negation - Is it normal to use "yes" begin a negative answer?

Multiple times I've read dialogs like this example:

— This conjecture hasn't been proved.

— Yes it has been proved in 2003.

This seems odd to me: the answerer first says "yes", but proceeds to contradict his own beginning. I'd suppose the answer should rather have been something like "No, it has been proved in 2003.", meaning "You're wrong, it has been proved in 2003."

Is it actually normal usage of "yes" in English?

Answer

According to On the syntax of yes and no in English (alt link: download PDF), English uses the polarity-based system, in contrast to languages like Japanese that use the truth-based system. (This is exactly what Janus Bahs Jacquet alludes to in their comment.)

The reply, in your case, does not get its polarity from the original statement. Instead, its polarity comes from the word "yes", (so it's not wrong to say it that way).

Capitalization of words with dashes in titles

How would you capitalize a word in a book/article title when that word has an en dash in the middle of it? For instance, should "protein-protein interaction" be capitalized as "Protein-protein Interaction" or "Protein-Protein Interaction"?

Answer

Capitalize each word that is a word on its own, as in "Protein–Protein Interaction". If the hyphen adds a prefix that doesn't stand on its own, like "Non-protein Elements", then capitalize the prefix. But I've seen it both ways.

grammatical number - Should decades (e.g. '70s) be singular or plural

Are specific decades singular or plural? Which of the following is grammatically correct?

The '70s was a great period for rock music.

or

The '70s were a great period for rock music.

Please provide references if you have any.

Answer

My interpretation would be this (including source).

Rule 8. Use a singular verb with distances, periods of time, sums of money, etc., when considered as a unit.

The '70s is a period of time

Examples:
Three miles is too far to walk.
Five years is the maximum sentence for that offense.
Ten dollars is a high price to pay. BUT Ten dollars (i.e., dollar bills) were scattered on the floor.

Rule 8: Blue book of grammar and punctuation

grammaticality - What exactly is a flat adverb?

I know that a flat adverb is an adverb that has the same form as its related adjective, but does that mean any adverb without the -ly suffix is grammatically correct? For instance, if I said I am “extreme angry,” is that the same as saying I am “extremely angry”? Or is saying that it is “dangerous hot outside” the same as saying it is “dangerously hot outside”? I realize that flat adverbs are less common than they used to be, but that doesn’t change the question: Are flat adverbs always formed from words, namely adjectives, missing the -ly suffix?

Thank you

PS: This is what prompted my question:

“Flat adverbs used to be much more common than they are today. For example, in Robinson Crusoe, Daniel Defoe writes of weather that is "violent hot." Samuel Pepys wrote in his famous diary of being "horrid angry." But most of these adverbs have long since been abandoned.”

Bolded words are my emphasis.

How to choose verb after "there" in beginning of sentence?

Cambridge "Advanced Grammar in Use" provides following rule in Unit 95C:

If the noun phrase consists of two or more nouns in a list, we use a singular
verb if the first noun is singular or uncountable, and a plural verb if the
first noun is plural:

• When I opened the fridge there was only a bottle of milk, some eggs, and
  butter.


• When I opened the fridge there were only some eggs, a bottle of milk, and
  butter.

But Grammar Girl in episode 278 Oddness When You Start a Sentence with

"There Is" gives completely different explanation:

A listener reader named Joe wants to know whether he should say, "There is a
couch and a coffee table in the room," or "There are a couch and a coffee table
in the room."

...

It's a compound subject since it has two nouns connected by the word "and,"

which makes it plural ... Now that you know the subject is "a couch and a
coffee table" and that it's plural, it's easy to choose the right verb:
"are."

I'm somewhat confused by these contradictory rules. Could someone explain what I'm missing here?

grammar - Can an adverb be a noun?

I have seen this post for the answer to my question, but this is not much help in case of the question I am going to ask.

Here is an example sentence -

The new design of Twitter profile is more of a Facebook profile than never before.

than here is a preposition, there is no doubt about that. But before after than acts like a noun. But from dictionary entry against before doesn't say it's a noun.

So what is the explanation?

Answer

'[T]han here is a preposition, there is no doubt about that.' [OP]

and

'A noun is the only part of speech possible after a preposition'

and

In the accepted phrase 'better than ever before', 'ever' cannot be a noun.

So we have a contradiction. The only question to address really is how many of the above assertions are not true?

If we look at

'It is better than [it] ever [was before]

we find a construction which presents no problems. Here, 'than' is a conjunction; there is no doubt about that. 'Ever' is an adverb.

But in the ellipted version, 'than' is now an ex-conjunction and 'ever' is an ex-adverb. In other words, forcing traditional analyses on elliptical structures will lead to extra-grammatical analyses (ie 'the rules' will be broken).

grammatical number - When is any/anyone singular or plural?

Are these the correct constructions?

1. Do any of the students write well?



2. Does anyone write well?

learning - "a" or "an" for words that don't start with vowels but sound like they're starting with a vowel

Is it correct to say or write an student or an store?

Answer

Always use an for words which sound like they start with a vowel, and always use a for words which sound like they start with a consonant. The rules for h are more complex, and it can be ok to use either.

The usage of the indefinite article preceding h are discussed here. In particular, look at nohat's response.

As for student and store, they should always be preceded with a and never with an, because they both start with the consonant /s/ when spoken.

Correct:

A student, a store

Incorrect:

An student, an store

grammaticality - I can't not be pregnant

This is a quote from a Gwyneth Paltrow interview where she talks about her miscarriage:

"It was awful," she told the Daily Mail's You magazine. "It happened really late, and I wasn't expecting it at all.

"For a long time I just couldn't understand that it had happened and why. I was like 'But I can't not be pregnant. I'm already past the first trimester, and I have three car seats in my head.' To this day I feel like I'm missing that kid. But it wasn't meant to be and you have to trust the universe. "

What does she mean by saying "I can't not be pregnant?" Is this "can't not" construction a grammatical and common usage?

What are the best words to describe subjects being compared?

I tried to Google this but no luck so far. I was wondering if there was proper words to describe the comparison of 2 subjects?

1. The first subject would be the object being compared in relation to
   
   the other (the baseline).


2. The second subject would be the object compared to the first one.

So you could say, subject 1 is taller than subject 2 for example.

Do we say subject 1 is the subject of comparison and subject 2 is the comparee? I saw some scientific article using the word comparee but it doesn't sound proper to me.

---

Given the topic, I am updating this question with more context so that it is less confusing. It looks like comparison subjects can have quite a few different names depending on their context. Here is the context I'm looking for (watch out for the pseudocode - yes I'm know I'm not on Stackoverflow...):

function isGreater(subject1, subject2) {
if (subject1 > subject2) {
return true;
}
return false;
}


More precisely, I'm looking for the left/right words (subject1/subject2) which would be the most semantically correct. We're also presuming that the order does not change and that is example is way much simpler than what I'm trying to solve (which is why semantic variable names make sense).

Please help!

Answer

After several interesting conversation in the post's comments, I got creative and found names for my use case which make most sense for me. While I understand that given the nature of the question it looks almost like at this point this is more of a personal preference than a black and white answer, I will share my thought process.

Based on my use case, concerns comparing two variables from which one is the left and the other is the right in a greater than (>) comparison, I could have picked leftElement and rightElement. While they make sense from a comparison perspective, I find that if looked at in a big block of code, they would be hard to understand.

I preferred to pick referenceElement and comparedElement. The idea behind that is that the first one is the one used as reference for the comparison and the second one is the one we use to compare. While I also understand that there could be context calling this function with a variable named reference which would be used in the right side, I think that local context takes precedence on these situation for better readability. Any good developer should know the different between local variables and their scopes.

Also to give more context, the objects which I use to compare in this function are HTML element, hence the element but I could have picked something else in a different context.

punctuation - Is it acceptable to use a single hyphen as a dash (as the BBC does)?

