Use of the definite article "the" before "church"

I was in a Teacher's selection for a school in my country, and one of the coordinators said that she heard a mistake from another teacher that was unacceptable. I tried to figure out why was that, but I thought it was silly and forgot about it. Then I was asking about the weekend in my classroom and one of my Ss said the same sentence. I corrected him according to the coordinator, as she is way more experienced than me, but I couldn't actually explain why to him. The sentence was:

I went to the church.

I can't see the mistake in this sentence if the church had been previously mentioned in the context of the conversation. I understand, as a non-native speaker, that if you are talking to a person that doesn't have any idea of where you were and doesn't have any previous information about the specific place, the article 'the' should not be used. Also, I am assuming church as a count noun. So instead, we would say:

I went to a church.

Is it correct to use the indefinite article since I don't have any idea of which church he is talking about?

I made a research about it and found that places that people use in common (like school, church, hospital, work) but are not necessarily the same, we would omit the article, so we would use the sentence that the coordinator accept:

I went to church.

Like this sounds strange to me, but since I am not a native speaker, I think that it is OK.

I really don't think that it was an unacceptable mistake, since the use of the article will depend on the context. So, if I am talking to my student, asking what he did last weekend and we were not talking about anything before, which one should he use?

Definite or indefinite article when describing a historical person

According to this question:
Definite and indefinite articles when introducing a person
one can use a definite, indefinite or no article at all when introducing a particular person. Which option is the most natural in case of a historical figure, like

ruins of a medieval castle built by the Polish king Casimir the Great

or

ruins of a medieval castle built by a Polish king Casimir the Great

and generally, are both definite and indefinite articles correct here? It will be used as a one-off sentence describing a picture on a stock photography site. Thanks in advance.

Answer

They are all grammatically correct but they have slightly different meanings. This is inevitably a bit subjective but I would say the difference is in which bit is the main information and which bit is the additional information:

ruins of a medieval castle built by the Polish king Casimir the Great
ruins of a medieval castle built by Casimir the Great (who was a Polish King)

We see this structure whenever we want to add extra information to a particular person

the famous George Washington
George Washington (who was famous)

This would not make sense if we said

a famous George Washington

as that would make George Washington and Casimir indefinite.

ruins of a medieval castle built by Polish king Casimir the Great

is a slightly clunkier way of saying the same thing.

On the other hand,

ruins of a medieval castle built by a Polish king Casimir the Great
ruins of a medieval castle built by a Polish King (whose name was Casimir the Great)

Here it is clear that the emphasis is on the fact that the builder was a Polish king (hence the indefinite article), to which we have added his name as an afterthought.

grammatical number - How to explain why do we use, e.g. "1" video but "0" videos?

It's getting really complicated when you have to explicate to a student a bunch of habitual "Whys"!

For example, how do I explain, why do we say: "1 video but 0 videos?".

It's understood, if we say 2 videos but when we refer to '0' why is it also plural?

grammar - "...the depth of x, y, and z that currently overwhelm(s?) me."

Without having gone through what I have this year, I could not possible grasp the depth of love, gratitude, and individuality that currently overwhelm/overwhelms me.

I initially had overwhelm, but then had a friend go over the five-paragraph excerpt that this sentence was included in, and she claims it should be overwhelms. I see where she's coming from, but was wondering if somebody could persuade me fully, because right now I'm not so sure which sounds better. I suppose the question really boils down to whether it is the depth of the noun trio (singular) or the trio of nouns themselves (plural) that is doing the overwhelming?

phonology - Is there a hidden [y] vowel sound in /u:/?

My native language is Danish, with its gigantic number of vowel sounds, and this undoubtedly affects how I hear English vowels. However, one phenomenon in English has bothered me for many years, especially in Received Pronunciation, and I have so far been unable to locate any descriptions of it.

No matter how many times I listen to the English /u:/ sound, like in “do” /du:/, what I really hear on the phonetic level is not a pure, single-vowel [du:], but something like [dyu:] or even [dyu̯:].
And by this [y], I really mean the vowel sound which in IPA is written [y], that is, the sound of “u” in French and “ü” in German. So what I hear (and, I admit, also say) is a diphthong, starting with a short [y] and ending in a semivowel version of [u]. If I say simply [du:], it sounds in my ears completely different from how I hear most native (RP) speakers say it, and more like something you might hear from people with a strong Italian accent.

Is it just me hearing things, or is this an actual phenomenon?

EDIT: This question is similar to Pronunciation of ‘few’ as [ˈfjyu̯], but not identical, and importantly, the answers to that question do not directly concern the pronunciation phenomenon I am talking about. This is the case, however, for the answers to the present question.

Answer

You aren't just hearing things. For many English speakers, the phoneme /uː/ is realized as a fairly front vowel in most contexts, and since the four English "tense" vowels (the vowels in fleece, goose, face and goat) tend to be realized with a bit of a high offglide at the end, this could reasonably be transcribed as [yu̯]. The frontness of a vowel can be measured acoustically in terms of the value of its "second formant" or "F2": higher values of F2 are associated with fronter vowels.

The Atlas of North American English gives the following maps showing the areas in the United States where a front or central realization of /u/ is common. Apparently, a front realization is particularly likely after a coronal consonant (this definitely includes /n, t, d, tʃ, dʒ, s, z, ʃ, ʒ/; I'm not sure if it includes l). The captions use "Tuw" to represent a coronal consonant followed by /u/ and "Kuw" to represent a non-coronal consonant followed by /u/.

To summarize, /u/ has a somewhat fronted or centralized realization (mean F2 greater than 1200 Hz) in general for most North American speakers, but there is a band stretching across the north of the United States where more back realizations are still common. The use of a fairly front realization (mean F2 greater than 1550) after coronal consonants is even more widespread, with the backer realizations mostly occurring in certain spots in Minnesota/Wisconsin, New England and New Jersey.

The linguist Geoff Lindsey has made some blog posts mentioning the existence of central or front realizations of /uː/ in "Standard Southern British", and the tendency to use a more back realization before "dark l".

I (American English speaker) recently measured the position of my vowels in Praat, and found that I pronounce the word "mood" using a vowel with an F1 around 300~350 and F2 around 1800, the word "pool" using a vowel with an F1 around 300~350 and F2 around 800~900, and the word "heed" using a vowel with an F1 around 250~350 and F2 around 2200.

Wikipedia suggests that front-of-center realizations of /u/ (when it's not before /l/) may be particularly common in "California English". It cites a web page "Northern California Vowels" from Penny Eckert's website that says

Below is a vowel plot showing the shifting of /uw/ (new, food). This vowel is represented as black circles with arrows. When /uw/ is followed by /l/ as in school, it does not shift, but remains where we expect it to be. This plot shows that other occurrences of /uw/, however, overlap with the vowel in mister (empty circles) and approach the vowel in me (empty circles with arrows).

Which object is modified by the infinitive in this sentence?

The sentence is like this:

Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial
support they need in order to thrive.

I'm not sure about the to thrive. Does this sentence mean:

(1) To make the major cities thrive, governments need to support them financially.

Or

(2) To make the governments themselves thrive, governments need to support major cities financially.

In other word, which one is modified by to thrive? Is it Governments or cities and why? Does anyone have ideas about this?

Answer

From a purely syntactical analysis, it could be both.

The only thing that can tell us which is the better fit is semantics. In the example you give, even semantics do not make it clear:

• Major cities are likely to thrive if they receive the necessary financial support;


• Governments who spend the right amount of money on (making) the major cities (thrive) are more likely to be popular governments and thus be reelected—which I would say is a pretty good definition for ‘thrive’ as applied to a government.

I would consider it more likely that the cities are what’s being talked about, but the other option cannot be ruled out without more context.

If the major cities receiving financial support were to be swapped with something else, this interpretation could swing the other way:

Governments must ensure that their core constituents feel they get the political support they need in order to thrive.

