grammaticality - Are all these prepositional phrases equally correct?

I'm trying to understand when to use classic compound prepositions. Is there any particular reason to prefer/avoid any of these patterns?

In what field could we put it where it wouldn't interfere with the existing code?

What field could we put it in where it wouldn't interfere with the existing code?

What field could we put it wherein it wouldn't interfere with the existing code?

Answer

All three are grammatical, but the last is archaic, or at least legalistic and exceptionally formal, and you might therefore want to avoid it for other than some special effect or other. Some people might not like the second one because of the stranded preposition. That's up to them, but there's nothing wrong with it.

nouns - Best word for health problems

What is the best word for pain and health problems caused by a disease?

I want to use it as term for a collection of symptoms, that I gather.
For example: [headache, stomachache, nausea]
but without a diagnosis which disease caused it

In German I use the word Beschwerden for this. I checked different online translators, which gave these options:

discomfort, afflictions, ailment, disorders, complaints and trouble.

But I think complaints is mainly used when someone is disagreeing with something, right?

By the way, when should I use the plural form?

UPDATE:
I found these dictionary entries:
http://search.medicinenet.com/search/search_results/default.aspx?Searchwhat=1&query=complaints&I1=Search
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complaints?s=ts
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medlineplus/complaint
http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=19380

Does this mean I can still use complaints?

grammaticality - What's wrong with "I'll open you the door"?

When I call the buzzer outside my girlfriend's flat, she sometimes says *"I'll open you the door". I correct this to "I'll open the door for you".

I've never heard a native speaker say it the first way, which is why I think it's wrong. But I can't explain why.

There is a pattern in lots of English phrases that would suggest both are correct. A few common examples:

1. Give the keys to me before you go — Give me the keys before you go




2. I'll buy a coffee for you at the cafe — I'll buy you a coffee at the cafe




3. We sent a text to Martin on his birthday — We sent Martin a text on his birthday

The left-hand side is more formal, and the right-hand side is more common in everyday speech.

What do you call this pattern?

What makes the 'open-the-door' sentence an exception?

Answer

The answer to the presenting question is:

• *I'll open you the door.

is ungrammatical because you won't wind up owning the door by virtue of my opening it.

Ordinary bitransitive verbs of transfer (tell, throw, bring, hand, pass, send, etc.), where the direct object (the trajector, semantically) is transferred from the subject (the source) to the indirect object (the goal), normally are subject to the Dative Alternation:

• I'll tell/throw/bring/hand/pass/send the answer to him.



• I'll tell/throw/bring/hand/pass/send him the answer.

Besides these, however, there's also a Benefactive construction, which uses for instead of to, and identifies someone for whose benefit something is done. This can be added to any sentence, 3-place bitransitive, 2-place transitive, or 1-place intransitive. Here we discuss only the transitives:

• I'll open the door for you. (Note -- you don't wind up with the door)


• I'll dig a clam for you. (Note -- you do wind up with the clam)


• I'll fix the car for you. (Note -- you don't wind up with the car)


• I'll fix a meal for you. (Note -- you do wind up with the meal)

In precisely those situations where the Benefactive object of for ends up possessing the direct object, the sentences can undergo Dative; in those cases where they don't, they can't.

• *I'll open you the door.


• I'll dig you a clam.


• *I'll fix you the car.


• I'll fix you a meal.

The last two sentences show that this extension of Dative to Benefactive is not governed by the verb used (fix in both cases), but by the intended meaning of the clause, including idioms, presuppositions, and metaphors.

word usage - "stop to do something" vs. "continue to do something"

A transcript of a recent speech by Barack Obama contains the following sentence:

Boston police, firefighters, and first responders as well as the National Guard responded heroically, and continue to do so as we speak.

The usage of continue in this case contrasts what I have learned about the verb to stop, as in

We stopped to let the pedestrians pass the crosswalk, so the car did not move.

We stopped letting the pedestrians pass the crosswalk, so I accelerated.

I suppose that these three examples are grammatically correct. People like me, who learned English as a second language, could misunderstand Obama's usage of continue as

[...] and continue (with doing something) in order to do so

I do not believe this is the actual intention. I conclude that this to do vs. doing issue is not a general pattern, but rather a restricted phenomenon. So my questions are:

1. Is it correct that the aforementioned phenomenon is only relevant for a few verbs? If yes, could somebody provide a list of these verbs?





2. Is it helpful, to regard the verb to stop as a homonym, where one version of to stop refers to a process of ceasing movement, while the other version is an auxiliary verb followed by a gerund?

Answer

There are a lot of different kinds of infinitive. The infinitive to smoke in

• He stopped to smoke.

(as Colin and Fluffy have already pointed out) is a Purpose infinitive, a kind of adverbial clause answering Why?, which one may introduce with in order to, or move to the front of the sentence,

• He stopped in order to smoke.


• In order to smoke, he stopped.

in order to distinguish it from more common types of postverbal infinitive, like the to smoke in

• He began/started to smoke.

which is an infinitive object complement clause, a kind of noun clause that is the direct object of began or start, representing the activity (or when generic, the habitual activity) that the subject began or started.

Begin and start are also alike in that they can take infinitive complements, like the sentence above, as well as gerund complements, like the one below

• He began/started smoking.

which is synonymous with the second sentence.

However, stop, unlike begin and start, does not allow an infinitive complement, though it does allow a gerund. Thus, any infinitive following stop can't be an infinitive complement clause, and the next likely reading is as a purpose infinitive clause.

Both are common uses for stop, and this little curlicue helps distinguish them. English, and every language, like anything alive, is full of baroque details like this.

pronouns - "You know more about this than me/I"

Which is correct?

You know more about this than me.

You know more about this than I.

The second sounds unnatural, but I think it is correct because a trailing know is implied.

Answer

My guess is both are correct. The first than is used as a preposition while the second one is used as a conjunction.

Note however, to me, the first sentence means you know more about this than you know about me while the second one means you know more about this than I know about this.

meaning - "I just ate them" and "I've just eaten them" — What's the difference in American and in British?

I know there are differences between American and British English in this area. So when answering, please specify whether you speak American or British English.

Answer

The answer is that "I have just eaten them" is normal in British and I think US usage, but "I just ate them" is not normal in British use, or at any rate wasn't until recently (except in the different sense of mplungjan's answer).

The aspectual difference between the simple past and the present perfect is that the perfect is used for past-with-present-relevance, the simple past for, well, simple past.

So "I have eaten it" has some present relevance - perhaps I can still feel the curry burning in my belly; or somebody has just discovered the cake has gone and wants to know where it is now; or I am in the (present) state of having eaten polar bear at some time in my life. "I ate it" is regarding the event on its own without considering any present relevance - even possibly those same acts of eating the curry, the cake and the polar bear.

In a similar way, some expressions of time encompass the present. "Just" and "just now" do, and so normally do "today" and "this afternoon" (assuming it is still this afternoon). "Yesterday", "once", and "this morning" (if it is no longer morning) do not.

In British usage (more than US), we don't tend to use a present-related expression of time with a simple past, or a non-present-related time with a perfect; if we do the latter, it implies that the relevant time is in fact finished.

So (all judgments with regard to UK usage):

• "I have just eaten it" but not "I just ate it" (in that sense)


• "I saw him yesterday" but not "I have seen him yesterday"


• "I have eaten polar bear" and "I ate polar bear once", but not "I have eaten polar bear once"¹.

"I have seen him today" and "I saw him today" are both acceptable, but have slightly different meanings: "I saw him today" implies that the time within which I might have seen him today is over — for example he has gone away. This is even clearer in negative and interrogative cases: "Have you seen him today?" implies that you might still be able to, while "Did you see him today?" implies that you have missed him.

