Stating facts that occured in the past

We were shocked when we found/find out the toilet had/has no flush.

My natural intuition would lead me to write this way:

We were shocked when we found out the toilet had no flush.

Then I thought that I was really trying to say that it's the kind of traditional toilet where there is no such thing as a flush — they cover them with banana leaves (seriously).
So, I am stating a fact that still holds true. Hence I revised as below.

We were shocked when we find out the toilet has no flush.

Can someone please explain and/or correct the sentence above?

omissibility - Can "who" as a relative pronoun sometimes be omitted?

Somebody once observed two things:

• people often omit the relative pronoun "who" or "whom" to avoid having to worry about which is grammatically correct


• however, in all cases where it can be omitted, it is "whom".

But look at this sentence:

I have a friend I hope will come.

Would you consider this to be grammatical, and therefore a counterexample to the latter point?

Answer

The grammaticality of your sentence is a good example of the mess people get into when they starting thinking about grammatical case in English, and why "whom" gives so much trouble.

There is such a rule, but it is not about whether the relative pronoun would be "who" or "whom": it is about whether or not the NP (noun phrase) which is the antecedent of the relative clause is the subject of that clause.

In

The man who came yesterday was French

you cannot omit "who", because "the man" is the subject of the relative clause.

In

The man (who(m)) I saw yesterday was French

you can, because "the man is the object of "I saw".

In simple cases there is only one clause introduced by the relative, so if the antecedent is not the subject of it, it will be in the objective case, and "whom" is appropriate, if we use it at all.

The man (whom) I saw yesterday was French

But the given example is complex, with an embedded clause [I hope [(that) he will come], so the antecedent "the man" is actually the subject of the (inner) embedded clause. Thus the structure is

I have (a friend (who I hope (he will come)))

where the 'he' is replaced by the 'who' (not 'whom') in the clause above, and then optionally omitted because neither it nor its containing clause is the subject of the relative clause.

It's worth noting that this is a case where people who do want to use "whom" sometimes get confused, and use "whom" 'incorrectly'.

word choice - What is correct in English - "I am sorry it took so long" vs "I am sorry that it took so long"

• "I am sorry it took so long"


• "I am sorry that it took so long"

Are both of these sentences correct? If so, what is the difference between them?

Answer

That in this case is optional, so both are grammatically correct.
Depending on the communicative situation you may slightly decide for one over the other.
In normal speech situations I'd probably use the first one but contracted I'm sorry it took so long.

grammatical number - Using degrees for directions: should it be singular or plural

I am confused whether to use singular or plural for "degree" used in directions/bearings. Is it grammatically correct to write "1 degree East of South", and "0.23 degrees West of South"?

Answer

Generally with any units we use the singular with 1 and the plural with anything else.

Some cases where there is disagreement are:

1. -1. Some take this as a case of one and some as a case of not-one and pluralise accordingly. (see Is -1 followed by a singular or plural noun?)




2. 1.0 or other cases of 1 with greater precision than integer. Again, some take this as a case of one but generally it's taken as a case of not-one (see Is 1.0 singular or plural?)




3. Adjectival use. This doesn't so much happen with directions but does with other uses of degrees. An angle of 30 degrees is a 30-degree angle. This is an extension of how attributive uses of nouns are singular. (Even in always-plural cases; a press for trousers is a trouser-press, a sharpener for scissor-sharpener, most book shops have more than one book). (This seems to be why the EU advised at one point that the plural for Euro in English should be Euros despite the general advice being to follow the normal pluralisation rules of the language in question; someone got thrown by such expressions as "ten-pound note").

word choice - 'Did see' and 'Saw'

The blog post here uses the title

“Isn’t this just the cutest thing you
ever did see?”

I am sure this is correct, but my question is, but what difference it would have made had he used the following version instead:

“Isn’t this just the cutest thing you
ever saw?”

Answer

There is a formulaic expression in English, going back quite a while, that goes "the xxxxxest xxxx you ever did see. From Google books:

1666: the finest pile I ever did see — from Samuel Pepys' diary
1792: strangest reason perhaps you ever did or will hear
1799: the ugliest old creature I ever did see
1832: the highest tree prehaps you ever did see
1832: the drollest varmint perhaps you ever did see
1835: the primest piece you ever did see
1836: the most knowing-looking little bit of a horse you ever did see
1836: most genial islands you ever did see
1851: the greatest muss you ever did see
1866: we have got one of the gratis olde raskells for a Captain you ever did see
1884: the sickest little shaver you ever did see
1920: the best bunch of man-hunters you ever did see
1968: the biggest lock you ever did see
1973: the cutest thing that I ever did see
2000: the happiest child you ever did see

A substantial fraction of the Google hits for "you ever did see" follow this formula. My answer would be: there's no significant difference in meaning here; it's just an instance of this formula.

From Google books search, it appears to have increased in usage fairly abruptly in the 1830s. Did it really, and if so, where did this come from? The only thing that I can think of is the children's song. But there's no evidence this dates back to the 1830s.

Present Perfect vs. Simple Past: Are the solutions supplied by an English website correct?

I am a native English speaker who has just begun to tutor ESL students. I have found some exercise sheets on the internet and I disagree with some of the answers, I would appreciate some other opinions. The object of the exercises is to select which of the 2 verb tenses is correct.

1. I ____ (drink) three cups of coffee this morning.

The answer given is "have drunk", but I believe it depends on when I am saying it. If it is already this afternoon, than "drank" is correct.

2. Sorry, I ____ (miss) the bus, so I'm going to be late.

The answer given is "have missed", and this is fine, but I believe "missed" is also perfectly acceptable. Even though the consequences of the action are still palpable, the event itself is over.

To give an extreme example, "My great-great-grandfather blew up a mirror factory, so I still have 7736 years of bad luck coming". Although the consequences are still reverberating, it would be incorrect to use "has blown up".

3. She ______ (play) hockey at school, but she ______ (not / like) it.

The answer given is "played / didn't like", which is fine. But wouldn't it also be grammatically acceptable to say "has played / hasn't liked"?

Furthermore, I feel it would also be fine to say "has played / didn't like". She has played several games, and may play more, so PP is fine for the first clause. Simple past for the second clause, because the games are over and she didn't enjoy it. Even if she plays more and enjoys future games, she still did not enjoy the first few games. If you claim that the "it" implies that there was only one game, I think that the "it" pronoun refers to the act of playing in games, not to the games themselves.

Link to questions

Ending a clause with a preposition, rule of thumb or hard rule?

So we've all heard the admonishments from our teachers not to end a clause with a preposition

A plumber visits a wealthy estate to fix a clogged toilet. As the butler opens the door, the plumber barks out,"I'm here to fix the toilet. Where's your bathroom at?"

"Please try to speak with more discretion. We do not want to disturb our neighbors with the details of our plumbing issues. And we most certainly do not end our sentences with prepositions, sir.

So the plumber lowers his tone and says more cordially, "I'm here to fix the toilet. Where's your bathroom at, asshole."

Anyway, back to the matter at hand. I have come under the impression that this is a rule of thumb to help the elementary student avoid mismatching case for the target of the preposition rather than a hard rule. For example by placing the preposition closer to its target, you avoid constructs like: "Who did you give the invitation to?" instead of the proper "To whom did you give the invitation?". Moving the preposition closer makes the incorrect case sound absurd. No one would ever say "To who did you give the invitation?"

All of this introductory text leads up to this simple question: Is this phrase correct "Whom did you give the invitation to?" or is it still incorrect english even though we addressed the issue of case?

Answer

I would say it's a rule of thumb, to avoid students make errors.