In this case, it is almost unambiguously the government that is thriving (to me, at least), since political support is rarely something an individual person needs in order to thrive.

If you want to avoid ambiguity entirely, I would simply phrase the sentence in a different way altogether, for example:

In order to ensure that major cities thrive, governments must ensure that they receive the financial support they need.

(This is of course also a bit ambiguous technically, since ‘they’ can still refer back to the governments, rather than the cities—but that would make for a very odd sentence with a lot of semantic jumps. There is at least far less risk of ambiguity in this version.)

grammar - When can verb come before subject?

I am not a native English speaker, but I am interested in learning a certain grammar rule. I did come across many sentences where the subject and the verb switched their positions.

For example, I can say that I don't like apples nor does my friend. Here, the modal verb does comes before the subject my friend.

Another example: not only is he a great person, but he is humble.

What is this rule and when is it appropriate to use it?

Answer

English has quite a strong tendency to have the verb second in the sentence (not necessarily the second word, but the second constituent) Normally the subject is the first constituent that precedes it; but there are a number of other items which may serve that function, and in those cases the subject moves after the verb:

• Emphatic negatives:

Never shall I see him again.

Neither could they reach it that day.

At no time did I notice this.

• Other adverbs with negative polarity:

Rarely did they come and visit.

Hardly had I arrived than he spoke.

These are mostly a bit literary, but as you point out "neither/nor does ... " is normal in speech.

word choice - That vs Which usage

Iraq was first destroyed by the U.S. military and now it's being reconstructed by the U.S. corporations, which were the cause of its deliberate destruction.

Can we use that instead of which here?

syntactic analysis - Can "which" and its antecedent be used together in a sentence for reading clarity?

Unfortunately I could not find an authentic example of the rare construct I have in mind, but I am just as sure as I am typing this question that I have read so many sentences from older prose where the relative pronoun "which" and the noun it refers to are both there. In this case, it sounded almost as though "which" were used as "such."

Which + its antecedent.

The following example is mine, not taken from any authentic author; but it attempts accurately to emulate many sentences I have read:

Yet a certain problem still persists in this society, which problem has been
handed down from one generation to another.

Could it be that a writer is allowed to do so to avoid the syntactic ambiguity of whether "which" refers back to "society" or "problem"? Now of course the rest of the sentence may clarify for the reader what the antecedent for "which" is (without having to mention it); meaning that ". . . handed down from generation to another" gives the impression that the antecedent is indeed "problem." But still, could the combination of "which" followed by its antecedent "problem" be used to give the reader a more fluid and smooth reading experience?

Indirect "be" question; word order

Caveat: There are a great number of similar questions I have found, but none has explained this specific thing. If the answer does exist and I have overlooked it, please let me know.

So, I was under the assumption that the general rule for indirect question formation was to:

1. convert the question to a statement,


2. convert the unknown part to the appropriate question word, and


3. pull that question word to the beginning.

Thus:

Unknown object:

What does wasabi taste like?

1. Wasabi tastes like [something]. (converted to statement)


2. wasabi tastes like [what?] (replaced unknown part with appropriate interrogative)


3. [what] wasabi tastes like (moved interrogative to beginning)

Tell me what wasabi tastes like.

Unknown subject:

Who likes koalas?

1. [someone] likes koalas. (converted to statement)


2. [who] likes koalas (replaced unknown part with appropriate interrogative)


3. [who] likes koalas (moved interrogative to beginning)

Tell me who likes koalas.

If the subject is what we want to know, as in the koala example, we still do the same thing - pull out the unknown, convert it to a question word, and move it to the front - except it is already in the front, so the last step is superfluous. The formula remains the same, however.

---

This works for pretty much any situation as long as the main verb is not be. That's where I get confused.

Unknown... subject?

What is his name?

1. His name is [Bob?].


2. His name is [what?]


3. [what] his name is

Tell me what his name is.

This, to me, is the correct indirect question. Thing is, because of the fact that be is all copulationary-wise an' all, we can often reverse the subject and complement:

What is his name?

1. [Bob?] is his name.


2. [what?] is his name


3. [what] is his name

Tell me what is his name.

Now I know in speech this is probably quite common, but it sounds incorrect to me, and I would never write it. I believe (admittedly perhaps erroneously) that it is wrong. At least I think it is wronger than the first example.

So, my question: Is this 3-part rule I have been using wrong for be sentences? If so, what can I use in its place, and how can I explain it logically to my students?

---

Incidentally, the original question that sparked this was:

I don't know + Who is going to be our new boss?

Using the method above, this becomes:

I don't know who is going to be our new boss.

Whereas I think the more correct version would be

I don't know who our new boss is going to be.

but cannot explain why the former is incorrect.

---

I've looked around, and there are a few questions who come tantalizingly close but do not fully explain what I need to know:

Answer

I'm having a lot of trouble seeing the problem here. The fact that you are using a verb of identity makes no difference, except to allow for another acceptable way of phrasing the sentences. (And by the way, you could construct similar reversals even in the case of transitive verbs, if you wanted to, by using the passive voice, thus: "Koalas are liked by whom?" I wouldn't recommend it, and it's a bit unusual, but it's perfectly grammatical.)

As for the specific example (the "who our boss is going to be" vs. "who is going to be our boss" problem), each version is perfectly fine, perfectly grammatical, and perfectly acceptable. They are equivalent, and each is correct.

pronouns - It is us? It is we?

Which would it be--it is us, or it is we?

"Who is the real culprit? It is us, the ignorant, apathetic people of America."

Or, "Who is the real culprit? It is we, the ignorant, apathetic people of America."

Or plural?

"Who are the real culprits? They are us, the ignorant, apathetic people of America." (Sounds more like the name of a retail store--They R Us.)

grammaticality - Past perfect sentence in "I would have killed the snake if I had hit him..."

Is the following a correct past perfect sentence?

I would have killed the snake if I had hit him hard with a stick.

Answer

It is a perfectly normal English construction and is an example of what foreign learners are sometimes taught as the Third Conditional. The speaker imagines something that didn't actually happen (in this case, he didn't hit the snake) and speculates what the consequence would have been if it had happened (he would have killed the snake).

grammar - Is "close proximity" a tautology?

I was rooting about in the OED and one definition is "The fact, condition, or position of being near or close by in space; nearness." Then in the citations for that definition they had:
1872 H. I. Jenkinson Guide Eng. Lake Distr. (1879) 286 Owing to the close proximity to the sea.

Answer

"In close proximity" is redundant in one direction, but not in the other. Semantically, "close" adds something to "proximity," but "proximity" adds nothing to "close," but it does provide a convenient noun form to tack onto "close" when one's mouth is in gear before getting the words straight. (It also adds a dash of formality and a few extra syllables for city councilors and police chiefs at press conferences.)
The cognates of "proximity" carry a sense of figurative nearness, as in Aristotle's "proximate genus" and "approximate." These do not involve spatial nearness, and "proximate" is most frequently encountered in theoretical contexts. "Close" is more primarily a spatial concept. "Close" also describes a space that feels tight and cramped. "Proximity" signifies a vague kind of nearness: abstract, spatial, and not as tied to the scale of ordinary human sense-experience as "close." Even when restricted to its spatial sense, "proximity" suggests in a matter-of-fact way that the the distance involved is relatively small, while "close" suggests additionally a humanly-felt nearness. It's in the connotations that "close" adds a bit of emphasis to "proximity," though "in close proximity to" can be replaced by "close to" with no loss of meaning.

grammaticality - Adding a possessive to a singular noun phrase that ends in a plural noun

Which of these sentences is correct: "The clock under the curtains' hour hand broke off", or "The clock under the curtains's hour hand broke off"? The actual thing being made possessive, "The clock under the curtains," is singular, suggesting that you should add 's to the entire phrase to make it possessive. This would make the latter sentence correct, but it looks funny to me. Of course you don't add 's to a plural noun already ending in "s" in order to make it possessive, but what do you do if the possessive noun phrase itself is singular but it ends in a plural noun?

