I found a photo of Sarah, Thomas, James and I?
OR
I found a photo of Sarah, Thomas, James and me?
"I" subject pronoun, photo "object", "me" object pronoun - or not as the case may be?
I believe it is "me" not "I" but can you provide why this is so in terms of sentence structure.
Thank you
I want to write a remark in parenthesis between an indefinite article and the rest of the subject. If I didn't write this clarification then using the "a" article would be correct; however for the clarification alone "an" should be used.
Which one of the following examples is correct? Both sound weird to my ears.
This experiment used an (arguably small) set of data.
This experiment used a (arguably small) set of data.
In the Ocean's 12, I remember the scene of Brad Pitt asking "What's wrong with you?" of Matt Damon, who had interrupted his sleep to ask a favor.
I think the phrase "What's wrong with you?" is more often used when someone scolds/blames somebody else for their wrongdoings rather than when they want to find existing problems (if this make sense).
Given the context, can I assume that Brad Pitt said it to show that he is irritated and actually showing his unpleasant feelings to Matt Damon?
Or was he just asking what problem Matt Damon has?
Answer
It depends on the tone it's used with but generally it's meant as a sign or irritation. Think of it as short term for "what is wrong with you mentally that is causing you to say/Do these things that are so annoying/aggravating?"
If you want to know if something is wrong in a form of concern, then you'd simply use "What's wrong?". That way you're not blaming the person you're asking :)
I was talking to my wife (for whom English is not a first language); we had just returned from shopping, and had bought an item that I would have felt "awkward" buying by myself.
She said something along the lines of:
"If we had not bought this item today, you will have to buy it when you come back after your trip to Europe"
I corrected her and said, she should have instead said:
"If we had not bought this item today, you would have had to buy it when you returned from your trip to Europe"
She did not understand why she had to use past tense (would have had to buy ...), when we were talking about the future.
I had no answer, and was similarly surprised when I came to analyse what I was saying. What is the grammatical rule at work here?
As an aside, it appeared that the rule took the form of:
IF (SOME EVENT E DOESN'T HAPPEN):
THEN USE PAST TENSE WHEN DESCRIBING WHAT HAPPENS IN ABSENCE OF EVENT E
For example:
If you had not inoculated your child against that disease, you would have had to spend a lot of time worrying about your child catching the disease...
Answer
If we had not bought this item today,
is a conditional clause (see type 3 conditional) in the past perfect tense.
you would have had to buy it when you returned from your trip to Europe.
is the main clause and has to use the matching participle; in this case, because your conditional clause was past perfect, you have to use the past participle "would have".
Because the conditional clause denotes an irrealis mood (in other words, a situation that has not happened and is no longer possible: not buying the item) you can't say
you will have to buy it...
because that doesn't match the tense from the conditional and also correlates with a possible action, which doesn't fit with a conditional that's no longer possible.
There's a pretty helpful guide on forming conditionals in various tenses here as well.
In this sentence:
The only exception are questions that are narrow enough that they can
be reasonably answered definitively with one or two possible
solutions.
Should it be "The only exception is" because "exception" is singular, or "The only exception are" because "questions" is plural?
Answer
The default is that the verb agrees in number with its subject, so The only exception is . . .
If that sounds awkward, you can write The only exceptions are . . . , which is probably preferable anyway, given that questions is plural.
I see this a lot on Facebook. Two people doing a thing, and the picture captioned with:
"John and I waiting on the bus"
"Mary and I at the Beyonce show"
"Sally and I with our awesome guide Sven"
I think it should be "Joe and me" but I'm not sure why. Is there an implied "this is" at the beginning of each sentence, making Joe and me the object rather than the subject?
We all know that universal statements are always in present tense. For example,
My grandma did not believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
Here, though the sentence is in past tense, Earth revolves around the Sun remains in simple present tense.
But in case of a false belief that is contrary to a universal truth, does the above rule apply similarly? For example,
My grandma believed that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Will this sentence be taken as grammatically correct? Shouldn't it be "My grandma believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth"?
When you conjugate (verb, conjuGATE) things you get a conjugate (noun, conjuGIT).
When you precipitate (verb, ...TATE) a solution you get a precipitate (noun, ...TIT).
When you concentrate (verb, ...TRATE) something you get a concentrate (noun, often ...TRATE occasionally ...TRIT).
Is there a name for this category of words, where a verb ending with "ate" pronounced with a long A produces a noun ending with "ate" pronounced with [sometimes] a short I (or a short a/e/u in some dialects or for some specific words)?
And, as a followup, why can I find no reference or examples online of "hyphenate" being used as a noun to describe two words that have been hyphenated? There's an uncommon definition where it refers to the subject described by the hyphenated words, but that isn't the same as it referring to the words themselves. I’ve heard this term used many times in my life, often in the context of amateur fiction writers or college writing courses.
I am trying to emphasize the significance and prevalence of some problem by showing that even in a small group of people this problem is represented very well.
Just for example, let's say that we are discussing crime problem and I know that there are many people who were robbed in my school. At the same time, I know that there are 3 people in my class who were robbed in the last month, which is a lot.
I want to express the following idea:
look, even in our class there are 3 robbed people, imagine how many people are robbed in the school overall
So, I come up with something like this:
Only among our class 3 people were robbed in the last month!
or
3 people were robbed in the last month, only among our class!
(I am not sure if it should be "only" or "just")
However, one guy has said that this sentence would confuse him, because it sounds like a statement of fact that all robbed people were only from our class, or that our class is the only class where exactly (or at least) 3 people were robbed.
Is it true? Or is it just a matter of where you place an accent in this sentence
when you say it?
If it helps, then it would sound like this in my mother language (Russian):
Только среди учеников нашего класса 3 человека были ограблены в этом месяце!
Только в нашем классе 3 человека были ограблены в этом месяце!
Answer
You need the phrase "In our class alone". As in:
In our class alone, three people were robbed in the last month!
This gets rid of the ambiguity as to whether the people who were robbed came only from your class. In the above sentence, it is explicit that we are talking exclusively about one class, not the whole school. I'd recommend you follow it up with a statement about what this implies about the crime rate of the whole school.
I am currently reading Liddell Hart's "History of the Second World War", and I'm wondering why he sometimes uses her/she when talking about Japan. In my understanding of English, it should be its or their (if you want to refer to the Japanese people).
For instance:
From 1931 onward the Japanese were aggressively engaged in expanding their footholds on the Asiatic mainland at the expense of the Chinese, ...
makes sense to me, but:
It is remarkable that she deferred striking for more than four month, while trying to negotiate a lifting of the oil embargo
or
Until early in 1941 Japan's plan in case of war against the United States was to use her main fleet in the southern Pacific in conjunction with an attack on the Philippine Islands, ...
does not.
