What is the correct punctuation for a sentence which has quotations with a question mark as part of the title and the title is the end of the sentence?
Does a period go at the end of the sentence, as shown here or not?
Somebody taught me a rule of thumb how to discern if I should use "I" or "Me" when adding self to the end of a list of people in a sentence: Ignore the list, strip the rest and treat it only as if it was the singular "me", choose one that matches.
Still, often I see things like John and me went to the park. Is this just a common error or are there some specific rules where I will be replaced by me if appearing on a list?
Answer
Standard English requires I in subject position, producing John and I went to the park. Other dialects, however, allow me in subject position when the pronoun is coordinated with a noun or another pronoun. That is why you will see, or more likely hear, John and me went to the park.
The verb let means “allow”, “permit”, “not prevent or forbid”, “pass, go or come” and it's used with an object and the bare infinitive.
- Are you going to let me drive or not?
- Don't let him off the hook.
- Before we let our children surf the Internet, they have to do their homework.
- She lets the cats out before leaving.
- He let us into the house.
The full form let us can be used similarly
- Let us know as soon as possible.
- Please, let us help you.
- They will never let us forget.
None of the above can be contracted; however, when let us is used for making a suggestion; giving self-encouragement; expressing a consequence or plea, it is often contracted to let's
Let's go out
Let's have a party
Let's see what happens
Let's stand together in this emergency
Let's not forget those who sacrificed their lives
Questions
I believe that let + us is the only instance where this type of contraction occurs. Is there an explanation as to why verbs such as (i) give + us, (ii) get + us or (iii) take + us were not similarly contracted?
When was the apostrophe used to replace the omitted letter "u" in let us?
What is the origin of let's?
With the context that plural of manga is manga, what would be the correct use? Manga is basically, japanese comics if anyone doesn't know.
My quick google, and limited grammar knowledge says much is with uncountable nouns and many with countable nouns. manga is a countable noun (I think), since you can count how many you read, just like comics. So I think many is the correct answer?
So which phrase would be correct?
"You read too much manga."
"You read too many manga."
For what it's worth, I have rarely seen anyone use many and google results for "too much manga" is almost 5 times more than "too many manga" (with quotes). Is it a wrong that somehow everyone is used to?
I got a similar example.
It's "You watch too much television" not "You watch too many television". Is this because television here is considered a medium, hence abstract and uncountable? Can the same be applied to my question?
Answer
What it comes down to is if manga is (or is used as) a count noun or a mass noun. Also, if it is used as a count noun, the interpretation of the sentences relies on how the plural version is spelled.
Lexico (Oxford) defines manga as only a mass noun:
noun
[mass noun]
A style of Japanese comic books and graphic novels, typically aimed at adults as well as children.
‘Takahashi is an artist who truly represents the very best from the world of manga’
Merriam-Webster provides both a mass noun and a count noun definition of manga; it also provides different spellings of its plural use:
plural manga also mangas
: Japanese comic books and graphic novels considered collectively as a genre
// The characters' faces beam the big-eyed, manically jolly winsomeness that in anime and manga signals contentment.
— Peter Schjeldahl
also : an individual comic book or graphic novel of the manga genre
// This black-and-white manga is based on the Japanese animated TV series of the same name …
— Library Journal
Macmillan indicates that manga is both countable and uncountable, although it doesn't specify a plural spelling of its countable sense:
noun [countable/uncountable]
Japanese comics or cartoons with stories that are aimed at adults as well as children
Cambridge Dictionary, like Macmillan, gives both countable and uncountable versions of manga, but doesn't indicate a plural spelling for the countable sense:
noun [ C or U ]
Japanese comic books that tell stories in pictures
Much is used with mass nouns and many is used with count nouns.
In some cases, the same word can be used in both senses:
✔ I ate too much sheep. [mass noun]
✔ I ate too many sheep. [count noun, plural with singular spelling]
The context will determine if you're talking about an amount of sheep meat (mass noun) or about a number of animals (count noun).
Based on that, and assuming all of the possibilities of the dictionary definitions given, any of these sentences could be considered correct:
✔ You read too much manga. [mass noun]
？ You read too many manga. [count noun, plural with singular spelling]
？ You read too many mangas. [count noun, plural with plural spelling]
What's correct will also depend on which senses of manga are taken to be acceptable—and, if the count noun sense is, which spelling is used for its plural form.
(Of course, you could also accept both spellings of the plural form of the count noun—just as the plural spelling of fish can be either fish or fishes. In that case, all three sentences could be considered correct. It's likely, however, you'd prefer one spelling over the other.)
As a consensus, all of the cited sources agree on the correctness of the first sentence.
Given that different sources seem to say different things about the count-noun status of manga—as well as its spelling—the correctness of the other sentences could be thought of as a matter of style. Or, if not style per se, at least specific to a particular dictionary or use.
Which option is grammatical?
- There will be readings from Nikki Giovanni’s and Alice Walker’s writings.
- There will be readings from Nikki Giovanni and Alice Walker's writings.
Saying it out loud the latter sounds right, but looking at it the former looks better.
Answer
Wikipedia has this:
Joint or separate possession
For two nouns (or noun phrases) joined by and, there are several ways of expressing possession, including:
- marking of the last noun (e.g. "Jack and Jill's children")
- marking of both nouns (e.g. "Jack's and Jill's children").
Some grammars make no distinction in meaning between the two forms. Some publishers' style guides, however, make a distinction, assigning the "segregatory" (or "distributive") meaning to the form "John's and Mary's" and the "combinatorial" (or "joint") meaning to the form "John and Mary's". A third alternative is a construction of the form "Jack's children and Jill's", which is always distributive, i.e. it designates the combined set of Jack's children and Jill's children.
When a coordinate possessive construction has two personal pronouns, the normal possessive inflection is used, and there is no apostrophe (e.g. "his and her children"). The issue of the use of the apostrophe arises when the coordinate construction includes a noun (phrase) and a pronoun. In this case, the inflection of only the last item may sometimes be, at least marginally, acceptable ("you and your spouse's bank account"). The inflection of both is normally preferred (e.g. Jack's and your dogs), but there is a tendency to avoid this construction, too, in favour of a construction that does not use a coordinate possessive (e.g. by using "Jack's letters and yours"). Where a construction like "Jack's and your dogs" is used, the interpretation is usually "segregatory" (i.e. not joint possession).
("General principles for the possessive apostrophe", in "Apostrophe")
So in your example, unless they are writings that Giovanni and Walker co-wrote, you should use Nikki Giovanni's and Alice Walker's writings. Although I agree that it trips off the tongue better with just the second 's, and no doubt only the pedants in the audience would pick you up on it ;)
According to Wikipedia, there are two ways to use punctation marks when it comes to quoting. Basically, we have the British style, where punctation marks that don't come from the quoted material "is put outside the quote", like I just did. In the American style, on the other hand, punctation marks that belongs to the original sentence, that the quoted material is put within, should be "placed within the quote itself," like I just did.
Now, I really, really, prefer the British style, since this is the way I've always done it, including when I write in my native language. However, at the same time, I prefer to use the american spelling and usage of words. Is this mixing behavior on my part acceptable?