Answer

I'm going to quote a comment that I think efficiently lays out some of the presuppositions that this question is based on, in order to express some disagreement with those presuppositions:

in principle one of these two options should be grammatically correct (albeit awkward), right? Which one?

It is not acceptable to add the -'s genitive (or "Saxon genitive") to all noun phrases, and in the contexts where it is acceptable, there is not always only one "correct" form. So I don't think it's right to assume that this is a binary question.

The paper The English “Group Genitive” is a Special Clitic", by Stephen R. Anderson, gives some examples of (single word) noun phrases where it is fairly clearly not acceptable to add -'s or -'.

(20) a. *These’s illustrations are more competently drawn than those’s.

b. *Of the books I lent you, two’s/some’s/many’s covers were soiled when you brought them back.

I think these examples establish that it is not impossible in principle for there to be no acceptable way of forming a -'s genitive from a particular noun phrase.

To address the specific noun phrase given in the question, I think that most speakers who tolerate the use of the -'s genitive with the noun phrase "The clock under the curtains" would pronounce the genitive construction no differently from the original noun phrase, which would support the spelling "The clock under the curtains' hour hand." Anderson brings up the topic of noun phrases ending in a word suffixed with /z/ that is not the head of the noun phrase: he says that Zwicky (1987) describes these as not taking an additional [z] sound, but Carstairs (1987) "claims that the sentences with two /z/s are often acceptable".

I would agree with tchrist's advice to "write what you say", if you use this construction at all (my preference would be to avoid using it). But overall, this is a rare construction, linguists don't give uniform descriptions of the usage, and it's simple enough to rephrase in formal contexts, so I don't see any point to being dogmatically prescriptive about there being a single "correct" usage in this context.

A question about the proper usage of articles

I am working on my paper in English. It concerns the so-called problem of perception. The concept of the problem of perception is part of epistemological literature about perception; some argue that as long as we have illusions, hallucinations etc. our ordinary conception of perception is false. I am trying to show that the argument is incorrect itself. Since perception itself, as a phenomenon, does not 'suffer' from any such problem but, as I argue, the mentioned argument does, I think it would be useful to emphasize this in the title. This seems due for against the background of the 'infallibility' of perception itself the falsity of the argument will become more salient. So far I have had this version as a working one:

Is the "Problem of Perception" a Problem of Perception?

As I understand, article "the" supports there the meaning of a specific epistemological problem the reader is familiar with, and article "a" that of one problem of the possible many of perception itself. Yet am not sure that the articles actually support the meaning I would like to express by the title. So here is my question:

Does the above combination of articles, 'the' and 'a', respectively support the intended meaning?

Answer

Yes, the articles are used correctly for your context. You might want to consider keeping the outside the quitation marks.

grammar - difference between "can do nothing" and "cannot do anything"

Is there any difference between these two sentences

I can do nothing to help you.

and

I cannot do anything to help you.

If there isn't any significant difference, are there any cases when you'd chose one over another?

Please don't mark it as duplicate, I had searched but the results that I got didn't answer my queries satisfactorily.

adverbs - Word order with "just" and "only" meaning "merely"

Marking a German student's test I have encountered the following problem:

The relationship between the two adolescents is one-sided. Just the boy really feels something, the girl hates him.

Can just be used here? My gut feeling says it should be only, although both words can mean "merely" and do in this case.

punctuation - Which singular names ending in “s” form possessives with only a bare apostrophe?

Many questions already ask about this topic (What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in "‑s"? , When did it become correct to add an “s” to a singular possessive already ending in “‑s”?, etc.) and their answers vary, but they always give exceptions to the apostrophe-s rule, for example:

6.24 The general rule for the possessive of nouns covers most proper nouns, including most names ending in sibilants."

Examples they give include Kansas’s, Ross’s land, and Jones’s reputation. Exceptions include Jesus’  and Moses’.

Which names does this apply to? Is the Aeneas’  form correct, or is it Aeneas’s instead?

Answer

The most useful rule — and the most general and the easiest to remember — is simply that you add ’s whenever you actually say an extra /əz/ at the end when forming the possessive, compared with how you say the non-possessive version. Let your own ear be your guide. That’s all there is to it. No fancy rules full of exceptions. Just your own ear (as a native speaker, mind you).

So words ending in unstressed /iːz/ are exempt, like for example this series’ end, that species’ demise, Mercedes’, Ramses’, Sophocles’, Socrates’, Achilles’, Diomedes’, Archimedes’, Eratosthenes’, Ulysses’. (But not trapeze’s, because that one is stressed! See how that works?)

But these days, not much else is. I say “in these days” because in previous ages, some people did not add another /əz/ if it already had one, and so wrote Jesus’ to indicate they did not say an extra /əz/ there compared with Jesus: both are just /ˈd͡ʒiːzəs/ However, most people today now say Jesus’s, because it has three syllables: /ˈd͡ʒiːzəsəz/.

Same with Moses’s with three syllables instead of the older Moses’ with just two. Note that things like Ross’ and Chaz’ are always wrong, because no one says those with only a single syllable. That is a common error.

So it’s your boss’s house, because it’s got an extra syllable when you say it. Similarly, all the Jameses I have ever personally known have had the extra /əz/ tacked on when you are talking about something of theirs, which means it is for those speakers James’s house, albeit all the Jameses’ houses, because nouns are only allowed one /əz/ inflection, not two.

In all cases, the best thing to do is let your own ear be your guide, because writing should represent speech. That means that if you say an extra /əz/ then you write ’s, but if you don’t say it, then you don’t write it. That’s why you from time to time see forms like for goodness’ sake or for conscience’ sake. Those are possessive, but have no extra syllable.

As for the specific case of Aeneas, in older writing you will find that because his name already ends in /əz/, people would suppress the extra one when they would form the possessive, like Aeneas’ escape from Troy. Note very carefully that that posits a three-syllable possessive when spoken. If when you yourself say it, however, it turns out that you would yourself use the four-syllable version as most people today now do, then it would have to be Aeneas’s escape from Troy.

But now you have three issississes in a row, which will certainly require careful elocution to pull off — especially if you don’t mean to sound like Gollum with his fisheses.

grammaticality - Which is grammatically correct: "There is tea and juice" or "There are tea and juice"?

1. The bread and butter was tasty


2. Bread and butter are sold in this shop.

I have been taught when things are considered separately, we should use 'are' but when they are used collectively, we should use 'is'.

But in the following example, which one is correct?

A. There is tea and juice
B. There are tea and juice

grammaticality - Mixing past tenses in the same sentence

I have a question about violating verb tenses. I was taught that you can't use present perfect (or continuous) and past simple within a sentence. You either have to use present perfects (or continuous) with present perfects (or continuous), and past simples with past simples. But I've found this not to be true, so I'm a bit confused.

Here is an email one of my native American friends sent me.

Hey, it's been such a long time since we last emailed each other. Thanks for sending me an email! Getting that email was such a pleasant surprise, because I was just thinking how I've been wanting to send you an email as well.

What confuses me the most is the last part. How can you say that you were thinking about how you have been wanting to do something?

I was taught that this is wrong: "he has decided to go hiking, so I went hiking as well." But I'm assuming that my friend's email is correct, since he IS a native speaker.

So, this is what I'm thinking: I can't say present perfect (or continuous) + past simple, but I can say past simple + present perfect (or continuous).

This violates verb tenses:

"he has decided to go hiking, so I went hiking as well."

But this doesn't:

"I went hiking because he has decided to go hiking."

Are there instances where present perfect (or continuous) + past simple or vice versa is allowed and correct?