The NOAD, in the note about the usage of who versus whom reports that

The normal practice in modern English is to use who instead of whom and, where applicable, to put the preposition at the end of the sentence.
- Who do you think we should support?
- Who do you wish to speak to?

It also reports that

Such uses are today broadly accepted in standard English, but in formal writing it is best to maintain the distinction.

As you are using whom, the correct sentence is

To whom did you give the invitation?

syntactic analysis - Can a gerund be modified by an adjective?

Is the sentence below grammatically correct?

Good writing requires hard work.

Or should it read:

Writing well requires hard work.

Can a gerund be modified by an adjective or must it be modified necessarily by an adverb?

If it can be modified by an adjective, when you diagram it, would the good come off of the word writing on the stilt, or would it go below the regular baseline?

meaning - "You hear but you don't listen" or "You listen but you don't hear"?

My teacher introduced the quote:

1. You look but you don’t see. You hear but you don’t listen.

But I also saw books saying:

2. You look but you don’t see. You listen but you don’t hear.

So which one is correct? I am between a rock and a hard place.

In terms of grammar, I think the second one is right because it is more
parallel as look and listen are both intransitive while see and
hear are both transitive.

But the first one also sounds reasonable to me as listen implies the
person is doing the action intentionally. You can hear a foreign
language without knowing it but you can only listen to a foreign
language if you understand it, right?

grammaticality - Which one is correct: "Materializes as" or "Materializes into"

I am confused about how to use the verb "materializes". Consider the following sentence:

"Being a blacksmith is great because all the effort you put into your profession materializes as actual physical objects that you can marvel at."

Is it correct to say "materializes as"? Or is it more appropriate to say "materializes into"? They both sound correct to me in this context, which is why I am unsure about which one to use.

Answer

I think materialize may be the wrong word in this case. Rather than materializing into or as something, a thing materializes when it moves from potentiality to actuality.

(of ideas and wishes) to become real or true

Instead, I propose yield:

"to supply or produce something positive such as a profit, an amount of food, or information"

"Being a blacksmith is great because all the effort you put into your profession yields actual physical objects that you can marvel at."

grammatical number - "These are my children who want me to..." or "It's my children who want me to..."? And why?

Which of the following two lines is correct?

• These are my children who want me to learn cooking.


• It's my children who want me to learn cooking.

I am not very familiar with the codified rules of grammar, but based on my reading experience, I am pretty sure the second line is correct. But then, I don't know why it is so. Isn't "children" plural?

Omitting articles in nouns - prepositions; after; to; before; from

Why is the indefinite article omitted here?

Could it be the definite article, but omitted? Like in the following case in an instruction:

Grasp drumstick. Place knife between thigh and body; cut through skin
to joint. Separate thigh and drumstick at joint.

All those omittions would normally have the definite article, but this doesn't seem plausible in my case.

Why is there no article here, too?

I've noticed that this happens only with the following prepositons:

before; after; from; to || day after day; from person to person; from teacher to student

My questions are: Why are the articles omitted in all those examples? Does it have something to do with comparisons? Is there any rule for this usage?

grammar - Can I say "listen for it" and "smell for it"?

I often hear the term to look for it:

"I have studied symbolism in fine arts for years, and now I see symbolism in everything. I just can't stop myself after I learned how to look for it."

Feel for it is also frequently used:

"Jimmy was a great guitar player. He didn't even think while playing; his guitar functioned like an extension to his arms. He just had this natural feel for it."

It also works for listening, although it sounds a bit odd:

"This city is teeming with songbirds, but their chirps are drowned by the ambiance. You might be able to catch a few seconds here and there if you listen for it."

But how about for smelling?:

"My father knows a chef whose sense of smell is so good that he can step into the farmers market and locate the perfect onion by sticking his nose in the air to smell for it."

For listening it sounds bit odd, and for smelling it sounds downright wrong to me, but I can't explain why. Are all of the above sentences well-formed English sentences?

Answer

The words you will hear more often are along the lines of sniff it out.

The idiom sniff out is defined as (from The Free Dictionary):

To perceive or detect someone or something by or as if by sniffing:
The dogs sniffed out the trail through the snow.
The detectives sniffed the plot out and arrested the criminals.

A similar idiom is nose out, having essentially the same meaning in this context. (It can also mean to prevail over someone by a small margin.)

Is this passive voice and if so, how do I change to active?

Women no longer were restricted under the control of their husbands and were able to go in pursuit for their own happiness.

Is there a word which means whatever you want it to mean? Or has no meaning?

I'm looking for a word which can be used in any situation to describe something in whatever way you want, i.e it's not a word and just fits in to places..., but is there an actual word which does that?

grammatical number - Pumpkin Noodles is a thing or are a thing?

Which of the following is correct?

How come pumpkin noodles is not a thing?

or

How come pumpkin noodles are not a thing?

I want to post one of the above statements to Twitter with a picture of a bowl of pumpkin noodles i.e. the stuff that comes out of a hollowed out pumpkin.

meaning - I have not invited her to the party vs I didn't invite her to the party

I want to know the difference between the following sentences and also want to know which one is correct

If someone asks me at the party that Have you invited her/Did you invite her ? Then which answer will sound good?

1. I have not invited her to the party




2. I didn't invite her to the party

Please someone tell me the differences , thanks

Answer

A great deal depends on what you want to say. In general, you would reply to a question using the same construction as the question. So if asked, "Did you invite her to the party?", you would probably respond "I did not invite her," or simply, "I did not." And the same pattern would apply to "Have you invited her?.

However, there is a difference in the two phrases. "I did not invite her" refers to a specific point or period of time in the past, while "I have not invited her" refers to the present. So if asked, "Did you invite her to the party" and you respond, "I have not invited her", the change in tense from past to present would usually suggest that you might invite her in the future (*I have not invited her, but I'm thinking of doing so), or it might serve to emphatically (but implicitly) mean "I have not invited her (and I have no intention of doing so)," The difference would be established by tone, expression and body language.

Plural verb used with singular subject

Today I was reading a programming book and I encountered the following sentence (emphases mine):

In this case, for example, the type that all three compilers report
for param are incorrect.

I'm not an English native speaker but since the very first moment I went through that statement I felt like something didn't flow smoothly:

the subject of the sentence (the type) seems to be singular, however the verb that refers to it (are) is plural. Am I missing anything here?

Answer

There are different interpretations:

1. All three compilers report the same type, which is incorrect. In that case it should be singular is.




2. Each compiler reports a different type. So all three types are not correct, but they are not the same either. In that case are is fine.

While each compiler only reports a single type, there are three of them, and so the resulting list of types might contain several different ones or just one and the same.

UPDATE: The text (Scott Meyers' Effective C++) continues with the sentence Furthermore, they're essentially required to be incorrect [...], so with a plural reference. This indicates to me that the author indeed means to refer to the three types; but uses the singular type as each compiler only reports one. It is an interesting usage, though types would probably have been less confusing in this instance.

coordinating conjunctions - Coordinative ellipsis with not and unparellel structure

I worked and did not play.

I worked and not played. ?

For some reason, when the ellipsis is used after the simple past form of the verb with no "to be" used before it, it just sounds weird to me. Is there something wrong with it, or is it just that it is not idiomatical? Or am I the one who's wrong?

I had to control myself and not cry in front of her.

I always thought that second part has been used independently and not connected to the "had to" part, for I thought there should be additional "to" like this

I had to control myself and had to not cry.

Or at least this: I had to control myself and to not cry in front of her. (It doesn't sound very idiomatic... is it acceptable?)

