I'm an illustrator. Can I say "I'm fully booked" to mean that my schedule is full?
I've always heard the booked verb applied to "performative" professions: Models, event planners, singers, etc. Never for pure service and creation-oriented occupations as on-site technical support providers or painters. You book a model. You don't book a writer.
If this expression isn't appropriate, how else could I word that "schedule" sentence without being so passive or mouthful?
I had this conversation with a friend earlier:
Friend (to a group): If you don't like [this show], there's something wrong with you.
Me (to friend): Or you're just a little more mature than you and me.
In my statement, you switches from the other members of the group (or maybe people in a general sense) to the person I am talking to. Is this okay from a syntactical perspective?
I can't think of any other examples where the same pronoun switches people without using a noun in between. Is there something in this statement that makes it obvious the pronouns have switched what they're referencing from a pure grammar perspective?
Edit:
To clarify, what I was trying to say in my response is "We both like this show, but that's probably because we're both immature. The other people in this group might not like this show because they're more mature than us, not because there's something wrong with them."
Answer
To clarify, what I was trying to say in my response is "We both like this show, but that's probably because we're both immature."
TL;DR: What you are trying to say is (referring to your friend):
Or you and I are just a little less mature than the others.
Let's analyze your sentence in different cases, and explain why it's wrong.
Or you're just a little more mature than you and me.
The first you is the second person plural.
In that case, the phrase "you are just a little more mature" would mean that all the people present except yourself are a little more mature, including your friend.
Then you say "than you and me". If that you is again the second person plural, then you are saying that all the other people are a little more mature than all the people, excluding yourself, and including your friend; if it is the first second person plural, then you are saying that all present people except yourself , but including your friend (the one to which you are speaking), are a little more mature than you and your friend. In both the cases, there is somebody that is a little more mature than himself/herself.
The first you is the second person singular.
In that case, the phrase "you are just a little more mature" is referring to your friend (the one to whom you are speaking).
Then you say "than you and me". If that you is the second person singular then you are saying that your friend is a little more mature than you and himself; if that you is the second person plural, then you are saying that your friend is a little more mature than all people, excluding yourself and him. Again there is somebody who is a little more mature than himself/herself.
Your sentence is not ambiguous; it is simply wrong.
I keep seeing that it's just courtesy to put yourself last in a list of nouns. eg. "They went to the game with Sally and me" instead of "They went to the game with me and Sally".
Is there an official rule somewhere that says this? All i'm finding is people just saying that's the case
How come it is ok to write "results file",
while you must write "result list" rather than "results list"?
Answer
Technically, either version is grammatically correct. However, the word "list" implies a plural amount of the item, therefore stylistically people only use a singular in front of "list". However, the word "file" does not imply a plural amount (technically you could have a file with only one result), so you can use plural form in order to clarify.
Say for example you have colours to choose from A: red B: yellow C: orange which really doesn't matter, i.e. they play no important roles in your decision, not gaining or losing over one another or they are of equal weights. That I want to call them "options".
Now if you are given some other things to choose from, e.g. A: New car B: Travel package C: $30000 which obviously are not of equal weight and choosing between them involve calculating gain/loss, etc. What would you call them? Do you simply call them "choices"?
When there is an acronym such as NSFW (Not Safe For Work) as in the following example
This is an NSFW link
This is a Not Safe For Work link
Is it correct to use "a" or "an" when using the acronym? I've assumed that it was dependant upon how you're going to pronounce the acronym when speaking (spelling it out "N-S-F-W" or just saying what the letters stand for "Not Safe For Work"). I see in print
This is a NSFW link
which to me is incorrect because I pronounce the acronym letters.
I am having a hard time determining the correct usage when referring to my staff in a sentence. It includes multiple employees.
Should I say"
Staff were busy this fall or
Staff was busy this fall....
HELP!
So, me and some others got into a little debate about this and I found some really good information on here, and wanted to get some good expert opinions. I have 2 questions about the following statement:
"This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained would be used for that purpose."
Questions 1. Does the use of "would" make this conditional/hypothetical?
I'm pretty sure that's an easy yes, which leads to the question I'm really needing answered.
Question 2. Is there a way, or any rule for certain situations, where an unspecified condition is determined based on contextual information? For example, here, it seems obvious that the condition is "IF any information is obtained". So is there any rule that says based on this sentence alone, that is the condition, or is it still technically an unknown?
==> Until more recently, Product XYZ had not been ready but Provider XYZ has made changes to the product a while ago that address the issue and
markets are now embracing the product.
Is this sentence grammatically correct? My thinking was:
Thank you for your help, much appreciated. Just wanted to make sure I am using past perfect correctly. At what point would you use "past tense" in a sentence like this? E.g. if you know exactly when the product was released.
Answer
There is no prohibition on using the past perfect and the present perfect in one statement. For example:
Until more recently, Product XYZ had not been ready but Provider XYZ
has now made changes to the product ... .
The problem here lies in the combination of a present tense (the present perfect) with an adjunct of past or finished time (a while ago). This is generally ungrammatical. For example:
*Until more recently, Product XYZ had not been ready but last week Provider XYZ has made changes to the product ... .
*Until more recently, Product XYZ had not been ready but in 2014 Provider XYZ has made changes to the product ... .
While some native speakers might find your original sentence marginally acceptable, you are safer using the past tense (preterite):
Until more recently, Product XYZ had not been ready but Provider XYZ
made changes to the product a while ago that address the issue and markets are now embracing the product.
And if the issue no longer exists, you could put 'address' into the past tense also.
Alternatively, you can replace the past time adjunct with one that extends time into the present and retain the present perfect:
Until more recently, Product XYZ had not been ready but Provider XYZ has
made changes to the product in the past few months that address the issue and markets are now embracing the product.
I am reading the grammar book - A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language - these days. I am confused about the meanings of definite and indefinite in Past Tense and Present Perfect.
I know that Past Tense means an action or state started and ended before now. For example:
He died.
From what I think, He died is the event die that happened at some point in the past. So what does the definite time mean here? And I think He died yesterday/last week is a definite time, which I know the exact time He died.
I know I am wrong, please help to point it out.
And Present Perfect has the meaning of INDEFINITE EVENT(S) IN A PERIOD LEADING UP TO THE PRESENT. For example:
He has died recently.
Which means, from an unspecified time(not too long from now) to now, in this period of time, the event die happened.
I think this is an indefinite event since I don't know the exact time when it happened.
