grammatical number - Verb agreement in "[adjective] and [adjective] [noun]" constructions

Context: I am writing a short text to explain the main differences between Spanish passive sentences with "ser" and "estar", one of which is verb choice: sometimes the adjectival form should be chosen, and sometimes the participle form should. Those are generally the same, but sometimes they differ. The problematic sentence goes like:

Some examples where the participle and the adjectival form differ are: [and a list follows]

In a previous post, it was explained that the noun (form) can be either in singular or plural. Because the noun was a general thing, I decided to go with the singular form, but then a verb followed (differ). Now, my question is:

• Should the verb be conjugated in third person singular (differs) or plural (differ)?

Common sense tells me that it should be a plural (since there are two forms), but "differ" after "form" doesn't sound right (or does it?). I know I could just change form to forms, but I would like to keep it singular. Besides, I really am interested in knowing how the verb should be conjugated in this kind of phrases when the noun is to be kept in singular.

Answer

When you say

where the participle and the adjectival form differ

you've chosen a rhetorical device called prozeugma, which means that preceding phrases (here, "the participle" and "the adjectival") govern a single following word (here, "form"). What this means is

where the participle form and the adjectival form differ

As you've noted, the choice of the number of form belongs to the author, and you've chosen the singular. You could have chosen not to use prozeugma, and instead written the plural forms, making "participle and adjectival" a single compound modifier.

But no matter which choice you make, you still have a compound subject, two things that differ from each other, which makes two differences, one from each point of view. That requires a plural verb, namely differ. It's true that the singular noun form might be slightly jarring next to the plural verb differ, but grammatically it's the plural subject that matters.

It is possible to use the singular differs, but you'll have to rephrase so that the verb is governed by a singular subject:

where the participle form differs from the adjectival form

Of course it's still true the other way around, but grammatically, you speak to only the one difference, so the verb must be singular.

syntax - I am [who/whom] G-d made me

Please fill in the blank with the correct word and explain your choice.

I am __ G-d made me.

A. who

B. whom

---

Some people have suggested I elaborate on this question so here goes.

The above was not copied from any test. It is a question about basically two things: (1) whether an objective complement should be in the same case as the subject ("I" => "who") or as the object of the verb ("me" => "whom"); and (2) whether the verb to "make" [someone into something] should properly be considered a linking verb (~a form of "to be") (or, if not, whether this sentence has an implied nonfinite linking verb, and, if so, whether that would indeed exige the predicate nominative: "I am who G-d made me [to be]" => "I"? Or conceivably--since "me" becomes the subject[?] of the complement clause-- =>"me"?).

There are many other implications, just some of which are discussed here. It is a serious question that seems not to be addressed by any general overview of who/whom on this site.

There is another question about a similar construction, "When to use what or who", but the answers there don't address the topic of case.

My question may be addressed in linguistics and may have different answers according to different linguistic models.

---

Cf. "She is with whom I practice." "It is she I want to be like." "That's who I want to be like."

Related:

Which is grammatically correct: "Let he who..." or "Let him who..."

What rules make “Remember me, who am your friend” grammatical?

https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/48701/subject-of-imperatives-starting-with-let

Carry we who die in battle

https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/124307/is-i-killed-him-who-carried-a-gun-grammatically-correct

Issues with predicate nominative

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/let-he-who-is-a-latin-teacher-instruct-him/article747363/

grammaticality - Is "who did what" grammatically correct?

Sometimes I wish to know what each person in a group of people did, or where each person went, or which book goes where. Is it correct to say,

• Who went where?


• Who did what?


• Who told whom?



• Which book goes where?

If not, what is the grammatical way of framing such questions?

Answer

All four are grammatically correct.

The comments are good here, but I wish people would put answers in the answers section because the question remains unanswered even though the OP has the answer(s) in the comments!

Names referred to as words

Style guides seem to agree that words referred to as words should be italicized or set in quotes. So:

• The term critical mass is...

The CMOS 17th adds that proper nouns used as words are usually set in roman, giving this example:

• You rarely see iPhone with a capital i. (Section 7.63)

I'm wondering more generally about references to names. Does it make sense to leave all the following names in roman?

• Two men, both named Sam, were...




• His name was Sam.




• Call me Ishmael.




• The girl called herself Peggy, though her name was Margaret.




• She referred to the drink as a Manhattan Project and ordered two.

Answer

Weather Vane and jdscoms has fair points, jdscoms. You do need to research more fully.

Nevertheless, your question also has a point. The use of italics or single scare quotes to indicate mention rather than use is a convention in the sense that it does not emerge from the rough and tumble of day to day conversation and correspondence. The convention is observed to avoid misunderstanding or involuntary humour.

It is worth remembering that in ancient Hebrew, Greek and Latin there was no punctuation of any kind, and they managed quite well.

Proper names do not normally need this convention. There is no need to distinguish between “My brother is George.”, and “My name is George”. There is no chance of misunderstanding.

But you might think twice before writing “George is six letters long.”. It is unlikely to be misunderstood. But it does look a bit silly. Note, though, that you do not have to use italic or scare quotes. You could just write: “the name George is six letters long.”. Then we shall all know what you mean.

As for the iPhone, that is a brand name and the ‘i’ must be left untouched.

Overall, a little common sense takes us a long way.

grammatical number - Proper usage of "is" and "are" when specifying multiple nouns

This is one thing I never really bothered looking into, but have always been unsure of.

punching, kicking, slapping or slashing [is/are] strictly prohibited

That's what I'm trying to determine. Let's say multiple of these specified actions can occur simultaneously. Is it proper to use "is" or "are"?

This is going to be used in a short legal notice.

grammar - Can't decide whether to use focus or focuses in this sentence

I feel like I should use "focuses" as using "focus" sounds weird in the following sentence.

Risks are not identified prospectively, i.e. this is a case of “Fighting the Last Battle” syndrome, whereby management focus most on risks that have occurred recently.

Are they both acceptable? I'm not big on the rules of the English language, I tend to just go by what sounds right in my head and here "focus" seems out of place.

I appreciate any feedback.

Object vs Subject?

Consider the following sentence:

"Even during the simple occurrence of him and me standing next to each other makes me notice that he's taller than me."

Is him and me correct? Should it be he and I?

Use of 'are' or 'were' for this past tense sentence

The boys are Liam and Ethan.

My eight year old student is explaining her choice of 'are' rather than 'were' in this sentence from a past tense recount of her weekend, stating that the boys are still friends, so using 'were' would imply there had only temporarily been friends.

So, is 'are' correct or should it still be 'were'?

questions - When is "Does... have...?" correct versus "Is... having... ?"

I have to generate random questions Yes/No about hotels, restaurants, etc. for a Natural-Language Programming task. The focus is on questions about characteristics about such places that are rather dynamic (e.g., current length of queue, available parking spaces).

I'm trying to cover a wide range of formulations so that not all questions look too much alike (e.g. Is KFC nice? Are the rooms in Hilton Hotel large?). As a non-native English speaker, I stumble upon some problems to guarantee grammatically correct questions. Given the following two example questions:

• Does [RESTAURANT-NAME] have a promotion?


• Is [RESTAURANT-NAME] having a promotion?

I would say that both questions convey the same meaning, with the latter maybe emphasizing the current moment (implying that promotions are rather infrequent and dynamic). Is this correct?

My follow-up question is now: When I can use both forms interchangeably? For example, when I have

• Does [RESTAURANT-NAME] have vegan dishes?


• Is [RESTAURANT-NAME] having vegan dishes?

