Friday, October 31, 2014

punctuation - How to punctuate a quoted rhetorical interrogative sentence that ends a declarative sentence?

Below is the sentence I am writing. I am not sure whether I should just end it with an interrogation mark within the quotes, with a period within the quotes, no in-quote punctuation except interrogation mark, or a period outside the quotation marks.




Those of you without any experience with drug or alcohol addiction are probably reading this scratching your heads thinking, “WTF is this guy talking about, if their problem is not drugs or alcohol how can they be classified as an addict or an alcoholic and why do they consistently abuse drugs or alcohol. How is that not their problem when they can't hold down a job or take their kids to school because they're always under the ...
... influence?”.
... influence?”
... influence”.
... influence.”
... influence”?




Which alternative should I use?

Thursday, October 30, 2014

grammar - Do reverse clauses with 'be/have/do' require 'that'?

I am looking at these sentences:




  1. *The fool he is said this.*

  2. *The job he has is hard.*


  3. *The job he does is hard.*

  4. *The suit he wears is black.*



The reverse clause #1 seems completely wrong to me. #2 and #3 look somewhat questionable, and #4 looks completely correct to me. However, adding that (The fool that he is said this.) seems to make it more correct in each case.



It seems like I would always prefer to use that for all be/have/do-based reverse clauses to make them right.



My questions are: Is there a rule that makes #1, #2, #3 wrong? Or, perhaps, they are all correct?




On a side note, I have never come across a book that would comprehensively describe and explain English grammar on a formal level. Books tend to go by example, and kind-of coach people to do it right only on an intuitive level.

grammar - In a story written in past tense, is using present tense grammatically correct in the narration?

For example, just something quickly made up:




Sam started to run from the house to the nearby forest. The freezing weather caused him to shiver, but the warmth from running very rapidly heated up him. Sam, son of a lumberjack, is/was 16-years-old this year.




Given a context like that or similar to that, for the bolded text, which is one is correct? On one hand, "was" seems to be the correct one as the narration is in past tense, so for consistency, everything should be in past. But on the other hand, "is" also seems to be correct because he isn't "was 16-year-old", he is 16-years-old.



Thanks in advance for any answers, and if possible, please point to a resource I can study.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

grammar - When constructing a hypothetical sentence, do I have to keep all the tenses in the past?


If I bought that book, it would be so I had something to give to you on your birthday.




Now, as far as i know, in hypothetical sentences, you have to backshift all tenses one step to the past. So:





buy = bought
will = would
have = had




Feel free to correct me if you think i'm wrong.



Now, going by so far as my knowledge about backshifting all the tenses to the past one step goes when constructing hypothetical sentences, is the above sentence grammatically correct?

Is “Tear a piece out of somebody” a popular idiom to mean snatch an advantage from somebody?




I came across the phrase ‘tear a piece out of' Obama in the debate’ in the following statement in the article titled “Obama Math: Obama Math: 8.1 + 13,300 + 50 = 270” in New Yorker magazine (September 10):



“Of course, something could still happen to change the polling dynamics. Romney could tear a piece out of Obama in the debates; the tsunami of negative ads the Republicans are about to unleash could conceivably turn around some Obama-leaning states; there could be an “October surprise.” As of now, though, there is no sign of Romney getting the surge he needs.”



I guess ‘tear a piece out of” means to snatch an advantage out of, or take the lead to somebody (If my interpretation is wrong, please correct me), but I can’t find this phrase as an idiom in any of dictionaries at hand.



What does 'a piece' represent for? I mean 'a piece of' what?
Is “tear a piece out of”somebody / something a popular idiom, or just a set of words?


Answer



What you are "tearing a piece out of: is their flesh, literally or figuratively. In figurative use it means to damage an opponent, to 'draw blood' (another similar figure of speech), or in short: to wound. It's a metaphor of tooth and claw.




Its use is not exactly common, but neither is it rare.


grammatical number - Subject singular or plural?




I got really confused reading conflicting grammar rules for sentences such as below:





  • First one:




    A number of people is/are going to the party.




    Here, the subject is "A number". Since "A number" is plural, the the correct answer must be





    A number of people are going to the party.



  • Second one:




    His collections of music is/are good.




    Here, the subject is "Collections of music". Since "collections" is a plural, the correct answer must be:





    His collections of music are good.



  • Third one:




    His collection of music is/are good.




    Going by my previous rule, since the subject here is "collection of music", which is singular, the correct answer must be:





    His collection of music is good





But I have seen answers that state the right answer to the second one is "His collections of music is good".



Can someone please elucidate this?




Thanks in advance!


Answer



For the first one, the subject of the sentence is the whole noun phrase a number of people, in which a number of collectively acts as a determiner - a class of words that includes the articles a, an, and the as well as words such as many, most, and every - and people is the head word, which is the root noun which is being modified by the rest of the phrase. Compare to other sentences using related noun phrases with different determiners - for example, you wouldn't think twice about the correctness of "Several people are going to the party" or "Beautiful people are going to the party."



You can also verify this by noting that removing people from the sentence leaves you with "A number of is going to the party" - a nonsense sentence - whereas removing a number of leaves you with the workable sentence "People are going to the party." Even if you take out the of as well, to get "A number is going to the party," it still doesn't make sense unless you're living in some kind of cartoon world; it conjures up images of an anthropomorphic number 7 as the guest of honor.



For the second and third, you're in the right. "His collections are good" and "His collection is good" are the correct forms. My only guess for why you might have seen otherwise is that maybe someone misread the second statement and didn't notice that collections was pluralized, as one normally refers to the entirety of a person's music library as a singular collection.


Tuesday, October 28, 2014

word choice - What is the difference between seems like /seems that/seems?

Is there any difference between these expressions?




It seems like they have not completed the task yet.



It seems that they have not completed the task yet.




It seems they haven't completed the task yet.


grammar - The definite article before nouns mentioned for the first time



I've been taught that when one mentions an object for the first time and it's countable, one should use a/an before it.
I know that there are exceptions, when you speak of a renoun object which everybody knows, like the moon.



But I cannot see why the author uses definite articles in some places in this piece:



"It had better use THE advertisement with THE shirtless guy rather than THE shirtless girl."



That ad/guy/girl were mentioned in the text for the first time. Why does the author uses the definite article before them? And could you please provide some rule which would clarify the usage of articles for me?



Answer



You were taught wrong. (Or at least you were taught a rule that works much of the time, but doesn't always).



You use the definite article when you are referring to one specific item. Obviously "the moon" is a good example, but in your case there is (presumably) only one advert with the shirtless guy. Therefore you use the definite article. It doesn't matter if you are referring to it for the first time. It also doesn't matter that there may be many advertisements - there is only one with the shirtless guy, so that is the one we mean. The second part of the sentence qualifies the first.



Similarly there is only one shirtless guy and only one shirtless girl in the advertisements we are considering, so they also get the definite article.



If there were several advertisements with the shirtless guy the first article would become indefinite. If there were several shirtless guys the second article would become indefinite. If there were several shirtless girls the third article would become indefinite.


meaning - Symphonic vs. symphony



Is there any clear line between a symphony and symphonic?




For long, I thought that a symphony was simply a "song" played by a symphonic orchestra. Then I realized that more often than not, the ensemble is actually also called symphony orchestra.



As a lot of this terminology is used on pages from all around the world (often translated by non-native speakers), I'd like to get some final clarification from an educated native speaker. Will you?



