Wednesday, October 31, 2012

word choice - "Satire" versus "sarcasm"




I looked up the two words on wikitionary & got this:



satire:




A literary technique of writing or art
which principally ridicules its
subject often as an intended means of
provoking or preventing change. Humour
is often used to aid this.





sarcasm:




A form of humor that is marked by
bitter mockery, often using irony, and
sometimes conveyed in speech with
vocal over-emphasis. With irony, it is
insincerely saying something positive

which is obviously the opposite of
one's intended, cruel meaning. On the
other hand it may be a direct taunt
where the jibe means exactly what it
says.




At first glance, they seem equivalent to me. Is there a clear distinction about when to use one & when to use the other?


Answer



Satire is usually prepared and lengthy. For example, the fake news site The Onion is satire because its staff members carefully prepare each article to make fun of a particular subject.




On the other hand, sarcasm is usually off-the-cuff and short. For example, if while watching a news broadcast about the war in Afghanistan, I remark "The war is going great! We've managed to kill a million civilians!", that would be sarcasm because I haven't prepared it and I'm making fun of the uselessness of the Pentagon.


How to ask about ordinal place of an offspring?

Here is the question: I want to know what is the ordinal place of someone in her family. For example, I'd say:



I'm the second child of my parents.
and afterwards, I'd like to ask something along these lines:




What nth child are you? 


(So that I'm expecting something like first, second, third, etc. child as answer). Just wondering how the question should be asked.

etymology - Is English the only language that always capitalizes "I"?




Is English the only language where "I" is always capitalized, no matter where it occurs in a sentence? The other two languages that I'm familiar with don't do this.



In German, "ich" is only capitalized at the start of a sentence; the same is true for "yo" in Spanish.



If English is unique in this regard, or even if among a subset of languages that do this, is there a historical reason behind it? A philosopical or cultural one, or...???


Answer



English is at the least very lonely in this stance. We may very well be the only language that does capitalize the first person singular pronoun. Here's some reading to keep you busy.




Why Do We Capitalize I?



Only English Speakers Capitalize 'I,' But That Doesn't Mean We're Obsessed With Ourselves



Me, Myself and I



Why Do We Capitalize “I”?


Tuesday, October 30, 2012

single word requests - An adjective to describe "being at sea"



I'm looking for an adjective that describes the fact that a ship is sailing at sea. Much as "afoot" describes a person being in the state of walking. I was hoping "asail" would be a word, but can't find it from Google.



The word would replace the square brackets in the following example:




In Plato's ship of state metaphor, a ship is [sailing at sea], helmed by a captain ...



Answer




You are looking for afloat:





  1. floating

  2. out at sea



pronouns - "...will divide the people (who/whom) most need to be brought together"


With a two-party system, our nation will divide the people (who/whom)
most need to be brought together.




Do I use who or whom for this sentence? I think that "people" is the direct object and warrants the use of "whom", but I want to make sure I'm right.

Capitalization: when does a phrase become a proper noun?



This is a question on capitalization. Proper nouns are capitalized. But how can I tell which parts of a term constitute a proper noun?



Take, for example, the nickname for traveler's diarrhea (sorry, the first thing that came to my mind). I've seen it written as Montezuma's Revenge (proper noun), as well as Montezuma's revenge (common noun). Which is correct?



What about a journalist referring to a specific set of letters sent by prisoners -- would he call them the Guantanamo Letters or the Guantanamo letters? Or is it simply a matter of context?


Answer



Proper nouns should name specific people, places or things - "specific" being the key word here. In some cases specificity is immediately apparent, e.g. in the term "Singapore Airlines" (after all, there is only one airline with that name!).




In other cases, there is a grey area and I would say that fame/notoriety also plays a role in determining specificity. To use your example, one would refer to the Guantanamo letters if they don't contain any content that is particularly newsworthy. If, on the other hand, these letters happen to disclose some salient information that could result in a political scandal, then these letters would quickly garner attention and become intimately linked to this political scandal in the minds of people. Such a link would imbue the letters with a specific quality that would warrant the use of a proper noun, i.e. the Guantanamo Letters.



Thus, some common nouns can become proper nouns over time as they gain specificity in the minds of people. This can be a very organic process that can leave plenty of room for interpretation as to whether something should be considered a proper noun or not.


meaning - "Why the Sky is Blue"




"Why is the sky blue?" vs "Why the sky is blue?"



It seems both sentences are correct, is there any difference in meaning?






Addendum



My question is inspired by this book's title:




enter image description here



Edit:



I added question mark to the "Why the sky is blue" based on the wrong assumption that if a sentence begins with "why" it's a question".


Answer



"Why is the sky blue?" has the grammatical structure of a question, and cannot be interpreted in any other way.



"Why the sky is blue" has the grammatical structure of a phrase standing in for a noun; it could be replaced by "the reason for the sky's blueness" or "the reason the sky is blue". E.g. one can say "Why the sky is blue is a fascinating question". It can also be interpreted as a question, but technically this is not grammatically correct.


Monday, October 29, 2012

word choice - Should "forty-year" in this context be hyphenated?









Mr. Willow’s more than forty-year experience in the industry persuaded me to apply.




Or is the following a better way of saying it?




Mr. Willow's more than forty years of experience in the industry persuaded me to apply.





Are they both correct, or should the hyphen in the first example be removed?

questions - Response to "Would you not do it?"



If posed with the subject question, given that I will not do the action in question, then what is the correct answer




No, I will not do it.




or





Yes, I will not do it.




#1 sounds better to me, but #2 is more logical. #1 sounds somewhat paradoxical in context of the question.


Answer



I would use the first one as "No" asserts negativity. The following Wikipedia post could be helpful here:




According to Grimes, the answer

"yes" asserts a positive answer and
the answer "no" asserts a negative
answer, irrespective of the form of
the question. But in fact simple "Yes"
or "No" word sentence answers to
yes-no questions can be ambiguous in
English. For example, a "Yes" response
to the question "You don't beat your
wife?" could mean either "Yes, I don't
beat my wife." or "Yes, I do beat my

wife." depending from whether the
respondent is replying with the
truth-value of the situation, or is
replying to the polarity used in the
question. This ambiguity does not
exist in languages that employ echo
answers. In the Welsh language, for
example, the response "ydw" ("I am")
has no such ambiguity when replying to
a question.




nouns - Is “troop” unique among English words in meaning both a group and an individual member of that kind of group?



The term "troop" can mean a group of soldiers, or it can mean an individual soldier (perhaps in this usage it was originally short for "trooper").



In fact, in modern usage, the plural "troops" almost always refers, not to multiple groups, but to multiple individuals. "Obama's surge sent 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan" means 30,000 soldiers, not 30,000 troop-sized groups of soldiers.



Are there any other nouns like that in English, where it can refer to either a group or an individual member of that kind of group? I'd be especially interested in hearing of examples where the plural form of the noun almost always refers to individuals (not groups) in modern usage.


Answer




"The canon" can mean the body of works accepted as canonical by a group; "a canon" can mean one precept of a group; and "the canons" can mean the collection of all precepts which a group follows. In some cases, "the canon" will be the same as "the canons" of a given group, if all of their canonical works concern their canons. Of course, for many groups which have a canon, their canon is a greater collective body of works which do not solely concern their canons. But I think it's similar in usage to your "troop" example.


prepositions - Why is "to" used after the verb at the end of a sentence?




I would do it if I wanted to.




I would do it if I wanted.




Why is to used after the verb? Only to give emphasis? Is there a difference in the meanings of the above sentences?


Answer



It's an example of ellipsis, where words aren't repeated because they're understood. The full sentence would be 'I would do it if I wanted to do it', but it's unnecessary to include the last two words. 'I would do it if I wanted' is also possible, but the final 'to' is more likely to be found, if only in conversation. I'm not sure why that is so, but it may be because the sentence sounds rather blunt without it.


grammar - Difference between the two sentences and their usage




  • Why don't you join a monastery?


  • Why do you not join a monastery?



What's the difference between the two sentences and when do I use each of them?


Answer



To my mind, the first implies that the monastery-joiner (let's call them) has not considered joining a monastery before, and the question is a suggestion to that effect. This means that it is a rhetorical question; the monastery-joiner is not expected to answer, only to consider the possibility of joining.