Is it acceptable to use a single hyphen as a dash (as the BBC does)?

Example from BBC News:

Venezuela - a major oil producer - has been heavily affected by the
fall in oil prices on international markets.

grammaticality - "Is there any proof" versus "are there any proofs"

The question "Is there any concrete-solid proofs of this space odyssey?" made me want to edit it to remove the s in proofs (someone with enough flair did), however it made me wonder about the plurality of any and proofs.

So please enlighten me about which one is correct.

Is there any concrete-solid proof of this space odyssey?
Are there any concrete-solid proofs of this space odyssey?

If the asker wants to hear about at least one proof, the first one is OK, but what is correct if he wants at least two pieces of evidence?

Answer

If you begin the sentence with the singular copula (is) you are expected to make the object agree in number. Breaking down the SO sentence to its essentials, we have:

Is there any proofs?

This is grammatically incorrect. We can make these agree in number in two ways (as your own examples do):

Is there any proof?

Are there any proofs?

Either is correct. "Proof" or "proofs" doesn't matter as long as the number agrees with the number of the copula.

conjunctions - When to use a comma before "and"

I often see people on the Internet using a comma before and in many cases (not adversative cases). Is it ok? In my language it is stricly prohibited to use a comma before an and except for adversative cases or when an apposition is in the front of that and.

Examples (which I consider not ok):

He is a great player, and he prefers to play Counter-Strike.

John joined the Army, and George joined the Marines.

What I consider exceptions:

Yes, and what is the problem?

I called John, my brother, and now I’m speaking with him.

Answer

From the Oxford Guide to Style 2nd ed section 5.3:

Use the comma to join main clauses that are semantically related,
grammatically similar, and linked by one of the coordinating conjunctions
and, but, nor, or, and yet. Such clauses are joined by a comma if they

are too long, and too distinct in meaning, to do without any punctuation
at all, but not separate enough to warrant a semi-colon:

Truth ennobles man, and learning adorns him.

Cars will turn here, but coaches will go straight on.

I will not try now, yet it is possible I may try again in future.

It may be omitted when the clauses are short and closely linked:

Do as I tell you and you'll never regret it.

Dan left but Jill remained.

I will not try now yet I may in future.

present tense with past perfect?

I came across something really strange today in class. Because it was an anecdote, the story changed from past to present. Then, in the same sentence, the writer used the past perfect tense with the present tense.

"I go into the room, and see the guy take my bag that I had left there."

Can this possibly be correct?

Answer

Yes, I think there is an exception for "historic present".

In this context, both "have left" and "had left" are possible, but there is a difference in meaning (at least for me): "have left" brings the act of leaving into the story, whereas "had left" puts it outside the story, before the story started, perhaps. However, the distinction is not really a matter of chronology, but of narrative focus.

possessives - Adverbs modifying nouns?

1. What this question is about

It is about cases where an adverb apparently modifies a word of a type that adverbs aren't supposed to be able to modify, like nouns and personal pronouns. It is very much related to this post. Prototypical examples I have in mind:

The work is mostly Kim's.
The work is mostly mine.
The victory was almost Kim's.
The victory was almost hers.

2. The actual question

It seems to me that there are three possible ways to analyze the examples above, none of which seem to me to be satisfactory. Question: which of these, if any, is the best way to analyze the examples above? I would appreciate it if the answer was backed by scholarly sources at the level of Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik and CGEL (as opposed to school or ESL grammars).

Possible analyses:

i. The NP answer: Although, true, Kim's is a noun, and a nominal, in these examples it is actually the full noun phrase (NP); similarly for mine and hers. And while adverbs "do not occur as attributive modifiers within a nominal, ... many can occur as external modifier with an NP as head" (see Sec. 4.1, below). So there is no problem: NPs can be modified by adverbs.

ii. The adjective answer: Kim's may be a noun, but here it functions as an adjective; similarly, mine and hers may be pronouns, but here they function as adjectives. So there is no problem: adjectives (and, by extension, words that function like adjectives) can be modified by adverbs. (A variant of this analysis says that all these nouns and pronouns actually are adjectives in these examples.)

iii. The verb answer: In these examples, the adverbs mostly and almost actually modify the verbs is and was. So there is no problem: verbs can be modified by adverbs.

3. Why I don't like the answers 1-3

3.1 The NP answer

This was the accepted answer to this question; so why don't I like it?

I don't like it because it seems to open a Pandora's box. After all, any noun can be the sole constituent of an NP. This analysis would imply a vast number of circumstances under which nouns may be modified by adverbs---potentially, all circumstances in which a noun is the sole constituent of an NP. What then remains of our analysis of adverbs as those words one of the key characteristics of which is that they don't modify nouns?

Moreover, such an analysis does not seem to capture the extremely limited range of circumstances under which adverbs (seem to) modify nouns and pronouns. For example, surely, the following sentence is not allowed in Standard English:
* Mostly John did the work.
But, on this analysis, why not? After all, John is clearly NP. It is even clear what the sentence means; moreover, I think the sentence is actually grammatical in some dialects (e.g. in Indian English)---but it definitely isn't grammatical in Standard English.

3.2 The adjective answer

My guess is that this is the preferred answer of traditional school grammars, because such grammars say that in the phrase the Clinton administration, the word Clinton is an adjective (or that it is "used as an adjective"). Why don't I like it? Because of what CGEL has to say about it:

Traditional school grammar (though not scholarly traditional grammar)
tends to analyse the underlined nouns here as adjectives---or to say
that they are 'nouns used as adjectives'. From our perspective, this
latter formulation represents a confusion between categories and
functions: they are not nouns used as adjectives, but nouns used as
attributive modifiers. Apart from pronouns, just about any noun can
appear in this function---including proper nouns, as in the London,

Clinton, and Caroline examples [in the book there are many other
examples, and the nouns in question, e.g. Clinton, appear
underlined]. These words can all appear as head of an NP in subject or
object function, where they are uncontroversially nouns; to analyse
them as adjectives when they are functioning attributively would make
the adjective category far too heterogeneous, and require an
unwarranted and massive overlap between the adjective and noun
categories. (p. 537)

It would seem to me that the same remarks apply to the case of nouns and pronouns in the genitive (see Sec. 4.2, below).

3.3 The verb answer

I'm not aware of any sources that advocate this answer, but it seems an obvious possibility to consider. However, either one of the following two reasons is probably enough to see why no one is advocating this:
i. adverbs normally come before the verbs they modify (e.g. I want to mostly eat, with some drinking mixed in.);
ii. it would never occur to anyone to analyze It is mostly red as anything other than red being modified by mostly.

In conclusion, I don't much like any of the proposed answers. Is there another possible answer? Or is one of the ones above in fact the correct one, despite the objections I stated?

4. Appendix: Some grammatical background

4.1 Adverbs

According to CGEL,

Adverbs do not occur as attributive modifiers within a nominal, but
many can occur as external modifier with an NP as head. Almost the
whole book, for example, has the NP the whole book as head, and may
be contrasted with * She congratulated him on his [almost success],
where it is inadmissibly functioning as modifier of the noun

success. (p. 563)

It may be helpful here to recall the distinction between a nominal and a noun phrase:

A phrase consisting of a noun and the constituents that go with it
most closely is a nominal [Nom]; a nominal plus a determinative makes a
noun phrase [NP]... (p. 22)

Example (p. 23):

this clear case of dedication to duty is an NP, whereas

clear case of dedication to duty (note the missing determinative) is a Nom.

It is helpful to note that, if clear is dropped from the above example, then

almost a case of dedication to duty

is grammatical (if awkward), but

* almost case of dedication to duty

isn't grammatical.