And to make the question complete, speaking of an ensemble, is there any difference in meaning in the following (and are they all equally correct): symphonic, symphonic orchestra, symphony, symphony orchestra, philharmonic, philharmonic orchestra (I know that most orchestras will have their "standardized" English names but speaking of a general classical orchestra, are all the terms identical?)


Answer



"Symphonic" is an adjective, "symphony" a noun, "symphony orchestra" a noun phrase. Whether an orchestra is called a "symphony orchestra," a "philharmonic orchestra," or something else is purely a matter of the creator's preference. There are top-ranked orchestras with both names (Vienna Philharmonic, Boston Symphony, etc.), and there's no systematic difference in composition or repertoire.


Monday, October 27, 2014

syntactic analysis - How to separate out a long list of verbs that then merges in with long list of objects?

Imagine the following example:




Feminists destroy, reduce, decimate, deconstruct, defame, destabilize, and fragment the female culture, history, sexuality, identity, reality, and truth.





In the above example, after "fragment" the author is done using verbs and has started a long list of words (objects, subjects?) that are the things that the previous verbs will be acting on.



The actual sentence that I read somewhere is quite similar to the above but in that case the author is using even a more complex sentence where she groups several words together, like she writes in the second part, "culture, history, and tradition" separated by semi-colon and then "body, sexuality, and gender", etc. But I decided to keep it simple for my question here.



Please assume one is interested in keeping the sentence long and don't break it up into small parts. Thanks for your help.

grammar - Which one is correct - " There is only us here" or "There are only us here"

Temporary reopen note:



The linked-to question is about the verb agreeing with the grammatical number of the first item in a list in a there is/are sentence. However there is no list in this question here. Even if there were, us would seem to be plural here, so there is no good explanation of why is may be preferable to are.



You can see the linked-to question here:






The Original Question



I am dubious between these two ways of referring to two people in a place or in an area.



Example:




John: Ok folks, I am going to let you here waiting for the manager to come. It is going to take some minutes until he makes it here.



Josh: Ok, thank you.




Mathew: Alright.



Josh: Hum... Now, there is/are only us here.




Is there any reason why is or are is preferable here?

Sunday, October 26, 2014

grammar - Statistics 'has' or 'have' applications?



which is correct:




Statistics have applications in almost every field of science and business



Statistics has applications in almost every field of science and business



I thought has should accompany third person singular object (here, Statistics). But online grammar check tells me 'have' should be used.



Can someone throw some light on this? Thanks.


Answer



It depends.




On the one hand, if you are using the word "statistics" to refer to numerous statistical data, then it would be followed by a verb conjugated in the plural number (i.e., "have").



For example,




The statistics have not provided us with the results we expected.




On the other hand, if you are using the word "statistics" as the name of a subject or field of study, then it would be followed by a verb conjugated in the singular number (i.e., "has").




For example,




Statistics has never been an easy class for me.




In your example, the word "statistics" refers to a field of study, and therefore, the proper verb would be "has," as in:




Statistics has applications in almost every field of science and business.




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



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



So please enlighten me about which one is correct.




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





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


Answer



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




Is there any proofs?




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





Is there any proof?



Are there any proofs?




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


grammar - Adjectives that do not have predicative position




I've read somewhere that some adjectives cannot be used in the predicative position; for example "this is a major problem" is acceptable, but "the problem is major" is not acceptable.



I'm wondering what other adjectives cannot be used in predicative position other than major. Is it the only one we have in English?


Answer



There are many kinds of non-predicative adjectives. A few examples:




  • former president

  • electrical engineer


  • alleged criminal

  • main reason



http://eecoppock.info/CoppockSemFest09.pdf shows you many kinds of examples. It is a good reference even if you choose to not read the technical bits.


pronunciation - How do I pronounce "s's" and "s'"?


Possible Duplicates:
What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in s?
Pronouncing possessive words that already end in s







How do I pronounce possessives that end with the awkward "s's" and "'s"? Examples:




I found the mistress's attitude ridiculous



These are the eggs' shells.



Which coat is Amos'?


Saturday, October 25, 2014

nouns - What is the correct way to pluralize an acronym?



For example, if I wanted to write the equivalent of





There are many automated teller machines in this city.




Would it be




There are many ATMs in this city.





or




There are many ATM's in this city.
(could get confused with possessive form or contraction).




or just




There are many ATM in this city.
(assuming the final s is included in Machines represented by M).





Maybe something else?


Answer



The Chicago Manual of Style has an interesting way to address this: They omit the apostrophe, unless there are periods in the abbreviation. So this would give you ATMs, or alternately A.T.M.'s. (A.T.M.s looks weird.) chicagomanualofstyle.org, "Plurals"



This page indicates that acronyms ending in the letter "S" get an apostrophe, something I've seen before, but can't find in a general reference. So one would write ATMs and SOS's.



This page on the North Carolina State University website references AP's rule as being to always use an apostrophe.




The 2009 AP Stylebook's "plurals" entry has no section on acronyms, but mentions "VIPs", I can't find anything addressing how to specifically pluralize acronyms. (The "abbreviations and acronyms" section is also of no help.)



Personally, I omit using apostrophes unless I can't avoid it. I do use them when talking about single letters or where it would avoid confusion. (For example, SOs for "Significant Others" looks like an incorrectly capitalized SOS.)



To paraphrase Carol Fisher Saller, the clearer usage is the correct one.


grammaticality - "Alex and I" vs. "me and Alex"




Is it improper to say "me and Person X"?



I always hear it said as "Person X and I", but have personally learned to say "me and Person X".



Is there a difference between the two versions and is one of them incorrect? "Person and I" just sounds more formal to me.


Answer



You would use "X and I" if you and X are the subject of the verb.




You would use "X and me" if you and X are the object of the verb.



For example:



"Smith and I are going to the store."



"She gave the apples to Jones and me."


Friday, October 24, 2014

punctuation - What do you do when you end the first part of a compound sentence with a quote?











For example, if I want to show someone's response in the same sentence, what would I do?



Would the comma from the end of the quote be enough?





He said, "Get me a drink," but I didn't want to.




Because this looks weird:




He said, "Get me a drink,", but I didn't want to.




What if the quote end with a question?





He said, "Will you get me a drink?" but I didn't want to.




I think that I would need a comma somewhere.




He said, "Will you get me a drink?," but I didn't want to.




He said, "Will you get me a drink?", but I didn't want to.




The ?," looks better to me, but I don't know. How do you do it?


Answer



The "American rule" is that question marks and exclamations go inside the quote if they are part of the quote, otherwise outside. Periods and commas go inside the quote.



The "British rule" is that all punctuation goes inside the quote if it is part of the quote and outside otherwise.



If there is a comma or semi-colon inside the quote under either rule, do not put another one outside the quote. Any other punctuation does not affect the use of commas and semi-colons.




So under the British rule you would write:




He said, "Get me a drink", but I didn't want to.




Under the American rule:





He said, "Get me a drink," but I didn't want to.




Under either rule:




He said, "Will you get me a drink?", but I didn't want to.




As the names imply, the British rule is generally used in Britain and the American rule in the US, but some Americans use the British rule. I don't know if many Britons use the American rule.



Thursday, October 23, 2014

pronunciation of foreign cities

When I mentioned to friends I had recently been to Benalmadena in Spain, I was corrected on its pronunciation. I had chosen to pronounce it in an English way rather than in a Spanish pronunciation. After all, I wouldn't say Paris how a Frenchman would say it.




If I use the native pronunciation of a foreign city I might look pretentious. If on the other hand I use the English pronunciation, I might then get corrected with the alternative.



Which is the correct convention please?



Many thanks.

subordinate clauses - Are “where” subclauses acceptable?




