grammaticality - "when" + present perfect, "when" + present continuous

Is it grammatically correct to say

I remember that there were two memorable times when I have helped people

Also

I would like to talk about my experience when I was pursuing my master degree

saxon genitive - Apostrophe in multiple plural posession

(writers' and teachers' wages)
or
(writers and teachers' wages)

writers and teachers are both plural

When you have multiple nouns, and all those nouns own the same thing, do you put the apostrophe showing possesion in all the nouns or just the last noun?

Answer

According to The Grammar Bible by Michael Strumpf (page 29), in a section on "Possessive Case":

Sometimes possession is shared by several nouns. In these cases, just make the last word in the series possessive.

• America and Canada's timber resources are dwindling




• Thomas and French's discovery shocked the world.




• Leslie and Eric's lasagna is to die for.

These sentences all contain nouns that show joint ownership. In the first sentence, the resources belong to America and Canada. In the second sentence, the discovery belongs to both Thomas and French. In the third sentence, the lasagna belongs to both Eric and Leslie.

To show individual ownership, apply the possessive sign to each item in the series.

• America's and Canada's timber resources are dwindling




• Thomas's and French's discoveries shocked the world. [Note: I personally would have used Thomas' instead of Thomas's.]




• Leslie's and Eric's lasagnas are to die for.

In these examples, each noun has individual ownership of resources, of a discovery, or of a lasagna. These things are not shared.

In your example, if you followed the above advice, you would write either: The writers and teachers' wages were stagnant. Or The writers' and teachers' wages were stagnant. It depends on if you consider the ownership of wages joint or individual. I would actually recommend rewording this anyway: The wages of the writers and teachers were stagnant.

grammaticality - "Who wants ice-cream?" — Should I say "(not) I" or "(not) me"?

With the enthusiastic question of "Who wants ice-cream?", what is the more correct response?

1. (Not) I.


2. (Not) me.

Neither response is a sentence. The first response of "(not) I" sounds stuffy, like it should be followed with an indignant sniff. The second sounds like American idiom and acceptable for casual speech.

What do you say?

Answer

Generally speaking, in English, accusative (also known as “objective”) pronouns (like me) are the “default” form. That is, unless there is a specific syntactic rule requiring use of a different case, such as nominative (I), genitive (my/mine), or reflexive/intensive (myself), in English you use the accusative case.

In the syntactic context where a pronoun is not serving a role relative to an explicit verb, such as when it is the simple answer to a question, or if one is labeling something, such as a photo, accusative pronouns are standard. “Who wants to come?” “Me.” Nominative pronouns are impossible here—you cannot answer the question “Who wants to come?” with “I”, nor would anyone label a photo “I”.

This holds even if negated: “Who wants ice cream?” “Not me.”

If you want to use the highest register, most formal English, however, you should avoid the question of what case to use with pronouns standing alone, and use a complete sentence: “I do not want ice cream.”

Am I using the subjunctive mood correctly?

Does this sentence use the subjunctive correctly?

He spoke as though he was the only one to tell the truth.

word choice - Does "the same number of people" behave as singular or plural?

This hurts my eyes to read it and my ears to say it, but the writer stands by item #43

About the same number of people was awarded bachelor's degrees in 2010 as filed for personal bankruptcy (1.6 million).

Is the subject in this sentence singular or plural?

Answer

The heading for paragraph 7 of Harbrace College Handbook, Chapter 6a states,

When regarded as a unit, collective nouns, as well as noun phrases denoting quantity, take singular verbs.
. . .
The number is singular; a number is plural.
"The number of students was small." [The number is taken as a unit.]
"A number of students were taking tests." [A number refers to individuals.]

Their examples indicate that it's different depending on if the number is taken as a unit or refers to individuals. In your case I think it's individuals and should use the plural.

pronouns - Can a sentence begin with an object or reflexive noun?

I'm writing a function (for a game) which converts a sentence with Spivak pronouns into one with pronouns as specified by a user-selected template.

For example, the following input sentence:

"E casts eir spell on emself."

Could be transformed into any of the following (among others), depending on the selected template:

• "She casts her spell on herself." (feminine pronoun)


• "They cast their spell on themself." (singular they)


• " casts 's spell on themself." (Name, with "themself")

Most declensions can occur at the start of a sentence, requiring me to consider the possibility of each with an initial uppercase:

• "She won."


• "His efforts were futile."


• "Hers was the only character able to use magic."

I'm unsure about the following scenarios:

• "Him too.^†"


• "Herself to blame, her team lost the match.^‡"

So, my questions are as follows:

1. ^†Do I need to consider a capitalised "Em" (i.e. Can a grammatically-correct sentence ever begin with an object)?




2. ^‡Do I need to consider a capatilised "Emself" (i.e. Can a grammatically-correct sentence ever begin with a reflexive noun)?

I'm only concerned with grammatically-correct sentences at this time. The user will not be providing the input sentences to this function, only the pronoun template by which to convert each sentence for display.

Thank you for your time and assistance!
>^,^<

Answer

Objects often move to the start of a sentence to emphasis their importance and distinction.

I hate him. *You* I like.

Reflexive pronouns can be treated the same way, although I think that would often create inelegant or even confusing English.

tenses - "I didn't know you liked her" or "I didn't know you like her"

I have a friend who insists that

"I didn't know you like her"

is more correct than

"I didn't know you liked her"

if the liking is still taking place. But to my ear, only the latter sounds correct.

Which of the above (if any) is correct and why?

Answer

I have a friend who insists that

• 1.) "I didn't know you like her"

  
  
  

  is more correct than





• 2.) "I didn't know you liked her"

if the liking is still taking place. But to my ear, only the latter (#2) sounds correct.

Which of the above (if any) is correct and why?

*

Trust your ear. :)

Your ear knows. As in all things dealing with today's English, we native English speakers know what sounds right and what sounds wrong -- but it can be hard to explain the grammar of the why of it all.

Generally, your version #2 is the preferred version, for it is the speaker's knowing that is foregrounded, while the info of your liking her is backgrounded. That is, previously the speaker didn't know that you liked her, but now the speaker does know. And that is what version #2 is doing, foregrounding the speaker's knowing, and backgrounding the info of your liking her by backshifting the verb "like" into "liked".

(Version #1 would be used if, for some reason, the speaker wanted to foreground the info that you like the girl. But that is rather unlikely for the example sentence in the usual context.)

.

LONG VERSION: (Note: "preterite" == a past tense form of a verb)

The preterite has three main uses:

• past time,


• modal remoteness,


• backshifting.

Your example illustrates a backshifting use. Backshifting is often used in indirect reported speech, e.g. "Jill said she had too many commitments" when Jill's original utterance was "I have too many commitments" -- notice how Jill's present-tense "have" was backshifted into the preterite "had".

Backshifting in a subordinate clause can occur when either one of the following conditions is true:

• A.) The tense of the matrix clause is a type of past-tense.




• B.) The time of the matrix clause situation is in the past time sphere.

In your example:

• "I didn't know you like/liked her"

the matrix clause's verb is "did", which is a past tense verb form, and so, it fulfills the above #A. (The matrix clause also fulfills #B, in that the situation of the speaker not knowing was in the past time sphere.)