Is the "to" deleted? If it is, why is that?

And also, when I was trying to find the answer for this question, it was clear that everybody was asserting only the parallel form should be allowed for the ellipsis after the coordinating conjunction. For example:

Sarah is [a CEO] and [proud of her job]. - NP + AP

Is Jim [conservative] and [a closet Republican]? - A + NP

He is a crazy man and may drink a lot. -NP+V

These (only the three sentences directly above it) are from Wikipedia, and not regarded as being incorrect. But looking up at the other websites, I find that they say that it is wrong, even though many people, including me, use it this way. They say that it should be parallel like this:

Sarah is [a CEO] and [a person proud of her job]. - NP + NP

Is it supposed to be always parallel?

Answer

For these to be correct you must be able to attach the subject to both of the phrases surrounding the coordinating conjunction individually, as you stated. There is no reason for a sentence to not be correct if it follows this rule.

• I [worked] and [did not play].


• I [worked] and [not played].

The first sentence is correct because you can split it into I worked and I did not play whereas splitting the second sentence gets you I not played which is ungrammatical, therefore the original sentence is ungrammatical.

• I had to [control myself] and [not cry in front of her].


• I had [to control myself] and [to not cry in front of her].

Both of these are technically correct, however the first is much more fluid. The second sentence is grammatical but can take on a slightly different meaning than the first sentence. Here, not crying in front of her is implicitly a separate event from controlling yourself because the to after and "resets" the function of the coordinating conjunction; the and implies a relationship between the two phrases, but inserting to breaks this.

• Sarah is [a CEO] and [proud of her job].


• Sarah is [a CEO] and [a person proud of her job].


• Sarah [is a CEO] and [is proud of her job].

These are all grammatical based on my first point. I have added a third version because this is one of the more common ways this sentence would be used. Many would say the first is too short, the second is too long, but the third is just right. Past the rule I stated, there isn't a definitive way to pick the truly correct version here. It's all user preference because they're all grammatical.

---

A little bit on parallel and unparallel structure:
Both structures are correct and can be used interchangeably. In my explanations above, I was stressing parallel structure since it is the better way to go. However, unparallel structure still works. Here is an example:

I bought a new refrigerator, dish washer, and the oven will be delivered tomorrow.

This is unparallel because the sentence can be split into two parts, I bought a new refrigerator and I bought a new dish washer, but the third part doesn't follow the I bought a new pattern. The third part grammatically fits but doesn't keep the pattern. This structure is used quite often, but it isn't the more correct way to write.

commas - Can a conjuction prevent run-on sentences without punctuation?

I understand that run-on sentences join independent clauses without a word to connect them or a punctuation mark to separate them, but can a connecting word suffice to prevent a sentence from running on? (Yeah, I just ended that with a preposition. Grammar Girl's got my back.) For instance:

I know a comma without a conjunction creates a comma splice but a semicolon will suffice.

Or:

I learned to stop worrying and now I love the bomb.

I don't like these and would prefer to add commas before the conjunctions, but can I actually insist on it as a matter of grammatical correctness, or would that make me a dogmatic jerk? I think I'd actually most prefer to be tolerant, for whatever that's worth, but not if it means disregarding a rule.

I see related discussion here, so I admit this may be a duplicate, but I'll let the community decide. For my purposes at least, I could use a clearer answer than I see there, if there is one to be had.

Answer

The standard answer to your question is use the comma unless you don’t really need it:

In a sentence containing two or more independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction (and, but, or, nor, for, so, yet), put a comma before the conjunction. This is not a hard-and-fast rule; no comma is needed between two short independent clauses with no internal punctuation. — Kate L. Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Research Papers Theses, and Dissertations, 2013, 295.

A guide to business and professional writing takes the opposite approach — don’t use a comma unless you have to:

The comma before a coordinating conjunction that joins two independent clauses is optional in professional writing. If a comma helps the meaning or point of your sentence, use it. If a comma seems to create an unnecessary break, then don’t use it. — Paul MacRae, Business and Professional Writing: A Basic Guide, 2015.

The first guide is closely allied to the Chicago Manual of Style; the second supports its argument with a now dead link to a Canadian university. You decide. I suspect that were one to quiz the author of the business writing guide, his global permissiveness would likely reduce to the use of and, but not but or yet because of their contrastive nature.

Both guides agree that short independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction require no comma. How short is short is left to the writer.

18.09.2012 · You can read the entire Electronic Code of Federal Regulations Title 7 Part 205.236 (but you won't so I will summarize). — “How Long Does it Take to Become Organic: Organic Myths Part 1,” Zweber Family Farms.

Few would object to the lack of a comma before so, especially in such a short, parenthetical sentence. In practice, however, even in that context, but will take a comma:

21.09.2017 · I can't tell you what the shows will be about (well, I could, but I won't), but I will tell you a couple of things they WON'T be. — “Has George R.R. Martin Already Revealed the Subject of One Game of Thrones Spin-Off?” Vanity Fair

This would suggest that your first example would require a comma before but, but whether you put a comma before and in the second is up to you. To most speakers, there would also be a slight difference in meaning.

I learned to stop worrying and now I love the bomb.

No comma increases the topicality of now loving the bomb; with the comma, which would also be indicated in speech, there is more of a two-part process:

[First] I learned to stop worrying, and now I love the bomb.

As far as I know, following the comma advice of the guide based on the Chicago Manual has not yet been stigmatized as pedantic, like, say, insisting on never splitting infinitives even when the result is awkward. So I’m a bit puzzled about your concern.

possessives - Why use apostrophe-s to denote possession when using 'of'

Think of the simple phrase "Bill's friend".

If you were going to turn this around using the preposition 'of' would you say:

• A friend of Bill's
  or


• A friend of Bill

It appears to me that, in the US anyway, people always say "A friend of Bill's".

Even though I'm a native American English speaker, this just sounds weird to me. It seems to create a 'double possessive' (a term I just invented). I always want to respond: "A friend of Bill's what?" A friend of Bill's aunt?

So what's at work here, and do British English speakers also do this?

Answer

As @FX_ points out, it’s called a double genitive or double possessive.

In this example, it’s not compulsory: both a friend of Bill’s and a friend of Bill are correct, although the first is probably more common. (Usage data, anyone?)

If Bill were replaced by a pronoun, however (poor Bill!), the double genitive would be required: a friend of mine is correct, but not a friend of me. (Similarly with yours vs. you, his vs. he, etc.)

Also, sometimes, this is needed to avoid ambiguity between the possessive and other uses of of: for instance, a picture of Bill’s means that he owns the picture, whereas a picture of Bill means he’s portrayed in it.

The correct usage of past tense with just

I understand that phrase:

"I have just bought a house".

is correct.

But I also saw, that sometimes people could say:

"I just bought a house."

Is it correct?

Answer

The use of temporal just with a Perfect construction evokes the Hot News! sense of the Perfect.

This sense is almost always used for recent events of great importance. Generally the Past is OK, too.

• Botswana has just invaded Uruguay.


• Botswana invaded Uruguay this morning.

In the case of the original examples, the event is certainly important enough

• I've just bought a house.



• I just bought a house.

but there is no real difference in meaning or use, no grammatical or semantic distinction, between the two. Although certain sentences sound odd with one or the other form, because of irrelevant restrictions on individual constructions.

Different speakers with different habits and experience will probably see potential distinctions to make, but nobody will see or make the same ones. When either choice is OK, a speaker chooses the one that sounds best to them, for whatever reasons they may have.

punctuation - Comma Splice? "I'm curious, what is the time?"

