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

meaning - Using "actually" to talk about the present

The word "actually" is widely used more or less in the same context as "in fact":

You're a doctor, right?

Yes ... well, actually / in fact I haven't graduated yet.

But, is "actually" also used to talk about the present? (like "currently")

What do you do for a living?

Actually / Currently, I'm working at an Insurance Company.

Answer

Actually can be used in the present, but your second example doesn't make sense. In contexts like these, actually is generally used to contradict something said:

Person 1: You're a doctor, right?

Person 2: Actually, I'm a nurse.

Currently is used to indicate something that is happening now, and actually can be used like that too, so long as it is correcting/contradicting something.

In some cases, actually can be used to mean currently without being contradictory, but usually (in my experience) it is only used like that when the information will be coming as a surprise:

Person 1 (knows Person 2 as drug addict from high school): So, do you have a job?

Person 2: Actually, I'm a lawyer.

grammar - Need help identifying epistrophe

I have a small presentation on epistrophe coming up and I want to make sure I don't say anything incorrect. Would the sentence "Ever since I left the city you, you, you" (it's from the song "Hotline Bling" by Drake) count as epistrophe? The one part I'm not sure about is the fact that "you, you, you" isn't three different clauses because they don't each have a subject and a verb.

Answer

No, that is not an example of Epistrophe.

Epistrophe is rhetorical repetition that occurs across different sentences, phrases, or clauses. Your example is repetition for meter and emphasis, not for rhetoric. It doesn't occur in different sentences or clauses, but repeats the end of one sentence.

You are correct to observe that "you, you, you" does not represent three different clauses, because there are not three verbs.

grammaticality - Is it acceptable to begin a declarative sentence with "Am"?

I want to know firstly if it's grammatically correct to start a declarative sentence with "Am". For example:

Am excited about the game today.

Secondly, if it is grammatically incorrect, then I wanted to ask how much "head room" there is for the above usage. I can't think of an example now, nor find one here at english.stackexchange. However I imagine there are usages of the english language that grammatically are illegal, yet have somehow become accepted as colloquial or idiomatic perhaps.

Answer

Some languages are subject-drop languages, but English is considered a subject-obligatory language. The sentence as it stands is non standard. It's the type of telegraphic language you might see in a text message.

Using "once upon a time" in a present tense sentence?

I work in a company that sells simple children's books. A customer complained that the book changes tense randomly, and they're right. This book was created years ago and needs updating to ensure it uses correct grammar.

The book starts out like this:

Once upon a time in a faraway land, Princess $Name$ lived in a
beautiful castle atop a high hill. She had a very busy schedule, each
day slightly different from the last.

That's fine, however on all subsequent pages, the text is written in present tense, like so:

On this particular morning, Princess $Name$ awakens to the sound of a
songbird singing outside her window.

The story is designed to work in present tense, so rewriting from present tense to past tense is not an option. I'd like to rewrite the first page so it's also in present tense, but I'm not sure how.

Does it make sense to use "once upon a time" in present tense? For instance:

Once upon a time in a faraway land, Princess $Name$ lives in a
beautiful castle atop a high hill. She has a very busy schedule, each
day slightly different from the last.

But that reads weirdly to me. Alternatively, if that doesn't work grammatically, is there another way to write "once upon a time" such that it sounds ok in a present tense sentence?

Answer

I don't think "Once upon a time" can work with the present tense. There's no present tense equivalent.

Why not start,

In a faraway land, in a beautiful palace atop a high hill [there]
lives a princess. Princess $Name$?

Or you could use the Middle Eastern "There is, there is not", though that too is usually in the past tense.

tenses - Can the choice between Present Perfect vs Past Simple be influenced by external events?

What is meant by 'an external event'? For example, death.

Let there be two celebrities, one who is still alive (Leonardo DiCaprio), and one who is dead (Christopher Lee, who played Saruman in the "Lord of the Rings).

Suppose I want to convey the idea "I have seen such and such actor in person".

As a non-native speaker of English, I'm accustomed to thinking that the choice between Past Simple and Present Perfect doesn't depend on the lifespan of a particular individual. I like to think that it only depends on what I consider to be important / where my attention goes.

Thus, I would say the same thing in reference to both actors:

1) I have (or haven't) seen Leonardo DiCaprio in person.
2) I have (or haven't) seen Christopher Lee in person.

However, another non-native speaker suggested that it might be incorrect to say this about the late Mr.Lee. Because, well, there is no way for me to see him in person anymore, no matter how hard I try!

So, this speaker believes that the only acceptable way would be to say:

3) I saw Christopher Lee in person / I never saw him in person / I didn't see him in person.

Please note that there are no other details, such as "when I was in New York back in 2007" or so.

The situation would be more like two people discussing a video on youtube and spotting a familiar face. One of them says: - Oh, I know this guy! You're not gonna believe it... I've seen him in person!

---

So, which logic is correct? Does Present Perfect really depend on somebody's date of death?

Thanks!

Answer

The present perfect designates a present state which has arisen out of the prior action; in the case at hand it's an existential or experiential perfect designating the "state" of the speaker's current experience. So it's fine to say "I have seen Christopher Lee play many roles".

What you cannot say is "Christopher Lee has played many roles"—because Christopher Lee is now incapable of sustaining the experiential state!

grammar - Why are "and/or" constructions in English not considered grammatically correct?

Why are "and/or" constructions in English not considered grammatically correct?
Consider, for example, the following sentences:

• "Multi-organ failure can be attributed to confusion, fatigue, and/or
  
  delirium not attributable to any other cause."


• "Multi-organ failure can be attributed to either confusion, fatigue, delirium, or all of them, not attributable to any other cause."

Also, suggest any other way to avoid/reword such constructions.

meaning - Principle Of Life

I would like to understand what is meant by this expression:

I often asked myself, did the principle of life proceed?

This sentence came in the following context:

When I had arrived at this point and had become as well acquainted
with the theory and practice of natural philosophy as depended on the
lessons of any of the professors at Ingolstadt, my residence there
being no longer conducive to my improvements, I thought of returning
to my friends and my native town, when an incident happened that
protracted my stay. Whence, I often asked myself, did the principle of
life proceed? It was a bold question, and one which has never been

considered as a mystery; yet with how many things are we upon the
brink of becoming acquainted, if

What is mean by the principle of life here?
And how can this principle of life proceed?

There is a meaning underlying in this expression, but I can't understand it.

Answer

The essential part of the question is in the interrogative.

Whence (adverb) : From what source

The author is saying that though he believed he had accomplished all that he could at his current position, he was still routinely plagued by a question regarding the source of life.

Considering he's discussing natural philosophy I would assume he's referring the source of life from abiotic material. In this case I would consider "principle" to not mean belief, but rather the foundation of something. The question, in my mind, is something like:

What is the foundational source of life?

infinitives - Why do we use the objective case pronoun "me" in "He can watch me clean the car"?

He can watch me clean the car.

In this sentence, the pronoun me is used as the object of the verb watch. But isn't me also acting as the subject of the verb 'clean' and therefore should be I instead? Obviously 'he can watch me clean the car' sounds correct but why is it this way? Is there a rule that governs this?

Reopen note

This question has been linked to this question here:

However, that question is clearly about whether to use an infinitive or a gerund-participle form after the verb hear. This question is as described above. It is about the function of the pronoun me in sentences like the one described.

grammar - Is Word always correct in suggesting either a comma before 'which' or else using 'that'?

In Microsoft Word, the grammar engine in certain situations suggests either placing a comma before which or replacing it with that (and not using a comma).

Does the meaning of a sentence ever change between these two alternatives of , which and that, or is this just a style choice?

