etymology - Difference between "help + [infinitive]" with and without "to"

Englishgrammar.org has an article discussing cases where an infinitive does not use the word "to." One case is with many causative verbs like "make" and "let."

I want the water to run

*I want the water run

I make the water run.

*I make the water to run.

It is also the case with "perception" verbs.

I see the water run.

I hear the water run.

The site describes "help" as a special case that can be followed by an infinitive either with or without "to."

She helps me stand.

She helps me to stand.

My question, essentially, is why "help" is a special case that can either ellipse the "to" or not, and what the semantic implications of that choice are?

My hunch is that since one category of other verbs that do not require a "to" infinitive are causative, the choice of whether or not to include "to" has a semantic bearing on whether the subject in the sentence is perceived as a causal agent.

So in the example, "she helps me [to] stand," we would infer from the inclusion of "to" that the subject (she) is less of a causal agent than when "to" is excluded.

It seems possible that there are no broadly applicable implications from the inclusion or exclusion of "to" in an infinitive following "help," that perhaps it is an aberration by way of etymology or coincidence, but I've been unable to find sources that analyze the case beyond identifying it as an outlier.

meaning - The distinction between "over there" and "over yonder."

For most native English speakers the word 'yonder' is either archaic or poetic. For many native speakers in the Southern United States however, it is still a word in common but declining use. Those who still use the term rhyme it with 'wonder' rather than 'wander.'

Having used the term all my life I notice that there is a distinction between the meaning of the phrases 'over there' and 'over yonder' which I have never seen mentioned in a dictionary.

One may say "The ball is over there where you are" but not "The ball is over yonder where you are." However, one can say either "The ball is over there in the bushes" or "The ball is over yonder in the bushes."

The distinction appears to be that 'yonder' is somewhere distant from both the speaker and the 'spoken to' whereas 'there' just means somewhere distant from the speaker.

Can anyone who also uses the term 'yonder' in everyday speech or someone familiar with English dialects verify this distinction.

Answer

I think it would be a mistake to assume that yonder generally represents a greater distance from the speaker than there does. Either term, unadorned, is ambiguous as to distance. The key to conveying a sense of how distant a thing "there" or "yonder" actually is lies in the modifier or modifiers attached to it, although some resulting phrases (such as "over there" and "over yonder") remain exceedingly vague as to distance. Consider, for example, the popular World War I song "Over There" by George M. Cohan, where there referred to "in Europe"—that is, across the Atlantic Ocean.

Because many people today do not use yonder as a standard part of their vocabulary, they may associate it with a particular usage that implies considerable distance, as in the song "Way Down Yonder in New Orleans." But for people who use yonder regularly, I suspect, the range of distances that the term can comfortably comprehend is quite broad. My grandfather, who was born in western Kentucky in 1903, used yonder occasionally and variably, often to indicate an indefinite place—for example, "the cows are grazing out yonder," meaning that the cows are grazing in a nearby pasture but it isn't entirely clear which pasture or which part of a single pasture they are in.

You can get a sense of the range of use of yonder in everyday speech in regions where the word was common by looking at recorded examples of its use (in the sense of "there; at or in that place") in Harold Wentworth, American Dialect Dictionary (1944):

'Yonder it is, Squire' [1871, Georgia]

'It [the river] rises yander' [1881 Tennessee]

'a-standin' out yander' [1888, Georgia]

'The road is back yander' [1895, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina]

'You must do this or go down yander, one!' [1902, Illinois]

Denotes a long distance & an uncertain direction. 'His folks live back yander,' meaning no particular direction or distance. 'I heerd he was going back yander where he came from.' [1903, Missouri]

Extremely common in 'over yonder' [1905, Arkansas]

'[a]way yonder' = far [1906–9, Arkansas]

A noun used with a preposition to express a specified place. 'In yonder,' = in the place specified. 'Over yonder' refers often to the future life. 'Look ayonder.' [1908, Alabama, Georgia]

'It's yunder over in the corner' [1909 Massachusetts]

'That's my gat down yonder.' [1911, Massachusetts]

'It is in yonder' [1915, West Virginia]

'See that tree over yender?' [1917, Ohio]

'Out yonder' and 'The woods back yonder' [1917, Vermont, New York; 1920, North Carolina]

'He went yander right now!' = disappeared in haste [1923, Missouri]

'He is down yander' [1925, West Virginia]

'I got another pipe yonder home ... away down yonder in dem thickest pine woods ... a-sleepin right yonder on de bed ... Youcould stay yonder to school ... de boat yonder on de river ... I ain' got a stick of wood yonder home' [1928 South Carolina]

'Looky yonder' = Look there. Used of any small or great distance. [1930s, West Virginia]

'Over yonder on the grinsad.' [1930, Maine]

'that hollow back yander' [1936, Kentucky]

'round yonder back of that piney pint' [1937, Kentucky]

'There he goes! Yander, see 'im!' [1938, Kentucky]

'Gone too fur yonder' [1938, Florida]

'Look yonder ... sitting right up yonder ahead of me ... Look a-yonder [1940, Gulf of Mexico states]

'over yonder ... is where it ends ... from here to yonder' [1940, Mississippi]

'Yonder comes Ced ... Look comin' up the street yonder' [1940, Arkansas]

'that beech grove down yander' [1941, Kentucky]

'Yonder atop the roof' [1941, West Virginia]

Wentworth selected these examples mainly to show variants in pronunciation, prepositional use, and regional distribution of yonder; but the examples also convey a sense of how broadly applicable yonder was to different situations for speakers who used the term frequently. For some of them, at least, yonder seems coextensive with there as a term for position or distance. Such speakers might at times use yonder in connection with distant locations, but they might also use it in reference to the corner of a room they were sitting in, for example, or a bed elsewhere in the same house.

The decisive factor in defining how distant yonder is for a particular speaker, in other words, is whether the speaker uses the word frequently and widely in situations where other speakers might use there, or whether the speaker uses it relatively rarely and in particular contexts—for example, as part of a longer set phrase such as "way over yonder."

grammatical number - Are these plural or singular?

I was surprised when I heard zero is plural, and even 1.00001 is plural.

Then, what about following numbers ?

(1) 1.00

which means the value measured between 0.995-1.004, having possibility that it was exactly 1.

(2) 0.99999.....

which is mathematically equal to 1. Also, are others that are mathemattically equal to 1 than this, treated completely same as 1?

(3) -1

Is this singular? Or negative numbers are generally plural?

(4) i = square root of -1

I know it's weird to count things with imaginary numbers, nonetheless, if you were to count, which form, plural or singular, would you be to use?

That's it.

Answer

It has less to do with the actual number, and more to do with how the number is said or written.

Singular nouns:

Any time the number is "one", or a fraction with "one" in the numerator, the result is singular. This also applies to negatives. See Is -1 followed by a singular or plural noun?

• One apple


• 1 apple ("one apple")


• Half an apple


• One half of an apple


• 1/2 apple ("one half apple" or "half of an apple")


• 1/4 apple ("one quarter apple" or "one quarter of an apple" or "one fourth of an apple")


• -1 volt ("minus one volt", "negative one volt")

Plural nouns:

Any decimal number, including 1.0, is plural. See Should we use plural or singular for a fraction of a mile?

• 1.0 apples ("one point zero apples", "one point oh apples")


• 0.5 apples ("zero point five apples", "oh point five apples")

Complicated cases:

Fractions with numerators larger than one can be handled both ways. This also applies to percentages. The plural form is used for countable objects, and the singular form is used for non-countable objects. See Is two-thirds plural?

