- I want to see you.
- I look forward to seeing you.
How can one say "to" in the first sentence is an infinitive marker and in the second sentence a preposition when we are given just the following two sentences and are asked to fill in the blanks?
- I want to ____(see/seeing) you.
- I look forward to __(see/seeing) you.
I cannot decide whether to add -s after words like "No.", "Fig." etc. For example, in my paper, usually I need to express:
"Fig. 1, 2 and 3 are illustrations of xxx", "This figure shows the results of frame No. 1, 2, 3 in our video"...
As you can see, there are multiple numbers after the words like "Fig.", "No.". In my option, words like "Fig." or "No." never have plural. But someone said they have. I have confused. Which one is correct?
The number of boys- countable or uncountable? I'm confused with this sir.
If we are talking about electrical installations, when would you use "installations" vs "facilities".
The Merriam Webster dictionary defines facilities as "something (such as a building or large piece of equipment) that is built for a specific purpose", but then mentions "installations" as a synonym.
For installation, the Merriam Webster has "the act or process of making a machine, a service, etc., ready to be used in a certain place: the act of installing something" but also "something (such as a piece of equipment) that is put together and made ready for use". This last definition looks pretty similar to the one for facilities.
I am a native speaker of German, and I often see the English verb find being used like its German cognate finden. For example:
My students and I find your platform very useful and very appealing
visually, as well. — Source
This just feels wrong to me. Shouldn’t it be something like:
My students and I find your platform to be very useful and very appealing visually, as well.
Can you use find like that?
Answer
According to the Cambridge Grammar of English (p523) under the heading Complex Transitive Complementation:
Many common verbs may be used with a direct object followed by an
adjective phrase acting as an object complement.
The GCE includes the example:
We found the garden slightly disappointing.
This corresponds to the OP's first sentence:
My students and I find your platform very useful ...
which is consequently grammatical.
Among the other verbs listed by the CGE that can be followed by a direct object and object complement are: keep and make. CGE examples:
I must keep dad's (sic) dinner warm.
The whole of mankind makes me angry.
My gut says that
"Fifteen options is too many"
is more correct than
"Fifteen options are too many"
but I can't articulate why the subject feels like a singular concept.
Which is correct?
Answer
In brief, this is an example of notional agreement. If you're thinking of the options as a unit or quote, say
Fifteen options is too many.
If you're thinking of the options as individual, countable options, say
Fifteen options are too many.
First, let's lay out the rule you already know: usually you want your subject and your verb to agree in number. According to this paradigm, you would say:
Fifteen options are too many.
Six options are too many.
?A range of options is too many.
The last example shows something interesting. According to the previous rule, "a range" is singular and therefore the singular verb "is" should be used. However, "a range of options" feels like a plural concept - there have to be multiple options to have a range. Subject-verb agreement on the basis of semantics or feelings - like the one you have in your question - is called notional agreement.
Merriam-Webster gives several examples where plural unit nouns with numbers might take a singular verb.
Ten dollars is the cost of admission.
Is five miles too far to walk?
Two plus three makes five.
The explanations for precisely when to use singular or plural verbs vary. Some prescriptive grammarians ignore notional agreement and treat violations of conventional S-V agreement as an error. Some, like editor Erin Brenner, create very specific rules for when to apply notional agreement:
Specific amounts of money take a singular verb, while vague amounts take a plural verb.
Whatever the exact explanation (here's one more), the logic here is that you use singular when there's a semantic reason for thinking of the noun phrase as singular and plural when there's a semantic reason to think of it as plural. My own inclination: the Merriam-Webster examples and your example ("Fifteen options is too many") treat the amount (ten dollars, five miles, two plus three, fifteen options) as notionally singular because they feel like a unit quantity. Conceptually, someone asking after the quoted amount would likely treat the figure as singular:
How much is the cost of admission?
How many options is too many?
When thinking in terms of a unit, figure, or quote, singular works.
A small shift in perspective will mean that we are thinking of the plural collection of items, rather than a unit quantity:
How many dollar bills are required to pay admission?
What options are the most redundant to you?
Both questions require thinking about multiple individual items rather than a set number. Hence, with quantities, notional agreement should be considered alongside conventional subject-verb agreement.
These two attitudes are no more
contradictory than those two.
Which of the following interpretations is right (or give me a better one if possible):
Answer
“A is no more difficult than B” means literally that both are of a similar level of difficulty, and in most cases it also implies that neither is very difficult. So, it's rather 1, but with implications of 2.
is it 'a usual' or 'an usual'? 'A usual' sounds more correct in my head ('Today was a usual day.') than 'an usual', but u is a vowel. Which one is correct and why?
Answer
Usual (pronounced /ˈjuː.ʒu.əl/ as in you) begins with a consonant sound and, as such, it should be preceded by a not an.
As an aside, I cannot help but point out that the sentence
Today was a usual day
is not usually heard in regular conversation.
Today was an unusual day
is what one might hear, instead!
Indeed, I rarely hear the construction a usual. The definite article is more commonly used, in my experience:
That's the usual thing.
In place of a usual, one would also be more likely to hear not an unusual:
- Today was a usual day / Today was not an unusual day
- This is a usual occurrence / This is not an unusal occurrence or This usually happens
You are right in saying that a usual sounds weird. As speakers, we tend to avoid constructions which, though correct, do not flow easily from the mouth. In sum, the following are valid and commonly used alternatives:
not [an] unusual • the usual • usually
What's the difference between "manful" and "manly"? Both are adjectives derived from the word "man", and Wiktionary has fairly similar definitions of the two words: manful versus manly.
Is manly usually used when describing a man or woman, while either is fine when describing something other than a person?
Answer
As noted, manly is the commonly used term. Manful is a rare word with the following characteristics:
The perfect definition for manly:
can be found in an 1844 Greek and English lexicon, showing as it does a common thread in the understanding of manliness that runs from antiquity, through the 19th century, and up to how we employ the descriptor on AoM in the present day:
- “Pertaining to a man, masculine; manly; suiting, fit for, becoming a man, or made use of by, as manners, dress, mode of life; suiting, or worthy of a man, as to action, conduct or sentiments, and thus, manly, vigorous, brave, resolute, firm.”