Here is a similar question that/, which was posed where the accepted answer states in part:

Supplementary (or non-defining, or non-restrictive) relative clauses are by convention set off by commas and integrated (or defining, or restrictive) relative clauses are not.

Would the use of that be more appropriate for a defining or restrictive relative clause?

Answer

With regard to to your question

Does the meaning of a sentence ever change between these two alternatives of ', which' and 'that' or is this just a style choice?

there is a famous instance from the 1984 Republican Party platform drafting debates that illustrates the significance that the choice between the two forms can have on sentence meaning. A draft of the taxation plank of that platform included a sentence that initially had this wording:

We therefore oppose any attempts to increase taxes which would harm the recovery and reverse the trend to restoring control of the economy to individual Americans.

Observers noted that if which were read as that—that is, as a restrictive clause—the effect would be that the platform opposed harmful tax increases but held out the possibility that certain tax increases might be harmless or even beneficial. (This was 1984, I hasten to reiterate, when such a reading of a Republican-authored document would have seemed not at all absurd.)

On the other hand, if which were read as the first word of a nonrestrictive clause, the wording "which would harm the recovery and reverse the trend to restoring control of the economy to individual Americans" would amount to a characterization of any tax increase.

According to Steven Hayward, The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution: 1980–1989 (2009), a congressman from Texas named Tom Loeffler noticed the ambiguity and insisted that the sentence be clarified by adding a comma before which, thereby confirming the nonrestrictive nature of the phrase "which would harm the recovery and reverse the trend to restoring control of the economy to individual Americans." Loeffler's effort succeeded, the comma was inserted, and the Republican Party began its tradition of explicit theoretical opposition to all tax increases.

---

With regard to your question

Is Word always correct in suggesting either a comma before 'which' or else using 'that'?

the notion that a word-processing program might be correct in trying to force users to make an either/or decision when a third legitimate choice (restrictive use of which) is available is, in my opinion, untenable. I have used that and which in their Word-approved ways for so long that I do it almost unconsciously—which (I hope) is fine. But many writers, both in the past and in the present, use which in place of that in certain situations, and I have no trouble understanding what they mean. I see no reason to let Word dictate correctness or acceptability in such a case.

For me as a reader, a problem arises only when (as in the Republican Party platform example above) a writer perhaps intentionally uses which ambiguously to avoid getting pinned down to a particular meaning. A comma is an easy thing for a reader (or writer) to miss, after all. But it seems to me that Word's effort to make writers choose between 'that' and ', which' may lead to more misstatements (from writers who mean one thing but haplessly choose the other under pressure from Word) than would have resulted if the program had simply butted out and let writers express themselves naturally.

usage - "Thousands-Dollar" or "Thousand-Dollar"?

If a prize is worth thousands of dollars, is it called

a thousands-dollar prize

or

a thousand-dollar prize

word usage - "These sort of things": is it grammatical? (2,670,000 hits on Google)

I was interested in the following sentence which appeared in an article titled “Colorless, Tasteless but Not Dangerous" by Dwight Garner in The New York Times (November 15, 2010).

People who do gravitate toward these sort of things, he warns, sotto
voce, might be “the wrong kind of white person.”

Can someone clarify if the fragment "these sort of things" is ungrammatical, as I think it is?

I would reword "sort" with "sorts", but I'm not sure on this correction because the phrase "these sort of things" occurs on many occasions on The New York Times, it frequently occurs in others newspapers and, more generally, it has 2,670,000 hits on Google Search. So I am wondering if it is in common usage, albeit it isn't the highest register.

Answer

To gauge the relative popularity of "these sort of things" in historical usage, I ran Elephind newspaper database searches for that phrase and for fifteen related expressions, representing various permutations of this/these, sort/sorts, and thing/things across the period 1800–2017.

---

Interruption: An important note on Elephind searches

Before discussing the results, I should observe three things about Elephind search results.

First, the results tend to tend to yield results whose numbers distribute across a bell curve, owing to a couple of factors: (1) the relative scarcity of newspapers in the databases that Elephind searches as you go back in time; and (2) the consequences of copyright restrictions on the availability of newspapers for searches as you come nearer the present. The net result of these contrary forces is that the number of newspapers searched reaches its maximum in the decade 1910–1919, and in fact peaks in 1915. (I base this conclusion on the results of an Elephind search I ran for the word the.)

Second, Elephind searches substantially more newspapers from Australia than from the United States over the full range of its coverage (1780–2017). My search for the, for example, yielded matches from 104,628,361 Australian newspapers and 42,601,972 U.S. newspapers. That's a lot of newspapers from each country, but it's a lot more from Australia. This reflects the greater accessibility of the digitized newspaper collection through Trove (the online presence of the National Library of Australia) than of the combined Library of Congress and state online newspaper collections in the United States.

Third, newspapers from Australia form an even greater majority of the searchable newspapers from 1925 forward: 47.3 million from Australia to 10.3 million from the United States, judging from my the search. That's because Australian newspapers continue to be available from Trove after 1925, where as the Library of Congress's collection from 1925 forward is not searchable at all. The main sources for U.S. newspapers from the post-1924 era are the state collections from California (3.6 million newspapers), Illinois (2.6 million), Colorado (1.0 million), and Texas (0.79 million).

So the results of an Elephind search give outsize prominence to results from Australia and from states that have searchable newspaper databases (in addition to the states already named, Pennsylvania and Virginia have searchable collections of more than 100,000 newspapers from 1925 onward; and university libraries in Missouri, New York, Ohio, Massachusetts, and Virginia do, too), and they become progressively weaker as you get closer to the present.

Having clarified what the source of my results is, I return to those results.

---

How usage is distributed in the Elephind results

Here is the distribution of the matches I got for the sixteen phrases that I searched for across the years 1800–2017 (with the source of the matches further identified in parentheses by country of publication):

this sort of thing: 90,278 newspapers (Australia 60,017, United States 30,261)

thing of this sort: 1,834 newspapers (Australia 1027, United States 807)

things of this sort: 1,557 newspapers (Australia 641, United States 916)

these sort of things: 1,437 newspapers (Australia 1,211, United States 226)

this sort of things: 331 newspapers (Australia 192, United States 139)

these sorts of things: 203 newspapers (Australia 142, United States 61)

these sort of thing: 23 newspapers (Australia 17, United States 6)

these sorts of thing: 1 newspaper (Australia 1, United States 0)

things of these sorts: 1 newspaper (Australia 1, United States 0)

this sorts of thing: 1 newspaper (Australia 1, United States 0)

this sorts of things: 1 newspaper (Australia 0, United States 1)

thing of these sort: none

thing of these sorts: none

things of these sort: none

thing of this sorts: none

things of this sorts: none

Clearly the dominant phrasing is "thing of this sort" at 90,278 matches, a figure that dwarfs two forms that I have heard used quite often and that (I believe) no one would be inclined to challenge as ungrammatical: "thing of this sort" (1,834) newspapers and "things of this sort" (1,557).

But then—to my surprise—comes the wording that the poster asks about—"these sort of things," at 1,437 matches. That number is not tremendously smaller than the numbers for "thing of this sort" and "things of this sort," and it leads me to believe that it is a (or was) a fairly common form of the expression in at least some part of the English-speaking world.

The most noticeable thing about the expression is how strongly the matches skew toward Australian sources: the ratio of Australian to U.S. sources is more than 5 to 1, as against slightly less than 3 to 1 for "thing of this sort," a bit more than 2 to 1 for "thing of this sort," and less than 1 to 1 for "things of this sort."