I asked a question earlier regarding alternative ways of structuring indirect questions
(please refer to this link).

Forgive me if I'm over analyzing this, but I never write sentences like this so I am not sure about the punctuation.

"I am curious, what is the time?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the definition of a comma splice when you join two independent clauses without a conjunction? Both "I am curious" and "What is the time" are complete sentences. Normally if I were to say this statement, I would put a pause between the two clauses. If i said it faster, I would say it as an indirect question such as, "I am curious what the time is" or "I'm curious about the time".

The responses in my previous post said to use either a comma, colon, or a dash. Would a comma really be okay, or would this be a comma splice?

Second question is this: Since you start with the statement, "I am curious" wouldn't you have to end the sentence with a period?

By the way, the context of my question would be for formal emails with a conversational tone, and I would be writing in the 1st person.

relative clauses - "a patient who is" or "a patient whom is"?

I am still very confused on when to use who and whom, I understand the idea these sentences are correct:

• He is the person who won the competition.


• That is the person whom I went on holiday with.

But what would be correct in the following sentence:

This image shows a patient who is... or whom is?

Would it be who because the patient is the subject, or is it?

grammatical number - "Couple was" or "couple were" getting married?

I have recently read both:

couple is getting married

couple are getting married

So which is actual usage?

Answer

From Ngrams, you can see that "couple were married" beats "couple was married". This is especially true for British English.

Looking at the Ngram results for American and British English, while both forms are currently used roughly equally often in the U.S., hardly anybody says "the couple is getting married" in the U.K.

subjunctive mood - The third conditional for "if I could"

What is the third conditional for "if I could"? For example, we say:

If I had studied hard, I would have passed the exam. How about this:

If I could study, I would have passed the exam.[Is there a past perfect for could?]

Answer

Although could is the past tense of can, past tense in modals often doesn't mean past time. In the if I could, the past tense could has a counterfactual meaning rather than a past time meaning. Of course, the verb following the modal can't be past tense, so to give it a past time meaning, use the perfect aspect (i.e., could + have + past participle). So your example about studying could be changed to

If I could have studied, I would have passed.

Another option, as Irene has pointed out, is to avoid could and use be able, leading to

If I had been able to study, I would have passed.

The idea of zero, first, second, and third conditional has been much criticszed. See, for example, here.

When can I omit the auxiliary verb in Past Perfect...?

I've come across two examples of past-perfect in the textbook and was wondering if someone could please explain why the latter sentences still use 'had' and why it shouldn't be omitted:

1) When I arrived, Jack had cleaned the room and made dinner.

OK. Subject = Jack, Actions = had cleaned the room / had made dinner. Second 'had' omitted as the subject is the same and the compound verb shares the same auxiliary.

2) They had had accidents and they had been rescued. They had been afraid and they had escaped.

?? Why is the auxiliary 'had' still in the sentences? It's the same subject 'they' and they are both using the same auxiliary? Shouldn't it be 'they had had accidents and been rescued'?

If someone could please explain it to me - I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

Answer

Both constructions, repeating had or not, are perfectly acceptable.

(1) describes fairly mundane activities in an informal manner.

(2) apparently refers to some significant, dramatic events. A more 'correct', formal style is used to emphasise the gravity of what has happened.

word usage - How did "inferno" enter the English language?

The more common and oldest English term to refer to the infernal region is Hell:

• Old English hel, helle, "nether world, abode of the dead, infernal regions, place of torment for the wicked after death," from Proto-Germanic *haljo "the underworld".

A foreign term with the same meaning entered the English Laguage centuries later. The term is Inferno and its usage appear to be from the works of the medieval poet Dante Alighieri.

• 1834, "Hell, the infernal regions," from Italian inferno, from Late Latin infernus "Hell," in classical Latin "the lower world". The Italian form inferno has been used in English since 1834, via Dante.

Curiously, the relative adjective infernal had been known in English for seven centuries before Inferno was used in English:

• late 14c., "of or pertaining to the underworld," (ancient Tartarus, the sunless abode of the dead, or the Christian Hell), from Old French enfernal, infernal "of Hell, hellish" (12c.).

(Etymonline)

Dante wrote the "Devine Comedy" in the early years of the 14th century, but, for some reason his "Inferno" became popular only in the 19th century.

(Wikipedia)

Questions:

What made Dante's "Inferno" so popular at the beginning of the 19th century as to enter English usage?

Was it originally a BrE or an AmE thing?

word choice - which is correct "a ear" or "an ear", conversely "a year" or "an year"

A(n) ear vs. a(n) year in speaking is very confusing, please clarify.

word choice - Mixing adjective and noun enumerations

I am having trouble writing a seemingly simple sentence. I am organising an event where three kinds of food will be served:

• hot beverages


• cold beverages


• finger food

My trouble deals with putting these three items together in one sentence. I have tried several ways, but all of them seem wrong:

• Hot and cold beverages and finger food will be served at every meeting (two and)


• Hot, cold beverages and finger food [...] (it looks like hot is a complete item)


• Hot beverages, cold beverages and finger food [...] (redundant beverages)


• Hot beverages, cold drinks and finger food [...] (dirty trick; I don't like it)

Putting finger food in front does not help either. What would be the right way to write this sentence?

Answer

Duplicating and is to be avoided if it causes ambiguity or confusion. Even then, use of an "Oxford comma" can sometimes remove the problem.

If this isn't the case, it's perfectly fine to duplicate and:

Hot and cold beverages and finger food will be served at every meeting.

Finger food and hot and cold beverages will be served at every meeting.

Finger food, and hot and cold beverages, will be served at every meeting.

Hot and cold beverages, and finger food, will be served at every meeting.

Are all perfectly fine, in approximate order of which strikes my personal subjective opinions as the better.

grammatical person - How to avoid mixing past and present tense in narration?

I looked through the related questions, but I didn't find any concrete advice.

I understand that it's OK to do so. I'm not sure how common it is, but I'm a beginner writer and want to keep things as simple as possible. I can pick up that fancy stuff later.

To illustrate the problem, I'll use the following example, where first-person POV narration has present tense sandwiched between past tens in a single paragraph.

I wound through the corridors toward the center of Down 15. None of the elevators were nearby, so I bounded up the stairs three at a time. Stairwells in the core are just like stairwells on Earth—short little twenty-one-centimeter-high steps. It makes the tourists more comfortable. In areas that don’t get tourists, stairs are each a half meter high. That’s lunar gravity for you. Anyway, I hopped up the tourist stairs until I reached ground level. Walking up fifteen floors of stairwell probably sounds horrible, but it’s not that big a deal here. I wasn’t even winded.

From "Artemis" by Andy Weir

When I go through my texts, I see that I'm doing the same. I'm writing in first-person POV, past tense, but when it comes to descriptions (little info dumps) and the narrator's thoughts (comments) I often switch to present tense (without thinking).

The problem lies in the word "often". I don't do it consistently.
Also when I find a spot like that I start to think can I really do that? If in the above example the Moon was blown up by the end of the story, would it still make sense to talk about the stairwells in the present tense? It's just too complicated to deal with all these logical traps. I want to keep it simple.

I can't just search for present tense (such as "are") in the word processor. As we use the present tense in the dialogues.

Is a good copy editor the only option?

Or is there maybe some mind trick that one can use? Like maybe one needs to pretend and always keep in mind that a story is told by a person who is at his/her death bed, the events happened years ago, and the storyteller doesn't know anything about current state of affairs (what happened to all these people and places). Can a certain mindset break a habit?

Any other ideas?

Please advice.

Answer

How to avoid it?