As I say, the judgments above are for UK English: I am aware that US English is not the same in this regard, but I wouldn't like to specify exactly how.

¹ Actually, I've realised that "I have eaten polar bear once" is acceptable, but with a different meaning, "on exactly one occasion" as opposed to "at some time in the past". "I ate polar bear once" is ambiguous between these, but unless "once" is emphasised, will usually mean "at some time in the past". "I have eaten polar bear once" can only mean "on exactly one occasion".

What is the single word for a school where only boys study?

A school where both boys and girls study is called co-ed (co-education) What is the name for the school where only males study?
(Calling it a male school seems a bit awkward)

meaning - Difference between "think of" and "think about"

Is there a difference between "think of something" and "think about something"? I've also met "have heard of/about something".

Answer

In many contexts, think of and think about are effectively interchangeable...

"They say Greece may leave the Eurozone. What do you think of/about that?"

"I'm thinking of/about looking for a new job"

In other contexts, to think of something means you're at least aware of the thing, but may not have given it a great deal of consideration. If you think about something this normally implies more focussed or extended attention.

"I never thought of doing that!" (that possibility never crossed my mind).

"Have you thought about my birthday present?" (have you considered/decided what to get me?)

Much the same distinction applies to hear of/about. You might say you've heard of something meaning no more than that you're aware "something" exists. But if you've heard about something the implication is you've heard some important/current information about that thing.

"I've heard of Amy Winehouse" (the name is known to me, but I don't necessarily know any more).

"I've heard about Amy Winehouse" (strongly implies knowing of her untimely death).

grammar - Is this xkcd sentence grammatically correct?

So I saw this xkcd, and when I tried reading it, I always felt like the ending was a bit... unbalanced.

It says:

You're in a box on wheels hurtling along several times faster than evolution could possibly have prepared you to go. (Next 5 miles.)

I can't figure out what's wrong with it, though... it's as if some word (e.g. "at"?) was supposed to follow the word "go".

So I was wondering, is the sentence grammatically correct, or is it indeed missing something?
If so, what?

Answer

It's perfectly fine. Let's rewrite it to see what's going on.

Original:

You're in a box on wheels hurtling along several times faster than evolution could possibly have prepared you to go.

"box on wheels" => "car"
"hurtling along" => "going"

Creates:

You're in a car going several times faster than evolution could possibly have prepared you to go.

Now we can erase this unnecessary part:

You're in a car going several times faster than evolution could possibly have prepared you to go.

Finally creating:

You're in a car going faster than evolution could possibly have prepared you to go.

If you want to go even further, you can simplify all this to:

You're going faster than you are prepared to go.

Seems all fine here!

Meaning in context and grammar

From Narnia book 1 chapter 1:

"Is Mr Ketterley really mad?"

"Well either he's mad," said Digory,
"or there's some other mystery. He has
a study on the top floor and Aunt
Letty says I must never go up there.
Well, that looks fishy to begin with.
And then there's another thing.
Whenever he tries to say anything to

me at meal times - he never even tries
to talk to her - she always shuts him
up. She says, "Don't worry the boy,
Andrew" or "I'm sure Digory doesn't
want to hear about that" or else "Now,
Digory, wouldn't you like to go out
and play in the garden?"

"What sort of things does he try to
say?"

"I don't know. He never gets far
enough. But there's more than that.
One night - it was last night in fact
- as I was going past the foot of the attic-stairs on my way to bed (and I
don't much care for going past them
either) I'm sure I heard a yell."

"Perhaps he keeps a mad wife shut up
there."

"Yes, I've thought of that."

"Or perhaps he's a coiner."

"Or he might have been a pirate, like
the man at the beginning of Treasure
Island, and be always hiding from his
old shipmates."

"How exciting!" said Polly, "I never
knew your house was so interesting." .

"You may think it interesting," said
Digory. "But you wouldn't like it if
you had to sleep there. How would you
like to lie awake listening for Uncle
Andrew's step to come creeping along
the passage to your room? And he has
such awful eyes."

That was how Polly and Digory got to
know one another: and as it was just
the beginning of the summer holidays
and neither of them was going to the
sea that year, they met nearly every
day.

Their adventures began chiefly because
it was one of the wettest and coldest

summers there had been for years. That
drove them to do indoor things: you
might say, indoor exploration. It is
wonderful how much exploring you can
do with a stump of candle in a big
house, or in a row of houses. Polly
had discovered long ago that if you
opened a certain little door in the
box-room attic of her house you would find the cistern and a
dark place behind it which you

could get into by a little careful
climbing. The dark place was like a
long tunnel with brick wall on one
side and sloping roof on the other. In
the roof there were little chunks of
light between the slates. There was no
floor in this tunnel: you had to step
from rafter to rafter, and between
them there was only plaster. If you
stepped on this you would find

yourself falling through the ceiling
of the room below. Polly had used the
bit of the tunnel just beside the
cistern as a smugglers' cave. She had
brought up bits of old packing cases
and the seats of broken kitchen
chairs, and things of that sort, and
spread them across from rafter to
rafter so as to make a bit of floor.
Here she kept a cash-box containing

various treasures, and a story she was
writing and usually a few apples. She
had often drunk a quiet bottle of
ginger-beer in there: the old bottles
made it look more like a smugglers'
cave.

Digory quite liked the cave (she
wouldn't let him see the story) but he
was more interested in exploring.

"Look here," he said. "How long does
this tunnel go on for? I mean, does it
stop where your house ends?"

"No," said Polly. "The walls don't go
out to the roof. It goes on. I don't
know how far."

"Then we could get the length of the

whole row of houses."

"So we could," said Polly, "And oh, I
say!"

"What?"

"We could get into the other houses."

"Yes, and get taken up for burglars!

No thanks."

"Don't be so jolly clever. I was
thinking of the house beyond yours." ,

"What about it?"

"Why, it's the empty one. Daddy says
it's always been empty since we came
here."

"I suppose we ought to have a look at
it then," said Digory. He was a good
deal more excited than you'd have
thought from the way he spoke. For
of course he was thinking, just as you
would have been, of all the reasons
why the house might have been empty so
long. So was Polly. Neither of them
said the word "haunted". And both felt

that once the thing had been
suggested, it would be feeble not to
do it.

"Shall we go and try it now?" said
Digory.

"Alright," said Polly.

"Don't if you'd rather not," said

Digory.

"I'm game if you are," said she.

---

The words in bold and italic, I've looked up the dictionary, but I cannot find a good explanation:

coiner, no idea at all.

box-room attic, I know what is attic, but box-room I have no idea.

cistern, dictionary said it is a big water tank, do these people keep a water tank in their house?

Where is the dark place it is talking about? How come there is a tunnel in a house? Where is it?

I am not native English, and I live building with 35 floors, so I cannot imagine what does the above tunnel/house/attic look like, would you give me a guide on this? I don't understand where are they and where are the tunnel. If the tunnel are in the roof, why can it connect to other houses?

And the later sentence in bold, "For of course...." is a new grammar expression I've never seen. What is the function of "For" and "of course" in here? What does it trying to express?

Answer

"coiner" - one who counterfeits coins. Not something we hear of much today, but in earlier times was a reasonably familiar sort of criminal.

"box-room" - a room in a house (usually a small room) which is just used for storing things, usually things that are not wanted very often. The collocation "box-room attic" is unusual, because these two words mean nearly the same thing. (Not quite, because a box-room could be anywhere in a house, not just under the roof).