Manful (or manfully):
was sometimes used in a similar way as manly. But there were some shades of difference between the two descriptors, even if people weren’t always sure exactly what those differences were. 1871’s Synonyms Discriminated, argued that:
- Manful is commonly applied to conduct; manly, to character. Manful opposition; manly bravery. Manful is in accordance with the strength of a man; manly, with the moral excellence of a man. Manful is what a man would, as such, be likely to do; manly, what he ought to do, and to feel as well.”'
Another lexicographer put it this way:
- “Manful points to the energy and vigor of a man; manly, to the generous and noble qualities of a man. The first is opposed to weakness or cowardice, the latter to that which is puerile or mean. We speak of manful exertion without so much reference to the character of the thing for which exertion is made, but manly conduct is that which has reference to a thing worthy of a man.”
(www.artofmanliness.com)
I read an abstract from this article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16180285
Unfortunately I don't have access to the whole content.
In the end of abstract we read that:
However, introducing their non-traditional family into their peer group does not seem to interfere with their psychological well-being. Nonetheless, teachers indicate that children from lesbian families experience more attention problems compared with children from heterosexual households.
What do attention problems mean in this context?
Can we be sure about the selected interpretation?
Answer
Thank you very much for your comments and the answer. As the opinions differ, I think that I cannot draw a definite conclusion about a proper interpretation of the abstract. This is also a satisfactory answer for me.
This is the name of a company:
Taobao Network Co., Ltd.
Is it correct that every first letter is capitalised? Also, why is there a comma?
Answer
The name of a company is a proper noun--like a person's name, or a country. This GrammarGirl tutorial explains that you need to capitalize proper nouns.
The comma is necessary, because "Taobao Network Co., Ltd." is how the company registered their name. However, you will find that most company titles are of the form "Company Name, Type of Company". An "LTD" is:
a business incorporated under the laws of England, Wales, Scotland, Canada, other Commonwealth countries, the Republic of Ireland, Cyprus, Israel and some Anglophone countries in Africa, like Ghana or Nigeria.
So the comma separates the part of the full title. Not every company has an abbreviation like "Ltd" or "LLC", so you won't always see one.
There are some questions related to this topic (Usage of "expect to" and "expectation to/of" and "Need of" vs. "need for"), but I haven't found one directly addressing this word combination.
I'm trying to determine whether I should use "expectations of" or "expectations for," in the following:
I had to reevaluate my expectations of myself.
I had to reevaluate my expectations of college.
I had to reevaluate my expectations of the future.
OR
I had to reevaluate my expectations for myself.
I had to reevaluate my expectations for college.
I had to reevaluate my expectations for the future.
Is one more grammatically correct than the other in all cases (regardless of the type of noun that follows)? Or, are they both correct in different cases; if so, what are they? Thanks.
A couple months ago I read a book with the statement When the sun goes down and today in a movie I saw the man said Let's wait for the sun to come down. I believe both are refering to the sunset.
But which of them is better to be used or are there any formal differences between the two sentences?
Answer
When the sun goes down is the common use and form for a setting sun (as oppose to the sun comes up for a rising one).
The image in my head is a person standing on the beach in the evening waiting to take a photograph of the setting sun.
Let's wait for the sun to come down seems to imply that you're waiting for the sun to catch up to you for some reason (as if you're ahead of the sun).
The image in my head is a person standing on the beach in the late afternoon and telling his/her friend(s) that they should stay until the sun reaches them and sets in the distance.
There seems to be no formal difference, just a directional thing. I guess if your back is to the horizon and you're not watching the sun there, it's coming to you. And if you're facing the horizon and the sun is there, then the sun is going from you.
On a side note, there are lyrics of songs with both versions.
Here are some example sentences from different dictionaries.
With her qualifications and experience, she would seem to be ideally suited to/for the job. (Cambridge online dictionary)
This was a job to which he seemed well suited. / He is not really suited for a teaching career. (Oxford Learners' Dictionary online)
Satellites are uniquely suited to provide this information. (Collins online dictionary)
Why not to providing?
He is not suited to teaching. (Le Robert et Collins, dictionnaire français-anglais, paper version)
Why not to teach?
When followed by a noun, noun phrase, or pronoun, the adjective suited must be followed by the preposition to or for, that much is clear.
But when it is followed by a verb?
Is it to be suited to do something (full infinitive, preposition to or for dropped, Collins's example sentence) or to be suited to/for doing something (gerund, preposition maintained, Le Robert et Collins's example sentence)?
Does the type of subject – person (he) or thing (satellites) – have an influence on the structure one should use, or not?
It is not obvious that the adjective/verb-followed-by-noun and the adjective/verb-followed-by-verb structures should match, as is NOT the case in
to be scared of something / to remind someone of something
versus
to be scared to do something / to remind someone to do something
but not
to remind someone of doing something *!
However, note that
to be scared of doing something
is possible, but with a change of meaning from intentional to accidental – I suppose – as in to be afraid to do something (to choose not to do something which is in your willpower, to avoid doing it – intentional, voluntary) versus to be afraid of doing something (to try to avoid something unpleasant happening to you – if it did happen, that would be accidental, involuntary).
These things are much more complicated than either the dictionaries or the grammar books make them out to be!
Unfortunately, many monolingual dictionaries not aimed at foreign learners do not give example sentences of adjectives/verbs followed by verbs because they do not even realize that choosing the form the verb should be in IS a difficulty!
What's the difference between "manful" and "manly"? Both are adjectives derived from the word "man", and Wiktionary has fairly similar definitions of the two words: manful versus manly.
Is manly usually used when describing a man or woman, while either is fine when describing something other than a person?
Answer
As noted, manly is the commonly used term. Manful is a rare word with the following characteristics:
The perfect definition for manly:
can be found in an 1844 Greek and English lexicon, showing as it does a common thread in the understanding of manliness that runs from antiquity, through the 19th century, and up to how we employ the descriptor on AoM in the present day:
- “Pertaining to a man, masculine; manly; suiting, fit for, becoming a man, or made use of by, as manners, dress, mode of life; suiting, or worthy of a man, as to action, conduct or sentiments, and thus, manly, vigorous, brave, resolute, firm.”
Manful (or manfully):
was sometimes used in a similar way as manly. But there were some shades of difference between the two descriptors, even if people weren’t always sure exactly what those differences were. 1871’s Synonyms Discriminated, argued that:
- Manful is commonly applied to conduct; manly, to character. Manful opposition; manly bravery. Manful is in accordance with the strength of a man; manly, with the moral excellence of a man. Manful is what a man would, as such, be likely to do; manly, what he ought to do, and to feel as well.”'