By Being Meticulous. There is no shortcut. You, as the author, are responsible for every word choice in your story. Every single one.

It reads fine to me to have the present tense as presented in Weir's snippet, but it could be clearer.

In first person (past tense), a thought can either be italicized and immediate (in which case it becomes present tense) or not (and remains past tense.)

You are the God of this world you have written, and you are responsible to know every detail of your creation. So go through it. Sentence by sentence. Figure out which thoughts of your creation are passing surface thoughts, and which are intimate deep thoughts.

If that passage was mine, (which it isn't; I have a different world), I'd do it like this:

I wound through the corridors toward the center of Down 15. None of
the elevators were nearby, so I bounded up the stairs three at a time.

The stairwells in the core were just like stairwells on Earth—short
little twenty-one-centimeter-high steps. It made the tourists more
comfortable. In the areas that didn’t get tourists, stairs were each a half
meter high.

That’s lunar gravity for you, I thought.

Anyway, I hopped up the tourist stairs until I reached ground level.
Walking up fifteen floors of stairwell probably sounds horrible, but
it’s not that big a deal here. I wasn’t even winded.

Do you feel the movement into the character brain? You have this tool available to you. Don't overdo it--develop a feel for when you want a direct thought from a character. But you need to be obsessive about going through your story with a fine tooth comb and making conscious choices. There are multiple ways to write any passage.

Should "Ladies" be marked with an apostrophe in the noun phrase "Ladies beer"?

What should it say on a label: Is it "ladies' beer" or "ladies beer?"

prepositions - "Go by a bus" or "go on a bus"?

I have been arguing with friends on this. Is it right to say 'go by a bus' or 'go on a bus'?

expressions - Neither do I / Nor do I / Me neither / Me either

In this circumstance, which would be the most correct / natural answer?

Person 1: I don't eat meat
Person 2: Neither do I / Nor do I / Me neither / Me either

This says both "neither do I" and "Me neither" are often used. But I have also heard / read "me either" and "nor do I" in multiple scenarios. Which then is the correct way of saying it? Are the others wrong or just not used?

Answer

It's not a matter of "correct"-ness. It's a matter of social class and personal presentation.

In decreasing order of falutation:

1. nor do I (archaic; now either ironic or intended to sound classy, or both)



2. neither do I (normal in writing, common in speech)


3. me either (common in speech, more familiar)


4. me neither (common in ingroup speech)

... roughly speaking, of course; I'm no sociolinguist.

This kind of social layering for language variation is completely normal, in every language. To call one mode "correct" would be wrong; appropriateness of speech or writing depends on the speaker/writer's aims, and their judgement of their relationship with their listener/reader (and of course on how accurate their judgement is). What's correct in one situation is often incorrect in another.

pronunciation - What words are commonly mispronounced by literate people who read them before they heard them?

Quite a few words are mispronounced by under-educated people, or people learning English as a second language. Some words are often mispronounced by quite educated people who read, and began reading high-level literature before they heard the vocabulary spoken.

This can lead to a vocabulary dissonance, occasionally leading to the belief that there are two words (the known spelling of one, and the verbal hearing of the same) where only one exists. Epitome is a common example that springs to mind.

Answer with a word and its proper pronunciation (and potentially, the commonly mistaken punctuation).

Use of parentheses to include both singular and/or plural possessive

GIVEN: "You can either pay for, or rent, your kid's baseball uniform."

QUESTION: If you are sending form letters to each of a number of parents, some of whom have 1 child, and others, 2 or more children, who will be playing ball, could you write:

EX.1. "You can either pay for, or rent, your kid's(s')baseball uniform(s)."

[I read the suggested "Questions that may already have your answer," above, which don't seem to pertain to the present query, and researched 's(s') online; and, so far, I haven't found anything on this. I compared my question to the questions and answers, here:
How do you make a word like "parent(s)" possessive? and thought that nothing there adequately answers it.]

UPDATE: @Davo's answer, below, is clearly a way to express what is intended. I'm asking whether or not the 's(s') construction would be correct/ understood.

grammar - "Please join me, my family and [my] crew." Can the second "my" be left out?

Is it proper to say:

Please join me, my family and crew in celebrating my Bat Mitzvah?

Or should there be a 'my' before crew?

grammaticality - "Countries List" or "Country List"?

Duplicate of:
“User accounts” or “users account”
“Employee list” or “employees list”
Should a list of tokens be called a “token list” or a “tokens list”
“BookList” or “booksList?”
Is it correct to say “lesson count” or “lessons count”?
"Thing count" or "things count"
And others

Which of the following are correct?

1. Countries List


2. Country List

It is the title of a web page where users can view the list of countries and select one.

punctuation - What does the dash ("—") in this sentence do?

Does "–" between methods and documenting have any function in this sentence? What is it trying to say?

Moreover, multi-lingual texts, like vernacular works, have traditionally had strong affinities with realist methods – documenting speech forms as they are spoken – but avant-garde, musical, parodic, sci-fi, psychic-interiorist, artificial/invented, machine, and digital multilingual works have also long followed non- and anti-realist logics.

differences - "An" average of vs. "The" average of

When nouns such as average, total, sum, etc., are modified by a prepositional phrase, how do you choose between the definite and indefinite articles? I cited sentences 1, 3, and 5 below from various sources on the Internet. As an English learner, I have always wondered what difference there is if the indefinite article is replaced by the definite article. Are sentences 2, 4, and 6 below correct or possible?

Here are example sentences:

1. He finished the season with a batting average of .357.



2. He finished the season with the batting average of .357.




3. That will use a total of about 3.3 million tons of lead.





4. That will use the total of about 3.3 million tons of lead.




5. What two prime numbers have a sum of 7?



6. What two prime numbers have the sum of 7?

I would appreciate your help much.

Answer

You have an (or a) average, maximum, minimum, or other group-based calculation of something, while you take (or calculate) the average, maximum, or minimum.

Thus your samples 1, 3, and 5 are correct, but not 2, 4, or 6.

(To clarify, as per the comments: In the example sentences, the average is a property that is already known, and it is being treated grammatically in the same way as a generic, indefinite possession and thus can take the indefinite article 'a'. If the average is an unknown number that needs to be determined, then you are taking or calculating it, and then it is a specific feature and should be referred to with the definite article 'the'.)

pronunciation - "A/An" preceding a parenthetical statement

When a/an precedes a parenthetical aside (sometimes seen in informal/conversational writing), should the vowel rule depend on the first word in parentheses, or the next word in the "regular" flow of the sentence?

I need a (memorable) idiom (preceding an m word; use a)

or

I need an (memorable) idiom (preceding an i word; use an)

Answer

The example given is not parenthetical:

(i) I need a (memorable) idiom.

A parenthesis is a remark which you insert into the middle of a sentence as if you are interrupting yourself. A parenthesis contributes to the meaning of the sentence but interrupts and stands outside its syntax. In writing, we typically use curved brackets, dashes, or commas to mark a parenthesis.

The syntax of the example sentence is not interrupted by the word memorable. Instead, the word memorable functions as an adjective modifying idiom. Consequently, the pronunciation rule applies to the word memorable and the article to use is a.

Compare this variation:

(ii) I need an (well, if I need anything at all) idiom.

Not an example of great writing, to be sure. But it shows how a parenthesis interrupts and stands outside the syntax of a sentence. The phrase “well, if I need anything at all” is not part of the noun phrase “an idiom”. The pronunciation rule still applies, but it applies to the word idiom and the article to use is an. This is true even though you would not normally pair an with well. You would, for instance, say:

(iii) I need a well known idiom.

