grammaticality - Do prepositions at the end of sentences, and split infinitives any longer matter?

In the 1950s we were strongly discouraged from placing prepositions at the end of sentences, and also from using split infinitives. Is this considered important now?

grammaticality - Is "How and why child is become criminal" proper English?

My friend is writing a paper for his Criminal Justice class and has asked me to take a look the the rough draft and point out any grammatical errors that I can spot.

The first thing that jumped at me was the subject of his paper: "How and why child is become criminal". I suggested that he instead write: "How and why a child becomes a criminal".

He told me that nothing was wrong with the way the subject is written. It has been submitted to and approved by his Professor, reviewed by his entire class and none pointed that out to him. He refered me to the Openheimer quote of the Bhagavad Gita and some Bible verses to support his point. Still I find it difficult to believe that this is the proper way to use the verb become in Modern English.

Answer

Provided that we accept the archaic is become as grammatical use of the present perfect—which I would not use for something so prosaic as a paper for a criminal justice course—there are still two problems with the proposed title: (1) present perfect is not right in this context for a paper title and (2) the subject noun phrase is not properly determined.

I am assuming that the paper is about the general principles by which children become criminals. For a title like this, you can’t use a past construction, such as the present perfect or the simple past. Generalities about how a process occurs must be described in the simple present tense, as this sentence does. If you use the past or present perfect, you necessarily are discussing a particular instance of something or a process which is no longer occurring: “How and why a child became criminal” or “How and why a child has become criminal” would have to describe a particular instance of a child becoming a criminal.

Second, the subject “child” is not determined. It would be fine as a plural—“children”—or with a determiner—“a child”. The original questioner’s suggestion to determine “criminal” as “a criminal” is fine, but so is leaving it as a simple adjective “criminal”. Any of the following would be grammatical:

1. How and why a child becomes a criminal


2. How and why a child becomes criminal


3. How and why children become criminal


4. How and why children become criminals

word: fridges that keep things hot (and not cold)

What's the word for what looks like a fridge but actually keeps things warm/hot instead of cold?

hot fridge?

Answer

You are probably referring to a food warmer:

Heat lamps, hot boxes, steam tables, soup kettles and display warmers are just some types of food warmers that currently exist. Heat lamps, steam tables and soup kettles often leave food exposed in some way while they keep it warm. Hot boxes and display warmers fully enclose foods.

Source:http://www.ehow.com/facts_5825763_food-warmer_.html

grammatical number - "Becomes" or "Become" in this sentence?

Many small companies have difficulty growing because the number of
orders becomes too large to handle.

Should I use become or becomes in this sentence? I don't know, but the sentence feels a little odd to me.

Answer

Many small companies have difficulty growing because the number of
orders becomes too large to handle.

In your sentence, you need to see what exactly is becomes describing. Whether you should use "become" or "becomes" depends on what the word intends to describe- number or orders.

because the number of orders becomes too large to handle

Here, becomes refers to number. Number is used as singular here, so you should use becomes.

When you intend to refer to orders instead, that is when you would use become, as in this (hypothetical) example:

Many small companies have difficulty growing because their orders
become too large to handle.

Also take a look at this and this. They describe some basic rules to help deal with similar sentences.

Pronunciation difference in The and A

When should 'the' be pronounced 'thuh' and when 'thee'?

I heard that 'the' should be used as 'thee' before vowels and in some particular cases. All other cases should employ 'thuh'. What are the 'particular cases'?

And when is 'a' pronounced 'eh' and when 'uh'?

Answer

1. The 'thee' sound is used in front of words starting with a vowel sound (of which 'United States' is NOT one) such as 'apple', 'elephant', 'ink', 'orange', and 'ultrasound device'.




2. It is also used where one is called upon to distinguish a special instance of something. For example you might say to me 'I was speaking to Bill Clinton the other day'. Unsure of who you meant I might say 'Do you mean the (pronounced thee) Bill Clinton, who used to be President?' Or you could tell me that I had not spoken to the right person when reporting something, and I might reply 'I spoke to the (thee) very person who deals with such matters.

It works slightly differently with 'a'. (For this purpose you can ignore 'an'.) You say 'I saw a man breaking into that house', I reply 'Was it a (eh) man, or were there more than one? Or I could say 'Was it a (eh) man (meaning any man) or was it the one we suspect'.

This is a fine-tuned area of our language and one that is only perfected with much listening and practice, I fear.

Meaning of "have feelings for someone"

I am wondering if this phrase always refers to romantic feelings. How do I express friendship arisen from a completely professional relationship?

For example, if I say this to my co-worker:

I am not the best judge for this situation, because I have feelings for you. Ask George how things are supposed to play out in a professional environment.

What I want to express is that I like her and think of her as a friend, and so am not the best judge of this situation. But I don't want her to think that I have fallen in love with her.

What's the appropriate way to say this?

Answer

This would be an appropriate and precise way to say what you intend:

I am too close to be the best judge for this situation, because I regard you as a friend. Ask George how things are supposed to play out in a professional environment.

The expression "to have feelings for" someone does not always mean romantic feelings. However, in my experience unless the context strongly suggests otherwise it is likely to be taken as romantic feelings.

single word requests - A better term for 'going through'

I am writing an abstract for a conference, to present a software project. I want to say I will go through all aspects of the project and would like to have better wording instead of "Going through" in the following sentence:

"_________ [Going through] all aspects of the project, ..."

I have the feeling it's poor English for an abstract (I am not a native English speaker so I may be wrong on this...).

I am looking for something maybe more figurative (?) that would give a better idea of describing all aspects of the project in the presentation.

Answer

I suggest the word Delineate.

Merriam Webster - Delineate

• To describe, portray, or set forth with accuracy or in detail.

I will delineate all aspects of the project.

Our objectives need to be precisely delineated. We should delineate the steps to be taken by the government

I have used this word a couple of times in my abstract for journal publications. This is a formal word and I think it sounds great.

Other more obvious words that might work are Outline, Present, Discuss, and Describe.

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

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

grammaticality - Conflicting who/whom usage rules in a sentence

Consider the sentence "Please gather information on who can serve as a proctor."

The he/him, she/her test gives conflicting answers here: One would say "Please gather information on her", but "He can serve as a proctor," and the entire sentence can't be accurately replaced with such a pronoun.

Which rule should be used? I know 'who' is acceptable regardless in colloquial English, but would it be valid to use 'whom' as well in this scenario?

grammar - Simple Present. They build a house next to mine. Why is it wrong?

Why is it wrong to say they build a house next to mine?
The explanation i got was nobody is building a house every year or every month next to yours.

The correct answer was they are building a house next to mine.

SO, my question is why cant I use simple present to state it as a fact?

I can use simple present to state a fact, right?
Ex: I am 6 feet tall(fact).
Ex: I like apples(fact).
Ex: They build a house next to mine(not a fact anymore)?? Why is it wrong??

Answer

It can work in some contexts. Such as:

I have these neighbors. I tell them they should stay as far away as
possible. What do they do? They build a house next to mine.

Or:

Do you know what those idiots do every summer? They build a house next

to mine. I burn it down as soon as it's finished, and the following year they just do it all over again.

