Which is correct: sign in, signin or sign-in when used as a noun and also as a verb?
Answer
The verb is sign in.
The noun is sign-in.
The noun is better with the hyphen, because signin could be confused with an abbreviated signing that's lost its apostrophe.
Alternatively you could use the more common log in for the verb, and login for the noun.
Possible Duplicates:
an SQA or a SQA?
Do you use “a” or “an” before acronyms?
Since SSD (solid-state drive) is pronounced es-es-dee, I'm wondering whether one should write "an SSD" or "a SSD".
Saying "a SSD" out loud feels a bit off...
Answer
Definitely an SSD.
The use of a vs. an is always determined by pronunciation, not by spelling. You don’t even need to find acronyms to give examples where they disagree: one would always say/write a European, not *an European, and an honest man, not *a honest man.
The only case where there’s doubt is when pronunciation varies. For instance, with the acronym SCSI, computer professionals usually say “scuzzy”, but non-techies meeting it for the first time usually say “ess see ess eye”. So one might reasonably encounter either a SCSI cable or an SCSI cable, depending on the writer.
However, as you say, SSD is (as far as I know!) always pronounced letter-by-letter; so it’s definitely an SSD.
If someone asks "Can I not have a drink?", and someone else responds "No", is that considered as:
or
Earlier questions on the hyphenation of compound modifiers have been well answered, so now I would sharpen the question.
We seem to agree that this has good hyphenation:
The question is well answered. The well-answered question
illuminates its subject.
So, if well answered precedes the noun, it gets a hyphen. If it follows the linking verb, it does not get a hyphen.
So far, so good, but now try this:
The software is open source. Open-source software is distributed with few restrictions.
The "is open source" does not look quite right, does it? Or am I just looking at it the wrong way? (I admit that it does not look too bad, but is it right?)
Does it matter that answered is a participle, whereas source is a noun? Or that well is an adverb, whereas open is an adjective?
You and I could evade the question by writing "is openly sourced," of course, but that's just wrong, and even if not so, the question as asked would still want an answer. My question regards the principle of the thing.
When should I hyphenate a compound like open source, used as a modifier?
Answer
"The software is open source. Open-source software is distributed with few restrictions."
While I agree with you that "The software is open source" doesn't look quite right yet, opensource.org uses it exactly as you have above:
"Introduction: Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria," etc.
From: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
Over time, I think we will come to accept "open source" as used in your first example.
I am wondering about the "double possessive" I have been reading about.
I have a couple of sentences as an example:
He’s a new client of Jane and Kevin’s and a close childhood friend of Steven O’Neill’s.
I thought that the above sentence was correct, because it sounds natural to use the apostrophe S to me, in the same way that we say "he's a friend of mine."
However, I have heard people criticize sentences such as that one above as having a "double possessive" because of the OF as well as the apostrophe S.
Is the above sentence correct or should it be:
He’s a new client of Jane and Kevin and a close childhood friend of Steven O’Neill.
Thank you - any help would be greatly appreciated.
I found this phrase in my biology textbook (emphasis added):
...in relation to Earth's history, 100,000 years or even a million years is the blink of an eye.
The part of the phrase in question is the word "the" in italics. In this context, doesn't it make more sense to use the indefinite article "a" instead of the definite article "the", since there can be more than one "blink of an eye"? Is "a blink of an eye" incorrect in this context? Are idioms like this exceptions to normal definite and indefinite article usage, even though the literal meaning of the idiom makes better sense otherwise?
Answer
As has been pointed out, the overwhelming form of the idiom is the blink of an eye. So there's no issue of correctness involved. The questioner, however, had some specific questions that deserve attention, since they suggest some underlying grammatical misunderstandings.
Specifically,
In this context, doesn't it make more sense to use the indefinite article "a" instead of the definite article "the", since there can be more than one "blink of an eye"?
This is not a function of the definite article in many situations. For instance,
even though there is only one right number, and millions of wrong ones, the idiom is always the wrong number. It's natural to native speakers, and always surprises us when we first notice it.
Articles, like other syntactic particles, don't really have any dependable meaning; they're just a convenient set of labels to attach to just about any set of things we might want to distinguish from one another. They have lots of syntactic functions, though: for instance, a predicate count noun has to have an article, as well as some form of be:
Only the first two sentences above are predicate noun constructions. The third is ungrammatical; and the fourth is an equative construction, with the doctor referring to some previously mentioned doctor (or, alternatively, to some social role he is acting out), but not necessarily predicating Doctorhood of him.
Is "a blink of an eye" incorrect in this context?
No, it's just rare. This question's been answered.
However, one should be careful about using the term "correct" in talking about grammar, especially English grammar, which is mostly syntax, and most especially when dealing with syntactic phenomena like articles.
Most ideas about "correctness" (and those are scare quotes) come from vague generalizations, while a great deal of fact is actually known about article usage in English. There are dozens of special uses for articles -- an applied linguist once told me he'd counted more than sixty -- and they mostly don't make much sense at all.
Why, for instance, is it The University of Michigan and not *The Michigan State University? Or The Missouri River and The Nile River, but not *The Lake Superior or *The Loon Lake?
Are idioms like this exceptions to normal definite and indefinite article usage, even though the literal meaning of the idiom makes better sense otherwise?
No, not really. There is no "normal definite and indefinite article usage" in terms of "making sense", which is a semantic concept involving meaning, not a syntactic concept involving grammar. Grammar has nothing to do with making sense; grammar has to do with constructions and how they are used.
Moral: Don't confuse names with descriptions. What's called "the definite article" isn't necessarily more "definite" (and note what a slippery concept that is :-) than anything else; it's just one more syntactic marker, like the to that marks an infinitive, or the to that marks the direct object of listen, and it's no more meaningful by itself.
I don't know which form is better to use, when telling a user that his message was/has been deleted (in the sense that the message was not appropriate/against the rules e.g. in the comment section etc.).
Answer
I would use the sentence
Your message has been deleted.
if I am telling the users right after their message has been deleted. (Like a little notification superimposes on the screen for a few seconds before fading away, something similiar to what happen when you try to upvote your own question.)
But I would use
Your message was deleted
like this page as they search for their long-gone message.
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.
I have been encountering several examples (in scientific papers), where people used constructions like "the here used method", "the here investigated case", etc.. I have been thinking that it is grammatically wrong, but could not come up with a complete and definitely correct explanation though and wonder if it might be correct in the end. (I'd rather write something like "the method used here", "the case investigated here".)
There is for instance this page with other examples:
http://www.wordpower.ws/grammar/gramch24.html
Strangely, in some examples I can hear myself saying it in an order similar to the questioned one, but in other cases I can't. Am I just confused or is there a grammatical reason for this?
Thanks for your answers!