In mathematical texts, but not only there, one often first names an object and then explains what it is in a “where” clause, for example:




“Let x and y be any two numbers from a set M of natural numbers,
where M is given by the following property ...”




Is such a construction acceptable? Are there better choices instead of “where” for the same overall structure?




Clearly, overly long sentences are to be avoided. Whenever possible, one should try to decouple the two definitions. Here an alternative would be to first introduce M and then talk about x and y, but if we are mainly interested in x and y, first digressing to M feels like disrupting the flow of the text.



Simply splitting the above into two sentences creates, in my humble opinion, the impression that M should be known already, causing the reader to look back for its definition.


Answer



Yes. Subordinate clauses that start with "where" are more than acceptable; they're completely proper, both grammatically and semantically. By placing the "where" and its clause between commas, one is creating an non-restrictive clause, which is to say that one is providing parenthetical information that is not necessary to the operation of the sentence, information that one could scoop out of the sentence and still have the sentence make sense and mean the same thing. Essentially, it's proverbially putting one's hand by one's mouth and saying, "By the way..."



Are there better choices instead of this available? That's a judgment call and entirely depends on the situation. Clearly, in mathematics, as you've demonstrated, the overall opinion is that this particular construction is the best way to convey such information, a way that is clear and concise and so has become prolific in writing mathematical problems.


proper nouns - How to handle the possessive case of the name Franks








Hey guys I was wondering where to put the ' when using the possessive case of my surname, Franks. I've seen it done all the ways given below, depending on what family member wrote it, but I was wondering which one was correct?




  1. Franks'

  2. Franks's

  3. Frankses'

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

word choice - When can I say "I could not have passed the test"?

I am nonnative speaker & I often ask a lot of questions that native people have never thought about.



Ok, this site says:




"Couldn't have" is used to show someone's feeling that something
in the past is impossible.



Examples:




You couldn't have seen Jerry yesterday. He's been out of town since
last Tuesday!



(It's impossible for you to have seen Jerry yesterday because he
wasn't here. He's been out of town since last Tuesday!)




So, "someone's feeling" is a guess right? Because if that actually happened, then you use "Couldn't do" right?



Let say I am a very lazy student




Case 1: if I actually failed the test (I got the result in front of my eyes yesterday), I would say: "I couldn't pass the test yesterday" (It was a fact in the past)



Case 2: I took the test yesterday & I will get the result tomorrow, I would say: "I can't pass the test" (I think about the future)



Case 3: I had took the test & the result came out yesterday but I have not checked it (ie I have not officially known I failed), I would say: "I couldn't have passed the test"



I am not sure my thinking is right or not.



But some people said we could say "I couldn't have passed the test" even we have not known the result. That means I did take the exam, I will get the result tomorrow, but I can still say "I couldn't have passed the test" .




Modal verbs are the hardest English stuff I ve ever learned.

grammar - Difference between using plural pronouns vs singular in this sentence




From the SAT:




Psychologists advise that before making any major changes in their lives, people should focus on their goals.




This is the right answer but another choice seems plausible to me but I don't know why it is wrong




Here is the other choice:



Psychologists advise that before making any major changes in their life, a person needs to focus on their goals.





Can someone explain to me why the second sentence is wrong? Thanks!


Answer



Despite the thoughtful comment made by Araucaria, considering the source is the SAT, I believe it is simply a matter of faulty pronoun-antecedent agreement: "their lives," "people" and "their goals" are all correctly plural; while "their life" (who is/are "they"?), "a person" (singular) and "their goals" (back to the plural again) represents a hodge-podge of mismatched words. A singular antecedent calls for a singular pronoun. To say, "Psychologists advise that before making any major changes in his or her life, a person needs to focus on his or her goals" is awkward and inelegant, and it is easily fixed by switching to the plural.


word order - "even to" and "to even"

Going off this question, where the sole answer put forth a rule of thumb:




Grammatical reason: it is considered best for clarity's sake to place the emphasizer ("even," here) closest to the entity of interest.





The placement of the adverb "even" has piqued my interest with these sentences, some of them from various online dictionaries:




...declined even to consider the idea.



her mother didn't like her even to walk past the barroom because she was worried that there might be drunk people inside



For it is shameful even to mention the things being done by them in secret.




...to pay for things such as groceries, or even to purchase a cup of coffee.




These sentences do not accord with the aforementioned rule. I am wondering:




  1. What stylistic differences do "even to" and "to even" make?

  2. Is this an AmE/BrE thing? Is one way more preferable in any English language tradition?

  3. My hypothesis is there are sentences where either one will do just fine and has the exact same meaning without nuances. But there should also be sentences--even among the handful examples listed above--where one way is more preferable than the other. What are the rules?

word usage - Using 'soon' for past occurrences

I understand (and please correct me if I am wrong) that 'soon' simply means 'a short period of time'. With that in mind, I would like to relate a conversation I recently had with my wife.




"I gave the baby her medicine just before you came home," my wife told me.
"How soon before I came home, did you give the baby her medicine?" I asked her in response.



What I meant to ask was, what was that short period of time which had elapsed between these two events. According to her, this is incorrect because 'soon' can only refer to something which will occur in the future.



Which one of us is correct?

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

capitalization - Should one capitalise the first word in the body of a letter?

I think that most people will answer the question in the title with 'yes', and, until recently, I was one of them. However, my wife, who is not a native English speaker, does not do this; and, when I was about to correct her, it occurred to me that in fact her approach is the more logical. After all, if it were all on one line, I would write "Dear recipient, this is a letter to you." and not "Dear recipient, This is a letter to you."; and I am unconvinced that the interpolation of a line break after the comma should change anything.



There being no governing body for English, inevitably the natural way to answer is "that's the way it's usually done, and logic can go hang", so let me ask a more precise version of this question: does any standard reference book require, forbid, or otherwise discuss this practice? I went Googling, but without luck.

Correct/best words to describe "Training Day" and its common components

I work in a clinic on a military base that closes for a half day once a month for something we call Training Day. The two main parts of training day are (1) Squadron Commander's Call and (2) Flight Level Training.



I am looking for alternative terms for: (a) Training Day as a whole; (1) Commander's Call, which happens in the auditorium; and (2) Flight Level Training, which happens in the classroom. The terms should not be military specific, and they should convey the frequency, structure, size, purpose and content and value of the events and ways to add professional weight to them.



The words conference, convention, meeting, lecture, speech, lesson, presentation, briefing, seminar, workshop and training all come to mind, but they are not quite right. Moreover, some of the things we usually label "briefings" seem more like "workshops" or "seminars"



(1) Squadron Commander's Call: The squadron to which I belong (Laboratory, Radiology, Logistic and Records Personnel) meets in the clinic auditorium for between 30 minutes and 2 hours. Our Commander and/or First Sergeant speaks, there is a small promotion ceremony and recognition for squadron and/or individual achievements and mission objectives and upcoming events are reviewed. There is usually a speech about one or more work related subjects. Occasionally there will be second speaker, who might be a guest, who talks on a topic that affects all squadrons, for example a mental health professional speaking about depression awareness. Sometimes the guest speaker has the squadron participate by answering questions or taking part in a short activity such as a safety skit




Examples of how I've used this term in a sentence include:




Airman Smith was coined at Commanders call yesterday!



Go ahead and check that patient in, they said patients shouldn't be
waiting for more than 10 minutes at the last commanders call.



We learned about ways to manage stress during commander's call.