And so, a backshifted preterite can occur. But then there is the question of preference, and even the question of obligatory vs optional backshifting.

Your example sentence seems to me to be an illustration of where there would be a strong preference for a backshifted version. Your example seems very similar to,

• I thought it [was] mine.

which is discussed in the 2002 reference grammar by Huddleston and Pullum et al., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL), pages 157-8:

(c) Focus on original

If the focus is on the original utterance or belief, with a contrast between 'then' and 'now', this will favor the backshifted version:

• I thought it [was] mine. -- (backshifted)

One context of this is where it has just been established that it is mine: thought would here be strongly stressed, indicating a contrast between past thinking and present knowing (of the same proposition). Another context is where it has just been established (or claimed) that it is not mine: here the contrast is between what I thought in the past and what is known/claimed in the present. In either case the past time location of the thinking is foregrounded, focused, and this favors the backshifted version, preserving the original T-o: deictic is would hardly be possible here.

grammar - wonder if/whether (negative clause)

There's another post concerning a similar question, but after reading through it, I'm still not sure about the meaning of the sentence I encountered:

The calendar was blank, as it had been every day this month, except for the third Thursday, where she had scribbled, Civic Association Meeting. Molly sighed, remembering a time when every day had held a different list of assignments and chores, schedules for Erik, and important meetings for Cole. Eight years ago she had needed a calm, almost boring, lifestyle to save her sanity. Now, she wondered if she hadn’t let it go on that way for too long.

Was Molly regretting that she had let herself live "that way" for too long, or was she missing being "that way" when she found she had nothing to do?

etymology - What is the history and geographic area of the word "finna?"

In St. Louis, I learned of the word, "finna." I know it is slang/contraction for "fixing to." By asking dozens of people, I've learned that it is used by people of many different races and cultural backgrounds. I've also learned that many who use this word have been using it all their lives (for some, that means at least 50 years).

What I want to know is:

1. When did "finna" first start being used?




2. Where did it originally came from?




3. How far geographically has the usage of this word spread from its original location?

software - Definite article in front of button names

I am writing a manual for an application. The manual describes how to operate a piece of software. Often I write sentences like:

Press "Compute" button, then change to "Statistics" tab.

My colleague has added definite articles in front of each control's name.

Press the "Compute" button, then change to the "Statistics" tab.

I feel like it is wrong. Since neither of us is a native speaker, we are not sure whether to put or omit the definite article "the" in front of names of buttons. I could not find a rule on the web that applies to buttons and tabs.

What is the correct way to formulate such a sentence: with or without the "the"?

grammar - What is the accepted stance on using "they" in a singular form?

Is it good English to say "They have just left", when talking about a single person (perhaps someone you don't know the gender of)?

(I am a native English speaker, I'm looking for the view held by lexicographers).

Answer

Singular they has been used in English for a long, long time. Seriously, Shakespeare even used it.

Unfortunately, a significant number of English speakers think it's wrong. Why? No clue. I'd label it a hypercorrection.

I think the most important thing to think about is whether your audience will understand you. On this count, singular they really shines, as everybody — even those who pooh-pooh it — understand exactly what you're saying.

Another consideration is what alternatives you have. One sounds stuffy; he or she is too long; just he is inaccurate (and possibly offensive).

Singular they is really the best way to go.

conjunction reduction - How this present participle is formed

Can someone explain how the 'joining' part in this sentence is formed? and what can be the original sentence before reduction?

Joining us here in the studio to start things off we have expert Sonia Tarrington, from the University of California's Nutrition Research Centre.

I suppose the ing form at the beginning of the sentence cannot be considered a reduced adverb clause because the subjects cannot be the same.
Then I thought it might be a reduced adjective clause which relocated to the beginning of the sentence? Something like this maybe? But is it possible at all to relocate adj. clauses?

We have expert Sonia Tarrington, from the University of California's Nutrition Research Centre, who has joined us here in the studio to start things off.

hyphenation - "Well-being" or "wellbeing"?

I was writing a document in Microsoft Word and I used the word "well-being". Word told me to correct it to "wellbeing". When I do, Word tells me to correct it back to "well-being". Which is correct? I am stuck in an infinite loop of incorrect grammar.

Answer

Many word combinations go a progress from open (separate words) through hyphenated (one finds to-day in older texts) to closed (written as a single word, like nevertheless). Ngram shows the hyphenated spelling still five times as popular as the closed one among authors and editors of books as of 2008.

grammaticality - When should I use "a" versus "an" in front of a word beginning with the letter h?

A basic grammar rule is to use an instead of a before a vowel sound. Given that historic is not pronounced with a silent h, I use “a historic”. Is this correct? What about heroic? Should be “It was a heroic act” or “It was an heroic act”?

I remember reading somewhere that the h is sometimes silent, in which case it’s an, and when the h is pronounced, it’s a. But then I also remember reading that it depends on which syllable is stressed. And I also think I read somewhere that it might differ between British and American English.

Personally, I pronounce the h, and believe that a is correct. I find that it sounds incorrect to use an and pronounce heroic without the h.

So how do I know when to use a and when to use an with a word beginning with the letter h? Are both acceptable or is there one that is correct?

Answer

Indeed, you are correct.

In certain accents, history, hotel, etc. are pronounced with an h sound. In those accents, a should be used. In other accents, such as my own, it is pronounced without an h sound, and therefore starts with a vowel. In that accent, it would be correct for one to say an.

Queen Elizabeth II is one such person who could correctly say an historic event. President Obama is one such person who could correctly say a historic event.

In writing, it doesn't really matter which one is used.

grammar - if + should or if + present simple or ... Too many ways to say the same thing

What is the difference between the following sentences:

We have no jobs at present, but if the situation should change, we will contact you.

We have no jobs at present, but if the situation changes, we will contact you.

We have no jobs at present, but if the situation is to change, we will contact you.

Sentences 1 and 2 I took from Murphy, where they say the first one means that the situation is less likely to change.

Answer

There's very little difference between the first two, but the first is a little more tentative, and perhaps suggests that the speaker thinks it is not very likely to change, whereas the second is more neutral.

Having said that, the form with should is rather old-fashioned or literary, and many people would not say it at all.

The third form is different, and in this context incoherent. The is to construction refers to something which should, or is expected to, change. If the situation is to change, we will contact you means "We want it to change, and in order for that to happen we need to contact you". So it has a quite different meaning, that is not compatible with the first clause.

pronouns - How do I identify subjects when quantities are involved?

I'm working my way through The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, and I came across a difficulty.

In one of the quizzes, the book asks you to identify the subjects and verbs in sentences, and correct disagreements where necessary. Here is one such sentence:

Her attitude is one of the things that's different.

I incorrectly viewed one as a subject in the sentence above, which caused me to miss that things is actually the subject and so the verb should be conjugated are, and the sentence constructed thus:

Her attitude is one of the things that are different.

With me? I'm not 100% clear here why things is the subject and not one, but okay. I understand close enough.

Then I came to this explanation in the section on pronouns. The rule is copied to give context to the example and its explication.

Rule 5. The pronouns who, that, and which become singular or
plural depending on the subject. If the subject is singular, use a singular verb. If it is plural, use a plural verb.

Example:
He is the only one of those men who is always on time.

The word who refers to one. Therefore, use the singular verb is.