Can somebody explain why Japan is female, and are there more countries for which her should be used?
Answer
Historically, "her" was commonly used as a pronoun for not only women, but also for both countries and ships (e.g. sailing vessels).
However, that usage has more or less fallen out of favor, and instead "its" has become the preferred pronoun. Nevertheless, you'll still see "she" or "her" used depending on the preferences of the author.
http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2007/01/is-a-country-a-she-or-an-it.html
Can the adverb "every day" be used in Simple Past Tense? I've seen plenty of online journalists writing articles by putting "every day" in the Simple Past Tense's sentence.
So.....Is this correct?
If yes, then how should we construct a Past Tense sentence with the adverb "every day" in it? (Give plenty of examples, please)
Thanks a lot
David
Sorry, I don't think I can use all the grammatical terms right, so I'll illustrate:
Peptide
adsorption curves may cross [...] results in the inversion of peptide
elution order.
I've found a lot about "which" and "that" in this question, and it says that generally those are interchangeable, but I haven't seen this particular use case mentioned there. (After writing this it occurred to me that the linked question discusses "which" and "that" as conjunctions, whereas this question is about them as relative pronouns. I got this from this answer. Correct me if I'm wrong) The only thing that might be applicable is the "rule of thumb" that
"Commas, which cut out the fat, go with which, never with that."
On this basis, "which" should be the only correct option, because that gap needs a comma. Is that so?
Answer
Which is the correct relative pronoun you should use in your sentence, because you have a main clause ("Peptide adsorption curves may cross"), followed by a non defining, or non restrictive, relative clause that gives additional information or, as per your example, the consequence of what has been mentioned before.
I had never heard of the so called "rule of thumb", but I like it and I'll try to pass it on to others in order to try and sort out this kind of difficulty.
I have this statement that I do not want to end at 'for' (I read somewhere that it is improper to end at 'for').
The problem is hard as there are many sources of failures, and all
would have to be accounted for.
Please suggest alternative.
Answer
You do not want to end your sentence with for because you read "somewhere" that is improper.
I will give you a place to read the opposite:
There is nothing wrong with ending a sentence with for.
This should solve your problem.
On a general note: beware of any and all (restrictive) grammar and style advises that have accumulated over the years and that tend to be:
Most generalized "rules" tend to fall into one or more of these categories.
Famous examples include don't use the passive (given by someone who showed no understanding of passive constructions to start with) and don't split infinitives (unless they mean that you should not write wo [something else] rk).
There are many (duplicate) questions about the acceptance, popularity and history of singular they (and their, them and themself) around here, it even got a tag of its own. If I didn’t miss anything, however, the proper verb form hasn’t been questioned yet.
As we all know, English third person singular pronouns (it, she, he and one, +body), names (Alice, Bob, …) and nouns (student, teacher, …) demand the +(e)s suffix be added to the finite verb form in simple present, where some auxiliary verbs have a “special” form (is < *bes / *ares and has < *haves). All other subjects don’t, including plural third person pronoun they.
When the plural you replaced thou (with thee, thy / thine), the other marked verb form that had remained in English – i.e. suffix +(e)st or +t – vanished, too. The first and second persons only ever appear as pronouns (I, we; you), not names or nouns, so there was no strong inclination to keep the verbal inflection.
The second person precedent would suggest that singular they be used with uninflected verb forms which is how it’s usually encountered in the wild. Assuming that they someday replaces he and she (and maybe it) it would lead to disagreement with the words the pronoun stands in for:
- Alice goes to her place by herself.
- Bob goes to his place by himself.
- Alice and Bob go to their place by themselves. – (common)
- Alice and Bob go to their places by themselves. – (separate)
- She goes to her place by herself.
- He goes to his place by himself.
- They go to their place by themselves.
- They go to their places by themselves.
- They ?goes to their place by themself.
- ditto
- They go to their place by themselves.
- They go to their places by themselves.
- They ?go to their place by ?themselves.
- ditto
- They go to their place by themselves.
- They go to their places by themselves.
So why doesn’t singular they afford s on present-tense verbs like all other third person singular subjects do?
I learned about singular they only long after I had been taught English as a second language in school. That’s why it’s still a conscious decision to use it and hence I could easily adapt to use s forms with it, but would that sound and look funny / strange / wrong to native speakers?
Answer
It is often said that verbs in English inflect to agree with the person and number of the subject. Now person here cannot be construed as an actual property of the subject. We cannot say for example that the first person is the person who's speaking and the second person is the person being spoken to or any ideas like that. If we do not use an actual pronoun to represent the person speaking, then the verb will not inflect in any way to agree with the 'speaker-hood' of the subject.
In the sentences above, even though Araucaria refers to the person who is currently speaking to you, in other words me, we cannot use a 'first person' form of the verb. Similarly, even though the reader refers to you, the 'listener', we cannot use a second person form of the verb. When we use common nouns we do not see agreement for person.
Although with common nouns, and proper nouns English verbs inflect to agree with number, they do not agree with any other property of the noun, including the relation to speaker or listener or third party. However, verbs do seem to inflect according to which pronoun is being used. In other words pronouns override the normal agreement of verbs with subjects:
The examples above are fine, not because I refers to the person who is speaking, and you are the person reading, but because verbs inflect in accordance with specific pronouns, and these pronouns override the normal agreement that we see with common nouns.
In the Original Poster's question, this issue is disguised, because when verbs agree with third person singular and plural pronouns, they mimic their behaviour with common nouns. However, this is just an illusion. As with the pronouns I, you and we, 'they' also overrides the normal agreement of verbs with common nouns. Whether used with singular or plural meaning, pronouns always dictate the agreement of the verb according to which actual pronoun they are. They always takes a 'third person plural' form of the verb.
This same phenomenon can be seen with the pronoun one. Whether used to reflect first person, second person, or people in general, one always takes the same verb agreement, the one we wrongly describe as 'third person singular'. The same also applies to royal we.
The answer to the Original Poster's question, therefore, is that verbs won't inflect to reflect the singularity of singular they, because although verbs agree with number when they have common noun subjects, using a pronoun as subject will override the normal common noun agreement and cause the verb to agree according to which specific pronoun is being used. It wouldn't be a good idea to use 'third person singular' forms with they, because it would just be ungrammatical. It wouldn't reflect anything about the meaning of they. The agreement of English verbs with pronouns never reflects any semantic property of the pronoun in the first place!
Will the agreement taken by they change in the future? I don't think so, but I don't know, and I don't know anyone who really does!
[Readers who are interested in this question might also be interested in: Why is "be" the only English verb that inflects for grammatical person, not just for grammatical number like all the rest of them? - although it is a slightly strange question!]