Another lexicographer put it this way:
- “Manful points to the energy and vigor of a man; manly, to the generous and noble qualities of a man. The first is opposed to weakness or cowardice, the latter to that which is puerile or mean. We speak of manful exertion without so much reference to the character of the thing for which exertion is made, but manly conduct is that which has reference to a thing worthy of a man.”
(www.artofmanliness.com)
I would like to know which sentence flows better. This one:
I was a taken aback by Limei's little confession. In spite of her
impulsive personality, she seemed like a normal girl, leading a normal
life. Could she be more exceptional than I thought?
or this one:
I was a taken aback by Limei's little confession. Other than her
impulsive personality, she seemed like a normal girl, leading a normal
life. Could she be more exceptional than I thought?
Suddenly, I'm unsure which one to use.
What I want it to say is that, except for her impulsiveness, Limei seems like a normal person.
Answer
Considering what you want to say, other than is perfect. You can also say, "Besides her impulsive personality.."
In spite of her impulsive personality means she hardly behaves as a normal girl, which has taken you aback. Whereas, Other than her impulsive personality means she is usually both impulsive and humble in her way of living.
Is it also correct to say FAQ's as some sites like http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html refer? Or is FAQs the right and correct way to say it?
Answer
FAQ is an acronym for Frequently Asked Questions.
It's not possessive, not a contraction, doesn't have any foreign origins and is not used to indicate stress, so I write FAQs. For more information consult your favorite style manual or the thread linked in the comment above about the more general case:
What is the correct way to pluralize an acronym?
How about adding 's to the name of a company that ends in s for a possessive? Is it the same guideline (go by how it would be pronounced)? Thanks.
I heard an actor in a TV series say this:
He showed me myself (or to myself)
Is this slang or correct?
(He was shown a letter by his father earlier that day.)
If any of this is correct, please explain why! I have learned that you can only use a reflexive pronoun with the subject of the sentence. The word "me" is the object here, isn't it?
Are the phrases skill set and skill sets both correct?
As I see it, set implies a single set of related skills whereas sets can be taken to mean multiple sets of skills around different concentrations.
Thoughts?
Answer
Skill is a noun, not an adjective. However in that phrase it is used as a noun adjunct, so it serves as an adjective.
Aside from that, I agree entirely. "Well, that matches my skill set" and "The two jobs need completely different skill sets" being valid singular and plural uses, respectively.
In Modern English, there are several monosyllabic words ending in -ost, like "most", "cost", "post", "lost", "frost". Assuming RP, some of them are pronounced with /əʊ/ (post) and others with /ɒ/ (cost).
At first, I guessed (at least for nouns) that Germanic words might use the former pattern and more Latin(-ish) the latter. But "post" got so wild etymology for the multitude of its meanings... And, for example, "frost" easily breaks the rule. I didn't check any Middle/Old English spellings.
Are there any rules/patterns/hopes to derive pronunciation from spelling here?
Answer
I can't find any rule that relates the spelling of words containing "ost" to the pronunciation of the vowel. I don't think it would be of much practical use anyway: since there are so few words with this spelling pattern, it seems easier to just memorize that cost, frost, lost are pronounced with /ɒst/ and ghost, host, most, post are pronounced with /əʊst/. (In fact, because there are so few monosyllabic words that end in -ost, I'm also going to discuss the pronunciations of some polysyllabic words ending in -ost.)
For the most part, the modern differences in pronunciation correspond to historical differences in pronunciation, but a few words seem to have undergone irregular sound changes.
a unique (as far as I can tell) word from Old English is dost, which has the same /ʌ/ vowel as does, doth, done. This seems to be the result of vowel reduction in a very commonly used verb. (Compare the change in many forms of North American English, but generally not in British English, of the vowel in the stressed forms of common words like was, what, of, because to /ʌ/.)
French ost was generally taken into English as long /oʊst/ (post < French post; host < French (h)o(o)st; toast < French toster; roast < French roster; coast < French coste). The development seems similar to that of words like beast < French beste, feast < French feste, taste < French tast. There doesn't seem to be any reason why some of these words are spelled with ost and others with oast.
Something that I think is interesting is that there is similar ambiguity for words ending in oth: moth, broth and cloth are pronounced with /ɒ/ (or in different accents, /ɔ/ or /ɑ/), , both is pronounced with a long dipthong /oʊ/, and sloth, wroth and troth can each be pronounced either way.
I'm a bit astonished about the long discussions in the post How can I prove a word is a noun? I admit that there a certain problems, especially with gerunds.
In this example, containing a gerund with an object, it is indeed a bit difficult to say to which word class "smoking" belongs. Is it a noun or a verb?
Traditionally the gerund is seen as a verb form with a double nature. It can behave as a noun and as a verb.
I think it would be practical to see the gerund also as a special word class, a noun-verb thing. In this way we could avoid a lot of problems that arise about the word class noun when we come across gerunds with objects.
My question: Would it be practical to see gerunds as a word class of its own?
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?
these words almost bear the same meaning I assume, but not sure if they are exactly the same.. if not, when is it better to use each?
Answer
A premise is a statement that you assume is true for the purpose of doing something else, such as constructing an argument or planning a course of action. A premise can be either a factual assertion ("The sky is blue") or a subjective statement or opinion ("The Beatles were the greatest band of all time").
A premise is a kind of shortcut that lets you avoid doing extra work and concentrate on the task that's in front of you: if you take as a premise that the sky is blue, you can act on that without having to prove that the sky is blue. Of course, it's possible for a premise to be factually incorrect. If your premise is that the sky is green, and you take actions or construct arguments that assume the sky is green, you're going to run into trouble.
A principle, in the sense that you mean, is a doctrine or belief that serves as the basis for a system of belief or action. It's similar to a premise, but is more general. To understand the difference, consider the first line of the Gettysburg Address:
Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
"All men are created equal" is both a principle and a premise. As a principle, it's a general statement of belief: if you believe in the principle that all men are created equal, that can affect what else you believe in and how you live your life. The founders of the United States took this principle as a premise when creating and developing the US government and system of laws.
My first question is: what tense should I use in the sentence below if I want to say that writing doesn't happen(it's hypothetical)
''I wouldn't want to see what he wrote/had written''
The second question is: if I use past perfect in the sentence ''I wouldn't want to see what he had written,'' does it mean that writing happens before seeing? Is there any change to simplify the tense to past simple and have the same meaning in the sentence above and this: (''I'd take the thing and then you'd take the thing I had taken'')? For example,
''I took/had taken my keys before you came home''
using past perfect in the sentence above, we just emphasize the action happening before coming, but past perfect isn't necessary here since it's very clear. Therefore, past simple is perfectly fine. So would past simple have the same meaning as past perfect in the sentences below?