(2) Flight Level Training: The entire Laboratory team plus the flight commander and the flight chief meet in the conference room. There are power point presentations, a required safety brief, an infection control brief, and a presentation by a student on their research. A department head may want to talk about changes in test procedure, a team member may present on a topic of their choice, or our flight leadership may have been instructed to present on specific topic. Some of these are formal presentations with questions held to the end, and some are informal, with lively discussions. Presentations vary from several minutes to 30 minutes. At the end of the meeting, the flight chief presents a certificate to the "Student of the Month" and an "Employee of the Month". We do not have one name for this part of training day but we've called it "small group discussions," "flight specific training," "flight level training," or even just "training day".



I am also looking for terms or words that will convey, in a resume or during an appraisal, that I am more knowledgeable in certain areas such as teamwork, or leadership than peers who do not attend training days. I am keeping a brief log of training and teamwork sessions. Is it adequate to say: "I have participated in 12 teamwork lessons this year." Or should I be more specific and say: "I attended 12 lessons about many medical subjects, including Zika Virus, Diabetes, Cholesterol testing, Liver diseases and Alzheimer's disease." Or possibly, "I am able to properly respond to an infection control situation because I attended 12 Infection control trainings this year."

grammaticality - How to use "what better way" to ask a rhetorical question?

I want to say that friendship can inspire a lot, using a rhetorical question. Is the following question correct?




What better way to get inspired than by accompanying a good friend?


Monday, October 20, 2014

grammaticality - Using the word 'Only'



I am confused about using the word only. I often hear it being used in many contexts that sound wrong to me - but I'm not sure if it's me or them.



Let me give some examples:





A: Where were you yesterday evening?
B: I was at the coffee house.
A: Hey, I was there only; how come we didn't meet?




I guess the correct usage here would be I was also there or I was there too, right?



How about this:




A: Did you complete that task?
B: No, but I am doing that only





The word only is used here to stress on the fact that he is doing that (and not something else). I guess this usage stems from an equivalent usage in Hindi and other Indian languages. What's the correct way to express this? I feel I am still working on that is not the same - it sounds more like I haven't figured out how to do it, as opposed to this is a difficult task, it'll take some time



Another one:




A: How many questions have you asked in this forum?
B: I have asked only one question.
C: I have asked one question only.




Who is correct - B or C?
I'm with B on this one, but I don't know if C is correct too.







PS: In case you haven't guessed it already, I'm not a native English speaker :)


Answer



Example 1
seems to be legitimate Indian English, see




Something which Indian English has

that is not found in other varieties
of English is the use of only and
itself to emphasize time and place. It
comes from the Hindi word hi and
produces sentences like "I was in
Toledo only" and "Can we meet tomorrow
itself?"




extract from language in India




More discussion on 'only' in Indian English here Dustin Freeman



Example 2 is probably Indian English too. You could say you are concentrating on that task, if you wanted to be better understood by a foreign audience.



Example 3: either is correct, I would think the 2nd is more colloquial



I don't think you be misunderstood with any of these colloquialisms. To me they are colourful additions to the language


meaning - If I was an airline pilot vs. If I had been an airline pilot 10 years ago



In a comment signed by Martha, she wrote that:




"If I was an airline pilot" and "If I were an airline pilot" have
different meanings. The latter is the subjunctive case (and presumably
what most people mean, even if they say the former). The former is
talking about the past tense - "if I was an airline pilot 10 years
ago..."





The comment above received 8 upvotes, and this confused me. Somewhere out there, are at least 9 people who hold the same view on this usage. I can't "see" how the sentence: "If I was a pilot 10 years ago" is speaking about the past.



The sentence begins with "if" which means the speaker is thinking and talking hypothetically, imagining a situation which is unreal. He or she being a pilot never happened. Now I would understand the number of upvotes if (ha!) "was" had been said to be informal and "were" considered to be grammatically more acceptable, (especially if one were to sit an English exam or submit a paper) but to say it expresses a past tense?



My natural inclination is to write: If I had been a pilot 10 years ago. But in this case the speaker is still hypothesizing in the present about an unreal, and no longer possible situation.



Am I wrong??


Answer




You are right in your assumptions, as long as we talk about conditional sentences and the subjunctive mood of "be". You only need to consider that the verb after "if" might not be in the subjunctive mood. Think about sentences like these:



If he was nice to you, it was because he wanted something. (He is usually rude and now you tell me he was nice? Then he definitely wanted something.)



If I was rude, I apologize. (I might have been rude, I don't know. If that was the case, I apologize, I didn't mean to)



Now compare the second one to one where the subjunctive is used:



If I had been rude, I would have apologized. (I was not rude and I did not apologize.)




As was already mentioned in a comment, "If I was an airline pilot" would be unusual to say. I guess you could say something like: I am an actor now. If I was an airline pilot 10 years ago, that was only because my parents insisted. All I ever wanted was to perform on stage.


differences - "Looking to + infinitive" vs "Looking to + gerund"

Which is the correct expression, looking to build or looking to building?





Whether you are looking to build. . . .




or




Whether you are looking to building. . . .


Sunday, October 19, 2014

word choice - Which is proper use of "me or I" at end of sentence?

Sample sentence:



There's not a dad in the world who compares to you, and there's not a daughter in the universe who's more grateful than (me or I).

grammatical number - Where did the singular "innings" come from?



In baseball, an inning is a team's (or both teams', depending on context) turn to bat. A game consists of 9 innings. In cricket, an innings is a team's turn to bat, a game consists of 2 or 4 innings. How did this difference in singular usage arise?



"inning" could conceivably be derived like "outing": An outing is a time when one is out, an inning is a time when one is in (to bat/to play). Where did the singular "innings" come from?


Answer



"Innings" in British usage is either singular or plural. It's just one of those words with identical singular and plural forms. It's not the only word ending with an s that's plural; consider (apart from many -ics words like physics and politics) news and (both singular and plural) means, series, species, etc. This is what Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (British, 1926) says:




Plural anomalies. See -ICS for the question of whether words in -ics are singular or plural. Plural names of diseases, as mumps, measles, glanders, can be treated as singular or plural; chickenpox & smallpox, originally plural, are now reckoned singular. Innings, corps, & some other words in -s, are singular or plural without change in spelling, but, while corps has -s silent in singular and sounded in plural, an innings & several innings show no distinction, whence arises the colloquial double plural inningses. For the plural of Court Martial & Lord Justice, the number of porridge, & the difference between pence & pennies, see the words.





So it was special enough to invite comment (and unusual enough to invite coinages like "inningses"). The OED doesn't give any special etymology; it just comes from "in", as the "outing" you mentioned comes from "out".



In American usage, "inning" is a back-formation from the plural "innings". According to a random comment on languagehat,




… "innings". This is both the singular and plural form in cricket. It is also frequently seen this way in early baseball. For a time both "inning" and "innings" were seen used as singular, but by the 1870s or so the singular "innings" was uncommon. Nowadays it is unheard of in a baseball context.



grammar - Stay tuned on or to? Which one is correct?

I have seen both usages.




  1. Stay tuned on our Facebook page to know more

  2. Stay tuned to our Facebook page to know more




But don’t know which one is more appropriate. Please help me figure it out. Thanks

grammaticality - Is ”what there is a reason to do” a valid construct?

From page 76 of Frederick Schauer’s Thinking Like a Lawyer:





What there is a reason to do is different
from what should be done, all things considered, just as what there is a
right to do
is different from what the right-holder actually gets to do, all
things considered.




Is this subject correct? If so, would someone please explain and gloss it?



I can’t pinpoint why, but it sounds wrong. I guess its meaning is “What should be done due to a reason. . . .”