The difference is that well is parenthetical only in example (ii) above.

grammar - How to use "The first thing I did was"?

I'm unable to figure out if the following sentence is correct:

"After I watched the movie, the first thing I did was shutdown the laptop and go outside"

Is this grammatically correct? Or should it be "..went outside".
Please help.

grammar - It seems to be correct for / to me

While I answered a question, I wrote the following sentence to say that I agreed with the solution given by the OP.

It seems to be correct for me.

Then, I wondered whether the following sentence would be better or not:

It seems to be correct to me.

It seems that both are used on the Internet, but is one of them incorrect? or maybe with difference meanings?

Answer

The comment

It seems to be correct for me

implies that what you are referring to — in this case, the OP's solution — is correct for you specifically (for instance, because of the particular circumstances you find yourself in),

whereas

It seems [to be] correct to me

means that you think it is definitively correct.

grammar - Are the usages of "that" and "which" correct in this sentence?

"I don't like commenting on things about anime series that people are currently watching which I have seen, and will try to refrain from doing so in the future, but I like how the art style changes over time."

pronouns - "Older version of me" vs. "older version of myself"

I wrote:

"...," said an older version of me.

But a native speaker of English — which I am not — replaced the me with myself. Can someone tell me which one is correct and why?

grammaticality - Thank You for inviting Steve and {me/I}?

When writing a thank you note from a husband and wife, is it correct to write the note as...

"Thank you for inviting Steve and me to your home for the birthday celebration."

Or is it,

"Thank you for inviting Steve and I"?

This seems so simple but yet I get stumped every time :/

Is there an expression for the feeling of wishing you had met someone earlier?

Is there a single word or perhaps short phrase to express the feeling one gets when they meet someone amazing, say the love of their life, and wishes that they had met sooner? A cognate would be acceptable as well.

grammar - Does sentence(s) with semicolon count for one sentence?

I am just wondering if I merge two sentences using a semicolon, then are they become one sentence or they are still two sentences but more closely connected?

For example, is the following sentence(s) count for one sentence?

He knows how important attending lectures is; however, he still missed today's lecture.

Edit

As some comments pointed out, the question seems kind of pointless without any context.

I am doing my logic course homework, which requires me to translate English into logical expression. We usually count each sentence as one premise or conclusion. I encountered one problem containing a semicolon so I am not sure whether I should divide them into two premises or just leave it as one.

I guess it's better to ask my professor.

terminology - What term is used for the programs that are educational and entertaining

Many programs on internet and TV try to attract customers by teaching through games,so what is the name of this combination?

grammaticality - Real past conditional with a single event and its conclusion in the past

If they dispatched the parcel yesterday, Jim will receive it next
Friday. But if they dispatched it last week, then

• A: Jim will have received it yesterday.



• B: Jim received it yesterday.

Are A and B both grammatical? Do they differ in meaning? Is there other forms to express the intended meaning of associating a real (not counterfactual) past event with its past conclusion?

Edit:

Max suggested the use of ‘should have’, but is that the only valid usage? I’ll provide some more examples with comments below:

Have you talked to Jim recently? Did he go to confront the neighbours
when he was having issue with their noise last week? I told him not to
because they’re violent people. If he went there:

• A: They assaulted him.


• B: They have assaulted him.


• C: They would have assaulted him.


• D: They should have assaulted him.



• E: They could have / might have assaulted him. (variation in modality)


• F: They will have assaulted him..


• G: Something else.

Another example:

Did Jim pay the fine when I told him to last week? If he didn’t:

• A: They charged him extra fees.


• B: They have charged him extra fees.


• C: They would have charged him extra fees.


• D: They should have charged him extra fees.


• E: They could have / might have charged him extra fees.


• F: They will have charged him extra fees.


• G: Something else.

Comments:

Simple past and present perfect: I can find examples in different corpora and online sources where simple past is used:

If she lied, she perjured herself.

But this usage seems to imply high certainty or automatic association. What if we want to express lesser certainty?

The perfect tense is possibly just a variation (adding an existential sense):

If she lied, she has perjured herself.

‘Should have’: is also used commonly:

If you have paid your dues, you should have received a membership card.

But because ‘should have’ is also overloaded for recommendation, its usage sounds confusing and funny on the ear in the two examples above. (Unless you do mean to use it for recommendation maybe).

‘Will have’: The usage pattern of the future perfect does cover past actions, but I’m not sure about it’s usage in real past conditionals. Can’t find any examples.

‘Would have / could have / might have’: sound perfectly legal with variation in meaning of course, is there any issue with using them?

expressions - How to describe dad's reaction in English?

Can anyone help to describe dad's reaction when he heard that the kids needed so much money? I mean the behavior, water came out of his mouth, can I say 'spray' or 'spit'? Can anyone tell me the complete sentence, please?

Many thanks!

grammar - Inversion in "only [adverb] have they"

I have seen this construction quite often:

Online ads have been around since the dawn of the Web, but only in

recent years have they become the rapturous life dream of Silicon
Valley.

What is the rule there?. When your sentence doesn't start with pronoun + verb, invert them as verb + pronoun?. I know it sounds awkward but is it possible (grammatically correct) to use something similar to:

Online ads have been around since the dawn of the Web, but only in
recent years they have become...

And in any case, does this only work with have (or has)? Maybe it works fine with 'had' but I can't think of an example right now.

Answer

Switching around the normal word order is called inversion, and this specific type is called subject-auxiliary inversion. Wikipedia has a list of usages of subject-auxiliary inversion, including interrogative constructions (e.g. Did you eat?), but the following is the declarative section:

Declarative sentences with negative elements (i.e. never or not) are formed. See also Negative inversion.

• Example #1: Never again shall I watch that opera!



• Example #2: Not since childhood did she eat cotton candy.

Declarative sentences with restrictive elements (i.e. only or so) are formed.

• Example #1: Only on Fridays does he go to the bar.


• Example #2: So hard did she work that she overslept the next day.


• Example #3: So did I.

I found a blog called Practice English which has a laudably comprehensive post on the topic of inversion:

In statement it is usual for the verb to follow the subject, but sometimes this word order is reversed.

We can refer to this as inversion. There are two main types of inversion:

• when the verb comes before the subject (optional inversion)

In the doorway stood her father. (or …her father stood.)

• when the auxiliary comes before the subject and the rest of the verb
  phrase follows the subject (inversion is usually necessary)

Rarely had he seen such a sunset. (not Rarely he had seen…)

Inversion brings about fronting, the re-ordering of information in a sentence
to give emphasis in a particular place. Often this causes an element to be
postponed until later in the sentence, focusing attention on it.

• Inversion after negative adverbials

When we begin a sentence with a negative adverb or adverbial phrase,
we sometimes have to change the usual word order of subject and
verb (often using an auxiliary verb) because we want to emphasise
the meaning of the adverb. We use inversion when we move a negative adverb
which modifies the verb (never, nowhere, not only, hardly etc.) to the beginning
of a sentence. For example:

I had never seen so many people in one room. (= normal word order)

Never had I seen so many people in one room. (= inversion)

There are adverbs and adverbial expressions with a negative,
restrictive or emphatic meaning, which are followed by inversion
when placed first in a sentence. The most common adverbs ad adverbial
expressions with negative, restrictive or emphatic meaning that are
followed be inversion are:

Seldom, Rarely, Little, Nowhere, Nor even one, In no way
Scarcely/Hardly/Barely … when, No sooner … than, Not only … but (also)
On no occasion/account/condition, In/Under no circumstances

Only after, Only later, Only once, Only in this way, Only by,
Only then, Only when, Only if, Not till/until, Never, Never
before, Not since, Neither/Not/So, Well (formal) etc:

This is only the first 15% or so. Though not the highest quality of writing (it contains a few typos, etc), IMO it represents the contexts of proper inversion admirably well and staggeringly comprehensively.