The second one "feels" wrong since the menu usually doesn't change much over time. Am I correct to say that the possibility to formulate a "Is/Are... having... ?" depends on the meaning/semantics of the question? In other words, I cannot always use both formulations and I cannot trivially decide in a program?

Answer

The word have has multiple definitions. Here are two:

have verb

1 Possess, own, or hold.
‘he had a new car and a boat’

4 Perform the action indicated by the noun specified (used especially in spoken English as an alternative to a more specific verb)
‘We will be having a meeting soon to examine our options, to see what is possible.’

- ODO

Your promotion example uses definition 4 (action) whereas your vegan dishes example uses definition 1 (possession).

You ask:

Am I correct to say that the possibility to formulate a "Is/Are... having... ?" depends on the meaning/semantics of the question? In other words, I cannot always use both formulations and I cannot trivially decide in a program?

Yes. When used in the sense of possession, the is having form sounds awkward.

• We do NOT normally use stative verbs in the continuous (‘ing’) form
  - Stuart Cook, What are stative verbs and why do learners need to understand them?




• Stative verbs usually don’t use present progressive (or other progressive tenses).
  - page 34, Kent Uchiyama, English Verb Tenses




• Some verbs describe a state or condition that does not change (e.g., seem, appear, feel, own, prefer, doubt, recognise). These stative verbs are special in that the continuous form of the verb is not possible.
  - Better Grammar, Curtin University

grammar - Inverted sentence/ reduced relative clause?

My student once asked me about one sentence he read on one particular site. It says " Attached is the receipt." He asked about what kind of grammar is used in the sentence. I am not sure if it is really an inverted sentence, but while surfing the net for answers, I accidentally saw something that could help me figure it out.
One of the commenters in a much closer topic with mine said that it is what we call reduced relative clause. Please help me.

idioms - Is there a more modern way to say "it's a pity"?

Is it okay nowadays to use the phrase "it's a pity" in the everyday conversation in the contexts like in following example:

"Please how do I get to airport?"
"It's a pity, I don't know."

If not, what would be an appropriate equivalent?

Edited (added):

As it follows from answers, this phrase is almost never used by native English speakers. Could you please specify how this phrase sounds for native speaker - as too formal or as archaic or anything else?

Answer

Certainly "I don't know, I'm afraid" is more common in England today. In this particular context, referring to yourself, I would say it sounds more archaic than formal.

"It's a shame" would often be used in other circumstances, e.g. "It's a shame the weather spoiled the event." Today "it's a pity" would be more commonly used in such a circumstance.

Is the genderless pronoun "they" appropriate and grammatical for a non-binary gender?

I recently had somebody tell me that a mutual friend of ours who is genderqueer prefers that people refer to him/her using the gender-indefinite pronoun they.

In some cases, this almost seems okay:

Kris left their umbrella at our house.

On the other hand, if Kris is sitting right next to you, it feels very odd to say

They (meaning just Kris) would like more cake.

Or even odder,

Kris would like some more cake, can you please pass it to they/them?"

Are these usages grammatically correct? Are they in the process of becoming grammatically correct? Are there more correct alternatives?

Answer

I think the reason for your friend's preference is that using either the male or female pronouns implicitly pigeon-holes the person in question as either one or the other. However, all of the examples you give seem to me to be forced, and to shout out loud "Hey, look at how sensitive I'm being! I'm not calling Kris either male or female!"

There are sensible alternatives to all of these examples that do not break any grammatical rules.

"Kris left their umbrella at our house" : Kris left an umbrella at our house (yes, it could technically then be somebody else's umbrella that was left behind, but would you really know?)

"They [Kris] would like more cake." : Kris would like some more cake.

"Kris would like some more cake, can you please pass it to they?" : Could you please pass the cake? Kris would like some more.

While my dictionary (Chambers 1990) does have a secondary definition of "they" as "he or she", it also says that this usage is "with pl. verb", as in "there are lots of people; they are happy". "They is" would not be correct.

american english - How can I dedicate something to my family and make a special note of my wife?

In a formal media article that describes my achievements, I want to say something like the following:

I want to dedicate this achievement/award to my family and especially
to my wife for all the nights she stayed up to give me company while I

pulled all nighthers.

The all-nighters seems a bit informal and student-ish and I am not a student. Is there a better/concise/formal way of saying this?

Answer

... for keeping me company as I worked through all those nights.

Present Perfect or Past Simple to express duration in the past?

Have you ever danced?

This is kind of a usual question. What if I want to ask someone about his experience and find out how long it lasted. Can I say

Have you ever danced for 5 hours?

(and we're just sitting in a cafe and talking about it) Or do I have to put it like this

Did you ever dance for 5 hours?

meaning - "Anything" vs. "any thing"

This is not a duplicate of "anymore" vs. "any more". I made sure. In that case, the two terms being compared were noun phrase (any more) vs. adverb (anymore). In this case, the two are both noun terms. I know which is more often used, but is "any thing" incorrect?

The question was raised in my mind when I saw "any thing" on a post, and wondered whether to edit it to "anything".

Answer

I think I would find myself intuitively using "any thing" on those rare occasions that "thing" needed to be a 'noun in its own right', and contrast with other nouns. For example:

"Any thing or person seen in the garden...."

"*Anything or person seen..."

I didn't see any 'thing' as such, but rather a group of things.

Other than cases such as these, I don't think there's much in it. In many cases where you could argue that what is meant is strictly a 'thing' (and where you could replace "any( )thing" with "a single thing"), replacing "any thing" with "anything" doesn't really alter the meaning:

I don't believe anything/any thing/a single thing you say.

probably since in cases such as this, 'thing' doesn't contrast with another noun.

grammar - Possessive-S/apostrophe in a list, including the first and second person

When adding possessive-S/apostrophe to a list, the rule is only the last person has the apostrophe if the item is shared, or everyone has one if they have the items each, e.g.

John and Mary's houses = the houses that belong jointly to John and Mary.

John's and Mary's houses = the houses that belong to John and Mary as individuals, at least one each.

However, I am curious if the rules are slightly different when possessive pronouns are used for a single item.

You and Mary's house OR your and Mary's house?

I'm even more unclear when the first person is involved.

Mary and my house OR Mary's and my house?

Finally, when there are at least three people, including the first person, does the last named person have the possessive-S/apostrophe, or all/none of them?

• John, Mary and my house


• John, Mary's and my house


• John's, Mary's and my house

I'd be very grateful to anyone able to clarify this, ideally with a some form of reference, as I can't find it anywhere.

---

There have been several suggestions to use "our", yet if the text refers to a group of people, all of whom own co-own houses with some others within the group*, then the above style wording would be necessary, so my question stands.

* eg I own a house with John and Mary, I co-own another with Peter and yet another with Philip and Sarah.

negation - Why do positive and negative variants of the same question elicit the same answer?

In common American English usage, these two questions elicit the same response:

1. Do you have a ticket?


2. Don't you have a ticket?

These are the usual answers (I was going to say "possible answers" but I can think of a whole host of situations where one could get other answers, e.g. wake up someone in the middle of the night and ask it, the answer might easily be "I don't know" or "maybe" or "hey, just let me sleep!"... but that's neither here nor there... :-)

• Positive: "Yes" or "Yes, I do".


• Negative "No" or "No, I do not".

But consider this: the questions are logically equivalent to:

1. You have a ticket, right?


2. You do not have a ticket, right?

Here I am not so sure that a "Yes, that's right" response means the same thing to each question. (One could still, however, use "Yes, I do" as @F'x answer in How to answer a negative question without ambiguity? illustrates, to remain valid and unambiguous.)