Initialisms are pronounced as words and acronyms are spelt letters. However, some words sound the same, said and spelt.
e.g. Input Output can be abbreviated as IO. It can be spelt I-O or pronounced Io as in the moon/god. There is no way to tell the difference in how it is said or written.
Is a word which is pronounced the way it is spelt, an initialism, an acronym or both?
Answer
I think you've misunderstood the difference between acronyms and initialisms. Something can be both, or just one and not the other.
a word formed from the initial letters or groups of letters of words in a set phrase or series of words, as Wac from Women's Army Corps, OPEC from Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or loran from long-range navigation.
- a name or term formed from the initial letters of a group of words and pronounced as a separate word, as NATO for North Atlantic Treaty organization; an acronym.
- a set of initials representing a name, organization, or the like, with each letter pronounced separately, as FBI for Federal Bureau of Investigation.
- the practice of using initials or forming words from initials.
As you can see, WAC, OPEC and NATO are both acronyms and initialisms because they're a bunch of initials that you can pronounce as a word.
FBI on the other hand is a bunch of initials you cannot pronounce as a word; it's an initialism but not an acronym.
And finally, loran is pronounced as a word, but isn't only taken from initial letters; it's an acronym but not an initialism.
So for IO:
I've recently heard a girl saying:
So the next day, I tried to look up the meaning of it but I've only found the word a cinch which is supposed to be a strap that holds a saddle on a horse.
The dress was tight around the waist area so I thought it can either mean that the dress is tight enough to hold everything (you know what I mean) in place or it makes you look slimmer.
I'm still not quite sure about what she meant so I'd appreciate your answers. :)
Here's a passage (more or less taken randomly) from the American Standard Version of the Bible from 1901:
1 Peter 3:14 (ASV)
14 But even if ye should suffer for righteousness' sake, blessed are ye: and fear not their fear, neither be troubled;
The bolded words are the grammatical form I'm asking about. It's extremely common in the older translations of the Bible, which make them difficult to read. These days, I think most people would say "do not fear their fear" of "don't be afraid of their fear" instead. In fact, a 1995 update reads:
1 Peter 3:14 (NASB)
14 But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled,
(There's a footnote on"intimidation" saying "Lit fear", so my first update matches exactly.)
Reading up on Early Modern English I haven't been able to discover a name for this word ordering or any history about the change. Can y'all give me some pointers?
I'm not sure if this part of the question is on-topic, but when I find this form would I be safe in mechanically changing it from:
verbnot
to
do not
verb
Are there instances that will break the meaning by doing this?
Answer
The syntax of "N V not" ("I know not") in English is called simple negation. It was much more common in Early Modern English.
The negation pattern that is more commonly used now, "N do not V" ("I don't know") is called just plain negation (it is the unmarked (expected) form).
I know that the singular of data is datum. I know that data is a plural.
However, common usage of the word "data" suggests it is used as a "collection of data".
Here is [the collection of] data.
In which case, is the word data now a singular again, or still the plural? If so, what is the correct use of the word data and datum now?
Answer
There are two conflicting usages. For example, a Google search for "the data suggest" returns 10,000,000 results, but a search for "the data suggests" still returns almost 2,000,000 hits.
Wiktionary says:
data uncountable or plural noun
1. Plural form of datum: pieces of information.
2. (uncountable, collectively) information.
3. A collection of object-units that are distinct from one another.
Usage notes
This word is more often used as an uncountable noun with a singular verb than as a plural noun, with singular datum.
Merriam-Webster says:
Definition
1: factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation
is plentiful and easily available — H. A. Gleason, Jr.> have been published — N. H. Jacoby>
[...]
Usage Discussion
Data leads a life of its own quite independent of datum, of which it was originally the plural. It occurs in two constructions: as a plural noun (like earnings), taking a plural verb and plural modifiers (as these, many, a few) but not cardinal numbers, and serving as a referent for plural pronouns; and as an abstract mass noun (like information), taking a singular verb and singular modifiers (as this, much, little), and being referred to by a singular pronoun. Both constructions are standard. The plural construction is more common in print, perhaps because the house style of some publishers mandates it.
Emphasis mine.
"turn them all off" 84,800 results
"turn all them off" 63,200 results
both are correct?
Answer
The second is INCORRECT. (unless that was a typo)
The phrase "turn all of them off" is correct, however.
The stress is different in these two phrases, however. For most uses, the difference between these two is quite subtle, so nothing to worry about.
In the second phrase you can put the emphasis on "THEM"
So, you could say: "Turn all of THEM off" (pointing to a specific set of light switches)
Using the first phrase in like manner sounds awkward.
What is the difference between does have and has? For example, compare she does have a car and she has a car.
My fish's native habitat is rice fields.
My fish's native habitat are rice fields.
Which one is correct? I'm pretty sure it's the first, since 'is' modifies 'habitat,' but it still sounds weird...
Answer
It may sound weird, but it is still correct. Singular nouns take singular verbs. In this case, the singular noun is habitat. Thus, is is the correct form of the verb to be in this case.
My fish's native habitat is rice fields.
To make it sound more natural, you could reverse the order thus:
Rice fields are my fish's native habitat.
I've been looking at conditional sentences (conditional clauses).
Every example I've see is along the lines of, "if [x] then [y]."
I've seen alternatives/substitutes for the if part:
Yet, these still follow the same pattern: "condition [x] then [y]."
Is that the only way to have a conditional?
Is it not possible to invert/switch around the structure?
Would it still be a conditional clause (or conditional sentence) if I put the condition after the occurance?
If those are not conditionals, what are they?
Would they be considered as "acceptable" if I were to be editing/rewriting something, or would it be seen as bad/improper/incorrect/having a sufficiently different implication?
The same sentence as in question Articles in conjuctions:
As a result, hosting in IIS 5/6 is notorious for instability and the frequent need to reset the server or IIS 5/6.
As far as I understood from comments on my other questions, hosting requires no article because it's an activity. And I think that the word server follows the definite article because it's not just any server, but the one something has been hosted in.
On the other hand, the result of something not being quoted here is sole, absolutely specific and given later in this sentence. However, the indefinite article is used in front of the word result. Could you explain why?
It would also be very cognitive to know why the definite article precedes the need.
Answer
Here, "as a result" is a conjunction and a set phrase. Contrary to what Ralph says, it doesn't really imply that the result is one of many and that there is no special reason to single this one out (in fact, it is being singled out immediately). Nor does the conjunction "as a result" mean that the result is unknown or unspecified. Much rather, it is just yet another way of saying "therefore", "thus", "hence", "consequently". Even if there is just this one sole, specific result, it doesn't matter. Set phrases are called "set" for a reason.