The second is a more direct question. It seems to imply that the monastery-joiner has already considered joining, but has not. The question asked directly for the reason of this.



Gramatically, they have very similar meanings, and indeed the first question could be used as a direct question as well. The contraction of 'don't' works better with the rhetorical meaning in a way that 'do you not' fails to do.




As for usage... it depends on context, but the above is a good guide.


etymology - What's the deal with "fiery"?



How did English end up with the adjective fiery (instead of *firy) from fire, but miry from mire and wiry from wire?



Are there any other words where the noun is -ire and the adjective is -iery?


Answer



The Online Etymology Dictionary explains the unusual spelling:





late 13c., from Middle English fier “fire” (see fire (n.)) + -y (2). The spelling is a relic of one of the attempts to render Old English “y” in fyr in a changing system of vowel sounds.




Words like miry (late 14c.) and wiry (1580s) have later origins and different etymology, so they don’t have the same influence on their spelling.


subjects - Is " ... and was wondering ..." correct?










Since I'm a native Spanish speaker I tend to suppress the subject a lot when speaking, since most of the time it's tacit for us.



So, many times I find myself writing things like "but I'm not sure, and was wondering", which sounds good to me, but then I realize that, in this case, was doesn't have a corresponding subject, at least not an immediate one.




Can the subject (I) from the first part of the sentence be considered as the subject of the remaining statement ("was wondering")? I guess not, but it doesn't hurt to ask.


Answer



Yes, you can apply the subject of the sentence to multiple predicates, e.g.:




I found a seat, curled up, and began to read my book.



I think so, but I'm not sure, and was wondering that myself.




Sunday, October 28, 2012

pronunciation - Is there any convention for pronouncing proper nouns?



Is there any convention as to how proper nouns with origins outside English should be pronounced? I have heard claims to the effect that "a proper noun
can be pronounced however you wish"; is that correct?



I work in an international environment, and it is rather common for me
to have colleagues with foreign names. Actually, I'm not a native
English speaker either. I go by the rule: "pronounce as it would be

pronounced in its original context or language".



A few examples:




  1. The letter J is pronounced very differently in English, Spanish, or Dutch.
    For example my Spanish friends use ja ja to denote laughing in instant messages; the
    Dutch pronounce ij like the vowel sound in hay (e.g. [rij]
    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rij).


  2. The vowel sound represented by oe in English is pronounced as in

    toe, but it is often used to approximate the German ӧ sound
    (e.g. Schrӧdinger). In Dutch, this same combination of letters
    represents a vowel sound similar to the English word loop.


  3. Sometimes it is not even possible to accurately represent a sound
    in English, instead it is replaced by some approximation. As
    examples you could consider many of the Hindi or Bengali names (or
    names from any other Indian languages for that matter).




I found this

question

earlier, but I think it does not answer my question as it seems to
address how English names are to be pronounced by non-native English
speakers.



Edit: To clarify some of the doubts expressed in the comments; I
am primarily interested in personal names although a more generic
guideline would be helpful. I'm an aspiring Physicist, and I often
encounter standardised terminology with non-English origins.


Answer




It's not entirely clear what you are interested in.



With personal names (first and last name/surname), you pronounce it the way that person does. That's why you have to listen carefully when they introduce themselves. There's a lot of variation there. For example, I've met women whose name is TAmara (on the 1st syllable) and whose name is taMAra (on the 2nd syllable).



As for other proper nouns, such as place names and what not, there are dictionaries for that. The general rule is to try to get as close as possible to the original (foreign) pronunciation, applying rules of English phonetics.


clauses - Indicative without a subject



I'm aware that imperative and interrogative constructions can take no subject as it's usually implied ("Look this way!!", or "Why look that way?"), but what about an indicative sentence like this one:




Running through the hallways frantically shoving food down my throat wondering if anyone nearby notices, stopping for a moment to say hello to the principal while wiping food from my mouth, realizing also my shirt was untucked, tucking it in, proceeding through the hall, down the stairs, out the door to the bus.




I've noticed these kinds of sentences in avant-garde literature, especially fiction, and was wondering if it's technically grammatically correct, or if these authors are slightly bending the rules.




I'm just realized that perhaps it could be considered an adverbial clause and thus not an indicative... but if that's the case then there's no verb it's modifying and therefore left dangling... Any thoughts??


Answer



The paragraph is written in the present progressive with an implied subject [I] and implied helping verb [am]. [I am] Running through the hallways.... This is not standard English, but it functions similarly to an imperative [You] Leave the room. The listener or reader supplies the missing, but obvious, words. A fair amount of recent fiction is written in the present tense, the theory being that the present tense is more vivid than the past tense. This paragraph violates standard English in order to further that vividness. See http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/the-pros-and-cons-of-writing-a-novel-in-present-tense Its merits are debatable.


prepositions - "I have X to pay" vs. "I have to pay X"

Is there any difference between the following two statements:




  1. I have to pay bills

  2. I have bills to pay



Could you please tell us the difference between the above two statements and when to use them?

Saturday, October 27, 2012

american english - Is the [ʊ] sound pronounced with lip rounding?



This [ʊ] sound is the vowel sound for words like hook, pull, and good. When I began to learn English a bit more seriously two decades ago, I used a book that taught me to pronounce it shorter and more relaxed than the long sound of [u], the vowel sound in words like pool, food, and cool. It also told me to round my lips too.



My pronunciation is fine (I hope, at least people around me seem to understand me perfectly), however I found a strange tendency in recent years, especially from Americans. (I can watch them on TV and video clips.) Many of them seem to not round their lips when pronouncing this [ʊ] sound.




The first time I noticed this was the time I heard an ESL teacher pronounced it with the [ɯ] sound (she is not a native English speaker, by the way). There is no [ɯ] sound in English, but there is one in Thai language. The [ɯ] sound, though being a close-back vowel, is always unrounded. So it sounds very strange to me at first, since [ʊ] is a near-back-near-close vowel, and I thought it is supposed to be rounded.



Wonder why she pronounced it that way, I started to watch native speakers on TV closely, and found that only some of them pronounce [ʊ] unrounded in normal speech. Most of them seem to round their lips a little (how much the little is little is another matter). But when they exaggerate the word, most of them don't round their lips, e.g., I saw one judge on a vocal-focused reality show exclaimed Good! for maybe three seconds long, and in that entire three seconds there was no lips rounding at all!



I consulted Wikipedia, and found that the matter of this rounding is unclear:




"Its vowel roundedness is generally rounded, which means that the lips are rounded to a greater or lesser degree, but is sometimes rather ambiguous. Because no language is known to contrast rounding with this place of articulation, the IPA has not created separate symbols to show this."





So which pronunciation is standard for the [ʊ] sound? Rounded or unrounded?


Answer




So which pronunciation is standard for the [ʊ] sound? Rounded or unrounded?




Certainly there is some rounding, but because roundedness is not phonemic in this position, there is also considerable variation in how much of it actually occurs in any given word and speaker.



For example, you will find that it is generally somewhat more rounded in pull and full than it is in put and foot respectively. That’s because having an r or an l right next to it rounds it off a bit — which is why it is a bit more rounded in root and rook than it is foot or cook. Same with rookie versus cookie, where the first version is a bit more rounded than the second. And of course, a w helps: compare how wool is even more rounded than full, and also moreso that wood.




I believe English has no words with [ʊw], as that seems redundant. However, it can occur in phrases, especially in some dialects, where something like I knew it full-well may approach that.



However, it is still perceived as the very same phoneme in all those words and cases I’ve just listed above.






Correction — or not



I said that I thought English had no words with [ʊw] in them. And at the end of the day, I still believe that. However, I have discovered that grepping the OED yields the apparent existence-proof counterexample of Rauwiloid, which means:





A proprietary name for a hypotensive preparation containing a number of alkaloids extracted from Rauvolfia serpentina.




You also have compound words whose first element ends in [aʊ] (rather than [aw], as it is sometimes spelled) connecting to something that begins with [w], and which have in effect a “double w” in them, you expand the list to include such things as:




bow-wow, powwow, skeow-ways, wow-wow





Finally, if you consider the sound in words like no and micro to be
an [oʊ] diphthong rather than [ow], then you get all these, most of which were originally compounds of some sort:




froward, frowardly, frowardness, glow-worm, Holloway,
hollowwort, Howeitat, Khowar, meadow-wink, microwave, microweld,
Moldo-Wallachian, nowise, Oldowan, Parowax, powan,
shalloway, slow-worm, swallowwort, werowance,
yellow-wood, yeowoman.