This last ratio is especially surprising, since one might expect that "this sort of things" might make a natural pairing with "things of this sort." But U.S. usage seems to accept "things of this sort" far more readily than it does "this sort of things."

---

Conclusion: Is 'these sort of things' grammatical?

If the test of grammaticality is usage, the Elephind search results tabulated above offer "these sort of things" some fairly impressive credentials for claiming legitimacy—at least in Australia, where, by a very thin margin, it is the second most common form in historical newspaper database occurrences after "this sort of thing." In the Elephind results from the United States, however, it finishes a less impressive fourth, and out-tallies the fifth-place "this sort of things" by a count of only 226 to 139.

As a practical matter, "this sort of thing" is the runaway winner in historical newspaper use in Australia and the United States. Both "thing of this sort" and "things of this sort" seem to pass the no-one-bats-an-eye test as well (at least, I've never heard anything against them), and that may be true of "these sort of things" in Australian usage, too. But in the United States that last wording is infrequent enough to prompt some degree of eye batting and perhaps even eyebrow raising when encountered unexpectedly.

Usage of the word 'warming'

I was just wondering how exactly the word warming is used with different sentences which actually gives different meaning.

For e.g.,

1. My house warming ceremony


2. Global warming

How it is actually giving different meaning? I understand the meaning of both, but just curious about why it is exactly as such. I would be glad if any one would explain this to me in detail about this.

sentence - "I left smoking", "I quit smoking", "I gave up smoking", "I stopped smoking" are these same?

For various such sentences in many cases I get confused, it seems different for different cases. I want to know if someone left doing something for permanantly then what should be used?
Also give some examples for different cases.
Suppose... "I left my bag" means "I forgot my bag".

but If I want to say the same for permanentaly "I left bringing my bag".
Where should we use "stop" and "quit" then?

ordinals - How to frame a question to get answer about the turn that somebody has taken in doing something?

I want to frame a question for which the answer will be :

Obama is the 46th president

I am not looking for "who is the 46th president?" I trying to ask a question where I want to quiz the other person on Obama's turn (46) as a president.

For instance(incorrectly)

"Howmanyth" president is Obama ?

grammar - Are these questions grammatically correct?

I have seen questions like

• "He went through all that just to go to Columbia?"
  or


• "That's the Ferrari?"

and I would like to know if they are grammatically correct.
Can you use questions like that in regular speech?
Can you even start a question with "you" or "that"?

Answer

These questions are grammatically correct. In written English, there is nothing wrong with indicating an interrogative solely by putting a question mark at the end. In spoken English, intonation is used for this purpose. There is no requirement that the interrogative mood be clearly expressed in the words used.

You can certainly start a question with "you" or "that". The easiest way is by eliding a word like "do", "did", "are", "is", or "can":

Omitting "do": You really expect to make out in that sardine can?
Omitting "did/does": That help?
Omitting "is": That what you were looking for?
Omitting "are": You sure?

Should I use who or whom when the subject is plural?

I realise there has been a lot of discussion of who vs whom on these forums, but as far as I can tell none of the previous posts answer my question. Which of these sentences is (more) correct, and why?

"South American footballers, including the likes of Maradona, Garrincha, and Pelé whom I have met, are coming to the party."

OR

"South American footballers, including the likes of Maradona, Garrincha, and Pelé who I have met, are coming to the party."

Please assume that the writer isn't taking the stance that who should be used all time, but instead wishes to use whom where it would be traditionally appropriate to do so.

Answer

‘Who’ does not inflect for number: it is always ‘who’ as the subject of a clause and ‘whom’ in all other contexts, whether its antecedent is singular or plural.

That said, your phrase is rather ambiguously worded (have you only met Pelé, or have you met all three, or have you met a lot of South American footballers, including Maradona, Garrincha, and Pelé? Or have you met all the South American footballers that are coming to the party). It doesn’t flow very well, and there seems to be some kind of determiner missing at the very beginning: if you remove the (I presume) parenthetical clauses, you’re left with the sentence, “South American footballers are coming to the party”, which is not incorrect, but sounds like a newspaper heading where determiners are often left out. Adding ‘many’ or ‘a lot of’ would make it sound more natural. I would suggest:

Many South American footballers are coming to the party, including the likes of Maradona, Garrincha, and Pelé, all of whom I have met.

(Assuming of course that those three were the ones you intended to single out as having met)

apostrophe - Found in Mary'r Room

Why am I not to say "… found in Mary'r room," which ought to be the logically correct way to use the genitive apostrophe?

Something could as reasonably be found in Mary'r room if it could be in John's room.

grammar - Is "Me" instead of "I" as a nominative pronoun actually acceptable?

TL;DR;

Has 'Me and whoever' long become acceptable usage in informal speech?

---

In the comments on this answer on ELL, I corrected the usage of "me" instead of "I".

"My boyfriend and I.. " 😁

However, the original answerer¹ claimed:

in informal speech 'Me and whoever'² has long become acceptable usage. I think we've gotten over that one now :)
_{Emphasis mine}

Fumblefingers is "fairly relaxed about such things" as they mention here, however a sample size of 1 is not really authoritative. Most other answers I found both on ELU and other arbitrary Google searches seem quite set on upholding this rule rather than relaxing it.

---

This ngram seems to claim the opposite. The "correct usage" seems to be growing.

Is the ngram biased as its corpus is published works and probably less informal?

---

Have we really got over it? It seems that there are a good deal of people who are resistant to the change in my quick search but maybe I'm not looking in the right places.

---

<sup>1. A clumsy word to my ears, but apparently a real one
2. I'm dying to change this to "me and whomever"!</sup>

prepositions - "obstacle to developing '" vs "obstacle in developing"?

Which proposition are used after obstacle? I have seen both "in" and "to". what are the difference between them? for example, what is the difference between the following sentences/
There is an obstacle in developing .....

or
There is an obstacle to developing ......

word usage - ___, ___, and I am/are…

What is the proper way of saying: "Jim, John, and I am going to the beach."

Whenever I say "Jim, John, and I are going somewhere", I stumble over "I are going".

Should it be "am" or "are", or should the "I" come first, or should it be "me".

When reading everyday messages, I usually see people write "Me, Jim, and John are going somewhere", avoiding the stumble, but that doesn't seem correct at all.

grammatical number - Ownership by other people, but not a collective

How do we write the possessive form for "people?" For instance, let's say that I manage money for other people. The people are individuals, here, not a collective (a people).

Which is correct, and why?

I manage other people's money.

or

I manage other peoples' money.

Edit 1

I suppose the fine line would show itself if I were to say,

I manage a people's money.

Then "people" becomes a singular collective. This is not the case for my question. In general, 's seems to be used in singular possessive cases and s' in plural possessive cases. "People," as used here, is a true plural, which would imply the use of s', but that looks odd.

Answer

The rule is that you add 's to a word to make it posessive, unless the word is a plural that ends in "s" already. Any style guide will tell you that. For non-plurals that end in "s" usage varies. For example, the possessive of Jesus is often Jesus' but the possessive of bus would normally be bus's.

The usual example of a plural possessive ending in 's is men's.

The reason for the different treatment of words ending in s depending on whether they are singular or plural is related to pronunciation: the plural ending sounds like the possessive ending, and doubling the sound for plural possessive is awkward.

grammar - To "to" or Not To "to"

I often come across sentences such as, "Our program assists, at no cost, students maintain independent living..." I believe it should be written as, "Our program assists, at no cost, students to maintain independent living..." Input? This isn't a question about the word "help" - this is specifically about the word "assist."

slang - Why would you write "ain't"? Isn't it a contraction only used in spoken English?