(As a side note, it is interesting to compare the same question in Chinese, where one literally asks
"Do you have/not have a ticket?" and the common answers are:

• "[I] have"


• "[I] not have"

...which also removes the ambiguity... while at the same time straying from my original question:-)

So why can I rewrite the questions so that they are essentially equivalent yet expect different answers?

usage - Function of object of preposition

Consider the sentence "What is the probability of Bob winning?"

What is the function of "Bob winning"? It's certainly acting as the object of the preposition, but I don't recognize this type of construction from any of my English courses. Is it even correct usage?

Answer

Some call it the "fused participle" because the participle "winning" is fused with the preceding noun, "Bob". I've heard a few people say it is improper, and that you should fix it to say "What is the probability of Bob's winning?" "Winning" is clearly a gerund in that case.

However, I don't see a problem with the construction as the way you have it. To me, I see "Bob winning" as indeed one thing, but it's easy to look at "winning" as an object complement for "Bob".

personal pronouns - case: 'my' or 'me'?

Thank you baby for my being able to share this with you

or

Thank you baby for me being able to share this with you

Which is correct?

word choice - What is the difference between: "two-day" and "two days"

I would like to know which would be the correct form:

• a major two-day auction



• a major two days auction

The duration of the auction is two days. Which form is the right one to use?

grammar - Subject-verb inversion / verb-subject-object -- is this correct?

I recently read the following in a schoolbook:

Wrote the researchers, "[...]"

I wonder if this is correct English. I have seen it a couple of more times. Is this just a matter of preference? English doesn't really have a very liberal word order, unless you're writing poetry or the like.

Can anyone tell me what this is called? I found some information on subject-verb inversion, but it only seems to be when the object is in front, but in this case, the word order is verb-subject-object.

Answer

Wrote the researchers, "[...]"

This is an archaic form of "The researchers wrote, '...'" but it is still used for literary purposes.

So it is correct but only in specific contexts. People would certainly understand what was meant but it may feel a bit odd.

word choice - "which" vs "that"

Possible Duplicates:
Correct usage of which/that
When is it appropriate to use 'that' as opposed to 'which'?

I'm not a native English speaker and I must confess I'm quite confused about when I should use which in place of that and viceversa.

Is there a particular rule?

For example, let's take this sentence.

The method returns a Whois::Answer instance which essentially looks and behaves like a String but it's way more powerful than a string.

Is it which correct or should I have used that?

A few more examples:

It also includes a huge set of data parsers which converts a raw registry response into a pure Ruby object.

and

The only exception to this rule is the Timeout::Error exception which is intentionally left unmanaged.

Should "Ladies" be marked with an apostrophe in the noun phrase "Ladies beer"?

What should it say on a label: Is it "ladies' beer" or "ladies beer?"

grammaticality - Since the rules do not forbid “I brought him him”, can I therefore say it that way?

I’ve searched about direct and indirect objects, and all explanations have led me to think that I could say this:

• ?I brought him him.

Is that allowed? I think it should be, since the rules governing direct and indirect objects’ inversion apply only to the pronouns it and them, and then only if the indirect objects are nouns, not if they’re pronouns.

So, what do you think? Because the rules say nothing against it, would it therefore be right to say the first version, not just the second?

1. ?I brought him him.


2. I brought him to him.

(from comments)

After all, we have the grammatical examples of:

3. Give me it.


4. Bring me it.

Although I don’t understand why those are ok but

6. *Do me it.

is wrong.

comparatives - Is "I am more than happy to help you" grammatically correct?

Ok, I often hear my American teacher says "I am more than happy to help you".

I am not sure it is grammatically correct.

Ok, there is no problem to say "I am happy to help you" or "I am very happy to help you"

But "I am more than happy to help you" sounds quite naturally but does not adhere to the comparative structure.

Why not "I am more happy than many others to help you" which can be explained as:

-I am happy to help you

-Many others are happy to help you

-I am more happy than many others to help you

Answer

Yes it is. The comparison here is not that your teacher is happier than others to help you, but that they are happier than "happy".

If we list a number of words that relate to happiness/sadness in order from sadness (a low "happiness" score) upwards, we might get something like this:

• inconsolable



• miserable


• sad


• okay


• glad


• happy


• overjoyed


• ecstatic

By saying "I am more than happy" your teacher means their level of happiness is above "happy" on that scale. Perhaps a more precise way of saying it would be "I am happier than happy to help you", but "more than happy" is a very well established and frequently used turn of phrase.

grammar - Why is "herself" required in this particular sentence?

Why is a reflexive pronoun, i.e. herself, grammatically required in the following sentence?

• I gave Susie a picture of herself.

Compare with:

• I gave Susie a picture of her.

This sentence doesn't seem to be able to mean I gave Susie a picture of Susie. It means I gave her a picture of someone else.

I've looked at the following page, but this type of usage doesn't seem to be covered there:

The answers there suggest that we use reflexive pronouns when the subject and object of the verb are the same entity. Herself isn't an object in the example above, and Susie is not a subject either. The syntax in this example seems to be entirely different.

Also, why is the following sentence not grammatical?

• I went there by me.

... as opposed to:

• I went there by myself.

This last example, of course, is perfectly fine. So the question here is why does this so-called 'idiomatic usage' contain a reflexive instead of a normal pronoun.

Lastly, why is a reflexive required in this imperative?

• Do it yourself.

Compare with:

• Do it you.

Note that yourself isn't an object in that first sentence. (It would be if the sentence was Watch yourself, for example. The object in the example, however, is it.)

What then are the grammatical rules that stipulate the use of reflexive pronouns in these examples?

Edit note

I've changed the order of the examples here to take the focus off the probable emphatic usage in the imperative (although I'm still interested in the grammar here). I've also added a third example, which highlights more clearly the two issues I am most interested in hearing about:

1. Examples where we need a reflexive pronoun, but the pronoun isn't the object of a verb.


2. Examples, where the antecedent, the original person or thing that the reflexive is duplicating, is not the subject of a verb.

Any answers with relevant observations and or research would be very gratefully received, whether they address the whole question, or just parts of it.

Observations about the imperative example

Although I'm most concerned with the photograph example, I hereby offer some observations about the imperative one. Some of the interesting comments below suggest that yourself here is an emphatic version of you. As RegEdit's answer points out, the example with yourself seems to be contrastive. The sentence with you, on the other hand, does not give the same reading. I wonder why that is?

I note in passing that yourself seems to be an adjunct ('adverbial') here. This makes it different from another emphatic use of pronouns, which is when a pronoun appears as the subject of an imperative:

• You do it!

I originally gave the imperative example for two reasons. Firstly, the reflexive pronoun here is obviously not the object of the verb. Secondly, however, I gave it because there is no antecedent word in this sentence which could be the subject of the verb, or, which represents the same person as yourself. I am curious as to whether the rules requiring reflexive pronouns in emphatic usages, are basically the same ones that require us to use them the rest of the time. In other words, I return to my original question: Why is a reflexive pronoun required in this case?

grammaticality - What would be proper grammar for this sentence?

Could you please tell me how to properly write the following sentence? I believe I know the grammar rule but I must not be creative enough to think of an alternative sentence structure. Here's the sentence:

I would love to see houses you've been looking at.

I've never really figured out how to change a sentence like this without sounding really pompous. Such as, "I would love to see houses at which you've been looking". This sentence sounds weird and awkward to me.