For example, yeowoman theoretically yields /ˈjoʊwʊmən/, at least in North America. Still, there is a reasonably convincing argument to be made that that one is better written as simply /ˈjowʊmən/.



Slightly less uncommon is nowise, which is a compound of one word ending in a diphthong connected to another starting with a triphthong, so /ˈnoʊˌwaɪz/.



But I am still highly dubious of the existence of [ʊw], because I think it fuses into the semi-consonantal glide, [w]. After all, nowise and no eyes are homophonic, so I think this idea of [ʊw] is very hard to justify, and so I stand by my initial statement.



Even towel is usually pronounced with just one syllable, /taʊl/, thereby rhyming with cowl /kaʊl/. Even with folks who work very hard to put two syllables into that, with /ˈtaʊ.wəl/, I submit that you could write that /ˈtawːəl/ and avoid the whole controversy of whether a semi-vowel/semi-consonant/off-glide is really /ʊ/ or really /w/. However you write it, it seems like the same sound to me, such that bisyllabic towel just has a geminate [w]: /ˈtaw.wəl/.


punctuation - Using a comma before "but"




I was once told by an English professor that a comma should never be used before but in a sentence. For years, I have followed her advice but sometimes I just feel like it just needs to be there. On the other hand, my brain also tells me that the word but is, in a sense, performing the same function as a comma in the sentence.



Does anyone know if there is a rule for this?


Answer



Larry Trask's Penguin Guide to Punctuation makes it clear that it is permissible to use a comma before 'but'. The OWL Perdue Writing lab does the same. The BBC Learning English site likewise.



You were misinformed.


Friday, October 26, 2012

grammatical number - Should "riffraff", when used as a subject, be treated as a singular or a plural noun?





  • riffraff (noun) people who are not respectable : people who have very low social status.





Merriam-Webster doesn't say anything about number. The Free Dictionary says it can sometimes function as a plural noun but doesn't explain when or how. Google books doesn't help much, there are several examples of it both as a singular and a plural noun.




  1. In every period of transition this riffraff, which exists in every society, rises to the surface.


  2. This riffraff are waiting for the cheap seats.





Looking at these two sentences, I can't find any structural difference that might lead one to use a singular or a plural verb. If one is writing a paper on social science and they want to use the word "riffraff", does it matter which verbal number is used?


Answer



I looked through the entry in the OED, and among all the senses of riff-raff applying to people I could not find a single example where the word had been used as the subject of a sentence. That is not to say that it couldn't be so used, but it provided no opportunity to determine whether it called for a singular or plural conjugation.



However one sense of riff-raff applies to worthless goods - trash. And there was an example of the subject in that category as follows:




2009 Eureka (Calif.) Times Standard (Nexis) 20 Feb. Now a days one
can easily tote their favorite records with them on a small
pocket-sized contraption and make no bother with the other riff-raff

that comes with the purchase of a CD.




As you can see it has been given a singular conjugation.



There was this one example, as regards people, where the word itself was given plural form:




2001 Ledger Disp. (Calif.) (Nexis) 4 Jan. 1 He conveniently left
out an entire gender, African and Native Americans, and most of the

rest who were considered riffraffs.




In conclusion I do not honestly think it matters in the least whether you make it singular or plural. Nobody is going to notice.


phrases - Word Choice: Starting a sentence with "If not too long ago"

I know that the proper way to use "not too long ago" is: "Not too long ago, contractors used to build houses and sell them to dealers. It was the responsibility of the dealers to provide financing to potential home buyers."



Instead of these two sentences, can I use:



"If not too long ago, contractors used to build houses and sell them to dealers, who were responsible for providing financing to potential home buyers, today most builders also offer financing alternatives."?



My question is whether "if not too long ago" is correct or not. If it's not correct, I would highly appreciate it if someone could explain why.



Thank you,




Maria

Thursday, October 25, 2012

usage - Would you say 'yes, neither do I' / 'yes, me neither'?




My question does not have to do with the correctness/incorrectness of 'neither do I'/'me neither', but with the presence of the 'yes' (or 'yeah', which is how it most often 'comes out' for me) at the beginning.



If someone were to say:




I love chocolate.





I'd naturally answer (orally) one of the two:




Yeah, so do I. / Yeah, me too.




But if someone were to say:





I don't like driving.




Would it be normal to answer:




Yeah, neither do I. / Yeah, me neither.




Or with it be best to say:





No, neither do I. / No, me neither.







I do not understand why my question was marked as a duplicate. My question is not about the personal pronoun (I or me) but about the adverbs (Yes/Yeah or No). I do state in the first paragraph that my question concerns "the presence of the 'yes' (...) at the beginning.", whereas the question I'm supposedly 'duplicating' is clearly focused on the personal pronoun.



I shall edit to make the words I'm concerned with in bold to see if that clarifies that I'm not interested in the pronouns.



Answer



The short answer is yes, it would be normal to respond with either statement.



As was mentioned already in the comments, the "yes/yeah" parts of your example sentences are simply agreeing with the original speaker. It would become awkward if they'd followed their statement with a question ("I don't like driving, do you?" "Yeah, me neither.") and sounds more like you'd formulated your response before they'd finished speaking, but as it stands it's not awkward and definitely not incorrect.



I know you didn't ask about the difference between responding with "me" or "I" but in formal speech they should both be "I" since you are the subject of your own statement. "Me too" and "me neither" are both fully accepted in conversational speech, though.



Having grown up in England and then moved to the States I will say that I have (on incredibly rare occasions) encountered people who are amused by my "formality" when I say "neither do I" but have never encountered the opposite with "me neither."



So, while both are fully acceptable statements in both the English speaking countries I have any experience with, the States appears to have a (very, very) slight leaning towards "me neither" in an informal setting.



capitalization - Are chapter headings and other semantically smaller parts as the title capitalized?




I found the question Which words in a title should be capitalized? Regarding the number of answers votes and also according to my personal taste I like to capitalize titles. But what exactly are titles? Only the single main book title? What about other smaller semantic parts? Chapter headings, sub-chapter, ...


Answer



According to CMoS and APA (two popular style guides), some lower-level headings aren't capitalised in headline-style.



Chicago Manual of Style 16th edition (headings by level):





  1. Centered, Boldface or Italic Type, Headline-style Capitalization

  2. Centered, Regular Type, Headline-style Capitalization


  3. Flush Left, Boldface or Italic Type, Headline-style Capitalization

  4. Flush left, roman type, sentence-style capitalization

  5. Run in at beginning of paragraph (no blank line after), boldface or italic type, sentence-style capitalization, terminal period.




APA (headings by level):






  1. Centered, Boldface, Uppercase and Lowercase Headings

  2. Left-aligned, Boldface, Uppercase and Lowercase Heading

  3. Indented, boldface, lowercase heading with a period. Begin body text after the period.

  4. Indented, boldface, italicized, lowercase heading with a period. Begin body text after the period.

  5. Indented, italicized, lowercase heading with a period. Begin body text after the period.



grammar - What is the grammatical function of 'with the aid of' in the following sentence?



Reading this wiki article, it seems to me that 'with the aid of' in the following sentence is a prepositional object. I suspect I may be wrong and would like a simple explanation about the grammatical functions of 'with the aid of' in the following sentence:





With the aid of a physiotherapist, everything turned out fine.





  • There's a similar thread here but it doesn't address my question about grammatical functions.


Answer



In the terminology of CGEL, with the aid of a physiotherapist is an adjunct (meaning, one can remove it and the sentence is still grammatical even when all the words in the remainder are taken in the vary same meanings they had before the removal). More precisely, it is an adjunct of means (as in, 'by what means' was something done). Other sources might call it an adverbial of manner. However it is called, it is realized by a preposition phrase (PP). The head of this PP is the preposition with, and the complement of this preposition is the noun phrase (NP) the aid of a physiotherapist. The whole PP is fronted, though it could also be placed at the end, as in Everything turned out fine with the aid of a physiotherapist.