As to why there's a definite article before the need (and none before instability), that's what your other question is about, so I won't be addressing it here.
I am helping to edit a scientific manuscript. The author in one sentence wants to talk about what his study and other studies have found. Here is part of his sentence: "Although our and other studies have previously reported a link between [...]." Is it grammatically correct to use "our and other?" It doesn't sound right to my ears, but I'm not sure how else to word it. Thanks!
What is correct in a sentence:
"Only then can you do" or "only then you can do" ?
I read the following sentence in Chicago Sun-Times's review of the movie In Time:
We are all of us engaged in the trade of buying and selling time.
The sentence sounds grammatically weird to me. It seems to me that it should be:
All of us are engaged in the trade of buying and selling time.
Another way for me to make any sense of this sentence is adding a couple of dashes (or maybe commas, I'm not good at punctiation):
We are — all of us — constantly engaged in the trade of buying and selling time.
Or does "all of us" have an adverbial meaning? Or maybe "we are all of us" is a set phrase? Please throw some light on this curious issue :)
Update: If it is a grammatically correct sentence, how is it parsed? I assume "We" is the subject, "are engaged" is the predicate. What is the function of "all of us"?
Answer
I agree that it sounds curiously redundant. The "of us" could be removed from any or all of these sentences, and the remainder would convey essentially the same meaning:
We are, all of us, in the grip of various philosophical assumptions, presuppositions, hypotheses, even theories, about the way the world is, and about what matters in life. (M. Rowlands)
We are all of us bound to work toward this end. (T. Roosevelt)
We are sculptures and recordings and movement and canvas stretched, and we are all of us works of art. (K. Curren)
I suppose the redundancy is intended emphasize or reiterate that whatever follows has some universal or all-inclusive quality - although the scope of that inclusiveness depends on the context:
Although our experiences are different we share a common heritage of oppression: we are, all of us, women. (Z. Dé Ishtar)
I would prefer to offset the "all of us" with commas, but as FumbleFingers pointed out, that seems to be a matter of personal preference.
Out of curiousity, I repeated variations of the "we are all of us" search, using "we will all of us" and "we are both of us," to see if those phrases were also found. Both turned up plenty of results, mixed with and without commas (and one made a rather humorous parenthetical exclusion to the inclusiveness of the verbiage):
We are both of us nice of temper; we are both apt to kindle, and warm of resentment. (H. Godwin)
We are, both of us, perfectly capable of taking all sorts of chances. (J. Katzenbach)
By then it will be too late. We will, all of us, have made our
fortunes by then. (F. Norris)
My own prejudice is that we will all of us (except, let it be quickly
admitted, personal injury lawyers) be better off under no-fault than
under traditional tort liability. (H. Ross)
Two weeks ago I did an English test.
I was asked the following question:
(or something like this, I don't remember the exact question)
A classmate is trying to do his homework, but he doesn't know how to do it. You do know how to do it. How can you say you can help him?
My answer:
"Maybe I can help you?"
This was not the correct answer. The correct answer was:
"Perhaps I can help you?"
I asked my teacher why my answer wasn't correct. She said: 'I don't exactly know how to explain that, but it has something to do with being polite. I'll come up with a better example next time.'
Is there really a difference between 'Maybe' and 'Perhaps'? And was my answer a valid alternative?
Answer
If your teacher can't explain why one word is better than another, then she didn't teach you; and so has no right to expect the correct answer. The nuance between 'maybe' and 'perhaps' is too fine to make one 'incorrect'.
Formally, is it correct to write:
A number of questions has been asked here.
or:
A number of questions have been asked here.
As a non-native speaker of English, I would prefer the former: the subject seems to be "number", therefore the verb ought to be singular, I'd say. However, the latter seems more common, and therefore I believe that my gut feeling is just plain wrong — but I would really like to have a definite answer.
Moreover, is it the same for "a myriad of", "a plethora of", and so on?
Answer
"The number" is singular. "A number", however, is plural, and takes a plural verb. Thus, for both informal and formal usage, the following is correct:
A number of questions have been asked here.
See the usage note not quite halfway down the page at Dictionary.com, or this daily writing tip.
Context
I have two sets of data, dataset1 and dataset2. They may be different from each other, both in content and in structure. I am going to generate the list of these differences.
Example
dataset1 has a column called "Name", dataset2 does not have this column, so adding the column "Name" to dataset2 would be generated in this list of actions.
Conclusion
I need a verb that describes that whole process.
I am going to _____________ dataset1 and dataset2
One that comes to mind is differentiate, but I have seen that used more in pure mathematics and I don't feel like it captures the actual intent.
Answer
The correct term is compare:
Because you are working with data and performing a detailed analysis of one or more aspects of these data sets, you could also use the term analyze.
However, this word lacks the specific meaning that you are looking at two things, not just one.
If you don't need a single word, you could state:
I am going to comprehensively identify the list of differences in content and structure...
That is precise, but at the cost of being quite verbose.
Which one would be correct?
Answer
The fact that you wish something was or wasn't true means you should use the indicative. You are stating that something is factually one way or another, and wishing for the situation to be reversed. So "I wish it wasn't raining today" and "I wish it was raining today" are how to express those concepts.
If you were trying to imply something contrary to fact, then were would be the way to go.
If I were you, I wouldn't be wishing it wasn't raining: rain is good for your garden.
Edit: Because Stan Rogers, whose opinion I respect, has weighed in with the polar opposite viewpoint from mine, I feel obliged to elaborate.
Morton S. Freeman, writing in A Treasury for Word Lovers, elaborates on a parallel idea using if clauses:
Some people have a mistaken belief that a clause beginning with if must always be in the subjunctive mood, reflecting doubtful fulfillment of the condition or a condition contrary to fact. This is not so. A clause introduced by if may express a simple condition relating to the past and take the indicative form of the verb. For example, in "If Allan was there, he was drunk," the if clause introduces a supposition, hence a verb in the indicative mood. And so with the sentences "If Curran was absent, he was probably out of town" and "If I was long-winded, I'm sorry." None of the examples imply doubt or suggest circumstance contrary to fact, as in "If I were President, I wouldn't pardon him." [Emphasis added.]
I think you can see the parallel here. Far from indicating a circumstance contrary to fact, the "I wish" construction is lamenting an actual fact. So subjunctive mood is not called for.
I often hear people saying that "I am" is the shortest sentence in the English language. I know that there are also discussions about sentences using the imperative mood such as "Go." that would be shorter, but my question is this:
Why would we (the people saying "I am" is a full sentence) not accept "I'm" as a complete sentence? Is there some unwritten rule about contractions that says "I'm" wouldn't be correct?