The first example is just colloquial talk in the present tense, where it's substituting (the tense) for the past.

The second example is a very, very special situation.

Generally, however, the correct way to say it is

They're building a house next to mine. Just to spoil my view, I think.

meaning - What's the difference between "obscene" and "scatological"?

This question was inspired by the Malvolio's answer to this question.

1. What is the actual difference? In English-Russian dictionary there's almost no difference if speaking about tricky phrases. And according to Malvolio's answer there's a big difference in meanings of these two words.


2. How to chose when to use "obscene" and when to use "scatological"?

Answer

"Scatological" is only ever used to refer to feces.
Although @Malvolio makes a distinction that "obscene" specifically refers to sexual content, that's not necessarily the case:

–adjective
1. offensive to morality or decency; indecent; depraved: obscene language.
2. causing uncontrolled sexual desire.

3. abominable; disgusting; repulsive.

We (Americans, anyway) often use "obscene" to simply mean "outrageous":

He made an obscene amount of money
selling sub-prime mortgages.

Despite Freud's conflation of money and feces, I can't imagine ever saying "a scatological amount of money."

If the subject changes its number within a sentence but it's the same thing after all, how do I deal with this kind of ‘plurality’?

Terminology clarification first. Let's say, plurality herein means the quality of being plural; the state of being plural or not, which is not the dictionary definition. I couldn't find another appropriate term for it. Well, grammatical numerity? Hmm.

---

In this sentence, the number (plurality) of the subject changes at the middle of the sentence. The subject was singular, but soon becomes plural.

It's split into two and merges/merge back into one a hundred times.

We can also think of an inverted version of it. The subject was plural, but soon becomes singular.

The two are merged into one and (are)/is split back into two a hundred times.

---

How do I deal with this kind of plurality? What should I assume its plurality is? Do I have to break it down into two or more sentences?

Answer

I would either make the verb agree with the stated subject, or introduce a new pronoun for it.

So either:

It's split into two and merges back into one a hundred times.

or

It's split into two and they merge back into one a hundred times.

(Probably the former option, because it works better with the repetitiveness of the action.)

Likewise:

The two are merged into one and split back into two a hundred times. (I agree with @sumelic that the participle helps here.)

or

The two are merged into one and that is split back into two a hundred times.

Also, I didn't do it here, but I would probably always use a comma before the phrase a hundred times in these examples.

Is it possible to write a dependent clause without independent clause?

I want to explain my problems by the following sentences. The following sentences have been taken from Reader's Digest.

"Ed tries to explain why he would want to keep a pile of records he never listens to. "It's just knowing that they're there. That I could listen to them if I wanted to" I reminded him that his turntable doesn't work. "So, actually you can't listen to them." Which reminds me. I pick up the turntable and put it on the designated throw away pile, which I had envisioned at the beginning of this undertaking as a towering, teetering mound engulfing most of our front entryway and portions of the pavement, but is in reality closer in size to the little is in reality closer in size to the little mounds of toenail parings Ed occasionally stacks up on the bedside table."

1) Read again "Which reminds me. I pick up the turntable and put it on the ..............". 'Which' indicates a dependent clause that can not express full sense without main clause. But there are no main clause. It seems that it is an independent clause. Please explain this fact. Would anybody like to give the link of other posts related to this kind of problem?

2) In "but is in reality closer in size ......." what is the subject of auxiliary verb 'is'? It seems that subject is far from 'is', and it will be found in the previous sentences of it. How to find it? If it is possible, please mention the links the post that are related to this problem. You may say some keywords with which I can be able to find the posts related to this problem.

grammar - Not only.... but also

Is this sentence grammatically correct?

He doesn't only like football but also likes tennis.

and if it's wrong, why so?

Specifically, is there any problem with omitting the subject in the second clause?

Also, is there any problem with the verb form likes?

Subject and Verb Agreement - When to use Singular / Plural

I see below suggestion in Grammarly on Subject and Verb Agreement.

"The verb needs does not seem to agree with the subject that. Consider changing the verb form."

And they give below examples on this as suggestions:

***Incorrect**:
Tom and Jenny loves entering trivia contests.
**Correct**:
Tom and Jenny love entering trivia contests.*

***Incorrect**:
The book, including all the chapters in the first section, are boring.

**Correct**:
The book, including all the chapters in the first section, is boring.*

As an explanation, they say "A singular subject requires a singular verb, and a plural subject requires a plural verb. "

But in the above example that is not the case, Tom and Jenny are two people and they use love and not loves. Can anybody clarify me on this? Thanks

grammaticality - Plural in constructions like A's and B's theory/theories

I have gone through several threads here but haven't found an answer to my question.

In my paper, there are two theorists and each has a theory. Theorist A has theory 1 and theorist B has theory 2.

Can I use both example 1 and example 2 and express this fact?

1) A's and B's theory are worthwhile considering.
2) A's and B's theories are worthwhile considering.

I reckon that 1) is a form of ellipsis standing for A's (theory) and B's theory... Does 2) imply that both A and B have EACH devised more than one theory or that I include A's theory and B's theory to form the plural "theories"?

And on a similar note, Bohr has written one book on a subject and Gitman has written one book:

3) The Bohr and the Gitman volume are worthwhile considering.
4) The Bohr and the Gitman volumes are worthwhile considering.

Which one is correct?

'were + past tense verb' v. 'are + past tense verb'

Which is correct?

a. The Justice Secretary said prosecutors were allowed to join the event.

b. The Justice Secretary said prosecutors are allowed to join the event.

Given that this news was posted on 11am of that day, while the event was from 9am to 2pm.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/474633/prosecutors-allowed-to-join-million-people-march-de-lima

So when is it proper to use 'are + past tense verb' and 'were + past tense verb'?

"What/Which word best describes XXX ?"

Which of the following two phrases is the more correct or are they both acceptable?

What word best describes XXX ?

Which word best describes XXX ?

syntax - Reason for Subject-Verb Inversion: Only in cases where A is B, shall the Company do X

In the following, why does subject-verb inversion occur? Is it necessary? And what is this type of inversion called?

Colleague’s original:

Only in cases where A is B, the Company shall do X.

I changed to the following:

Only in cases where A is B shall the Company do X.

Searching Google for “shall the Company” gives examples such as:

In no event shall the Company ...
Under no circumstances shall the Company ...

And these all seem quite natural.

“In no event” and “under no circumstances” seem to be prepositional phrases, yet I would say simply, with no inversion:

In the fridge, you will find some beer.

Is the S-V inversion maybe some sort of archaic style that remains in legal or maybe religious texts? Perhaps a remaining German-style syntax?

Answer

It's grammatical.

Subject-verb inversion is required when preposing a negative adverbial of time, place, or circumstance.

• At no time did he say that. ~ *At no time he said that.


• Under no circumstances may she enter. ~ *Under no circumstances she may enter.

It is not allowed, however, when preposing other adverbials.

• *With no hesitation did he speak up.


• *With no grace did he accept it.