"cistern": yes, it is still quite common for British houses to have a water-tank in the roof space - sometimes two (hot and cold). This was partly to provide a head of pressure for taps and showers, and partly to guard against interruptions in supply (and in the case of hot tanks, to provide a reservoir of heated water for when you needed it quickly, as in a bath).

There is not a literal tunnel, it is saying that between the tank and the sloping roof there is a long and narrow dark place (dark because it is behind the cistern).

"of course" is a parenthetical remark meaning "as you already know", or "as is obvious". It is much more common in speech than in writing, but of course this writing is meant to suggest somebody is speaking, and telling a story.

"For" says that the sentence is a reason or explanation of what precedes. So the meaning of "For of course he was thinking .. " is something like "(He was excited) because, as you probably realise, he was thinking ... "

grammar - Confusion in was and were: The diameter length of X,Y,Z was/were 4,5,6 respectively

I am confused with the usage of was vs were in the following sentence:

The length of diameter of three plates X, Y, Z was/were 4, 5, 6 respectively.

I am not sure which one is correct: was or were.

Should it be "was" since it's referring to diameter?

collocation - Using "some" to describe units of time

"some minutes, some years, some seconds" are grammatically incorrect.

But "a few minutes, a few years, a few seconds" works.

I'm trying to teach a non-native speaker this nuance but "it just sounds weird" does not feel like a satisfactory explanation. I know it has to do with count and mass nouns, because some time is correct and a few time is not, and time is a mass noun, and few can only be used with countable nouns. Minutes, years, seconds, etc. are all count nouns.

But, some can in some circumstances be used with count nouns and in others with mass nouns. What's the distinction I'm missing?

From your input I have gathered that some + time unit isn't technically wrong when used unselectively, (the "selective" sense of some is explained by Max Williams) but that it's just awkward in some cases. You don't need a some in any unselective construct with a unit of time. Years ago, for decades, in minutes, months later, over days.

Why does it sound awkward? Here's my highly heterodox and basically epistemological explanation. My first argument is that some isn't a totally amorphous quantity, that is, it actually does tell you some info about how much stuff (or how many things) it describes. I think we assume some to be countable, not in the sense of "a count noun", but in the sense that we can readily fathom its size. And furthermore I think that some connotes a smallish number, small enough so that it's readily fathomable, generally like 1-100. (This maximum "some-bound" increases for multiples of 5s, 10s, etc.) I'll give an example. Compare "I have not eaten meat for some years (now)" to "scientists believe that the earth was formed some years ago". The latter just sounds ironic. So, some sounds weird when used unselectively with large quantities because it seems to conflict with their size.
Some also sounds weird with with very small quantities because it appears to provide little information. This is because we assume that the unit of time was chosen efficiently. We don't expect someone to say "2400 minutes" because it's much easier to say "40 hours". We define very small units by their part of a whole, and we assume that at a certain point someone will start using the next order of magnitude unit. If the unit is chosen efficiently then some does not tell you much about quantity, because the coefficient will stay small, and we assume "some"-size by default unless told otherwise, and some-size is small. In these cases, some is vestigial and should be dropped.
But there's a happy medium where unselective "some" works with countable nouns. It's middle-of-the-range units of time where some begins to serve a purpose. It actually does give a bit of info about the actual quantity of the many things/much stuff. For example, "some years ago" is differently nuanced than just "years ago", it sounds somehow smaller. That justifies including the "some" even though it's correct without it.

Answer

I suspect that it is because "some" implies a selection, like saying "some of the minutes": ie, it implies that there is a list of possible minutes, each of which is a different object, and you're referring to some of them. This works if you are talking about people or cars: there are a finite amount of cars or people, all unique, and you can point to your selection and say "Here are some of the people.", or "Here are some people.".

However, units of time don't work like that: individual minutes aren't unique items you can select from all the possible options. They're more abstract. So to say "some of the minutes" feels wrong, and "some minutes" is a contraction of this so feels wrong too.

dialects - African American Vernacular English

I was going through some articles about "African American Vernacular English". Article 1. Article 2. These articles give some examples, but they do not clearly specify hard rules to be followed in AAVE.

First of all, I don't even have strong skills in Standard English, so understanding AAVE seems a lot more difficult for me. I did, however, craft a few sentences in both SE and AAVE to validate what understanding I do have. Are the following conversions correct? You don't have to validate each and every item, but rather guide me with rules that I should follow, but didn't, in the following examples.

• What the hell are you all doing here? — What the hell y'all doin' here?


• Hey you! What the hell are you doing man? Stop that nonsense now. Do you get it? — Hey you! What the hell ya doin’ man? Stop that nonsense now. D'ya get it?


• Come on, can't you open your mouths? — Come on, ya can't open your mouths??


• Hey, who's out there? — Hey, who out there?



• I know, you're listening to us — I know, ya listenin’ to us


• Somebody is out there man. — Somebody out there man.


• Wow, it's delicious. — Wow, it delicious.


• Holy crap, who're these people? — Holy crap, who these people?

Answer

I know the dialect a bit (I could speak it some back in the 80's, but I haven't kept it up very well).

From what I can see, I'd say you are only about 1/3 of the way there. The third you have is that you've constructed sentences that follow the dialect's rules (mostly). What you are missing is that the dialect has some of its own parts of speech that standard AmE doesn't have, and that it has its own vocabulary.

Let's take your first sentence:

What the hell are you all doing here? — What the hell y'all doin' here?

As a dumb translation, it probably works. However, AAVE has a whole mess of its own tenses and aspects that a true AAVE user would apply here, given half a chance. For instance, if you think the activity has been going on for a while, you might say "been doin'". If it is something you want to imply is truly habitual (a concept most other English speakers don't even think about expressing), you'd say "be doin'" (or more likely "be" followed by a more descriptive verb).

Now for vocabulary, this just doesn't look like the words an AAVE speaker would use. For example, I can't ever in my life remember a speaker using the phrase "What the hell". Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but the F word is far more likely there. Or in the next sentence:

Hey you! What the hell ya doin’ man? Stop that nonsense now. D'ya get
it?

"Hey you" is never used. Often "Yo" is used instead (interestingly, the Philly accent also does this). The word "nonsense" really sticks out. AAVE has much more colorful words for that concept. In my day you'd say someone "be buggin'". In fact, you'd be better off replacing all four sentences with "Foo'^{*(or perhaps the N-word here)}! Why you be buggin'?" (which again implies habitual behavior, but in this case as a ploy to shame the listener into calming down). However, the vocabulary of AAVE changes crazy fast, so there's probably another phrase for that now.

Really, my suggestion if there's any money in this would be to get yourself a consultant who knows the language (better than I!). If you want/need to do it yourself and have some time, try to hang out with people who authentically speak it. If you have no way to physically do that, perhaps as a last resort try hanging out on Black Twitter for a few months and/or listen to a lot of Rap and Blues music.

word choice - Questioning my use of "in question"

I just found myself writing some documentation that uses "in question," but then I questioned whether what I wrote makes sense. The context is a document that describes the numerical solution of different classes of various initial value ordinary differential equation (ODE for short), with the assumption that the reader of the document will know what that gobbledygook means.

Here's what I wrote:

[This module] supports a number of classes of numerical integration problems,
characterized by the nature of the underlying ODE: ...

• Problems such as propagating the translational state of a vehicle.
  This class of problems involves propagating a vector quantity and its
  time derivative based on the second time derivative of the vector quantity
  in question.

For example, think of advancing position and velocity over time given a magical function that computes acceleration (but the problem is more generic than that).