Answer
Structurally, the phrase "here used method" is very similar to (for example) the phrase "previously cited example." Both "here used" and "previously cited" can function as modifiers before a noun or after it (as with "method here used" or "method used here" in the first case, and with "example previously cited" or "example cited previously" in the second). Nevertheless, most people, I think, would read "previously cited example" with much less effort than "here used method."
The difference is a matter of modifier recognition. In cases where the modifier (such as "here used") rarely appears before the noun it modifies, readers may be brought to a halt when they see it in that unaccustomed position. They are likely to have an easier time recognizing and comprehending the example you cite (unlike my counterexample) if the modifier appears after the noun and in the order "method used here" than if it appears in either of the other two orders considered here.
You can help readers grasp the intended connection in such situations by hyphenating the modifier when it appears before the noun, yielding constructions such as "the here-used method" and "the here-investigated case." Though the word order may still seem less than optimal, at least some readers will find the relationship of here and used to each other and to method easier to apprehend.
I have a question about using the phrase "some kind of _".
Is it incorrect to say "some kind of + plural noun"?
For example, is it wrong to say "are these rock-like things some kind of chocolates?"
I didn't use "kinds" and that kind of adds to my question. Is "kind" always plural, like "some kinds of chocolates"? Because although I'm using "some", it feels like "kind" shouldn't be a countable noun.
Anyway, I don't think I've heard of "some kind of + plural", but I think it makes more sense then using singular, since I think chocolates are countable. Please help!
I'm writing a proposal in which I describe a series of small projects/experiments. The projects start out small and basic, then the subsequent project builds on the results from the prior project. I need to convey the idea that the projects have been carefully selected to complement each other, and that the sequence in which they are executed is important. I'm sure there is a word or short phrase somewhere that describes this idea succinctly.
The sort of phrase in which this word would be used:
"The new technique will be applied in a series of projects designed to blah blah blah." Or: "The new technique will be applied in sequential projects that rely on yada yada yada."
Here are some related words I've considered:
"Sequential", "successive": These are ok because they tell the reader that I am doing one project after another, but they don't convey the relationship between the projects.
"Progressive": Getting closer, but this word also can mean "revolutionary" or "modern" and sounds a bit weird in this context.
"Escalating": Has the right feel, but it's too intense, and doesn't denote a series of events.
Thanks for helping.
For example, if I tell
am I perceived as subject (who is writing) or as an object (who is written)?
Related question:
Answer
You should be careful to distinguish between syntactical labels and semantic labels. Subject and object are syntactic terms: they mostly say something about the form of the sentence, the way it is ordered. Agent and patient are semantic terms: they apply to meaning only.
(Note that the word "I" is one of the few words in English that can only be used as subject (or subject complement). You can't say "the dog beats I": if "I" is object, it should be "me".)
I beat the dog.
The agent of a sentence is the person or thing that acts upon some other thing. The patient is the person or thing that is acted upon. "I" is the person that acts, so that "I" is the agent. "The dog" is the patient.
The subject of the sentence can be found by answering the question: who is it that "beat"? - It is I who beat the dog. Therefore "I" is also the subject. You need to always take the full predicate, that is all the verbs in the clause, in your question to determine the subject.
The dog was beaten by me.
Who is the person that acts? - Me. Therefore "me" is the agent.
Who is it that "was beaten"? - The dog. Therefore "the dog" is the subject. As you see, in passive constructions the subject is usually the patient (or recipient: there are more than just two semantic roles).
[Edited:]
In your example "I am write only", the subject is "I", as Red showed. But I think you want to know whether "I" is the agent or patient of "write" in your sentence. That depends on the meaning of the sentence, which is not clear without context. Since "write-only" is mostly used with computer memory, I will assume that you mean "I" to be analogous to this memory. The sentence to be analysed would then be "this memory is write only".
We could then ask this question: "when someone writes data to a disk, who is it that acts, and who is it that is acted upon?". It is evident that "someone" is the agent, and "a disk" is the thing that is acted upon: therefore the disk is the patient. It follows that in "this memory is write only", the memory is the patient in the context of writing data; the adjective "write-only" must therefore accompany its patient. This means that "I" in your sentence is most probably patient.
If someone says "Today I bought trendy shirts and shoes.", does he imply that even the shoes are trendy? In general, if you have sentences of the form ADJECTIVE NOUN1 and NOUN2, does the adjective apply to second noun as well?
Well, here it is not a big deal but I have come across some legal, technical documents where this can make a big difference.
In the latest South Park episode, I noticed a line:
We have so many abandoned babies and
not enough people like yourself who
care.
Which kinda struck me, because I'd expect it to be people like you.
Is the original quote broken, or are both correct, representing a different meaning?
Answer
You can find that yourself is
yourself, pronoun
1 used when both the subject and object of the verb are you
Be careful with that knife or you'll cut yourself!
2 used to give special attention to the subject of the sentence
Did you make the dress yourself?
You can do that yourself.
The second meaning is not reflective and does not require "you" to be previously mentioned. The meaning is simply emphasized, such as in:
not stressed
people like you
vs stressed
people like you yourself / people like yourself
EDIT:
Some further examples from Merriam-Webster's dictionary of English usage
A secret, kept from all the rest / Between yourself and me. - Lewis Carroll, "She's All My Fancy Painted Him," ca. 1854
Get me some good left-handers like yourself and Robinson - Robert Frost, letter, 23 Jan. 1921
In all this I look to nothing but the happiness of yourself, Mr. Randolph, and the dear children - Thomas Jefferson, letter, 27 Feb. 1809
Those who, like yourself, know what they are about - Walter W. Skeat, letter, in K. M. Elisabeth Murray, Caught in the Web of Words, 1977
EDIT2:
I feel that choice of the first dictionary might have been unlucky, here is oxford, where I think the distinction is made perfectly clear:
1 [reflexive] used to refer to the person being addressed as the object of a verb or preposition when they are also the subject of the clause
2 [emphatic] you personally (used to emphasize the person being addressed)
The way I read the second meaning is completely unrelated to the first; under second meaning it is not reflexive, simply the meaning of yourself is you personally (try to substitute phrase "you personally" instead of "yourself" in the four examples from the MW; I think it does make it clear and very precise and I think that this is a very good definition of actual usage).
I was searching for information about the original novel "House of Cards" and from following site, in the middile of the page, there's sentence which compliment Kevin Spicey as shown below(http://www.michaeldobbs.com/house-of-cards/):
He's not only one of the most talented actors of our age but kind,
too.
I don't think the "Kind" here means Spacey's a nice guy, I guess it might imply that he's a good actor of "man kind" (our kind)? I couldn't find any sentence with similar structure as an example to support my guess, so please anyone can explan to me the real meaning of the word "kind" here, better with some example, thanks.
Answer
It does mean that he's a nice guy.
Look at the context. The piece is on an author's website, and is talking about an adaptation of one of his books.
In the previous sentence, Spacey has paid the author a compliment with, "'this wouldn't have been possible without the brilliant material it was based on". Calling him "kind" is acknowledging that fact.