Only is a negative.

grammaticality - “is like” , “are like” comparison between singular and plural

So I had a debate with a friend, where that friend is of the opinion that you can't compare singular entities with plural ones

Eg : Women are like a magnet, always attractive! (Just an example)
Women - Plural
A magnet - Singular

is wrong according to my friend.

Whereas, I think the above is right. The only thing that should matter grammatically is, using "is like" or "are like" based on which is used first, Singular or Plural.

Eg: The above sentence if Singular entity is used first should be -

"A magnet is like women, always attractive!"

Am I right in the above two sentences?
I'm also looking for sources which can validate this usage. Thanks.

grammar - What is the possessive for several names?

If Alice and Bob each has a house, are these "Alice and Bob's houses" or "Alice's and Bob's houses"?

Does that change anything if each of the houses belongs to both of them?

Answer

"Alice and Bob's houses" implies that Alice and Bob jointly own more than one house. "Alice's and Bob's houses" could also imply the same thing. However, it would more commonly be taken to mean "Alice's house[s] and Bob's house[s]". To remove all ambiguity and still retain a similar form to what you now have, I would suggest "Alice's house and Bob's house".

questions - How manyth son to your father?

I know the title sounds stupid, but this is one question that has left me stumped for quite some time. I hope to get an answer in this forum. If the answer is "I am the fourth son of my father", what should be the question?

In general, how do you ask questions with ordinal numbers?

Answer

I don't think you can ask that question directly. The conversation could go something like the following:

How many children does your father have? To which the answer could be three.

You could go on and say:

Which one are you? To which the answer could be I am the youngest, oldest, second, third, etc.

Now the last question might seem ambiguous if it's standing all by its own. But it would make sense once it's in context.

meaning - "With the purpose of" vs. "With the intention of"

A private student of mine had to complete a gap fill text, which contained the following excerpt:

Pronunciation isn't my strongest point, therefore I've decided to improve it.
I've borrowed some Spanish DVDs from the library, with the purpose
of listening to native speakers and trying to copy them.

The correct answers, according to Cambridge English Complete CAE, were so and intention. Although I would have written so because a comma preceded the gap, and explained this to the Italian student (who rightly huffed) I could not explain why the noun, intention, was preferred. To me with the purpose of and with the intention of are synonymous.

If the phrase had been written as follows:

I've borrowed some Spanish DVDs from the library for the purpose
of listening to native speakers and trying to copy them.

Would purpose have been more appropriate here? Should there be a comma after library? I ask because in the text above there is a comma preceding with (I loathe having to explain punctuation, but seeing as it's towards exam preparation I'd like to be as thorough as possible).

P.S. The exercise was not a multiple choice one, the learner has to supply the one word answer that best fits.

EDIT There is indeed an "and" in the last sentence, which I missed when writing the excerpt. Many thanks to Edwin Ashworth and @DavidSchwartz for pointing out the (mea culpa) transcription error.

Answer

Pronunciation isn't my strongest point _ __ _ I've decided to improve
it. I've borrowed some Spanish DVDs from the library, with the _ __ _
of listening to native speakers and trying to copy them.

The first gap (in my version) would require so or ,so or ;therefore . Given the comma, 'therefore' is ungrammatical as it never follows a comma.

The second gap could certainly be filled by intention. 'I've borrowed some Spanish DVDs from the library, with the intention of listening to native speakers and trying to copy them.' is a paraphrase of the more colloquial 'I've borrowed some Spanish DVDs from the library. I thought I'd listen to some native speakers and try to copy them.'

It could also be filled by purpose. However, construction-wise, 'for the purpose of' is more idiomatic than 'with the purpose of'. And semantically (and this is probably why the preferred choice of preposition is as it is), there is more of a flavour of the ultimate achievement than need be present with 'with the intention of' and certainly 'I thought I'd'. This doesn't sit too well just before 'listening to'. 'For the purpose of' would sit better with 'really getting to grips with idiomatic Spanish' (Aim, less 'ultimate achievement'-flavoured would sit happily with both 'listening' (ie the strategy employed) and proficiency (ie 'copying' – speaking like – 'the native speakers': the ultimate achievement)).

phrase usage - "I too" versus "me too"

I was talking to someone earlier today, and while trying to relate with them, I suddenly found myself trying to decide between "I too" and "me too". I can't quite grasp their differences.

As I understand it, "me too" is valid only on its own, in response to someone's statement.

Person 1: I absolutely love that new album

Person 2: Me too! Doesn't everyone?

Whereas, "I too" works (I believe) in both that scenario, as well as at (is that wording correct?) the beginning of a response phrase.

Person 3: I too, enjoy the album you mentioned.

Regardless of whether I am right or not, can someone please explain the mechanics behind this?

Answer

In modern English, we don't use nominative case Subjects when there isn't a tensed verb in that clause.

It is rare for [him to miss a class].

*It is rare for [he to miss a class]. (ungrammatical)

The proform too can stand in for a tensed verb phrase. However, because it is not actually a verb and therefore has no tense, we cannot use a nominative Subject with it:

• *I too! (ungrammatical)




• Me too! (grammatical)

orthography - 'Histogramed' or 'histogrammed'?

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

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

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

So for example we have

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

but

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

By that logic, we should have

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

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

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

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

Questions:

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




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

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

Edit

The Free Dictionary has the following discussion:

Exception 1: Doubled consonants in unstressed syllables

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

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

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

pronouns - Who vs whom in "Who is the right person to turn to?

Take the sentence:

Who is the right person to turn to?

I'm not sure whether who or whom should be used in this position.

grammar - What's the difference between three of cups and three cups?

Is there a significant difference between two expressions?
Is it okay to use the former in the context like "I found the three of Holy Treasures"?
I've never heard the former in everyday contexts and I'm not sure if it's gramatically right or wrong. Unlike the phrases like three of us, three of them, or three of hearts as in playing cards, it rather sounds unfamiliar to me.
I want to know if it's possible to use the phrase like "three of somethings" and if so how it's different from just "three something."

grammatical number - My favorite animal are dogs

My favorite animal are dogs.

Is this acceptable?

I believe this is ok because I see "animal" as one species and "dogs" as the variety of breeds.

Of course, the best answer would be "my favorite animal is the dog" but that's not the point.

Could someone give me a clear, technical answer as to whether or not this is acceptable (grammar)?

Thanks

How should I phrase a question that must be answered with an ordinal number (e.g., the third prime)?

I want to make a question having an answer as follows:

5 is the third prime number.

The bold part is the answer. How to phrase the question?

grammatical number - "Two are better than one" or "Two is better than one"?

I just came across the phrase "Two are better than one", but I had always heard it in my head as "Two is better than one". This is partially due to the Boys Like Girls song. Which one of these is actually correct?

Answer

TL;DR: Usually choose are.

---

The question asks which of these two “is actually correct”:

1. Two is better than one.


2. Two are better than one.

Unfortunately, there can be no answer to that question. It’s a leading question. The problem is that the question by its nature forces the answerer to concede that only one of them is “correct”, necessarily leaving the other in some “incorrect” category.

But that isn’t how English works: English isn’t a multiple choice quiz with one “correct” answer. Both versions occur in print by native speakers, and so both versions (can) have their place.