• 2/3 of the people are here. (We are counting people.)


• 2/3 of the soda was left over. (We are not counting soda.)


• 75% of the computers are broken. (countable)


• 75% of the rice was eaten. (not countable)

Complex and imaginary numbers:

Complex and imaginary numbers only appear in technical contexts. I can only think of examples with units, for example:

• 5.7+3.1j kΩ at 500 Hz


• -1.0+0.9j mV at 10 kHz

Note that engineers usually use "j" instead of "i" to avoid confusion with I, the symbol for current. Mathematicians use "i".

In technical contexts, quantities for should be written with numerals and units should be written with abbreviations, which do not take plural. So "5 V" is okay, but "five volts" is only okay in non-technical contexts.

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

Is one more correct than the other?

Make sure the part is connected to the widget.

Make sure that the part is connected to the widget.

word order - What goes first: Sometimes, I bring X (1)'with me' (2)'to Y'?

1. Is one of the following constructions incorrect?



2. If not, do they differ semantically in any way, even if only mildly so?

   
   
   
   
   
   • Sometimes, I bring my lunch to work with me.
   
   
   • Sometimes, I bring my lunch with me to work
   
   

Usually, I prefer fewer words between 'to' and its complement. However, I don't actually know whether, or how, the arrangement of the words affects the meaning of the sentence or whether some people regard some common arrangements as incorrect.

Edit: Although, thinking about it now, 'I bring' entails 'with me'; perhaps I should just write Sometimes, I bring my lunch to work.

Thank you.

Answer

In the example you give, both phrases to work and with me are adverbial phrases modifying the verb bring. In this example, changing the word order does not create ambiguity, because neither phrase is likely to be misconstrued to refer to some other part of the sentence.

grammaticality - The grammar behind 'above mentioned'

A colleague of mine wrote the following sentence:

I have worked on the below mentioned issues:

Now, I'm not a native speaker, and certainly not an authority on grammar. I construct sentences based on what I can only describe as intuition (what sounds right based on what I've previously read/ heard.)

I told him below mentioned issues didn't sound right and I thought it should be issues mentioned below instead.

His counter:

• He was reluctant to end with a prespostion.


• If above mentioned is valid, below mentioned should be, too.

I don't subscribe to the notion that prepositions can't end a sentence. But I didn't wan't a debate about that. I replied:

• The phrase which the preposition governs goes without saying (as in, mentioned below/above this sentence)


• above mentioned isn't really two words. It's a one-word adjective.

He was satisfied, but he insisted he had seen it being written as two words.

Later, out of curiosity, I did an ngram search, which shows that above mentioned as two separate words is indeed frequent. More so than above-mentioned until 1935, and still in 2nd place, outranking abovementioned. I assumed people using it as an adjective were more likely to drop the hyphen than use two words. Apparently I was wrong.

I suppose the frequency of above mentioned could be padded by sentences like this:

The people (who live) above mentioned seeing him.

But the same should be true for below mentioned, which is virtually non-existent according to the ngram

Hence my question:

Is above mentioned issues grammatical? Is below mentioned issues? What are the rules behind this?

Answer

With regard to your friend's original statement, "below-mentioned" is a poor choice because "the issues" have not yet been mentioned. In other words, they are still pending statements...the below-as-yet-unmentioned issues? "The following issues" is more correct in both grammar and context. Or, quite simply, "the below issues".

Above-mentioned is indeed a single adjective or adjective phrase, whether it has found itself commonly constructed with hyphen, space, or neither. Unfortunately (for the sake of your argument), this is unlikely to have an impact on whether "below-mentioned" is a valid construction, since we happily make adjectives out of whatever parts of speech we want.

indirect speech - Modal verbs in reporting

'Advanced Grammar In Use' (AGU) by Martin Hewings, UNIT 37 C, says:

The verbs could, would, should, might, needn't, ought to, used to, and could have, should have, etc. don't change in the report:

'I could meet you at the airport.' --> He said that he could meet us at the airport.

'You should have contacted me earlier.' --> She said I should have contacted her earlier.

Is it possible, though, to have these pairs instead? (These are not from AGU but are made up by myself.)

'I could meet you at the airport.' --> He said that he could have met us at the airport.

'You should contact me.' --> She said I should have contacted her.

If these made-up pairs are possible, contrary to what 'Advanced Grammar In Use' claims, is it possible in general that the verbs could, would, should, might, etc. do change in the report?

If so, is 'Advanced Grammar In Use' wrong about this?

british english - "Dawkins'" or "Dawkins's"

I learned from school to use Dawkins', for example

That is Mr. Dawkins' house.

But I see many people write Dawkins's instead. Is it something related to American English as opposed to British conventions?

Answer

Both forms are valid, depending on the style guide you follow. It does not appear to be a regional thing. Wikipedia has an overview.

pronouns - "I hope you all/both are doing well" vs "I hope you are all/both doing well"?

Do both convey the same message, or not?

1. I hope you all are doing well.


2. I hope you are all doing well.

It occurs to me that the same thing happens with both when I'm only addressing two people rather than more than two:

3. I hope you both are doing well.


4. I hope you are both doing well.

I'm sure that the first of each pair addresses more than one person, but I'm not sure if it is as “grammatically correct” as the second from each pair where the quantifier follows the verb instead of the pronoun.

I just wanted to check up on my friends but I'm not sure which one I should use; I'm a non-native speaker.

grammaticality - Six feet/foot five: Does adding "inches" affect the grammatical form of "foot"?

Is it possible to say "six feet five" (inches are left out here)?

Or is "six foot five" the only correct variant? Does incluing "inches" affect the grammatical form of "foot"?

Answer

Yulia, I’d like to try to answer your questions in a way that will be useful to you. Please advise if I have misunderstood what you’ve asked, which I believe to be this:

1. Can it ever be grammatical to say “six feet five” instead of the normal “six foot five”?

   Answer: Not really; if you say feet there you’d best add inches afterwards. Leaving it out doesn’t sound right to me anymore.




2. Does including inches at the end of “six foot/feet five inches” affect the grammatical number of foot to make it feet?

   Answer: Yes, it sometimes can. See below.

I had hoped that our site’s earlier questions regarding the grammatical number we use with measuring units would answer your question. Candidates include:

I could not find a question or answer that exactly matched your situation. The general rule to remember is this:

In English, the grammatical number of a numerically quantified measuring unit is not inflected when used attributively (immediately before a noun).

This is not some special rule that applies only to measuring units alone. It is a general rule that applies to all combinations of counting numbers and the nouns those numbers are counting.

Here are examples of numbers and their noun used attributively before another, so those nouns must be in the singular even if the number is other than one:

1. A four-door car would not have that problem.


2. John and Jane and James were in a three-person marriage.


3. Even a thousand-mile journey begins with its first step.


4. The only thirty-day months are September — and April, June, and November.


5. Metric-rights activist Monsieur La Douleur comically insisted that seven-league boots had become illegal “après la Révolution”.