It is mentioned in the Wikipedia article linked to above that "many American style guides specific to certain specialties, such as legal writing and linguistics, prefer British style." However, is there a general rule (or maybe a strong recommendation), for example if I'm just writing an essay or, I don't know, a blogpost, regarding how I can mix the different spellings and punctation mark rules?
Answer
Larry Trask deals with this question comprehensively here. Scroll down to the section beginning:
Finally, there remains the problem of whether to put other punctuation
marks inside or outside the quotation marks.
I have seen a meme which confuses me:
"At 18:
Others: have partners, do drugs etc.
Me: watches tv and sleeps
Is this grammatically correct and does "me" take singular verb form?
I have also heard comedians use this. My question is about verb agreement.
We say I watch tv and sleep but what about “me"? Is it “me watch tv and sleep” or “me watches tv and sleeps”?
Answer
Context is important in English, and especially today, ideas and concepts are often conveyed very succinctly.
The artist in me cries out for design (Robert Frost)
This can be crudely summarised as
Therefore in a declarative sentence such as
Me: watches an entire season of a TV show in one night
The “me” above refers to the binge watcher, the lazy person or the procrastinator that lives inside. The speaker describes him or herself as if they were a third person, a separate identity.
Other examples,
Note that when the subject is "I" the verb that follows is not in the 3rd person singular, it's “I hate” not “I hates” but in today's internet culture, the deliberate misuse of grammar is often used for humor.
“i hates da sun, i hates da beach, i hates you too”
I hate it when [the] healthy [person in] me
does the groceries because now
[the] fat [person in] me needs a snack.
I frequently see statements in the form of this one:
As a skilled computer programmer, this new language is crap.
I think that’s ungrammatical, but can’t explain why. I think it’s because the part before the comma doesn’t correctly attach to the second part.
I would rewrite it,
As a skilled computer programmer, I find this new language to be crap.
Because I think the first part has to attach to “I” or the verb “find”, which is done by the subject “I.”
Please educate me and others.
From some comments in the answers for common English usage mistakes (now deleted, 10k only), there's confusion around the usage of I vs. me:
While the sentence, "the other attendees are myself and Steve," is agreed to be incorrect, there's confusion about whether the correct form is "the other attendees are me and Steve" or "the other attendees are Steve and I."
(I've always used the heuristic of removing the other people from the sentence, so I always thought "the other attendee is me" would be correct, instead of "the other attendee is I." Is this true, or am I using a flawed heuristic?)
Answer
Your method of removing the others is indeed correct. At least, that is what I used to do when I was in high school.
Always try using "I" or "me" in the singular, for the same sentence. For instance, people might say:
"Robert and me are going to town." Which is wrong, because one does not say "Me am going to town." Therefore the correct way to say it is "Robert and I are going to town."
However, this sentence is also wrong: "The police arrested Robert and I", because if it were in the singular, one would not say "the police arrested I", it is, "the police arrested me." Therefore one should say, "The police arrested Robert and me."
How is the word "interferometer" correctly split at the end of a line in British English, i.e. what is the correct syllabification?
I found two contradicting syllabifications:
Is there any authority for British English (possibly accessible online)?
Background: I am writing a scientific article using the typesetting programme LATEX with Babel for British English, which automatically carries out the word splitting at the end of lines. The word "interferometer" is split as
We are using an interfer-
ometer for our measurements.
which apparently follows Merriam-Webster (see above). However the referee of the article is the opinion that the word is "strangely cut".
I'm not English-speaking, and I'm wondering about the title of the song by band Bauhaus - "Terror Couple Kill Colonel"
"Kill" implies a singular subject, yet couple refers to multiple subjects. Why is it not "killed" or "kills"?
The following is an example sentence in my book
Some passengers flew to Paris on the last trip
Is the use of trip idiomatic?
Trip is a short journey made for pleasure. I think it is not correct here, instead it should be flight
Okay, this might come across as a fairly stupid question, yet I have to know this. Does anyone know what the communicative function of 'the article' is?
For example, if we consider 'must' and 'have to', the communicative function could be 'Talking about obligation'. I need something similar to this for the article, but I can't come up with anything.
Any help is appreciated!
Answer
What is by many considered the primary function of articles is distinguishing between new references (focus, a(n)) on one hand, and references to things that the audience already knows are part of the topic of the utterance on the other (topic, the). With a(n), this thing hasn't been mentioned before; with the, you already know which thing the speaker is referring to. Of course this is a bit of a simplification.
A secondary function of articles is to distinguish between countable and uncountable singular nouns, as in I like beer and I'd like a beer. As such, it functions much like the number one.
Thirdly, there are countless idiomatic expressions using articles.
This sentence is in the context of dinner.
Beans is/are our only option
I'm confused as to whether "is" or "are" is necessary in this construct.
Just having a lively debate with a content writer over whether we should say
There are a slew of reasons...
or
There is a slew of reasons...
Read this article which suggests that different words are treated differently in this situation, so I'm wondering if slew would behave more like number, as in, There are a number of reasons, or if it would be more like group, as in There is a group of people that believe....
Any thoughts on how one can decide for a word like slew?
Possible duplicate of:
a number of vendors is/are?
Is the sentence "There is a large number of labourers who want to migrate to Japan for work." correct?
I'm looking for a traditional grammar explanation in regards to the sentence: 'I don't remember whom is whom.' Also I'll preface that I'm native speaker for whatever that's worth...
Now I understand that the most natural way to say this is, 'I do not remember who is who'. From that, because it's the accusative case, one should normally say:
'I do not remember him' -> 'I do not remember whom'
However, since 'is' is a copula or linking verb, the following explanation by Grammar Girl applies. My understanding is that it forces the same grammatical cases, so 'whom is whom' and thus:
'I do not remember whom is whom.'
In another 'who vs whom' question, one person suggests 'Who is who' is correct because it is a set phrase. Though I suppose I can accept that set phrases exist as a thing to torment learners (set phrase as it more means 'which person is which' or other things apparently), at the very least the why it isn't 'who is whom' can be explained by the Grammar Girl link earlier.
Also a side question: ignoring who vs whom, would it be more correct to say, 'I do not remember who being who', so leaving the verb in the infinitive form. As an example, 'I remeber him being another person.' Or perhaps the infinitive 'to be' is the most correct? At this point I don't trust my English enough to tell, and I might probably just analyzing this all wrong anyway...
Plural versus singular:
Anyone can learn to dance if they want to.
Anyone can learn to dance if he or she wants to.
Resources online tell me that anyone is a singular indefinite pronoun. Then why is it sometimes acceptable to use the plural 'they' with 'anyone' in some cases? Does it substitute and replace 'he/she'?
note: this previous posts also says anyone is [singular]: "Anyone has" or "anyone have" seen them?
Answer
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage remarks that “They, their, them have been used continuously in singular reference for about six centuries, and have been disparaged in such use for about two centuries. Now the influence of social forces is making their use even more attractive.”
Actually, my question is a bit broader.
AFAIK, the latter is generally incorrect: "item" is adjective so it should be singular.
However there are some well-known exceptions like "sales manager".
Could anyone explain the rule here: when is plural form acceptable?
Update: looks like here is an answer. Any comments are welcome, however.
Answer
One thing about plurals generally, is that we can sometimes think of them as a single unit.