''I wouldn't want to see what he had written/ wrote''
''I'd take the thing and then you'd take the thing I had taken/ took''
Over on English Language Learners, a non-native speaker asked a question about adding "the" before movie titles.
I wanted to tell him or her that the rule in English is not to add a definite article before a proper noun, but to keep the article if it's part of the title, so you would have, for instance:
I went to see The Big Sleep.
but
I went to see Sleepless in Seattle.
But it occurred to me that there is an exception to this rule: boats, trains, and other means of transportation. My question is, why is it idiomatic to say:
Tomorrow morning we set sail on the Titanic.
or
The murder took place on the Orient Express.
when we would never use an article in that context with the name of a person, a city, or a country? Are there other categories of proper nouns that take definite articles, and if so, what if anything is the rule?
In A Grammar and Dictionary of the Samoan Language there is a verb that means "to return from fishing without any fish."
- Taufua, v. to return from fishing without any fish. Syn. ʻAsa.
My question is, how is "taufua" translated into English?
I'm looking for a single word which renders that meaning in English, but I will accept an expression, too.
A bit of searching came up with "duffer" (an incompetent, ineffectual, or clumsy person) but it doesn't seem strictly related to fishing, and it isn't a verb.
I am writing a title and I was wondering whether I can skip the second article just like you would say a pen and pencil. Can I say, "A cap and tie for Zed," or must it still be "A cap and a tie for Zed?"
Have been searching the net and books for some answers but have been unsuccessful. Would appreciate a quick response from some Grammar Genius! Need clarification here to finish up my work.
Thanks ya.
I can ask any of:
Do you know a breakfast place nearby?
Do you know a nearby breakfast place?
Do you know a good breakfast place?
but I really can't ask:
Do you know a breakfast place good?
Is there a general rule for determining whether an adjective must come before the noun or may come, Spanish-style, after it?
Answer
The general rule is
One-word modifiers precede the noun; modifiers of more than one word follow the noun.
I call this the Eleven-year-old boy rule.
If you make a single word out of a phrase, it can precede (that's what the hyphens are for in writing), but it's got different syntax, because preceding adjectives are not declined for number.
Note the plural years and singular year below:
If you pluralized the second year, or used singular year in the first, they'd be ungrammatical.
Nearby, while it is enough of a single word to precede, still retains enough independence in its two consituents near and by to follow, as well. It's in transition from one state to the other.
Language changes, word by word and phrase by phrase, as we continue to speak it.
In fact, it changes because we continue to speak it.
It suddenly came to my mind that this is quite strange:
- Obama, with whom I was at school, has just come to live in our street.
- Who are you hanging out with?
Obviously, both sentences are correct, so is "with whom".
But... why do you say "who are you hanging out with", not "whom"?
Answer
You can certainly ask Whom are you hanging out with?— it's completely grammatical— though the kind of person who would say it would probably use the even more stilted With whom are you hanging out?
The difference between who and whom has been covered extensively in previous questions. Whom has been suffering a steady decline (in conversational English) for some decades, and sounds formal or affected. As such, you'd be unlikely to hear it used with the colloquial hanging out, as whom is largely absent from less formal registers these days. Additionally, it is familiar to see who at the head of a sentence as an interrogative pronoun, so it is either less noticed by or less objectionable to pedants.
I spoke with a teacher about an essay I wrote recently. We talked through certain parts which couldn't be described by squiggles and dots in red ink. This helped me, but I'm having difficulty now with identifying the meaning of certain squiggles and dots in red ink.
In "never-ending," my teacher drew a vertical dash through the hyphen, and then made vertical parentheses around the dash (two arcs, each curving from "never" to "ending").
What does this mark mean? I assume it means "remove the hyphen and separate 'never-ending' into two words."
Also, "never-ending" serves as an adjective in this context.
Consider this conversation:
"Hey, we've been seeing each other for a couple of months"
"Did you really expect to get married two weeks? I am not easy like other girls."
"It's not about other girls. It's about me and you"
Is me and you correct and why?
I'm trying to verify the correctness the following sentence:
Game time is Sunday.
Is it correct or should it be "game-time"?
My daughter, who is in the 4th grade, was asked to answer questions about the following sentence:
What time can you meet us at the school on Tuesday?
She was asked questions about the usage of can and meet in the sentence. Specifically, she was asked whether the words were action, linking or helping verbs, and then she was asked whether those words were past, present or future tense.
Apparently, they are teaching a future “tense”.
My questions:
Suppose I wrote someone an email and told him something. After a few days, it occurred to me that I forgot to tell him about other things. What is correct in this situation:
or
Answer
I think both the sentences are correct.
The adverb Just is used both in the
simple past and present perfect and in the past perfect tense too. Just means
recently when referring to time. The distinction between American and the British English is being slowly lost. Even in informal or in formal context, there is no difference.
1.I just remembered that I forgot to tell you about other things.
I have just remembered that I forgot to tell you about other thingsBoth the sentences mean the same thing and are grammatically correct.
Should I put a comma before the last item in a list?
I would like crackers, cheese and some soda.
I would like crackers, cheese, and some soda.
Answer
Using a comma before the last item in a list is known as the Oxford Comma, sometimes the Serial Comma. It is used before conjunctions in a list like this with three or more items. Its use is purely written style and optional. It is more common in America outside journalism, and much less common in other English speaking areas of the world. There are arguments for and against which usually come down to comprehension. Wikipedia quotes these ambiguities:
To my parents, Mother Teresa and the Pope.
To my parents, Mother Teresa, and the Pope.
Also on that wiki page you can find lots of links to certain style guides. Comma use is something of a grey area though, and everyone has his own style. Pick what reduces ambiguity.
Language log has an interesting article on how reading comprehension can be improved with comma use, including this type.
Obviously, when I go to Google this or search virtually anywhere I get a list of state abbreviations.
But I'm curious, what would the proper way be to abbreviate the actual word state?
Answer
I would recommend either "ST" or "St", without a period (to avoid confusion with the abbreviation for "street"). I live in Washington (the state, not the city), and "Washington St" wouldn't strike me as odd if I read it in a magazine or newspaper. It doesn't look like there's a very rigidly defined standard on this.