Answer
A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (p184) expands its discussion of the use of the simple past in the following extract:
It is not necessary for the past tense to be accompanied by an overt
indicator of time. All that is required is that the speaker should be
able to count on the hearer's assumption that he has a specific time
in mind. In this respect, the past tense meaning of DEFINITE PAST time
is an equivalent, in the verb phrase, of the definite article in the
noun phrase. Just as with the definite article, so with the verb
phrase, an element of definite meaning may be recoverable from (a)
knowledge of the immediate or local situation; (b) the larger
situation of 'general knowledge'; (c) what has been said earlier in
the sentence or text; or (d) what comes later on in the same sentence
or text.
So this answers the question in your comment: Without explicit temporal adverbial, e.g yesterday/last week in He died yesterday/last week, how can I know the definite time of the event? Namely, the definite date or time when the event occurred will normally be recoverable in one or more of the four ways (a-d) outlined above. So, the utterance Byron died in Greece contains the implicit definite past reference: in the time that Byron was living in Greece.
As to your statement:
And Present Perfect has the meaning of INDEFINITE EVENT(S) IN A PERIOD
LEADING UP TO THE PRESENT
I'd be interested in where you have read this, since to me it is the time period that is indefinite, not the events themselves. Nevertheless, you are right that recently is an indefinite time expression which is often accompanied by the present perfect.
That said, the past tense is also used with recently. In fact, Google returns about six times more results for He died recently than He has died recently.
The choice between simple past and present perfect is very complex. For a full account of this grammar issue I recommend the excellent canonical post by StoneyB on the English Language Learners site:
I'm writing a technical report and must use the plural form of LASER. Seeing as it is an acronym, how does one add the 's'?
Answer
The acronym LASER describes a process, not equipment. Modern usage is lasing for the process, and laser has become an ordinary noun. So for multiple devices operating on the LASER principle: "lasers" or "LASERs". Preferably the first, without all caps.
This website implies that "Among …, include(s) ….” constructs are untenable. It says that the sentence:
“Among the skills tested on the standardized tests given to military pilots includes orthographic imagination”
is illogical, because it uses both "Among" and "includes" when only one of these may be used at a time. The website also says it is acceptable to say “Among the skills is X,” or to say “The skills include X,” but not “Among the skills include X. ”
I don’t understand this, because in other websites I could see “Among ….. , include(s) …." For example, from here:
The University of Louisville’s online program consists of 36 credit hours, with 6 credits transferrable. Among the core courses include Philosophy of Higher Education, The American College and University, and Educational Resource Management in Postsecondary Education.
Incidentally, if "Among …, include(s) ….” constructs are acceptable, what is the subject of the verb include?
Which one is correct:
Someone like me...
or
Someone like myself...
Is "like myself" ever correct?
Answer
"Someone like me" is the correct one.
There's a lot to say about the usage I guess, but to make a long story short:
Me is a so-called objective pronoun, opposed to subjective pronouns (I, you, she, he). It's called like this because it's placed in the object field after verbs or prepositions:
Wait for me!
She likes me.
Myself instead, is used with reflexive verbs, meaning those verbs that indicate an action that "falls" on the subject:
I wash myself.
I told myself it couldn't be true.
There are exceptions, you can find them here, but I'll paste the interesting part:
Usage note: There is no disagreement over the use of myself and other
-selfforms when they are used intensively "I myself cannot agree" or reflexively "He introduced himself proudly". Questions are raised, however, when the-selfforms are used instead of the personal pronouns ( I, me, etc.) as subjects, objects, or complements.
Myself occurs only rarely as a single subject in place of I: Myself was the one who called. The recorded instances of such use are mainly poetic or literary. It is also uncommon as a simple object in place of me: Since the letter was addressed to myself, I opened it. As part of a compound subject, object, or complement, myself and to a lesser extent the other-selfforms are common in informal speech and personal writing, somewhat less common in more formal speech and writing: The manager and myself completed the arrangements.
There is ample precedent, going as far back as Chaucer and running through the whole range of British and American literature and other serious formal writing, for all these uses. Many usage guides, however, state that to use myself in any construction in which I or me could be used instead (as My daughter and myself play the flute instead of My daughter and I) is characteristic only of informal speech and that such use ought not to occur in writing.
I'm writing up my dissertation and I'm really confused where to use "the". Examples:
In this experiment, (the?) heat transfer coefficient was calculated, allowing to estimate (the?)frost thickness.
And:
Firstly, (the?) air properties are defined.
And:
As (the?) crystals grow in radius, the amount of air in (the?) ice is reduced, due to (the?) ice becoming more packed.
None of the nouns mentioned above have been used for the first time, so I rule out the use of "a".
Would appreciate any help.
This question is similar to this one but I'm trying to decide the tense to use in here : I often use "is being" and "are being" in my sentences. Is it correct grammatically?
The xxxs which will be used in the xxx unit, must be defined in this
section before being used in the programs.
or
The xxxs which will be used in the xxx unit, must be defined in this
section before they are used in the programs.
Answer
At Google Books:
"defined before being used"
About 694 results
"defined before are used"
8 results
The first seems to me more general: as it only uses non-finite verbal forms, it can adapt to any time, from past to present and to future. The 2nd follows the idea of flattening everything to a narrative present tense.
The first is clearly more liked and, IMO, more elegant.
Now, if we go to the fuller clauses:
"must be defined before being used"
About 64 results
"must be defined before they are used"
About 919 results
which to me indicates that both are accepted. I still prefer the first.
Can anyone explain the difference between hence and thus and when should we use one and not the other?
Answer
"Hence" means "from here". "Get thee hence!" is old English for "get out of here". "Henceforwards" is "from this time on".
"Thus" means "in this way". In older English, you might say "he opened the door thus", while demonstrating the action.
In logical senses, you can use them in similar contexts. "If x is true, then y is true. X is true. Hence, y is also true." "If x is true, then y is true. I have proved x is true. Thus, I have proved y to be true also."
Think of them as "based on this fact" and "in this way" and you can't go far wrong.
This is actually a question that came up when I was studying Japanese. Unfortunately my grasp of the technical language of syntax is very limited, and I never fully comprehended the idea of a noun modifying clause. The phrase given in my Japanese study guide to demonstrate the difference is (without)
I took a photograph.
and with
This is a photograph taken by me.
Can someone break this example down for me, and perhaps provide a few other examples like this for simple and complex situations (if this even makes sense) to help me understand this construct?
It is also possible that the guide has been poorly translated and there is a different name for this. If so, what is it?
Revision
It seems that the question is not entirely clear to some, so although I have my answer I want to add some more information to (hopefully) raise the quality of the question. None of the text above this was edited.