I often hear in English conversation or movies the contraction "ain't" (for "isn't"), but I am more surprised to see it in writing (and I am not referring to a novel, where I can understand its usage: convey common oral expressions in a text)

See this question (on a technical forum) for instance:

There ain’t ListBox.SelectionMode=“None”, is there another way to disable selection in a listbox?

Is it appropriate in that context (formal written technical question)?

Answer

"Ain't" is generally pretty stigmatized; it is widely used in African American Vernacular English and Southern English. If someone uses it in a more formal context, it is likely that they want to convey a casual or insouciant attitude. However, any native English speaker knows what it means, so there should be no issue in terms of communication. On the other hand you might justify not using it on the grounds that it might give non-native speakers some trouble.

word choice - Plural of "copula", does "copulas" or "copulae" sound more professional?

When talking in linguistics topics about the word "to be" and its foreign language equivalents like Spanish "ser" and "estar", the name of this kind of special verb is "copula".

But copula has two plural forms:

In a formal context as linguists might use, which sounds more "professional"? Does the Latin irregular seem "more correct and erudite" or "too pompous"?

Please note I'm not asking for prescriptive vs descriptive debate or plain vanilla "most frequent" as a simple Google Ngram would provide. As far as I'm concerned both are correct, I just want to narrow it down to how professionals use it in the given context.

single word requests - To mention the topic a book deals with, is it correct to say that 'a book talks about something'?

To mention the topic of a book, I can say that such and such a book is about something or that it tells about something.

Can I say that it talks about something?

Ngram-viewer-ing the book is about, the book tells about, and the book talks about indicates that using tell and talk are far less common than be in this context.

ngram viewer: the book is about, tells about, talks about

Talk sounds weird to me because you do not talk to/with a book: language, information only flow one way, from the book to you; reading a book is not having a conversation with it!

Answer

You're right to say that books don't normally talk, electronic children's books aside. The phrase the book talks about is a metonymic reference to the author of the book. That is, the book is in a sense the author's monologue and therefore the 'voice' of the author.

So the phrase the book talks about X means the author talks (or writes) about that subject in the book.

Talk sounds weird to me because you do not talk with a book, language, information only flow one way, from the book to you; reading a book is not having a conversation with it!

The phrase talks about is different from talks with. The former refers to a one-way flow of information as you describe, while the latter implies a two-way flow. So there is no inconsistency between saying the books talks about some subject and saying that you're not carrying out a two-way conversation with it.

grammar - Article when there is an adjective before a noun

When to use a or an before a noun when there are adjectives before that noun?

like the following example:

An operator pressed the button.

should that make:

A professional operator pressed the button.

An professional operator pressed the button.

same for:

A Hypertext markup language.

An Hypertext markup language.

Sometimes it seems a bit confusing, especially when there are more adjectives like:

An omen was revealed to the priest.

A terrible omen was revealed to the priest.

An overwhelming terrible omen was revealed to the priest.

What is the rule?

Answer

The article changes based on the word immediately following, not necessarily on the noun. There is no difference in meaning between "a" and "an" - the distinction is used to preserve an alternation between vowels and consonants when the sentence is spoken aloud.

Be aware that speakers of American and British English observe different rules (mainly because we can't agree on whether to pronounce the letter H or not!)

In your example:

A Hypertext Markup language. An Hypertext markup language.

an American speaker (and, to be honest, most British speakers) would find the first one correct, while an exaggerated aitch-dropper would use the second.

In these examples:

An omen was revealed to the priest.
A terrible omen was revealed to the priest.
An overwhelming terrible omen was revealed to the priest.

all three are correct as written, whether the speaker is American or British.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_(grammar)#Indefinite_article

grammaticality - ‘With me being one of them’—grammatically correct?

Would the phrase 'With me being one of them' be grammatically correct? Sounds a bit odd in my head and I triple-checked mentally but couldn't tell if it was correct or not.

'With I being one of them' doesn't sound correct either. Has to be 'me' or 'I'. Those two are the only first person pronouns... if I recall correctly.

Answer

You have several options. I am repeating some of the other answers because it seems practical to have them all together: I hope my plagiarism will be forgiven!

1) Five people went to the party last night, with me being one of them.

This is common and accepted, though not by all purists: it does look a bit informal to me (mostly owing to "with"), which might be fine in the context of a party. "Being" would be a participle; the construction would be called "fused participle", or "accusative with participle" in classicist terms.

2) Five people went to the party last night, with my being one of them.

This is how "me" would traditionally be expressed; but "with" still looks informal, which contrasts weirdly with traditional "my". "Being" would be a gerund here.

3) Five people went to the party last night, I being one of them.

This would be the classical absolute construction. It is impeccably correct, but it sounds rather stiff, especially in this context. "Being" would be a participle.

4) Five people went to the party last night, with myself being one of them.

I know this construction exists, but using "myself" this way might result in some criticism. This would certainly not be my choice.

5) Five people went to the party last night, and I was one of them.

This looks much cleaner. Why use complex constructions in this context if you don't need to? The version with "...; I was one of them" looks OK as well.

Singular they for an organization, company, country

Sometimes I stumble upon singular "they" when referring not to a person, but an organization, such as a company or a country, for instance:

Company A is doing well: their shares doubled in price this year.

or

Each region of the country speaks their own dialect.

Is this usage correct?

grammaticality - Which of the following is correct (or better): "Two Players" or "Two Player" as a game menu item?

I have published a simple game for two players, whose menu contains the following:

• Single Player (human vs. computer)


• Two Players (two players playing on the same device)


• Bluetooth (two players on two different devices)

(Without the texts in parentheses.)

So, is it correct to say "two players" or "two player" (as in "a two-player game")? If both are correct, which one is better for this purpose?

grammaticality - Is this a correct sentence: The latter is a leaf and the former a branch

I am correcting a journal paper about mathematics.

Is this a correct and complete sentence:

The latter is a leaf and the former a branch.

(I did not provide the context of the sentence, since I don't think it is necessary for the grammar. My co-author had a comma before the word "and", which is definitely wrong in my opinion. I goggled "conjunctive clause" but did not find a helpful answer. Btw, my mother tang is German.)

Btw, I was looking for an explanation such as given by G.L. "The gapping rule".

Answer

The latter is a leaf and the former a branch.
Looks fine enough. Why not speak in chronological order and say "The former is a branch and the latter a leaf."

grammar - restrictive relative pronoun clause and antecedent

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant, MICHAEL DOE, owed a duty to the Plaintiff, which duty was breached by the said Defendant, the particulars of which breach are as follows:
(a) driving without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway;
(b) failing to keep a proper lookout or any lookout at all; . . .

I thought it should be corrected as

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant, MICHAEL DOE, owed a duty to the Plaintiff which was breached by the said Defendant, the particulars of which are as follows: . . .

There are 2 relative pronouns (which) in the original sentence.

The antecedent of the first which: "a duty"
The antecedent of the second which: the former clauses—the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty which was breached by him

1. Shouldn’t the first which have a comma before itself because the clause is a restrictive clause modifying “a duty”? Or is it ok to have a comma because the antecedent (“a duty”) is away from the relative pronoun (“which”)?





2. Someone told me that "duty" in "which duty was breached" is just added for emphasis. Is it grammatically accepted to add a word of the antecedent after the relative pronoun for emphasis?




3. Regarding Question 2, is “breach” also added for emphasis or to prevent the reader from misreading it? For example, without “breach” a reader can think the antecedent of the second which is the whole former clauses—the plaintiff claims that the defendant owed a duty which was breached by him. There is no word “breach” as a noun (except the only one in the relative pronoun clause), but only the past participle “breached”. If it’s ok to add a word after the relative pronoun for helping the reader or for emphasis, does the word to be added not have to be exactly the same word that has already been said?

adjectives - Non-sea salt sulfate or non-sea-salt sulfate?