Supplementary: Thanks to the answer below, I now apprehend the meaning of my sentence, but I still find the construction confusing. Would you please explain, in more detail, why this is 'essentially not (very) different from these examples'?

word choice - "Would you have liked to have been" vs. "would you have liked to be"

I was interested in the following sentence which appeared in an article titled “No Rest for the Weary” in The New York Times (February 15, 2008).




Would you have liked to have been president from 1862-1864?




It sounds ungrammatical to my ear as the journalists (MICHELLE SALE and YASMIN CHIN EISENHAUER) did use "to have been" rather than "to be", but I am not able to find what rules govern this problem.



So, I would write:





Would you have liked to be president from 1862-1864?




Am I right? If so, why?

Correct capitalization for "of" in an acronym definition



For an acronym that includes the word "of", do you capitalize its usage within the definition (or expansion) of the acronym




For example, in the follow sentence:



My coworker Steve suffers from Complete Avoidance of Work Syndrome (CAOWS).



Should of be written as Of?


Answer



First, some definitions from the Chicago Manual of Style:






  • acronym refers to terms based on the initial letters of their various elements and read as single words (AIDS, laser, NASA,
    scuba);

  • initialism refers to terms read as a series of letters (AOL, NBA, XML);

  • contraction refers to abbreviations that include the first and last letters of the full word (Mr., amt.).




As for the capitalization of these constructs, CMS has these recommendations:





Initialisms tend to appear in all capital letters, even when they are
not derived from proper nouns (HIV, VP, LCD). With frequent use,
however, acronyms—especially those of five or more letters—will
sometimes become lowercase (scuba); those that are derived from proper
nouns retain an initial capital. Chicago generally prefers the
all-capital form, unless the term is listed otherwise in Webster’s.
[NAFTA (not Nafta)]



On the other hand, if the words in a spelled-out version of an acronym

or initialism are not derived from proper nouns or do not themselves
constitute a proper noun (as in the official name of an organization),
they should generally be lowercased, even when they appear alongside
the abbreviated form. [transmission-control protocol/Internet protocol
(TCP/IP)]




So, whether CAOWS is:





  • an acronym, pronounced cows

  • an initialism, pronounced "SEE-AY-OH-DUBYA-ESS"



the Chicago Manual, at least, would recommend you write:




My coworker Steve suffers from Complete Avoidance of Work Syndrome
(CAOWS).





Note that in Nathan's comment, it's necessary to lowercase DoS (an acronym for denial-of-service) to disambiguate it from DOS (an acronym for disk operating system). I don't think CAOWS has any such problem.


Saturday, October 18, 2014

questions - Yes/no answer to "Have you closed all of your tickets?" if there were no tickets to begin with



My boss asked the question, "Have you closed all of your tickets?" to me and my co-workers. One of my co-workers, who did not have any tickets to begin with, answered yes. We are conflicted as to weather yes is the correct answer to this question, vs. "Are all of your tickets closed?" or, "Do you have any open tickets?"



Answer



Not all questions can have a yes or no answer, and the way the question is phrased (and the presupposiitons it makes) often determines if an answer applies, and what it is.



The classic example of this is "have you stopped beating your wife"?



The REAL correct answer to the question is not yes or no, but to clear up the presupposition that there were open tickets to begin with.



However if you want to be pedantic you can logically get to either "yes" OR "no":





Every ticket assigned to me (0 of them) is now closed, so yes.




or




I have closed NO tickets today, so no.



grammar - Should one use 'a' or 'an' when the following word is in parentheses?







This question is a little hard to summarize in the title.



I sometimes like to use parentheses to add additional (but nonessential) details to a sentence - like I did just there. My criteria for such use is usually that the sentence could be read with the text in the parentheses, or excluding the text, and each would be an equally valid and grammatically correct statement.




So I am curious: in a case where the parenthesis is preceded by the word 'a', and the word in parenthesis begins with a vowel (or unsounded h) that would require it to be changed to 'an', what is the correct statement?




  1. In addition to these three journal articles containing background information, I have included a (anecdotal) reference describing this proposed cure.

  2. In addition to these three journal articles containing background information, I have included an (anecdotal) reference describing this proposed cure.



I feel as though if I use the word 'an' it draws too much attention to the word anectodal, and I might as well just remove the parentheses. I'm just trying to slip the word in there to cover my ass if someone says "That's not a valid reference - it's just an anectote." If you are curious about the context: the anecdotal reference is included because it describes the process in greater detail than is captured by my summary.



Feel free to comment on the validity of my use of parentheses while you're at it.

Friday, October 17, 2014

word choice - How exactly does one determine when to use I or Me?












I got into a good argument with myself when a Lecturer asked:




"Who said that?"




and I replied




"I."





Actually, I didn't just want to stop there, but I felt there was no need to continue and that it was correct. However some argued that "Me" was the correct reply.



Since the reply was not a sentence, it was difficult for me to conclude whether I should refer to an objective Me or a subjective I.



So in short, I want to know whether there is any other clear parameters that defines when to use which and how?


Answer



Either works fine in this case, although me is better. The person who responds with I is actually saying I did but holding back the did. The person who responds with me is simply using the customary emphatic form.




But yes, certainly I is for subject forms and me for object forms. There are just a few situations where what appears to be an object form (but isn’t), are called for, such as “Me, I wouldn’t say it works that way.”



Note that French works the same way in this regard, whereas Spanish does not.


grammar - A question introduced by "wonder"


Granted that it is an idiomatic phrase, I still wonder how people came to say it*.*



Granted that it is an idiomatic phrase, I still wonder how people came to say it*?*



Granted..., I still wonder how did people came to say it*?*





I am interesting in wonder governing clause, but not exactly know how to use it. Which version is right? Which is the best?

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

pronouns - "The ones" or "those"?



I recently corrected





"ghettos, such as the ones found..." to



"ghettos, such as those found..."




Was I correct or are both versions right?


Answer



They're both grammatically and semantically correct. They differ in style and register.





"..ghettos, such as the ones found..." is verbose: two words versus
"..ghettos, such as those found..." one word.




You'll find both styles in formal academic prose and in informal prose. I prefer the second style and would make the same change were I editing a sentence with the first string in it.



I'm not sure which would occur more often in speech. I tend to speak the way I write (formal, generally grammatical correct, and, I've been told, in difficult vocabulary). Most people write like they speak, though.



There's no rule that forbids anyone from using the ones when talking about people. E.g.:





I generally like girls in their late teens and early twenties, but the ones who belong to Chi Omega Tau are too poor to consider for marriage, the ones who belong to Phi Phi Phi, too intelligent to consider for a fun date, and the ones who belong to Zeta Beta Gamma, too muscular to consider for tennis opponents.




Here's a blog titled The Ones to Watch. It's all about people, not videos or trains or enemy planes.


prepositions - "With who" vs. "with whom"



Is this correct?




The person with whom I'm doing the project should be here soon.





If it is, is with always a dative preposition (like mit in German)?


Answer



When "who" is the object of the preposition, as in this case, it becomes "whom"; granted, this is by now vestigial and often ignored in informal conversation. You'll often hear people say things like, "Who should I give this to?" It would be correct to say "Whom should I give this to?" and misguided fussbudgets will insist you render it as "To whom should I give this?" But almost no one bothers with that these days. Note that reversing the word order makes the incorrect grammar stand out: "I should give this to who?" That's because there is now a direct apposition with the preposition and its object. Most careful speakers will use "to whom" in that context.



You can remember when to use "who/whom" by substituting "he/him" in the sentence. You wouldn't say "I'm doing the project with he," you would say "I'm doing the project with him." So it's obvious that whom is the pronoun you would use here, not who.