Answer
In English, any clause has one mandatory stress slot: there must be at least one element that has stress (optionally more than one). That slot lies in the predicate of the clause, which must always be stressed. The subject (which stands outside the predicate) can receive stress, but does not necessarily have to, and even when it does receive stress, the predicate retains its stress.
Within the predicate, a verb that has one or more complements of a certain type (a generic object [i.e., one without an article], an adverbial phrase, a predicative expression, etc.) is unstressed (or at most secondarily stressed) unless it is emphasised for effect. In such a case, the predicate’s only stressed element(s) is/are the complement(s) that is/are considered most important.
Conversely, if the verb either does not have any compliments or has a non-generic object (i.e., an object with an article, a proper noun, etc.), it is stressed. Any following complements can also be stressed, but they do not have to be.
So for example (using the IPA character “ˈ” before a word to indicate stress, and the entirely ad hoc notation “ˣ” to specifically denote lack of stress):
He ˈran.
He ˣran ˈhome.
He ˈran a ˈmile.
He ˣran ˈfast.
As mentioned above, complements also include predicative expressions like subject and object complements—like what you have in ‘to be’ phrases. These follow the same rules (note that the distinction between generic and non-generic elements goes only for objects, not for predicative expressions):
He ˣis a ˈman.
He ˣis ˈgood.
Now very importantly: a stressed syllable cannot be syncopated. Only unstressed (or sometimes secondarily stressed) syllables can be syncopated away, leaving contractions in their wake. Of course, when you contract something, you are removing a syllable, and if that syllable is stressed, where would the stress go when you remove it? There has to be a stress somewhere.
As such, the following is possible:
He ˣis my ˈfather --> He’s my ˈfather.
I ˣcan ˈtell you ˈwhy --> I c’n ˈtell y’ ˈwhy.
– because the elements that are syncopated (is in the first, can and you in the second) are both unstressed. The following, however, is impossible, because here we’ve emphasised (= stressed) the verbs. Emphasising an element reduces other elements nearby to lose their stress entirely—it’s basically overriding the ‘natural’ assignment of stress—and the emphasised verbs end up being the only elements that carry any stress. If you syncopate those away, the stress would disappear entirely from the clause, which is not possible:
But he ˈis my ˣfather --> †But ˣhe’s my ˣfather.
I ˈcan tell you ˌwhy --> †I ˣc’n tell y’ ˣwhy.
Now recall that the predicate must be stressed. In a case like “I am” (with nothing more following the verb), where the verb has no complements at all, there is only one element that can be used to fill this stress slot: the verb itself, which is thus automatically stressed. And since the verb is stressed, it cannot be syncopated or contracted: that would remove the mandatory stress slot altogether, which is not an option.
I'm studying English for 10 months. I suppose myself to know it quite well now. But I'm confused about one thing. I noticed that some of my English speaking friends sometimes ask
"Don't you tired/hungry/etc?"
Is this normal/grammatically correct to make such questions? Because I've googled by phrases and found quite a lot of examples of using such questions?
Here are some examples:
The boss asked me the other day whether it's more correct to say
In our business, change is constant.
or
In our business, change is a constant.
Both of these sound perfectly correct to me, which is what I told him; but there's a slight difference in meaning that I just can't seem to articulate. Help?
Definitions, not that they're much help:
constant (noun): a quantity that does not vary
constant (adjective): unvarying in nature; steadfast in purpose or devotion or affection; uninterrupted in time and indefinitely long continuing
Answer
I think if your implication is that change is a given, that it is one of the only constants you see in the business, then you use the noun (change is a constant).
If your implication is that all we ever see is change, change, change, change, change then use the adjective (change is constant).
I know the title sounds a bit ridiculous, but that's actually what I'm asking. The sentence in question is as follows:
"Well, of course robots don't deserve rights, they're not even living things!", may be a common response to the problem dealing with future robotic ethics.
I don't know if I'm correct in using it like that, but I would like some feedback on if this is right, and if not, what should I do?
By the way, I'm using MLA format and I couldn't find anything useful on the internet about this situation. Honestly, I don't know what to call this type of quote so I had a hard time looking it up in the first place.
I have a question that baffled me for a while now, and I'd be a happier person for an answer.
Why in sentences such as
It's not that big a deal.
And
He was as nice a friend as you were.
Or
Your awesome of a father, told me that.
does the article position itself between the adjective and the noun instead of the usual start of the phrase:
I have a big house to play in.
Much obliged.
I have a sentence that begins with the word "today" and a sentence that begins with "frankly." My style guide says to add commas after introductory adverbs when they modify the entire clause after it, but I'm having trouble deciding when it does. Let me use "today" in a sentence.
"Today she didn't have time to visit her grandfather."
In that sentence, I am told that "today" doesn't modify the entire clause; I think otherwise. Isn't "today" technically modifying the entire clause? I'm not sure, and that's what I need help with. What are some clues to help determine if an introductory word modifying the entire clause after it?
I had a spat with a coworker. We are compiling a software feature list.
One of the entries was the "Employee Profile". However, we wanted to write it down in plural. So, which one should it be?
1 - Employee Profiles
2 - Employees Profiles
3 - Employees' Profiles
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the following:
1 - Correct
2 - Incorrect
3 - Works, too
Answer
1 and 3 in this instance would be correct.
1) 'Employee Profile' is a complete noun phrase with 'employee' - in this instance - not a noun in its own right but a 'noun adjunct'. It is playing the part of a modifier for the subject noun 'Profile' and it is only this word that would take the plural.
3) Also correct but for a different reason. Here they are two separate nouns. 'Employee' in this instance is taking a possessive which splits the complete noun phrase seen in choice 1. So for proper agreement both would need to be conjugated to the plural.
I had a spat with a coworker. We are compiling a software feature list.
One of the entries was the "Employee Profile". However, we wanted to write it down in plural. So, which one should it be?
1 - Employee Profiles
2 - Employees Profiles
3 - Employees' Profiles
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the following:
1 - Correct
2 - Incorrect
3 - Works, too
Answer
1 and 3 in this instance would be correct.
1) 'Employee Profile' is a complete noun phrase with 'employee' - in this instance - not a noun in its own right but a 'noun adjunct'. It is playing the part of a modifier for the subject noun 'Profile' and it is only this word that would take the plural.
3) Also correct but for a different reason. Here they are two separate nouns. 'Employee' in this instance is taking a possessive which splits the complete noun phrase seen in choice 1. So for proper agreement both would need to be conjugated to the plural.
I'm a bit confused about the use of the determinative article before "time". I know the rule is to not use the article when you talk about thinks in general. So if I say:
do you have time to do it?
since this is a specific time, that is the time to do something, it should be more correct to say:
do you have the time do to it?