The only real (albeit minor) disagreement I have seen that I have with it involves the following:

We can put the verb before the subject when we use adverbs expressing
direction of movement, such as along, away, back, down, in, off, out, up with verbs such as come, fly, go. This pattern is found
particularly in narrative, to mark a change in events:

The door opened and in came the doctor. (less formally …and the doctor came in)

As soon as I let go of the string, up went the balloon, high into the sky. (less formally …the balloon went up)

Just when I thought I’d have to walk home, along came Miguel and he gave me a lift. (less formally …Miguel came along and gave me …)

As far as I have seen, it's not necessarily formal to say in came the doctor - in fact, the doctor came in seems more consistent with a formal context. (It also could be that the author meant to say less informally, and if so, I'd have agreed completely).

orthography - How to hyphenate a negated compound noun?

We have a term for a process, "defect source assessment".

We want to describe a set of processes that are not related to that process.

Which of the following (if any) would be correct?

• non defect source assessment processes


• non-defect source assessment processes


• non-defect-source-assessment processes


• non-defect-source-assessment-processes

Answer

While I would say the third of your options, "non-defect-source-assesment processes", is most correct, I would strongly suggest trying to rephrase the subject for clarity. The hyphens can be used to indicate at what level the negation applies, so in this case "defect source assessment" is being negated, but "processes" is not. This is appropriate because you are talking about processes (not non-processes). In the second example, "non-defect source assessment processes," the implication is that "defect" is being negated and "source assessment processes" is not.

The problem is that punctuation is sometimes a bit more subtle than you can expect your readers to understand. If you don't want them to get confused, "processes not related to defect source assessment" might be a clearer noun phrase.

grammar - Punctuating a sentence with a "with" after a conjugation

I'm trying to correctly punctuate the following sentence:

During this time, the rats were also being trained via Pavlovian conditioning to associate a tone and a darkening of the room with the reward being available.

The structure is as follows:

(tone and darkening of the room) with (the reward being available)

As it is, it seems messy as the clauses aren't clearly separated. However, if I were to put a comma after the with it would seem inconsistent since you wouldn't put a comma in a sentence like, "I associated the tone with the reward". Could someone explain the relevant grammatical rules?

Answer

Changing and to as well as and then creating a non-restrictive clause using commas will allow the sentence to be read without the and a darkening of the room part, thus clearing up the confusion.

During this time, the rats were also being trained via Pavlovian
conditioning to associate a tone, as well as a darkening of the room, with the
reward being available.

Relevant grammatical rules
In this case, the only thing needed to be said is that the non-restrictive clause is essentially being paired with the clause before it, so the reader knows the two go together in some way.

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?"

grammar - "the growth of he and his sister" in this sentence from the Guardian

Just read this line on the Guardian:

He dismantles his bedroom and helps tidy the house, daubing white paint over the pencil marks on the doorframe which have measured the growth of he and his sister from infancy until now.

Can't figure out how he is correct here. Shouldn't it be him?

pronouns - Is it "me" or "I" and why?

I found a photo of Sarah, Thomas, James and I?

OR

I found a photo of Sarah, Thomas, James and me?

"I" subject pronoun, photo "object", "me" object pronoun - or not as the case may be?

I believe it is "me" not "I" but can you provide why this is so in terms of sentence structure.

Thank you

meaning - Appearances and usage of "believe on" instead of "believe in."

I am curious as to how much "believe on" has been preferred in over "believe in," and how much it has appeared in writing and manuscripts. I know the King James Bible uses it in only two books of its 66, but are there any other places where this queer verb phrase is used? I am thinking there may be a difference but may not. I noticed that in the context of the one work, it seems to be that when "believe on" is used, it is always used purely by someone saying something happened and people believing just because it is said, without seeing it. This would be rather useful in speech. I myself haven't thought much of it and actually do use these two distinctly and probably still will -- one for faith, one for having seen, but I am curious as to if this was common; why I bring it up is a person mentioned that the two mean the same and are not different. I am thinking it may be a dialectical thing or perhaps a conceptual -- it's not a literal translation of the Greek (which says "into" in every case,) so to me it must be a thing unique to Early Modern English.

I am thinking that it may be just a left over quirk from before "in" and "on" switched usage frequency in english, from the Anglo Saxon roots.

Answer

OED says this about bibles specifically:

No difference can be detected between the use of ‘believe in’ and ‘believe on’ in the 16th-cent. versions of the Bible, except that the latter was more frequent; it is now archaic.

While some people may believe that there is a difference, there doesn't appear to be one. "Believe on" isn't something I've ever seen or heard, and it appears to be only used because it appears in some translations of the Bible.

---

As for usage through history, it wasn't just translations of the Bible, it wasn't just Early Modern English, and it wasn't just those two prepositions.

Old English is very different than Modern English; it used the preposition on, with a very different word order:

Þis hé spræc on Iudea-lande: ðær wæs án eowd of ðam mannum þe on God belyfdon on ðam leodscipe.

This he spake in the land of Juda: there was a fold of men who believed in God in that nation.
_{The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church by Ælfric, translated by Benjamin Thorpe}

Middle English had a lot more variety. I suggest checking out the (free) Middle English Dictionary entry. ME still had some of the weird word order (this word order was only used with on, as far as I can see):

Laban and all his men, That on Mahounde byleved.
_{Sowdon of Babylon}

Some sources, like this one (from ~1225) even mix in and on:

• 
  

  [...] to bileuen in god.

  
  




• 
  

  Ich bileue on þe holie gost.

  
  

And, like I said, there were other prepositions that were used, depending on which meaning. From OED (dagger means obsolete):

• 
  

  intr. To have confidence or faith in, and consequently to rely on or trust to, a person or (Theol.) a god or the name of a god.

  
  
  

  
  
  • With in, on, †into, †unto (rare), †of (rare), †upon.
  
  
  • intr. With in, †of (rare), †on, †to (rare). To have confidence in the truth or accuracy of (a statement, doctrine, etc.). In later use also: to have confidence in the genuineness, virtue, value, or efficacy of (a principle, institution, practice, etc.).
  
  

  
  

There are plenty of examples of these prepositions being used in ME (again, see Middle English Dictionary), but you'll also see a few examples after that. These are from OED's first definition:

• 
  

  They were al content to leue theyr law and to byleue of Iesu chryst.
  _{The boke of Duke Huon of Burdeux, c1515}

  
  




• 
  

  I byleue vpon god & vpon his feyth.
  _{Werke for Housholders, 1530}

  
  
  




• 
  

  All that should beleeve on him unto eternall life.
  _{Israels prayer, 1649}

  
  




• 
  

  Our Adversaries will not believe of our Holy Apostle, because they think it Idolatrous to pray to a Creature in the very same manner as to the Creator God.
  _{A confutation of popery, 1701}

  
  




• 
  

  To persuade a savage that it is to his advantage to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
  _{Missionary & Anthropology, 1945}

  
  

And these are from the other definition:

• 
  

  They do not well beleeve of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
  _{Christianographie, 1630}

  
  




• 
  

  Beleeve lesse to your courage then judgement.
  _{The history of Polexander in five bookes, 1647}

  
  
  




• 
  

  We must be able to believe on the Churches word, before we have read the holy Scripture.
  _{J. B. Bossuet's Conf. with Mr. Claude, 1687}

  
  

grammatical number - Staff and percent. Which one of these two statements is correct?