For example, when we speak of "sports", are we speaking of "the several different activities, each of which is a sport", or are we speaking of "the single activity of engaging in sporting activities"?
The truth of the matter is that you can just as reasonable consider it either way; as a single concept that contains a plurality, or a plurality of concepts.
For the most part this is angels-on-pins stuff, but some plurals get referred to in a close-to-singular way often enough that people tend to think of them more as singular than as plural. And so sales isn't thought of as a collection of activities each of which is a sale, but as the name of an activity that businesses engage in. Sports is thought of as a thing*. Academic subjects are often referred to in the plural (mathematics, economics) but again each thought of as a thing.
And so when people go to use these words as an adjunct, they are thinking of them as singular, and while even always-plural words like trousers and scissors can become singular in trouser press and scissor blade, these words may remain in their plural form in sales manager, sports centre and mathematics textbook.
After all, when we speak and write we generally do not apply the rules rules of grammar in a fully concious way, but automatically. If we're thinking of a plural term as being singular, then we will use that plural term as if it is singular, even if the result does not fit logically with its actual plurality.
*There's some variance of use with sports with sport appearing in some cases as the name for the general activity and some papers having sport sections where some have sports sections, but that at least some usages favour the plural form here suffices to make it fit the pattern.
Here is my sentence: "Julia's experience is similar to that of Robert's."
Would it be correct to put an apostrophe ('s) after Robert?
I applied to a summer program and the email stated that I was deferred.
We are pleased to inform you that your application has made a select
list of deferrals to the regular application round.
The text that is in bold looks odd. Can anyone help me clarify whether it's correct or not? If it is correct (which probably is, since the email came from MIT), can you please explain the usage of has made a select list because I've never seen that grammatical structure ever before.
Thank you.
Answer
One of the meanings of the verb make is
6.2 Achieve a place in.
these dogs seldom make the news
they made it to the semifinals
Oxford Dictionaries Online
The phrases make the list and make the cut are common in AmE.
When we do homework, we focus on vocabulary
When we do homework, we will focus on vocabulary
When we are doing homework, we focus on vocabulary
when we are doing homework, we will focus on vocabulary
Are these grammatically correct, please? From what I understand, the sentences represent the following:
1, - habitual action, everytime we do homework, we focus on vocabulary
2, - Not sure if this one is grammatically correct
3 - Not sure either
4, - The present tense represents a future action, for example, in doing homework later on today, we will focus on vocabulary.
As far as I can tell, my question is not a duplicate of either of these two similar questions. It is very close (maybe a duplicate, but I don't quite think so) of this question.
I want to construct a sentence, where there are two things each possessed by one of two people, one of whom is myself. The best I have come up with is something like:
Fred's and my houses are both green.
Two houses, two people (Fred and myself). I'm not sure how to phrase it at all!
I suppose I could go with a longer form like:
Fred's house is green and my house is also green.
But it would be nice if there was a shorter form.
This is easiest to explain with examples:
Examples
In cases like this, is "show" or "shows" correct?? If they are both correct, is there any difference in the meaning conveyed? Are there times where one or the other would be more appropriate or effective?
We were shocked when we found/find out the toilet had/has no flush.
My natural intuition would lead me to write this way:
We were shocked when we found out the toilet had no flush.
Then I thought that I was really trying to say that it's the kind of traditional toilet where there is no such thing as a flush — they cover them with banana leaves (seriously).
So, I am stating a fact that still holds true. Hence I revised as below.
We were shocked when we find out the toilet has no flush.
Can someone please explain and/or correct the sentence above?
Is it "southern California" or "Southern California?"
The word "southern" is not part of the official name of California or any city or county, so I never capitalize it. It only loosely defines a region of California and its border is not officially defined either. However, I was recently advised by someone who I consider to be educated to capitalize "southern" in this context. Did I miss the memo on this issue? Is "Southern California" considered a proper noun?
Answer
The Chicago Manual of Style, sixteenth edition (2010) has a useful and detailed discussion of this issue. Here is part of that discussion:
8.46 Regions of the world and national regions. Terms that denote regions of the world or of a particular country are often capitalized, as are a few of the adjectives and nouns derived from such terms. The following examples illustrate not only the principles sketched in [an earlier section of CMOS] but also variations based on context and usage. ... Note that exceptions based on specific regional, political, or historical contexts are inevitable and that an author's strong preference should usually be respected.
[Relevant examples:] the South, southern, a southerner (of a country); the South, Southern, a Southerner (in American Civil War contexts); the Deep South; Southern California; the South of France (region); Southeast Asia; South Africa; South African (referring to the Republic of South Africa); southern Africa (referring to the southern part of the continent); south; southern; southward; to the south (directions)
CMOS recognizes that common usage and context determine conventional approaches to capitalization in connection with the treatment of certain terms related to regions. By prevailing usage, roughly the most southerly one-third or two-fifths of California is referred to as Southern California, in initial caps. There may be disagreement about where the border of Southern California begins, just as there was and is about the border of the Wild West, but the fact that the Los Angeles metropolitan area, Orange County, and San Diego are all located in Southern California is beyond debate.
At 8.47 ("Popular place names or epithets"), CMOS notes that certain other regions and epithets receive initial caps as well. For example, Silicon Valley isn't a proprietary name or legally defined area, but it receives initial caps anyway. And Wisconsin is known as the Badger State (not "the badger state") even though its official name is Wisconsin.
So the upshot of my answer is that you didn't miss the memo (or perhaps I should say The Memo) on this issue, but at the same time you didn't notice a larger phenomenon in accordance with which initial-capping Southern California is by no means a unique, inexplicable, or indefensible treatment of a regional name.
Please anyone tell me when we have to use "has been, have been , had been" and something started in past and still continuing is it possible to use has been ?
I have seen the three extant cases in English referred to with several different names. Which of these is most correct in describing the respective case?
Lyircs of Free by Natalia Kills:
I'm free
I just spent all my money
but I rocked that like it don't cost a thing
Shouldn't it be "I've just spent all my money"? As far as I remember, our English told us to use Present Prefect in such case because of the just.
Answer
American English tends to use the past tense in places where British English uses the present perfect construction, and this may be one such place. But in any case, the lyrics of popular music are not always written in Standard English and will consequently conform to a different set of grammatical rules.
- Let he who believes in this prophet speak now what he knows.
- Let him who believes in this prophet speak now what he knows.
Why is it wrong to say they build a house next to mine?
The explanation i got was nobody is building a house every year or every month next to yours.
The correct answer was they are building a house next to mine.
SO, my question is why cant I use simple present to state it as a fact?
I can use simple present to state a fact, right?
Ex: I am 6 feet tall(fact).
Ex: I like apples(fact).
Ex: They build a house next to mine(not a fact anymore)?? Why is it wrong??
Answer
It can work in some contexts. Such as:
I have these neighbors. I tell them they should stay as far away as
possible. What do they do? They build a house next to mine.
Or:
Do you know what those idiots do every summer? They build a house next
to mine. I burn it down as soon as it's finished, and the following year they just do it all over again.
The first example is just colloquial talk in the present tense, where it's substituting (the tense) for the past.
The second example is a very, very special situation.
Generally, however, the correct way to say it is
They're building a house next to mine. Just to spoil my view, I think.