1)Everyone, except Jess and Susie, was present at the company meeting yesterday.
2)Everyone, except Jess and Susie, were present at the company meeting yesterday.
Which is correct?
I've read Using the definite article with acronyms and initialisms and Is it appropriate to use "the" before an abbreviation? I know that
1. The article is often used with initials that are pronounced letter by letter (initialisms).
2. The article is often NOT used with initials that are pronounced as a word (acronyms).
I used 'often' because I'm not sure about possible exceptions.
In my field of study (Operations Research), initials are frequently used to represent optimization problems (e.g., the TSP). I discussed this point with my university supervisor who makes comments on my reports (English is not his native language). He responded that:
"What I learned from [...] was that whenever we use (specific) acronyms, we don't use 'the' when they are within a sentence, and we use 'the' when a sentence starts with them. For instance,
(i) The HCP is an NP-Complete problem.
(ii) We developed a new algorithm to solve HCP."
HCP stands for the Hamiltonian Cycle Problem. It is really confusing me because I do not know when to use and when not to use the article. For example, on this site, the author Jane Watson writes:
Use a definite article with an initialism if the spelled out term begins with “the” but is not covered in the initialism.
which implies that I should use the article with "HCP". What do you think?
Answer
Sadly What I learned from [...] was that whenever we use (specific) acronyms, we don't use 'the' when they are within a sentence, and we use 'the' when a sentence starts with them indicates rather more about his use of it, than about English.
Is it not wholly irrelevant whether the acronym starts or is within a sentence? If the full-out phrase, in this case the Hamiltonian Cycle Problem needs an article then so does the abbreviation… except where the author can demonstrate how that article is included in the abbreviation.
(i) The HCP… seems correct by itself; is an NP-Complete problem contributes nothing.
(ii) … to solve HCP seems to be lacking an article, whichever that be.
Please consider a rather different example of MP meaning Member of Parliament.
The crucial point here is that Joe Soap, who is MP works only in a very few, very specific circumstances; otherwise it fails solely because it has no article.
Joe Soap, who is MP for Piddlington does work in both abbreviated and full forms.
Joe Soap, who is the MP for Piddlington does work in both abbreviated and full forms.
Joe Soap, who is an MP does work - even though using an for the abbreviation almost contradicts the ordinary use of a for the full version.
Joe Soap, who is a MP doesn’t work in abbreviation even tough it should work with the full form, Member of Parliament.
My grammar book suggests that when using words like just, that you should “always” use present perfect. So the correct form should be I've just arrived according to my book.
Is this true?
I ask because I see a whole lot of people using I just arrived all over the place. I therefore cannot help but wonder whether this is an incorrect form that is somehow nonetheless in wide use by native speakers, or whether it's also a correct form just with a subtly different meaning.
Answer
Neither. This is a case (one of many) in which the two forms are equivalent in meaning.
This is aided by the fact that in English the two sentences are pronounced identically, since the /vdʒ/ cluster in /ayvdʒəstə'rayvd/ I've just arrived is very difficult to pronounce, and is normally shortened to just /dʒ/, which makes it indistinguishable from I just arrived.
Since people hear them identically, they are apt to spell them identically, especially if they mistakenly believe, as many do, that English spelling represents English pronunciation.
The same phenomenon is responsible for such confusions as I would of gone vs I would have gone, I got a cold vs I've got a cold, etc.
I lived in Australia for 13 years and many times when speaking to local Aussie people, I often hear they use "ei" or "ey" (I do not know how to write that word, and that is why I am asking you) like "It's cool ey" "She is beautiful ey".
See this conversation:
Tom: My boss always criticizes me, blame me for no good reason, bla, bla, etc
Jack: He is bad ey
There are not many Australian women saying "ey" like that. But it seems that more men especially young Aussie people saying "ey" like that.
I am not sure if it is popular in UK or in USA, but is quite popular in Australia.
How to use the sound "ei" or "ey" in English conversation, which is quite popular in Australia?
Can you give me a video link demonstrating how to use it?
Answer
It's just 'eh?', meaning "isn't it?'
Macquarie Dictionary has an entry on it.
It's most common in Queensland, particularly Northern Queensland, but gets used elsewhere in Australia. It also gets used a bit by New Zealanders, a few of which have come to Australian shores.
Judging by the consensus over at this question, one should use "fewer" over "less" for countable quantities. What about in this situation?
[Less or Fewer] than 10.7% of the people were happy.
Here, a percentage is not countable (because it is a real number of arbitrary precision), whereas the noun "people" is countable. My instinct tells me that "fewer" would be preferred, because the percentage must always correspond to a rational number (which is countable)—unless of course fractions of people can be happy!
Answer
*Disclaimer: this answer is based on a grammatical standard, which has been shown to be a "myth" in a response to a related question "Less" vs. "fewer". I posted my answer here before reading the previous discussion on this whole issue of "less" versus "fewer". I would like to make it clear that my views are not based on some pretentious notions of superior knowledge of grammar. This is simply a standard I have always followed based on my background in English. I leave it to the reader to decide what they want to stick to. Thanks.
Indeed, one should use "fewer" for countable quantities. In fact, the usage of "less" for such quantities is grammatically incorrect. Also, I agree that a percentage is really a fraction. As such, it is apparently not a countable quantity in the grammatical sense. But, there's a catch! The word "percent" means "one part out of every hundred". Thus, if the percentage turns out to be countable, then one gets a countable quantity. When referring to a group of people, this is usually the case. Therefore, in your example sentence, the absolutely correct choice would be "fewer":
Fewer than 10.7% of the people were happy.
As the subject of the sentence "fewer than 10.7%" is certainly a countable quantity.
Now, for a counter example using cake! A fraction of a cake is not countable, no matter how you look at it. Thus, this example is correct:
Less than 10.7% of the cake was eaten.
(although 10.7% is a very arbitrary fraction to use for cake!)
In general, the rule* for percentages would be:
The spirited defense of 2 Live Crew was no more about defending the entire black community than the prosecution was about defending black women
The first part of the sentence is clear that "X is no more Y". However, after that part I am a little confused.
A colleague of mine stated that he often hears "one of the better X" from native speakers. I haven't heard this phrase often, and I would use "one of the best X" myself, unless I want to contrast something, like:
Solution A is good, but Solution B is one of the better [ones]
Can "one of the better" be used (or is it used even if it happens to be non-grammatical) in non-contrasting cases like:
This apple is one of the better I've tasted
I am a Korean English teacher.
I have encountered a strange sentence like the following.
In the first sentence, you can see “looking” instead of “looking like” even though the word “look” is an intransitive verb. Please help me to teach correct English, will you?
If it is grammatically correct or incorrect, would you explain why?
But when I came downstairs, he was dressed, sitting by the fire, looking a very sick and miserable boy of nine years. When I put my hand on his forehead, I knew he had a fever.
Somehow, I'm very confused with how to make this sentence work. Would appreciate any help.