4.2 Nouns and pronouns

According to the source I cited, the genitive form of a noun is still a noun:

Nouns prototypically inflect for number (singular vs plural) and for case (plain vs genitive) Examples: dog-dog's; dogs-dogs'; child-child's; children-children's (p. 326)

Likewise, pronouns in the genitive remain pronouns (p. 327):

nominative     dependent     independent


                            genitive           genitive

          I                     my                 mine

        she                   her                 hers

4.3 The relevant genitive construction

The book lists six types of genitive construction (p. 467). Of relevance to this question is type v, the predicative genitive:

v   All this is Kim's.     [v: predicative genitive]

Details are provided on p. 469:

In [41V] the genitive marks the relation between Kim and the predicand all this, a relation like that expressible by belong + to. Kim's here is thus not part of some matrix NP, as it is in Types 1 and iii-iv: here, then, the predicative complement function is realised directly by a genitive NP. Genitive predicative complements are usually subjective, as in this example, but they can also be objective: Let's call it Kim's; I regard it as Kim's.

5. mostly vs. not

User Frank has suggested that mostly modifies the verb is, by analogy with not in The work is not Kim's. Here I want to explain why that is almost certainly not correct.

Consider e.g. the sentence

[A] The shoe is mostly red.

If the argument by analogy with not were correct, it would follow that in [A], mostly 'belongs with' is; in other words, that [A] should be analyzed as It [is mostly] red, because in The shoe is not red, the not belongs with is.

However, no reputable source would analyze [A] that way; instead, it would always be analyzed as The shoe is [mostly red], where mostly red is taken to be an adjective phrase (AdjP).

I will return to not later. For now, let me concentrate on [A] on its own.

5.1 Why mostly red is a constituent

The reason why mostly 'belongs' not with is but rather with red is that mostly red is a constituent, whereas is mostly is not. There are several kinds of tests that can help determine if something is a constituent. A very well-known one is that only a constituent can be replaced by a pro-form. And indeed: The right shoe is m̲o̲s̲t̲l̲y̲ ̲r̲e̲d̲, and the left one is s̲o̲ as well (so is a pro-adjective that substitutes mostly red).

To complete the argument, one also has to show that is mostly is not a constituent. For that, we use the principle that constituents always must either be conjoined, [₁ ... ₁][₂ ...₂], or nested, [₁ ... [₂... ₂] ...₁], but they cannot only partially overlap: [₁ ... [₂... ₁]... ₂] (see here). We showed above that mostly red is a constituent. But then it follows that is mostly cannot be a constituent, because it would only partially overlap with another constituent, namely mostly red.

5.2 The analogy with not

Let me now turn to the argument concerning the similarity with not. The situation with not is a bit tricky, and it will help if we replace is by seems. This replacement does not change the original question, because now we have The work seems mostly Kim's, and we can still ask if mostly modifies Kim's. Now consider

[C] a. The shoe seems not red.
       b. The shoe does not seem red.

In a., not red seems to function somewhat like non-red, suggesting it is a constituent. To further strengthen that point of view, it seems like we can freely move around not red in a., which, if true, means that not red is indeed a constituent in that sentence (the question mark in front of the following examples means that it is however not entirely clear if the sentences are truly grammatical): ?Not red seems the shoe; ?Not red, the shoe seems. Also, it seems that 'not+adjective' can usually be replaced by a pro-form, again suggesting it is a constituent: ?John seems not tired, and Jane seems so, too. Finally, though this is not a conclusive test of constituenthood even if true, it looks like not red can be a stand-alone reply to a question, as in

Jane: I want the other shoe to be red.
Alex: OK, how does this shoe seem to you?
Jane: Not red.

On the other hand, in b., it seems pretty clear that not belongs with does.

And now notice that

[D] The shoe is not red

is ambiguous between being read like [Ca] (The shoe is [not red]) and being read like [Cb] (The shoe [is not] red).

On the one hand, here is some (admittedly inconclusive) evidence of the possibility of a [Ca]-like reading of [D]. Fronting: ?Not red, the shoe is. Answer ellipsis: "What is that shoe?" "Well, not red..." Pro-form substitution: The one thing I insist on is that all items be anything but red. Well, the hat is n̲o̲t̲ ̲r̲e̲d̲, the shawl is s̲o̲ as well, but the shoes are kind of reddish.

On the other hand, the [Cb]-like reading of [D] is arguably the standard one, though I (who am not a linguist) have had trouble coming up with a clear and conclusive demonstration of that fact. Perhaps this is not that surprising, as verb phrases are often more difficult to test for constituenthood than other kinds of phrases. So far, I only have answer ellipsis (sort of): "That shoe is red!" "Is not!"

The fact that [D] seems to be readable two different ways is why I say not is trickier when it follows is than when it follows e.g. seems. The reason, of course, is that negation with is does not involve do: we say don't say *The shoe does not be red; our only possibilities are the shoe is not red and the shoe isn't red. (CGEL seems to argue that isn't and is not aren't quite the same thing, unlike she'll and she will, which are. One reason is that isn't cannot always be expanded to is not, whereas she'll can always be expanded to she will. For example, That's a great hat, i̲s̲n̲'̲t̲ it? cannot be expanded to *That's a great hat, i̲s̲ ̲n̲o̲t̲ it?; the question tag must instead be is it not. There are other differences as well, see CGEL, p. 91, which discusses won't vs. will not, but it seems like all the arguments there also apply to isn't and is not.)

And the point of all this, of course, is that [A] is analogous not to the [Cb]-like reading of [D] but to the [Ca]-like reading of it.

Whatever turns out to be the correct thing to say about [D], however, it remains the case that in [A], it is mostly red which is a constituent.

Answer

The NP answer is correct. Your objections to it are no good. The Pandora's box argument doesn't make sense -- just because an adverb immediately precedes a noun and there is nothing else in the NP, this doesn't mean the adverb modifies the noun. That is what your argument assumes, and it is just not so. In such cases, the adverb modifies only the NP and not the noun.

Your other objection is that in many cases a given adverb cannot modify a NP. But so what? Adverbs can modify many things, and there are all sorts of restrictions and complexities. Just because adverbs can sometimes modify NPs, it doesn't mean that every adverb can modify every NP.

There is a refinement to the proposal that adjectives are modifiers of nouns that you might like to know about. In McCawley's TSPE (which gives a very interesting taxonomy of adverbs), it is not nouns that are modified by adjectives, but rather N' (N-bar). An N' is (a) a noun alone, (b) a noun with a noun complement (e.g. the P' in "the father of the bride"), or (c) the result of modifying an N' with an adjective, relative clause, or whatever. N' can be replaced by the pro-form "one", as in "The unbroken red ball hit the window before the broken one (one = red ball) did."

grammaticality - How to better reword this sentence? (SAT Writing question)

The security office recommends that, when asked to provide a computer password, do not choose any string of letters that can be found in a dictionary.

• a) do not choose (incorrect, I think this would make the sentence a run-on)


• b) not to choose (what I had thought was correct because "The security office recommends not to choose any string of letter that can be found in a dictionary." sounds correct to me)


• c) not choosing (incorrect, doesn't "sound" right)


• d) you not choose (includes the pronoun "you," so I had automatically ruled this option out)


• e) your choice should not be (too wordy)

But the correct answer had turn out to be option d. Please explain why, in the end, d is the correct answer?

Answer

Andrew is correct. They placed an adverbial phrase between the transitive verb and the direct object (phrase). I believe that you omitted the word that, following recommends, when choosing your answer, which led you to believe that option B was correct. It is an easy mistake to make if you are not paying close attention.

punctuation - Should I use a comma before "and" or "or"?

Is using a comma then an "and" or an "or" after it proper punctuation?
Example:

• I fell over, and hurt my knee.


• Should I go, or not?