Somebody asked me about this sentence:
My business is closed on Thanksgiving, Christmas, and others.
I know that it should be "...and other holidays", but I'm struggling to explain why.
Is this sentence grammatically incorrect? If so, is there a specific rule that's being violated? Or is it grammatically correct but semantically nonsensical? Or something else?
Much of (what/which) scientists know about dinosaurs has been recently discovered.
The phenomenon of (what/which) are known as corporate networks has also attracted attention.
And yes, the answer is what. But why?
Answer
Both of the clauses beginning with what are noun clauses. You can tell they're noun clauses because they're both the object of the preposition of.
Noun or complement clauses can function like nouns -- as subject, direct object, or prepositional object.
There are four types of complement clauses in English, and this is the type called an embedded question (or headless relative -- they're not that different) complement. (the others are Infinitive, Gerund, and tensed That-clause.)
Embedded questions are just regular Wh-questions, but they have three peculiarities that mark them as subordinate clauses:
It's the third peculiarity that's responsible; the normal distinction between open what and closed which is simply not available in embedded questions, just like the usual future sense of will is unavailable in if-clauses. There's a reason.
Which already has a role as a relative pronoun (and you can't use what as a relative pronoun). Relative pronouns are Adjective clauses, while Embedded Questions are Noun clauses. The purpose of an introductory marker like what or that or which is to indicate -- before it's parsed -- what kind of clause is coming up.
If which already marks adjective clauses, it's confusing to have another which that marks noun clauses. So we don't. What marks noun clauses and which doesn't, while which marks adjective clauses and what doesn't. That's all, really. It's kind of like opposing metal to colour in heraldry -- it improves clarity and avoids confusion in the signal.
I am wondering about the "double possessive" I have been reading about.
I have a couple of sentences as an example:
He’s a new client of Jane and Kevin’s and a close childhood friend of Steven O’Neill’s.
I thought that the above sentence was correct, because it sounds natural to use the apostrophe S to me, in the same way that we say "he's a friend of mine."
However, I have heard people criticize sentences such as that one above as having a "double possessive" because of the OF as well as the apostrophe S.
Is the above sentence correct or should it be:
He’s a new client of Jane and Kevin and a close childhood friend of Steven O’Neill.
Thank you - any help would be greatly appreciated.
We often use these constructions. A friend of mine is probably the most common.
I have often wondered, being an English teacher, whether the function of the preposition of in such contexts is that of a partitive (it implies an idea of splitting something into parts, so a friend of mine is a part of the whole of my friends) or a genitive (it implies the idea that something belongs to something else, so an idea of Hölderlin’s would mean Hölderlin’s idea).
I realize the distinction is subtle. Is there a professional scholar in linguistics here who can clarify?
A relatively modern dictionary (I don’t know which one, because we’ve cut out the pages and used them as wallpaper in our bathroom, but I know it’s less than 20 years old) indicates that R’s is one correct pluralization of R, as is Rs, but whichever dictionary this is, it’s kind of a no-name brand, so I’m not sure I trust it.
I’ve always wondered what the best way was to pluralize single letters or numerals, like 2’s or 2s. What’s correct?
Answer
From this Wikipedia page:
- It is generally acceptable to use apostrophes to show plurals of single
lower-case letters, such as be sure to
dot your i's and cross your t's. Some
style guides would prefer to use a
change of font: dot your is and cross
your ts. Upper case
letters need no apostrophe (I got
three As in my exams) except when
there is a risk of misreading, such as
at the start of a sentence: A's are
the highest marks achievable in these
exams.
- For groups of years, the apostrophe at the end cannot be regarded as
necessary, since there is no
possibility of misreading. For this
reason, most authorities prefer 1960s
to 1960's (although the latter is
noted by at least one source as
acceptable in American usage), and
90s or '90s to 90's or '90's.
- The apostrophe is sometimes used in forming the plural of numbers (for
example, 1000's of years); however, as
with groups of years, it is
unnecessary: there is no possibility
of misreading. Most sources are
against this usage.
- The apostrophe is often used in plurals of symbols. Again, since there
can be no misreading, this is often
regarded as incorrect. That page
has too many &s and #s on it.
- Finally, a few sources accept its use in an alternative spelling of the
plurals of a very few short words,
such as do, ex, yes, no, which become
do's, ex's, etc. In each case,
dos, exes, yeses (or yesses) and noes
would be preferred by most
authorities. Nevertheless, many
writers are still inclined to use such
an apostrophe when the word is thought
to look awkward or unusual without
one.
I just came across this paragraph:
There is so many incredible women that nobody can agree on which one are the best ones. Just for your pleasure and to make everyone happy we have agreed on a list of the 23 most beautiful women.
Why did the write use "is" and not "are"? the word women is a plural word.
The point is way more clear in the first scenario than it is in the second.
Is there any problem that I omitted "scenario" after the second?
I could also say this way:
The point is way more clear in the first scenario than it is in the second one.
But the first way seems better to me as it has more brevity.
Can the em dash replace the comma and semicolon in these sentences? For example, instead of "The original sign did not have terminal punctuation; thus, the full stop goes outside the quotes to end the sentence", can we do this? (See below.)
The original sign did not have terminal punctuation – thus the full stop goes outside the quotes to end the sentence.
The original sign did not have terminal punctuation – hence the full stop goes outside the quotes to end the sentence.
The original sign did not have terminal punctuation – therefore the full stop goes outside the quotes to end the sentence.
The original sign did not have terminal punctuation – as a result the full stop goes outside the quotes to end the sentence.
The original sign did not have terminal punctuation – consequently the full stop goes outside the quotes to end the sentence.
My wife and I communicate in English. She's Japanese, I'm Norwegian and we're both language enthusiasts; this makes for a lot of interesting language discussions.
This is something that surfaced today:
"Is this not so good anymore?", says my wife, holding up an old container of barbecue sauce which she thinks has gone bad.
"Yes", I answer, meaning that the sauce has gone bad.
Disregarding that a) the question could probably have been formulated in a different way to make it less ambiguous and b) I could have been more verbose in my answer; would answering "Yes" or "No" to this question, in English, indicate that the sauce has, indeed, expired?
Both of our native languages handle these kinds of "negative questions" a bit differently and we can't seem to figure it out in English.
Answer
This is tricky! I can see why you would get confused.
First of all your wife's question should be reformulated as: "Has this sauce gone off?"(UK) or "Has this sauce gone bad?"(US) to which your answer: "Yes" would be unequivocal.
However, when a question is negative interrogative it is usual to reply positively to confirm the speaker's suspicion/doubt. For example: "Isn't he married?" the answer: "Yes, he is" confirms the fact the subject is married. "No, he isn't" means he is single. If however, the question was: "Is he not married?" The speaker is asking a completely different question, it is no longer a negative interrogative question but whether the man is single/unmarried, hence the short positive reply would be contradicting as in: Yes, he is (married)!.
So to go back to your wife's original "question"
"Is this (sauce) not good?" OR "Isn't this (sauce) good?" The first question is not technically a "negative question" She was asking if the sauce was bad (not good) so your reply: "Yes (it is)" was actually saying the opposite!
http://www.englishspark.com/en/students/455-negative-questions
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv330.shtml
I am aware that, for example, Russian and German speakers tend to use yes as a question tag (most likely because it is acceptable in their native language), as in
You will come to the party, yes?