Term for Internet or Texting Acronyms, e.g. LOL, IMHO, M8

What are the acronym, internet words like lol, brb, imho, etc., called? Is there such a term beyond acronym? I was wanting to tell someone that someone else was not familiar with the meme/internet jargon/acronym 'M8' (or mate), but couldn't think of a reasonable word to use.

So, is there a term that would define these terms for how they are different than other, regular english 'SMS text'. Moreover, we find these terms more and more in the wild and not necessarily even on electronic devices, like on t-shirts or even spoken.

If I e-mail the message, "I'll be leaving the office at 10, but then I'll brb." What would I call the 'brb' part of the message, apart from the rest? "He e-mailed his boss a message saying 'He'd be right back', but he decided using an [internet jargon] was acceptable."

---

Update 02/01/2018

Although I have accepted an answer for now, I think it is inadequate, and that a word will eventually be coined to define these text terms. Until then...

Answer

Generally, it's called "chat speak" or "text speak" as it originated in shorthand used when writing text messages and in chat rooms on the internet.

The main Wikipedia article calls it SMS language but I've never heard that term before.

SMS language or textese (also known as txt-speak, txtese, chatspeak, txt, txtspk, txtk, txto, texting language, txt lingo, SMSish, txtslang, txt talk) is a term for the abbreviations and slang commonly used with mobile phone text messaging, but sometimes used with other Internet-based communication such as email and instant messaging.

The Wikipedia article includes lists of examples that include the ones you've listed in your question.

Another source of information, NetLingo.com broadens the terms for this to include:

a.k.a. Internet acronyms, text message jargon, abbreviations, initialisms, cyberslang, leetspeak, SMS code, textese

Note that leetspeak (or just leet) is generally considered a separate entity from chat/text speak, as it uses more numerals and special suffixes and also encompasses things like ASCII art.

LOL, notably, has its own Wikipedia article where it is defined as being internet slang:

LOL or lol, an acronym for laugh(ing) out loud, or lots of laughs, is a popular element of Internet slang. It was first used almost exclusively on Usenet, but has since become widespread in other forms of computer-mediated communication and even face-to-face communication. It is one of many initialisms for expressing bodily reactions, in particular laughter, as text, including initialisms for more emphatic expressions of laughter such as LMAO ("laugh(ing) my ass off") and ROFL (or its older form ROTFL; "roll(ing) on the floor laughing"). Other unrelated expansions include the now mostly obsolete "lots of luck" or "lots of love" used in letter-writing.

grammar - have worked vs had worked

I have worked here for five years.
I had worked here for five years.
I worked here for five years.

Which one is gramatically correct.
Does the first sentence mean that he worked here and is still working?
And the 2nd and 3rd indicate something happened in past. And when to use these. Is there any difference between these two?

Indicative vs. subjunctive – was vs. were – “If a menu bar of personal commands was/were context-aware, then a “zoom-in” button would only appear if.”

If a menu bar of personal commands was/were context-aware, then a
“zoom-in” button would only appear if the current window or
application is something that you deem worthy of requiring a “zoom-in”
button, like a map or photo application.

At first, I thought it could be:

“If a menu bar of personal commands were context-aware”.

I desire a context-sensitive menu bar in the newer Chrome OS operating system, so I thought that this was dealing with hypotheticals and wishful thinking (subjunctive mood?).

I also saw examples of “were” being used in alternate paths.

I went back to thinking of,

“If a menu bar of personal commands was context-aware”

because the characteristic of the menu bar has not been decided yet.

I read about the example of,

“I’m not rich”. “If I were rich”.

--

“The bar is not context-sensitive.” “If the bar were context-sensitive”.

Actually, the menu bar is not not-context-sensitive”.

The menu bar is nothing.

It hasn’t been created yet.

It in fact could be context-sensitive.

Thanks for any help.

Answer

You're correct to use "were" because you set up the clause regarding the button as contingent on a conditional. "If A was B, then X" implies a construction in which X can be observed or evaluated in order to determine the nature of A at the time of consequence.

However, if you're planning to write this out for anyone you could avoid all ambiguity by preferring "In a context-sensitive menu bar, a 'zoom-in' button will/should..." or alternatively "If a menu bar is context-sensitive, then its 'zoom-in' button only appears ..."

One more thought, which may perhaps lend some clarity by analogue:

Consider the use of "was" vs "had been":

If a menu bar of personal commands was context aware

If a menu bar of personal commands had been context aware

The fact that they refer to a conditional that has already evaluated is evident when you consider that they are naturally better-suited to use of "the menu bar" than "a menu bar", because of the implicit specificity of something that has already occurred. The difference here is that "was" is neutral toward the result of that conditional -- whereas "had been" denotes that the conditional evaluated false at the time.

Relative pronoun structure beginner's question

I have 2 sentences and I have to join both in a single sentence with a relative pronoun:

People visit CityA.
They love to ride the cable cars.

I am confused by the publisher of the question which states the below sentence to be the answer:

People who love to ride the cable cars visit CityA.

It seems to me that this answer has a different meaning from the question, and the below sentence is more appropriate instead:

People who visit CityA love to ride the cable cars.

Please advise.

Answer

I think the problem centers around the phrase "the cable cars." It would be helpful to know who published the book. In my experience, non-native speakers (and that means non-native publishers of English learning material) have troubles with "the." My gut feeling on this is that by "the cable cars" the publisher means "The city's cable cars," or "The cable cars operating in the city." I think the logic of the publisher is: "People visit city A, and when they do visit City A they love to ride City A's cable cars." This is my interpretation (based on my experience with non-native problems with "the") of what the publisher is thinking. Unless we ask, we cannot know.

I'm going to replace "City A" with "San Francisco" so this is easier to visualize:

People visit San Francisco.
They love to ride San Francisco's cable cars. (I have replaced "the" with San Francisco.)

People who love to ride San Francisco's cable cars visit San Francisco.

This is still a bit wordy because we have "San Francisco" twice. You could clean it up thus: "People who love to ride San Francisco's cable cars visit the city." Alone, without context, the sentence is ambiguous because someone will ask "which city? you could mean any." In other words "People who love San Francisco's cable cars also visit this other city because the cable cars are similar." However, I think in an article about travel or cable car aficionados it would be clear.

In any case, it's still a can of worms. If I were writing an article about travel or cable car aficionados, I wouldn't use the sentence, or I would further define "the city." You can't really do that because it's an exercise in a textbook.

Without this interpretation, as others pointed out, the exercise is ambiguous.

word choice - Usage of "expect to" and "expectation to/of"

I've written:

I expect to see you on Monday. I'm

counting the days.

To improve it, I've changed it in:

With the expectation to see you on
Monday, I'm counting the days.

A friend told me: No! You should write the following.

With the expectation of seeing you
on Monday, I'm counting the
days.

Who's the smart one? My friend or me? Is there a general rule to apply here? Like with expect/expectation, but also for willing/wish, etc.

Answer

One of the properties of individual words in a language - and often one of the hardest for foreigners to learn - is what linguists call their "subcategorization frame" : the particular kinds of word and phrase that they require, or allow, to follow them in a sentence.

Rhodri's answer is generally correct: "expect" requires a direct object, which may be of various types including a "that" clause ("I expect that he will come", and an infinitive clause ("I expect to win").
But "expectation" has different requirements: it may take a direct object only if that is a "that" clause ("His expectation that I would come"; any other object must be expressed in a PP (prepositional phrase) introduced by "of": "my expectation of winning").