Note that with the aid of is actually not a syntactical constituent of the sentence. The constituent structure is, rather, this: [With [the [aid [of [a physiotherapist] ] ]. As I said above, the whole thing is a PP whose head is with and whose complement is the NP the aid of a physiotherapist. That NP, in turn, is composed of the determiner the and the nominal aid of a physiotherapist. The head of the nominal is the noun aid. The nominal also has a post-head complement, which is the PP of a physiotherapist (it is a complement rather than a modifier because the head noun licences the particular preposition; aid here cannot be followed by just any PP, but only by PPs headed by a very restricted set of prepositions, such as of. For example, on would not work at all, regardless of what followed it). Finally, this final PP has a complement, the NP a physiotherapist, which consisits of a determiner, the indefinite article, and the nominal, which is the noun physiotherapist.


Wednesday, October 24, 2012

pronunciation - How is "erm" pronounced in the UK, and why is it spelled that way?

I see the interjection "erm" written in internet forum posts fairly often, and I have occasionally seen it in British novels, in opinion pieces and articles on cultural topics in newspapers and magazines penned by British authors, and in British film subtitles.



How is "erm" pronounced in the UK, particularly in the south of England?



Unlike, say, "uh" or "um," which are listed in most of the online English dictionaries, "erm" as an interjection is largely absent from the dictionaries.




I think Google.com's (American-influenced) translator pronounces it somewhat like /ɜːm/, similar to the American pronunciation in the recording linked to in the Wiktionary entry.
Google.co.uk's translator gives a more non-rhotic pronunciation.



These Youtube recordings linked to below, which purport to demonstrate how the word is pronounced, sound broadly similar to the Google.com "American" pronunciation, with a rather pronounced r influence on the vowel:





But the pronunciations I have heard in films where the subtitled spelling was given as "erm" have always sounded much more like the American pronunciation of "um." An example of that is in most of the pronunciations in these outtakes from interviews of the actor Emma Watson.



Almost no native American English speakers use "erm" in practice in the US, so it does not seem very useful for the guides to provide the supposed American pronunciation for this word. (A search of the Corpus of Contemporary American English finds about 160 uses of "erm" (case-insensitive), almost all of those being for the acronym "ERM." By contrast, a search of the British National Corpus finds over 60,000, with most of those being of the interjection (from a quick glance).




So the questions are:
- How is "erm" pronounced in Britain, especially in the south of England?
- Roughly when was this spelling of the word widely adopted in the UK?
- Is the current spelling based on an earlier rhotic pronunciation that has largely been abandoned?
- Or was it, perhaps, a contraction of "er, um"?



I see that someone claimed in the discussion on Wiktionary that the "explanation of how "erm" and "um" are distinct is completely made up. They are the same thing and are pronounced the same. "Erm" is simply the British spelling and "um" is the American."
If that is the case, why is the British spelling not "um"?

syntactic analysis - How to end a question with 2 objects and 2 prepositions

1)
a) What did you want to talk to me about?
b) What did you want to talk about to me?



2)
a) Who do you want to talk to about this problem?
b) Who do you want to talk about this problem to?




I saw 1a in the TV show Grimm and the sentence set me thinking and there you go.
I know sentences usually end with a preposition in English. Therefore 1a and 2b should be correct. However we've got 2 prepositions in each sentence so I'm not sure what to do and which ones would be correct. Maybe they all are. To my mind, 1a and 2a sound better but that's all I can say. How flexible is that kind of structure?

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

grammatical number - Is "details" singular?



Which one of the following sentences is correct?





  1. Here is the details you requested.

  2. Here are the details you requested.





Having googled "Here is the details" and "Here are the details", I've got 18m+ results for the former and 11m+ results for the latter.


Answer



Grammar









Therefore, "Here are the details you requested" is the correct one.



Usage






As noted by Colin Fine and Kosmonaut in their comments below and by Piet Delport in his answer, "here is [plural]" is commonly used in casual English. Maybe it is more used than the grammatical form where the subject agrees with the verb (to be confirmed). Refer to Piet Deport's answer for a possible explanation.


syntax - How to decide on the type of ellipsis



I'm having some hard time deciding on the types of a few ellipses I've got to analyze.



Let's consider an example such as this one:




Then Rosemary came out and said that Daddy was going to jail, and I hit her." "[Did you hit her] Real hard?" "[I hit her] Real hard."





In case of this example, I would say both of the ellipses are clausal since the deletion of the subject,the predicate and the object affected the whole clause; the only element of that remaind being the adverbial. These two ellipses would fall into the category of bare argument ellipsis, as far as I know.



But what if there is an ellipsis such as this:




She loved the child's pink nightie, [she loved] the stack of white pillow slips edged with embroidery...





Here, the coordinating "and" is replaced by a comma for a more dramatic effect and the second clause presupposes the subject and the predicate from the first. Would that still count as an example of clausal ellipsis, since without these two elements the second clause is technically incomplete, or would it be better to label it as an example of verb phrase ellipsis? The problem with that would be the fact that subjects are not considered constituents of verb phrases.



Thanks everybody in advance.


Answer



The first example cited in the post is clausal ellipses, of course, but I am more inclined to regroup it in the sub category of ANSWER ELLIPSES.



If we closely observe the instance, we would find that two sentences are elliptical:



•(did you hit her) "Real hard?"




•(I hit her) Real hard.



The first sentence is a question but, take my word, it a 'disguised/latent answer which is echoed in the latter. So both are answer fragments. ANSWER ELLIPSES can do with just an adjunct/adverbial even. You may differ but ellipses would allow us that liberty.



As regards the second example, we may call it clausal or(textual) ellipses in general and a case of gapping ellipses in particular. It cannot be a VPE as in that case, a non finite VP is ellided and the ellipses must be introduced by an auxiliary verb/participle 'to'. Whereas, in GAPPING ELLIPSES, redundant materials often contain a finite verb. An example:



• John can play the guitar, Mary(.....) the violin.



However, an Ellipses is sense without (sensibility) form; a respite for us, isn't it?!


grammaticality - Why do we use the word "Do" when connecting a sentence?











I was reading a news paper article of Times Of India, and came across a sentence-





To begin with, a woman's right to property has already been established under law. This means that she has equal rights to her parental property as her male siblings. In such a scenario, according women an extra legal right over their husbands' residential property - which too could be inherited - is unfair. Neither do men have the same rights over their wives' property nor can they claim emotional damages during divorce.




Why there is a word "do" in between "Neither" and "men have".?



From my pointing of view It might be -
"Neither men have the same rights over their wives' property nor can they claim emotional dames during divorce".




I have also heard people saying that
"I do agree with your statement".



Why could not it may be "I agree with your statement".



Is There any grammatical mistake in these sentences or both I can use interchangeably?


Answer



The most common form of sentence inversion in English is called subject-auxiliary inversion. In order to perform this inversion, the sentence needs an auxiliary verb. If the sentence doesn't have an auxiliary, one is added. Often, that auxiliary is "do".



Inversions are most commonly used for questions. In this case, the inversion is used to create an embedded question, and there are actually two embedded questions in the sentence each with inversions. The first one uses "do" and the second one uses "can".





Neither




  • do men have the same rights over their wives' property



nor





  • can they claim emotional damages during divorce.




The embedded questions are complete sentences in this case, so you can say:




  • Do men have the same rights over their wives' property?

  • Can they claim emotional damages during divorce?




Note that not all embedded questions use question order, e.g.,




I know who he is. (correct)



I know who is he. (incorrect)





The second example is different.




I do agree with your statement. (correct)



I agree with your statement. (correct)




In this case, "do" is used for emphasis.


Monday, October 22, 2012

Using past tense when referencing a still-true fact




In the sentence: "I didn't know she had a son,"




Can I say "I didn't know she has a son" instead, because he is a teenager now?



Or are both correct?


Answer



If she currently has a son, then you can use either version #1 or #2:




  • 1.) "I didn't know [(that) she has a son]."


  • 2.) "I didn't know [(that) she had a son]."





For that situation, where she currently has a son, the #2 version happens to use a backshift preterite. (Note that "preterite" is the same thing as a "past-tense verb"). As to which version is preferable, well, that depends: which one do you prefer? That is, which one sounds better to your ear?



One of the reasons why a subordinate clause -- like your "(that) she has a son" -- can be backshifted into "(that) she had a son" is that the matrix clause is headed by a preterite (the verb "didn't").