EDIT:

This is a difficult concept for me to grasp. But thank you for all your help, because I'm learning a lot. There are many sentences that don't make sense to me. I came across this sentence today:

"[I think this is inferred: During those days,] We've watched the movie many times. I really wanted this life to continue."

I'm not sure what the present perfect is doing here. I don't think it is being used for describing what a person has done before, like "I've seen that movie before". Why is it not simply "We watched the movie many times. [It was so good that] I really wanted this life to continue"?

grammaticality - Is it proper to use "that" instead of "at which" to refer to speed?

On a physics assignment, I believe that these sentences are grammatically incorrect, but some other students disagree (especially on the second one).

What is the maximum speed that the mass can be whirled without breaking the string?

What is the maximum speed that this car can round this curve without skidding

(NOTE: 33 1/3 is the frequency that it turns -- 33 1/3 revolutions per minute)

I think the use of that is incorrect, and "at which" or "that ... at" must be used to be grammatically correct. "that ..." is used above as restrictive clauses.

They accepted that the last one is incorrect.

the frequency [that it turns __ ]

Something cannot turn the "maximum speed".

For the second part, it doesn't seem like proper use of restrictive clauses.

the maximum speed [that this car can round _? this curve _?]

-> this car can round __ this curve

-> this car can round this curve __

"the maximum speed" is not the object of the clause. The car cannot round "the maximum speed".

Using "at which" or "that ... at" is better:

the maximum speed [at __ which this car can round this curve]

the maximum speed [that this car can round this curve at __ ]

Compare this to some valid examples:

Subject: This is a sentence [that I wrote __ ].

Object: This is a sentence [that __ was written by me ].

Preposition: This is a sentence [at __ which you looked ].

Detached preposition: This is a sentence [that you looked at __ ].

Am I correct?

grammaticality - What's wrong with 'caught no mice'?

In Kipling's story "Below the Mill Dam", this passage occurs:

"He shouted large and vague threats to my address, last night at tea, that he wasn't going to keep cats who 'caught no mice'. Those were his words. I remember the grammar sticking in my throat like a herring-bone."

The speaker, like all cats, is fastidious to the point of pedantry, so the point of grammar can only be a trivial, or even ridiculous, one; but even so I can't see anything wrong with the expression. Can any fellow-pedant, or cat, enlighten me?

Answer

It's the verb tense.

*I'm not going to keep cats who caught no mice.

is wrong, it should be "catch no mice" or "who have caught no mice."

grammaticality - "Blue colour" or "Colour blue"

Recently I started learning english on busuu.com.

In on of the elementary exercices "Colours", that I performed, the following phrase was stated as the correct answer:

"I like the colour blue"

while my answer "I like the blue colour" was treated as incorrect.

I would appreciate an explanation about a difference that might exist beetween these two phrases.

Thanks.

Answer

I am assuming the question was something along the lines of "What colour do you like?"

The answer "I like the colour blue" means that the colour you like, in general, is blue. The answer "I like the blue colour" implies that there was a given choice of certain colors and you chose the one which is blue (as if you where choosing from colour swatches).

Neither answer is grammatically wrong in itself, but in a given context one option will be correct. In normal conversation people will still understand what you mean, however, simply being understood is not a very high standard and that is likely why your answer was stated as wrong.

grammaticality - That would be I

When I arrived for a scheduled meeting, I was asked if I was Mr. Smith. I replied, "That would be I." It sorta sounds OK, if not awkward, just more formal. Would "that is me" or "that is I" both be acceptable?

conditionals - Does good grammar offend?

I'm not a grammar nazi in my native language, and SURELY nor in the language I learn (English). And I think, when a person is expressing thoughts, he or she shouldn't think about grammatical structures, moods, syntax etc., but about WHAT he/she's really saying. That's what I do in my own language. But when I communicate with an English-speaker, I can't help thinking of it. Because I haven't started thinking in English yet.

Situation 1.
I am chatting with somebody on the Internet, and this person writes something like "Oh your funny", and keeps writing your instead of you're. So when I respond, I write "You're funny too". Wouldn't it make me look like I want to reproach this person?

Situation 2.
I am talking to a person who's just said "If I was ... ". And the moment when I need to say the sentence with Conditional 2 is coming, so should I say "If I were" (just because I like it and was taught so)? Will he/she think, "Oh look who's talking, wants to make himself look smart".

P. S. Yes, I know that nowadays both variants are correct, but as far as I'm not the native speaker, they're the same to me. And I guess they're not the same to you...

tenses - Are these two sentences grammatically correct?

Assumption: Samantha is not living in Berlin anymore. (Wasn't mentioned)
Fact: The Berlin wall came down in the year 1989.

1. 'Samantha lived in Berlin for more than two years. In fact, she was living there when the Berlin wall came down.'


2. 'Samantha has lived in Berlin for more than two years. In fact, she was living there when the Berlin wall came down.'

Questions:

1. It is stated on the site where I came across this sentence that the former sentence is correct; however, as we don't know the specific time interval when Samantha was living in Berlin, shouldn't we use the present perfect tense?


2. Which sentence is correct, or are they both correct? If both, then which is 'more correct' (or more commonly used)


3. Also, without the assumption mentioned above, shouldn't we use the present perfect progressive tense, as we don't know if Samantha is still living in Berlin?

Answer

Without the assumption (or, even better, facts) I wouldn't use either sentence.

Unless you do know that she is still living in Berlin, the first sentence is arguably more common—but only because, after twenty-eight years, it's more likely that she's left Berlin than remained.

From a purely grammatical perspective, neither is right nor wrong—but, from a practical perspective, neither should be stated without sure knowledge.

Even the first, although technically correct, has some semantic difficulty unless it's assumed or known that she left at some point.

If you really don't know if she's still there or not, and you want to write a sentence that is the most accurate (regardless of her current living arrangement), I would suggest something simple like this:

Samantha had been living in Berlin when the Berlin wall came down.

It doesn't make any assumptions at all, and it's perfect correct no matter what the current facts are. (Assuming that it, itself, is a true statement.)

---

As noted in a comment (and caught by me in a revision) the information about Samantha having lived in Berlin for over two years doesn't indicate when those two years took place. (In other words, how long she'd been there when the wall came down.) So, I removed that from my simplified sentence.

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

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

word choice - What are the grammatical rules for use of "these", "those", and "them"?

I am unclear of the use of [these|those] objects. I am unsure when to use [these|those|them].

Please someone help me tell me which is correct in the previous sentences.

This is not a dupe of What's the difference between "these" and "those"?

Answer

These, those and them may all be used as objects of a sentence or a preposition.

Said when no books are present:

I lost my books. Did you see them?

Said while pointing toward a flock of geese:

I see some geese. Do you see those?

Said while holding a handful of diamonds.

I found some diamonds. Did you see these?

You can also use two of the three as modifiers for nouns:

Did you those geese?

Did you see these diamonds?

But it is ungrammatical to say

Did you see them books?

Subject-verb agreement with plural nouns

I am confused about numbers. Which one is correct?

Goals is what makes me feel alive.

or

Goals are what makes me feel alive.

And another example I am confused about:

Another factor is his enemies...

or

Another factor are his enemies...

Answer

In the first statement, the subject is clearly plural. This demands a plural verb: are.

The second statement is a bit confusing, because the subject is not very clear, partly because the sentence is not complete, so it is difficult to see the entire picture, but also because there is an understood "that" missing.

It is tempting to take enemies as the subject, but that is incorrect. The subject is "factor".

Another factor is [that] his enemies were gathering around him.

This is much clearer than:

Another factor are his enemies were gathering around him.

vocabulary - Is there a synonym / analogue to "he said, she said" that allows a neutral or positive connotation and denotation?

"He said, she said" has a sense that not only does an interaction look different from the two sides, but of an imbroglio.