Yet, the former version is used too. Why? Just an exception to the general rule? And what about:
have you got time to do it?
have you got the time to do it?
Answer
This is a case where either way works, and they are both commonly used. In this kind of sentence, "time" can be used in the uncountable sense and you can also add clarification of an amount to the sentence. Or, you can refer directly to the specific time being discussed.
Another example would be, "Do you have water to give me a drink?" vs. "Do you have the water to give me a drink?" The first case refers to water in general and adds clarification of an amount. The second case refers to the specific water being requested. Again, both versions are fine.
I would like to know whether this is correct:
He uses a car instead of a bus.
What does he use a car instead of?
Answer
Yes, that is perfectly fine. It is an instance of preposition stranding per Wikipedia:
Preposition stranding, sometimes called P-stranding or dangling, is the syntactic construction in which a preposition with an object occurs somewhere other than immediately adjacent to its object. (The preposition is then described as stranded, hanging or dangling.) This construction is widely found in Germanic languages, including English and the Scandinavian languages.
It then specifically points out Wh-movement as one of the places where this occurs, and gives the example of
What are you talking about?
For more about this see “An internet pilgrim’s guide to stranded prepositions” on the Language Log. Pay especial attention to the part about pied piping making for awkward and pretentious-sounding sentences.
I recently wondered about the use of "to use" and other verbs when expressing the purpose of an action.
I noticed that purpose is often expressed by having a verb followed by "for" and a progressive form, as in the following example:
Alternatively, this seemed acceptable, too:
However, I recently received corrections for a text in which I frequently used to former version in conjunction with the word "to use".
This was changed by the corrector every single time, and I do not quite understand the reason for that.
Consider the following sentences:
Is one of the two phrases incorrect or somehow discouraged? If so: Why is that, and what is the difference between "to use" and other verbs?
NOTE:
The example above may be more clear when switching to passive phrases:
I think having "was used to" in that sentence makes it sound weird. That is why I preferred the version with "for" until now.
My problem is that I was taught (I think wrongly) that whenever a conditional sentence refers to past, there should be past perfect tense in the if clause, as in example 1.
Example 1:
If you hadn't broken the vase, you wouldn't have angered your parents.
[He broke the vase, no doubt about it.]
But is example 2 still a conditional sentence, and is it correct?
Example 2:
If you didn't break the vase, who did?
We're still referring to past, but we don't really know whether he did it or not.
Is this an example of a conditional sentence? Why or why not? How do I recognize a "past" conditional sentence?
Answer
Example 2 means
If you didn't break the vase, then I ask you who did?
The condition is on the speech act of questioning. If you did break the vase, than I needn't ask. Compare:
If you don't mind my asking, who broke the vase?
The condition here is also a condition on my asking the question. This is a general formula -- to be polite, you mention conditions that might make it inappropriate to ask a question.
If so, could anyone give an example pls?
Answer
It is almost never appropriate to use it for a person. Sometimes, we seem to use it when asking about somebody's gender. E.g.:
A: My wife's had a baby!
B: Is it a boy or a girl?
A: It's a boy!
but here it is just a dummy pronoun.
If you don't know the gender, you have the following options:
Note that it is very offensive to refer to transexuals, transvestites, hermaphrodites, and so on as it. If the person adopts a male name, use he. If the person adopts a female name, use she.
First, this is not a dupe of:
"Not bad either" versus "not bad neither"
nor a dupe of:
"Neither Michael nor Albert is correct" or "Neither Michael nor Albert are correct"?
So on to my question...
I'm not a native english speaker and there's something that I always find very strange when I read sentence containing the following construct:
"and try not to be shocked or
overreact if..."
Isn't something using "neither/nor" better, like maybe the following:
"and try neither to be shocked nor
overreact if..."
To me the first sentence can be interpreted in two ways:
you should either try not to be shocked or you should overreact (wrong of course, this is not what the writer meant but in other case it is not that obvious that it is a wrong interpretation
you should try not to be shocked and you should also not overreact
while with the second sentence, there's no room for interpretation (once again, in this case in the first sentence it can be deduced from the sentence but I often encounter cases where it is not so).
So... not/or or neither/nor?
My question is simple. Is the following sentence correct?
They don't watch TV often.
My English teacher has told me that the only correct option is:
They don't often watch TV.
Is she right?
Answer
I think she is wrong. "They don't often watch TV" certainly isn't the only correct option.
As just one piece of evidence you could consider the Google result counts for these phrases (switched to "I" to get more representative data):
New York is a great place to live.
New York is a great place to live in.
I've seen the former usage a lot and I've started wondering what the grammar aspects of it are.
The main question I'm asking involves the grammar when the preposition in the end of the sentence is deleted. Is it equally formal or correct to omit it? What are the grammar properties of this?
Some more examples of similar usage:
This organisation is a great place to work.
This is a great place to stay/sit/study/travel/go.
Just to show that 'live' isn't special in this case.
Note: I'd posted the same question on ELL before, but the answers were not satisfying enough (the answers there did not seem to provide the precise grammar aspects of this, those that could be in a serious grammar book), so I'm posting this here to get some more views on the question. I hope it is acceptable.
Answer
Simply put: without the preposition, the infinitive is either a truly intransitive verb, or a truly transitive one; with the preposition, it is what is sometimes called a prepositional verb, i.e., a verb that—similar to how phrasal verbs work—must be paired with a preposition to take an object. The object is then not a direct object, but it is still semantically (and to a certain extent also syntactically) the object of the verb.
1A. I need a pen to write with.
1B. I need a pen to write.
2A. I have a book to write in.
2B. I have a book to write.
The difference here is clear: in the A sentences, it's explicitly stated that the pen is the instrument with which you will be writing and the book is the place you'll be writing. In 1B, a pen is just given as something that you need to have in order to carry out the act of writing; other things in that category would be paper, a desk, a chair, etc. (or these days, a laptop). In 2B, the book is simply the object of the verb.
In other words, when there is no preposition, you have to look at the constituents in the sentence to determine whether the verb is transitive or intransitive—if it's intransitive, the infinitive is often an infinitive of purpose (meaning in order to). When there is a preposition, you can usually assume the topic mentioned before the infinitive is part of a prepositional object, that is, the verb is acting in a mostly-transitive way, and the entire prepositional phrase is the object.
So what, then, of your example?
New York is a great place to live (in).
This doesn't seem to fit either: live in this sense does not take direct objects, and yet a place has no preposition.
This is because place isn't really and truly acting as a normal noun—it's more like the nominal form of the adverbial entity (some)where/here/there. Live in the sense we’re looking at here takes an adverbial phrase complement (like somewhere), but an adverbial phrase cannot be qualified by an adjective (well, it can; but its meaning changes a bit then), so a generic noun is substituted, acting as a stand-in.