A further word about German/English prepositions. In German some prepositions can be dative or accusative, depending on whether they indicate motion or placement towards or up to a location. This not the case (no pun intended) in English. In English, the object of the preposition always takes the "prepositional" case. Note that there are not nearly as many inflectional changes or pronoun substitutions in English as in German. The point is, German is not necessarily useful for analogizing English constructions.


adjectives - Is 'a 210-million-people market' correctly written?

Usually I find compound adjectives quite straightforward, but I'm not so sure when it comes to the following:




A 210-million-people market



So how should I refer to a market 210 million people large with a compound adjective before the noun?

grammaticality - When is a gerund supposed to be preceded by a possessive adjective/determiner?




I assume that the following sentences are grammatically correct:





  • He resents your being more popular than he is.

  • Most of the members paid their dues without my asking them.

  • They objected to the youngest girl's being given the command position.

  • What do you think about his buying such an expensive car?

  • We were all sorry about Jane's losing her parents like that.





I'm still getting used to this possessive gerund structure. It sounded so weird to me at first.



Is the structure used in both formal and informal contexts? Are there any alternative structures that result in the same meaning and are more frequently used?



(Examples taken from http://grammartips.homestead.com/possessivewithgerund.html)


Answer



When I first heard about this usage in a grammar lesson in middle school, it sounded weird to me, too. As in the linked page in your answer, my teacher taught us that using possessive pronouns (also known as genitives) is the only grammatical way to mark subjects of gerund clauses. While that way is more traditional and formal, using object pronouns (accusatives) is also quite common.




In chapter 14, section 4.3, of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, entitled “Non-finite and verbless clauses”, the main thrust lays waste to the traditional distinction between gerund clauses and present participle clauses, by arguing they all belong to a single inflectional category; namely, gerund-participles. However, there is a paragraph explaining the use of genitives with gerunds:




There is one respect in which ‘gerund’ and ‘present participle’ clauses differ in their internal form: with ‘gerunds’ the subject may take genitive case, with plain or accusative case a less formal alternant, but with ‘present participles’ the genitive is impossible and pronouns with a nominative–accusative contrast appear in nominative case, with accusative an alternant restricted to informal style. Compare then:
[39] i. She resented his/him/*he being invited to open the debate.
       ii. We appointed Max, he/him/*his being much the best qualified of the candidates.




In other words, gerunds (as in example 39i) can take either the genitive (his) or the accusative (him) as subject, with genitive being more formal and accusative less formal. The nominative (he) is not possible as the subject of a gerund.



In participial clauses with a subject (as in example 39ii), there is a similar situation: both the nominative (he) and accusative (him) are possible, again with accusative being less formal, but the genitive (his) is not possible.




The page of “grammar tips” linked in the question confuses informal style with incorrect grammar, a common problem in grammar advice. The versions of the examples with accusative instead of genitive (e.g. What do you think about him buying such an expensive car?) are perfectly grammatical and simply a less stuffy style.



You will find many examples of gerunds with accusative subject—even in formal academic writing—so you should feel free to use whichever of the two formulations seems natural.


word choice - "General user", "End user" or "Normal user", which one is better?

On a website I am working on, people are classified into two groups: one is programmers who create programs with C# 4.0 and share with other people, the other is common users who use the programs to calculate.




I don't know how to name the "other" group: "general user", "end user" or "normal user"? Which one is better?

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

parts of speech - Why is "subconscious" used as a noun, while "conscious" is not?



subconscious and subconsciousness
conscious and consciousness.



While each one has a noun counterpart that is explicitly a noun, why is it that only subconscious is also used as a noun while conscious is not?



Some background info on subconscious and subconsciousness:



Subconscious vs subconsciousness




TLDR: subconscious and subconsciousness have slightly different meanings, even both as nouns. But that still begs the question, "Why not the symmetrical counterpart to conscious and consciousness



I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and ask the question openly and give it all objective reasoning, but my most probable hypothesis is that English & people are quite asystematic, and this is just an ad hoc clusterfrack phenomenon of language evolving without thought... or subconsciously, if you'll permit my bastardization of that term.


Answer



Conscious is used as a noun:




In psychoanalysis, the component of waking awareness perceptible by a person at any given instant; consciousness.





(American Heritage)



As an example, from Contemporary Theories and Systems in Psychology by B B Wolman:




The conscious in Jung's theory plays a secondary role as compared to the unconscious.



grammar - Verbs: Non finite forms

Is "swimming" a participle in 'I love swimming'? I think it is participle as it defines the noun 'I' in the above sentence.

grammar - Using "as much as" at start of sentence



Is it correct to use "as much as" at the start of the sentence?
For example:




As much as I like cricket, I like football.





Is it correct?



I didn't find any reference which suggest to use it that way, but only as a conjunction as in this sentence:




I like football as much as I like cricket



Answer



No, it is incorrect.




"As much as" in the beginning of a sentence is used to qualify what you do like/dislike about the statement that comes after, i.e. the first part will be A and the second part will qualify/quantify something in conflict with A




As much as I like cricket, I dislike the waiting between innings



As much as I am afraid of spiders, I love nature




Your second sentence is a correct comparison denoting you like both equally well





I like football as much as I like cricket







UPDATE



The As may be optional, more so in British English




BR



than US



US


Monday, October 13, 2014

grammaticality - "An abandoned cute little kitten" or "a cute abandoned little kitten"










  • I saw an abandoned cute little kitten.

  • I saw a cute abandoned little kitten.




Which sentence is correct? What is the rule for using consecutive adjectives in English?

pronouns - Difference between "Let us go" and "Let we go"?



Just wanted to know the correct usage of 'us' and 'we' .



Are there any contexts in which they can be used interchangeably?



I know "Let we go" seems wrong..but couldn't explain it.



Answer



Us is accusative since it is the direct object of let. Disambiguation might help:




Allow us to go.




The convention is to delete the to from the verb after let; otherwise it is the same as allow:





Allow them to come here turns into Let them come here.



grammar - Term for types of first person plural



I've noticed that there are two types of first person plural – one where the addressee is included, and one where she or he isn't. For example:



With addressee included:





  • Let us go.

  • What's our plan?

  • Where are we going?



With addressee not included:




  • We want you to come along.


  • Are you with us?



One can see that whether first person plurals we or us includes the addressee largely depends on context.
My question is this:




Is there a term for these two types of first person plurals? Are there any words in English that distinguish these two types?





If this is more appropriate for Linguistics.SE (I'm not sure) here's an additional question: Does any language distinguish between these two types of first person plurals?


Answer




Cinderella: "Hooray! We're going to the ball!"



Ugly Sister: "No, we're going to the ball. You're staying home to do the housework."




There's no single generic way to contextualise inclusive/exclusive we/us/our - in the above example, the spoken emphasis makes it clear that although Cinderella uses "we" inclusively, the Ugly Sister is definitely using it exclusively.




In other cases you might need to rely on background knowledge of what makes sense (Cameron says "We want to reduce tax rates"), or it might be implicit through other aspects of phrasing ("We will fight you all the way").



Addressing OP's specific question, the (somewhat more extensive) technical term is clusivity, but we also often refer to the inclusive (or exclusive) we.



I'll also just note that in many spoken dialects, inclusive you can include the speaker - "I like this place! They give you whatever you want!".


Sunday, October 12, 2014

possessives - Why use apostrophe-s to denote possession when using 'of'



Think of the simple phrase "Bill's friend".