Is my use of in question here grammatically correct and also clear, or should I rewrite and use some other phraseology?

Answer

It's correct and clear, referring back to the aforementioned vector, but you could also use this vector or the same vector. In question can suggest an effort to determine the vector, but it reads fine to me.

word choice - Differance in the usage of the verbs "hear" and "listen to"

How is it correct to use the verbs "hear" and "listen to" when we talk about attending some events such as performances, concerts, public speeches, etc.?
Is it possible to say: "Let's go and hear the Royal Orchestra at the Albert Hall this evening."? Or is it correct to say: "Let's go and listen to the Royal Orchestra at the Albert Hall."?

Or: "Let's go and hear the speech of the President." vs. "Let's go and listen to the speech of the President."

In Collins Dictionary it's put that:
"2. 
verb

If you hear something such as a lecture or a piece of music, you listen to it."

What is the criteria of choosing the right verb "hear" or "listen to"? As I understand while attending the performance we're paying attention, focusing on music, enjoying it? More appropriate is "listen to", isn't it?

The matter is about using these verbs talking about attending public occasions - concerts, seminars, speeches, etc. Is it correct to say: "Yesterday we went and heard the concert/speech/etc...." or it's better to say "...listened to....". Or the same in present: "I'd like to hear Mozart concert at Albert Hall tonight".

grammar - How many stations "is it?" vs "are there?"

Recently I've come across the question in a book that says

How many stations is it?

I thought the correct way to ask the question is

How many stations are there?

Can you please tell me which is correct and explain the difference between the two?

grammar - Why are nouns in counting adjectival phrases singular?

Basically, why is it:

• "two-item plate"


• "three-person table"


• "two-man race"

I was trying to find a rule (or a style guide reference or something) that I could pass on to a friend that explains why the nouns in the hyphenated parts are singular rather than plural.

Near as I can tell, these hyphenated bits are adjectival phrases (or adjective phrases) -- although if they aren't, maybe that's why I can't find a rule. Is there a rule covering this?

Answer

Drop both the number and the hyphen and the thing should be self-explanatory. Either way, it’s explained well at Englishclub.com/grammar/nouns-adjective.htm

The rule is simple, although the explanation might not be. As illustrated in your list, the rule is that nouns used as adjectives are always singular. Compound adjectives are merely a class of nouns used as adjectives so they, too, are always singular - except in irrelevant special cases - and normally, if not always, hyphenated. Grammar-monster.com/lessons/hyphens_in_compound_adjectives.htm reminds me that UK readers like me will expect hyphens by default; US readers might be more lenient, expecting hyphens only to eliminate ambiguity. That could be beside the point.

No-one would normally speak of item plates, person tables or even man races, though grammatically those would be no different from name or soup plates, dinner or work tables, car or horse races.

“Two-item” corresponds to “soup”; “three-person” to “dinner” - though “dining” would be more usual; “two-man” to “foot”.

There will never be a “two-soup plate” nor a “three-dinner table” or a “two-foot race”, even as compared to a “three-legged race”.

The first noun is used adjectivally to qualify the second, the subject. The number might change the size but never the intrinsic nature of the subject. A “twenty-item plate” remains in essence a plate for items, even if it must be larger. The same is true of tables and races.

Even plural things such as taxi ranks or car parks, race circuits or dog tracks or passenger ships take singular adjectival nouns

It makes no difference whether the plate is designed to or merely happens to hold two items; whether the table is meant to or only happens to seat three persons; whether the race was a specific challenge between two individuals or happens to involve only two runners worth the name.

What is the real difference between direct objects and prepositional phrases?

I'm a fairly new ESL teacher. One of my students asked me recently why "...to comply with the rules of grammar" needs a preposition (with), whereas "...to follow the rules of grammar" doesn't. After some research, I decided that the answer is that "comply" is an intransitive verb, so it needs a prepositional phrase, and "follow" is a transitive verb, so it needs a direct object.

This is the answer I gave her, but I'm still unsatisfied with it. What is the difference, really? If "comply with" and "follow" are interchangeable in this sentence, why is one instance of "the rules" a direct object, and another a part of a prepositional phrase? Doesn't "with the rules" act as a direct object?

When a student asks me "why do some verbs need prepositions and others don't?" is the answer always "intransitive vs. transitive verbs?"

Thank you,

Lee

grammaticality - It is I who am at fault?

Which one of these is correct?

It is I who am at fault.

It is me who is at fault.

The word "is" is a conjugation of "be" which is a linking verb.

I also want to know the same for 2nd person.

It is you who are at fault.

It is you who is at fault.

grammatical number - What is correct: "multiple restrike" or "multiple restrikes"? In general: should a noun after "multiple" be in singular or plural?

What is correct: "multiple restrike" or "multiple restrikes"? In general: should a noun after "multiple" be in singular or plural? (One "restrike" or more "restrikes" after each other can appear in circuit-breakers when breaking small capacitive currents.)

british english - 'to'-infinitive without the verb

I seem to recall reading somewhere that using a to-infinitive with the actual verb omitted (because it's clear from context) — as in

He asked me to go, but I don't want to. (1)

— is fine in American but not in British English. Brits, or so the story went, append do:

He asked me to go, but I don't want to do. (2)

I know that the above is true about American English, my native dialect: we can use (1). My question concerns British English.

Googling finds that the above (that (1) is wrong in British English) is not correct in such generality. For example, "can't be arsed to if" has fifteen-odd results, while "can't be arsed to do if" has but one, and it's not in the form of (2).

So...

Did I imagine the rule I stated above? Or is it restricted to particular sentences (or verbs or something)? Or is it correct as stated but outdated? Or what?

Answer

I find that this different in use of "do" between British and US English is more common with auxiliary verbs, not infinitives: "I didn't take the garbage out, but I (should have/should have done)." Then again, I'm not British. I may have interpreted this incorrectly.

Is this a noun clause or an adverbial?

I'm interested in the following question:

I want to visit where my grandmother was born.

To me it seems like a noun clause because I could replace the clause with a noun. For example:

I want to visit Ireland.

Is this the correct way to check?

The definition I read for an adverbial clause states that Adverbial clauses of place modify the main verb in the sentence and provide information about the place that an action takes place. This definition has confused me about the difference between a noun clause and an adverbial clause.

How about the following sentences:

We can go wherever you want.

You can show me where it is.

Thanks for your help.

Patrick.

Do I so often encounter simple past for past participle (e.g., “I have went,” “what was did to her”) because of where I am or when?

Since moving to small-town northern Minnesota (USA) two dozen years back to teach English, I have noticed a lot of instances in spoken language where the simple past is used in lieu of the past participle, as in the examples listed above. Of course this is only noticeable or an issue for such irregular verbs as have two different forms for simple past and past participle. As a SCUBA diver, I encounter the perfect formation “have dove” with particular frequency.

Since I had no previous experience of living in northern Minnesota before 1990, and not much experience of living anywhere else since (except Greece), I cannot tell whether this usage is more a function of where I am as an observer of spoken English, or when, though I tend to suspect the former.

For those who are curious, my adopted small city was recently used as a fictional location for the TV miniseries spinoff of the Coen brothers’ film Fargo, but as with the film, the dialect in the miniseries is rather a caricature. (The show was not filmed here, and in representing Bemidji as a town with a strip club and without a library it was wrong on both counts.) The local dialect does show at least one notable Germanic influence: upon sighting a pretty infant, locals will exclaim “Oh for cute!”—which for I am pretty sure is more closely cognate with the German intensifying prefix ver- than with the English preposition. Other historically likely other-language influences, besides the Germanic Scandinavian languages, would include Finnish (Finno-Ugric), Ojibwe (Algonquian), and French.