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




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


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





Sometimes, depending on the purpose of the sentence, there can be a preference for either the non-backshifted version or for the backshifted version. Sometimes the non-backshifted version might be considered to be "much more widely appropriate" than the backshifted version. Sometimes the backshifted version is obligatory.



NOTE: There's a common misconception that a present-tense verb being used in its timeless sense (or other related uses) cannot be backshifted. That is untrue, as backshifting is still generally available. For instance, in the older 1985 reference grammar by Quirk et al., A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, section 14.31, page 1027:




Here are other examples where present forms may be retained in indirect speech:





  • Their teacher had told them that the earth moves around the sun. -- [11]



. . .



In all these sentences, past forms may also be used, by optional application of the backshift rule. Sentence [11] has the simple present in its timeless use, . . .




And so, according to Quirk et al., the following backshifted version (to correspond to [11]) is also acceptable:





  • Their teacher had told them that the earth moved around the sun.



Here are some related posts, on the topic of backshifting:





(Some of the material in this post has been borrowed from those two related posts.)


grammaticality - Should I put myself last? "me and my friends" vs. "my friends and me" or "my friends and I"



I've always been taught to put myself last when referring to myself in the same sentence as others but the usage of "me and..." seems to be everywhere these days. The misuse of the word "me" instead of "I" aside, is there some new rule I haven't heard of? Shouldn't we put ourselves last regardless of the "me"/"I" usage?



Examples of "correct" usage:





My friends and I went for some ice
cream. Did you see my friends and me
at the ice cream stand?




Examples of "incorrect" usage:




Me and my friends went for some ice
cream. Did you see me and my friends

at the ice cream stand?




Note: I was also taught that the only person who could put themselves first was the queen.


Answer



The difference between "I and my friends" and "my friends and I" is purely a matter of courtesy - they are both grammatically correct. I would tend to stick to the latter though, as it a) is more commonplace, b) is considered more polite, c) seems to flow better.



Indeed, your example of 'incorrect' usage is incorrect solely in that the first sentence uses the accusative (objective) pronoun me, when you actually need the nominative (subjective) pronoun 'I'. The second sentence of that example is correct, since the pronoun needs to be in the accusative, as the object. You seem to understand this though; this is just to clarify.


Sunday, October 21, 2012

pronouns - Is it appropriate to refer to a person of unknown sex by "it"?



I would like to treat a user as a non-gender noun and refer to it with the gender-neutral pronoun, it. E.g.,




The user defines two variables, x and y. It then multiplies each variable by a prime number.




However, on Wikipedia I found this:





The word "it", however, has an extremely impersonal connotation, even offensive, in common usage and is rarely used in English to refer to an unspecified human being or person of unknown gender. This is because the word "it" connotes that the person being specified is inferior to a person or is an object.




Is to appropriate to refer to a person of unknown sex as it?



Should I rephrase my sentence as follows:





The user defines two variables, x and y. The user then multiplies each variable by a prime number.



Answer



It is pejorative with reference to living beings, esp. social beings. It refers to an inanimate object.



Stay with the user throughout, for consistency, for political correctness and for consideration towards the reader.



Next, rephrase sentences to circumvent the issue of direct reference:





The user defines two variables, x and y, and then multiplies each variable by a prime number.




should do.



True, earlier some people used to refer to a newborn as it, but that is out of ignorance of the niceties. Never done in formal writing.


Word or phrase for "positively eulogizing someone you killed"

In fiction, a mobster might have someone killed that he hates, and then give a positive eulogy at his funeral. The victim's family may even thank him for the sweet words.



A fictional dictator may assassinate people lawlessly. The dictator could then celebrate the rule of law and the Magna Carta in speeches and holidays, even though he had rendered them pointless.




Is there a word or phrase for this practice?



My many searches have not turned up any.

grammatical number - Pluralization rule is different when we say, 10 pound note and 10 pounds?











We usually say "10 pounds", but for a single bill we say "10 Pound note" and not "10 pound(s) note". And when we have a lot of notes we say again "10 Pound notes". Why this disparity?


Answer



There is a general tendency in languages that when a word that inflects is incorporated into a word or a phrase as a modifier, it loses its inflection.




Since we don't have many inflections left in English, this is not as obvious as in some other languages; but it is generally the case that when a noun is used as a modifier in English it does not take plural inflection irrespective of the sense:



cow house, dog kennel, car park(ing), tree surgeon, window cleaner, bookseller, flea circus, language lessons, container ship, crop spraying, child poverty ... the list is endless.



There are exceptions of course: "drinks cabinet" is an example. But in the overwhelming majority of cases (including all measurements used attributively) the qualifying noun is in the singular.


etymology - When and by whom was the rule for using 'compare to' versus 'compare with' first recorded?

A longstanding question on English Language & Usage asks "Compared with" vs "Compared to"—which is used when? and has drawn several useful answers. But the question doesn’t invite answers to questions about the origin of the rule itself.



Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1989) dedicates more than two full pages to a discussion of compare to versus compare with. In the course of its discussion, WDEU cites a letter written by Theodore Bernstein to the editor of Word Study in 1947, asserting that the rule about when to use compare with and when to use compare to first appeared in Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language (1847). Here is the 1847 Webster's dictionary's entry for compare as a verb:





COMPARE, v. t. ...



1. To set or bring things together in fact or in contemplation, and to examine the relations they bear to each other, with a view to ascertain their agreement or disagreement ; as, to compare two pieces of cloth, two tables, or coins ; to compare reasons and arguments ; to compare pleasure with pain.



In comparing movable things, it is customary to bring them together, for examination. In comparing things immovable or remote, and abstract ideas, we bring them together in the mind, as far as we are able, and consider them in connection. Comparison therefore is really collation, or it includes it.



2. To liken ; to represent as similar, for the purpose of illustration.





Solon compared the people to the sea, and orators and counsellors to the winds ; for that the sea would be calm and quiet, if the winds did not trouble it. Bacon.




In this sense compare is followed by to.



3. To examine the relations of things to each other, with a view to discover their relative proportions, quantities, or qualities ; as, to compare two kingdoms, or two mountains, with each other ; to compare the number ten with fifteen ; to compare ice with crystal ; to compare a clown with a dancing-master or a dandy.



In this sense compare is followed by with.





WDEU focuses its attention on twentieth-century usage, so it doesn’t reach any conclusion about whether the rule spelled out by Webster's 1847 dictionary reflected actual practice or only the preferences of Noah Webster. It concludes that current (in 1989) practice in English is (on the one hand) to use compare to "more often than not" when the sense of the active verb is "liken" but (on the other) to use compared to and compared with "about equally after the past participle" when the sense of the verb is "examined so as to discover the resemblances and differences."



Without getting too caught up in the side issue of whether common usage ever definitively supported the rule that appears in Webster’s 1847 dictionary, I would like to know two things:





  1. When was the rule about when to use compared to and when to use compared with first set down in a published work?


  2. Who was the author of that first statement of the rule?



Saturday, October 20, 2012

grammatical number - "There Is"/"There are" depends on plurality of the first list element or not?




It seems I put a stick in the anthill at ELL.



Bounty assigned by outside party, two lengthy, reference-citing answers, one "-1" (awarded the bounty), one "-2", two others scored "0" and "-2" respectively, the answers suggesting one or the other is correct, 73 comments and no consensus so far - and me, as the asker, lost without a clue what to think of the answers anymore - this is no longer "Learners' Level" question, so I thought I'd bring it here and hear what the experts have to say.






Original question:






An edit was suggested to my sentence.




There was were an orange, some grapes, two apples and a small pile of cherries on the plate.




In my native language plurality of the verb always follows plurality of the first element on the list. There were an orange,... sounds awkward to me, no matter what follows up. My simple solution was reordering:




There were some grapes, an orange, two apples and a small pile of cherries on the plate.





But that's not the first time I faced this situation and I'd like to know what the rules of grammar say about that - was my editor overzealous or am I trying to copy rules of my language that don't apply in English?






Someone linked a related question for negatives, where the situation is more clear-cut ("There is no..."). Same applies to connection with "or" apparently, per accepted answer there. Still, nothing for "and".