6. My three-week four-day vacation was just one day shy of a full month.



7. Our new seven-pound, three-ounce baby came into the world at three o’clock this morning.

In contrast, here are those same examples recast so that the number and noun are no longer used attributively, which means now that number governs the grammatical number of its noun immediately following:

1. A car with four doors would not have that problem.


2. John and Jane and James were in a marriage of three people.


3. Even a journey of a thousand miles begins with its first step.


4. The only months with thirty days are September — and April, June, and November.



5. Metric-rights activist Monsieur La Douleur comically insisted that boots covering seven leagues in a single step had become illegal “après la Révolution”.


6. My vacation of three weeks and four days was just one day shy of a full month.


7. Our new baby came into the world at three o’clock this morning weighing seven pounds, three ounces.

The last two examples in each set deliberately involve more than one unit, just as your own case of six feet and five inches (6ʹ 5ʺ) does. Let’s look at this set:

8. John Clease is six foot five. (this is actually the weird one)


9. John Clease is six *feet five. (not grammatical ^{for me but YYMV})



10. John Clease is six feet, five *inch. (not grammatical)


11. John Clease is six feet, five inches.



12. John Clease is six ?foot, five inches. (may not be grammatical for all native speakers)




13. Six-foot-five actor John Cleese towers over his cohorts.



14. At six feet five inches, actor John Cleese towers over his cohorts.


15. Towering over his cohorts, actor John Clease stands a full six foot five. (another weird one^(?))

If you say inches in the plural, one would expect feet in the plural as well. But one can find examples where this is not always the case, where instead singular foot has been used with plural inches. Whether this is grammatical for all native speakers is unclear.

Not all these John Cleese examples follow the patterns we’ve seen before, and it isn’t clear why they differ. For example the predicate use can remain uninflected, while before all predicate examples inflected for number. That’s not true for babies:

16. My baby is seven pounds three.


17. My baby is seven *pound three. (not grammatical)


18. My baby is seven pounds, three ounces.


19. My baby is seven *pound, three ounce. (not grammatical)


20. My baby is seven *pound, three ounces. (not grammatical)

So you would in theory think feet and inches would always work exactly the way pounds and ounces work, but in practice, they do not.

The bottom line is that if six feet five is never grammatical used attributively before the noun. It can only be:

13. Six-foot-five actor John Cleese towers over his cohorts.

On the other hand, six feet five used predicatively is only grammatical when it is immediately followed by inches:

11. John Clease is six feet five inches.

I cannot tell you “why” it works this way, nor why it doesn’t work some other way. I can only report what does or does not sound right to a native speaker.

grammaticality - Should "anymore" be used only in a negative statement or question?

I don't know why this is so, but I've always believed that the word anymore should only be used in a question or negative statement.

Do you go there anymore?
Don't do that anymore.

But I often hear people use it in a declarative sentence, such as

Anymore, I eat pizza with pepperoni.

To me this is just wrong. Am I wrong?

grammatical number - Singular nouns in plural form

Is the following sentence correct?

There is a woods near our house.

(I am talking about one woods, but it is a bit awkward to use "a" before "woods". Hence I am not sure about this.)

word usage - Why is it “Who do you help?,” not “Whom do you help?”?

I happened to watch a lecturer was explaining word order of English in the beginners’ English learning course in NHK’s - Japan’s largest and publicly-owned broadcasting network – educational TV program (aired on July 23rd). He showed four cubes, each of which showing the word, “Who”, “You” “Help” “Do” placed at random, and asked students to put the cubes in the right order:

Right answer: Who Do You Help?

I was comfortable with “Who do you help (speak / give / write, and so on) too, but a question arose:

Is “Whom do you help?” grammatically wrong or, obsolete? If so, why is it wrong, how and around when it became obsolete?

I’ve never seriously thought of such question as the declension of a dative pronoun in interrogative form until I hit upon the above TV scene. Taking advantage of this opportunity, I ventured to post a beginner’s question.

Difference between "constitution" and " structure"

The main kind of problem which I always face in English language is my inability to find out the difference between two similar words . Now I can't really understand the difference between "constitution" and "structure". I'd be more than happy if someone guides me to get the difference.

Answer

First and foremost, the words constitution and structure are considered synonyms.

That being said, I would use them slightly differently in my own speech and writings. I would choose the word constitution when talking about what something is made of, while I would use structure to talk about how it was made. This may be a difference from others, or a regional distinction. The definition of structure supports my own definition; the word structure is used to describe:

mode of building, construction, or organization; arrangement of parts, elements, or constituents

Likewise, the two main definitions of constitution are as follows:

1. the way in which a thing is composed or made up; makeup; composition


2. the physical character of the body as to strength, health, etc.

Therefore, I would conclude that both constitution and structure can be used to describe how something is made. Structure tends to refer more to the arrangement of the entities the object is composed of, while constitution refers to the identity of the entities themselves.

verbs - Use of plural with "respectively" when referring to a property

If you are referring to one property but are giving the respective values for two different things do you use the singular or plural form? Can the property be treated as a mass noun so that it takes on a cumulative reference?

1. The yields of 1 and 2 were 76 and 89%, respectively.

   
   
   
   

   The yield of 1 and 2 was 76 and 89%, respectively.




2. In control and treated cells, the mean values were 8.6 and 7.5, respectively.

   
   
   

   In control and treated cells, the mean value was 8.6 and 7.5, respectively.

It's clear that the plural is used for cases in which two properties are listed (i.e., the yield and recovery rate of A were...) but it's not clear when only one propery is listed.

grammaticality - Adding a possessive to a singular noun phrase that ends in a plural noun

Which of these sentences is correct: "The clock under the curtains' hour hand broke off", or "The clock under the curtains's hour hand broke off"? The actual thing being made possessive, "The clock under the curtains," is singular, suggesting that you should add 's to the entire phrase to make it possessive. This would make the latter sentence correct, but it looks funny to me. Of course you don't add 's to a plural noun already ending in "s" in order to make it possessive, but what do you do if the possessive noun phrase itself is singular but it ends in a plural noun?

Answer

I'm going to quote a comment that I think efficiently lays out some of the presuppositions that this question is based on, in order to express some disagreement with those presuppositions:

in principle one of these two options should be grammatically correct (albeit awkward), right? Which one?

It is not acceptable to add the -'s genitive (or "Saxon genitive") to all noun phrases, and in the contexts where it is acceptable, there is not always only one "correct" form. So I don't think it's right to assume that this is a binary question.

The paper The English “Group Genitive” is a Special Clitic", by Stephen R. Anderson, gives some examples of (single word) noun phrases where it is fairly clearly not acceptable to add -'s or -'.

(20) a. *These’s illustrations are more competently drawn than those’s.

b. *Of the books I lent you, two’s/some’s/many’s covers were soiled when you brought them back.

I think these examples establish that it is not impossible in principle for there to be no acceptable way of forming a -'s genitive from a particular noun phrase.

To address the specific noun phrase given in the question, I think that most speakers who tolerate the use of the -'s genitive with the noun phrase "The clock under the curtains" would pronounce the genitive construction no differently from the original noun phrase, which would support the spelling "The clock under the curtains' hour hand." Anderson brings up the topic of noun phrases ending in a word suffixed with /z/ that is not the head of the noun phrase: he says that Zwicky (1987) describes these as not taking an additional [z] sound, but Carstairs (1987) "claims that the sentences with two /z/s are often acceptable".