There are a couple of moments I can think of that are "he said, she said" in the sense of two different experienced incidents for the two sides, but not in the sense of a nasty conflict where it is tangled to unravel what really went on.

My brother and sister-in-law have two little boys and the (nuclear) family is fortunate by having both sets of parents, two uncles, and one aunt within easy driving range. And sometimes, when the mother is at wit's end coping with the (perfectly age-appropriate) sort of behavior that inspired Mom's brownie recipe, their mother, or father if available, puts them in the car and takes them to a relative. And while the relative(s) in question try to be extra-gentle with the parent, the relative's perspective is (mostly) "Cool! We get to be with the little ones for an hour." There are no adult conflicts, and both parties have some idea of the other side's picture, but it is none the less two different views. One is—I hesitate to exactly say desperate, but a safety release valve for a difficult situation. To the other side it is more of a treat than anyone else.

Or for another example, there was one graduate program where I was the computer person for the department, and I was at a desk, not particularly stressed, when another student came in, looking not at all happy, and asked me to fix a printer so she could print out her thesis. I tried, briefly, to get it to print to the printer in question, and when that failed, I asked her, "Do you need it to specifically be this printer?" She paused; the thought simply had not occurred to her. She said, "No." I asked, "May I try to print it from the office printer?" She said, "Yes, it's on this USB key." I opened it up, started printing, and brought her the first few pages, and asked her if it was printing appropriately. This wasn't really because I saw as a live question whether the document was printing as she wanted; I wanted to reassure her. And I told her I would get the original printer dealt with on my own time, and opened a ticket at my next convenience. Now I haven't heard the whole story from her side (beyond saying that she was "apoplectic" when she asked me to help her), but I can take some obvious guesses that should be obvious to anyone who's been a graduate student submitting a thesis. I imagine that her version of the story started much earlier with trying to get a thesis ready before a some looming date, and she was thinking about how to revise and edit, wondering which wording was appropriate here and whether a section should be written differently there, and trying her best, and already we are at a very stressful situation. But after all that stress, she hit the "print" button, thought, "I can relax now, and it will print," and it didn't print, and nothing she could do or try seemed to change that. Under such conditions, tunnel vision is natural, and highly stressed people are much less likely to think of alternatives like "See if you can use another printer." She wasn't stupid by any stretch; she was quite bright, but just was acting like someone stressed out. (And I might comment that I was impressed by her manners. It's not terribly hard to be polite and agreeable when you are relaxed. It's impressive if you can be polite and agreeable when you are stressed to the hilt—and she was.)

Both of these situations are different on at least one point of a "he said, she said" situation in that all (adults) involved appreciate the other side at least somewhat, and that the two accounts can be connected in a coherent understanding. But there is nonetheless a situation that looks very different depending on whose eyes you are seeing it through.

Any closest words or expressions?

american english - When someone asks, "How are you?"

When someone asks, "How are you?" are you supposed to answer, "Good," or "Fine," and ask back?

Answer

Yes. Depending on where you are in the English-speaking world and on your relationship with the other person, you might reply with any of the following:

• I'm fine, thank you.


• I'm good. You?


• Doing great! And how are you?


• Good. Doing okay?

Certainly, several other possible permutations. No response at all would be considered rude anywhere. Just saying, "Fine," in response without a "thank you" or a reciprocal question would also be considered brusque, standoffish or rude; or the asker may simply conclude you are in a bad mood. The first response is the norm in places or cases where the respondent does not deem it polite or appropriate to respond in kind with a "How are you?"

personal pronouns - Using “she” with gender-neutral nouns

The song “Frozen” from Madonna’s Ray of Light (1998) contains the lyrics:

Love is a bird, she needs to fly,
Let all the hurt inside of you die.

Does she refer to bird or love? And why is it she there? As far as I know, love and bird both are gender-neutral.

Answer

Since the phrase is "Love is a bird", the author is equating the two. "She" would refer to both.

As to why it's she as opposed to he or it, that's just a stylistic choice for the song. Using "it" would be common in everyday speech, but probably not as poetic. Using "he" would be an odd choice, since "he" is not normally used to refer to either abstract concepts or genderless objects.

This question might offer some insight as to circumstances in which you might use "she" for an object.

dialects - When is it appropriate to use the original pronunciation of a foreign word versus the English pronunciation?

When reading to an audience, or speaking in conversation, when is it appropriate to use the original pronunciation of a foreign word versus the English pronunciation (assuming you know the appropriate pronunciation for it)? Is it considered rude, or condescending? Or is it considered a mark of being knowledgeable?

One of the things to consider are place names. When referring to Paris, France, should it be pronounced with the silent 'S' as the French would say it, or with the 'S'? Should Hiroshima be pronounced as a Japanese speaker would pronounce it slightly more emphasis on RO, rather than the SHI? Should Mount Pinatubo be pronounced as a Filipino speaker would pronounce it with shorter stronger vowels, or the longer vowels? (e.g. Pi as is 'pick' rather than 'pea'.) Should Wichita be pronounces as the original "shi" rather than the modern "chi"?

Pronounce pesos or sombrero as a Spanish speaker 'eh' or the English 'ay'?

(I can't think of other common words right now that aren't words taken from other languages like hurricane, boondocks, tornado, etc. which I think have (correctly) changed to English pronunciations.)

ellipsis - Why is the subject omitted in sentences like "Thought you'd never ask"?

• "Thought you'd never ask" is "I thought you'd never ask" with "I" omitted.




• "Hope this helps" is "I hope this helps" with "I" omitted.

In English grammar, normally every sentence should have a subject, right?

My first thought is that these two examples are so often used that they are like set phrases. But these are not really set phrases. You can alter the words after "thought" and "hope".

Another possible explanation is the tendency to drop the subject if it is the first person pronoun. It seems that in many languages, such as Spanish, Italian and Japanese, the first person subject is usually omitted. Maybe English is going the same way? (Not exactly the same, since in Italian, verb forms change according to the person, so the subject is not necessary to understand who one's referring to.)

And, apparently, such omission is more common in spoken English than in written English.

Are there more examples of such first person subject omission? How frequent is it?

Answer

This is due to a phenomenon that occurs in intimate conversational spoken English called "Conversational Deletion". It was discussed and exemplified quite thoroughly in a 1974 PhD dissertation in linguistics at the University of Michigan that I had the honor of directing.

Thrasher, Randolph H. Jr. 1974. Shouldn't Ignore These Strings: A Study of Conversational Deletion, Ph.D. Dissertation, Linguistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

To quote:

• (1.16) Gotta go now.


• (1.17) See you next Tuesday.


• (1.18) Too bad about old Charlie.


• (1.19) No need to get upset about it.


• (1.20) Been in Ann Arbor long?



• (1.21) Ever get a chance to use your Dogrib?


• (1.22) Ever get to Japan, look me up.


• (1.23) Good thing we didn't run into anybody we know.


• (1.24) Last person I expected to meet was John.


• (1.25) Wife wants to go to the mountains this year.
  [all from Thrasher 1974 p.5]

"The phenomenon can be viewed as erosion of the beginning of sentences, deleting (some, but not all) articles, dummies, auxiliaries, possessives, conditional if, and [most relevantly for this discussion -jl] subject pronouns. But it only erodes up to a point, and only in some cases.

"Whatever is exposed (in sentence initial position) can be swept away. If erosion of the first element exposes another vulnerable element, this too may be eroded. The process continues until a hard (non-vulnerable) element is encountered." [ibidem p.9]

In general, exposed first-person subjects are vulnerable in statements, and second-person in questions, and any exposed pronoun is vulnerable if it is recoverable from later in the sentence.

• (3.2) Can't do it, can {I/you/he/she/they/we}? [ibidem p.59]

Let me reiterate that this phenomenon only occurs in speaking English, and in other informal communication systems like email and txting that work like speech. It is not good formal written style, except for reporting dialog in a story.

articles - 'A' or 'an' before word in parentheses

If you have a word with an abjective between parentheses where you would normally use an instead of a, should you do this in this case too?