It seems there is a consensus that in that if the verb goes after the list, it will be plural.





an orange, some grapes, two apples and a small pile of cherries were on the plate.




There doesn't seem to be clear consensus for:




On the plate { was | were } an orange, some grapes, two apples and a small pile of cherries





Adding more to the confusion is the abbreviated form: "There's"




One last note. In North America, at least, there is a widespread use of using a singular form like "there is" and "there was", without regard for the subject item or items, and this "there is" is often shortened to "there's":




There's three apples on the table!






Could you please clarify this mess?


Answer



‘The Cambridge Guide to English Usage’ deals with this pragmatically, as with much else:




Existential there couples with either singular or plural verbs (there
is / there are
, according to the following noun phrase) . . . This
formal agreement is strictly maintained in academic writing. But in
narrative and everyday writing, there is and especially there’s is
found even with plural nouns . . . In conversation the combination of

there’s with a plural noun is in fact more common than there are,
according to the 'Longman Grammar' . . . Negative statements also seem
to attract there’s . . . When a compound subject follows, there’s
rather than there are is selected . . .



In such cases both formal and proximity agreement help to select the
singular verb. These various uses of there’s with plural (or
notionally plural) noun phrases show how the structure is working its
way into the standard. It seems to be evolving into a fixed phrase,
rather like the French C’est . . . serving the needs of the ongoing

discourse rather than the grammar of the sentence.



syntactic analysis - What does "travelling at high speed" in "Look out for the car travelling at high speed" function as?





Is there a term used to refer to the following parts of these sentences (in bold):




Look out for the car travelling at high speed.




Catch me coming in hot.




I'm not sure if these can be considered adjectival clauses or if there's a better terminology for it.


Answer



In the first sentence, it functions as an adjective (answering the question which car to look for). It is referred to as a participial phrase.



See:



Purdue




As to whether it is better to call it an adjectival phrase or a participial phrase, I would pick the latter since both its adjectival role and verbal category are specified.


Friday, October 19, 2012

prepositions - What is the difference between "into" and "onto"?



I see both used, at times, almost interchangeably. What are the general guidelines?


Answer



As reported by the NOAD, into has the following meanings:





  1. expressing movement or action with the result that someone or something becomes enclosed or surrounded by something else. (Cover the bowl and put it into the fridge.)

  2. expressing movement or action with the result that someone or something makes physical contact with something else. (He crashed into a parked car.)

  3. indicating a route by which someone or something may arrive at a particular destination. (The narrow road that led down into the village.)

  4. indicating the direction toward which someone or something is turned when confronting something else. (with the wind blowing into your face)

  5. indicating an object of attention or interest. (a clearer insight into what is involved)

  6. expressing a change of state. (a peaceful protest which turned into a violent confrontation)

  7. expressing the result of an action. (They forced the club into a humiliating and expensive special general meeting.)

  8. expressing division. (three into twelve equals four)

  9. informal (of a person) taking a lively and active interest in something. (He's into surfing.)




onto means:




  1. moving to a location on the surface of something. (They went up onto the ridge.)

  2. moving aboard (a public conveyance) with the intention of traveling in it. (We got onto the train.)



As side note, in some cases it is correct to write onto, but in some cases it is correct to write on to.





You climbed onto the roof.
Let's go on to the next chapter.



modal verbs - Using "could" for future events

We use could to show that something is possible in the future, but not certain:




If we don’t hurry we could be late. (i.e., perhaps/maybe we will be late)





Why is it incorrect to say this:




I couldn't be present tomorrow'? (i.e., Perhaps I won't be here tomorrow).


expressions - If you're "balled up" why are you confused?

I believe the expression 'balled up' dates back to the first decade of the twentieth century and I believe it means 'confused' but I'm all balled up as to why it means 'confused'.



The only explanation I may offer, and I may be all wet, is that if documents or papers are rounded into a ball or "balled up" they cannot be read. Anything with writing or displaying pictures on it that are "balled up" aren't plainly visible and may likely confuse a person. That's my only guess and I'm sure I'm mistaken.



Any thoughts and ideas as to why balled up means confused?

word choice - "Forty foot" or "forty feet"?










Is it correct to say





"This is a forty foot drop"




or




"That is a forty foot telescope"




Shouldn't it be "forty feet"?




And what if it is




"This is a thirty nine foot drop"




instead?



Are both correct? Does it depend on the context? How does it work?



Answer



The forty-foot drop is correct.



Compare this:




1) He's a 10-year old.



2) He's 10 years old.





In the first example, a 10-year old stands as a noun (notice the article preceding it).
In the second example, it's not a noun, therefore no article.



Therefore:




1) It's a 40-foot drop.



2) This drop is 40 feet in height.




conjunctions - Where is the line drawn with comma splices?

I was going to ask: where is the line drawn between parentheticals and comma splices?



I've been trying to think of examples, and all the ones I've thought of seem okay, but probably work in a third way again.



"He didn't hate sailing, he loathed it."




"He hated sailing, he was always seasick."



"He disliked sailing, he wasn't good at it."



"John dislikes sailing, Mary dislikes sport of all kinds."



None of these seem like genuine parentheticals, they seem more like subordinate clauses with the subordinating conjunction left out (if that is even a meaningful distinction). But they also seem like common literary AND conversational constructions, even if they are considered wrong.



Are there loopholes whereby what appear to be separate independent clauses can be joined without a conjunction?

Thursday, October 18, 2012

nouns - Which is correct: "A contact between green and red balls/a green and a red balls/a green and a red ball"?

I'm writing a technical paper, where I discuss the behavior of contacts between two slightly different materials. What is the correct way to write it:





  1. A contact between a green and a red balls


  2. A contact between green and red balls


  3. A contact between a green and a red ball




It sounds very simple, but I couldn't find a clear cut answer in any of my text books. I need to make it clear to the reader that I'm talking about a single contact between one red-type ball and one green-type ball.



Many thanks for your help!

grammar - My vs Mine confusion

Is it "They are friends of my son and I" or is it "They are friends of my son and me" or is it this which I think correct "They are friends of mine and my son"?

word usage - Can 'Yes' and 'No' be used other than to answer questions?

Is there any way you can use the words 'Yes' and 'No' without it being in the context of answering a question?




Both words can be used to answer yes/no questions like 'is X true' or 'are you X'.



Is there any case where you could simply respond with either single word without it being a question?



If you say 'I am X' for example, and someone says 'Yes', that doesn't actually make sense, does it? You'd have to say 'That's true' instead, right?



Edit:



Sorry, should have been more specific: I mean just 'Yes' or 'No' as a single word sentence. Can you say just 'Yes' or 'No' in response to a non-question and have it make sense?

grammatical number - Singular or plural usage for ellipsis in direct object




Suppose I have the following sentences:




  1. There should be an X and a Y chromosome.

  2. There should be an X and a Y chromosomes.



Is the second grammatically correct? If the last word had to be plural for the same meaning of the sentence and an ellipsis, would the following be correct?





  1. There should be X and Y chromosomes.


Answer



The first and the last sentence are correct. The middle sentence is not correct.



The reason is this sentence, which is the original one:




  • There should be an X chromosome and a Y chromosome.




Notice that this is not




  • *There should be an X chromosomes and a Y chromosomes.



Neither chromosome should be plural.




That's what is meant.
Now the rule of Conjunction Reduction deletes the first chromosome, leaving sentence 1




  • There should be an X [...] and a Y chromosome.



Since chromosome wasn't plural before Conjunction Reduction, it isn't plural afterwards.
So the second sentence above is ungrammatical.
Conjunction Reduction only deletes; it doesn't do arithmetic.



However, the speaker can do the arithmetic.
There is, after all, one X chromosome and one Y chromosome involved,
and that makes two chromosomes, should one need to speak of them.
(There is, of course, no article, since a/an is only singular.)




But X and Y is a perfectly reasonable conjoined NP that can modify
a plural chromosomes, which leads to the third sentence:




  • There should be X and Y chromosomes.


grammaticality - Do prepositions at the end of sentences, and split infinitives any longer matter?

In the 1950s we were strongly discouraged from placing prepositions at the end of sentences, and also from using split infinitives. Is this considered important now?

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

prepositions - Sentences that end in "with"








If I can't end a sentence with the preposition "with", does this mean that the following sentences are grammatically wrong? If so, why?