The block quoted text is an example lifted exactly from a study guide, not from notes taken in a class, and not translated from Japanese. It appears to have been designed to show a reader who does not know what a "noun modifying clause" is is and how to apply it in English, before doing it in Japanese.
To clarify, the first block quote is a sentence without a "noun modifying clause" and the second is a sentence with one.
Answer
The term you probably want in this case is Relative Clause. There are other kinds of adjective clauses (i.e, noun-modifying clauses), but relatives are by far the most common and the most complex. In particular, relative clauses, like many subordinate clauses, are subject to a variety of deletion rules that make them shorter, or even shorter still.
Probably the most important is the rule that has applied in the second sentence.
This is a photograph taken by Bill.
(taken by me has stylistic problems; let's use an example without side issues.) This is in fact reduced from a sentence showing the bells and whistles that relatives deck themselves out in.
This is a photograph which was taken by Bill.
or, alternatively,
This is a photograph that was taken by Bill.
The rule called Whiz-Deletion by linguists (from the fact that it deletes a Wh-word plus a form of be, quite often is; a monosyllabic variant of "Wh-is deletion"), when applied to a relative clause, creates a bare verb phrase without a tensed verb, but with whatever is left after the deletion. Any phrase of more than one word simply goes after the noun it modifies.
Interestingly, there is a codicil to Whiz-Deletion that applies when there is only one adjective left after deletion. The adjective has to be moved in front of the noun; it can't appear after it the way phrases can; conversely, phrases can't appear in front of the noun, but must follow it.
but
It has long been suspected that all attributive adjectives, including the ones that precede nouns, are the result of reduction of relative clauses.
Is the correct to say
A pack of wolves run through the woods
or is the correct English
A pack of wolves runs through the woods
The former sounds right. However, I think the subject is a pack and of wolves adds a description to the subject. In this case the subject is singular, so therefore the verb must be singular.
Am I correct? It just doesn't feel right.
Is it correct to say 'plenty of chance' rather than 'plenty of chances' or are they both acceptable? You certainly wouldn't say 'many chance' but 'many chances'. Is there something about the phrase 'plenty of' or is it that the word 'chance' can be used to mean more than one opportunity, thus intrinsically denoting a plurality of concept? Can anyone explain the correct usage?
As far as I know, it’s a rule that a comma is needed before a coordinating conjunction that joins two independent clauses. But the use of a comma before a coordinating conjunction that joins two independent clauses in a compound-complex sentence seems to change the meaning of the whole sentence. Please compare the four sentences below.
I think that in 1. and 3. the context of the subordinate clause applies to both independent clauses, but in 2. and 4. it seems to apply to the independent clause that is adjacent to it.
Therefore, if we want the context of the subordinate clause to apply to both independent clauses, the rule that a comma is to be used before a coordinative conjunction that joins two independent clauses should be exempted in these cases. I have tried to find reliable references that state such exemption, but I rarely found one. The two references that I found (which were from small websites) said that a comma is not needed in such sentences with such context. I cannot find more references to confirm this opinion, so I’d like to ask for more opinions here regarding this.
N.B. I’ve checked the previous posts but couldn’t find the one that exactly addresses this question. The one that I found similar is “Comma before conjunctions in predicates containing two coordinate clauses”. But that one is about comma before conjunctions in predicates not comma before conjunctions that join independent clauses.
It seems that "enamored" can be used with any of the prepositions "of", "with", and "by". What is the proper usage for each?
This is the sentence I'm writing:
The team, enamored with this new metaphor, spent much of the remaining time brainstorming ways to apply those principles to the project.
"By" sounds the most natural to me in that context, and "of" sounds stilted. "With" is somewhere in between.
Answer
Looking at Google Ngrams, British English seems to use nearly exclusively "enamoured of", while American English uses both "enamored of" and "enamored with". "Enamo(u)red by" is quite rare on both sides of the pond. I would probably say "enamored of" when talking about a person, an animal, or an abstract idea, and "enamored with" when talking about a tangible object. I can't tell whether this is just me, or American usage in general. After looking at some examples on Google, I can say lots of people don't follow this rule.
He was enamored with his new model airplane.
He was enamored of the idea of running his own business.
But all three of these prepositions are acceptable grammar, and all three should be understood equally well.
I had to pick one of my friends for a movie. She didn't know where we would go, so the moment she sat in the car, she asked "So, where we headed?" I told her the multiplex name. But I thought she should have asked, "where we heading (= going)"?
Why people say use past tense "headed" when they still need to reach the destination?
Which is correct?
Which would you use for a web application, i.e. what to display when a blog post or an article has no comment attached?
Actually, I am trying to fix an application that says: "There is no comments"! Would that ever be right?
More generally speaking, it feels wrong to have a plural after the negative no/none or with the preposition without (see my previous question "Without reason" or "Without reasons"?). Those words imply zero, i.e. less than one, while plural is two or more. Yet, I know that phrases like "There are no comments" or "He is without friends" are common. It seems illogical to me.
Are the majority of people making a grammar mistake when using such expressions, or else can you explain why this is correct?
Answer
"No comments" is correct, and this construction is common in English. For example, we get singular agreement for number for the value of 1, and plural agreement for anything else.
This extends to "no" as well.
Using "no" combined with a singular is possible, but implies that there would only be either one of that thing, or nothing. This is much more rare (though it comes up from time to time). You might read in the newspaper, "When asked about the situation, the press secretary had no comment." Here it is singular because you either have a comment about a matter, or you don't. If you say a lot of things, it is still considered one comment (at least in the journalistic sense of the word).
Having been raised with German as my first language, my parents took very much care that I would not mention myself fist: If I told them that I did something with my friends - "me, Bob and Andrew" - I was always corrected to say "Bob, Andrew and me" instead.
Is there a similar rule or is it perceived to be similarily impolite to mention oneself first in the English language?
I hope I'm posting this in the correct forum. If not, please direct me to the proper place to move my question. This is my first time using this site since I found it on Google, though I've used some of the answers here as references a number of times before, so please bear with me.
I'm in the process of editing a friend's story, as she is unfamiliar with a lot of grammar and punctuation rules. I've been trying to explain to her why I'm making each edit as I go so that she can learn from the experience.
I've run into a chapter where she's used a similar sentence structure a few times, and I'm not positive that it's incorrect, as I've seen it done plenty of times before, but it just feels wrong to me. If it is incorrect, can you tell me how to explain it to her grammatically so she's less likely to make the same mistake again?
Here are the examples:
The thought that his kind were something to fear or at least be wary of, it was harmful.