N.B. Ngram is hard to read on this, since hits for “was did” might well be such as “What exactly it was, did not matter in the least,” and similarly for other word sequences.

On the usage of "the" article with acronyms and initialisms

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.

pronouns - "And you?" or "And yourself?" as response to "How are you?"

If someone asks "How are you?", which of the following is grammatically correct?

"I am well, thank you. And you?" or "I am well thank you. And yourself?"

'Yourself' sounds more formal, and is used frequently in everyday language (at least in my surroundings). However, I've been doing a little bit of investigation into the use of my vs myself and you vs yourself and it seems that it is only used reflexively to reflect back to 'you' or 'me' as the subject. E.g., you hurt yourself. In the case of "and you/yourself?", you/yourself is being used as the subject, in which case it would seem that the correct version would be "And you?".

Any clarification on this would be great!

Answer

Either of these is fine, although if you're going to use and there should be a comma. The second sentence has a silent you in it, referring back to the fact that it was the original person who asked first and is being thanked.

I am well, thank you, and you?

I am well, thank you, and (you) yourself?

However, asking, "How are you?" may well be derived from an old greeting, "How do you do?"

According to Stephen Fry, the only correct response to "How do you do?" is, "How do you do?". Since Stephen Fry is, of course, the authoritative source of all things English, perhaps we're both wrong.

When using apostrophes to show possession, does the object being possessed being singular or plural have any effect?

Not sure if I used affect/effect correctly, but anyway...

So, here's my question if the title didn't explain it well enough: say you have the following phrase: "in the men's bathroom". The plural of "man" is "men", so when showing possession with a plural word that doesn't end in "s", you use "apostrophe s", right? Well, what if "bathroom" were also plural? So you've got multiple men and multiple bathrooms. Would it be "men's bathrooms" or "mens' bathrooms"? Does the object being possessed being singular or plural make a difference as far as whether or not you use 's or s'? I could have sworn I was taught in school it does make a difference, but now I can't remember.

grammaticality - Jameson whiskey commercial construction with implicit verb

While watching the Daily Show, a commercial came on. Here is the construction:

"...When the Hawk of Achill took a barrel of John Jameson's whiskey, well that was another matter. But Jameson was generous, the Hawk, greedy, very greedy..."

The issue is "Jameson was generous, the hawk greedy." There is no verb in the second construction, and we are asked to fill in the verb from context. This is a no-no in a generative description of English grammar.

Are these sentences acceptable English?

1. "The doctor put his gown on the table; the nurse, on the cabinet."


2. "The soldier eats his bread with cheese; the general, with caviar."



3. "The soldier eats his bread with cheese; the general, his pita with olives"


4. "The bum sleeps in the streets; the oil magnate comfortably, without snoring, in a bed with sheets."


5. "The maid spreads the sheet on the bed; my kitchen knife butter on the bread."


6. "He pitted the two contestents in battle; she, a date"


7. "He drove a car; she, a point home."


8. "The surgeon walks to surgery, quickly, and without thinking about all the patients that he lost over the years; John, on the beach."

Is there a discussion of the rules for mystery implicit verbs? Has anyone encountered an implicit verb construction in a newspaper context?

Answer

As others have said, there's nothing wrong with the construct of sentence in the ad. It reads gruffly, which works well in the context of the ad. Your sentences, meanwhile, are more of a mixed bag:

The soldier eats his bread with cheese, the general, with caviar.

I have no problem with this one, although, as John and JLG said, a semi-colon should be used after the word cheese.

He drove a car, she, a point home.

This one reads like a clever pun. I'm reminded of Groucho Marx: "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

"The surgeon walks to surgery, quickly, and without thinking about
all the patients that he lost over the years, John on the beach."

Um, no. It's not wrong per se, but it reads as if you were trying to deliberately stretch the rules. It reads awkward, because the two parts clash as unrelated. Just because you can write this way, doesn't mean you should.

"The doctor put his gown on the table, the nurse, on the cabinet."

Wait... the doctor put the nurse on the cabinet? Then what happened? (This reminds me of some of those humorous newspaper headlines, like "4-H Girls Win Prizes for Fat Calves").

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

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

Answer

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

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

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

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

possessives - “in you_ and your family’s best interests”

I’ve seen this picture of a leaflet being tweeted today. It’s supposedly issued by the UK government and distributed widely:

Am I overlooking something or does it really contain the grammar error discussed in "You and your" vs. "Your and your"?

I could see the possessive ’s applying to the whole phrase

it is in (you and your family)’s best interests,

because the plural interests wouldn’t properly match singular your, i.e. it’s a short form of either of

• it is in your best interest and in your family’s best interest


• it is in your best interest and in your family’s best interests

instead of

• it is in your best interests and in your family’s best interests

word choice - why do we say "she" referring to a general user of a program

I often hear people say "she" when they refer to a user of their application, for example. In documentation, or in email. Why do we say "she", why not "he or she" or "they"? I am not a native speaker, maybe this is a trivial question, but I do not know the answer.

Answer

It is something, in the U.S., that has developed as a result of "Political Correctness." Previously, the pronoun "he" was used nearly exclusively (barring the use of "they").

conjunctions - Differences between "however", "although","albeit", etc

What are the differences between albeit, although, howbeit, however, and though?

Answer

These are members of a semantic class called adversatives, which function to flag or acknowledge a kind of dialectical tension or antithesis between two clauses, sentences, or even paragraphs, such that one is or seems to be on one side of an issue or debate, the other on the other side. Among them, but is a coordinating conjunction. Most of the rest are either subordinating conjunctions (e.g., although) or conjunctive adverbs (e.g., however). Mistaking the former for the latter is a common source of error in that it leads to sentence fragments, subordinate clauses punctuated as if they were whole sentences. Though can be either one, depending how it is handled and punctuated:

Though I recruited him, I do not like him. (Correctly used as subordinating conjunction: clause containing it is duly subordinate to main clause within the same sentence.)

I recruited him. I do not like him, though. (Correctly used as conjunctive adverb.)

I recruited him. *Though I do not like him. (2nd punctuated sentence is a fragment, a subordinate clause with no main clause within the same sentence for it to be subordinate to.)

In sum, semantic differences among them are negligible, but grammatical differences keep them from being altogether interchangeable.

Despite is an adversative preposition.

The somewhat archaic albeit is exceptional in being a compound that effectively supplies its own grammatical subject it and subjunctive verb be, as well as the subordinating conjunction al[though], so that only a complement need be supplied to complete a subordinate clause.

meaning - "What would you with the king?" -From the book "Eats, Shoots and Leaves"

In the book Eats, Shoots and Leaves, in order to show how punctuation changes meaning and can be used for jokes, it says:

Instead of “What would you with the king?” you can have someone say in Marlowe’s Edward II, “What? Would you? With the king?"

I understand the innuendo but I don't understand the sentence in bold. It sounds like there is a word missing? Or is it grammatically correct and I'm missing something here? Thanks

Answer

"What would you with the king?" is an archaic construct (but of course common in Marlowe's time), meaning "what do you want with the king?", or "what is your reason for wanting to talk to the king?"

grammar - Past Subjunctive vs Future Subjunctive form

What is the difference between the three sentences:

1. If i were to play, i would win the match. (Depicts future tense)


2. If i were to play, i would have won the match. (Depicts past tense)


3. If i were there, i would have helped here. (Depicts Past)

My question is that how do we identify where the past subjunctive is being used and where the future subjunctive is being used?

How to use the possessive form when referring to someone else and yourself?