I would agree with tchrist's advice to "write what you say", if you use this construction at all (my preference would be to avoid using it). But overall, this is a rare construction, linguists don't give uniform descriptions of the usage, and it's simple enough to rephrase in formal contexts, so I don't see any point to being dogmatically prescriptive about there being a single "correct" usage in this context.

grammatical number - Member's Price or Members Price or Member Price

I have a members only website. I want to place a price tag for "Members Price" is that correct or Member Price. It refers to the price a member pays.

meaning - I'll take you home / I'll bring you home

Being both non-natives, I had some discussion today about the following situation: suppose you're at a party and you want to take/bring your drunk buddy home.

I believe that:

• "I'll take you home" means come, I'll bring you away and then I'll go back or go to my place. This is going away from the party.


• "I'll bring you home" means come with me and we both go home. We probably both live at that place or it is our end stop. This is coming to home.

She believes that:

• "I'll take you home" means either of the above, because you're both in the same room when you ask and you're going away from.


• "I'll bring you home" is an invalid construct in that situation, or actually is always invalid. I was opposing to that that I actually remember to have heard the phrase quite often.

I know the general meaning and differences between bring and take. However, I somehow couldn't get my head around this. Any native speaker that can shed some light here? There's an extra beer at stake!

Answer

I'm not an English major, but I am a native speaker.

"I'll bring you home" is definitely not invalid; it's a perfectly fine thing to say, and I think your meaning is correct.

However, "I'll take you home" does not imply that you live at the same place, or that you're going to be staying over. I think it just implies a sort-of dominance on the role of the speaker. I would imagine this being said by a person speaking to someone who is more drunk than they are, or by a speaker who knows the way home better than the other person. Although, to be fair, it probably depends a lot more on who says it, how they say it, and exactly how they phrase it and not so much on bring versus take. For example, "I can take you to your place" has essentially the same meaning as "I'll bring you home."

I think the most natural thing to say in the case that you are both going back to the same place, or both heading home is "Let's go home."

Use of the infinitive, always use 'to'?

Which is the correct use:

Thanks for the opportunity of being here?
or
Thanks for the opportunity to be here?

The idea was to use the verb in infinitive.

Answer

I find both to be possible, but "opportunity to be here" sounds more natural to me.

Note that there isn't a general rule: it depends entirely on the particular word that governs it (here, opportunity), and there is no logic to which word prefers which construction: they just have to be learnt.

british english - “If I was to” vs. “If I were to”

1. If I was to sum up my computer knowledge in one word, it would be “destitute”.





2. If I were to sum up my computer knowledge in one word, it would be “destitute”.

Which is correct?

word usage - Are there restrictions to what can serve as a subject to "need?"

Basically, I wonder if there are restrictions on what can serve as a subject to the verb need. The sentence that started this comes from a recent EL&U question:

Successfully doing this needs a deep understanding of coding.

The subject of the sentence is formed by a gerund, doing, which refers to a task or action. It makes sense. However, I would never say this myself. A person may need something, but an occasion requires something. The gerund feels better placed with a different verb:

Successfully doing this requires a deep understanding of coding.

On reflection, I suspect that need, as a verb, may be restricted to taking people or things as subjects:

The boss needs someone who has a deep understanding of coding.

Merriam-Webster wasn't useful for tracking this distinction. The Oxford English Dictionary quotations feature personal nouns, pronouns, objects, or impersonal pronouns as subjects. I notice the specification of person and thing in this definition:

8.a. To require (a person) to do something; to require (a thing) to do or be something.

However, this isn't restrictive. It's possible that gerund subjects for need are valid in some cases, or that other subdefinitions accommodate the usage. I appreciate any help figuring out what formal or informal expectations influence what can serve as a subject to need.

grammaticality - Reflexive pronoun (myself) grammar issue

I was writing in MS Word 2003, and it put a green underline under the word myself, as used below.

Don’t trust people, even myself, trust the code.

I ran the spell and grammar check, but it completed without any errors or suggestions.

If I change the sentence by adding "you should" after the comma, the problem goes away.

Don’t trust people, even myself, you should trust the code.

But that is not the preferred phrasing. What, if any, problems exist?

p.s. The closest I could find to this issue is Microsoft word and confusion about himself/he/him, but it does not help explain why I am right or wrong.

Answer

I'd agree with @RegDwigнt in that you should just write what you feel is the best way to say what you intend. That said, it's probably picking up on the fact that you say myself without referencing I. In theory, it wants you to write, "Don't trust people, even me, trust the code."

As a sidenote:
You have two separate clauses there: "don't trust people" and "trust the code". Rather than using the comma to separate them, personally I'd use a semicolon.

Don't trust people, even me/myself; trust the code.

Edit: I see the comments beat me to the semicolon lol.

hyphenation - How you you spell non self destructive?

Non self-destructive
Non-self destructive
Non-self-destructive
?????

It has to be these

pronouns - "He and I", "Him and me"

Somebody taught me a rule of thumb how to discern if I should use "I" or "Me" when adding self to the end of a list of people in a sentence: Ignore the list, strip the rest and treat it only as if it was the singular "me", choose one that matches.

Still, often I see things like John and me went to the park. Is this just a common error or are there some specific rules where I will be replaced by me if appearing on a list?

Answer

Standard English requires I in subject position, producing John and I went to the park. Other dialects, however, allow me in subject position when the pronoun is coordinated with a noun or another pronoun. That is why you will see, or more likely hear, John and me went to the park.

prepositions - Parallelism in a sentence regarding transitive verbs, gerunds, and objects

I'm trying to write this sentence, but something doesn't seem right:

Walloopp.com is the place to discover, collaborate, and create what's next.

The first two are just options for actions on the website (you can discover, and you can collaborate,) and the third is the option to create what's next.

However, it seems like creating what's next is the object here, and collaborate would thus require "on" for it to make sense since you can't "collaborate what's next".

The question is (I think) can you have an intransitive verb, set off by another infinitive, followed by a transitive verb with an object without the previous verbs also having to modify it?

_

p.s. this could be fixed with recasting it e.g., "The place to discover and create what's next—together." but in this particular case (my job) that would require a lot of time (coding).

Merci d'Avance!

punctuation - Should I use a comma before "who" in this sentence, or can it be written without that comma?

Which of the following is correctly written as far as its comma (or lack of comma) is concerned?

1. People who love their jobs can easily excel in their fields of work than those, who put salary on the first place.




2. People who love their jobs can easily excel in their fields of work than those who put salary on the first place.

I have read that we should only put comma before who when it adds extra information, but here I think who begins an essential part of sentence necessary for fully understanding it.

capitalization - Is capitalizing "master" and other honorifics appropriate?

In BDSM relationships, a dominant male is often referred by his submissive counterpart as a "master", "sir" or by some other honorific. Some in the BDSM lifestyle insist that words referring to the dominant person in a relationship should always be capitalized, whereas those referring to the submissive partner should be written in lower case. While such a generalization does not adhere to the rules of the English language, I can't help but think that there are situations where capitalization is appropriate.

In particular, I am wondering whether capitalization of "master" is appropriate in the following examples, where the word refers to a specific person:

"Welcome home, Master."

"No, Master, I haven't finished my chores yet."

"My Master will be with you shortly."

I believe that the capitalization in the first two examples is correct, but not in the third. However, I am not certain about which rules apply and I'd appreciate it if somebody could shed more light on the matter.

grammatical number - "There are so many" vs. "There is so many"

There are so many questions on this website.

There is so many questions on this website.

The former "sounds right," but the contracted form of the latter does as well:

There's so many questions on this website.

Which is correct?