But then, NBC seems to like "Washington St."
Which one is correct:
I and my father are going to the market.
Me and my father are going to the market.
Answer
The second is not grammatical.
The first is grammatical (except that it lacks the verb 'are'), but neither idiomatic, nor conforming to speech etiquette. Politeness requires that one mentions oneself second. So one would normally say:
My father and I are going to the market.
In determining whether to say 'he and I', or 'he and me', just mentally omit the 'he'. Clearly one would not say me am going to the market, so it has to be 'I'. But one would say It belongs to my father and me, since 'I' am no longer the subject of the sentence, and the accusative pronoun is called for.
For business days, I see both 'work day' and 'working day'. Which one is correct? Also asking between 'work hours' vs 'working hours'.
Context: I have 5 work/working/business days. My work/working/business hours are 7 per day.
Why is it a unicorn instead of an unicorn. Unicorn starts with a vowel and so shouldn't it be an?
Answer
The article(a/an) that precedes a word is largely dependent on the way the first syllable of that word is pronounced, though many people follow the rule that words beginning with vowels must be preceded by 'an' and words beginning with consonants must be preceded by 'a'.
Here, unicorn begins with the vowel 'u' but it's pronounced more or less like 'yoo'. 'Unicorn' begins with a consonant sound, so we use 'a' before it.
Some other examples are: a user, an honour, a university, a European.
So we've all heard the admonishments from our teachers not to end a clause with a preposition
A plumber visits a wealthy estate to fix a clogged toilet. As the butler opens the door, the plumber barks out,"I'm here to fix the toilet. Where's your bathroom at?"
"Please try to speak with more discretion. We do not want to disturb our neighbors with the details of our plumbing issues. And we most certainly do not end our sentences with prepositions, sir.
So the plumber lowers his tone and says more cordially, "I'm here to fix the toilet. Where's your bathroom at, asshole."
Anyway, back to the matter at hand. I have come under the impression that this is a rule of thumb to help the elementary student avoid mismatching case for the target of the preposition rather than a hard rule. For example by placing the preposition closer to its target, you avoid constructs like: "Who did you give the invitation to?" instead of the proper "To whom did you give the invitation?". Moving the preposition closer makes the incorrect case sound absurd. No one would ever say "To who did you give the invitation?"
All of this introductory text leads up to this simple question: Is this phrase correct "Whom did you give the invitation to?" or is it still incorrect english even though we addressed the issue of case?
Answer
I would say it's a rule of thumb, to avoid students make errors.
The NOAD, in the note about the usage of who versus whom reports that
The normal practice in modern English is to use who instead of whom and, where applicable, to put the preposition at the end of the sentence.
- Who do you think we should support?
- Who do you wish to speak to?
It also reports that
Such uses are today broadly accepted in standard English, but in formal writing it is best to maintain the distinction.
As you are using whom, the correct sentence is
To whom did you give the invitation?
I know I've been asking a lot of questions lately about tenses. But please bear with me here.
NASA scientists have decided to delay the space shuttle's launch in order to determine whether recently repaired parts will cause damage if they break off in orbit.
So for the above example, I know will is correctly used. But I don't understand why there needs to be Present Perfect. Since this happened in the past shouldn't there be Simple Past?
Is this because NASA's decision is continuing into the present?
Answer
The simple past is used to relate or narrate past eventualities. It makes no reference to the present.
The present perfect, however, is not used to relate past events or states: it is a present tense and expresses a present state which in some respect arises out of the past eventuality. That present state is not explicitly named, but is left to the hearer/reader to infer from the discourse context.
One standard use or inference type is the resultative or stative perfect, in which the prior event is inferred to be the cause of a current state. That's what's in play here: the past eventuality, the decision, is understood to explain why the shuttle's departure time is not what was previously expected.
You may read more about this here, or here if you want a much deeper technical analysis.
I know, that
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
is correct.
But I am not sure, if this holds also for other verbs?
So is
I am looking forward to taste your cookies.
or is
I am looking forward to tasting your cookies.
correct?
Answer
It is indeed. In each case, you need an object, so you need a noun or noun phrase:
I am looking forward to the holidays.
So in order to make a verb serve you must use the gerund.
I am looking forward to taking some time off.
I have a bodyguard in order to protect myself.
I was told that I cannot have a stative verb in the required condition:
I have a bodyguard
But I don't understand how "I need to study in order to pass the exam" is correct when "need" is stative.
I was also told that the subject has to do the infinitive, so the following is wrong:
in order to protect myself.
I was told the sentence should be written as:
I hired a bodyguard in order to stay protected.
Is this correct, or is there no problem with my original sentence?
My question is about in order.
While this question talks about the meaning of the word "pseudo", I'm wondering what the rules are for hyphenating words that start with this prefix.
For example, would it be correct to call someone a pseudointellectual, or a pseudo-intellectual? I asked Google, and he showed me plenty of examples of both, so I figured I would ask the experts.
Answer
Pseudointellectual is correct. Take a look at the following snippet from this nice resource:
With a handful of exceptions, compounds created by the addition of a
prefix are not hyphenated:
anteroom, antisocial, binomial, biochemistry, coordinate,
counterclockwise, extraordinary, infrastructure, interrelated,
intramural, macroeconomics, metaphysical, microeconomics, midtown,
minibike, multicultural, neoromantic, nonviolent, overanxious,
postwar, preconference, pseudointellectual, reunify,
semiconductor, socioeconomic, subpar, supertanker, transatlantic,
unnatural, underdeveloped
Exceptions include
compounds in which the second element is capitalized or a number:
anti-Semitic, pre-1998, post-Freudian
compounds which need hyphens to avoid confusion
un-ionized (as distinguished from unionized), co-op
compounds in which a vowel would be repeated (especially to avoid
confusion)
co-op, semi-independent, anti-intellectual (but reestablish,
reedit)
compounds consisting of more than one word
non-English-speaking, pre-Civil War
compounds that would be difficult to read without a hyphen
pro-life, pro-choice, co-edited
If you have a list of descriptors (probably names or colours, but could be other things) which refer to items of the same type, followed by a noun which applies to all of the items in the list, should that noun be plural or singular?
For example:
"If you choose the red, yellow or blue door/doors, then you win a prize."
"If you operate the 'On' or 'Activate' switch/switches, the machine will operate normally."