How to use the possessive form when referring to someone else and yourself?

For example, how could this awkward sentence be rephrased...

We're all going to to the apartment which belongs to Christina and me.

... to use the possessive form? These don't sound/feel right...

We're all going to Christina and me's apartment.

We're all going to Christina and mine's apartment.

capitalization - Is it proper to capitalize "its" in a title?

For instance, say a book is titled "Genesis and Its Interpretations". Is it correct to capitalize "its" in the title?

grammaticality - The idea that ... seems absurd OR the idea seems absurd that

The following sentence:

1. The idea that we are all created equal seems absurd to me.

Seems better to me than:

2. The idea seems absurd that we are all created equal.

Is it correct to use seems/that in the way the second sentence does?

Note: these sentences are for example only and do not necessarily reflect my own views.

Adjective order with dead & pregnant

I have just listened to a presentation to adjective order in my linguistics class, however, it failed to answer my question. Would an English speaker say "this is a dead pregnant cat" or "this is a pregnant dead cat."

Why would one be better than the other?

grammar - Reported Speech

I am correcting a reported speech test. I am more than familiar with the backshifts and exceptions. However, I would need some help to see if I can accept these two reports:

1. "We can't protect our planet if we don't stop littering."
   = She told us we couldn't protect our planet if we DON'T stop littering.




2. "We must work harder if we want to make a difference."
   = She told him they had to work harder if they WANT to make a difference.

grammar - What is the correct spelling for "These are known as the three “V’s”: veracity, voraciousness and vivacity."

What is the correct spelling and grammar for the following sentence?

These are known as the three "V's": veracity, voraciousness and

vivacity.

In particular, should the "V" be capitalized, should it have an apostrophe, should there be quotes around V's and are there any other mistakes in the sentence?

Answer

For some reason I can't get this graph to display the apostophized r's and R's here, but if you click on this chart to follow the link (where you also have to click "Search books" on that page)...

...you'll see that the capitalised versions have always been more common, but over recent decades the apostophized version the three R's has gained currency to the point where it's (just) become the most common format.

I see no reason why OP's three V's should be any different. Personally I'd never enclose the whole thing in double quotes - it doesn't add anything to the meaning, and it's positively undesirable in terms of legibility.

Passive auxiliary verb or progressive one?

Uncle Vernon made another funny noise, like a mouse being trodden on.
               —Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone

Is ‘being’ a passive auxiliary verb or a progressive one?

Answer

In this particular case, there is a difference. But only because -- as usual -- the sentence has been modified by a transformation. Twice. By the same transformation.

The noun phrase in question:

• another funny noise, like a mouse being trodden on

consists of the NP another funny noise, modified by a reduced nonrestrictive relative clause, which itself contains a reduced restrictive relative clause.
The original NP would be something like

• another funny noise, [which was] like a mouse [which was] being trodden on

but both of the entirely predictable [which was] parts of these relative clauses have been deleted by Whiz-Deletion, leaving behind only whatever followed the deleted auxiliary forms of be.

That's two tensed forms of be that aren't present (but can be accounted for), plus one being that is present, for which an account is requested.

The first (nonrestrictive) Whiz-deleted which was -- in the clause modifying noise -- contains just the normal auxiliary be required by the predicate adjective phrase like a mouse being trodden on.
It's neither Progressive be nor Passive be, but rather Predicate Adjective be.

The second (restrictive) Whiz-deleted which was -- in the clause modifying mouse -- is in fact the Progressive be, as can be seen by the fact that it's immediately followed by the present active participle (the -ing form) of the next verb in the auxiliary chain (being).

So the third be form -- being -- can't be the Progressive auxiliary. However, since it's followed immediately by the perfect passive participle (the -ed/-en form) of the next, and last (and therefore main) verb of the chain (trodden), it must be the Passive auxiliary be.

The auxiliary chain, and Verb Phrases generally, are explained in the VP study guide.
In brief, auxiliaries are not the whole story; the form of the next verb is equally important,
and may be -- as here -- the only structural evidence left after clause reductions.

syntactic analysis - Relative clause with "whose"

I just read the following sentence in a short-biography: "Peter was born in England in 1982, whose parents were from Japan and India."

I think that the use of the relative pronoun "whose" is wrong here, it sounds as if the parents of the year 1982 were from Japan and India.

Am I right, or is this sentence correct?

meaning - What's the difference between "rise" and "arise"

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

Note: similar question

Answer

Both arise and rise are irregular verbs.

When an opportunity, problem, or new state of affairs arises, it begins to exist. This is the most common meaning of arise.

He promised to help Rufus if the occasion arose.

A serious problem has arisen.

The feeling of hope arose from the people.

When something rises, it moves upwards.

The sun rises in the morning.

Clouds of birds rose from the tree-tops.

When someone who is sitting rises, they stand up. You can also use rise to say that someone gets out of bed in the morning.

Cambridge Dictionary also lists rise for "to begin to oppose or fight a bad government or ruler":

The people rose (up) against the oppressor/tyrant/dictator.

Please visit here to see other meanings listed for rise which all are connected with moving upward.

See Here.

objects - Identifying the subject: Should ‘who’ or ‘whom’ be used here?

Now, while I think I have come to terms with 'who' and 'whom', I read an article from Oxford Dictionaries that confused me: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/who-or-whom

This article states that 'the elderly woman' and 'journalists' are the subjects of these two sentences, and thus, 'who' should be used instead of 'whom':

✗ He is demanding £5,000 from the elderly woman whom has ruined his life.

✗ Mr Reynolds is highly critical of journalists, whom just use labels to describe him.

However, I believe they are actually the objects of the two sentences. If I were to replace them with pronouns, they would be in the accusative case.

'He is demanding £5,000 from her [the elderly woman].'
'Mr Reynolds is highly critical of them [journalists].'

Because the two nouns would be in the accusative case, shouldn't 'whom' actually be used instead of 'who', despite what Oxford says? I would like to know if I am missing something here.

Thanks in advance!

meaning - "A number of students" vs. "the number of students"

From the grammatical view both are correct, but please explain the difference in meaning:

1. The number of students in the class is fifteen.


2. A number of students were late for class.

Answer

The number of students in the class is fifteen.

The verb is singular because it refers to 'the number'. The subject of this sentence is 'the number'. 'Of students' is a modifier of 'the number'

'A number of' means several, some.

Several students were late for class.

Some students were late for class.

A number of students were late for class.

The subject of these sentences is 'students', and 'some', 'several', 'a number of' are modifiers of 'students'. The verb agrees with the subject.

grammaticality - Is it "a user" or "an user"

Since user starts with a vowel shouldn't we use "an" ? I've seen many cases of using "a" .

Answer

From Amerenglish:

"An" goes before all words that begin with vowels:

With two exceptions:

When "u" makes the same sound as the "y" in you, or "o" makes the same sound as "w" in won, then "a" is used:

• a union


• a united front


• a unicorn



• a used napkin


• a U.S. ship


• a one-legged man

Past participle of a verb created from an acronym

Standard GPL would require that those applications be GPL'd (or compatible licensing), whereas LGPL requires only the library's source to be made available.

Is the use of words like GPL'd common to other acronyms?
Is the meaning of such words understandable from common people?

Answer

Yes, I think these are generally understandable to people. Converting nouns to verbs on the fly with no morphological markings or suffixes is quite common in English today.

Another example that came to mind:

• EOL'd. (End-Of-Life, referring to product lines)

grammaticality - I and am

I sometimes find myself writing something like this:

XXX is a project I admire and am very interested in.

The "I and am " feels strange here. It somehow sounds more natural in the third person: "He admires and is very interested in...."