Answer

Whether it is correct to use a comma before a coordinating conjunction ("and", "but", "or", "nor", "for", "yet", "so") depends on the situation. There are three primary uses of conjunctions:

1. When a coordinating conjunction is used to connect two independent clauses, a comma is always used. Examples:

   
   
   
   
   
   
   • I hit my brother with a stick, and he cried.
   
   
   • The rain stopped, and the sun came out again.
   
   
   • Should I eat dinner, or should I play a game?
   
   



2. When a coordinating conjunction is used to connect a dependent clause, a comma is never used. This includes both of your given examples. Other examples:

   
   
   
   
   
   • The boy ran to his room and cried.
   
   
   
   • Frank is a healthy and active child.
   
   
   • Should I eat dinner or play a game?
   
   



3. When a coordinating conjunction is used to connect three or more items or clauses, a comma is optional (though I personally prefer to use one). Examples:

   
   
   
   
   
   • I bought cheese, crackers, and drinks at the store.
   
   
   • Should I eat dinner, play a game, or go to the store?
   
   

punctuation - When should I use an em-dash, an en-dash, and a hyphen?

I generally know how to use a hyphen, but when should I use an en-dash (–) instead of an em-dash, or when should I use a hyphen (-) instead of an em-dash (—)?

Answer

An em-dash is typically used as a stand-in for a comma or parenthesis to separate out phrases—or even just a word—in a sentence for various reasons (e.g. a parenthetical; an ersatz-ellipsis). Examples where an em-dash should be used:

• School is based on the three R’s—reading, writing, and ’rithmetic.


• Against all odds, Pete—the unluckiest man alive—won the lottery.


• I sense something; a presence I've not felt since—

An en-dash is used to connect values in a range or that are related. A good rule is to use it when you're expressing a "to" relationship. Examples where an en-dash should be used:

• in years 1939–1945


• pages 31–32 may be relevant


• New York beat Los Angeles 98–95


• When American English would use an em-dash – following British and Canadian conventions.

A hyphen is used to join words in a compound construction, or separate syllables of a word, like during a line break, or (self-evidently) a hyphenated name.

• pro-American


• cruelty-free eggs


• em-dash


• it's pronounced hos-pi-tal-it-tee


• Olivia Newton-John

The minus sign is distinct from all three of the above.

• 4 − 2 = 2.

If you want to use the correct dash or hyphen in comments, just use the appropriate HTML entity: — for em-dash, – for en-dash, and − for the minus sign. The hyphen is, of course, directly on your keyboard.

Figure dash

The figure dash (‒) is so named because it is the same width as a digit, at least in fonts with digits of equal width. This is true of most fonts, not only monospaced fonts.

The figure dash is used within numbers (e.g. phone number 555‒0199), especially in columns for maintaining alignment. Its meaning is the same as a hyphen, as represented by the hyphen-minus glyph; by contrast, the en dash is more appropriately used to indicate a range of values; the minus sign also has a separate glyph.

The figure dash is often unavailable; in this case, one may use a hyphen-minus instead. In Unicode, the figure dash is U+2012 (decimal 8210). HTML authors must use the numeric forms ‒ or ‒ to type it unless the file is in Unicode; there is no equivalent character entity.

sentence - Gerund or infinitive and WHY

WHY is this sentence incorrect?

"All that they can do is preparing as much as they can."

I know it should be

"All they can do is (to) prepare as much as they can."

But, for the life of me I can't figure out why.

differences - American English: which vs that

We've had an American Americanise some phrases for us (with the point of teaching children English), e.g:

UK English: There’s a little white dog which lives on the second floor.
US English: There’s a little white dog that lives on the second floor.

But there are three sentences which were not altered. We would rather not have a mixture of that and which to make things less confusing for the students. The sentences that were not changed were:

I really like this pencil case which Rose gave me.
There’s a store near here which is open all night.
This is a really cool picture which I brought with me from Little Bridge.

Should these be changed to that, or should we change the other sentences that have already been translated back to which?

Answer

I am not a native speaker but at school I was taught that you should use "that" for defining relative clauses, whereas both "which" and "that" are allowed for non-defining
relative clauses.

Therefore:
"I really like this pencil case which Rose gave me."
Here, the relative clause only adds information about a pencil case that is already known
(this pencil case). In this case, as far as I know, you can also use "that".
The relative pronoun cannot be omitted.

"I really like the pencil case that Rose gave me."
Here the relative clause defines the pencil case: I am talking about the pencil case
that Rose gave me, not about another one. In this case, it is compulsory to use "that".
Alternatively, you can omit "that" altogether:
"I really like the pencil case Rose gave me."

This is at least the rules that I recall from school and I may be wrong.
I also do not know if the American and the British use differ on this since I am neither
from Great Britain nor from the United States.

differences - I like "the" music or I like music?

1. I like music.


2. I like the music.

I know the difference between the previous two sentences is that 'the music' is specifically talking about a music.

Is there any more difference in meaning? Can you tell me some cases where the definite article isn't required?

Answer

I think you got it just fine:

You use the article when refering to some specific instance of something,

without article, you are making a general statement, often about the type of something.

Some examples:

"I like fish" (...but don't like pork) vs. "I like the fish" (...which is on my plate.)

"I dread christmas" (...because it's always such a hassle) vs. "I dread this christmas" (...because my Mum died last month.)

"I see clouds" (here, whereas you, somewhere else, see sunshine.) vs. "I see the clouds" (...threatening to rain on my laundry and yours.)

Number agreement between subject and object

The other day, my father and I were expecting my brothers to come home. Upon hearing a car enter the driveway, my father said, "Your brothers are here."

When I looked at the door, I could see that it was actually my sister who had arrived, and not my brothers, so I responded,

She's not my brothers.

This seemed like a very awkward construction, but I could not think of any reason that it would be ungrammatical, other than the subject being singular and the object being plural.

I can think of several examples of sentences where the subject and object are different in number (with an intransitive verb: obviously there is nothing wrong with a transitive verb like "kick" having a subject an object differing in number) that do not seem to have any grammatical awkwardness.

We are a family.

His mind and body are one.

God is three persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Is the sentence, "she's not my brothers" grammatically correct, and what makes it different from these other sentences?

Answer

Assuming said with emphasis on she, I think "She's not my brothers" is natural enough, and it's not clear what you'd say instead. Possibly it just sounds slightly awkward because there aren't so many contexts where it is pragmatically valid to talk about the equation or non-equation of one person to two people.

But grammatically, the sentence is just following the usual pattern. Because English is strongly Subject-Verb-Object, with "be", the element before the verb is usually treated as the subject and so this is what the verb agrees with.

orthography - Is the possessive of "one" spelled "ones" or "one's"?

I've been confused about this as long as I can remember. Should it be:

One should do ones duty.

or

One should do one's duty.

I'm guessing it should be the latter. But that doesn't sit well with the possessive pronoun 'its'. For example:

It is its own purpose.

vs.

It is it's own purpose.

Here, the former seems clearly correct.

Answer

The correct answer is one's!

All possessives get an apostrophe, except the standard possessive pronouns and these are:

yours, his, hers, ours, theirs, its

Apart of these, always add an apostrophe.

verbs - a number of children has gone to school or have gone to school

Please help, in this sentence is "a number" an attribute or the subject of the sentence?

dialects - Collective nouns with plural verbs: the 'American practice/s' versus the 'British practice/s'

"The group are all here."

The British seem more inclined to use a plural verb ("are") in sentences like this than Americans are.

At some time in the past it struck me that there are some singular collective nouns with which Americans do normally use a plural verb, so maybe the list of verbs with which Americans do that is simply smaller than the corresponding British list. But I find I can't remember what examples I had in mind. Has anyone compiled those lists?

Is the prepositional phrase possibly called a subject complement?

Russet leaves were swept by past winds in heaps.