If neither is wrong, but it depends on the context, what does the plural/singular imply about the items in the list? For example if there is only 1 each of the red, yellow and blue doors (vs if there are 2+ of each colour) does that affect which noun should be used?
My inclination was that the noun should be pluralised as it refers to multiple items (there are multiple doors, multiple switches) however I can see the argument that if there is only one blue door, one yellow door, etc. then 'door' should remain singular.
Thanks!
What should I choose when I write a conversation? Should I write like this?
I: How are you?
John: Fine.
or like this?
Me: How are you?
John: Fine.
What is the best preposition at/for/on to use in sentences like these:
Configure CoS queue parameters at interface
or
Configure CoS queue parameters for interface
or
Configure CoS queue parameters on interface
These sentence fragments are help messages for CLI commands in the networking device. Articles are intentionally omitted to shorten them.
UPDATE #1:
What should the prepositions be if I use Set and Enable instead of Configure?
Enable 'something' on interface
and
Set 'something' on interface
UPDATE #2:
Meaning of these fragments is the following:
There is a device and it has some ports (I call them interfaces). There are some parameters that can be configured for the particular interface. There are some parameters that can be enabled on the interface. There are some attributes that can be set on the interface.
Answer
As an (ex) network engineer, I would use on for the "enable" case, and generally use for in the "QoS parameters" case.
The rationale is that in the former I am performing an action directly on the interface, but in the latter I am performing actions on settings of the interface.
In a website I am programming I present the user with the option to name their website site, which can be a singular entity "Mel Tormé" which would present the menu options "About me", "Contact me" or a collective entity like "The Velvet Fog" which would logically change the menu to "About us", "Contact us". I would like to give the user the option to choose "collective or singular" but I'm struggling with how to phrase the question. Any ideas?
Answer
You can ask the user to choose between individual and group.
1: They were running and jumping and playing in the field.
2: They were running, jumping, and playing in the field.
3: They were running and jumping, and playing in the field.
In which of these sentences does "in the field" refer to (modify?)...
A: All three verbs (running, jumping, playing)
B: Only playing
C: Either all three, or only playing. It's ambiguous.
Also, I assume all three sentences are acceptable in terms of punctuation, tell me if they are not.
And I'm sure you can rearrange the sentence or add/change words to make the meaning more clear, but for my sake, don't. Thanks in advance.
Answer
CORRECT ANSWER: A: All three verbs (running, jumping, playing)
1: They were running and jumping and playing in the field.
2: They were running, jumping, and playing in the field.
3: They were running and jumping, and playing in the field.
Let's diagram:
They / were running / were jumping / were playing / in the field
Subject: They
Verb: [Compound Verb (all three verbs were running, were jumping, were playing share the same subject)] e.g. They were running. They were jumping. They were playing.
Adverb prepositional phrase modifies the Compound Verb to describe "Where?" "Where were they running, jumping, and playing?" In the field.
The phrase modifies all three verbs. The verbs are part of a verb phrase that has a helping verb (a.k.a. auxiliary verb) were + a main verb running, jumping, playing The "were" may be omitted but understood and STILL the helping verb in the verb phrase:
Illustrated:
1: They were running and (were) jumping and (were) playing in the field.
2: They were running, (were) jumping, and (were) playing in the field.
3: They were running and (were) jumping, and (were) playing in the field.
Number 3 is grammatically incorrect since all three verbs in the same verb phrase share the same subject. Number 2 is the proper way to write it.
"2f. Two or more verbs joined by a connecting word and having the same subject are called a compound verb."--John E. Warriner. Warriner’s English Grammar and Composition. Fourth Course. Franklin Edition. Orlando, Florida: Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich. 1982. 35.
Two examples given in the book:
On our last trip to Europe, we sailed on a freighter and saved a great deal of money. [compound verb: sailed (and) saved; subject: we]
I have cut the grass and clipped the hedges. [The subject is I; the compound verb is have cut (and) have clipped. Notice that the helping verb have goes with cut and clipped.]
Who do you want to talk to?
Whom do you want to talk to?
Which one is correct sentence?
Sorry for slaying the English in the title but I don't know how to be more explanatory.
For example John starts working with Microsoft as a programmer, and the company gives him a computer which is still company's property, but for the usage of John. What is that action called? Issuing? Commisioning? Deploying?
What would be the name of a document which records that action?
Answer
Issued sounds right. Assigned is another good possibility.
I would call the document that records the action a property record. Many organizations keep track of computers and other assets issued to employees by assigning property numbers to such assets and by maintaining property records in property databases. Local organizational property custodians (or equivalent) reconcile such inventories on some required basis, e.g., annually. The individuals to whom property is issued or assigned are responsible for the property issued or assigned to them. It's all in the property records.
There have been many proposed epicene or gender-neutral
pronouns
that have been proposed over the years and have received some level
of use. My question is: do all of them mean the same thing?
Are they synonyms for each other? Is it even possible for
pronouns to have synonyms?
That is, if a person has indicated that others should refer
to them with gender-neutral pronouns, is the choice of which
pronoun to use (e.g. singular they, Spivak pronouns, thon,
etc.) a question of personal preference, style (e.g. perhaps
a specific magazine decides to standardize on using thon
for all persons not identifying as “he” or “she”), or pragmatics,
or is there a deeper issue of meaning?
For example, is there a pronoun that refers only to transmen,
and where use of the pronoun to refer to people who are not
transmen (e.g. women or cismen) is to some extent discouraged
or considered incorrect?
This question is obviously related to the recent controversy
on Stack Exchange, but is intended to be an independent question
about the English language and not an attempt to bring the
controversy here. To be clear, I’m not asking for opinions on the current
controversy. I’m asking if there has been any indication (e.g.
through research, or even activism) to indicate that these
pronouns have distinct meanings as opposed to simply being
preferred or designated by different communities, or
recommended based on social, political, or regulatory
reasons.
I would like some guidance on how to ask questions with "how many" in them. For example, does one say
From how many minutes is the train late?
or simply
How many minutes is the train late?
or something else?
Similarly, is it
From how many kilos does she slim ?
or something else?
Answer
How many minutes will the train be late?
would be ok. From is incorrect in this question.
From how many kilos does she slim
I'm not sure slim can be measured like this. Your best bet will be How slim is she?
Generally, you'll be just putting how in front of the question and changing word order accordingly to make your sentence a question.
She has many friends.
How many friends does she have?