However, I was quite certain that this use was not correct English.
Today, while watching the movie Alien, I noticed that the science officer Ash repeatedly uses yes as a question tag, even though he does not have a particular foreign accent. Is this simply an artistic device, or is yes indeed used by native speakers as a question tag? If so, how colloquial is it?
Answer
In the US we most commonly use right for that purpose:
She's pretty, right?
That movie sucked, right?
You're an extraterrestrial, right?
It's really raining out there, right?
Using yes in these instances would indicate that you were not from our neck of the woods.
I’m an English teacher in Japan. Recently I ran into quite a conundrum, which I’m sure many others have struggled with. I was talking to one of my students in the presence of my boss and something my student said gave me the impression he hadn’t seen a particular movie. I then asked him, “So you haven’t seen the movie?” He responded, “No, I haven’t.” At this, I corrected him, saying he should say, “Yes, I haven’t.” My boss took issue with and said this is the number one thing that Japanese students learning English apparently trip up on, and traditionally they would be upset if I teach this kind of thing, because what they learned in school is that they should say, “No, I haven’t” in all cases. He has been riding me to find the answer for myself as to whether this is true or not, and while I’ve looked around online and found opinions, I can’t find anything “official”. And what bothers me is responding to a question such as “Have you not seen it” with “No, I haven’t” seems illogical to me, because then it sounds like it would be a double-negative; I’m asking if he has NOT seen the movie, so shouldn’t his answer be “YES, I haven’t seen it?” By saying “no“, to me it sounds like he would be saying, “No, I haven’t not seen it”, which would mean he has.
Also, the other night, my boss posed the example question on the board for me, “Do you not like it?”. Again, I would naturally think it should be, “Yes, I don’t” or “No, I do”, because I’d be affirming that question one way or the other.
He also showed me a place in a textbook we use with a question like “Don’t you like it” and the answer was “No, I don’t” or “Yes, I do”. This makes sense to me because the question is essentially saying, “I think you like it, right”, but I’d using a negative. Although when I think about it, why does this seem normal to me but it seems strange to me to say “Yes, I do” or “No, I don’t” to something like “Do you NOT like it”.
This thread seems to suggest I’m right: Proper yes/no answer to a question posed in negative form
My mom, who is really good with Grammar, also agreed with the responses in that thread. But I feel like I need something more official and concrete.
So could anyone tell me for sure what the right way is and if possible give me an official source, like a dictionary of sorts or something? Thanks a lot.
A lot of my friends work in the creative field and often they use " shooting day" when they have a photo shoot planned...
It's actually very irritating as I don't think that's correct... I mean you're not getting shot... hahaha
As I am not a native English person, I would like to ask if this is correct, why it's correct and if not, well, why not. :)
thank you very much!!
Let's say my sentence is:
I am a part of Generations X, Y, and Z.
In a case like this, should "generations" be plural or singular? I feel it should be plural, since singular makes it sound like "X, Y, and Z" are one item, but:
I am a part of Generation X, Y, and Z.
I feel someone would argue that since there is context in the word "generation" (as in "everyone will know you mean three separate generations because no one generation is called "X, Y, and Z"), Y and Z do not need to be "counted".
Answer
Your initial impression is exactly correct. Consider:
I am a member of teams Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie.
I have sailed the seas Mediterranean, Black, Red, and Caspian, but have yet to sail the seas Arabian, Indian, or Adriatic.
While you could conceivably find a house style guide that requires proper-name groupings like "Generation X" to never be shortened, if you omit the term you should indicate that it is plural and not singular.
Which of the following is correct/preferable?
- Two patients’ excised liver showed no histological evidence of HCC.
- Two patients’ excised livers showed no histological evidence of HCC.
Similarly, "they live their happy life" or "they live their happy lives", "they lead a happy life" or "they lead happy lives".
There are lots and lots of this kind of problems in English!
Consider the sentence "I can run faster than 15 miles per hour." Its meaning is clear and to my eyes obviously grammatically correct. Now let me present some variations that have given me trouble for a long time.
I am faster than 15 miles per hour. – To me this is clearly incorrect. Directly comparing me to a speed doesn't seem right. We need to compare my speed to a speed, or me to another person.
I can run faster than him. – Compared to the base sentence, there is a distinct shift in meaning of the comparison. While before I named a speed faster than which I can run, now I am naming a person. It doesn't seem quite right. I realize the parts of speech can change, but my initial objection is that "him" is not a speed.
I can run faster than he. – This seems most correct to me, but still somehow feels objectionable. Is this in fact the correct way to say it? And if so, is it proper as is or need I say "... faster than he can" or even "... faster than he can run?"
I am faster than him. – With "am" instead of "can run" it now seems slightly more correct. But is it?
I am faster than he. – I'm in doubt here. It doesn't seem wrong to me to say, "I am faster than he is" or even "I am faster than he is fast." (Though I suppose that is a given since I could hardly properly compare to some other category as in "I am faster than he is smart.")
My speed is faster than his. – Hmm. This seems more proper as "my speed is greater than his."
So which of these constructions is correct and which is incorrect? Is there a general rule that I can follow?
UPDATE
The scholarly article Syntactic isomorphism and non-isomorphism under ellipsis may be of great interest to some readers!
Once we accept that the elided constituent and its antecedent can differ in form, it becomes reasonable to ask how large this difference can be. The answer in Rooth (1992), Fiengo and May (1994), Chung et al. (1995) and subsequent work is that the wiggle room is actually quite small: the elided constituent and its antecedent are allowed to differ only in the realization of inflectional morphology. Other than that, both constituents have to be syntactically and lexically isomorphic.
Answer
You find both accusative pronouns (me/him/her/them) and nominative pronouns (I/he/she/they) in this syntactic position in standard English. The forms with the nominal genitive pronouns (mine/yours/hers etc.) are a red herring because they stand for something possessed rather than the person themself.
The traditional rule for comparison with a person is that you must use nominative. However, according to my research, accusative is more common.
I searched the Corpus of Contemporary American English for this syntactic structure, followed by a comma or a period to ensure we are not looking for cases like faster than he is, with a verb following the pronoun, in which case nominative is obligatory.
There were 1046 results for the accusative pronouns and 450 for nominative pronouns, more than 2 to 1 in favor of accusative pronouns—the “traditionally wrong” form. Both forms are standard, so my advice to a writer choosing between these forms is to consider that the “traditionally correct” form is unimpeachably correct but a bit formal. Choose the form that best matches tone and formality level of your writing.
For the curious, the queries looked like this:
[jjr*] than me|him|her|us|them .|,
[jjr*] than I|he|she|we|they .|,
where[jjr*] means any comparative adjective.
Update 2011-05-23
Using the new Google Book Corpus search, I was able to construct a Google ngrams-like graph comparing these usages over time, using these two queries: accusative, nominative:
As you can see, until the late 1980s, the formal usage was more common than the informal usage. Since then, however, accusative has very rapidly eclipsed nominative, even in this corpus, which represents professionally published works.
I refer, for example, to, "In which foods does one find carageenan?" vs. "In what foods...?"
Thank you!