The bit I disagree with in Rhodri's answer is the implication that because it is a noun, "expectation" cannot take a direct infinitive. This is not so: "expectation" does not take an infinitive, but "ability" can: ("His ability to climb came in useful").

grammaticality - Can I use the word "it" in this sentence?

Can I replace the second "supply chain" with the word "it"? Will this change still retain the exact meaning?

"The supply chain associated with the semiconductor industry is dynamic which makes the supply chain complex."

grammar - Art cold? To what extent can pronouns be dropped in English?

Many European languages conjugate their verbs, thus:

I am
You are | Thou art
She is
We are
You are
They are

The form of the verb changes, depending on the person. In some languages (Latin and Polish, to my knowledge), the verb form is completely different for each person, which means that the actual pronoun can be omitted. (I believe it can be reinserted for emphasis.) English can't do that. For regular verbs, only the third person singular has a distinct form. We always use pronouns (except when we don't).

However, in King Lear, at one point Lear turns to his Fool and asks him, "Art cold?" This would not be possible in current English, as the pronoun thou has all but vanished. Was it possible in actual speech in Shakespeare's time, or could it exist in the play only as a poetic flourish?

Answer

Yes, this was ordinary colloquial English in Shakespeare's day, although you was rapidly passing thou. Here are three more instances from Lear:

Art of this house?
Art not asham’d to look upon this beard?
What, art mad?

There was also a contracted form in the indicative:

As th’art a man, Give me the cup. —Ham
Well said; th’art a good fellow —2HIV
Th’art a tall fellow; hold thee to that drink. —TS

An interesting fact (although only marginally relevant to your question) is that Elizabethan/Jacobean English was as likely to contract the pronoun as the verb be. Our it’s appears as ‘tis, our you’re appears as y’are, and our he’s appears as ’a’s—indeed, ’a is the ordinary unstressed form of he:“’a babbled o’ green fields”. (And as often as not, the apostrophes are missing in the printed texts, which can be disconcerting.)

pronunciation - Why are the words “disposable” and “disable” syllabified differently?

Is there a rule or some reasonable explanation for why in the word “disposable” the /s/ in the prefix “dis-” belongs to the second syllable, but in the word “disable” the same prefix is intact?

Here are the IPAs from dictionary.com:

• disposable /dɪˈspoʊ zə bəl/


• disable /dɪsˈeɪ bəl/

Here are the links:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/disposable?s=t
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/disable?s=t

Cambridge dictionary provides the same syllabification for these words (I'm interested in the US pronunciation variant only).

Answer

Syllabification in English is an uncertain and contentious topic. I'm sure you could find people who would say they syllabify "disable" as /dɪˈseɪ.bəl/ instead. In fact, the OED shows this as a possible syllabification of the /s/ (though oddly enough, only for the American pronunciation: it says " Brit. /dɪsˈeɪbl/, U.S. /dəˈseɪb(ə)l/).

It's easier to be more certain about the syllabification of "disposable" for two reasons.

• First, because the /s/ precedes a voiceless plosive /p/. In English, voiceless plosive consonants exhibit what is called "conditioned allophony", which means they are pronounced slighly differently in different situations. In particular, a voiceless plosive at the start of a stressed syllable will be aspirated"—it has an extra puff of air—while a voiceless plosive after an /s/ in the same syllable is never aspirated. This is a phonetic or phonological clue to the syllabification. I have never heard a speaker use an aspirated "p" in "disposable", only unaspirated "p". This indicates that the /p/ is not at the start of a stressed syllable, which rules out the syllabification /dɪsˈpoʊ.zə.bəl/. And I think it's obvious that /dɪspˈoʊ.zə.bəl/ seems wrong (there are more technical theoretical arguments against this syllabification, but I don't know how to present them).




• Second, because "disable" is obviously composed of two parts, while the composition of "disposable" is less blatant. Etymologically, it has the prefix "dis-", but it doesn't relate in any obvious way to the words "pose/posable", so it's likely that many speakers don't make a conscious connection between the words.

The s in "disable" is more tricky to syllabify because there aren't any major types of allophony like plosive aspiration that would tell us which syllable it belongs to, and the compositionality of the word is, at least in my opinion, more clear, so some people might think of it as "dis-able" and pronounce it accordingly in two separate syllables corresponding to the constituent units of meaning.

Can all transitive verbs take to-infinitive clauses?

Yet it would be your duty to bear it, if you could not avoid it: it
is weak and silly to say you cannot bear what it is your fate to be
required to bear. — Jane Eyre

It seems ‘your fate to be required to bear’ is a to-infinitive clause (or non-finite-clause by Bas Aarts: “They would hate [Jim to sell his boat].”) and the object of cannot bear; what it is means ‘whatever it is’ and can be put in brackets.

Can all transitive verbs take the clauses as their objects?

If you see the object of cannot bear as what-clause, would you let me know just the last question?

Answer

I think there was a mistake in choosing the segment to boldface.
"Your fate to be required to bear" is not itself a constituent. It's just a part of a constituent.

(Parenthetically, the answer to the presenting question is No; only some verbs -- transitive and intransitive, because infinitives can be subjects, too -- can take infinitive complements. Of course there are other kinds of infinitives, too, but this answer is already too long.)

The smallest constituent that contains this string -- and it still needs quite a lot of untangling, because it's been done plenty of things to -- is

• what it is your fate to be required to bear

the direct object of the higher bear.

This construction is an embedded question complement clause. The introductory what gets "moved" by Question Formation from (i.e, it appears somewhere other than) its normal position in the clause, which would be after the lower bear as its direct object.
(in the dissection that follows, I mark items that are moved or deleted as code)

• it is your fate to be required to bear what

That, in turn, has been Extraposed from

• for you to be required to bear what is your fate

That is, the subject of is your fate is an infinitive clause:

• for you to be required to bear what

You is the subject of the infinitive verb be required.

Subjects are marked with for in an infinitive, and both for and you get deleted here, because infinitive subjects normally are deleted, either because they're indefinite and apply to everybody, or -- as in this case -- because they're predictable from elsewhere in the context, and you gets mentioned in your duty.

This clause, too, has been done things to. It's a Passive clause, so you has been "moved" by Passive from its position as the object of require. (What was the subject? Who knows? That's what indef means.)

• for indef to require you to bear what

with another you as the object (or requiree) of the requirement.

And we're not done yet. There's still another infinitive, the lower bear, which is intended to be in parallel with the upper bear, and to reinforce the message.

• for you to bear what

It has a subject you, in fact the same you that got "moved" by B-Raising to be the object you in the require clause above.

This whole process is what I meant in this handout by "unwinding" syntactic rules, constructions, or alternations.

Now I have to go wash my hands.

punctuation - How to correctly use double quotation marks at the end of a sentence?

Group A:

1. This is so-called "Moon Cake." // The period is inside the double quatation marks




2. This is so-called "Moon Cake". // The period is outside the double quatation marks

I know the former is more standard-conforming in most publications; however, I think the latter is more intuitive and meaningful. Because the period is used to stop the whole sentence, rather than stop the phrase itself. I think the former is counter-intuitive, although the usage is standard-conforming.

Please consider another two sentences:

Group B:

1. She said: "I don't know."




2. She said: "I don't know".

It is obvious that the former is more meaningful than the latter, because the period is used to stop the whole sentence, and the double quatation marks are used as a quatation. This time, it is standard-conforming and intuitive.

What's your opinion?

Answer

You can use either, they're both correct, just choose one and stick to it. As long as your style is consistent, both versions are fine. This is one of the differences between American and British punctuation styles.