Here is where my confusion truly enters the picture. If who as a pronoun is referring to one in this sentence, then one is the subject (as is He). If one is the subject in this sentence, why is it not the subject in the previous sentence?

Thank you for your help! Let me know if I need to clarify my question.

Answer

This isn't a question of quantity, necessarily, but rather one of adjunct phrases.
Let's take your two sentences, with some phrase boundaries.

Her attitude is [[one] [of the things that are different]].

-

He is [[the only one [of those men]] who is always on time].

In the second example, he is the only one who is always on time out of a set of men (the rest of whom are always late). Therefore, the verb is singular to agree with "only one."

This contrasts with your first example, where "her attitude" is one of the set of things that are different.

In the first sentence, "to be" is embedded within the prepositional phrase "of the things that are different," whereas in the second, "to be" is not part of the prepositional phrase "of those men."

For example, you could say:

Her attitude is one of the things that are different about her, and I like it.

You don't say "them" like you would in "Her earrings are one of the things that are different about her and I like them."

grammar - "a" or "an" ubiquitous?

I am unsure whether to use "a" or "an" in the following sentence:

Video games have become a/an ubiquitous part of American culture.

For me, saying the two sentences out loud makes "an" seem like the right choice but Microsoft Word proofing disagrees.

Answer

This isn't straightforward. In my version of English, I would say 'a ubiquitous'. It seems that the grammar checkers in MS Word agree -- both in US and UK English.

However, take a look at this ngram of published works.

Google ngram: a ubiquitous,an ubiquitous

You can see that a changeover occurred in the late 1880s but both versions survive up to the present day.

Use of commas for such that followed by two sentences

Consider the sentence

The sun shines such that it is warm and water evaporates.

The two parts of the sentence "it is warm" and "water evaporates" are independent sentences and a comma should be placed between them.

The sun shines such that it is warm, and water evaporates.

But this reads like

The sun shines such that it is warm. Water evaporates.

I would like to convey that both "it is warm" and "water evaporates" are a consequence of the sun shining without ending up with an extremely long sentence. What's the best way to rephrase this?

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 ;)

grammar - Comma before "with," "who," "having" for non-compound sentences

I've noticed my résumé and cover letter have multiple sentences like the ones (slightly edited) below:

1. I offer excellent computer skills, with a typing speed of 80–120 WPM.



2. I recently met ____, who advised that ...


3. I bring a strong awareness of ____, having completed ...


4. I assumed additional ____ at ____, where I also ...


5. I am seeking entry into ____ at ____, with an aim to ...

I want advice on this that is not "commas are a stylistic choice" — for me, whatever I start doing regularly, I become stylistically accustomed to.

I asked my career counsellor at Stanford and she told me that I should look at what follows the comma as an "aside." According to her, the comma here is correct and should be looked upon as a lone, pairless, bracketing comma. Taking sentence 1, she said it could be thought of as :

I offer excellent computer skills, with a typing speed of 80–120 WPM, and therefore I deserve ____. (Hypothetical sentence with bracketing commas)

I offer excellent computer skills, with a typing speed of 80–120 WPM. (Lone bracketing comma ― period replaces second comma for the pair)

Her second bit of advice was that if I can put what follows the comma in parentheses, then I should leave the comma in.

Going on this, I've removed commas for sentences 2 and 5.

But I'm still confused. Mainly because this rule seems a bit flimsy and could be used to justify commas that are clearly wrong.

Example: "I am good at reading, and writing."

To me, the rule is that only two sentences that can stand on their own when joined together with "but," "and," etc. may have a comma. According to this rule, only no. 4 requires a comma where there is a subject on both sides.

Could someone offer guidance on this?

grammar - "I have to" vs. "I must"

When would you use the following?

• I have to go the market.


• I must go to the market.


• I need to go to the market.

If I replace 'have' with 'had' would you have any other way to say it? E.g. I had to go the market.

Answer

Have to contrasts with must in that it usually expresses an obligation imposed by someone other than the speaker. Had to is the past tense of have to and may be used in cases where a past equivalent of must is required. Need to is used where there is not such a strong obligation, but where completing the action will satisfy a particular requirement.

past tense - I noticed vs I have noticed

Is there a difference between I noticed and I have noticed? What is the correct use of each of these?

Thanks

grammatical number - Is this sentence correct or comprehensible? "They actually had more soldiers than was shown on TV"

I would like to know if the following sentence is correct:

1. They actually had more soldiers than was shown on TV.

Here I use "was" because I think the full sentence should be "They actually had more soldiers than (it) was shown on TV (that they had).

I know it might not be a sentence that a native speaker would say, but I would like to know if it's grammatically correct with this interpretation.

Looking forward to your answers.

Answer

The sentence:

• They actually had more soldiers than was shown on TV.

is correct. The singular "was" is used because reference is being made to the fact that they had more soldiers, or to their having more soldiers, which are singular subjects. The plural "were" is also possible as stated by Edwin Ashworth in his comment, the only slight difference being, in my opinion, that "were" seems to emphasize the individuality of the soldiers, while "was" points to the group as a whole.

Your question, however, revolves around the use of a verb after "than", without a pronoun. Actually, it would be incorrect to use a pronoun. Something similar occurs with "as":

• They actually had a lot of soldiers, as (was) shown on TV. (With "as" the verb "was" will tend to be omitted at all times.)

On this page you will find both "than" and "as" used as if they were pronouns (I think they are, as I once claimed in another thread that aroused some controversy), without another pronoun after them:

As and than can introduce clauses in which there is no subject or object pronoun. In this case, they act like relative pronouns.

The meeting was as successful as had been expected. (NOT The meeting was as successful as it had been expected.)

You worry more than is good for you. (NOT You worry more than it is good for you.)

punctuation - Sentence with multiple 'and's: should I use an Oxford comma, and if so, where?

I have the following sentence:

I am a self-starter possessing excellent problem solving ability and outstanding coordination and communication skills.

Using the Oxford comma, what is the correct way to write it?

I am a self-starter possessing excellent problem solving ability, and outstanding coordination and communication skills.

I am a self-starter possessing excellent problem solving ability and outstanding coordination, and communication skills.

Answer

The serial comma only comes into play if you have an actual list, i.e. three or more items. You only have two:

excellent problem solving ability

and

outstanding coordination and communications skills

To see this, look at the nouns, not the phrases describing them: ability and skills are two things.

Within the phrase "outstanding coordination and communications skills", it is absolutely wrong to insert a comma before the "and". For the sentence as a whole, though, the issue isn't quite so clear-cut: it's not really a list, so adding a comma is unnecessary, but on the other hand, it can aid comprehension to group the adjectival phrases — basically, to make it clear that excellent problem solving goes with ability, while outstanding coordination and communications all go with skills.

grammaticality - "Not only should I" in declarative sentence

There is a phrase "Not only should I succeed but others should fail". And I saw it many times in similar structures that the order of words "should I" are as if they were in a questioning sentence. (In a declarative sentence the order is "I should")

Can anyone give me an explanation why that is?

Answer

I don't know the specific grammatical rule for this, but it is common to invert subject and verb when adverbs or adverb phrases are placed at the beginning of a sentence. See more
here:

http://www.englishgrammar.org/inversion-subject-verb/#udVqaYOcOyIydwVs.99

and here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_sentence

word choice - how can I use "fewer" and "more" with numbers?