"make a monkey of someone", " don't monkey with that lock!", and "where have you been, you little monkey!" are examples of sentences where monkey have different meaning.
Should the comma be placed inside the quotes, or outside?
To make it clearer, I am referring to placing the comma when the quoted sentence already has a punctuation like the exclamation mark, or the question mark.
Answer
American style is to place the comma inside the quotes. This is universally the case in publishing and accords with all style guides (Chicago, AP, NYT, etc.). The only exception is is in academic works, particularly philosophy texts, where a word is being specially defined and offset with single quotes. That exception, however, is not widespread and some houses, such as Oxford University Press, use the single quote as closing punctuation.
I am from Denmark and my English teacher insists on 'they' being grammatically incorrect when it is used in a singular sense (their hand reached...) No matter what I tell her she is convinced it's incorrect. Are there any "official" rules regarding this matter?
These words appear to be synonymous, so I checked to see the difference on Wikidiff which gives the following definitions:
One who governs a country, province, or colony as the representative of a monarch.
One who rules in place of the monarch, especially because the monarch is too young, absent, or disabled.
I also checked thesaurus.plus which uses the same definition for each and also notes the following:
Viceroy and regent are semantically related. in director topic. In some cases you can use "Viceroy" instead a noun "Regent"
Despite that, I did not see a clear difference. What exactly is the overlap? Where is the difference? When would you use one over the other?
What is the correct use?
His stool and urine ARE normal.
His stool and urine IS normal.
What is the correct article (a, the or maybe none) to use in the sentences and titles below:
(I would assume - perhaps wrongly - that either both cases 1 or both cases 2 above are correct, but in case I'm wrong I wanted to ask about those two forms explicitly.)
I couldn't find any similar questions here and google searches for "about a * in me" and "about the * in me" didn't return anything meaningful.
I also assumed that using "I, Programmer" as in Asimov's "I, Robot" would not be correct here but please correct me if I'm wrong.
Answer
Although each of your sentences share the same first person subject, they each have subtly different implications.
- This article is about me, a programmer.
Here, you identify as a programmer, but there may be other aspects of you and your life the reader will learn about.
- This article is about me, the programmer.
Colloquially, "*me, the X" suggests a focus on a particular aspect of yourself and your life. I expect the article to be biographical and perhaps even confessional. It suggests that everything in this article will somehow relate to you being a programmer and/or will be expressed from your mindset as one.
Regarding your similar sentences, we generally say "... the X in me" when referring to a specific aspect of ourselves. If you say, "... a programmer in me," it sounds odd, as if there are several programmers in you (or anywhere), and you are referring to a particular one inside of you.
Finally, for your titles, I would suggest using I instead of Me, and for the same reason, would avoid the article 'a' and stick with 'the' or no article. I don't know of any "rules" about this, but once you follow the pronoun with a comma and "the X", it sounds more natural to me for the X to be in subject form.
Both these titles sound like biographies or confessionals:
I, the Programmer
This sounds like you will be describing your work as the sole programmer in the story. Other people may have been involved (design, distribution, etc.) but you alone were the programmer.
I, Programmer
This one sounds like a nod to Isaac Asimov, who ironically objected to that title (he had wanted to title the collection Mind and Iron) as it had already been used by another author. (Plus, I, Robot was not even told from the perspective of the robot!) My familiarity with I, Robot would color my expectations of this article. I would assume it would be biographical and told from the perspective of someone who approaches life and work with computer-like precision, but who nevertheless wants to be recognized for his/her humanity.
I have seen questions like
and I would like to know if they are grammatically correct.
Can you use questions like that in regular speech?
Can you even start a question with "you" or "that"?
Answer
These questions are grammatically correct. In written English, there is nothing wrong with indicating an interrogative solely by putting a question mark at the end. In spoken English, intonation is used for this purpose. There is no requirement that the interrogative mood be clearly expressed in the words used.
You can certainly start a question with "you" or "that". The easiest way is by eliding a word like "do", "did", "are", "is", or "can":
Omitting "do": You really expect to make out in that sardine can?
Omitting "did/does": That help?
Omitting "is": That what you were looking for?
Omitting "are": You sure?
I have some doubts regarding Possessive Case of Adjective.
Q1. The price of your book is more than (mine/that of mine).
Q2. The ideas of your friend are as beneficial as (hers/those of hers).
Q3. The ideas of your friend are as beneficial as those of (her friend/her friend's).
Please explain with reasons.
I've started to write some story and at the beginning of that I'm faced with an issue. I'm not clear understanding what the article (the definite article or indefinite one) should be used when my oppopent doesn't know about some object but I do and espesially that object is unique.
For example:
"When I went to school I used to come to class when the teacher always was there."
By "the teacher" I mean my "form master" (or "homeroom teacher", I actually don't know which term is more proper).
So, should I use "a teacher" just because some object I'm talking about is unknown for my opponent or it would be better to use "the teacher" and it's quite clear for opponents that I mean "homeroom teacher" or it would be more naturally to use "my teacher" ?
Answer
Use "the" in this case, because you are talking about (and it will be assumed you are talking about) the teacher who is assigned to this particular class, the teacher who comes in every day. If the identity of the teacher in question is variable, you would use a, as in You want to go on a field trip? Will there be a teacher there to supervise? In this case, any teacher might fill this role.
On some forum today I referred to myself as a English nerd. Now I'm wondering whether maybe I'm an English nerd.
My gut feeling tells me that there is a slight nuance in meaning between the two phrases and that even though the general rule is to use an in front of a word starting with a vowel, I think a is more appropriate in this case.
The a in a English nerd refers to the word nerd and the adjective is only added to denote the type of nerd that I am.
Whereas using the phrasing an English nerd would imply that I am a nerd who happens to be English (I'm not).
Now, my question is: Did I analyze this correctly and is there in fact a nuance in meaning? Or should I have used an English nerd to comply with the general "a versus an" rule?
Answer
There is no different nuance in meaning as you describe in any dialect of English I am aware of.
The a/an pattern is a purely phonological pattern; using one or the other has no impact on meaning. The use is simply governed by the sound of the following word. So, we say:
- A boy ("boy" starts with consonant sound)
- An old boy ("old" starts with vowel sound)
- An hour ("hour" starts with a vowel sound)
- A used automobile ("used" starts with a consonant sound)
- An extremely tired man ("extremely" starts with a vowel sound)
Whatever sound comes directly after the indefinite article determines whether it takes the a form or the an form. It doesn't matter if this is a noun, adjective, adverb, or anything else.
Now, there are some dialects that do things differently, but that difference amounts to allowing a more often (usually with free variation). Again, semantics does not come into the picture.
If there is any true nuance in meaning for you, then it is something that (as far as I know) is attested only in your idiolect.
I am writing my bachelor dissertation and several times Microsoft Word has corrected me from "to have" to "having". One of the sentences, for instance, goes like this:
The author recommends to have ‘(...)'. Bugeja further recommends having a student blog where prospective...
Can anyone enlighten me?
I am confused whether comma is required after adverbial (dependent) clauses at the end of the sentence (and the difference, if any, between restrictive and non-restrictive adverbial clauses).
The internet and various style manuals seem to give conflicting advice, so I am not sure what is true or, at least, what is prevalent.