If you replace place with a more regular noun that doesn't have this property, you'll see that they don't work:
*It's a great city to live.
*It’s a great street to live.
None of these two work, because you cannot *live a city/street the way you can live a place: a place is basically a noun phrase that has been semi-frozen as a pseudo-adverbial, acting like (some)where, so it takes no preposition. Cities and streets, though, do not do this, and they need to be part of a prepositional clause to be used adverbially like this. What does work is using an adverbial:
It's somewhere to live, I guess.
Naturally, if you use live as a transitive verb with a direct object, it works fine:
You only have one life to live!
And since place is still also a noun and can easily function as such, you can also use the prepositional verb live in [noun phrase] with it as the noun—which is why the double forms with and without the preposition are possible in your example.
According to one online dictionary, the apostrophe-s combination is
an ending used in writing to represent the possessive morpheme after most singular nouns, some plural nouns, especially those not ending in a letter or combination of letters representing an s or z sound,
Note the opening, "an ending". Does this mean that an apostrophe COULD NOT be a possessive elsewhere? I have been reading up on the words "bridesmaid" and "groomsman" and according to that same source, the s in the middle is a possessive. (Other sources make the s an "unetymological [which] began to appear by 1794")
I'm asking a theoretical question -- could the word be written "bride'smaid" (and/or "groom'sman") or is there a hard and fast rule that possessives are only indicated at the end of a word? (I have yet to find other words besides bridesmaid(s) and groomsma(e)n to which this would apply)
I know that
I had a case where I wasn't sure if it should be used as a determiner or pronoun:
In response from your and someone's answers
OR
In response from yours and someone's answers
Which was the correct use?
Answer
Your is a possessive adjective:
Your raincoat is red.
Whereas yours is a possessive pronoun:
That raincoat of yours is red.
Yours, the possessive pronoun is used to refer to a thing or things belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing.
With your example phrase:
In response from your and someone's answers.
You could say:
In response to your and someone's answer, it could be concluded that....
or alternatively:
In response to someone's answer and [also] yours, it could be concluded that...
With the latter example, the possesive pronoun yours is referring to the answer.
A few weeks ago I posted a question about the usage of a verbal in a particular sentence. But now, I have another question on the same topic, gerund.
Sometimes I don't know for sure if I need to use the gerund or the infinitive form, so I searched on web to find the answers for my questions; I found this. In this article I found a list of common verbs followed by gerunds and another list of common verbs followed by infinitives.
So, I was wondering if the words that compound one list has some characteristic in common that determine if the following word will be a gerund or an infinitive.
From the referenced PDF file:
Both gerunds and infinitives can replace a noun as the object of a verb. Whether you use a gerund or an infinitive depends on the main verb in the sentence. Consult the lists below to find out which form to use following which verbs.
I expect to have the report done by Friday. [INFINITIVE]
I anticipate having the report done by Friday. [GERUND]
(note that phrasal verbs, marked here with *, always fall into this category):
Answer
Here is a long article that goes over a great deal of the use of gerunds vs infinitives and Wikipedia has some information as well. In short, it is not a simple answer, but there are rules to follow, and many instances where both work fine, but the meaning can change depending on which you use. In reference to the list you supplied, verbs of communication (acknowledge, admit, accuse, advise) tend to take the gerund (but not always - advise for example - advised against entering vs advised not to enter). Some just take an infinitive for no real reason other than there had to be a rule to govern them (arrange, afford, appear, agree). Some verbs can take either (love, prefer, like) but the meaning changes drastically (I love boxing vs I love to box).
When to use a or an before a noun when there are adjectives before that noun?
like the following example:
An operator pressed the button.
should that make:
A professional operator pressed the button.
An professional operator pressed the button.
same for:
A Hypertext markup language.
An Hypertext markup language.
Sometimes it seems a bit confusing, especially when there are more adjectives like:
An omen was revealed to the priest.
A terrible omen was revealed to the priest.
An overwhelming terrible omen was revealed to the priest.
What is the rule?
Answer
The article changes based on the word immediately following, not necessarily on the noun. There is no difference in meaning between "a" and "an" - the distinction is used to preserve an alternation between vowels and consonants when the sentence is spoken aloud.
Be aware that speakers of American and British English observe different rules (mainly because we can't agree on whether to pronounce the letter H or not!)
In your example:
A Hypertext Markup language. An Hypertext markup language.
an American speaker (and, to be honest, most British speakers) would find the first one correct, while an exaggerated aitch-dropper would use the second.
In these examples:
An omen was revealed to the priest.
A terrible omen was revealed to the priest.
An overwhelming terrible omen was revealed to the priest.
all three are correct as written, whether the speaker is American or British.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_(grammar)#Indefinite_article
I've read a few articles as well as questions on this site about splitting infinitives. In the Wikipedia article, it claims:
In Old English, infinitives were single words ending in -n or -an (compare modern Dutch and German -n, -en). Gerunds were formed using "to" followed by a verbal noun in the dative case, which ended in -anne or -enne (e.g. tō cumenne = "coming, to come").
I read a bit on the use of infinitives in Old English; apparently, Old English has a to-infinitive that became Modern English infinitive. For example, the following sentence from (I think) Alfred's English translation of "Consolation of Philosophy":
he wilnað good to habbanne ond mid goode to bionne.
"He wills good to have and mid good to be"
Since the infinitives, "to habbanne" and "to bionne" are also two words, did the English speakers back then ever think of putting an adverb between them? For example, would Alfred or Bede have written something along the line of this:
he wilnað good to ā habbanne ond mid goode to sælige bionne.
"He wills good to forever have and mid good to happily be"
It seems English texts from that time don't contain this kind of sentences, but would it have been considered correct?
What about other Germanic languages?
Answer
A search of the York-Toronto-Helsinki Corpus of Old English Prose for the infinitive marker to followed by anything other than a non-finite verb form yields no relevant examples. This is consistent with the other modern West Germanic languages, where zu (in German) and te (in Dutch) can't be separated from the following non-finite verb. The same is true of the early West Germanic languages (Old High German, Old Saxon).
It's safe to say that Old English didn't have split infinitives. Though absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence, there are so many examples of to + infinitive constructions in these early languages that it seems incredibly unlikely that splitting the two was a grammatical possibility.
According to Wiktionary the word "second" can be pronounced one of two ways in the US:
/ˈsɛk.(ə)nd/
and
/ˈsɛk.(ə)nt/
I've googled to try to find anything about the difference between these pronunciations, be it morphophonemic or simply a regional variation. However my search was to no avail as "second" is a common word, often with results of alternative/second pronunciations of other words popping up.