Should it be
You will learn what orders person A has made, as well as what things did person B keep in his mind while working on this.
or
You will learn what orders has person A made, as well as what things person B kept in his mind while working on this.
or something entirely else?
I know that to mark possession of an item you can use 's like in the following example:
The user's password shall not be blank.
However, is it correct to use the following:
The car's antenna is embedded in the windshield.
I seem to remember that possession must only be used for people but I'm not certain really.
Answer
There is a bias against the genitive case with inanimate things, that is sometimes found in advice to avoid it in some cases. In some cases that advice is indeed, that one should only use it with people and sometimes that one should only use it with living things. (So "the dog's" is allowed, but "the car's" is not).
Fowler raged against it, and blamed headlines' need for brevity (or as he would rather say, the need for brevity of headlines).
The rule was never consistent, for some inanimate words of one syllable would generally be accepted as being allowed with such a construct, but there really wasn't a clear rule expressing which these were.
This has largely died away, with those who favour the apostrophe form winning, but it does linger and some people will still give the advice that you "seem to remember".
This disagreement stems from an earlier disagreement in early Modern English, that in turn stems from one in Middle English.
In Middle English, his served as both neuter and masculine genitive pronoun. During this period, some used it (note the lack of any s) for the neuter genitive pronoun, but in formal use, it remained his into the Modern English period.
Now, in the beginning of the Modern English period, some started using it's that applies the genitive with an 's to it much as Fred's does to Fred (indeed while it's now considered a classic error to use it's when you mean its, this didn't die out entirely until the 1800s), some used its - dropping the apostrophe and gaining distinction from it's meaning it is along with mirroring theirs, hers etc., and some where still using his.
So, much as we today may wonder whether we should use e-mail or email, C.D.'s or CDs and whether it was okay to start a sentence with However, because there is a difference of opinions, so too would somebody writing between 1604 and 1611 writing a work that they wanted to be in plain but respectable English wonder whether they should use his or its.
On the one side there would be those who said that its was now more common, and more clearly understood as having a neuter gender while his was rather stuffy and not the vernacular speech of the common man (an important point to 17th Century Protestants). On the other would be those who said that his is the formal form, and hence more respectable, and besides which if they wanted this work to still read clearly in decades to come then they should avoid slangy new words like its that might die out again and leave people saying "dude, the 1610s called, they want their bible back". (This explanation may have more words and expressions that made no sense in the early 17th Century than it strictly should).
For this reason, the King James Bible avoids use of both its and his (in the neuter sense) and instead favoured a very heavy use of of and thereof.
So, where the New Revised Standard Version has Genesis 2:19 as:
So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. [Emphasis mine]
The King James Version has it as:
And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. [Emphasis mine].
Now, the KJV did not avoid the genitive apostrophe itself:
And he looked, and behold a well in the field, and, lo, there were three flocks of sheep lying by it; for out of that well they watered the flocks: and a great stone was upon the well's mouth.
However, clearly avoiding the genitive when you would be using a neuter pronoun will reduce the number of times you use the genitive with a non-living thing (and with a living thing of indeterminate gender), and increase the number you favour other constructs. And the King James Version bible has had a long history as being the model for what people understand good English and/or formal English to sound like. It was the only book many people read or heard read, and even for the educated it was the single book that many read or heard read most often.
Hence people became used to hearing the genitive avoided in many cases of non-living things or animals of indeterminate gender. Hence even when the pronouns weren't used, people came to avoid the genitive in such cases.
So even when the genitive would not involve a pronoun at all, people would favour other constructs. This also goes some way to explain the love lawyers have of horribly convoluted sentences that end with thereof - while it does add precision in some cases, in many it's just a form of hyper-formal use that is trying to sound clever (this isn't necessarily an insult to lawyers, in many cases when you engage a lawyer you don't just want them to make their case for you, but also to convince the other party that you have a clever lawyer, so that's actually part of their job).
Ironically though, this history also argues against it. The difficulty someone in the 16th through to the 17th Centuries had in picking between two neuter genitive pronouns in itself shows that it was permissible to use genitive inflection with non-living things, and always has been. If we can do it with pronouns (and we now have its quite clearly as the choice to go for), then we can do it with nouns. And there's the fact that the KJV used it itself (h/t to Peter Shor).
So, in all, "The car's antenna" is fine, "The antenna of the car" would still be favoured by some, and "Its antenna" is also fine, though the KJV would have used "the antenna thereof".
I make a distinction between "hot" and "spicy" food ("hot" not referring to temperature). I consider "hot" food the kind that "burns" and "spicy" food that has lots of flavor, but that may or may not "burn", but has some "heat" to it and is flavorful.
I've been told that there is no real difference between the two and that I'm crazy for thinking that Tabasco sauce makes something "hot", while something like curry, ginger, or cumin makes something "spicy". Please help me out a little here with a little clarification.
Answer
I (and this Wikipedia article) recommend the use of the of the word piquance (or piquancy) to describe the condition of something being spicy hot, such as chili peppers.
The article explains:
A pumpkin pie can be both hot (out of the oven) and
spicy (due to the common inclusion of ingredients in its recipe such as cinnamon, nutmeg, allspice, mace and cloves) but is not actually
piquant. Conversely, pure capsaicin is piquant, yet is not naturally accompanied by a hot temperature or spices.
To avoid ambiguity:
What is the proper way to pluralize acronyms ending in the letter 'S'?
The particular acronym under study in this case is T.A.R.D.I.S.
The various forms I believe are correct are:
Answer
Whoniverse.net and Wikipedia both use TARDISes. This follows general pluralization rules and seems to generalize to pluralizing other acronyms, e.g. radars and lasers, as well as to initialisms such as USBs, GPSes.
It seems that keeping the capital letters for acronyms, as opposed to initialisms, is somewhat uncommon, but we have WASPs, for instance.
Not everyone does, but I'm using the distinction that acronyms are pronounced as words and initialisms are instead pronounced as individual letters, as supported by Ben Zimmer in the New York Times Magazine.
When a negative question is asked, what is the grammatically correct way to answer? If someone asks you Didn't you come by car today?, what is the correct answer?
I am having trouble writing a seemingly simple sentence. I am organising an event where three kinds of food will be served:
My trouble deals with putting these three items together in one sentence. I have tried several ways, but all of them seem wrong:
- Hot and cold beverages and finger food will be served at every meeting (two and)
- Hot, cold beverages and finger food [...] (it looks like hot is a complete item)
- Hot beverages, cold beverages and finger food [...] (redundant beverages)
- Hot beverages, cold drinks and finger food [...] (dirty trick; I don't like it)
Putting finger food in front does not help either. What would be the right way to write this sentence?
Answer
Duplicating and is to be avoided if it causes ambiguity or confusion. Even then, use of an "Oxford comma" can sometimes remove the problem.
If this isn't the case, it's perfectly fine to duplicate and:
Hot and cold beverages and finger food will be served at every meeting.