I have never heard anyone use words "fewer" and "more" when talking about the fact that a certain number of items is greater than a certain number of other items by a constant.

For example if the number of pens that I have is greater than the number of pencils by 5 what is the proper way to say it without using the word "number". Is it "I have 5 more pens than pencils." And "I have 5 fewer pencils than pens." Both of these sentences sound extremely weird and I doubt they are correct, so, what is the proper way of saying these 2 sentences?

Answer

Both sentences are grammatically correct.

"I have 5 more pens than pencils."

"I have 5 fewer pencils than pens."

For the record, they sound fine to me as well as a native English speaker who regularly has to compare numbers and quantities.

Oxford dictionaries includes "fewer than 50 people" in an example of word usage.

grammar - Word order in sentence 'Make sure that' with a location

I have a question concerning the word order in the following sentence:

• Make sure that on the electrical panel all circuit breakers are closed.


• On the electrical panel, make sure that all circuit breakers are closed.

For me (non-native speaker) both sentences seem to be perfectly fine. However, someone insisted that the location would have to come first.

Is there a rule with expression like 'Make sure that'?

Thank you! Haike

etymology - Why are Kansas and Arkansas pronounced differently?

Arkansas is typically pronounced like so:

“ahr-kuhn-saw”   IPA: [ˈɑɹkənˌsɔː]

However, Kansas is typically pronounced like this:

“kan-zuhs”             IPA: [ˈkænzɨs]

Why are these two words that are so similar in spelling pronounced so differently?

Both are apparently linked to “Native American” origins. So what’s the difference in the original usages?

phrases - Euphemism for "There's more than one way to skin a cat"

Growing up in the 80s, I ended up hearing/using this phrase a lot whenever I wanted to express that there was more than one way to do something: "there's more than one way to skin a cat."

I have recently been in situations where I need to express the same thing, but am realizing that the phrase is actually quite grotesque. Is there a well-known euphemism to express the same thing - that there is more than one way to get something done?

This questions is slightly related, but only asks for the origins: Origin of the phrase, "There's more than one way to skin a cat."

Answer

If you don't like the graphic reference to feline taxidermy, you can substitute just about any verb-noun pair to get your point across, so long as your audience can imagine more than one way to do it. These aren't common idioms by any means (some of them will register a tiny number of hits in a Google book search, and others won't), but one could say:

There's more than one way to bake a cake...
There's more than one way to cook an egg...
There's more than one way to peel an orange...
There's more than one way to make a bed...
There's more than one way to catch a rabbit...
There's more than one way to shear a sheep...
There's more than one way to shoe a horse...
There's more than one way to shine a penny...
There's more than one way to knit a sweater...
There's more than one way to dive into a pool...
There's more than one way to shake a carbuncle...¹

---

¹ That last one may sound a bit odd, but I actually found it in a book.

present tense - What is the difference between has gone and went in this context?

A: Is Mr. Bob at home?

B: Sorry, he isn't at home. He___to Hong Kong for vacation?

A. went
B. has gone
C. is going

Which one is correct answer? and why it is not the other ones?

grammaticality - Is it ever grammatically correct to say "I'm sure they're."

I currently can't think of a good reason grammatically; but there are plenty in terms of clear communication.

nouns - Gerunds are always in singular

Gerunds are always in singular.e.g. Dancing burns calories.

Now for this example: People dancing together are fun to watch.

Should it be people dancing together is fun to watch

Is the subject in the sentence people and dancing together an adjective and thus People dancing together are fun to watch.

Or is the sentence itself is incorrect?

Thanks

synonyms - What is another term for "through osmosis"?

I am looking for a single word to replace the phrase "through osmosis" with a single term, if that's even the correct phrase...

Example:

When my daughter's project won the science fair, I too felt pride through osmosis."

I don't mean it as a synonym for empathy, more like "your success is my success".

Thanks.

grammaticality - Is "Them’s fighting words" a right and received English expression?

I came across the phrase ‘Them’s fighting words,’ in the beginning part of a Time magazine (July 12) article in its Swampland section under the title “Don’t mess with the stimulus! It had all your creamed spinach and more.”
The author, Michael Grunwald, seems to be defending Obama’s stimulus plan of infrastructure. The sentence in question reads as follows:

You know, the poor thing has no one to defend it but me. And me again. And yet again. So, its infrastructure spending was too “rushed,” and sent cash to the "least difficult and imaginative projects," huh? Them’s fighting words!

I interpret "Them's fighting words" to simply mean "They're fighting words." Can them be used as a subject being followed by the singular of "to be" and a transitive verb (fight) that takes the objective noun (words)? I’m puzzled if this is an established American usage of them or just a fashionable saying.

Answer

It's not grammatically correct; it's a common joking play on bad grammar, particularly on Southern U.S. dialects. I don't know exactly when it was coined for popular usage, but the Looney Tunes cartoons of the 1930s through 1950s certainly made good use of it.

EDIT: here we go; from the American Heritage Dictionary for "fighting words":

The ungrammatical use of them's for "those are" emphasizes the folksy tone of this colloquialism, first recorded in Ring Lardner's Gullible's Travels(1917).

The term "fighting words" itself is a well-known and well-used term, even making it into U.S. Constitutional case law; "fighting words", as in words spoken or written for the sole purpose of inciting a person to fight, are not "protected speech" under the First Amendment.

Read more in fighting word.

gerunds - having been or being

Which of these sentences is correct?

You mentioned having been in a hospital last year.

You mentioned being in a hospital last year.

grammar - Are there any simple rules for choosing the definite vs. indefinite (vs. none) article?

I can’t for the life of me figure out where to use a and where to use the — and where there is no article at all. Is there a simple rule of thumb to memorize?

The standard rule you always hear:

“If a person knows which item you are talking about then use "the"

. . . doesn’t clear things up for me, as I have no idea whether or not they know.

Answer

Well, if you insist on the rule being simple, here you are:

• a = some, any


• the = this, that

Two simple examples. Note that you just wrote "...if a person knows which item you are talking about...". You didn't write "...if the person knows...". And that's correct, because you are not pointing to this or that person, you are talking about any person in general.

On the other hand, my answer starts with "if you insist on the rule being simple". That's because you asked for a rule (= any rule), and I am now talking about that rule. We are talking about the same thing.

Now, I can't think of a (= any) simple rule of thumb when not to use an (= any) article at all, but here are some suggestions:

• Don't put an (= any) article before a (= any) noun if the (= that) noun is preceded by:
  
  
  
  • a number
  
  
  • a possessive adjective ("my", "his", "our"...)
  
  
  • a "no", "some" or "any"
  
  
  • a "this", "that", "these" or "those"
  
  

Examples:

• Give me a chair! (= any chair you like)


• Give me the chair! (= this chair)


• Give me that chair! (no article, you already specified which chair you mean)


• Give me my chair! (no article)


• Give me five chairs! (no article)



• Give me some chairs! (no article)


• Give me the chairs! (= these chairs)


• Give me these chairs! (no article)


• Give me a reason to hit you! (= any reason will do)


• Give me no reason to hit you! (no article because of "no")


• Give me no reason to hit you with a chair! (= any chair)


• Give me no reason to hit you with the chair! (= this chair)

grammaticality - "Don't you..." question

I'm studying English for 10 months. I suppose myself to know it quite well now. But I'm confused about one thing. I noticed that some of my English speaking friends sometimes ask

"Don't you tired/hungry/etc?"