If you were going to turn this around using the preposition 'of' would you say:





  • A friend of Bill's
    or

  • A friend of Bill



It appears to me that, in the US anyway, people always say "A friend of Bill's".



Even though I'm a native American English speaker, this just sounds weird to me. It seems to create a 'double possessive' (a term I just invented). I always want to respond: "A friend of Bill's what?" A friend of Bill's aunt?




So what's at work here, and do British English speakers also do this?


Answer



As @FX_ points out, it’s called a double genitive or double possessive.



In this example, it’s not compulsory: both a friend of Bill’s and a friend of Bill are correct, although the first is probably more common. (Usage data, anyone?)



If Bill were replaced by a pronoun, however (poor Bill!), the double genitive would be required: a friend of mine is correct, but not a friend of me. (Similarly with yours vs. you, his vs. he, etc.)



Also, sometimes, this is needed to avoid ambiguity between the possessive and other uses of of: for instance, a picture of Bill’s means that he owns the picture, whereas a picture of Bill means he’s portrayed in it.


word choice - Correct usage of "which"/"that"











From what I understand the second sentence is correct, and the first is not. What are the rules on using which versus using that?





  1. Instead it produces the above, which simply is a silent error.

  2. Instead it produces the above, that is simply a silent error.




Answer



The notes about when to use which and that reported from the NOAD are the following:




In U.S. English, it is usually recommended that which be employed only for nonrestrictive (or nonessential) clauses: the horse, which is in the paddock, is six years old. (The which clause contains a nonessential fact, noted in passing; the horse would be six years old wherever it was.) A that clause is restrictive (or essential), as it identifies a particular thing: the horse that is in the paddock is six years old (not any horse, but the one in the paddock).




To notice that (in sentences similar to the ones you used as example) which is generally preceded by a comma, and that is generally not preceded by a comma.


american english - How can I dedicate something to my family and make a special note of my wife?



In a formal media article that describes my achievements, I want to say something like the following:




I want to dedicate this achievement/award to my family and especially
to my wife for all the nights she stayed up to give me company while I
pulled all nighthers.





The all-nighters seems a bit informal and student-ish and I am not a student. Is there a better/concise/formal way of saying this?


Answer



... for keeping me company as I worked through all those nights.


Saturday, October 11, 2014

Should one stick to American style of placing punctuation marks within quotes if one uses the American spelling?



According to Wikipedia, there are two ways to use punctation marks when it comes to quoting. Basically, we have the British style, where punctation marks that don't come from the quoted material "is put outside the quote", like I just did. In the American style, on the other hand, punctation marks that belongs to the original sentence, that the quoted material is put within, should be "placed within the quote itself," like I just did.




Now, I really, really, prefer the British style, since this is the way I've always done it, including when I write in my native language. However, at the same time, I prefer to use the american spelling and usage of words. Is this mixing behavior on my part acceptable?



It is mentioned in the Wikipedia article linked to above that "many American style guides specific to certain specialties, such as legal writing and linguistics, prefer British style." However, is there a general rule (or maybe a strong recommendation), for example if I'm just writing an essay or, I don't know, a blogpost, regarding how I can mix the different spellings and punctation mark rules?


Answer



Larry Trask deals with this question comprehensively here. Scroll down to the section beginning:




Finally, there remains the problem of whether to put other punctuation
marks inside or outside the quotation marks.




expressions - How to use "have resonance with"?



If I want to say "have the same feeling with ..." or "agree with ...", can I use "have resonance with ..."? For example, I knew a friend who doesn't own a cellphone and I found an article saying how great it is not having a cellphone. When I send this article to that friend, can I say "you may have resonance with this article"?



I found some people use this expression, but I'm not sure it is commonly used.


Answer



The word does work in this context, although an action verb like feel would probably be more effective than have.



A more concise option that avoids the need for "have" or "feel": "This article may resonate with you."


articles - using "the" before "adjective + name of the country"

Do I need to use "the" if I say "mysterious Japan" or "vast Russia"? Will it be "the mysterious Japan" or just "mysterious Japan"?

Friday, October 10, 2014

idioms - "come on as" versus "come across as"



Would you say that both sentences sound correct?




  1. On the whole, I think you came ON as sincere and credible, and your soft-spoken demeanor, laced with a dash of wry humor, was quite charming.


  2. On the whole, I think you came ACROSS as sincere and credible, and your soft-spoken demeanor, laced with a dash of wry humor, was quite charming.




The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs seems to suggest that both phrasal verbs are synonyms:




a. come on as something:
to appear to be something; to project one's image as something. (The senator comes on as a liberal, but we all know better. He comes on as a happy guy, but he is miserable.)



b. come across like someone or something (to someone)and come across as someone or something (to someone):
to appear or seem like someone or something to other people. (You always come across like a madman to people. She comes across like the Queen of the Nile to most people who meet her.)



Your thoughts? Thanks a lot!


Answer



Despite the noted synonymous definitions, I think the tell in these phrases is is often one of connotation. A come-on, through other uses, often connotes a sinister or self-serving action or a pretence.




"You come on as if you own the joint."



"Did you come on to my sister?"



To "come off (as if)..." is also used when appropriate (not in the second example ;-) and carries a similar connotation. On the other hand, "Came across as," while not unused in a derogatory sense, doesn't usually receive that immediate inference of a con job.


A word that describes something that has been given a name



Is there a word besides named that describes something that has been given a proper name?



For example, a guitar is just a guitar, but if I call it, say, Shirley, is there another word that would now describe the guitar?




I'm looking for something specifically that can be used to identify things that have names (like people) but could also include books and movies, or say "Old Glory" for the flag.



Is there such a word?



EDIT: Here's a bit more information:



I'm looking specifically for a noun, a word which describes any object, person, or idea that has a name.



Perhaps an example will help: say you had a hat full of names, movie and book titles, as well as say names of famous characters from tv shows, and maybe even important events in history like "The Great Depression".




If I asked you to reach in and pick one, what could I say to pick besides "choose a name" (and of course, besides "choose a piece of paper"!) that would describe every one of the items in the hat?



EDIT2:
Okay here's some final context for everyone. The reason I posed this question is I am developing a game for windows phone that involves guessing a name, but although "Name" is a simple enough name for the object, it also has additional properties like "category" and "description".



So if I called the object "Name", I need an additional property to reference the actual name of the object. If I used "Name" again I would be accessing it via Name.Name, and that's just silly.



In truth, this isn't a big deal, I ended up using "Name" as the object, and "Title" as the name. This was more a "curiousity" thing, where I wondered if there was a way to accurately name the object, so I could keep "Name" as a property.




Ultimately, my favorite solution is to keep the "Name" as the object and "Moniker" as the name. This feels like the most intuitive way to do it, but I'll probably keep it as it is with "Title". But since that's my favorite that gets the answer, thanks to all who contributed!


Answer



How about moniker for the noun?



And I'd be inclined to invent monikerize for the verb.



(I also like appelation, but I don't have the right to up-vote it yet.)


grammatical number - Plural Form of Surnames

Is it grammatically incorrect to make a surname plural, without making it possessive? Or is it merely informal? (For example, "The Smiths are coming along, too," or "The Petersons are a very pleasant family.) Most people use this sort of language all the time. I've been studying grammar for years, but never have I come across a rule that states this as either incorrect or correct.

Can all transitive verbs take to-infinitive clauses?




Yet it would be your duty to bear it, if you could not avoid it: it
is weak and silly to say you cannot bear what it is your fate to be
required to bear
. — Jane Eyre





It seems ‘your fate to be required to bear’ is a to-infinitive clause (or non-finite-clause by Bas Aarts: “They would hate [Jim to sell his boat].”) and the object of cannot bear; what it is means ‘whatever it is’ and can be put in brackets.