The clearest case for choosing the singular is when one is talking about the numbers themselves, such as saying:

• Two is greater than one.

Then you really must use the singular form, since you are really just saying that 2 > 1 — or in other words:

• The number two is greater than the number one.

However, in most other circumstances, you are talking about two somethings, and two somethings are more likely to take a plural verb than a singular verb.

• I just read a series of three books, and I find that the first two are better than the third.

If you look at historical usage, the singular version was virtually unknown until comparatively recently, at least in this Google N-gram:

You do still have to dive into the actual citations for the two is case and the two are case separately.

The singular choice is nearly unknown in the 1800s, although there is this example dating from the Annual Register of 1800:

I have seen that two is better than one, and that a threefold cord is not easily broken, and have therefore cultivated friendship with much zeal and disinterested tenderness: but I have found this also vanity and vexation of spirit, though it be of the best and noble sort.

That is example of nominal agreement, where the collection of two together is the thing being considered.

In contrast, the far more numerous plural examples are thinking of two items separately. Certainly when the number is just a cardinal number used in a noun phase, like saying two people are at the door, then there is never any question of the plural being the only grammatical choice.

However, it is really only in the last 50 years that the singular version has caught on much. Also, if you change the search to look only in (allegedly) British sources versus (allegedly) American sources, you will find that the British sources have a higher ratio of plural to singular than the American ones have. Note however that in both cases, the plural is still more common.

If you look at the Corpus of Contemporary American English 1990–2012, it has 3 citations of the singular two is better than one (2 spoken and 1 fiction) compared with 2 citations of the plural two are better than one (1 spoken and 1 fiction). That isn’t really much to go on. If you relax the constraint by dropping the than one part, then there are 7 citations for the singular and 4 for the plural.

If it were me, I would in most cases go along with most writers not just of yesteryear but also of today and choose the plural version just like they did.

That is the best I can do for answering the leading question of which one is “actually correct”: a long exposition demonstrating that the question is itself flawed, and that while both can have their place, usually the plural version works better.

pronouns - Is the use of "who" correct in this sentence?

"The Turk is chess engine who can interact with user interfaces
which support Winboard protocol at the moment"

I feel that which can be used instead of who but I'm not sure. If that's not correct what should I use instead of who?

Answer

This is a very unclear sentence, for many reasons, one of which is the use of who.

First, the noun phrase chess engine, as a count predicate noun, needs an indefinite article:

The Turk is a chess engine

and the noun phrase Winboard protocol needs a definite article:

supports the Winboard protocol.

Second, you use a stacked relative clause construction with two Wh- words, which is bad style -- repeating a grammatical word should carry extra information, or there's no point to it and it just makes work for everybody. It would be much better to omit one of the Wh- words (this won't work here because both are subjects and only non-subject relative pronouns can be deleted), or to substitute that for one of them,

a chess engine that can interact with user interfaces which support the Winboard protocol

a chess engine which can interact with user interfaces that support the Winboard protocol

or to reduce one or both of the relatives to a participle:

a chess engine that can interact with user interfaces supporting the Winboard protocol

a chess engine interacting with user interfaces that support the Winboard protocol

a chess engine interacting with user interfaces supporting the Winboard protocol

Finally, the temporal phrase at the moment is sitting at the very end of the sentence, after both relative clauses, and it's not clear what clause it refers to. Does it mean

• it interacts only with interfaces that currently support Winboard (but not others)


• it interacts with the current interfaces that support Winboard (but not the old ones)


• it currently interacts with interfaces that support Winboard (but changes are planned)


• ... etc?

So, put at the moment close to what it modifies.

Oh, and don't use who. Who is for people, not programs, no matter how good they are.

capitalization - Should "This" be capitalized in title case?

I have read that short words – that is, those with less than five letters – should not be capitalized. However, online sentence-to-title case converters capitalize the pronoun/adjective "this".

What is the correct way to deal with words such as "this" or "these"?

Thanks.

Answer

It depends which style guide you are following - but I couldn't find any that corresponded to "lowercase short words" (So "The Lord of the Rings" not "The lord of the Rings").

Grammarly suggests you capitalize the first word, all nouns, verbs, adjectives, and (implicitly) pronouns and adverbs and then says different style guides differ on how to handle articles, conjunctions, and prepositions. Some call for them to always be lowercase, and some for them to be upper cased if more than five letters.

Daily Writing Tips adds the last word and "subordinating conjunctions" ("as", "because", "although") to the "always capitalize" list (and discusses more the various style guides).

Everybody seems to agree though that "The This in a Title" is correctly title-cased.

grammar - Saxon genitive. Can I use it for objects?

I am translating from italian, and a question suddenly struck me:

Can I say:

The items’ content in the Navigation Drawer.

or

This is a class handling the cards’ layout.

sentence - is it compulsory to use "his/her" and "he/she" to refer to a person or just "he" and "his" is enough?

Let see this sentence:

a person needs to change his / her mind so that he /she can become good.

or a person needs to change his mind so that he can become good

is the second one incorrect?

I've never seen anyone write like this a person needs to change her mind so that she can become good

Answer

"They" used to be the common gender neutral singular pronoun, and still is colloquially, but English lacks a universally accepted word for this. Here are some contenders.

Someone left their phone behind.
This is common in speech, but avoid it in formal writing because "their" is not truly singular. It is the most gender neutral of these options because it isn't gender binary.

Someone left his phone behind.
I would not go so far as to say that it is offensive to default to the masculine pronoun, but is is a bit insensitive. This still has widespread acceptance, but it's definitely losing popularity.

Someone left her phone behind.

In an effort to draw attention to the peculiarity of using a masculine pronoun for an unknown individual, some people do the same with feminine pronouns. This is often meant to make you pause to reconsider your preconceptions, and people also use it as a reminder to themselves.

Someone left his/her phone behind.
A little jarring, but singular and neutral. Also consider her/his if you want to make people pause.

Someone left his or her phone behind.
This blends in better with text and speech than the slash, is grammatically correct, and is more politically correct than just "his."

grammar - Are the following sentences grammatically correct?

I'm having some troubles with a more literary writing style, and I wanted to check if the following sentences are correct grammatically, and if not, what exactly is the problem and what alternatives may I find, or how can I fix it ?

Here are the sentences:

"[...] questionable and unsafe places to sleep had plunged him into a constant alertness, one that had only been reinforced when [...]"

"After what he perceived to be an uncertain amount of time [...]" the idea is that the character has lost track of time, but some time had passed nonetheless, but he is unsure of how much.

"The noise paused in front of the door" as I understand it, sounds and noises are (in the language at least) not sentient beings who can perform actions, correct ? So what would be an ideal replacement for this sentence, the idea of it being that the character can hear sounds from afar, which is getting closer before stopping in front of a door. Also, can a sound "gain proximity" ? (i.e getting closer).

"[...] he caught a glimpse of a small group of guards facing the door. Somewhere in his mind, he noted their unusual numbers, though it barely sparked any curiosity in him"

"his thoughts had been slowed down to a halt by the bland nature the days had acquired."