(Original sentence: "Russet leaves, swept by past winds in heaps."— Jane Eyre)

‘In heaps’ can be called as a ‘positional’ complement for verb phrase (were swept), yet it’s not an argument for the verb phrase. And if we regarded the verb phrase as a copular, ‘in heaps’ could be called as a semantic complement for the subject (russet leaves). So ‘in heaps’ may be called as a subject complement. Is this a possible view?

Answer

Many might see it simply as an Adverbial, or, in functional grammar terms, a Circumstance.

usage - When using "an" before a vowel sounds wrong

Consider the following sentence:
"This is a one-time deal" sounds right
"This is an one-time deal" sounds wrong

"One" is pronounced the same as "won", which wouldn't require an "an".

Is it proper/required to use the 'an' before a vowel rule when it just sounds wrong?

Answer

There is no rule that says you must use an before a vowel, only before a word that begins with a vowel sound and takes the indefinite article. University begins with a vowel but not a vowel sound, so it's always a university. The same is true for a one-time deal.

grammatical number - In special cases, can you use "one such family are" vs. "one such family is"?

Is it correct to say "one such family are..." as opposed to "one such family is..." in some circumstances?

Say, for instance, as used in this article on gene families:

[...] One such family are the genes for human haemoglobin subunits; [...]

The problem occurs when the family is a collection of things. It sounds weird if you say "One such family is the genes for human haemoglobin subunits" and saying "One such family is the family of genes for human haemoglobin subunits" is too wordy.

Does the problem make sense?

french - Pronunciation of foreign words by foreign speakers

I've used English for a long time and it isn't immediately obvious to others that I'm native French. Whenever I say a French word or place name in English I wonder whether I should pronounce it like English or French speakers would. (Of course I always use English pronunciation for common place names like Paris.) Using French pronunciation can sound pretentious, but English pronunciation can too, especially if part of the audience speaks French and knows that I am native French.

This question is similar. My question focuses on native French speakers that speak in English to an audience of both English and French natives. Which pronunciation draws less attention?

Answer

I'd recommend the following strategy:

• For place names that actually have an anglicised name, always use that ("Paris", "Normandy", "Brittany", "Brussels", "The Dordogne");


• For place names that are well-known in England, if your pronunciation of English generally is fairly proficient, then try to "anglicise" your pronunciation a little, e.g. by pronouncing "Marseille(s)" and "Lourdes" without a French 'r' and moving the vowels a little closer to their English counterparts;


• For place names with alternative pronunciations in French where English speakers tend towards one of the pronunciations, try to notice which one tends to be used in English and use that, even if it's not the pronunciation used by inhabitants of that town. So for example, English speakers tens to be used to pronouncing "Chamonix" without the final [ks], or to pronouncing "Metz" with its "German" pronunciation [mEts] (whereas actual inhabitants of the town don't usually pronounce the 't').


• Subtly, consider adopting "mispronounced" versions of names that are commonly used by English speakers. For example, English speakers tend to pronounce "Bayeux" with [be-] rather than [ba-] at the start and commonly omit the final [s] of "Saint-Saëns" (either as the town or the composer) when they come across it-- not because these towns really have "English" names as such, just that English speakers commonly mispronounce them when attempting to call them by their "French" name;


• For lesser known place names, where English speakers aren't used to hearing the name pronounced either with an "English" or "French" accent, I would suggest just adopting the French pronunciation without trying to give it an "English accent".

pronunciation - What exactly is the "schwa" sound?

What exactly is the "schwa" sound? As a non-native speaker, I hear this sound as not being a pure and clean sound. I mean I know that every vowel sound may vary depending on whether the syllable is stressed, on the accent of the person that makes the sound, etc. But generally this sound is the same in the sense that it does not depend on the consonant sounds that come before or after, and might or might not be heard as being different by the non-native speaker ear.

The schwa sound is a very difficult one for me because I cannot find a pattern to follow. When I was learning the other vowel sounds I could analyze a long list of words being pronounced (by the same person of course) and then abstract the sound so I can produce it perfectly. But this does not work for the schwa sound. So for example I hear one sound in words like a-bout, b-a-loon, decim-a-l, and a different sound in words like s-u-ppose and impet-u-s, t-o-day or t-o-night. Also in words like Ros-a-'s and ros-e-s, the schwa sounds differently.

When it comes to words that have the schwa sound on vowels e an i like in the word insan-i-ty then the sound is almost the one for the i in t-i-p, but also in words like b-e-hind I hear some people say it with a schwa sound like in a-bout and some other people pronounce it like the i in p-i-t. So, I would really appreciate an explanation about how you perceive this sound and how you would explain it to someone who, like me, is not a native speaker.

meaning - What is the name of the grammar structure of the words in the sentences below

What is the name of the grammar structure for sentences or expressions in the examples below?

Your coming here is always a pleasure!!

Your talking to her made all the difference !!

In these sentences the expressions : coming and talking are what? Verb , noun etc ?

grammaticality - Can the coordinating conjunction 'yet' follow a subordinating conjunction?

Is it grammatically permissible by the rules of Standard English for the coordinating conjunction ‘yet’ to follow a subordinating conjunction? For example, take the sentence:

Although it is early, yet still I must rise.

This seems to make sense and be correct to me, but if I substitute another coordinating conjunction, say ‘but’, it no longer seems so:

Although it is early, but still I must rise.

It seems that the semantics of ‘but’ are what create a problem here, though instead of the grammar, but I can't seem to form any valid subordinating + coordinating sentence except if I use ‘yet’, so I'm not sure.

word choice - Use of "the ill" vs. "the sick"

I was struck by the use of "the ill" as a noun phrase in a sentence from a question asked yesterday: "I'm going to be a doctor. I'm going to help the ill." For some reason, I felt that "the sick" would be much more natural here. I tried searching Google for further examples of "the ill", and I found some uses that seemed more natural, but that also seemed a bit different to me:

• 
  

  The Church and families of the ill, infirm and dying have a very important role to play

  
  

  
  
  

  ("Anointing of the Sick", The Cathedral of Saint Thomas More)

  
  
  

  (Here, "ill" is used along with two other adjectives, "infirm" and "dying"; but "the sick" is used many times in the rest of the page)




• 
  

  The sacrament is administered to give strength and comfort to the ill and to mystically unite their suffering with that of Christ during his Passion and death.

  
  
  

  
  
  

  ("Anointing of the sick", Encyclopaedia Britannica)

  
  
  

  (I don't know why, but for some reason "the ill" sounds OK to me in this sentence, even though I found it jarring in the "doctor" sentence. I think it could be a matter of register: the Britannica passage seems to use fairly elevated language, whereas the quote that bothered me was attributed to a child speaker and used contractions ("I'm"), which are not as common in higher registers of the language.)

I couldn't find any information about the use of "the ill" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Is it just a synonym for "the sick", and if so, does the use of one vs. the other differ between different varieties of English?

I know that British English speakers often use be ill instead of be sick, because be sick has come to be used in some contexts to mean "vomit". But the Google Ngram Viewer seems to indicate that "help the ill" is not yet clearly established as the main variant in the UK.

The frequency of "the sick" when not followed by a noun is somewhat greater than the frequency of "the ill" when not followed by a noun in the British English Ngram corpus:

The frequency of "help the sick" is much greater than the frequency of "help the ill" in British English:

grammaticality - Ending a sentence with 'has'

In this text, is it correct to use the word 'has' at the very end of the last sentence?

A true student would give everything he has and owns to his guru. It doesn’t matter what value it holds, but it has to be everything the student has.

Answer

Yes, there's nothing wrong with it. Has here means something like owns or possesses and its direct object is the everything just before it. You can end a sentence with a verb that takes an object before it, even in formal writing, and it often (as in this case) sounds very natural.

punctuation - What do the parentheses inside quotation marks mean in this Dickens quote?