Is this normal/grammatically correct to make such questions? Because I've googled by phrases and found quite a lot of examples of using such questions?

Here are some examples:

Is this particular statement a phrase or a clause?

The difference between clauses and phrases has been extensively discussed (here, here, and likely elsewhere). And as Dusty has said, “The short answer [is that] clauses contain a subject and its verb, while phrases do not.”

In a recent comment (found here), I noted that the questioner’s sentence—“The day I was born, Granny died”—was formed by two clauses. However, phoog responded that "the day I was born" is not a clause, but rather (I presume) a phrase.

Is this true? If I am to judge by Dusty’s short answer—that a clause contains a subject and a verb—then “the day I was born” checks out as a clause. My understanding is that “the day I was born” is a subordinate clause—or, in the words of Wikipedia, “a clause that provides an independent clause with additional information, but which cannot stand alone as a sentence.”

Unless you think they are necessary to the meaning of your answer, I do not need definitions of phrases and clauses. Rather, I am looking for a definitive answer—phrase or clause—and proof as to how or why you came to that conclusion.

EDIT: I deleted this question because I felt as though it had been answered on the original post by phoog. He responded to my comment, noting that "[the day I was born is] an adverbial noun phrase. It has no predicate, as a clause must. The clause I was born modifies the day, but the fact that the phrase contains a clause doesn't make it a clause."

However, Araucaria commented on another post of mine, asking me to reopen this question. He states, "The linked-to answer is a bit misleading (to say the least), but your question is excellent, and is a very good example for people to investigate!" That said, I have reopened the question and am curious to hear any and all opinions and/or interpretations of phoog's explanation.

Answer

"The day I was born, Granny died”

Inverted ---> "Granny died the day I was born.”

In full ----> "Granny died on the day that I was born.”

Same structure ----> "Granny died on Tuesday.”

Answer

"the day I was born" is a noun phrase.

"I was born" is a clause.

word choice - What is the difference between: "two-day" and "two days"

I would like to know which would be the correct form:

• a major two-day auction


• a major two days auction

The duration of the auction is two days. Which form is the right one to use?

syntax - "a" verus "an" for abbreviations starting with 'U'

My friend is implementing an app for Amazon Alexa which currently speaks the indefinite article "an" in noun phrase acronyms which start with the letter 'U', for example:

(1.) *I found out he was an U.S. president.

My idiolect prefers "a" here instead, presumably because my aggregated experience of the "a/an" contrast perceived this as a rare (unique?) case where English formally licenses a syntactic alternation (insofar as spelling is overt syntax, and syntax is formal) driven by phonotactic considerations.

So much for the grade-school rule-of-thumb about "whether the spelling starts with a vowel." In any case, I'm a native speaker and it does seem to be the case for me:

(2a.) I'm an unhappy camper.
(2b.) Bob is a used car salesman.

Since "U.S." in sentence (1) is pronounced in as in (2b), I prefer the phonologically reduced form:

(3) I found out he was a U.S. president.

Apparently contradicting this idea is the evidence of native speakers who insist on "an" for words starting with 'H'.

(4) ?It was an historic victory.

I marked (4) questionable to indicate that it's not in my idiolect. My question is, without devolving into a prescriptive/descriptive debate, are there other considerations beyond what I've mentioned here that could explain or underlie the observed alternation?

Answer

The rule is painful as far as code is concerned because the choice between 'a' or 'an' is based on whether it sounds like a vowel is at the start of the word rather than the actual spelling.

For example, as mentioned in a similar question:
"A united states citizen, a unique opportunity but an uncle"

This means that any code needs to determine what the word sounds like ... or the equivalent there of (such accessing a mapping table or list of exceptions)

grammar - photo caption ... me or I?

In a photo caption, if we use the elliptical 'My kids and me', would 'me' be correct, or would 'I' be correct? It seems as though it could go both ways.

[This is a picture of] 'My kids and me' or 'Me and the kids'.

Or,

'My kids and I' [are in this picture]

Which is the correct choice -- 'me' or 'I' in these elliptical constructions?

Thank you

grammar - When should a verb be followed by a gerund instead of an infinitive?

Some verbs are followed by ing, e.g. I enjoy swimming. We can't say I enjoy to swim. Likewise, some verbs are followed by to, e.g. I decided to make a plan.

Which particular verbs are followed by ing and to? Can you please provide a list for that?

Moreover, which verbs can be followed by both without having the meaning changed?

Answer

You can find such a list, for instance, in the Penguin Handbook.

Note: as of December 2014, the above link does not work. 

There is a copy of The Brief Penguin Handbook here;
the Verbs Followed by Gerunds or Infinitives section is here.

The only way to know is to memorize which verbs are followed by gerunds and which are followed by infinitives. The relevant categories are:

Verbs Followed by Infinitives

Most verbs are followed by infinitives.
If the verb is not found in the list below, it is probably followed by an infinitive.

Verbs Followed by Gerunds

The verbs in the following table all need to be followed by gerunds.

The students don’t enjoy going over the same rules again and again.

• admit (to)


• appreciate


• avoid


• be accustomed to


• be used to


• can’t help


• consider


• delay


• deny


• discuss



• dislike


• enjoy


• feel like


• finish


• get used to


• imagine


• keep (on)


• look forward to


• (not) mind


• miss



• postpone


• practice


• put off


• recommend


• regret


• report


• resent


• resist


• risk


• stop



• suggest


• tolerate


• understand

Verbs Followed by an Object Before the Infinitive Verb

I advise you to go to school early today.

• advise


• allow


• *ask


• authorize


• cause


• challenge


• convince


• encourage



• *expect


• force


• get


• help


• hire


• inform


• instruct


• invite


• *need


• order



• permit


• persuade


• *prepare


• *promise


• remind


• require


• teach


• tell


• train


• urge



• *want


• *warn


• *would like

*Some words can be used without an object as well as with an object.

I want him to go. I want to go.

Verbs Followed by Either Gerund or Infinitive

Sometimes the meaning changes according to the verb used.

He doesn’t remember giving the homework to Mr. Young.
He didn’t remember to give the homework to Mr. Young.

• attempt


• begin


• can (not) bear


• can (not) stand


• continue


• hate


• intend


• (dis)like


• love


• neglect



• prefer


• remember


• start


• try

Verbs Followed Only by the Simple Form (no “-ing” or “to”)

Four verbs are called causative verbs.
They are followed by an object; the verb after the object is always in the simple form:

• let: They let him go on the trip (instead of “let him to go”).

I let him take my book home for one night.

• make: We made her do her chores first.

I made my sister cry.

• help: She helped her finish her homework.

I helped him find the bookstore.

• have: The teacher had him stay after school.

I had my teacher explain the answers.

Verbs Followed by Either the Simple Form or the Gerund (no “to”)

Some verbs are called verbs of perception and are followed by either the simple form or the “-ing” form.

• see: I see him go.

I see him going.

• notice: I notice him run to school every day.