Americans tend to place punctuation within the quotation marks while the British tend to place it outside them. For example:

• British style

  
  
  

  
  

  "Yes," she said, "I would love some tea."

  
  





• American style

  
  
  

  
  

  "Yes", she said, "I would love some tea".

  
  

It is largely a personal choice though and different style guides have different opinions. For some more information on this and other differences between BrE and Ame punctuation styles see the links below:

Why are there multiple quotation marks in a long quote?

I came across an issue when reading Dr Seuss's How the Grinch Stole Christmas!

(Image via Daily Nutmeg)

And the more the Grinch thought of this Who-Christmas-Sing,
The more the Grinch thought, "I must stop this whole thing!
"Why, for fifty-three years I've put up with it now!
"I MUST stop this Christmas from coming!
                                                                              ... But HOW?"

The writer adds quotation marks to the start of each line in what might be a block quote needing only quote marks once right at the beginning and once at the end.

Can anyone please explain why this is done? Is it a stylistic choice? Or is the writer following some type of rule with the use of punctuation?

How to respond to negative questions (adjectives)?

My friend got me this question:

When somebody asks, "Is it not available?"

Should I say:
(1) "Yes, it is not available." OR
(2) "No, it is not available."?

I know it would be better to use the word unavailable. I checked out another question titled "How to answer a negative question without ambiguity?" But it isn't about adjectives so I'm starting a new question. Thank you!

grammar - Alternatives to use technical protocol terms as verb in a sentence

I find it much easier to say:

1. I can RDP to your computer


2. Please SFTP the files to me

than to say:

1. I can use the RDP (protocol) to establish a connection to your computer


2. Please send the files to me using the SFTP (protocol)

These technical protocol terms are not verbs: RDP, SFTP, SSH, telnet, VPN, email, etc.

How can I get around this to be grammatically correct and at the same time avoid the clumsiness?

Or, one day, (already?) will using these technical terms as verb be approved and added to modern English grammar rules?

Answer

I would choose to use abstraction with the potential addition of "via" if clarity is needed.

Depending on with whom your are speaking, you audience my vary well not care about the underlying technology. in which case

I can RDP into your computer

Becomes

I can remotely connect to your computer.

Abstracting out the technological details will in most cases bridge the gap of communication between you and your potentially less knowledgeable audience.

However, if you need to specify the technology, consider the abstracted sentence followed by "via"

I can remotely connect to your computer via RDP.

I believe this makes your sentence more comprehensible, yet provides the requisite details.

SteveJ

meaning - What does "Have fun with 'em homies" mean?

I come across these sorts of sentences frequently. I'd like to give more examples to be more precise.

Kill 'em homies.

Look at 'em idiots.

What do they really mean? I mean why add them in front of a plural noun? And is this an informal way of speaking?

orthography - 'Histogramed' or 'histogrammed'?

The following rule (or 'rule', this being English) is sometimes quoted:

If a word has two or more syllables, double the final consonant when adding a suffix if and only if the final syllable is stressed in speech.

(There's also constraints about not doubling h, j, q, v, w, x, y (here), but that's not relevant in this case.)

So for example we have

begin \bi-ˈgin, bē-\ → beginning
prefer \pri-ˈfər\ → preferred

but

listen \ˈli-sᵊn\ → listening
happen \ˈha-pən, -pᵊm\ → happening.

By that logic, we should have

histogram \ˈhi-stə-ˌgram\ → histogramed, histograming.

The trouble is, that's mostly not what people actually do; see the google books Ngram, below. Moreover, Wiktionary says that it is histogrammed/histogramming (here)
.

Unfortunately, the major dictionaries do not list histogram as a verb; in particular, the OED doesn't. But in the sciences, people do use it—both with the doubling of the m (here) and without (here). However, the double-m version is 10-20 times more common, according to this google books Ngram:

(A very similar Ngram is obtained for histogramming,histograming.)

Questions:

1. Did I state the rule (or 'rule') about the consonant doubling correctly? Here is an example of how simple, often-repeated rules may in reality be simplified versions of more complex actual rules: the source I linked above (as well as many others) says that for single-syllable words, the final consonant is doubled if the vowel is short. But according to John Lawler (here), the actual rule is a bit more convoluted: if the vowel was short in Middle English (/ɪ ɛ æ ɔ ə/) and it uses only one vowel letter and it's in a syllable ended by a consonant, then you double the consonant in spelling. Is there a similarly more complicated rule for multi-syllable words? If so, what does it say about histogramed/histogrammed ?




2. Imagine you had to use the past tense of histogram in a text. What would you write?

(3. What was this 'histogramming craze' in the early '80s?)

Edit

The Free Dictionary has the following discussion:

Exception 1: Doubled consonants in unstressed syllables

Note that there are several words that have primary emphasis on the first syllable but have doubled consonants when taking vowel suffixes. Most of these have a secondary stress on the last syllable, which might be part of the reason why their final consonants are doubled, but this is not always the case.

The situation is made more difficult by the fact that many of these words have variant or accepted alternative spellings in which the final consonant isn’t doubled, and the preference for some of these variants often comes down to regional dialect. This leads to confusing spelling decisions such as kidnaped vs. kidnapped and worshiped vs. worshipped. Unfortunately, we just have to memorize these exceptions:

crystal \ˈkri-stᵊl\ → crystalline, crystallize (but also crystalize; crystalline has only one spelling)
input \ˈin-ˌpu̇t\ → inputted, inputting
kidnap \ˈkid-ˌnap\ → kidnapped, kidnapping (in AmE also kidnaped, kidnaping)
program \ˈprō-ˌgram, -grəm\ → programmable, programmed, programmer, programming (but also programed, programing)
worship \ˈwər-shəp also ˈwȯr-\ → worshipped, worshipper, worshipping (in AmE also worshiped, worshiper, worshiping)

punctuation - How to punctuate an example indicated by "say"

I'm wondering how commas should be placed around the word "say" and the following clause in a sentence like this:

If you have, say, a bucket, that you would like to fill with water, then ...

This is how I speak the sentence, with minor beaks at ever comma. But it looks odd in text. I've seen others use punctuation in other seemingly random configurations, including with no commas at all, which looks even worse.

One of the reasons I can't work it out is that the bucket here appears to be acting like the subject, and a separate clause (although one that can't be removed without breaking the sentence).

Is there a "best" choice of punctuation for a sentence like this? And is there a name for this kind of built-in-example-clause-thingy?

Answer

It should be punctuated as in your example, with commas around the 'say'.

They are parenthetical commas, because they perform the same function as putting brackets around 'say' - "If you have (say) a bucket..." They are there to prevent the problem you correctly identified, by indicating that 'bucket' is not the object of 'say'.

word choice - Too serious to take seriously

This is a concept I often find myself trying to articulate in political discussions. You have a situation that everyone openly acknowledges, but it is so entrenched that people may paradoxically behave as though it were completely unimportant.

As a contrived example, for centuries the people of Helmetvania have all worn 6-foot-wide spherical helmets. There are lots of car accidents, neck problems are endemic, and people often complain about how silly it is to wear helmets. The hot topic in this year's election is whether non-helmet-wearing should be addressed by longer sentences, or better education on the importance of helmets.

It's somewhat related to the frog in slowly boiling water, or to not seeing the wood for the trees, but what I'm talking about is not a failure of perception; rather, it's a failure to take one's own perceptions seriously when they seem to be at odds with the world.

Are there good words, phrases or even extended references for this idea?

present tense - ''When'' condition? When we've finished, we'll have

I had a question in an exam and I don't understand why I was wrong.