Any explanation or links towards articles explaining which grammar points are concerned by these mistakes would be greatly appreciated.

grammar - Is "What did you just say" grammatically correct?

Should I say:

What did you just say?

or

What have you just said?

I find the first one more common.

The English grammar textbooks I've read emphasized that "just" refers to the present therefore you should use present perfect tense in such situations. For example, in an affirmative sentence, you'll definitely say "I've just finished reading this book" rather than "I just finished reading this book", right? Then what about questions like the one above?

pronouns - What does the "either" in this sentence mean?

The whole paragraph is like this:

An experiment has three possible outcomes, l, J, and K. The
probabilities of the outcomes are 0.25, 0.35, and 0.40, respectively.
If the experiment is to be performed twice and the successive outcomes
are independent, what is the probability that K will not be an outcome
either time?

I'm not sure about the either in K will not be an outcome either time.

Which of the following is the right meaning?

(1) In any of these two times, K will not be an outcome.

Or

(2) K will not be an outcome in both time, which means, K can be the outcome in one time at most.

The right answer is 0.64, which supports (1), but I suspect it's wrong..

Does anyone have ideas about this?

Answer

Your first answer is correct.

"What is the probability that K will not be an outcome either time?"

By "either time," this question is referring to the possibility of K being an outcome in either one of the two performances; therefore, K cannot be in either of the outcomes with falsifying the answer.

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?

Comma before while?

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

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

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

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

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

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

pronunciation - When reading an English sentence containing a word with foreign origin, should one try to read it with pronounciation from the original language?

Say I am reading the following sentence:

Tokyo has served as the Japanese capital since 1869.

For the word Tokyo, if I happen to know how to pronounce it in Japanese (the pronunciation is similar to, but different from, the pronunciation in English), should I pronounce it in the Japanese way or the English way?

commas - Are sentences limited to one coordinating conjunction?

I have a sentence, and I'm not sure if it should be written as in example one or two:

Example one:

Someone keeps on popping my car's tires. So I installed a camera onto my car, and I caught the guy.

Example two:

Someone keeps on popping my car's tires[,] so I installed a camera onto my car, and I caught the guy.

As shown in my two examples, one of them has a comma before "so." So, which would be the better sentence?

grammatical number - Mixing plural and singular list items with a single verb

A friend wants to write,

There is no hardware to purchase, no additional software to install and no key fobs to worry about.

This is awkward because the verb "is" doesn't match up with the third item, which is plural and demands "There are" as the subject. However,

There is no hardware to purchase, no additional software to install and there are no key fobs to worry about.

sounds awkward as well.

Is there a good workaround for this problem where some list items are singular and some are plural, so they don't share a common verb?

pronouns - Is the singular "they" acceptable in formal writing?

I am linking to this post for reference.

The acceptability of "they" as a singular pronoun is growing. Has it grown to the point where it is acceptable in formal publications, such as journal articles, business proposals, or political speeches?

It seems to be that it is not quite there; most people are still too concerned about being negatively judged for it. However, the options of "one", "he or she", and "s/he" are similarly avoided for their cumbersome and pedantic tones. I often see either "he" or "she" used exclusively as an alternative, however, as there is no official stance on one pronoun or the other referring to either or, this opens the door for issues of implicit gender discrimination.

I try my best to skirt the issue altogether when I write, often dramatically revising paragraph -- and even paper-- structure. This, of course, is ridiculous. What is the best option for communicating the very commonly needed genderless singular personal pronoun in formal situations?

Difference between "Do it yourself" and "Do it by yourself"

What is the difference between "Do it yourself" and "Do it by yourself"? and how and when can I use each one of them?

grammar - In the tense of present perfect, Are 'recent past' and 'hot news' the same?

In the tense of present perfect, I learned that
"I have finished the work" means 'recent past' and "The man has died"means'hot news'
Are 'recent past' and 'hot news' the same in meaning?

indefinite article plus proper name in organizational (i.e. business or bureaucracy) contexts

The use of the indefinite article with a proper name occurs often in business or organizational speech-contexts:

We're lucky to have a Bill Jones to get the job done.

The article plus proper noun is used differently there than it is in narrative contexts, where it is typical to find an adjective as well:

A young Bill Jones would soon make his debut at Carnegie Hall.

There is an inherent contradiction in the former combination: it suggests individuality and fungibility simultaneously. It is subtly demeaning. The locution praises Jones while reminding him and everyone in earshot that employees can be replaced, although this message might not be at the conscious level.

I recall reading that, in a language whose grammatical genders included animate and inanimate, it was possible to insult someone by affixing the inanimate gender marker to an adjective applied to the person. Do you think this use of the indefinite article with a proper noun functions in a similar way?

subjunctive mood - Why might the author have used "to be" instead of "is" in this sentence?

...thinking it to be in the green box when it is really in the yellow box.

The to be does seem to suggest that the green box does not actually contain it. Is to be, as used in the quotation, a subjunctive construction? If it is, then is that construction the most appropriate subjunctive construction; why or why not?

Thank you.

grammar - Is a comma required between an independent clause and a dependent clause connected by a conjunction?

Many publications use a comma between an independent clause and a dependent clause connected by a conjunction.

Recent example I came across:

I have to say I roll my eyes at the various attempts to explain President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state**, and to make plans** to move the U.S. embassy there.

(Source: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/andrew-sullivan-let-him-have-his-cake.html)

This Purdue article seems to caution against such use: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/607/02/

Are these commas grammatically correct? Why do many publications place/allow commas in these instances? Your input would be greatly appreciated!

grammatical number - Why is the singular of “week” used in “two-week business trip”?

According to Google, it is correct to say "two-week business trip" instead of "two-weeks business trip". So "week" word should be used in singular form which looks strange for me as non-native speaker. Is there any special rule for this kind of phrases?

etymology - Where does "otay" come from?

I've heard a few people (all native English speakers) recently use "otay" in place of "okay", both in writing and when speaking. Where does that word come from? For that matter, is it a word at all?

I'm guessing it means the same thing as "okay", but are there any nuances in its usages that I'm missing?

Answer

When I use it, I'm deliberately emulating baby talk. It doesn't really mean anything different than "okay" (pronounced properly); it's just a way to be, I dunno, cutesy.

I didn't know about the Little Rascals/Buckwheat connection, possibly because I grew up without a TV. I'm sure Buckwheat contributed to at least some of the popularity of "otay", and possibly I absorbed it from someone who (unbeknownst to me) was imitating the TV show, but it's also possible that this is something that each generation/school/user invents anew.

grammar - How to use "The first thing I did was"?

I'm unable to figure out if the following sentence is correct:

"After I watched the movie, the first thing I did was shutdown the laptop and go outside"

Is this grammatically correct? Or should it be "..went outside".
Please help.

grammar - Is it correct to use "me" or "I" here?

Thank you for initiating the opportunity for Bob and me to talk.

literature - "be any good" meaning + articles omission in case of 3 nouns conected with "and"

I have some questions regarding this fragment of Philip Roth's American Pastoral:

"The Swede started as end in football, center in basketball, and first baseman in baseball. Only the basketball team was ever any good - twice winning the city championship while he was its leading scorer - but as long as the Swede excelled, the fate of our team didn't matter much to student body"

1) The Swede started as end in football, center in basketball, and first baseman in baseball.