I notice him running to school every day.

• watch: I watch him struggle with his homework.

I watch him struggling with his homework.

• hear: I hear him sing.

I hear him singing.

Others including: look at, observe, listen to, feel, smell.

Two adjectives in a row: word order

Which is correct:

She is married to a tall broad-shouldered man, or
She is married to a broad-shouldered tall man?

Thanks.

Answer

tall broad-shouldered man sounds correct compared to broad-shouldered tall man

There is also this list from:
http://www.gingersoftware.com/content/grammar-rules/adjectives/order-of-adjectives/

Where I would like believe tall refers to size, and broad-shouldered refers to shape.

grammaticality - "Where are you now at?" — grammatically correct?

Should I say "Where are you at now?" or "Where are you now at?"

Which is grammatically correct? And is there any difference in meaning between the two?

Answer

Both are possible in speech, although the first is probably more likely. They can be:

a) an inquiry about someone's location;

b) an inquiry about someone's mental, spiritual or emotional state; or

c) an inquiry about which page someone has reached in a book.

grammaticality - Should I follow English conventions, or write what sounds better?

How a sentence sounds when read aloud or in your head can often "sound" different for each individual doing so; however, I was reading details regarding the usage of "data" and "datum" and was intrigued by the alleged usage of it and how said usage flowed within a sentence/phrase.

It is explained here that the word data should not be used as,

...the data tells us...

but rather,

...the data tell us...

Reading the first seems natural, I've heard it quite often; however, the second seems very hard to read or say - simply unnatural in my mouth. A similar situation is found with Hoi Polloi where it is incorrect to say,

...gone to meet with the hoi polloi...

but often corrected to,

...gone to meet with hoi polloi...

due to the redundancy of the term "the" (where Hoi Polloi meaning "The Many").

While my specific usage of these two situations may not be finely crafted, I believe the concept/question to be evident: Is it better to appease my audience by using a commonly used phrasing, or is it better to adhere to the correct implementation of the words/phrases?

Another consideration is my credibility. Will the readers perhaps discredit my writings due to the unfamiliar conventions utilized?

Answer

Your best option would be to check a dictionary as it will usually have a note to clarify such ambiguities.

ODO's entry for data notes:

In Latin, data is the plural of datum and, historically and in specialized scientific fields, it is also treated as a plural in English, taking a plural verb, as in the data were collected and classified. In modern non-scientific use, however, it is generally not treated as a plural. Instead, it is treated as a mass noun, similar to a word like information, which takes a singular verb. Sentences such as data was collected over a number of years are now widely accepted in standard English.

The data/datum question has been covered on ELU before.

Similarly, the entry for hoi polloi carries the following note:

1 To those in the know, hoi is the Greek word for the definite article the (nominative masculine plural); the phrase hoi polloi thus translates as ‘the many’. This knowledge has led some traditionalists to insist that hoi polloi should not be used in English with the, since that would be to state the word the twice. Such arguments miss the point: once established in English, expressions such as hoi polloi are treated as a fixed unit and are subject to the rules and conventions of English. Evidence shows that use with the has now become an accepted part of standard English usage.

Names referred to as words

Style guides seem to agree that words referred to as words should be italicized or set in quotes. So:

• The term critical mass is...

The CMOS 17th adds that proper nouns used as words are usually set in roman, giving this example:

• You rarely see iPhone with a capital i. (Section 7.63)

I'm wondering more generally about references to names. Does it make sense to leave all the following names in roman?

• Two men, both named Sam, were...




• His name was Sam.




• Call me Ishmael.





• The girl called herself Peggy, though her name was Margaret.




• She referred to the drink as a Manhattan Project and ordered two.

Answer

Weather Vane and jdscoms has fair points, jdscoms. You do need to research more fully.

Nevertheless, your question also has a point. The use of italics or single scare quotes to indicate mention rather than use is a convention in the sense that it does not emerge from the rough and tumble of day to day conversation and correspondence. The convention is observed to avoid misunderstanding or involuntary humour.

It is worth remembering that in ancient Hebrew, Greek and Latin there was no punctuation of any kind, and they managed quite well.

Proper names do not normally need this convention. There is no need to distinguish between “My brother is George.”, and “My name is George”. There is no chance of misunderstanding.

But you might think twice before writing “George is six letters long.”. It is unlikely to be misunderstood. But it does look a bit silly. Note, though, that you do not have to use italic or scare quotes. You could just write: “the name George is six letters long.”. Then we shall all know what you mean.

As for the iPhone, that is a brand name and the ‘i’ must be left untouched.

Overall, a little common sense takes us a long way.

phrases - Me and X or X and me?

When should I say, for instance, "Mary and me," and when should I say "Me and Mary?"

Example:

Which option should I use in the following sentence?

After drinking our tea and saying goodbye to Hank, [...] made out way back
to the hotel.

Answer

The order is not a matter of grammar but of convention. It is generally thought to be more polite to mention the other person first.

punctuation - Is this dash correct?

I’m hoping someone can give me some feedback/advice on the dash below.

The site also supports a mobile
version that allows you to easily
check whether a book is in your
collection—a feature inspired after

purchasing already-owned books one too
many times.

I guess I could also split this into two sentences.

The site also supports a mobile
version that allows you to easily
check whether a book is in your

collection. This feature was inspired
after purchasing already-owned books
one too many times.

Is the first version is correct, and if so, is it preferable to the second?

This link makes me think it's correct, but I thought I'd ask the community; I always seem to get fantastic feedback here.

Answer

The first version is correct. You've used a dash to separate the appositive from the main sentence, which is acceptable. Usually, this is considered better than the second version; one independent clause is better than two, stylistically speaking. I myself would probably have used a comma instead of a dash, since I think commas give a much nicer flow.

phrases - "Useless like tits on a log" vs. "tits on a bull" vs. "tits on a turtle" and so forth

I was reading an online book and there was the expression "useless like tits on a log". I googled to find more about this expression and I found a similar one: "useless like tits on a bull". Which one of them is more recognizable in everyday English? Why haven't I been able to find references about the first one?

Edit: I think there is a whole group of expressions like that — "useless like tits on a boar", "useless like tits on a nun", "useless like tits on a turtle" etc. It is really interesting how we can make such an expression.

Answer

There is also a "tit bull," (East Texas), referring to a calf that was never weaned or steered and is still living off mama as an adult.

word choice - John, Valencia, and I (or me)?

Possible Duplicates:
Should I Put Myself Last (“me and you” vs “you and me”)?
When do I use “I” instead of “me?”
Who wants ice-cream?

When identifying people in a photo—for instance,

John, Valencia, and (I or me).

should I use ”I” or “me”? Which one is grammatically correct?

punctuation - Is it acceptable to use a single hyphen as a dash (as the BBC does)?

Is it acceptable to use a single hyphen as a dash (as the BBC does)?

Example from BBC News:

Venezuela - a major oil producer - has been heavily affected by the
fall in oil prices on international markets.

american english - Pronunciation of 'aunt' in the US

I was under the impression that all Americans pronounced aunt like the insect, ant (/ænt/), or relatively similar sounding variants such as the southern aint (/eɪnt/). According to both Webster and ODO, some Americans pronounce it as ah-nt (/änt/, /ɑnt/, or /ɔnt/) which is pretty close to the British ah-nt (/ɑ(:)nt/). Webster offers a similar alternative for the contraction, can't.