1) When we finish the painting we'll have a cup of tea.

I PUT THIS ANSWER AND WAS WRONG

2) When we've finished the painting, we'll have a cup of tea.
THIS WAS A GOOD ANSWER, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHY

Is this a when clause? Is it present perfect? What is the struture of this so I can search more for this type.

I have seen this sentence before but don't know why it is correct, can someone explain please?

Thanks

grammar - Is 'my wife and I' correct English?

Is it proper grammar to write:

Please join my wife and I for coffee...

Or is it

me and my wife

Or

my wife and me

pronouns - Is Anyone/ Who is used together?

The course is for anyone who is interested in learning about computers.

Is there an error in the above sentence formation?

Or can we just say:

The course is for anyone interested in learning about computers.

Answer

Yes, you can just say The course is for anyone interested in learning about computers, but you can also place who is between anyone and interested.

Subject-verb agreement error?

I came across the following sentence in a publication:

"The main source of knowledge are natural language texts."

Shouldn't it be "The main source of knowledge is natural language texts."?
Or maybe it can be re-written as "Natural language texts are the main source of knowledge."?

Comma before while?

After much searching, I am still finding (potentially) conflicting information regarding commas before subordinate conjunctions when they come at the end of the sentence.

Specifically, I have read that a comma before while indicates 'whereas.' No comma indicates time.

However, commas are also used before subordinate conjunctions when the subordinate clause is non-essential to the meaning of the sentence.

Therefore, I am confused whether to use a comma before while in the following sentence. Is there a rule you can refer me to?

"Stick to your guns, Lola," he replied happily, while pinching both of my cheeks.

Based on the above information, there should be no comma since the two actions are happening at the same time. However, the information also seems non-essential to the meaning of the sentence, which means that it would require a comma. Very confusing!

syntactic analysis - Possessive-gerund/ sentence structure

Here's an alternative/clearer version of my original question:

Consider the following sentence:

Instead of his being stationed on a plank, I want him on a pedestal.

This shows the possessive gerund. However, the "I want him..." being juxtaposed with "his being..." seems awkward (as was pointed out in the ensuing comment section).

It is the stationing that I want to discuss. So, to make it less awkward, instead of using "him" for the subject, since we are using "being stationed" as a noun in the first part, can we use a pronoun for it in the second part?

In other words, can I make the sentence

Instead of his being stationed on a plank, I want [his being stationed] on a pedestal.

where the [text] is replaced by a pronoun (and appropriate grammatical changes).

Is an alternative path better (and what)?

ORIGINAL:

I was writing a question in a different site and had a doubt about my sentence structure. This is what I typed:

instead of its being defined on an interval [maths], its definition is on an interval [maths]

The first part of the sentence shows the possessive-gerund. I was wondering if I could restructure this sentence as

instead of its being defined on an interval [maths], I want it on an interval [maths]/it is on an interval [maths]

where it refers to the "being-defined"-ness? The reason behind my asking this question is that the reason we use the possessive form is because we are discussing the particular characteristic ("being-defined"-ness) of the subject under scrutiny, so in the next part of the sentence, can we use it to refer to the characteristic without ambiguity? Or can it be confused for the subject? Or does using it make sense only when it is referring to the subject (which makes the most sense to me).

To be honest, using "its definition" in the sentence I originally typed also sounds a little weird to me (I was going to put in "I want it to be defined on..." instead), but I do think that it grammatically agrees with "its being defined".

Ultimately, what I am asking is if "being defined" may be used exactly as a noun might. Because the second sentence certainly makes perfect sense if I had used "definition" instead of "being defined" (with the necessary grammatical changes).

Answer

A sentence can sometimes be made to stand in the position of a noun phrase (NP) by nominalizing it. There are two nominalized sentences in your example:

Instead of his being stationed on a plank, I want him on a pedestal.

"his being stationed on a plank" is a POSS-ing nominalization of "He is stationed on a plank", and the nominalization is object of the preposition "instead of". "him on a pedestal" is probably a FOR-TO nominalization of "he is on a pedestal" (a more regular form would be ?"for him to be on a pedestal"), and the nominalization is object of the verb "want".

The English nominalization system is quite disorderly. A general feature of it is that the particular form of nominalization used depends on the function of the nominalization in the larger construction. In the example, if we were to use a POSS-ing nominalization after "want", we'd get the ungrammatical *"I want his being on a pedestal". Why? It's just an idiosyncrasy of "want" that it does not allow a following POSS-ing nominalization. Compare the verb "like" which tolerates both kinds of nominalization:

I like him on a pedestal.  
I like his being on a pedestal.  

Classifying the -ing form of the verb in POSS-ing nominalizations as a gerund is not at all helpful in analyzing them, since this verb form has verbal properties and no nominal properties whatsoever within the sentence that has been nominalized.

grammar - that vs which vs what

Temporary reopen note:

Pleas note that this other question here does not address what or compare it to which or that:

---

Original Question

• Which sentence would you use more, which is just simple wrong and why?

This is the speech, that my father wrote.
This is the speech, which my father wrote.
This is the speech, what my father wrote.

This is the speech, that my father wrote down.
This is the speech, which my father wrote down.
This is the speech, what my father wrote down.

Answer

1. This is the speech, that my father wrote (down).


2. This is the speech, which my father wrote (down).


3. This is the speech, what my father wrote (down).

The vocabulary

The difference between write and write down is quite subtle. Write down implies that whatever was written existed in some other form before it was written down. So it might have been a fully formed idea, or someone may have read it out. Write on its own just means write. If we just use wrote, it gives the impression that it was actually the father's speech. However, if we use wrote down it might be someone else's speech that was written down. For example, a speech from the television.

The grammar

There are some problems with all of the sentences as they stand. These sentences almost definitely contain so-called defining relative clauses, and so don't need a comma.

In defining relative clauses like this we can use either which or that as a relative word:

• This is the speech that my father wrote.


• This is the speech which my father wrote.

Here the word speech is the antecedent for the relative clause. There is a gap in the relative clause after the verb wrote where we would expect an object. We understand that gap as having the same identity as the speech:

• This is the speech_(i) that my father wrote ____ _(i).



• This is the speech_(i) which my father wrote ____ _(i).

Notice that the relative clauses here are modifying the word speech. They are turning it into one big noun phrase. "This is the speech" Which speech? "The [speech that my father wrote]".

However, we cannot use a relative clause with what to modify a noun in this way. We only use the relative word what when there is no antecedent for a relative clause:

• *This is the speech what my father wrote. (Ungrammatical - what with antecedent)


• This is what my father wrote. (Grammatical - no antecedent)

In the second sentence above, what does not have an antecedent. The relative does not have an antecedent. Instead the whole clause is the complement of the verb BE. The first example is ungrammatical because it uses what with an antecedent.

The Original Poster's Question:

The following sentence is incorrect in standard English because it uses an antecedent for the relative word what:

• This is the speech what my father wrote.

The following, however, are both fine:

• This is the speech that my father wrote.


• This is the speech which my father wrote.

In this case because there is a subject after the relative word (that or which), we can leave out the relative word:

• This is the speech my father wrote.

Hope this is helpful!

[Note: Some bogus usage guides say that which should not be used for defining relative clauses. This is rubbish. It is harmful to the study of Englsih grammar, and it has never been true. All the best writers have used both which and that for defining relative clauses.]

hyphenation - "Well-being" or "wellbeing"?