1) why there are no articles before end, center and first? I know, there's a rule that says articles can be omitted when nouns referring to two contrasting people or things are joined by 'and'. Is it also a case here?

2) Only the basketball team was ever any good - twice winning the city championship while he was its leading scorer (...)

2) Does this sentence mean that the basketball team was good or not?

I've noticed that be any use/any good is mostly used in a negative context, e.g. A boat like this wouldn’t be any good in a storm. or It isn’t any use complaining – they never listen.

Is the ellipsis made in the following sentence fine?

The point is way more clear in the first scenario than it is in the second.

Is there any problem that I omitted "scenario" after the second?

I could also say this way:

The point is way more clear in the first scenario than it is in the second one.

But the first way seems better to me as it has more brevity.

pronouns - Under which conditions can "one" be used to refer to non human entity?

I've heard that one is understood as referring to people if one uses any one as in

Q: Which of these ice cream flavors do you want?
A: Any one.

I understand that any one sounds like anyone, but is that a reason not to use the expression?

What about other uses of one, such as the first one and one of them?

Answer

"One" is used as a pronoun for things and people.

Things:

• "Please hand me the one on the right."


• "John wants the same one as all his friends."


• "Having only one is never enough."

People:

• "Mary is the one who gave me this cold."


• "The one on the right is my sister."


• "Go in one at a time, please."

grammar - Which is correct, In which or In what...?

I refer, for example, to, "In which foods does one find carageenan?" vs. "In what foods...?"

Thank you!

grammaticality - "Countries List" or "Country List"?

Duplicate of:
“User accounts” or “users account”
“Employee list” or “employees list”
Should a list of tokens be called a “token list” or a “tokens list”
“BookList” or “booksList?”
Is it correct to say “lesson count” or “lessons count”?
"Thing count" or "things count"
And others

Which of the following are correct?

1. Countries List


2. Country List

It is the title of a web page where users can view the list of countries and select one.

Is this a decision or a choice?

My local fruit and vegetable shopkeeper gave me this conundrum upon my last visit:

You are travelling down a road when you reach a junction. You must go left or right. For the sake of argument, you pick left. Was this a decision or a choice?

I could not answer him. I felt that this should be that both are, but I could not bring myself to tell him that choices and decisions are identical. Is my gut instinct right? Are they distinguishable in this scenario, or any others?

verbs - How do the tens­es and as­pects in English cor­re­spond tem­po­ral­ly to one an­oth­er?

Non-na­tive speak­ers of­ten get con­fused about what the var­i­ous tens­es
and as­pects mean in English. With in­put from some of the folk here I've
put to­geth­er a di­a­gram that I hope will pro­vide some clar­i­ty on the
mat­ter.

I of­fer it as the first an­swer to this ques­tion. Con­sid­er it a liv­ing
doc­u­ment. In­put is wel­come, and good sug­ges­tions will be
in­cor­po­rat­ed in­to the di­a­gram.

---

No­ta bene: What this is not is a dis­cus­sion of whether there are
more than two tens­es in English. We have a ded­i­cat­ed ques­tion for
that, to which this
ques­tion is not in­tend­ed to sup­ply ar­gu­ments one way or the oth­er.
Here, the aim is to pro­vide an overview of what con­struc­tions
English-speak­ing peo­ple use for con­vey­ing in­for­ma­tion about ac­tions
re­fer­ring to past, present, and fu­ture, and to pro­vide it first and
fore­most to pre­cise­ly the peo­ple who are like­ly to use "tense" as a

catch-all term in their search, rather than to lin­guists who know bet­ter.

Break­ing News There is now an ex­cel­lent ELU blog ar­ti­cle ti­tled
How We Talk About Fu­ture
Si­t­u­a­tions.
It is high­ly rec­om­mend­ed read­ing.

Answer

A visualization of what we mean in English by the various tenses:

grammaticality - Preferred way to apostrophise in case of dual or multiple ownership by distinct entities

Consider describing the wedding of X and Y. If I want to avoid the overly-formal and poor-flowing "wedding of", it is more correct to say "X and Y's wedding" or "X's and Y's wedding"?

I acknowledge a very similar question has already been asked: What possessive forms are used for mutual 1st person ownership?

But unfortunately the example given is able to be easily phrased a different way and so respondents have been able to get away with avoiding the direct question.

Let's face it, we come across the need to get across the concept of mutual possession all the time and we don't always want to have to resort to the more tortured "Z of X and Y" as with the French language.

NB: In some cases, people get around this problem by dropping the apostrophes altogether and "adjectivising" the owners, especially if the owners are actually plural entities themselves. Eg. The "Mazda and Mitsubishi combined outputs" instead of the "Mazda's and Mitsubishi's combined outputs". Let's not let this muddy the waters though.

Answer

This site states it very well:

4. A less-often faced decision involves the use of apostrophes where multiple owners are named. Where two or more people own one item together, place an apostrophe before an "s" only after the second-named person. For example:

Incorrect: Bill's and Mary's car was a lemon, leading them to seek rescission of their contract under the state's lemon law.
Correct: Bill and Mary's car was a lemon, leading them to seek rescission of their contract under the state's lemon law.

However, when two or more people own two or more items separately, each individual's name should take the possessive form. For example:

Incorrect: Joanne and Todd's cars were bought from the same dealer; both proved useless, even though Joanne's car was an import and Todd's was a domestic model.
Correct: Joanne's and Todd's cars were bought from the same dealer; both proved useless, even though Joanne's car was an import and Todd's was a domestic model.

("The Legal Writing Teaching Assistant: The Law Student's Guide to Good Writing", by Marc A. Grinker)

So, saying "X's and Y's weddings" (note that it's weddings not wedding) has a different meaning from "X and Y's wedding".

The first one is denoting two separate weddings, and the two subjects named are not getting married to one another, but the second one is the one you are probably trying to say.

grammar - "I and Jane" or "me and Jane"?

So I know that it's correct to say:

Jane and I are going shopping

I shouldn't use me here because (as stated on Oxford Dictionaries Online) I is what I would use in the singular form of the sentence:

I am going shopping

But does this same rule apply if I want to (impolitely) put myself first in the sentence? Should I be saying:

I and Jane are going shopping

Because this just sounds incredibly wrong. It sounds much more accurate to use me here.

Answer

There are very strong indications that " x and me" or "me and x" are the actual grammatically-correct form in English (in concordance with French and with historical usage) and the horrible resonance of "I and x" is among them.

The problem with the "me" formulation is that it will never get by an editor or reader who has taken primary school English, except in a quotative construction relating non-standard speech. The influence of classically-educated grammarians runs deep, and the idea that subject pronouns must appear in subject positions has been so thoroughly drilled into people that "x and I" sounds right to most people, even though it is arguably wrong according to the natural grammar of the language. (If one substitutes "a group consisting of [members list]", "me" is the proper constituent.)