Atmospheric sea salt particles contain sulfate but also other sources of atmospheric sulfate exist. In scientific studies on particulate sulfate air pollution it is common to split between sulfate related to sea salt emissions and sulfate related to other sources. The sulfate from other sources is denoted as non-sea salt sulfate, non-sea-salt sulfate, and non-sea-salt-sulfate in the scientific literature. Thus, there is no consistent usage.

I assume that non(-)sea(-)salt is considered as adjective to sulfate. Therefore, non-sea-salt-sulfate is not correct. Based on answers to the question Pluralization rule for “five-year-old children”, “20 pound note”, “10 mile run” and on the answer Eleven-year-old boy rule. I would assume that non-sea-salt sulfate is the correct way of writing it. However, from my subjective feeling, non-sea salt sulfate is more commonly used.

My question is: Where do hyphens need to be placed in American English?

If there are differences in British English, I would be also interested in them.

Answer

If you were describing the salt, it would be sea salt or non-sea salt. As you're making the whole of non-sea salt into a compound adjective, (as a pendantic Brit) I agree with you & would say that the entire compound adjective should be hyphenated, for clarity amongst other reasons, hence I suggest non-sea-salt sulphate. It may be more 'ugly' but it's clearer and unmabiguous.

Of course, you could get round the problem by referring to sulphate from non-sea salt - but that rather dodges the question.

P.S. I'd written this answer before seeing either of WS2's comments - and hadn't even noticed that I was spelling sulphate differently from the questioner: I just automatically spelt it the 'right' way! :-)

pronouns - Please put it on the rack above yourself

Why do we say

Could you please put it on the rack above you?

In other words, why is there no reflexive needed here?

Can we also say "above yourself”, that is, use a reflexive pronoun?

Adding the 'the' article for proper noun and abbreviation?

As a part-time English tutorial teacher who isn't specialized in language, I would like to ask about article usage for proper nouns and abbreviations.

Do you add 'the' for the following sentences?

"I have just returned from _____ Massachusetts Institute of Technology."
"I have just returned from _____ Hong Kong."
"I have just returned from _____ MIT."
"I have just returned from _____ HK."

The reason of asking this question is because from where I live (Hong Kong), we have a public transportation named MTR (Mass Transit Railway), which we always seem to add 'the' before 'MTR'. (Example text: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR)

'The MTR' also appears in one of my students' text book. ("I go to school by the MTR.")

I am a bit confused by the article usage before abbreviation. My guess is:

'The' for organizations/companies;

No 'The' for location and individual's name;

But I still do not know if 'the' is needed for algorithms. For instance I am writing an academic paper about Neural Network. Should I put 'the' in front of NN?
(ie: The prediction is then carried out by ______ NN.)

I would like to hear your thoughts about article usage for abbreviations. Thanks in advance!!!
(Also I may have made some mess in the question, apologies to you who read this but passed by before.)

Update:

My confusion continues as I read more stuff:

Organization and Companies: (full name)


"Dragonair became a wholly owned subsidiary of Cathay Pacific after completion..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathay_Dragon

Meanwhile: "A charter for the incorporation of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology

But there is some new understanding that I would like to share:

When a proper noun/abbreviation is used to describe an object, the article usage will follow the object unless it's a location.

E.g.: an HMO facil­ity, a SWAT team

http://editingandwritingservices.com/using-articles-with-abbreviations/


Exception on location: "It started operations in July 1985 with a Boeing 737-200 service from Kai Tak International Airport..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathay_Dragon

I will keep on updating when more questions pop up in my head. Great thanks!

Update 2: I have marked this as duplicate with this link.

Syntax of fused relative construction with 'what'

I really liked what she wrote.

According to CaGEL* (Page 1073), what she wrote is not a clause but a noun phrase (NP). The reason I believe is that the head of what she wrote is not the clause she wrote but the noun what. That is, there is a clause in there but it's just that the clause is not the head of the entire thing in bold.

That said, I'd like to know whether the clause (she wrote) is a modifier or a complement of the head noun (what).

CaGEL doesn't seem to clearly say whether she wrote is a modifier or a complement of what, although it does say that the relative word part of what (i.e., prenucleus) combined with she wrote is a modifier of the antecedent part of what (i.e., head), as shown in the following tree diagram (Page 1073):

I don't object to this tree diagram itself, because any relative clause is a modifier (not a complement) of an antecedent, and because in a fused relative construction with what, the relative clause itself comprises the 'prenucleus' part of what as well as the following clause (e.g., she wrote).

That said, I'd like to know whether the following clause (she wrote) is a complement or a modifier of the fused relative word (what) in its entirety, which question is not answered in the above tree diagram or anywhere else in CaGEL.

I suspect that, being a fused relative, what is not just any antecedent but is a fusion of an antecedent and a relative word, and therefore that what can be construed as licensing she wrote.

Moreover, removing she wrote would definitely change the meaning of what:

?I really liked what.

All in all, is she wrote a complement or a modifier of what?

EDIT

After the edit, my question does not go against CaGEL.

*The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language by Huddleston & Pullum

politeness - Are the 'Imperatives' used without 'please' or 'kindly' considered to be rude in the west?

Are imperatives considered rude if they are used without "please" and "kindly"?

For example:

Go ahead
OR
Please, go ahead.

and

Give me the eggs
OR
Please, give me the eggs

Answer

In my experience (in the Midwestern United States) I would recommend the following:

When you are using an imperative in a way that benefits the other person, it's not common to say please, and it's not rude. 'Go ahead', 'take one', 'let me know if you need help', are examples where you would not say please because you're really offering the other person something.

If you're using an imperative to ask someone to do something for you ('Give me the eggs', 'help me move this'), then it would probably sound rude to not say please. However, people will often phrase it as a question: 'Could you give me the eggs, please?' 'Can you help me move this, please?' If it's phrased as a question, please is not necessary, but it makes it sound more polite, especially with people you don't know very well.

An exception to the second case is that people who are friends will often use the imperative without saying please and without phrasing it as a question, because it's faster.

vocabulary - What is "opening her Caesar" referring to here?

"But, oh, Marilla, I really felt that I had tasted the bitterness of

death, as Mr. Allan said in his sermon last Sunday, when I saw Diana
go out alone," she said mournfully that night. "I thought how splendid
it would have been if Diana had only been going to study for the
Entrance, too. But we can't have things perfect in this imperfect
world, as Mrs. Lynde says. Mrs. Lynde isn't exactly a comforting
person sometimes, but there's no doubt she says a great many very true
things. And I think the Queen's class is going to be extremely
interesting. Jane and Ruby are just going to study to be teachers.
That is the height of their ambition. Ruby says she will only teach
for two years after she gets through, and then she intends to be

married. Jane says she will devote her whole life to teaching, and
never, never marry, because you are paid a salary for teaching, but a
husband won't pay you anything, and growls if you ask for a share in
the egg and butter money. I expect Jane speaks from mournful
experience, for Mrs. Lynde says that her father is a perfect old
crank, and meaner than second skimmings. Josie Pye says she is just
going to college for education's sake, because she won't have to earn
her own living; she says of course it is different with orphans who
are living on charity—THEY have to hustle. Moody Spurgeon is going to
be a minister. Mrs. Lynde says he couldn't be anything else with a

name like that to live up to. I hope it isn't wicked of me, Marilla,
but really the thought of Moody Spurgeon being a minister makes me
laugh. He's such a funny-looking boy with that big fat face, and his
little blue eyes, and his ears sticking out like flaps. But perhaps he
will be more intellectual looking when he grows up. Charlie Sloane
says he's going to go into politics and be a member of Parliament, but
Mrs. Lynde says he'll never succeed at that, because the Sloanes are
all honest people, and it's only rascals that get on in politics
nowadays."