Answer

It is There are so many. There ... are ... many.

grammar - The time before place mantra

As a Dutch schoolboy, during English grammar lessons (long ago...) I got one rule hammered into my head like a mantra: time before place:

In the 1930s, in England, nobody prepared for war.

But as I gradually got more fluent in English I started to wonder whether this "rule" really made sense. Let me change the sentence a bit:

In the 1930s, in England, nobody prepared for war, whereas in the 17th and 18th centuries everybody did.

Correct grammar, right? (Let history.stackexchange challenge the historical truth). But I think it makes sense to say

In England, in the 1930s nobody prepared for war, whereas in the 17th and 18th centuries everybody did.

because it emphasizes the contrast between the time periods better than in the former sentence.

And when I just say

In England, in the 1930s, nobody prepared for war.

does that sound warped to a native speaker?

So: how valid (or natural) is this rule?

(By the way, later I learned that the full rule is manner before time before place, but let's not go into that — yet).

Answer

You can bring more or less anything to the front of a sentence to give it prominence, so your examples are not the best way to illustrate a fairly solid "rule" in English, namely that time usually occupies the last position. [This is the opposite of what you seem to have learned.] So, we would normally say:

• I went to the bank yesterday.


• She usually dines at home on Sundays.


• We are planning to visit Prague next week.

not:

• I went yesterday to the bank.


• She usually dines on Sundays at home.


• We are planning to visit next week Prague.

If you add manner into the mix, you have a fairly solid rule: manner - place - time:

• I walked leisurely along the beach all day yesterday.


• She played very well in the chess tournament last night.

synonyms - Is 'folk' a politically correct substitute for 'people'?

Edit: Comments so far have focused on the speech of politicians. While this discussion is interesting, and desired when relevant, I am more concerned with use in activist communities. I believe the connotation is different: unlike politicians, these people are not trying to sound more 'folksy' or 'of the people'.

I often hear folk used in leftist and activist communities. The word choice seems ideologically motivated, a more politically correct synonym for people — just as one would say 'differently-abled' instead of 'disabled' or 'latina' instead of 'hispanic' — but I can't determine any need for the substitution. Is people offensive? The most common use is in 'black folk', but also 'white folk', 'brown folk', 'queer folk', etc.

My fundamental question is this: Why is folk used more often in activist communities?

I recognize that I don't have hard evidence to demonstrate the truth of the phenomenon. I'm not sure what evidence I could provide. So let's all play together and assume it is true?

I can imagine two answers to this question.

1. Folk is a politically correct substitute for people. Why, then, is people offensive, and folk not?


2. The word choice is not ideologically but historically motivated. Folk is historically common in the black community. As non-black people interact with black vocabulary, they assimilate (either naturally, or because of a false believe in #1). As listening-oriented black/non-black interaction is more common in activist spaces, the use of folk has spread quickest in activist communities.

These are, however, simply unfounded hypotheses.

punctuation - How to punctuate a range of hyphenated numbers?

What is the best way to punctuate a range of hyphenated numbers, e.g., sections 12-3 through 12-7?

EDIT: Just to reply to those who marked this as a duplicate, I really fail to see how the post that this question purportedly duplicates is responsive my question. I'm not expressing a misunderstanding of en-dashes and hyphens, but rather asking a question about preferred usage. In fact, the top answer (which I think is correct) suggests not using a dash or a hyphen at all.

Definite or indefinite article when describing a historical person

According to this question:
Definite and indefinite articles when introducing a person
one can use a definite, indefinite or no article at all when introducing a particular person. Which option is the most natural in case of a historical figure, like

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

or

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

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

Answer

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

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

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

the famous George Washington
George Washington (who was famous)

This would not make sense if we said

a famous George Washington

as that would make George Washington and Casimir indefinite.

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

is a slightly clunkier way of saying the same thing.

On the other hand,

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

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

grammatical number - Members’ Benefits vs Member’s Benefits

I’m currently developing a site which has a membership scheme which you pay to sign up for. To encourage people to do this, there is a page that highlights the benefits of becoming a member.

They want this page to be called Member’s Benefits.

Should the apostrophe come before the s, or after?

Answer

If the benfits apply to all members, then there there isn't much of a case against Members' Benefits. However, the apostrophe seems to be disappearing in cases like this and Members Benefits is defensible on the grounds that Members functions as an attributive adjective (as would Member in Member Benefits).

punctuation - Can the em dash replace both the semicolon and comma in these?

Can the em dash replace the comma and semicolon in these sentences? For example, instead of "The original sign did not have terminal punctuation; thus, the full stop goes outside the quotes to end the sentence", can we do this? (See below.)

• The original sign did not have terminal punctuation – thus the full stop goes outside the quotes to end the sentence.





• The original sign did not have terminal punctuation – hence the full stop goes outside the quotes to end the sentence.




• The original sign did not have terminal punctuation – therefore the full stop goes outside the quotes to end the sentence.




• The original sign did not have terminal punctuation – as a result the full stop goes outside the quotes to end the sentence.




• The original sign did not have terminal punctuation – consequently the full stop goes outside the quotes to end the sentence.

meaning - What does "by the first " mean?

If someone owes you money and they say they will have it to you "by the first," doesn't that mean you will get it before the first of the month?

jokes - Ending a sentence with a preposition?

Recently in an episode of 'House of cards' they bring up the joke

"Two freshmen girls are moving into their dorm room together. One of them's from Georgia, one of them's from Connecticut. The girl from Connecticut's helping her mother put up curtains. Girl from Georgia turns to them and says, "Hi. Where y'all from?" Girl from Connecticut says, "We're from a place where we know not to end a sentence with a preposition." The girl from Georgia says, "Oh, beg my pardon. Where y'all from...cunt?"

Now, i suppose the punchline has something to do with the not-preposition, but what i don't get is why the Connecticut girl even considers that a sentence cannot end with a preposition?

Is there any reason for stating that prepositions can't be on the end of a sentence? And if not, what is the punchline of this joke?

If this joke's punchline is not pertaining to English language or if this is not a grammatical joke, i'm sorry and will remove the question.

Answer

If you Google for "end sentence with preposition", you will get a ton of links, most of which will explain "one should not end a sentence with a preposition" is a mythical rule that in fact does not describe English usage, but is nevertheless sometimes (or even often) mistakenly quoted as fact.

This article tells a bit about the history of the rule - in short, that it started in 1672 with a certain John Dryden, who claimed it to be an abominable practice but never gave any indication why he thought so. It is generally considered to be applying Latin grammar rules to English text, which makes as much sense as a pancake on a bunny's head.

The joke is recognising this fact, and making fun of the pseudointellectual pedants who cite this "rule" seriously.

grammar - The usage of "the" with "least"

The main issue here is how to sort out the usage of "the" with "least". Sometimes it's clear but there are cases when I am not sure whether to use the article "the" or not.

Least with verb

• The man who actually won the car is the one who wanted it least. [No “the”.]


• The President seemed to be the one who knew least about the crisis. [No “the”.]

(The sample sentences are from a dictionary.)

But:

• I earn the least out of all of us. [Again from a dictionary.]



• Which subject do you like the least? [Found randomly on the Internet.]

I have come to a vague idea which can explain it to some extent. For example:
I earn the least out of all of us. = I earn the least (amount of money) out of all of us. So, when “the” is used it adds an idea of substantivisation i.e. “the least” is a noun.