If there's a preposition somewhere in the statement and it is connected with many or the noun, you'll want to move it toward the end.
I've heard this rumor from many people
How many people have you heard this rumor from?
Notice how from is separated from many people and put in the end of question. Strictly speaking, From how many people have you heard this rumor? is also ok grammatically, but in my opinion it is a little more awkward.
I can't figure out whether to use that or which:
"and initiate collaborative projects that will extend beyond the conference"
or "and initiate collaborative projects which will extend beyond the conference"
I'm writing documentation for some code at work and I am trying to describe some parameters that must be specified by the user. Some of the parameters are specified with one word from a list of possible choices (e.g., "true" or "false"; "ags" or "wms"; "json", "xml", or "text"). Others are more "open-ended" and the user specifies anything they'd like (parameters like this include name, identifier, URL, etc).
I'd like to describe each of these two types of parameters. Are there words that describe one as open-ended and one as multiple choice? These descriptions I'm using don't seem to do it justice. They also seem to imply there is some kind of question involved when there isn't.
Does anyone have any ideas of what words I could use in my documentation to describe these two types of parameters?
Answer
For the "multiple-choice", you could use "enumerated"; however, it probably makes more sense to just list the options, using a full phrase: "either true or false", "one of: json, xml, text", etc.
For the "open-ended", you could use "free-form" or "arbitrary text"; but it's likely that there are some restrictions, in which case you can probably just describe those (e.g., "up to 128 characters", "cannot include whitespace") and leave it implied that there's not a fixed list of options.
Which sentence is correct? Call center staff receive the information, or call center staff receives the information? I would consider the use of the word Staff as plural in this usage case.
Coming from this answer and comments under, I realized that all Germanic languages have only the present tense and the past tense. Many also have a full set of subjunctive moods.
To reduce ambiguity, "tense" or "mood" here implies inflected or conjugated (e.g. French j'aurai), not constructed (e.g. j'ai eu). Since other Germanic languages all have subjunctive moods, I think English should also have one, but it apparently doesn't nowadays. Subjunctive mood is formed in various ways like if I were, if I had been and that I should be.
Did an inflected subjunctive mood ever exist in English?
I try to understand the song 'Sober' by band Tool. And there are couple of sentence with won't followed by pronoun or noun and without verb. For example:
'Jesus, won't you f*cking whistle nothing
But the past and done.'
'Mother Mary won't you whisper nothing
but the past and done.'
Also, I've seen same sentence in the 'Passeneger' by Deftones:
Chrome buttons, buckles and leather surfaces
These and other lucky witnesses
Now to calm me
**This time won't you please**
Drive faster
Roll the windows down
Maybe in Tool's lyrics it is interrogative with dot instead of question mark, but sentence by Deftones I can't understand at all. How should I interpret this?
Answer
"Won't you please drive faster" is a slightly more insistent variant of "Please drive faster".
Which option is grammatical?
- There will be readings from Nikki Giovanni’s and Alice Walker’s writings.
- There will be readings from Nikki Giovanni and Alice Walker's writings.
Saying it out loud the latter sounds right, but looking at it the former looks better.
Answer
Wikipedia has this:
Joint or separate possession
For two nouns (or noun phrases) joined by and, there are several ways of expressing possession, including:
- marking of the last noun (e.g. "Jack and Jill's children")
- marking of both nouns (e.g. "Jack's and Jill's children").
Some grammars make no distinction in meaning between the two forms. Some publishers' style guides, however, make a distinction, assigning the "segregatory" (or "distributive") meaning to the form "John's and Mary's" and the "combinatorial" (or "joint") meaning to the form "John and Mary's". A third alternative is a construction of the form "Jack's children and Jill's", which is always distributive, i.e. it designates the combined set of Jack's children and Jill's children.
When a coordinate possessive construction has two personal pronouns, the normal possessive inflection is used, and there is no apostrophe (e.g. "his and her children"). The issue of the use of the apostrophe arises when the coordinate construction includes a noun (phrase) and a pronoun. In this case, the inflection of only the last item may sometimes be, at least marginally, acceptable ("you and your spouse's bank account"). The inflection of both is normally preferred (e.g. Jack's and your dogs), but there is a tendency to avoid this construction, too, in favour of a construction that does not use a coordinate possessive (e.g. by using "Jack's letters and yours"). Where a construction like "Jack's and your dogs" is used, the interpretation is usually "segregatory" (i.e. not joint possession).
("General principles for the possessive apostrophe", in "Apostrophe")
So in your example, unless they are writings that Giovanni and Walker co-wrote, you should use Nikki Giovanni's and Alice Walker's writings. Although I agree that it trips off the tongue better with just the second 's, and no doubt only the pedants in the audience would pick you up on it ;)
Let's say that I have a collection of books, and someone requests one of them. How would that person would be called, in one word?
The only thing I have been able to come up is "pretender", but does not sound right, for some reason.
Answer
Yet another option would be applicant.
noun
- a person who applies for or requests something; a candidate:
an applicant for a position.
Reference:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/applicant
In mathematics and physics (and other fields of science), it is quite common to use symbols in lieu of names. For instance an object can have a symmetry G, i.e. the name of the symmetry is G.
I am wondering what are the rules for hyphenation when using the adjective version. Does one say that an object is G-symmetric or G symmetric?
In scientific papers, I've seen versions with and without hyphens, sometimes in the same document.
I would expect that the rule should be as for any compound adjective, i.e. hyphenated if attributive and not if predicative. However, to my non-native eyes, saying "this object is G symmetric" doesn't look correct. Is there any rule or at least partial consensus on this?
'Abstract noun' is defined by Oxford as follows:
A noun denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete
object, e.g. truth, danger, happiness.
Are abstract nouns always singular?
Or are there such things as 'plural abstract nouns'?
Do any of these qualify as 'plural abstract nouns'?
We all want to see this criminal get his just deserts.
Levels of earnings are still rising.
There's a chance it could rain, but odds are that it'll be sunny tomorrow.
The judge awarded her $5,000 in damages.
Please accept my condolences.
When it comes to men, she prefers brains over brawn.
No guts, no glory
In no way am I asking about these specific nouns, as the title clearly indicates. So please take these nouns simply possible examples of plural abstract nouns (if there are such things), and try to answer the general question about the existence of plural abstract nouns.
Here is the sentence:
Total bed rest is not necessary, just rest for the injured part of the body.