Can anyone enlighten me on why there is a difference in pronunciation of this word?
For reference, I'm from the US South and I say it with a final "t."
Ex. What would be right:
The other question only asks about parenthetical phrases, not slash phrases.
The other question's parenthetical phrase (answer(s) explained that it's not really a parenthetical phrase) is a separate word. Mine is an intra-word parenthetical prefix. That's different!
Extreme votes on a post often indicates that there was a(n) (dis)agreement.
When you see spam on , you should cast a(n) upvote/flag.
The ship traveled across a(n) sea/ocean.
The first example's parenthetical thingymajigger is equivalent to the slash phrase "agreement/disagreement."
What's the correct singular indefinite article to use before slash phrase (this/that) and parenthetical phrases ((a)sexual, (de)criminalize)?
Answer
Such constructions are a matter of style, so there is no single "correct" way of dealing with them.
If I refer to The Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed.), 6.95:
Parentheses—stronger than a comma and similar to the dash—are used to set off material from the surrounding text. Like dashes but unlike commas, parentheses can set off text that has no grammatical relationship to the rest of the sentence.
Although I'm somewhat familiar with what you're doing with the parentheses in your examples, I believe that Chicago, at least, would not recommend putting text inside of parentheses that actually does have some kind of grammatical relationship with the rest of a sentence—especially if doing so causes awkwardness.
In general, you should write sentences in such a way that if the parenthetical information were removed, the surrounding text would be completely unaffected. (In other words, the grammar used outside the parentheses should be completely unaffected by the text inside the parentheses.)
As for slashes, here is Chicago, 6.106:
A slash most commonly signifies alternatives. In certain contexts it is a convenient (if somewhat informal) shorthand for or. It is also used for alternative spellings or names. Where one or more of the terms separated by slashes is an open compound, a space before and after the slash can make the text more legible.
he/she
his/her
and/or
Hercules/Heracles
Margaret/Meg/Maggie
World War I / First World War
Although it doesn't specifically mention its stance on grammar around slashes, I suspect Chicago would say that, as they are just shorthand for longer (and more formal) constructions, if their use causes a problem, then use a longer construction instead.
In other words, when such constructions become grammatically awkward, I suspect the "proper" thing to do is to rephrase rather than to look for a specific rule of grammar (which likely doesn't exist).
For example:
Extreme votes on a post often indicated that there was an agreement or disagreement.
When you see spam on , you should case an upvote or flag.
They ship traveled across a sea or ocean.
On the other hand, if you are using a style guide that does say what to do in such circumstances, then follow its advice.
In reading a description of a cartoon I came about the following sentence:
But the shadows of the men are not the real reflections of the men but younger versions of themselves.
For me the last word sounds wrong; I would go for "younger versions of them" or "younger versions of their selves".
Am I completely mistaken?
Any help is very much appreciated!
Franziska
Answer
"Themselves" is a reflexive pronoun and is primarily used when the subject of the sentence is also the recipient of the action: "He tripped and cut himself with the knife he was holding." Hence, although many writers these days would not hesitate to write "younger versions of themselves," "younger versions of them" is actually correct. If you are a prescriptivist, go with the latter; if a relativist, the former.
"Theirselves" is not standard English and is considered ignorant or uneducated. You could, however, quite correctly write a phrase such as "versions of their younger selves."
As Fowler repeatedly points out, in cases like this one the problem usually runs deeper than is apparent. (The use of the word "reflections" to avoid repeating "shadows" is another symptom.) Recasting the sentence is usually a better cure, in Fowler's view. For example, "But the men's shadows are younger versions of them, not real shadows."
I bought an English grammar book 3 weeks ago. Is it correct to use any of the following sentences interchangeably to tell my friend that I bought the book, or is there a difference in meaning between each sentence?
If someone says, "I want to sit with you," is the response, "And I you," acceptable? I believe a better choice would be, "And I with you," but is "with" strictly necessary or does it just add clarity?
An existing question covers the correctness of the general use of "And I you," but in those examples "you" is the direct object. If omission of the verb is acceptable, can the preposition be omitted as well?
Answer
According to The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL), the version without with is not grammatical.
Per chapter 15 "Coordination and supplementation", § 4.2 "Gapped coordination (Kim is an engineer and Pat a barrister)", p. 1338:
One limitation is that the antecedent cannot end with a preposition or infinitival to, so that the underlined items cannot be omitted in [9] even though they appear in the first clause too:
[9] i I went by car and Bill __ by bus.
--
ii Kim was hoping to go to university and Pat __ to join the family business.
--
(where the "antecedent" is the part that the gap refers back to; "went" in the first example, "was hoping" in the second).
For example, to discover what had caused the war between them, he
travelled extensively and questioned many people. He was a skilful
writer, producing works that are informative and lively.
The answer key to my schoolbook suggests skilful as the only possible answer here. However, can't we use skilled as well?
(It is a CAE Part 3 task, in which you have to transform a word. In this case, SKILL)
The following links introduce us to a pretty similar meaning which I cannot make sense of, to be honest.
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/qa/the-difference-between-skilled-and-skillful
I'd be more than grateful if you let me know about anything obvious that I might be missing here.
Answer
He was a _______ writer, producing works that are informative and lively.
The OP's task was to transform the word SKILL in order to fill in the blank space.
But if the OP had to find a word, they could have opted for any of the following: gifted, talented, accomplished, or even polished.
Note that none of the preceding adjectives have the suffix -ful. In fact, giftful, talentful, accomplishedful, and polishful are all ungrammatical today. But in the case of skill, either one of the two suffixes -ed (skilled) and -ful (skillful) can be applied.
Oxford Dictionaries says that skilled means
1. Having or showing the knowledge, ability, or training to perform a certain activity or task well.
1.1 Based on or proceeding from the ability to do something well.
1.2 (of work) requiring special abilities or training.
Whereas for skilful, there is only one definition
Having or showing skill.
- ‘Not only is he a brilliantly skillful footballer, he is also captain and leader of this Czech side.’
- ‘For thousands of years, this has been admired as the most skillful accomplishment in war.’
The writer in the citation can be called skilled because they have the knowledge, and the ability to produce informative and entertaining works. They can also be called skilful because they have a natural talent or have acquired the ability (i.e. the skill) to write well.
In conclusion, both forms are more than acceptable. The answer "skilful", supplied by the OP's book, was unnecessarily restricted.
Google Ngram showing the British Corpus agrees that either adjective is suitable for writer, but skilled writer has a narrow advantage.
Google Ngram with the American English spelling skillful, suggests that skilled writer is also the preferred form since the mid-1980s.