It's a little hard for me to explain, so here a concrete example: (acoustic) piano.

Should it be a (acoustic) piano or an (acoustic) piano, since you can choose to not pronounce acoustic?

phrases - The difference between "stack up against" and "stack up with"

I can see the term "stack up" is used with different prepositions or without a preposition:

1. to stack up against




2. to stack up with




3. to stack up (compared)

So what differences in meaning do they convey when we use them with different prepositions?

Here are some examples:

1. When China reported real growth of 7% year-on-year in the first quarter, economists noted that this did not stack up with its nominal growth of 5.8%.

2. I think if you look at our competition there’s no way that people can really stack up with our exclusive content, and that’s an amazing part of what we’re doing at Xbox.

3. Teachers will know how they stack up against national standards.

4. Find out how your income stacks up compared to the rest of the world.

My questions are:

1. Can we replace the word with with the word against in examples 1 and 2? Would the meaning of the sentence change if we do?

2. Can we replace the word against with the word with in example 3? Would the meaning of the sentence change if we do?

3. Can we replace the word compare with against or with in example 4 without changing the sentence's meaning?

4. In example 1, could "to stack up" have been used in the sense of "to make sense" as in the following sentence? For me I can replace it more with "consistency, correspondence, or coherent.

Sorry but what you said just doesn't stack up with the odds.

Answer

Christine Ammer, The Random House Dictionary of American Idioms (1997) has this entry for stack up:

stack up 1. Measure up, equal, as in Their gift doesn't stack up against mine. This usage alludes to piling one's chips at poker, and comparing them to those of the other players. {Early 1900s} 2. Make sense, seem plausible, as in Her explanation just doesn't stack up. Also see ADD UP, def. 2 ["Be consistent, make sense"].

Ammer's distinction, which I think is valid, suggests that when stack up is being used in the poker chips sense, it is likely to take against as its following preposition. On the other hand, if stack up is being used in the sense of "add up" or "make sense," it may not need to take any preposition at all.

It seems to me that the OP's example 1—"When China reported real growth of 7% year-on-year in the first quarter, economists noted that this did not stack up with its nominal growth of 5.8%."—is the only one of the four where stack up means "make sense." It also seems to me that with could be replaced with given immediately after "stack up" without altering the sense of the sentence:

When China reported real growth of 7% year-on-year in the first quarter, economists noted that this did not stack up, given its nominal growth of 5.8%.

The other three examples use stack up in the poker chip sense of the phrase. I've already said that "stack up against" is a common wording to use in such situations, so that takes care of example 3. Example 4 is a bit wordier, but "stacks up compared to" seems perfectly reasonable as well.

That leaves example 2 as a bit of an oddball, in my opinion. I think the sentence sounds as though it came from some marketer's extemporaneous speech promoting a product, and as such it is loose in both construction and word choice. If I were preparing the sentence for publication, I would probably restate it along these lines:

Our exclusive content is an amazing part of what we’re doing at Xbox, and our competitors' offerings can't match it.

If you put "stack up with" in place of "match" in the revised wording, you'll see how awkward it is; it just doesn't belong there—and neither does "stack up against," really, although (to me) that phrase sounds somewhat better than "stack up with."

---

Here are my answers to the OP's four questions:

1. Can we replace the word with with the word against in examples 1 and 2? Would the meaning of the sentence change if we do?

In example 1, replacing with with against doesn't make much sense because, as noted above, with has essentially the same meaning as "given"; the phrase stack up in this first example has the meaning "add up" or "make sense," not "compare to" or "match up against" (which is the central meaning of "stack up against"). In example 2, replacing with with against marginally improves the sentence, because the speaker intends to use stack up in the sense of a comparison, but the sentence is very poorly worded in any case.

2. Can we replace the word against with the word with in example 3? Would the meaning of the sentence change if we do?

I can't say that using with in place of against in example 3 is absolutely idiomatically wrong; but it makes the sense of the sentence less clear to me, so I definitely wouldn't use with there. I would change the wording of this sentence to make explicit what the comparison involving teachers is about: "Teachers will know how their students' achievement stacks up against national standards of achievement [presumably based on standardized-test scores]."

3. Can we replace the word compare with against or with in example 4 without changing the sentence's meaning?

You can certainly replace compared to with against in example 4 and not alter the meaning significantly. Technically I would want to complete the comparison by saying something like "Find out how your income stacks up against incomes in the rest of the world"—but I would want to complete the comparison similarly if I stayed with the "compared to" wording. I would not used "stacks up with incomes in the rest of the world." Again, the wording isn't incomprehensible, but it seems (to me) less precise than either "compares to" or "stacks up against."

4. In the first example, could "to stack up" have been used in the sense of "to make sense," as in the sentence "Sorry but what you said just doesn't stack up with the odds"? For me I can replace it more with consistency, correspondence, or coherent.

I'm no sure what the final sentence of this question means, but the answer to the question posed in the first sentence of the question is yes it certainly could have been (and in fact was) used in the sense of "make sense." It could not, however, have been used in the sense of "compare like stacks of poker chips," unless the last part of the sentence were changed to make that meaning of stack up work properly. For example, you might rework the sentence as follows:

When China reported first-quarter year-on-year real growth of 7%, economists noted that this figure did not properly stack up against the corresponding number for nominal growth of 5.8%.

But instead of reworking the sentence in example 1 to shift from Ammer's definition 2 of stack up to Ammer's definition 1 of the same term, you're better off structuring the sentence in a way that supports the natural sense of the phrase in the context where it appears—and here the natural sense of the phrase is "makes sense" or "adds up."

grammar - Is it okay to start a sentence with "Doesn't matter"?

Is it okay to start a sentence with "Doesn't matter"? Like:

Doesn't matter which train you board, you are going to be late for the meeting.

Answer

This is perfectly grammatical and perfectly common. The Corpus of Contemporary American English and the British National Corpus have well over a hundred cites. For example:

• 
  

  Doesn't matter if he saw his fox, he wouldn't shoot it on a Sunday.

  
  




• 
  

  Doesn't matter where you hit someone. Contact is always lethal.

  
  
  




• 
  

  Doesn't matter what creed or colour you are, as long as you are mad!

  
  




• 
  

  Doesn't matter where you go in this world, son, you're in.

  
  




• 
  

  Doesn't matter which one's bigger, which one's smaller, the one that has the highest interest rate is costing you the most money.

  
  





• 
  

  Doesn't matter where you turn, cause Jesus is gonna be there, just waiting for you.

  
  

adjectives - How to use noun + verb + (adj. denoting "other") + adj. + pl. noun?

Is it possible to say Noun + verb + (adj. denoting "other") + adj. + pl. noun without applying the adjective to the first noun? e.g.

The Tyrannosaurus rex ate the other nice dinosaurs.

This implies that the T. rex is also nice. Is there a way to do this without suggesting that? My guess would be something like:

The Tyrannosaurus rex ate the other, nice dinosaurs.

Inserting a comma. Is this correct, and if not, is there a way to do this?

Answer

Your answer is found in your desire to use an adjective like "other," or denoting "other." By definition, it includes the subject noun in the group, which means the adjective applied to the object noun will naturally be assumed to apply to the subject noun as well. If you really need to let the reader know that the group of Triceratops whom T. Rex ate for lunch were nice, a subordinate clause, viz. "ate the other dinosaurs, who were nice," is probably your best bet. Although, looking at that, now you have a problem deciding if Triceratops Tartar tasted "nice" or if they were actually kind, good dinosaurs.

grammar - Is "I just might have a chance" grammatically correct?

I would like to know if, "I just might have a chance" is grammatically correct. Consider the following sentence:

"If you just knew what I feel for you, I just might have a chance to be with you."