Am I just imagining things – is it OK to use this construction, or should I use something completely different?

Answer

This sentence is an example of Conjunction Reduction, the syntactic rule that deletes repeated material in conjoined constituents, for example

• Bill washed the dishes and Bill swept the floor. ➝
  Bill washed the dishes and swept the floor.


• Bill washed the dishes and Bill dried the dishes. ➝
  Bill washed and dried the dishes.

The relative clause modifying project in the original sentence is the focus, so let's get it out of a subordinate clause and see what it looks like:

• I admire and am very interested in the project.

which comes from

• I admire the project and I am very interested in the project.

by a perfectly normal application of Conjunction Reduction.

There's nothing grammatically wrong with this sentence.

One thing that may make it feel wrong to some -- but not others; there's a lot of individual variation here, since everybody makes up their own internal rules, for their own reasons, about what "sounds right" -- is that the first verb of the conjoined VP (admire) is uninflected for person and number, while the second verb (am) is inflected, for first person singular present tense.

Both verbs agree of course with the same subject, but morphologically instead of syntactically, which may produce some distress to those who require more grammatical parallelism between conjoined verbs.

Another related difficulty might be that the inflected form am is so closely linked to its subject pronoun I that it is difficult to separate them, and indeed most of the time they're contracted to I'm. This makes am feel rather isolated out there.

Again, this isn't a grammatical problem per se, but it can occasion some distress in some readers.

I say "readers" because nobody would say such a sentence, of course. We'd say I'm instead of am, by repeating the subject -- and adding no new syllables, so timing isn't affected. This is allowed syntactically because Conjunction Reduction is an optional rule applied to reduce unwelcome repetition, and in any given case this repetition may simply not be unwelcome.

usage - Use of Apostrophes - FAQs vs FAQ's

Is it also correct to say FAQ's as some sites like http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html refer? Or is FAQs the right and correct way to say it?

Answer

FAQ is an acronym for Frequently Asked Questions.

It's not possessive, not a contraction, doesn't have any foreign origins and is not used to indicate stress, so I write FAQs. For more information consult your favorite style manual or the thread linked in the comment above about the more general case:

What is the correct way to pluralize an acronym?

writing style - After introducing an acronym, how faithfully must I stick to its use?

My average scientific paper contains about a dozen of acronyms. Some of them are really helpful: for example, it much more pleasant to write fMRI instead of functional magnetic resonance imaging.

However, I really dislike writing long sentences containing several acronyms. It makes the content difficult to understand for those who are not that familiar with my (sub-)field.

It would be sometimes better to write the acronym in full. However, how "acceptable" this is after introducing an acronym?

In long papers, I would also sometimes like to write out the acronym in full in a new section (e.g. when moving from methods to results and discussion). Some co-authors do not like that.

What is the correct thing to do?

(The use of acronyms (at all) is typically partly dictated by the journal I submit to. Most of them ask to use an acronym instead of writing the name in full if it appears at least thrice in a manuscript.)

differences - Which future tense for holidays or doctor appointments?

Although I know the general rules when to apply which tense, I'm often confused and do not really know which one to use. I can find pros and cons for each tense.

Two examples: In terms of spending vacation/holidays and having a doctor appointment, which tense is most natural? When is it OK to go with another tense?

I am especially unsure about the will-future. I've seen/heard something like "I will see the doctor at 4PM". This sounds like a fixed arrangement / schedule, but arguments for will-future are "spontaneous decision", "promise", or "opinion/hope". Is this incorrect use of non-natives? If not, what is the reasoning for saying it like that?

Additionally to this question, is my general understanding (see below) correct? Did I miss any arguments pro/con a particular tense and which one?

So, here's how I understand it:

If I've already booked a flight or have made an appointment, respectively, it's a (personal) arrangement, thus present continuous:

Next month, we're spending our vacation/holidays in Canada.
I'm seeing the doctor tonight.

Technically, vacation/holidays and doctor appointments are scheduled, thus present tense. On the other hand, I think I haven't seen any uses of present tense in that case. Is the key difference between an arrangement that I made myself and a schedule made by someone else? That is, I chose myself to do my vacation at this time as opposed to someone else scheduled my vacation.
I would use present tense, though, when I give the exact time as I give the exact schedule. Or is present tense wrong altogether¹?:

We spend our vacation/holidays in Canada from September, 1st to the 12th.
I see the doctor at 6 o'clock.

If I haven't taken any actions but it's decided, it's my/our intention, thus going-to-future:

Next year, we're going to spend our vacation/holidays in Canada.
I'm going to see the doctor soon.

If I/we haven't made any decision, let alone take any actions, it's a prediction/opinion/hope, thus will-future:

(I think,) We will spend our next vacation/holidays in Canada.
(I think,) I will go to the doctor.

Another reason for will-future is when I make a promise, or a spontaneous decision:

Yes, we will spend our next vacation/holidays in Canada.
Yes, I will go to the doctor.

---

¹In respect to arranged future events. I know that, for instance, the sentence "I will do that when I see the doctor" is correct. But that's another story.

Answer

To summarize what follows, the distinction between your different intents is defined less by the verb tense and more by the precision with which you specify future plans or appointments.

---

If I've already booked a flight or have made an appointment, respectively, it's a (personal) arrangement, thus present continuous:

Next month, we're spending our vacation/holidays in Canada.
I'm seeing the doctor tonight.

This is correct and acceptable usage, whether you've encountered it personally or not. The implication here is that plans have been made, whether plans for travel or an appointment, and you have every intention to follow those plans.

I would use present tense, though, when I give the exact time as I give the exact schedule. Or is present tense wrong altogether?:

We spend our vacation/holidays in Canada from September, 1st to the 12th.
I see the doctor at 6 o'clock.

What looks like simple present tense here is actually the habitual present. It reads that you always spend your vacation/holiday in Canada from September 1 to September 12, or that you regularly see the doctor at 6 o'clock (perhaps you're married to this particular doctor).

If I haven't taken any actions but it's decided, it's my/our intention, thus going-to-future:

Next year, we're going to spend our vacation/holidays in Canada.
I'm going to see the doctor soon.

Actually, this has similar meaning as your first example, but it's the lack of precision regarding the time frame ("next year" and "soon") which indicates that you're still in the planning phase.

We're going to spend vacation/holiday in Canada from September 1 through September 12.
I'm going to see the doctor tonight.

There are, of course, two verbs here: "am/are/is going" and "to spend/see". The use of "am/are/is going" means that you have the intent of pursuing completion of the infinitive ("to spend/see"). As above, it indicates that you are well within the planning phase and the precision of the dates indicates how far along you are into the planning phase.

If I/we haven't made any decision, let alone take any actions, it's a prediction/opinion/hope, thus will-future:

(I think,) We will spend our next vacation/holidays in Canada.
(I think,) I will go to the doctor.

Actually, saying "We will spend" or "I will go" gives it a particular firm feeling, so "I think" would be mandatory to soften this. As with "We're going to" or "I'm going to", it indicates that you are in the planning phase and the generality of the time frame indicates that, while the destination has been decided, the time has not.

As mentioned above, prefacing this with "I think" softens it somewhat but, believe it or not, does so in different ways.

I think we will spend our next vacation/holiday in Canada.

With the disagreement in number, i.e., "I think" and "we will", this implies a personal wish regarding the following: "I would like us to go to Canada, but I don't know if the family does."

We think we will spend our next vacation/holiday in Canada.
I think I will go to the doctor.

Now that the number matches ("We think we will" and "I think I will"), this states a desire to do something while indicating little progress in the planning process.