Finger food and hot and cold beverages will be served at every meeting.
Finger food, and hot and cold beverages, will be served at every meeting.
Hot and cold beverages, and finger food, will be served at every meeting.
Are all perfectly fine, in approximate order of which strikes my personal subjective opinions as the better.
The sentence
Except the buildings built towards the end of his life, the buildings
erected in Istanbul can be assumed to be his.
was recently used in a question here.
I edited to replace 'except' with the compound preposition 'except for'. I'm very unhappy with the original, but don't like to assume my gut reactions are necessarily correct.
CDO gives:
Except or except for? from English Grammar Today
We often use except and except for as prepositions to mean ‘not
including’ or ‘excluding’. They are followed by a noun or noun phrase
or a wh-clause. Both except and except for are correct after a
noun:
I like all fruit except (for) oranges. (excluding oranges)
Except for Louisa, who’s away in Berlin this weekend, we’ll all be at
the party.
She likes going to most sports events, except cricket matches.
This shows the choice of 'Except for' to start a sentence-initial prepositional phrase, but does not go so far as to state that the choice of the simple preposition is incorrect.
The nearest (but really reversed) question I can find on ELU is essentially
Is "Are there any vegetables except for asparagus?" correct?
to which Peter Shor provides the tantalysing answer (with which I largely agree):
I think what's wrong is the "for". [I'd say 'very iffy' in all but some unusual contexts]
Are there any vegetables except asparagus?
The grammar of when to use "except for" and when to use "except" is
governed by [a] quite complex set of rules (often, you can use either).
There probably is a correct and complete description of how this works
somewhere on the internet, but I haven't found it, so I can't tell you
why you should use "except" here; but it just feels right.
Can authorities be found giving this correct and complete description of the complex set of rules governing when to use "except for" and when to use "except" , on the internet or elsewhere?
When is it possible to use an indefinite article before uncountable nouns? Only
when they are defined in some way?
Answer
It depends on the noun. Some mass nouns are also count nouns. Take art, beauty and gas, for instance. You can say
The art of the native peoples was interesting.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Gas permeated the room.
or
He made lying into an art.
That cameo brooch was a real beauty.
The noble gases include helium, neon, argon, and xenon.
These differences rely on different senses of the word.
Some nouns use counters to turn them into count nouns.
three grains of rice (not "three rices")
a piece of toast
Some require units of measurement instead of counters.
200 kilowatts of electricity
a glass [or bucket, or liter, or cup, or cistern, etc.] of water
The point is, all this is part of learning vocabulary. There is no general rule covering all instances, and while you may find lists of count nouns and mass nouns, such lists will almost certainly be incomplete and even misleading in many cases.
What is correct:
- One of my friend's father is serving in the Navy.
- One of my friends' father is serving in the Navy.
Or is it grammatically wrong to have such a possessive construct and the correct form is:
The father of one of my friends is serving in the Navy.
Nowadays, I'm seeing a drastic increase in usage of cause in place of because, especially in written English. People are in such a hurry, that a statement like below passes off like Standard English:
It rains cause clouds form in the sky, and that happens cause of water vapor, and vapor forms cause of trees and forests.
Is this particular use of cause in place of because in danger of getting into the Standard English Dictionary? Do you think it is correct?
Answer
Cause can be said in different forms, such as "the cause of the forming of clouds". In your case, cause is used like an abbreviation, which is 'cause. So, 'cause is technically an abbreviation.
Hope this answers your question :)
I know that when it comes to dialogue writing, we can change the subject of the sentence at the end, for example:
"Hello," said John.
"Hi there," replied Mary.
"How are you?" asked John.
"I'm OK," responded Mary.
And so on.
But can we do that with every single verb? For example:
"Stop right now!" ordered the father.
"It's a good song," recognized the girl.
"He'll be here tomorrow," guaranteed Thomas.
"I'll be all right," promised the boy.
In these sentences, is it understandable that the noun at the end is the subject and not the direct object of the sentence? Or is it confusing for a native reader of English?
Thank you for your replies.
Let's assume the following examples:
[Direct Speech] James to his team: What is the problem?
[Reported Speech] James asked them what the problem was (could also be James asked them what the problem is)
Reply
[Direct Speech] Team : The algorithm fails to calibrate correctly.
[Reported Speech] They told him the algorithm failed to calibrate correctly.
Now if we move to a conditional (hypothetical) sentence, should it be:
Or
It seems that in sentence #2 we lose the "present" situation as if the related story were set in the past, which is not the case.
So I would tend to say the correct one is the first sentence. It would mean we should use the reported speech in the if clause but not in the main one (with would)?
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.
Non-native speakers often get confused about what the various tenses
and aspects mean in English. With input from some of the folk here I've
put together a diagram that I hope will provide some clarity on the
matter.
I offer it as the first answer to this question. Consider it a living
document. Input is welcome, and good suggestions will be
incorporated into the diagram.
Nota bene: What this is not is a discussion of whether there are
more than two tenses in English. We have a dedicated question for
that, to which this
question is not intended to supply arguments one way or the other.
Here, the aim is to provide an overview of what constructions
English-speaking people use for conveying information about actions
referring to past, present, and future, and to provide it first and
foremost to precisely the people who are likely to use "tense" as a
catch-all term in their search, rather than to linguists who know better.
Breaking News There is now an excellent ELU blog article titled
How We Talk About Future
Situations.
It is highly recommended reading.
Answer
A visualization of what we mean in English by the various tenses:
In CGEL (p. 640), it is stated (without argument) that in the sentence
[1] They live n̲e̲a̲r̲ ̲h̲e̲r̲e̲.
we have the preposition phrase (PP) near here, which (says CGEL) has the following structure: near is the head (in particular, it is a preposition), and it has here as a PP complement. Let's call near here the 'outer' PP, and here the 'inner' PP. The inner PP (GGEL continues), in turn, is headed by a non-specified preposition (see the next paragraph). In this case, the inner PP consists of just the head, but here is an example where an inner PP has a more complex structure: from u̲n̲d̲e̲r̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲b̲e̲d̲.
To say that the head of the inner PP is not specified means that instead of here, we could have other things, e.g. there, London, etc. This is in contrast to PP complements headed by specified prepositions, where nothing else could replace that preposition, e.g. of in out of the box.
Now, my question: what is the argument for this proposed structure of near here? Let's assume that near is indeed a preposition (which is not obvious, but maybe it's indeed true; see below). Why not say that here is the head? Is it just that near appears first? Surely there is more to it than that---there are all kinds of cases where the head of a PP is not the first word. Here are some examples (the head is underlined): incredible t̲h̲o̲u̲g̲h̲ it seems; one b̲y̲ one; ten years a̲g̲o̲; these issues a̲s̲i̲d̲e̲ (CGEL, pp. 631-634). Yes, the default position of the head in a PP is the initial position; yes, these examples are all exceptional in one way or another. By how do we know that near here isn't also somehow exceptional? The fuzzy status of near (see below) makes near here a good candidate for something exceptional to happen...