Who are these Americans who favour the British pronunciation?

Answer

The Northeast.

This US dialect splatter chart shows that just over 75% of Americans pronounce aunt and ant (the bug) the same. It’s broken down further, but the ~ohnt pronunciation is primarily from the Northeast.

hyphenation - Proper use of hyphens for compound noun 'system model driven approach'

Possible Duplicates:
How to connect a word and a phrase with a dash?
Multiple compound words
Should I use “ related” or “-related”

I'm aware of the general rules for using hyphens in compound nouns, but I'm baffled by the correct use of hyphens in the compound noun 'system model driven approach'. This is a specialty term in computer science and is interpreted as "approach, that is driven, by system models (compound noun)".

My manuscript editor wants to typeset this 4-word noun as "system model-driven approach" but my eyes tell me it's wrong because I read it as "system {model driven} approach" whereas what needs to be communicated is "{system model} driven approach".

I've tried to check this from some available style guides but can't find good guidance. So the question is which one of these alternatives is best, or are all these wrong?

• system model driven approach


• system-model driven approach


• system-model-driven approach

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

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.

pronouns - Do you use the masculine or feminine with "victim"?

My mother tongue is Latin-based so I'm used to differences in male/female for neutral words. I don't know how this would work with some words in English.

If the "victim" in a sentence is neutral (ie: it could be either a man or a woman, in this context it makes absolutely no difference and we don't know if it's a man or a woman), should I use "his" or "her"?

My instinct would tell me to use his but I seem to remember encountering her in such a neutral situation before.

EDIT:

Here is the exact sentence (it's from a IT Security paper I'm writing):

Finally the paper will demonstrate how the attacker may control the
contents of the web pages delivered to the victim as well as redirect
his downloads towards malicious files.

As you can see I used his here, is that correct?

Answer

There really is no correct answer to this question, and not even a good consensus convention.

Here are some options, such as they are:

1. Generic he
   Doing this, however, in English -- a language without gendered nouns -- can prove inaccurate and may strike some readers as sexist. You could also do a generic she but this will definitely read as reactionary and may distract readers unintentionally.




2. Singular they
   
   This is probably the most common in non-formal writing and in speech. But many consider the mere idea of treating a plural pronoun as singular to be offensive to proper usage.




3. s/he or he or she
   You can always choose not to choose! This however can read as needlessly verbose and call attention to itself.




4. Alternate
   Many people opt to use male and female pronouns in alternate. This has the same issue as 1, but avoids the preferential treatment of the male gendered term. For longer texts (essays, books) this strikes me as the best approach.




5. Avoid the pronoun
   This can be awkward, but in some cases you can be slightly less economical and avoid the pronoun altogether. In your example sentence, you might write: "Someone could attack a victim and take that person's coat."

Again, no right answers here. Style guides differ and some just throw up their hands and remain neutral on the subject.

grammatical number - Apostrophe in “beginners guide”

In the phrase beginners guide to …, where should the apostrophe go?

1. Beginner’s Guide to […]


2. Beginners’ Guide to […]

In my particular case, this is the title for a presentation so there are multiple beginners that are being addressed.

Answer

If your intention is to address each member of the audience directly, I suggest you prefix the phrase with an appropriate article, as in:

A Beginner's Guide to Shoe Hurling

or

The Beginner's Guide to Shoe Hurling

The use of the apostrophe before s seems more apt in this context.

Although:

Beginners' Guide to Shoe Hurling

is also grammatically correct, but would make your presentation sound impersonal.

grammar - Should the "respectively" be in the parenthesis?

Right now, I'm trying to translate a document into English, and while I was working, I noticed that in the original text, the adverb "respectively" was placed outside the brackets. By placing the said adverb outside of the parenthesis, am I correct that the sentence below would be a little confusing?

"This concurs with the findings of the present study which found that difficulty sleeping has positive correlations with fatigue and anxiety (r = .287, r = .280 : p < .01) respectively."

I think in order to understand which statistic belongs to which variable (fatigue and anxiety in this case), the adverb "respectively" has be placed inside the brackets, am I correct?

I truly apologize for my lack of understanding (especially considering that someone translating something into English should know English!). I won't lie, I'm a complete newbie to English grammar and writing, and even online communication. I would appreciate any help provided to this very infantile user, thanks.

When is dropping the definite (or indefinite) article permissible and why?

I seem to be obsessed with those today.

Okay, here goes:

From The Ballad of Reading Gaol, by Oscar Wilde:

And I and all the souls in pain,
Who tramped the other ring,
Forgot if we ourselves had done
A great or little thing,
And watched with gaze of dull amaze
The man who had to swing.

From The Raven, by Edgar Allan Poe:

Open here I flung the shutter,
when, with many a flirt and flutter,
In there stepped a stately Raven of the saintly days of yore;
Not the least obeisance made he;
not a minute stopped or stayed he;
But, with mien of lord or lady, perched above my chamber door—
Perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door—
Perched, and sat, and nothing more.

Most native speakers here would know these two poems by heart (and, I suspect, some non-native ones would too): we read them over and over and commit them to memory as kids. It would not therefore be immediately obvious to everyone that the articles are missing. But they are. How is this justified?

grammaticality - "i.e." with "me", "myself", or "i"?

I'm an engineer, and I'm writing an email that includes the following sentence (emphasis added for this question):

We need to let marketing weigh in on the naming of this feature, as an engineer (i.e., me) came up with the current name.

My personal rule for secondary personal pronouns is that I try restructuring the sentence to put the pronoun in the primary location and see what works. For the above, that would be:

We need to let marketing weigh in on the naming of this feature, as I came up with the current name.

This implies that the correct version of the first sentence would be:

We need to let marketing weigh in on the naming of this feature, as an engineer (i.e., I) came up with the current name.

... which sounds awful to this American ear.

What pronoun should I be using here? Or, should I avoid the issue by restructuring the sentence (and to heck with the perhaps forced levity)?

grammar - In my house, "there were" or "there was" many toys

Which of the following is correct and why:

1) In my house, there were many toys.

2) In my house, there was many toys.

An answer with an explanation would be greatly appreciated.

grammatical number - Plural followed by singular - "have" or "has"?

I'm wondering which of the following is correct:

Guns are an invention that have had an enormous impact on African history.

or

Guns are an invention that has had an enormous impact on African history.

These sentences aren't actually being used in my report, but I decided to create them to save you from the grammatical horror of my actual run-on sentences.

Anyway, I know "have" is used for plural subjects and "has" is used for singular subjects (wrong term, I'm sure), but I'm unsure as to whether the subject is the plural "guns" or the singular "invention." Microsoft Word is suggesting the latter sentence. Is that correct?

Answer

The subject of the verb is an invention - which is singular, so the verb-form should be too.

Here are a few written instances of "are an invention that has". Note that Google Books contains no examples of "are an invention that have".

Don't bother even thinking about what Microsoft Word recommends or queries - at best it might be useful for flagging up glaring typos/etc. Beyond that, it has no credibility.

adjectives - Iced Grande Latte or Grande Iced Latte

I want to order a Grande-sized cup of iced latte. Should I order "Iced Grande Latte" or "Grande Iced Latte" ?