However, it seems like there are cases when my explanation doesn’t work. E.g., "Which subject do you like the least?" I don’t see how it can be interpreted as a noun. I think it should be "Which subject do you like least?"

Least with participle

• I'm not the least surprised that she's leaving. [Taken from a dictionary.]


• The reply will discuss the one you are least interested in. [Found randomly on the Internet.]

I think it should be: "The reply will discuss the one you are the least interested in."

I am not sure if my ideas are correct, I am just making them known to you so that you can understand the way I think in respect to the issue and shed some light on the issue.

grammaticality - "Alex and I" vs. "me and Alex"

Is it improper to say "me and Person X"?

I always hear it said as "Person X and I", but have personally learned to say "me and Person X".

Is there a difference between the two versions and is one of them incorrect? "Person and I" just sounds more formal to me.

Answer

You would use "X and I" if you and X are the subject of the verb.

You would use "X and me" if you and X are the object of the verb.

For example:

"Smith and I are going to the store."

"She gave the apples to Jones and me."

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.

tenses - Present Simple instead of Present Perfect

I have come across interesting cases several times where the Present Simple is used instead of the Present Perfect. For example:

1) Lately I get the feeling that I am not so much being pulled down as I am being pushed. (from the movie - "Friends")

2) Man, have you noticed how much more time Paul spends at the gym lately? (taken from this discussion Present continuous to discuss action's frequency)

As a rule, "lately" invites the Present Perfect which means that it would be more correct in accordance with grammar rules to say:

Lately I've got the feeling...

.. have you noticed how much more time Paul has spent/been spending...

I, by no means, intend to say that this usage is not idiomatic, as these sentences were uttered by native speakers, I just would like to get some of your thoughts and explanations why it is possible to use the Present Simple here. I'd like also to know if the Present Perfect would be a good substitution. Examples illustrating this usage are very welcome.

subordinate clauses - Is "even when" a subordinating conjunction similar to "even though"?

An adverb clause is a dependent clause that answers the question why? how? where? when?
Adverb clauses begin with a subordinating conjunction like when, because, even though.

Ex. Even though she could not drive, Bonnie's father bought her a new car for graduation.

(NOTE: You could write: Even when she could not drive...but that completely changes meaning of sentence. They are not interchangeable.)

Q: Is "even when" a subordinating conjunction as well? A google search often lists "even though", "even if" as examples but I haven't seen "even when" in any lists so far.

"Even when he is sick, she works."

1. So, is "even when" a subordinating conjunction introducing the adverb clause or is "even" an adverb qualifying "works"?





2. Typically you can move around adverb clauses. If so, which is the correct rewrite of the above to keep same meaning? (Subtle shift between each.)

She works even when he is sick.

She even works when he is sick.

Depending on the answers, is this grammatically sound?

"When he is sick, she even works."

word usage - So, "might have been sleeping" (Modal perfect continuous) corresponds to past continuous, present perfect continuous or past perfect continuous?

"Modal + have + PP" refers to the past

But it is quite ambiguous!!

What does "the past" mean?

Simple Past, Present perfect, Past perfect all refers to the past.

So the question is:

Does Modal + have + PP" refer to Simple Past, Present perfect, or Past perfect?

Similarly,

Does Modal + have + been + Verb-ing" refer to Past Continuous, Present perfect continuous, or Past perfect continuous?

Ok, let say, now is 3 pm. At 2 pm (1 hour earlier) you walked by a baby room & you didn't hear any noise.

Now, you say this to your friend:

The baby might have been sleeping.

Does that sentence mean:

"It is possible that the baby was sleeping"

OR

"It is possible that the baby has been sleeping (ie unfinished action & the baby is still sleeping now)"

OR

"It is possible that the baby had been sleeping (ie the baby had been sleeping possibly for 30 minutes, but now she is awake)"

But, if you says "The baby might have been sleeping by the time I was home yesterday", we can be sure that means "It is possible that the baby was sleeping by the time I was home yesterday"

if you says "The baby might have been sleeping for 1 hour" (Now is 3pm, & you walked by the baby room at 2pm), we can be sure that means "It is possible that the baby has been sleeping for 1 hour (he is still sleeping now, unfinished action)"

if you says "The baby might have been sleeping for 30 minutes" (Now is 3pm, & you walked by the baby room at 2pm), we can be sure that means "It is possible that the baby had been sleeping for 30 minutes (an action happened in the past and had progressed continuously to another point in the past)"

So, "might have been sleeping" (Modal perfect continuous) corresponds to past continuous, present perfect continuous or past perfect continuous?

Note: could you include a referenced source in your answers because I need some evidence while teaching students?

Answer

Finally, I can find the answer in here

grammar - Off among question

Second worst off among secondary schools were those in Barnsley, where schools get an average of £4,729 per pupil.

I don't know the usage and meaning of that "off" in this sentence. Please some experts explain this clearly.

nouns - Correct position of adjective?

I'm confused with these 3 sentences for the adjective 'responsible'

The police seem certain they will find the people responsible for the attack.
The police seem certain they will find the responsible people for the attack. 
The police seem certain they will find the people who is responsible for the attack.

Which sentence is correct, the first 1 I copied from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/ but I don't know why "people (a noun)" stands before an "adjective (responsible)".

Answer

The third sentence is

The police seem certain they will find the people who is responsible for the attack.

"People" is a plural word so it requires "are" instead of "is", and the present tense is incorrect too.

---

The second sentence is

The police seem certain they will find the responsible people for the attack.

The adjective is placed before "people" and the meaning of "responsible people" is that they are "well-behaved and law-abiding", which in the usage is clearly not so.

---

The first sentence is

The police seem certain they will find the people responsible for the attack.

and this is the correct sentence, as can be seen by adding some implied words:

The police seem certain they will find the people [who were] responsible for the attack.

grammaticality - When "why would ..." becomes an embedded clause, should word order be changed?

Let's say I have the following "wh-question":

Why would a random person like me be able to see ghosts?

I want to turn this sentence into a complete answer statement. I would say:

I have no idea why a random person like me would be able to see ghosts.

To me, this sounds correct and natural. The verb would is moved from before the subject to after it.

My question is, is it grammatically incorrect to say the following?

I have no idea why would a random person like me be able to see ghosts.

As a native speaker from Canada and living in the USA, this sounds both unnatural and ungrammatical to me; however, I can't find any actual linguistic or grammatical references that say one way or the other.

Questions of similar structure I've examined (and come to the same conclusion) include:

• Why would a bag of chips be this expensive?
  
  
  
  
  • I don't know why a bag of chips would be this expensive.
  
  


• How would I open this door if I were Satan?
  
  
  
  
  
  • I don't know how I would open the door if I were Satan.
  
  


• Where would I find the bathroom?
  
  
  
  
  • I don't know where I would find the bathroom.
  
  

Forming those sentences using the wh-question word order seems incorrect and unnatural as well.

So, my question: Is it grammatical, and natural, to leave word order intact when turning a wh-question into an embedded clause?

NB: I have taken a look at this answered question as well as this unanswered one but neither of them address this particular scenario.

grammar - "Shouldn't you be at work?"

Say you should be at work. Would the correct answer be "yes" or "no"? The common answer would be "yes", but isn't that really saying, "yes, I should not be at work"?

meaning - Question Regarding Possessives with ('s) and (of)

Question: Is the first one redundant and proper, or is it redundant and not necessarily correct?

(1) He is a friend of Doug's.

(2) He is a friend of Doug.