Also, note that either near or here can be omitted from [1]:
[2] a.They live near.
b. They live here.
Finally, note that semantically at least, either one can be taken as the essential one:
[3] a. They live near (by which I mean: near to where we are now).
b. They live here (well, not exactly, but almost).
I am tempted to say that [3a] is a rephrasing of [1] when near is the head of near here, while [3b] is a rephrasing of [1] when here is the head of near here.
One line of argument, suggested by sumelic, is that near always precedes its complement when that complement is an NP:
[4] They live n̲e̲a̲r̲ ̲[̲m̲y̲ ̲h̲o̲u̲s̲e̲]̲/̲[̲w̲h̲a̲t̲ ̲c̲o̲u̲l̲d̲ ̲b̲e̲ ̲d̲e̲s̲c̲r̲i̲b̲e̲d̲ ̲a̲s̲ ̲a̲ ̲l̲a̲k̲e̲]̲.
In these cases near cannot be omitted, so it is definitely the head.
Moreover, sumelic points out the following sentence:
[5] If your hotel is near here or near the train station, you can get there on foot. (source)
I don't think [5] in and of itself proves much. But the following sentence, if acceptable, perhaps would go some way towards proving that near is indeed the head in near here:
[6] If your hotel is near here or the train station, you can get there on foot.
It would be hard to believe that the common element, near, could be the head when joined with one coordinate, but not the head when joined with the other.
For what it's worth, to my ear, [6] is indeed OK.
Is this right? Is [6] acceptable, and if so, does it prove that near is the head of near here?
The 'fuzzy' status of near
As a separate issue, there is some doubt about whether near is even a preposition in [1] (and if it is not, then it clearly isn't the head). I am still digesting the very interesting answers that sumelic and tchrist have given as regards this topic, and will not yet attempt to summarize them. My original source of the doubt about whether near is really a preposition was that, after all, the following sentence is acceptable:
They live v̲e̲r̲y̲ ̲n̲e̲a̲r̲ ̲h̲e̲r̲e̲.
(And here are some examples in published literature of such usage.)
This would suggest (I thought) that near in [1] is not a preposition at all, but rather an adverb modifying here. And if this is correct, then it is here which is the head of near here, contrary to what CGEL says.
(If there is any doubt that CGEL says what I say it says, here is a direct quote, with the near here example in boldface:
The PPs here, there, now, then occur as complement to a wider range
of prepositions than do such PPs as under the bed or after six. We
find, for example, They live n̲e̲a̲r̲
̲h̲e̲r̲e̲; Put it o̲n̲
̲t̲h̲e̲r̲e̲: I found it
b̲e̲h̲i̲n̲d̲
̲̲h̲e̲r̲e̲: You should have told
me b̲e̲f̲o̲r̲e̲
̲n̲o̲w̲; He certainly stayed
p̲a̲s̲t̲
̲t̲h̲e̲n̲.
Note that the other CGEL examples don't suffer from the same problem as near here, because what are claimed to be the heads of the matrix PPs (on, behind, before, past) cannot be preceded by very. Before and past can be preceded by e.g. much and way, but not by very.
)
Again, several answers have addressed this issue (whether near is really a preposition) already, and I am still working through them. Moreover, as tchrist and others have pointed out, it has been already discussed in other questions, where this one seems the most relevant.
Summary
Assuming we accept that near is a preposition in [1], what argument can be given for the assertion that it is near, rather than here, that is the head of the PP near here?
In particular, is [6] acceptable, and if so, does it prove that near is the head of near here?
Could someone please help me.
I was wondering if I have to use "that" in the following sentence:
I'm sure your friends will likely call you on your birthday.
Should there be a "that" between sure and friends?
Thank you.
I realize that there is already a very popular question that discusses this question in depth, but I think this is a singular case.
How would the following adjectives be ordered?
He is a brilliant, eccentric billionaire.
He is an eccentric, brilliant billionaire.
On the linked question, it states the order as being:
(5) Quality > Size > Shape > Color > Provenance [Sproat and Shih (1991)]
(6) a. Possesive > Speaker-oriented > Subject-oriented >Manner/Thematic [Cinque (1994)]
b. Value > Dimension > Physical property > Speed > Human Propensity > Age > Color [Dixon (1982)]
How would these two adjectives (brilliant and eccentric) fit into this? What would their order be?
Answer
Because the words 'brilliant' and 'billionaire' are so aurally similar, the sentence is more balanced when they are broken by your other adjective. Brilliant billionaire deposits all of the emphasis a the end of the sentence, weighing it down. "...brilliant, eccentric billionaire." definitely sounds more even and has better flow.
In the following example:
Eri stared at date on the screen, but all she saw were white pixels.
Only when she recovered from her shock that she became aware of its
meaning.
Do it have to add "it was" before "...only when..."? Or it's not necessary? When to use only when and when to use it was only when?
Answer
You have to say either
It was only when she recovered from her shock that she became aware of
its meaning.
or
Only when she recovered from her shock did she become aware of its
meaning.
I looked up the usage of "such that" in the dictionary, it says:
"such that, so that: used to express purpose or result: power such that it was effortless"
if the subordinate clause following "such that" is an adverbial clause, what is the role of "power" in the whole sentence? If "power" is the subject of the sentence, where is the predicate? Is something omitted before "such that"? I feel this setence is odd because there is only a noun before such that. I also find another sentence in the dictionary :
The damage was such that it would cost too much money to repair.
I guess the meaning of "such that" is same here. But why the second sentence has a "predicate"("was") while the first one does not? So can I also alter the second sentence to the form of "The damage such that...."? If I omit the predicate-"was" here , is this sentence still right?
Thanks!
The set of verbs applicable to living organisms can also apply to other inanimate subjects like rain forests (e.g. resembled, looked) but I'd like to identify those verbs which are strictly applicable to living organisms.
Perhaps this is a better representation:
While it's possible for a forest to speak figuratively, I only want to focus on the literal use of these verbs. I want to identify the organism verbs, including human verbs. Oh, and deceased subjects that were once living should also be considered as organisms.
Answer
I don't believe such a distinction can be drawn; anything can be personified to use any verb, at least metaphorically.
The sun can smile upon a child's summer day. Necessity can mother invention. Trees converse whenever the wind blows. The old mountain can swallow the inexperienced.
I read the following sentence, "My mother won't put up with my sister or I swearing." My question is, should the sentence say, "my sister or I" or "my sister or me"?
I got really confused reading conflicting grammar rules for sentences such as below:
First one:
A number of people is/are going to the party.
Here, the subject is "A number". Since "A number" is plural, the the correct answer must be
A number of people are going to the party.
Second one:
His collections of music is/are good.
Here, the subject is "Collections of music". Since "collections" is a plural, the correct answer must be:
His collections of music are good.