Which one of these two statements is correct?

60% of staff work
or
60% of staff works

grammatical number - When uncertain if refering to multiple or single should the plural form or singular form be used?

If asking a question or giving instruction towards a group of objects where the number is unknown (and possibly could be one) what is the correct way to phrase the sentence? Which of the following sentences are more correct:

Has there been any studies regarding this and if so what has been the
conclusion?

OR

Has there been any studies regarding this and if so what have been the
conclusions?

infinitives - Important to learn is this stuff

This song is fun to sing.

This pizza is too hot to eat.

Is the infinitive there considered a complement of the predicate adjective?

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?

articles - When Should I use 'the' with months, seasons?

Should I say:

There are four seasons of (the) year?

Today we will talk about names of (the) months.

Answer

Those two sentences would be more likely to occur as

There are four seasons in the year.

and

Today we're going to talk about the names of the months.

Year and month are preceded by the because both are definite. In other contexts they might not be.

punctuation - The Swung Dash ~ Has Anybody Heard of It?

​Has anybody ever heard of the swung dash? Friends tell me that this is being used by writers in lieu of the dash. See examples below. Has anybody ever seen this usage? If so, is it new?

You are the friend ~ the only friend ~ who offered to help me.

Never have I met such a lovely person ~ before you.

I pay the bills ~ she has all the fun.

I need three items at the store ~ dog food, vegetarian chili, and cheddar cheese.

My agreement with Fiona is clear ~ she teaches me French and I teach her German.

Please call my agent ~ Jessica Cohen ~ about hiring me.

I wish you would ~ oh, never mind.

Two oaks ~ Cassidy had never seen such amazing trees ~ provided shade to the backyard.

Levi wondered how anyone could live like that ~ and why.

John ~ blood dripping from his nose ~ stepped into the room.

I scrubbed the dog ~ and what a chore it was! ~ only to have the cat arrive covered in mud.

When I picked up Karen ~ oh my gosh ~ I was stunned by her beauty.

I fell ~ oh no! ~ all the way to the ground.

I chased his car ~ was it his? ~ all the way to town.

Cars built in Europe ~ particularly in Germany ~ are stylish and sporty.

Are you sure" ~ you lying jerk ~ "that you didn't take my car?"

He has only one thing on his mind ~ girls!

Only one person is qualified for this job ~ you.

Thank you.

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".

grammatical number - what is the plural of "GPS"

Do I have several GPSs, or several GPSes, or something completely different? What is the rule to remember (will be useful later when I can have a GPS2, a GPST and maybe a GPSX too).

word choice - “Are” Vs “Is” in the following sentences

I'm confused what verb would concord in the following couple of sentences:

The number of students and the number of teachers are/is decreasing
day by day in the school.

Either a number of teachers or a number of students is/are
participating in the college's festival.

According to my understanding the number of is always followed by a singular verb even two the number of are joined with and. Also, a number is always followed by a plural verb. So I think the former will take is while the latter concord with are. But I'm not sure.

Answer

In the first sentence, you are talking about two things, the number of students and the number of teachers. Let's call them A and B as a shorthand.

• A and B is decreasing


• A and B are decreasing

The second form is obviously correct:

The number of students and the number of teachers are decreasing day by day in the school.

In your second sentence, you are again talking of two things, and choosing between them:

• Either A or B is decreasing


• Either A or B are decreasing

In this case the first is correct. A potential difficulty arises because both A and B refer to a number of particular people which could be construed as a plural. So either is potentially correct. Most people would match the verb to the word immediately preceding it and use "students are".

Either a number of teachers or a number of students is participating in the college's festival.
Either a number of teachers or a number of students are participating in the college's festival.

Difference between an adverb modifying an NP consisting a single noun, and an adverb modifying a noun

Consider the following examples:

The work is mostly Kim's.
Only Kim resigned.

A question some of us had (e.g. here and here) was, aren't these examples of adverbs modifying nouns (which they are not supposed to do)? Isn't mostly modifying Kim's, and isn't only modifying Kim?

In both cases, the accepted answer is this: in these examples, Kim and Kim's are not simply nouns. They are nouns, of course, but in addition to being nouns, they are also entire noun phrases (NPs). And adverbs may modify NPs.

I somehow didn't like this answer, for the following reason: it seemed to me to open a Pandora's box. After all, any noun can be the sole constituent of an NP. This analysis would imply a vast number of circumstances under which nouns may be modified by adverbs---potentially, all circumstances in which a noun is the sole constituent of an NP. What then remains of our analysis of adverbs as those words one of the key characteristics of which is that they don't modify nouns?

I got the following answer, from Greg Lee: "The NP answer is correct. Your objections to it are no good. The Pandora's box argument doesn't make sense---just because an adverb immediately precedes a noun and there is nothing else in the NP, this doesn't mean the adverb modifies the noun. That is what your argument assumes, and it is just not so. In such cases, the adverb modifies only the NP and not the noun."

I do believe this is the correct answer. The problem is, I just don't quite get it.

Let me try to sharpen my question. Consider the following two sentences:

1. Adverbs never modify nouns; they may, however, modify NPs, even when the NP consists of a single noun.




2. Adverbs may modify nouns, but only when the noun is the sole constituent of an NP.

As far as I understand, the difference between 1. and 2. is no mere semantics. Could anyone clarify? For instance, could anyone give an example where 2. would make a wrong prediction (about whether some sentence is grammatical) but 1. would not?

Answer

On the face of it, your sentences 1 and 2 seem extensionally identical -- that is, each is true if and only if the other is true. So I don't know whether I can find an answer. But I'll discuss it.

Syntacticians think about sentence structure in a peculiar way -- a way that traditional grammarians usually do not think about it. Syntacticians take sentence structure as something that actually exists and can be discovered, while other people generally think of it as a mere taxonomy -- a convenient classification system for discussing grammar. So it is often difficult for me to explain to a person trained in traditional grammar what the difference between a noun and a noun phrase is. (Hereafter N and NP.)

To a traditional grammarian, it's straightforward. A NP has to have more than one word in it, because that's what "phrase" means. A syntactician who has experience writing phrase structure grammar doesn't look at it that way at all. The difference between NP and N has nothing to do with the original source of the "P" in the name "NP". If I want to ensure that an NP always has more than one word, I have to make sure that I always write rules like NP -> old men but that I never write a rule like NP -> men.

This is not easy, when I want to start generalizing the rules. If I write NP -> Det N, I have to make sure other rules expand both Det and N as at least one word each. If I want to allow for sentences that have one word subjects, I can't have just the rule S -> NP VP -- I have to add the rule S ->N VP.

After a while, you start to wonder what the point is. Do one word subjects display any grammatical behavior distinct from that of multi-word subjects, other than having just a single word? Well, no.

There is also a difficulty with two tempting generalizations about English coordination. Ordinarily, you can only coordinate things of the same grammatical category, but then what about "socks and old shoes"? If a single word is of a different category from a multi-word phrase, this example should not be allowed. Furthermore, ordinarily the coordination of two like categories is of the same category as each of the things coordinated. The coordination of two verb phrases is a verb phrase, e.g. But an exception would have to be "socks and shoes", if I distinguish between one-word and multi-word categories, because I coordinated two single words and got a multi-word category.

So that's a problem with the sentence 2 in your question. You've proposed a difference in grammatical behavior that depends on whether a constituent has more than one word in it. But so far as I know, English just doesn't work this way, though it's not impossible that it might, I suppose.