I was writing a document in Microsoft Word and I used the word "well-being". Word told me to correct it to "wellbeing". When I do, Word tells me to correct it back to "well-being". Which is correct? I am stuck in an infinite loop of incorrect grammar.

Answer

Many word combinations go a progress from open (separate words) through hyphenated (one finds to-day in older texts) to closed (written as a single word, like nevertheless). Ngram shows the hyphenated spelling still five times as popular as the closed one among authors and editors of books as of 2008.

questions - can we point o an animal and "what animal is this ? or which animal is this? which one is correct?

I just wanted to know if its gramatically correct to say what animal is this? or which animal I this?

capitalization - Should I capitalize the word "that" in a title?

Since the version of the word "that" might matter to the correct answer, I'll provide the actual title in question:

Title: Existing Solutions that Didn't Work

If someone could explain the why of the answer, I would be appreciative.

EDIT: It has been suggested that this is a duplicate, and that may be, in a sense. However, the after reading the suggested prior question, I'm no closer to my answer. I think it may have to do with my use of the word "that." Perhaps it is incorrect?

Using these definitions of the word "that:"
I'm having trouble figuring out which definition of that matches my title. Am I even using it correctly? Perhaps I should use which instead:

Possible Title: Existing Solutions which Didn't Work

If my original usage is incorrect, and I should use which, then the answer is simple since which is always a pronoun or adjective, and those are both capitalized in a title. However, I'm having difficulty understanding which part of speech that is in my original title.

Answer

As Edwin commented, whether or not you capitalize a pronoun in a title is a matter of style, however, the main style guides do not differ on this point.

The AP convention is to capitalize all words with four or more letters.

The APA Manual also capitalizes all words with four or more letters as well as all "major words." Only "conjunctions, articles, and short prepositions are not considered major words" (APA Manual, 6th Ed., p. 101).

The Chicago Manual of Style does not base headline-style capitalization on word length. It calls for capitalization of "nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, and some conjunctions" (excluding the conjunctions and, but, for or and nor). Prepositions and articles are always lowercase unless the preposition is part of a verb phrase (like "Look Up").

In short, you're safe to capitalize the words that and which in your title as they are both relative pronouns.

As a side note: in American English, the convention would be to use the word that in your title, as it qualifies as a restrictive clause.

phrases - Can "above mentioned" be a noun?

The above mentioned regulations do not apply to the conditions defined here.

Is it possible to use the phrase above mentioned as a noun with the definite article "the" in English?

The above mentioned does not apply to the conditions defined here.

Is it possible to use the verb in the plural after the above mentioned?

grammar - Periods in quotes and how to end the sentence the quote lies in

If I am quoting someone in my writing, and I end their quote with a period, and the end of the quote is also the end of my sentence. How do I properly end the sentence? An example of this is in my last question:

For example, "The file is not updat(e)able.".

Here is another example:

The boss said, "If you don't get your work in by tomorrow, you're
fired.".

Is that how you properly end the sentence, or should I leave one of the periods out? If the latter, could you explain why?

Answer

For standard American English, omit the period at the end of the sentence and leave the one inside the quotation.

prepositions - Usage of both apostrophe and “of” together

I was reading Agatha Christie’s The Murder of Roger Ackroyd and noticed following sentence:

About those boots of Ralph Paton’s.

It is really in old (old as in early or mid twentieth century) English that they use apostrophe and of together? Would it not be proper to say:

About those boots of Ralph Paton.

Answer

No, you have to use the so-called “double genitive” here:

About those boots of Ralph Paton’s.

It has to be a noun or pronoun in the possessive case, not in the subject case. That’s why it is

a friend of mine

Not

a friend of *me

See other questions with the double-genitive tag for more examples and explanation.

grammatical number - was and were in the form "X, along with the Y's, [was/were] Z"

Consider the sentence:

The aristocracy, as well as powerful merchant guilds, were viewed as restrictive to trade.

Should this be

The aristocracy, as well as powerful merchant guilds, was viewed as restrictive to trade.

How could it make sense in the latter case, since we are talking about a plurality of "merchant guilds"?

Are there any words I can use to disambiguate "biweekly"?

We have two words for events occurring in periods of years - biannual meaning twice a year, and biennial meaning once every two years.

However, my colleagues talk about having meetings biweekly. This causes a lot of confusion, since it can mean either once every two weeks or twice a week.

We can use fortnightly to indicate once every two weeks and help disambiguate that way. Are there any other words we could use which could help, particularly words which mean "twice a week"? I'm looking particularly because some of my colleagues speak English only as a second language, and find fortnightly difficult to remember.

Answer

Avoid biweekly altogether. Use fortnightly for "once every two weeks", and twice a week for, well, "twice a week".

Not everything has to be a single word, so don't be afraid to use more than one word when you want to use clear, understandable, unambiguous language.

If they have problems with fortnightly, use every other week, or let them into a little secret: fortnight comes from "fourteen nights", or two weeks.

Edit: From the comments it's clear many Americans won't understand or are uncomfortable with fortnight so, to be safe, use the aforementioned every other week.

grammaticality - "it's a long time that.'

This question was posted here "It's a long time that" - correct or not? a few months back and an answer was selected. The answer given is hardly satisfying, and I feel that the question is worth exploring in more detail.

The OP states that a native speaker corrected him and said he should write "It's been a long time since."

In looking at some of the hits that the OP posted it is apparent that the phrase "It's a long time that" can be used in several ways. This was from a native English source:

When you sprain both your ankles, you have to do what you think is right. As I said, if he's healthy, he should play. If he's injured, he should sit. It's a long time that he's been off. He's got to go.

To me, this is ok. He's talking about the amount of time-off the player has taken. He's not talking about the last time he took some time-off...a present perfect idea.

The answer that was selected uses this as a reference Try as I might, I can't understand what the good doctor is saying.

Also, in looking at the OP's question it occurs to me that they might be using the phrase in the sense of the NBA example I provided above, in other words, he is talking about the amount of time spent. To me, a better way to express this would be "I've been doing this for a long time," or "I spent a long time on that," or maybe "I did that for a long time." but maybe I'm changing the meaning.

My question is: Is the example from google books an archaic way of using the present perfect? There's no present perfect in the example. Also, is the sentence "It's a long time that I did that." grammatically correct, and if not, why not?

negation - "...mustn't have done..": can it mean reproach for a past action or prohibition of a future action?

1. Can "You mustn't have done that" have a similar meaning to "You shouldn't have done that" / "You were not supposed to do it (but you did)"?
   (not logical probability but obligation)




2. Since we have the imperatives like "Have done with that!", wouldn't it be possible to use must to express prohibition of a future action: "You mustn't have done that (by the time the bus reaches here tomorrow)"?

grammar - Correct answer fo the question with 'do you'

I know one of possible correct answers for the question 'Do you want to see her?' is
– Yes, I do.

But is also grammatically correct an answer:
– Yes, I want.

?

Thanks :)

word order - Can adjectives starting with a- precede the noun?

The prefix a- holds many entries in the dictionary. I am considered with one of them:

a- prefix

to; toward: aside | ashore.

• in a specified state or manner: asleep | aloud.

• in the process of (an activity): a-hunting.

• on: afoot.

• in: nowadays.

To my native ear it seems adjectives formed in such a way cannot precede the noun they describe. A few Google Ngram searches cannot prove or deny this sense, but they do indicate that these adjectives are much more likely to follow than to precede the noun.

This sense could just be because I am more accustomed to this prefix forming adverbs instead of adjectives.

Can adjectives formed with the a- prefix (in a specified state or manner) precede the adjective they describe? If not, what is the rule?