Answer

Patrick,

This is a grammatical issue I am curious about, as I have always used "of Doug's", not "of Doug" in such sentences. Your question has prompted me to do some more research.

Swan's Practical English Usage, 3rd ed. does not address the controversy but does give several 'double possessive' sentences, such as She's a friend of my father's so presumably he thinks double possessives are okay, at least in some contexts.

Grammar Girl provides a lengthy discussion of double possessives, and provides useful distinctions that explain when they are correct, when and how they could be avoided, and when they are a mistake. People may question her authority, but she does provide a useful breakdown and cites authoritative references.

Richard Nordquist, over at about.com's grammar page, comes down on the side of double possessives being correct, and gives several examples of their use in literature (Bronte, etc.) and an interesting summary of the history of this debate among grammarians.

In The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style, Bryon Garner surveys the pro and con arguments, and concludes that double possessives are fine except in awkward sentences like Many friends of Mr. Smith's, which should be reworded to Many of Mr. Smith's friends.

Having read all this, I have not changed my mind: He is a friend of Doug's is grammatically correct, and He is a friend of Doug is not. If He is a friend of mine is correct, and He is a friend of me is incorrect (which I definitely believe to be the case), then the same rules should apply to proper nouns to show possession in this construction.

I hope this at least gives you some food for thought.

grammar - Negative questions: “No, I don’t” or "Yes, I don't"?

I’m an English teacher in Japan. Recently I ran into quite a conundrum, which I’m sure many others have struggled with. I was talking to one of my students in the presence of my boss and something my student said gave me the impression he hadn’t seen a particular movie. I then asked him, “So you haven’t seen the movie?” He responded, “No, I haven’t.” At this, I corrected him, saying he should say, “Yes, I haven’t.” My boss took issue with and said this is the number one thing that Japanese students learning English apparently trip up on, and traditionally they would be upset if I teach this kind of thing, because what they learned in school is that they should say, “No, I haven’t” in all cases. He has been riding me to find the answer for myself as to whether this is true or not, and while I’ve looked around online and found opinions, I can’t find anything “official”. And what bothers me is responding to a question such as “Have you not seen it” with “No, I haven’t” seems illogical to me, because then it sounds like it would be a double-negative; I’m asking if he has NOT seen the movie, so shouldn’t his answer be “YES, I haven’t seen it?” By saying “no“, to me it sounds like he would be saying, “No, I haven’t not seen it”, which would mean he has.

Also, the other night, my boss posed the example question on the board for me, “Do you not like it?”. Again, I would naturally think it should be, “Yes, I don’t” or “No, I do”, because I’d be affirming that question one way or the other.

He also showed me a place in a textbook we use with a question like “Don’t you like it” and the answer was “No, I don’t” or “Yes, I do”. This makes sense to me because the question is essentially saying, “I think you like it, right”, but I’d using a negative. Although when I think about it, why does this seem normal to me but it seems strange to me to say “Yes, I do” or “No, I don’t” to something like “Do you NOT like it”.

This thread seems to suggest I’m right: Proper yes/no answer to a question posed in negative form

My mom, who is really good with Grammar, also agreed with the responses in that thread. But I feel like I need something more official and concrete.

So could anyone tell me for sure what the right way is and if possible give me an official source, like a dictionary of sorts or something? Thanks a lot.

grammar - Is it correct to write "offer of" or "offer on" and "whenever suits you better"

I am replying to a job offer and I would like to thank the opportunity given.

I was going to begin my message with:

"Thank you for the offer on CompanyName... "

As part of a response to a message with a job offer I would like to let them know:

"I will be available all morning, so just call me whenever suits you
better"

Is this correct?

Thanks in advance.

grammatical number - Is the usage of "are" correct when referring to a team/group/band?

Possible Duplicate:
Is staff plural?

It always sounds wrong to me when people refer to a proper team, group, band, etc. in plural form, e.g.:

Nirvana are the creators of grunge.

The Avalanche are on the road to the Stanley Cup this year.

To me, this sounds correct:

Nirvana is the creator of grunge.

If the name is plural, it sounds correct:

The Foo Fighters are on tour this year.

What is the rule for this? I seem to be hearing this more and more these days.

grammar - Is the word European the only word that doesn't go after "an?"

I can only think of the word European as a word that doesn't go after the word an. Is there any other words that start with a vowel, but don't go after an?

Answer

That would be true of pretty much any word that started with a "you" sound, regardless of how it is spelled since "a" or "an" is based on the pronunciation, not the spelling.

A union

A utility

A eulogy, a eunuch, a euphemism, a euphoria

A uniform standard of spelling, which we don't have in English

A useful rule of thumb -- 'an' before vowel -- which doesn't always work

A unified mess of different linguistic sources, which compose the vocabulary of the English language.

OK, sorry, I got carried away.

Where it gets fun is where it varies by dialect. Is it "a hotel" or "an hotel"? Is it "a herb" or "an herb"? Depends on whether you are "a united states citizen".

phonology - What is the term for when a word begins with the previous word's ending sound?

What is the term for when a word begins with the same sound as the previous word's ending sound? For example, there are three instances of this in one line of the lyrics to For the First Time in Forever (Reprise) in the Frozen movie soundtrack, where Elsa sings:

Just stay away and you'll be safe from me.

1. Just stay


2. safe from


3. from me

I don't think elision is the correct term, since all references I've found to elision show that letters are omitted when written, e.g., "going to" -> "gonna."

articles - Is it necessary to use "the" multiple times?

It seems that the question has eventually become a series of questions....

---

An example goes as:

The 1st and (the) 2nd paragraphs of the article are extremely long.

Another example:

What are the situation, (the) task and (the) result of your story?

Is it necessary to use the in ()?

Answer

Generally, repeating the word "the" before items in a list is not necessary. Think of "the" as being distributed across all the elements.

However, there are some exceptions.

The first paragraph, which is the funniest paragraph of the article, and the second paragraph are extremely long.

Here, the "the" is necessary because you've entered and exited a dependent clause, which the "the" cannot distribute across.

Generally, if it might be confusing to a reader or listener, include the word "the". Similarly, if it would be distracting, omit it.

grammaticality - “Thanksgiving was in four days”: something sounds funny!

Can you tell me if this sentence is correct? Here it is, in context (bold emphasis added):

...mother and sister to let them know she was deploying. Thanksgiving was in four days, and Peyton had a feeling she was going to miss it...

I keep thinking that it should be Thanksgiving was four days away, or There were only four days until Thanksgiving.

I know everyone uses the first version, but I am seeking expert advice.

questions - Syntax of "What proof have we?"

I'm a German and our English teacher always told us not to use the German syntax in English. So here are a few examples to illustrate :

"What means this word?" -> correct : "What does that word mean?"
"Have we homework" -> correct :" "Do we have homework?"

That's how I've been taught at least.

I was reading the English version of 'Game of Thrones' today and one sentence is :

"What proof have we?"

Is this sentence correct? I assume it is, since it is a published book. However, if I apply that rule I learned, this would be the correct sentence:

"What proof do we have?"

Where lies the difference?

Answer

Your teacher hasn't led you too far astray, because "what proof do we have?" would also be correct, so they wouldn't have led into saying the wrong thing.

English does though sometimes use subject-verb inversion. It happens much more with auxiliaries than other verbs, and one use is in questions:

We have proof.

Have we proof?