Trying to stress that I might have a chance but just might not be sure of it.
I found this Quora post which says that this construction is wrong but I would like to get a second opinion.

Answer

According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, "just might" is fine. From the definition of "just":

5: perhaps

for at least five years, if at all, but inexpensive rolls of plastic
coated with electricity-generating film just might. — Fred Guterl,
Newsweek, 23 Sept. 2002>

past tense - Why “can” not “could” in “She was one of those people who can. . . .”?

The following sentence is from George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, occurring in chapter 5 of part 2:

She was one of those people who can go to sleep at any hour and in any position.

Why is who can grammatically correct when used with was? Shouldn’t it be who could?

Answer

The description is taken from a novel; in that context, it is usual to refer to people using the past tense.

Who could relates not to the character just mentioned, but to the generic referent one of those people, whose characteristics can be described both by who can and who could.

word choice - 'More encountered' or 'encountered more'?

The prevalence of respiratory allergy was more encountered among females.

In this sentence, would we use more encountered or encountered more. Do they both mean the same thing? If not, what is the difference?

I found using Google Ngrams that encountered more is used more commonly and yields more search results, but I could not understand the difference between the two.

grammar - A pack of wolves run through the woods

Is the correct to say

A pack of wolves run through the woods

or is the correct English

A pack of wolves runs through the woods

The former sounds right. However, I think the subject is a pack and of wolves adds a description to the subject. In this case the subject is singular, so therefore the verb must be singular.

Am I correct? It just doesn't feel right.

word usage - Is the formation "[s]he" overly distracting?

Does the use of "[s]he" as a gender-neutral pronoun prompt eye-rolling in the reader or is it generally accepted? I know it cannot be pronounced, but it seems to me a helpful contraction in written speech. Of course the sentence can be restructured, one can use formations such as "he or she," etc. but are such machinations necessary?

Pronunciation of Gala in different circumstances

It is my understanding that Gala can be properly pronounced three different ways (sorry I don't know IPA):
- noun: like GAY-la meaning a party (hopefuly with GAity)
- adjective: GAL-uh, describing a type of event (on the CALendar)
- other: GAH-luh, like the kind of apple (from Latin mala: apple)

Is this the usual way to pronounce it?

EDIT: Looking around for sources, I see a video saying "Americans" say it the 3rd way, and a video declaring that British people say it the 1st way (or as someone noted: GAR-la with the usually silent R that they like to make explicit). I grew up with three pronunciations and three meanings.

A source says that it is derived: From French gala or Italian gala, both from Medieval Latin, Latinized form of Frankish wala ‎(“good, well”). (Latin would pronounce that WAH-luh.) So, that would support the 3rd pronunciation, which is also the least used in my experience. How could the original pronunciation come to be forgotten?

Can prepositional phrases be subject complements?

I’m an ESL teacher without much formal training (at this stage). I have however Googled grammar questions many times and been redirected here, so this time I'm actually posting. I’m trying to explain to students what follows “to be” when it acts a main verb, but I’m stuck on one point.

I know that predicate adjectives and predicate nominatives can be subject complements as they describe the subject.

I also know that sometimes prepositions act as adverbs after “to be”, eg. “She’s not up yet”), and that position words can act as adverbial phrases after “to be”, eg. “I’m not there yet”).

As these prepositions and adverbial phrases are describing the position or state of the subject, and not any action, would these also be considered subject complements? If so, is there a special name for them?

Also, would a prepositional phrase such as the one in “He’s in the kitchen” also count as a subject complement as it describes the position of the subject and not an action?

Capitalization - heated debate on titles

The capitalization in question is the following:

The first commander wasn't happy with the decision you made.

Normally, if I was to swap it out for something like "Dad" it would be capitalized, but the research I've done says do not capitalize the f or c.

But some have gotten heated saying you would because it is referring to a person. However, in other circumstances, president in the same sentence would not be.

What should happen here?

grammar - I didn't know he IS/WAS

I didn't know he was/is such a good person.

Which is correct in the above sentence. Is/was and why ?

(Assume the person is still alive and is still a good person)

differences - 1.99 dollar or 1.99 dollars?

I want to write price of some thing in my site.
As I know (maybe I am wrong) for things more than one we have to use "s". Related to 1.99 which is correct?
What is the correct pronunciation?

punctuation - Is there any general rule of thumb that can be followed for where and when to add commas and full stops?

I always mess up with my writing by adding commas and full stops (periods) in the wrong places. Is there any rule of thumb or some other way that I can follow to avoid this problem?

Answer

ElendilTheTall has great advice regarding placing commas when you pause when reading a sentence aloud. The only thing I feel needs to be added to that answer is to not overuse commas; that is, don't use a comma when you need a period.

Each sentence sentence normally should not have two main clauses separated by a mere comma. For example:

I love to eat ice cream, on hot summer days I always buy some.

This is incorrect, because there's two distinct thoughts and two verbs here ("I love" and "I buy"). The correct version would be:

I love to eat ice cream. I always buy some on hot summer days.

Alternatively, since these two thoughts are closely related you could use a semicolon instead of a period:

I love to eat ice cream; on hot summer days I always buy some.

Note how in this case you would not capitalize the letter after the semicolon, because it is not the first letter of a new sentence.

EDIT: What I'm trying to help you avoid is creating run-on sentences, which can happen when you use a comma when you should use a period. This is known as a comma splice.

EDIT 2: User psmears pointed out another error in my explanation; my explanation was too simplistic and excluded some perfectly acceptable sentences. You can join two main clauses with a coordinating conjunction. User psmears gives the example,

I like Mary and I hate John.

In this case there's two clear main clauses, each with their own finite verb ("like" and "hate"). However, while this is perfectly acceptable for short, closely relayed clauses, it can quickly lead to run-ons if you're not careful:

I like my coworker Mary from the accounting department but I hate my other coworker John from engineering because John always thinks he's better than everyone else and he always corrects other people's grammar but I really don't think he speaks very well and when someone criticizes other people for something they themselves are guilty of that's called being hypocritical and I don't like people who act like that.

grammaticality - "You and me against the world" vs "You and I against the world"

I have heard the first sentence in a song and there are also other songs that go something like "Me against the world" and "Me against the music". Shouldn't it be "You and I against..." since the phrase "You and I" is the subject? Or is it not?

grammatical number - There is / There are

I believe it well established that the choice of whether to use "There is" or "There are" with the phrase "a lot of" depends on the following word. For example, you would say:

1. There is a lot of wine.


2. There are a lot of cars.

What is the right form to use for a pair of, a bunch of, a group of, etc.?

Switching pronouns mid-sentence

I know that switching pronouns when referring to the same subject mid-sentence is considered grammatically incorrect, as in,

It is very easy for one to open a program in our newest operating system, all you have to do is click the corresponding icon.

where the pronoun referring to the subject changes from "one" to "you".

Are there any situations where it is appropriate to switch? For example, should the sentence,

If it is a boy, name him Moses; if it is a girl, name her Zipporah.

be rephrased like this or not?

If it is a boy, name it Moses; if it is a girl, name it Zipporah.

Answer

Your second example definitely does not need to be rephrased, and in fact the rephrase given should be outlawed on style grounds. Performing it would be a textbook overcorrection and overapplication of the "rule" about switching pronouns.

If you require a justification, try this one: you are not actually switching pronouns at all, because a hypothetical boy-child and a hypothetical girl-child are clearly not the same entity, so you are not referring to the same subject using different pronouns.

That justification is really nonsense, though. The real operating principle is that the pronoun-agreement rule exists to prevent the grammar and style of your prose from being degraded by shifts in the subject you are addressing. Losing the spirit of the thing in an attempt to consistently apply the letter of the rule results in the failure of its original purpose.

backshifting - It was unclear that she has/had painted the door

The grammar rule says that if the verb in the main clause is in the past tense then the verbs in the subordinate clauses will also be in the corresponding past tense.