"What is Gilbert Blythe going to be?" queried Marilla, seeing that
Anne was opening her Caesar.

"I don't happen to know what Gilbert Blythe's ambition in life is—if
he has any," said Anne scornfully.

–– L. M. Montgomery, Anne of Green Gables

Answer

I assume it means that she was opening her copy of ‘De Bello Gallico’, Julius Caesar's comentary on his campaign in Gaul.

grammatical number - What is the plural form of trademarked product names, specifically of the term "WordPress"?

On the stackexchange site WordPress Answers, we recently discussed the plural form, or whether one exists at all, of the system we all use.

WordPress is a free and open source blogging tool and a content management system (CMS). In more colloquial terms it is a software application or "program".

Initially, I suggested that analogously to "press" and its two-word-companions such as "bench press" the plural ought to be "WordPresses".

Another user argued, that it was a singular without a plural, since it is a trademarked name of the WordPress Foundation and hence any alteration of it would be a fork (programming terminology).
The latter is obviously for one correct and for another in the realm of our expertise and not to be discussed here.

Still, initially I contested the earlier, since I thought I could for instance order "Two Pepsis" or "Two Cokes" (synonymical to "Two bottles/cans of [...]") in a restaurant and inline with that "WordPresses" would not have to mean "the system and a smiliar one (i.e. a fork)" but could refer to "several installations of WordPress".
A third user added that that might be misused in spoken language frequently, but that it would be correct to order "Two Pepsi" only and that that term didn't have a plural either. That still felt wrong to me, but thinking about it further, I concluded that you'd never order "Two Guinnesses", but "Two Guinness" instead and that hence that must hold true for Coke and Pepsi as well - and because of that ultimately for the initial term (WordPress) also.

They almost have me convinced, but whatever the correct way, this has sparked my (and likely our) interest and I'd like to get a definitive answer on this one. Hence I am asking you guys and girls here. Shed some light for the IT nerds, please: Do product names have plurals or not? Or, if this can't be answered categorically with yes or no, in which cases do plurals exist and in which do they not?

Answer

Whether there is a plural form depends entirely on whether there is actually a singular form.

In the case of WordPress, there isn't a singular form. You don't say “I implemented my blog as a WordPress.” It’s using WordPress or even on WordPress or in WordPress, but not as a WordPress.

Consequently there is no plural form.

This doesn't apply to all trademarked names, though. One may very well talk about Compaqs or Pepsis or Hoovers or even Guinnesses and Tumblrs. All of these have a singular form — a Compaq [computer]; a [drink made by] Pepsi; a [vacuum cleaner made by] Hoover; a [proprietary drink made by] Guinness; a [blog built on] Tumblr.

Additionally, it probably depends to some extent on how euphonious the plural form (if there might be one) actually is. Even though one might talk of a Kleenex for a tissue, a few Kleenexes is unlikely to occur. WordPresses may well fall into that category as well as the “no plural” category, even if Guinnesses does not.

Indefinite article confusion preceding "one-to-one"

While I was reading a book, I faced the following sentence:

There is a one-to-one correspondence between the two sets of quantities.

So, my question is: why the indefinite article "a" is not "an" in this phrase? The following word starts with a vowel, so shouldn't it be "an"?

"to" Preposition usage

Could you please let know why "to" Preposition is not used in first sentence, however in second one it is used.

1) I welcome John.
2) We welcome to “Veeru" junior.

I request you to please let me know when to use it ("to" Preposition) and when not to use in such type of sentences.

Thanks,
Charmi

Answer

wel·come

noun

• 
  
  1. an instance or manner of greeting someone.
     "you will receive a warm welcome"
     synonyms: greeting, salutation
  
  

Exclamation

• 1 used to greet someone in a glad or friendly way.
  "welcome to the Wildlife Park"

verb

• 1 greet (someone arriving) in a glad, polite, or friendly way.
  "hotels should welcome guests in their own language"




• 2 be glad to entertain (someone) or receive (something).
  
  "we welcome any comments"




• 3 react with pleasure or approval to (an event or development).
  "the bank's decision to cut its rates was widely welcomed"

adjective

• 
  
  1. (of a guest or new arrival) gladly received.
     
     "visitors with disabilities are always welcome"
  
  



• 2 very pleasing because much needed or desired.
  "after your walk, the cafe serves a welcome pot of coffee"




• 3
  allowed or invited to do a specified thing.
  "anyone is welcome to join them at their midday meal"




• 4 used to indicate that one is relieved to be relinquishing the control or possession of something to another.
  "the job is all yours and you're welcome to it!"

---

As for your examples: #1 is grammatically correct, but unlikely. Instead, you would say (present tense, speaking to John) "We welcome you, John" or (past tense, speaking to someone else) "We welcomed John."

In #2, some other word or punctuation is needed to make sense. Assuming "Veeru" is a place, and "junior" is a certain person (e.g. a junior in high school):
"Welcome to Veeru, junior(s)!"
or
"We welcome juniors to Veeru."

And finally, the answer to your question: You don't need "to" in the first one because John is the Direct Object of the verb "welcome". In the second, "junior is (apparently) the Direct Object, whereas "Veeru" is (apparently) the Indirect Object, so it requires "to ".

capitalization - What do I capitalize in this sentence?

I'm writing a paper about the lives of aristocratic women during the Heian period in Japan and I'm wondering about how to capitalize certain nouns in this sentence:

"In Heian japan, there were many famous books published but the most famous and well known of those books is, Tale of Genji, by Murasaki Shikibu."

When I say "Heian japan" I am refering to the time which what I am saying is occuring. Since I make Heian Japan a single noun phrase would only the first word of the noun phrase be capitalized, or should both?

Verb + to infinitive or Verb + ...ing

Is there a general rule whether to use the Verb + to infinitive or the Verb + ...ing format?

There are cases in which I can't decide which one to use.
Like:
-They can't afford to go out very often.
-They can't afford going out very often.
Or:
-I don't mind to wait.
-I don't mind waiting.
Or:
-It was a nice day, so we decided to go for a walk.
-It was a nice day, so we decided going for a walk.

usage - Are "of course" and "naturally" pedantic?

I've noticed that in most cases, the sentence "of course", is used when someone is trying to sound superior, in a sardonic way. In constranst they use "naturally" when they are patronising someone, for instance like parents would do.

Is it true for everyday spoken and written english?

I mean, should one avoid "of course" and "naturally" in colloquial conversations.

Answer

It all depends upon the context and intonation.

Neither phrase is inherently conceited or pedantic.

For instance:

A delicious smell was wafting through an open door. Naturally, I stepped inside to find the source of the heavenly aroma.

There is nothing inherently wrong with that statement. It doesn't carry any sort of negative connotation toward the listener.

And, you can always say of course without being haughty.

I always stop on my way home from work to buy fresh bread. Of course I usually feel guilty afterwards for the extra calories and carbs, but it has never stopped me.

It is the usage where you are adding it in front of a piece of information to barb your listener that sounds more obnoxious.

Naturally you would say that!
Of course Bill thought you should be the one to pay for the damages.
Naturally, people who buy red cars are just trying to be ostentatious.
Of course, if you eat tuna you are a dolphin killer.

So, of course you can. Just make sure you use it naturally to avoid alienating your listener.

tenses - I received an email saying documents are /were

I received an email saying that the documents are/were being processed.