We couldn't do that with other verbs, and so would need the do form:

We considered it.

*Considered we it.

Did we consider it?

But auxiliaries don't require this, even when the same verb is being used in a sense other than its auxiliary sense. Adding what we get "what proof have we?"

It's shorter and hence more emphatic than "what proof do we have?". It's also possible that the author's choice was influenced by the fact that earlier in English's history inversion was more common, so while this remains in modern use that may have led the writers to favour it for the work in question.

word choice - "I", "me" and "myself"

What is correct?
We are a family of four: my father, my mother, my brother and me.

or
We are a family of four: my father, my mother, my brother and I.
or
We are a family of four: my father, my mother, my brother and myself.

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?

hyphenation - How should "condolences" be hyphenated?

My word processor soft-hyphenated condolences as condolenc-es. Does this look natural to the eyes of native speakers? I, a non-native speaker, think it should be condolen-ces.

grammaticality - Contraction for 'are' with nouns

Is this correct?

the candys 're in the box, the
womens're at the car

I know 'you're', 'we're', 'they're' are valid usages, but can it be used for nouns?

Answer

Is this correct?

the candys 're in the box

It's not usually considered correct but it is sometimes encountered.

the womens're at the car

That's wrong for other reasons.

I know 'you're', 'we're', 'they're' are valid usages, but can it be used for nouns?

No, not usually.

Apostrophe usage?

I've written:

Special offer: For a limited period (to celebrate the launch of our
saunas in Chalet Harriet 1 & 2) we are offering our free children's
discounts on both chalets for 15th December and 22nd December.

I particularly want to know if it's "childrens" or "children's" (with or without the apostrophe) and if the brackets above work? Thanks

Would I use who or whom in this scenario?

I know there are numerous examples of who vs whom. But I can't find anything that really makes me feel confident in how to write this.

The sentence is

The two most important are the satisfaction level of the person whom
opened the ticket and the number of days a ticket was open.

I broke it down so I could use the He/She/Him/Her test. What I came up with is

The ticket was opened by her/him.

But that doesn't really match the sentence structure at all and really just rearranges it such that I can make that particular substitution. I could, if I wanted, rearrange it as

She/he opened the ticket.

which also works but still doesn't follow the sentence structure.

I suppose the best way to really clarify it is to say

The two most important are the satisfaction level of the person by whom the ticket was opened and the number of days a ticket was open.

Is that actually the correct way or are they both correct with the latter simply being less cumbersome than the former?

Correct form of object of sentence with grouped possessive and personal pronoun?

Lets say the object of a sentence is a possessive, of more than one nouns. Something that is say both someone else's and my own. IE Tom's and mine, as in the sentence

This meeting requires Tom and my's attendance.

How do I express this? Should I say "This meeting requires Tom and I's attendance" or "This meeting requires Tom's attendance and mine?" or maybe something else?

I've been taught "I" should only be used in the subject. However "Tom and I's attendance" seems most natural to me. I've used this form my whole life, but every time I type it I fear I may not be using it correctly.

I noticed this question, but it seems to apply to the subject, not the object.

Answer

This meeting requires Tom's and my attendance.

or

This meeting requires Tom's attendance and mine (or my own).

punctuation - Which is the correct 'apostrophe' to use when typing? ' (quote) or ` (backtick)

A recent discussion came up in GameDev that suggests that when you are using apostrope for abbreviations, that the correct apostrophe to use when typing is the backtick. On US Keyboards below the escape-key — left of the 1 key)

Questions about the difference between the single-quote, and the apostrophe have come up before, but they do not address whether the apostrophe should be typed as if it is a single-quote, or it should be typed as a backtick.

Which of the following are (more) correct:

Itˋs common sense that a student darenˋt interrupt its professor!

or

It’s common sense that a student daren’t interrupt its professor!

Answer

A backtick would be my last recommendation. A straight single-quote is acceptable, and a curly close quote can be substituted as an improvement. In other words, of these three:

• It`s common sense. . . .


• It's common sense. . . .



• It’s common sense. . . .

I would avoid the first, accept the second, and consider the third to be superior to the other two.

One website says the backtick:

shouldn't be used in place of the opening single quote, or for any other discernible typographic purpose

and goes on to say that the closing single quote is:

the preferred character to use as an apostrophe, as in I’m coming, or He’s with me.

It also mentions that the ASCII apostrophe:

shouldn't really ever be used in proper typography, but is often used because it's easy to type and well supported.

subjects - "SALLY had been the first one to greet PAULINA when SHE appeared in the doorway" Pronouns

I read the following sentence and I thought the pronoun "she" could refer to either the subject or the object of the sentence.

Sally had been the first one to greet Paulina when she appeared in the doorway.

Sally is the subject, since she is doing the action, and Paulina is the object, since the action is being done to her. It's easy enough to assume that "she" means Sally. Is there a resolution or way to improve this sentence to completely remove any possible misunderstandings?

Answer

There are grammatical restrictions on the use of pronouns when they occur within the same sentence as co-referential noun phrases. A pronoun can co-refer with another normal noun phrase if either:

• it occurs after the other noun phrase

or

• it occurs lower down in the syntactic tree than the other noun phrase.

This last point means that a pronoun in a subordinate clause can co-refer with a noun phrase in a main clause regardless of whether the subordinate clause occurs before or after the main clause.

However, the rules above do not allow a pronoun to co-refer with another noun phrase when the pronoun comes first and the pronoun is in the main clause but the normal noun phrase is in a subordinate clause:

• She made dinner when Brenda got home.

In the sentence above she cannot refer to the same person as Brenda. We can compare that sentence with the following:

• When she got home Brenda made dinner.


• When Brenda got home she made dinner.


• Brenda made dinner when she got home.

In the examples above she and Brenda can refer to the same person. In the first example, this is because she occurs in the subordinate clause and Brenda occurs in the main clause. In the second example, it is because she occurs after Brenda. In the third example it is for both of those reasons.

The Original Poster's example

Sally had been the first one to greet Paulina when she appeared in the doorway.

The sentence above is clearly ambiguous because she can refer back to either noun phrase in the earlier main clause. We can use the rules of grammar so that we still have one she, one Sally and one Paulina, but without any ambiguity. To do this we need to move the subordinate clause to the front of the sentence and put the proper name in the subordinate clause and the pronoun in the higher main clause:

1. When Sally had appeared in the doorway, she had been the first one to greet Paulina.




2. When Paulina had appeared in the doorway, Sally had been the first one to greet her.

Notice that in example (2) we are also guided by the rules about reflexive pronouns. Apart from the common sense idea that Sally wouldn't be greeting herself, Sally and her cannot be co-referential because they occur in the same clause. If Sally was co-referential with the pronoun, the pronoun would have needed to be reflexive:

• When Paulina had appeared in the doorway, Sally had been the first one to greet herself.

Pronouns are quite interesting, aren't they!

compounds - Young Surveyors Network or Young Surveyor Network?

I'm a surveyor and we are currently setting up our network. However, there seems to be a disagreement on the proper name of the group. The group is composed of young surveyors under the age of 35, hence the name Young Surveyors Network. However, somebody in the group has challenged it and has asserted that it should be Young Surveyor Network. Personally I think the original name is just fine but I'd prefer more ammunition wink wink

Can somebody resolve this issue? Should it be Young Surveyors Network or Young Surveyor Network? Or does it need to take an apostrophe and be Young Surveyors' Network

Thanks in advance!