Third one:
His collection of music is/are good.
Going by my previous rule, since the subject here is "collection of music", which is singular, the correct answer must be:
His collection of music is good
But I have seen answers that state the right answer to the second one is "His collections of music is good".
Can someone please elucidate this?
Thanks in advance!
Answer
For the first one, the subject of the sentence is the whole noun phrase a number of people, in which a number of collectively acts as a determiner - a class of words that includes the articles a, an, and the as well as words such as many, most, and every - and people is the head word, which is the root noun which is being modified by the rest of the phrase. Compare to other sentences using related noun phrases with different determiners - for example, you wouldn't think twice about the correctness of "Several people are going to the party" or "Beautiful people are going to the party."
You can also verify this by noting that removing people from the sentence leaves you with "A number of is going to the party" - a nonsense sentence - whereas removing a number of leaves you with the workable sentence "People are going to the party." Even if you take out the of as well, to get "A number is going to the party," it still doesn't make sense unless you're living in some kind of cartoon world; it conjures up images of an anthropomorphic number 7 as the guest of honor.
For the second and third, you're in the right. "His collections are good" and "His collection is good" are the correct forms. My only guess for why you might have seen otherwise is that maybe someone misread the second statement and didn't notice that collections was pluralized, as one normally refers to the entirety of a person's music library as a singular collection.
In IRC chats you can "perform an action" with the /me command. It changes the way the text looks so that it's a little more third person and narrative. Here's an example:
chmullig: I'm really hungry
sam: You should eat some cake
chmullig: You're right, I should!
* chmullig eats some cake
However if we wanted to use a pronoun, what would it be? chmullig eats his cake or chmullig eats my cake?
Answer
Third person pronoun, chmullig eats his cake. You're writing for how it will be viewed, basically.
I just bought The Elements of Style, an awesome little book. However, in the first section, the authors promote the use of 's, no matter what the last letter of a word is, to show possessiveness.
Some examples they use:
- Charles's friend
- Burns's poems
Are these grammatically correct?
Answer
It's down to personal preference -- but the modern convention, in my opinion, is to omit the final s. I'd always advocate omitting the final s because it's simply unnecessary: the apostrophe, by itself, clearly denotes possession. Whether or not American English adopts this is another matter...
But with British usage, it can often be quite erratic and anachronistic. A typical example is when I get on the London underground every day (the Piccadilly line going eastwards). One stop is called Baron's Court and its immediate neighbour is Earls Court.
You also get this with particular brands who choose to omit the apostrophe for clarity (like Twinings, and Waterstone's has announced it's dropping its apostrophe soon). So, in modern usage, the general trend is to omit the apostrophe. Another convention I've worked a lot with (MHRA's -- which I only use in academic essays) chooses to use the additional s for singular possession, and omit it for plural possession; so, for example: the boss’s daughter and the bosses’ daughters.
To answer Henry's point, there is no debate over 'St' and 'St.'. Because St James' Park refers to Saint James, the use of St is a contraction. You put a full-stop after an abbreviation (like Prof.), but you never put a full-stop after a contraction because the final letter of the abbreviated form is the same as the final letter of the full form (which is why you see Mr, St, Mrs, etc.)
According to this question:
Definite and indefinite articles when introducing a person
one can use a definite, indefinite or no article at all when introducing a particular person. Which option is the most natural in case of a historical figure, like
ruins of a medieval castle built by the Polish king Casimir the Great
or
ruins of a medieval castle built by a Polish king Casimir the Great
and generally, are both definite and indefinite articles correct here? It will be used as a one-off sentence describing a picture on a stock photography site. Thanks in advance.
Answer
They are all grammatically correct but they have slightly different meanings. This is inevitably a bit subjective but I would say the difference is in which bit is the main information and which bit is the additional information:
ruins of a medieval castle built by the Polish king Casimir the Great
ruins of a medieval castle built by Casimir the Great (who was a Polish King)
We see this structure whenever we want to add extra information to a particular person
the famous George Washington
George Washington (who was famous)
This would not make sense if we said
a famous George Washington
as that would make George Washington and Casimir indefinite.
ruins of a medieval castle built by Polish king Casimir the Great
is a slightly clunkier way of saying the same thing.
On the other hand,
ruins of a medieval castle built by a Polish king Casimir the Great
ruins of a medieval castle built by a Polish King (whose name was Casimir the Great)
Here it is clear that the emphasis is on the fact that the builder was a Polish king (hence the indefinite article), to which we have added his name as an afterthought.
SITUATION: A year ago, my friend had some financial problems of which his relatives were aware.
Why do we say:
They believed he was in debt.
but:
He was believed to be in debt instead of: He was believed to have been in debt?
Or do we?
I was going through a reading and this construction confused the student:
“Will we be able to talk?” I asked, my eyes red and swollen from
crying, a balled up tissue squeezed tightly between my sweaty palms.
She understood the words; it was the construction that confused her. I could explain what it meant in that context, but I didn't have a good explanation for that construction, generally. So in the above example, how would you classify "my eyes red and swollen from crying, a balled up tissue squeezed tightly between my sweaty palms"? Is it an appositive? Some kind of relative clause? Something else? A noun phrase?
When I use "there are:" (with a colon) to introduce a list starting with a singular item, should I use "there is" or "there are"?
According to grammar rules, I should use "there is" if the following item is singular, but in this case the colon introduces a plural group.
For example:
In my room there [is/are]: a bed, 2 chairs, a table, 2 carpets and a wardrobe.
I've noticed that how the word "evolution" is hyphenated according to Wolfram|Alpha doesn't match the ones I find on other sites: The Free Dictionary, and Dictionary.com.
As I understand, the latter is the correct one (ev·o·lu·tion). I think that the "wrong" versions (e·vo·lu·tion) better match the pronunciation. I want to think it's a matter of evolution of the language.
Why is there a difference in how the word can be hyphenated? Which one is correct, and why?
Answer
I poked around looking for Wolfram's sources and found their WordData Source Information page which includes a link to:
Ward, G. "Moby Hyphenator." 2000.
The hyphenator is available online and, after downloading it, I found this:
e•vo•lu•tion
This is likely the the source of the hyphenation used in the Wolfram search. The Moby Hyphenator page didn't have anything noting sources but I was able to find a Wikipedia article on the Moby Project:
The Moby Project is a collection of public-domain lexical resources. It was created by Grady Ward. The resources were dedicated to the public domain, and are now mirrored at Project Gutenberg. As of 2007, it contains the largest free phonetic database, with 177,267 words and corresponding pronunciation.
Which is certainly awesome. The article specifically notes the Moby Hyphenator II as a feature. They also included a link to the Moby Project homepage but it, again, includes no references or sources.
Therefore, I was unable to track this particular hyphenation further. Wolfram got it from the Moby Project; the Moby Project didn't say where the hyphenation came from.