Miss Havisham had seen him as soon as I, and was (like everybody else) afraid of him. She made a strong attempt to compose herself, and stammered that he was as punctual as ever.

"As punctual as ever," he repeated, coming up to us. "(How do you do, Pip? Shall I give you a ride, Miss Havisham? Once round?) And so you are here, Pip?"

I told him when I had arrived...

–Great Expectations, Ch. 29, Charles Dickens (1861)

What is the meaning of the parentheses/round brackets inside the quotation marks here?

It seems clear that the participants said something like the following:

Miss Havisham: something like "Jaggers, you are as punctual as ever."

Jaggers: "As punctual as ever"

...???...

Jaggers: "And so you are here, Pip?" (speaking to Pip)

Pip: something like "I arrived yesterday..."

But it's not clear to me what happened in the part I marked "...???...".

When I searched Google for things like "Dickens parentheses dialogue", I found some things, but nothing that seemed to provide a completely satisfactory explanation. According to the blog post "Great Expectations AP Style Literature Questions", the correct answer to the question "In chapter fifteen, what is the purpose of the parentheses around (“Let her alone, will you?” said Joe)" is "To show that Joe interrupted and talked at the same time at which Orlick and Mrs. Joe were arguing." But as the parenthetical portion of the dialogue I am asking about comes between two sentences that are both spoken by Jaggers, I don't see how it could be interpreted as an interruption.

Is it meant to indicate that Jaggers said "As punctual as ever" to Miss Havisham, then "How do you do, Pip?" to Pip, then "Shall I give you a ride, Miss Havisham? Once round?" to Miss Havisham, and then walked around the table once with Miss Havisham before saying "And so you are here, Pip?" to Pip? That's the best I can come up with, but I'm not sure I've ever seen parentheses used to imply that a speaker took some action in between parts of a quotation before, and it reads a little oddly to me.

I would appreciate it if anyone can either give a good explanation of the meaning of this particular example, or just provide more insight based on the use of round brackets in other places in Dickens' work or in the work of his contemporaries. Citations or examples of similar usage would be ideal.

grammaticality - The Royal Family live in mansions, or in a mansion.?

The question was in an English small test. I'm not a native speaker of English and I would like to improve my English. In this test question, we had to fill in the blanks.

Either:

1. The Royal family live in "mansions".


2. The Royal family live in a "mansion".

So the option was to put the word mansion in singular or mansions in plural.

The exersice said fill in the blank, so I asume I had to write sonething irrispect if they live in palaces.

Thanks in advance!

Using a comma before "rather than"

I find that it is very common for some people (typically English teachers, in my experience) to use a comma before a phrase beginning with "rather than" when it falls at the end of a sentence. For example:

We decided to go to the grocery store, rather than a restaurant.

In the above sentence, the comma seems to be unnatural and incorrect. I can only think that perhaps they were taught to always use a comma before "rather than" when it is used in an appositive phrase, as such:

We decided that, rather than going out to a restaurant, we would go to the grocery store.

This usage is correct, and I have no problem with it. I think that people use the comma in the first example because they are incorrectly applying a rule that should only apply to parenthetical phrases. They might decide that the last part of the sentence is a parenthetical phrase because it is nonessential information, but if you replaced the words "rather than" with "instead of," few people would put a comma there. It just doesn't flow properly.

However, the incidence of English teachers perpetuating the first example is so great that I have to wonder if I have missed a lesson somewhere. Have I been incorrectly removing the comma all these years?

Answer

English Teachers are like MS Word's grammar checker. They should be used but not trusted.

You are correct that the first statement needs no comma before rather. Here, the expression rather than [to] a restaurant is essential information for understanding the statement. It also describes or explains grocery store, again indicating it's importance.

Commas separate parts of sentences. Because you don't want to separate the final phrase in the first example, you don't use a comma.

In the second example, rather than going out to a restaurant, you still don't need a comma before rather. Here, the expression also provides necessary information, as in the first case. The phrase is not parenthetical, and it certainly isn't an appositive.

However, you will need to follow the expression with a comma because it is serving as an introductory dependent phrase, as in "Rather than going to the store, we went to the restaurant."

But why no comma before rather in the second example? The word that turns the following expression into a noun phrase, here to be used as the direct object of decided. If we place a comma after that, we separate the expression from the noun phrase, which is not correct because it needs to be part of the noun phrase.

Bottom Line:
First example: We decided to go to the grocery store rather than to a restaurant.
Second example: We decided that rather than going out to a restaurant, we would go to the grocery store.

You might pick up a copy of Zen Comma, which has a much more thorough discussion of comma uses.

On a side note: You seem to be confused about appositive phrases. Although appositives don't provide essential information, not every non-essential phrase is an appositive. I think you mean parenthetical expressions, of which appositives are one type, or non-restrictive phrases and clauses.

Example appositive: "This toy, a 1992 Barbie doll, is a family treasure." A 1992 Barbie doll is an appositive.

Example non-restrictive clause: "Take away my life, which is as precious to me, but don't take my dignity." Which is precious to me is the non-restrictive clause.

What is the grammar of " a function of how socially connected you are to those around you"?

The whole sentence is "Loneliness is not a function of being alone, but rather, a function of how socially connected you are to those around you".

I don't know why not " how socially you are connected to those around you".It's what I think is usually used.What is the difference between the original sentence and mine?

Answer

"How socially you are connected to..." has a slightly different meaning to "How socially connected you are to...". It is the meaning of "how" that is different in each case.

How, used in this way, can have one of two different senses. It can mean "the means by which", or it could mean "the extent to which".

how socially you are connected... equals "the means by which socially you are connected".

how socially connected you are... equals "the extent to which you are socially connected".

Why use "would have to" in the past tense?

I was watching Bird Box and there was a sentence I didn't quite understand which was this:

They took us outside and they forced our eyes open so that we would have to look at the creatures.

He was only explaining what was happening to him, but why would he use "would have to"? It's not like "would" means "used to" here.

Can somebody please explain it to me? I just can't seem to find an answer to it.

Answer

Why use "would have to" in the past tense?

Here I'm not sure "would" is being used to create a conditional mood. I mean, technically it might, but it's not so clear to me. A conditional mood created by "would" or "would have to" would be something like:

• If you went to the party, I would have to go.
  



• I knew that I would have to be in great physical shape if I wanted to win the race.
  (Here we have "would have to" referring to the past)
  See these Google Books results for:




• "I knew that I would have to"
  

... if you're interested in this conditional structure referring to the past.

As I said, I'm not sure that in your example the "would have to" is creating a conditional mood.

Let's just say you confiscate someone's mobile/cell phone in order to force them to use the landline phone. I don't know any simpler way to say this using "so that" than to say:

• I confiscated his phone so that he would have to use the landline.

I don't see any conditional here, unless you read the ellipsis of ("if he wanted to make a call") at the end of the sentence. To me it just sounds like another way of saying:

• I confiscated his phone so that he would be forced to use the landline.
  (a longer way of saying it).

So why do we use "would" here? Well, I'm not sure.

• I confiscated his phone so that he has to use the landline. (sounds strange to me).

Here are some more examples from Google Books for so that I would:

• I wrote my name on the book so that I would not lose it.
  


• So clearly, his intent was to hit me hard so that I would drop the ball.


• I packed my case so that I would be ready to go at the last minute and I called my best friend Ellie...
  

and "so that he would have to"

• Then she shut the door, leaning against it so that he would have to push her out of the way to get back outside.

I'm not sure if these examples are conditionals. Also, I don't think I see these uses of "would" defined in the dictionaries either, unless we read these as "so that he/she might".

grammar - Surprisingly happy

I was wondering about this following sentence. Could anyone please help me with it? Please look at the following:

She was surprisingly happy to see me.

I know that she was happy to see me. But what is troubling me is this: Who was surprised here? Was I surprised or was she surprised?