According to the grammar rule mentioned above, "had" has to be used here:

It was unclear that she has/had painted the door.

But is there any condition in which "has" can be used?

articles - Is there a usage of "the" that indicates one out of a group of many?

Considering the sentence

Nearly anything can be a weapon in a martial artist’s hands., the indefinite article a indiciates that this can be any martial artist out of all in the world.

Next, consider The wise warrior stops a ranged attack before it nears him. Here, the definite article the is used, but still, I am quite certain that the sentence talks about any "wise warrior", or that one would even qualify as a "wise warrior" by performing the named action (among others, probably).

Is this a correct usage of the, indicating one out of a group of many?
What is this usage called properly?

Finally, consider Through judicious placement of wounds, the marksman ensures that his enemy cannot escape him.
I am wondering whether this could be the same kind of use for the definite article as in the second example, or whether to a native speaker this sentence indicates a specific individiual (that is a "marksman") that would be clear from context.

Answer

This is a specialised use of "the", which designates a typical or even stereotypical member of the set, not any particular member.

grammar - The use of ‘and’ after ‘where’ in a mathematical statement

Which of the following is correct:

• ... where c is a constant, f(.) is a monotonic function, x and y are random variable.


• ... where c is a constant, f(.) is a monotonic function and x and y are random variable.

This always gets me confused. Because x and y are of one kind (I don’t know if that is the proper word) and there should be an ‘and’ in between, but I’m not about whether not I should write an ‘and’ before the phrase too because it is the last item in a list (I mean it’s like saying: I bought apples, oranges, and bananas.).

Answer

Yes, there should be "and x and y" to account for the last "and" that should go at the end of a list.

Her favorite types of sandwiches are ham, turkey, and peanut butter and jelly.

If you do not like that, you could rearrange the items in the list to avoid having to say "and x and y."

Her favorite types of sandwiches are peanut butter and jelly, ham, and turkey.

It is not always incorrect to omit the last "and" in a list of items, though; there is a literary technique called asyndeton that involves just that. However, it's more of a creative technique rather than something you should use in, say, a math paper.

When she arrived at the market, she stared in awe at everything that was in stock: swords, crystals, gems, spices from faraway lands.

grammar - "Would you mind not to do something?"

I have had this question for a long time and I couldn't find any answers for it. I have often heard this sentence from an American interlocutor and also in some movies:

"Would you mind not to do something?"

I would like to know if it is correct to use this sentence in this way.

grammaticality - "Arnold raced out of the door": grammatical or not?

Arnold raced out of the door, and started...

In its time, it was once reported, this was one of the most often-read lines of fiction in the English language: it is the sentence fragment shown in a brief close-up shot of mystery novelist Jessica Fletcher's typewriter in the opening credits of Murder, She Wrote from 1984 to 1991. You can see it here.

Even conceding that "door" can be used as a perfectly legitimate synonym for "doorway," this always bothered me. One may race out of a room, and one may race through a doorway, but I don't see how Arnold could have raced out of a door—unless perhaps he had been standing still in the middle of the doorway before suddenly "racing" out of it, which seems unlikely.

What's interesting is that "Arnold raced out the door" doesn't bother me as much without the of, perhaps because I'm subconsciously putting an implied through into the sentence: "Arnold raced out [through] the door." Even so, I was surprised and amused to see that, out of all the examples they could have chosen, Merriam-Webster illustrates its definition of out as a preposition with the phrase "ran out the door." (Were the writers of this definition Murder, She Wrote fans, I wonder?) This doesn't seem to leave much room for my interpretation.

How should the clause "Arnold raced out of the door" be evaluated? Is it ungrammatical, grammatical but poor form, or grammatical with no reservations?

Answer

Consider the following three sentences.

1. He raced out the door.


2. He raced out of the doorway.


3. He raced out of the door.

In the first sentence out is a preposition meaning 'through to the outside'. This is entirely unproblematic: he was in a room or building, and he raced out of it through the door(way).

In formal English the second sentence is equally clear: out is an adverb meaning 'moving or appearing to move away from a particular place, especially one that is enclosed', and the sentence means that he raced out of the doorway in which he had been standing. I shouldn’t be at all surprised, however, to find that some people use it synonymously with (1).

Since 'doorway' is one perfectly standard meaning of door, and since it is more than a little difficult to stand in a physical door, (3) is formally synonymous with (2). However, many people, evidently including at least one writer for Murder, She Wrote, use it synonymously with (1). For those people out of has in effect become a compound preposition meaning 'through to the outside' as well as the combination of adverb and preposition found in the formal interpretation of (2). I suspect that this, like in back of for behind, is more common in the US than in the UK. In the US, at least, it’s common enough to qualify as normal English, though there are also speakers like me who would never use it because it’s ungrammatical in their idiolects.

meaning - Is there any nuance in ‘I was kind’ when it means ‘I treated her kindly”?

"But I was patient. I wrote back. I was sympathetic, I was kind. Ginny simply loved me. No one’s ever understood me like you, Tom …. I’m so glad I’ve got this diary to confide in …. It’s like having a friend I can carry around in my pocket …."
(p309, Harry Potter 2, US edition)

NB --
The speaker, Tom Riddle, is a villain in this story. He is boasting how well he could win Ginny’s heart by becoming a kind of pen pal with her.

The author describes his character as an impatient, unsympathetic, and unkind one. Therefore, I would think his saying expresses temporal action, not permanent character. He treated her kindly at that time and his attitudes got Ginny to fall in love.

But I feel something strange when ‘I was kind’ and ‘She loved me’ express action, for I’ve run into much more ‘be kind’ and ‘love’ which describe someone’s character or continuing state since I started studying English.

So, here is my question.
Is there any nuance in ‘I was kind’ when it means ‘I treated her kindly”?
In other words, why does the speaker use such expressions, instead of other expressions like ‘treat kindly’?

Answer

I voted-up Rofler's answer, so I will not repeat what he said, and with which I agree. Let me say that I think you are asking the right questions, since...

I was kind. /then/

on its own would, indeed, imply truthfulness, a sincere kindness; but still there are two sides to each coin and to life there are many sides, so the statement can be said also if you were kind only to a particular group or a person (and they can truthfully perceive you as kind), or only in particular period of time or a moment.

It does not imply that

I am kind. /now/

nor the above sentence implies that

I will be kind. /for ever and ever/

Maybe you would take it as better if it would have said:

I was patient. I wrote back. I pretended to be sympathetic, to be kind.

However, there is another trick at work here; this is written in first person and in the context of this character you already expect a different ethos, a different attitude towards truth.

If such character says

I was gentle.

you are not experiencing the same value of the message as when the exact same sentence is said by Nabokov's Lolita or Bulgakov's Woland.

grammar - definite vs. none article before abstract concept; again

I reviewed both:

and I still cannot decide. According to the previous post my sentence should be:

If the number of I/Os of my circuit design exceeds the threshold which is required for the fast operation, then ...

This is because I could say "the fast operation of my circuit".
But for me it sounds very odd without this extension.

I can leave out the "the"?
If there is only a slight difference in the meanings... does it matter?

Answer

If the number of I/Os of my circuit design exceeds the threshold which
is required for the fast operation, then ...

strongly suggests contrast with 'the other possibility' (the slow operation).

If the number of I/Os of my circuit design exceeds the threshold which
is required for the fast operation of my circuit, then ...

doesn't carry this suggestion. (Leaving out even apparently unimportant bits of sentences increases the scope for misconstruing.)

Since you're looking at a continuum here, I'd leave out the article:

If the number of I/Os of my circuit design exceeds the threshold which
is required for fast operation, then ...

Without further context, the exact meaning of 'fast' is not well-defined anyway.