you can do, which will tell you whether an item is a fused relative or an interrogative clause. In the interrogative clause reading you can add the word else after the what and the sentence will still make sense and still be grammatical (although it will have changed its meaning somewhat). So the following sentence can only have the interrogative reading:

• I don't know what else she knows.

The sentence above can only mean:

• I don't know the answer to the question: What else does she know?

word usage - Must "Eldest" Always Apply To People?

If you have a collection of things that are related to one another, can you use "eldest" to denote the oldest, or should that term only be used with respect to people?

Another question on this site: What's the difference between “eldest” and “oldest”?, partly explains when "eldest" may be used, but doesn't clarify if it must always pertain to a person or persons, or whether "eldest" can be also applied to things which are not people.

To give an example, I wrote in a comment elsewhere today:

As a lifelong Phone Phreak, I can only look back on what was once the Bell System with fond memories. It, and the Bell operating companies that Verizon originated from, are as much a thing of the past as the Pullman Company that manufactured our eldest Red Line trains.

I chose to use "eldest" rather than "oldest", because I wanted to express a certain respect for something that was built in a previous era, yet has endured longer than expected. I wanted to suggest the sort of respect one would associate with an elderly person who had reached a ripe old age.

To explain, here in Boston, there is a family with three or four models of Red Line trains. They're related to one another, but from different generations. The oldest were manufactured in 1969 by a once great American company whose name was synonymous with train car (and luggage). These trains have far exceeded their expected lifetime, but are still in service every day.

Was it grammatically correct to use "eldest" in this context?

Answer

Thanks to anthropomorphic personification you can treat anything like a person. Just think of it as a person. For example, my computer sometimes gets moody and won't talk to me until I give her a little break from work.

That said, What's the difference between "eldest" and "oldest"? In a nutshell it's that the set of things being compared in age must be related in some way for eldest to have meaning. If it could be said that your four models of Red Line trains are from the same family (and you already have) then referring to one as the eldest is simply keeping the family metaphor going.

So, it's not literally true, but it is grammatically correct. Grammar doesn't care about literal truth.

grammaticality - Is it grammatically correct to change tense in a sentence?

When writing a sentence, can I change from past-tense to present-tense in the middle of it? For example,

Joey realized that the ball is green.

or

Joey realized that the ball was green.

I am talking about a ball which is always green. The second example implies that the ball was green and that it may or may not still be green. However, Joey realizes it in the past. Is the first sentence grammatically correct?

Answer

The phenomenon you’re looking at is called sequence of tense. It is the topic of substantial research by linguists, but, in a nutshell, past tense matrix verbs (like realized) can take subordinate clauses with either past tense or present tense; however, the nature of the complement plays a substantial role in determining which, if either, is more appropriate.

Consider:

Ancient mariners realized that the earth isn’t/wasn’t flat, by watching how ships appeared mast first over the horizon.

In cases where the complement is permanently true, speakers generally feel quite comfortable with either past or present tense. Where, however, the complement clause reports something that was true around the time of the matrix event, the complement clause has to anchor its tense to the past tense matrix clause. Hence:

Last month, I walked into the room and saw that Mary was/??is asleep.

For events that last longer than the average bout of sleep (e.g., pregnancy), the present tense is more readily available. Hence, still using last month, you can say:

Mary’s husband only found out last month that she’s pregnant.

But, of course, if the pregnancy is over at the time of utterance, then, again, the past tense becomes obligatory:

Mary’s husband only found out ten months ago that she was/??is pregnant.

For permanent truths, however, like the earth’s not being flat, past tense in the subordinate clause does not imply that the earth has since ceased to be curved. For this reason, it is sometimes called a dummy past