I am trying to diagram this sentence but I don't know how "just rest for the injured part of the body" fits into the sentence. Does it modify a word somewhere in the sentence? What is the functionality of that part of the sentence?
Is the phrase
"Are there any vegetables except for asparagus?"
equivalent to
"Are there any vegetables other than asparagus?"
The first feels wrong, and the second feels right, but I have no clear understanding of why that is, or when "except for" should be used rather than "other than", or if they are in fact completely interchangeable.
A second case:
Except for asparagus, I love vegetables.
Other than asparagus, I love vegetables.
These two phrases seem equivalent to me. Are they?
If we would like to express a conditional statement about a present fact
as in "Can you go outside today? - I don't know yet, I need my parents' approval first"
Are these sentences correct?
If James asked his friend if she could go outside, she would tell him she needs her parents' approval first.
If James asked his friend if she can go outside, she would tell him she needs her parents' approval first.
If James asked his friend if she could go outside, she would tell him she needed her parents' approval first.
1: It sounds ok.
2: To me it is acceptable (no backshifting). However it may sound more like a general statement rather than a one-off invitation.
3: Now it's the tricky one. Couldn't it be interpreted for example as a related past event?
"If James asked his friend if she could go outside when she was 13, she would tell him that back in the day she needed her parents' approval first."
Reported speech usually triggers a backshifting when the introductory clause is in the past. Using the same examples as in the beginning:
John asked if she could go outside today.
She told him she didn't know yet and that she needed her parents'
approval first.
What if the introductory clause is a conditional sentence?
(If he liked her) John would ask if she can go outside today
vs
(if he liked her) John would ask if she could go outside today
Answer
Your third sentence
If James asked his friend if she could go outside, she would tell him she needed her parents' approval first.
is full of unspecified and therefore ambiguous options -
If James asked his friend now if she could go outside now, she would tell him now that she needed her parents' approval first.
If James asked his friend last week if she could go outside now, she would have told him then that she needed her parents' approval first.
If James asked his friend last week if she could go outside last week, she would have told him last week that she needed her parents' approval first.
If James asked his friend now if she could go outside last week, she would tell him now that she had needed her parents' approval first.
Ambiguity is easy. The goal is clarity.
I have a quick question regarding finite and non-finite clauses if I may?
In clauses that contain modal or auxiliary verbs marked for tense AND a non-finite element, is the clause finite or non-finite?
For example, are:
We had washed the dishes
... and
I have been thinking
... finite because of the tense dictated by had and have, or are they non-finite because of the participles?
Thanks in advance.
Answer
You call to-infinitive infinitive because it is not finite (infinite). To-infinitive and present participle can't indicate any tense because they can't inflect (change their forms).
Finite clauses should contain a verb which shows tense.
We had washed the dishes. I have been thinking
Both clauses are finite because the words in bold are indicating tenses and aspects.
I've been learning English in my company.
We have just started Present Perfect and encountered 1 issue I don't quite understand.
There were 2 different, not related to each other exercises.
In one we had to rephrase the following sentence using Present Perfect:
1) I got this job in January.
In the 2nd excercise we had a list of events. The last two are:
2001 - moved back to the USA and went to work at the M&M factory in Montana.
2006 - moved to A new job in the M&M offices in Nebraska.
Using this information we had to make a sentence in Present Perfect out of words
2) have/job/Nebraska
and since/for/from...to. Since the prompts clearly point out to the last of entries and we have no info on what happened to "him" further, I supposed that only 'since' could have been used here.
Most of us gave the following answers:
1) I have had this job since January.
and
2) He has had a job in Nebraska since 2006
Our teacher said that considering information given in tasks, the 2) answer is correct, but the 1) answer isn't. The proper answer to the 1) is:
1) I have been in this job since January.
To me they have the same meaning and both are suitable. Both cases seems to be related, so I asked what's the difference between 2 answers and why it's wrong to say "I have had" in 1) as we did in 2) example. He said the reason lies in the fact that in 1st case there is "this", more specific, and in 2nd case we have "a", which indicates something general. Therefore, there is no way we can use "have had" in 1)
The lesson ended and he told us to investigate this as our homework. I've spent a great deal of time considering this and searching through the web, but still have had no answer.
He is a native speaker, British, wearing a bow-tie, speaking with that funny British accent, scrupulous and addicted to proper grammar. It's rather odd not to believe him.
But it still bothers me, is he right? Does the presence of this/a has so much impact on usage of have had?
Answer
I am also British, and I say there is no semantic difference between your answer for question 1 and your teacher's answer. Also, they both have valid grammar and as such they are both correct.
It's possible that in your teacher's variety of English his form is grammatically preferred over yours, but without a wider context to the phase it's hard to say.
The presence of the near demonstrative "this" gives the sense that the speaker is saying it while being in the workplace, perhaps while actually working. In that case, in British English, it sounds a little more awkward (though not incorrect) to use "have had this job". The most usual form in that situation would be "have been working here", but that's further from the original form of question 1, so maybe that's why you're teacher went with "have been in this job"
But really this is splitting hairs and your teacher shouldn't have marked you incorrect for "have had this job"
Reading doth not a writer make.
This sounds all wrong so why it is acceptable to use?
The word order looks to be all out sequence (Object-Subject-Verb).
It should be "reading does not make you a writer" (Object-Verb-Subject).
And if this is Shakespearian, when and how did the word order in English change?
Answer
Let me offer an interpretation of this sentence.
The verb of the sentence is "doth not make", the subject is the gerund "reading" and the object is "a writer". So the order is in fact subject-verb-object except that part of the verb ('make') is pushed to the end. This is a figure of speech called hyperbaton, and its purpose is to place the emphasis on that part of the verb rather than on the object of the verb. There is additionally the use of the archaic "doth" for "does", but that is a minor matter.
So the emphasis is "Reading does not make you a writer."
In this particular case it is also an idiom, that is to say, a peculiar arrangement of words that follow special phrasing, different than normal grammatical rules might demand, but commonly used and so commonly accepted.
And, just to add to the mix, there is also an ellipsis in there that is not really obvious. Here the verb "make" is actually trivalent, the subject is "reading" but it has two objects, "you" and "a writer". The first of these is omitted by ellipsis, which de-emphasizes its importance, pushing the emphasis back onto make, which is already emphasized by the hyperbaton.
So this little short phrase has a lot going on. Three figures of speech, idiom, hyperbaton and ellipsis, and an archaic verb particle. Not bad for a six word sentence.