And also how to rephrase the above sentence if I want to say that she was both happy and surprised. Please help me.

Thank you.

grammaticality - "A majority of those whose family" or "families"

Is "family" both plural and singular? or would I have to say families for the plural form? For example, which of these is the best option:

• "A majority of those whose family were unaware of their sexuality..."


• "A majority of those whose families were unaware of their sexuality..."


• "A majority of those whose family was unaware of their sexuality..."

Edit: Here are some full sentences to give some context.

Participants whose famil(ies) were aware of their sexuality were predominantly feminine and identified as gay, homosexual, drag queen, or a combination of these identities. All those who assumed their famil(ies) knew about their sexuality were gay identified and a majority identified as feminine. A majority of those whose famil(ies) were unaware were masculine and identified as non-gay, straight, down low or did not identify with any label.

grammar - My family *is* or My family *are*?

I've done a bit of research and I understand that "family" should be preceded by singular or plural verb depending on how you want it to be treated. For example,

His family is one of the oldest in the county.

and

His family are all doctors.

These are apparently both correct.

But in the following instance, could a grammar expert tell me which should be be?

When his family are abducted

or

When his family is abducted

?

Thanks.

grammar - "his mother look very tired"

Is it correct to say,

James could see his mother look very tired from all the chores.

The options in the test paper were the following:

1) looks 2) look 3) looked 4) had looked

I would have thought 'looking' would be the best answer but there was no such option. I read somewhere on this site that with 'can/could see', only 'looking' can be used. Not 'look'.

grammatical number - Is it correct to say: These are not homework?

A teacher sent home a list of assignments with a cover letter explaining, "These are not homework."

"This is not homework," or "These pages are not homework," sound equally normal to me, but "These are not homework," just sounds weird. Is it correct grammar?

...

I don't agree that the question: 'Agreement in “[Singular Noun] Is/Are [Plural Noun]”?' describes this specific usage. In "These are not homework," the word "These" is not a singular noun. It's a plural pronoun. I suspect that some of the problem is that the missing noun is implied to the reader only by the physical presence of other documents, and not contextually from the surrounding content of the cover letter itself.

Answer

Can't a noun in plural form be complemented with a noun in singular form? Of course it can. Here are some examples:

These workers make a lot of mistakes when they work since they are
new to this job. They are not the main reason we are losing money – the state of the market is.

and:

These people are my family.

and also:

We are a team!

If the above sentences sound grammatically correct to you, there's no reason why your teacher's sentence would be any different.
The quote you provided is perfectly fine and makes the same sense:

These (things you need to do) are not (the) homework (you are
obligated to do).

comparisons - Hesitating between "as" and "than" to oppose two words

I am writing a letter and I am not sure about this sentence:

Being a parent is as much of a choice than a responsibility.

On various translation tools, it is suggested to use "as" instead of "than" but I find its use strange in such context. Does someone know which word to use and why?

Answer

Definitely "as".

These are the standard comparison structures in English.

... less ... than ...
... as much ... as ... 
... more ... than ...

I'm not sure what you find strange about "as" in this context but it sounds perfectly correct to me.

punctuation - Do I need an apostrophe in "These trees’ roots"?

Do I need an apostrophe in "These trees’ roots"?

For example,

"Wow!!! These trees' roots are so long!"

In this example the speaker can see both roots and the trees themselves.

Answer

Yes, you need the apostrophe. -s' denotes possession of some thing or things by multiple owners. The roots belong to the trees; the trees own the roots. Therefore, the roots are the trees' roots.

infinitives - verbs not followed by that clauses

Where can I find a list of verbs like 'to want', which must be followed by an infinitive (other verbs by a gerund), but cannot be followed by a that-clause? I got from your website that there are Exceptional Case Marking verbs and Object (can't remember what…) verbs. Are there others? They are of importance to learners of English, as, in French, for instance, you must say 'I want that he does sth' and you cannot say 'I want him to do'.
Thank you

verbs - Are there errors related to grammatical number in this sentence from an English textbook?

Children always appreciate small gifts of money. Mum or dad, of course, provide a regular supply of pocket money, but uncles and aunts are always a source of extra income.

This is a sentence from "New Concept English", which is the most popular English textbook in China. But I have two questions about the grammar.

1. Shouldn't we use "provides" instead of "provide"? (Because "dad" is a singular noun.)




2. Shouldn't we use "are always sources of" instead of "are always a source of"? (Because "uncles and aunts" are two sources, and there is an "are".)

grammar - Can I say "listen for it" and "smell for it"?

I often hear the term to look for it:

"I have studied symbolism in fine arts for years, and now I see symbolism in everything. I just can't stop myself after I learned how to look for it."

Feel for it is also frequently used:

"Jimmy was a great guitar player. He didn't even think while playing; his guitar functioned like an extension to his arms. He just had this natural feel for it."

It also works for listening, although it sounds a bit odd:

"This city is teeming with songbirds, but their chirps are drowned by the ambiance. You might be able to catch a few seconds here and there if you listen for it."

But how about for smelling?:

"My father knows a chef whose sense of smell is so good that he can step into the farmers market and locate the perfect onion by sticking his nose in the air to smell for it."

For listening it sounds bit odd, and for smelling it sounds downright wrong to me, but I can't explain why. Are all of the above sentences well-formed English sentences?

Answer

The words you will hear more often are along the lines of sniff it out.

The idiom sniff out is defined as (from The Free Dictionary):

To perceive or detect someone or something by or as if by sniffing:
The dogs sniffed out the trail through the snow.
The detectives sniffed the plot out and arrested the criminals.

A similar idiom is nose out, having essentially the same meaning in this context. (It can also mean to prevail over someone by a small margin.)

grammaticality - Is it correct to say "The reason is because ..."?

In a statement like

The weeds have grown overnight. The reason is because it rained yesterday

Is "the reason is because" good grammar? Isn't it better to say

The weeds have grown overnight because it rained yesterday

The second form seems simpler and the words the reason is seem to add nothing to the sentence. Is there any technical reason to avoid the longer form?

Answer

"The reason is because..." is wrong; the other one is the one to go with.

That "the reason" is already explaining why, i.e. the reason, so putting also because will create a sort of redundancy.

See this article, which goes more in depth.

american english - Present Perfect for the past?

I've come across the - more or less - following sentence in a book (American publisher):

"They have done it in the past"

I've always thought that "PAST" and "PRESENT PERFECT" can't go together. The proofreading for the book is generally rather poor so it might be a simple mistake. Or there's more to it, is there? Like the PresPerf is there to stress completion? Or - aware of the US tendency to replace PresPerf with Past Simple - the author tried too hard and ended up hypercorrect? Or am I reading too much into it?

word usage - How to pronounce fractions larger than a twentieth, where the last digit of the denominator is a 1 or a 2? i.e. one thirtieth is to 30 as _ is to 31

Disclaimer: I speak British English. I've noticed a lot of differences between the way Americans and Brits pronounce numbers.¹ Since the question concerns this, I thought it might be appropriate to draw attention to it case we inadvertently confuse each other. My question is not about these differences, I just wish to highlight them in case they cause confusion.

^{1. You seem to happily call a quarter "a fourth" sometimes,
we always call 131 "one hundred and thirty one",
we pronounce double digits in phone numbers like 12449 as "one two double four nine", and
I think we are much more likely to use expressions like "thirteen hundred" to mean 1300.}

---

Question

When talking about fractions, I have frequently heard

1/2    a half
1/3    a third
1/4    a quarter
1/8    an eighth
1/64   a sixty fourth

1/56   a fifty sixth

etc.