As for the hyphenation itself, the word evolve is typically hyphenated as such:
e•volve —
|iˈvälv|
My dictionary lists evolution as such:
ev•o•lu•tion —
|ˌevəˈloō sh ən|
If, however, you were to pronounce evolution akin to evolve it would make sense to hyphenate it the same way:
e•vo•lu•tion —
|iˈvə loō sh ən|
I checked to see if the Moby Project also has a pronunciation list thinking that, perhaps, it was doing this. It lists these pronunciations:
evolve —
/I/'v/A/lv
evolution —
,/E/v/@/'l/u//S//@/n
Transcribing the notation, we find that evolve is entered as ih-valv and evolution is ehvə-looshən. So that doesn't help explain the hyphenation either.
Therefore, I highly recommend using what current dictionaries have entered (ev·o·lu·tion) and disregarding Wolfram's output.
As the title indicates, these three forms of words/phrases can be quite confusing to me sometimes. When should they be written as one word ("boilinghot"), when should they be written in two words ("boiling hot"), and when should they be written as a hyphenated compound ("boiling-hot")? Does it make any difference which is used? There are other terms like this, such as blackboard/black board/black-board; swingman/swing man/swing-man etc.
Answer
In the first place, I've never seen boilinghot used.
As for the other two, there are different times for different uses. Only use the hyphen when it is a compound adjective
Let's speak of why the sea is boiling hot.
Let's speak of the boiling-hot sea.
@drm65 illustrates how Google NGrams may be misapplied. Searching for a hyphenated expression will cause it to flat-line unless you put a space between the hyphen and the words: e.g. "boiling hot,boiling - hot"
So while boiling hot appears to be used more often than boiling-hot, the latter's representation is not zero.
Should I use "was" or "were" in the following context?
A huge crowd were/was present there.
I can't quite figure out which of the following expressions is more correct:
The combination of an article with the possessive is what confuses me. Exactly which word(s) does the article apply to?
The first form seems to suggest either that he is an advocate of The Devil -- namely, Satan himself -- or even worse, that he is The Advocate of The Devil. (Kill him with fire!)
The second form seems to suggest that he is an advocate of a devil (but not necessarily of The Devil, nor the only advocate out there.) This seems to fit better with the way this idiom is commonly used, but I haven't seen this idiom used very often with the indefinite article. It's usually used with the definite article.
The third form suggests that he is playing a role named "devil's advocate", with no article attached to it.
Similar examples: The King's speech, the Indian's prayer, the mother's room, etc.
Answer
He is the Devil's advocate.
This is the classical expression. The term was used by the Catholic Church (from 1587 until the office was abolished, in 1983) for the canon lawyer who was supposed to argue against proposals for canonisation, i.e. adding someone to the official list of saints, the canon. The purpose of these arguments against canonisation was to test the strength of the arguments for canonisation as brought forward by God's Advocate.
Syntactically, it is ambiguous whether the modifies Devil or advocate; however, in this case it must modify Devil. That is because the Devil normally requires the definite article if you are referring to the one and only Christian Devil, which is the case here. The definite article can sometimes be left out, but that would be ellipsis; in that case, however, advocate shouldn't have an article either, because Devil requires it while advocate doesn't. Compare the following sentence:
He is Cleopatra's advocate.
He is the Queen's advocate.
Being someone's x usually doesn't require an article before x. Whose advocate is he? The Devil's! It would be odd to add the article where it is normally left out (with advocate) while omitting it where it is normally used (in the Devil).
He is a devil's advocate.
The indefinite article sounds less idiomatic. The article the as above could be left out in casual use; but then it would sound odd to use a phrase almost identical to the full classical expression the Devil's advocate, having merely swapped one article for the other. If you mean to say that a specific person answers to this description, use the; if you were mentioning the general concept of being a devil's advocate, you could very well use a.
He is playing devil's advocate.
Here the article is dropped in a casual manner, and the phrase is used loosely in a slightly changed environment: this is how the phrase is most often used.
I recently attended a grammar class, where the trainer explained:
A singular noun and a singular noun take a plural verb.
However, I feel it should have been
A singular noun and a singular noun takes a plural verb.
because the two singular nouns together take the verb, and they cannot be considered two different elements. Is my understanding correct?
Answer
I don't think your intuition is correct in this case. As you yourself said, " the two singular nouns together take the verb". Note that you used the plural verb "take" in this context. "A singular noun and a singular noun" refers to two nouns, and even if they are considered to form a single unit, it's still a grammatically plural construction. Plural agreement is definitely possible, as is typically the case for "compound subjects" consisting of two singular noun phrases joined by "and". (I don't know whether I would say that the use of a plural verb is mandatory in this sentence—your suggestion of "A singular noun and a singular noun takes a plural verb" doesn't sound terribly bad to me—but plural agreement is definitely not prohibited in this context).
Greeting to all in this room,
Please help with this statement.
"Replace John with Andrew" which one becomes trashed among John and Andrew?
What is the difference between the two statements?
Are both the statements correct? If correct, then why?
Explain the difference between specified timing and unspecified timing with examples.
Let's say, we are talking about folders in a computer. What is a correct way to refer to the names of multiple folders?
ex:
- Folder names are incorrect.
or
- Folders' names are incorrect.
What kind of verb, singular or plural, goes with phrases like "a record of [singular or plural noun]", "the use of", "the time of"? Does the choice depend on the following nouns (a record of nouns) or on the 'first' nouns (record, use, time)? Or do these phrases obey the rule of proximity (as does "a variety of")?
I have found different example sentences on the internet (source: newspapers or magazines) with different uses. What is correct?
Examples:
1:
Which is one is the most correct? Which one would you most likely see in a book teaching about grammar.
2:
Which one of those would you most likely see in a grammar book? Which is the most correct and formal sounding. If more than one are correct, just tell me.
I hope somebody can clear up my confusion.
Greetings :)
I looked at Merriam dictionary but there are no notes on usage and the three words are synonyms. I want to talk about encouraging the development of certain qualities in people, like honesty or bravery. Does it make any difference whatsoever which word I use?
p.s. I have seen some people even use the word nourish but google search shows me that usage is less frequent and perhaps more useful for feeding actual things (like plants) not qualities.
Answer
The three terms really do convey essentially the same meaning. "Nurture" is somewhat more intimate, perhaps best suited to someone close to you (or yourself):
My parents, both public defenders, nurtured my respect for fairness.
To talk about "cultivating" people is mildly insulting, as people are not crops, but it would be appropriate to say something like
I intend to cultivate an environment of honesty in this classroom.
"Foster," or to promote, is neutral and would also be appropriate for a business
or teaching environment:
A manager's first duty is to foster integrity.
Another associated word that you might find useful is "instill," or to introduce or implant:
I exposed you to those challenges to instill a sense of bravery in you.
As you note, "nourish" may not be as well suited because qualities such as honesty are not in themselves nourishing (although your attention and encouragement could very well be emotionally nourishing).