The upshot is that if you want to be taken seriously in a non-colloquial context, you pretty much have to use "x and I". "Me and x" or "x and me" will sound too colloquial or sloppy, and "I and x" simply sounds wrong to most folk.

verb agreement - "Lots and lots of...two different uncountable nouns"

I'm writing a story for little children and would really appreciate some help with the following sentence:

"There was lots and lots of red, and lots and lots of blue."

Is that correct? Or should it be "there were"?

Answer

When you are saying merely blue or red as an object rather than a modifier,'was'shall be used.

There was loads and loads of blue (colour) and loads and loads of red (colour).

However if there were an object that blue and red were modifying and the object was more than one in number, we would use 'were'.

There were loads and loads of blue books and loads and loads of red books.

The only time you would use a colour name in plural would be when referring to shades:

There were many greens to choose from. which is an informal way of actually saying
There were many hues/shades of greens to choose from.

or in a metaphorical use of the colour.

I have the blues."

definite articles - Why is "the" dropped in "I go to school by bus"?

Why is the dropped in "I go to school by bus"? Why isn't it "I go to the school by the bus" if both school and bus are countable? Does the rule that a countable noun must have an article have an exception here?

pronunciation - "A/An" preceding a parenthetical statement

When a/an precedes a parenthetical aside (sometimes seen in informal/conversational writing), should the vowel rule depend on the first word in parentheses, or the next word in the "regular" flow of the sentence?

I need a (memorable) idiom (preceding an m word; use a)

or

I need an (memorable) idiom (preceding an i word; use an)

Answer

The example given is not parenthetical:

(i) I need a (memorable) idiom.

A parenthesis is a remark which you insert into the middle of a sentence as if you are interrupting yourself. A parenthesis contributes to the meaning of the sentence but interrupts and stands outside its syntax. In writing, we typically use curved brackets, dashes, or commas to mark a parenthesis.

The syntax of the example sentence is not interrupted by the word memorable. Instead, the word memorable functions as an adjective modifying idiom. Consequently, the pronunciation rule applies to the word memorable and the article to use is a.

Compare this variation:

(ii) I need an (well, if I need anything at all) idiom.

Not an example of great writing, to be sure. But it shows how a parenthesis interrupts and stands outside the syntax of a sentence. The phrase “well, if I need anything at all” is not part of the noun phrase “an idiom”. The pronunciation rule still applies, but it applies to the word idiom and the article to use is an. This is true even though you would not normally pair an with well. You would, for instance, say:

(iii) I need a well known idiom.

The difference is that well is parenthetical only in example (ii) above.

capitalization - How should Samuel Beckett's French "En attendant Godot" be capitalized in MLA?

Wikipedia capitalizes the title of Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot as En attendant Godot in its original French version, which is how the title of the play is originally typeset. However, according to MLA formatting (MLA Handbook, Eighth Ed.),

Whenever you use the title of a source in your writing, take the title from an authoritative location in the work, not, for example, from the cover or the top of a page. Copy the title without reproducing any unusual typography, such as special capitalization or lowercasing of all letters.

It then continues by describing which words to capitalize, concurrent with standard title case. I plan on capitalizing the title to be En Attendant Godot by the rules stated above, but I am wondering if there are any different rules for titles in languages other than English. For example, I know that Spanish titles often only capitalize the first word, but I don't know the MLA rules in Spanish, either.

Edit: I have found that the last few pages of the English version Waiting for Godot: A Tragicomedy in Two Acts gives the following:

WAITING FOR GODOT was first presented (as En Attendant Godot) at the Théâtre de Babylone, 38 Boulevard Raspail, Paris, France, during the season of 1952–3.

The only reason I still cannot fully justify that capitalizing or not capitalizing either is correct is because the play itself could have been capitalized differently than the book. I really have no idea.

Answer

This web page says that for MLA, you should cite French titles using the French capitalization (of which there are two systems). In this case, both systems give the capitalization En attendant Godot.

This example from the MLA gives an Italian title for which only the first word is capitalized.

This blog entry details the two systems in more detail.

The easiest thing might be to stick with the capitalization used in French Wikipédia. It seems to be inconsistent between the two systems, but it may just be choosing the capitalization that the author originally used.

differences - Can one explain the different distributions of the Saxon and the analytic (Norman) (periphrastic, 'of') genitive

I gave a quick answer to part of this question which had not been covered by previous answers, trying to clarify the reason you would say time of decoding but not decoding’s time. I said it was ’s usually indicates possession, but of course there were several counterexamples that would have occurred to me after a moment’s consideration, and these where helpfully supplied:

• Britain’s climate


• two days’ time


• a day’s work



• the sun’s rays

I am still of a mind to say that possession of some sort is what allows the ’s. Even though the sun does not have title to its rays, they do belong to the sun. Now, at the risk of duplicating the original question and/or being pigheaded, I am curious as to why time of decoding but not decoding’s time is correct, if not for the reason I gave.

Answer

In The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, the late Burchfield offered a guide to the use of possessive s and of with inanimate nouns. It is the most comprehensive and well founded stylistic advice I could find on the subject. He had worked on the Oxford English Dictionary and knew a lot about language and style. A summary:

A noun that is possessive or preceded by of modifies another noun: in my mother's bed / the bed of my mother, bed is the head noun, modified by my mother's / of my mother. Usually, inanimate modifier nouns should be preceded by "of"; but there are many possible exceptions, some of which are given here.

1. An important exception is the so called thematic genitive: if a noun has gained strong topical value, because it is central in a discussion or description, it may get the possessive s.

   
   
   

   
   

   
   
   • That is a beautiful teapot. And those teacups must be Meissen. Notice the teapot's ornate lid and slender figure.
   
   

   
   




2. Nouns defining a specific quantity of time or space, as used in many semi-fixed expressions, may get the possessive s.

   
   
   

   
   
   

   
   

   • A day's work

   
   

   • A hair's breadth

   
   

   
   




3. Words modifying the word sake.

   
   
   

   
   

   
   
   • For heaven's sake
   
   
   

   
   




4. Words modifying the word edge.

   
   
   

   
   

   
   
   • The cliff's edge
   
   

   
   




5. Words for a ship or boat (and probably other vehicles; these could be classified as thematic genitives, or as cases of personification: see 1 and 7, and compare the use of she for vessels).

   
   
   
   

   
   

   
   

   • The ship's crew

   
   

   • The plane's left wing

   
   

   • The train's front car

   
   

   
   




6. Other fixed expressions, usually monosyllabic nouns.

   
   
   
   

   
   

   
   

   • Out of harm's way

   
   

   • The sun's rays

   
   

   
   




7. A personified inanimate noun; i.e. whenever a thing is invested with a will or the ability to act (this exception is an addition of my own). This is related to the use of she for certain countries and vehicles.

   
   
   

   
   

   
   
   

   • Britain's might

   
   

   • Fear's claws

   
   

   
   

The pronoun its is by definition reserved for inanimate objects and hence universally possible. The use of whose with inanimate objects appears to be much less restricted than the possessive s, perhaps because relative clauses always express elaboration on a central theme (thematic genitive). This is not surprising, since the essence of a pronoun is that it refers to existing information, i.e. it is highly topical.