Can all transitive verbs take the clauses as their objects?



If you see the object of cannot bear as what-clause, would you let me know just the last question?


Answer



I think there was a mistake in choosing the segment to boldface.
"Your fate to be required to bear" is not itself a constituent. It's just a part of a constituent.





(Parenthetically, the answer to the presenting question is No; only some verbs -- transitive and intransitive, because infinitives can be subjects, too -- can take infinitive complements. Of course there are other kinds of infinitives, too, but this answer is already too long.)




The smallest constituent that contains this string -- and it still needs quite a lot of untangling, because it's been done plenty of things to -- is




  • what it is your fate to be required to bear



the direct object of the higher bear.




This construction is an embedded question complement clause. The introductory what gets "moved" by Question Formation from (i.e, it appears somewhere other than) its normal position in the clause, which would be after the lower bear as its direct object.
(in the dissection that follows, I mark items that are moved or deleted as code)




  • it is your fate to be required to bear what



That, in turn, has been Extraposed from





  • for you to be required to bear what is your fate



That is, the subject of is your fate is an infinitive clause:




  • for you to be required to bear what




You is the subject of the infinitive verb be required.




Subjects are marked with for in an infinitive, and both for and you get deleted here, because infinitive subjects normally are deleted, either because they're indefinite and apply to everybody, or -- as in this case -- because they're predictable from elsewhere in the context, and you gets mentioned in your duty.




This clause, too, has been done things to. It's a Passive clause, so you has been "moved" by Passive from its position as the object of require. (What was the subject? Who knows? That's what indef means.)




  • for indef to require you to bear what




with another you as the object (or requiree) of the requirement.



And we're not done yet. There's still another infinitive, the lower bear, which is intended to be in parallel with the upper bear, and to reinforce the message.




  • for you to bear what




It has a subject you, in fact the same you that got "moved" by B-Raising to be the object you in the require clause above.



This whole process is what I meant in this handout by "unwinding" syntactic rules, constructions, or alternations.



Now I have to go wash my hands.


grammaticality - "The number of residents has grown" vs. "the number of residents have grown"





Duplicate:
“A number of students” vs. “the number of students”
“Number of attempts per question is unlimited” or “are limited”?
“A number of questions has been asked” or “have been asked”?









  1. The number of residents has grown.

  2. The number of residents have grown.




Which of the above sentences is grammatical? Since has should stick with singular nouns and have with plural ones, I guess (2) should be correct, but I'm not sure.


Answer




It’s singular, has, because number is the head of the subject phrase. It would be plural if the subject phrase was a number of residents in, for example, A number of residents have complained. There, a number of is a pre-modifying element.


What is the right preposition after "report"?

"He will report into Charles." or "He will report to Charles." ?
"He will report into the Collectorate." or "He will report to the Collectorate." ?

grammar - Could I use these constructions(some of, any of, all of, enough of, half of, more of, much of, many of, most of) with singular noun?

I'm ESL student and I wonder if I can use these constructions(all of, some of, any of, half of, enough of, more of, most of, many of, much of) with singular noun because I was taught that these constructions come with singular or uncountable noun?



I've found some uses of these construction with singular noun on internet, for example





  • all of me

  • some of him

  • any of this

  • more of me



And etc.




I'm not certain if these are correct and if so, I would appreciate you so much if you will explain meaning each of these as aspect of combing with singular noun.



If anyone has known the book which breaks down about usage of these constructions , please recommend it to me and I will appreciate you very much.



PS : I'm sorry in advanced if my message makes you confused or annoyed and thank you for useful answer.

grammatical number - What’s the plural of “Valentine’s”



If I want to form the plural of “Valentine’s” as a short form of “Saint Valentine’s Day” – where do I put the apostrophe(s)? Is it possible at all?



I believe that Valentines’, although the normal plural form of a genitive ending in “s”, would be wrong here since that would mean “the day of the people who are called Valentine”. So what’s right? Valentine’s’ ?




Here’s an example of where I’d use this form:




She had spent so many Valentine’s’ alone that she now loathed the very mention of this day.




– Of course I could simply write it out … but where’s the fun in that?


Answer



In my experience, “Valentine’s” is less common than “Valentine’s Day” — usually only the “St.” is dropped1 — so I think the usual phrasing would be:





She had spent so many Valentine’s Days alone that she now loathed the very mention of this day.




Another option, if you really want to use “Valentine’s” alone (without “Day”), is to treat it as a proper noun, and write:




She had spent Valentine’s alone so many times that she now loathed the very mention of this day.





(Compare “She had spent Christmas alone so many times […]”.)







  1. For example, compare the Google Books hits for "from Valentine's to" to those for "from Valentine's Day to".


grammar - "IS" or 'ARE' ? in this sentence




Please have a look at this sentence.



"Troy University International Partners is not accredited by SACS Commission on Colleges and the accreditation of Troy University does not extend to or include partner institutions or their students. "




"IS" or 'ARE' ?



I think ARE is correct because it is "Partners" , or partner.


Answer



Both are valid depending on how you classify the entity. If considered as a homologous, all enveloping group that contains all its constituents or is used in such a manner for being considered as a whole, then it can be classed as a singular entity, therefore "is" can be used.



On the other hand if it is more of an umbrella term encompassing members, which are disparate in location, functions etcetera, then the plural "are" can be used.



I was going to assume that the term partners is irrelevant like FumbleFingers commented, however, in this case it seems to refer to actual international partners so "are" is appropriate as my second paragraph points out.


Thursday, October 9, 2014

contractions - Is it okay to say "Yes you're." instead of "Yes you are."?












I was having an SMS conversation with a friend and somehow "Yes you're" came into play in retaliation to a comment.



Example:




Person 1: "You are bad at English".



Person 2: "No I are not.".



Person 1: "Yes you're".





Is that acceptable?



I would assume that it is.



Think of "don't".



You can say:





"No, don't."




or




"I don't."





and it is a contraction like "you're".



So, is it okay?


Answer



No, this is unidiomatic. "You're" always requires a subjective completion. (And to my ears, it sounds completely wrong.)


Plural possessive with separate posessions



When we refer to a house that belongs to a family, we say "family's house". Pluralizing family gives us "families". Referring to the houses of several families, we say "families' houses". Forming the plural possessive in such a case is rather simple.



I encountered a more complex use of this recently - referring to a single house owned by a single family in a set of houses owned by a set of families.



We can say "the families' houses" to refer to all of the houses owned by all of the families.



We can say "one of the families' houses" to refer to one of the houses owned by one or more of the families. In this context, "one of" applies to "the families' houses".




If we were instead to apply "one of" to "the families", and want to refer to the one house owned by "one of the families", how would this be written?



My first though was "one of the families's house", taking "one of the families" as a single noun and appending 's to it. This looks (and sounds) a bit strange, though. "One of the families' house" and "one of the family's house"/"one of the family's houses" seem wrong to me, and I can't really determine the correct way to say/write this.



Is there a definitively correct way that this should be written?



EDIT: To clarify, although I think I made it clear, in this context, there are several families, and each owns one house. The goal of the sentence is to refer to one of those houses without stating which specific house. Example: "The players and their families want to celebrate their team's victory; this will likely entail a party at one of the families's house".


Answer



The construct you suggest is rather awkward as you said yourself. The best way to talk about the specific house is to rephrase the sentence and say instead: "...this will probably entail a party at the house of one of the families."