The way Jordan was smiling and the lightness in his voice, it was unlike the man he had seen before.
The memory of her face, caught contorted in the middle of a scream, it had haunted him for the first year.
To me it feels like it would be better to remove the ", it" in each case but I don't want to tell her something is incorrect if it works grammatically (though I might mention that it feels more natural without that). If I'm analyzing the sentence structure properly, it seems that the "it" she's using is just simplifying and restating the noun used at the beginning of the sentence, before the comma break ("the thought," "the way," "the memory"), but could using "it" in that manner also apply to other parts of speech that I should warn her about?
Also, are there instances where, with certain formatting changes, the "it" can properly repeat the subject without being grammatically incorrect? For example, I've seen situations where someone would use an ellipsis in place of a comma, but I'm not sure if they mean to trail off and then begin a new sentence with it, or what.
Sorry for the long-winded question. I'd appreciate any answers you may have for me.
Answer
The three sentences use it in different ways.
The thought that his kind were something to fear or at least be wary of, it was harmful.
Although the sentence could dispense with it without significant change in meaning, the pronoun changes the way the idea is conveyed in the sentence (emphasizing the subject, as @pablopaul already noted). Compare:
"The thought that his kind were something to fear or at least be wary of -- it was harmful."
The way Jordan was smiling and the lightness in his voice, it was unlike the man he had seen before.
The it seems more like a "dummy it" (not a useless it) in this case.
The memory of her face, caught contorted in the middle of a scream, it had haunted him for the first year.
I see no useful purpose served by it here.
In general, these examples also suggest a possible carry-over from the writer's native idiom (possibly a non-native speaker of English).
I need to refer to a user of a certain service and would like to avoid a perticular gender such as his/her and not use one either.
Could I say "The user attempts to maximize own capacity.", instead of "The user attempts to maximize his own capacity"?
Thanks a lot.
I'm reading Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility, and I notice that she invariably uses an apostrophe with possessive pronouns — in a way that would be considered incorrect now. For example: (Elinor is speaking to Colonel Brandon)
My gratitude will be insured immediately by any information tending to that end, and her's must be gained by it in time. Pray, pray let me hear it. (Volume II, Chapter IX, page 153 of the Oxford World's Classics edition, emphases in original)
Assuming that Austen is a reasonably good yardstick for proper style of her time, I'm wondering when this practice came to be considered incorrect. (Note that there are some related questions, especially this one. But that question's answers don't get into any real detail about the when part of the question.)
Edit: @FumbleFingers points out in the comments that my example may be a bad one. In the original, the sentence would have had "HERS" (and no apostrophe). My larger point stands, and here are a few other examples without that problem:
When they stopped at the door, Mrs. Jennings recollected that there was a lady at the other end of the street on whom she ought to call; and as she had no business at Gray's, it was resolved, that while her young friends transacted their's, she should pay her visit and return for them. (Chapter 33)
But at last she found herself with some surprise, accosted by Miss Steele, who, though looking rather shy, expressed great satisfaction in meeting them, and on receiving encouragement from the particular kindness of Mrs. Jennings, left her own party for a short time, to join their's. (Chapter 38)
That conviction must be every thing to you; and he is undoubtedly supported by the same trust in your's. (Chapter 24)
Those examples are all taken from the Gutenberg edition online.
Edit after closing: It's funny that this should be closed so soon after the blog post about The War of the Closes. The alleged duplicate does not talk about my question, namely when did good usage shift forms like her's, their's, etc. to hers, theirs, etc. Nor does the only answer to that question address the when question. That other question and its answer are about whether forms like hers came to exist by analogy with the possessive of nouns, such as John's. It's a completely different question. In addition, this question now has a reasonably good answer. There's no reason for this to be closed.
Answer
Since your's and her's are virtually always incorrect in modern English, one way to answer your question is to look at the frequency of those terms in published books.
Searching Google Ngram Viewer for your's and her's shows the terms peaking in popularity around Jane Austen's lifetime and virtually extinct by 1850.
I am interested in whether the article can be omitted in a phrase like The Ideas About a Woman in Roman Literature (as in the name of a scientific article). Is the article needed here at all, since the noun is used in its commonest sense?
Some references can be found on websites of doubtful trustworthiness:
Before a common noun used in its commonest sense:
Man is mortal.
Iron is a useful metal.
But the first case has already been discussed here on StackExchange. And the second one is just a mass noun.
A detailed set of rules for the use of zero article is provided in Longman English Grammar, but it states nothing at all about the omission of articles before nouns in their commonest sense. Neither do the Cambridge Grammar of English or Collins COBUILD English Grammar.
Obviously, if we say the concept of 'woman', the article will be omitted, but if there are no quotation marks, as in the ideas about [a] woman in Roman literature, is there a rule which allows omitting the article or which explains why the article is mandatory?
P.S. Here is an example where no article is used in a paper by a native speaker, Prof. Maggie Gale.
Answer
Academic guides usually argue against this usage, but for some words (including "woman" and "man") zero-article usage is well attested.
I've encountered the "commonest sense" rule about article usage in academic writing handbooks. They often suggest making the noun plural when talking about a noun in a general sense (also called a "Generic Noun Phrase," as John Lawler mentioned in a comment to your question). For instance, here is what Rules for Writers, edited by Diana Hacker and Nancy Sommers, 8th edition, 2016 says:
29e: Do not use articles with nouns that refer to all of something or something in general.
When a noncount noun refers to all of its type or to a concept in general, it is not marked with an article. (...)
In most cases, when you use a count noun to represent a general category, make the noun plural. Do not use unmarked singular count nouns to represent whole categories.
That works well generally, and provides good advice to student writers. However, if we're being descriptive of what people do in professional contexts, I have seen this usage before. You cite Maggie Gale; I cite French Revolution-era writer Mary Wollstonecraft, who did both:
A Vindication of the Rights of Men
A Vindication of the Rights of Woman
What's the difference? "Men" refers to a group of men who need rights. "Woman" refers to the general category of woman. Even a brief skim of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman would show she frequently uses women to refer to groups of women and woman or man (without the article) to refer to each category in an abstract or general sense. The Oxford English Dictionary documents this usage for "woman, n., 2" as "women considered collectively":
Man has a similar definition ("man, n.1, 2"), and other words occasionally are used in this way when one wants to focus on the abstract or general quality of the category rather than a group of individuals. These generic noun phrases of often-count nouns are idiomatic, which is why an academic guidebook would recommend against them in general but various well-qualified writers use specific ones without the article even today.