At least we have some information to work with.



She is finding the job very hard to cope with.



Blasphemy is one thing I will not put up with.





Does anyone else have any examples of sentences ending with with?

syntax - Isn’t the expression, "I'm not inclined to be a supporter of Newt Gingrich's having served under him for four years” confusing?

I found the following line in today’s (December 4) Time magazine article titled, Coburn Speaks Up:




“On "Fox News Sunday," Sooner State Sen. tells Chris Wallace he would have trouble supporting Gingrich.
Coburn: "I'm not inclined to be a supporter of Newt Gingrich's having served under him for four years and experienced personally his leadership. I found it lacking often times."




To the eyes of a non-native English speaker, and as a bigoted septuagenarian, Coburn’s remark looks as if Newt Gingrich has served under Coburn and Coburn experienced personally how excellent Newt Gingrich’s leadership is.




Is it wrong to say:




"I'm not inclined to be a supporter of Newt Gingrich's. Having served under him for four years and experienced personally the lack of his leadership, I found it lacking oftentimes,"




though the repetition of 'lack' might be redundant?

writing - Is it alright to use lowercase "i" or should you always use "I" (uppercase)?



I frequently edit questions on StackOverflow, and I always fix the "i" into "I".
See this edit revision for instance.




When i I start my tomcat, i I am getting this problem.
How could i I resolve this problem.





Am I right to do so?






Benjol points out an interesting thread illustrating that debate:







The point of text on a site like this is to communicate.
Why do you want to make it harder to communicate than it has to be?
You may like writing with no capitalization, but I think it's pretty clear that people prefer reading with capitalization.
If you don't care about making life easier for those trying to help you, why do you think anyone will bother helping you in the first place?







Readers of the modern English language have grown accustomed to certain norms. Paragraphs, for one. Punctuation. Consistent spelling. And, of course, capitalization.



Answer




It is the standard orthography of English to capitalize the first person singular pronoun, as well as in contractions like I'm or I'll. This is not a universal property of written language, though—far from it.



Apparently the capitalization of I comes from England sometime before the time of Chaucer. The typographists of the day dictated this change; they thought that i (after being truncated from something more German-like "ich") was simply too small to stand on its own and bear so much meaning. Just goes to show how much of a technology writing really is.


academia - Past or present tense to describe data collection and analysis in an academic paper?





To answer the above research questions, we firstly collected a large amount of data (Section 2), and then did some statistics and experiments (Section 3, 4 and 5) on the data set focusing on three main goals:




I’d like to write something like the quoted part. Is it proper to use the past tense in an academic paper?



In addition, in most cases I should use the present tense to describe what we do, but is it true for this situation?



Some papers would write something like “evaluation shows that ...” or “the data set contains ...”


Answer



Your question asks about present or past tense, but your last example appears to be talking more about active or passive voice.




In relation to tense, your writing should make clear whether the things you refer to in your paper are in the past, present or future. The tenses you select must correspond with the facts (the style guides linked below also expand on this).



As for voice, some universities still favour the passive voice - e.g.




use passive verbs to avoid stating the ‘doer’
- Birmingham City University, UK





(Note, though, that the instruction to use passive voice is itself written using the active voice.)



Style guides at other universities now prefer the active voice, reversing this tradition.



Here are some examples:




Writing in the active voice almost always improves the clarity of writing.
- Duke University, USA




Use personal pronouns – I, you, us, we – as though you’re talking one-on-one.
- Monash University, Australia



You could try using: ... This essay discusses the importance of ...
- De Montfort University, UK




If in doubt, consult your institution's and publication's style guides.


grammar - Preposition stranding: is it possible to remove preposition altogether?

Here is one phrase:





This mayhem is not something to put up with.




Here "put up with" is a complete expression, so I cannot simply drop "with" or "up" from the end.



How about this one, a title for a UI element:





The list to add items to.




Can I drop "to" from the end? Will it still be valid grammar? Will the meaning still be the same?



Similarly:




The dropdown box to select items from.





Can I drop "from" from the above sentence?



Something from a kitchen:




A tray to put fruits on.




Can I just say "A tray to put fruits"? (Yes, I know, a "fruit tray" or a "tray for fruits" would be better, but this is not my question).




Is there a name for this grammar form, where a dangling preposition is dropped?

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

pronouns - Any reason Japan's Diet is not used without a definite article (vs Congress, Parliament, etc)?

Obviously, there are instances, but compare for example



"member of Congress" vs. "member of Diet"



The latter, according to Google Ngrams, is basically not used. Likewise, "session of Diet" is not used.



I have read the answers on articles with government agencies, but I wonder if there is some reason that "Diet" in particular resists being used without an article.

punctuation - Is it mandatory to use a comma before a coordinating conjunction uniting the two independent clauses in a compound sentence?

My friend and I had an argument about whether this sentence required a comma:




I understand where you're coming from but I disagree.





My friend insisted that there should be a comma before "but":





I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree.




From my point of view, while grammatically correct, the addition of a comma is not necessary.



When I looked online for sources to answer our disagreement, I found no authoritative sources and many sources were contradicting one another. Some argued, like I believe, that it's not necessary because the addition of comma is of no value in that context (i.e. the addition of comma doesn't make the sentence easier to read) but others said it was mandatory.



So, which is it? Is a comma necessary before a conjunction?

pronunciation - Influence of inflections on Phonics Rules and Syllables Types



I'm doing a small research on English phonics rules and I'm trying to clarify the influence of inflections in word forms.



It's best to explain my problem with some examples.




The letter 'a' in the word "face" is pronounced as /eɪ/ (/feɪs/) as it's in an open stressed syllable. What's important in this example is that the silent 'e' at the end of the word "opens" the syllable.



Let's take the plural form of the same word: "faces." The pronunciation of the letter 'a' is the same: /eɪ/. However, looking at the IPA (/ feɪsˑɪz/), we see that the 'e' is not silent any more, moreover, it belongs to another syllable. So, technically, the letter 'a' is not in an open syllable anymore and should be pronounced as the /æ/ sound.



Let's make the past simple tense form of the same word: "faced." The pronunciation of the letter 'a' is the same: /feɪst/. However, this syllable does not look like an open one, since the silent 'e' is not word-final anymore.



I think I understand what happens with the phonics rule here, but I'm struggling with finding reasonable and linguistically correct explanation.



So, my assumptions are:





  1. Inflections don't influence the pronunciation of sounds in the roots of words, despite the possible changes of the syllable type.

  2. The letter 'e' keeps its "syllable-opening" function even if it's not silent and word-final in the word forms.



Unfortunately, I can't find reliable sources to support or contradict my assumptions.



Any help will be much appreciated!


Answer




The concept of "open syllable" that is relevant to pronouncing "a" as /eɪ/ is not the same as the concept of "open syllable" that is related to IPA transcriptions. You're mixing up two distinct types of analysis.



The basic idea of an "open" syllable is a syllable that ends in a vowel. Since syllabification rules for modern English pronunciation are somewhat controversial, it can sometimes be difficult to tell if a syllable is "open" in modern English pronunciation. However, as StoneyB and Janus Bahs Jacquet say in the comments, this is not the case with the words face and faced. These are unambiguously closed syllables in modern English.



But the thing that's relevant for the pronuciation of a written single vowel letter as "long" (e.g. "a" as /eɪ/) is actually whether it was in an open syllable in older forms of English (roughly speaking).



For example, we can explain the pronunciation of the word "name" something like this:




  • in Middle English, the final e was pronounced (as a schwa sound), not silent


  • this means it was two syllables: na-me

  • This means the first syllable, "na", was "open" (it ended in a vowel, not a consonant)

  • So the vowel in the first syllable was lengthened

  • "a" that was lengthened in Middle English corresponds to modern English /eɪ/



This explanation is more or less true for the word "name". Some other words are spelled with silent "e" for non-historical reasons, just to mark the length of the vowel. (For example, the word wife, which was a closed syllable in Old English: wīf.) But you can pretend that they are explained the same way if you just want a rule to use to help get the modern English pronunciation.