Essentially the rule seems to be that, except for "a whole", "a half", and "a quarter", the word matches the ordinal number; that is to say:

    Numeral       Ordinal         Fractional
    one           first           whole
    two           second          half

    three         third           third
    four          fourth          quarter
    five          fifth           fifth
    six           sixth           sixth
    fifty-seven   fifty-seventh   fifty-seventh

Even though ¹/₄ is a quarter, ¹/₆₄ is a sixty-fourth.

So what’s ¹/₆₂? A sixty-twoth? A sixty-second? Surely not a sixty-half!

I know that simply saying one over sixty-two can usually work, but I'm asking specifically for the word itself, i.e. if I divide a huge pizza into 21 pieces, what are the pieces? Other than baker’s twentieths.

Summary: Can anyone point me to any sources (whether style guides or common usage studies or anything else) that discuss the pronunciation of fractions; specifically one that discusses this separately from ordinal numbers, rather than how to form ordinal numbers in the first place.

Answer

You asked for sources.

• Americans pronounce fractions with denominators ending with 1, 2, 3, as in twenty-firsts, twenty-seconds, twenty-thirds. For confirmation, here is a definition from
  Merriam-Webster, one of the canonical American dictionaries.

thirty-second 2 : the quotient of a unit divided by 32 : one of 32 equal parts of anything thirty-second of the total>

The word thirty-twoth does not appear in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, no matter how you spell it. While a few people may use thirty-twoth, it's definitely non-standard.

• There is a difference when the denominator is 4. Americans use both fourths and quarters for one piece of something divided into four equal parts (except for hours, which are always quarter hours) while in the U.K., these are usually quarters.
  Oxford Dictionaries Online has

fourth 2. chiefly North American A quarter:
'nearly three fourths of that money is now gone'

Merriam-Webster has both

fourth : one of four equal parts of something
quarter : one of four equal parts of something

meaning - Connotations of "have you ever thought about..."

I recently had an argument with a friend around the question "have you ever thought about something?" The question was asked in the context of exploring some life possibilities, such as buying a sports car or moving to a different country. The disagreement was around whether an affirmative answer to the question bears the hidden meaning that the something being considered is something that the person answering actively wants.

To give an example: when asked "have you ever thought about moving to Sweden?", if a person answers in the affirmative, which of the following two meanings best describes their answer?

• They consider moving to Sweden a practical possibility, and they actually want to do so in the future.



• The thought has crossed their mind, but nothing can be inferred about whether they want or plan to move to Sweden in the future.

Assume the subject is not currently living in Sweden :)

Question update: Some of you answered that the meaning depends on other factors, such as tone of voice, body language, context, etc. As I said in a comment, to the purposes of this question, ignore such secondary conversational artifacts. They can always extend the range of meaning of any sentence or word, from the "proper" sense, to the complete opposite, such as when being sarcastic (e.g. "Would you like to go to Sweden?" "Yeah, right...") Consequently, the disclaimer "it depends on the tone of voice" can probably be applied to most answers on this site.

To put it another way: assume you read the text, with minimal context. What's the meaning then?

grammatical number - There is no hardware issue or There are no hardware issues?

Situation:
I asked a customer to run a diagnostic test on a drawing tablet because he had a problem of using it on this computer. The customer ran the test on his tablet and gave me the data from the test. I see no issue/issues with the tablet hardware. So, I'm writing an email to him and not sure if the "issue/issues" should be singular or plural in the given situation.

We're quite sure "there is no hardware issue" or "there are no hardware issues" with the tablet.

Which one is correct here?
If, they are both grammatically correct, which one would be more preferred to use normally?

Thanks for your help.

Edit:
Would the sentence below be more appropriate or sounds more natural?

We're quite sure "there is no hardware issues"

grammatical number - “1–2 minutes” or “1–2 minute(s)”

If we are using both singular and plural in the same sentence, how do we say or write it?

For example, which one is correct?

1. one to two minutes


2. one to two minute(s)


3. one minute to two minutes

grammatical number - People who is or People who are

I want to know if which one is correct, for example I want to say: "The people who is in charge of this process" or "The people who are in charge of this process". I'm a bit confused because of the "who" word in the middle of the sentence.

Answer

In this case you would say "The people who are in charge of the process". Here, 'people' is plural, and refers to a group of more than one person, hence the use of 'are', rather than 'is'.

If just one person were in charge, you would say "The person who is in charge of the process".

hyphenation - When to use "once-in-a-lifetime" and when to use "once in a lifetime"?

The first one has - connected and the others do not have, this two seem to have the same meaning but my teacher say not, what is the difference between them?

Answer

In general, hyphens are used to construct compound adjectives:

• I had to catch an early-morning train.


• I like late-night television.



• She wears extra-large socks.

Hyphens are not used when the words stand alone. So, to use your examples:

• It was a once-in-a-lifetime trip (a trip so special or expensive that one would be unlikely to undertake such a trip more than once, and once-in-a-lifetime acts as an adjective).


• We are born once in a lifetime (literally, this event happens exactly once, and the four words stand alone to describe that fact).

Good + preposition

What grammar rules apply to the uses of "good at", "good with", and "good in"?

I know that the sentence "She is good at speaking English" is correct. But is it correct to say "She is good in English" (referring to the school subject and not to the action itself of speaking in English)? If not, when do we use "good in"?

Answer

The relevant OED definition of good is 3b.

3b. Skilled or thoroughly competent in a particular activity.

Nothing new there; let's keep going. The OED then breaks this definition down farther. 3b(a) is attributive and irrelevant to this discussion.

3b.

(b) In predicative use. Chiefly with at or (less commonly) in (also occas. †for, †of, †to).

(c) In predicative use with with: skilled or highly competent at using, handling, or dealing with the specified thing. Originally in to be good with one's hands (see hand n. Phrases 3i).

The difference here appears to almost just be the prepositions themselves, which is a pretty disappointing answer.

But there is still a difference. Good at and good in refer to competence in an activity, whereas good with refers to competence at using something.

We can expand the examples you provide to demonstrate the difference:

Good at: "She is good at the activity of speaking English."

Good with: "She is good with the English language."

I struggle to find a meaningful difference between the two, or any situations in which one would apply but not the other. This difficulty, though, is perhaps due to the elision present with "English".

"He is good at child care" works while "He is good with child care" does not.

"She is good at hammers" doesn't work while "She is good with hammers" does.

Was v were, subjunctive or not

I have tried researching this topic on grammarly and on this website ("Was" or "were" in subjunctive clauses), but still am unsure.

Which is correct?

His gaze turned up, as if there were an imaginary light bulb there.

Or

His gaze turned up, as if there was an imaginary light bulb there.

I say “were” because I think this is subjunctive, but my friend says it’s “was.”

Thanks

grammar - Capitalization of "Assembly Language"

This Wikipedia article does not capitalize "assembly language," for understandable reasons. It uses it as an indefinite article, i.e. "an assembly language." But how should it be written when using it as a definite article?

He wrote it in Assembly.

Versus:

He wrote it in assembly.

Answer

I believe assembly language is a common noun; it is not a brand name and it is really a generic term for a set of languages that varies based on the hardware they support. Wikipedia uses it exclusively as a common noun as far as I can tell.

Other languages have names that are, in a sense, "given" names: Basic, Python, Haskell, Java, Javascript, Lisp, Ada — these all the equivalent of brand names, while assembly was simply a descriptive term for a second-generation computer language.

I feel your discomfort at writing

He wrote it in assembly.

because as a common noun it can cause confusion between assembly language and some other kind of assembly, notably the kind one attends in school. If it bothers you, you can include the "language" specifier to make clear the distinction: "He wrote it in assembly language." But it will probably be clear from the context anyway.

It took John two months to get his program working. He wrote it in assembly.

Most people who know anything about programming will understand perfectly well what kind of assembly is under discussion. If you intend the statement for a more general audience, which wouldn't know the difference, you can specify "assembly language" but probably that will still be insufficient to give those listeners an "a-ha" moment.