I have a pair of friends who since entering into a relationship have become rather disgustingly effusive and clingy, to the point where people around them have begun referring them an 'it' [singular], or as a (hermaphroditic) single organism. Equivalently, imagine attempting to speak to a sentient coral, or a Portuguese Man o' War, or a mated anglerfish pair, wherein
When [the male] finds a female, he bites into her skin, and releases an enzyme that digests the skin of his mouth and her body, fusing the pair down to the blood-vessel level. The male becomes dependent on the female host for survival, receiving nutrients via their shared circulatory system, and provides sperm to the female in return. (Wikipedia)
My question is, is there an accepted or even simply precedented way to correctly refer to an entity of this nature? 'It,' for example, is passible, but it's really a neuter pronoun, rather than bigendered. Similarly, trying to convey the two-in-one-ness is difficult, especially when attempting to decline it in a sentence:
Which of it was here yesterday?
('Which part' is again, passable, but to me seems to imply inanimate parts of a single organism, not sentient parts of a merged one)
It fucked itself.
I feel that the singular, genderless 'they' might be useful, but apart from being questionably grammatical, definitely implies a separation.
Perhaps useful; how is the Holy Trinity referred to in scholarly texts?
Edit: To my dismay, a number of people seem to have taken this question as insulting, or 'ask[ing] how to insult people whose behavior you cannot tolerate,' or 'look[ing] at the phenomenon in a perverted way.' None of these interpretations are accurate. Rather, I was amused by the concept, which was not coined by me, and wondered upon the possible grammatical constructs. Believe me, I can insult people quite well unassisted.
Why does a pairing of a noun and phrase about it, specifically with a question word, take a singular verb?
Generically: [Noun] and [idea about noun] [singular verb].†
Example: Language and how we use it has always fascinated me.
Why is the verb singular? Because there are two subjects it would seem that the verb should be plural. If the second subject was another noun, the verb would certainly be plural: The bike and its evolution are interesting.
My best conjecture is that there is actually only one subject and that the second apparent subject actually just specifies the relevant aspect of the first subject. Perhaps better punctuation would be parentheses: The bicycle (and how it evolved) is interesting.
† Perhaps this construction is wrong and this whole question irrelevant. I am not claiming it is the cleanest expression of the idea, but only that it is a more valid construction than with a plural verb. I am relying on its sounding right, and a plural verb's sounding wrong. How something sounds to one person isn't sufficient evidence, but I haven't found a good way to search for examples of either.
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?
I'm trying to figure out how best to write that I've been awarded for obtaining the second best (is it better to say highest?) grade|mark|score. I'm talking about the final grade|mark|score of a degree (not of a single exam), which is represented by a number instead of a letter.
So far I've been writing "Award for the second best mark", but not sure whether it's correct or may be improved.
Answer
"Awarded/Commended for obtaining the second highest mark."
"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.
What is the correct usage of the sentence"the pen of Raman or Raman's pen"? which one is the correct. i do remember reading somewhere that "of" will not be used prior to proper noun.Is it right?
I have seen uses of must that appear to be in the simple past tense. Sometimes these seem grammatical, but sometimes not. Examples that help illustrate my confusion:
He knew he must go to New York - sounds fine to me.
He went to New York because he must - sounds questionable.
Because he must go to New York, he bought plane tickets - sounds completely ungrammatical.
He must go to New York - grammatical, but with no other verbs to provide context, can't interpret this as being past-tense.
My question: is this past-tense use of must ever acceptable? Is it only acceptable in certain contexts - if so, what are those contexts and why?
(Note - I'm not looking for had to. Have is a different verb, so had to expresses the same meaning as the past tense of must, but it itself is not the past tense of must.)
Answer
Rarely, must is used as a past tense. Belshazzar, by H. Rider Haggard, has we went because we must, in a prose style which is perhaps deliberately archaic to reflect the ancient Egyptian context.
In this odd snippet, If Thoreau went because he would, Hawthorne went because he must, one might say the author is "playing with language".
But here's Ralph Waldo Emerson with What he did, he did because he must. I would not wish to say Emerson doesn't know his own language.
From comments under @Henry's answer, it seems something quite odd has been going on. Many people will know the archaic present tense mote because Freemasons & such still say So mote it be in a "ritual" context. Bizarrely, the past tense "must" eclipsed "mote" for present tense usage. But in so doing, "must" somehow almost completely lost its ability to still be used as a past tense.
In spite of all the above, ordinary mortals in ordinary contexts today should stick with the standard position put forward by other answers. Use had to for the past tense.
This question about "started teaching/to teach" made me realise that even though the present participle and infinitive are both acceptable after "started", that's not the case with other superficially equivalent "auxiliary" verbs...
She began crying/to cry. (both okay - and to me, mean exactly the same thing)
She ceased caring/to care. (both okay, but the infinitive seems slightly more "natural" to me)
It commenced raining/?to rain.
It stopped raining/*to rain.
He quit gambling/*to gamble.
We gave up trying/*to try.
What is it about those last four that prevents the infinitive form being acceptable?
I have a vague sense that in some usages the infinitive might have been more acceptable in the past ("It commenced to rain" sounds a bit "Victorian" to me), but I can't square that with my preference for "I ceased to care" over "I ceased caring".
I'm usually quite good at this kind of thing but can't decide on this.
When describing when a car has had its MOT (Ministry of Transport) test do I write...
...or something else? All of them look a bit wrong but a bit right.
Or do I just cop out and put "Recently MOT Tested" instead???
Most Google searches bring up results for "Match of the Day"!
Every once in a while, I will come across a type of sentence construction in which a nested dependent clause is punctuated with a comma at the beginning but not at the end of the clause. For example:
David Davis, when asked by a House of Commons committee to explain why he had failed to provide anything adequately resembling the Brexit impact assessments that had been demanded by parliament fell back on an extraordinarily devious defence. (The Guardian)
My gut feeling tells me that, because it is a nested dependent clause, it should have been
David Davis, when asked by a House of Commons committee to explain why he had failed to provide anything adequately resembling the Brexit impact assessments that had been demanded by parliament
,fell back on an extraordinarily devious defence.
Am I correct? If not, could anyone shed some light on this matter?
Answer
Yes, both commas are needed. Each comma represents one end of a parenthetical phrase -- they could be replaced by '(' and ')'.
The only way to use a single comma would be to move the parenthetical phrase (also called an adverbial phrase or dependent clause) to the beginning or end of the sentence.
I'm trying to figure out how to use "not only... but also" properly. Basically, my goal is to combine two clauses by using "not only".