Which is correct? Are or were?

meaning - Difference between promptness and promptitude

Seeing this EL&U question: 'saying thanks to someone answering your email ASAP who is important for you', the first word that came to my mind was promptitude which, as the definition states, can convey both punctuality and non-delay-ness(immediate-ness)

So I thought this would be a good answer for said question

thank you for your promptitude

But after googling the subject (to see if this is an american expression as required by the OP), I stumbled upon the word promptness which seems to convey the same meanings of punctuality and non-delay-ness(and to be a lot more popular than my first frenchy choice). So, I thought that one could equally/better propose

thank you for your promptness

Now, I have no problem recognizing promptness as an equally/more valid word for the same usage. But, at the same time, my problem lies precisely there: it is too much an equally valid word for the same usage, because when I went hunting for small nuances between the two words(because someone on EL&U/ELL once said that synonyms usually denote of different connotations) I couldn't find any.. I am further appalled by the fact that they stem from the same root.

Yes, the question:

Am I wrong in :

1. assuming that promptitude & promptness have no distinct connotations (in this context particularly)?



2. thinking that perfect synonyms are something of a rarity?


3. thinking that same-root perfect synonyms are something of a rarity?


4. a combination of 1., 2., 3. and some other speculation of mine?

Why? (added for the charmingly joking nature of EL&Uers)

---

Edit

After receiving some comments and one answer I have to add:

Again, I have no problem recognizing promptness as an equally/more valid word for the same usage.

But it seems to me that we have these two words from the same root that mean the same thing. How come? Is it just because one is becoming obsolete and that's how words die - another one comes and slowly but steadily takes its place? or is it something different?

word usage - For which fractions is it standard practice to specify using 'over' instead of '-ths'?

For which fractions is it standard practice to specify using 'over' instead of ordinals?

For example, we read 5/16 as 'five-sixteenths' but 100/151 as 'one hundred over one hundred fifty one'.

Where do we stop reading numbers like that, and start using 'over'?

grammaticality - Preferred way to apostrophise in case of dual or multiple ownership by distinct entities

Consider describing the wedding of X and Y. If I want to avoid the overly-formal and poor-flowing "wedding of", it is more correct to say "X and Y's wedding" or "X's and Y's wedding"?

I acknowledge a very similar question has already been asked: What possessive forms are used for mutual 1st person ownership?

But unfortunately the example given is able to be easily phrased a different way and so respondents have been able to get away with avoiding the direct question.

Let's face it, we come across the need to get across the concept of mutual possession all the time and we don't always want to have to resort to the more tortured "Z of X and Y" as with the French language.

NB: In some cases, people get around this problem by dropping the apostrophes altogether and "adjectivising" the owners, especially if the owners are actually plural entities themselves. Eg. The "Mazda and Mitsubishi combined outputs" instead of the "Mazda's and Mitsubishi's combined outputs". Let's not let this muddy the waters though.

Answer

This site states it very well:

4. A less-often faced decision involves the use of apostrophes where multiple owners are named. Where two or more people own one item together, place an apostrophe before an "s" only after the second-named person. For example:

Incorrect: Bill's and Mary's car was a lemon, leading them to seek rescission of their contract under the state's lemon law.
Correct: Bill and Mary's car was a lemon, leading them to seek rescission of their contract under the state's lemon law.

However, when two or more people own two or more items separately, each individual's name should take the possessive form. For example:

Incorrect: Joanne and Todd's cars were bought from the same dealer; both proved useless, even though Joanne's car was an import and Todd's was a domestic model.
Correct: Joanne's and Todd's cars were bought from the same dealer; both proved useless, even though Joanne's car was an import and Todd's was a domestic model.

("The Legal Writing Teaching Assistant: The Law Student's Guide to Good Writing", by Marc A. Grinker)

So, saying "X's and Y's weddings" (note that it's weddings not wedding) has a different meaning from "X and Y's wedding".

The first one is denoting two separate weddings, and the two subjects named are not getting married to one another, but the second one is the one you are probably trying to say.

grammaticality - Ironic question "Do you now?"

From time to time I encounter the sentence "Oh, do you now?" which I suppose expresses some kind of irony. Is the question grammatically correct?

---

The question was asked also here: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=796384

Word order for subordinate questions

I know subordinate questions have no inversion. Should this sentence:

"Do you know what are the good things to do around here?"

be

1. "Do you know what the good things are to do around here?"

MS Word's grammar check gives me,

2. "Do you know what the good things to do around here are?"

But at least to my ear, the first seems the one most commonly said. Is the first one wrong? Which one is the best?

'Home' in 'Ben and Jen went home.' Can an adverb be a noun at the same time?

In this sentence:

Ben and Jen went home.

Is home both an adverb and a noun?

Is there no subject in a sentence like "Under the tree is a dog"?

I was trying to find out sentences without a subject, only object, and I came across

this
where the poster gives following sentences as an example

Under the tree is a dog.
Next to the park stands a clock tower.
Underneath his jacket was his white tucked in t-shirt and jeans.
Deep beneath the sea lies the mysterious kingdom of Captain Nemo.

Aren't the subjects in them: "the tree", "the park", "jacket", and "the sea" respectively?

Answer

These are all examples of locative inversion, where the subject and the prepositional phrase shift their normal positions. Usually the subject is at the beginning of the sentence, but not in these examples.

if you want to look into the topic of sentences without subjects, see the classic paper Quang (1971) on English imperatives.

How do you correctly say large numbers

I saw a post on The daily What which links to a video where a person counts from 1 to 100,000.

Is he saying a large portion of the numbers wrong?

Back in high school my algebra teacher was extremely picky. If we where going to say the number 135, we would say one hundred thirty five. If a person said one hundred and thirty-five my teacher would interpret that to mean 100.35. Was my algebra teacher wrong, or did Jon just waste over 80 hours counting to 100,000 incorrectly.

I tried searching the web, but searching for 'numbers and' doesn't work very well. Can you point me to a reference or style guide that describes how to properly say large numbers?

terminology - What do you call a phrase where one part is fixed and another part is free?

What do you call a phrase the where overall phrase structure (i.e. grammar) plus the use of a few fixed words makes it recognisable?

E.g. "raining cats and dogs" could also be "pouring cats and dogs" (although this is a very poor example).

The structure in this example is "[verb]-ing cats and dogs", where "[verb]" can be any verb that is a synonym of "to rain", meaning that the phrase is not totally fixed but does allow some small variation.

negation - How to answer a negative question without ambiguity?

I faced a problem to answer a negative question, for example, when someone asks you:

Don't you have any money?

It's a yes/no question but how should one answer the question without ambiguity?

When you answer "yes", does it mean "yes, I don't have any money"? or the other way "Yes, I do have money"? the questioner may think you are agreeing to the negative, that yes, you do not have any money.

I know it's better to answer with "on the contrary" but is it possible to answer yes or no?

Answer

1. Use short answers:

   
   
   

   
   

   Don’t you have any money? — No, I don’t.
   Don’t you have any money? — Yes, I do.

   
   




2. Let context guide the listener:

   
   
   

   
   

   Don’t you have any money? — No, I gave it all to Lucy.
   Don’t you have any money? — Yes, but not enough for this item.

   
   
   




3. Use quantifiers, or intensifiers:

   
   
   

   
   

   Don’t you have any money? — None or None whatsoever.
   Don’t you have any money? — I have enough.

   
   




4. In Early Modern English, there were specific words for that.

verbs - What is the difference between "raise" and "rise"?

What is the difference between raise and rise? When and how should I use each one?

Answer

"Raise" when used as a verb is transitive: it requires that you have a direct object, a noun of some kind that you are applying the verb to. For example, "I must raise an objection"—"an objection" is the object that the subject (I) is using the verb to act upon.