According to Purdue University (Purdue Owl), no comma is needed, except cases on contrast, when dependent clause follows independent clause, presumably because they are all treated as restrictive.
Example:
She was late for class because her alarm clock was broken.
Yet Gregg Reference Manual, 10th Edition and CMOS 16th edition both state that comma is required if the dependent clause following an independent clause is non-restrictive in meaning, but no comma is required if the clause is restrictive.
Gregg gives the following examples of restrictive and non-restrictive dependent clauses (dependent clauses in italics - notice the comma in the second example):
Restrictive: His faxed response came after you left last evening.
Non-restrictive: His faxed response came this morning, after the decision had been made.
While I see the logic and the difference, I would argue that the second example is also restrictive depending on what is being restricted. And, arguably, Purdue Owl would punctuate the second sentence, based on the advice given, without the comma.
So what holds true here?
Is there a majority-accepted rule (or, at least, majority position) around restrictive / non-restrictive adverbial clauses, or is this merely a stylistic / subjective preference? Could all clauses be punctuated as restrictive, aside from some obvious exceptions below?
I know there are some exceptions with negatives clauses (Not because, but because, etc.). And also when the clause is clearly an afterthought (I can do this, if you wish). But in cases like the above where either interpretation is possible what is the prevalent editorial position?
Could I argue that the sentences below should also be punctuated without comma on the ground of stylistic / subjective preference - rationale in brackets?
I will see you at 9.35 pm after the party has finished. ("9.35" describes what time; "after the party has finished" describes circumstances - both restrictive; no comma.)
The plane landed after 10-hour flight at 10 am. ("after 10-hour flight" describes circumstances; "10 am" describes time - both restrictive; no comma.)
Thanks a lot in advance (editing a piece of work and cannot go to sleep as these adverbial constructions keep coming up).
Answer
Is there a majority-accepted rule (or, at least, majority position)
around restrictive / nonrestrictive adverbial clauses, or is this
merely a stylistic / subjective preference?
All punctuation rules are stylistic, and most manuals of style recognize that rules have exceptions and are flexible enough to accommodate an author's judgment. Thus you may argue just about anything you wish. But bear in mind that you may mislead your readers. When you write nonrestrictively
I went to the airport to pick up my sister, Ellen.
your readers will infer nothing about additional siblings. On the other hand, when you write restrictively
I went to the airport to pick up my sister Ellen.
your readers will infer that you have at least one other sister not named Ellen.
This doesn't matter much when the semantics of the sentence states or implies the information.
In the sentence
I will see you at 9:35 pm after the party has finished.
the adverbial clause is nonrestrictive because the clock time has already defined the time of the assignation. If you leave out the comma, nobody will assume that you mean any other 9:35P, multiples of 24 hours before or after.
Likewise
The plane landed after a 10-hour flight at 10 am.
will likely be interpreted as
The plane landed at 10 am after a 10-hour flight.
and that if you had another 10-hour flight in mind, one that landed at some other time, your readers will assume that you would have mentioned that.
Although you're entitled to your own style, be aware that by banishing the nonrestrictive comma, you give up some concision. As you pointed out, in the sentence
His faxed response came this morning after the decision had been made.
the clause "after the decision has been made" may be restrictive, i.e., it may define the time of the morning, distinguishing the time of the fax's arrival from other events of that morning, as in
His faxed response came this morning after the decision had been made but before the press had been informed.
Or it may be nonrestrictive, in the case that nothing else if note happened that morning:
His faxed response came this morning, after the decision had been made.
A rational stylistic argument may be made that it is better not to rely on so slight a mark as the comma to convey important information. In that case you may have to add words or shift them (e.g., by making the nonrestrictive clause an introductory one). If you're not writing for yourself, however, you may writing for an editor (or grader) who can impose a manual of style upon you.
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?
In the book A Clash of Kings by George R. R. Martin, I've noticed the use of the subjunctive mood after wonder if:
In truth, he had scarcely considered the mudmen at all, beyond eyeing
Meera once or twice and wondering if she were still a maiden.
And again, later in the book:
He listened to the blasphemies and wondered if he were dying.
My (non-native) grammatical intuition makes me think this sounds really wrong. I would say "he wondered whether he was dying" and therefore also "he wondered if he was dying".
I would be tempted not to use the subjunctive with an if that can be replaced by whether, and to only use the subjunctive with an if that actually has a conditional value, for instance: "he wondered, if he were dying, why he was feeling so alive".
Also, I believe that using Martin's structure in the present tense may sound even more wrong: "he wonders if he be dying" (present subjunctive)...
So, am I right, or is it correct to use only a subjunctive clause after wonder if?
Answer
It is correct to use the subjunctive here, and not all that uncommon. Many native speakers would also use "was". It depends somewhat on personal, regional and stylistic factors. In speech or ordinary writing, generally either sounds natural. I suppose some might find the subjunctive to sound odd or old-fashioned, or the indicative to sound inelegant or uneducated. If you want to use what native speakers would consider the most strictly "correct", as in the context of a grammar test, then it might be a safer bet to use the subjunctive. Incidentally, the past subjunctive can also be used with "whether" in similar circumstances (hat tip to tchrist in comments).
Here's a Google ngram chart for "wonder if she were" and "wonder if he were". If you look through the citations, you can find examples of these phrases being used by other English writers in comparable contexts to the ones cited in the question.
When is do used in affirmative sentences? For example:
I do think that this is going to be...
Is it only used to emphasize a concept?
Answer
Well, since
I do think apples are good.
and
I think apples are good.
mean the same thing.
I think it's just for emphasis.
I know that, in the context of radio buttons (the options are limited and they choose one), I should use which. For example, Which is your favorite color?
( ) blue
( ) green
( ) red
I also suspect that for an unlimited text box, the correct option is what. For example, What is your favorite color? ________________
My instinct tells me that the same is true for checkboxes. For example, What colors do you prefer?
[ ] blue
[ ] green
[ ] red
When they can select multiple answers, I should use What colors do you prefer?, not Which colors do you prefer?, right?
The way I see it, 'overreaching his mandate' is used when someone elected to a position or answering to someone else does things that are 'out of line' (negative connotation) for him. There is an element of malice involved.
My questions are:
1) Is there a phrase that conveys a similar meaning BUT for non-elected/not-answerable-to-someone people without the sense of malice but the actions being wrong nevertheless, maybe out of stupidity? E.g. A father may try to care for his child by standing by his bed all night so that if the child is afraid, he'll find his father awake protecting him. However, the child privately finds this scary and is upset by it.
2) What other similar phrases are there for such actions, for people who may or may not be answerable to someone else and with varying intentions? e.g. (one phrase for one of such situations): My father went out of the way to make sure that my commute to school was comfortable by delaying his office even though there was a school bus available. There is no malice and the child gains from the action but the father is majorly inconvenienced. I think the same phrase can be used for elected people. What other phrases for different situations are there?
EDIT: Also: Going overboard has negative connotation along the same lines.
Answer
Sounds like the Dad went “above and beyond [the call of duty].”
above and beyond (something)
more than is required; greater than the required amount.
(Typically: be ~; go ~.) The English teacher helped students after school every day, even though it was beyond the call of duty.