As I said, it's important to keep in mind that syllables that were "open" in Middle English (or that we can pretend were open in Middle English) are not the same as syllables that are open in Modern English! There were a number of sound changes that occured between these, like the loss of word-final schwa sounds and the simplification of double consonant sounds. So for the purposes of determining if a letter "a" represents the "long a" sound /eɪ/ or the "short a" sound /æ/, it doesn't work to look the syllable structure in modern English. You have to see if the syllable is, not phonologically open, but what we could call "orthographically open".




To determine if the "a" in "faces" and "faced" is in an "orthographically open" syllable, you can't use IPA transcriptions. Instead, use the rule that a single consonant letter representing a single consonant sound (so, excluding tt and x, for example) should be grouped with the written syllable to its right.



Divide up the words like this: fa-ces, fa-ced. The written syllable "fa" ends in a vowel, so it is "orthographically open" and the "a" is expected to be long. The same rule applies to words like baker, navel, taken. Unsurprisingly, there are exceptions even when you apply the rule like this: e.g. gavel, water, father, panic. The rule assigning "long" pronunciations to vowel letters in orthographically open syllables is just one part of the complicated English spelling system.



As you've said, it is not regular for the inflectional suffixes -(e)s, -ed to change the length of a vowel in an English word, so that is another rule you could use. (For -(e)s, there are a few exceptions like do-does, say-says, staff-staves.) Actually, in many cases this rule gives the same result as the previous rule, because of the system of doubling consonant letters after vowel letters representing "short" stressed vowels in inflected forms. (E.g. the word knit has a "short i" in an "orthographically closed" syllable, and in the inflected forms the "short i" remains in an "orthographically closed" syllable due to the double-consonant rule: knit-ted, knit-ting.)


grammar - How to use "when" in reported speech?

My friend told me: "I am going to sell my bicycle when I buy a car tomorrow". He bought a car last Monday and sold his bicycle on the same day. Now, how can I convert this to an indirect speech statement:




1- My friend told me that he was going to sell his bicycle when he would buy a car the next day.



2- My friend told me that he was going to sell his bicycle when he bought a car the next day.



3- My friend told me that he was going to sell his bicycle when he buys a car the next day.



My friend has already sold his bicycle and has bought a car. Which one is correct? and if they all are correct which one seems more natural?



Application of the back-shifting rule results in the second option. However it doesn't sound very natural.

Origins of possessive pronouns



If apostrophe + s is the acceptable way of denoting a genitive in English, is it possible that possessive pronouns, such as hers, ours and yours, started life as possessive adjectives with apostrophe + s?



E.g. her's, our's, your's, their's? Perhaps, even his' ?
Its and my obviously stick out from this tempting pattern.



Is there any evidence that this might be the case, or is the 's completely unrelated?



Answer



The possessive 's comes from the masculine genitive case ending on -es in Old English. This means that you could say "of [the] man" by simply sticking -es after "man". The genitive case was often used to indicate the possessor of something. In German, the genitive case is still used, and it ends on -(e)s for masculine and neuter singular words: the man = der Mann; the man's house = des Mannes Haus. As you see, the genitive is also used with articles.



The s in which most possessive pronouns end comes from the same genitive ending, either directly or indirectly by analogy. The genitives his, whos and yours (plural) already existed in Middle English.1 It is conceivable that modern hers, for example, which was something like her in Middle English, was formed by analogy with the possessive pronoun his, or by simply attaching the possessive s to it, if that already functioned as a productive suffix. Note that the apostrophe is of later date than the possessive s: the possessive of summer was simply summers in the time of Shakespeare.2


grammatical number - Is plural-possessive needed before "organization"

I'm not sure which one is correct:
"The Physical Therapist Organization" or "The Physical Therapists' Organization".



I'm leaning more towards without the plural-possessive but will I be grammatically wrong? Please don't respond with saying that I can use "Therapy" instead. I need to use the word "Therapist" or "Therapists'". Any help will be well appreciated.

Monday, October 15, 2012

Who/whom + who relative clause

Is the following sentence grammatical? "Whom who was in his prime has Floyd Mayweather fought in his career?"



I want to question whether Floyd Mayweather has fought any boxer during the boxer's best, so is it okay to use the relative clause "who was in his prime" to describe the word "whom"?

etymology - I've said it once, I've said it twice, I've said it a thousand times



I had a student moaning at me because I insisted he say twice and not "two times". And he asked "But why?" to which I replied, "Because that's how you say it!"




However on reflection, his question was a valid one.



In Latin there doesn't appear to be any discernible pattern





  • once is semel

  • twice is bis

  • thrice is ter

  • four times is quater


  • five times is quinquies




but in German the suffix -mal is used,





  • once is einmal

  • twice is zweimal


  • thrice is dreimal

  • four times is viermal




In French the term fois is repeated





  • once is une fois


  • twice is deux fois

  • thrice is trois fois

  • four times is quatre fois




In Italian the noun volta (s) volte (p) is used






  • once is una volta

  • twice is due volte

  • thrice is tre volte

  • four times is quattro volte




In Spanish veces is repeated






  • once is una vez

  • twice is dos veces

  • thrice is tres veces

  • four times is cuatro veces




And all the following languages follow the same pattern. In Danish it's gange; in Norwegian ganger; in Polish raz and razy; Portuguese has vez and vezes; and Welsh uses waith and gwaith.







Questions




  • So why does the English language have three different words for "one time", "two times" and "three times"?

  • Beyond a shadow of a doubt the English thrice is doomed to exile if not extinction; is twice suffering the same fate? For instance, many Italian learners do say "two times"—for them it makes more sense.



Clarification:
I am not suggesting that twice is old fashioned, unnecessary or— heaven forbid—nonsensical. But considering the history of thrice, it is possible that sometime in the future, native speakers will look back fondly on twice as being quaint and quite rare. My second question is in fact asking if there are signs of this happening now.







Related Questions:
Why has the word “thrice” fallen out of common usage?
Twice vs Two Times
Is there a word for four times as much, analogous to once, twice, and thrice?


Answer



The reason English has three different words for those is because English has three different words for 1, 2, and 3. It’s like why we have three different words for sixth, eighth, and twelfth: there’s a suffix here used with regular numbers.



The difference is that instead of ‑th for ordinals, it’s ‑ce for adverbials, and you just aren't recognizing that ‑ce adverbs things — or at least, that it adverbed them once upon a time.



That’s because ‑es was a genitive adverbial suffix in Old English. You can see its remains in all kinds of adverbs that are today spelled with an ‑s at the end.




Note that genitive nouns also end in ‑s. The difference is that making genitive nouns (well, and noun phrases with a clitic ‑’s) is still productive. However, making adverbials this way no longer is so, although now and then people coin new ones along existing models by analogy.



Other ‑s examples of adverbs made like once, twice, thrice include such words as afterwards, backwards, besides, betimes, forwards, hereabouts, needs, nowheres, nights, nowadays, sideways, thereabouts, towards, unawares — with plenty more where those came from. As Janus mentions in comments, there is also a broad set of those which gained a parasitic (=inorganic, non-etymological) final ‑t on top of their ‑es/‑s, such as acrost, against, amidst, amongst, betwixt, gainst, whilst.



Because we made adverbs out of things by adding ‑es (later ‑s) all the time, it was the natural way to make an adverbial out of the numbers. The word nonce has the same origin, although that’s used for a noun not an adverb. In Old English, the word for modern once was ænes or enes, genitive forms coming directly from the Old English word for one, which was án.



By the way, the Old English word án that gave birth to modern one and once also gave us the indefinite articles a, an. But when Old English speakers said ænes (again, that was their word for once), it had two different syllables. That situation was not to last, however, and this led to orthographic changes.



Middle English picked up twice and thrice by the same construction, although with differing spelling and pronunciation than we use today. Then around 1500, as ones became monosyllabic, it began to be spelled -ce to indicate the lack of voicing — and, for the cases of twice and thrice, to indicate a change in character of the preceding vowel.




So what’s going on is that you no longer recognize this fossilized morpheme as meaningful. It means exactly the same thing as those other free morphemes you mention in other tongues.



And no: twice isn't going away. Neither are twin, both, halve, or double. Twain might someday be, though, moving into literary use not bar talk. As for your Italian learners, I strongly advise against saying “two times”; it does not sound right to this native ear. Indeed, the OED specifically reports that twice is:




In all senses now the regular substitute for the phrase two times




On the other hand, tuppence and thruppence are hardly worth a farthing today, eh? :-)