"Rise" on the other hand, is an intransitive verb: it does not require a direct object; your sentence can be complete without one. "Please rise" is entirely correct and complete.

word choice - Possible Interpretations of "Log"

While doing some research I ran across the following passage. I know what "shackles' are, what might a "log" be?

“It is very seldom that a boy deserves both a log and a shackle at the same time! Most boys are wise enough, when under one punishment, not to transgress immediately, lest it should be doubled.”

Account of the Edinburgh Sessional School and other..., you'll have to scroll a paragraph or two.

But Grace Darling is my Hero.

Answer

Joseph Lancaster's Improvements has this to say on the matter http://www.constitution.org/lanc/practical.htm

On a repeated or frequent offence, after admonition has failed, the lad to whom he presents the card has liberty to put a wooden log round his neck, which serves him as a pillory, and with this he is sent to his seat. This machine may weigh from four to six pounds, some more and some less. The neck is not pinched or closely confined — it is chiefly burthensome by the manner in which it encumbers the neck, when the delinquent turns to the right or left. While it rests on his shoulders, the equilibrium is preserved; but, on the least motion one way or the other, it is lost, and the logs operate as a dead weight upon the neck. Thus, he is confined to sit in his proper position.

It makes for good reading and he goes on to say ....

Few punishments are so effectual as confinement after school hours. It is, however, attended with one unpleasant circumstance. In order to confine the bad boys in the school-room, after school-hours, it is often needful the master, or some proper substitute for him, should confine himself in school, to keep them in order. This inconvenience may be avoided, by tying them to the desks, in such a manner that they cannot untie themselves

So the log is like a smaller portable 'stocks' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stocks.

I find a slightly different description at https://iainmavrocoggins.wordpress.com/tag/victorian-england/ (Ian Mavro Coggins) which says

More stringent was “the log”, a four to six pound chunk of wood that was fixed by a rope about neck in response to “a repeated or frequent offence”. Lancaster notes that its effect is “chiefly burthensome”

However I can find no other evidence, yet, to back up the claim that it was a chunk of wood hung by a rope

There is also a slightly different description of 'the log' here, The Union Charity School in Brighton http://www.middlestreet.org/mshistory/punish.htm, which was a 'Lancaster' school. An ex-pupil describes the possible punishments:

Mr. John George Bishop, an old-boy of the school described the first headmaster as follows:

“Mr. Sharp – a man of sterling worth – was the first Master of this school. He was however a strict disciplinarian, and some of his modes of punishment were decidedly original. In addition to the orthodox ‘strap’ and ‘birch’, the ‘dunce’s cap’ and the ‘red tongue’ for talkers, there was for the incorrigibles a ‘wooden collar’ – an unpleasant necklet; and for the truant, a ‘log’ – this latter a veritable log of wood some 3 ft long, which, chained to the leg, had to be dragged by the truant several times around the school, amid the ill-concealed scoffs and jeers of his fellows.

If we accept that 'a wooden collar' and 'the log' may have been the same thing Lancaster intended it may have looked something along the lines of this image (from http://www.oocities.org/westhollywood/heights/9417/other.html StocksMaster)

grammaticality - Does name-combo 'Jarvanka' take singular or plural attributes?

Michael Wolff's new book Fire and Fury sure has generated quite a lot of controversy. However, one important topic seems to have been overlooked by the Mainstream Media: Wolff (or his editors) consistently use the singular verb form when describing actions taken by 'Jarvanka', Steve Bannon's catchy nickname for the Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump duo. (For example, "Jarvanka was surprised" instead of "Jarvanka were surprised.")

Is this correct? or does Jarvanka take a 'were' as it most certainly is two people?

(Note: IMHO, this is not comparable to plural nouns such as media, because here Jarvanka is (or are) obviously two different distinct persons, unlike media which is merely a collective noun.)

Answer

This type of name is incredibly informal, so I doubt this would be directly addressed in a style guide or grammar book.

"Answer man" Roger Schlueter argues that:

“Couple” is an equally troublesome collective noun, but in the case of “Brangelina” I have to defend our copy desk as being correct — and I have my Associated Press stylebook, a reporter’s usage bible, to back me up. In the AP’s entry on “couple,” it says, “When used in the sense of two people, the word takes plural verbs and pronouns: ‘The couple were married Saturday and left Sunday on their honeymoon.’ In the sense of a single unit, use a singular verb: ‘Each couple was asked to give $10.’”
_{Brangelina are is correct usage}

(The Associated Press stylebook he cites is this one.)

Whether singular or plural is used, in practice, depends on how the writer is currently thinking of the couple: are two people or a single unit (this applies to both "couple" and "Brangelina"). This means that there is variation, even when two authors are saying the exact same thing (note that both authors are American):

• 
  

  Brangelina has been an item since 2004, and the couple married in 2014. —Mic.com

  
  
  




• 
  

  Though Brangelina have been an item for 12 years, they've only been married for two. –Washington Post

  
  

grammar - What is wrong with the expression 'most perfect', and the adjective-forms 'rounder' and 'squarer'?

Here is an excerpt from the textbook High School English Grammar & Composition, by Wren & Martin (2005 edition by S. Chand, New Delhi):

Certain adjectives do not really admit of comparison because their

meaning is already superlative; as,

Unique, Ideal, Perfect, Complete, Universal, Entire, Extreme, Chief, Square, Round

Do not therefore say:

Most Unique, quite unique, chiefest, extremest

But we still say, for instance:

This is the most perfect specimen I have seen.

My questions:

1. Isn't the last example contradicting (by using most perfect) what they described above? What are they trying to imply here? What should I take away from it?




2. I have heard the expression 'quite unique' at-least in informal English. Is it incorrect in formal English?




3. I have seen the words 'squarer', 'squarest' and 'rounder',
   'roundest' in the dictionary. So what's wrong with using them?

   
   
   
   

   Suppose a child tries to draw a circle and it doesn't turn out to be
   a perfect circle, so they make another attempt and the circle they
   draw this time is better than the one they drew before; so you tell
   them that this one is rounder.

Answer

If we take square as the example, if it has four equal-length sides and 90 degree corners, it is a square. If it doesn't have those, it isn't a square, so there is nothing between the states of square/not square to be graded. Similary, something is either round or it isn't round, perfect or imperfect, unique or not unique, etc.

The confusion arises because in normal, informal usage comparatives like squarer or rounder are used in the sense of "closer to being square/round" simply because it is by far the easiest way to describe that situation.

grammar - "Hopefully you’d make some time for me."

It's a never ending barrage of doubts about a difference in meaning using auxiliary verbs would as opposed will.

I've just written this sentence, and once gain was unsure whether I should have used would as opposed to will.

(BTW,is this sentence correct: "I've just written this sentence, and once gain was unsure whether I should have used" ?)

Answer

Both Hopefully you would make some time for me and Hopefully you will make some time for me are grammatical, but they mean different things. The first is conditional on something else occurring before you making time for me even becomes an issue - "If I were to come to your city in February, hopefully you would make some time for me." The second assumes that you and I will definitely be in the same place at the same time, so the only question is whether you're too busy or not - "When I come for the interview tomorrow morning, hopefully you will make some time for me."

That said, I think what you might actually want to say is "Hopefully you could make some time for me", or even better, "Hopefully you will be able to make some time for me." This is because both the will and would constructions are asking about willingness, not ability - "Hopefully you will condescend to make some time for me" - which is not the sort of thing you'd routinely ask someone.

(For your other question, try "I just wrote the following sentence, and once again, I was unsure whether I should have used...".)