For negations, I've figured out two styles that both sound correct:
However, I don't know how to form a sentence that does not include a negation while using "not only". Here are a few possibilities that I've considered:
In those four possibilities, I'm varying the usage of "but" and "also" in the last clause.
What is the proper usage of "not only"?
Answer
In the bottom one, this is how I would form it:
Thanks to his remarkable performance on the SAT, he was not only accepted into Harvard, but also given a full scholarship.
Here's a related question where this came up. I made an assumption in my answer that I want to bring to discussion.
I know the rule for adjective order:
Opinion Size Age Shape Colour Material Origin Purpose
Now, how and where exactly does weight fit in here? Does it belong to any of the mentioned categories or can we sort it between two of them?
As in:
This is a beautiful and heavy glass paperweight.
The app is fast and lightweight.
Lindsay, with A Voyage to Arcturus, tests the same visionary and linguistic envelopes. In the Orwellian view of language, the reduction of vocabulary to a functional and brutal Sun-speak is seen as a means of limiting the population's consciousness itself; pruning the gorgeous wilderness of language back to predetermined boundaries...
source: Alan Moore's Introduction to A Voyage to Arcturus
Can you please explain the meaning of Sun-speak? It is nowhere to be found.
When a member posted a grammatically correct question today for scrutiny, I replied in 'comments,'
No mistake, but only bemused grammarians and humble myself!
Now I wonder: is "humble myself" a grammatically or idiomatically sound way to refer to oneself in an expression of personal modesty? My father says it all the time, as in
"the only Ph.D holder in this august audience is humble myself."
I could not find this expression on google search, which is dominated by the religious verb "to humble oneself/yourself/myself (before the Lord)" -- that is why I am asking this question here.
Two kind senior members replied in the same comments section:
@EnglishStudent: to me, "my humble self" sounds more natural. But in "the only Ph.D holder in this august audience is humble myself/my humble self" it looks like false modesty. – sumelic
@English Student: I've read "my humble self" in British literature, but it sounds very old-fashioned. I've never heard "humble myself" in the way you are using it (native speaker of US English here, mainly BosWash corridor) -- but I would not be confused if I heard it. – ab2
My father says it is an old-fashioned courtly British way of referring to oneself, whether with real or false modesty (and in the case of the Ph.D, some real sarcasm, because none of the other so-called luminaries at a particular conference had a doctorate, except for "humble himself!") -- he learnt his English in newly post-independent India, mainly by reading his medical textbooks and British literature.
It may well have become an archaic expression.
What I want to know is whether you experts at EL & U have heard it before, and can say if it is idiomatically sound?
Answer
Your father probably has a charming way with words, and although "humble myself" as he uses it is idiosyncratic, not idiomatic, he has not stretched English to its elastic limit -- to use the term from your bio. He should continue using this phrase, because it pleases him and no doubt his listeners.
idiosyncratic, from Dictionary.com:
pertaining to the nature of idiosyncrasy, or something peculiar to an
individual: The best minds are idiosyncratic and unpredictable as
they follow the course of scientific discovery
It is suggested my question is a duplicate of How to punctuate an embedded quoted question within a declarative sentence?. It is not, that answer does not address the problem of a quote within a quote, it only addresses the problem of a quote within prose. So, for example, it uses double quotation marks around the quote instead of single, and doesn't address whether I have a comma after the singly-quoted quotation or not. My original question follows. Note that the character Jack is speaking and part of his speech is to quote a question asked earlier by his daughter.
A character is speaking to another character, and quotes a question of the other character then goes on about that question.
"No," Jack said, "You asked me, 'Can I go out with Jenna?', and I said yes, but you didn't tell me Bobby would be there, and I've told you, you cannot go anywhere with Bobby!"
Am I punctuating 'Can I go out with Jenna?' correctly?
Answer
The rules are well established for sentences that start or end with the quote. See the answer to the question “How to punctuate an embedded quoted question within a declarative sentence?”. That answer refers to section 3.7.7 of Modern Language Association Handbook, 6th edition.
In short, when sentences end with a quote, use interpunction as follows:
You informed me, “I would like to go out with Jenna.” I was not surprised.
You yelled out, “I love Jenna!” Everyone could hear it.
You asked me, “Can I go out with Jenna?” I considered the question.
And when sentences start with a quote, a final period at the end of the quote becomes a comma, but a final question mark or exclamation point is left unchanged.
“I would like to go out with Jenna,” you informed me. I was not surprised.
“I love Jenna!” you yelled out. Everyone could hear it.
“Can I go out with Jenna?” you asked me. I considered the question.
When the interpunction is not part of the quote, British and American style differ: in American usage, interpunction following the closing quote mark is moved inside the quote marks. (This example is copied from the answer by Jay mentioned and linked above.)
British: Today we learned the words “apple”, “pear”, “orange”, and “grape”.
American: Today we learned the words “apple,” “pear,” “orange,” and “grape.”
I prefer the British usage, as it is more logical, but I appreciate the æsthetic appeal of the American style, in most cases.
For quotes nested inside quotes, alternate between single and double quote marks. Double quote marks are usually used for the outermost quote.
Yes, you are punctuating correctly:
“No,” Jack said, “You asked me, ‘Can I go out with Jenna?’ I said yes.”
The specific issue in this question is that there are multiple independent clauses, separated with commas followed by “and” or “but”, with one of the non-final clauses having a quote at the end.
The punctuation of the clause itself is not in dispute. Single quote marks are used because the clause itself is part of an outer quote.
You asked me, ‘Can I go out with Jenna?’
In British usage, yes, you are punctuating correctly. It is perfectly natural to add the next clause as follows:
You asked me, ‘Can I go out with Jenna?’, and I said yes.
In American usage, a punctuation mark after a closing quote mark is moved inside the quote marks, even when that doesn’t make sense semantically. If you follow this rule to the extreme, you would have to write:
*You asked me, ‘Can I go out with Jenna?,’ and I said yes.
I prefer the British style in any case, but in this case more than usually. The American style may have an æsthetic appeal in most cases, but in this case it looks ugly. It looks so ugly, that I suspect even American editors would consider this wrong. But what would be the alternative in American usage? I suppose that one could drop the comma. The result is not as ugly.
You asked me, ‘Can I go out with Jenna?’ and I said yes.
I'm currently writing my master thesis on Bitcoin and I'm not sure which version of this sentence is correct:
"The first most important part of the Bitcoin infrastructure are all applications that communicate with the Network."
"The first most important part of the Bitcoin infrastructure is all applications that communicate with the Network."