(from McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs, via ‘The Free Dictionary by Farlex’)
Used with “his/her mandate,” “above and beyond” could capture “overreaching his mandate” for an elected/appointed official, not only without the negative, “out of line,” connotation that you observe (correctly, in my opinion), but with the same positive connotation usually found in its use with “the call of duty.”
(example of positive use with “mandate” found in ‘Saving the Jews: Men and Women who Defied the Final Solution’ by Mordecai Paldie on ‘Google Books’)
Used with “his/her authority,” however, the negative connotation is retained, so “above and beyond” is not always positive, such as it is used in the penultimate paragraph of the linked article from ‘Kens5/Eyewitness News’.
Somewhere in between the normally positive connotation when used with “the call of duty” and the normally negative one when used with “his/her authority,” there are also examples of the phrase being used to gently imply the notion of “being wrong nevertheless, maybe out of stupidity” presented in your question and examples, such as it is used with “the bounds of reason” in ‘Godey's Magazine’ (from ‘Google Books’) and with “the call of reason” in ‘New York Game & Fish’ (also from ‘Google Books’).
For example, I want to refer to someone on the internet, but I don't know this person's gender. Which personal-pronoun do I use? (as article I mean he, she, it, etc)
Answer
It's perfectly fine to use they in the singular sense. (Verbs are conjugated the same as they would be in the plural sense: "are they joking?", "did they break anything?".)
All the same, when the gender is not known, some authors prefer constructions like (s)he, he/she, he or she, she or he, etc., some prefer to stick with the masculine pronoun as default (he), others prefer to stick with the feminine pronoun for balance (she), some will alternate using he and she in their writing.
Consider the sentence
The cavity of each device A, B, and C was/were ...
where each device has only one cavity. Cavity is singular, but it is applied to each of the items of a list. How should one decide to use the singular or plural here?
An alternative form of the sentence is
The cavities of devices A, B, and C were ...
However, it seems that this form leaves ambiguous whether each device has one or more cavities. Would either form be satisfactory?
Answer
The singular subject alone determines demands a singular verb, especially in American English. "The cavity of each was explored." The separation of the singular subject from the verb by a long phrase ending with a plural noun is an old English-teacher trick because it "sounds OK" to someone who does not immediately recognize the structure of the sentence. Parse away the modifiers and the answer is clear. "Cavity was explored."
The spoken use of "night" as an informal, familiar version of "good night" (wishing one a restful sleep) is common, but I'm not sure what the proper written equivalent is - if there is one. I have always used 'Night with an apostrophe, usually capitalized:
'Night, Caroline!
Is any form of "night" for "good night" (with or without an apostrophe) correct as used in my example? I read a lot of Walt Kelly growing up so that may be why I use it.
I don't see a reason to use the apostrophe, as I'm not using "G'Night", with or without capitalization.
Are there different rules when conveying informal speech in writing?
Is the saying "According to me" correct?
I believe it's incorrect, and that "In my opinion" is better.
Can anyone clarify?
This is from the Hound of the Baskervilles , where in Chapter 5, one of the characters is referred to as having "a black, full beard"
and "a full, black beard" by two different people.
Which usage is right?
My confusion is whether the first description is good English in the first place. Or is it just Arthur Conan Doyle's literary licence? Further, most characters, including those using the descriptions above, speak good, Queen's English in the novel. This just makes me wonder all the more.
Answer
There is some flexibility in the ordering of attributive adjectives, but the authors of ‘An A-Z of English Grammar and Usage’ prefer the following:
Describing or expressing feeling
Size
Age
Colour
Defining
If we interpret ‘full’ as a description of size, this system would favour ‘a full, black beard’, as, indeed, would I. But, as Bill has suggested, this is not a matter of ‘good English’. The words are not Conan Doyle’s, but those of the characters he portrays, and he may have had good reasons for differentiating their speech in this way.
(Incidentally, ‘Queen’s English’ is not a term that linguists use. Given the difficulty of defining it, it is best avoided.)
I am a native U.K. speaker with a strong Midlands dialect, and I am very aware of other dialects and regional accents from around the world of English speakers, and I really enjoy this.
I am a data scientist, with a strong interest in natural language processing, and I have a problem with the phonetic representation of the word oranges. NOTE: Not singular orange, I am specifically referencing the plural word oranges.
So here is my problem, illustrated with references from different online resources:
I live in China, and Chinese internet resources such as 3. and 4., show that dʒ is followed straight away by s, meanwhile, other websites such as 5. and 6., show at least some phonetic "e sounding phoneme" in between dʒ and s.
From a native speaker perspective, I feel that 5., 6. and 7. are correct in the final stages of the word in order to make it plural, while 3. and 4. are incorrect. So as a native speaker, with almost 30 years of experience with the language, tend to believe my instincts in a lot of circumstances.
Now when I try to persuade colleagues that resources 3. and 4. are not correct, I fail straight away because these corporations tend to be treated as the truth. As such they do not believe me, emulate the phoneme suggestions of 3. and 4. and proceed to say the word from what I see as incorrect, which brings up more problems in the app we are building, described further below.
I know my mouth can produce the sound /s/ straight after /dʒ/, so my first theory that it is just a natural reflex of the mouth to add a slight vowel sound in between /s/ and /dʒ/, thus not needing to actually include this vowel phoneme in the phonetic representation of the word, was disproved.
My second thought that as a native speaker, have I learned this addition of a vowel from the natural evolution of language? Was it many many years ago pronounced without a final vowel sound? As such, the phonetic representation of oranges has now changed?
So with different resources providing different information, is there a more definitive way or better solution as to better accurately describe how the word is said, or in part, said by the vast majority? And I'm really not talking about accent based, like U.S.A vs UK banana, but more like the word oranges, that so far to me, is not regionally bound for the addition of a vowel near the end to make it plural.
We have a phonetic analysis tool in our app, where the user can say some words and it will try to determine whether these phonemes have been uttered, but with these different definitions and expected phonemes present in the word, this becomes even more difficult because right now I am unclear as the what phonemes should be expected to be uttered for that word, if an additional vowel is picked up, should that be treated as the correct ending, or not?
This post was fairly difficult to write, as phonetics are very much an audio-based thing, so if anything was unclear, please let me know and I'll try to re-word it better.
Answer
A non-negotiable phonological rule of all standard Englishes inserts a vowel (either /ə/ or /ɪ/, depending on the variety of English) between base-final sibilant consonants and the plural morpheme /z/. The /z/ morpheme remains voiced in this position after a vowel.
The sibilant consonants in English are /s, z, ʃ, ʒ, tʃ, dʒ/
Therefore for the following words:
We see the following plurals:
And the word oranges is therefore /'ɒrɪndʒɪz/ in so-called Standard British or /'ɔːrɪndʒəz/ in General American. In General American there may be some variation in the initial vowel or in terms of whether speakers use /ɪ/ or /ə/ in the final syllable. However, there is NO exception to the insertion of a final vowel before the plural morpheme in either British or American standard Englishes.
Notice that both the youdau and baidu entries are completely and utterly incorrect giving an /s/ variant of the plural morpheme after a voiced consonant. This is a phonological impossibility in English.
For a beginner-level introduction to English plurals, the Original Poster's colleagues could be directed here: Rachel's English.
Why are some internet dictionaries unreliable? Well, they are not published by reputable publishers or based on research.