I looked up for adjective order. The first result from Google says

1. Quantity or number


2. Quality or opinion


3. Size


4. Age


5. Shape



6. Color


7. Proper adjective (often nationality, other place of origin, or material)


8. Purpose or qualifier.

So according to the list, "iced grande latte" seems to be the correct one. Somehow I remember that I have heard both of them, although "iced grande latte" comes more often.

EDIT: Now that I am aware of What is the rule for adjective order? (thanks to @TimLymington for giving me the pointer), it is still a bit unclear to me as to which one is the correct answer. Or does it even make sense to ask about the correct ordering here? Because after reading the post, adjective ordering seems like a topic that we have not fully understood yet. Lots of discussions are still ongoing.

The thing is that I always order "grande iced latte". But the barista almost always says "iced grande latte". After I come to think about it more deeply, it may be because with different sizes of cups (tall, grande, venti, etc.) they add different amount of espresso shots (1, 2, 3, etc.) and that ice cubes are the last things they put into the cup.

Then different sizes of cups should generally contain different amount of espresso shots. Because of this the barista then needs to know first which size to prepare (i.e., how many shots to get from the machine). So in general, when ordering coffee from a cafe, it seems to make more sense to say "iced grande latte", doesn't it?

Answer

The list of adjective order applies in the absence of other factors that would dictate the order. In this case, there are a number of factors that would define the order.

• Is one of the adjectives part of the item's name? If the menu lists "iced latte", that's the product name. Choosing the serving size doesn't change the product name, so it would be "grande iced latte" in that case.




• If the menu simply lists "latte", does one of the adjectives define an aspect that leads people to perceive it as a different beverage? Size doesn't do that, but "Iced" might refer to a variation that gives it a very different character and drinker experience. In that case, it should be the modifier closest to the word, "grande iced latte".




• Next on the list would be if one of the adjectives refers to a substantive preparation process and the other doesn't, in which case it should be the closest modifier. Dispensing into cups of different sizes is a trivial difference. "Iced" may involve a non-trivial preparation process (i.e., more that dropping a few ice cubes into the cup of latte right before serving).




• The last factor, in the absence of anything else, might be the preparation sequence. If iced latte is prepared and then dispensed into a large cup, it would be "grande iced latte". If latte is prepared, dispensed into a large cup, and then ice is added, it would be "iced grande latte".

nouns - What is the correct way to pluralize an acronym?

For example, if I wanted to write the equivalent of

There are many automated teller machines in this city.

Would it be

There are many ATMs in this city.

or

There are many ATM's in this city.
(could get confused with possessive form or contraction).

or just

There are many ATM in this city.
(assuming the final s is included in Machines represented by M).

Maybe something else?

Answer

The Chicago Manual of Style has an interesting way to address this: They omit the apostrophe, unless there are periods in the abbreviation. So this would give you ATMs, or alternately A.T.M.'s. (A.T.M.s looks weird.) chicagomanualofstyle.org, "Plurals"

This page indicates that acronyms ending in the letter "S" get an apostrophe, something I've seen before, but can't find in a general reference. So one would write ATMs and SOS's.

This page on the North Carolina State University website references AP's rule as being to always use an apostrophe.

The 2009 AP Stylebook's "plurals" entry has no section on acronyms, but mentions "VIPs", I can't find anything addressing how to specifically pluralize acronyms. (The "abbreviations and acronyms" section is also of no help.)

Personally, I omit using apostrophes unless I can't avoid it. I do use them when talking about single letters or where it would avoid confusion. (For example, SOs for "Significant Others" looks like an incorrectly capitalized SOS.)

To paraphrase Carol Fisher Saller, the clearer usage is the correct one.

meaning - Why not "get" a friend?

It is only natural you would want to have a friend if you moved to a different country for some reason and therefore you don't have any local friend there.

As I was looking the other day into the usage of verbs that usually go together with the very popular word "friend," I learned, unexpectedly, English speakers hardly say, "get a friend," when they commonly say, "find a friend," which is very familiar to me too.

Even more interestingly and confusingly, they often talk about "getting" a girlfriend or boyfriend as well as "finding"a girlfriend or boyfriend.

Why not "get" a friend to mean the same as "find" a friend? I'm seriously curious if my understanding is correct.

grammar - Is "whom" correct in "I speak of him, whom is..."

Is the following sentence grammatically correct?

I speak of him, whom is one of the best people I've met.

I think that sentence to be grammatically incorrect. I believe it to be as such because you could replace "whom" in that sentence with "and he"; the word "he" in that situation would indicate that you would replace "he" with "who", not "whom". This is why I believe I know the answer to be that it would be "who", not "whom". However, I get confused because of the fact that you could also change the sentence by placing "of" before "whom". In that case, to my knowledge, it would be grammatically correct.

Answer

It's wrong but may be about to become correct. There is really no definite answer because this is a point where the English language is changing right now. Currently there are four basic competing styles for choosing between who and whom.

1. Who is the subject case, whom is the object case. The case of a relative pronoun is determined by its function in the relative clause.




2. The word whom is obsolete. It has been replaced by who in all contexts.




3. The word whom is nothing more than a substitute for who that can be used wherever who can be used, to indicate formality.




4. Who is the subject case, whom is the object case. The case of a relative pronoun is determined by the function of the referent in the main clause.

Style 1 is the oldest and in some sense the most 'correct' rule. It comes naturally to older people, to people who have read a lot of classical literature, and to native speakers of other languages that make similar case distinctions. (E.g. in German, who is wer and whom is wen or wem depending on which object case it is - accusative or dative.)

Style 2 is a logical and straightforward consequence of natural language change. After already merging dative and accusative into a common object case, English has almost completely lost the distinction between subject case and object case. The role that was once played by cases has mostly been taken over by prepositions - especially to and of. As the who/whom distinction is no longer needed, the m in whom has been fading for centuries. Nowadays many younger speakers no longer make it. This is so common and so logical that by now it is generally considered just as correct as style 1.

Style 3 arises naturally in an environment in which speakers who grew up with style 2 are confronted with the word whom. Normally this happens only in formal text and speech, and for many there is not enough input to understand that who cannot always be replaced by whom. (This is similar to the extremely jarring abuse of thou and thee often encountered in computer games, where these obsolete singular pronouns tend to be used as if they were full synonyms for you.)

Style 4 arises in a way similar to style 3. The speaker understands that the who/whom distinction is the same as the he/him distinction, but since who[m] is the only relative pronoun still allowing this distinction, for some speakers there is not enough correct input (and some misleading input from followers of styles 2 and 3) to form the correct hypothesis on which case wins if the cases in the main clause and in the relative clause don't agree. So they make the wrong choice and stick to it.

Styles 3 and 4 are not generally considered correct, but they seem to be getting more and more popular and so I am somewhat reluctant to call them completely wrong. (Though I do hate them. I sympathise with James Thurber, who wrote a great little piece ridiculing them. Unfortunately, many younger people probably can't even understand its humour fully any more.)

The sentence in question is correct according to styles 3 (any sentence involving him who[m] is clearly meant to be formal) and 4 (the referent him in the main clause is clearly in the object case) but not according to style 1 (who is the subject of the relative clause) or 2.