Or perhaps both of them are wrong?
EDIT:
Finished sentences.
When listing items and ending the list with "etc", should there be a comma before "etc."? E.g.
red, green, blue, etc.
or
red, green, blue etc.
Related question, though this one involves the word "and", so I am no sure if the answer applies to this question or not: Should I put a comma before the last item in a list?
Answer
If there's no conjunction at the end of the list (and / or for example), then a comma is required. Thus, the correct version is:
red, green, blue, etc.
(Note that etc. should include the full stop, as it is an abbreviation.)
Regarding commas before and (or any conjunction) at the end of the list, that is a matter of huge debate. The subject is well-discussed on the Wikipedia page for the serial comma. Although it's probably fair to say that usage of the serial comma is non-standard in general, many notable institutions and publications such as Oxford and Harvard Universities strongly recommend its usage. There are certainly some good arguments for its usage, mainly in terms of consistency and unambiguity. If you want to open up this can of worms, I suggest we start another question (and make it community wiki for its subjectivity).
Which spelling is correct, "updatable" or "updateable"?
For example, "The file is not updat(e)able."
By the way, I did go to Google and ref.dic.com for this first, and they both seem to indicate that both spellings are correct. If they are indeed both correct, which is more widely accepted?
If I say this sentence, would it be meaningful?
Similarly, trees can be described by neighborhood relations which we
can see how trees exist with other objects in reality
Actually what I want to say is: trees can be described using neighborhood relations that they make with other objects in their vicinity.
Answer
No, it's not grammatical. The relative clause isn't formed right.
What you appear to mean is something like the grammatical relative clause
... neighborhood relations which allow us to see how trees ...
(parenthetically, this relative clause could be pronounced as either restrictive or non-restrictive; insert a comma before which in writing it, if it's intended to be non-restrictive)
In this relative clause, which is coreferential to relations, and which is also the subject of allow in the relative clause; us, on the other hand, is the subject of the infinitive to see in the complement clause that is the direct object of allow. This sorts out the relations in logical form.
The relative clause in your sentence, however, collapses the two concepts of allowing and perceiving into one clause with a complex verb phrase can see how trees ...
with we as the subject of the verb phrase. But what's which doing?
Nothing is left for which to refer to. Hence it's not a relative clause, since there has to be some noun phrase coreferential to the antecedent in a relative clause. So it's ungrammatical.
I am a British English speaker and often use "shall" and "shall not". When I contract "shall not", I pronounce it [ʃɑlnt] -- that is, the "l" sound remains. My question, therefore, is how do I spell it?
I would naturally spell it as "shaln't". I see on Wiktionary that "shalln't" (with two "l"s) is listed as an archaic spelling and shouldn't be used. All other resources I've found indicate that it should be "shan't" -- with no "l" -- but this is the American English pronunciation, to me.
When someone attends an event, he will be awarded some additional leave subject to his boss's approval. Therefore, he will need to submit a leave application to his boss for approval.
Should I call this (action 1) apply leave, submit leave, apply new leave or something else?
Note that if we use apply leave or submit leave, we will have another problem as follows. If that someone wants to use the leave that his boss had approved for action 1, he will need to submit this further application to his boss for approval.
Then, should I call this (action 2) apply leave (not again?), submit leave (not again?) or something else?
Answer
The user is receiving a "leave credit" for attending the event. When they need to take time off, they're requesting leave. I'd use:
I think most English speakers will understand this.
Shortly after my wedding day my wonderful mother-in-law sat me down to say that my new name Barnes was to be spelled (in Christmas Cards) Love from the Barnes'. She went on to explain that her German mother-in-law had the same talk with her regarding Christmas Cards. So, in keeping with family tradition I have always said with love from the Barnes'
Now they are both on the other side and I am gaining a wonderful daughter-in-law and plan to keep the tradition going. But I am curious if it's grammatically incorrect.
Thoughts??
How do I form a Genitive of Fritz, i. e. a word that indicates that something or someone belongs to him?
Following options come to mind and neither sounds English:
Fritz's friends
Fritzes friends
Answer
According to the following extract from M-W Learner's Dictionary, you should follow the style that is preferred by your employer, since there is no strict rule. It may either be Fritz’ friend or Fritz’s friend.
There is a lot of disagreement about the answer to this question. To form the possessive of a proper noun ending in an s or z sound, some people use apostrophe + s, as in Perez’s and Burns’s, and others prefer an apostrophe alone, as in Perez’ and Burns’s [sic].
The best advice I can give you is that if you are writing for a class, or if you work for a company or other institution, find out which style your teacher or manager prefers and use it. Otherwise, decide which style you like best and use it. However, be consistent – don’t use both styles in the same report, letter, memo, essay, or whatever you are writing.
One more thing: Since my name ends in –s (Mairs), I think about this question a lot. For a long time I thought there was only one correct answer, but I have since learned that that’s not true.
In the 2010 edition of the Chicago Manual of Style, the editors reversed course.
- Now Chicago calls for always adding the apostrophe + "s" regardless of spelling or pronunciation.
I don't understand the difference between these sentences. Is there a special usage for each?
I used to have three cats
and
I had three cats
Is the following sentence acceptable?
He arrived ten minutes earlier than he was supposed to.
It doesn't sound right, but I can't think of any better way to end the sentence.
In the Washington Post (July 27 issue) article titled, “Figuring out what matters in a midlife ‘Is this all there is?’ crisis” the columnist, Carolyn Hax writes as follows:
“Tweak as you need to, of course: Travelers should travel and givers
should give and artists should art (that’s a verb, right?). If mere
tweaks don’t produce meaning, then, yes, take these recent deaths as
your hint to reevaluate who you are and what path you want to take. -
- - Your life is right where you want it - right where your choices took you — and that better lighting is all you need to see its
beauty.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/carolyn-hax-figuring-out-what-matters-in-a-midlife-is-this-all-there-is-crisis/2014/07/27/d3cceeb8-0c5c-11e4-8341-b8072b1e7348_story.html?wpisrc=nl%5fmost
She asks “that (art) is a verb, right?” by herself.
But both of CED and OED provide definitions of “art(s)” only as a noun.
I’ve been told that most of nouns are transferable to verbs by some of respectful users several times in this site. But as the author is asking “’art,’ that’s a verb, right?,” even she doesn’t seem to be very confident of her usage of this specific word as a verb, much less a non-native English speaker like me.
Is it quite common to use “art” as a verb in the meaning of “produce / create” art (works) as shown in the above quote?