---

The relevant passages from Burchfield:

For inanimate nouns, and particularly for such nouns consisting of more than one syllable, the of-construction is customary (e.g. the roof of the church, not the church's roof: the resolution of the problem, not the problem's resolution).

...

There is general agreement that the non-personal genitive is frequently used with nouns of time (e.g. the day's routine, an hour's drive) and space (e.g. the journey's end, a stone's throw, at arm's length). It is also often used before sake (e.g. for pity's sake, for old times' sake), and in a number of fixed expressions (e.g. at death's door, out of harm's way, in his mind's eye). Jespersen noted the prevalence of 's genitives before the word edge (the cliff's edge, the water's edge, the pavement's edge, etc.). He also noted that ship, boat, and vessel tend to turn up with an 's genitive when we might expect of (the ship's provisions, the boat's gangway, etc.).

In 1988 Noel Osselton demonstrated that the somewhat unexpected types the soil's productivity and the painting's disappearance (as well as others) represent a legitimate class of what he called thematic genitives. When a noun that cannot 'possess' is of central interest in a particular context, it tends to acquire the power to 'possess', and is therefore expressed as an 's genitive.

One major genitival area remains virtually untransformable into 's genitives. Only the of-construction is appropriate for partitive genitives: e.g. a glass of water cannot be re-expressed as a water's glass, and try converting a dose of salts.

I tested these rules against my files and found them largely in accord with my own evidence. The great majority of 's genitives still occur with
animate nouns. ... It does seem from the evidence available to me that the 's genitive for inanimate nouns is commoner now than it was a century ago[.]

grammatical number - Is -1 followed by a singular or plural noun?

Do we say "-1 thing" or "-1 things"?

I am interested in both

two things minus one thing(s)

and

minus/negative one thing(s)

Answer

A few elements of response:

1. authority: as mentioned by Cawas, there is not ultimate authority on the English language, and while there are a number of references, I have not been able to identify a solid consensus on the subject.




2. Usage: It is fairly difficult to check this due to the possible misunderstanding between "(minus one) thing" and "minus (one thing)", assuming that these are two separate cases, an assumption I would tend to disagree with.
   However, searching for "minus one dollar" -infinity on Google returns 254,000 results while "minus one dollars" -infinity returns only 7 results. The difference is significant enough to consider that regardless of any possible confusion as suggested above, minus one should be followed by the singular, at least in this case. ("-infinity" is added to the search phrase to exclude the expression "infinity minus one dollar").
   "minus three dollars" is significantly more common than "minus three dollar", suggesting that "minus" itself does not affect the rules of the plural/singular following numbers.





3. Logic: "minus one" is not an actual quantity in the physical universe. "Minus one" is only an abstraction which refers to the action of subtracting one of anything. Rather that saying "whenever you have apples, remove one apple" we say "minus one apple". It follows that "(minus one) thing" and "minus (one thing)" are actually equivalent.

Barring incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, I would say that it is safe to use the singular following "minus one".

grammatical number - Question tag for "many a ..."

Consider the sentence "Many a rose bloomed in the garden."

If you had to substitute "many a rose" with a pronoun, what would it be?

"Many a ..." takes a singular verb. Does that mean it can be substituted by the singular pronoun it?

If you had to add a question tag to "Many a rose bloomed in the garden", what would it be? Is "Many a rose bloomed in the garden, didn't it?" grammatical?

parts of speech - When does a gerund become a verb?

My question is a follow-up to one in which I identified stealing and killing in a particular sentence as gerunds. Bill J commented to the effect that if objects followed these gerunds, the latter became verbs.

My questions are why and what form of the verb? For me the grammatical distinction between “I dislike killing” and “I dislike killing sheep” is simply that the gerund complement in the first becomes a gerund phrase complement in the second.

grammatical number - What is the plural of "hair" when it refers to the hair of multiple people?

I understand that "hairs" is plural when talking about multiple hairs, as in "my hairs have split ends", and that "hair" is singular when talking about ones collection of hairs, such as "my hair is blue". However, I'd like to know what the plural form is when I am talking about the collections of hairs of multiple people.

"We must wait until our __ dry"

Furthermore, if the answer is "hair" which is typically singular, then would it be "We must wait until our hair dry" or "We must wait until our hair dries"?

Answer

Hair can be either hair or hairs when pluralised, but the hair(s) of a group should be hair. I have three grey hairs, but we all have brown hair.

My hair, your hair, our hair.

"We must wait until our hair dries"

Hair is usually hairs when it's countable, and hair when uncountable. As an uncountable, it becomes a mass noun.

subordinate clauses - Use of a pronoun to refer to something that follows

This is the opening sentence from the Edgar Allan Poe short story 'The Facts In The Case Of M. Valdemar'.

Of course I shall not pretend to consider it any matter for wonder that the extraordinary case of M. Valdemar has excited discussion.

It seems to me that 'it' in this sentence is not a dummy 'it' but a pronoun that refers forward to the subordinate clause 'that the extraordinary case of M. Valdemar has excited discussion.' We could rewrite the sentence as 'Of course I shall not pretend to consider that the extraordinary case of M. Valdemar has excited discussion any matter for wonder .' The problem would be that 'consider that' is a common construction that utilises 'that' in a different way than is intended here (as introduction to a subordinate clause), so instead the pronoun 'it' is used to separate off the clause.

On the other hand, we could write 'That the extraordinary case of M. Valdemar has excited discussion, I shall, of course, not pretend to consider any matter for wonder.'

Does my analysis make sense, and are there many instances where a pronoun refers forward to something that occurs later in a sentence?

For instance--"I consider him damned, who refuses to submit to God" where there is no previous noun the pronoun 'him' refers to, but 'him' instead refers to the following subordinate clause 'who refuses to submit to God'. (Which raises the interesting case of a subordinate clause that modifies a pronoun that actually refers to the subordinate clause--but then, 'he who refuses to submit to God' would work the same way.)

Answer

You're talking about postcedents. An antecedent is a word/phrase which is referred back to in a later part of the sentence like "your tea" in "Drink your tea while it's hot."

If you said "While it's still hot, you should drink your tea", "your tea" becomes a postcedent.

http://english.edurite.com/english-grammar/postcedents.html#

In both cases, the pronoun ("it" in these examples) which refers back or forward to the antecedent/postcedent is called a pro-form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-form

The naming comes from "ante" meaning "before" (because the antecedent comes before the pro-form) and "post" meaning after (because the postcedent comes after the pro-form).

Postcedents are less commonly used, probably because when you see the pro-form (eg "it") you don't actually yet know what they're referring to, so it makes the sentence a bit harder to comprehend. I think they may be most commonly used when the postcedent is someone's name, like

"After hearing his alarm go off for the third time, Simon finally woke up".

grammatical number - "Singular noun + of + plural nouns + singular verb" confusion

I've come across a sentence which says

"The CEO of many corporations is responsible to the board that hired him"

notice the bold-faced part. Why can't we use "are" here?

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

Many European languages conjugate their verbs, thus:

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

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

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

Answer

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

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

There was also a contracted form in the indicative:

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

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