Another reason for will-future is when I make a promise, or a spontaneous decision:

Yes, we will spend our next vacation/holidays in Canada.
Yes, I will go to the doctor.

In the right context, this is correct. Of course, if you're spontaneously deciding on the destination of your family's next vacation/holiday, you should be sure that the family will go along with it. Otherwise, you might say, "Yes, I'll encourage the family to spend our next vacation/holidays in Canada," or, "Yes, I'll propose that we spend our next vacation/holidays in Canada."

This is also the speech you might use to placate someone who is nagging you to do something. You'll get mixed results because, while you're using the firm "I will" or "we will", you're not providing a precise time frame, so it has a balance of firmness and indicates a lack of progress into the planning phase.

grammar - You have to have "something"

I have a question. I was trying to find out if it's correct to say "you have to have", but I couldn't find an answer...I think people would normally use "you should have" or "you must have". In a guessing game, there weren't many options left, so in a hurry I used "have to have". Is it entirely wrong?

I'd really, really like to know the answer, in order to use proper grammar in the future.

Thank you very much. I really appreciate.

Answer

It is perfectly okay to say

In order to be a passably decent person you have to have a conscience.

grammaticality - Using "An" and "A" in a sentence

I'm trying to understand this simple concept.

As far as I understood it, back to the days when I was a student, "an" should be used only before vowel words, that is, only before the following words: "a","i","o","u".

Yesterday my sister asked me a question related to this subject and I wasn't sure if my answer was correct because there are so much controversial sources explaining this subject.

The original question she asked me was which one of the following is the correct form to be used in a sentence:

An history

Or

A history

I told her that she should use "a history" only because 'h' isn't a vowel word. Is it correct?

Thank you very much

Answer

Words of one or two syllables beginning with ‘h’ are normally preceded by ‘a’. They include ‘hotel’, ‘hostel’, ‘host’, ‘hearty’, ‘hero’ and ‘hardy’. (Some speakers may say ‘an hotel’, because ‘hotel’ is also a French word, in which the ‘h’ is not aspirated.)

Words of three or more syllables beginning with ‘h’ in which the first syllable is stressed are also preceded by ‘a’. They include ‘history’, ‘herbalist’, ‘heightening’ and ‘helicopter’.

Words of three or more syllables beginning with ‘h’ in which the second syllable is stressed give rise to some uncertainty. They include ‘historian’, ‘historical, ‘hiatus’ and ‘Hibernian’. I and some other speakers of British English precede them with ‘an’, but others don’t.

Commas with multiple prepositional (adverbial) phrases at the end of the sentence on the ground of restrictive/non-restrictive modifier

Do we put commas between 2 or more prepositional phrases that immediately follow each other at the end of the main clause if all of them modify/restrict the main predicate differently (e.g. one defines when; the other defines where; the third defines time or circumstances, so all acting restrictively)?

Examples below (please don't suggest the word order change; I am trying to understand the restrictive/non-restrictive logic with these):

1. He died in 1989 in a car accident in Detroit. ("in 1989" defines when; "in a car accident" defines circumstances; "in Detroit" defines where - 3 prepositional phrases restrict the main predicate differently; hence no commas between the 3 phrases?)


2. He died in 1989 at his home, in Detroit. ("in 1989" defines when; "at his home" defines where; "in Detroit" also defines where - prepositional phrases 1 and 2 restrict the main predicate differently; hence no commas between these & prepositional phrases 2 and 3 restrict the main predicate in the same way; hence the 3rd phrase becomes non-restrictive, modifies "at his home", and requires commas?)


3. Tom gave a good speech on Monday at the marketing conference. ("on Monday" defines when; "at the marketing conference" defines where - the 2 prepositional phrases restrict the main predicate differently - hence no commas between the 2 phrases?)



4. Tom gave a good speech on Monday at the marketing conference at 5.30 pm. ("on Monday" defines when; "at the marketing conference" defines where; "at 5.30 pm" further narrows down yesterday to the exact time - 3 prepositional phrases restrict the main predicate differently; hence no commas between the 3 phrases?)


5. I lived in London with my girlfriend between 2001 and 2006 ("in London" defines where; "with my girlfriend" defines circumstances / with who; "between 2001 and 2006" defines when - 3 prepositional phrases restrict the main predicate differently; hence no commas between the 3 phrases?

Up until recently, I thought the punctuation and logic above was correct, but having read, The Writer's Digest Grammar Desk Reference on non-restrictive prepositional phrases, I am now in doubt.

According to The Writer's Digest Grammar Desk Reference:

In the sentence She lived in San Francisco until her death in 2002, for example, the prepositional phrase in 2002 is functioning restrictively. It is distinguishing the woman’s death in 2002 from her death in some other year. In other words, the sentence is implying that the woman died more than once. Surely, however, that is not the writer’s intended meaning. The prepositional phrase in 2002 is in fact providing only supplementary information, not essential information. Inserting a comma before the prepositional phrase will resolve the problem.

Using this logic, I would then be inclined to say that my sentences (5), (1) and (3) above should also be changed to say:

• (5) I lived in London, with my girlfriend, between 2001 and 2006. (Commas
  inserted, as no commas imply that I lived in London multiple times -
  one happens to be "with my girlfriend"; and I lived with my
  girlfriend in London multiple times - one happens to be "between 2001
  and 2006".)





• (1) He died in 1989, in a car accident, in Detroit. (Commas inserted, as no commas imply that he died multiple times in 1989 - one happens to be "in a car accident"; and he died in multiple car accidents - one happens to be "in Detroit".)




• (3) Tom gave a good speech on Monday, at the marketing conference. (Comma inserted, as no comma implies multiple speeches on Monday, one of which happens to be good and be at the marketing conference.)

To me this rationale makes sense only if the second prepositional phrases modify/restrict the combined predicate + first prepositional - e.g. in sentence (3), "at the marketing conference" modifies/restricts combined phrase "gave a good speech on Monday" to specific location; "on Monday" in turn modifies/restricts "gave a good speech". In this case, I would say commas are correct (only if "at the conference restricts "speech on Monday").

But, if both phrases "at the marketing conference" and "on Monday" independently restrict/define "gave a good speech" differently (one defines where; the other when), then surely there should be no comma here (on the grounds that both phrases independently define important info about the predicate and answer different questions - one where; one when - so no comma is required between 2 different independent modifiers)? (Same rationale for sentence 1 and 5: if phrases modify each other, commas; if all modify predicate, no commas.)

University of Illinois seems to agree with my rationale and support no comma theory below:

Two or More Phrases

When two or more prepositional phrases follow each
other, they may modify the same word, or one phrase may modify the
object in the preceding phrase:

They arrived at the airport on time. (Both phrases modify "arrived";
"at the airport" tells where and "on time" tells when.)

To me the example below would qualify for The Writer's Digest Grammar Desk Reference comma rationale:

We were good friends until he died, in 1989, in car crash, in Detroit. (Here "until he died" is the main point; rest is non-essential. But this does not seem to be true for above sentences, where these phrases are essential information.)

On these grounds one might lock themselves into thinking that aside from the core clause all modifiers are not restrictive:
If "she died in London in 1990", "in 1990" in non-restrictive, one can argue that so is "in London" and the basic meaning of the sentence should be "she died". Otherwise, why is the first modifier essential and second is not if the tell 2 different things about the predicate "died": one saying "where" - in London; the other saying "when" - in 1990. Both define "died" and do not restrict each other, but rather provide essential info about the predicate?

So what is the correct punctuation and rationale? Are these phrases restrictive or not and what determines that?