Answer
It is definitely not common, and just as you suspected it is a play on the previous two examples in the list of "Travelers" and "Givers".
It doesn't quite perfectly follow a trend: Traveler, Giver, Artist -- because the first two use the English language -er suffix to suggest the "actioner" of a verb (an action), and "Artist" is not "Arter".
But this is the syntactical joke being made: A traveler is one who travels, as an artist is one who "arts".
But if the question is whether or not this is common practice in English, then no, it is definitely not.
The act of artistic expression is understood to be an act of creation or construction, to do or make or create something.
The common expressions are: an artist creates...; an artist makes...; an artist expresses...and other such phrase statements.
Whereas it is proper and common English practice to say: a traveler travels; a giver gives.
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.
I've seen the verb "help" be used transitively and intransitively - in the latter case, followed by the preposition "to" - in various sentences. For example, these should have identical meaning:
I'll help you do it. / I'll help you to do it.
Jim helps run the shop. / Jim helps to run the shop.
Should it be used intransitively in this way, though? If we have a transitive version, doesn't it make sense to use that instead if we're using this verb with an infinitive? It also seems to me that using "help" intransitively in this way can lead to ambiguity; for example:
It helps to buy holidays.
... could mean that some previously stated thing helps with the process of buying holidays, or that buying holidays - in general - helps something. What would be the more likely meaning of the above sentence?
Answer
The to in all of the sentences above is not a preposition.
It's an infinitive complementizer, i.e, a meaningless word that introduces the verb in an infinitive clause complement, the same way the complementizer that introduces a tensed clause complement in
Such complementizers are often deleted, though this depends on the matrix verb.
In the case of help, the to complementizer is optional for Object complements
but required for Subject complements
even when they're Extraposed and leave a Dummy it in subject position
However, if the it is not a dummy, and actually refers to some real thing, then the complement is an object complement, not a subject complement, and the to is optional.
To avoid confusion, avoid ambiguous pronouns, and distinguish dummy it from referential it.
I know that backshifting can used when reporting statements and questions. This is clearly stated in many grammar books. Aside from a mere example on some webpage, I haven't found any reference in the authentic books and websites I've checked that I could use as a proof that backshifting can be used in reported imperatives and requests with complex time clauses.
If backshifting can be used what is the rule for using it in the imperative and request sentences? Always used? depends on whether the reported situation out-of-time or not? never used?
The following is some sample request and imperative sentences with reported speech as I see it for the first two sentences. Pronouns are not important. Choose as you see fit.
Can I come back again when I find my book?
I asked her to come back when I found my book.
Come back when you find your lost keys
He told me to come back when I found my lost keys
Shutdown the computer before you leave
Do exercise 10A after you've finished this one
Tidy up now if you are leaving tonight
Answer
Can I come back again when I find my book? I asked her if I could come back again when I had found my book.
Come back when you find your lost keys.
He told me to come back when I had found my lost keys.
Shutdown the computer before you leave. He told me to shut down the computer before I left.
Do exercise 10A after you've finished this one.
She told me to do exercise 10A after I’d finished that one.
Tidy up now if you are leaving tonight.
He told me to tidy up then if I was leaving that night.
There was an ad on telly I saw, saying
Relax, knowing your home is safe
Is this a complete sentence that is grammatically correct? Could this go in an essay? What is the technical word for "knowing"? I know it's a verb. Would you call a present continuous verb and that's it?
What about this sentence
Become part of this website, exploring new worlds and games
Is this an okay sentence?
Let's say I'm asking people about characteristics of their ideal workplace.
"Ideally, how old would the company you work for be?"
"Ideally, how many people would also work at the company you work for?"
Personally, this sounds rather awkward. I'd attribute it to the item in question being "the company you work for" as it ends with "for". Any clean-sounding, easily understandable alternatives here?
I was thinking about "How old would your ideal company be?" or "How long would your ideal company have been in business?" but these don't really convey the fact that the person would actually be employed there.
Answer
I've never liked ending sentences with prepositions, whether it's an unfortunate idea or not. I'd rework the first one to be:
Ideally, how old would the company for which you work be?
^ this syntax being how I generally avoid ending with a preposition.
As for the second one,
Ideally, how many other people would work at the company for which you work?
Let's say I have a word like unhappy.
The "un" is called the prefix. What is the other bit called?
Answer
Root noun [C] (of a word):
- The root of a word is its most basic form, to which other parts, such as affixes, can be added:
The root of the word "sitting" is "sit".
Cambridge Dictionary
For example:
"If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were having a good time"
This is apparent by the context that the person is having a great time, but why say If I didn't know any better?
Say I'm having a conversation and somebody besides me asks "you didn't go to the movie", so usually I would say "no" even though they are correct.
Is there a name for this?
Any more information?
I'm in the USA if that helps
Usually when a word starts with a vowel, we will use "an" before it. But for union, it is "a union" not "an union." It is not explained in the previously mentioned a vs an why union is an exception. It explains how to know exceptions for h like hotels.
Also are there any exceptions for the opposite side, where there should be an "a" but is an "an" instead? (Unfortunately I have no example of a case like this.)
Answer
The a/an-rule is based on pronunciation, not on spelling. Though the word union is spelt beginning with a vowel, the u is pronounced "you":
/ˈjuː.ni.ən/
So, this is why it is accompanied by a rather than an and this is also the case for many other words starting with a vowel, have a look at these:
- a user
- a European
but:
- an ultimatum
- an orange
Note that there are words which start with an h and when that h is not pronounced, these words also go with an:
an honor
However, if this h is pronounced, then the article used is a:
- a hill
- a heathen
Here's a short but clear article that explains the usage of a/an: Articles: A versus An
I've been told by a person that the sentence below is incorrect grammatically and it does not make any sense. Specifically, that person told me that the part ''could do'' is wrong. ''Could do'', for him, should rather be replaced by ''had'' to make sense.
Pretending to be a beggar on the street was the only way such a shameless individual as you could do.
As I'm not a native speaker, I'm not sure whether this sentence is correct or not grammatically? Therefore, I'd like to ask some native speaker here about whether the part ''could do'' is correct and whether the whole sentence is correct ? thanks
Answer
If you replace way by thing, then your sentence is grammatical and makes sense:
Pretending to be a beggar on the street was the only thing such a
shameless individual as you could do.
This works because you can do things but you cannot do ways. For example,
Begging was the only thing (that) she could do.
?Begging was the only way (that) she could do.
However, you can have ways. So your friend's suggestion:
Pretending to be a beggar on the street was the only way such a
shameless individual as you had
is grammatical and makes sense
